Starship Asterisk*

Chris Peterson wrote:Time doesn't run one way. There is a symmetry in how particles move in time, some forwards and some backwards. Our perception of time moving in one direction is quite different from what happens at the quantum level.

That's good. So when we are back in 1950 I ask Einstein why he didn't protest against interpreting the cosmological redshift as galaxies moving away from us if his theory delivers such a simple explanation of this redshift. However Hertz already said that some physical theories are often wiser than their creators so Einstein might had been not that wise as his theory then ...

Richard P. Feynman wrote:I am not getting anything out of the meeting. I am learning nothing. Because there are no experiments this field is not an active one, so few of the best men are doing work in it. The result is that there are hosts of dopes here (126) and it is not good for my blood pressure: such inane things are said and seriously discussed here that I get into arguments outside the formal sessions (say, at lunch) whenever anyone asks me a question or starts to tell me about his "work". The "work" is always: (1) completely un-understandable, (2) vague and indefinite, (3) something correct that is obvious and self evident, but a worked out by a long and difficult analysis, and presented as an important discovery, or, a (4) claim based on the stupidity of the author that some obvious and correct fact, accepted and checked for years, is, in fact, false (these are the worst: no argument will convince the idiot), [...] It is not that the subject is hard; it is that the good men are occupied elsewhere. Remind me not to come to any more gravity conferences!

So maybe the answer to my question to Einstein might be that he cared more about his blood pressure than about explaining simple features of his general relativity to gravity physicists?

JimJast wrote:

Richard P. Feynman wrote:I am not getting anything out of the meeting. I am learning nothing. Because there are no experiments this field is not an active one, so few of the best men are doing work in it. The result is that there are hosts of dopes here (126) and it is not good for my blood pressure: such inane things are said and seriously discussed here that I get into arguments outside the formal sessions (say, at lunch) whenever anyone asks me a question or starts to tell me about his "work". The "work" is always: (1) completely un-understandable, (2) vague and indefinite, (3) something correct that is obvious and self evident, but a worked out by a long and difficult analysis, and presented as an important discovery, or, a (4) claim based on the stupidity of the author that some obvious and correct fact, accepted and checked for years, is, in fact, false (these are the worst: no argument will convince the idiot), [...] It is not that the subject is hard; it is that the good men are occupied elsewhere. Remind me not to come to any more gravity conferences!

Wow, Feynman is talking about this forum, from beyond the grave!

Chris Peterson wrote:

JimJast wrote:

Richard P. Feynman wrote:I am not getting anything out of the meeting. I am learning nothing. Because there are no experiments this field is not an active one, so few of the best men are doing work in it. The result is that there are hosts of dopes here (126) and it is not good for my blood pressure: such inane things are said and seriously discussed here that I get into arguments outside the formal sessions (say, at lunch) whenever anyone asks me a question or starts to tell me about his "work". The "work" is always: (1) completely un-understandable, (2) vague and indefinite, (3) something correct that is obvious and self evident, but a worked out by a long and difficult analysis, and presented as an important discovery, or, a (4) claim based on the stupidity of the author that some obvious and correct fact, accepted and checked for years, is, in fact, false (these are the worst: no argument will convince the idiot), [...] It is not that the subject is hard; it is that the good men are occupied elsewhere. Remind me not to come to any more gravity conferences!

Wow, Feynman is talking about this forum, from beyond the grave!

That,s a powerful statement, So glad i never made it... did you mean every body ?

Mark

mark swain wrote:That,s a powerful statement, So glad i never made it... did you mean every body ?

No, just the stuff that's been polluting this forum lately: Einstein is wrong, black holes don't exist, true science visionaries are scorned, stars form from old compact masses, the Universe isn't expanding, the Big Bang is wrong, cosmological redshift doesn't exist, relativistic jets are produced from the interior of compact objects, the Sun has an iron core, dark energy doesn't exist, dark matter doesn't exist... the list of unscientific nonsense seems unending, which is depressing for a science forum.

There are still a handful of people here who do their best to try pulling things back into scientific discussions, but it seems like it's becoming a hopeless task at the pseudoscience tries to take over.

Chris Peterson wrote:

mark swain wrote:That,s a powerful statement, So glad i never made it... did you mean every body ?

No, just the stuff that's been polluting this forum lately: Einstein is wrong, black holes don't exist, true science visionaries are scorned, stars form from old compact masses, the Universe isn't expanding, the Big Bang is wrong, cosmological redshift doesn't exist, relativistic jets are produced from the interior of compact objects, the Sun has an iron core, dark energy doesn't exist, dark matter doesn't exist... the list of unscientific nonsense seems unending, which is depressing for a science forum.

Par for the course i,m afraid, Chris. But its the way the world works.. And how we solve problems...We as human are
designed To think of ways to solve problems. And that,s why we are good at it...Nothing can beat us...or stop us..
And you are a great part in it.. As we all are.. 8)

Mark

Chris Peterson wrote:the pseudoscience tries to take over

According to Feynman it took over long time ago ...

