Why Einstein will never be wrong

Jan 14, 2014 by Brian Koberlein, Universe Today
Einstein Lecturing. Credit: Ferdinand Schmutzer, Public Domain

One of the benefits of being an astrophysicist is your weekly email from someone who claims to have "proven Einstein wrong". These either contain no mathematical equations and use phrases such as "it is obvious that..", or they are page after page of complex equations with dozens of scientific terms used in non-traditional ways. They all get deleted pretty quickly, not because astrophysicists are too indoctrinated in established theories, but because none of them acknowledge how theories get replaced.

For example, in the late 1700s there was a theory of heat known as caloric. The basic idea of caloric was that it was a fluid that existed within materials. This fluid was self-repellant, meaning it would try to spread out as evenly as possible. We couldn't observe this fluid directly, but the more caloric a material has the greater its temperature.

From this theory you get several predictions that actually work. Since you can't create or destroy caloric, heat (energy) is conserved. If you put a cold object next to a hot object, the caloric in the hot object will spread out to the cold object until they reach the same temperature. When air expands, the caloric is spread out more thinly, thus the temperature drops. When air is compressed there is more caloric per volume, and the temperature rises.

We now know there is no "heat fluid" known as caloric. Heat is a property of the motion (kinetic energy) of atoms or molecules in a material. So in physics we've dropped the caloric model in terms of . You could say we now know that the caloric model is completely wrong.

Except it isn't. At least no more wrong than it ever was.

The basic assumption of a "heat fluid" doesn't match reality, but the model makes predictions that are correct. In fact the caloric model works as well today as it did in the late 1700s. We don't use it anymore because we have newer models that work better. Kinetic theory makes all the predictions caloric does and more. Kinetic theory even explains how the thermal energy of a material can be approximated as a fluid.

Ice-calorimeter from Antoine Lavoisier’s 1789 Elements of Chemistry.

This is a key aspect of scientific theories. If you want to replace a robust with a new one, the new theory must be able to do more than the old one. When you replace the old theory you now understand the limits of that theory and how to move beyond it.

In some cases even when an old theory is supplanted we continue to use it. Such an example can be seen in Newton's law of . When Newton proposed his theory of universal gravity in the 1600s, he described gravity as a force of attraction between all masses. This allowed for the correct prediction of the motion of the planets, the discovery of Neptune, the basic relation between a star's mass and its temperature, and on and on. Newtonian gravity was and is a robust scientific theory.

Then in the early 1900s Einstein proposed a different model known as . The basic premise of this theory is that gravity is due to the curvature of space and time by masses. Even though Einstein's gravity model is radically different from Newton's, the mathematics of the theory shows that Newton's equations are approximate solutions to Einstein's equations. Everything Newton's gravity predicts, Einstein's does as well. But Einstein also allows us to correctly model black holes, the big bang, the precession of Mercury's orbit, time dilation, and more, all of which have been experimentally validated.

So Einstein trumps Newton. But Einstein's theory is much more difficult to work with than Newton's, so often we just use Newton's equations to calculate things. For example, the motion of satellites, or exoplanets. If we don't need the precision of Einstein's theory, we simply use Newton to get an answer that is "good enough." We may have proven Newton's theory "wrong", but the theory is still as useful and accurate as it ever was.

Why Einstein will never be wrong
Binary waves from black holes. Credit: K. Thorne (Caltech) , T. Carnahan (NASA GSFC)

Unfortunately, many budding Einsteins don't understand this.

To begin with, Einstein's gravity will never be proven wrong by a theory. It will be proven wrong by showing that the predictions of general relativity don't work. Einstein's theory didn't supplant Newton's until we had experimental evidence that agreed with Einstein and didn't agree with Newton. So unless you have experimental evidence that clearly contradicts general relativity, claims of "disproving Einstein" will fall on deaf ears.

The other way to trump Einstein would be to develop a theory that clearly shows how Einstein's theory is an approximation of your new theory, or how the experimental tests general relativity has passed are also passed by your theory. Ideally, your new theory will also make new predictions that can be tested in a reasonable way. If you can do that, and can present your ideas clearly, you will be listened to. String theory and entropic gravity are examples of models that try to do just that.

But even if someone succeeds in creating a theory better than Einstein's (and someone almost certainly will), Einstein's theory will still be as valid as it ever was. Einstein won't have been proven wrong, we'll simply understand the limits of his .

Explore further: Yale scientist sheds fresh light on Einstein

Related Stories

It's Einstein versus Newton again

Jun 13, 2012

A simple bouncing ball has reignited a debate long thought settled: whose landmark physics theory is correct – Albert Einstein’s general relativity theory or Sir Isaac Newton’s theory of gravity?

Yale scientist sheds fresh light on Einstein

Oct 02, 2013

Albert Einstein's celebrated genius may be underappreciated, according to a new book by Yale physicist A. Douglas Stone: The father of relativity theory deserves far more credit than he gets for his insights ...

Scientists find a practical test for string theory

Jan 06, 2014

(Phys.org) —Scientists at Towson University in Towson, Maryland, have identified a practical, yet overlooked, test of string theory based on the motions of planets, moons and asteroids, reminiscent of Galileo's ...

New work gives credence to theory of universe as a hologram

Dec 13, 2013

(Phys.org) —In publishing a story regarding work reported by Japanese physicists last month, Nature News has set off a bit of a tabloid firestorm by describing an obscure bit of physics theory as "the clearest evide ...

Quantum steps towards the Big Bang

Sep 03, 2013

(Phys.org) —Present-day physics cannot describe what happened in the Big Bang. Quantum theory and the theory of relativity fail in this almost infinitely dense and hot primal state of the universe. Only ...

Einstein's theory applied to superconducting circuits

Jun 10, 2011

In recent years, UC Santa Barbara scientists showed that they could reproduce a basic superconductor using Einstein's general theory of relativity. Now, using the same theory, they have demonstrated that the Josephson junction ...

Recommended for you

Uncovering the forbidden side of molecules

Sep 21, 2014

Researchers at the University of Basel in Switzerland have succeeded in observing the "forbidden" infrared spectrum of a charged molecule for the first time. These extremely weak spectra offer perspectives ...

How Paramecium protozoa claw their way to the top

Sep 19, 2014

The ability to swim upwards – towards the sun and food supplies – is vital for many aquatic microorganisms. Exactly how they are able to differentiate between above and below in often murky waters is ...

User comments : 690

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Scroofinator
1.6 / 5 (13) Jan 14, 2014
Gravity is a term for a force that we can't explain, but we excellent models for. We know the how but not the why. Where I think both theories fail is in accounting for the molecular composition of the objects displaying gravitational forces. The atom is the basic structure that creates interaction within our universe, so the force begins there in my opinion.
shavera
4.8 / 5 (25) Jan 14, 2014
The article phys.org needs, even if it's the article many commentors don't want.

Scroof: actually we can explain it very well. Because it's not a force. It's the free-body motion through curved space-time. Mass changes how rulers measure lengths and how clocks measure time in its vicinity. And when you let a body move about feeling no forces in such a curved measure of space-time, it behaves *as if* there's a force of gravity.

Now why does the universe behave in such a way? [ie, that the stress-energy tensor field equals a curvature tensor field] Well we don't have any deeper answer yet than... it does. How do you calculate the curvature of a single quantum particle (like an atom)? We don't know, we're waiting for better maths to calculate how that happens.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (20) Jan 14, 2014
These either contain no mathematical equations and use phrases such as "it is obvious that..",
Lol for sure! To that I would add " Anyone with half a brain can see that.." and "Mainstream science is too indoctrinated to understand that...."

Great article!

And great response shavera!
no fate
2 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2014
Shavera: mass only effects these things when moving through inertial reference frames. The difference in measured time/distance is a result of IRF's that do not move relative to each other. Gravity is still a force and your explanation of it is it's functionality in relativity, not how it causes two masses to attract in real space which I believe is what Scroof meant by "can't explain". Still looking for the source of the force so to speak.

I don't think it is better math we need, just better measurements so that the math can be more accurate/descriptive in regards to reality.
rkolter
5 / 5 (10) Jan 14, 2014
The article phys.org needs, even if it's the article many commentors don't want.


I would take that a step further; this is the article that needs to be reprinted in grade school and high school science books.
shavera
4.7 / 5 (13) Jan 14, 2014
no_fate: gravity is no more a force than "centrifugal" force is a force. It's known in physics as a "fictitious" force, a force that arises from choosing non-inertial reference frames. Standing on the ground is a non-inertial reference frame because you're not in free fall towards a body's center (corollary to the equivalence principle of GR). So much like how a turning car feels like there's a force "outward" against the door, there feels as if there's a force "down" due to our non-IRF.

But why do two bodies attract each other? Simple. Spherical masses are equivalent to Schwarzschild metrics. Free bodies moving through Schwarzschild metrics move on orbits. If you use a Lagrangian in the curved space-time for a free body particle, a term *like a potential energy* appears out of the mathematics of the curved space *alone*. It really truly is not a force.
shavera
5 / 5 (12) Jan 14, 2014
The only reason I get into this is because it's such a HUGE and common misconception that science does not understand gravitation. We understand it exceedingly well. To a point. We don't know exactly why Stress-Energy = Curvature is true, except maybe that that just is how the universe is. And we don't know how to *calculate* the curvature for quantum particles, but we have a lot of really good ideas on how we may in the future.

And like this article points out, even when we do find out how these things are calculable, all we'll have is a new theory that explains some specific narrow regime of data, while GR is likely to continue to explain all the other data we have that's supported it thus far.
theon
3.2 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2014
Yagh, good post, but one sentence too much. It would improve by skipping: "String theory and entropic gravity are examples of models that try to do just that." Not because they don't try, but just because they didn't deliver.
Jim4321
4.5 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2014
@shavera

So what is a force? Evidently, GR does away with forces. However, everything else seems to be described by a force (strong, weak and electromagnetic). So is this the mismatch between gravity and field theory.? Gravity does away with the concept of force while the rest of the world has forces but the wrong geometry?
Scroofinator
2.3 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2014
The only reason I get into this is because it's such a HUGE and common misconception that science does not understand gravitation. We understand it exceedingly well. To a point.


Science can predict with amazing accuracy the interaction of gravity between celestial bodies, but don't misconstrue that as "understanding". GR is not a flawless theory, there are many things it can't explain, one of which being the rotational speed of the outer edges of spiral galaxies. So does that mean spacetime doesn't apply to the galactic level? And please don't say "we think it's dark matter"...
SHREEKANT
1 / 5 (9) Jan 14, 2014
Gravity is pulling force, from Newton to Einstein; everybody claimed it, only its cause had been the matter of doubt. But, Einstein claimed that the depression of space-time generates pulling force. These concepts need review because it is unable to explain many of the 'cosmic phenomenons'. So, 'out of box thinking' is essential. Actually 'Gravity' is an 'effect', which is pulling by nature, but its 'real cause' is not a pulling force, as it has been assumed, claimed & proved time and again. The 'real cause' is the "pushing force"- the single force of the universe that governs all the phenomenon of the universe. This 5th force is created by 'unification of dark energy'. It explain why we stand on earth, why value of the acceleration due to gravity is more on earth surface, how tides form, why a satellite feels extra force while going other side of the moon, why our galaxies, stars, planets, moons, satellites etc. are moving in definite path. This concept will change our STANDARD MODEL.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 14, 2014
It explain why we stand on earth, why value of the acceleration due to gravity is more on earth surface, how tides form, why a satellite feels extra force while going other side of the moon, why our galaxies, stars, planets, moons, satellites etc. are moving in definite path. This concept will change our STANDARD MODEL.


Because its obvious, anyone with half a brain can see it, and mainstream would accept the idea except that scientists are too indoctrinated to understand what you're saying, right shreekant?
Scroofinator
3.3 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2014
@SHREEKANT

If dark energy as the solution is so clear, then why does it only interact on a gravitational level? Also, how does that explain the huge PULL that is exerted on anything near a black hole? While I'm no physicist, dark energy/matter seems to be a cop out to try and explain the unexplained. Dark matter doesn't interact with matter, so how can you ever scientifically prove it? I know there are current experiments set up to try and prove it's real, but I remain skeptical we will ever find any resolution to this dark energy problem.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (17) Jan 14, 2014
These either contain no mathematical equations and use phrases such as "it is obvious that..", or they are page after page of complex equations with dozens of scientific terms used in non-traditional ways.

...Unfortunately, many budding Einsteins don't understand this.

Oh boy. That must hit home for a couple of people on this site.

Though to call them 'budding Einsteins' is like calling a pile of turds a Picasso picture.
Nestle
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 14, 2014
Why Einstein will never be wrong
Maybe I'm getting idealistic and old-fashioned - but so far I believed, the science is based on falsification of theories, not their adoration.
We may have proven Newton's theory "wrong", but the theory is still as useful and accurate as it ever was
So why the Einstein's theory should be an exception? Actually most of space-time curvature in the observable universe is represented with dark matter and dark energy and this stuff defies general relativity quite well. We are already living in the world, where the classical relativity plays a role of minor idealized model from this perspective. The "useful" ≠ "universally correct". After all, the epicycle theory has been useful in its time too.
Nestle
2.5 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2014
actually we can explain it very well. Because it's not a force. It's the free-body motion through curved space-time. Mass changes how rulers measure lengths and how clocks measure time in its vicinity
How it does change it? Actually Einstein just used the classical Newtonian gravitational law for quantification of this action (the gravitational law of falling body is used for transform of metric tensor to the stress energy tensor in derivation of Einstein's field equations). But the relativity does explain, why the matter curves the space-time around itself any better, than the gravitational law itself. It's just a regression - sorta epicycle model fitted to observations.
rtrader
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 14, 2014
@Shavera: You said "gravity is no more a force than "centrifugal" force is a force. It's known in physics as a "fictitious" force..."

Force is defined as the time rate of change of momentum. It is a definition. To that effect, centrifugal forces are forces. Use of the term "fictitious" was made during a time when people thought there were true forces and non-true forces. But forces are only measured by their effects. To that extend, a centrifugal is a force but if you wish you can call it an "inertial force" Calling it fictitious does not make any sense. If you are not convinced about the real effects of centrifugal forces, just recall what happened recently to a train in Spain. A "fictitious" force do you think was the cause of so many deaths?

Now, GR cannot be united with QM, the case is closed. Either QM is wrong or GR is wrong. Now, QM is responsible for a substantial fraction of the GDP of USA. Should we trash it?
Returners
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 14, 2014
Heat is a property of the motion (kinetic energy) of atoms or molecules in a material.


This is a contradiction, since most of the non-stellar matter in the universe, i.e. dust and gas, is moving around at insane velocities, hence very high kinetic energy, but has a "temperature" of a few kelvin.

While that definition may make sense within a stationary frame, and in the context of a molecule within a glass of water, it makes no sense whatever on a cosmic scale or in terms of inertial motion or even accelerated motion in space.

Shavera:

If Gravity is not a "Force," then I dare you to go get a cinder block and hold it a meter above your foot, and drop it.

In the both the classical sense and common sense, it is obvious that Gravity converts one form of energy (or at least a momentum potential,) into another form. In this case what we call "Gravitational Potential Energy" into Kinetic Energy, or Momentum, depending on how you measure.
Returners
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 14, 2014
Not only is Gravity not a ficticious force, but Hydroelectric dams rely on gravity to convert potential energy into electricity. No matter how you squirm about this issue, this conversion of energy is not explained by some mere warping or bias in the shape of space-time, since changing the length of a second or of a meter is irrelevant to the functioning of the system.

Rest assured, the electricity which comes out of the ~20% to 30% efficient turbine is the product of a real force, converting one form of energy (or momentum) into another form of energy (or momentum). Note that energy and momentum are not identical mathematically, but I use both here to make a point.

Not only is all of that true, but you can then use the electricity, if you so choose, to pump water back up in elevation some place else, such as in a high-rise office building for waste management.

If gravity is not a force, why does it produce substance with units equal to "Work" and "energy"?!?

BS.
Returners
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 14, 2014
If you want to further prove that Gravity is a real force, take that electricity from the Hydro-dam and use it for an electric heater or a laser.

If it were not an actual "Substance," an actual "Force," then that would not work, because the production of electricity or laser light has absolutely nothing to do with the shape of space or time.

Another way to prove gravity is an actual force is to compare dropping something like a vase from a certain height, using the classical calculation of momentum and kinetic energy at impact, and compare that to an identical vase being hit by a thrown (or shot) blunt object at the same velocity, or simply throwing/shooting the vase into a wall at the same velocity....

...what do you find?

The results are identical. Well, the broken pieces will fall under gravity after the impact with the wall, but the force involved is the same.
Returners
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 14, 2014
Returning to the contradictory heat definition, it is quite easy to use the defintion of heat based on kinetic energy to refute itself.

Pick an object, preferrably something very "cold" in the oort cloud or inter-galactic/interstellar space.

Calculate it's kinetic energy.

Observe it's temperature based on radiological/IR properties.

Note that Kinetic Energy in many cases will be much higher because the velocity in m/s is so high, while the supposed temperature based on IR is so low ( a few kelvin).

The kinetic energy of a kilogram of matter moving 20000m/s (some stuff in solar system) is 200,000,000 Joules.

The supposed thermal energy of a kilogram of water at 8 kelvin is about 16,864,000 Joules.

Which is only about 8% of the kinetic energy calculated from proper motion.

Clearly, the two, kinetic energy and heat, are not identical, though the formula makes them identical. Collisions and friction can convert from one form of energy to another, but that isn't the same.
Returners
1.3 / 5 (12) Jan 14, 2014
This reminds me of the "Sigma" problem in the relationship of Black Holes vs Galaxy size and speed. I've seen this flaw in the theory before and pointed it out, and I'll do so again.

In the theory, it is claimed that the Super-Massive black hole of a galaxy is always approximately 1/2 of 1 percent (0.005) of the galaxy's mass.

I immediately recognized this as being absolutely wrong, because the black hole in our own galaxy is nowhere near 1 Billion solar masses vs the 200 to 400 billion stars in the galaxy. In fact, the SMBH is nearly 1000 times smaller than that.

It is quite embarrassing, or should be, for these astronomers to overlook such a simple, yet enormous (3 orders of magnitude) flaw in their theory.

it suggests that there is a mistake somewhere, either:

1, The theory is just plain wrong (likely).
2, There is something special about the Milky Way.
3, There is an error in measuring either all the other Galaxies(highly likely,) or else our own galaxy.
4,??? other errors?
BrianFraser
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2014
Einstein's Special and General Relativity theories are are what physicists call "local" theories in that they map all motion into a spatial reference system, and limit the maximum speed of any physical effect to speeds less than that of light. However, experiments have since shown that electric, magnetic, and gravitational fields have effects that occur so rapidly the speed of propagation cannot even be measured. Their actions are essentially instantaneous (i.e., "non-local") Additionally, numerous experiments of different experimental designs done by different groups over a span of several decades have demonstrated that our physical world is definitely a "non-local" one. This means that Relativity is limited to describing reference system effects only--a useful but not fundamental capability.

A logical HALF of our physics knowhow is still stuck back in 1905. Except for quantum mechanics (which has a limited scope), there are no courses taught in non-local physics.
Returners
1.3 / 5 (12) Jan 14, 2014
The fact that the Milky Way is a 3 orders of magnitude outlier proves absolutely that either something is wrong with the theory, or something is wrong with the measurements, or both. After all, if the Milky Way is special, then the theory is wrong anyway, since it can't possibly predict a 3 orders of magnitude outlier.

Do you see how this works yet?

Rational examination, even casually, totally destroys the work of people who spend their whole career doing this stuff, on the basis of what is obviously faulty reasoning, oversight, observational error, or math errors.

The reason that was relevant is well, the program on "Science" last night had that as a major topic/talking point, and I'd seen it before and debunked it before, and immediately remembered and recognized the flaw, as they even mentioned the numbers again on the program.

Point here being the "Experts" are absolutely wrong and ridiculous.

If they can be that wrong about one thing, they can be that wrong about others.
Returners
1.3 / 5 (12) Jan 14, 2014
BrianFraser:

A shadow can move faster than the speed of light, in principle, but it is discounted because we normally explain shadows as being the "absence of light".

Yet, the absence of something is itself "information". For example, you could invent a code language where omitting a character from a stream is in fact information. That type of code is more complicate and impractical in most cases, but I could even present benefits of that type of code vs normal codes. What does that mean? Again, the fact something is missing is information, even tangible information.

And yes, Dark Energy as well as the expansion of space-time (or whatever the metric of the universe is really in,) beyond the light-horizon (if one exists,) is non-local because it's physical parameters can no longer be studied by observation. Even if you could observe it, you'd find things moving faster than the speed of light, yet you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between proper motion and cosmic motion.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (6) Jan 14, 2014
Ain't no gravity, it's all expansion. See "The Situation of Gravity - Third Edition".
Scott_L
4.7 / 5 (14) Jan 14, 2014
Dear Phys.org,

Please eliminate the comments section. It is a black hole of ignorance. Thank you.

A Concerned Reader.
scottfos
4.6 / 5 (14) Jan 14, 2014
Returners, you spent all that time doing math proving "them" wrong....maybe you should have started with the right assumptions?

the bulge, son, the bulge. not the galaxy. the galaxy bulge. a 1:700 ratio between the size of the SMBH and the galaxy bulge. have i gotten through to you yet???

and nowhere will you find a quotable source that says "there is always...." you may find verbage like "...appeared to have a constant relation..."

and yes, already these models from 20 years ago have found to not be complete.

next time you decide that 20 minutes of math has disproven thousands of scientists, which proves that science is hogwash.....slow down, take a deep breath, and look for the mistake you made. it's there. you will find it. if you try. which you won't....sigh.
shavera
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 14, 2014
Sorry I was away from being able to answer questions previously, but for sure, when you work through the equations of relativity and do a Lagrangian for a free body in curved space time, a potential term *arises* from the curvature, full stop.

Contrarily, if you were floating in an elevator, would you know if the elevator was floating in deep space or falling down an evacuated elevator shaft? You wouldn't. Since you can't tell the difference between the two, you must not be accelerating in either case. Therefore free fall is equivalent to being at rest. That's the equivalence principle.

Now to go to all the "drop a cinder block" comments, what you are failing to realize is that the cinder block *resumes* its free fall "rest" state, and it is your foot suddenly accelerating toward the block. (since all intertial rest frames are valid, and the block is an inertial rest frame ala equivalence principle above, then the block's frame of reference it is your foot preventing *its* inertia)
shavera
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2014
rtrader: Well, the classical definition of force as a rate-change of momentum is... difficult to use here, per se. We can always come up with additional "forces" like force of friction, normal force, etc. But *fundamentally* forces come from the momentum exchange of gauge bosons between fermions. The fundamental forces are photons carrying EM, W and Z bosons carrying weak forces, and gluons carrying the strong force. There is no similar particle exchanging gravitation (no that's not what a graviton is either, even if they do exist).

So to me, if we want to speak of real *forces*, they are the fundamental ones. The others are just convenient placeholders to avoid the fine details that don't matter in classical problems. Like avoiding mucking about with space-time metrics to calculate basic Newtonian ballistic problems. Space-time is the *correct* explanation, Newton is a useful description.

And no, we don't need to "pick" between GR and QM, plenty of solutions maintain both.
Returners
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 14, 2014
and nowhere will you find a quotable source that says "there is always...." you may find verbage like "...appeared to have a constant relation..."


The exact language used last night, on two separate programs, as well as at least one article on this site quite some time ago, was that it is based on the mass of the entire galaxy, and yes, "Always" was used. They drew a ONE TO ONE LINE GRAPH with some MINOR deviations a few units to either side, and presented that graph repeatedly, and repeatedly used the expression (on two consecutive hour-long programs,) that it was half a percent of the entire galaxy's mass.

http://www.bright...601.aspx

Second Paragraph under section entitled "Connections".

quote


The mass of the black hole was always ½ of one percent of the total mass of the galaxy.


Their article, their language.

Wrong and utterly ridiculous piss-ant psuedoscience.
Returners
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 14, 2014
First paragraph under "If it Does".

Their own info, their own article, Quote:

The black hole at the Milky Way's core is about 3 million solar masses, so we have nothing to worry about.


3 million is a hell of a lot less than half of one percent of 200 to 400 Billion.

They contradict themselves, presented evidence which contradicts their own conclusion, and they did it at least four separate times in four separate media, and somehow did not catch this discrepancy.

3 million / 200 billion = 0.000015

Which is fifteen ten-thousandths of one percent.
Returners
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 14, 2014
Where are you Scottfos?

I have linked evidence that I was giving their exact words, which also proves you didn't know what you were talking about either.

What now?

Are you going to be like Brucep on Physforum, and do the whole "Expert didn't say what he said he said," thing?

Seriously, do some research. The deal is I knew I was right on both accounts, at least as far as whatever they said, and I was able to easily find yet another article making the exact same mistake in the exact same language.

Fact is, what was said on two internet articles and two different Science Channel programs was self-contradictory and dead wrong. Their own evidence disproves their claim, easily, irrefutably.
Returners
1.3 / 5 (12) Jan 14, 2014
Now I was using an approximation based only on the mass of "ordinary matter" as being about the same as the number of stars in solar masses.

If you want to use the additional 600 to 800 billion solar masses worth of alleged "Dark Matter" that these bozos claim exist in the Milky Way, then the theory is wrong by an additional factor of 2.5 to 5, or one quarter to one half an order of magnitude, depending on who's numbers you use for the alleged amount of DM.

Either way it's wrong and ridiculous.
Returners
1.3 / 5 (12) Jan 14, 2014
Since the measurements of our own galaxy are probably a lot more accurate and precise, at least for what is not obscured by dust, then I am inclined to conclude that either the theory is wrong, or the measurements of other galaxy's SMBH and/or total mass are wrong.

The reason I'd say that is they have photo evidence of the stars orbiting our own galactic center, at an obviously much higher resolution, by simply counting the time it took a star to get back to the same location.

The method used to "measure" the orbits of the stars in distant galaxies was based on the red or blue shift, but not of individual objects, but the displacement or shift within the galaxy itself, which given the description on the videos seemed dubious, unreliable at best anyway.

Consistency is not evidence of correctness, because they can be consistently wrong, much as their articles and videos consistently contradict themselves as shown above.
BrianFraser
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2014
@Scott_L

I agree. Comments need to address the issues, not the personalities. These comments need to go the way of Popular Science, which discontinued their comment section altogether.
brodix
2 / 5 (1) Jan 14, 2014
I have a nit to pick with spacetime, so I may as well.. We experience time as a sequence of events and so think of it as the point of the present moving from past to future, which is then reduced to measures of duration, but logically the reality is the changing configuration of what is, turns future into past. For example, the earth is not traveling/existing along some fourth dimension blocktime, from yesterday to tomorrow, but tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates. This makes time an effect of action, like temperature, not part of some underlaying basis for it. Duration is the physical dynamic occurring between particular events, so it is the state of the present, not some dimension on which it exists. Measures of duration and distance are interconnected, but than so are measures of temperature and volume, but no one thinks there is a 'fabric of temperaturevolume'. That we exist as points of reference and so experience change as linear sequence seems the issue.
brodix
1 / 5 (2) Jan 14, 2014
If time really were a vector from past to future, logically the faster clock would move into the future quicker, but the opposite is true, it ages/burns/processes quicker, so it recedes into the past faster. The tortoise is still plodding along, long after the hare has died.
Time is to temperature what frequency is to amplitude.
Returners
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 14, 2014
Now the orbital period of the stars around our galaxy's center is done based on a "visual" of the stars in x-ray band, and simply WATCHING their orbital periods. Which is to say it's an objective measure of time which is not in any way affected by the truth or falsehood of general relativity. We can trust this measurement because it works the same was as watching the Moon orbit the Earth, or watching Mercury orbit the Sun; it's a direct measure of the period or time.

The measure of the objects' spectral shift in distant galaxies is relying on General Relativity, a THEORY, and the formulas presented by that THEORY, which if wrong in any detail will make the results of the calculations wrong.

There is entirely too much faith placed in these equations for the purpose of "measuring" distant objects.

Using a "theory" as a measuring tool isn't even scientific. You are supposed to use an empirical measurement to establish theory, not the other way around.
Returners
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 14, 2014
Brodix:

If you want to see a conceptual problem with relativity, consider the possibility of a family travelling to a distant star system via a space ship. They fly close to the speed of light, like 88%, so that supposedly time slows down for them by a factor of about 1/2, but they also supposedly observe the distance cut in half as well, and so on.

What is the "real" time it takes them to reach the destination? One group thinks it was 20 years, the other thinks it was 40 years.

Those arriving at the new planet send back a message asking how much time has passed, knowing the distance was 20 light-years, and that a round-trip light speed message would be another 40 years all together. They receive a message back indicating that 40 years had passed.

How could this be, since the travelers would need to have seen Earth orbit the Sun 40 times whilst looking back, yet their internal clock, allegedly, according to Relativity, claims only 20 years passed for them. It's all flawed.
Returners
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 14, 2014
After all, if the Earth is observed, by the travellers, to orbit the Sun 40 times in 20 years, as would be needed, then from their perspective the laws of physics have changed, or the mass of the Sun has changed (but they'll see the Moon orbit twice as often too,) which means the Earth's mass has changed.

See, here is where Einstein made a great blunder, because none of his thought experiments involve a "Control" mechanism.

The Planetary Clock method solves this problem, by showing a paradox where independent events, planetary orbits, observable by both parties are irreconcilably "warped" by the supposed results of the theory.

It is illogical to conclude that the planets and Suns mass will have changed, yet if their orbital periods changed, then either the mass changed or the laws of physics changed, contrary to Einstein's own claim.

He claimed laws remain the same for all inertial references.

Practical application shows it actually would require changing the laws of physics.
Returners
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 14, 2014
If the travellers conclude that the Earth is orbiting the Sun twice as fast, then they are required to either vary the Earth's and Sun's mass (makes the absurd implication that the fuel onboard a mere rocket can alter the mass of the entire universe,) or they are required to vary the laws of physics.

If the Travellers conclude that their clock is wrong, and that 40 years have passed, they will be contradicting the supposed predictions of Relativity.

Either way, the theory is wrong.

The fact they stop on the other end doesn't change the fact Earth will have orbited 40 times.

The time-delay due to distance from the light source is a Newtonian concept, and is not the product of the alleged time warping caused by relativity,.
big_hairy_jimbo
5 / 5 (3) Jan 14, 2014
@Returners, what do you propose as an empirical astronomical measuring stick?

We've achieved what we have, by using parallax, standard candles, then variable stars. From these we then moved onto red shift. Each theory is consistent with the previous. What else can we go by?

As for someone who mentioned velocity of a particle as heat, there are several ways to incorporate K.E. There are several different types of motion, each contributes to heat. Molecules tend to vibrate back and forth, which is heat. But collisions (linear) also contribute to heat.

As for forces, let's remember that gravity interacts with objects that have MOMENTUM!!! Momentum can be stated in different forms according to what you are measuring. Light for instance uses wavelength (via DeBroglie) to determine momentum, hence gravity affects light!! All forces involve a CHANGE in momentum. Since velocity is a vector, circular motion with constant speed gives rise to a force.
DonGateley
4 / 5 (6) Jan 14, 2014
@Returners: You do realize, of course, that your multitudes of sequential inanities are merely a reason for readers to reflexively scroll down, right? No one ever reads a single word you write. Consider the significance of that for a moment or two. What you do is called pissing in the wind.
Returners
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 14, 2014
@Returners: You do realize, of course, that your multitudes of sequential inanities are merely a reason for readers to reflexively scroll down, right? No one ever reads a single word you write. Consider the significance of that for a moment or two. What you do is called pissing in the wind.


Oh some do, some do.

Regardless, you must admit that I am most certainly right regarding the SMBH and Sigma problem.

If people don't care, I don't know what to say about it, other than I am confident it will be proven wrong more absolutely, eventually, though I think they won't even admit the mistake they made in their own data.

It doesn't concern me whether people read my posts or not.

They are going to be fools either way if they continue believing everything "established science" claims to have found, without checking for the obvious discrepancies such as that one, and no, I am obviously not the one who made a mistake, as I hope some few who read this shall see.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Jan 14, 2014
If you want to see a conceptual problem with relativity, consider the possibility of a family travelling to a distant star system via a space ship. They fly close to the speed of light, like 88%, so that supposedly time slows down for them by a factor of about 1/2, but they also supposedly observe the distance cut in half as well, and so on.

What is the "real" time it takes them to reach the destination? One group thinks it was 20 years, the other thinks it was 40 years.

If you want to see a CALCULATION problem consider the included quote...
Returners
1 / 5 (9) Jan 14, 2014
Big hairy Jimbo:

Parallax can be proven reliable based on physical experiments on and near Earth. We use triangulation in other sciences and it works, and is verifiable through other physical means with hands and boots on the ground.

General Relativity and special cannot be, even though it has been accepted on the basis of a few coincidences.

For example, according to Relativity, the gravitational time dilation of an orbiting object about a Black Hole produces the same result as if the object were moving in a straight line in flat space-time at the same speed it orbits, even though it should be warped by both effects, based on different aspects of relativity.

This is a contradiction. Yet nobody admits this discrepancy. I've seen Stephen Hawking present this example many times, and he never mentions the discrepancy either. It appears the black hole actually has no effect on time whatever, since traveling in a straight line at the same speed as orbital speed produces the same result.
Returners
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2014
If you want to see a CALCULATION problem consider the included quote...


Delta T' * gamma = Delta T

Um....that's exactly right, except I approximated the speed corresponding to a time dilation factor of 0.5...

It's correct by design.

Okay, technically I guess it's 0.87 would be the correct rounding, but this is the number, if you want to be an ass about it.

0.86602540378443864676372317075294
Returners
1 / 5 (8) Jan 14, 2014
Now, to do away with the confusion of the "Rocket" and use stars instead.

Suppose we observe what appears to be a "Rogue" star, and orbiting that star is a habitable planet with an alien race of astronomers on it.

They consider themselves to be in the "S" frame, and us to be in the "S'" (S Prime) frame.

Our scientists consider us to be in the "S" frame and the alien to be in the "S Prime" frame.

Teh problem is this doesn't work, because only one frame can be the S frame and the other must be S prime. otherwise each observer's calculations would have themselves as the "older" alien and the other as the "younger".

However, then you still contradict Einstein's claims, because he claimed there was no preferred inertial frame. Clearly, the formula only works one way, contradicting that notion.

By removing the rocket I made things fully arbitrary. We could go a step further and replace the star with another galaxy, removing questions of galactic orbits.
Returners
1 / 5 (8) Jan 14, 2014
But in the case of these inter-galactic astronomers, who is the "S" observer adn who is the real "S prime" observer?

They can't both find themself to be older than the other, as that is an obvious contradiction.

But if only one can rightly consider himself to be the "S" observer, then Einstein's claim of "no preferred frame," is proven wrong, which then undermines the entire thing.

Only difference is I replaced the rocket with another star (or galaxy). Since you can't tell which galaxy is "preferred," but one of them must be to avoid the "who aged more" contradiction, then the theory is actually useless. It cannot properly predict the observation made by your counterpart in this situation, because you don't know whether you are the "S" or the "S prime" observer.

It's not supposed to matter, but mathematically it actually does matter.

Option 1: I'm 1 year older and he's a half year older.

Option 2: I'm 1 year older and he's 2 years older.

They are not reversible.
indio007
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 14, 2014
Einstein can be proven wrong because his math is wrong fundamentally.

http://www.youtub...HHXaPrWA

Einstein is the godfather of astronomical speculation. It's appropriate, considering his first paper had ZERO references.

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jan 14, 2014
It's correct by design.
Okay, technically I guess it's 0.87 would be the correct rounding, but this is the number, if you want to be an ass about it.
0.86602540378443864676372317075294

I prefer rounded numbers. The ass is always someone who tries to out detail you...
It took 20 years for travel, they only EXPERIENCED 10. Add the 20 years for the trip and the 20 years for the message, it took 40 years for us. 30 for the travelers EXPERIENCE, not the actual trip. Oh, and you forgot 20 years for the return message. Making it 60 years for us and 50 for them... If they could, upon their arrival, look back at the number of orbits of the earth/sun since they left, they would still only see 20. (Well, maybe 21 or 22, if you want to be an arse about it....)
Once they stop, they are at the same referential frame as the rest of us, time-wise.
Your "math" is relevant only if they travelled FASTER than the speed of light and it hadn't caught up to them, yet.
barakn
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2014
QuantumConundrum,
The black hole/galaxy mass ratio only holds for bulge-dominated galaxies, which the Milky Way is not. http://www.nature..._F3.html
But thanks for wasting our time and yours.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 14, 2014
But in the case of these inter-galactic astronomers, who is the "S" observer adn who is the real "S prime" observer?

You are not including the time it takes the light to get to us (or them). Different levels of "locality" - ours, theirs and the universes.

But if only one can rightly consider himself to be the "S" observer, then Einstein's claim of "no preferred frame," is proven wrong, which then undermines the entire thing.

In your scenario, the actual preferred reference frame is the Universes. Einstein simply meant no preferred reference frame contained within that larger one (beyond which we can't tell what is anyway). They BOTH are S and S-prime... you both are looking at the light from each (which travels at it's speed, of course).
It's not supposed to matter, but mathematically it actually does matter.

Only if you're doing the math wrong...

.[
brodix
not rated yet Jan 14, 2014
Returners,
I tend to stay away from the geometry because it is quite brilliant and effective. My issue is the explanatory interpretation of these patterns. Spacetime effectively assigns agency to the patterns. This is essentially the same conceptual fallacy epicycles made. With epicycles, the actual calculations based on observations were extremely accurate. The error was assigning direct agency to these patterns, with giant cosmic gearwheels powering this clockwork universe. GR does a wonderful job of correlating measures of distance and duration, using the speed of light as medium, but then it assigns this four dimensional 'fabric' as the agent of the patterns, rather than looking for deeper causes. With distance, area and volume, you are measuring aspects of space, but with time and temperature, you are measuring aspects of action. What we have is action in space. Time is a measure of change and temperature is the degree of activity.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Jan 14, 2014
IOW, Returners,
If they are 20 LY's away. we observe them as they were 20 years ago and vice-versa. Wanna see what they are doing right now? Gotta wait 20 years.....
brodix
not rated yet Jan 14, 2014
Not only do we promote time as more than it is, but we tend to demote temperature to mere staticitical average, but given all these combined motions are interacting, they are seeking an equilibrium state(entropy), so the temperature is actually a natural equilibrium and is as basic as the effect of time. Our minds function through sequences, but our bodies depend on metabolic thermal equilibrium. The base state of energy, quantum fluctuation, background radiation, etc, are thermal states with little change to create the passage of time.
The three dimensions of space are essentially the coordinate system we, as single points of reference, use to define the space we live in. They are no more physical attributes of space than longitude, latitude and altitude are physical attributes of the surface of this planet. If you look out into space, the primary form is the sphere and the primary dynamic is arguably convection, since mass contracts and energy expands.
brodix
not rated yet Jan 14, 2014
I suspect gravity is not so much an attribute of mass, as it is a vacuum effect of energy coalescing into mass, much as mass turning to energy creates pressure, given that equivalent amounts of mass occupy less space than the equal amount of energy. We can't find that dark matter, but there are large amounts of cosmic rays, interstellar gases, first generation stars, etc, out there where it should be. If there is a dynamic relation across this spectrum of energy and nascent mass, it would have both the connectivity to hold the outer edges of galaxies together and warp light passing through.
scottfos
5 / 5 (3) Jan 14, 2014
QuantumConundrum,
The black hole/galaxy mass ratio only holds for bulge-dominated galaxies, which the Milky Way is not. http://www.nature..._F3.html
But thanks for wasting our time and yours.

i all but gave the guy the answer. these comments are amazing.
sculpwnwiss
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 15, 2014
As a lot of mathematicians know, relativity was proven to be internally inconsistent (and therefore disproved) over 60 years ago.

Einstein, Hawking and other physicists who've read the paper couldn't find a flaw, but dismissed it because relativity is too "beautiful" to be wrong ( i think also because they built their careers on it).

To simplify the scenario physicists find themselves in, it would be like a mathematician proving that, through a series of simple arithmetical operations you could start out with two separate items but combining them in a special way you could get three items (essentially showing: 1+1=3).

So seeing this physicists get busy trying to implement the special operations while the mathematician know's it is actually a fatal flaw in the underlying theory of arithmetic.

johanfprins
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 15, 2014
Einstein was not God, but like all of us a human being: And as we all know human beings make mistakes. The guideline for a true physicist MUST be that what we believe is correct today can tomorrow be found not to be totally correct: Just like the caloric theory explained above.

If you do not accept that all physicists, INCLUDING EINSTEIN, might be proved to have been wrong, you are not a physicist. No physicist, who is a REAL SCIENTIST, will ever write anything with the title:"Why Einstein will never be wrong".

The fact is that there are two peer-reviewed articles in the pipeline, which required a 50 year fight to get accepted by the reviewers, since they also doggedly believed that "Einstein will never be wrong": However, they had to finally admit that Einstein was wrong when he derived

1. length contraction (see Phys. Essays December 2013)
2. that a "moving clock" keeps time at a slower rate than a clock relative to which it is moving (Phys. Essays. March 2014).
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jan 15, 2014
As a lot of mathematicians know, relativity was proven to be internally inconsistent (and therefore disproved) over 60 years ago.

Einstein, Hawking and other physicists who've read the paper couldn't find a flaw, but dismissed it because relativity is too "beautiful" to be wrong ( i think also because they built their careers on it).

@sculpwnwiss
References please?

@Uba
what REALLY surprises me is the LACK of noise from Ubavontuba!
Hey, UBA! why dont you post HERE that theory you showed me where you showed Einstein to be wrong? that theory you gave me via PM's?

i am SURE that others would LOVE to see it!

and i still haven't forgot you... i WILL get back to you on it.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 15, 2014
However, there is an observation that gives rise to a question;
Why do all of the exoplanets discovered (The ones I've read about, anyway) have such high orbital speeds around their respective stars? Not done calculations, but - seems like some of them should be at an escape velocity....
Perhaps someone could show me what I'm missing here...
Osteta
Jan 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Jan 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Jan 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Jan 15, 2014
Why do all of the exoplanets discovered (The ones I've read about, anyway) have such high orbital speeds around their respective stars?

Because they are easier to detect. (The have more transients and/or create a more noticeable wobble of the parent star). Read: we are getting a skewed set of data from our observations. The set of exoplanets we know about isn't a good, average representation of all planets.

It's the same reason why we have found more Jupiter class planets than Mercury class planets until now. The latter are just harder to detect and our instruments are already working at the very limits of sensitivity.
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2014
Einstein was deeply wrong thinking space-time is a fundamental arena of the universe.
We show recently time is merely a duration of change running in space
and definitely not 4th dimension of space:

Special theory of relativity postulated on homogeneity of
space and time and on relativity principle
Luigi Maxmilian Caligiuri1, 2, *, Amrit Sorli1
1Foundation of Physics Research Center, FoPRC, via Resistenza 10 87053 Celico (CS), Italy
2University of Calabria, via P. Bucci 87036 Arcavacata di Rende (CS), Italy
Email address:
caligiuri@foprc.org (L. M. Caligiuri), sorli@foprc.org (A. Sorli)
To cite this article:
Luigi Maxmilian Caligiuri, Amrit Sorli. Special Theory of Relativity Postulated on Homogeneity of Space and Time and on Relativity
Principle. American Journal of Modern Physics. Vol. 2, No. 6, 2013, pp. 375-382. doi: 10.11648/j.ajmp.20130206.25
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (4) Jan 15, 2014
No physicist, who is a REAL SCIENTIST, will ever write anything with the title:"Why Einstein will never be wrong".


I think you need to read this in context of a reviewer receiving the millionth Einstein-defying crackpot. I'm quite sure the person in question is well aware that Einstein could be proven incorrect or inaccurate in the long run.

Newton's laws are quite inaccurate too, yet still used and very useful for that matter.
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (3) Jan 15, 2014
Ain't no gravity, it's all expansion. See "The Situation of Gravity - Third Edition".


You're taking a piss at us, right?
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (6) Jan 15, 2014
Einstein was deeply wrong thinking space-time is a fundamental arena of the universe.
We show recently time is merely a duration of change running in space
and definitely not 4th dimension of space:


really...seriously, what's up with you guys... Apart from you being wrong or right, you fail to see the irony of posting it in this specific article?

But have a go, you should be able to explain how time dilates accordingly with the distorted space around mass, right?
Osteta
Jan 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Jan 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Jan 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ViperSRT3g
5 / 5 (2) Jan 15, 2014
This may sound strange for most of you, but the stability of common massive objects mostly depends on presence of various repulsive forces between particles, which the general relativity doesn't consider at all. When we postulate so-called geon model, in which all objects are composed of gravitational waves only (Wheeler 1954), then we realize fast, that such objects are inherently unstable.

I believe you are forgetting about the strong force when thinking about an object like this.
Scroofinator
5 / 5 (1) Jan 15, 2014
The relativity is based on assumption, inside of gravitational lens it's the space-time, what is curved - not the path of light. Apparently this assumption works well, when you get INSIDE of gravity lens, but it must be applied to space-time only there


This reminds me of something Einstein said: "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

Theories are just that, problems that use equations to help solve them. By Einstein's own thinking, we can't solve the problems that arise from GR by using GR.
Osteta
Jan 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Jan 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Jan 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Jan 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rtrader
not rated yet Jan 15, 2014
@shavera,

"Space-time is the *correct* explanation, Newton is a useful description."

I wouldn't use the term "explanation" but "model". You are very brave to allude to "explanations" when space-time is not ontology but epistemology. Space-time is an axiom with no proof.

"And no, we don't need to "pick" between GR and QM, plenty of solutions maintain both."

And these are? Entanglement and action-at-distance is a fact beyond doubt in QM. GR denies this fact and supporters of 4-dimensionalism use red herrings that involve arguments about the (no) transfer of information. A choice between QM and GR is inevitable unless you can tell us how space-time emerges from QM, which needs an independent and absolute background, similar to Newton's.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 15, 2014
Why Einstein will never be wrong


Because he and his disciples share a commonality;
"Einstein was quite simply contemptuous of experiment, preferring to put his faith in pure thought." Paul Davies

These "thought experimentors" have seemingly forgotten what science really is about;
"We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture." Hannes Alfvén

And voila, we have "space-time", black holes, DM, DE, and any number of other "imaginary conjectures".

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2014
BTW, I'd like to welcome Nestle/Osteta back. It's been awhile Zeph, you have been missed....
shavera
5 / 5 (4) Jan 15, 2014
Entanglement and action-at-distance is a fact beyond doubt in QM. GR denies this fact and supporters of 4-dimensionalism use red herrings that involve arguments about the (no) transfer of information.


