Physicist suggests speed of light might be slower than thought

Jun 26, 2014 by Bob Yirka report
This image shows the remnant of Supernova 1987A seen in light of very different wavelengths. ALMA data (in red) shows newly formed dust in the centre of the remnant. Hubble (in green) and Chandra (in blue) data show the expanding shock wave. Credit: ALMA/NASA

(Phys.org) —Physicist James Franson of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County has captured the attention of the physics community by posting an article to the peer-reviewed New Journal of Physics in which he claims to have found evidence that suggests the speed of light as described by the theory of general relativity, is actually slower than has been thought.

The theory of suggests that light travels at a constant speed of 299,792,458 meters per second in a vacuum. It's the c in Einstein's famous equation after all, and virtually everything measured in the cosmos is based on it—in short, it's pretty important. But, what if it's wrong?

Franson's arguments are based on observations made of the supernova SN 1987A–it exploded in February 1987. Measurements here on Earth picked up the arrival of both photons and neutrinos from the blast but there was a problem—the arrival of the photons was later than expected, by 4.7 hours. Scientists at the time attributed it to a likelihood that the photons were actually from another source. But what if that wasn't what it was, Franson wonders, what if light slows down as it travels due to a property of photons known as vacuum polarization—where a splits into a positron and an electron, for a very short time before recombining back into a photon. That should create a gravitational differential, he notes, between the pair of particles, which, he theorizes, would have a tiny energy impact when they recombine—enough to cause a slight bit of a slowdown during travel. If such splitting and rejoining occurred many times with many photons on a journey of 168,000 light years, the distance between us and SN 1987A, it could easily add up to the 4.7 hour delay, he suggests.

If Franson's ideas turn out to be correct, virtually every measurement taken and used as a basis for , will be wrong. Light from the sun for example, would take longer to reach us than thought, and light coming from much more distant objects, such as from the Messier 81 galaxy, a distance of 12 million light years, would arrive noticeably later than has been calculated—about two weeks later. The implications are staggering—distances for would have to be recalculated and theories that were created to describe what has been observed would be thrown out. In some cases, astrophysicists would have to start all over from scratch.

Explore further: Does light experience time?

More information: Apparent correction to the speed of light in a gravitational potential, J D Franson 2014 New J. Phys. 16 065008 DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/16/6/065008 . http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/16/6/065008/

Abstract
The effects of physical interactions are usually incorporated into the quantum theory by including the corresponding terms in the Hamiltonian. Here we consider the effects of including the gravitational potential energy of massive particles in the Hamiltonian of quantum electrodynamics. This results in a predicted correction to the speed of light that is proportional to the fine structure constant. The correction to the speed of light obtained in this way depends on the gravitational potential and not the gravitational field, which is not gauge invariant and presumably nonphysical. Nevertheless, the predicted results are in reasonable agreement with experimental observations from Supernova 1987a.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Does light experience time?

May 08, 2014

Have you ever noticed that time flies when you're having fun? Well, not for light. In fact, photons don't experience any time at all. Here's a mind-bending concept that should shatter your brain into pieces.

How long does it take sunlight to reach the Earth?

Apr 15, 2013

Here's a question… how long does it take sunlight to reach Earth? This sounds like a strange question, but think about it. Sunlight travels at the speed of light. Photons emitted from the surface of the ...

Researchers explore quantum entanglement

Feb 08, 2013

Albert Einstein called quantum entanglement—two particles in different locations, even on other sides of the universe, influencing each other—"spooky action at a distance."

Recommended for you

User comments : 361

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

mohammadshafiq_khan_1
Jun 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ThomasQuinn
4.6 / 5 (17) Jun 26, 2014
A difference of two weeks on 12 million light years would be significant, but would hardly change to a fundamental re-thinking of the universe. Interesting, if true, which is still the question, but not earth-shattering.
SolubleFish
4.6 / 5 (20) Jun 26, 2014
@mohammadshafiq_khan_1

Go away.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (12) Jun 26, 2014
where a photon splits into a positron and an electron, for a very short time before recombining back into a photon

This should apply only to photons that have the requisite amount of energy, right? So photons that have less energy should arrive still as fast as before. Or am I missing something here?

If found to be correct then that certainly has some ramifications (especially in measuring apparatus that rely on the speedof light as an invariant). But I agree with ThomasQuinn: It's not going to invalidate a whole lot of things we know. At most it will shift the best estimates for very distant objects by a few parts of a percent. I seriously doubt that this would cause anything to need to be 'started from scratch'.
Anda
3.6 / 5 (9) Jun 26, 2014
Agree. A minor adjustement.

And no offense intended but it always amazes me how similar are creationist and muslims claims when it comes to the universe, prehistory and evolution. Same arguments.
Astronoom
1.4 / 5 (23) Jun 26, 2014
Scientist should stop fooling them selfs, with the idea that light has a constant speed, the speed of light isn't constant in space, its variable.
Light slows down due time, light slow down and speedup because the influences and collisions underway.
Space isn't a real vacuum, its full with particles like mater, antimatter, electrons, photons etc..etc..forces like gravity, electromagnetic etc.. etc..So light can and will never travel with a constant speed, its a illusion.
Within 50-100 years from now, the world would know how Einstein and Max planck fooled them.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.6 / 5 (25) Jun 26, 2014
Under Big Bang paradigm there is absolutely no possibility of existence of God
Good. Now we're getting somewhere.
Physics, according to which God cannot exist, shall have to be soon discarded
Except that, according to the evidence your god left laying around, your prophet moosa and your great king dawud never existed. And neither did any of the other characters described in the OT.

The flood never happened, the exodus never happened, the genocidal Joshuan rampage never happened, the great Hebrew kingdoms never existed. And there never were any first people.

So we are left with the uncomfortable conclusions that your god is either a great deceiver who consistently obliterates evidence and replaces it with contrary evidence; or more likely, he is a fabrication.

Ask yourself what kind of god is it who would deceive you in order to find out how much you trust him? And ask how can you trust such a god to tell you who is good and who is bad, and what is true and what is no
h20dr
5 / 5 (8) Jun 26, 2014
Wow, this could get interesting. I suppose the warp drive on the Enterprise will need to be re calibrated.
del2
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 26, 2014
where a photon splits into a positron and an electron, for a very short time before recombining back into a photon

This should apply only to photons that have the requisite amount of energy, right? So photons that have less energy should arrive still as fast as before. Or am I missing something here?


The electron and positron are virtual particles, so the energy required to produce them can be much larger than the energy of the photon, provided that their time of existence is small enough. It's an application of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
TechnoCreed
4.6 / 5 (8) Jun 26, 2014
A difference of two weeks on 12 million light years would be significant, but would hardly change to a fundamental re-thinking of the universe. Interesting, if true, which is still the question, but not earth-shattering.
Wow our universe would be 44 years younger than we thought whoop-dee-doo! Or might it just be that we have to revise our model for supernovae? After all, we know a lot more about light than about stars.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (10) Jun 26, 2014
The electron and positron are virtual particles, so the energy required to produce them can be much larger than the energy of the photon, provided that their time of existence is small enough. It's an application of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

OK, but that should skill skew the probability in favor of the high energy photons instead of the low energy photons. So we should see a shift where low energy photons arrive before high energy photons. This would be similar to what quantum loop gravity predicted. But as far as I'm aware several supernova observations did not corroborate this.
Shitead
2.1 / 5 (9) Jun 26, 2014
If the concept of gravitational lensing is correct then photons do not travel in continuous straight lines; rather their paths are kinked by every star they approach, resulting in a longer path than that of neutrinos from the same source. Longer path equals longer transit time. No transition from photon to an electron/positron pair is required.
kelman66
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 26, 2014
Astrophysical model needs tweaking
Jaeherys
4.4 / 5 (5) Jun 26, 2014
Would gravity come into play here, to increase the distance traveled by the photons? I know with large sources of gravity like a sun, it can bend the path of light. Does this not come into play over the 168 000 ly in between us and the supernova? I'd assume the researchers would have thought of this?
George_Rajna
Jun 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (20) Jun 26, 2014
The theory of general relativity suggests that light travels at a constant speed of 299,792,458 meters per second in a vacuum.


Uhhh...no...that would be the theory of Electromagnetism. The theory of General Relativity takes this suggestion and derives things from it.
thefurlong
4.8 / 5 (19) Jun 26, 2014
The implications are staggering—distances for celestial bodies would have to be recalculated and theories that were created to describe what has been observed would be thrown out. In some cases, astrophysicists would have to start all over from scratch.

Good thing we have the peer review process to to soberly analyze this suggestion rather than rile up the crackpots by breathlessly speculating that all of cosmology should be tossed out the window overnight due to one guy's idea.
Nik_2213
4.3 / 5 (8) Jun 26, 2014
Without tackling the error bars, I reckon that 4.7 hrs in ~168,000 ly amounts to one part in 300 million or there-abouts.

Given that neutrinos generally pass unimpeded while photons must run the gauntlet of assorted scattering and re-emission processes in a poorly constrained source and multiple variations of interstellar environment, I'm not worried about this lag.

I hope more such events will help explore the 'deep-space' environment.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (7) Jun 26, 2014
@Jaerherys
Would gravity come into play here, to increase the distance traveled by the photons? I know with large sources of gravity like a sun, it can bend the path of light. Does this not come into play over the 168 000 ly in between us and the supernova? I'd assume the researchers would have thought of this?
Yes, gravity bends the 'path of light', but the 'path of light' is curved space. Neutrinos do not have any short path through curved space. Relativity applies to everything.
DeliriousNeuron
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 26, 2014
So my posts are deleted because I point out flaws in computer simulations?
Repurplecirculation
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 26, 2014
So my posts are deleted because I point out flaws in computer simulations?

I feel your pain as one who wrote many computer simulations and found flaws in one of my own, then had to fight "myself" essentially and was booted off a science forum. Too many are, what I call, "stubbornly ignorant", in the scientific field - people who take a simulation over measurements & absolutely refuse to accept reality.
Jaeherys
5 / 5 (4) Jun 26, 2014
@TechnoCreed

Ahhhh, of course, application of knowledge, it's a wonderful thing... Thanks :D.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 26, 2014
"Physicist James Franson of the University of Maryland has captured the attention of the physics community by posting an article".

Well, as he says so himself in his own press release.... Nah, he makes an extraordinary claim and hasn't even ordinary evidence; to compound that he makes a nutty press release. Supernova physics is expected to give the delays, as pre-explosion shells, the explosion and the exploding star components all interact.

**********

And why the crackpot infestation that follows any less credible press release? Like attracts like, but don't crackpots even _care_ about credibility? (Likely not, Dunning-Kruger would prevent simple realizations.)
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 26, 2014
When a photon on a straight line trajectory between point A to point B encounters mass, the photon must interact with that mass, any interaction will impede its progress from point A to point B creating a time delay for arrival at point B.

If the photon is "absorbed & re-emitted" by the mass or has its pathway altered by the mass via "lensing", a time delay of that photon in reaching point B versus another photon that did not encounter a time delaying impediment will occur. But both photons traveled at the same speed, one photon simply took a shorter path than the other. Energy has only one speed, luminol.
Uncle Ira
2.3 / 5 (12) Jun 26, 2014
When a photon on a straight line trajectory between point A to point B encounters mass, the photon must interact with that mass, any interaction will impede its progress from point A to point B creating a time delay for arrival at point B.

If the photon is "absorbed & re-emitted" by the mass or has its pathway altered by the mass via "lensing", a time delay of that photon in reaching point B versus another photon that did not encounter a time delaying impediment will occur. But both photons traveled at the same speed, one photon simply took a shorter path than the other. Energy has only one speed, luminol.


@ Bennie-Skippy how you are Cher? This would be a good place to say different equations and quasi circle universe so why you not throw that in there too?
otero
Jun 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
euphoriewelle
5 / 5 (6) Jun 26, 2014
Light slows down due time, light slow down and speedup because the influences and collisions underway.
Space isn't a real vacuum, its full with particles like mater, antimatter, electrons, photons etc..etc..forces like gravity, electromagnetic etc.. etc..So light can and will never travel with a constant speed, its a illusion.

