Speed of light

[harry]

G'day Chris

Mate I have many people working for me.

To know the error is the name of the business.

When people tell me

What error?

Than I question their ability to find it.

You can assume that redshift is accurate.

But to close the door on it without question, is a science mistake.

It is only now we are starting to understand the working parts such as compact matter and jet formation and dipole magnetic fields and so on. These we must try to understand how they affect the red shift data.

oops

I was going to post another paper, be back later. Have to pick up the kids.

Chris I think your a smart cookie, so if I offend you please let me know. Sometimes written words mean different than sound words.

[makc]

where is this force coming from?

Newton theory doesnt even touch this subject.

If free falling objects don't feel gravity, what caused that apple to hit Newton in the head?

Newton head just happened to be in its way.

If the "Free Falling Apple" isn't aware of gravity during it's fall, it will become painfully aware of it during it's sudden stop at the bottom.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LLbQ7WDh8c

[rstevenson]

JimJast quotes Feynman as saying:

"There is no way of showing mathematically that a physical conclusion is wrong or inconsistent."

Then later in the thread, JimJast himself says:

"Since one can't prove anything with math (see Feynman quote) ..."

I just wanted to point out that Feynman didn't actually say you can't prove anything with math. In fact he used math a lot himself, to very good purpose.

Here are two more quotes -- this time directly from Feynman himself, from the book "No Ordinary Genius" -- that may help to counter the impression that JimJast is trying to give of what Feynman thought...

So from the earliest discoveries of the character of the laws of physics, we find that these mathematical relationships help us to understand the laws, describe the laws very well, and it's simply gotten more and more that way, as we've persued it -- the equations are more and more mathematical, and we don't really understand why it is that nature happens to come out that way.

But if you are interested in the ultimate character of the physical world, or the real, the complete world, then at the present time our only way to understand that is through a mathematical type of reasoning.

Rob

[apodman]

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

In an internet forum this becomes:

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and quotes.

Thank you Rob for correcting misinformation.

If you read a weak argument that's supported by a quote, the quote is often fabricated, misrepresented, or misapplied. As a reader I only believe what can be verified. Beware also of papers that have been introduced or annotated by someone with an agenda and made to look as if the entire content is the work of the original author. Beware of individuals (whether they themselves have been duped, are pushing a pseudoscience agenda, or both) who quote deceptive passages from these documents as the work of the original author. Such practices are reprehensible.

[Chris Peterson]

Mate I have many people working for me.

To know the error is the name of the business.

When people tell me

What error?

Than I question their ability to find it.

I'm glad I don't work for you, if you'd say- "there's an error"- and then refuse to identify it!

You can assume that redshift is accurate.

What do you mean by "redshift"?

It is certain beyond reasonable doubt that the measurement of redshift is highly accurate. It is a fundamentally simple measurement to make. The interpretation of the measurement is another matter. I do make the assumption that the interpretation of redshift as a consequence of the expansion of the Universe is correct, because I find that explanation fits the observations best. But I certainly do not close the door on other possibilities.

Assumptions about how nature works are essential to rational thought. If you don't make choices, you can't build a world view. Refusal to change assumptions based on new evidence is what is non-scientific.

It is only now we are starting to understand the working parts such as compact matter and jet formation and dipole magnetic fields and so on. These we must try to understand how they affect the red shift data.

Since there is no evidence supporting your ideas here, I currently assume there is no relationship at all.

[harry]

G'day Chris

Smile

It ain't safe to come out yet mate.

Do not be too quick to step across the stream.

There are a number of papers that are of interest.

You make up you own opinion of them

[0806.4481] Hubble's Cosmology: From a Finite Expanding Universe to a Static Endless Universe
Hubble's Cosmology: From a Finite Expanding Universe to a Static Endless Universe
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.4481

[0810.0153] Expanding Space: The Root of Conceptual Problems of the Cosmological Physics
Expanding Space: The Root of Conceptual Problems of the Cosmological Physics
http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.0153

[0811.3968] The origin of redshift asymmetries: How LambdaCDM explains anomalous redshift
The origin of redshift asymmetries: How LambdaCDM explains anomalous redshift
http://arxiv.org/abs/0811.3968

On The Origin Of The Highest Redshift Gamma-Ray Burst GRB 080913
[0812.2470] On The Origin Of The Highest Redshift Gamma-Ray Burst GRB 080913
Authors: Krzysztof Belczynski, Dieter H. Hartmann, Chris L. Fryer, Daniel E. Holz, Brian O'Shea
(Submitted on 12 Dec 2008)
http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2470

[Chris Peterson]

There are a number of papers that are of interest...

I normally don't read linked papers unless I'm told in advance, quite specifically, what is interesting about them and what point they are supporting. Abstracts don't do that, it requires some analysis on the part of the person posting the link.

[aristarchusinexile]

It seems to me that the only way matter could be at rest is for matter which is at rest with itself to be at the exact gravitational centre of all the moving masses in the universe .. but as all the moving masses are moving, they would have to be moving at the exact rate to maintain the exact centre for the matter at rest .. this seems difficult. However, when the entire universe explodes, with all matter and energy converted to spirit limitless in possibility, all will be at rest .. except for the devil and his angels of course.