Just because they're not the answer you like doesn't mean they're "red herrings." All Bell's theorem tells us is that space is either non-local or it can have hidden variables, but not both. I'd sooner discard hidden variables than locality, because as we can show, instantaneous transmission of information is the transmission of information backwards in time in a different reference frame. Backwards in time signalling can lead to unresolvable paradoxes (see the twin-tachyon gun/ tachyon duel problem).
shavera
5 / 5 (1) Jan 15, 2014
and there still remains significant hope that we'll resolve the ultraviolet problem of just quantizing the curvature field. That would resolve GR and QM in a way that allows for both to continue to exist. We were lucky with EM fields that renormalizability helped access solutions, but we've been less so with the strong force, and again with curvature fields. But again, there are distinct possibilities that the curvature field of GR is perfectly quantize-able and then compatible with the other quantum fields.
orti
1 / 5 (1) Jan 15, 2014
Love it. Koberiein rightly points out how tentative and empirical science is – something many absolutists seem to ignore. "This rule seems to work good for cases where we were watching really close, so let's leave it at that for now and go on the next problem."
Osteta
Jan 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
indio007
1 / 5 (1) Jan 15, 2014
It was once told as a good joke upon a mathematician that the poor man went mad and mistook his symbols for realities; as M for the moon and S for the sun.
-Oliver Heaviside
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jan 15, 2014
Osteta writes
as the wormhole violates the relativity for example by allowing the superluminal travel

@Osteta
from what I read about wormholes, it was not superluminal travel. It was normal travel "within" the worm-hole, and the worm hole was just a short-cut through space

viewed externally it APPEARS to be superluminal, however, it is not. travel "within" the wormhole is normal

For a simplified notion of a wormhole, visualize spacetime as a two-dimensional (2D) surface. If folded along a third dimension, the surface is analogous to a wormhole "bridge". The mouths of a wormhole are analogous to holes in a 2D plane; a real wormhole's mouths could be spheres in 3D space

https://en.wikipe...Wormhole
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (1) Jan 15, 2014
The whole point of Relativity is that velocity of material change is relative ragarding energy density of quantum vacuum.
http://www.ingent...82f475fa
There is no such a thing as a "time dilatation" and "lenght contraction".
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Jan 15, 2014
GR denies this fact and supporters of 4-dimensionalism
Recently http://www.scient...ent-link for reconcilliation of quantum entanglement with general relativity with using of wormhole concept has been made. I'm a bit suspicious about logical consistency of such an approach, as the wormhole violates the relativity for example by allowing the superluminal travel (it would require higher number of dimensions than just four). But if the physicists are happy with it, it's their problem - not mine.

WB, Osteta. Just made a positive comment bout you in one of these dang threads.
johanfprins
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 15, 2014
I have NEVER in my life encountered a higher density of BS than I have read on this thread! God helps the human race!

Maybe HE has given up, and is just laughing at the mess that HE has created. Even HE has made mistakes! So why should Einstein be better? Is this what is meant in the Bible when it is stated that we have been created in HIS image?
rockwolf1000
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2014
@Scott_L

I agree. Comments need to address the issues, not the personalities. These comments need to go the way of Popular Science, which discontinued their comment section altogether.


The solution is so simple. If you don't like the comments... Then don't fucking read them. Asshole!
pepe2907
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 15, 2014
Just a short question, could somebody please help me to remember who is the one who experimentally /!/ validated The Big Bang? :)
Nestle
3 / 5 (2) Jan 15, 2014
what I read about wormholes, it was not superluminal travel. It was normal travel "within" the worm-hole, and the worm hole was just a short-cut through space
The shortcut is called a shortcut, just because it enables you to travel faster. For example, the entanglement is routinely observed between photons, which are already moving with speed of light - so that any sort of wormhole between photons should be maintained with some faster mechanism. But as I said, the wormhole interpretation is strange and we already have experiments, which could falsify it. I'm just using it as a counterargument for claim, that "general relativists deny the superluminal entanglement".
davidivad
not rated yet Jan 15, 2014
gravity is a field. is gravity not confined by the speed of light? we cannot directly observe gravitons as we do not have the technology yet to find them.
Nestle
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 15, 2014
we cannot directly observe gravitons as we do not have the technology yet to find them
Sometimes better brain is enough. The gravitons should be quanta of mass mediating the matter and curvature of spacetime - and the photons may play this role as well. During supernovae explosions the substantial portion of stellar matter is radiated in form of photons. In linearized, Einstein–Maxwell theory on flat spacetime, an oscillating electric dipole is the source of a spin-2 field, so that the gravitational component may exist inside of every photon and it would be quantized in the same way, like the photon itself.
It's true, that the GR predicts zero mass for light, only momentum - but the photons aren't artifact of GR, but quantum mechanics. The GR has nothing to say about photons: it just considers the light as background independent spherical transverse wave. So I do consider the photons as a GR violation.
Nestle
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 15, 2014
If the light would be massless, it would propagate at distance like the ripple rings at the surface of water. Such a wave cannot transfer mass, only momentum, as the GR implies. But if such wave will get fragmented into myriads of tiny solitons, the additional space-time curvature formed with it may have its mass assigned. So that the photons can transfer the mass, not just momentum and this mass would be quantized into photons.

The common objection against zero mass of photons is, the photon are bosons of electromagnetic interaction and if they would be massive, they couldn't mediate the EM interaction at infinite distance. But the trick there can be, the photons aren't required to be infinitely stable during this. They can dissolve and reemerge somewhere else during their flight in a process, which is known as a quantum decoherence or quantum oscillation (which is already known for neutrinos and another bosons, like the mesons).
Nestle
1 / 5 (2) Jan 15, 2014
Please note, that even the wormhole model of quantum entanglement requires/considers some mass for photons too (at least on background) - as the wormhole cannot be formed between solely massless objects.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jan 15, 2014
Please note, that even the wormhole model of quantum entanglement requires/considers some mass for photons too (at least on background) - as the wormhole cannot be formed between solely massless objects.

He's been studying - and he's back...
The Shootist
5 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2014
Gravity is a term for a force that we can't explain, but we excellent models for. We know the how but not the why. Where I think both theories fail is in accounting for the molecular composition of the objects displaying gravitational forces. The atom is the basic structure that creates interaction within our universe, so the force begins there in my opinion.


See that's where you're wrong. Gravity isn't a force, at least not an emergent force. Gravity is curved space time.
UncleAl
2 / 5 (1) Jan 16, 2014
The universe is mirror-symmetric to photons (viewed and assumed) but parity-violating for matter (curve-fit). Opposite shoes violate the EP. Crystallography's opposite shoes are visually and chemically identical, single crystal test masses in enantiomorphic space groups, physics obscure but chemistry obvious.

Load an Eötvös torsion balance with one vertical plane of right-handed quartz, the opposite with left-handed quartz. 0.113 nm^3/alpha-quartz unit cell. 40 grams net as 8 single crystal test masses compare 6.68×10^22 pairs of enantiomorphic unit cells, test mass array cube opposed vertical sides. The Equivalence Principle falls to ECSK spacetime torsion.

shavera
5 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2014
Parity violation in particle physics is unrelated to chirality of molecules. big ol' [citation needed] on that one, UncleAl
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2014
See that's where you're wrong. Gravity isn't a force, at least not an emergent force. Gravity is curved space time.

So, then... what's causing the curve in spacetime?
shavera
5 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2014
So, then... what's causing the curve in spacetime?


That's an answer we don't have yet. All we know right now is that in the presence of energy, measures of length and time vary with location near that energy (or more accurately, the stress energy tensor field is proportional to the curvature tensor field).

Maybe, if we find a way to treat the curvature tensor field within the quantum field theory framework (ie, quantize the field) we may have an answer whereby every massive particle perturbs the curvature in some fundamental way.

But we could just as well ask "why do particle fields, like electrons, couple to the EM field?" All we know is... they do. So presumably, the stress-energy-tensor field, which is a classical ensemble of all those quantum particle fields, couples to the curvature field... because that's the universe we find ourselves in.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jan 16, 2014
The shortcut is called a shortcut, ... the superluminal entanglement".


@Nestle
The impossibility of faster-than-light relative speed only applies locally. Wormholes allow superluminal (faster-than-light) travel by ensuring that the speed of light is not exceeded locally at any time. While traveling through a wormhole, subluminal (slower-than-light) speeds are used. If two points are connected by a wormhole, the time taken to traverse it would be less than the time it would take a light beam to make the journey if it took a path through the space outside the wormhole. However, a light beam traveling through the wormhole would always beat the traveler. As an analogy, sprinting around to the opposite side of a mountain at maximum speed may take longer than walking through a tunnel crossing it.
https://en.wikipe...Wormhole

please RE-READ that last sentence in the paragraph.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2014
Good luck explaining physics to the Zephyr Stumpy, he has his own way of seeing things that no amount of reality will shake.
tadchem
1 / 5 (1) Jan 16, 2014
@shavera

So what is a force? Evidently, GR does away with forces. However, everything else seems to be described by a force (strong, weak and electromagnetic). So is this the mismatch between gravity and field theory.? Gravity does away with the concept of force while the rest of the world has forces but the wrong geometry?

A 'force' is an artifact of the coordinate system in use. The Standard Model and QM use the *approximation* of point particles, which enforces the use of a Cartesian coordinate system. Actual physical entities possess properties such as electromagnetic fields which alone require four orthogonal dimensions to be adequately represented. Four-tensors, Minkowski space, and the D'Alembertian operator become essential to describe free 'particles' and collections thereof. Mathematically transforming from a general Minkowski space to a more 'intuitive' four-space such as space-time leads to the creation of fictitious forces.
Matt Holmium
5 / 5 (2) Jan 16, 2014
This is another interesting way of looking at it.
Think of a simple tape measure, as compared to a dial caliper. The tape measure is correct and accurate. You can use it to gleam a lot of information. It is not incorrect. Yet the dial caliper will give you far more precision. You can more easily use it to measure interior dimensions, or that of something which is round, or small. But would you use a dial caliper to build your house? Would be almost impossible. You lose your accuracy for the sake of ease to use a tape measure. You only crack out the caliper when you need the extra precision. Neither is incorrect, one is simply more accurate.
Nestle
5 / 5 (1) Jan 16, 2014
The impossibility of faster-than-light relative speed only applies locally
I see... What would that mean - "locally"? Just 1 nm, 1 meter or 1 kPc?
he has his own way of seeing things that no amount of reality will shake
I'm indeed opened to logical arguments. Do you have some? BTW What the Wikipedia says about mass of photons:
The photon is currently understood to be strictly massless, but this is an experimental question. If the photon is not a strictly massless particle, it would not move at the exact speed of light in vacuum, c. Its speed would be lower and depend on its frequency. Relativity would be unaffected by this; the so-called speed of light, c, would then not be the actual speed at which light moves, but a constant of nature which is the maximum speed that any object could theoretically attain in space-time. Thus, it would still be the speed of space-time ripples (gravitational waves and gravitons), but it would not be the speed of photons.
jlewis
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 16, 2014
Mmm.. I think most of the people here have kind of missed the point of the post....

Einstein won't be 'proven' wrong because that's not how science works. General Relativity works because it's inclusive of all that we knew before (ie: Newton), while extending it to new predictions which have been shown to be correct.

The only way Einstein can be proven wrong is for everyone who's done any testing to have simply been wrong for the last almost 100 years, or a truly massive conspiracy to make Einstein seem right has been happening, because for him to be wrong, the universe would have to work *differently* than he's described it.

The main point is that we won't prove Einstein wrong - but we'll show that his model is *incomplete* and extend it out to a new, larger model which encompasses his model, much like his model encompassed Newton.

In the same way, Newton wasn't proven wrong when Einstein came along. Just incomplete.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (9) Jan 16, 2014
Correct.

Science doesn't work on the absolutist 'right-wrong' paradigm. There's stuff that is useful and stuff that is more useful. As long as something correlates with reality to a point where you can use it to make useful predictions it's good theory (even if it always gives you the OPPOSITE of what happens in reality. You can use a compass that points 180 degrees in the wrong direction to get where you want to go without fail).
Only theories that make predictions no better than just randomly picking an outcome are truly useless (e.g. basing your life on a "religious theory of prayer" or somesuch).

Newtonian gravity is useful. Einsteinian warped space is more useful. And there will certainly be a time when we will find something even more useful. That doesn't diminish the use of Newtonian results one bit (or make it 'more wrong'). It only puts it on a lower step RELATIVELY to the others.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2014
Ain't no gravity, it's all expansion. See "The Situation of Gravity - Third Edition".


You're taking a piss at us, right?

No, I'm not. There is absolutely no proof that gravity exists, there are no gravitons, gravitinos, gravity waves, etc. etc. Dark matter only "exists" because it is the only way to explain some effects of "gravity", i.e there ain't no dark matter either, and so on.
I prefer a completely different philosophy as to how the universe works, what time is, what momentum is, and so on. All you need is an open mind to think about it, and realise that all the stuff from Newton onwards when he "invented" gravity rather than recognise it for what it actually is, is based on "facts" that can be used to support expansion theory just as well as Newton/Einstein.
I stand by for the usual barrage of crap from the gravity fanatics, all gratefully received.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 16, 2014
I prefer a completely different philosophy as to how the universe works, what time is, what momentum is, and so on. All you need is an open mind to think about it, and realise that all the stuff from Newton onwards when he "invented" gravity rather than recognise it for what it actually is, is based on "facts" that can be used to support expansion theory just as well as Newton/Einstein.
I stand by for the usual barrage of crap from the gravity fanatics, all gratefully received.

I would be interested in seeing this theory. No crap.
Nestle
1 / 5 (1) Jan 16, 2014
You should learn the principle of emergence: more is different. I'm usually explaining it with this scheme of gravitational lensing. In this model the photons travel through field of quantum fluctuations of vacuum around massive body. Each tiny fluctuation behaves like tiny gravitational lens and the photons curve their path in such a way, their speed of light would remain invariant. But when we consider the gradient of concentration of such fluctuations around massive body, then the net result of such collective motion is exactly the opposite and each photon travels trough space with different speed. Therefore the Lorentz invariance at the microscopical/local level may lead into violation of this invariance at the macroscopic/nonlocal level (and vice-versa).
In another thread someone tried to explain, how the local GR may lead into worm holes, which do violate the GR globally - this is the same stuff.
Nestle
1 / 5 (1) Jan 16, 2014
Another example: although the epicycle geometry has been proven demonstratively wrong at the case of rather small solar system, inside of large system of massive bodies this geometry may lead into new insights about formation of galactic arms and violations of Kepler's law. It's just matter of quantity, whether the local quality will be preserved at the nonlocal scope.

I already explained above, that the behavior of gravitational lens depends on whether we are using intrinsic or extrinsic perspective for their description. The extrinsic perspective is always connected with small violation of general relativity. At the case of quantum theory, which deals with myriads of tiny gravitational lenses these violations cumulate and as the result the behavior of quantum systems is quite different from relativity.

Therefore "more is different", because we are switching perspective unwillingly during observation of multiple objects.
210
not rated yet Jan 16, 2014
"WHY EINSTEIN WILL NEVER BE WRONG" -cause, we love him!

word-
UncleAl
3 / 5 (2) Jan 16, 2014
Parity violation in particle physics is unrelated to chirality of molecules. big ol' [citation needed] on that one, UncleAl


Chern-Simons repair of Einstein-Hilbert action[1]. GR superset Einstein-Cartan-Kibble-Sciama gravitation contains chiral spacetime torsion. Spacetime curvature is a racemic subset[2]. Theory curve-fit Gran Sasso superluminal neutrinos. The outcome of a good experiment is unknown beforehand. When Cox said it, he was crushed[3]. When Yang and Lee said it, they were Nobel Laureates[4].

[1] arXiv:1005.3310, 0907.2562, 0903.4573, 0811.0181, 0808.0506
[2]arXiv:1304.0047; Ashtekar chiral spacetime torsion is simpler than achiral curvature, arXiv:1112.1262, Section 5.5
[3] PNAS 14(7) 544 (1928)
[4] Phys. Rev. 104(1) 254 (1956), Phys. Rev. 105(4) 1413 (1957), Phys. Rev. 105(4) 1415 (1957)
shavera
5 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2014
you know the gran sasso superluminal neutrino thing was overturned a while back, right?
HiLuster
5 / 5 (2) Jan 16, 2014
The theory of relativity is no less a theory for being a Good theory. Evidence that is "experimental" is by nature a variable dependent on conditions and the descriptive expression of conditions may fall outside of the conditions addressed by a tradition. The point made that challenges Einstein's theory is suspect for being a challenge to dogma. It really does no service to the spirit of research that pushes against the known in favor of discovery and innovation. Newton's laws are used when it is convenient. Novel approaches to an old problem should be welcomed by those with experience to recognize the fair boundary of anachronism and new approaches to old problems.
shavera
5 / 5 (2) Jan 16, 2014
And all the articles you've posted don't have anything to do with relating chirality of fundamental particles with handedness of crystal formation.
Nestle
5 / 5 (1) Jan 16, 2014
Theory curve-fit Gran Sasso superluminal neutrinos
Even if it would be confirmed, I don't see any logical connection of alleged superluminal speed of neutrinos to space-time chirality or handedness of crystals. Could you explain it in more details - or to provide link?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 16, 2014
you know the gran sasso superluminal neutrino thing was overturned a while back, right?

For some reason, I don't think he meant it actually was... Think he meant that a theory is only as good as the theorist. More or less..
shavera
5 / 5 (2) Jan 16, 2014
I honestly don't know what they mean. They seemed to just grab papers that had the words "General Relativity" and "parity" or "chirality" in them... I'm really confused by the claims here.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Jan 16, 2014
I honestly don't know what they mean. They seemed to just grab papers that had the words "General Relativity" and "parity" or "chirality" in them... I'm really confused by the claims here.

I can see what he's going for and even how he's come to these conclusions, but I'm not sure how open you are to the simpleness of the reasoning...
mohammadshafiq_khan_1
Jan 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Jan 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Jan 17, 2014
I stand by for the usual barrage of crap from the gravity fanatics,

Just one: Show your work and where it makes (quantitative!) better predictions than the notion of gravity. And also where it is (quantitatively!) exactly the same as all the predictions/observations that a theory of gravity does.

'Having a philosophy' is fine. But don't expect anyone to give that any weight until/unless that philosophy has some correlation with reality on a - again - quantitative (!) level.

Otherwise it's no better than the theory of "souls/gods/unicorns exist".
Osteta
Jan 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2014
I would be interested in seeing this theory. No crap.

It's expansion theory, as mentioned. There are several books on the subject, and numerous refutations all of which contain spurious logic. You will simply have to read some of them, think about it, and make up your own mind. The alternative is to accept gravity (undetectable/unstoppable as a force, gravitons, gravitinos, waves, etc.etc.) and its consequences (Dark Matter, Dark Energy, the Big Bang, the reason for Black Holes, etc.), all of them defying "proof" and "detection (except "effects")" by the might of the scientific establishment - do you know how much they spend on "trying" to detect gravity waves? Keeps hundreds of acolytes on the grav"it"y train year after year!
Meanwhile, in practice the Newton/Einstein equations work well enough for most purposes and there is nothing wrong with trying to improve their "accuracy" with new equations, but they in NO WAY attempt to explain WHAT GRAVITY ACTUALLY IS. It just exists!
Osteta
Jan 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Jan 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Jan 17, 2014
Anti-Alias Physorg
Otherwise it's no better than the theory of "souls/gods/unicorns exist".

You missquoted the end of the sentence, which presumably should have read:-
"Otherwise it's no better than the theory of "souls/gods/unicorns/gravity waves exist".
Nobody said it was "better", just an alternative explanation as to how the universe works. At least it does not require the continuous invention of new forces/types of matter/umpteen dimensions/etc. You got anything "better"?
Osteta
Jan 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Jan 17, 2014
Or you can accept the model, despite it doesn't enable to calculate anything, but it enables to explain multiple effects at the same moment.

Which makes it worthless. It's like a religion then. Religion also enables you to 'explain' everything ("god did it"), but it's a useless theory because you can't use it for anything. It's just something to make you feel good. Arguably of psychological value to those who need such comforting mechanisms but not of scientific value.

Currently the physics is based on formal regressions, which are adding new parameters, when some unexpected situation happens.

No. Because 'just adding a parameter' will lead to things that did work with the old theory now not to work. When you augment a theory you have to make sure you don't invalidate that part which works.

The number of formal theories and postulates increases in this way,

No. Theories need to be integarted with each other.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Jan 17, 2014
You missquoted the end of the sentence, which presumably should have read:-
"Otherwise it's no better than the theory of "souls/gods/unicorns/gravity waves exist".

No. Gravity waves are predicted and testable. If they don't show up as predicted then this tells us something. Souls/gods/unicorns aren't testable (like your 'theory'), so you can always redefine it to suit whatever is observed. That may be satsfying to some but it's not useful. It's not 'better' because it's not good for anything.
Gawad
5 / 5 (1) Jan 17, 2014
AA I don't know how you do it. Expansion theory. Christ.

Word(s) to Reg: explain orbits.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2014
@nestle
I see... What would that mean – "locally"?

ok, chocolate thought
are you being intentionally obtuse about this issue?
Local: if you can easily directly measure the speed of the craft before/after the wormhole. Non-local: far enough away to see both points (beginning and endpoint of wormhole).
I'm indeed opened to logical arguments. Do you have some?

I was thinking that you were trying to clarify, but I know enough to see that this is an attempt to obfuscate the issues and bring your pet theory into it.
BTW What the Wikipedia says...

nice subject change. If you cant understand subject "a" why should we continue?
You are NOT looking for logical discourse, you are attempting to realign reality to your skewed thought process.

I will leave you to your fight.
Best of luck to you
Osteta
Jan 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
indio007
1 / 5 (2) Jan 17, 2014
Einsteinian warped space is more useful


Useful for what? Fanciful notions and metamagics?

There was never a device made by man that used relativity (by necessity) to perform it's function.

There no known solutions to Einstein's field equations for 2 or more masses.

Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2014
Einsteinian warped space is more useful


There was never a device made by man that used relativity (by necessity) to perform it's function.



GPS (O.k. it's not technically "necessary" but it is useful).
Osteta
Jan 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
UncleAl
1 / 5 (2) Jan 17, 2014
you know the gran sasso superluminal neutrino thing was overturned a while back, right?


Theory can gush nonsense if it is self-consistent. A loose fiberoptic timing connection ended "superluminal" neutrinos. Physics arises from vacuum symmetries (Noether's theorems) observed by massless boson photons. Matter is massed fermion quarks (ignore leptons). One doubts boson vacuum symmetries are exact for fermions.

General relativity/achiral spacetime curvature empirical failure occurs in ECKS gravitation with chiral spacetime torsion. Opposite shoes violate the Equivalence Principle. GR can empirically fail without contradicting any prior observation in any venue at any scale when observed outside its postulates. GR is perfect within its postulates, as Euclid is - then cartography, Bolyai, Thurston.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2014
GPS (O.k. it's not technically "necessary" but it is useful).

Yeah, you could do GPS without relativity, but then you'd be off by more than 30 meters.

Then there's all the stuff we're learning from colliders - which wouldn't work if relativistic effects weren't considered (this includes particle accelerators for medical uses).

Then there's that small invention called: nuclear power (fission and fusion)

Then there's all the understanding of how chemistry works (like such questions why gold is that color and not silver like other metals.). Without modeling relativistic effects we couldn't have predicted some of the useful catalysts that have been found (we also would have never guessed that stuff like graphene exists, BTW).

Then there's stuff like airline and shipping compasses that use the relativistic sagnac effect.

When you go into serious engineering relativity is all over the place.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Jan 17, 2014
You missquoted the end of the sentence, which presumably should have read:-
"Otherwise it's no better than the theory of "souls/gods/unicorns/gravity waves exist".

No. Gravity waves are predicted and testable. If they don't show up as predicted then this tells us something. Souls/gods/unicorns aren't testable (like your 'theory'), so you can always redefine it to suit whatever is observed. That may be satsfying to some but it's not useful. It's not 'better' because it's not good for anything.

Of course souls/gods/unicorns are predicted and testable, and if they don't show up that does tell us something... exactly like gravity waves, gravitons, gravitinos, etc. Where's your logic?
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2014
AA I don't know how you do it. Expansion theory. Christ.

Word(s) to Reg: explain orbits.

I go to a great deal of trouble to write all this down in a book, and so do many other people. I ain't gonna spend hours doing it here. Read a f******g book, and don't come back with spurious illogical refutations such as "the moon can never drop below the horizon" and similar crap.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 17, 2014
I go to a great deal of trouble to write all this down in a book, and so do many other people. I ain't gonna spend hours doing it here. Read a f******g book, and don't come back with spurious illogical refutations such as "the moon can never drop below the horizon" and similar crap.
Yep, one can always count on Reg to drop by on occasion, make sweeping claims about how everyone studying/researching cosmology is wrong, tell anyone who argues against his sweeping generalizations or questions his pronouncements that they are idiots or worse, then disappear until the next article on cosmology comes along. Nice to see you again Reg, guess you'll be moving along now?
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2014
Hi Maggnus,
Nice to know you are still breathing...if that's what they do on your planet.
Seriously, though, it seems to me that even the wildest, most unsubstantiated theories, totally unsupported by fact, are accepted for serious consideration provided they are based on the old establishment tenets, but, question those tenets (like "gravity") and, wow, you are obviously a nutter! We need a sea change in scientific thought all around the "gravity" area. I just put forward an alternative theory, OK not the only possible one but AT LEAST AS SUBSTANTIATED AS GRAVITY, and I get vitriol and polemic from all the clowns who can't be bothered to actually think about it. Look, gravity didn't exist until Newton invented it! Nobody is saying his equations don't work, or Einstein was wrong, they both produced methodology which help us to deal with observed reality - but they do not in any way explain what "gravity" is or rather what causes it's effects.
Anyway, feel free to have another pop!
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Jan 18, 2014
Of course souls/gods/unicorns are predicted and testable,

Thne make a prediction for them.

Better yet: Make a prediction for something YOUR theory predicts that is at odds with the current models and we'll see when that rolls around. There#s a couple of interesting experiments going:
Dark mater detectors, gravity wave detectors, Anylses of the cosmic microwave background, material sciences has a lot of unanswered questions...

Pick any one and make a prediction. Please. Do. Otherwise your 'theory' is no better than 'god did it'...because you're always fitting your fantasy after the fact and never putting it to the test.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Jan 18, 2014
Dear antialias_physorg,
Of course souls/gods/unicorns are predicted and testable,

Thne make a prediction for them.


Either you didn't read my response properly, or you have no sense of humour and do not understand sarcasm.
Here it is, read it again,
"Of course souls/gods/unicorns are predicted and testable, and if they don't show up that does tell us something... exactly like gravity waves, gravitons, gravitinos, etc. Where's your logic?"
Perhaps its your IQ which is the problem? Or maybe we should construct a giant microscope or telescope for tracking unicorns, which are predicted to exist by many ancient learned scholars, we simply haven't been looking hard enough......same as gravity waves/dark matter/etc.
Scroofinator
2 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2014
I never understood why we consider all mass as created equal. Newton and Einstein didn't have the resources that we do now, we have more data than they could have dreamed. We also now the hydrogen and helium are by far the most elements throughout the universe(approx 73% and 24% respectively). However the most mass in the universe is associated with dark energy and dark matter (72% and 23%).

This got me wondering if there's an extra gravitational force exerted from hydrogen and helium. So I went to wiki for atomic mass (http://en.wikiped...ic_mass) and found a table with something called the ratio of atomic mass to mass number. It's interesting because hydrogen tops the list at 1.007, and it slowly decreases until iron at .9988. I believe the numbers come from the mass-to-charge ratio.

I've tried to prove this added effect but my math sucks. Essentially, I think gravity is unique to each element, and only when there are huge quantities would you ever see it.
meBigGuy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 18, 2014
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I love the comments section.

Need more cantdrive, mikefrom NY and all the other fun folks.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

150 comments and no AWT --- did zeph pass away?

Scroofinator
1 / 5 (1) Jan 19, 2014
I don't see whats so hilarious about debating the final question Einstein himself tried to answer. Got any ideas to add yourself? Probably not, trolls typically aren't original. Until you have something useful to say, I suggest you let the grown ups talk
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jan 19, 2014
150 comments and no AWT --- did zeph pass away?

@meBigGuy
try re-reading and pay attention to syntax
Osteta and Nestle are most likely Zephyr
see
For example, at the water surface the ripples scatter with distance and their wavelength changes during it.

or
Because the spreading of surface ripples takes some time, each of both observers can believe too

posted by Osteta above – jan 17

and
If the light would be massless, it would propagate at distance like the ripple rings at the surface of water

posted by Nestle – jan 15

etc, etc ...
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Jan 19, 2014
Need more cantdrive

You got it.

Why Einstein will never be wrong


Because his disciples aren't too bright...
http://www.ptep-o...2-18.PDF

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2014
Need more cantdrive

You got it.

Why Einstein will never be wrong


Because his disciples aren't too bright...
http://www.ptep-o...2-18.PDF

That paper said exactly - nothin'... The author was neither a disciple of Einstein nor had any real grasp of relativity.
sculpwnwiss
not rated yet Jan 19, 2014
References please?

@Captain Stumpy
see the Gödel metric and what Kurt used it for.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Jan 19, 2014

Either you didn't read my response properly, or you have no sense of humour and do not understand sarcasm.

I understand someone weasling out of putting their 'theory' to the test when I see it.
Which pretty much clinches it: you don't have a theory - you have a delusion.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2014

Either you didn't read my response properly, or you have no sense of humour and do not understand sarcasm.

I understand someone weasling out of putting their 'theory' to the test when I see it.
Which pretty much clinches it: you don't have a theory - you have a delusion.

Got to admit that I cannot think of a way of "proving" my philosophy is correct, all methods seems to fall into the old trap that "if three plus one equals four" you end up proving that "one plus three equals four". By the way, all proofs for the existence of gravity as a force fall into the same class.
As far as I know, my theory is the only one that explains quantum entanglement, how a photon can visit all locations in the universe when moving from A to B, what time is, what momentum is, and where mass comes from, amongst other things.
How are your favorite pet theories doing?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Jan 19, 2014
By the way, all proofs for the existence of gravity as a force fall into the same class.

Nope: See gravity waves. Predicted by theory. Not measured yet. They are a REAL test of a REAL theory. The hallmark of that real theory is: it makes predictions that are at odds with currently observed measurements (because until now we have not had the ability to measure stuff on that level).

Got to admit that I cannot think of a way of "proving" my philosophy is correct

Then why do you defend it (or even would have an inclination to assume it's correct). You just basically said: I made it up and think it's correct. well..that's like religion ("I made god up and therefore he exists")

explains quantum entanglement,how a photon can visit all locations in the universe when moving from A to B, what time is, what momentum is, and where mass comes from

No. You make stuff up. But as you admit yourself: you can't test it. Making stuff up is not the same as explaining it.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2014
Nope: See gravity waves. Predicted by theory. Not measured yet. They are a REAL test of a REAL theory. The hallmark of that real theory is: it makes predictions that are at odds with currently observed measurements (because until now we have not had the ability to measure stuff on that level).

See what I mean? I can easily make up REAL tests for my REAL theory, and find "we can't measure stuff on that level". Whoops, there goes a unicorn, pity we ain't got the technology to photograph something that fast.......
According to my theory,a photon can pass thru' every point in the universe on its way from A to B. According to various microsplit interference experiments, this is the only explanation for a photons' behaviour. Does that prove my theory? I don't think so.
Let me know when you find some Dark Matter, or gravity waves, then I'll accept Newton/Einstein.
komone
5 / 5 (1) Jan 19, 2014
Great article on how science works, and what science is. I'd go as far as to say that you couldn't claim to be a scientist unless you understand it. I agree with an earlier poster who said that these concepts should be taught early in science education.
Tony88
not rated yet Jan 19, 2014
As all the melatonin subsides in the commentators, i would like to request a time stamp of when articles are published by the author(s). Too bad theirs no polling functionality here. I would have liked to known if any of the commentators so far are biologists or chemists.. I never went college so don't ask about me.

Just an observation, it seems to me that when people discuss physics or Einstein that proceeding discussions often turn to space rather than the interactions of systems inside of a plant or the human body.

Tried to follow as much as possible above but the one upmanship ruins it. It started out well and the unique quality of the article should dictate that this comment thread should continue on for days, weeks or an aha moment is reached.

Don't give up, the photon does more than most physicists think! Solve that one first.
Scroofinator
5 / 5 (1) Jan 19, 2014
@Reg Mundy

I never understand you gravity athiests, always needing absolute "proof" to believe. The work done by Newton/Einstein is not only testable but also verified through the math, we just can't test all of it yet. Just because there are a few anomalies that aren't yet explained doesn't mean the whole of the theory is wrong.

Take for instance the theory I posted. It's not a redo of anything, just trying to pick up where Einstein left off. If you assume that there is an added gravitational force exerted by hydrogen and helium, than it actually resolves some of the anomalies in gravity. It would explain why the AU is increasing faster than expected since the fusion process takes 2 H to make 1 He, thus weakening the gravitational force of the sun quicker. It would also explain why we see some ultra massive hydrogen clouds clump together denser than gravity alone predicts. I have thought of many ways to prove this theory, just haven't been able to resolve any as of yet.
Nestle
1 / 5 (1) Jan 19, 2014
Great article on how science works, and what science is
This article essentially says, the general relativity is as correct, as the formula for calculation of the volume of sphere is correct. Until the object is spherical, this formula works well and can be never wrong. We can even agree, that this is how the contemporary science works - but my feeling is, that the science should be a bit more than this.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2014
Great article on how science works, and what science is. I'd go as far as to say that you couldn't claim to be a scientist unless you understand it. I agree with an earlier poster who said that these concepts should be taught early in science education.


WRONG!! This article is the demonstration of an unstable mind. It selects specifics, like the calory theory to reach a general conclusion that is insane! Why not select the theory of "epicycles" to prove that even when a model fits experimental data, the physics assumptions on which the model are based is nonsence (a better word is crap!). Einstein's models are ALL the same crap. The genius of Einstein rests on only one fact, and this is that he realised that according to the greatest physicist who EVER lived, namely Galileo, the relative speed of light is ALWAYS the same. For this he is a genius! For the rest of his models and derivations he has been a physics-moron.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Jan 19, 2014
OK, Scroof, you got a theory that would explain some anomalies in current predictions, just haven't found a way to "prove" it yet.......
So whats so different to my theory, which explains many current anomalies, and I haven,t found a way to prove it...yet.
Well, there is one difference. My theory explains a whole raft of "anomalies" which no other theory seems to do.
If you look at relativity, it explains gravity as a "dimple" in the "fabric" of something called the "space/time continuum" - wow, what was the guy smoking to dream that lot up! Yet, on the back of E=MC2 a lot of people swallowed it, and sure enough, by dint of numerous experiments claim it must be true by implication - rejecting all alternative explanations for their results - even though those very experiments never quite gave exactly the expected and hoped-for results.
Anyway, 'nuff said by me, its rather like arguing with religious fanatics, if you believe that there's a heaven then there's a heaven, if you believe..
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (1) Jan 19, 2014
What's different is my theory is testable and based of data. You seem to want to reinvent the wheel, where as I'm trying to make it tubeless. Another difference is I have an idea of how my problem can be solved, yours seems to be "dreamed up". According to you, we've gotten this far on what, sheer luck? Gravities effect on celestial bodies is very accurately modeled by Newton and Einstein's equations. Whether spacetime is the true cause of gravity or not is pointless to me, you can still use the theory of GR to show how the heavens move.
Osiris1
1 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2014
".. claims to have "proven Einstein wrong". These either contain no mathematical equations and use phrases such as "it is obvious that..", or they are page after page of complex equations with dozens of scientific terms used in non-traditional ways."

Such are voices of people who fear to starve and freeze in the lonely dark future promised by Einstein's forbidding our civilization from speeds faster than 'light' in a universe whose traverse for trade and new homes demands a form of an ability to do so. In this same universe are travelers with this ability..the UFO's recorded and denied throughout history. That we have nothing needed by them that they cannot simply reach out and take is a fact of history. Ultimately our species will become nomadic to survive. First foraging among the low gravity wells of our own heritage, the Sol system, and then to any nearby bodies that we can reach that have matter disks in orbit. Fusion our power, hydroponics our food, ships our shelter.
ubavontuba
3 / 5 (1) Jan 19, 2014
@Captain Stumpy
@Uba
what REALLY surprises me is the LACK of noise from Ubavontuba!
Hey, UBA! why dont you post HERE that theory you showed me where you showed Einstein to be wrong? that theory you gave me via PM's?

i am SURE that others would LOVE to see it!

and i still haven't forgot you... i WILL get back to you on it.
To be clear, I only claim to have shown an Einstein assertion to be wrong, not his theories.

Reg Mundy
1.5 / 5 (4) Jan 19, 2014
Hi Scroof
What's different is my theory is testable and based of data.

Yeh, right......
You seem to want to reinvent the wheel, where as I'm trying to make it tubeless. Another difference is I have an idea of how my problem can be solved, yours seems to be "dreamed up". According to you, we've gotten this far on what, sheer luck? Gravities effect on celestial bodies is very accurately modeled by Newton and Einstein's equations. Whether spacetime is the true cause of gravity or not is pointless to me, you can still use the theory of GR to show how the heavens move.

The Newton/Einstein formula survive because they are good working models of our reality. My point is that they in no way explain what it is they are modelling. They offer no insight into what gravity is, for example.
Nestle
Jan 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Nestle
1 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2014
With decreasing distance scale (bellow 1.73 cm) the influence of underwater density fluctuations (Brownian noise) and longitudinal waves will become dominant and the water surface can be approximated with elastic quantum string, the matter density of which at each time and space interval is equivalent to energy density introduced into it. Briefly speaking, if we introduce some energy to water surface, then the surface becomes deformed and the another ripples will propagate more slowly through it. This leads into Schrodinger equation behavior, which has been already modeled with Couder experiments too.

The point of the Boltzmann brain model therefore is, the observable reality will be divided into two low-dimensional zones, which can be described with formal equations of QM and GR well. Outside of it these distance scales the observable universe behaves just like less or more complex mess.
Nestle
1 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2014
We can actually recognize these two distance scales easily, because just at these two scales the observable Universe appears like being composed of less or more regular spheres. The large stars composed of mostly of electron orbitals are pretty regular spheres in the same way, like the electron orbitals. These two distance scales are the validity scopes of quantum mechanics and general relativity theories, at which these two theories work perfectly. Outside of these distance scales we can observe the CP and CPT symmetry violations, until the observable reality will not change into irregular mess again.

Therefore I don't like, when someone says, that the QM and/or GR are BS - these two theories have a good meaning in the random Universe model and we can model them with water waves - we just should respect their validity scopes.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (1) Jan 19, 2014
Thank you for that Nestle. Excellent description of the wave/particle duality that our visible universe functions on. We know a photon exhibits both properties. I imagine gravity waves in the same way, only the 2d wave is a toroidal shell going in all directions emanating out from a central point. I think of gravity in a similar way, only the warp in spacetime emanates in all directions creating a sphere around the center of gravity, kinda like this (http://orbismedio...31.jpg). Everything within the radius of the sphere would feel a pull due to the "gravity density" of the central mass, with the vector force decaying over the inverse of the distance squared.

The thing for me is everything in the universe is energy, so why does gravitation rely on mass? I think it's actually due to the energy density of the atoms themselves, and that it's just because the mass to charge ratio for all elements are so close to 1 that mass alone works normally
Nestle
not rated yet Jan 19, 2014
Gravitational waves would play a role of underwater sound waves in this model (i.e. the random chaotic noise, in which these waves manifest itself at the water surface, being more specific). The gravity in this model results from shielding of these waves with massive bodies.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Jan 19, 2014
The thing for me is everything in the universe is energy, so why does gravitation rely on mass? I think it's actually due to the energy density of the atoms themselves, and that it's just because the mass to charge ratio for all elements are so close to 1 that mass alone works normally.

Am inclined to agree with your energy density postulate. I have other extension thoughts on it, but without extensive math skills, any verbal explanation might fall short of exactly what I want to convey. The closest I can say at this point is the sum is greater than the observed parts.
swordsman
1 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2014
Einstein will never (?) be proven wrong???? Crappo.
I can show you how and why he was wrong. The first mistake was to assume that electromagnetic radiation (one of the fundamentals of his theory) is spherical. It is not spherical, as has been shown by measurements dating back to 1936. The second mistake was accepting the Minkowski interpretation of a "four dimensional system (x, y, z). In fact the Minkowski equation appears in the eigenvalue vector of true radiation. The electromagnetic radiation model of measurement has been proven by billions of tests, and the specific equations exist. See www.science-site.net and check it out. It is real.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2014
To be clear, I only claim to have shown an Einstein assertion to be wrong, not his theories.


@Uba
then share it
and allow those better versed in the motion of rockets than i am a chance to view your paper and refute it.
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2014
AA I don't know how you do it. Expansion theory. Christ.

Word(s) to Reg: explain orbits.

I go to a great deal of trouble to write all this down in a book, and so do many other people. I ain't gonna spend hours doing it here. Read a f******g book, and don't come back with spurious illogical refutations such as "the moon can never drop below the horizon" and similar crap.


Right, and then you go and call us religious zealots while you wallow in your delusions. No,no Reg, why don't YOU go read a book, and yes, you get to defend your ideas HERE because HERE is where you spew your bullshit.

Now, EXPLAIN ORBITS according to EXPANSION THEORY. Do it for all to see, big mouth (err, or big fingers, as required under the circumstances I guess).
indio007
not rated yet Jan 20, 2014



Yeah, you could do GPS without relativity, but then you'd be off by more than 30 meters.


Your incorrect. An that is baseless supposition.

GPS satellites' clock rate and the receiver's clock rate are not adjusted as a function of their velocity relative to one another.

Check out Ron Hatch http://www.ivanik...lGPS.pdf
Engineering RESULTS trump theoretical models all day long.

Nestle
1 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2014
Einstein will never (?) be proven wrong
If we omit some religious connotations, this page sums some problems with Einsteinian relativity well. Even if one third of them would be relevant, it would be enough to force the relativists into rethinking of their theory.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2014
One can't help but laugh and shake one's head! Zephyr, Mundi, Prins, Scoofinator all falling over each other with their "it's obvious that my theory is the correct one, as anybody with a half a brain and isn't blinded by mainstream indoctrination can see"!

Oh the irony!

How sad this all takes place on a site devoted to science.... :(
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2014
@ Maggnus,

As usual you are displaying your ignorance: Galileo explained in detail that motion is the coordinate transformation from the inertial reference frame within which an object is stationary, into another inertial reference frame relative to which the SAME object is moving.

Einstein violated Galileo's inertia by transforming the coordinates of a moving rod into the inertial reference frame within which the rod is stationary: A TOTALLY PHYSICALLY aMEANINGLESS TRANSFORMATION. One need not prove now that Einstein "was" wrong since it needs no proof whatsoever that Einstein did not understand the simple physics that Galileo already explained 300 years before Einstein.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2014
@ Maggnus,

As usual you are displaying your ignorance: Galileo explained in detail that motion is the coordinate transformation from the inertial reference frame within which an object is stationary, into another inertial reference frame relative to which the SAME object is moving.

Einstein violated Galileo's inertia by transforming the coordinates of a moving rod into the inertial reference frame within which the rod is stationary: A TOTALLY PHYSICALLY aMEANINGLESS TRANSFORMATION. One need not prove now that Einstein "was" wrong since it needs no proof whatsoever that Einstein did not understand the simple physics that Galileo already explained 300 years before Einstein.
And anyone with half a brain could see that it is obvious you have the correct answer, but for the fact they are blinded by being indoctrinated by mainstream science.

Right Johan?

Nestle
4.5 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2014
it's obvious that my theory is the correct one, as anybody with a half a brain and isn't blinded by mainstream indoctrination can see
This is in essence the point of the above article too. Liberal proponents of new ideas have false sense of uniqueness, conservatives proponents of mainstream have a false sense of consensus.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2014
One can't help but laugh at how simple minded Maggnus is. Are you sure you understand how a theory works? It's a set of logical ideas that intend to solve a problem. Tell me how anything we've said has been illogical in your (biased) opinion?

Is this not the proper forum for a discussion like this? I guess you understand the universe completely so this topic is below you.

I'll give you another thought to my theory. I find it odd that Newton's law looks a lot like Coulomb's law. Instead of mass we use charge, and instead of the gravitational constant we have Coulomb's constant.

I'll keep considering all of the logical theory's on this site until someone smarter can prove them wrong. So if you can, please do so. Otherwise, I'm gonna to continue to ignore your mindless comments just like I always do.

Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2014
Is this not the proper forum for a discussion like this? I guess you understand the universe completely so this topic is below you.

I'll give you another thought to my theory. I find it odd that Newton's law looks a lot like Coulomb's law. Instead of mass we use charge, and instead of the gravitational constant we have Coulomb's constant.

I'll keep considering all of the logical theory's on this site until someone smarter can prove them wrong. So if you can, please do so. Otherwise, I'm gonna to continue to ignore your mindless comments just like I always do.

Boy you told me! You go Scroof! Tell us again how it is that your theory is so logical you only discuss the theory on a site that limits you to 1000 characters (not words mind you, characters).
Oh, wait I know! Its because it's so obvious anyone should see it!
FWIW the article is about how people who don't know how science works make erroneous statements about science. Ironic don't you think?
Remigiusz
3.5 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2014
Today, the major part of theoretical physics has gotten lost in bizarre constructs that are completely disconnected from reality, in mockery of the methods that grounded success of physics for 400 years. Fortunately, an increasing number of people in the scientific community and the public are becoming aware that bold ideas such as "string theory" , multiverses, "chaotic inflation", Big Bang Theory, " Standard Model " have little to do with real physics and Reality. Unfortunately, before these fantasies took over, Physics was already ailing. Albert Einstein transformed physics in science-fiction and opened the field for his followers. !!! Mark Wise is leading theorist working on particle physics beyond the standard model. At a seminar he talked about the problem of where the masses of the elementary particles come from : We've been remarkably unsuccessful at solving that problem. We have no idea why neutrinos ( or any of the other particles) have mass or what explains their mass value
Remigiusz
1 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2014
Economics can produce bubbles, and so can science. It appears to be a universal mechanism of human aspiration that, while following the seemingly obvious, methods can gradually slip into absurdity, leaving behind unresolved problems. A particularly worrying symptom of the current state of affairs in physics is so-called discovery of the Higgs boson at CERN. What was actually discovered were a number of unexplained signals, raising many questions for everyone who takes a sober perspective. These signals are pushed to serve as evidence for the long-theorized Higgs boson supporting the "standard model" of particle physics, although this standard model is not even a well-defined theory. The CERN particle search is the most expensive experiment ever conducted, and the thousands of scientists / without knowledge what "mass" is , I know !/, doing high-energy research there had to celebrate any outcome as a breakthrough, if only to justify the billions of dollars of public money being spent But I have more esteem for scientists' self-indulgent fantasies about imaginary multiverses or seeking the dark matter inside our Planet than for who, in pursuit of power, wealth, and military vengeance at expense of the environment and the well-being of humankind, are about to destroy our real world and thus put into danger the whole enterprise of Homo Sapiens on this planet.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2014
And anyone with half a brain could see that it is obvious you have the correct answer, but for the fact they are blinded by being indoctrinated by mainstream science.

Right Johan?


Let us see whether you can answer a simple question. Was Galileo's explanation of inertia and relativity correct? Yes or no?

According to Galileo, motion is a transformation from the inertial reference frame in which the object is stationary into another inertial refrence frame in which it is NOT observed to be stationary: Yes or No?