It is easy to falsify your argument. If there were so many particles in the vacuum, we wouldn't be able to see any other stars. But we are able to see galaxies which existed very close to the big bang and the light travelled billions of years. So obviously the vacuum is extremely empty, in the sense of interacting with typical particles.

Or from another point of view: If the vacuum were so populated with particles, photons would be scatter to all directions. We weren't able to see any other galaxies, the sky would have a constant "glow" in any direction.
otero
Jun 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
otero
Jun 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
3 / 5 (6) Jun 26, 2014
At most it will shift the best estimates for very distant objects by a few parts of a percent. I seriously doubt that this would cause anything to need to be 'started from scratch'.


Actually, it would in some cases. The precision required in some measurements and some theories of what those measurements ought to be is to such a degree of precision, such as in certain claims seen involving QM and gravitational waves, that if you were off by one decimal place (not one digit) in precision of the total distance measurement, it would invalidate the calculation, and for that matter the entire theory.
Returners
3 / 5 (8) Jun 26, 2014
mohammadshafiq_khan_1:

Your understanding of Ontology is embarrassingly lacking.

By definition, if God is the first cause, he does not need space or time to reside in, as space and time come from God's creation.

Ghost:

Forget the books, because you are hung up on human flaws of authors so that you miss the point of what monotheism is.

Neither the Ontological argument nor the Cosmological argument rely on a Holy Book as a reference or source. They are built upon first principles derivable without reference to any Holy Book, religion, or dogma.

If you start with the question of where everything came from, and you disprove "absolute nothingness" as a source, which science has, then the only thing that remains is an un-caused cause. The framework of physics forbids an un-caused cause within said framework, due to problems of the finite age of the universe and Entropy. Solution is not given by the framework of physics, because it cannot give a solution, however, pure logic can.
norpag
1 / 5 (12) Jun 26, 2014
Doesn't this imply that the photons will have an intrinsic redshift a la Arp. Thus destroying the whole Big Bang meme?
Returners
1.9 / 5 (17) Jun 26, 2014
Ghost:

Very simple:

A change from absolute nothingness to somethign would be a process. Physics says any process requires a cause.

If we use the set entitled "nothing" to represent ...nothing, then we cannot have a condition in which the set "nothing" contains anything, as "nothing" is always an empty set...

Nothing{}.

Nothing is by definition most closely modeled by an empty set, which cannot contain a process.

Nothing{P} = Nonsense!

But you need a process to implement change from nothing to something....

Nothing ->? Something = Nonsense

So "nothing" was never the case.

Since a process is required anyway, and a process cannot be a member of "nothing", then "nothing" was never the case.

The un-caused cause must be eternal, else you're back to a "something from nothing" argument, which we've proven false.

Nothing in our universe is eternal.

Therefore the universe was created.

It's that simple.

You may dislike God, but your dislike doesn't disprove the existence of God.
Returners
1.9 / 5 (12) Jun 26, 2014
Doesn't this imply that the photons will have an intrinsic redshift a la Arp. Thus destroying the whole Big Bang meme?


It's not enough to affect most measurements, but IS enough to ruin some theories involving QM and Gravity waves.

This effect should cause light to LOSE energy over time, which implies the light-source is actually "bluer" than it appears to be.

This is ironically "Tired C" which means much of modern astrophysics is based on wrong assumptions, since "Tired C" was presumed to be rejected well over a generation ago.

If one form of "Tired C" can be proven to exist, then the whole discussion has to be re-opened.

The way I interpret this is reverse of him.

He thinks we're making a measurement error, but that doesn't make sense.

Scientists measure the net speed, but net speed is the sum (or product) of all contributing factors.

Therefore it stands to reason that the real speed of light is faster than what we measure, and we already measure the "slowed" speed.
norpag
1.1 / 5 (7) Jun 26, 2014
Returners I think your saying that this would indeed be "tired light" so that all our distance measurements, Hubble constant Z would be wrong.- No need for inflation etc.
If this effect is from 168000 light years how about 13 billion? And there is no reason to suppose a priori that the delay function has to be linear- what if it is exponential?
Uncle Ira
2.9 / 5 (16) Jun 26, 2014
Your understanding of Ontology is embarrassingly lacking.


Returnering-Skippy You are right about that, but if I were you, I wouldn't be making so much noise about it no. Yours is pretty embarrassing too, not to me, to you the embarrassing thing. Or did you mean the embarrassing for both of you?

Forget the books, because you are hung up on human flaws of authors so that you miss the point of what monotheism is.


If you forgetting the books Cher, how you going to make any sense out of anything. You just pull out of your butt because he sounds good to you?

The framework of physics forbids an un-caused cause within said framework, due to problems of the finite age of the universe and Entropy.


Skippy you need to make up your mind so you aren't so confused. You like the first cause, fine. Then don't, that's fine too. But you can't choose both.

pure logic can.


That ain't helping you so much Skippy. The forget the "forget the books" thing ain't working.
Uncle Ira
2.2 / 5 (11) Jun 26, 2014
Very simple

A change from absolute nothingness to somethign would be a process. Physics says any process requires a cause.

If we use the set entitled "nothing" to represent ...nothing, then we cannot have a condition in which the set "nothing" contains anything, as "nothing" is always an empty set...

Nothing{}.

Nothing is by definition most closely modeled by an empty set, which cannot contain a process.

Nothing{P} = Nonsense!

But you need a process to implement change from nothing to something....

Nothing ->? Something = Nonsense

So "nothing" was never the case.

Since a process is required anyway, and a process cannot be a member of "nothing", then "nothing" was never the case.

The un-caused cause must be eternal, else you're back to a "something from nothing" argument, which we've proven false.

Nothing in our universe is eternal.

Therefore the universe was created.

It's that simple.


It is simple alright. That was simply nothing. So where you get it? God?
Returners
1.6 / 5 (15) Jun 26, 2014
Returners I think your saying that this would indeed be "tired light" so that all our distance measurements, Hubble constant Z would be wrong.- No need for inflation etc.
If this effect is from 168000 light years how about 13 billion? And there is no reason to suppose a priori that the delay function has to be linear- what if it is exponential?


Speed decreases need not be exponential to have exponential results.

And yes, I should think that the speed decreases should be cumulative after each cycle of the pair generation/annihilation, because a bit more energy is lost each time, implying that light from far away was indeed moving much faster when it was first created.

This produces a paradox though, because light produced in a laboratory is measured at the currently accepted speed, right? We'd agree on that.

So if his theory is true, then it means light must have had a higher speed in the universe's past anyway, which negates (some of) the need for Inflation...
Returners
2 / 5 (16) Jun 26, 2014
If you forgetting the books Cher, how you going to make any sense out of anything. You just pull out of your butt because he sounds good to you?


Gilligan, I didn't say we should forget all books or knowledge. Pay attention.

Skippy you need to make up your mind so you aren't so confused. You like the first cause, fine. Then don't, that's fine too. But you can't choose both.


Gilligan, you weren't paying attention.

1, A first cause is implied by a finite universe.
2, A first cause is implied by Entropy, since Entropy forbids an infinite past.

Physics applies to space and time, and can say nothing outside of that.

Physics is a sub-set of logic and knowledge, not the whole deal. This is a fact that seems lost on posters such as yourself of Ghost of Otto.

Now we know "absolute nothing" was never the case, so we know something always existed.

However, we know that "eternal something" was not the universe due to Entropy.
Returners
1.7 / 5 (15) Jun 26, 2014
If the Big Bang is true, then the universe is past finite, and therefore was created, since we know it could not have come from nothing.

If the Big Bang is false, but the law of Entropy is true, then the universe is definitely past finite, and therefore was created, since we know it could not have come from nothing.*

Here "nothing" is short for "absolute nothing" for brevity, lest one of you try to take the "God made everything from nothing," paraphrase to use against me.

God exists, therefore "absolute nothing" isn't an issue.

But as I've already pointed out, you can prove "absolute nothing" was never the case, without the assumption of God.

But once you make that proof you are left with, "We know the universe is past finite, by natural science. How can the universe be finite, if it did not come from nothing?"

Metaphysical Naturalism LEADS TO THAT QUESTION, yet cannot answer it.

The only answer is that the universe was created by an eternal Being.
Returners
1.2 / 5 (13) Jun 26, 2014
Returners I think your saying that this would indeed be "tired light" so that all our distance measurements, Hubble constant Z would be wrong.- No need for inflation etc.
If this effect is from 168000 light years how about 13 billion? And there is no reason to suppose a priori that the delay function has to be linear- what if it is exponential?


Clarify:

Distance and/or age.

You can't necessarily say which in the absence of other evidence, because the term "light-year" is based on a circular definition in physics:

We presently define "time" based on a certain number of wavelengths of light (frequency) equaling one second.

But we presently define "distance", the "light year", based on "time" and "speed". However, speed is itself circularly defined by the wavelength and frequency of light, since "speed" is a derived measure written in terms of "time" as defined by SI system (which is in terms of the speed of light).

Mimath224
3.7 / 5 (7) Jun 26, 2014
I agree with @thefurlong. If the v of light were variable or slower then it would be the magnetic and electric permeability of FREE SPACE that would need adjusting...or maybe 'god' changes the value of Pi when 'god' feels like a change eh mohammadshafiq_khan_1?
OceanDeep
4 / 5 (4) Jun 26, 2014
Ghost:

Very simple:

A change from absolute nothingness to somethign would be a process. Physics says any process requires a cause.

If we use the set entitled "nothing" to represent ...nothing, then we cannot have a condition in which the set "nothing" contains anything, as "nothing" is always an empty set...

Nothing{}.

Nothing is by definition most closely modeled by an empty set, which cannot contain a process.

Nothing{P} = Nonsense! ....


That sounds like a variation of the "there must be something rather than nothing" argument.

It is appealing but doesn't mean that God has to be the "something" preceding our universe.

Also, if we are not sure we can call that thing God (even if it can be said to precede our cosmos), it could simply be evidence of an eternal universe that was never "created" at all in the religious sense.
TechnoCreed
4.6 / 5 (7) Jun 26, 2014
We presently define "time" based on a certain number of wavelengths of light (frequency) equaling one second.
First of all do not confuse wavelength with frequency they are inverse function: (wavelength 'in meter')=(the speed of light '299 792 458 meter per second') / (frequency 'in periods per second'). This formula applies to all electromagnetic signals; visible light is only a small part of the electromagnetic spectrum. In other words the wavelength of a given electromagnetic signal is the distance that this signal is going to travel in one period (or cycle). The frequency of a given electromagnetic signal is the number of periods that this signal is going to complete in one second (Hertz or Hz=period per second). You notice that all electromagnetic signal travel at the same speed regardless of its wavelength? So it can be defined as a distance unit: 299 792 458 meter = 1 light second. I do not think you were trying to spread disinformation, I just think that you conceptualize a light year very badly at the moment. I hope this information is going to help you to correct this.
Also the international standard definition of a second is defined as such: "the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom."
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (12) Jun 27, 2014
I agree with @thefurlong. If the v of light were variable or slower then it would be the magnetic and electric permeability of FREE SPACE that would need adjusting...or maybe 'god' changes the value of Pi when 'god' feels like a change eh mohammadshafiq_khan_1?

All of space is a sea of plasma with complex collective interactions operating at many scales. There is no "vacuum of space", intergalactic, interstellar, and interplanetary space are plasma, dust, electric currents, magnetic fields, etc. I think you make an excellent point. The permeability one, not the god one...
adam_russell_9615
5 / 5 (2) Jun 27, 2014
It seems to me that the index of refraction (which determines lightspeed) of space would never be exactly 1 as often assumed. Any mass density, no matter how diffuse, would raise it a little. And such a small measurement error would only require an N of about 1.000000003 if my math is correct. Are you sure that isnt a factor?
rogue_ish
5 / 5 (3) Jun 27, 2014
Darn-- I had read the title in a more "positive" way... "Physicist suggests speed of light might be slower than thought"

I "thought" that they were saying the "speed of thought" was faster than light-- expecting this was about some kind of quantum effect that made it look like we think faster than electrons or speed of light would allow. I had wanted to see what kind of math they would have to to use, and assumptions they would have to make, to come to that kind of conclusion.