JimJast wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:the pseudoscience tries to take over

According to Feynman it took over long time ago ...

Happily, in the real world, that isn't true. Because of the sort of protocols that are present, most of the garbage gets filtered out quite early. Note that Feynman wasn't saying there was anything wrong with current theories about gravity, only that [presumably some] conferences on the subject attracted a lot of nuts. In fact, conferences are one of the first testing grounds for new ideas, since most papers and posters haven't been through any strict review. Obviously, conferences are also the place where many of these new ideas, quite properly, die. When you attend a conference (more in some research areas than others) you expect to hear some pretty wild stuff. That's enough to discourage some people from attending, which I think is what Feynman was talking about (after all, not being a gravity theorist, he didn't likely feel he was missing a lot by skipping gravity conferences).

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzz

I posted this link before, I think?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
Time dilation


Read it its only a page or so. Than discuss Time Dilation

Keep Smiling

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Pseudoscience has directed science through out history.

Google for the info. It is well written.

Sometimes its the MOB that rule regardless of the evidence.

The true scientists shine without the MOB.

harry wrote:Pseudoscience has directed science through out history.

Your point? People believed that disease was caused by demons throughout "most of history". Systematic science didn't even exist for "most of history". This isn't "most of history", and things work differently now.

Thanks harry.

For this reason, is why i posted, About ''atomic time machine''. The faster you go, the more time is effected. What is the time on the wrist of Mr ''Black hole'' ? 2009+300 billion years? Is our time scale depicted by that huge ''nothing'' in the center of our galaxy? http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... asons.html
Like i said in other threads, there are things we have not discovered yet that stop us seeing the big picture.

Mark

Chris Peterson wrote:after all, not being a gravity theorist, he didn't likely feel he was missing a lot by skipping gravity conferences

It might be his reason but I worry about creatinists getting into science through cosmology, since cosmology is not taken seriously enough not to allow calling "scientific" a hypothesis with the creation of energy from nothing (a necessary ability of supernatural beings without which they couldn't create a thing ). The perpetual motion machines were devices which only "mad scientists" believed in. Now physics professors maintain that creation of energy is possible (and even allowed by general relativity ).

Feynman wrote:... a (4) claim based on the stupidity of the author that some obvious and correct fact, accepted and checked for years, is, in fact, false (these are the worst: no argument will convince the idiot)

Take a case of Michael Heller, a Catholic prist and a "cosmologist": "a thinker who bridges science and theology" as they write about him and how laymen might know that he is not bridging anything, just trying to justify his beliefs? So laymen are taking seriously the Big Bang hypothesis despite that Einstein's general relativity is a theory of stationary universe ("Einstein's universe"). Wheeler was alowed to "update general relativity" by an axiom that the universe is expanding and that metric tensor of spacetime is symmetric. The support for Wheeler's action was only that some astronomers and Wheeler believed that the uiverse is expanding, as some of us believed that the Earth in the center of the universe since "there was no paralax" as Tycho Brahe argued. So now astronomers, instead to think why the universe looks as if it were expanding belive that it is expanding (despite Einstein's general realtivity and its automatic conservation of energy which makes expansion of space at least improbable and justifies looking for the explanation of what we see just in Einstein's general realativity (or at least in internet ).

So how are we going to prevent creationists from taking over the science if we agree to claims "based on the stupidity of the author that some obvious and correct fact" (like the principle of consevation of energy) ... etc. ?

JimJast wrote:I worry about creatinists getting into science through cosmology, since cosmology is not taken seriously enough...

Cosmology is a rigorous science, which is taken very seriously. It is based on the very solid ground of GR and the Big Bang theory variants, all of which are widely supported by observation.

Cosmology is one of those sciences that depends heavily on observation, and not on experimentation. Such sciences do open themselves up to a wider range of observational interpretation, and therefore a wider range of theories. But that doesn't prevent good theories from being proposed, which do good jobs with explaining observation.

Chris Peterson wrote:

harry wrote:Pseudoscience has directed science through out history.

Your point? People believed that disease was caused by demons throughout "most of history". Systematic science didn't even exist for "most of history". This isn't "most of history", and things work differently now.

Demons still cause disease though, in fact, long term harbouring of pathogens can result in immunity, whereas long term harbouring of demons encourages their deliterious effects. Also, you have already stated that your personal definition of systematic science neglects what others say is the true science which has enable humnanity to flourish in hostile environments.

Chris Peterson wrote: Cosmology is a rigorous science, which is taken very seriously. It is based on the very solid ground of GR and the Big Bang theory variants, all of which are widely supported by observation.

Cosmology is one of those sciences that depends heavily on observation, and not on experimentation ...