Thus when you do a transformation from an inertial refrence frame relative to which an object is moving into the reference frame in which it is stationary, then according to Galileo this transformation has no physics meaning,

This is what Einstein did! And therefore Einstein was, and still is, "obviously" WRONG!
Nestle
not rated yet Jan 20, 2014
motion is a transformation from the inertial reference frame in which the object is stationary into another inertial refrence frame in which it is NOT observed to be stationary: Yes or No?
This is an acceleration or not? The motion doesn't imply the change in speed.
Maggnus
3 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2014
And anyone with half a brain could see that it is obvious you have the correct answer, but for the fact they are blinded by being indoctrinated by mainstream science.

Right Johan?


Let us see whether you can answer a simple question. Was Galileo's explanation of inertia and relativity correct? Yes or no?

According to Galileo, motion is a transformation from the inertial reference frame in which the object is stationary into another inertial refrence frame in which it is NOT observed to be stationary: Yes or No?

Thus when you do a transformation from an inertial refrence frame relative to which an object is moving into the reference frame in which it is stationary, then according to Galileo this transformation has no physics meaning,

This is what Einstein did! And therefore Einstein was, and still is, "obviously" WRONG!


Immaterial. And off topic. That you don't get that makes me laugh.
Remigiusz
1 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2014
Albert Einstein did not know what he measured as a mass , did not understand the speed of light, what gravity is, no idea of time-space . It looks that 500 years from moment when Copernicus idea changed our view of the Universe time for new revolution. Yes ! I know what we measure as mass, what is gravity, what we measure as speed of light, what is time-space and why Universes may be like "potatoes" in different parts of time-space. I can explain what dark matter and dark matter is. More I can measurements of quantum time-space and how particles are created, from where is entropy. I can explain why we are so important for Universe but also why It dose not care if we will not survive. And please do not tell that halve brain or ....because our brain is just computer. It works the way it is programed. The equation E=mc^2 has nothing to do with reality. Simply : IT IS STUPID. Answer yourself about followers.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2014
I find it odd that Newton's law looks a lot like Coulomb's law. Instead of mass we use charge, and instead of the gravitational constant we have Coulomb's constant. I'll keep

Actually Scroof... Not that it changes your point any, but - I believe Newton was here first, so Coulombs law looks like his...
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2014
Nothing gets the crackpots going like mentioning Einstein...

My favorite crackpot assertion: "I have an amazing theory that I am certain of, but I can't do the math."

Then learn the math! Nothing will confirm or deny your suspicions quicker than putting your ideas on firm ground and doing some calculations. I can't tell you how many times I had "GRRET IDEA!" only to have it dashed to pieces by cold, unfeeling, mathematical calculations.

Don't get me wrong. Unlike some people, I do think there is value in "crackpot" thought. If anything, it can help you to think outside the box.

What doesn't have value, however, is to wildly speculate, and then conclude that accepted theory is wrong because of that speculation, or because of your philosophical preference alone. Think it's wrong? Actually do the math. Try to understand why scientists reached those conclusions in the first place. You might be surprised by what you find.
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2014
The equation E=mc^2 has nothing to do with reality.

Actually, Remi, it has EVERYTHING to do with reality if interpreted as -
E (a result) = m (a variable within our observational capabilities) time c2 (a constant - that can also be anything, observed or imagined. Altho why he bothered to square it, I don't know).
IE - E (alertness) = m(1st cup of coffee in the morning) times c2 (me)
It was a subtle, non-obvious way of stating "you get what you get when you change stuff". IS genius in the way he stated - here's a simple formula that works in 99.999% of any case - you can apply it to whatever you'd like.
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2014
Nothing gets the crackpots going like mentioning Einstein...

My favorite crackpot assertion: "I have an amazing theory that I am certain of, but I can't do the math."

Then learn the math! Nothing will confirm or deny your suspicions quicker than putting your ideas on firm ground and doing some calculations. I can't tell you how many times I had "GRRET IDEA!" only to have it dashed to pieces by cold, unfeeling, mathematical calculations.

Don't get me wrong. Unlike some people, I do think there is value in "crackpot" thought. If anything, it can help you to think outside the box.

What doesn't have value, however, is to wildly speculate, and then conclude that accepted theory is wrong because of that speculation, or because of your philosophical preference alone. Think it's wrong? Actually do the math. Try to understand why scientists reached those conclusions in the first place. You might be surprised by what you find.


One of the best comments on this thread.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2014
One need not prove now that Einstein "was" wrong since it needs no proof whatsoever that Einstein did not understand the simple physics that Galileo already explained 300 years before Einstein.

This is what Einstein did! And therefore Einstein was, and still is, "obviously" WRONG!


this is MONTY PYTHON logic at its BEST!

so... if that is the case, how would you explain the continued success of relativity today? If it is based upon a fallacy, then there should be no way that it would successfully answer ANY questions, especially regarding motion and/or light, etc.
and given that it IS so highly successful, that means...????
this is an easy answer!
...someone is full of bullcrap!
And I dont think it is Einstein!

reading a lot of the above comments is like watching Mony Python:
"so... if she weighs as much as a duck, she's made of wood, and therefore... A WITCH!"
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2014
@Scroofinator, Nestle/Osteta/Zephyr, johanfprins, Remigiusz
obviously, as each of you posit that you are considerably more intelligent than Einstein judging by the comments above, why is it that you are not widely known and your hypothesis are not accepted?
Methinks it boils down to PROOF
When Einstein brought a theory to the table, it was proven, and then adopted, and the world knew...
so far, you are bringing a LOT to the table, but you have gone nowhere.
IOW- you can talk all you want, explain all you want, use as much PYTHON logic as you want... your hypothesis goes nowhere because it offers no way to validate it.

Maggnus is right- yall always say
And anyone with half a brain could see that it is obvious you have the correct answer, but for the fact they are blinded by being indoctrinated by mainstream science

problem is... no one understands because we are not living in the heat of our faith, we are using logic and science.
denounce all you like.
no proof=pseudoscience
TimLong2001
2 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2014
Never say never! There actually are problems with "spacetime", "c as a limiting velocity", the source of gravity, and a general misinterpretation of the dilation equations for m, l and t, which, for time, has to do with rates of information reception where data is carried by E-M photons. Einstein was correct however in his observation that "God does not play dice with the universe."
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2014
The equation E=mc^2 has nothing to do with reality.

Actually, Remi, it has EVERYTHING to do with reality if interpreted as -
E (a result) = m (a variable within our observational capabilities) time c2 (a constant - that can also be anything, observed or imagined. Altho why he bothered to square it, I don't know).
IE - E (alertness) = m(1st cup of coffee in the morning) times c2 (me)
It was a subtle, non-obvious way of stating "you get what you get when you change stuff". IS genius in the way he stated - here's a simple formula that works in 99.999% of any case - you can apply it to whatever you'd like.

Aww, come on people! How can anyone be on this board DISCUSSING THIS and not know why he "bothered" to square it?!? WTF? I mean look it UP, it's no harder than Pyythh....Pie Tag Goar Ass, you know ! What's his face? That old Geek guy with the pointy angles! Shheeeesh.
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2014
One need not prove now that Einstein "was" wrong since it needs no proof whatsoever that Einstein did not understand the simple physics that Galileo already explained 300 years before Einstein.

This is what Einstein did! And therefore Einstein was, and still is, "obviously" WRONG!


this is MONTY PYTHON logic at its BEST!


That's for sure. Since the mods gave up on their own board a couple of years ago almost all threads on Physorg basically morph into crackpot versions of "The Argument Clinic".

Crackpot: "No they don't."
Scroofinator
3 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2014
Shockingly, more trollific comments from Maggnus. Can't even support a rational discussion. Just repeats himself over and over.

@ Stumpy
If you think I'm trying to be smarter than Einstein you haven't been following closely. I've said all along we have more data than he ever did, so maybe we can find something he missed. Do you not remember that Einstein knew his theory was incomplete? The reason I bring up these ideas is so people who have a better understanding and are better at the calculations might be able to make something of it. I'm trying to work through the math, don't assume I'm just making outlandish claims based on nothing. How have all you fundamentalists been doing for the last 100 years with blinders on?

@ Whydening Gyre
Thanks for clearing that up
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2014
The equation E=mc^2 has nothing to do with reality.

Actually, Remi, it has EVERYTHING to do with reality if interpreted as -
E (a result) = m (a variable within our observational capabilities) time c2 (a constant - that can also be anything, observed or imagined. Altho why he bothered to square it, I don't know).


Einstein didn't just "choose" c^2. E=mc^2 naturally falls out of calculating the work done in accelerating an object so that it moves through several inertial reference frames. The resulting integral has the solution of W = Delta sqrt(p^2c^2 + m^2c^4) from p_initial to p_final, where p is the relativistic momentum (which is obtained by calculating how a relativistic object should accelerate from a force). Since W = KE_final - KE_initial, this suggests that KE = mc^2 when p = 0.
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2014
Don't you crackpots get it? You're like the guy wandering around at a party and you run into a group of people all discussing a 3D stereogram, and they're all talking about how delightfully clever the picture is, but you CAN'T SEE IT. All YOU see is a haze of coloured noise. And they're all going on about how realistic the 1970 Corvette in the picture looks, but, but they must all be CRAZY because there's NOTHING THERE but a haze of coloured dots!

And then this other guy wanders by and before anyone can say more then "hey, hi Matt!" HE says, "Wow, cool, a 1970 'Vette!".

Which can only mean that HE'S IN ON IT and they're just trying to make you look stupid!

But Matt says, "No, no, look, step back right here, see, a 1970 'vette." But you know they're all just playin' you! And before long you start to figure out what those coloured dots REALLY MEAN! And your going to show them who's REALLY CRAZY!

Well, yeah. Except, you know, it really is just a 1970 'Vette.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2014
then share it
and allow those better versed in the motion of rockets than i am a chance to view your paper and refute it.
I doubt anyone here would be interested.

Incidently, I don't think the PM system works anymore. Is it working for anyone else?

Reg Mundy
2 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2014
@Gawad
Word(s) to Reg: explain orbits.

I go to a great deal of trouble to write all this down in a book, and so do many other people. I ain't gonna spend hours doing it here. Read a f******g book, and don't come back with spurious illogical refutations such as "the moon can never drop below the horizon" and similar crap.


Right, and then you go and call us religious zealots while you wallow in your delusions. No,no Reg, why don't YOU go read a book, and yes, you get to defend your ideas HERE because HERE is where you spew your bullshit.

Now, EXPLAIN ORBITS according to EXPANSION THEORY. Do it for all to see, big mouth (err, or big fingers, as required under the circumstances I guess).

No, I didn't call people religious zealots, I simply used them as an example that once somebody truly believes in something, it is very difficult to make them consider any alternative.
By the way, I've read just about every relevant book, you obviously haven't.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2014
Don't you crackpots get it? You're like the guy wandering around at a party and you run into a group of people all discussing a 3D stereogram, and they're all talking about how delightfully clever the picture is, but you CAN'T SEE IT. All YOU see is a haze of coloured noise. And they're all going on about how realistic the 1970 Corvette in the picture looks, but, but they must all be CRAZY...
And then this other guy wanders by and before anyone can say more then "hey, hi Matt!" HE says, "Wow, cool, a 1970 'Vette!".
Which can only mean that HE'S IN ON IT and they're just trying to make you look stupid!
But Matt says, "No, no, look, step back right here, see, a 1970 'vette."... And before long you start to figure out what those coloured dots REALLY MEAN! And your going to show them who's REALLY CRAZY!
Well, yeah. Except, you know, it really is just a 1970 'Vette.

Convoluted & a little obtuse - but I like it!
But - Why don't THEY see the naked Scarlett Johansen sitting in it?
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2014
By the way, I've read just about every relevant book, you obviously haven't.


Blathering to change the topic is cheap Reg, why don't you put your fingers where your mouth is (unless of course that's up in the nether place, in which case you can spare us).

EXPANSION THEORY ORBITS, Reg. Come on, your silence is deafening and only shows you have in fact read no books and can only self-publish.

EXPANSION THEORY ORBITS, Reg. Come on, push a little harder....breath....push....breath....
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2014
Don't you crackpots get it... Except, you know, it really is just a 1970 'Vette.

Convoluted & a little obtuse - but I like it!


"Convoluted & a little obtuse"? Well, I'm an egg head! What do you expect???
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2014
Thus when you do a transformation from an inertial refrence frame relative to which an object is moving into the reference frame in which it is stationary, then according to Galileo this transformation has no physics meaning

This is what Einstein did! And therefore Einstein was, and still is, "obviously" WRONG!
-And to think you religionists almost had galileo killed, and now youre using him to discredit another heretic. Who says the church doesnt evolve?
Nestle
2 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2014
The violations of relativity are rather easy to find, if you know where to look for it:
Intriguingly, the gamma-ray delay is about a day longer than radio observations report for this system. And while the flares and their playback show similar gamma-ray brightness, in radio wavelengths one blazar image is about four times brighter than the other
Both phenomena are predicted with dispersive model of light: the shortwavelength waves penetrate particle environment slower and they're more scattered during it.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2014
Don't you crackpots get it... Except, you know, it really is just a 1970 'Vette.

Convoluted & a little obtuse - but I like it!


"Convoluted & a little obtuse"? Well, I'm an egg head! What do you expect???

Actually, Matt and I were both wrong - it's a 67 and that was actually Megan Fox...
meBigGuy
3 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2014
I think the entire premise of the article is totally broken. Wrong is wrong. Close enough doesn't make it right.

Newton was wrong. Just because his incorrect equations yield results that are "good enough" doesn't mean his basic premise was not wrong. Newton's space was constant. That's totally broken.

Einstein is wrong too (he has to be, because there is no perfect answer), but his incorrect equations will continue to yield "good enough" results.

As for all the delusional freaks and crackpots posting here, I still say HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I read the comments for the entertainment (mostly) and the occasional intelligent comment (usually getting a 5)

What specific results predicted by an Einstein theory yield data not verified by experiment? What alternative theory gets everything else he correctly predicts, and also solves the observed anomolies.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2014
@Scroofinator
you are correct, and I apologize. I lumped you in based on a couple short comments.

@Zephyr/osteta/nestle
The violations of relativity are rather easy to find, if you know where to look for it:

gravitational lensing was one of the first observational tests of general relativity, under its earlier name, the gravitational deflection of starlight by Sun. It was first reported from an expedition by Arthur Eddington in 1915 and has been retested as new technologies with increasing precision became available.
More recently, it has been tested in communications with interplanetary spacecraft and in the
Hipparcos astrometry mission etc etc etc

given that relativity is well tested
your aether hypothesis has been debunked for a century

Relativity is confirmed regularly by real science
Aether (or do you prefer Dense aether?) is pseudo-science

try re-reading the above article
Nestle
1 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2014
Relativity is confirmed regularly by real science
So how do you explain that "the gamma-ray delay is about a day longer than radio observations report"? Dense ae ther theory was proposed by Oliver Lodge in 1904 and because nobody did argue with him, it cannot be debunked. This model has never been discussed with physicists. You're not able to recognize it, so you're not competent to judge it. You can call it a "pseudo-science", a "potato" or "pink elephant" with the same result - it's just a twaddling of guy, who has no idea, what he is talking about. Even if you would know it by some miracle, such a labeling doesn't represents an argument. It's just a labeling - i.e. pseudoscientific attitude by itself. Why? Because the scientists don't label - the scientists always argue. Einstein would never say: "this idea is a pseudoscience". So you even don't know, what the actual scientific behavior is. You're a religious crackpot by your very nature, who is masking as a science proponent.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2014
@Zephyr
Dense ae ther theory was proposed by Oliver Lodge in 1904 and because nobody did argue with him, it cannot be debunked

you consider this logical?
DAether HYPOTHESIS is crackpot-science
This model has never been discussed with physicists.

physicists dismiss it because it is crackpot science. it debunks itself
You're not able to recognize it, so you're not competent to judge it. You can call it a "pseudo-science", a "potato" or "pink elephant" with the same result - it's just a twaddling of guy, who has no idea, what he is talking about.

this coming from the same Zephyr that STILL has not been able to give me empirical data and proof of his theory going on, what? a year almost?
pot calling the kettle black, Z.
So you even don't know, what the actual scientific behavior is. You're a religious crackpot by your very nature, who is masking as a science proponent

nope. i am a fire fighter (ret)
ya cant BS reality
no proof = CRACKPOT
Bye Z
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 20, 2014
@Zephyr

P.S. one last thing.
You're a religious crackpot by your very nature, who is masking as a science proponent

i despise people who put religion in to Science
you would know that had you paid attention.

i dont care about religion.
i dont even care about alternate theories, especially if they use valid science

but when a DA or aether hypothesis acolyte calls me religious for saying that he has YET to give any verifiable empirical data, peer reviewed data that can be reviewed and picked apart, then what does that mean?
i hit a sore spot.

physics has used relativity and (along with QM, etc) it is the most successful theory we ever had, and aether was debunked a century ago, which is part of what your theory is based on.

basing a theory on debunked science makes it CRACKPOT garbage. not even real science, no matter HOW wordy and technical you get.
sorry for the "pseudo" crack, i will just use CRACKPOT for now on.

Bye bye, Zephyr
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2014
Cap'n
I don't believe he intended religious to imply what the general population define it as. I think it was more to say that he thinks you appear to "thump the Science Bible" as an argument.
You and I probly don't know a tenth of the info some of these guys do, so naturally we have to adapt a more general perception relative to theirs (see how I worked general and relativity into that? cool, hunh?).
Additionally. Debunked is probably the wrong choice of word in this context. More like not pursued, since particle studies promised numerous more predictable results.
Also, I don't think "Aether" actually means a cloud of particles. More like a "field", like-say magnetic. Totally not observable until matter interacts with it, making it measurable so that "science" can observe it. Nestle just is attempting to describe/explain how he perceives that field (or fields) interacts synchronously with matter. I don't think he's looking at the "particle" so much as looking at the "action". (cont)
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2014
(cont)
It's my observation that some only view a topic using the same tools relative to what their "focus" (job, filed of study, etc.)is, rather than trying to fit how everything might be.
It would behoove all of us (Scientists, Engineers and even us Joe Schmoes) to take a minute, step back and consider what WE might have missed in constructing our own respective world views. Cuz we all know (especially engineers) that what we think we know - doesn't always work. Confrontation, derision, belittling, etc is usually a reaction to a that niggling little fear that everything we know MIGHT not be exactly as we've learned it.
Either that or I'm wrong and it's just the way people relate to each other(so this whole speech was just a waste of typing time).
Either way - just my opinion...
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2014
@Whydening Gyre
i understand... but...
this is an old, tired argument that has been going on for quite some time.
There are other issues that you are not aware of, I would share some of it but we dont have PM ability nor do I have your e-mail address.
normally I try to be understanding

What he means is what he said
we've been over this ground many times
he doesnt offer proof/empirical data/peer reviewed ANYTHING
whereas relativity and QM are the most successful theories we've ever had

to REPLACE them, a theory would have to be exceptional, and make predictions more accurately, better, and more successfully than GR/SR etc.

Aether DA/whatever does not
makes NO predictions
(although he will probably say it does, AFTER the fact, which, by definition is NOT a PREdiction)

and he continually uses the same tired water/wave explanation
just wait till he gets to the water-bug part

his hypothesis is useless
it cannot accurately make ANY predictions now, let alone replace GR/SR etc

johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2014
@ Maggnus,

The echos coming from the hollow cavity sitting on your upper extremity is just contaminating any possibility of a logical discussion.

When one has a physics derivation to make one has
1. Things that you know
2. Things that you do not yet know.

The solution is ALWAYS to use what you know to derive from this what you want to know. If you use what you DO NOT KNOW in order to derive (or tranform this knowledge into) what you already know, you are a moron.

Einstein knew that the rod is stationary within its own inertial reference frame and that it has a stationary length L; and wanted to know what the length of the rod is within the reference frame relative to which it is moving. Thus any sane person would know that you must transform the coordinates of the stationary rod (WHICH YOU KNOW) into the reference frame relative to which the rod is moving. Einstein did the opposite: So how can this be correct?

For God's sake!?
arom
1 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2014
The other way to trump Einstein would be to develop a theory that clearly shows how Einstein's theory is an approximation of your new theory, or how the experimental tests general relativity has passed are also passed by your theory. Ideally, your new theory will also make new predictions that can be tested in a reasonable way. If you can do that, and can present your ideas clearly, you will be listened to. String theory and entropic gravity are examples of models that try to do just that.

How about new ideas which improve Einstein's theory philosophic weak point (such as how the conventional empty space could be curved) to be a more complete one, which could be understandable explanation like this….

http://www.vacuum...=7〈=en

Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2014
@ Johan - For god's sake is right. Your questions are still immaterial , and still off topic.

Try answering this question this Johan - what is this article about?

johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2014
@Maggnus,

This article is all about incorrect llogic and a lack of physics insight on the part of the "astrophysicist" who wrote it. That is what it is all about!

I have not asked immaterial questions but tried to explain to an empty head like you that a model in physics ONLY allows you to derive what you do not know in terms of what you know; not the other way around like Eisntein did when he derived length contraction which does not happen at all!
indio007
3 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2014
Nothing gets the crackpots going like mentioning Einstein...

My favorite crackpot assertion: "I have an amazing theory that I am certain of, but I can't do the math."

Then learn the math! Nothing will confirm or deny your suspicions quicker than putting your ideas on firm ground and doing some calculations. I can't tell you how many times I had "GRRET IDEA!" only to have it dashed to pieces by cold, unfeeling, mathematical calculations.

Don't get me wrong. Unlike some people, I do think there is value in "crackpot" thought. If anything, it can help you to think outside the box.

What doesn't have value, however, is to wildly speculate, and then conclude that accepted theory is wrong because of that speculation, or because of your philosophical preference alone. Think it's wrong? Actually do the math. Try to understand why scientists reached those conclusions in the first place. You might be surprised by what you find.


Funny comment considering Einstein divides by 0.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2014
Nothing gets the crackpots going like mentioning Einstein...


Funny comment considering Einstein divides by 0


What on earth are you talking about?
Scroofinator
not rated yet Jan 21, 2014
this is an old, tired argument that has been going on for quite some time[q/]

Stumpy, this is the precisely the problem. Obviously something is unaccounted for. I tend to believe it's because we know more about the specifics of the atom then Einstein did. Like the mass defects we see when we calculate the mass of an atom compared to when we measure it.

Point is, us non-physicist need help from the people who actually do work with this stuff all the time. It's been quite a while since I studied this stuff in college, so getting back up to speed is more difficult than expected. This being a physics site I think many people, including myself, are hopeful someone will be able to help with these "crackpot" ideas.

One more thing: Einstein was also considered a "crackpot" before Max Planck believed in his work...
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2014
@indio007

You stated: "Funny comment considering Einstein divides by 0."

Bravo!! It is amazing that for more than 100 years our brilliant theoretical physicists do not know that when x^2+y^2+z^2+u^2=0 and X^2+Y^2+Z^2+U^2=0, simple mathematics have always been such that when you set x^2+y^2+z^2+u^2=X^2+Y^2+Z^2+U^2, then you are dividing by zero. Both Einstein and Minkowski did this.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2014
@indio007

You stated: "Funny comment considering Einstein divides by 0."

Bravo!! It is amazing that for more than 100 years our brilliant theoretical physicists do not know that when x^2+y^2+z^2+u^2=0 and X^2+Y^2+Z^2+U^2=0, simple mathematics have always been such that when you set x^2+y^2+z^2+u^2=X^2+Y^2+Z^2+U^2, then you are dividing by zero. Both Einstein and Minkowski did this.


I wonder if the Hausdorff dimension of the wrongness of this argument is transcendental or merely irrational.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2014
@Maggnus,

This article is all about incorrect llogic and a lack of physics insight on the part of the "astrophysicist" who wrote it. That is what it is all about!

I have not asked immaterial questions but tried to explain to an empty head like you that a model in physics ONLY allows you to derive what you do not know in terms of what you know; not the other way around like Eisntein did when he derived length contraction which does not happen at all!


No, dumdum, you have continually done exactly what the article says crackpots like you do. I don't give a rats ass whether or not you are right. The issue raised by the article is the actions of crackpots like you, who loudly claim to have proven some scientific postulate without pausing to consider whether your theory can replicate and improve on what the theory you propose to replace can do.

Go quack somewhere else now, you freaking loon!
Scroofinator
not rated yet Jan 21, 2014
Maggnus, all I can ask is why?

I don't give a rats ass whether or not you are right.


Why wouldn't you consider any other possible explanations? Is this what science has become, complacent? You see, we are theorizing about the true cause of gravity, which is something every astrophysicist should be doing. Either your so set with status quo, or your being defensive because your "gifted" mind hasn't thought of these ideas yet. Either way, I don't remember a post from us "crackpots" that has said "I know I'm right", so try to act civil and bring some fresh comments/ideas to the topic.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2014
I wonder if the Hausdorff dimension of the wrongness of this argument is transcendental or merely irrational.


Ot is plain Kindergarten algebra that is used every day by excited children to show that one can prove that any number can be proved to be equal to zero
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2014
I wonder if the Hausdorff dimension of the wrongness of this argument is transcendental or merely irrational.


Ot is plain Kindergarten algebra that is used every day by excited children to show that one can prove that any number can be proved to be equal to zero


Transcendental it is...
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2014
@ Maggnus,

Thank you for proving that you are to stupid to argue logic, and too dishonest to admit that you have lost an argument. Keep on throwing your toys out of your cot. It supplies some amusement even though it is pathetic even for a brainless individual like you!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2014
@Scroofinator
Obviously something is unaccounted for

absolutely, and the current physics community is working hard to find out the answers.
getting back up to speed is more difficult than expected

I can relate. Burning the midnight oil here
One more thing: Einstein was also considered a "crackpot"

true
BUT
Einstein was vindicated by experimentation and validated by proof
we STILL use relativity

my point is that CRACKPOT science like DA/AW/EU hypothesis which has already been refuted belongs on a site for religious beliefs
it is a FAITH
NOT SCIENCE
it has NO predictive power, nor does it provide empirical data
it references itself or links to pages of known cranks
IOW= CRACKPOT

this is not to say that all ideas should not be considered
i am very open
but when an idea is considered, and discarded
using scientific method
and then adherents claim conspiracy or "anyone with a brain" etc etc etc
you get acolytes

acolytes=faith=religion
which is not science

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2014
Captain Stumpy,

You posted: "my point is that CRACKPOT science like DA/AW/EU hypothesis which has already been refuted belongs on a site for religious beliefs"

Well stated! So why do mainstream theoretical physicists still believe that a moving rod contracts in length and that amoving clock keeps slower time thah a clock relative to which it is moving. Both these aspects are easily refuted and are crackpot!

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2014
So why do mainstream theoretical physicists still believe that a moving rod contracts in length and that amoving clock keeps slower time thah a clock relative to which it is moving. Both these aspects are easily refuted and are crackpot!

@johanfprins
i am not qualified to ascertain the motivations or the thoughts of people in which i am not only not aware of, but have no contact with other than through occasional multi-party studies which may or may not have been written by said individuals.

If, however, you are attempting to make a claim, then it would be best to:
make said claim
provide empirical data
with experimental verification of said claim
then submit said claim to peer review for study and analysis and verification.

with all above steps finished, provide links here and i will attempt to make a logical and relevant comment based upon research.

i cannot do it any other way
sorry
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2014

So why do mainstream theoretical physicists still believe that a moving rod contracts in length and that amoving clock keeps slower time thah a clock relative to which it is moving. Both these aspects are easily refuted and are crackpot!

It isn't that the moving clock keeps slower time than the one that is moving. That would imply the existence of an absolute time. It is that anyone in the rest frame will measure a clock moving relative to it to be moving more slowly. In other words, if each tick is thought of as an event, the guy in the rest frame will see these tick events happen more slowly than the guy in the moving frame.

Conversely, the guy who is moving will measure the other guy's clock to be moving slowly.

Relativity is about how physical objects interact as a result of these measurements. That's all. Asking how these clocks "truly keep time with respect to each other" is meaningless in the context of the theory. It's like asking what shape the soul has.
Scroofinator
3 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2014
@ Captain Stumpy,
when an idea is considered, and discarded, using scientific method


Thank you for finally bringing this up. If an idea has been tested via the scientific method to be proven false, than that's what it is until proven otherwise. However, it seems that there are many here who refuse to use that logic.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2014
@ Captain Stumpy,

What you advise me to dio is EXACTLY what I did but it took 50 years to find a journal with reviewers which are closed-minded bigots to get it published. Mind you, even in this case, the manuscripts would not have been published if the editor did not insist on a continuing logical discussion between the reviewer and the author, until one of them is proved right. The reviewers were forced to accept that they were wrong and that Einstein was (and still is) WRONG. So what the F else do YOU want me to do?

I have done ALL the steps AND provided the LINKS over and over again. Are you really so dimwitted? GOD help this planet and save it from the mediocrity that you are representing!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2014
@ The furlong,

You posted that: "It isn't that the moving clock keeps slower time than the one that is moving. That would imply the existence of an absolute time. It is that anyone in the rest frame will measure a clock moving relative to it to be moving more slowly. In other words, if each tick is thought of as an event, the guy in the rest frame will see these tick events happen more slowly than the guy in the moving frame.

Correct!!! And both guys ARE STATIONARY WITHIN THEIR OWN REST FRAMES: Thus both will see the other's clock gpoing more slaowly. So which clock is actually goping more slowly? Not one of them: They MUST keep the same time within their own reference frames. Thus the one twin will NOT age at a faster rate than the other. The latter IS NOT what is claimed in text books, or even my Hawking and Penrose and is also not what Einstein moronically cliamed in 1905!

thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2014
@ The furlong,

You posted that: "So which clock is actually goping more slowly?"
Which clock's soul is triangle shaped?
"Not one of them: They MUST keep the same time within their own reference frames. Thus the one twin will NOT age at a faster rate than the other. The latter IS NOT what is claimed in text books, or even my Hawking and Penrose and is also not what Einstein moronically cliamed in 1905!"

This paradox has been settled for a while.

Let twin B make a return trip from earth to alpha centauri and back. Let Twin A be on earth.

Alpha Centauri is at rest with A and earth. Twin B is not. Already there is a lack of symmetry, but let's take this further.

When twin B reaches alpha centauri, he must change velocity to turn around. Once he changes velocity, he changes IRFs. (to be continued in the next comment)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2014
(continued from last comment) Say B goes from IRF1 to IRF2 in turning around. Suppose also that a third guy, C, has been in IRF2 for a long, long time, and C just happens be in the same spot as B just as B enters IRF2. Then, B must measure exactly what C measures, since they are at the same exact space coordinate, and are at rest with each other.

C will have measured A to be substantially older than just before B jumped from IRF1 to IRF2. Hence, once B enters IRF2, he will also measure A to be that age. To put it another way, B receives updated information about A once he enters a new IRF.

Finally, B travels back to earth and becomes at rest with A.

From B's perspective, A ages slowly, then rapidly ages, then finally ages slowly again, then rapidly ages again once B becomes at rest with A at the same coordinate.

So, the next comment will examine what A sees. (to be continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2014
(continued from last comment)
So, A sees B age very differently. Since she remained on earth, she remained in only one IRF the entire time, so her experience of B's aging is far less complicated.
In particular, she sees B travel to Alpha Centauri one way, and then return. To her, the entire time, B's clock will be ticking at the same, slow rate.
Since A never changes IRF's and B does, she doesn't receive any updated information. B never rapidly ages according to her.

Hence, the fundamental difference between these two situations is that because B changes IRF's he measures A's passage of time differently.

So, this is the explanation without math. All you have to do is use the Lorentz transformation to verify that this is how it happens. Q.E.D.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2014
(One last thing)I forgot to mention that because A, earth, and alpha centauri are at rest, B will always see the distance between earth and alpha centauri as shorter than how A sees it (until he finally becomes at rest with A at the very end, of course.)

Hence, B will experience the journey in a shorter amount of time than A.

So, you need to take that into consideration as well.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2014
@johan
but it took 50 years to find a journal with reviewers which are closed-minded bigots to get it published

and this is my fault how?
The reviewers were forced to accept that they were wrong and that Einstein was (and still is) WRONG

and we are just to take your word on this, right?
Are you really so dimwitted? GOD help this planet and save it from the mediocrity that you are representing

my "mediocrity" seeks logic and empirical data
and the fact that you resort to attacking my personal character with no proof means?

You make exceptional claims
which require exceptional proof

but the fact that you are on a public pop-sci site in the comments making your claims and verbally assaulting people who require proof can be used as evidence that there is no substance to your requests for validation among the laymen

GOD help...

requests for assistance from a deity?
religion/faith has no place in science
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2014
Captain, you do realize that crackpots have no more insight into their own condition than any other sort of mental health patient suffering from any other form of delusion? I mean, you know, consider again the article thread they're on while they prattle away about their pet psychosis...
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2014
@indio007

You stated: "Funny comment considering Einstein divides by 0."

Bravo!! It is amazing that for more than 100 years our brilliant theoretical physicists do not know that when x^2+y^2+z^2+u^2=0 and X^2+Y^2+Z^2+U^2=0, simple mathematics have always been such that when you set x^2+y^2+z^2+u^2=X^2+Y^2+Z^2+U^2, then you are dividing by zero. Both Einstein and Minkowski did this.
Oh come on. You did not know this until you looked it up.
http://www.gsjour...on78.pdf
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2014
I mean, you know, consider again the article thread they're on while they prattle away about their pet psychosis...


To be fair, the article started it. If only the article had only harmlessly mentioned Einstein's name instead of invoking it to start a flame war, the crackpots would merely be bloviating in droves, instead of bloviating in droves while offended.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2014
Oh come on. You did not know this until you looked it up.
http://www.gsjour...on78.pdf


From the article:
"Now any pair of these solutions for (3) and (4) respectively satisfies the original
quadratic constraint, for instance also (3a) in combination with (4b), which is however
not possible as this would mean that in the primed frame the light pulse would travel
in the opposite direction to the one in the unprimed frame."

Uhhh...no, that's possible. x moves in the direction of the photon. x' moves in the opposite direction of the photon...

GEOMETRY FAIL!

Let's look further into this, shall we?

"Now again, since the primed signal can not travel into the opposite direction to
the unprimed signal, this implies..."

Yeah, except, the primed signal CAN travel in the opposite direction to the primed signal. Hell, we don't even need special relativity for this, just galilean.

BURNING FAILURE!
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2014
@Gawad
Blathering to change the topic is cheap Reg, why don't you put your fingers where your mouth is (unless of course that's up in the nether place, in which case you can spare us).

EXPANSION THEORY ORBITS, Reg. Come on, your silence is deafening and only shows you have in fact read no books and can only self-publish.

EXPANSION THEORY ORBITS, Reg. Come on, push a little harder....breath....push....breath....

Do try to be a little less childish, Gawad, you are making me feel embarrassed for the condescension you have received by various adults on this site who have tried to treat you as a sensible person....
If you look at previous comments, e.g. by furlong, who has tried to explain a theory on this site by filling a dozen consecutive comments and failed, you should understand why I don't try to explain a whole philosophy here which needs to cover "orbits" (your fixation) in the context of quantum time, the nature of our universe, what the laws of physics actually are etc.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2014

If you look at previous comments, e.g. by furlong, who has tried to explain a theory on this site by filling a dozen consecutive comments and failed...


How did I fail to explain the resolution to the twin paradox? What else needs explaining?
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2014
@the furlong

If you look at previous comments, e.g. by furlong, who has tried to explain a theory on this site by filling a dozen consecutive comments and failed...


How did I fail to explain the resolution to the twin paradox? What else needs explaining?

Sorry to use you as an example, but your refutation of johan's argument requires that a light pulse travel in reverse and all experimental experience in our reality shows that light does not do this.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2014
Uhhh...no, that's possible. x moves in the direction of the photon. x' moves in the opposite direction of the photon...
I only posted excerpts from one google result out of dozens which claim the 'einstein divided by zero' thing. I do not claim to understand the math. I just like to look stuff up.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2014
@the furlong

Sorry to use you as an example, but your refutation of johan's argument requires that a light pulse travel in reverse and all experimental experience in our reality shows that light does not do this.

...No it doesn't. How on earth did you come to this conclusion?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2014
Uhhh...no, that's possible. x moves in the direction of the photon. x' moves in the opposite direction of the photon...
I only posted excerpts from one google result out of dozens which claim the 'einstein divided by zero' thing. I do not claim to understand the math. I just like to look stuff up.

Sure. I wasn't impugning you. I was impugning the paper for being so bad at conceptualizing relative transformations.

I mean, the guy at rest with x and and the guy at rest with x' can't measure the signal as traveling in different directions? REALLY?
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2014
@Gawad
EXPANSION THEORY ORBITS, Reg.

Do try to be a little less childish, Gawad, you are making me feel embarrassed


What could possible make you think I give a fecaloma what you feel? Hey, if I can make you feel embarrassed, good! You should feel embarrased, especially since you can't answer a simple question.

you should understand why I don't try to explain a whole philosophy here which needs to cover "orbits" (your fixation)


You better believe I'm going to fixate on orbits. And yeah, I know exactly why you don't try to explain them: because it's the part of your so called "theory" that exposes it as bullshit most quickly and completely.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 21, 2014
@Reg Mundy
requires that a light pulse travel in reverse and all experimental experience in our reality shows that light does not do this

i am confused-
you mean like this?
So far, time reversal has been successfully demonstrated for pulses of a relatively narrow spectrum. On the other hand, schemes that enable time-reversal of broadband pulses have required complicated techniques, making them difficult to implement and giving them low efficiencies.

[sic]
quote just above from the link below
http://phys.org/n...ses.html
or
http://trnmag.com...605.html

or were you referring to something else?

Please specify and provide links / references
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2014
@Captain Grumpy
Light is moving photons created at a point of origin, and travels away from it, usually in many different directions. It does not originate in many different locations and travel spontaneously to a single location unless you are talking about time reversal, a meaningless concept in reality.
@Gawad
There is a full explanation of orbits without the need for "gravity" in several books including "The Situation of Gravity - Third Edition" and I do not intend to type it all out again here to indulge your indolence.
By the way, do you "fixate" on a lot of things, or is it just "orbits"? Have you seen a psychiatrist?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2014
@ Theb furlong,

You are just dishing up stale and wrong arguments without experimental proof.

Your "turn around" argument is illogical! Assume that the twins are set in relative motion so that they follow a large circular path which causes them to again reach one another in future. Which one has turned around and which one will be older than the other?

And then of course the simplest argument: Consider two clocks in free space far fromany other objects or matter which move with a speed v relative to one another" Which clock is stationary and which clock is moving? One can choose either clock (say A) as stationary so that the other clock B must then keep slower time than the clock that has been chosen as stationary. An observer at clock B, which is supposedly keeping slower time than clock A, is stationary relative to clock B, and will conclude that clock A (which is now moving) is keeping slower time than clock B. Thus, B could not initially have been slower than clock A.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2014
@Captain Grumpy
Light is moving photons created at a point of origin, and travels away from it, usually in many different directions. It does not originate in many different locations and travel spontaneously to a single location unless you are talking about time reversal, a meaningless concept in reality.

I assume this is addressed to me. While that's true, I don't see how that has anything to do with my explanation of the twin paradox.
I cannot debate you on this if you don't explain which part of my explanation requires photons to begin "at infinity" and converge at a source.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2014
Uhhh...no, that's possible. x moves in the direction of the photon. x' moves in the opposite direction of the photon...
I only posted excerpts from one google result out of dozens which claim the 'einstein divided by zero' thing. I do not claim to understand the math. I just like to look stuff up.

Sure. I wasn't impugning you. I was impugning the paper for being so bad at conceptualizing relative transformations.

I mean, the guy at rest with x and and the guy at rest with x' can't measure the signal as traveling in different directions? REALLY?
This is immaterial. Did Einstein divide by zero or what?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2014
@ Theb furlong,

You are just dishing up stale and wrong arguments without experimental proof.


What's that you say?

http://math.ucr.e..._paradox

Sorry. I had difficulty hearing you over all the empirical verification.

Assume that the twins are set in relative motion so that they follow a large circular path which causes them to again reach one another in future. Which one has turned around and which one will be older than the other?


Admittedly, this is an interesting problem. It also illustrates why we must throw out our preconceived notions when dealing with relativity. This is just the twin paradox in 2 dimensions. For example, I bet one preconceived notion you have is that journeys must be symmetric.

You might think if A sees B travel along path P, B must see A travel along path P but in reverse. This simply isn't true.

(To be continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2014
You also have to be careful about how you pose a physical problem. There are some ambiguities in your setup. For example, who's accelerating? This is very important, and not irrelevant. If I am spinning in a circle, from my perspective, the stars are spinning instead, but it would be absurd to conclude that there is a centripetal force on the stars, and that the stars are moving that quickly to begin with.

For the sake of argument, though, let's suppose that A is on earth, and B accelerates in a circle, starting from A, and returning. Without doing the math, (though I will, when I have time), I can almost certainly tell you that A will see B travel in a larger circle than that which B sees A travel in.

However, as I have not done the math, let me direct you here:
http://arxiv.org/...3090.pdf

This seems to provide a good treatment of the circular twin paradox.
(To be continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2014
(continued from last comment)
...Consider two clocks in free space far fromany other objects or matter which move with a speed v relative to one another" Which clock is stationary and which clock is moving?

Which clock's soul is triangular? That question has the same relevance in this situation.
One can choose either clock (say A) as stationary so that the other clock B must then keep slower time ...Thus, B could not initially have been slower than clock A.

Response 1: Or, you can position a third guy, C, who sees A and B moving at equal velocities away from each other, and determine how they interact with each other that way.
Response 2: You have ignored my points that 1) these are measurements, and 2) SR is about how physical objects interact in performing these measurements.

Yes, the measurements SEEM to contradict each other, but that's why the physical objects must interact in a way to accounts for this. This is why we use the Lorentz Transformation.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2014
This is immaterial. Did Einstein divide by zero or what?

1) This is not immaterial, since I just demonstrated that the reasoning in this article was fundamentally flawed.
2) No, he did not divide by 0
3) If he had divided by 0, this paper would not provide the appropriate argument demonstrating it, since it doesn't even understand basic notions of relative transformations, Galilean or otherwise.
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) Jan 22, 2014
@Gawad
There is a full explanation of orbits without the need for "gravity" in ..."The Situation of Gravity-Third Edition" and I do not intend to type it all out again here to indulge your indolence.
By the way, do you "fixate" on a lot of things, or is it just "orbits"? Have you seen a psychiatrist?


Indolence, moi? Tsk, tsk, Reg, it's not up to me to make your case for you, the indolence belongs to the guy you see in the mirror. You have to do more than read the books, Reg, you have to understand them.

Besides, I already have an idea what your arguments are and what they amount to, but this is YOUR baby, and it's up to you to circulate the baby pictures. Even if it's horribly deformed and won't live. But if your CHARGING for the privilege then the hell with it; it's not like this baby is growing up and'll need the money for collage anyway.

BTW, I do also fixate a little on crackpots, but I'd only need to see a shrink if I were to put as much as a dime down for your work ;)
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Jan 22, 2014
@ thefurlong,

You are like a skunk! When you are threatened you spread a lot of gas around that STINKS, but does not contribute to anything. I hope you are not a practising scientist. If you are I would like to know which nitwit institution employs you.

It will take long to spond to so much excrement: But I will try and do so step by step during the next few days.

Firstly you stated: "Sorry. I had difficulty hearing you over all the empirical verification." and then referred me to the deeply flawed experiment of Haefele and Keting as explained by a fruitloop who does research on "quantum loop gravity" LOL PLEASE if you cannot fotmulate your own ideas: STAY OUT OF THE KITCHEN! You are then tooooooo stupid to contribute anything.

Then:"For example, who's accelerating? If I am spinning in a circle, from my perspective, the stars are spinning instead,"

Where have I talked about "spinning" relative to the stars? WE are ONLY talking about RELATIVE MOTION BETWEEN THE TWO TWINS! TROLL!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Jan 22, 2014
Einstein did divide by zero, and so did Minkowski by setting two expressions, each equal to zero, equal to one anotheer since they are zero.

The simplest illustration, which even my goldfish knows about is to take for example 4-3-1=0 and 10-9-1=0 and thus set 4-3-1=10-9-1. Now add 1 on both sides, then add 3 on both sides, then subtract 1 from both sides, and voila you get that 4=16. This is exactly what Einstein and Minkowski have done, and it is for this reason that Einstein's theory of gravity cannot be correct!
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Jan 22, 2014
Einstein did divide by zero, and so did Minkowski by setting two expressions, each equal to zero, equal to one anotheer since they are zero.

The simplest illustration, which even my goldfish knows about is to take for example 4-3-1=0 and 10-9-1=0 and thus set 4-3-1=10-9-1. Now add 1 on both sides, then add 3 on both sides, then subtract 1 from both sides, and voila you get that 4=16. This is exactly what Einstein and Minkowski have done, and it is for this reason that Einstein's theory of gravity cannot be correct!

I THINK I followed your instructions correctly... but I come up with 3=3... What am I missing here?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2014
PLEASE if you cannot fotmulate your own ideas: STAY OUT OF THE KITCHEN! You are then tooooooo stupid to contribute anything

@johan
seems to be doing a great job refuting your pet crackpot hypothesis
guess you missed my post about
You make exceptional claims
which require exceptional proof

but the fact that you are on a public pop-sci site in the comments making your claims and verbally assaulting people who require proof can be used as evidence that there is no substance to your requests for validation among the laymen

ranting about it and lashing out @ the "laymen" only supports thefurlong's conclusions
and cements the validity of his refute into our minds
means he ticked you off because you have no immediate response but to vent
a fruitloop who does research on "quantum loop gravity"

as opposed to a fruitloop who is on a pop-sci site ranting about a paper he published that is not accepted because it was most likely crackpot-science

not looking good, johan
Remigiusz
1 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2014
Albert Einstein did not know what he measured as a mass , did not understand the speed of light, what gravity is, no idea of time-space . It looks that 500 years from moment when Copernicus idea changed our view of the Universe time for new revolution. Yes ! I know what we measure as mass, what is gravity, what we measure as speed of light, what is time-space and why Universes may be like "potatoes" in different parts of time-space. I can explain what dark matter and dark matter is. More I can measurements of quantum time-space and how particles are created, from where is entropy. I can explain why we are so important for Universe but also why It dose not care if we will not survive. And please do not tell that halve brain or ....because our brain is just computer. It works the way it is programed. The equation E=mc^2 has nothing to do with reality. Simply : IT IS STUPID. Answer yourself about followers.