Just lump me in with the first guy who ranted on about god and physics.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (5) Jun 27, 2014
If the Big Bang is true, then the universe is past finite, and therefore was created, since we know it could not have come from nothing.


It didn't 'come from nothing'. The universe that we know 'developed within nothing'. There was no requirement for 'nothing' to be associated with a cause. The cause may or may not be a God. However, 'nothing' was certainly not a precursor such that 'something' came from 'nothing'. It's not logical to assign properties to 'nothing'. 'Nothing' does not have size, shape, time, age etc. An empty set is not 'nothing'.

I "thought" that they were saying the "speed of thought" was faster than light

That would have been an interesting discussion. I'd chip in with 'of course it is' and presented evidence. Another time perhaps.
TechnoCreed
4.6 / 5 (5) Jun 27, 2014
It didn't 'come from nothing'. The universe that we know 'developed within nothing'. There was no requirement for 'nothing' to be associated with a cause. The cause may or may not be a God. However, 'nothing' was certainly not a precursor such that 'something' came from 'nothing'. It's not logical to assign properties to 'nothing'. 'Nothing' does not have size, shape, time, age etc. An empty set is not 'nothing'.
Do not take it personally; it is a joke... This is what you sound like... https://www.youtu...V54ddNHE
Bob Osaka
4.5 / 5 (2) Jun 27, 2014
Provocative idea. More than likely an error, but then again what if it isn't. It is always good to look at the data again. Don't mean just SN 1987A but all of it. For comparison suggest NGC 5584 Type 1a supernova 72 ly , March 14, 2011 in Virgo. New eyes taking a fresh look is always a good thing, except to false conclusions.
You'd think the dark matter boys would be all over this, unseen, undetectable gravity sources bending the light in a 4.7 hour delaying curve. 168,000 ly is in the neighborhood. The Hubble constant doesn't come in to play for distances less than 1 billion ly. The standard candle and gravitational lensing are suspect now.
Franson's conclusion that it must be vacuum polarization sounds like oscillating neutrino flux.
The distance, if it is the distance is too short. So now we have a problem, uh, problems, and another problem. In the time it takes to calculate two interactions trillions and trillions pass through the paper. Now as always is the time to shut-up and...
Bob Osaka
5 / 5 (1) Jun 27, 2014
calculate.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (4) Jun 27, 2014
Do not take it personally; it is a joke... This is what you sound like..


Not available on this platform. I suppose it's the thought that counts.
euphoriewelle
5 / 5 (3) Jun 27, 2014
We weren't able to see any other galaxies, the sky would have a constant "glow" in any direction
We are observing this constant glow as so-called cosmic background radiation.

No, the CMB is *a* constant glow, but it is not the same glow a "dense vacuum" would produce. The CMB originates from scattered photons during the first 400K years. After protons and electrons combined, the universe became transparent. So transparent that we can see the CMB even after billions of years. Therefor the vacuum cannot contain a lot of particles which interact with photons.
euphoriewelle
2 / 5 (2) Jun 27, 2014
Argh, double post.
Returners
1 / 5 (7) Jun 27, 2014
First of all do not confuse wavelength with frequency they are inverse function: (wavelength 'in meter')=(the speed of light '299 792 458 meter per second') / (frequency 'in periods per second').


I know that silly. I put them together because they are associated just for clarity.

Seriously, why does everyone have to try so hard to "one up" one another on this site?

"the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom."


Which gives a circular definition of speed, since you are defining time in terms of a distance (period * wavelength = distance). So then the definition of Velocity is essentially:

V = d1 / d2*

But "d2" is actually already a velocity, because it defines a second in terms of a distance.

So now we're saying:

Velocity 1 = Distance / Velocity 2
Returners
1 / 5 (7) Jun 27, 2014
Okay, after giving this theory some thought....and I need to revise my post about this.

What we measure in a laboratory over "human" distances, such as between the Earth and Moon (much less than the Sun) or from one end of an optic cable to another, is very close to the "real" speed of light, because it hasn't traveled far enough for this effect to matter.

Light from distant stars is in face much "bluer" than it appears to be though.

I am wrong about the speed of light from distant objects though. What we measure in the laboratory is as close as possible the "real" initial speed of light from the source.

Light that strikes a telescope is the "slowed" light. The energy source of this light, if his theory is correct, is much "bluer" than it appears to be the farther away it appears to be.

So the farther you think the "cosmological" red shift ought to place the object, the more of it's red shift can be explained by this effect. Continued...
Returners
1 / 5 (7) Jun 27, 2014
This suggests that the universe is not expanding as quickly as cosmologists think it's expanding, because at least some of the "cosmological red shift" is actually coming from this effect, IF this theory is true.

Testing this would require 3 space probes to be at rest with one another. Two would be experimental, the third is an additional reference object just to help verify they are at rest with respect to one another, because it's hard to prove with only two objects.

You'd need them very far from one another, and fire lasers, or individual photons, at one another, and account for all other forms of energy loss or dissociation (happens less with laser light, but still happens,) and then see if any further missing energy or timing difference matched what is explained by this theory. At the intergalactic scale he used, the discrepancy is 3.35 parts per billion, but at solar system scales the discrepancy would be even smaller: perhaps a few parts per quadrillion.
Returners
1 / 5 (7) Jun 27, 2014
The above experiment wouldn't work on Earth even if you had optic cables circling the Earth, because:

1, The distance is so small that the discrepancy would be close to 1 part per septillion, which we can't measure yet anyway. That's only 4*10^-29 of one second discrepancy for light to travel the diameter of the Earth, assuming the discrepancy is linear.*

2, You can't control for imperfections: a single atom being different in one cable compared to the other is probably enough to screw up the measurement considering the insane sensitivity needs estimated in point 1.

* An effect which "negatively accelerates" an entity linearly with time produces an exponential slowing result, because the slower the entity moves the more time there is for it to be further slowed before it reaches the destination.

Example A:
If distance is 1000units, and the speed decreases 1% in the time to travel 100u, then it will take longer to travel the next 100u, thus it is slowed by more than 1% per 100u.
Uncle Ira
2.9 / 5 (12) Jun 27, 2014
Okay, after giving this theory some thought....and I need to revise my post about this.


That's what happens when you go to pulling the science stuffs out of your butt Skippy.
Returners
1 / 5 (7) Jun 27, 2014
So continuing Example A above:

The speed will be significantly less than 90%. Even though at first glance you'd think it would be decreased by 10%, the actual net decrease in speed would be approximately 11% in this example.

This does not reflect the actual theory above, since the rate of decrease is much smaller than that. it's just useful to use round numbers to present a concept.

Point is again Negative linear acceleration has a non-linear result in speed, across a known distance or time, because each change in velocity changes the amount of time the entity is exposed to further acceleration.
Uncle Ira
2.7 / 5 (12) Jun 27, 2014
Example A


You going to be doing this all day? Maybe you could just skip on down to Example Z and go take the nap.
Returners
1 / 5 (7) Jun 27, 2014
Okay, after giving this theory some thought....and I need to revise my post about this.


That's what happens when you go to pulling the science stuffs out of your butt Skippy.


No, that's called being a bit hasty, but nevertheless right on the whole.

The measurement made the laboratory is correct as much as possible because we could never make an instrument precise enough to detect the discrepancy on Earth scales anyway. It's close to Planck length, only off by a few orders of magnitude.

However, we could make the measurement if we had 2 probes on opposite sides of the solar system, at relative rest, and a third probe used as a reference to help measure the error in their relative motion (since there will be), then you could measure the discrepancy at that large of a scale, because it will be about equal to the smallest unit of time our Atomic Clocks can measure.
Returners
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 27, 2014
Example A


You going to be doing this all day? Maybe you could just skip on down to Example Z and go take the nap.


What I posted is not obvious, and not everybody who reads the article would stop and think about it that way.

As long as he moderator doesn't ban me, I'll post as many examples of how that could affect measurement as I damn well feel like posting.

It matters because Cosmic Red shift is exponential in exactly the same sign, because the Hubble constant is presumed to be linear with respect to distance, which means that for distant objects the two effects could very well cancel one another out...which means this effect would explain some of the Cosmic Red shift, and it actually accounts for slightly more than a pure linear interpretation would make obvious.

That's the point.

If it was purely linear, the universe would be something like 44 years older than it appears to be.

If it's cumulative, the universe is several years older than that.
Returners
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 27, 2014
No, the CMB is *a* constant glow, but it is not the same glow a "dense vacuum" would produce. The CMB originates from scattered photons during the first 400K years. After protons and electrons combined, the universe became transparent. So transparent that we can see the CMB even after billions of years. Therefor the vacuum cannot contain a lot of particles which interact with photons.


Supposedly, the virtual particles are so close to one another that they re-combine in almost all cases so quickly that they never directly interact with anything else. It only becomes really important around black holes' event horizons, or in the Cassimir force experiments.

you can show graphically why it matters in the case of a photon's speed though.

If the photon decays into particles, or virtual particles, or anything really, which recombines, those particles velocity is itself limited by the "real" value "c". This means they waste some time moving apart from one another and back. Draw it..
Returners
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 27, 2014
So when you draw that on a piece of paper, you see that some motion perpendicular to the light's propagation is happening, and since the maximum velocity of a particle is assumed to be "c", and then the net motion in the direction of the Photon's propagation must be less than c in any case, even if no energy was actually being lost.

This implies that nothing containing energy, not even light, actually moves at the velocity "c," at least not over a time or distance greater than or equal to the minimum required for the decay to happen at least one time.

If energy is being lost, then the motion in the direction of the Photon's propagation is in fact not only slower than "c", but it is actually slowing down with time; That is for the individual photon, not the universal initial speed of light...

So the speed of light is "c" at the moment it is created, but the first time such a pair creation happens the speed of the photon is slowed to less than "c" permanently.
Uncle Ira
2.3 / 5 (12) Jun 27, 2014
What I posted is not obvious, and not everybody who reads the article would stop and think about it that way.


So what it is Cher, you helping the Skippys who wrote the article?

As long as he moderator doesn't ban me, I'll post as many examples of how that could affect measurement as I damn well feel like posting.


If you just put it all together you make the book and sell him on the ebay like the Reg-Skippy.

.which means this effect would explain some of the Cosmic Red shift, and it actually accounts for slightly more than a pure linear interpretation would make obvious.


I had no idea the astrophysics-Skippys was upset at the missing redshifts.

That's the point.


What's the point?

If it was purely linear, the universe would be something like 44 years older than it appears to be.

If it's cumulative, the universe is several years older than that.


Well after 14 or 13 billion years it's good to know you found 44 lost ones Skippy We proud with you.
Uncle Ira
2.3 / 5 (12) Jun 27, 2014
@ Returnering-Skippy. Are you on drugs that make you feel real smart and want to share it with the world this morning? What you have wrote so far is about 10 or 9 times longer that what the article is.
Returners
1.6 / 5 (8) Jun 27, 2014
@ Returnering-Skippy. Are you on drugs that make you feel real smart and want to share it with the world this morning? What you have wrote so far is about 10 or 9 times longer that what the article is.


Critique and exposition, whether positive or negative, are often longer than the original piece. That's the way argument works.

Smurf
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 27, 2014
I'M AMAZED! Where is this neutrino detector that could detect with such precision. What is amazing is the detectors can pinpoint the source with such angular accuracy.
Uncle Ira
2.1 / 5 (11) Jun 27, 2014
[That's the way argument works.


Well Skippy let me explain one thing you probably not know. The Skippys who wrote the article are not here to read your criticizing their article. One another thing you probably don't know, if you want to argue with them you could just send them the email.
Returners
1.6 / 5 (8) Jun 27, 2014
Um...