You contradict yourself, Chris, as you cannot observe Big Bang, only effects 'supposed' to have been caused by the theory of Big Bang, which may not have happened at all. GR itself is thrown into huge doubt by non-locality. False rigour can leads to non-flexibility in thought.

aristarchusinexile wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote: Cosmology is a rigorous science, which is taken very seriously. It is based on the very solid ground of GR and the Big Bang theory variants, all of which are widely supported by observation.

Cosmology is one of those sciences that depends heavily on observation, and not on experimentation ...

You contradict yourself, Chris, as you cannot observe Big Bang, only effects 'supposed' to have been caused by the theory of Big Bang, which may not have happened at all. GR itself is thrown into huge doubt by non-locality. False rigour can leads to non-flexibility in thought.

You don't understand what "observation" means in science. Educate yourself on that, and perhaps you'll have a better idea why the BBT theory and GR are so well accepted.

Chris Peterson wrote: You don't understand what "observation" means in science. Educate yourself on that, and perhaps you'll have a better idea why the BBT theory and GR are so well accepted.

If your 'scientific' definition of 'observation' varies from the common meaning of observation you have strayed from reality. I do not have to repeat that BBT and GR are both seriously shaken by recent observations including non-locality, but for the casual visitor to the forum I will and I have done so.

aristarchusinexile wrote:If your 'scientific' definition of 'observation' varies from the common meaning of observation you have strayed from reality.

We've spent enough time discussing the methods of modern science. I'll limit myself to addressing simple factual errors.

I do not have to repeat that BBT and GR are both seriously shaken by recent observations including non-locality, but for the casual visitor to the forum I will and I have done so.

This is completely false. Both theories are stronger than ever. GR is basically accepted as fact by the entire community, and the BBT continues to gain acceptance as additional observations support it, and as the theories are fleshed out.

Chris Peterson wrote:Both theories are stronger than ever. GR is basically accepted as fact by the entire community, and the BBT continues to gain acceptance as additional observations support it, and as the theories are fleshed out.

But which GR, Einstein's or Wheeler's? In former the universe is stationary, in latter the universe is expanding. However Wheeler didn't calcute what would be the redshift in Einstein's GR (there must be something because of dynamical friction in space containing matter). Without such calculation how can you tell whether the universe is stationary or not? Since if Wheeler's GR is true the Einstein's GR has to be false and v.v. So where are the calculations saparating both GR's? A link to them will suffice.

What is the subject here?

If it's what we think about the paper cited in the initial post, there's not enough information in the abstract to make an informed comment, so that can't be the subject.

So the subject must be the question of whether we think the universe is flat or curved. So if anyone has an explanation of theory or observation that can help decide the issue, let's hear it in terms we can all understand. Because word salad with physics terms does nothing to move the subject forward. And arguing from ignorance only makes you look bad to anyone who can tell the difference (to be clear: Chris, Doum, astrolabe, and I have written things for the attempted good of the thread, while everyone else has simply displayed their own ego while providing no enlightenment whatever).

Hello aristarchusinexile,

aristarchusinexile wrote:

astrolabe wrote:
"...since for the reason of widely known inability of nature to produce energy from nothing." True ... quote]

True? Says who? When was this 'fact' 'decided'?

Ari, did you stop reading at the word "True"? 'Cause the rest of the quote looks like this "...". The whole quote is a statement by an energy conservationist- of which I am one. So how is it, in light of current scientific abilities to detect , a nonfact and therefore wrong. I do not think for an instant that "nature" (which was in fact THE parameter of the original post) creates energy from nothing. As per your comment: Quantum Fluctuation(s) I do NOT count as nothing.

Hello apodman,

Would it be fair to say that neither a positive nor a negative universe curvature would result in an answer other than infinity? Since the respective <180 and >180 degree total angular sum somehow incorporates base angles that can only be found in singularities. The math in our 4D existence, one would think, would say so. I can only perhaps postulate that the math in the other two senarios for those beings would be seen as valid for them since length of baselines is a critical factor.

In a purely technical sense, a 2D universe could never have a triangle. And a 3D universe could only have a 2D triangle. I don't feel that our 4D math works in the other two except perhaps on paper. Correct me please if I missed the boat on this one!

BTW I followed your thoughts as you led me through an amazing analogy. Good Thoughts- Good Job-Thanks

astrolabe wrote:In a purely technical sense, a 2D universe could never have a triangle. And a 3D universe could only have a 2D triangle. I don't feel that our 4D math works in the other two except perhaps on paper. Correct me please if I missed the boat on this one!

There is actually a physics space mission designed to measure the interior angles of a large triangle in order to try an determine the curvature of the Universe. Three satellites, very far apart, linked by lasers. I haven't heard anything new about this for a few years; I guess it might have fallen to the budget axe. But it's a very interesting experiment.

Hello Chris,

It would be awesome in the sense that so much of our brain energy could then be devoted elswhere. The Holy Grail of cosmology- Ya think? A relief really is what it would be. Then..............on to Gravity!