Remigiusz
1 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2014
Economics can produce bubbles, and so can science. It appears to be a universal mechanism of human aspiration that, while following the seemingly obvious, methods can gradually slip into absurdity, leaving behind unresolved problems. A particularly worrying symptom of the current state of affairs in physics is so-called discovery of the Higgs boson at CERN. What was actually discovered were a number of unexplained signals, raising many questions for everyone who takes a sober perspective. These signals are pushed to serve as evidence for the long-theorized Higgs boson supporting the "standard model" of particle physics, although this standard model is not even a well-defined theory. The CERN particle search is the most expensive experiment ever conducted, and the thousands of scientists / without knowledge what "mass" is , I know !/, doing high-energy research there had to celebrate any outcome as a breakthrough, if only to justify the billions of dollars of public money being spent But I have more esteem for scientists' self-indulgent fantasies about imaginary multiverses or seeking the dark matter inside our Planet than for who, in pursuit of power, wealth, and military vengeance at expense of the environment and the well-being of humankind, are about to destroy our real world and thus put into danger the whole enterprise of Homo Sapiens on this planet.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2014
Johan wrote
I have done ALL the steps AND provided the LINKS over and over again

@johan
lets make this simple:
you have made gradiose claims
you have provided ZERO links for supporting evidence
you just write interminably long posts
you expect US to do YOUR homework
and when someone refutes you, you pop your cap and start spewing
calling names and saying stuff like
The simplest illustration, which even my goldfish knows about

funny... I thought that would be something every scientist would want to see... a goldfish that can do MATH! Wow!
It will take long to spond to so much excrement

we await with great anticipation
as most likely you will also then be refuted logically
especially as you provide NO PEER REVIEWED DATA
NO LINKS to support your claims
etc, etc, etc

and you call us "laymen"
dimwitted


pot/kettle bubba.
learn to link/research and do your OWN homework
CRACKPOT
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Jan 22, 2014
Einstein did divide by zero, and so did Minkowski by setting two expressions, each equal to zero, equal to one anotheer since they are zero.

The simplest illustration, which even my goldfish knows about is to take for example 4-3-1=0 and 10-9-1=0 and thus set 4-3-1=10-9-1. Now add 1 on both sides, then add 3 on both sides, then subtract 1 from both sides, and voila you get that 4=16. This is exactly what Einstein and Minkowski have done, and it is for this reason that Einstein's theory of gravity cannot be correct!

I THINK I followed your instructions correctly... but I come up with 3=3... What am I missing here?

Dementia.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2014
in pursuit of power, wealth, and military vengeance at expense of the environment and the well-being of humankind, are about to destroy our real world and thus put into danger the whole enterprise of Homo Sapiens on this planet.

@Remigiusz
this is a science thread, not a conspiracy theory thread
if this is relevant to the above, post links
supporting evidence/references etc
Economics can produce bubbles, and so can science

and so can DAWN Dish detergent
what is your point?
These signals are pushed to serve as evidence for the long-theorized Higgs boson supporting the "standard model" of particle physics, although this standard model is not even a well-defined theory

this is your opinion, otherwise LINKS / REFERENCES
the standard model/QM has stood the scrutiny of science and experimentation using the scientific method
you make a claim (inferred from above) it is wrong, provide proof

it looks more like you want to post about conspiracy theory
that is OFF TOPIC
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2014
You are like a skunk! When you are threatened you spread a lot of gas around that STINKS, but does not contribute to anything. I hope you are not a practising scientist. If you are I would like to know which nitwit institution employs you.

Hopefully the same people that have you sweep up their hallways. What an ignorant, arrogant, puissant moron you are. No wonder no one will take any heed of any of your ideas, right or wrong.

How about you go down to the nearest Walmart and purchase yourself a personality?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2014
This is immaterial. Did Einstein divide by zero or what?

1) This is not immaterial, since I just demonstrated that the reasoning in this article was fundamentally flawed.
2) No, he did not divide by 0
3) If he had divided by 0, this paper would not provide the appropriate argument demonstrating it, since it doesn't even understand basic notions of relative transformations, Galilean or otherwise.
Sorry, I told you there were dozens of sources for the claim that einstein divided by zero. You addressed only one. Disproving only one does not negate the statement unless all sources are based on the same argument. Perhaps all sources were written by johan -?

Google 'einstein divide by zero'. Did einstein divide by zero or not? It is apparently a significant issue due to the number of references so you should be happy to address it.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2014
This is immaterial. Did Einstein divide by zero or what?

1) This is not immaterial, since I just demonstrated that the reasoning in this article was fundamentally flawed.
2) No, he did not divide by 0
3) If he had divided by 0, this paper would not provide the appropriate argument demonstrating it, since it doesn't even understand basic notions of relative transformations, Galilean or otherwise.
Sorry, I told you there were dozens of sources for the claim that einstein divided by zero. You addressed only one. Disproving only one does not negate the statement unless all sources are based on the same argument. Perhaps all sources were written by johan -?

Google 'einstein divide by zero'. Did einstein divide by zero or not? It is apparently a significant issue due to the number of references so you should be happy to address it.

Here's my question. How many articles do I have to easily refute before you are convinced it is not an issue? Time is precious.
Scroofinator
5 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2014
Man, this has turned into quite the cat fight. Yes, GR is inadequate sometimes. However, like the article states, we will never prove Einstein wrong because the vast majority of his theory works. We can make it better and answer some of the questions, but to do that we must first find out the true CAUSE of the force we know as gravity. Bickering about beliefs will get us nowhere. It's like a religious debate, neither side will ever be swayed unless there is undeniable proof.

GR explains how this force works 99% of the time, and we must find some common factors for the other 1%. So far in my research the only common denominator is the atomic distribution of the universe. Is this the cause? Probably not, but it's the best rational explanation I've heard of yet that doesn't involve creating something new to explain gravity.

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the opposite direction
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2014
Bickering about beliefs will get us nowhere. It's like a religious debate, neither side will ever be swayed unless there is undeniable proof.

The difference is that crackpots will never be swayed by undeniable proof. I have "beliefs" in relativity, as you call them, because I have done the math, and have looked into the evidence.

GR explains how this force works 99% of the time, and we must find some common factors for the other 1%. So far in my research the only common denominator is the atomic distribution of the universe. Is this the cause? Probably not, but it's the best rational explanation I've heard of yet that doesn't involve creating something new to explain gravity.

I haven't weighed in on your hypothesis because, like you, I don't know enough about the subjects involved to say anything of value.

However, it's a good sign that you acknowledge that your idea probably won't work. That's the first step towards being right. Keep challenging your idea.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2014
GR explains how this force works 99% of the time, and we must find some common factors for the other 1%.

And THAT, my good man, is why he called it GENERAL Relativity. Here's a formula describing the fact that everything works MOST of the time and DOESN'T work in a small number of cases. IT essentially means - nothing's perfect.
How can that statement ever be refuted?!? The man was comic GENIUS!

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the opposite direct.


My favourite - We can't solve problems using the same math we created them with...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2014
@johanfprins
I had to work this out for you to see for yourself
The simplest illustration, which even my goldfish knows about is to take for example 4-3-1=0 and 10-9-1=0 and thus set 4-3-1=10-9-1

with you so far 0=0
Now add 1 on both sides,

ok, 1=1
then add 3 on both sides

ok, so it is now 4=4
then subtract 1 from both sides

which gives us now 3=3
, and voila you get that 4=16.

WTF? Where did THAT come from?
This is exactly what Einstein and Minkowski have done, and it is for this reason that Einstein's theory of gravity cannot be correct!

so you are sayign that Einstein hallucinated a 3=3 into a 4=16 and no one caught that for the last 100 years? REALLY?

NOW do you understand why we use the term CRACKPOT?

@Scroof
sorry if you think i am being hard/catfight/bickering
but when someone calls me dimwitted/stupid etc and produces the above...
ya just gotta sink reality home to them!

no PM= sorry i cant hear about more
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2014
Here's my question. How many articles do I have to easily refute before you are convinced it is not an issue? Time is precious
Well you should be better able to determine that than I. I suggest
1) google the phrase
2) open a few links to get an idea of what the arguments are
3) decide if they are all based on a single argument or not
4) if there is at least one which seems plausibly true, report back here that indeed, Einstein did apparently divide by zero.

-I trust you will be thorough in your endeavor and honest in your reporting. Godspeed.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Jan 22, 2014
Well you should be better able to determine that than I...
-I trust you will be thorough in your endeavor and honest in your reporting. Godspeed.


These claims come in two varieties. First is an apocryphal story about how Einstein made an error when he introduced the cosmological constant, which Alexander Friedmann corrected. The second is utter nonsense of the variety contained in gsjournal, the source of the first article you posted.

If the story isn't true, we have no reason to believe that division by 0 occurs anywhere in the derivation of the Einstein Field Equations. If it is true, according to the story that error was corrected, and Einstein admitted his mistake. So, it is a non-issue.

gsjournal also contains an article claiming that this supposed error lead to widespread adoption of the expansion of the universe. In reality, this idea gained widespread acceptance from Hubble's 1928 experimental discovery. Einstein discarded his constant as a result.
Scroofinator
3 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2014
I have "beliefs" in relativity, as you call them, because I have done the math, and have looked into the evidence.


That's one of the reasons I still think GR is accurate, there's a lot of people that have done the math and believe in it. It's just not whole.

I haven't weighed in on your hypothesis because, like you, I don't know enough about the subjects involved to say anything of value.


And if this is your attempt at insulting my intelligence, then your gonna have to try harder. The beauty of the internet is I can instantly get a synopsis on many subjects, submitted by people smarter than you. Then if I feel like doing the math I can look up how to do it. That typically gives one enough evidence to make an educated guess (hypothesis?). I'm not afraid of being proven wrong, that's a part of asking questions to which you don't know the answers. You on the other hand will likely never be able to extend your gaze beyond the books you've been fed your whole life.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2014

And if this is your attempt at insulting my intelligence, then your gonna have to try harder. The beauty of the internet is I can instantly get a synopsis on many subjects, submitted by people smarter than you. Then if I feel like doing the math I can look up how to do it. That typically gives one enough evidence to make an educated guess (hypothesis?). I'm not afraid of being proven wrong, that's a part of asking questions to which you don't know the answers. You on the other hand will likely never be able to extend your gaze beyond the books you've been fed your whole life

Wow, calm down. I was trying to be encouraging...
Though, I suppose that sentence could be misconstrued after looking at it again.
I didn't mean to imply you have nothing of value to say.

Anyway, you don't know anything about me. Don't presume from my comments that I don't have crazy ideas of my own. It's just not worth mentioning them if I haven't gotten up to speed with the rest of modern physics.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2014
@Gawad

Besides, I already have an idea what your arguments are and what they amount to,

Do you really? I don't think so, from your rantings.
I see that you are determined to persist in your state of abysmal ignorance, accepting your world as you currently see it with no understanding of what causes the effects you call "gravity", what time is and how it interacts with the laws of physics, where mass comes from and what momentum is, amongst other things.
All this and more is available to you, but you would rather wallow in your swamp of misconceptions than spend a few miserly dollars for enlightenment. Cheapskate! Why don't you ask around and borrow a copy if the money is your problem, there are plenty around and doubtless one of your numerous friends (that's sarcasm, by the way) will lend you one.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2014
@ Captain Stumpy,

I quote Mark Twain: Today I met a man who knows more things that are not so than any other man that I ever met". When did this meeting between you and Mark twain took place?

You posted: "as opposed to a fruitloop who is on a pop-sci site ranting about a paper he published that is not accepted because it was most likely crackpot-science

not looking good, johan"

That is the problem with guys like you on this thread you jump to conclusions without doing your homework. Probably because you think that a reference to Wikipedia is a physics argument. Why do you not try and understand physics and mathematics and think for yourself,

If you could have done the latter, you would have known that only mediocre junk is accepted by our mainstream journals like Phys Rev, Nature, Science etc. That is why fruitloop gets published. No manuscript that questions any textbook science is even read by the editors and the reviewers. You do not allow blasphemy, do you?

Continued below
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2014
50 years ago I sat in a lecture course on Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, and concluded Einstein's two postulates are brilliant: But then, to my horror, I was shown how Einstein derived the Lorentz equations from these postulates; proving that he did not understand mathematics very well:

He wrote the correct equation for the radius of a spherical wave-front around the origin 0 of IRF=K as:

x^2+y^2+z^2=(ct)^2, and it was then also written as x^2+y^2+z^2+(ict)^2=0: He wrote a similar equation for the twin wave-front within IRF=K, and then equated them, since they are both zero! This is the same as assuming that you can divide the two equations and obtain unity by DIVIDING by zero! So he DID divide by zero,

He then proceeded with this folly, by deriving length contraction using the wrong Lorentz equations for the transformation. And even worse, he concluded that a moving clock keeps slow time within the reference frame in which this moving clock is stationary.

Continue:
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2014

All this and more is available to you, but you would rather wallow in your swamp of misconceptions than spend a few miserly dollars for enlightenment. Cheapskate!

I know, right? All you're doing is asking us to furnish your bank account to read a book we have no motivation to read!

It's sort of like Mafia shakedowns forcing people to buy "protection", except instead of knocking down all of our half-price cans of peas on the end cap, you're spewing mouth foam at people on the internet.

Why don't you ask around and borrow a copy if the money is your problem, there are plenty around and doubtless one of your numerous friends (that's sarcasm, by the way) will lend you one.


Yes, a probably self-published book, which is #1,613,758 on Amazon's Best Seller's list is readily available at your public library. Oprah recommended it you know.

Oh wait...that was that crazy lady in the laundromat. She also urged me to start buying gold for the coming societal upheaval.
Scroofinator
2 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2014
@ thefurlong

Sorry if I misunderstood what you meant, that was just my interpretation of it.

Don't presume from my comments that I don't have crazy ideas of my own


Then let's hear em. I'm assuming thefurlong isn't your real name so why not let out some crackpot ideas? There are some people on here that might listen and agree, as for the others let the naysayers nay. It was my hope that by bringing out my theory, which is very lightly based in any math, that someone who is up to speed might see some value in it and help. To start, I need to know how dark matter/energy is calculated so I can try to attribute it's effects to my theory.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2014
It is so simple to prove that Einstein was wrong in all three cases above, that any schoolkid with grade 10 mathematics can understand that this is so. But could I get it published? NO! one does not get published when you point out that Einstein made silly mistakes in mathematics for which a schoolkid would have failed grade 10.

Only last year did I find an editor who demands that a reviewer who rejects a manuscript must motivate it, and then, the author responds, etc., etc., etc., until it becomes crystal clear who is wrong. The editor ONLY allowed high quality logical arguments based on impeccable physics. I had two reviewers and they both had to admit that their arguments have failed. Finally after 50 years two papers are being published on Einstein's silly mathematical mistakes.
1. The length of a longitudinally moving rod Phys. Essays: Dec. 2013
2. Directional emissions from a moving light source: Coincidence and simultaneity. Phys. Essays March 2014

So read them!
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2014
50 years ago I sat in a lecture course on Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, and concluded Einstein's two postulates are brilliant: But then, to my horror, I was shown how Einstein derived the Lorentz equations from these postulates; proving that he did not understand mathematics very well:

He wrote the correct equation for the radius of a spherical wave-front around the origin 0 of IRF=K as:

x^2+y^2+z^2=(ct)^2, and it was then also written as x^2+y^2+z^2+(ict)^2=0: He wrote a similar equation for the twin wave-front within IRF=K, and then equated them, since they are both zero! This is the same as assuming that you can divide the two equations and obtain unity by DIVIDING by zero! So he DID divide by zero,

"And lo, it was as if lightning struck the earth as it did in Golgotha, and I was transfixed. It was then that I decided to quit trying to understand physics and become a crackpot."
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2014
@ Captain Slumpy,

You posted: "so you are sayign that Einstein hallucinated a 3=3 into a 4=16 and no one caught that for the last 100 years? REALLY?"

Yup! This is REALLY the case. Not just Einstein, but also Minkowski, and everybody else, like Dirac, Feynman etc. who followed in their footsteps. It is incredibly unbelievable that it could have happened: But it surely did. This is proved in black and white in my two manuscripts which, after 50 years, passed peer review.

Just think how much money we could have saved if these manuscripts were published 50 years ago: The biggest circus in the world with the highest concentration of clowns would probably not have been built in CERN; nor anywhere. We must be grateful that Bill Clinton scuppered the Texas Collider.

Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2014
@thefurlong
I know, right? All you're doing is asking us to furnish your bank account to read a book we have no motivation to read!

I am glad that you have recognised your problem, "no motivation". You continue to wallow in your ignorance because you like the easy option, wouldn't want to actually think about it, oh no, might get a headache!
Tell you what, furbrain, why don't you say what you think gravity is? If you think it is caused by a dimple in the fabric of space/time, tell us why you think that. Do you think it is the movement of "gravitons" in a similar manner to moving electrons causing magnetic force? C'mon, tell us your expanation.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Jan 23, 2014
@thefurlong
I am glad that you have recognised your problem, "no motivation"...you like the easy option, wouldn't want to actually think about it, oh no, might get a headache!

I know right? I am only working on my second bachelor's degree (in physics), and had to take out staggering college loans to do it. I only spent the last 3 years averaging 4 hours of sleep a night juggling my career with school. But now that you mention it, I think the entire affair has been rather relaxing, really.
Tell you what, furbrain,

What, poopyhead?
why don't you say what you think gravity is? If you think it is caused by a dimple in the fabric of space/time, tell us why you think that. Do you think it is the movement of "gravitons" ...

As I haven't taken QCD, QED, QFT, or GR, yet, I prefer not to say. I have no explanation until I understand what's already understood.
Tell me. Can you describe the gauge group of gravitons and how we can use it with Noether's theorem? I can't.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2014

Don't presume from my comments that I don't have crazy ideas of my own

Then let's hear em. I'm assuming thefurlong isn't your real name so why not let out some crackpot ideas? There are some people on here that might listen and agree, as for the others let the naysayers nay.

I don't want people to agree with me like that. I want them to challenge my ideas, but I have to be certain of them first. They're still evolving.
It was my hope that by bringing out my theory, which is very lightly based in any math, that someone who is up to speed might see some value in it and help. To start, I need to know how dark matter/energy is calculated so I can try to attribute it's effects to my theory.

Well, I am not up to speed on them, so, I don't know if there is any value in it. This is not a good place to ask about this kind of thing, however. I doubt most commenters here know gauge transformations from spectral lines.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2014
@thefurlong

I know right? I am only working on my second bachelor's degree (in physics), and had to take out staggering college loans to do it. I only spent the last 3 years averaging 4 hours of sleep a night juggling my career with school. But now that you mention it, I think the entire affair has been rather relaxing, really.


why don't you say what you think gravity is? If you think it is caused by a dimple in the fabric of space/time, tell us why you think that. Do you think it is the movement of "gravitons"

As I haven't taken QCD, QED, QFT, or GR, yet, I prefer not to say. I have no explanation until I understand what's already understood.
Tell me. Can you describe the gauge group of gravitons and how we can use it with Noether's theorem?

Please accept my apologies, I didn't know you were just a learner! You will come to realise that you are being taught establishment doctrine.
PS Gravitons don't exist!
Scroofinator
4.3 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2014
I want them to challenge my ideas, but I have to be certain of them first.


This is where we completely differ. Nobody has been "certain" for the last 100 years. So instead of taking the time to find out if I'm headed in the wrong direction I want some other intelligent input, maybe someone has tried it before. Intelligent to me doesn't rely solely on math and equations, but in using the mind to rationalize a sensible solution. I'm all about group discovery and interaction, many minds are greater than one.
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2014
@Captain
@ Captain Slumpy,

You posted: "so you are sayign that Einstein hallucinated a 3=3 into a 4=16 and no one caught that for the last 100 years? REALLY?"

Yup! This is REALLY the case. Not just Einstein, but also Minkowski, and everybody else, like Dirac, Feynman etc. who followed in their footsteps. It is incredibly unbelievable that it could have happened: But it surely did. This is proved in black and white in my two manuscripts which, after 50 years, passed peer review.

Just think how much money we could have saved if these manuscripts were published 50 years ago: The biggest circus in the world with the highest concentration of clowns would probably not have been built in CERN; nor anywhere. We must be grateful that Bill Clinton scuppered the Texas Collider.


See? Like I said: no insight into their own condition. More: no POSSIBILITY of insight into their own condition. The psychosis is hermetically sealed.
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2014
@thefurlong
Yes, a probably self-published book, which is #1,613,758 on Amazon's Best Seller's list.


Not "probably self-published book", just "a self-published" book. The "Publisher" is CreateSpace, a self-publishing service.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2014
Nobody has been "certain" for the last 100 years.

But they have been. From our certainty, we've discovered radio galaxies, neutrinos, exoplanets, MRI, nuclear power, and so on...
So instead of taking the time to find out if I'm headed in the wrong direction I want some other intelligent input, maybe someone has tried it before.

You won't get intelligent input on your idea from the comments section of physorg, especially on an article about Einstein.

I admit that you have an interesting suggestion. It is not an unreasonable thing to ask, as a person who doesn't know modern physics well, unlike the ramblings of Mr. "Off his meds" Prins. I would suggest not thinking about it as a theory until you get a firmer grasp of the subject involved. Though I am but a lowly physics undergrad, maybe I can assist you in figuring out where to find you answer. Email me at thefurlong@hotmail.com if you'd like.
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2014
@Gawad

Besides, I already have an idea what your arguments are and what they amount to,

Do you really? I don't think so, from your rantings.


Yup, I do. Oh and who's the one ranting? I'm not the one making claims over and over from the bottom of the pit of insanity, Reg, that's you.

Cheapskate!


Greedy loser! ;)

Why don't you ask around and borrow a copy if the money is your problem, there are plenty around and doubtless one of your numerous friends (that's sarcasm, by the way) will lend you one.


Sorry Reg, but most of my friends and I are busy reading our very own copies of rather voluminous (though expensive) tomes like The Road to Reality (hint, hint), so don't hold your breath. ...on second thought....
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2014
@johan
I quote Mark Twain

OFF TOPIC
Yup! This is REALLY the case. Not just Einstein, but also...

except that what YOU posted was
Einstein did divide by zero, and so did Minkowski by setting two expressions, each equal to zero, equal to one anotheer since they are zero

and to demonstrate proof, you posted
take for example 4-3-1=0 and 10-9-1=0 and thus set 4-3-1=10-9-1. Now add 1 on both sides, then add 3 on both sides, then subtract 1 from both sides, and voila you get that 4=16

which illistrates that EITHER:
you and your goldfish are really crappy at math
OR
you cannot effectively represent your argument

IOW- you screwed up and now you back-pedal by quoting mark twain and telling ME that I didnt understand
I understood what you posted perfectly
and I stand by my assessment
Reg Mundy
3 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2014
@thefurlong
Yes, a probably self-published book, which is #1,613,758 on Amazon's Best Seller's list.


Not "probably self-published book", just "a self-published" book. The "Publisher" is CreateSpace, a self-publishing service.

I see you are doing your homework Gawad! Why not finish the job properly, and actually read the book so you can refute the philosophy therein from solid ground rather than biased conjecture. I look forward to your logical reasoning to show the world what exactly is wrong with the philosophy.
You might get a surprise!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2014
@johan
If you could have done the latter, you would have known that only mediocre junk is accepted by our mainstream journals like Phys Rev, Nature, Science etc

AAAS Science Mag- "Research papers sent to Science should be novel findings at the forefront of their fields, with broad scientific implications, written concisely and engagingly."[sic]
funny... it is EASY to attack an institution as being mediocre when you cant get published
perhaps they refused you based upon strict guidelines?

http://www.scienc...es.xhtml

http://www.scienc...go.xhtml

you sound like all those horrible poets who complain about publishers being ignorant and publishing mediocre content because they wont publish YOUR stuff...
OBVIOUSLY, to anyone who will just listen and see, your stuff is of MUCH higher quality/whatever than anyone else

or maybe it is because of the integrity of the magazine, they dont publish bad science

quit whining
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2014
Why not finish the job properly, and actually read the book so you can refute the philosophy therein from solid ground rather than biased conjecture. I look forward to your logical reasoning to show the world what exactly is wrong with the philosophy.

@Reg Mundy
OFF TOPIC
you are in the wrong place to hawk your wares
if you want to sell a book/whatever, GET AN AGENT
if you want to promote it, TALK TO YOUR AGENT
the EU and AW also publish books, and REAMS of crap, does NOT mean it is valid
my WIFE is a published author too, does not mean she has any authority here

YOU are HERE
here, when you make grandiose statements, people require PROOF
use LINKS or REFERENCES
EXPLAIN it

if you dont want to... go to REDDIT or 4CHAN and post there

p.s. is your book self published?
self published = no peer review = vanity, not authority
just sayin
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2014
@thefurlong
Yes, a probably self-published book, which is #1,613,758 on Amazon's Best Seller's list.


Not "probably self-published book", just "a self-published" book. The "Publisher" is CreateSpace, a self-publishing service.

I see you are doing your homework Gawad! Why not finish the job properly, and actually read the book so you can refute the philosophy therein from solid ground rather than biased conjecture. I look forward to your logical reasoning to show the world what exactly is wrong with the philosophy.
You might get a surprise!

Send him a copy if it's that important...
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2014
@thefurlong
Yes, a probably self-published book, which is #1,613,758 on Amazon's Best Seller's list.


Not "probably self-published book", just "a self-published" book. The "Publisher" is CreateSpace, a self-publishing service.

I see you are doing your homework Gawad! Why not finish the job properly, and actually read the book so you can refute the philosophy therein from solid ground rather than biased conjecture. I look forward to your logical reasoning to show the world what exactly is wrong with the philosophy.
You might get a surprise!


Because at this point your posts constitute commercial SPAM (and will be reported as such, whatever good that will do...)
Scroofinator
5 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2014
But they have been. From our certainty, we've discovered radio galaxies, neutrinos, exoplanets, MRI, nuclear power, and so on...


This has been done using current accepted theories, not by somebody thinking up something completely new. I meant nobody has been certain of their alternative theories.

I would suggest not thinking about it as a theory until you get a firmer grasp of the subject involved.


Again you assume I don't understand modern physics, which from a pure math standpoint is accurate, but believe me when I say I understand the principles of how things work very well. Engineers do have to take physics courses too. Regardless of my "grasp" on a subject, a theory is still a theory. Do conspiracy theories ever make much sense? Not often, but they're still theories.

Either way, I appreciate the fact that you are supportive of new ideas. Don't be surprised if you find an email from me asking for math help, my competency is not what it used to be.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Jan 23, 2014
This has been done using current accepted theories, not by somebody thinking up something completely new. I meant nobody has been certain of their alternative theories.


Before Paul Dirac, the concept of antimatter was likely considered "crackpot science", until he made a huge conceptual leap and construct his Dirac equation by assuming that wave equations had 4 components. This was considered completely new.

Again you assume I don't understand modern physics, which from a pure math standpoint is accurate, but believe me when I say I understand the principles of how things work very well.


But not understanding the mathematical theory can mean the difference between understanding a theory well enough to correctly form new ideas, or being wildly mislead by inaccurate popular science descriptions, and becoming a crackpot. Indeed, this is the source of much quantum woo these days.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2014
@Gawad
@Captain Stumpy
@Widening Gyre
@thefurlong
and way earlier on this thread, Maggnus, Scroofinator, et al...

I would like to thank you all for your kind words, I am so pleased to have widened my circle of friends with such noble intellects and open minds. I look forward to saying "I told you so" in a year or two's time.
Meanwhile, keep on sucking in those gravitons and gravity waves, and seeking that old Dark Matter predicted by your revered preachers.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2014
@Gawad
@Captain Stumpy
@Widening Gyre
@thefurlong
and way earlier on this thread, Maggnus, Scroofinator, et al...

I would like to thank you all for your kind words, I am so pleased to have widened my circle of friends with such noble intellects and open minds. I look forward to saying "I told you so" in a year or two's time.
Meanwhile, keep on sucking in those gravitons and gravity waves, and seeking that old Dark Matter predicted by your revered preachers.

Man, guys... Looks like we're a "gang" of ruffians, now.
I'm kinda Marxist (Groucho Marx, actually) in this regard bout not wanting being a member of a club that would have me as a member....
Reg - It's all in the delivery.
Accepting an "I told you so" after the fact is preferable to an absolutist bray of "because I'm saying so!" because, personally, I think ALL of us hated it when we heard it from parents and that's why you get pushback.
just sayin...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2014
Reg, you're gonna have to show me ONE post OF MINE that was a direct refutation to your postulates. Confrontation ain't my style.
I do not confront, belittle or otherwise denigrate someone else or their "theory".
Unless, of course, they're just so outlandishly stupid it demands it...
Oh. Also... Acting like a spoiled child deserves response...
Sorry if you find that personally offensive. But - raised 4 kids, so I have some idea of that dynamic... They are all pretty well centered as adults, so must have been correct in my understanding of it.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2014
@Gawad
@Captain Stumpy
@Widening Gyre
@thefurlong

Awww...
Keep smiling.
Keep Shining.
I would like to thank you all for your kind words,

Knowing you can always count on me, for sure.
I am so pleased to have widened my circle of friends with such noble intellects and open minds.

That's what trolls are for.
For good times
I look forward to saying "I told you so" in a year or two's time.

And bad times,
Meanwhile, keep on sucking in those gravitons and gravity waves, and seeking that old Dark Matter predicted by your revered preachers.

I'll be mocking you forever more.
That's what trolls are for.

*sniff

Give me a minute...
Ok, sorry, that was a microsecond. Gonna go back to working with retarded potentials now. Damn! I'm liking this stuff. It actually works!
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2014
Wait... Was that a riff cover of "Down at the Sunset Grill"? Cuz that song has been in my head all afternoon..

Give me a minute...
Ok, sorry, that was a microsecond. Gonna go back to working with retarded potentials now. Damn! I'm liking this stuff. It actually works!

As opposed to potential retards...:-)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2014
@Reg Mundy
@... et al

at least he spelled them correctly
I look forward to saying "I told you so" in a year or two's time.

Vanity press
unpublished by reputable journals
no peer review

I wouldnt get my hopes up, Reg...
but even if you do come out with some points of valid science,
its better than being pounded NOW by some overbearing [expletive deleted] trying to shove something down our throats by appealing to his supposed authority (based solely on his own promotions of self) who is only trying to sell a book and doesnt offer any real SCIENCE, links, references to reputable ANYTHING...
I have more respect for Uba for at least linking and working a hypothesis, no matter HOW much I am against what he says

LMFAO @furlong
nice adaptation of Dionne Warwick

@W Gyre
is this where we all start saying "IT" and Reg self destructs like the Knights Who Say Ni?

if we are going to be a gang, do we have to get tattoo's? i want a tattoo over my entire body of Myself, but taller
Maggnus
3 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2014

if we are going to be a gang, do we have to get tattoo's? i want a tattoo over my entire body of Myself, but taller
ow ow ow me too! And thinner!
is this where we all start saying "IT" and Reg self destructs like the Knights Who Say Ni?
neu! neh! nuw! Dammit! nnne neea neuwt!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2014
@ Captain Stumpy

Quote: "funny... it is EASY to attack an institution as being mediocre when you cant get publishedperhaps they refused you based upon strict guidelines?""

You are correct they did base their decision on a strict guideline: The guideline is to reject any manuscript that challenges accepted mainstream dogma, no matter how logical it is and no matter how well the experimental results challenges mainstream dogma: This is the strict guideline and this is why only mediocre manuscripts are published.

Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2014
@Gawad
@Captain Stumpy
@Widening Gyre
@thefurlong
and way earlier on this thread, Maggnus, Scroofinator, et al...

Great fun! At least I've stopped you sniping at each other......
You have devoted so much time and effort to pummeling me, you've quite forgotten all the other facets of this excellent thread. Do you remember what it was all about? Was Einstein wrong? Are there any logical theories to supersede the current failed crop? You have discounted mine without even knowing what it was, so you must have some good candidates of your own. Perhaps you would either nail your colors to the establishment mast (I know Gawad has to do this for the sake of his future career) or state what your alternative theory is.
C'mon, let's hear it!(Gawad, you are excused, original thought is off limits for you until you reach your level of incompetence!).
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Jan 24, 2014
@Captain Stumpy
if we are going to be a gang, do we have to get tattoo's? i want a tattoo over my entire body of Myself, but taller


LOL! This comment wins forever.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (4) Jan 24, 2014
Do you remember what it was all about? Was Einstein wrong?
See Reg, that's thee thing. This article, despite the title,. was not about Einstein or his theories. It was about how science progresses and what is required of new theories in order to build upon or replace theories that are already accecpted and established.

This is why I laughed at Prins and you. You both are so eager to jump in there and declare everything we know about everything to be wrong that you don't take the time nor do the diligence needed to even understand what you are actually trying to do.

Why look at Prins' post right below yours. He is so convinced of his own infallibility that he declares a conspiracy. That's called delusion at best, and probably is a case of paranoid schizophrenia. And he's an arrogant puissant about it to boot!

And that you and he can't see that you are doing exactly what the article says crackpots like the two of you do, is a source of unending amusement to me!
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Jan 24, 2014
@Scroofinator
So, this morning, I woke up, and the fundamental utility of the retarded potentials hit me like a ton of bricks. Suddenly, I was able to put speculative ideas about electromagnetism that had been floating in my mind for years on firm footing and no longer worried that I had somehow gotten something wrong. Imagine if I HAD gotten something wrong, and continued to pursue that wrong idea to its end.

My point is that now that I have learned the technical aspects of a theory, now I KNOW what those articles mean, so I am insulated from crackpot thought of the kind that Reg Mundy has couched himself in.

It also occurred to me that since physics is all about describing the technical aspects of measurable quantities, it is absurd to say you understand a physics theory well enough to form new ideas without understanding the technical details. That, if anything, will place you in the wrong direction far faster and deeper than devoting a few years to getting up to speed.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Jan 24, 2014
@johanfprins
@ Captain Stumpy
You are correct they did base their decision on a strict guideline: The guideline is to reject any manuscript that challenges accepted mainstream dogma...

Do you have any evidence of this besides your own work being rejected? If not, then maybe the problem is with your work and not with the journal.

From the perspective of a physicist in training there are undeniable problems with peer review. In particular, science needs to stop acting like a CEO and more like a bemused monarch (as in the olden days) again. In other words, it is so concerned with the bottom line that researchers are judged far more by the number of articles in prestigious journals they publish, than by the quality of the work they do.

I believe this creates a chilling effect where researchers tend to take the easy road of modifying small parameters instead of looking at the big picture, not because science journals are actively trying to suppress originality.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Jan 24, 2014
@Scroofinator
Also, I had one other thought. Would you form ideas about the set of symmetries of a polygon (or other shape) without knowing its precise angles and dimensions?

Much of modern physics concerns itself with so-called gauge theories, which are often described by symmetries (called symmetry groups) of various geometric shapes. For example, electromagnetism is described by U(1), the symmetry group of the unit circle in the complex plane. Emmy Nether demonstrated a deep connection between symmetry groups such as these and the Lagrangian (which describes dynamics), such that symmetry groups actually describe physical interaction.

Trying to form new ideas about physics without understanding the technical details is like trying say things about the symmetry group of a shape without understanding that shape's technical details. What if the rest of the shape is smooth, but you miss that one cusp?
Scroofinator
5 / 5 (3) Jan 24, 2014
Damn fur

Your right, I'm wrong... Better? In all seriousness I do understand what your saying, I can't completely understand all the complexities without understanding how they were derived. I'm working on that. In the meantime I imagine it like a huge complex puzzle, and lot's of people have put together pieces, but until you step back you can't see what the puzzle actually is.

As long as were getting tattoos it might as well be Einstein's face on our back and E=mc^2 on our forehead.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Jan 24, 2014
Damn fur

Your right, I'm wrong... Better? In all seriousness I do understand what your saying, I can't completely understand all the complexities without understanding how they were derived. I'm working on that. In the meantime I imagine it like a huge complex puzzle, and lot's of people have put together pieces, but until you step back you can't see what the puzzle actually is.

As long as were getting tattoos it might as well be Einstein's face on our back and E=mc^2 on our forehead.

I want E=mc^2/0...+1
And only a fake one, because somebody will change it down the road...
johanfprins
1.3 / 5 (3) Jan 24, 2014
@johanfprins
@ Captain Stumpy
You are correct they did base their decision on a strict guideline: The guideline is to reject any manuscript that challenges accepted mainstream dogma...

Do you have any evidence of this besides your own work being rejected? If not, then maybe the problem is with your work and not with the journal.


This question is an insult to my scientific integrity. If my work is wrong, then I expect a journal of repute, to give me reasons why it is wrong: I am talking about the myriad cases where no reasons are given.

For example, and this is typical, Mollie Cross of IOP, informed me on an manuscript in which I derive the Lorentz transformations without dividing by zero, that "We do not publish such an article in any one of our journals". All subsequent requests of what is meant by "such an article have been ignored.

Since the journal is Physica Scripta, I also asked the Swedish Academy of Science, to respond: DEAD SILENCE!!!!

next:
johanfprins
1.3 / 5 (3) Jan 24, 2014
Please: I do not know if you ever published anything; but I have, and have a decent citation index. I even lectured at the Fermi-School of Physics and am in Who's Who in the World.

Now you insult me by implying that I do not know my physics and that my colleagues are also idiots when they cannot pick up any mistakes? Who the F are you?

My best manuscripts have all been rejected for only one reason: They challenged accepted mainstream dogma.

Yes I know of many other people who have experienced the same problems. Many has left the field of physics owing to this. And these people are far more talented than the mainstream buffoons who use their positions to censor new physics in order to protect their own work, which in most cases is probably incorrect.

This has become the rule during the 20th century and is at present strictly applied with a vengeance. If you review a manuscript that can scupper your funding or your legacy, you reject without motivating why.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Jan 24, 2014
This question is an insult to my scientific integrity. If my work is wrong, then I expect a journal of repute, to give me reasons why it is wrong: I am talking about the myriad cases where no reasons are given...

Them not giving you reasons for rejecting your paper does not imply that they rejected it because your ideas were against mainstream physics.

If those papers were as shrill and inane in tone as your arguments on this site (i.e., "You are like a skunk!", "Even my goldfish knows...", "He derived length contraction, which does not happen at all"), then they probably didn't respond to you out of fear for their lives. I know I would do everything I could to stop you from sending mail to my physical address.

Please: I do not know if you ever published anything; but I have, and have a decent citation index.


Maybe once you were respectable (maybe). Now, however, I see only a deluded old man with a chip on his shoulder, and that sucks.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2014
@johan
The guideline is to reject any manuscript that challenges accepted mainstream dogma, no matter how logical it is and no matter how well the experimental results challenges mainstream dogma

guess you've been rejected a lot, then, huh?
The stuff published in AAAS Science Mag is not mediocre
maybe it was you making mistakes that prevented publication?

@reg
Do you remember what it was all about? Was Einstein wrong?

the article, in essence, was about
When you replace the old theory you now understand the limits of that theory and how to move beyond it
[sic]
I never made a claim to have a replacement
that was YOUR CRACKPOT idea
I am not that narcissistic, or stupid
you are the one pushing a theory/book
if you make a claim, it is YOUR responsibility to prove it
with reputable sources
and you have YET to be able to do it

go peddle your CRACKPOT stuff elsewhere
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2014
@Maggnus
This is why I laughed at Prins and you. You both are so eager to jump in there and declare everything we know about everything to be wrong that you don't take the time nor do the diligence needed to even understand what you are actually trying to do.

I bet you haven't laughed as much as I have....
Really, Maggnus, I am not saying "everything is wrong", on the contrary, most things are right. It's just that I disagree with you and the rest of the clowns about gravity, what it actually is. And not one of you has can up with an explanation, or a theory of your own. Poor show!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2014
@johan
This question is an insult to my scientific integrity. If my work is wrong, then I expect a journal of repute, to give me reasons why it is wrong: I am talking about the myriad cases where no reasons are given

maybe no reason was given because they thought it obvious?
And your assumption that you cannot be wrong by the above statement is obvious, and incredibly narcissistic (are you a sociopath?)

furlong is right... there MAY have been a time when you were legit, much like so many others (Tesla comes to mind)
but your assumptions that you are not being published based upon some conspiracy indicates your need for medication, not much else

you provide no PROOF of reason of rejection
and cannot validate your claims of mediocrity/etc
it is all conjecture on your part based solely upon a bruised ego and lack of publication
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2014
@reg
It's just that I disagree with you and the rest of the clowns about gravity, what it actually is. And not one of you has can up with an explanation, or a theory of your own. Poor show

you have also NEVER ONCE validated your claims here about WHY you believe there is no gravity

and THAT is why I, personally, am even commenting here to you

exceptional claims require exceptional proof
and you have offered ZERO proof
you are here to hawk wares and as a publicity stunt
although I am sure your agent hoped you would put up a better fight and offer at least SOME insight....given your record, you are not really giving a reason to even consider your book

you are nothing more than a spamming TROLL
according to the guidelines
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Jan 24, 2014
In the meantime I imagine it like a huge complex puzzle, and lot's of people have put together pieces, but until you step back you can't see what the puzzle actually is.

Yeah, I think it often works that way. Science seems to act like a punctuated equilibrium. Lots of little improvements happen frequently, but every so often, someone like Dirac comes along and tie everything together into an exciting watershed idea. I feel like that hasn't happened in physics for a few decades--at least since the 80's. Don't get me wrong. We've had major discoveries since then, but we really haven't had a heavyweight come out and suggest something both foundation shaking, and testable, unless you count SUSY (which is not looking very good as of late). Don't get me started on String Theory. Yeesh!
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2014
...not one of you has can up with an explanation, or a theory of your own.


Well, actually, neither have you.
Nestle
1 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2014
In Popper's methodology of science the theory can be scientific only when it's falsifiable. If the Einstein's theory will be never wrong, it cannot be falsified. You can draw the conclusion for yourself...
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Jan 24, 2014
@johan
maybe no reason was given because they thought it obvious?


This is the argument of a certifiable, psychopathic moron: If the reason is obvious, it is EASY to motivate why you reject a manuscript.

And your assumption that you cannot be wrong by the above statement is obvious, and incredibly narcissistic (are you a sociopath?)


I have NEVER claimed ANYWHERE that I cannot be wrong: You are the sociopath in this case.

furlong is right... there MAY have been a time when you were legit, much like so many others (Tesla comes to mind)
but your assumptions that you are not being published based upon some conspiracy indicates your need for medication, not much else


I have NEVER claimed conspiracy. Why are you such a blatant LIAR!! Joseph Goebbels could have learned from YOU!!

you provide no PROOF of reason of rejection


How the F can I supply "Proof" when the editor and reviewer do not supply these reasons? You are insane you know".
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Jan 24, 2014
This is the argument of a certifiable, psychopathic moron: If the reason is obvious, it is EASY to motivate why you reject a manuscript.

Mmmm...word salad. Delicious.
I have NEVER claimed ANYWHERE that I cannot be wrong: You are the sociopath in this case.

It is implied by your behavior. You lash out like a little child, which at your age, is something you should be ashamed of.
I have NEVER claimed conspiracy. Why are you such a blatant LIAR!! Joseph Goebbels could have learned from YOU!!

I propose that satisfying Godwin's law in an argument that has absolutely nothing to do with NAZI's should be unequivocal evidence of hackery.

Joseph Goebbels...Sheesh!
How the F can I supply "Proof" when the editor and reviewer do not supply these reasons?

That's what we're saying! If you were given no reason, how do you know it was because your ideas were revolutionary, and not just because they're wrong?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Jan 24, 2014
This question is an insult to my scientific integrity. If my work is wrong, then I expect a journal of repute, to give me reasons why it is wrong: I am talking about the myriad cases where no reasons are given...


Them not giving you reasons for rejecting your paper does not imply that they rejected it because your ideas were against mainstream physics.

If those papers were as shrill and inane in tone as your arguments on this site (i.e., "You are like a skunk!", "Even my goldfish knows...",


I only use these endearments when I encounter people like you who are obviously moronically insane.

"He derived length contraction, which does not happen at all"


So you are arguing that when this is the truth it should not be published?

I know I would do everything I could to stop you from sending mail to my physical address.


Of course you will, since you are posting insults while hiding behind anonymity like all skunks without integrity, LIKE YOU, do.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Jan 24, 2014
[That's what we're saying! If you were given no reason, how do you know it was because your ideas were revolutionary, and not just because they're wrong?


In all the cases involved the manuscripts challenged mainstream dogma, Those manuscripts of mine which did not challenge mainstream dogma and in which I quoted the mainstreamers by kissing up their arses all passed. Thus, there is a rule emerging here, and only a FOOL like you will refuse to see it.

The literature is full of such complaints,
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Jan 24, 2014
@ thefurlong
My point is that now that I have learned the technical aspects of a theory, now I KNOW what those articles mean, so I am insulated from crackpot thought of the kind that Reg Mundy has couched himself in.


Really? You claim that you know technical aspects of physics, You could have fooled me since your posts are all dumb-ass assertions without any basis.

It also occurred to me that since physics is all about describing the technical aspects of measurable quantities, it is absurd to say you understand a physics theory well enough to form new ideas without understanding the technical details.
See what I mean dumb-ass?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2014
@zephyr
In Popper's methodology of science the theory can be scientific only when it's falsifiable. If the Einstein's theory will be never wrong, it cannot be falsified. You can draw the conclusion for yourself

unfounded speculation
show proof

@johan
If the reason is obvious, it is EASY to motivate why you reject a manuscript

apparently obvious to only YOU
you are speculating and I can prove it by your own words when you said
If my work is wrong, then I expect a journal of repute, to give me reasons why it is wrong: I am talking about the myriad cases where no reasons are given

you are only supporting the evidence against you as a TROLL
I have NEVER claimed ANYWHERE that I cannot be wrong

and yet you also say
Now you insult me by implying that I do not know my physics and that my colleagues are also idiots when they cannot pick up any mistakes? Who the F are you?

isnt that an assertion that you are NOT wrong?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2014
@johan cont.'d
I have NEVER claimed conspiracy

wrong again. In your own words
My best manuscripts have all been rejected for only one reason: They challenged accepted mainstream dogma

and
the mainstream buffoons who use their positions to censor new physics in order to protect their own work, which in most cases is probably incorrect

and
This has become the rule during the 20th century and is at present strictly applied with a vengeance

and, of course, you offer no validation of said statements,
therefore, it is conspiracy against you and others who publish against the "mainstream dogma"
this is speculation that there could not possibly be any other reasons for declining your work
See also last post about you never being wrong
How the F can I supply "Proof" when the editor and reviewer do not supply these reasons?

supports MY POINT!
how can you supply proof without it?
You cant. You can only SPECULATE

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2014
Reg
Really, Maggnus, I am not saying "everything is wrong", on the contrary, most things are right. It's just that I disagree with you and the rest of the clowns about gravity, what it actually is. And not one of you has can up with an explanation, or a theory of your own. Poor show!

Here's a theory - nothing to back it up other than it makes sense. (in theory, of course...)
Cumulatively Derived Energy Potential (Gravity) as Result of Universal Change in Reference Frame.
It means - "Particles" are merely reference frames of energy state. Add two (particles) together and the result is a logarithmically derived third reference frame that is a balance of the previous 2. Best part is, reference frames are Relativity bound too. Score another one for Einstein and his infallible theory which is nothing more than - Keep it simple, Stupid...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2014
@johan cont.'d
In all the cases involved the manuscripts challenged mainstream dogma, Those manuscripts of mine which did not challenge mainstream dogma and in which I quoted the mainstreamers by kissing up their arses all passed. Thus, there is a rule emerging here, and only a FOOL like you will refuse to see it.
The literature is full of such complaints

first off- using the word of the bruised ego of a person as proof is still only speculation!
DO SOME WORK
show the collections of all rejected "anti-mainstream" papers
then show accepted papers
show reasons for rejection as well as acceptance
make a study out of it
if your evidence is compelling enough, I am sure that SOMEONE will want to see it, if not just the media
you will need a large database

your word here is as good as anyone else's
you are NOT an authority without PROOF
apparently you never learned that lesson and rely upon your perceived authority as proof of being correct, and now you lash out when challenged
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Jan 24, 2014

In all the cases involved the manuscripts challenged mainstream dogma, Those manuscripts of mine which did not challenge mainstream dogma and in which I quoted the mainstreamers by kissing up their arses all passed. Thus, there is a rule emerging here, and only a FOOL like you will refuse to see it.