Can only paid members send personal messages now?

I want to send that guy a private message, because what I want to say isn't rude, but just isn't appropriate or relevant to the article, but when I click on his name, my screen doesn't give me the option to send private messages to him, even though I have a private message inbox...
Uncle Ira
2.5 / 5 (11) Jun 27, 2014
Um...

Can only paid members send personal messages now?

I want to send that guy a private message, because what I want to say isn't rude, but just isn't appropriate or relevant to the article, but when I click on his name, my screen doesn't give me the option to send private messages to him, even though I have a private message inbox...


Maybe he don't want to get your messages Skippy. It is a possible thing he sees what you write here on the article and don't want more of it in private. Just a guess from me.
Returners
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 27, 2014
[That's the way argument works.


Well Skippy let me explain one thing you probably not know. The Skippys who wrote the article are not here to read your criticizing their article. One another thing you probably don't know, if you want to argue with them you could just send them the email.


Well, Gilligan, the term "argument" as I used it, need not be a two way discussion, but applies broadly to critique and conveyance of ideas and concepts, but had you actually thought about it before responding you'd realize that.

For clarity, Gilligan, you should see "Argument" on dictionary dot com. Relevant definitions are numbers 3, 4, and 5, but you seem hung up on definition number 1...
Uncle Ira
2.5 / 5 (13) Jun 27, 2014
Well, Gilligan, the term "argument" as I used it, need not be a two way discussion, but applies broadly to critique and conveyance of ideas and concepts, but had you actually thought about it before responding you'd realize that.


That's what I been trying to explain for you Skippy. You are conveying too much criticism to the wrong people peoples here. The ones who wrote the article aren't listening.

Had you actually thought about it you would realize that the only one here right now is ol Ira and you is talking to Ira, or you is talking to your self. If I was you, I wouldn't be proud of that, talking with Ira or talking to your self I mean.

So you can argue with me, or you argue with your self, but the Skippys who write the article are not here, so you can't argue with them. Arguing with me or arguing with your self is the big wasting of your time.

So why you not sit down and let one of the smart-Skippys see if they have something to say?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (12) Jun 27, 2014
Ah geez QC/lurker/returners is off his medication again.
You may dislike God, but your dislike doesn't disprove the existence of God
No but the existence of YOUR god has been thoroughly disproved. You've never addressed the EVIDENCE qc. What archeology has found in the desert convinces us that the bible stories were impossible. What exegists and historians have found in the bible convinces us that it was inspired by human desires and emotions.

You can argue your onto- teleo- crap all you want but the evidence is CLEAR and it says the bible is a novel. The deistic god is unprovable by design - another human philo deception. But your buddy Jesus and his cronies have been done in by cold, rational observation and analysis.

As to your physics delusions:
Okay, after giving this theory some thought....and I need to revise my post about this
-the problem is always obvious; you need to think BEFORE you post, not after.
IamVal
1.7 / 5 (3) Jun 27, 2014
If this mechanism could cause red or blue shifting, we'd have to rethink the big bang... at least the general parameters and timeframe.
Short of a satellite in deep space, at a known speed, sending us photons of a known wavelength, we may never be sure.

I'm going to look into whether or not these two mechanisms might stack in a way that would effect our estimations of distance and momentum significantly.
IamVal
1.3 / 5 (3) Jun 27, 2014
also, Would this interaction be slowing the photon down by reducing it's forward momentum, or does the photon reform and travel at C?

in other words, does it effect the speed linearly (D=s*t = (t*c) - (n*i)) ) or factorially( D= s*t = t * (c - n*i) )
where
D = distance, s = Speed, T= time, n= number of splits, i= interval(speed loss)

how rarely would this split occur?..
nowhere
5 / 5 (8) Jun 27, 2014
If the Big Bang is true, then the universe is past finite, and therefore was created, since we know it could not have come from nothing.

If the Big Bang is false, but the law of Entropy is true, then the universe is definitely past finite, and therefore was created, since we know it could not have come from nothing.

Incorrect. The BBT only goes back to the point of origin, at this point we have a singularity where our understanding and physics 'break down'. Our theories at this time cannot model this point, but you take it one step further by postulating that nothing existed prior to this point, and even use our understanding and physics to describe the transition from nothing to singularity. Both points are currently undefined and so your reasoning and godly conclusion are unfounded.
Returners
1.7 / 5 (11) Jun 27, 2014
Our theories at this time cannot model this point, but you take it one step further by postulating that nothing existed prior to this point, and even use our understanding and physics to describe the transition from nothing to singularity. Both points are currently undefined and so your reasoning and godly conclusion are unfounded.


on the contrary, I most certainly did not say that nothing existed "prior" to this point. I made the argument that "absolute nothing" could never have been the case. I am sure anyone who gives that some though can see why that must be true. In fact, science assumes it is true through conservation laws (ignoring the notion of temporal singularities for most phenomena).

Now since something does not come from nothing, I made the argument that the Universe was created by something, a "Being" which transcends the physics we know, and has "always" existed. The term "always" is insufficient, but is close enough for our purposes.

continued.
Returners
1.7 / 5 (11) Jun 27, 2014
The law of Entropy is true, to the best of anyone's ability to test, there has never been shown a global/universal exception to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

This means that the universe can't be past infinite since that would make it already be at maximum entropy.

Remember, disproving "absolute nothingness" leaves us with two possibilities:

1, The universe itself is past infinite.*

2, The universe itself is past finite, but created by something which is Transcendent.**

1b, If either Entropy or the Big Bang theory are true, then the universe cannot be past infinite.
1c, The entity which created the Big Bang (cycle or "parent universe" theories,) cannot be temporal, because it would have been destroyed by Entropy. In other words, at some point that has to be an a-temporal creative event, and an a-temporal fundamental reality, the true law and Creator.

2b, The term "Transcendent" means that the First Cause, "Being," is neither Temporal nor Spacial as we know the concepts.
Uncle Ira
2.4 / 5 (13) Jun 27, 2014
continued.


So who you arguing with this time Skippy? Ain't much of an argument if you are the only couyon arguing. I bet you think there is somebody reading and really being impressed with all your arguing with your self. Is that right Cher? You think that?
Uncle Ira
2.8 / 5 (13) Jun 27, 2014
Remember, disproving "absolute nothingness" leaves us with two possibilities:

1, The universe itself is past infinite.*

2, The universe itself is past finite, but created by something which is Transcendent.**


There is the third possiblity.

3. Returnering-Skippy is really hoping that somebody is going to read all this foolishment and think he smart.

He's really dying for somebody to tell him so he can show it to his momma. Ain't going to me though, maybe Socratic-Skippy or Reg-Skippy or Really-Skippy will come along and tell him so he can show it to his momma.

The term "Transcendent" means that the First Cause, "Being," is neither Temporal nor Spacial as we know the concepts.


Are you taking the drugs again? You better stop that before you get stuck like that.
Returners
1.9 / 5 (16) Jun 27, 2014
Reported for slander and personal attacks.

I'm sick of your bullshit.
Returners
1.5 / 5 (13) Jun 27, 2014
How is it that you are either incapable, or pretending to be incapable, of understanding the Cosmological Argument?

This is ridiculously simple, yet you act like you can't understand it, or else you act like I'm somehow at fault for presenting it in a slightly more advanced and detailed way than normal.
Kalopin
1 / 5 (6) Jun 27, 2014
do all these threads end up 'pissy'? ;-]]]]]]]

photons are an exhaust emission from particle explosions being subjected to pressures.
they are the slowest of particles and quickly decay or convert to energy. cosmic rays can travel many times the maximum speed of light, higher energy rays come from distant ranges and many are trapped at the edge of the Sun's magnetopause as huge 'swirls' of charged particles in retrograde.
Einstein used the speed of light AS a constant and never said that photons travel at a constant speed.
what would be the mechanism to push an object containing zero mass?
If you would like to learn more on this hypothesis, please see- "The photon, a master of time and space" @thunderbolts.info
thefurlong
4.3 / 5 (9) Jun 27, 2014
@Returners
Sheesh! I leave for a few days and come back to people arguing over the existence of God!

1, A first cause is implied by a finite universe.

No, it isn't. In fact, if you look at the differential equation, f'(t) = (f(t) + t)/t, you will immediately see that f'(t) is undefined at 0. However, we can see that f'(t) is undefined at t=0s. However, if we choose an "inital condition" such that f(0.5s) = -0.84657359027997265470861606072909, then f' (and hence, f) is clearly well defined in the interval (0,infinity). But, notice that whatever initial condition we choose, we can always choose a smaller one (just not 0).
2, A first cause is implied by Entropy, since Entropy forbids an infinite past.

Not true either. While Entropy is a monotonic process, there is no reason to assume that doesn't have an upper or lower bound. You are thinking about entropy too linearly.
thefurlong
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 27, 2014
A change from absolute nothingness to somethign would be a process. Physics says any process requires a cause.

Well, radioactive isotopes, as far as we can tell, decay randomly. As far as quantum physics is concerned, it is unnecessary to posit a deterministic process. So, there really is no empirical reason to continue adhering to this outdated notion.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (9) Jun 27, 2014
doesn't disprove the existence of God
LRRKRRR address the question of EVIDENCE.

Evidence says your god doesnt exist. And there is no evidence that any deistic god would give out souls or provide them with nice or nasty places to go after we die. There is no evidence that a deistic god grants wishes or cares WHAT we do.

Answer the EVIDENCE lrrkrrr or quit mentioning god.

"Tel Aviv University archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog:
"This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, YHWH, had a female consort..."

-And WHERE is mt sinai anyways??
Gawad
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 27, 2014
A change from absolute nothingness to somethign would be a process. Physics says any process requires a cause.

Well, radioactive isotopes, as far as we can tell, decay randomly. As far as quantum physics is concerned, it is unnecessary to posit a deterministic process. So, there really is no empirical reason to continue adhering to this outdated notion.


So, hey, I never got to ask you what your takeaway was from that thread with Johan. Pity, we missed that 1000 post make by just 15 posts, but at least you got the last word in (even though it was a question ;^)
thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 27, 2014
So, hey, I never got to ask you what your takeaway was from that thread with Johan.

Well, first, even though we didn't come close to convincing him, I consider that thread a victory. We at least got him to admit he was incorrect about something nontrivial twice. He is so mired in flawed reasoning that, even if I were to speak with him in person every day for an hour, it would probably take at least a year before he started thinking correctly. Frankly, even though I still think he's crazy, I think there is more hope for him than for, say, Reg Mundy (compare their reactions when I mathematically proved each one incorrect. Prins had no recourse but to admit his error, while Mundy retreated into philosophical drivel)
It is a shame they did cut the thread off, but I was getting a little weary towards the end, and running out of ideas for how to jog his mind out of erroneous thinking. I just hope he follows up on his words, "I have a lot to think about."
charles_ivie_1
2 / 5 (3) Jun 27, 2014
There are several different factors operating here.
Light travels at c only in a perfect vacuum. Analysis of the light from SN1987A revealed the presence of both Faraday rotation and time dispersion. This means that at some point along its path from the Magellanic cloud to Earth, a distance of about 180,000 light years, the photon groups passed through a cloud of electron rich particles, probably hydrogen, that was also embedded in a magnetic field. This introduces time dispersion where longer wave lengths arrive sooner than shorter ones and birefringence which introduces wavelength dependent rotation of the polarization vector. This is because the index of refraction of the gas cloud is less than unity. A time dispersion of 7 hours between neutrinos and photons is a tiny faction of 180,000 years It just means that the neutrinos were traveling closer to c than the photons that were slowed by the refractive index of the gas. I see nothing that threatens relativity.
root_sysop
1 / 5 (5) Jun 27, 2014
Sort of explains the redshift maybe.
-- Khawar
http://dubai-comp...ices.com
MartinT
5 / 5 (4) Jun 28, 2014
When I saw this on the Huffington website, I thought it was their typical sensationalist exaggeration. But they did not have to exaggerate anything - they just copied what they found here.