[aristarchusinexile]

Such practices are reprehensible.

Or perhaps simple error.

[aristarchusinexile]

There are a number of papers that are of interest...

I normally don't read linked papers unless I'm told in advance, quite specifically, what is interesting about them and what point they are supporting. Abstracts don't do that, it requires some analysis on the part of the person posting the link.

Sounds to me, Chris, more like you're too tired to explore new information. This is a common human state.

Plus, I think Reshift measurements are simply not refined enough to reveal our place in the universe. .. utter simplicity. Water was thought to be pure until the invention of the microscope. Each technological development is thought to be the only one needed, until a competitor (person, lab or nation) develops a more advanced instrument. The false 'state of supreme supremacy' is what led to the decline of science in the U.S.

[JimJast]

I just wanted to point out that Feynman didn't actually say you can't prove anything with math.

He did in a sense that one can't prove any theory. Once you can prove a theory, it isn't a theory any more but a fact. One can only prove that a theory is wrong. It is a known episteomological principle that Popper uses a lot and Feynman just reminded it to those who "seem not to know":

Let me also say something that people who worry about mathematical proofs and inconsistencies seem not to know. There is no way of showing mathematically that a physical conclusion is wrong [...]

In fact he used math a lot himself, to very good purpose.

That's right, since math is a tool for deriving true things from other true things.

It can be also used to derive true things from false things and false things from false things. It is not a tool for proving that something is true. Which people often forget. That's why Feynman thought that it is proper to remind people that math by itself does not lead to any truth, just to derive one truth from another. If one thinks that anything that is derived with flawless math has to be true one is bound to argue with facts (bad habit).

Faynman refused to participate in gravity conferences, since gravity physicists maintained, to support the expanding universe hypohtesis, that energy can be created somehow. And once one assumes as true just one false fact (eg. 2+2=5) one can "prove mathematically" anything one wishes. Even that the universe is expanding. That's the weak point of math since it is then not so easy to find the wrong assumption in complicated math. Luckily Einstein left us a hint what's wrong with the BB hypothesis so we know (that the metric tensor of spacetime must be non symmetric while the metric tensor BB is symmetric, a flaw that was not detected by other scientists that makes the whole BB a false hypothesis, ignored by BB people though).

Einstein's hoped that his relativity will "be proved for certain in 1981":

I believe my theory of relativity to be true. But it will only be proved for certain in 1981, when I am dead.

but it's now 2009 and papers showing that observation strongly suggest that Einstein's relativity is right rather than Wheeler's relativity (with expanding universe assumed as an axiom) still can't pass through editors even if they pass through referees.

Thanks for other Feynman quotes.

[aristarchusinexile]

Einstein's hoped that his relativity will "be proved for certain in 1981":

I believe my theory of relativity to be true. But it will only be proved for certain in 1981, when I am dead.

but it's now 2009 and papers showing that observation strongly suggest that Einstein's relativity is right rather than Wheeler's relativity (with expanding universe assumed as an axiom) still can't pass through editors even if they pass through referees.

With, however, non-locality proven and saying Relativity is wrong.

[Chris Peterson]

I normally don't read linked papers unless I'm told in advance, quite specifically, what is interesting about them and what point they are supporting. Abstracts don't do that, it requires some analysis on the part of the person posting the link.

Sounds to me, Chris, more like you're too tired to explore new information.

Not at all. But I'll pick my own papers, based on my own interests. I don't have time to filter through every suggested paper if the suggester can't even tell me why I might find it interesting (especially if that suggester has a history of posting links to papers that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.)

[JimJast]

As a reader I only believe what can be verified.

A smart thing to do. It prevents you from beliving in the BB.

[The Code]

jim jast

Einstein's Biggest Blunder? Dark Energy May Be Consistent With Cosmological Constant

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 142128.htm

Mark

[makc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LLbQ7WDh8c

Even if noone else, I still think it's very cool, one of best scenes in a movie.

[makc]

Mate I have many people working for me.

To know the error is the name of the business.

When people tell me

What error?

Than I question their ability to find it.

I'm glad I don't work for you, if you'd say- "there's an error"- and then refuse to identify it!

I don't know the right way, but you're doing it wrong.

[JimJast]

Einstein's Biggest Blunder? Dark Energy May Be Consistent With Cosmological Constant

Mark, so called "Einstein's Biggest Blunder" might had been (my wild guess) a joke by Einstein who didn't expect that cosmologists didn't have any sense of humor and they might take it seriously. How come a discovery of anything can be ever a "blunder" unless as meant a joke? Please explain it to me.

Einstein was surely not an idiot to think that a discovery might be a "blunder" (and even the "biggst in his life", while he already made so many errors as a quote (by unknown to me author) idicates: "Einstein had reached the final version of general relativity after a slow road with progress but many errors along the way. In December 1915 he said of himself: That fellow Einstein suits his convenience. Every year he retracts what he wrote the year before").