But all of them could also have been wrong. So, you have two possibilities. They were rejected because they challenged mainstream dogma, or because they were rejected because they were wrong.

Which is likelier, that you made an incorrect argument that even a physicist in training like myself can understand well enough to argue against using physically derived arguments(whether I am right or wrong is not the issue), or that you wrote physically groundbreaking papers that were rejected because there is a conspiracy to reject groundbreaking papers?

If that's the case, how on earth did String Theory, a GUT for which there is no evidence, become so popular with academic journals?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Jan 24, 2014
@ thefurlong
My point is that now that I have learned the technical aspects of a theory, now I KNOW what those articles mean, so I am insulated from crackpot thought of the kind that Reg Mundy has couched himself in.


Really? You claim that you know technical aspects of physics, You could have fooled me since your posts are all dumb-ass assertions without any basis.


I am not going to engage in a name calling session with a 70 year old delusional baby. I posted my argument for the twin paradox above. Your response amounted to "You are a like a skunk and empirical verification doesn't matter because I say so!" I'm still waiting for you to disprove "all that excrement."
Anyway, that post was for a far more reasonable person with a far more reasonable set of speculative ideas.
See what I mean dumb-ass?

No, Mr. Prins. Nobody can see what you mean. I don't think Reg Mundy can see what you mean. I don't even think you can see what you mean.
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2014
...state what your alternative theory is.
C'mon, let's hear it!(Gawad, you are excused, original thought is off limits for you until you reach your level of incompetence!).


Whatever. Alright then, I'll be off to Europe for a bit; I trust you'll have that all sorted out by the time I get back ;)
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2014
I am not going to engage in a name calling session with a 70 year old delusional baby.

He's that old?
I guess that means he's become the old "Hey you kids - get off my grass!" guy.
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2014
first off- using the word of the bruised ego of a person as proof is still only speculation!
DO SOME WORK
show the collections of all rejected "anti-mainstream" papers
then show accepted papers
show reasons for rejection as well as acceptance
make a study out of it
if your evidence is compelling enough, I am sure that SOMEONE will want to see it, if not just the media
you will need a large database
your word here is as good as anyone else's - you are NOT an authority without PROOF
apparently you never learned that lesson and rely upon your perceived authority as proof of being correct, and now you lash out when challenged.

Cap'n.
If we all have to resort to document presentation, Phys.org will start charging a cover.
Next thing ya know, we'll have to find a NEW public pool to hang out at...
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2014
I am not going to engage in a name calling session with a 70 year old delusional baby.

He's that old?
I guess that means he's become the old "Hey you kids - get off my grass!" guy.


On the contrary, I would say that he thinks everyone else is yelling at him to get off the world's grass.
Maggnus
3 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2014
No, Mr. Prins. Nobody can see what you mean. I don't think Reg Mundy can see what you mean. I don't even think you can see what you mean.
This sums it up nicely, thanks furlong.

It's just that I disagree with you and the rest of the clowns about gravity, what it actually is.
Well, looking over what I've said I don't see how you can decide whether or not you disagree with my view of gravity, however dire that might be. (Oh the pun of it all!) And you say that clown thing like there is something wrong with being a clown! I like clowns! Well not the clown from It, but most clowns. Well, except for the mean ones. And the pedophiles. But other than that!

Regardless Reg, my comment stands unmolested; (punny!) whether your views on gravity are right or wrong has nothing to do with the substance of this article. On the contrary, your posts stand in mute (!) testimony of its premise.
Reg Mundy
2 / 5 (1) Jan 24, 2014
@Gawad
...state what your alternative theory is.
C'mon, let's hear it!(Gawad, you are excused, original thought is off limits for you until you reach your level of incompetence!).


Whatever. Alright then, I'll be off to Europe for a bit; I trust you'll have that all sorted out by the time I get back ;)

Enjoy! Meanwhile, I'll keep plugging away at your monolithic tenets, I just hope that when you return you don't find that all of your hard work has been wasted learning about soon-to-be-obsolete theories......
Reg Mundy
3 / 5 (1) Jan 24, 2014
@Captain Grumpy
It's just that I disagree with you and the rest of the clowns about gravity, what it actually is. And not one of you has can up with an explanation, or a theory of your own.

you have also NEVER ONCE validated your claims here about WHY you believe there is no gravity

Of course I have. I have pointed out that there is absolutely no sign nor trace of gravitons, gravitinos, gravity waves, Dark Matter, etc. At least one of these must exist if gravity is a force. What proof do you offer that gravity does exist as a force? (and don't come back with crap about dropping a brick on my foot...)
you are nothing more than a spamming TROLL

Here, that's a bit harsh, Cap'n! Spamming means sending unsolicited messages to people who don't want to receive them. whereas I know you look forward eagerly to my every riposte, allowing you to give vent to your moronic spleen.And a troll is defined in my dictionary as either a dangerous giant or a means of catching fish.
Reg Mundy
2 / 5 (1) Jan 24, 2014
@thefurlong
No, Mr. Prins. Nobody can see what you mean. I don't think Reg Mundy can see what you mean. I don't even think you can see what you mean.

Taking my name in vain is a serious matter, furbrain. Be careful you don't earn my displeasure...
In fact, johan doesn't tell the whole story, Einstein didn't divide by 0, what he did was take an equation like 1 plus 3 equals 4 so therefore 3 plus one equals four, which is patently nonsense. Even you can see that 4 is a number and four is a semantic expression. Einstein persistently mixes his apples and pears. Next thing, people will be using imaginary numbers like squareroot of -1, or infinity, as in (1 plus infinity) = (2 plus infinity), therefore 1 = 2.
Nestle
2 / 5 (1) Jan 24, 2014
@zephyr
In Popper's methodology of science the theory can be scientific only when it's falsifiable. If the Einstein's theory will be never wrong, it cannot be falsified. You can draw the conclusion for yourself

unfounded speculation
show proof
You just know about it - or you don't. It's funny, that the alleged proponent of scientific method doesn't know, what the scientific method is. At any case, all scientific theories today are falsifiable - in this way, the Einstein's theory can be proven wrong. Today we know about dozens of examples violating the relativity.
Nestle
1 / 5 (1) Jan 24, 2014
Even Stephen Hawking doesn't believe in black holes. Black holes are predicted with general relativity. Note that his reasoning doesn't contain a single line of math.... By criterion of all PO voting trolls Dr. Hawking is a crackpot...
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2014
Taking my name in vain is a serious matter, furbrain.
Be careful you don't earn my displeasure...

Man, you sound like a Sith Lord. Calm down. It's just the internet.
what he did was take an equation like 1 plus 3 equals 4 so therefore 3 plus one equals four, which is patently nonsense.

I would appreciate it if you showed me where he did this.
Even you can see that 4 is a number and four is a semantic expression. Einstein persistently mixes his apples and pears.

I see no evidence of this. Please provide some. You can't really believe that I would take you at your word!
Next thing, people will be using imaginary numbers like squareroot of -1,

They do use imaginary numbers, and worse than that, they use quaternions in the case of the Dirac Equation.

P.S. I am still waiting for you to explain how my explanation of the twin paradox implies that photons travel from infinity to a source.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2014
Even Stephen Hawking http://www.rawsto...ck-holes doesn't contain a single line of math.... By criterion of all PO voting trolls Dr. Hawking is a crackpot...


Oye...You do know that Stephen Hawking happens to know black holes really well, right? As in, he's already gotten his Ph.D., and knows how the math works well enough to talk about it without involving math, right?

What do you think he did to earn his doctorate? Write poetry? Maybe you think he painted a picture of a black hole, and then smoked weed with his committee for the rest of his defense?

Yes clearly, because he submits a paper to Arxiv that contains no math, that is definitely the same thing as not bothering to learn the technical details of general relativity, then forming a pet theory of gravity based on his own inchoate understanding of the subject.

Can we please have an insightful comment, now?
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2014
Spamming means sending unsolicited messages to people who don't want to receive them

@reg
yep... and here you are pushing for a book and referencing a book and whining about us not buying your book and reading it to see what you mean... SPAM
a troll is defined in my dictionary as either a dangerous giant or a means of catching fish


https://en.wikipe...ernet%29

and now we can deduce that you are not a spamming troll
you are a STUPID SPAMMING TROLL
I would have used the term ignorant, but it is obvious that you know about the resources available on the internet, therefore you must be stupid
IF YOU are going to push a hypothesis here
you should use LINKS/REFERENCES
and just because something isnt seen now, doesnt mean that it will never be seen
remember, cells were not visible until someone invented the microscope.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2014
@zephyr
You just know about it - or you don't. It's funny, that the alleged proponent of scientific method doesn't know, what the scientific method is

I can only assume that you mean me, as this is addressed to me
this is speculation
show your proof
At any case, all scientific theories today are falsifiable - in this way, the Einstein's theory can be proven wrong

just because I dont believe YOU
and i dont believe in CRACKPOT theories like aether/EU etc, etc
doesnt mean I dont believe in falsifiability in science

as for the meat of this article, it is essentially this: even if we come up with something better than relativity, we will most likely continue to use relativity for a lot of things, in the same manner we still use Newtonian mechanics even though we have relativity. In THIS way, Einstein will never be proven wrong.
This is not a speculation about science not being falsifiable

@everyone else
maybe if we ignore the trolls reg & zeph they will go away?
letshope
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2014
@ thefurlong

No, Mr. Prins. Nobody can see what you mean. I don't think Reg Mundy can see what you mean. I don't even think you can see what you mean.


Thank you for admitting that you are a nobody. It is the only valid assessment you have EVER posted on this forum.

You are correct: I should not expect that "nobodies" can understand the fundamentals of physics and have thus been wasting my time on this thread. Thanks for the advice!

You have been born a nobody and will die a nobody. No wonder you are hiding anonymously: The trademark of a man without any self-esteem and integrity.

Cheers Mr. Nobody: I will not be wasting my valuable time on you and the other nobodies on this thread anymore. I will in future only be posting on ResearhGate where the members are on average not nobodies like you! At least one knows who they are, and know that even though they might be wrong they have integrity: Something you will never have.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2014
Thank you for admitting that you are a nobody. It is the only valid assessment you have EVER posted on this forum.
You are correct: I should not expect that "nobodies" can understand the fundamentals of physics and have thus been wasting my time on this thread. Thanks for the advice!
You have been born a nobody and will die a nobody. No wonder you are hiding anonymously: The trademark of a man without any self-esteem and integrity.
Cheers Mr. Nobody: I will not be wasting my valuable time on you and the other nobodies on this thread anymore. I will in future only be posting on ResearhGate where the members are on average not nobodies like you! At least one knows who they are, and know that even though they might be wrong they have integrity: Something you will never have.

Wow, Jo.. That was cold...
Makes me wanna know, tho, your definition of integrity... I always thought it meant to be honest & truthful... Kinda like Furlong (the Freejack) has been...

Lighten up, Francis..
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2014
Wow, Jo.. That was cold...
Makes me wanna know, tho, your definition of integrity... I always thought it meant to be honest & truthful... Kinda like Furlong (the Freejack) has been.


People who hide behind anonymity do it only for one reason, and that is NOT TO BE HONEST AND TRUTHFUL. That is why a judge cannot sit behind a curtain in court, since everybody knows that the chance that such a judge has integrity is zero. The same is true in any other facet of life.

This is why "anonymous" peer review is a system that undermines integrity in science, since it can be abused and is at present being abused on a grand scale. Murphy's law of human nature is as follows: "If a system that can be abused WILL be abused".

Why is anonymity required at all, other than to be able to act without integrity? This is why criminals wear masks; and that is why furlong, and the rest of you post under anonymity. No other reason at all!

I hope I can now bid a final "fare-badly" to you nobodies!
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2014
Wow, Jo.. That was cold...
Makes me wanna know, tho, your definition of integrity... I always thought it meant to be honest & truthful... Kinda like Furlong (the Freejack) has been.

People who hide behind anonymity do it only for one reason, and that is NOT TO BE HONEST AND TRUTHFUL. That is why a judge cannot sit behind a curtain in court, since everybody knows that the chance that such a judge has integrity is zero. The same is true in any other facet of life.
This is why "anonymous" peer review is a system that undermines integrity in science, since it can be abused and is at present being abused on a grand scale. Murphy's law of human nature is as follows: "If a system that can be abused WILL be abused".
Why is anonymity required at all, other than to be able to act without integrity? This is why criminals wear masks; and that is why furlong, and the rest of you post under anonymity. No other reason at all!

Humorless chap, wasn't he...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2014
Sorry for this off-topic comment, but...
It seems to me that if you fear becoming a has-been, it's usually what happens...
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2014
@ thefurlong

No, Mr. Prins. Nobody can see what you mean. I don't think Reg Mundy can see what you mean. I don't even think you can see what you mean.


Thank you for admitting that you are a nobody. It is the only valid assessment you have EVER posted on this forum.

You are correct: I should not expect that "nobodies" can understand the fundamentals of physics and have ...BLAH BLAH BLAH BLARG BLARG BLARG I AM AN OLD, WASHED UP, VINDICTIVE, MANCHILD! HOW DARE YOU CALL ME OUT ON MY SUB-PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC BS AND EXPOSE ME FOR THE SHAM THAT I'VE BECOME?!

Hmmm... it seems that I hit a nerve.
So does this mean you actually won't be back? Because that would be pretty swell in my book.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2014
Humorless chap, wasn't he...

Yikes! :)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2014
See Reg, that's thee thing. This article, despite the title,. was not about Einstein or his theories. It was about how science progresses and what is required of new theories in order to build upon or replace theories that are already accepted and established.

Something did occur to me about the correctness of accepted science, the other day. Often, in using approximation algorithms, especially greedy ones, there's a danger of converging on local maxima, which can be separated by large "oceans" of poor solutions.

To me, science seems a little like a greedy approximation algorithm, so it seems entirely possible that we are converging on an optimal solution, but it is separated like an island from a vastly different solution that describes reality far better. Do you think that's possible? Do you think science is like a greedy algorithm, or that it's self correcting enough to overcome even local maxima?
Nestle
not rated yet Jan 25, 2014
You do know that Stephen Hawking happens to know black holes really well, right
Define "well"... He is one of best world experts on this subject. His article references the latest insights of many other top physicists as well (Polchinski, Susskind and others).
I dont believe in falsifiability in science
Who cares - the ideas which cannot be falsified (like the God, the existence of which cannot be disproved) don't belong into science, but into religion.
Maggnus
3 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2014
[To me, science seems a little like a greedy approximation algorithm, so it seems entirely possible that we are converging on an optimal solution, but it is separated like an island from a vastly different solution that describes reality far better. Do you think that's possible? Do you think science is like a greedy algorithm, or that it's self correcting enough to overcome even local maxima?

Anything is possible furlong. In my (probably wrong) opinion, All we can do is try to puzzle out the facts, and this puzzling out can only be done by trying to understand what we are seeing. How else can we try to understand then to determine first what is happening and then trying to understand why it is happening. This necessary entails some degree of algorithmic approximation, especially in this day and age, as the seeking of answers has led us to some pretty amazing and heretofore unimaginable insights.

Does this mean we are absolutely right about it all? I think not, ..cont...
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
@reg
yep... and here you are pushing for a book and referencing a book and whining about us not buying your book and reading it to see what you mean... SPAM

Again, your misuse of the word SPAM. Apart from the original steamed pork product, the modern meaning of SPAM is unsolicited mail. I see that your understanding of the meaning of words closely follows your understanding of all things scientific, i.e. is sloppy and illogical. No wonder you can't understand the simplest logical arguments, and resort to insults and threats - you should realise you are only demonstrating your incompetence, you cretin!
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2014
@thefurbrain
P.S. I am still waiting for you to explain how my explanation of the twin paradox implies that photons travel from infinity to a source.

Don't you read your own comments? You said that light could travel backwards! Hilarious! And you accuse me of promoting unproven theories! Take a hike!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2014
@johan
People who hide behind anonymity do it only for one reason, and that is NOT TO BE HONEST AND TRUTHFUL

this is blatantly false and is only your assumption
people also use anonymity for PROTECTION
from idiots, from stalkers, from stupidity, from criminals
If a system that can be abused WILL be abused

now This I can agree with
and the rest of you post under anonymity

nope again
see above comments
and the name I use here I have used professionally since 1989
(except that I didnt get my Truck Captain until 1992)

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2014
Again, your misuse of the word SPAM

@Reg Bundy
OFF TOPIC – but you obviously need correction

Spam
noun
2- disruptive messages, especially commercial messages posted on a computer network or sent as e-mail.
verb (used with object)
3- to send spam to.
verb (used without object)
4- to send spam

http://dictionary...spam?s=t

as stated above, spam is also DISRUPTIVE MESSAGES
your continued pleas to read/buy your book are considered spam
your refusal to provide references/links and use of self reference/authority= TROLL SPAM
I see that your understanding of the meaning of words

see above
No wonder you can't understand the simplest logical arguments

I am not the one who has problems reading and comprehending
resort to insults and threats

show me my threats
you are only demonstrating your incompetence, you cretin

so...
because YOU cant read or understand basic language and logic...
I am the incompetent cretin?

yeah... right
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2014
@reg
and if you regard THIS as being insulting
and now we can deduce that you are not a spamming troll
you are a STUPID SPAMMING TROLL
I would have used the term ignorant, but it is obvious that you know about the resources available on the internet, therefore you must be stupid

then you must be angry at the accuracy of the argument

this is based upon deduction of your own posts and words
after all, i used links and references and you obviously dont bother to read them
this is NOT ignorance, as the references are provided, this is considered stupidity, as it is a deliberate ignoring of the evidence for personal/whatever reasons,
especially if we consider the following inclusions to stupid:
tediously dull, especially due to lack of meaning or sense; inane; pointless
annoying or irritating; troublesome

it is logical to assume the above based upon the evidence you have provided
therefore you are angry because this hits home and you dont wish to accept the truth of it
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2014
Don't you read your own comments? You said that light could travel backwards! Hilarious! And you accuse me of promoting unproven theories! Take a hike!


The only people I see asserting the existence of backwards traveling signals is Shavera and you.

My explanation of the twin paradox contained no such assertion. When you told me that it did imply that it photons travel back in time, it was, and still is, news to me. Go back and read my explanation, and try again, please.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2014
See Reg, that's thee thing. This article, despite the title,. was not about Einstein or his theories. It was about how science progresses and what is required of new theories in order to build upon or replace theories that are already accepted and established.

Something did occur to me about the correctness of accepted science, the other day. Often, in using approximation algorithms, especially greedy ones, there's a danger of converging on local maxima, which can be separated by large "oceans" of poor solutions.

To me, science seems a little like a greedy approximation algorithm, so it seems entirely possible that we are converging on an optimal solution, but it is separated like an island from a vastly different solution that describes reality far better. Do you think that's possible? Do you think science is like a greedy algorithm, or that it's self correcting enough to overcome even local maxima?

It's relative...:-)
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Jan 25, 2014
@thefurbrain
P.S. I am still waiting for you to explain how my explanation of the twin paradox implies that photons travel from infinity to a source.

Don't you read your own comments? You said that light could travel backwards! Hilarious! And you accuse me of promoting unproven theories! Take a hike!

From the source, light travels in ALL directions. left, right, up, down. The one direction it does travel is backwards INTO the source. You sure don't seem to get reference frames and relativity.
Reg Mundy
not rated yet Jan 25, 2014
@Whydening Gob
From the source, light travels in ALL directions. left, right, up, down. The one direction it does travel is backwards INTO the source. You sure don't seem to get reference frames and relativity.

So, photons travel backwards, do they? Which universe do you inhabit? You are as daft as furbrain!
@Cap'n Grumpy
Could you be a little more explicit, I read your last outburst in less than a minute, I am sure you could prolong my enjoyment with a little more effort and attention to detail. Also, I feel your insults are becoming a bit crass and boorish, frankly quite boring, can't you put some inspiration into your invective?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2014
@Reg Mundy
@Whydening Gob
From the source, light travels in ALL directions. left, right, up, down. The one direction it does travel is backwards INTO the source. You sure don't seem to get reference frames and relativity.

So, photons travel backwards, do they? Which universe do you inhabit? You are as daft as furbrain!

Are you going to tell me where I said signals would be moving backwards? I'm still waiting...

It's not looking good for your argument, man.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Jan 25, 2014
@Reg Mundy
@Whydening Gob
From the source, light travels in ALL directions. left, right, up, down. The one direction it does travel is backwards INTO the source. You sure don't seem to get reference frames and relativity.

So, photons travel backwards, do they? Which universe do you inhabit? You are as daft as furbrain!

Are you going to tell me where I said signals would be moving backwards? I'm still waiting...

It's not looking good for your argument, man.

My apologies. I got to typing too fast. Didn't proof read. The one direction they do NOT travel in is back into the source.
Oops.
Guess you might get it after all, Reg.
That's what I get for trying to multi-task...
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Jan 26, 2014
@Whydening Gyre
Apology accepted, and my apologies to you, gentleman. I should never have suggested you were as stupid as furbrain.
By the way, I see Cap'n Grumpy has gone quiet, either I have pissed him off or his fingers have worn out. It can only be good news, and make up for the loss of Johan who was one of the few intelligent contributors to this thread.
@thefurbrain
You said:-
Yeah, except, the primed signal CAN travel in the opposite direction to the primed signal. Hell, we don't even need special relativity for this, just galilean.

Was this just miss-typing on your part? Or did you actually mean that the primed signal travels both ways simultaneously, or first forwards then backwards, or vice versa - I'm getting a headache.....
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Jan 26, 2014
It can only be good news, and make up for the loss of Johan who was one of the few intelligent contributors to this thread.

LOL! Cocaine is a hell of a drug!
@thefurbrain
You said:-
Yeah, except, the primed signal CAN travel in the opposite direction to the primed signal. Hell, we don't even need special relativity for this, just galilean.

1) I said that AFTER my first twin paradox explanation; it's not even part of it (or the second, for that matter).
AND

Was this just miss-typing on your part?

2) YES! That was a typo! I meant to say that the primed signal can travel in the direction opposite the unprimed signal. I thought that it was obvious enough not to be corrected. My mistake, though you could have asked me to explain what I meant, if it didn't make sense to you.

So, no, that has nothing to do with my twin paradox explanation. Now, do you believe me?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 26, 2014
@reg
By the way, I see Cap'n Grumpy has gone quiet, either I have pissed him off or his fingers have worn out

given all that was posted and the meat of the thread
I am still waiting for you to refute what I posted

OR provide evidence of something other than your opinion

OR at least explain this
Ain't no gravity, it's all expansion

using references and links to reputable sites
and peer reviewed papers
empirical data, ETC
(we've already seen your OPINION)
and NOT using links to your book
which may or may not be valid science

I would prefer the last one

anything?
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (1) Jan 26, 2014
Ain't no gravity, it's all expansion

Two words. Charge differential. Acronym for future reference - CD.
the concept works as an explanation for EVERYTHING, inclusive of concepts or "Reference Frames" (opinions, ideas, theories, website comment threads, yada, yada, yada....)

It is the Universe's "tool" for achieving balance (equal charge) throughout itself.
Einstein, himself, told you the mechanism for understanding how the "Law of Opposites" works to refine and achieve Equivalence (Balance) - Relativity.
IE - Matter is Charge, Empty space is Potential and the Difference is the operator.
The Universe, along with everything in it, is a "difference engine".

just my reference frame...

mohammadshafiq_khan_1
Jan 27, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Jan 27, 2014
Read http://www.expres...is-grave
Absence of Black Holes means Stephen Hawking has finally accepted that there are serious problems with both Newton's concept of Gravity & Einstein's General Theory of Relativity because both require Black Holes at the center of the galaxies.

No, it doesn't. The article just says that he conjectured that matter would eventually be able to escape from black holes. Supermassive black holes would still have the same mass (hence same gravitational pull), hence, this does not break the theory that there is a black hole at the center of each galaxy.

So, no, it does not justify that open challenge.

Even if he did propose that black holes don't exist, a peer review process would follow in which leading minds of the world would propose ways to test his hypothesis. It would be years before science had settled on the matter. So, please, calm down :).
Osteta
Jan 27, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Jan 27, 2014
that matter would eventually be able to escape from black holes
This would be violation of relativity as well.

No, it would not violate relativity. Relativity is a theory about how gravity affects space-time geometry at macroscopic scales. It does not incorporate what happens to space time at quantum scales any more than electromagnetism incorporates what happens to charged particles at quantum scales.

Hawking predicted that marrying black holes to quantum mechanics would imply black holes would emit hawking radiation. In the article, he suggests that this hawking radiation changes the geometry of the black hole. If it didn't radiate, its geometry would be as described by GR with QM.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 27, 2014
@Zephyr
This would be violation of relativity as well.

black holes evaporate over time as proven by Hawking
this is Quantum mechanical
how is relativity violated?

i would say more but i believe furlong has presented it quite well
ubavontuba
5 / 5 (3) Jan 27, 2014
black holes evaporate over time as proven by Hawking
This is a hypothesis. It's not "proven."
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Jan 27, 2014
It would be years before science had settled on the matter
Apparently you're under hope, that the peer review would slow down the acceptation of correct model instead of establishing it. This is not what the peer-review has been designed for.


How do you know this is the correct model without peer review to verify that it's correct? Do you know something the rest of the human race doesn't know? Are you psychic :)?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jan 27, 2014
black holes evaporate over time as proven by Hawking
This is a hypothesis. It's not "proven."

@uba
sorry, i stand corrected
you are right, it is hypothesis
my apologies

doesnt change what the Hawking article says,though
apparently the article title is used to generate clicks or shock value
as it doesnt say that black holes DONT exist, it just says that the firewall doesnt exist, and that the event horizon is not what we think either.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Jan 27, 2014
@Captain Stumpy

sorry, i stand corrected
you are right, it is hypothesis
my apologies

Can you ever imagine someone like Reg Mundy posting a comment like this?
ubavontuba
5 / 5 (3) Jan 27, 2014
doesnt change what the Hawking article says,though
apparently the article title is used to generate clicks or shock value
as it doesnt say that black holes DONT exist, it just says that the firewall doesnt exist, and that the event horizon is not what we think either.
Well, there's not enough information in the article to base a sound opinion, but it seems he's trying to expand on his original work by stating the horizon is a "soft" horizon as it suposedly allows energy/information to pass.

Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (1) Jan 27, 2014
The part I'm not getting is why do they say no black holes, when what he REALLY said was no "absolute" black holes...
Am I the 400th caller, now?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 27, 2014
@thefurlong
Nope... he would never do it

@ubavontuba
this is pretty much how i see it too.

here is the arXiv link
i didnt know if yall saw it or not

http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5761

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 27, 2014
@W Gyre
The part I'm not getting is why do they say no black holes, when what he REALLY said was no "absolute" black holes.

it probably has something to do with this quote
"The absence of event horizons means that there are no black holes — in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity," Hawking writes.
[sic]
from the article
ubavontuba
4.5 / 5 (2) Jan 27, 2014
this is pretty much how i see it too.

here is the arXiv link
i didnt know if yall saw it or not

http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5761
Thanks for the link. It's very eloquently written.

thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Jan 27, 2014
The part I'm not getting is why do they say no black holes, when what he REALLY said was no "absolute" black holes...
Am I the 400th caller, now?


Yep, you are correct. You read the article, and its content turns out not to actually agree with the title.

It's just an extremely dishonest, irresponsible, sensationalized title. If they wanted to maintain shock value while still being honest, they could have written "Stephen Hawking says there is no such thing as black holes as we know them." meaning that there are black holes, but they just don't trap matter indefinitely.

While using that title is irresponsible, some blame still falls on the likes of laymen who use the title in their arguments, but don't bother to actually read the content of the article. As a rule of thumb, Popular science media ALWAYS SENSATIONALIZES.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 27, 2014
@Uba
you are welcome
I agree... very eloquent

@furlong
While using that title is irresponsible, some blame still falls on the likes of laymen who use the title in their arguments, but don't bother to actually read the content of the article. As a rule of thumb, Popular science media ALWAYS SENSATIONALIZES

this article above is a great case in point about your statement...
the title alone assumes infallibility
whereas the article only really says that no matter what, we are likely to be using GR/SR in the future even IF we find out that it is not 100% accurate, just as we still use Newton's math for basic stuff as it is still relevant and works

i love these quotes
So unless you have experimental evidence that clearly contradicts general relativity, claims of "disproving Einstein" will fall on deaf ears

and
Einstein's theory will still be as valid as it ever was. Einstein won't have been proven wrong, we'll simply understand the limits of his theory.


Nestle
3.5 / 5 (2) Jan 27, 2014
Thanks for the link. It's very eloquently written
I linked it already here, but I was downvoted for it, because I said, it's very eloquently written dismissal of general relativity for black hole theory...;-)
Nestle
1 / 5 (1) Jan 27, 2014
there is no such thing as black holes as we know them." meaning that there are black holes, but they just don't trap matter indefinitely
We actually don't know black holes in other way, than the general relativity, because they weren't observed yet. The general relativity doesn't allow escapement of matter from black hole in any form. The Hawking radiation wouldn't violate relativity if only the photons would be massless - but after then the black hole couldn't evaporate its matter anyway. So in this way or another - evaporation of black holes violates the relativity. It's no secret for me, that the black holes can radiate much more energy, than the Hawking radiation predicts. Such a radiation of neutrinos from Milky Way may be even responsible for global warming period (compare the La Violette theory in this regard) - so that the violation of relativity with black holes could have quite tangible impact for us.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Jan 27, 2014
The Hawking radiation wouldn't violate relativity if only the photons would be massless - but after then the black hole couldn't evaporate its matter anyway.


People more knowledgeable about this can correct me, but I don't think Hawking radiation is radiation of stuff from inside the black hole. Rather, it is the result of particle-antiparticle pairs appearing just on the event horizon. One particle on the inside gets trapped by the black hole, the other is not trapped, and can escape. Due to energy conservation the black hole then loses energy.

Hawking is saying that this process shrinks the apparent horizon so that matter and energy that WAS trapped INSIDE this horizon is now no longer trapped.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (3) Jan 27, 2014
Thanks for the link. It's very eloquently written
I linked it already here, but I was downvoted for it, because I said, it's very eloquently written dismissal of general relativity for black hole theory...;-)
Yes Zephyr, because you were wrong, it is not a dismissal of general relativity.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Jan 27, 2014
As I understand it furlong ( sorry going off topic for a second) you have it basically right, in that a particle-antiparticle pairing is separated at the black hole. In those instances where the anti-particle is trapped, it will annihilate a particle inside the black hole, and the now freed particle sails off into space; this freed particle is what we would see as radiation. There is nothing to suggest, however, that the anti-particle side of the equation is necessarily the one which gets trapped, and there has been no evidence of the phenomena seen to date.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 27, 2014
As I understand it furlong ( sorry going off topic for a second) you have it basically right, in that a particle-antiparticle pairing is separated at the black hole. In those instances where the anti-particle is trapped, it will annihilate a particle inside the black hole, and the now freed particle sails off into space; this freed particle is what we would see as radiation. There is nothing to suggest, however, that the anti-particle side of the equation is necessarily the one which gets trapped, and there has been no evidence of the phenomena seen to date.

I believe I read an article by Hawking, a couple/few years back, that said this...
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Jan 27, 2014
@Captain Stumpy

sorry, i stand corrected
you are right, it is hypothesis
my apologies

Can you ever imagine someone like Reg Mundy posting a comment like this?

Quite right, it's very unlikely. By the way, are thefurbrain and Cap'n Grumpy now a mutual admiration society?
Nestle
1 / 5 (1) Jan 27, 2014
Yes Zephyr, because you were wrong, it is not a dismissal of general relativity.
In context of black holes - yes. Every theory has it's own context and validity scope. Everything what I ever wrote about black holes here during last five years is now getting vindicated. Do you want to read, what will happen next? Probably not...
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Jan 27, 2014
@Captain Stumpy

sorry, i stand corrected
you are right, it is hypothesis
my apologies

Can you ever imagine someone like Reg Mundy posting a comment like this?

Quite right, it's very unlikely. By the way, are thefurbrain and Cap'n Grumpy now a mutual admiration society?

What? Are you feeling lonely?
I see that you chimed in to make a dig at us, but that you failed to respond to my comment about reverse traveling light signals.
I guess you got nothin' :)
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Jan 27, 2014
In context of black holes - yes. Every theory has it's own context and validity scope.
Well in the context of aether it's wrong too. Cause aether is a made up, non-scientific mumbo-jumbled mathless pretend thing.
Everything what I ever wrote about black holes here during last five years is now getting vindicated. Do you want to read, what will happen next? Probably not...


No it isn't. You're right about that, no I probably won't. I bet I can guess though; the paddling duck on the water ripple pool will sink into the aether heated water and become Peking!
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 27, 2014
Not aether, but aether-like. just a thought experiment....
Empty space is an opposite charge to matter. Being directly next to a "matter space" causes it to gain some of the matter's energy. Now it has the tiniest bit of energy to pull the matter closer, increasing it's energy which increases the attraction again. It does this over and over and over. Just LOOKS like energy is being "radiated" from the matter. This is like Casimir effect, from my understanding.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 27, 2014
@zephyr
Everything what I ever wrote about black holes here during last five years is now getting vindicated

I was not here for that long, so I cannot truthfully say that this statement hold any validity though
however, this seems dubious if everything in the past related to aether theories
Do you want to read, what will happen next? Probably not...

as long as it does NOT relate to aether theory it might be quite stimulating
but use peer reviewed links/references and leave out the crackpot stuff, please
aether is debunked crackpot stuff

@reg
Quite right, it's very unlikely....society?

OFF TOPIC
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 28, 2014
In context of black holes - yes. Every theory has it's own context and validity scope. Everything what I ever wrote about black holes here during last five years is now getting vindicated. Do you want to read, what will happen next? Probably not...

Damn... guess I'm a cat... I'm curious an' wanna read. Altho, I have a sneaky suspicion I already know....

ubavontuba
not rated yet Jan 28, 2014
As I understand it furlong ( sorry going off topic for a second) you have it basically right, in that a particle-antiparticle pairing is separated at the black hole. In those instances where the anti-particle is trapped, it will annihilate a particle inside the black hole, and the now freed particle sails off into space; this freed particle is what we would see as radiation. There is nothing to suggest, however, that the anti-particle side of the equation is necessarily the one which gets trapped, and there has been no evidence of the phenomena seen to date.
As I understand it, Hawking radiation is not about antimatter/matter so much as positive versus negative energy.

What this means (roughly) is relative to an outside observer, the infalling particle has negative energy, thereby subtracting mass/energy from the black hole. The outward moving particle oppositely adds mass/energy to the universe at large.

Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Jan 28, 2014
@thefurbrain
@Captain Stumpy

sorry, i stand corrected
you are right, it is hypothesis
my apologies

Can you ever imagine someone like Reg Mundy posting a comment like this?

Quite right, it's very unlikely. By the way, are thefurbrain and Cap'n Grumpy now a mutual admiration society?

What? Are you feeling lonely?
I see that you chimed in to make a dig at us, but that you failed to respond to my comment about reverse traveling light signals.
I guess you got nothin' :)

You said:-

Yeah, except, the primed signal CAN travel in the opposite direction to the primed signal.
Was this just miss-typing on your part?

2) YES! That was a typo! I meant to say that the primed signal can travel in the direction opposite the unprimed signal. I thought that it was obvious .....

So, it was a mistake, right?
And no, I'm not feeling lonely, I am just glad that you and the Cap'n have found each other - schizophrenia can be a lonely place....
Reg Mundy
3 / 5 (1) Jan 28, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
@thefurbrain
@reg
Quite right, it's very unlikely....society?
OFF TOPIC

OK, fair comment. I'll contribute my bit to the black hole debate....
According to my theory, ALL matter in OUR UNIVERSE expands at a constant rate, which we call "time". We experience this at the surface of the Earth as what you call the force of gravity. When sufficient matter gathers together, the force thus generated at the surface causes the matter to become spherical. As the amount of matter further increases, the expansion causes the matter to be compressed resulting eventually in neutron stars. Further added matter causes the resulting expansion of the surface of the sphere to attain almost light speed, a limiting factor in our universe. Further added matter causes the breakdown of matter in our universe, initially to radiation but then the destruction of photons themselves (in my theory, photons consist of two or more "elementary" particles). Effectively, matter leaves "our universe".
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (1) Jan 28, 2014
@uba
sounds like pretty much the same thing, yeah

... vacuum fluctuations cause a particle-antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole). By this process, the black hole loses mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle. In another model, the process is a quantum tunnelling effect, whereby particle-antiparticle pairs will form from the vacuum, and one will tunnel outside the event horizon.[11]
[sic]

https://en.wikipe...adiation

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 28, 2014
@reg
ALL matter in OUR UNIVERSE expands at a constant rate, which we call "time". We experience this at the surface of the Earth as what you call the force of gravity

IMHO- if all matter (ie Earth as well as people) expanded at a constant rate, this would give a net pull of zero, wouldnt it?
IF there was no gravity and ALL matter expanded at the same rate, then that seems like it would mean that we would collide with earth and the resulting effect would send us off the surface unless there was another force keeping us held down to the earth...

there must be another force, logically, to keep small pieces of matter clinging to larger pieces.
Unless you are going to claim some static cling theory?

do you have any math/data/experimental data/studies to back up this lack of gravity?
Further added matter... light speed

IMHO- this infers BH's outgrow galaxies within 1mill yrs of collapse
we dont see that
we wouldnt exist if this were true
ubavontuba
4 / 5 (2) Jan 28, 2014
sounds like pretty much the same thing, yeah

... vacuum fluctuations cause a particle-antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole). By this process, the black hole loses mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle...
Which then begs the difficult question: Can any existing particle really have negative energy relative to any observer?

http://en.wikiped...ive_mass

Saying it "must" have in order to make the math work is not the same as saying it's a real and observable phenomenon.

thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Jan 28, 2014
Yeah, except, the primed signal CAN travel in the opposite direction to the primed signal.
Was this just miss-typing on your part?

2) YES! That was a typo! I meant to say that the primed signal can travel in the direction opposite the unprimed signal. I thought that it was obvious ..


Meaning that you don't actually have a counter-argument to my twin paradox explanation, since all you're doing at this point is vapidly insulting me. All right then. :)
Reg Mundy
2 / 5 (1) Jan 28, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
ALL matter in OUR UNIVERSE expands at a constant rate, which we call "time". We experience this at the surface of the Earth as what you call the force of gravity


IMHO- if all matter (ie Earth as well as people) expanded at a constant rate, this would give a net pull of zero, wouldnt it?

Sorry, should have read "constant rate of acceleration" - didn't think about it being interpreted as a constant rate i.e. speed, which would of course be illogical.
IMHO- this infers BH's outgrow galaxies within 1mill yrs of collapse
we dont see that
we wouldnt exist if this were true

Everything in the universe is also expanding at a constant acceleration, thus giving rise to the universal effect you call "gravity". BHs can only expand at light speed, and so effectively "drop out" of our universe as they no longer obey the laws of physics which dictate the path of our universe thru' the primordial chaos. They move to a different time rate joining the "Dark Matter" .
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) Jan 28, 2014
@Reg Mundy
According to my theory, ALL matter in OUR UNIVERSE expands at a constant rate, which we call "time".

I take this to mean it expands into space. How does it expand, because here are the huge problems from what I am imagining.

By the Shell theorem (which is Gauss' law for gravity) tells us that an object located anywhere inside a hollow spherical shell does not experience gravity from that shell. This is fundamental to the way gravity works, because it is conservative and divergence free.

In your theory, an object located inside a hollow shell would be attracted to the inside of the shell as it expanded towards the center. Thus, it would feel gravity from the shell. This is a big problem.

(To be continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) Jan 28, 2014
@Reg Mundy (continued from last time)
Even worse, consider a massive toroidal object. How would this expand? If your hypothesis where true, then we would see toroidal objects "fill in" and become spheres. First, that means that we would have seen small doughnut-shaped objects fill in and become spheres a long time ago. Humans have been fashioning such objects for a while.

A similar problem happens with objects that have cavities. Earth isn't a solid ball. It has caves, some of which are millions of years old. By your hypothesis, these caves should have filled in by now, or at least grown measurably smaller.

These are HUGE problems. So, how does matter expand, because the way I understand it, your theory is not looking so good.
thefurlong
not rated yet Jan 28, 2014
@Reg Mundy
Also, in my first comment I made a typo. "By the Shell theorem (which is Gauss' law for gravity) tells us that an object located anywhere inside a hollow spherical shell does not experience gravity from that shell." should read "The Shell theorem (which is Gauss' law for gravity) tells us that an object located anywhere inside a hollow spherical shell of uniform density does not experience gravity from that shell."

Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Jan 28, 2014
@thefurlong
@Reg Mundy
According to my theory, ALL matter in OUR UNIVERSE expands at a constant rate, which we call "time".

I take this to mean it expands into space. How does it expand, because here are the huge problems from what I am imagining.

By the Shell theorem (which is Gauss' law for gravity) tells us that an object located anywhere inside a hollow spherical shell does not experience gravity from that shell. This is fundamental to the way gravity works, because it is conservative and divergence free.

In your theory, an object located inside a hollow shell would be attracted to the inside of the shell as it expanded towards the center. Thus, it would feel gravity from the shell.

Like I said, "ain't no gravity...".
Look, to be blunt, if I was to try to explain how the whole theory works, it would mean typing the entire book into this site, which I have neither the time nor inclination to do. Either read the book, or figure it out for yourself.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Jan 28, 2014
@the furlong
@Reg Mundy (continued from last time)
Even worse, consider a massive toroidal object. How would this expand? If your hypothesis where true, then we would see toroidal objects "fill in" and become spheres. First, that means that we would have seen small doughnut-shaped objects fill in and become spheres a long time ago. Humans have been fashioning such objects for a while.

A similar problem happens with objects that have cavities. Earth isn't a solid ball. It has caves, some of which are millions of years old. By your hypothesis, these caves should have filled in by now, or at least grown measurably smaller.

These are HUGE problems. So, how does matter expand, because the way I understand it, your theory is not looking so good.

You are wasting my time.
Get yourself any reasonable book on physics, and look up "expansion of a hole", examples of which you will find under "materials expanding when heated" and similar.
thefurlong
4 / 5 (2) Jan 28, 2014

By the Shell theorem (which is Gauss' law for gravity) tells us that an object located anywhere inside a hollow spherical shell does not experience gravity from that shell. This is fundamental to the way gravity works, because it is conservative and divergence free.

Just a correction. I meant curl free. oops. :)

thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Jan 28, 2014
Like I said, "ain't no gravity...".
Look, to be blunt, if I was to try to explain how the whole theory works, it would mean typing the entire book into this site, which I have neither the time nor inclination to do. Either read the book, or figure it out for yourself.

But then your hand wavey explanation isn't compelling enough to warrant my wanting to read your book.

The canonical explanation of gravity as a distortion of space time geometry, while also hand wavey, is compelling, because I can imaging how geodesics might be altered to produce gravity.

Your explanation, from the get-go, is riddled with all kinds of problems. If you can't give me a good hand wavey reason for why these shouldn't be problems, then I have no reason to believe that you have a good idea.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Jan 28, 2014
You are wasting my time.
Get yourself any reasonable book on physics, and look up "expansion of a hole", examples of which you will find under "materials expanding when heated" and similar.

Yes, some objects expand when heated (though not all). I took an advanced thermodynamics course and did quite well, thank you very much. What's your point?

Instead of addressing the points above, all you have done is tell me to read a book. If you know the subject so well, you should be able to tell me why these contentions aren't an issue. Why, if you are so proud of your theory, you should be happy to explain the finer details!

But here's the thing. I don't think you've done the math. I don't think you've even thought this through. And that's why you are telling me to read a book, because you have no answer for me.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Jan 28, 2014
@Reg Mundy
Ahhh, so I looked up expansion of holes. Yes, matter can expand in that way, but there's a big problem.

Suppose you have two balls of the same size, one of lead, and one of styrofoam. Now place them close to each other. These two balls are of different density. The matter they are composed of is expanding outward at the same acceleration. By your hypothesis, they should attract eachother with the same strength, meaning that the centroid of their geometry should remain in the same place. But this doesn't happen. In reality, the centroid will tend towards the lead ball faster than the styrofoam.

This means that matter doesn't accelerate uniformly, but accelerates by the amount of matter in a given volume, but let's test that out.

(to be continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Jan 28, 2014
@Reg Mundy (continued from last time)
Take a humongous ball of lead and position it next to two styrofoam balls.

Now, by your hypothesis, yes, the two styrofoam balls will be "attracted" to the surface of the lead ball, but an observer out in space will simply see the two stryofoam balls expand. Their centers, however, would remain in the same space.

In reality, an observer not out in space would see the two styrofoam balls approach each other, but maintain the same size. In other words, their centers will approach each other, but their radii will remain the same.

So, this must mean that the space observer's notion of distance must also change so that the center of each ball converges, but so that their sizes remain the same. This would be a very strange metric, so strange that I have difficulty believing such a metric exists.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Jan 28, 2014
@thefurlong
In reality, an observer not out in space would see the two styrofoam balls approach each other, but maintain the same size. In other words, their centers will approach each other

Wow! You mean, as if there was some strange force attracting them? What could it be? Are they electrostatically charged? Magnetized? Or should we invent a new force?
So, this must mean that the space observer's notion of distance must also change so that the center of each ball converges, but so that their sizes remain the same.

If the observer "thinks" the distance remains unchanged, he would actually be part of the general expansion incorporating the whole assembly of lead ball, styrofoam balls and observer, in which case expansion takes place from the centre of mass of the whole thing (unless the observer is a huge distance away, as everything must be considered relative to the sort of distances between atomic nucleii size and orbiting electrons/waves- atomic perimeter).
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Jan 28, 2014
@Reg Mundy
@thefurlong
Wow! You mean, as if there was some strange force attracting them? What could it be? Are they electrostatically charged? Magnetized? Or should we invent a new force?

Um...what? The two styrofoam balls are gravitationally attracted to each other.

By your hypothesis, this attraction is because they are expanding. But that doesn't make sense, since an observer out in space would merely see them "inflating".

thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Jan 28, 2014
@Reg Mundy
If the observer "thinks" the distance remains unchanged, he would actually be part of the general expansion incorporating the whole assembly of lead ball, styrofoam balls and observer, in which case expansion takes place from the centre of mass of the whole thing


Ahh, so everything expands from the center of mass. So, let's test this out.

Place two balls of equal mass and size near each other in a vacuum, say interstellar space. Based on your hypothesis, they would repel each other, since the entire system would be expanding from the center of mass. That certainly doesn't happen.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) Jan 28, 2014
disregard this comment
Reg Mundy
not rated yet Jan 28, 2014
@thefurlong
disregard this comment

Which comment?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Jan 28, 2014
@thefurlong
disregard this comment

Which comment?

The comment, which "reads disregard this comment". I double posted by mistake.

You haven't told me whether you have any arguments against my twin paradox argument. I take it that you now have none.