You claim "The implications are staggering—distances for celestial bodies would have to be recalculated " But if we do the arithmetic:

(4.7 hours) over (168,000 years) times (distance to Sun) = 485.7 metres

So, maybe the Sun is half a kilometre further away than we thought.
panamars
1 / 5 (5) Jun 28, 2014
>…..of general relativity ….suggests…… that light travels at a constant speed of 299,792,458 meters per second in a vacuum…<

Speed = distance/ time.

IF SPEED IS KNOWN then we can define the meter [ length] in relation to speed and time[ seconds], if time has already been defined independently.

One source of, possible, error could be the value of π [ 3.141592654...] which has not a theoretical proof [ being transcendental].

It is my anticipation that it [ π ] should be an irrational [ quantized ] number, relating the "microcosmos" with the "megacosmos".

It has been discussed that it should be the value of [ 4/ sqrt(Phi) ].
However proving it was a question.

My contribution to this may be linked to:

http://gallery.br...nference

http://gallery.br...nference/panagiotis-stefanides

Regards from Athens,

Panagiotis Stefanides

http://www.stefanides.gr

Returners
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 28, 2014
A change from absolute nothingness to somethign would be a process. Physics says any process requires a cause.

Well, radioactive isotopes, as far as we can tell, decay randomly. As far as quantum physics is concerned, it is unnecessary to posit a deterministic process. So, there really is no empirical reason to continue adhering to this outdated notion.


If you really believe that then you have no basis for scientific experimentation, since the scientific method is about observatioin, hypothesis, and experimentation applying knowledge of relationships, and knowledge from previous experiments or versions of the theory, to make predictions about those relationships to verify refine them.

What you propose violates the core philosophy of modern science*, but within the same framework that science operates.

Note that I have argued that the framework itself is good, but is insufficient to answer these questions.
panamars
1 / 5 (8) Jun 28, 2014
>…..of general relativity ….suggests…… that light travels at a constant speed of 299,792,458 meters per second in a vacuum…<

Speed = distance/ time.

IF SPEED IS KNOWN then we can define the meter [ length] in relation to speed and time [ seconds], if time has already been defined independently.

One source of, possible, error could be the value of π [ 3.141592654...] which has not a theoretical proof [ being transcendental].

It is my anticipation that it [ π ] should be an irrational [ quantized ] number, relating the "microcosmos" with the "megacosmos".

It has been discussed that it should be the value of [ 4/ sqrt(Phi) ].
However proving it was a question.

My contribution to this may be linked to:

http://gallery.br...nference

http://gallery.br...nference/panagiotis-stefanides

Regards from Athens,

Panagiotis Stefanides

http://www.stefanides.gr

Returners
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 28, 2014
Also, you are making a double standard in physics, since EVERY model of physics considers the Big Bang to be a SINGULARITY in both space and time, which is in fact represented as t=0, which means the equation used by professional physicists contains not just one, but TWO undefined terms.

Michio Kaku attempts to get around this by using String Theory and higher, invisible, microscopic dimensions to try to find higher dimensional solutions which don't produce "undefined" absurdities nor "infinite/divergent" absurdities. However, it produces the non-scientific (non-metaphysical naturalism,) argument that there must be an infinite number of invisible branes for which we can never test.

Any computer programmer can tell you that 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time is enough to model any number of dimensions, which means higher dimensions are actually not required at all. If there is a defined solution in any finite R, then it can in fact be simulated by a 3-d machine. continued.
panamars
1 / 5 (7) Jun 28, 2014
>…..of general relativity ….suggests…… that light travels at a constant speed of 299,792,458 meters per second in a vacuum…<

Speed = distance/ time.

IF SPEED IS KNOWN then we can define the meter [ length] in relation to speed and time [ seconds], if time has already been defined independently.

One source of, possible, error could be the value of π [ 3.141592654...] which has not a theoretical proof [ being transcendental].

It is my anticipation that it [ π ] should be an irrational [ quantized ] number, relating the "microcosmos" with the "megacosmos".

It has been discussed that it should be the value of [ 4/ sqrt(Phi) ].
However proving it was a question.

My contribution to this may be linked to:

http://gallery.br...nference

http://gallery.br...nference/panagiotis-stefanides

Regards from Athens,

Panagiotis Stefanides

http://www.stefanides.gr

Returners
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 28, 2014
Now if a 10 dimensional model can be run on a 3-dimensional computer (plus one time,) then it stands to reason that the effectiveness of whatever the 10 dimensional model is simulating can in fact be accomplished within only 4 dimensions of space-time, since it can be modeled using only 4 dimensions.

This is something I found intriguing, when I discovered that in principle, after the third dimension, anything which can be done in 4 or more space dimensions can be done in 3 space dimensions, given enough volume and enough complexity. It may be mechanically simpler in a higher dimension, but then you have to argue over which is "really" simpler? A 3d model which takes more "space" and parts, or a 4-d model which is mathematically easier, but is not provably existing in reality?

We can prove 3 space dimensions exist, and we can prove 4 dimensions can be modeled by 3 dimensions, therefore we don't necessarily need a hypothesis of a 4th dimension, though it's interesting to think about.
thefurlong
4.4 / 5 (10) Jun 28, 2014
If you really believe that then you have no basis for scientific experimentation, since the scientific method is about observatioin, hypothesis, and experimentation applying knowledge of relationships, and knowledge from previous experiments or versions of the theory, to make predictions about those relationships to verify refine them.

Good thing we used the scientific method with QM, then, and have found no indication that anything causes radioactive decay. You don't know what you are talking about.

What you propose violates the core philosophy of modern science*, but within the same framework that science operates.

Except for the fact that we have used modern science to gauge your hypothesis that everything needs a cause and have, thus far, found no evidence for it at the subatomic level.
thefurlong
4.6 / 5 (11) Jun 28, 2014
Also, you are making a double standard in physics, since EVERY model of physics considers the Big Bang to be a SINGULARITY in both space and time, which is in fact represented as t=0, which means the equation used by professional physicists contains not just one, but TWO undefined terms.

umm...what? I don't even know how to respond to that. Please rephrase.
Michio Kaku attempts to get around this by using String Theory and higher, invisible, microscopic dimensions to try to find higher dimensional solutions which don't produce "undefined" absurdities nor "infinite/divergent" absurdities.

String theory is not even close to being an accepted scientific theory. It isn't even technically a theory yet. It's more like a bunch of speculations about how to form a theory.
Contrast this with the Big Bang, which IS an accepted physical theory.
thefurlong
4.4 / 5 (10) Jun 28, 2014
Any computer programmer can tell you that 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time is enough to model any number of dimensions, which means higher dimensions are actually not required at all.

Well, as a programmer who used to work in simulation, I can tell you that technically, 1 dimension of space and 1 dimension of time are enough to model any number of dimensions, so by your logic 3 dimensions aren't required either.

Also, let me remind you about holograms, which allow us to encode 3 dimensional information on two dimensional surfaces. So, what exactly is the point you are trying to make?
SickManSam
3.8 / 5 (8) Jun 28, 2014
Pt. 1

"If the Big Bang is true, then the universe is past finite, and therefore was created, since we know it could not have come from nothing.....

The only answer is that the universe was created by an eternal Being."

Wrong for a number of reasons. Even if we suppose for the sake of argument that everything you believe about the big bang and the universe being past finite is true (and it isn't), your conclusion and your reasoning are still flawed. " then the universe is past finite, and therefore was created" You're begging the question, even if the universe is past finite and every action requires a cause that still does not point to the existence of a sentient creator being. All it would mean is that something caused the universe to exist, that something doesn't have to be a magical sentient being, after all a hurricane is past-finite however there aren't any magic fairies which bring hurricanes to life, they form on their own when a certain set of conditions are met.
SickManSam
3.3 / 5 (8) Jun 28, 2014
Pt. 2

What you are essentially saying is "The universe must have some cause, but since I can't come up with a reasonable explanation of what that cause might be then it must be magic", that is the premier example of an argument from ignorance fallacy
thefurlong
4.3 / 5 (8) Jun 28, 2014
I said
Good thing we used the scientific method with QM, then, and have found no indication that anything causes radioactive decay.

I would like to clarify that we haven't found any indication that anything causes radioactive decay EVENTS.
TechnoCreed
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 28, 2014
SickManSam's comments reported for pseudoscience: creationnism
thefurlong
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 28, 2014
SickManSam's comments reported for pseudoscience: creationnism

That's the complete opposite of what SickManSam was arguing.
Bob Osaka
1 / 5 (3) Jun 28, 2014
Good news and better news. The speed of light remains constant. Our understanding of supernovae may have just improved. The observational discrepancy can be explained by a similar process which occurs in the core of our sun. Neutrinos are released immediately, whereas photons react with ordinary matter and require hundreds of thousands of years before breaking the surface for the 8 minute trip to Earth. SN1987a has a beautiful and efficient disk of material, when its core produced iron the poles collapsed straight down delaying the escape of photons.
TechnoCreed
3.2 / 5 (5) Jun 29, 2014
SickManSam's comments reported for pseudoscience: creationnism

That's the complete opposite of what SickManSam was arguing.
Yes, you are right; I stopped reading at the second sentence. But there should not be any arguing on that matter neither. If everybody would report them instead of replying to their provocative drivel, one thing is sure, in the long run they would just get bored by their monologues and most of them would stop posting. Second it would motivate phys.org to apply their guidelines. http://phys.org/help/comments/
panamars
1 / 5 (5) Jun 29, 2014

@ Physicist suggests speed of light might be slower than thought

>….In some cases, astrophysicists would have to start all over from scratch….<

Reading discussions, in this forum, it is a good idea to "start all over from scratch", basing on the Newtonian Classical Mechanics and fitting, like a puzzle, parts of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity.

By thus, all basic theories shall be utilized for screening, with no apriori rejection of any one.

The puzzle picture shall be a proof of what could be possibly the truth.

A great interest shall arise, especially from the part of young scientists!

Regards from Athens,

Panagiotis Stefanides
------------------------------------
http://gallery.br...efanides
Returners
2 / 5 (8) Jun 29, 2014
Good thing we used the scientific method with QM, then, and have found no indication that anything causes radioactive decay. You don't know what you are talking about.


If it has no cause, why is it predictable on the whole, idjit.

That's why they have something called "half-lives" which allows the decay of significant amounts to be averaged on the whole to a very high degree of precision.

This RELATIONSHIP of the average in time to a predictable exponential curve proves a cause, likely a lower scale interaction, or entropy at a lower scale.

Except for the fact that we have used modern science to gauge your hypothesis that everything needs a cause and have, thus far, found no evidence for it at the subatomic level.

A time-dependent exponential curve, which varies from isotope to isotope, which has been known for just over a century, proves you wrong.

The fact each isotope has a unique value proves there is a physical cause for this relationship.

Try, try again guy.
Returners
2 / 5 (8) Jun 29, 2014
All it would mean is that something caused the universe to exist, that something doesn't have to be a magical sentient being, after all a hurricane is past-finite however there aren't any magic fairies which bring hurricanes to life, they form on their own when a certain set of conditions are met.


Except that's a bad analogy, because you are comparing a temporal event within the existing universe to an a-temporal "event" (for lack of a better term) which created time itself.

It's really not a good comparison when you think about it.

The universe IS past finite. Every single major physicist, everyone, including Einstein (eventually) has said that the universe is past finite, and Einstein originally believed in an eternal, flat universe.

Check the new guys though:
Krauss (in spite of his blindness)
Degrasse
Hawking
Michio Kaku

Every one of them believes past finite for the two reasons I gave.