On the other hand it is a known fact that idiots don't have sense of humor and on occasions become paranoidal. That's why Einstein stopped discussing with them the universe and left an instruction with his secretary not to let in anyone who wants to talk to him about the universe, after every cosmologist and his brother wanted to talk to him about the value of cosmological constant (an information from prof. Roy Glauber, who got a Nobel Prize in physics and so he should be easy to locate, and before worked as Einstein's assistant, and later taught me physics for two semesters at Harvard, and with whom we were chatting a lot about various matters, between other things about the universe: info for those folks who have an impression that they are cheated by every guy posting on the internet, especially me, to check it at the source, since as far as I know Roy is still around).

That's why, because of those cosmologists who bothered Einstein, Einstein might have declared the discovery of cosmological constant the "Biggest Blunder of His Life" (partly documented in MTW's "Gravitation" p. 411, for checking by the same guys). Einstein also said for guys like Wheeler, who wanted him to set cosmological constant to zero, to satisfy Wheeler's idea that cosmological constant was a blunder and to make general relativity "elegant":

If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor.

Which might indicate that he might have started losing his patience with dummies as indicate by another quote

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the former."

Those quotes are probably also available for verification someplace. But why would I wanted to fabricate all those quotes if not to be polite to people, who don't believe me when I'm saying something true and show them that they are not only ideas of dummie like me but also the ideas of famous physicists whom they should rather believe if they don't have their own brains?

[JimJast]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LLbQ7WDh8c
Even if no one else, I still think it's very cool, one of best scenes in a movie.

I share the above opinion and I'm glad that you have sense of humor (see my post above).

[JimJast]

With, however, non-locality proven and saying Relativity is wrong.

And who might have done that? A quote please ...

[makc]

Jim you know it very well, or at least you should, that Einstein's "blunder" was referring to his quest for static universe, for which he made a hack to original GR by adding cosmologic constant; but when observations were first interpreted as if the universe was expanding, he said that, meaning he missed an opportunity to predict expanding universe from his theory.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzz

Aris said:

The false 'state of supreme supremacy' is what led to the decline of science in the U.S.

This is why scientists from Russia, Europe and South East Asia are on top of their research.

They are not trapped by "I know".

[JimJast]

Jim you know it very well, or at least you should, that Einstein's "blunder" was referring to his quest for static universe, for which he made a hack to original GR by adding cosmologic constant; but when observations were first interpreted as if the universe was expanding, he said that, meaning he missed an opportunity to predict expanding universe from his theory

makc, you are repeating Wheeler's opinion (MTW, "Gravitation" p. 411) and again assuming too much. I neiter know it very well nor I should that Einstein's "blunder" was referring to his quest for static universe. If it is really so than just present Einstein's quote on this subject and it should remove any doubts. Einstein quotes are available all over the place so pick up one suitable and I agree.

For the time being, based on my talks with Roy Glauber, probably the only guy I knew who also had known Einstein, I consider it an urban legend since it does not seem probable to me that Einstein ever believed that universe is expanding. He knew that such an assumption violates the principle of conservation of energy and I suspect that being a patent office clerk once, he might be attached to this principle, as much as Feynman, who refused even to disscus it with cosmologists as being bad for his blood pressure. Einstein might have thought rather that the spacetime is intricinctly flat (as I do, BTW) than that this principle is violated in reality. One more Einstein's quote about math and reality:

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

...that I already tried to let you know by quoting Feynman, which prompted someone who didn't know that, to think that I make up the quotes to cheat. Now he has to think that I make up not only Feynman's quotes but also Einstein's. Luckily at least you know the math and have sense of humor.

My opinion about Einstein's ideas migth had been confirmed by Einstein's anouncement that the metric tensor of spacetime must be non symmetric. It showed that Einstein thought that bb people had it all wrong. Their metric tensor of spacetiem was symmetric so he also found the reason why they were wrong. The same as I found not knowing at the time about Einstein's statement since MTW from whose book I'd been learning GR ignored Einstein's statement completely, as if it had never happened, dispite it was written in "Scientific American" (April 1950) available to everybody. There is no trace of it in MTW's "Gravitation" published 23 years later. And not for the lack of room in this over 1,200 page book for Einstein's ideas. So why? Maybe since they would have to prove that energy can be made from nothing? Try to think about it and when you know the probable answer let me know since I'm interested and I feel cheated by MTW. For the time being I tend to think that item #4 of Feynman's rant applies to guys like MTW and others who support the expanding universe idea.

[Chris Peterson]

This is why scientists from Russia, Europe and South East Asia are on top of their research.

Unfortunately, in all too many cases, the "research" they are "on top of" is pseudoscience or just general nonsense. That part of the world has more "scientists" working on junk like paranormal "research" then any other. While there are plenty of good scientists there, one needs to be very careful when reviewing papers from those areas, as a much higher percentage are junk than you'll find in other areas. Even in my area, meteor studies, I see some appalling nonsense out of India.

I know of no area of science where any of those regions are advanced beyond American or European work.

[bystander]

If I carefully place a pebble in the air, why does it fall to the floor? Jim tells me it feels no gravity, so the law of inertia tells me it should remain where I placed it. But every time, it falls to the floor. What's going on?