Also, I am still waiting for your arguments against my arguments against your hypothesis of gravity being expansion. Please disregard that last sentence if you are currently writing or have written them.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 28, 2014
@reg
Either read the book, or figure it out for yourself.

now hold on here reg. You made a claim, and we asked how it would work. You came HERE to pose your hypothesis, we didnt seek YOU out, therefore it only seems fair and logical that we ask you to prove your hypothesis, with science, references, links, etc.
dont go back to being like that...

Now, furlong has asked some questions that I would have brought up had I answered first
they are legit questions...

I have another...
IF everything is expanding at the same acceleration, then you would experience the exact same gravity standing on the moon as standing on the earth, as the acceleration between you adn the moon would be equal to you and the earth... at least, that is how it appears to me, anyway...

then there is the Toroid shape to consider and its expansion into...????
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 28, 2014
@uba
Can any existing particle really have negative energy relative to any observer?

good point
from what I can tell (IOW- this is IMHO)
delete the (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole) part of it...
then imagine that particle-antiparticle is created from just beyond the event horizon. This radiation does not come directly from the black hole itself, but rather is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles. As the particle-antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy, the escape of one of the particles takes away some of the mass of the black hole.
(from the same link posted earlier)

I cant answer the "negative energy relative to the observer" question as it doesn't jibe with me either... know any physicists?
Reg Mundy
2 / 5 (2) Jan 28, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
@reg

IF everything is expanding at the same acceleration, then you would experience the exact same gravity standing on the moon as standing on the earth, as the acceleration between you adn the moon would be equal to you and the earth... at least, that is how it appears to me, anyway...

then there is the Toroid shape to consider and its expansion into...????

There is more mass in the Earth, therefore more acceleration at its surface. But remember, the number of atoms remains the same, so would there be a discrepancy between the "gravitic" force on Earth's surface and the EXPECTED (from Newton/Einstein) "gravitic" force on the surface of the Moon, which should have been relative only to mass? Easy to prove/disprove, you would think...But of course the relative masses stay the same.
About toroids (and any other shape) if the size of every constituent particle, e.g. atoms, doubles, what do you think would happen to the shape? Would it change?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 28, 2014
@reg
also explain gravitational lensing in your hypothesis?
as there would be NO lensing in your theory without additional forces to attempt to explain away the bending that we actually see/measure now

also, how would you determine the mass and density of the earth in your hypothesis?
describe the process and show a simple formula that would work. what would you use to replace the gravitational constant given your "no gravity" hypothesis
There is more mass in the Earth, therefore more acceleration at its surface

and how exactly would this work if there is constant acceleration?

your hypothesis would also assume that any rock the SIZE of earth would have equal acceleration therefore equal gravity, but Relativity says it is dependant upon mass...

therefore, under your hypothesis, you can have a world made of styrofoam (or a balloon full of air) the same size as earth giving equal gravity as earth, which is not logical
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 28, 2014
@reg
There is more mass in the Earth, therefore more acceleration at its surface. But remember, the number of atoms remains the same

makes no sense 2 me
I can see it being functional if each atom used its surface area to divide and grow exponentially, however, keeping the same amount of atoms and growing at a constant rate means that the earth and mars/moon/jupiter would all have the same acceleration at the surface: remember, they all have the SAME amount of atoms as now, and acceleration: therefore (logically) the growth rate (or acceleration) would be exactly the same on earth as any other sphere

this does not take the orbits of the planets around stars into consideration either, as without gravity, the planets would fly off in straight paths

Gravity bends space/time due to the mass of the sun, giving readings that can be measured, like gravitational lensing and the orbits of the planets

your hypothesis does not explain orbits per your definitions stated thus far
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 30, 2014
@reg
There is more mass in the Earth, therefore more acceleration at its surface. But remember, the number of atoms remains the same...

the more I think about this the less sense it makes
gravity is mass dependent (it is the mass-proportionate force of attraction among matter) but you are now saying that mass ALSO has a dependent effect in your theory, which you claim is NOT gravity. You cant have it both ways!

IF your theory states that all matter/space is expanding at a constant acceleration (Acc) and that "gravity" is just this Acc that we feel, then logically we would feel that acceleration on ANY object, spherical or otherwise, with equal proportion
IOW- I would "experience" 1G standing on a dinner plate in space due to constant Acc regardless of mass or size as Acc cannot increase just due to mass (remember: constant Acc), but only with constant doubling of each number of pieces of matter along WITH Acc
This also means ALL trajectories would be straight (from planets to arrows) as well, and there would be NO FUSION or STARS or Grav. LENSING
it also means that SMOKE/FIRE would NOT RISE on earth, it would react as if in 0 Grav. environment

Therefore your theory is directly refuted with simple observed phenomenon UNLESS there is a MASS DEPENDENT PHENOMENON like GRAVITY
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Jan 31, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
Sorry to be so long responding, pressure of work.
Look, nitwit, if the mass doubles in size and the acceleration depends on the mass, and the mass doubles in size again, the acceleration doubles again.
I am very busy at the moment, and I am now bored with answering silly questions from people who can't be bothered to think things through, so am signing off.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Jan 31, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
Sorry to be so long responding, pressure of work.
I am very busy at the moment, and I am now bored with answering silly questions from people who can't be bothered to think things through, so am signing off.

That's an awesome strategy you have of selling your idea, Reg.

Imagine if companies adopted your unique brand of advertising. I can see it now -
"Introducing the shamWow. We would show you how it soaks up water, but you know what? Do your own goddamn research. Peace! I'm out!"

Or lawyers -
"So, you see, it's obvious the Mr. Jones murdered his wife in cold blood. No! Stop pointing out silly things like how a security camera shows him in his office at the time, and how his neighbor was found at the scene cackling with a bloody knife in his hands. No! You're all schizophrenic! I'm bored with this now. Signing off!"

Truly, you have won the Internet this day, sir.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2014
@reg
given this
should have read "constant rate of acceleration"

and this
Everything in the universe is also expanding at a constant acceleration, thus giving rise to the universal effect you call "gravity"

then it stands to reason that both a 1 lb sphere and a 1x100^99 TON sphere would expand at exactly the same rate, regardless of mass of each, as all particles expand equally
an observer would see both spheres expanding equally, therefore would only see two spheres sitting there (as the observer would be expanding as well)
this means zero force felt UNLESS the matter (of higher mass/density objects) is doubling in amount as well as expanding!
if high mass expands faster than low mass, then we would see huge distortions in proportion after short periods proving your theory, and we dont see that

again, see the Balloon / plate / Earth comment above... all would give the same force during expansion as long as they were of the same size

to be continued
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2014
@reg
continued...

this means that there is NO force acting to keep objects on earth, nor in orbits UNLESS there is ANOTHER mass dependent force acting in collusion to guarantee a gravitic attraction!
This also means ALL trajectories would be straight
there would be NO FUSIONetc
it also means that SMOKE/FIRE would NOT RISE on earth

NOW - although you tried to change the subject with acceleration being mass dependant...
if THAT were true, we would see a distortion of proportions (between planets) grow rapidly in our own solar system as the high mass planets would accelerate, or grow, faster than the low mass ones, (even Earth/Moon) and we DONT see this!
THEREFORE you MUST BE WRONG!

given your comments as proof without any other logical material support:
as gravity IS THE MASS-PROPORTIONATE ATTRATCTION btwn OBJECTS
then you are stating that your theory ONLY WORKS as LONG AS THERE IS ALREADY GRAVITY!

Unless, of course, you can show otherwise, which you have YET to do...

i'm waiting
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Feb 01, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
@thefurlong
Ok, one last shot at sanity:-
NOW - although you tried to change the subject with acceleration being mass dependant...
if THAT were true, we would see a distortion of proportions (between planets) grow rapidly in our own solar system as the high mass planets would accelerate, or grow, faster than the low mass ones, (even Earth/Moon) and we DONT see this!

If the Earth doubles in size at the same time the Moon doubles in size, how do you see a distortion of proportions?
Cont'd.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Feb 01, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
@thefurlong
The other question you put boils down to "Why less gravity with same size planet but of lower density?".
Consider the Earth (radius 6371 km) with a mountain 10 km high, the acceleration at the top (what you call g) being determined experimentally as less than g at its foot. Consider two moments in "time" as t, now and when the Earth has expanded so that its radius is 6382 km. As g is relative to radius change (mass/volume change, i.e r/(4*r^3 /3) i.e. r^2), and distance to be travelled in t at foot = 10km and at top 10 + (10/6381), g must be proportional to 10/6371 at foot and (10 + (10/6381))/6381 at top. So, g reduces proportionally to square of distance from centre of mass. Conveniently, so does gravity, which obviously proves that one theory is correct and the other is not wrong!
Cont.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Feb 01, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
@thefurlong
Finally, gravitic lensing. There is no empty space, all space has SOME gas as a perfect vacuum is unachievable. Therefore light is passing thru' a medium, and is subject to refraction. As matter is more dense around galaxies/black holes/etc., these refract light. As the distances involved are so great and the angle of refraction is so small, the separation of light by wavelength is negligible - there may even be a threshold at which no separation takes place. Alternatively, as we (the observer) are expanding and the time light has been travelling is so long, we may have a significant velocity across the path of light arriving at Earth so that we experience the same effect as moving across a wind, when the wind seems to come from a different direction.
Can you disprove any of these theories?
Anyway, that really is it for this thread, I will not be responding further.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Feb 01, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
@thefurlong

Consider the Earth (radius 6371 km) with a mountain 10 km high, the acceleration at the top (what you call g) being determined experimentally as less than g at its foot. Consider two moments in "time" as t, now and when the Earth has expanded so that its radius is 6382 km. As g is relative to radius change (mass/volume change, i.e r/(4*r^3 /3) i.e. r^2), and distance to be travelled in t at foot = 10km and at top 10 + (10/6381), g must be proportional to 10/6371 at foot and (10 + (10/6381))/6381 at top. So, g reduces proportionally to square of distance from centre of mass. Conveniently, so does gravity, which obviously proves that one theory is correct and the other is not wrong!
Cont.

Sorry, forgot to say that Earth at the start of the interval can be considered as a denser planet than Earth at the end of t as the radius is greater, so it follows that less dense planets have lower g.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Feb 01, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
@thefurlong
Can you disprove any of these theories?

Yes, but you are clearly not interested in disproving your theories. Even after stumpy and I gave serious consideration to them. And that's why you aren't a scientist.

Anyway, as long as you ignore my questions about how two identical balls close to each other in space can attract each other through expansion, there is no doubt in my mind that your theory is bunk.

I hope you never have to defend a thesis in front of a committee. Regardless of how correct you are (which I don't think you are), they would tear you apart. You think that people on the internet are nit-picky about physical details? Wait until you have to convince an expert in the field of your idea.

Also, one can't disprove that a telekinetic genius pigeon controls the heavens. That does not make it a viable idea.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Feb 01, 2014
@thefurlong
I have defended several theorems in front of a committee, ALWAYS successfully.
However, you are quite right, this one would be difficult to defend, as none of its proofs cannot be applied equally to Newton/Einstein and GR.
As for your two identical balls in space, as they expand their surfaces approach each other, which you interpret as attraction. As for orbits, e.g. Earth and Moon, read the book. Why don't you consider the Cavendish experiment from the point of view of expansion rather than a force of gravity?
On second thoughts, don't answer that question, as you will doubtless come up with some more rubbish that I will have to refute, and I really am short of time at the moment.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2014
@reg
ok maybe some logic exercises will help you
If the Earth doubles in size at the same time the Moon doubles in size, how do you see a distortion of proportions?

based upon your comment that dense mass objects grow faster than less dense mass objects
if the mass doubles in size and the acceleration depends on the mass, and the mass doubles in size again, the acceleration doubles again

therefore the less dense mass Moon will not grow/accelerate as fast as Earth, who's mass is more dense, and this would apply to all planets whose density is less/greater than Earth, which would logically mean that planets whose density is not equal to Earth would have greater/lesser acceleration giving a natural test for your theory in which it bombs completely...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2014
@reg again
There is no empty space, all space has SOME gas as a perfect vacuum is unachievable. Therefore light is passing thru' a medium, and is subject to refraction. As matter is more dense around galaxies/black holes/etc

which is already accounted for in the standard model and cosmology
but does NOT account for the lensing found near high mass objects

and as for your gravity modeling paragraph... if gravity is mass dependent and your theory is also mass dependent, then your theory works only IF there is already gravity...

and as for your "no time to refute" etc...
you were not so busy as to claim we didnt know what we were talking about... but now that we give you due consideration and logically dispute you, and you fail to make sense, you dont have time?

Hmmm
this is one of the biggest definitions of pseudoscience
as well as "trolling"

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2014
@reg
Sorry, forgot to say that Earth at the start of the interval can be considered as a denser planet than Earth at the end of t as the radius is greater, so it follows that less dense planets have lower g

IIRC -
given the inherent weakness of gravity, and that the gravitational attraction between objects (such as your person on a mountain as well as at the foot) is measured between the center of mass of both objects, then you prove only that gravity works and is well defined.
And the gravity of earth is the same whether you are on top of the mountain or at the base, it is the distance from the center of gravity that changes (slightly), and gives a negligibly different measured result, not a change of mass.
Surely you knew this, right? i learned it in high school...
but you are claiming this is acceleration due to changes in MASS?

makes NO SENSE whatsoever!
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) Feb 02, 2014
@Reg Mundy
As for your two identical balls in space, as they expand their surfaces approach each other, which you interpret as attraction.

Ok, so clarify some things for me, because I still don't understand. Here, let me set it up for you so that you can't give me a vague answer.

Ball A starts out at location (0,0,0) in meters. Ball B starts out at (10,0,0) in meters. A and B are identical, and start out with 0 velocity. They each have mass m and initial radius r. They are out in the middle of interstellar space far from anything else.

Describe the expansions of A and B mathematically. You don't need to derive these expansions. Just give me formula for them.

An example of what I want from you is the surface is given by (x^2 + y^2 + z^2) = g*t^2, where t is time, g is a constant, and x, y, and z are the XYZ coordinates. I want a formula like this for each ball.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Feb 02, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
based upon your comment that dense mass objects grow faster than less dense mass objects

Who said that? I said they grow PROPORTIONATELY, i.e. when one doubles in size, the other doubles in size.
You are being deliberately obtuse.
Don't bother asking me any more questions.
Nestle
3 / 5 (1) Feb 02, 2014
BTW Try to consider this: the gravity field at the surface of every massive object is zero. Now you have sparse and dense object of the same mass. In general relativity their gravity field should be the same, after then, because the gravity field of massive object depends only on its mass in its center.

This simple controversy has its further consequences, when the mass-energy equivalence gets involved. Because the more massive body of the same mass has a larger curvature of space-time around itself, its gravity field has larger amount of energy assigned and therefore even the mass of space-time curved around it will be different. Now we have a component of gravity field, the mass of which depends only on density of object, instead of its inertial mass, i.e. it does violate the equivalence principle.

Any ideas?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 02, 2014
@reg
uh, YOUR WORDS WERE
if the mass doubles in size and the acceleration depends on the mass, and the mass doubles in size again, the acceleration doubles again

I DID post that in my comment!
And it pretty much means, as you state above, that ACCELERATION is MASS DEPENDENT
I didnt make that line up, YOU did
and it means (logically) that you would see a difference in dense mass objects over less dense
being higher mass accelerates faster, not proportional
get your facts straight
i am arguing based upon YOUR points
You are being deliberately obtuse.
Don't bother asking me any more questions

so your feelings get hurt because high school science has proven your hypothesis obviously fake and founded upon fallacy?
It was YOU who brought it up

I will await a reply...
unless I was right from the beginning, and you are Trolling and spamming to promote your book... then i guess you will slink away to troll another day
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 02, 2014
@reg
I also noticed that you did not address your fallacy about gravity
also
blah blah blah Therefore light is passing thru' a medium blah blah blah

when light passes thru a medium we can tell based upon the effects
it also reacts with the medium
sorry... still does not explain gravitational lensing via acceleration

given this basic misunderstanding about physics
I can see why you actually believe in the pseudoscience crackpot hypothesis that you are pushing
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (1) Feb 02, 2014
Just a thought...
We, the observers, are ALWAYS in the exact balance point BETWEEN expansion and contraction. The two are always are constantly in opposition. WE are the zero point, constantly moving.
Sorry for those who think this is religious or philosophical or scientific, it is all three.
Where R= Reality/Now
R=E+mc2
Gmr
5 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2014
Don't bother asking me any more questions.


Ah, the classic piece of logic that all Nobel winners have in common - "I'm not listening to you anymore so I win!"
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Feb 03, 2014
@Reg Mundy
@Cap'n Grumpy
based upon your comment that dense mass objects grow faster than less dense mass objects

Who said that? I said they grow PROPORTIONATELY, i.e. when one doubles in size, the other doubles in size.
You are being deliberately obtuse.
Don't bother asking me any more questions.

I am still waiting for a mathematical description of the expansion of two balls that are close to each other, Reg. This is a reasonable thing for me to ask of you, given your proposal that gravity is due to expansion.
Reg Mundy
2.7 / 5 (3) Feb 04, 2014
@thefurlong
I give in to your persistence.
Imagine three balls, A B and C, of radius r in a line forming an object length 6r height 2r depth 2r.
A period of "time" passes and r doubles. Mass doubles in size irrespective of density
The new object measured by an old-time measuring rod is now 12r by 4r by4r (but still 6x2x2 with the same rod now!).
But imagine if ball B is not there.
Ball A doubles in size. Ball C doubles in size. The object length only increases by 2/3 (only 2/3 of the mass) so now measures 10r. The distance between ball A and ball C is now 2r old measure or r new measure.
The result is the same if ball B is a hollow sphere of negligible mass provided that it is strong enough to withstand the effort of sustaining the acceleration necessary to keep ball A and ball C apart (or the pressure of gravity in your theory).
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 04, 2014
@reg
A period of "time" passes and r doubles. Mass doubles in size irrespective of density

you are changing it AGAIN??
what happened to
if the mass doubles in size and the acceleration depends on the mass, and the mass doubles in size again, the acceleration doubles again

I mean... I am only using YOUR WORDS to understand, and you keep changing them to suit your purposes!
This still begs the question, WHY DONT WE SEE THE PROPORTIONAL DISTORTION between the heavier/lighter masses in our own solar system given the differences in acceleration?
Or are you going to AGAIN flip/flop back to constant acceleration, which directly contradicts the above statements
with CONSTANT acceleration (with no gravity) you can only have 0 felt gravity and no circular or elliptical orbits, etc. giving the same gravity to a balloon of air as to a planet of same size

IOW - changing rules for different areas of space = no standard physical laws = debunked b/c observation shows otherwise
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Feb 04, 2014
@Reg Mundy
@thefurlong
I give in to your persistence.
Imagine three balls, A B and C, of radius r in a line forming an object length 6r height 2r depth 2r...


Thank you, though I was hoping for a more precise description than that. Here is what I think I understand from you so far. Please tell me which parts of the following are inaccurate.

-The universe can be thought of as embedded in euclidean geometry
-Matter expands somehow
-There is also a function, f(x,y,z,t,r), at every point in space time, which takes a direction and gives the distance scale of that vector at that point. For example f(x,y,z,t,(1,0,0)) = 3 means that in the x direction, distance is scaled by 3.
-The metric at a point occupied by matter strictly decreases by the amount matter expands at that point.
-Distance between two objects is found by integrating over

Now, I have some questions (to be continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Feb 04, 2014
@Reg Mundy
(continued from last comment)

1) What is the expansion of a ball slightly off center within a hollow shell? In particular, given a hollow shell of inner radius r and outer radius R, and an inner ball of radius s positioned at 1/2 r from the center. How do the shell and the ball expand? Assume that the ball and the shell have equivalent mass.
2) In your description, while I accept that those balls would "collide", assuming that they are impervious to shattering, how do they continue to expand?
3) How quickly does ball A expand in relation to ball C if A is of double density?
4) Suppose an observer D of negligible mass and size watches A and B from light years away. D is in interstellar space. Why doesn't D see A and B expanding?

Incidentally, you don't have to answer those questions if you would be so kind as to provide a differential equation that describes
1) How matter expands with time.
2) How distance scale at a point changes as a function of matter.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Feb 04, 2014

-Distance between two objects is found by integrating over

That should read "-Distance between two objects is found by evaluating a line integral over the distance scale field between those two objects."
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Feb 04, 2014
@Cap'n
@reg
A period of "time" passes and r doubles. Mass doubles in size irrespective of density

you are changing it AGAIN??
what happened to
if the mass doubles in size and the acceleration depends on the mass, and the mass doubles in size again, the acceleration doubles again

I mean... I am only using YOUR WORDS to understand, and you keep changing them to suit your purposes!
This still begs the question, WHY DONT WE SEE THE PROPORTIONAL DISTORTION between the heavier/lighter masses in our own solar system given the differences in acceleration?
Or are you going to AGAIN flip/flop back to constant acceleration, which directly contradicts the above statements
with CONSTANT acceleration (with no gravity) you can only have 0 felt gravity and no circular or elliptical orbits, etc. giving the same gravity to a balloon of air as to a planet of same size
If all atoms double in size, how can there be proportional distortion? Are you really this thick?

Reg Mundy
3 / 5 (3) Feb 04, 2014
@thefurlong
@Reg Mundy
1) What is the expansion of a ball slightly off center within a hollow shell? In particular, given a hollow shell of inner radius r and outer radius R, and an inner ball of radius s positioned at 1/2 r from the center. How do the shell and the ball expand? Assume that the ball and the shell have equivalent mass.
2) In your description, while I accept that those balls would "collide", assuming that they are impervious to shattering, how do they continue to expand?
3) How quickly does ball A expand in relation to ball C if A is of double density?
4) Suppose an observer D of negligible mass and size watches A and B from light years away. Why doesn't D see A and B expanding?
.

1 They both double in size.
2 Depends on how hard the matter is. If massive enough, neutron star, more massive still, black hole.
3 Density irrelevant to rate of expansion if material sufficiently strong.
4 In reality, observer is moving away. Balls move closer.
Reg Mundy
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 04, 2014
@thefurlong (cont'd)
Incidentally, you don't have to answer those questions if you would be so kind as to provide a differential equation that describes
1) How matter expands with time.
2) How distance scale at a point changes as a function of matter.

1 Matter does not expand with "time", "time" is a function of the state of matter. Read the book.
2 Distance scale and matter obey the same rules of expansion/contraction, i.e. do not change in relation to each other. Read the book.

For 1 in previous comment, forgot to mention small ball moves closer to big ball.
That's it, bye bye.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Feb 04, 2014
@thefurlong
1 They both double in size.
2 Depends on how hard the matter is. If massive enough, neutron star, more massive still, black hole.
3 Density irrelevant to rate of expansion if material sufficiently strong.
4 In reality, observer is moving away. Balls move closer.

I should have been more specific, though getting you to expound upon your ideas in a non-vague sense is like pulling teeth. What I really wanted from you is a description of HOW they double in size. Merely telling me that they double in size is wasting your and my time. With all due respect, I don't know why you bothered to answer me at all when all you could muster is a half-hearted answer like that.

All your answers have done is confuse me rather than enlighten me. For example, what do you mean by sufficiently strong? Why is the observer moving away "in reality?" I really am honestly trying to understand your hypothesis precisely, but you aren't helping me any by being so imprecise.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2014
@reg
If all atoms double in size, how can there be proportional distortion? Are you really this thick?

so we are back to constant acceleration?
I made the comment based upon your comment here
if the mass doubles in size and the acceleration depends on the mass,and the mass doubles in size again, the acceleration doubles again

this comment alone requires the following:
higher masses "accelerate" faster than lower masses
this is the same thing as saying higher mass planets "accelerate" (grow) faster than lower mass planets
this means that higher mass planets would grow faster, giving a measure/yardstick to prove your hypothesis
it also means, since we do NOT see this in the solar system, nor even between earth/moon, that your hypothesis cannot be valid

these are your words, not mine
so it is you who si flip-flopping and being thick
i am just showing the fallacy of your comments as they are written

IOW - you are calling yourself "thick"
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2014
@reg
Read the book.

here you go being the spam troll again
you came HERE and spouted a hypothesis
now when you are challenged, you are being a troll
you started this conversation and now you want to back out because you are making it up as you go... and all you want is money for your book
tell you what.... SEND OUT SOME FREE COPIES and I will leave you addresses to send it to!
If you REALLY think that your book will explain it, write it off on your taxes.

Having said that...
Depends on how hard the matter is. If massive enough, neutron star, more massive still, black hole

so what you are saying is that even your hypothesis requires GRAVITY to still exist in order to function?
And you are changing the yardstick again with
Density irrelevant to rate of expansion if material sufficiently strong

WTF?
if the mass doubles in size and the acceleration depends on the mass

Make up your mind, will you?

looks like pseudoscience to me so far
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Feb 05, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
The acceleration at the surface of a sphere depends not only on its mass but also on the distance from the centre of mass. Now get lost, you idiot.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Feb 05, 2014
@thefurlong

I should have been more specific, though getting you to expound upon your ideas in a non-vague sense is like pulling teeth. What I really wanted from you is a description of HOW they double in size. Merely telling me that they double in size is wasting your and my time. With all due respect, I don't know why you bothered to answer me at all when all you could muster is a half-hearted answer. All your answers have done is confuse me rather than enlighten me. For example, what do you mean by sufficiently strong? Why is the observer moving away "in reality?" I really am honestly trying to understand your hypothesis precisely, but you aren't helping me any by being so imprecise.

Why does matter double in size? I only used the word double to illustrate a point. Why does size change at all? Like I said, I ain't gonna retype the book here.
The problem is that you want specific quantitative answers and they do not exist.
(cont'd)
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Feb 05, 2014
@thefurlong
(cont'd)
However, I can offer logic to refute current theory. I seem to remember you (or someone) asked me to explain gravitic lensing.
If you take a very distant object A, e.g. a galaxy, and the observer on Earth, B, with a massive object half way between, M, the observer sometimes sees enlarged images of A thru his telescope. This is ascribed to gravitic lensing.
Even the most modest student of basic optics can see what is wrong with this. A photon passing from A to B a distance r from M is deflected sufficiently to arrive at B. A similar photon, passing M at a slightly greater distance, will not be deflected by as much due to being a greater distance from M, and will therefore not arrive at B. In fact as any student will tell you the angle of deflection has to be GREATER the further photon passes from the centre of the lens, not LESS, in order to form an image.
Lets look from Earth at Mercury emerging from behind the Sun before in should (according to Newton) (cont'd)
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Feb 05, 2014
@thefurlong (cont'd)
Lets look from Earth at Mercury emerging from behind the Sun before it should (according to Newton) but conforming to GR.
The Earth is about 500 light seconds from the Sun.
When an observer on Earth sees Mercury emerge, it is ascribed to light being bent round the Sun by gravity. If I am right, and there ain't no gravity, how can you see Mercury before it actually emerges?
According to my theory, the Sun was actually smaller when the light passed it, and during the interval of 500 seconds has expanded to the size we see from Earth.
If Einstein is right, the direction from which the light from Mercury reaches the observer on Earth will point just outside the edge of the Sun as we see it.
If I am right, the direction from which the light from Mercury reaches the observer on Earth will point to just inside the edge of the Sun as we see it.
There you are, thefurlong, a nice little experiment for you to do. Let me know how you get on.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (3) Feb 05, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
The acceleration at the surface of a sphere depends not only on its mass but also on the distance from the centre of mass. Now get lost, you idiot.
In other words you can't give an answer, probably because of this:
The problem is that you want specific quantitative answers and they do not exist.
meaning that your "theory" is essentially mathless, leaving it in the same realm as Zephyr's aether and JVK's non-mutation based mutational evolution; ie, crackpottery. You go on to confirm my statement thus:
Even the most modest student of basic optics can see what is wrong with this.
or, in other words,
To that I would add " Anyone with half a brain can see that.." and "Mainstream science is too indoctrinated to understand that...."
thus proving the basic premise of the article.

And then you wonder why no one bothers to read your pseudo-scientific crackpottery.

Walks like a quack, talks like a quack, argues like a quack, must be a.....
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Feb 05, 2014
The acceleration at the surface of a sphere depends not only on its mass but also on the distance from the centre of mass

@reg
this statement specifically means that there would be seen disproportionate growth/acceleration between objects of differing masses as well as differing sizes, meaning that we would see effects in our solar system
IOW- this statement SPECIFICALLY contradicts your hypothesis
also, considering
The problem is that you want specific quantitative answers and they do not exist

this statement specifically means that your hypothesis isnt worth used toilet paper as it cannot be verified and is pretty much no different than taking something on faith
I ain't gonna retype the book here

you came HERE to argue
you were proven wrong=DEBUNKED
you are not offering a couple of free books to physicists here to refute your hypothesis publicly
you ARE A SPAMMING TROLL
and a pseudoscience crackpot
unless you answer and validate your hypothesis with REAL SCIENCE
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Feb 05, 2014
According to my theory, the Sun was actually smaller when the light passed it, and during the interval of 500 seconds has expanded to the size we see from Earth

@reg
taking this same logic, and applying it to gravitic lensing to objects far away, the time lag would not magnify any effects, in fact, it would simply be the same thing as seeing light
there would be no observed strong/weak lensing, or distortions due to gravity, which WE DO SEE NOW
The lensing effect can magnify and distort the image of the background source

as proven BY OBSERVATION even with our own current star

this means pretty much that you should read Maggnus post...
I love how he concludes it...
until you get your facts straight and learn science or decide to give out free books/answers here (with math) so that we can properly refute you
you can be now officially be considered a pseudoscience crackpot

join the ranks or give maths/answers
and quit selling your book
as you are not representing it well
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Feb 05, 2014
@Reg Mundy

The problem is that you want specific quantitative answers and they do not exist.
(cont'd)

But if the quantitative answers don't exist, how do you know your theory works? At this point, unless you have found precise ways to describe your hypothesis, I would say that what you have is more vague speculation than theory. For that reason alone, I would not read your book, because it's likely that I'll be wasting my time. After all, personal theories about gravity are a dime a dozen. Why should I believe that your idea is any different?
I mean, if you are so passionate about your theory, why not do the math to solidify it? In doing so, you may find something surprising! This happens to me all the time. For example, recently, I inadvertently proved that there are an infinite number of primitive pythagorean triples by analyzing factorials that arose in a problem!
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Feb 05, 2014
@Reg Mundy
@thefurlong
(cont'd)
However, I can offer logic to refute current theory...Even the most modest student of basic optics can see what is wrong with this. A photon passing from A to B a distance r from M is deflected sufficiently to arrive at B. A similar photon, passing M at a slightly greater distance, will not be deflected by as much due to being a greater distance from M, and will therefore not arrive at B....

That's a good observation, but
1) It doesn't explain how objects of the same size, but different density, exhibit different gravitational lensing.
2) If it is something a "modest student of basic optics" would see, then it seems likely someone would have factored that effect into gravitational lensing by now.

Recently, I thought I had found a general way to use the Laplace transform to solve linear differential equations. My first impression was not, "Why hasn't anyone seen this before?" It was "How am I (probably) wrong?" That 2nd thought was correct.
yyz
5 / 5 (3) Feb 05, 2014
" It doesn't explain how objects of the same size, but different density, exhibit different gravitational lensing."

Along those lines, I wonder how Reg would explain weak lensing observations of the DM filament between the galaxy clusters Abell 222 and Abell 223. Between these two galaxy clusters, the baryonic mass(galaxies + x-ray emitting gas) detected accounts for <10% of the observed mass. The mass of the DM filament itself is equivalent to the mass of a galaxy cluster (~10^14 solar masses):

http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.0809

http://arxiv.org/.../0406541

http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.2525
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Feb 05, 2014
@thefurlong
@Reg Mundy
But if the quantitative answers don't exist, how do you know your theory works? At this point, unless you have found precise ways to describe your hypothesis, I would say that what you have is more vague speculation than theory. For that reason alone, I would not read your book, because it's likely that I'll be wasting my time. After all, personal theories about gravity are a dime a dozen. Why should I believe that your idea is any different?

I agree with you, I wouldn't if I was in your shoes. But you are curious, and will not rest until you know.
You accept current theories, already proven untrue. The problem with my theory is that it fundamentally undermines our understanding of time and matter, as well as gravity, inertia, momentum, etc.
You can only measure the dimensions of a wall if you have somewhere to stand whilst doing it and something with which to perform the measurement.
So my theory is actually a philosophy, and therefore unproveable.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Feb 05, 2014
@Reg Mundy
@thefurlong
(cont'd)
However, I can offer logic to refute current theory...

That's a good observation, but
1) It doesn't explain how objects of the same size, but different density, exhibit different gravitational lensing.
2) If it is something a "modest student of basic optics" would see, then it seems likely someone would have factored that effect into gravitational lensing by now.

1 Ain't no gravitational lensing. Whatever produces the images, it ain't gravity. I suspect surrounding gas in roughly lens-shaped form causing refraction, i.e. a gaseous lens.
2 Emperor's new clothes? Maybe you can refute my logic, or find some "factoring" which can logically account for this sudden change to the behaviour of light. Anti-gravity, if it existed, would simply compound the problem.
I eagerly await your reply.
Sorry to do this to you, furry, but you asked for it....
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Feb 05, 2014
@yyz
" It doesn't explain how objects of the same size, but different density, exhibit different gravitational lensing."

Along those lines, I wonder how Reg would explain weak lensing observations of the DM filament between the galaxy clusters Abell 222 and Abell 223. Between these two galaxy clusters, the baryonic mass(galaxies + x-ray emitting gas) detected accounts for <10% of the observed mass. The mass of the DM filament itself is equivalent to the mass of a galaxy cluster (~10^14 solar masses):

If there ain't no gravity, how do you know there is DM there at all? Ain't no DM!
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Feb 05, 2014
If there ain't no gravity, how do you know there is DM there at all? Ain't no DM!
A non answer. Quack quack quack quack quack,.....
yyz
5 / 5 (3) Feb 05, 2014
"If there ain't no gravity, how do you know there is DM there at all?"

Reg, in the first paragraph of my first link the authors state "This mass reconstruction does not assume any model or physical prior on the mass distribution." IOW the mass distribution of the DM filament between the galaxy clusters was derived from weak lensing measurements alone. There was no assumption of DM in the analysis of the distribution of matter in the filament between the two galaxy clusters.

You need to explain the observed weak lensing results detailed in my previous links(and keep in mind weak lensing studies have been used extensively to determine mass distribution in galaxy clusters for many years):

http://www.ita.un...none.pdf

"Ain't no DM!"

Wishing it away doesn't explain the weak lensing observations Reg.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Feb 05, 2014
@reg
The problem with my theory is that it fundamentally undermines our understanding of time and matter, as well as gravity, inertia, momentum

unfounded conjecture- not even a Hypothesis
So my theory is actually a philosophy, and therefore unproveable.

[sic]
and NOW you finally admit it... you dont even have a hypothesis that can stand the scrutiny of scientific investigation
IOW – your "philosophy" is nothing more than a FAITH which is bound to you as a belief without the possibility of proof except in your mind and relating to your dogma spelled out in your book
it is NOT SCIENCE
IT IS PSEUDOSCIENCE or RELIGION or whatever

glad you finally admitted it
thefurlong, yyz and everyone else would have proven you wrong with the maths. You were smart not to embarrass yourself there

Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Feb 06, 2014
@yyz
"If there ain't no gravity, how do you know there is DM there at all?"

Reg, in the first paragraph of my first link the authors state "This mass reconstruction does not assume any model or physical prior on the mass distribution." IOW the mass distribution of the DM filament between the galaxy clusters was derived from weak lensing measurements alone. There was no assumption of DM in the analysis of the distribution of matter in the filament between the two galaxy clusters.

You need to explain the observed weak lensing results detailed in my previous links(and keep in mind weak lensing studies have been used extensively to determine mass distribution in galaxy clusters for many years):

http://www.ita.un...none.pdf

"Ain't no DM!"

Wishing it away doesn't explain the weak lensing observations Reg.


The assumption is that the lensing is caused by gravity, thus inferring DM. Cause and effect?
Reg Mundy
1.3 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2014
@Maggnus
Nice to see you're back with a couple of compliments.......
If there ain't no gravity, how do you know there is DM there at all? Ain't no DM!
A non answer. Quack quack quack quack quack,.....

How is that a non-answer? I say that gravity does not exist as a force, and the only evidence I have ever seen for the existence of DM depends on there being a force of gravity (and don't quote gravitic lensing, that depends on gravity!).
And your only response is to go "quack quack..."! There is only one quacker around here, and it's you!
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Feb 06, 2014
@thefurlong
C'mon, furry, I answered your questions, where is your answer to mine?
You can be as vague and non-quantitative as I was, as long as you provide a logical answer.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Feb 06, 2014
How is that a non-answer? I say that gravity does not exist as a force, and the only evidence I have ever seen for the existence of DM depends on there being a force of gravity (and don't quote gravitic lensing, that depends on gravity!).

Ok, I'll play along for a minute. You've said this to me, then right above that, you say this to furlong:
You can be as vague and non-quantitative as I was, as long as you provide a logical answer.

Ok, so lets look at this logically. Since about 1687 it has been postulated that something (we call it "gravity") acts on bodies which causes them to be attracted to each other. Experimental evidence allowed scientists to infer that the rate of attraction (again, that "thing" we call gravity) works at a rate that is inversely proportional to the distance between them and dependant on the mass of the objects themselves. Are you with me so far?

I'll give you a minute to confirm that you are, indeed, with me.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2014
@Reg Mundy
1 Ain't no gravitational lensing. Whatever produces the images, it ain't gravity. I suspect surrounding gas in roughly lens-shaped form causing refraction, i.e. a gaseous lens.

Ahh, so now, extremely massive objects have halos of matter only detectable by a lensing effect? Congratulations, you just posited the existence of dark matter! :)

In all seriousness, though, this is a big problem. 1st, you are suggesting that every single massive object is surrounded by gas that just happens to vary in proportion to the object's mass to account for lensing.

(to be continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2014
@Reg Mundy
(continued)
2nd, interstellar gas tends to contain copious amounts of hydrogen, which, in cosmic quantities, lights up like the 4th of July in the radio portion of the EM spectrum. It is also a highly reactive substance, and happens to be the most abundant chemical element in the universe. In other words, if this hypothetical gas of your contained large amounts of hydrogen, or for that matter, any other gas that emits radiation, we would have detected it by now. Hence, you'd have to explain why galaxies, which are made mostly of hydrogen, are surrounded by gas containing very little. Even worse, we would have detected gas halos surrounding planets by now in our own solar system, so you'd have to account for that as well.

...Or you can accept that your theory is full of holes, and move on.
Emperor's new clothes?

Indeed.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2014
@Reg Mundy
You accept current theories, already proven untrue. The problem with my theory is that it fundamentally undermines our understanding of time and matter, as well as gravity, inertia, momentum, etc.

No, the problem with your theory is that it isn't a theory. GR undermines our understanding of time and matter through its field equations and solutions thereof. Yours doesn't even have kinematic equations for the curious individual to test. In the apocryphal words of Wolfgang Pauli, your theory is not even wrong.

Also, dark matter and energy do not prove GR wrong. Until we have more information, they're merely puzzles. Have patience :).
So my theory is actually a philosophy, and therefore unproveable.

So you finally admitted it. Was that so hard?

We could have saved ourselves a lot of time and effort if you had been honest in the first place and told us that you had no theoretical justification for your ideas.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Feb 06, 2014
Yours doesn't even have kinematic equations for the curious individual to test. In the apocryphal words of Wolfgang Pauli, your theory is not even wrong.


Well said! I predict you will be a very good physicist, and once you're established please remember to look for ways to improve (or replace) the peer review system!
Reg Mundy
4 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2014
@Maggnus
Yours doesn't even have kinematic equations for the curious individual to test. In the apocryphal words of Wolfgang Pauli, your theory is not even wrong.


Well said! I predict you will be a very good physicist, and once you're established please remember to look for ways to improve (or replace) the peer review system!

Well, at last something I agree with you on - and furlong stood his corner very well.
Reg Mundy
1.5 / 5 (2) Feb 06, 2014
@thefurlong

No, the problem with your theory is that it isn't a theory. GR undermines our understanding of time and matter through its field equations and solutions thereof. Yours doesn't even have kinematic equations for the curious individual to test. In the apocryphal words of Wolfgang Pauli, your theory is not even wrong.
Also, dark matter and energy do not prove GR wrong. Until we have more information, they're merely puzzles. Have patience :).
So my theory is actually a philosophy, and therefore unproveable.

So you finally admitted it. Was that so hard?

We could have saved ourselves a lot of time and effort if you had been honest in the first place and told us that you had no theoretical justification for your ideas.

The "theoretical" justification for my theory is exactly the same as the justification for "gravity", there is just as much "proof" for either, there is no proof for gravity which is not a proof for expansion theory.
Unless you can quote one?
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2014
@Maggnus
Ok, so lets look at this logically. Since about 1687 it has been postulated that something (we call it "gravity") acts on bodies which causes them to be attracted to each other. Experimental evidence allowed scientists to infer that the rate of attraction (again, that "thing" we call gravity) works at a rate that is inversely proportional to the distance between them and dependant on the mass of the objects themselves. Are you with me so far?

I'm with you in agreeing that the postulation was made, and in 1687 or thereabouts. Our fundamental difference is that you think the postulation was correct, whereas I think it was completely WRONG! Between two separate masses there is NO FORCE OF ATTRACTION other than electrostatic or magnetic. I find it difficult to understand how somebody as learned and as intelligent as you seemed to be could so completely fail to see what this argument is all about!
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2014
The "theoretical" justification for my theory is exactly the same as the justification for "gravity", there is just as much "proof" for either, there is no proof for gravity which is not a proof for expansion theory.
Unless you can quote one?

Well, technically, I can't quote one because you haven't actually quantified your theory, which allows you to keep moving goal posts.
But, if we use the criteria of which FIRST PRINCIPAL believably explains a phenomena more WITHOUT AD-HOC assertions like gas halos,

1) The precession of Mercury
2) Gravitational lensing
3) Gravitational time dilation
4) Black holes

But I don't see how this is any different from having a deep time/young earth argument. While we're at it, why don't we just declare the electromagnetism doesn't exist either, and demand instead that charged particles are actually strictly heterosexual nymphomaniac elves, and electromagnetic waves are elf pheromones? That has as much predictive power as your "theory".
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 06, 2014
Between two separate masses there is NO FORCE OF ATTRACTION other than electrostatic or magnetic

@reg
ok, given that you DONT believe in gravity, and there is no force of attraction between masses, why then does the Moon's orbit around Earth, or the Earth orbit around the Sun?
This NON FORCE you speak of would not account for the elliptical orbits, as the masses in motion would stay one direction unless acted upon by an outside force
therefore, the force spoken of by Maggnus called "gravity" is explained mathematically with Newton's and Einstein's equations, whereas your "philosophy" cannot even logically define the above orbits...

then there is the measured differences in gravity that we see/have that your acceleration philosophy cannot account for...
and lets not even bring tides from the moon into the picture as, based upon your statements/philosophy, there is no possible explanation
(other than, of course, gravity)
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2014

1) The precession of Mercury
2) Gravitational lensing
3) Gravitational time dilation
4) Black holes

1 Expansion theory predicts the same, for explanation see diagrams in book.
2 See earlier comments on GL
3 Time is dependent on the state of matter, see the book.
4 A full explanation of black holes is in the book, and also briefly described in previous comments. In summary, matter increases in size, additional matter requires bigger sphere to accommodate it, greater radius of sphere. At a critical point, the rate of increase of the radius reaches light speed, and matter can no longer expand, i.e. leaves our universe (becomes non-matter) due to inability to maintain time. By "leaves our universe", it no longer obeys the laws of physics which dictate the path of our existence thru' the primordial particles. I cannot summarize better than this without retyping the book and showing diagrams.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Feb 08, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
If you are unable to visualize how expansion can produce orbits, I cannot help you other than recommending a brain transplant.
If you have read earlier comments, you will have seen the explanation for tides via the expansion of composite objects.
You keep coming up with the same crap time after time, either shut up or read the book where there is a description with diagrams of how expansion theory causes orbits.
Now, please desist from addressing me, as I am tired of your drivel, and won't bother replying again.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2014
either shut up or read the book

@reg
again... you come to a SCIENCE SITE with a philosophy
based upon a fallacy
full of holes
which was logically refuted with just basic science principles
and this is your solution?
WHY WOULD ANYONE in their RIGHT MIND
BUY A BOOK like this when it is obvious that it is nothing more than a SCI-FI book with a really bad narrative?
Again... the above comment just SCREAMS that you are a SPAMMING TROLL
and won't bother replying again.

you've already promised this before and still you come back
the explanation for tides via the expansion of composite objects

you've posted NO explanation here
therefore you are pushing PSEUDOSCIENCE

like i said before, all you do is lash out when you cant effectively answer
you cant answer because the delusion you are pushing is pseudoscience claptrap
it's not that i am unable to visualise it, it is that you cannot explain it, and it doesnt work based upon your explanations here

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2014
1 Expansion theory predicts the same, for explanation see diagrams in book.
2 See earlier comments on GL
3 Time is dependent on the state of matter, see the book.
4 A full explanation of black holes is in the book

@Retarded Reg
and again I point out that trying to sell your book here is crap
its considered SPAM and TROLLING
now... YOU came HERE
YOU made CLAIMS
YOU must either explain or GO AWAY as a SPAMMING TROLL
what you need is an AGENT, and you should stay away from SCIENCE sites as science sites usually have intelligent people on them who ask questions, and you are obviously incapable of answering even the most basic without telling us to "buy your book"
EITHER GIVE AWAY a few copies and write it off in your taxes
OR GIVE VALID EXPLANATIONS and SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS

given that you obviously cannot understand how science works, I suggest the former

in all honesty, i would prefer that the moderators banned you for being a PSEUDOSCIENCE SPAMMING TROLL CRACKPOT

Buh-bye, reg
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2014
@reg mundy

one last thing, corky!
In the above people have shown you that:
we have OBSERVED a phenomenon that we call gravity
we have mathematical computations that EXPLAIN this phenomenon called gravity
we have PROVEN the accuracy of the mathematical explanations, as well as developed models that extrapolate data from it
we have USED gravity to accelerate/slow satellites for other purposes
we continually USE gravity to lens other objects behind massive ones

for something that doesnt exist, we sure got a lot of observational, mathematical and functional as well as experimental evidence supporting it
i dont care WHAT YOU call it... it IS real

YOUR faith based fallacy has what? Zilch!
other than your continued references to "your book"
at least my publications are actually based upon SCIENCE and used as references...

if you are giving them away, i might take one for entertainment... otherwise... it is not worth the expenditure of real money
TechnoCreed
1 / 5 (1) Feb 09, 2014
To venture with a contrarian position towards A. Einstein is highly suicidal as far as one's credibility is concerned. But I will take a hit at Brian Koberlein (the author of this article) for putting this icon of modern science in such a perilous position. The title here should be "Why Einstein's theory of relativity will never be wrong". Anything else is pure speculation.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2014
@Reg Mundy

1 Expansion theory predicts the same, for explanation see diagrams in book...


Without technical first principals, your theory doesn't predict anything. You might as well be writing science fiction! Of course, you can make your theory conform to any data you want! All you have to do is add ad-hoc assertions like gas halos to make predictions that GR easily makes without them. You can even make construct elaborate diagrams to illustrate your beliefs (epicycles and deferents comes to mind). A diagram, however, does not a proof make.