They recognize that "something" has to be eternal, but it is not this universe.
mytwocts
1 / 5 (4) Jun 29, 2014
It is _special_ relativity that states that light moves a speed c in vacuum. General relativity, that is gravity, modifies the speed of light much like polarizable medium does, which is why we observe gravitation lensing. Furthermore, 4.7 hours on 12 million years is not a lot on 168000 years or 1.5 billion hours. What is MUCH more significant is that the neutrino's would have had to travel faster than the speed of light. In present theory the speed of light, even when modified in non-vacuum conditions is always the upper limit. Assuming relativity and the data to be correct, the only way out us then to assume that some physical effect slows light down.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (8) Jun 29, 2014
So, hey, I never got to ask you what your takeaway was from that thread with Johan.

Well, first, even though we didn't come close to convincing him, I consider that thread a victory. We at least got him to admit he was incorrect about something nontrivial twice. Frankly, even though I still think he's crazy, I think there is more hope for him than for, say, Reg Mundy (compare their reactions when I mathematically proved each one incorrect. Prins had no recourse but to admit his error, while Mundy retreated into philosophical drivel)

Wow, you really do live in a different universe..in fact you completely failed to prove me wrong and were unable to provide the correct answer to your own question! You are living a delusion and should try a reality check!
Meanwhile the lower velocity of photons cf c explains the case for the steadystate universe and is fundamental to the effect known as gravity by a simple equation. Expect the author to be scragged by establishment!
Returners
1.9 / 5 (7) Jun 29, 2014
What is MUCH more significant is that the neutrino's would have had to travel faster than the speed of light. In present theory the speed of light, even when modified in non-vacuum conditions is always the upper limit. Assuming relativity and the data to be correct, the only way out us then to assume that some physical effect slows light down.


His theory is explaining that. That's the point.

He's saying the initial speed of light is still "c", but that it gets slowed down due to these particle/virtual particle creation events.

It's unclear to me, from the paper, whether they think each event slows light itself down when they recombine, or whether they only think these particle interactions delay the light due to their independent motion during these events. If some of the energy/mass is moving perpendicular to the direction of motion, then the net forward velocity cannot be "c", even if "photons" always do move at "c".
Egleton
1 / 5 (6) Jun 29, 2014
Where is the evidence that the speed of light is a constant? It varied by orders of magnitude greater than the error bars from 1908 to 1946. (Sheldrake)
To fix the problem the meter was redfined in terms of the speed of light.

Why is the limb of the sun red-shifted compared to the centre?
kmetal27
1 / 5 (3) Jun 29, 2014
Wow... this article is essentially useless... think of TRILLIONS of light years the expanse of the universe is (when you look back in space, you look back in time) versus 22 million lightyears.. no significant difference.
philw1776
5 / 5 (4) Jun 29, 2014
Just a nit but the best evidence available says that this universe is just under 14 billion (14 thousand million) years old and the maximum extent of the detectable universe is some tens of billions of LY across, not trillions. Since we have no scientific proof, because of pesky light speed limits, that we only see a small portion of a larger maybe even infinite universe, trillion and beyond distances may exist but undetectable outside our local light cone.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (7) Jun 29, 2014
If it has no cause, why is it predictable on the whole, idjit.

But it isn't predictable on the whole. Quantum Mechanics is concerned with how the probability distributions of particle ensembles behave, not with how individual particles behave. When we perform experiments, we measure particle states to occur RANDOMLY. All QM says is that these random results have certain correlations that are governed by the wave-function.

In fact, in the case of degenerate states, the wave-function doesn't even behave deterministically; we can have multiple, distinct wave-functions describing the same energy state. And guess what? These degenerate states also follow probability distributions. So, no matter how you look at it, QM is, at heart, a nondeterministic, probabilistic theory. Sorry.
TechnoCreed
4 / 5 (4) Jun 29, 2014
@thefurlong
If it has no cause, why is it predictable on the whole, idjit.

Why do you interact with a person who only has insults to defend his position? The only normal reaction is not to address those kinds of individuals ever. You do not have to
Ducklet
5 / 5 (2) Jun 29, 2014
Someone enlighten me why a photon would lose speed rather than momentum.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Jun 29, 2014
@thefurlong
If it has no cause, why is it predictable on the whole, idjit.

Why do you interact with a person who only has insults to defend his position? The only normal reaction is not to address those kinds of individuals ever. You do not have to


Because I am trying to elevate the level of discourse. It depends on what value there is in arguing. If I feel correcting the person provides an opportunity to clarify something that is widely misunderstood, then I will do it. Eventually, though, I might get diminishing returns, as in the case of arguing with Reg Mundy (see http://phys.org/n...g.html). At that point, it is best to establish the incompetence of the individual and let that speak for itself.

There is a substantial undercurrent of mistrust of science. I want to show people that the real enemies are innumeracy, ignorance, and irrationality.
Ducklet
5 / 5 (2) Jun 29, 2014
If the concept of gravitational lensing is correct then photons do not travel in continuous straight lines; rather their paths are kinked by every star they approach, resulting in a longer path than that of neutrinos from the same source. Longer path equals longer transit time. No transition from photon to an electron/positron pair is required.

Yes, they do travel in a straight line. It's not the trajectory of the photon that's altered but the geometry of space. Both the photon and neutrino travel in equally straight lines through this curved geometry and will be affected the same.
otero
Jun 29, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
indio007
1 / 5 (6) Jun 29, 2014
I should also say the speed of light has never been measured because the exact same photon has never been measured. 2 measurements at success locations are required with the further requirement that the photon is not destroyed or velocity altered by the first measurement.

jerryjbrown
1 / 5 (4) Jun 29, 2014
So when it splits, it's no longer a photon, so by definition is it light at that moment? When they rejoin, it is light again? So do electrons and positrons have to obey the universal speed limit? Before stating that the speed of light may be wrong, how about probing more of the details of the hypothesis?
mytwocts
4 / 5 (2) Jun 29, 2014
What is MUCH more significant is that the neutrino's would have had to travel faster than the speed of light. In present theory the speed of light, even when modified in non-vacuum conditions is always the upper limit. Assuming relativity and the data to be correct, the only way out us then to assume that some physical effect slows light down.


His theory is explaining that. That's the point.


I get the point, thanks. It's just that the article above does not make it.
Moreover there is no theory "explaining that, only a suggestion.
I don't know that he has any proof.
It should be a straightforward exercise in QED.
otero
Jun 29, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (9) Jun 29, 2014
@thefurlong
Why do you interact with a person who only has insults to defend his position? The only normal reaction is not to address those kinds of individuals ever. You do not have to


Because I am trying to elevate the level of discourse. It depends on what value there is in arguing. If I feel correcting the person provides an opportunity to clarify something that is widely misunderstood, then I will do it. Eventually, though, I might get diminishing returns, as in the case of arguing with Reg Mundy (see http://phys.org/n...g.html). At that point, it is best to establish the incompetence of the individual and let that speak for itself.

The only person you proved to be incompetent was yourself, as any unbiased person reading the exchange can see. Here you go again, slinging insults, the last resort of the incompetent when losing an argument, in this case your inability to correctly answer your own question. The facts do not lie!
See next!
Uncle Ira
2.6 / 5 (10) Jun 29, 2014
See next!


Is it the one with you wearing the silly looking pointy cap? Looks good on you Cher.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (9) Jun 29, 2014
So when it splits, it's no longer a photon, so by definition is it light at that moment? When they rejoin, it is light again? So do electrons and positrons have to obey the universal speed limit? Before stating that the speed of light may be wrong, how about probing more of the details of the hypothesis?

Starting from the proposition that a photon "decays" with age, thus undermining the expanding universe solution, the photon "expands" and finally dissolves due to uncertainty giving rise to fundamental non-matter particles as explained in my book, This proposition seems to drive the establishment mad with attack frenzy and draws the ire of their mindless acolytes such as thefurlong, Ira, Cap'n Stumpy, etc., who condemn it out of hand as "crazy" without a single logical argument to refute it. In fact, the decay of photons in a steady state universe gives rise to the effect they call gravity, which is not in fact a force at all.
See next...
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (8) Jun 29, 2014
Redshift allows calculation of average photon expansion/sec., thus when entered into formula using assumed photon equivalent to mass per kilogram e=mcc provides acceleration of surface of Earth-mass sphere of approximately 10metres/sec/sec as sphere expands.
As detailed in my book, this provides an explanation for the effect known as gravity (which is not a force) and dispenses with all its attendant paraphenalia of Dark Matterr, Dark Energy, gravitons, gravitinos, gravity waves, etc., on which the search for which the establishment lavishes untold billions.
I now stand by for all the usual onslaught of crap from the usual idiots plus some poor young scientists just starting out on their careers who wish to ingratiate themselves with their mentors... are you reading this, furbrain?
I hope this article does not ruin Physicist James Franson of the University of Maryland, who is stating the facts as he sees them rather than assuming the usual consensus.
otero
Jun 29, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
mytwocts
5 / 5 (5) Jun 29, 2014
Many posts above do not comply with the guidelines 1-4 and should be removed.
Mimath224
3 / 5 (2) Jun 29, 2014
@jerryjbrown (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) if a photon were to split then we would be left with the FTL v of the phase but that cannot carry info so we wouldn't be able to detect it anyway.
otero
Jun 29, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (4) Jun 29, 2014
Because I am trying to elevate the level of discourse. It depends on what value there is in arguing. If I feel correcting the person provides an opportunity to clarify something that is widely misunderstood, then I will do it. Eventually, though, I might get diminishing returns, as in the case of arguing with Reg Mundy (see http://phys.org/n...g.html). At that point, it is best to establish the incompetence of the individual and let that speak for itself.
Noble but pointless... Do not try to prove their lack of culture; their answers are sufficient for that purpose. Those individuals are essentially playing games with other posters; do not allow yourself to be their toy.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (8) Jun 29, 2014
Noble but pointless... Do not try to prove their lack of culture;

That is not my intention.
You are assuming that there is no value in debating crackpots, but I disagree. In fact, debating with them has, on each occasion, improved my understanding of the subject. For example, in http://phys.org/n...ip.html, I found a really cool way of deriving the Minkowski metric a priori, involving functional equations (though I never mentioned it).
Other value comes from treating this like a puzzle. The idea that some people are not self correcting, and the possibility of helping them out of that quagmire intrigues me. It is an interesting problem (albeit a frustrating one, but what worthwhile problem isn't?).
As I said, if it becomes clear that they are simply recalcitrant, as is the case with Reg Mundy, then I change my strategy and no longer engage them--at least not in argument form.
Returners
1 / 5 (7) Jun 29, 2014
Irrelevant fact:

Ek = 1.062075e^34 Joules

That is kinetic Energy of an Earth-sized planet accelerated from infinity and hitting Jupter at Jupiter's surface escape velocity.

This ignores secondary effects, such as thermonuclear explosions caused by energy reaching the fusion conditions for hydrogen or helium, or other effects.

Sun's TOTAL power output = 3.846×10e26 W

That's Energy equal to 27.6 million times the power of the Sun for 1 second...Or as much energy as the Sun releases in 319 days.

Most of that would be released in the time of the collision (cont)

Could life on Earth survive that impact?
1, If Jupiter was on the same side of the Sun as us?...
2, If we were shielded from the explosion by being in the exact opposite side of the Sun?
(regards to that Through the Wormhole commercial)

If a Dwarf Planet or Moon hit Saturn or Jupiter, how much might it temporarily change the temperature on Earth, and for how long?

He, he, I can calculate it.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (8) Jun 29, 2014
He, he, I can calculate it.


He can calculate what Skippy? Can he calculate how much slower the light is going than what they thought it was?

Returnering-Skippy, this the sort of postum I was talking about yesterday about the peoples making big fun with you. You remember how mad you get when they do that, so you might want to get somebody to read over your things before you post him up there.
Returners
1 / 5 (7) Jun 29, 2014
So, 12600km radius for Earth-like planet.
Impact velocity is the same as Jupiter escape velocity, which is 59.5km/s, or 59500m/s.

12600km / 59.5km/s = ~212 seconds.

So the collision takes at most 212 seconds for the entire Rogue Earth to be absorbed.

So then assume we divide that energy by 212 seconds, we could get an approximate average "power level" of the explosion.