You will convince nobody else but yourself with your approach. I told you exactly what I or any other reasonable physicist would need to treat your ideas seriously--equations, or at least a description of how to construct them, which is fair to ask of you.

Until then, you are wasting everyone's time. I refuse to debate you when you are unable even to precisely phrase your premise. Do that, and then we'll talk.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2014
@Reg Mundy
Let me make this easy for you, if you wish to continue this conversation.
1) Describe how matter expands at every "tick" (i.e.; the divergence of the rate of change of mass density at point r = A*density*B*|r - center of mass|, A and B constants)
2) Describe how the distance metric changes as a function of this expansion (i.e.; the divergence of the rate of change of the metric at point r = C/expansion)
3) Describe how the flow of time is related to expansion (i.e.; the change in time=the D*the rate of expansion)
4) Be unequivocal about how who is experiencing this change in time (i.e.; the observer at point A is experiencing the change in time as given by the expansion at point A)
5) Describe it in a way that isn't open to interpretation. If you feel a part hasn't been thought through, then acknowledge it. People will be much more forgiving of you.

This doesn't have to be too precise. See my resolution of the twin paradox for what I would find acceptable.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2014
@thefurlong
Sorry to be so long replying, pressure of work.
1 What is a "tick"? In my view, a "quantum of time", but how is this manifest in "our time"? I know what you are after, but all I can do is utilise our observations to say that, on Earth, in one second, the surface moves outwards with an acceleration of 32ft per sec per sec., so although to our perception the radius of the Earth remains the same it has increased, but as we have no means of measuring the velocity of the surface at the beginning of the second nor at the end (we perceive it to be stationary) the only equation I can offer is the same as for calculating gravity on a planet based on mass and density.
2 Distance is in the eye of the beholder, who increases in size along with his surroundings, i.e. perceives no change in distance.
cont'd
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2014
@thefurlong cont'd
3 By reversing the equation for gravity of earth, time elapsed is a function of change of relative position. For smaller masses, the rate of expansion is slightly greater than for larger masses, as the fundamental particles are not so constrained in expansion by neighbours, thus time passes slower for larger masses. Ultimately, for black holes, expansion fails as the surface of the sphere reaches light speed.
4 Every observer is experiencing change of time consistent with his local mass, i.e. in your terms, dependent on the gravitational field he endures. The acceleration the observer experiences (gravity to you) constrains the fundamental particle expansion thus slowing time.
5 All this is just the tip of the iceberg which requires an understanding of the underlying philosophy to appreciate. None of it holds together without the whole thing, which requires a book to describe. You are trying to understand by looking at individual trees instead of seeing the forest.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2014
@Reg Mundy
he surface moves outwards with an acceleration of 32ft per sec per sec...the only equation I can offer is the same as for calculating gravity on a planet based on mass and density.

No, I am not looking for a specific example. I am looking for a governing equation. That doesn't tell me how I can describe the expansion of an arbitrary configuration of matter. For example how do you describe the expansion of a hollow sphere with a hole punctured on its surface? How do you describe the expansion of a hollow sphere containing two solid balls, or a hollow sphere containing 1 solid ball, with another solid ball outside? Don't just tell me how it expands for each example. Tell me what algorithm I can use to figure this out for myself.

It doesn't have a to be a closed form equation. It can contain an integral if you want. Just give me a way, in general, of determining how an arbitrary distribution of mass should expand.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2014
@Reg Mundy
For smaller masses, the rate of expansion is slightly greater than for larger masses, ...Ultimately, for black holes, expansion fails as the surface of the sphere reaches light speed.

This doesn't make sense. An earth-sized planet will become a black hole too, since its surface will also eventually accelerate to the speed of light...unless its expansion asymptotically slows down.
None of it holds together without the whole thing, which requires a book to describe.

But that's the fundamental difference between your ideas and every physical theory. In principle, one could start with, say, Maxwell's Equations and the Lorenz Force, and deduce the entirety of electromagnetism. Two sufficiently smart people wouldn't need a whole book on electromagnetism to reach the same conclusions, whereas, they wouldn't be able to do the same with your theory without reading your entire book.
Hence you don't have a theory, just a body of ad-hoc assertions.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2014
@thefurlong
I am looking for a governing equation. That doesn't tell me how I can describe the expansion of an arbitrary configuration of matter. For example how do you describe the expansion of a hollow sphere with a hole punctured on its surface? How do you describe the expansion of a hollow sphere containing two solid balls, or a hollow sphere containing 1 solid ball, with another solid ball outside? ... Tell me what algorithm I can use to figure this out for myself.

Already gave you example of the expansion of a hole, and you said you had looked it up, please pay attention.
The only "equation" I can offer is the reverse of the gravity equation, i.e. the relative expansion of each object is a function of its mass / density (density governing the radius of the sphere from centre of mass). For composite objects there is expansion of each component governed by its own parameters plus a component related to the composite object governed by total mass and overall density.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2014
@thefurlong
This doesn't make sense. An earth-sized planet will become a black hole too, since its surface will also eventually accelerate to the speed of light...unless its expansion asymptotically slows down.

Quite right. If you think about your concept of gravity as a force, then it acts upon everything (including light) with an effect diminishing relative to the square of distance from Earth (or any other particle of matter of ANY size). So, even at enormous distances, there is still SOME FORCE, and eventually everything, including light, will be stopped and drawn back towards the object. It follows that every object is the centre of its own black hole. Irrefutable by your logic, I'm afraid, as discussed in the book.
By my theory, the same thing happens, except that expansion of particles may be constrained by proximity of other particles thus slowing time, i.e. effectively time slows down.
Its difficult to grasp the concept that EVERYTHING is expanding.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2014
@Reg Mundy
@thefurlong
Already gave you example of the expansion of a hole, and you said you had looked it up, please pay attention.

That would be great if two disconnected spheres also expanded that way, but they don't As nearly as I can tell, to determine how something expands, you separate matter into topologically connected volumes, and then expand each volume at the same rate by its center of mass--but this only applies to matter of uniform density. I have no idea of how an object of varying density should expand!
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2014
@Reg Mundy
So, even at enormous distances, there is still SOME FORCE, and eventually everything, including light, will be stopped and drawn back towards the object. It follows that every object is the centre of its own black hole. Irrefutable by your logic, I'm afraid, as discussed in the book.


...Umm...no. That is not the case with distance squared forces! In fact, I can't think of any force, except perhaps for the color force, in which everything subject to it eventually turns around and comes back. In order for something to return, it must be traveling at below escape velocity. Surely you've heard of this!

Please look up hyperbolic trajectories. You don't even need GR for that--just Newtonian gravity. Indeed, we were just recently passed by a comet, comet ISON, which traveled around the sun and was set to travel out of the solar system, never to return! If your "theory" predicts that everything subject to gravity "comes back", then it is undeniably wrong!
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2014
@thefurlng
Escape velocity only applies if there is somewhere to escape to! i.e. another "gravity well".
One mass in isolation is always a black hole!
And where did you garner the fact that distance eventually "kills" distance squared forces? Point it out to me, would you, I am fascinated by whatever method was used to deduce/prove this.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2014
@Reg Mundy
@thefurlng
Escape velocity only applies if there is somewhere to escape to! i.e. another "gravity well".
One mass in isolation is always a black hole!

If you mean that your theory predicts that, that's fine, but that's not what Newtonian gravity or GR predicts. Not even a little.
In Newtonian gravity, gravity ~ 1/r^2. For such forces, there exist hyperbolic trajectories, where an object can travel passed another massive object and never return.
And where did you garner the fact that distance eventually "kills" distance squared forces

1) They don't kill the force. The force is still there. It's just that it has the effect of not ever making the object turn around.
2) Distance AND VELOCITY are what "kill" this effect.
Look up
http://en.wikiped...ajectory
and
http://en.wikiboo...t_Basics
Here's a diagram
http://commons.wi...rbit.gif
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2014
Nobody is saying his equations don't work, or Einstein was wrong, they both produced methodology which help us to deal with observed reality - but they do not in any way explain what "gravity" is or rather what causes it's effects.


It is not the job of science to explain what gravity "is". Science can only model observable effects. Both the Newtonian force concept, and Einsteinian space-time curvature fulfill this purpose, and so for example, because Einstein advanced curvature does not imply that the notion of a force wrt gravity is "wrong",.... as they both provide accurate predictions.

To say that there "ain't" no gravity, is meaningless gibberish.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2014

It is not the job of science to explain what gravity "is". Science can only model observable effects. Both the Newtonian force concept, and Einsteinian space-time curvature fulfill this purpose, and so for example, because Einstein advanced curvature does not imply that the notion of a force wrt gravity is "wrong",.... as they both provide accurate predictions.

To say that there "ain't" no gravity, is meaningless gibberish.

We mustn't forget, however, that the GR model of gravity actually makes better predictions that newtonian gravity.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2014

It is not the job of science to explain what gravity "is". Science can only model observable effects. Both the Newtonian force concept, and Einsteinian space-time curvature fulfill this purpose, and so for example, because Einstein advanced curvature does not imply that the notion of a force wrt gravity is "wrong",.... as they both provide accurate predictions.

To say that there "ain't" no gravity, is meaningless gibberish.

We mustn't forget, however, that the GR model of gravity actually makes better predictions that newtonian gravity.


Correct, but this does not imply that Newtonian gravity modeled as a force is "wrong". You can only say it allows predictions to such and such an accuracy, which is still very great. For example GR improves on it by predicting Mercury's perihelion better to just 43 arc-seconds per century.

Mundy's crank theory would need to be expressed in mathematical predictive form, to even raise to the dignity of being just inaccurate.
thefurlong
4.7 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2014
Mundy's crank theory would need to be expressed in mathematical predictive form, to even raise to the dignity of being just inaccurate

Well, now that he's asserted that his theory predicts that everything must return under the influence of gravity and that every massive object becomes a black hole, we KNOW that he's wrong. It's not just a matter of things being ill-defined anymore. He has made a claim that is demonstrably incorrect!
Noumenon
3.8 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2014
I didn't read the entire tome above.

If you haven't read his amazon book description, you're in for some hilarity. He starts out implying ulterior motives behind supposed misinformation of the scientific establishment.,...

"there are those who misinform you deliberately either through mischieviousness or malice or self-interest. Usually, you will detect such chicanery... "

Then ends with this gem,...

"This book is written very tongue-in-cheek ...."

Maggnus
3 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2014
I didn't read the entire tome above.

If you haven't read his amazon book description, you're in for some hilarity. He starts out implying ulterior motives behind supposed misinformation of the scientific establishment.,...

"there are those who misinform you deliberately either through mischieviousness or malice or self-interest. Usually, you will detect such chicanery... "

Then ends with this gem,...

"This book is written very tongue-in-cheek ...."

Could be worse Noumenon, he could be writing about how all the scientists on the planet are engaged in a socialist plot to take over the world by faking global warming, thereby forcing all the wealthy to give their riches to the poor. Talk about hilarity!
Noumenon
1 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2014
Could be worse Noumenon, he could be writing about how all the scientists on the planet are engaged in a socialist plot to take over the world by faking global warming, thereby forcing all the wealthy to give their riches to the poor. Talk about hilarity!


Who are you referring to, your conveniently invented straw-man again? Certainly not me, as I know of no one who would claim such an absurdity.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2014
@thefurlong
Mundy's crank theory would need to be expressed in mathematical predictive form, to even raise to the dignity of being just inaccurate

Well, now that he's asserted that his theory predicts that everything must return under the influence of gravity and that every massive object becomes a black hole, we KNOW that he's wrong. It's not just a matter of things being ill-defined anymore. He has made a claim that is demonstrably incorrect!

Every object doesn't BECOME a black hole, every object IS a black hole if it is in complete isolation. As for distance AND VELOCITY "killing" the force, that is absolute gibberish. The force diminishes with distance, but never completely disappears, so given almost infinite time in isolation IT MUST PREVAIL.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2014
@thefurlongEvery object doesn't BECOME a black hole, every object IS a black hole if it is in complete isolation.

Fine, but that's still completely at odds with Newtonian gravity and GR!
As for distance AND VELOCITY "killing" the force, that is absolute gibberish. The force diminishes with distance, but never completely disappears, so given almost infinite time in isolation IT MUST PREVAIL.

Well, you can tell me it's complete gibberish all you want, but I'm the one with the mathematical argument.
Haven't you heard of how gravitational orbits can be represented by conic sections? There are 6 general types: circles , ellipses, parabolas, hyperbolas, points, and lines. Those are the orbits that an object follows around a massive object (assuming no other massive objects are near). Do you accept that hyperbolas and parabolas are valid orbits or not? If not, why? And don't just say something like, "because it's silly!"
yyz
5 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2014
"...every object IS a black hole if it is in complete isolation."

Is the supermassive black hole Sgr A* at the center of our galaxy in complete isolation? Are the stellar-mass black holes in the x-ray binary systems Cyg X-1 and V616 Mon in complete isolation?

http://en.wikiped...r_system

http://en.wikiped...V616_Mon

Most of the black holes we have identified are located in binary stellar systems or the nuclei of galaxies. What does "complete isolation" wrt our universe actually mean?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2014
Who are you referring to, your conveniently invented straw-man again? Certainly not me, as I know of no one who would claim such an absurdity

@Noumenon
i dont know about you but it sounds exactly like the claims Rygg makes... this is Ryggy's straw man.

What does "complete isolation" wrt our universe actually mean?

@yyz
you do realise he will open up a whole can of stupid with that question? just read some of his comments above! Reg is speculating... no real science involved... it is all philosophy! i mean... that coment
every object IS a black hole if it is in complete isolation

should make any sane scientific minded person run away in case it is contagious!

in all seriousness... if you can get him to answer, i will enjoy it!
so far, Furlong has had him on the ropes... and he has YET to give any real answers other than his admission that it is more a philosophy than a theory.

he is only here to troll and get people to buy his book... it's comedy i think!
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2014
@yyz
"...every object IS a black hole if it is in complete isolation."

Is the supermassive black hole Sgr A* at the center of our galaxy in complete isolation? Are the stellar-mass black holes in the x-ray binary systems Cyg X-1 and V616 Mon in complete isolation?

http://en.wikiped...r_system

Most of the black holes we have identified are located in binary stellar systems or the nuclei of galaxies. What does "complete isolation" wrt our universe actually mean?

Every object in our universe sits in its own sphere of influence, inside boundaries formed with neighbouring objects. So, escape velocity means the speed at which a boundary can be crossed. In our universe, "isolation" is a theoretical concept only. I suggest that our universe is rather like a material consisting of atoms, the atoms being objects with mass, all interacting with each other.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Feb 13, 2014
@thefurlong

Fine, but that's still completely at odds with Newtonian gravity and GR!
As for distance AND VELOCITY "killing" the force, that is absolute gibberish. The force diminishes with distance, but never completely disappears, so given almost infinite time in isolation IT MUST PREVAIL.

Well, you can tell me it's complete gibberish all you want, but I'm the one with the mathematical argument.
Haven't you heard of how gravitational orbits can be represented by conic sections? There are 6 general types: circles , ellipses, parabolas, hyperbolas, points, and lines. Those are the orbits that an object follows around a massive object (assuming no other massive objects are near). Do you accept that hyperbolas and parabolas are valid orbits or not? If not, why? And don't just say something like, "because it's silly!"

At what distance is a force "killed"? Perhaps you could furnish me with the necessary equation to work this out? I can't seem to find or derive it..
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2014
@Maggnus
I didn't read the entire tome above.

If you haven't read his amazon book description, you're in for some hilarity. He starts out implying ulterior motives behind supposed misinformation of the scientific establishment.,...

"there are those who misinform you deliberately either through mischieviousness or malice or self-interest. Usually, you will detect such chicanery... "

Then ends with this gem,...

"This book is written very tongue-in-cheek ...."

Could be worse Noumenon, he could be writing about how all the scientists on the planet are engaged in a socialist plot to take over the world by faking global warming, thereby forcing all the wealthy to give their riches to the poor. Talk about hilarity!

I'm quite offended, Maggnus. I'm beginning to think you are not taking this seriously! If you can't be bothered to think deeply about the fundamental structure of our universe and how it differs from accepted theory, just go back to sleep.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2014
Could be worse Noumenon, he could be writing about how all the scientists on the planet are engaged in a socialist plot to take over the world by faking global warming, thereby forcing all the wealthy to give their riches to the poor. Talk about hilarity!

Who are you referring to, your conveniently invented straw-man again? Certainly not me, as I know of no one who would claim such an absurdity


@Noumenon
i dont know about you but it sounds exactly like the claims Rygg makes... this is Ryggy's straw man.


Are you sure he and I are not referring to evironmentalists and leftist politicians instead, wrt socialistic solutions?

In the 1970's the evironmentalists and political forces exagerated and misinterpreted the science of global cooling. This fact says nothing about any plot of the scientists themselves.

thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2014
@Reg Mundy
At what distance is a force "killed"? Perhaps you could furnish me with the necessary equation to work this out? I can't seem to find or derive it.

I keep telling you that the force isn't "killed." It's still there.

As for furnishing you with the necessary equation, well you could start with the force equation for gravity for a trajectory of a mass m around a much larger massive object positioned at the origin: Let P be the position vector in 3 spatial dimensions, then d^2P/dt^2 = -g*P/|P|^2, where g is a constant. From there you could work out all solutions, which include hyperbolic and parabolic trajectories.

OR, you could take an easier route, and not worry about the trajectories and consider the following argument: (To be continued)
Maggnus
3 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2014
Could be worse Noumenon, he could be writing about how all the scientists on the planet are engaged in a socialist plot to take over the world by faking global warming, thereby forcing all the wealthy to give their riches to the poor. Talk about hilarity!


Who are you referring to, your conveniently invented straw-man again? Certainly not me, as I know of no one who would claim such an absurdity.
I referred to no one in particular. Apparently someone recognized themselves though.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2014
@Maggnus

I'm quite offended, Maggnus. I'm beginning to think you are not taking this seriously! If you can't be bothered to think deeply about the fundamental structure of our universe and how it differs from accepted theory, just go back to sleep.


No Reg, I don't take you seriously. The man who would unseat Newton.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2014
@yyz
[Every object in our universe sits in its own sphere of influence, inside boundaries formed with neighbouring objects. So, escape velocity means the speed at which a boundary can be crossed. In our universe, "isolation" is a theoretical concept only. I suggest that our universe is rather like a material consisting of atoms, the atoms being objects with mass, all interacting with each other.
Well, at least you didn't call them glass spheres.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2014
@Reg Mundy
(continued from last time)
The gravitational potential energy of two massive bodies is given by GMm/r. In order to overcome the pull of gravity (WHICH IS STILL THERE), the kinetic energy of mass m, KE = mV^2/2, where V is velocity, must be greater than or equal to GMm/r.

Then, GMm/r = mV^2/2, so V = sqrt(2GM/r). Thus, to achieve escape velocity for that particular radius, r, a massive object must be traveling at V = sqrt(2GM/r).

Now, the gravitational potential energy diminishes with r. So, in one differential of time, mass m will have moved further out in its orbit. Thus, its velocity will be even larger than the "next" gravitational potential energy required. Thus, mass m will keep drifting away from mass M.

Now, this was a basic argument. If you are still skeptical (and truly curious), please work out the solutions to the gravitational force equation in 3 dimensions for two bodies yourself. Nothing will set you straight faster than math.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2014
@Reg Mundy
I have an even better variation of the above argument to give you. Unfortunately, I am at work, now so I can't work it out precisely, but, here's the gist of it:

let m be at position r from M. As before, set V = sqrt(2GM/r). Now, kinetic energy @ r is mV^2/2 and gravitational potential energy is gMm/r. So, let's say now m is at some other radius, r'. Then the new gravitational potential energy is sqrt(2GM/r'). Using conservation of energy, we can calculate what the kinetic energy should be @ r' from this value and the total energy at r. Now convert this into spherical coordinates. You will get an expression for kinetic energy in terms of r, phi, theta, dr/dt, dphi/dt, and dtheta/dt. Now, if m ever returns to M, then dr/dt must be 0 at some position, r'. Calculate the set of all such positions. You will see that there then exists a trajectory for which r' happens to be infinite, meaning m never returns.
I will do the math and show you later.
Reg Mundy
1.7 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2014
@thefurlong
@Reg Mundy
@thefurlong
Already gave you example of the expansion of a hole, and you said you had looked it up, please pay attention.

That would be great if two disconnected spheres also expanded that way, but they don't As nearly as I can tell, to determine how something expands, you separate matter into topologically connected volumes, and then expand each volume at the same rate by its center of mass--but this only applies to matter of uniform density. I have no idea of how an object of varying density should expand!

Neither have I! I would need a 3D density map and a means of reducing every locii to evaluate expansion then summation across the object plus overall expansion component. Do you know a mathematician capable of doing that? He could solve the n-body problem as an aside...
Reg Mundy
1.3 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2014
Mundy's crank theory would need to be expressed in mathematical predictive form, to even raise to the dignity of being just inaccurate

Well, now that he's asserted that his theory predicts that everything must return under the influence of gravity and that every massive object becomes a black hole, we KNOW that he's wrong. It's not just a matter of things being ill-defined anymore. He has made a claim that is demonstrably incorrect!

Kindly demonstrate. My argument is logically consistent with your assumption that Newton/Einstein were correct.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2014
@Maggnus

I'm quite offended, Maggnus. I'm beginning to think you are not taking this seriously! If you can't be bothered to think deeply about the fundamental structure of our universe and how it differs from accepted theory, just go back to sleep.


No Reg, I don't take you seriously. The man who would unseat Newton.

Yes, I would unseat Newton. He jumped to the erroneous conclusion that the apple fell on his head due to a fictitious force he invented called gravity, whereas in reality the earth beneath his feet propelled him upwards so that his head collided with the apple. Frankly, his theory should have been greeted with the derision directed at mine!
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2014
@thefurlong
Now, the gravitational potential energy diminishes with r. So, in one differential of time, mass m will have moved further out in its orbit. Thus, its velocity will be even larger than the "next" gravitational potential energy required. Thus, mass m will keep drifting away from mass M.

If the gravitational potential energy diminishes with r, it does not become zero until r becomes infinite, i.e. never! Where's your math?
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2014
@thefurlong
@Reg Mundy
Now, the gravitational potential energy diminishes with r. So, in one differential of time, mass m will have moved further out in its orbit. Thus, its velocity will be even larger than the "next" gravitational potential energy required. Thus, mass m will keep drifting away from mass M.

Now, this was a basic argument. If you are still skeptical (and truly curious), please work out the solutions to the gravitational force equation in 3 dimensions for two bodies yourself. Nothing will set you straight faster than math.

Sorry, pressed button prematurely, comment should have read-
If the gravitational potential energy diminishes with r, it does not become zero until r becomes infinite, i.e. never! In any orbit, the further an object is from the centre of mass, the slower it moves, e.g. Earth moves slower than Mercury both in terms of speed and angular velocity. Where's your math?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2014
@thefurlong
Neither have I! I would need a 3D density map and a means of reducing every locii to evaluate expansion then summation across the object plus overall expansion component. Do you know a mathematician capable of doing that? He could solve the n-body problem as an aside...

Please stop dancing around this issue. Either you have an algorithm for determining how an arbitrary configuration of matter expands or you don't.

If you have worked with physics, you'll know that much of it requires numerical analysis. Most physical formulas cannot be expressed in convenient forms like sin(kx-wt). Rather, they are expressed as things like integrals, Taylor expansions, and Fourier series. Do you even have an integral or something like that to give me, or are you going to keep dancing around this issue?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2014
@Reg Mundy
@thefurlong
If the gravitational potential energy diminishes with r, it does not become zero until r becomes infinite, i.e. never! In any orbit, the further an object is from the centre of mass, the slower it moves, e.g. Earth moves slower than Mercury both in terms of speed and angular velocity.


You are forgetting about the other energy--kinetic energy!
Total energy of the system is Potential Energy + Kinetic Energy. This quantity must be conserved. If potential energy is 0 at infinity, then the kinetic energy at infinity is equal to the total energy. That's why if you choose kinetic energy to balance out the potential energy at some finite radius to make the total energy 0, then when the potential energy is 0, then the velocity is 0 at infinity. Likewise, if they sum to a positive number, then necessarily, the kinetic energy of the system must be positive at infinity!
(to be continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2014
@Reg Mundy
Where's your math?

Actually, now that I think about it, I don't even need to consider the 3D case. I just need the 1D one!

So, let M and m be masses, and V_M and V_m be their velocities and X_M and X_m their positions. The kinetic energy of V_M and V_m are respectively T_M = MV_M^2/2 and T_m = mV_m^2/2.

Gravitational potential energy U = -GMm/|(X_M - X_m)|.
So, total energy E = U + T_M + T_m.
Now, at some distance D = |X_M - X_m|, let E = 0, so that T_M + T_m = GMm/D
So, now consider what happens when they are an infinite distance apart.
Then, the new kinetic energies, T_M' and T_m' are given by T_M' + T_m' = 0.
Since kinetic energy is never negative, then T_M' and T_m' (and thus the velocities) must both be 0.

So, all that's left is to choose a specific initial T_M and T_m so that neither velocity becomes 0 at any other distance greater than D (besides infinity).
However, I have to get to work. I will show you how to do this later.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2014
@Reg Mundy
Ok, are you ready for this? I am going to show you how in the 1D case, there exists a solution where two gravitating masses will not return to each other, despite being gravitationally attracted.

It's actually really simple, but will require a couple of comments. Here goes.

First, some notation. If F is a function of time, then F' is its time derivative, and F'' is its second order time derivative. dF represents the differential of F.

Let X_M and X_m be the positions of two masses, M and m.
Because of gravity,
X_M'' = Gm(X_m-X_M)/(sqrt((X_m - X_M)^2)^3) and
X_m'' = GM(X_M-X_m)/(sqrt((X_m - X_M)^2)^3)

Now, we can simplify this if we introduce the variable, D = X_M - X_m. Notice that if D' = 0, then the masses, M and m will have started turning around.
So, subtracting the above equations, we get
D'' = -G(M + m)D/(sqrt(D^2)^3)
Now, by the chain rule, D'' = dD'/dt = (dD'/dD) * (dD/dt) = D'dD'/dD
(To be continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2014
@Reg Mundy
(continued)
so,
D'dD'/dD = -G(M + m)D/(sqrt(D^2)^3).
Separating the variables, we see that
D'dD' = (-G(M + m)D/(sqrt(D^2)^3))dD
so that we can integrate both sides
This gives us
0.5*D'^2 = -G(M + m)/sqrt(D^2) + C, where C is a constant
Now, before I go on, note that the left hand side of this equation can never be negative.
Likewise, the first term on the right hand side can never be positive.
Now, we are interested in when D' = 0.
This means that -G(M + m)/sqrt(D^2) + C = 0
Then, G(M + m)/sqrt(D^2) = C

(To be continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2014
@Reg Mundy
(continued from last time)
Now, here's the kicker.
Suppose that C happens to be 0.
Then G(M+m)/sqrt(D^2) = 0. The only possible way for this to be true is if D = + or - infinity.
Hence, when C is 0, the masses will never stop traveling away from each other. However, their velocities will approach 0, but never get there.

Now consider what happens when C is negative.

The term on the left hand side is NEVER negative, unless D is a complex number.
Thus, when C IS negative (and there's no reason it can't be) then it is not possible to find a distance that satisfies the above result UNLESS D is complex, which is obviously absurd.
In this case, the masses will travel away from each other, but their velocities will approach some finite velocity. In particular, at infinity, D' will be C.

All right. There is your math, and that is why you are wrong. Q.E.D.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2014
@Reg Mundy
Sorry, I made a slight error.
The equation is
0.5*D'^2 = G(M + m)/sqrt(D^2) + C.

So, G(M+M)/sqrt(D^2) = -C.
when D' = 0.
From the above correction, when C is positive, not negative, the masses continue to travel away from each other. They will approach a finite speed, sqrt(2*C) at infinity.
When C=0, the reasoning I used above still applies. Q.E.D. (For real this time).
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2014
@Reg Mundy
Feh. This probably isn't worth mentioning, but I meant to write G(M+m)/sqrt(D^2) = -C
not G(M+M)/sqrt(D^2) = -C.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Feb 14, 2014
furlong, bet you $10.00 he answers you with word salad!

He jumped to the erroneous conclusion that the apple fell on his head due to a fictitious force he invented called gravity
That's ok Reg, I'm comfortable with you being wrong.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (1) Feb 14, 2014
While I enjoy the Reg bash fest, I wanted to add more "crackpottery" with my updated theory.

Magnetism is the only known static force of attraction (save gravity), and the mechanics behind a permanent magnet(PM) are in every element. The only difference is with a PM the magnetic moments are all aligned in the same direction, and they add together to create a stronger force.

My postulate with gravity is ultimately the same force, however the atoms don't align their magnetic moments persay. They are so compressed by the force of attraction that the atoms are bouncing and spinning so fast that the moments of all atoms are in every direction (almost) instantaneously. It's impossible for the moments to completely cancel out. The cumulative force wouldn't be doubled as we have with 2 PMs, but it would be some average of the total potential of the magnetic moments.

Obviously this only works for unpaired electrons, but hydrogen is the most abundant unpaired element in the universe.
Scroofinator
2 / 5 (1) Feb 14, 2014
Also, I have a question regarding the gravitational constant. I know there has been multiple experiments to measure the value of G, but what materials have been used to verify G? A simple way to test my theory would be to devise a test similar to the Cavendish experiment and use hydrogen as the object of "mass". I'm betting the force measured would be greater than that of lead, which is what Cavendish used.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (1) Feb 14, 2014
One more thing: With this force acting as an average, we would see a varying flux of the observed force at the edge of it's range (maybe the heliosphere?). NASA has seen many fluctuations in readings with Voyager 1 since it reached the edge of the solar system, perhaps this could be the cause?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2014
furlong, bet you $10.00 he answers you with word salad!

The really frustrating thing about all this is that he'll probably put a lot less effort into his answer than I put into mine. I'm sure whatever he says, even if it is a long missive, will be free of technical arguments. From me, you'll always see things like differential equations and specific results. From him, you'll get vague things like,
The force diminishes with distance, but never completely disappears, so given almost infinite time in isolation IT MUST PREVAIL.

To a child with no experience with calculus, that may be convincing, but people who know about limits and asymptotes know that that is an insufficient argument.

I don't even know why I even bother putting work into this and doing the calculations when I know he won't do the same.

Prove me wrong, Reg.

P.S. I am pretty sure that that story about the apple hitting Newton's head never happened.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2014
The really frustrating thing about all this is that he'll probably put a lot less effort into his answer than I put into mine

From me, you'll always see things like differential equations and specific results

@thefurlong
and please take note that it is not only very much appreciated but also very helpful, Furlong!

I know that there are many people here who are learning (myself included- taking Prof. Lewin's physics course now) and therefore when you can refute logically with evidence as well as show the maths, it is helpful, appreciated and really brings that argument home, sometimes nailing it to the mental wall, so to speak.
I have been thoroughly enjoying your hard work and effort...
Thank you and keep up the good fight!
PEACE
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2014
While I enjoy the Reg bash fest, I wanted to add more "crackpottery" with my updated theory.

I'm not bashing him any more. At this point, I just want a straight answer out of him.
Magnetism is the only known static force of attraction (save gravity), and the mechanics behind a permanent magnet(PM) are in every element.

What do you mean by static force?
They are so compressed by the force of attraction

Why?
It's impossible for the moments to completely cancel out. The cumulative force wouldn't be doubled as we have with 2 PMs, but it would be some average of the total potential of the magnetic moments.

I am not convinced. It seems that for every random magnetic fluctuation that moves objects towards each other, there would be another random magnetic fluctuation that would move them away.
I suggest looking into fermi-dirac statistics. That should give you a good idea of how magnetic moments act on average from an ensemble of particles with magnetic moments.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2014
@Captain Stumpy
@thefurlong
and please take note that it is not only very much appreciated but also very helpful, Furlong!

Thanks for the kind words. That's the thing. I know that there are people with less physics training on this site. I think its important to show them the stark difference between serious physical thought and Reg Mundy's brand of vague hand-waviness. I also think it's important for people to realize that "there are no wrong answers" does not apply to physics and math, and that physicists don't just pull results that they prefer out of their asses. Even things like the Schrodinger equation, which essentially came out of nowhere, had a basis in volumes of previous work (in this case, an analogy between optics and analytical mechanics, and relativity!). By giving technical details, I hope to demonstrate this, and also to show them that some results, like E^2 = p^2c^2 +_m^2c^4 are not so mysterious after all!
Scroofinator
not rated yet Feb 15, 2014
Ya, static force is kind of misleading. I meant in terms of a PM it needs nothing extra to exert a force of attraction.

Uhh, the atoms would be compressed by the immense pressure of the celestial body. Not to mention there would also be a pressure increase due to heat.

It seems that for every random magnetic fluctuation that moves objects towards each other, there would be another random magnetic fluctuation that would move them away.


Isn't that basically the same thing as saying it the objects would assume a equilibrium point? Either way, I don't believe it would be the like prototypical N-S bar magnet. In my mind the "attraction field" would be a sphere around the object with a small dimple at the N and S pole of the object.

This could explain the flyby anomalies that some crafts have experienced, if the anomalies were witnessed at either of the objects N or S pole (I don't have the data).

Question: Does the Fermi-Dirac stats account for rapid change of position?
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2014
@thefurlong
@Reg Mundy
Feh. This probably isn't worth mentioning, but I meant to write G(M+m)/sqrt(D^2) = -C
not G(M+M)/sqrt(D^2) = -C.

That' OK, furry, we all make finger slips.
I have only just picked this up due to other commitments, and am still working thru your impressive maths.
However, I will take exception to your "G(M+m)/sqrt(D^2) = -C" as "sqrt(D^2)" is the same as "D", so I am struggling with your derivation to see what you actually meant. Otherwise, your conclusion proves that I am right, and I'm sure you didn't mean to do that.....
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2014
@Reg Mundy
However, I will take exception to your "G(M+m)/sqrt(D^2) = -C" as "sqrt(D^2)" is the same as "D",

It isn't the same as D. It's the same as |D|.
so I am struggling with your derivation to see what you actually meant. Otherwise, your conclusion proves that I am right, and I'm sure you didn't mean to do that.....

I don't see how you can honestly say that.
The whole reason we went off on this tangent is because you claimed that an object in a gravity well always returns. In fact, you insisted that distance and velocity could not "kill" this effect. You called that claim absurd! I just showed that if C is positive, that doesn't happen.
Don't believe me?
Then let me spend the next comment reminding you.

thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2014
@Reg Mundy
Here are your own words:
So, even at enormous distances, there is still SOME FORCE, and eventually everything, including light, will be stopped and drawn back towards the object.

AND
Escape velocity only applies if there is somewhere to escape to! i.e. another "gravity well".
One mass in isolation is always a black hole!

AND
As for distance AND VELOCITY "killing" the force, that is absolute gibberish. The force diminishes with distance, but never completely disappears, so given almost infinite time in isolation IT MUST PREVAIL.


My conclusion, regardless of whether you accept how I derived it, IS that there are some trajectories where, DESPITE the existence of a gravity well, the objects never return to each other. Moreover, if you want, treat one mass as negligible. Effectively, then, you will have a single gravity well where escape velocity still applies. Please explain how my conclusion is consistent with your words above.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Feb 16, 2014
@Maggnus
@yyz
[Every object in our universe sits in its own sphere of influence, inside boundaries formed with neighbouring objects. So, escape velocity means the speed at which a boundary can be crossed. In our universe, "isolation" is a theoretical concept only. I suggest that our universe is rather like a material consisting of atoms, the atoms being objects with mass, all interacting with each other.
Well, at least you didn't call them glass spheres.

I paraphrase Einstein's concept of a space-time continuum wherein objects with mass cause dimples in the fabric of space-time, and you deride it! Can't you see that you are making fun of the very theories you support, you clown!
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Feb 16, 2014
@thefurlong
@Reg
treat one mass as negligible. Effectively, then, you will have a single gravity well where escape velocity still applies.

Back to basics, and lower velocities where relativity does not apply, the Physics-for -idiots equation is v=u+at
Take a rocket, which at a height of 100 km is travelling at 100000 km/sec (i.e. greater than Earth's escape velocity), and assume deceleration starts at 10m/sec/sec.
The deceleration reduces as distance from Earth centre increases, initially 6371km, so at 100km a=.01*(6371^2 / 6471^2).
One second later, v1 (initially 100000km/sec) = 100000/km/sec - .01*(6371^2 / 6471^2), approximately.
The distance traveled is given by s=t(u+v)/2
Repeat this one second later, and you get v2=(100000/km/sec - .01*(6371^2 / 6471^2)) -
(.01*6371^2 / (6471 + ((v1 + v2)/2)^2)
Keep repeating this for subsequent seconds and plot velocity over time on a graph.
Let me know when the result turns out to be asymptotic rather than v becoming negative.
cont'd
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Feb 16, 2014
@thefurlong
By now, you should have the sort of headache you are giving me, or have derived the equation and solved it for t when v = 0 (i.e. half the time before the rocket returns to Earth!).
You ask for the algorithm for expansion of matter.
OK, you will probably recognise this one for what it is:-
If you "freeze" the units of time and distance as static rather than changing with the state of matter (and the observer), then after one second the radius of the Earth has increased by 5 meters. (assuming 10/m/sec/sec acceleration), and simple equation s=ut+0.5*at^2 ignoring initial velocity of the expansion of the earth's surface, but starting from a base of "now", whatever that means).
So, if expansion depends on mass and density (oh, you mean similar to "gravity"!), then coefficient of expansion = (6376 - 6371)/((4/3 pi 6371^3)*density).
Increase in volume of Earth is pi*4/3 of (6376^3 - 6371^3), a factor of .00987/m^3 approx.
If density is 5540kg/m^3, expansion is .0000017/kg.
cont.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Feb 16, 2014
@thefurlong
Of course, all this is meaningless when you realise that after one of our "seconds" our whole basis of measurement including time itself has changed, and the basic assumptions on which all our calculations (yours as well as mine) are questionable.
Finally, if we take the extreme of something escaping from the gravitational well of an object, then a photon of light itself should be considered.
In your accepted universe, light travels at a constant velocity, so when it climbs out of a gravity well, it does not slow down (so much for "gravitational lensing"!) but lengthens its wavelength. Theoretically, then, a photon generated in a black hole should increase in wavelength so that one wave should be greater than the Schwartzchild radius of the black hole. At what wavelength does light (radiation) cease to be light? Or does the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation represent residual light after escape from black holes, thus indicating a limit to the size of black holes?
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Feb 16, 2014
@thefurlong
@Reg Mundy
However, I will take exception to your "G(M+m)/sqrt(D^2) = -C" as "sqrt(D^2)" is the same as "D",


It isn't the same as D. It's the same as |D|.

Semantics, furry, semantics. You know what I mean, it can be negative.
Nestle
1 / 5 (2) Feb 16, 2014
Why Einstein will never be wrong
As if whole the dark matter wouldn't violate the general relativity already A weak lensing detection of a deviation from General Relativity on cosmic scales. And the amount of dark matter is six-time higher, than the amount of normal matter and its lensing.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2014
@Reg Mundy
Back to basics, and lower velocities where relativity does not apply,

Reg, I did not use relativity in my argument.
the Physics-for -idiots equation is v=u+at

Uhhh...no, that is the equation for velocity when acceleration is CONSTANT. It does not apply here.
The distance traveled is given by s=t(u+v)/2

Uhhh...no.
When acceleration is constant, s = C + ut + 0.5at^2, were C and u are constant. But it's not like that matters since acceleration under gravity IS NOT CONSTANT
Let me know when the result turns out to be asymptotic rather than v becoming negative.
cont'd

You don't seem to be aware that the gravitational acceleration of -9.8m/s^2 we use on Earth for basic physics problems is only an APPROXIMATION. IT IS NOT ACTUALLY CONSTANT. It isn't even constant at the same height everywhere!
Please tell me that you are actually aware of this basic fact.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2014
By now, you should have the sort of headache you are giving me,

Nope!
or have derived the equation and solved it for t when v = 0 (i.e. half the time before the rocket returns to Earth!).

You mean basic math that doesn't apply to this situation?
You ask for the algorithm for expansion of matter.

That would be nice.
OK, you will probably recognise this one for what it is:-
If you "freeze" the units of time and distance as static rather than changing with the state of matter (and the observer), then after one second the radius of the Earth has increased by 5 meters. (assuming 10/m/sec/sec acceleration), and simple equation s=ut+0.5*at^2...Increase in volume of Earth is pi*4/3 of (6376^3 - 6371^3), a factor of .00987/m^3 approx.
If density is 5540kg/m^3, expansion is .0000017/kg.

THAT'S NOT AN ALGORITHM. THAT'S AN EXAMPLE.
Look, this conversation is beginning to have diminishing returns. Provide an algorithm, please, or I am done arguing with you.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2014
@thefurlong
C'mon, you an see in the calculations that gravity is only assumed constant for one second at a time, and is adjusted for increased radius from the centre of the Earth for each subsequent second. And everything is approximate, as you well know........for example, I used 10m/sec/sec rather than 9.8m/sec/sec. Stop nitpicking, its the principle that counts!
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2014

You ask for the algorithm for expansion of matter.

That would be nice.

Look, this conversation is beginning to have diminishing returns. Provide an algorithm, please, or I am done arguing with you

Assuming that the term "1 second" is meaningful (which it may not be), and the radius of the Earth is r0 and after 1sec is r1, with acceleration/gravity G
r1 = r0 + G/2
Each subsequent second, this is repeated BECAUSE THE OBSERVER IS EXPANDING AT THE SAME RATE. What you are looking for is a means of calculating the size after time t, but this is MEANINGLESS as to the observer it is exactly the same size. You would have to use the initial velocity of the surface expansion as well, which is impossible to find (as far as I know), you can only ever start from NOW and assume rate is zero - obviously wrong.
So, can't provide a meaningful algorithm, as FULLY EXPLAINED in the book. Like I said previously, to measure a wall you need a ruler and somewhere to stand while you do it.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Feb 16, 2014
@Reg Mundy
@thefurlong
It isn't the same as D. It's the same as |D|.

Semantics, furry, semantics. You know what I mean, it can be negative.

No, that's not semantics. |D| is the absolute value of D. IT IS ALWAYS POSITIVE.
Ok, let's do a sanity check, because I am beginning to doubt you even understand basic calculus.

Solve the following word problem:
The growth rate of a certain population is equal to the sum of (0.3 seconds^-1)*(the current population size) and (0.03 people / second^2)*(the current time). Assuming that the population starts with 4 people, how many people will there be in 10 years? This should take you no more than 10 minutes.
Describe the steps that lead to your answer.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Feb 16, 2014
@ Reg Mundy
Each subsequent second, this is repeated BECAUSE THE OBSERVER IS EXPANDING AT THE SAME RATE. What you are looking for is a means of calculating the size after time t, but this is MEANINGLESS as to the observer it is exactly the same size. You would have to use the initial velocity of the surface expansion as well, which is impossible to find (as far as I know), you can only ever start from NOW and assume rate is zero - obviously wrong.

No, I am looking for any GENERAL, PRECISE, description of how an arbitrary arrangement of matter expands, whatever that means to you (I am beginning to think it doesn't mean anything to you).
But, it has to be a PRECISE description for an ARBITRARY ASSORTMENT OF MATTER. It does not have to be in closed form. You can give a taylor expansion, an integral, a differential equation, etc...
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Feb 16, 2014
@thefurlong
You said
This means that -G(M + m)/sqrt(D^2) + C = 0
Then, G(M + m)/sqrt(D^2) = C

Then you said
Sorry, I made a slight error.
The equation is
0.5*D'^2 = G(M + m)/sqrt(D^2) + C.

So, G(M+M)/sqrt(D^2) = -C.
when D' = 0.
From the above correction, when C is positive, not negative, the masses continue to travel away from each other. They will approach a finite speed, sqrt(2*C) at infinity.
When C=0, the reasoning I used above still applies. Q.E.D. (For real this time)

with a correction for M+M to M+m.
In fact, it should be
G(M+m)/sqrt(D^2) = C, not -C.
But I digress.
Take the simple example of an object projected upwards from an airless earth at, say, 100m/sec.
According to your calculations, it will never reach zero velocity in relation to Earth, i.e. will continue traveling forever (will have "escape" velocity).
This is palpably nonsense.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 16, 2014
So, can't provide a meaningful algorithm, as FULLY EXPLAINED in the book

@reg
referencing yourself just reinforces the moniker people tagged you with above: pseudoscience spamming troll

what Furling is requesting is logic and a competent and viable working maths to functionally and accurately describe known/visible phenomenon, which is, by the way, what Newton and Einstein did. Gravity is the descriptor used to define the observed phenomenon in which the maths are then applied for specific results.
This is where your philosophy fails, as it is not only too undiscerning and convoluted to functionally describe observed phenomenon, it also obfuscates reality due to lack of functional working maths
why not offer to send furlong a copy of the book so that he can refute it? Call it a donation and write it off on your taxes

you have lost more buyers through your inability to stand toe-to-toe with furlong than anything else

reference studies and STOP TRYING TO SELL YOUR BOOK HERE
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Feb 16, 2014
G(M+m)/sqrt(D^2) = C, not -C.

No, if G(M+m)/sqrt(D^2) + C = 0, G(M+m)/sqrt(D^2) = -C
Take the simple example of an object projected upwards from an airless earth at, say, 100m/sec.
According to your calculations, it will never reach zero velocity in relation to Earth, i.e. will continue traveling forever (will have "escape" velocity).

Yup!
This is palpably nonsense.

This is a religious claim, not one based off of math and evidence. Check the math(if you can). You'll see it works. We also have plenty of evidence, considering we have sent plenty of spaceships into orbit. For God's sake, we have an entire international space ship in orbit!
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Feb 17, 2014
@thefurlong

Take the simple example of an object projected upwards from an airless earth at, say, 100m/sec.
According to your calculations, it will never reach zero velocity in relation to Earth, i.e. will continue traveling forever (will have "escape" velocity).

Yup!
This is palpably nonsense.

This is a religious claim, not one based off of math and evidence. Check the math(if you can). You'll see it works. We also have plenty of evidence, considering we have sent plenty of spaceships into orbit. For God's sake, we have an entire international space ship in orbit!

By your calculation, G(M+m)/sqrt(D^2) = -C when D' = 0, no matter what value you use for D other than infinity, G(M+m)=-C(sqrt(D^2)), in other words G(M+m) ALWAYS HAS A NON-ZERO VALUE, and of course it can never be negative unless you claim the invention of anti-gravity.
My point that your concept of gravity will always exert a force no matter what distance is traveled is valid. QED as you say.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Feb 17, 2014
@thefurlong

Take the simple example of an object projected upwards from an airless earth at, say, 100m/sec.
According to your calculations, it will never reach zero velocity in relation to Earth, i.e. will continue traveling forever (will have "escape" velocity).

Yup!
This is palpably nonsense.

This is a religious claim, not one based off of math and evidence. Check the math(if you can). You'll see it works. We also have plenty of evidence, considering we have sent plenty of spaceships into orbit. For God's sake, we have an entire international space ship in orbit!