It's still over 130,000 times more power (per second) than the Sun...for 212 seconds... if 1000th of that was released as light, it would still be 130 times as luminous as the Sun.

We'd be baked, even if it only lasted this 3:32... Remember inverse square law though.

if 1/1000th of the energy was converted to light, Earth would receive an average of about 11,000 watts per meter squared (cross sectional area) for a period of 3 minutes 32 seconds.

A bare minimalist interpretation is that 4000w/m^2 reaches the ground, for 3:32, which would cause mass conflagration of all dry grass, paper, paint, and trees quickly.
TechnoCreed
1.7 / 5 (3) Jun 30, 2014
One fun thing that has to be expected when somebody is making some extraordinary claim in a paper, without any meaningful experimental data to back this claim, is the reaction of the scientific community. Here is Lubos Motl's rant: http://motls.blog...tml#more
otero
Jun 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nowhere
5 / 5 (1) Jun 30, 2014
I made the argument that "absolute nothing" could never have been the case[...]In fact, science assumes it is true through conservation laws

No it doesn't. The conservation laws are time dependant and since time was formed at the origin there is no relation between the origin and this supposed prior point.

Now since something does not come from nothing

Inside the universe, and along the time dimension, yes. Outside the universe this law is undefined.

, I made the argument that the Universe was created by something, a "Being" which transcends the physics we know, and has "always" existed.

The origin singularity also transcends the physics we know and since it has no time dimension, "always" is undefined at t=0.
Dr vIQtor
1 / 5 (3) Jun 30, 2014
Could also a curvature in the trajectory of the photons, caused by dark matter and dark energy, cause a delay in its arrival?
Doiea
Jun 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Doiea
Jun 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1.5 / 5 (6) Jun 30, 2014
Could also a curvature in the trajectory of the photons, caused by dark matter and dark energy, cause a delay in its arrival?


No. Neutrinos would have been effected too, at least if General Relativity were true, because they would have both experience virtually identical curvature of space-time.

So while those things (would) potentially curve photos, if they exist, they would also curve the neutrinos by an identical amount.

Assuming the neutrinos and photons left the source object at the same time, the standard interpretation just doesn't work.

However, neutrinos coming from the interior of a star are actually less interactive than photons, which is to say you'd expect the Neutrinos to arrive slightly earlier, even if they were both created simultaneously. This is because photons in a supernova, or any star, go through an enormous amount of absorption re-emision cycles on their way out of the core, but the neutrinos do not. They've already taken that into account though.
Returners
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 30, 2014
No it doesn't. The conservation laws are time dependant and since time was formed at the origin there is no relation between the origin and this supposed prior point.


That's just stupid.

"No relation between 'x' and it's cause."

Wow. Now I've heard everything.

Inside the universe, and along the time dimension, yes. Outside the universe this law is undefined.


No. Something does not come from nothing is a generalized, logical rule, which would be true in any universe, or even outside this universe.

A universe where something can come from nothing (even if that were possible) would collapse.

Why don't unicorns pop into existence, why don't we have streams of random matter and photons popping into existence at random places, not virtual particles, if something can come from nothing?

If that's the explanation for the origin of the universe, then what made it stop? That's illogical, since you claim it doesn't have a cause. Why should anything stop it w/ no relationship?
Returners
1 / 5 (7) Jun 30, 2014
The origin singularity also transcends the physics we know and since it has no time dimension, "always" is undefined at t=0.


No, it doesn't.

The functions are "undefined," because it is a mathematical MODEL, involving a man-made operator for division, not reality itself.

Even if R=0, where R is the radius of the universe, that doesn't necessarily mean that the POINT at R=0 transcends physics.

Technically, in mathematics you would say there is no "point" at R = 0 because you have an allegedly "infinite density", but the term "infinite density" is a self-contradiction, since it is an irreversible operation. Yet there are black holes within the universe itself which are also incorrectly claimed to have "infinite density".

1000 characters is not enough for this. Heck 10 posts may not be.

Schwarzchild Radius increases linearly with mass (yeah I know) even though inverse squared law, but the volume of the event horizon increases cubically...contine...
Returners
1 / 5 (7) Jun 30, 2014
One possibility presented was that if a Singularity or near-singularity did exist, then space-time inside the black hole would be warped proportionally, and "stretched out". It was realized that if the space-time inside the black hole obeyed the same laws, but was just "encapsulated," then you would immediately encounter ANOTHER event horizon, and then another, and another, and you could still never reach the "near-singularity," no matter how long you traveled, because the gravity would warp and stretch space just as fast as you were travelling toward the origin. That is to say, paradoxically, the farther you fall to the alleged singularity, the greater the distance keeps becoming to make up for it.

This implies that no true singularity exists, because the matter itself could never collapse far enough to form one.

However, pure math cannot answer an Ontological question, but logic can put some characteristics out there.

Returners
1.4 / 5 (8) Jun 30, 2014
At T=0 in the context of the universe, your view is that something can come from nothing, without any efficient or material law or cause.

You offer no explanation as to why this un-caused nothing-to-something transition should ever stop.

If there's no cause, then there's no relationship, and if there's no relationship then there's no reason it should have stopped, there's also no reason it should continue, but that seems awfully convenient, now doesn't it? ...That it just so happens to behave just like a Creator, in that it stopped (let's pretend) at the exact moment an all-knowing creator trying to make intelligent life forms would have stopped, give or take a few intergalactic collisions. Maybe he's just showing off.

No cause produces even more problems for you than it does for me, because you have to throw out the framework you claim to abide by, whereas I do not.

For me, physics is a sub-set of logic, originating from God.

For you, logic and physics came from nothingness
Doiea
Jun 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1 / 5 (7) Jun 30, 2014
Now you say something can come from nothing.

I say, "How? Nothing has no properties."

You're going to say something like, "well if it has no properties it can do anything, or something random can happen."

No it can't. "doing anything," or "doing something" are properties, which it can't have.

Also, even if you made the argument that, "Anything can happen," then the atheist still has a problem...

If "Anything can happen," then an omnipotent Being could pop into existence and create Order. In fact, wouldn't that be destined to happen...

If "anything can happen," then anything less than omnipotence would not be able to stop anything from happening. Therefore an omnipotence must exist, since we don't see just "anything" happening.

Why don't pink, flying, winged, unicorned, elephants pop into existence, eat your furniture, and then pop back out of existence?

The answer is because just anything can't happen. It needs a specific cause, and ultimately "something" must be eternal.
Doiea
Jun 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
bluehigh
2 / 5 (3) Jun 30, 2014
They recognize that "something" has to be eternal, but it is not this universe.


''Nothing' is eternal.

If some of the energy/mass is moving perpendicular to the direction of motion, then the net forward velocity cannot be "c", even if "photons" always do move at "c".


Yes. So why is that so difficult for some people to accept? Perhaps the implications cause some hardship.

Something does not come from nothing is a generalized, logical rule, which would be true in any universe, or even outside this universe.


Simply self evident. So the question remains. What was the cause that inflated our universe? That's not to say a 'God' did it. And not to say a 'God' did Not do it.

Nevertheless, something came from within nothing. I'll go take my meds and watch youtube videos now, ok.
panamars
1 / 5 (4) Jun 30, 2014
@Returners
>…. At T=0 in the context of the universe, your view is that something can come from nothing, without any efficient or material law or cause….<
This gives me the opportunity to give below a new theory of mine in [Geometry], with further attempts to consider , possible natural structures, as the following account: http://www.stefan...ries.htm -------

In a static, but vibrating field [aether- electromagnetic medium], conductive [ massive] elemental lines with alternating bipolar charges moving in it by the action of the field , should result into alternating currents running within them.
Two such lines could be contacted electrically, via their + and - charges, and similarly
three lines [ in the correct lengths] could form triangles [ orthogonal according to my theory], and in such forming a surface. Similarly by joining 4 such triangular forms [elecromagnetically attracted by the currents running within them] could create materialistic v
Copyright © Eur Ing Panagiotis Stefanides CEng MIET
George_Rajna
Jun 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
panamars
1 / 5 (4) Jun 30, 2014

CONTINUED FROM ABOVE
In a static, but vibrating field [aether- electromagnetic medium], conductive [ massive] elemental lines with alternating bipolar charges moving in it by the action of the field , should result into alternating currents running within them.
Two such lines could be contacted electrically, via their + and - charges, and similarly
three lines [ in the correct lengths] could form triangles [ orthogonal according to my theory], and in such forming a surface. Similarly by joining 4 such triangular forms [elecromagnetically attracted by the currents running within them] could create materialistic volumes[ tetrahedra].Continuing, by these similar actions of electromagnetic forces, the joining of these materialistic volumes[tetrahedra] could result into further building blocks of matter.
According to my geometric theory [ pure classical geometry, based on the Square Root of the Golden Section ] build by such materialistic volumes [ tetrahedra ] a Great Pyramid Model via which the structure of the world of the 5 Platonic [ or Eucleidian] solids are formed.
http://www.stefan...SOGF.pdf
TechnoCreed
3.3 / 5 (3) Jun 30, 2014
Motl is not a scientist by profession for at least last ten years - he's just a blog twaddler and quite ideological in addition. I'm using him as a reference for mainstream science bias. He didn't catch the latest trends in physics at all.
I know that he is quite a special person but, on the topic of physics, Motl still receive e lot of respect from his peers. This blog from Dorigo pretty much demonstrate that. (I know that you have read it, you even commented on it). http://www.scienc...s-138568
mytwocts
5 / 5 (5) Jun 30, 2014
@mytwocts: use the report feature - otherwise your comments is OT and should be removed too according to the same guidelines.

Then delete my comment along with the other non-compliant posts. I sure am not going use the report key on all posts out of order, there are too many.
"Pseudoscience comments (including non-mainstream theories) will be deleted (see pseudoscience)."
So lets get cracking.
"Be civil"
Again, work to be done!
otero
Jun 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (2) Jun 30, 2014
Albert Einstein: "If the data don't fit the theory, change the data!"
Of course! And today you should add: "If the quote doesn't fit the purpose, modify the quote". By the way the paradigm or shall I say the 'facts', at the beginning of the twentieth century, was Newton's clockworks.
JimD
not rated yet Jul 02, 2014
Interesting idea. If true it begs the question: If vacuum polarization affects the speed of light and then is the process of vacuum polarization a constant over time? My guess is probably not.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 02, 2014
in fact you completely failed to prove me wrong
@delusional reg
not how I read it
and draws the ire of their mindless acolytes such as thefurlong, Ira, Cap'n Stumpy, etc., who condemn it out of hand as "crazy" without a single logical argument to refute it
well, considering that your model has NO empirical data, no way to test it, no valid predictions nor valid explanations, your book is a whiny discourse on your failed life which AGAIN leaves NO method for your philosophy OTHER THAN YOUR BELIEF in it, then what we have here is NOT condemnation out of hand, but CONDEMNATION of PSEUDOSCIENCE because it offers NOTHING of VALUE to the conversation

Reg Mundy is TROLLING for comments and to promote his book, which is fictitious and NOT science in any way. that is why he went with a vanity press and NOT with a valid publisher AND it is also why he decided to write it as a BOOK rather than a peer reviewed publication

no peer review,maths and no reality = PSEUDOSCIENCE
Captain Stumpy
Jul 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Reg Mundy
1.3 / 5 (10) Jul 02, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
Here you go again, silly insults pouring out of your empty brain. If you had ever bothered to read the book, you would know that there is a straightforward derivation of the effect you call gravity directly from redshift in a steady-state universe. That's something that your "force" of gravity has never managed, despite centuries of trying by acolytes. Hence the relevance of this article to my theory. You are a total gobsh*te, nobody takes any notice of your ravings, why don't you give up and do something useful with your time?
otero
Jul 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TechnoCreed
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 02, 2014
Says who? A retired senile firefighter? You can't mean it seriously...
Zephir, your last comment was an absolute disgrace. Your lack of respect to somebody who is held in high esteem for the services he provided is abominable.