Have you forgotten the whole point of this argument? By your own words, the object ATTAINS AN ORBIT unless it is traveling directly away from Earth.
If it is in orbit, no matter how long the major axis, then the Earth IS A BLACK HOLE because the object cannot escape except by falling under the influence of another black hole!
As you say, QED.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Feb 17, 2014
@thefurlong
@Reg Mundy
Ok, let's do a sanity check, because I am beginning to doubt you even understand basic calculus.

Solve the following word problem:
The growth rate of a certain population is equal to the sum of (0.3 seconds^-1)*(the current population size) and (0.03 people / second^2)*(the current time). Assuming that the population starts with 4 people, how many people will there be in 10 years? This should take you no more than 10 minutes.
Describe the steps that lead to your answer.

Is this a joke? I have better things to do with my time, thank you.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Feb 17, 2014
Is this a joke? I have better things to do with my time, thank you

As opposed to spending weeks defending a "theory" that you admitted could not be proven, or wasting your time peddling a book that you no nobody will buy?

I told you that if you know calculus, this problem should not take long to solve. It's very easy.

I asked you to do this because I suspect that you don't actually understand math enough to competently discuss it with me (no offense meant). It's the rational thing to do. Why should I waste my time trying to convince you with math if you don't understand even the basics of it involved? Would you bother arguing with a Chinese speaker about English grammar?

I have wasted enough time with this conversation. I have given you all the ingredients for why your "theory" is incorrect (which, I would like to add, didn't require a whole book). Spend 10 minutes and solve the problem. That's my offer, take it or leave it. Otherwise, we are done talking.
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Feb 17, 2014
I've been catching up, and I must say I'm a little surprised this thread didn't get wrapped up over the last 3 weeks. At least it seems the folks with their head screwed on straight have pretty much finished sizing up Reg and his fantasies.

BTW, Furlong, your efforts at shedding more light than heat are much appreciated by yours truly in addition to the Captain, but in all seriousness, you're dealing with a chump who can't even wrap his head around Ve=sqrt(2GM/r). Worse, not only doesn't he have a grasp of the math, but his physical intuition is all messed up by his fantasies, like that of having managed to do away with the equivalence principle by chucking gravitational mass (it's all Expansion, you see). And all his ad hoc hand waviness to brush the nonsensical bits under the carpet just sinks him deeper into his tar baby until he's left thinking you can't bat a baseball out of the gravity well of a bowling ball. And he doesn't understand why. No insight into his own condition.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Feb 17, 2014
@thefurlong
I have wasted enough time with this conversation. I have given you all the ingredients for why your "theory" is incorrect (which, I would like to add, didn't require a whole book)
.
No, you haven't. You are too busy "proving" that "gravity" is distance limited when it isn't.
Spend 10 minutes and solve the problem. That's my offer, take it or leave it. Otherwise, we are done talking.

So, you completely ignore the last three of my comments and try to sidetrack me into wasting my time doing pointless maths tests. If I did it, it would not advance my argument one iota, so I decline your "offer". Bye.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2014
@Reg Mundy
No, you haven't. You are too busy "proving" that "gravity" is distance limited when it isn't.

If that's what you want to believe, fine. The people who have read this conversation will be able to judge for themselves pretty clearly who gave more precise, correct arguments backed by physical evidence, and who hand-waved his own argument into the non-provable.
So, you completely ignore the last three of my comments and try to sidetrack me into wasting my time doing pointless maths tests.

As opposed to your wasting my time by arguing with me about calculus, when your level of math training seems to be pre-calculus? You aren't fooling anyone. We all know why you declined my offer. What a shame!
Thank God this conversation is over, though, it wasn't all for naught. I independently discovered another method for solving integrals in refuting you argument, so thanks for that.
Reg, please look up Dunning Kruger effect. You are a textbook case of it. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2014
You are too busy "proving" that "gravity" is distance limited when it isn't

@reg
actually, to anyone with a basic grasp of math, physics and common sense, he was systematically destroying your argument
So, you completely ignore the last three of my comments and try to sidetrack me into wasting my time doing pointless maths tests

WRONG
he answered those questions with the maths
you just cant understand it, apparently

I say he has a valid request. You have YET to show any real comprehension of physics
If I did it, it would not advance my argument one iota

WRONG AGAIN
it would prove that you are competent to understand his arguments
then he would show you more that would (again) systematically destroy your argument
so I decline your "offer". Bye

all this time and effort are thrown away because you dont have a basic comprehension of MATH?
You really dont want anyone to know that you are an incompetent idiot troll
but ignoring the request= proving it
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2014
Thank God this conversation is over, though

@furlong
I doubt it is over...
reg has threatened to leave already and never did...

THANKS for destroying his argument.
whenever we get PM's back i want your e-mail address so i can buy you a few beers (or whatever you drink)
:-)
PEACE
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2014
No, you haven't. You are too busy "proving" that "gravity" is distance limited when it isn't.


Wow Reg, you are such a moron. Not only do you not understand dif calc, but you can't understand English either. Are you even a native English speaker? What Furlong demonstrated to you mathematically is that you can smack an object hard enough that the decrease in it's speed resulting from being in your own gravity well will always be less in a given time unit than the decrease of the influence of your gravity well, and that this is true out to infinity. It's a simple concept: escape velocity. See Voyager, Pioneer and New Horizon probes for easy examples.

That's NOT the same as saying gravity is distance limited (no physicist worth his salt belives that), but apparently you can't tell the difference with respect to that either. The latter also happens to semantically prove that even out at infinity, you'll still be an idiot.
Reg Mundy
4 / 5 (1) Feb 18, 2014
@thefurlong
Well, I couldn't resist it....
The growth rate of a certain population is equal to the sum of (0.3 seconds^-1)*(the current population size) and (0.03 people / second^2)*(the current time). Assuming that the population starts with 4 people, how many people will there be in 10 years? This should take you no more than 10 minutes.
Describe the steps that lead to your answer.

though why it's a "word" problem is beyond me...
Population after t seconds is P(1+.03)^t where P is initial population, in this case 4, so after 10 years, population is 4(1+.03)^(10*365.25*24*60*60) using 365.25 to approximate for leap years (typical of you not to specify exact parameters...) so = 4(1.03)^315576000 = 4.12^315576000
At this point, didn't know whether you wanted me to use mental arithmetic, computer calculator, logs (which base?) or a slide rule.
I'll use logs base 10, so log 4.12 is 0.61489721603, and multiplied by 31557600 is 19404680.384588327
You can do the antilog!
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Feb 18, 2014
Thank God this conversation is over, though

@furlong
I doubt it is over...
reg has threatened to leave already and never did...

THANKS for destroying his argument.
whenever we get PM's back i want your e-mail address so i can buy you a few beers (or whatever you drink)
:-)
PEACE

I actually quite enjoyed that last part, even if my goal of Reg admitting he needed to revise his "theory" was never realized. It made me better at math. I'm sure internet beer is delicious :)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Feb 18, 2014

BTW, Furlong, your efforts at shedding more light than heat are much appreciated by yours truly in addition to the Captain, but in all seriousness, you're dealing with a chump who can't even wrap his head around Ve=sqrt(2GM/r).

Yeah. It is perplexing how he could confuse escape velocity with canceling force. It's like he doesn't understand what asymptotic behavior is.
Worse, not only doesn't he have a grasp of the math, but his physical intuition is all messed up by his fantasies...No insight into his own condition.

I hope he one day realizes that by never admitting he's wrong or that he doesn't understand something, he is depriving himself of being actually being right. He feel's he's persecuted and ignored for his groundbreaking ideas, when in reality, he is just wildly incorrect.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Feb 18, 2014
@Reg Mundy
@thefurlong
Well, I couldn't resist it....

After flippantly resisting it for two comments until I called your bluff? Fine...

though why it's a "word" problem is beyond me...

It contains words and it is a problem.
Population after t seconds is P(1+.03)^t where P is initial population,

Are you sure?
Here's what's going to happen. I will give you one more chance to confirm your answer or correct it. Then, in the next comment, I will take your solution and plug it back into the differential equation, and see if it works (hint: you can do this yourself). If it doesn't work, then we are done talking. If it does, then I will continue this conversation with you.
(typical of you not to specify exact parameters...)

haha, ok.

P.S.

By provide steps, I meant to start by writing out the differential equation, and then using standard techniques to solve it. Please provide those steps.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2014
@thefurlong
@Reg Mundy
@thefurlong
Well, I couldn't resist it....

After flippantly resisting it for two comments until I called your bluff? Fine...

though why it's a "word" problem is beyond me...

It contains words and it is a problem.
Population after t seconds is P(1+.03)^t where P is initial population,

Are you sure?
Here's what's going to happen. I will give you one more chance to confirm your answer or correct it. Then, in the next comment, I will take your solution and plug it back into the differential equation, and see if it works (hint: you can do this yourself). If it doesn't work, then we are done talking. If it does, then I will continue this conversation with you.
(typical of you not to specify exact parameters...)

haha, ok.

P.S.

By provide steps, I meant to start by writing out the differential equation, and then using standard techniques to solve it. Please provide those steps.

Enough childishness. Bye!
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2014
@the get-reg-lynch-mob
For all of you who just love asymptotes, consider the old chestnut of the man running away from a bullet.
When the bullet arrives at the place where the man was, he has moved on.
The bullet then crosses the new intervening space, but once again the man has moved on.
This situation continues ad infinitum, the man always having moved on a decreasing distance when the bullet reaches where he was. Mathematically, there are an infinite number of such occurrences, so the bullet never reaches the man.
I suggest you go and ask someone who doesn't like you to give you a 5 second running start and then shoot you. Don't worry, mathematically you will be quite safe, as the bullet will only approach you asymptotically.......
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Feb 18, 2014
Incidentally, today's email...
We have initiated a payment via Direct Deposit by On Demand Publishing LLC. Please allow five business days following the payment date indicated below for your bank to receive the funds. The "Payment Amount" is displayed in the currency that the royalty was earned in.

Within five business days of the "Payment Date", you can view the payment within your CreateSpace Member Account by visiting the Payment History Report section at https://www.creat.../reports

Payment made to: Reg Mundy..
Our Supplier No.: 123456789
Supplier site name: MOD:US:0123456
Payment number: 123456789
Payment date: 28-FEB-2014
Payment currency: USD
Payment amount: x

Only the data has been changed to protect the innocent...
Seriously, I don't need you guys to buy this book, plenty of people do anyway, and this website provides me with endless fun and much new material for argument. Thanks, and please pay attention to the book's intro, which advises you not to read it!
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Feb 18, 2014
For all of you who just love asymptotes, consider the old chestnut of the man running away from a bullet.
When the bullet arrives at the place where the man was, he has moved on.
The bullet then crosses the new intervening space, but once again the man has moved on.
This situation continues ad infinitum, the man always having moved on a decreasing distance when the bullet reaches where he was. Mathematically, there are an infinite number of such occurrences, so the bullet never reaches the man.
I suggest you go and ask someone who doesn't like you to give you a 5 second running start and then shoot you. Don't worry, mathematically you will be quite safe, as the bullet will only approach you asymptotically.......


Zeno lived 2000 years before calculus was invented. You, however, have no such excuse. Sad.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2014
Enough childishness. Bye!

@reg
promises, promises
go and ask someone who doesn't like you to give you a 5 second running start and then shoot you

I knew he couldnt stay away
gets asked to prove he knows what he is talking about... throws a hissy-fit!
Way to go, Reg!
You just proved that you are the Super Spamming Troll of the Year!
We have initiated a payment via Direct Deposi

and?
Both my wife and I are also published and receiving payments
although she makes MUCH more than I do as I only wrote technical papers, study books and training material
plenty of people do anyway

plenty of stupid out there who cannot understand reality or physics
only means that you are leading a cult of idiots, nothing more

no one I know will buy your book due to your arguments here
and if you ever show up for a signing near here, expect a visit from a few professors!
I shared your arguments here with a few of them
PEACE
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
I said I wouldn't reply to you again, but here I go breaking yet another promise...
Thank you very much for bringing these theories to the attention of a few professors, it will have brought them from their ivory towers to actually thinking about the nature of reality rather than sitting in smug certainty that they know it all! Perhaps at least one of them can offer logically consistent refutation of the ideas in the book, rather than the silly cant issued on this thread. Just ONE unquestionable fact relating to gravitational waves, dark matter, string theory, anything like that will do.
Both my wife and I are also published and receiving payments although she makes MUCH more than I do as I only wrote technical papers, study books and training material

I'm not surprised your wife makes more than you, as you are demonstrably illiterate. However, the fact you write the material you describe does go a long way to explaining the general incompetence of today's youth.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2014
@Gawad
Zeno lived 2000 years before calculus was invented. You, however, have no such excuse. Sad.

Mmmm, hat back in the ring, Gawad?
I simply point out that furlong's equations denote that the force of gravity diminishes with distance so that, as he says, it asymptotically approaches zero at infinite distance. Mathematically correct, but mathematics is merely our best modelling of reality, freely making use of non-existent entities like imaginary numbers, square_roots, etc. In reality, the greater the velocity of the object leaving Earth merely elongates the major axis of its orbit towards infinity, where it is limited by the speed of light. (I believe that even photons do not travel at "the speed of light" but fractionally less, where the "speed of light" is, in your parlance, asymptotically approached). Thus, the object is in orbit, and in any case as it approaches "infinity" good old Eisenberg kicks in and destroys furlong's philosophy. QED, as furlong would say.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2014
@Reg Mundy
Enough childishness. Bye!

I will take this as you affirming that your answer is correct.
So, let's test out your solution P(t) = P_0(1.03)^t.
First, let me remind you of the word problem:

The growth rate of a certain population is equal to the sum of (0.3 seconds^-1)*(the current population size) and (0.03 people / second^2)*(the current time).


The current population size is P. Growth rate is dP/dt. Hence, omitting the units, the differential equation I get Reg is
dP/dt = (0.3*second^-1)*P + (0.03 persons/second)*t.
Let u = (0.3*second^-1). Let v = (0.03 persons/second). Then
dP/dt = uP + vt.
Let's plug Reg's formula for population in.
dP/dt = d(P_0*(1.03)^t)/dt = P_0*d(e^t*ln1.03) = P_0*ln1.03 * e^(tln1.03) = P(t) *ln1.03.
Plugging this into the differential equation,
dP/dt = (ln1.03)P = 0.3P + 0.03t, so that (ln1.03 - 0.3)P = 0.03t
This is a contradiction because Reg said that P(t) = P_0(1.03)^t
So, Reg, you are wildly incorrect, as usual.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2014
@Reg Mundy
This marks the end of me taking you seriously. Though I would like to point out the flaw in your reasoning, not that you'll listen, but:
Start out in the center of a room. Every second, move half the distance you moved before. You will rapidly come to realize that you will never get to the end of the room, even though you are always advancing. Likewise, you are always slowing down, but your rate of movement never reaches 0.
And your comments about not accepting the math, when you said
If the gravitational potential energy diminishes with r, it does not become zero until r becomes infinite, i.e. never! Where's your math?

Do nothing but show how dishonest you are. As usual, just like the crackpot I thought you were, you moved the goalposts.
Heisenberg (I am assuming you meant him) may kick in eventually, but then so does our understanding of gravity. At that point, nobody, not even you, knows what happens.
For all we know, it stops completely.
(To be continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2014
@Reg Mundy
(continued)
Your retreat to this argument only reveals your desperation, and despite what you may think actually does more damage to your argument than if you had admitted that you needed to put more thought into your "theory." This is because you claimed that your hypothesis of expansion was consistent with current theories of gravity. Not only did I and others demonstrate that this contradicted the math (as you inadvertently conceded), but Stumpy, Gawad, and others pointed out that we have, indeed, launched vehicles that, as far as we can tell, have overcome the pull of Earth and Sun's gravity.
Hence, your "theory" is in indirect contradiction with current theories, and you have painted yourself into a vacuous corner where "Heisenberg" kicks in, even though nobody knows just how it does.
From now on (as I promised), expect me not to respond to your comments, except perhaps to direct others to this epic take down of your claims. Q.E.D. indeed.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2014
@Reg Mundy
Just a minor correction to what I told you to do: Start out in a room. Move half the distance to the wall, then keep moving half the distance you moved. You will find that you will never get there.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2014
@Reg Mundy

dP/dt = d(P_0*(1.03)^t)/dt = P_0*d(e^t*ln1.03) = P_0*ln1.03 * e^(tln1.03) = P(t) *ln1.03.
Plugging this into the differential equation,
dP/dt = (ln1.03)P = 0.3P + 0.03t, so that (ln1.03 - 0.3)P = 0.03t
This is a contradiction because Reg said that P(t) = P_0(1.03)^t
So, Reg, you are wildly incorrect, as usual.

I suggest you ask any practicing actuarian, as this is the accepted formula for compound growth of an investment. If you are correct, you have just single-handedly destroyed the entire financial structure of the world economy.
Well done!
P.S. I see you have not provided the actual answer........Typical!
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2014
@thefurlong
Apologies for Eisenberg, a finger slip (with which you are depressingly familiar).
From now on (as I promised), expect me not to respond to your comments, except perhaps to direct others to this epic take down of your claims. Q.E.D. indeed.

This "epic takedown" as you call it seems to consist of a long diatribe against my "black hole" argument backed up by spurious maths and an attempt to sidetrack the issue by challenging me to solve silly problems, which you manifestly cannot (no answer provided!), and you describing the widely-used formula for compound growth as "wildly incorrect"!
Then you bail out!
Wonderful, hope you take your gang of dick-heads (Cap'n Grumpy, Gadickwad, Maggnumb et al) with you.
Scroofinator
4 / 5 (1) Feb 19, 2014
What's typical is how this childish this debate has become. Obviously nobody is swayed either way, so why keep fighting about the same shit? Now its come down to "proving" a book makes money. How egotistical.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2014
@Scroofinator
What's typical is how this childish this debate has become. Obviously nobody is swayed either way, so why keep fighting about the same shit? Now its come down to "proving" a book makes money. How egotistical.

Why do you want to spoil the fun by injecting common sense? Your first comment on this thread was brilliant and irrefutable, but could have killed it stone dead, and we would all have missed this stimulating interchange.
P.S. You are also right about the book and money, I apologise for my moment of thoughtlessness in bringing it up.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2014
@thefurlong
Well, I couldn't resist it....
The growth rate of a certain population is equal to the sum of (0.3 seconds^-1)*(the current population size) and (0.03 people / second^2)*(the current time). Assuming that the population starts with 4 people, how many people will there be in 10 years? This should take you no more than 10 minutes.
Describe the steps that lead to your answer.

though why it's a "word" problem is beyond me...
Population after t seconds is P(1+.03)^t where P is initial population, in this case 4, so after 10 years, population is 4(1+.03)^(10*365.25*24*60*60) using 365.25 to approximate for leap years (typical of you not to specify exact parameters...) so = 4(1.03)^315576000 = 4.12^315576000
Sorry, that last line is incorrect, it remains as 4(1.03)^315576000, so answer is (anti-log of 4051120.02350508) * 4.
I wonder what actual answer furlong can come up with, by solving his own equations?
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2014
@thefurlong
This is a contradiction because Reg said that P(t) = P_0(1.03)^t
So, Reg, you are wildly incorrect, as usual.

Surprise, surprise, YOU are COMPLETELY WRONG, because I NEVER said that. What I said was that the population after t seconds was P_0(1.03)^t, I never said that was the RATE OF CHANGE.
Read the stuff properly, for God's sake, before you pontificate!
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Feb 19, 2014
So, you completely ignore the last three of my comments and try to sidetrack me into wasting my time doing pointless maths tests. If I did it, it would not advance my argument one iota, so I decline your "offer". Bye.
You can't do that simple math problem!?! Wow no wonder you can't understand why your theory is hogwash.

SO this is something like the 4th time you've said bye. Do you mean it this time? (Prophesy - no he doesn't!)
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2014
@Gawad
I simply point out that furlong's equations denote that the force of gravity diminishes with distance so that, as he says, it asymptotically approaches zero at infinite distance.


Liar. Or is it you imagine we are all as illiterate as you? You said Furlong was, and I quote
busy "proving" that "gravity" is distance limited
when he was doing quite the opposite: his formula accounts for the fact that gravity has infinite range, i.e., NOT distance limited.

mathematics is merely our best modelling of reality
No. You confuse the mapping tools with the map. Math is a formal system we can use to model our reality. It is not a model itself. An that doesn't mean you get to brush it aside when you find it inconvenient.

freely making use of non-existent entities like imaginary numbers
Euh btw, Imaginary numbers are no less "imaginary" than Reals. You do know that the use of the term "Imaginary" is more historical accident that anything else?

(cont.)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2014
What's typical is how this childish this debate has become. Obviously nobody is swayed either way, so why keep fighting about the same shit? Now its come down to "proving" a book makes money. How egotistical.

I agree that it is silly to quibble over who has published what, since that does not affect the correctness of one's argument. However, I would like to point out that despite this, Stumpy, et. al have provided several rational arguments for why Reg is incorrect. Reg has offered no rational arguments. When I demonstrated the math, he acknowledged that it was correct, then proceeded to call it spurious. He didn't even respond to the argument that we have launched Pioneer and Voyager, one of which has now left the heliopause and has shown no signs of stopping.
It is true that neither side will concede, but that's because one side is completely, and utterly irrational. Reg has chosen to believe he is the rational one.
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2014
In reality, the greater the velocity of the object leaving Earth merely elongates the major axis of its orbit towards infinity, where it is limited by the speed of light.


Gibberish. Ranch dressing with that Reg? Beyond Ve there is no "orbit". And this isn't only backed up by high school math, but is empirically supported. The gravitational influence of the Sun is never bringing back Voyager. Ever. No c limit needed. (Oh sorry, except in Xpaaaaaaaaa...aaaaaansion Theory.) So not only do you reject math when you find it inconvenient for your theory, but you also reject hard empirical evidence in favour of your fantasies:

Reg, YOU ARE INSANE. Do you understand: Batshit crazy. Get help.

(I believe that even photons do not travel at "the speed of light"


Indeed, you do have MANY fantasies. Unfortunately for you, this latest one only demonstrates that you do not understand SR and why massless particles MUST move at C spacewise in a vacuum. Can't say I'm surprised.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2014
For those who don't know, the equation Reg thought he was solving was P(t+1 second) - P(t) = (0.3)P(t). This is a difference equation. Not a differential one.

Anyway, that was not the word problem I set up. Had I desired that equation, I would have said something like "Every second, a certain population increases by 0.3*(the current population size)."

However, notice that neither his argument, nor that word problem make any mention of the (0.03)*t term that was in the original word problem.

I could grant him confusing differential equations with difference equations, but even then, he would have had to solve the difference equation
P(t+1 second) - P(t) = 0.3P + 0.03t.

Again, this is a completely different dynamic process, and if you plug his formula in, you'll again get a contradiction.

For the sake of completeness, and to demonstrate just how incorrect Reg is, I will spend the next comment or so providing the true solution.
(To be continued)

Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2014
And you have still failed to explain how Xpaaaaa...aaaaansion Theory accounts for ORBITS, Reg. It's my favourite failing of yours!

C'mon, I know you're dying to tell us; it's the Master Handwaviness Move of your theory. Out with it Reg: tell us about stuff like coordinate resets and natural spirals. Furlong and Stumpy, they'll scarf it all down. Look how much attention we're giving you: we are in thrall at your (admittedly sci-fi) imagination!
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2014
@thefurlong
He didn't even respond to the argument that we have launched Pioneer and Voyager, one of which has now left the heliopause and has shown no signs of stopping.

So it has left Sol's sphere of influence (sphere being an approximation), and entered another sphere of influence. How does this disprove the theory that it would still be inside Sol's sphere of influence if Sol was in isolation? More sloppy logic from you, I'm afraid.
Reg Mundy
1.7 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2014
@thefurlong
You set a problem completely out of context for this thread, and I was foolish enough to answer your challenge and solve it. All you have done is muck about with equations, not SOLVE the problem at all.
For the sake of completeness, and to demonstrate just how incorrect Reg is, I will spend the next comment or so providing the true solution.

Yeah, right, and I expect you to prove that my answer is wrong! Let's put the whole debate on this footing - if my answer is wrong, I concede defeat and admit you are right. Conversely, if I have solved the problem correctly, you concede I am right and you are mistaken. Are you up for it?
My answer is answer is (anti-log of 4051120.02350508) * 4, what's yours?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2014
(Continued)
So, omitting units, the differential equation for the word problem I provided was
dP/dt = 0.3P + 0.03t.

let u = 0.3, and v = 0.03.
Then dP/dt = uP + vt.

There are several ways to solve this equation. However, I will go with making the substitution P = Q + At + B, where Q is an unknown function, and A and B are constants.

So, dP/dt = dQ/dt + A.
Which means that we can write the differential equation as
dQ/dt + A = uQ + uAt + uB + vt, which can be rewritten as
dQ/dt = uQ + vt + [(uA + v)t + (uB - A)]
If we can set the term in the brackets to 0, then we have a simple differential equation to solve.
So, set A = -v/u
and B = -v/(u^2) to set the term in the bracket to 0.
We are left with dQ/dt = uQ, which is solved by Q = Ce^(ut), where C is a constant.
Thus, P = Ce^ut - vt/u - v/u^2
So, now let's see if this works.
dP/dt = uCe^(ut) - v/u
So, rewrite the term on the right side as
uCe^(ut) - vt - v/u + vt = u(Ce^ut - vt/u - v/u^2) + vt = uP + vt
(to be continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2014
(Continued)
So, we see that the solution P = Ce^ut - vt/u - v/u^2 satisfies the above equation. Now, we know that P(0) = 4, so 4 = C - v/u^2. Hence, C = v/u^2 + 4 =0.03/0.09 + 4 = 4.333...
So, P = e^(4.333...)t - 0.1t - (0.333...)
Using Reg's approximation of a year = 365.25 days,
4 years = 54885600 seconds
Hence, P(4 years) = e^(4.333...)(54885600) - 5488560 - 0.333...
Obviously, this is an astronomically large number. I should have chosen a much smaller u value, maybe on the order of 10^-7. Mea culpa.
Now, let's compare the values I calculated and the values reg calculated.
Since the exponential term is so much larger than the other terms, I can neglect them and say that ln(P(4 years)) ~ 237837600
Compare that with what Reg got:
ln(4(1.03)^315576000) ~ 37312194.305
This yields an error of 84% in terms of natural logarithm.
In other words, his solution is orders of magnitude off.
Hence, Reg can't read understand english, can't understand math, or both.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2014
Correction. I made a numerical error in calculating Reg's ln value
It is ln(4) + 315576000ln(1.03) = 9328049.962471977556639720402823
This yields an error of -96%, which is even worse.
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2014
Hence, Reg can't read understand english, can't understand math, or both.


It's both, insofar as his math ability is pre-calculus, and he needs to spin English into something he can handle mentally. That much was abundantly clear, but thanks for taking the time to formalize it Furlong. Not that it will prevent him from persisting in his fantasies (he will always be able to keep cherishing them given he doesn't have the mental ability to see them for what they are), but at least those on this thread can "formally" stop taking him seriously in any capacity and see him for what he truly is: Entertainment :)

Must be said though, crackpots do offer one benefit: a little like children who ask "why is the sky blue" they can bring us back to the basics to get us to recheck our assumptions. For a while; rechecking and confirming the same assumptions gets old when they're not really bringing anything viable to the table.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2014
it will have brought them from their ivory towers to actually thinking about the nature of reality rather than sitting in smug certainty that they know it all

@reg
actually, your arguments were used to show how stupid the general populace is, according to my daughter, who is getting ready to graduate as an electrical engineer
they used your arguments for levity
to prove that you did NOT know what you were talking about
and to show the fallacies of your arguments
one of them can offer logically consistent refutation of the ideas in the book

they all pretty much did the same thing furlong is doing now
logical refutation based upon maths and reality
you are demonstrably illiterate

you are SO funny!
You really should take this act on the road!
I believe that even photons do not travel at "the speed of light" but fractionally less

personal conjecture
please provide PROOF
(of the comment, not your stupidity)
LOL-oh wait... this is Reg here! NEVERMIND
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2014
I believe that even photons do not travel at "the speed of light" but fractionally less, where the "speed of light" is, in your parlance, asymptotically approached

@reg
so... what are we actually measuring when we measure the speed of light, genius?
How does this disprove the theory that it would still be inside Sol's sphere of influence if Sol was in isolation

observation does not correspond with your personal reality? Move the GOAL POST! quote a hallucination! LMFAO
You set a problem completely out of context for this thread

I dont believe a test of whether or not you are a complete idiot was out of context
you are
you showed us
move on, reg
if my answer is wrong, I concede defeat

you haven't been RIGHT YET, reg

promises, promises!

the professors are going to LOVE your latest, reg!
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2014
Oops, I made another numerical error. Sorry guys, I have a fever today, so my numerical calculation is off. Anyway, ln(my answer) ~ ln(4.3333)e^((0.3)(54885600)) = ln(4.3333) + 16465680 =
16465681.466337068793427044658242
Now, the error is: (37312194.305 - 16465681.466337068793427044658242)/ 16465681.466337068793427044658242 = 1.2660583092951339412149514993789
So the percent error is 126%.
Anyway, that's my answer, and I am sticking to it. Check it for yourselves if you want.
Waiting for the ibuprofen to kick in...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2014
Oops, I made another numerical error. Sorry guys, I have a fever today, so my numerical calculation is off

@thefurlong
watch that fever. if it spikes higher than 103F you need a doctor.
104F and above can be traumatic and destructive to the brain

doing great showing how big a moron spamming troll reg really is... keep up the good work!
PEACE
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2014
Oops, I made another numerical error. Sorry guys, I have a fever today, so my numerical calculation is off

@thefurlong
watch that fever. if it spikes higher than 103F you need a doctor.
104F and above can be traumatic and destructive to the brain

doing great showing how big a moron spamming troll reg really is... keep up the good work!
PEACE

I actually don't know what my temperature is. But thanks for the advice.
I meant to write ln(my answer) ~ ln(4.3333e^((0.3)(54885600))). This does not change my last answer.
Anyway, this is what peer review is for: to check answers. I encourage those who are interested in this little demonstration of Reg's incompetence to check my math for themselves.

It's great how your daughter actually used Reg's reasoning in talks.
I think it would be extremely entertaining to watch Reg debate Gene Ray. I think the high density of incorrectness might finally break the universe and make it collapse into a dense state of contradiction!
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2014
but at least those on this thread can "formally" stop taking him seriously in any capacity and see him for what he truly is: Entertainment :)

Haha. I am done with Reg. He failed to provide an algorithm, and to even come close to answering my problem correctly. As far as I am concerned, he might as well be rabidly shouting "REPENT, FOR YOUR FACE IS A CORNER !" I am satisfied with having him take his own argument and beat himself with it.
Must be said though, crackpots do offer one benefit: a little like children who ask "why is the sky blue" they can bring us back to the basics to get us to recheck our assumptions.
Certainly! The only reason I continued this so long was to actually solve the 2-body gravity problem! I did find the solution using a clever trick I found from years ago involving the functional inverse of the trajectory, but it seems too long to write here.

But yes, there is no longer any point in debating such incompetent arguments!
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) Feb 19, 2014
Hey Stumpy, you mentioned you are taking Prof. Lewin's course. Are you referring to Professor Walter Lewin of M.I.T.?
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Feb 20, 2014
Hey Stumpy, you mentioned you are taking Prof. Lewin's course. Are you referring to Professor Walter Lewin of M.I.T.?

@furlong
yep. On line.
loved his book so much I decided to take his course. been slacking off a bit this last week or so... just got the ability to leave the house after a month of ice/snow locking us down so we have been doing chores.

great course! quite fun!
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2014
@thefurlong
Compare that with what Reg got:
ln(4(1.03)^315576000) ~ 37312194.305
This yields an error of 84% in terms of natural logarithm.
In other words, his solution is orders of magnitude off.
Hence, Reg can't read understand english, can't understand math, or both.

For a start, I said I was using logs base 10, so my answer is 4.2224554032 x 10^4051120, which is rather a lot of zeros, and given the approximation for leap years the accuracy is acceptable. I can't imagine where you derived your version of what was supposed to be my answer from. I see your answer is 16465681.466337068793427044658242, you seem to be using a period of 4 years instead of 10 (don't you read or understand your own problem?)
There is an old saying along the lines "Hoist on your own petard!", which I think is pertinent here.
Obviously, I will accept your abject apology, but there is no need to grovel excessively, and a simple admission that you are completely wrong and I am right will suffice.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2014

Indeed, you do have MANY fantasies. Unfortunately for you, this latest one only demonstrates that you do not understand SR and why massless particles MUST move at C spacewise in a vacuum. Can't say I'm surprised.

I didn't know photons have been proved to be massless! Congratulations, scientists have been trying to find this out for many years, and you have done it all on your own by intuition! You are demonstrably a genius (or an idiot). Perhaps you could enlighten us with the method you utilised to achieve this stunning breakthrough?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2014
How silly of me! I used 4 years instead of 10. Well, accounting for those new numbers, and using my formula,
ln(my answer) ~ 94672801.466337068793427044658242
Converting that to log base 10, we see that I get
41115875.263152277216024129826285
Let's compare that to Reg's answer once more:
log(4.2224554032 x 10^4051120) = 4051120.6255650713285568557048641

This yields an error of -90.147064607923709584960792011658%

What a shame!
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2014
Obviously, I will accept your abject apology, but there is no need to grovel excessively, and a simple admission that you are completely wrong and I am right will suffice.

Reg, I am sorry that I had a fever yesterday which hampered my ability to do numeric calculations. I am also sorry that you still don't understand why my word problem translates into that differential equation. In addition to that, I regret that your level of training is precalculus, which doesn't allow you to distinguish between compound interest problems and problems involving continuous growth. Furthermore, you have my sincerest apologies for your inability to solve even basic 1st order differential equations and difference equations. Finally, it is with a contrite heart that I acknowledge how poor your understanding of even the basics of physics, like the work energy theorem, and force equations, is. For this, I am truly sorry. I hope you can forgive me for recognizing just how incompetent you are
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2014
I didn't know photons have been proved to be massless! Congratulations, scientists have been trying to find this out for many years, and you have done it all on your own by intuition! You are demonstrably a genius (or an idiot). Perhaps you could enlighten us with the method you utilised to achieve this stunning breakthrough?
In tests of Coulomb's law photons have been shown to be massless to a margin of error of 10^-14. In tests of the galactic vector potential photons have been shown to be massless to 10^-27. Notwithstanding the fact that they are shown to strike targets at c (i.e., the constant from Maxwell's equations, rather than the speed of anything in particular) regardless of wavelength rather than variable times. Etc, etc, etc. Which simply demonstrates that all you know how to do is hang on by you crackpot fingernails to ridiculously tiny experimental margins of error that can never be 0 (which would constitute your impossible "proof'' ;^) Pottery shards everywhere.
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2014
So, Reg Muddy, where now is your experimental evidence (not "proof" you idiot) that photons are massive?

Anything, crackpot?

And you have still failed to explain how Xpaaaaaa...aaaaansion Theory accounts for ORBITS, among your multiple failures.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2014
@thefurlong
You have now had plenty of time to review your final answer, and realise how completely wrong it is.
You set a problem which I was foolish enough to waste my time answering. However, having decided to do so, I used my pure science graduate skills from a world-class university plus years of experience as a practising scientist to analyse it as a straightforward calculation of compound growth. This required nothing more than the application of a simple and well-known formula, extensively used by actuarians amongst others. This technique provided the answer I have given, to a level of accuracy commensurate with the parameters provided.
You, on the other hand, seem to have tried to solve your own problem in the most convoluted way possible, and manage to get it completely wrong three times.
You accepted the condition that, if I was right, you would apologise for your insults.
If you have a shred of integrity, do so now, otherwise our conversation is concluded.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2014
@Gadikwad
So, Reg Muddy, where now is your experimental evidence (not "proof" you idiot) that photons are massive?

Anything, crackpot?

And you have still failed to explain how Xpaaaaaa...aaaaansion Theory accounts for ORBITS, among your multiple failures.

Hang on, Sloopy! YOU claimed photons were massless! So you should provide the proof they are massless, not me provide the proof they are massive!
Anyway, there is empirical evidence for massive photons, e.g light pressure (photon drive) being a good one. There is no known means of causing an object to move without an equal and opposite effect on another object (i.e. mass)
Finally, I would be obliged if you, Cap'n Grumpy and furbrain would desist from your proclamations of mutual admiration, as it makes me want to puke.
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2014
... there is empirical evidence for massive photons, e.g light pressure (photon drive) being a good one. There is no known means of causing an object to move without an equal and opposite effect on another object (i.e. mass)


The photon can be massless and yet still transfer momentum,... as in Compton scattering or photo-electric effect.

E^2 = (hK/2π)²c² + m²(c²)²

With m = 0, E = pc,... momentum, where p = h-bar times wavenumber k.
Noumenon
3.6 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2014
Even if the photon was found to have a slight mass, it would not effect SR one bit, it would only mean that photons don't travel at c.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2014
Even if the photon was found to have a slight mass, it would not effect SR one bit, it would only mean that photons don't travel at c.

There would be discrepancies between theory and empirical measurements. We would have had to add a correction coefficient to the Lorentz factor.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2014
@Reg Mundy
You have now had plenty of time to review your final answer, and realize how completely wrong it is.

Ho hum. What a pointless and boring conversation this has become.
In other words, 3771 11212 5422 9778 9484 8313 5422 7765 2684 7146 5422 9719 8282 2684 7069 5422 5058 6616 1861 5771 5422 9202 8282 5771 5771 2684 10718 8282 9248 5422 9778 9484 8313 5422 2684 9719 8282 5422 7146 9484 5058 5422 2684 5771 5422 5771 5058 8313 6214 1861 7069 5422 2684 5771 5422 3771 5422 5058 6616 9484 8313 10718 6616 5058 5422 9778 9484 8313 5422 10406 8282 9719 8282 8545 5422 5422 1902 6616 8282 5422 6214 2684 5771 5771 10406 9484 9719 7069 5422 1861 5771 5422 5557 5905 8282 10718 8282 7146 7069 9719 8282 5422 1815 9778 9202 5100 9484 5775 5557

Ruhroh! Slipped again! Sorry about that.

Anyway, I for one, don't even think three of you together could ever solve a single high school problem such as that. Good bye.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2014
Even if the photon was found to have a slight mass, it would not effect SR one bit, it would only mean that photons don't travel at c.

There would be discrepancies between theory and empirical measurements. We would have had to add a correction coefficient to the Lorentz factor.


We would just not call c, "the speed of light" anymore, but instead maybe "maximal speed" or something. It would still be the conversion factor between time and space coordinates even if light was a little slower.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2014
I used my pure science graduate skills from a world-class university plus years of experience as a practising scientist

@reg
this makes no sense whatsoever
IF you were a real scientists, THEN:
why cant you explain yourself clearly here?
Why cant you answer furlong with straight answers?
Why do you believe that there is no gravity?
Why do you think that every gravity well is a black hole?
then the Earth IS A BLACK HOLE

MOST IMPORTANTLY: WHY would you push a known philo argument with no empirical data to back it up and say it is science? This is pushing a speudoscience to the ignorant in the guise of real science, which is against what science believes in (IMHO)

By the way:
the fact you write the material you describe does go a long way to explaining the general incompetence of today's youth

most of my publications are used by: Fire Dpts, gov't (especially the military), scientists and aircraft manufacture/parts manufacture companies as well as anyone who used CFR's
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2014
Finally, I would be obliged if you, Cap'n Grumpy and furbrain would desist from your proclamations of mutual admiration

@reg
'tis only good manners to acknowledge a person for their successes just as much as we have condemned you for your failures
were you raised in a kennel?
Given your proclivity to stupidity, I owe furlong, Gawad, Maggnus, et al far more than just what was left here for their ability to shred your arguments

your proclamations are the equivalent of used toilet paper without empirical data to support your arguments, and you have YET to functionally add anything that would logically support your expansion philosophy

Therefore, my original assertions that you are a SPAMMING PSEUDOSCIENCE TROLL are correct, and you were only here to push a book, which, if your arguments here are any indication, then the book can be rightfully assumed to be the equivalent to your arguments here: used toilet paper.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2014
Captain Stumpy...I seem to have missed all the fun. The article affected my comp so I couldn't read it...but I did this morning when I clicked the link you put elsewhere...thanks for that. Better read all the comments first before I write anything. A quick read seems that the article is reasonable though.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Feb 23, 2014
@Noumenon
Even if the photon was found to have a slight mass, it would not effect SR one bit, it would only mean that photons don't travel at c.

My point exactly!
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2014
@thefurlong
@Reg Mundy
You have now had plenty of time to review your final answer, and realize how completely wrong it is.

Ho hum. What a pointless and boring conversation this has become.
In other words, 3771 11212 5422 9778 9484 8313 5422 7765 2684 7146 5422 9719 8282 2684 7069 5422 5058 6616 1861 5771 5422 9202 8282 5771 5771 2684 10718 8282 9248 5422 9778 9484 8313 5422 2684 9719 8282 5422 7146 9484 5058 5422 2684 5771 5422 5771 5058 8313 6214 1861 7069 5422 2684 5771 5422 3771 5422 5058 6616 9484 8313 10718 6616 5058 5422 9778 9484 8313 5422 10406 8282 9719 8282 8545 5422 5422 1902 6616 8282 5422 6214 2684 5771 5771 10406 9484 9719 7069 5422 1861 5771 5422 5557 5905 8282 10718 8282 7146 7069 9719 8282 5422 1815 9778 9202 5100 9484 5775 5557

Ruhroh! Slipped again! Sorry about that.

Anyway, I for one, don't even think three of you together could ever solve a single high school problem such as that. Good bye.

Oh dear, wrong again! That's 4 tries......
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2014
@Reg Mundy
You have now had plenty of time to review your final answer, and realize how completely wrong it is.

Ho hum. What a pointless and boring conversation this has become.
In other words, 3771 11212 5422 9778 9484 8313 5422 7765 2684 7146 5422 9719 8282 2684 7069 5422 5058 6616 1861 5771 5422 9202 8282 5771 5771 2684 10718 8282 9248 5422 9778 9484 8313 5422 2684 9719 8282 5422 7146 9484 5058 5422 2684 5771 5422 5771 5058 8313 6214 1861 7069 5422 2684 5771 5422 3771 5422 5058 6616 9484 8313 10718 6616 5058 5422 9778 9484 8313 5422 10406 8282 9719 8282 8545 5422 5422 1902 6616 8282 5422 6214 2684 5771 5771 10406 9484 9719 7069 5422 1861 5771 5422 5557 5905 8282 10718 8282 7146 7069 9719 8282 5422 1815 9778 9202 5100 9484 5775 5557

Ruhroh! Slipped again! Sorry about that.

Anyway, I for one, don't even think three of you together could ever solve a single high school problem such as that. Good bye.

Dang fur... now you gotta go an' get all anagrammatic on us.)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2014
Oh dear, wrong again! That's 4 tries......

Nope! That's not it! Beuller?

3771 11212 5422 9778 9484 8313 5422 7765 2684 7146 5422 9719 8282 2684 7069 5422 5058 6616 1861 5771 9248 5422 2684 7146 7069 5422 9778 9484 8313 5422 2684 9719 8282 5422 7146 9484 5058 5422 7386 8282 10718 5422 7923 8313 7146 7069 9778 9248 5422 5771 2684 9778 5422 5557 7386 8282 10718 5422 7146 8282 8282 7069 5771 5422 2684 5422 7146 8282 10406 5422 6616 2684 1861 9719 7069 9719 8282 5771 5771 8282 9719 8359 5557 5422 1861 7146 5422 9778 9484 8313 9719 5422 7146 8282 795 5058 5422 7765 9484 9202 9202 8282 7146 5058 8545

You know what I think Reg needs?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2014
Oh dear, wrong again! That's 4 tries......

Nope! That's not it! Beuller?

3771 11212 5422 9778 9484 8313 5422 7765 2684 7146 5422 9719 8282 2684 7069 5422 5058 6616 1861 5771 9248 5422 2684 7146 7069 5422 9778 9484 8313 5422 2684 9719 8282 5422 7146 9484 5058 5422 7386 8282 10718 5422 7923 8313 7146 7069 9778 9248 5422 5771 2684 9778 5422 5557 7386 8282 10718 5422 7146 8282 8282 7069 5771 5422 2684 5422 7146 8282 10406 5422 6616 2684 1861 9719 7069 9719 8282 5771 5771 8282 9719 8359 5557 5422 1861 7146 5422 9778 9484 8313 9719 5422 7146 8282 795 5058 5422 7765 9484 9202 9202 8282 7146 5058 8545

You know what I think Reg needs?

Forgive my translating skills, but doesn't that mean - The Annunaki have returned and want some hot chicks and whiskey before they leave again?
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2014
Well, as I mentioned above my comp just doesn't like this article...the page that it's on that is and have to access via a link. Having read the posts I think my comp was just reacting to some of the posts (ha).
I hadn't read much when I came to post where the poster didn't seem to understand why
'x^2+y^2+z^2=(ct)^2, and it was then also written as x^2+y^2+z^2+(ict)^2=0'
Even I thought it was obvious...(ict)^2= ...i^2c^2t^2. Since i^2 =-1 the eq. is x^2+y^2+z^2-(ct)^2=0'...doesn't it?
Capt. & furlong I think your mistake was using G to convince poor old Reg. But it seemed to me that Reg doesn't believe in G, but does use use it in his eqs. Good try fellas at least it was interesting going through the maths Eh?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2014
Oh dear, wrong again! That's 4 tries......

Oops! How silly of my. I almost didn't make this public!
An eleven year old could have seen that it was the answer to life the universe and everything (minus 1). Oh well. You know me. I always have to correct myself three times.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2014
Capt. & furlong I think your mistake was using G to convince poor old Reg. But it seemed to me that Reg doesn't believe in G, but does use use it in his eqs. Good try fellas at least it was interesting going through the maths Eh?

Reg obviously uses equations by rote and doesn't bother to actually understand when to use the appropriate one.
As you will see, I gave him a continuous growth problem to solve, but he saw the word "population", and decided it was a compound interest problem. He completely ignored the extra (0.03)t term that appeared in the problem too. He's probably never actually solved a problem that requires technical thought.
I am sure that when he sees an unfamiliar word problem, his mind simply shuts down when there is no key phrase like "population" to latch on to. In that way, he's a lot like the high school students I used to tutor, except, unlike them, he is unaware of his incompetence.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2014
Yes! On one hand I don't agree with the title of the article but on the other can imagine why it was chosen. That Einstein will 'never' be wrong is a bit too strong for me but then (as indicated) there are articles that say '..WAS wrong'.
I always say that every generation thinks it has got it right but that is just being human.
I'm pretty sure that my books on rocket dynamics is just as valid as they were 30 years ago (in the main using Newton's work) and probably still used by the engineers that blast rockets upward. Using GR would be a bit like cracking an egg with a large instrument...it can be done but hardly necessary when something simpler would do the job.
I feel sure that as time goes by refinements will be made to GR. As far as some unification is concernerd maybe we will find that QM grows with size to become another state where GR takes over analogous to children gowing into adults. They are the same person but certain 'rules' applied to children don't apply to the adults.