In time you will understand that scientific knowledge is a cumulative process. When somebody enjoys a subject, all the bits and pieces learned through all the years become quite substantial. The good news is that there is hope for you young man: https://www.cours...troastro
Stop wasting your time and ours.

Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Jul 03, 2014
If I'm not mistaken, aether, in it's original 19th century intent, was meant more in a figurative sense than literal. It implied an effect by something unseen. The language of the day provided the word aether.
So...
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Dark matter/dark energy is sounding suspiciously aether-ish.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2014
Here you go again, silly insults pouring out of your empty brain. If you had ever bothered to read the book, you would know that there is a straightforward derivation of the effect you call gravity directly blah blah blah nobody takes any notice of your ravings, why don't you give up and do something useful with your time?
@regtarded
given your previous posts and your attempts to explain on this site, and the feedback from Q-Star and other real physicists and scientists, I would not buy your book as it holds nothing to be read ...

your posts here have all the same validity and force as the "Fairy puke causes global warming" crowd... IOW - none.

so: IF your derivation explains the "effect we call gravity" then by all means provide the maths to explain fusion, neutron stars and orbits (you STILL have yet to effectively describe how your BS explains orbits)

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2014
the AW/DAW perspective is every bit as valid as the "Fairy Fecal Matter" perspective
Says who? A http://i.imgur.com/iXdCyRU.gif? You can't mean it seriously...
@zephir
lets see: considering the fact that I also have two 4yr bach degree's as well as experience (but only with practical application of certain physics, investigation and research) then ...
YES I DO MEAN IT SERIOUSLY

thus far you have YET to provide empirical data, nor have you provided a valid refute for the various links/proof that I have given in the past refuting AW/DAW, therefore given your lack of ability to provide scientific data from reputable sources that support your known pseudoscience, my comment stands: your DAW/AW is PSEUDOSCIENCE
Your lack of respect to somebody who is held in high esteem for the services he provided is abominable
@TechnoCreed
Thank you for your kind words.

Doiea
Jul 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2014
Cap'n Grumpy
so: IF your derivation explains the "effect we call gravity" then by all means provide the maths to explain fusion, neutron stars and orbits (you STILL have yet to effectively describe how your BS explains orbits)

You can't seriously think I would waste my time giving a considered and logical response to a dickhead like you, do you? Dream on! All I have said is available to you with a little research, so stop writing crap and silly insults, and maybe people will take you seriously.
And by the way, my old enemy Q-Star is not a "real physicist and scientist", he is a fraudster and charlatan who BY HIS OWN ADMISSION reviewed my books WITHOUT READING THEM. Eventually, he and his colleagues clubbed together and bought a copy (Cheapskates!) and then tried to justify his earlier stance, but was UNABLE TO REFUTE the theories therein, which are supported by exactly the same "evidence" that supports gravity, plus a derivation of the effect WHICH GRAVITY LACKS!
Gawad
5 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2014
the AW/DAW perspective is every bit as valid as the "Fairy Fecal Matter" perspective
Says who? A http://i.imgur.com/iXdCyRU.gif? You can't mean it seriously...


Said by the useless purile little puke who has managed to get banned a record number of times on Physorg and accross the internet for crackpottery and pseudoscience.

What, Zeph, have you done in your lifetime that is even remotely as useful as what Captain has done? What? Posting bullshit on the net? YOU CAN'T MEAN THAT SERIOUSLY!

But, sadly, you DO.

Go hide in the corner!
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Jul 03, 2014
You can't seriously think I would waste my time giving a considered and logical response to a dickhead like you, do you? Dream on! All I have said is available to you with a little research, so stop writing crap and silly insults,

He can't help it, it is all he is capable of doing.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2014
Are you talking to Stumpy or just to me?
Is it not obvious? Is a person who discuss clearly and politely confusing you; like the actual accepted scientific paradigm seems to?

What is disappointing about you is that, although you have a very weak comprehension of basic knowledge, you are trying to praise the virtues of your very own pet GUT. I do not understand what you are expecting out of this, but the awkward reactions that you are getting are no surprise to me. Concerning votes, as far as you are concerned, I do not even bother; when you start with your pseudoscience I simply scroll down. Some people seem to enjoy debating this subject with you; good for them. The only recent down vote you received from me was because of the very ungraceful way you attacked Captain Stumpy (the real person).
thefurlong
5 / 5 (7) Jul 03, 2014
the AW/DAW perspective is every bit as valid as the "Fairy Fecal Matter" perspective
Says who? A http://i.imgur.com/iXdCyRU.gif? You can't mean it seriously...

Is there...something about being being a retired firefighter that precludes a person from recognizing utter nonsense?
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 03, 2014
Stumpy just slows down the progress in physics in the same way
@Doiea-zephir
so... because I don't believe in perpetual motion machines, disproven cold fusion studies and every crackpot idea that comes down the pike, while asking for empirical data and proof of hypothesis, or at least legitimate maths supporting an idea, I am slowing physics down? WOW! you really ARE delusional!
your DAW/AW model only describes EVERY SINGLE THING that has been posted on phys.org here in the last few years, and because it describes EVERYTHING, including things that should be impossible under the laws of physics, it describes NOTHING and is therefore useless at predicting anything

the DAW/AW philosophy has also been proven false on numerous occasions...
feel free to check the history here at phys.org for the far too numerous postings refuting you and your pet religion

thanks for playing
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 03, 2014
You can't seriously think I would waste my time giving a considered and logical response to ...
@reg-tard
nope. but then again, you also have not been able to give this answer to anyone else, either... so you are just whining at this point because you believe in a fairy tale
All I have said is available to you with a little research
and it's been proven false, not only by Furlong, but many others on phys.org alone
maybe people will take you seriously
I dont care how people see me, I only care about the science, which, apparently, you have NONE
my old enemy Q-Star is not a "real physicist and scientist"
yet his posts produce far more physics and knowledge of astrophysics than any single one of your posts
BY HIS OWN ADMISSION reviewed my books WITHOUT READING THEM
he said he read them in the posts I am talking about, and you know it. he just didn't find ANY USEFUL MATHS or SCIENCE,I will find the posts if you want to be embarrassed...

to be cont
Uncle Ira
2.8 / 5 (9) Jul 03, 2014
the AW/DAW perspective is every bit as valid as the "Fairy Fecal Matter" perspective
Says who? A retired senile firefighter? You can't mean it seriously...


Socratic-Skippy you should be more respectful. If not for the Captain-Skippy for at least firefighters because you might need one to help you sometime for something that nobody else can do for you. I mean if your house is burning down who you going to call on to help you? They also come for medical emergencies too.

And the senile part was a little off target also Skippy. It causes me big fun when you bring up the mental condition somebody else might have. Just like it does when you complain about the crankpots and twaddlers making off the subject postums. If the shoe fits shove him up your nose Cher.

I never had my house catch fire or fall down with a heart attack but it makes me feel a lot better knowing there is peoples like the Captain-Skippy doing what they do just in case it might happen to me.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2014
cont'd @ reg-tard
then tried to justify his earlier stance, but was UNABLE TO REFUTE the theories therein
according to him, there WAS NOTHING with any substance that was plausible, so there was nothing to refute because there was word salad and whiny life story followed by graphs that explained nothing... and YOU HAVE NEVER been able to support ANY of your comments here on phys.org, so I don't see how it matters because, as he has already posted time and again, THERE IS NOTHING THERE in the book!
IF YOU need to have someone support you, find a sugar momma, don't expect people who comprehend science to buy your fictitious book and keep you going! THAT IN ITSELF proves that there is nothing of substance in the book! any REAL science author would have:
1- published a peer reviewed paper
2- been able to post comprehensive maths/definitions/descriptions of a theory which they are publishing and been able to answer questions concerning the meat of the theory

You've done NONE of that!
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2014
which are supported by exactly the same "evidence" that supports gravity, plus a derivation of the effect WHICH GRAVITY LACKS!
@reg-wanna be a real scientist
and which YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO REPRODUCE HERE IN ANY FORM SUPPORTING YOUR PHILOSOPHY
you published with a vanity press because there is NO SCIENCE in your science book... only rubbish
He can't help it, it is all he is capable of doing
@cant-think
at least I can comprehend physics and can understand why your EU religion is nothing more than a crackpot pseudoscience...
even YOUR ENGINEERS cannot accept that, let alone the acolytes like you who comprehend NOTHING

you've actually provided more science in your posts than reg, though... I will have to admit that. even if some is out of date and not necessarily relevant to the article
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2014
@Gawad
@TechnoCreed
@thefurlong
@ anyone else with a knowledge of physics

Perhaps if YOU were to ask Reg about his pet theory he might expound on it a little? So far, he has never been able to explain orbits, fusion, the mass-centric expansion which would show a proportional difference within our scope of observation proving or disproving his philosophy, or a myriad of other things.
Ask him if he can provide anything other than "read my book" or "I can't post graphs here" (which only reinforces that he does NOT know what he is talking about)
They also come for medical emergencies too
@Uncle Ira
and I still train them too! Not only in medical, but in rescue (from confined space, cave and water rescue to rope and rescue under fire in combat conditions)
the job is very diverse... and a LOT of fun (unless someone dies. then it sucks)

he couldn't do YOUR job either! Being an engineer on a tug takes intelligence and a grounding in REALITY, which he doesn't have. :-)
Uncle Ira
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 03, 2014
@ Captain-Skippy I think it is funny to see the couyon fussing about what a person can't know just because they have some particular job. What I mean, it's like when the Zephir-Skippy tells you that you can't know something because you aren't the scientist-Skippy like he isn't either.

I don't have no training in the doctor-Skippy stuffs and psychiatrical stuffs. But I would bet big money that almost any of those peoples would agree with my scientifical observational claim that the Zephir-Skippy is bat doo-doo crazy. They might use the different words for it, but they would mean the same thing as I mean.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2014
@Gawad
@TechnoCreed
@thefurlong
@ anyone else with a knowledge of physics

Perhaps if YOU were to ask Reg about his pet theory he might expound on it a little?


I did this already here http://phys.org/n...ong.html
And got no where.
As far as I can tell, Red Mundy subscribes to the silly idea that gravity is the result of the expansion of matter. Ignoring the question of why expanding matter would explain anything better than spooky action at a distance (and that it has been handily explained by GR), he does not provide actual mathematical arguments for why expansion explains gravity. Oh, he'll hand wave, and come up with all kinds of ad-hoc non-mathematical explanations for how matter expansion accounts for, say orbits, but when push comes to shove and somebody asks him to provide a differential equation describing expansion in general, he will always fail to deliver, because he doesn't actually understand math. And this is why nobody takes him seriously.
Gawad
5 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2014
@Gawad
@TechnoCreed
@thefurlong
@ anyone else with a knowledge of physics

Perhaps if YOU were to ask Reg about his pet theory he might expound on it a little?


Holy smokes, Captain (pun intended), it's not like we haven't TRIED. All we've ever gotten from Reg was excuses: "You have to buy my book" "You wouldn't understand" "I would need to show you diagrams" "I can't put those up anywhere on the internet" "I'm no good at ASCII art!"

(O.k., I made up the last one. Still he could have tried ;^)

TheFurLong was the one to try hardest and that devolved into a morass faster than one of Reg's orbits circling a toilet.
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2014
@ Captain-Skippy I think it is funny to see the couyon fussing about what a person can't know just because they have some particular job. What I mean, it's like when the Zephir-Skippy tells you that you can't know something because you aren't the scientist-Skippy like he isn't either.


Christ man, does he even HAVE a job? ANY job? Can you imagine this Czech putz holding down a job? Given all he ever does is post to Physorg all day every day I think we can all imagine what his qualifications for anything are: ZERO.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (8) Jul 03, 2014
Christ man, does he even HAVE a job? ANY job? Can you imagine this Czech putz holding down a job? Given all he ever does is post to Physorg all day every day I think we can all imagine what his qualifications for anything are: ZERO.


I think I remember he told me sometime, maybe here or maybe some other forum site, that he was the stock-boy-Skippy at the chemical supplying warehouse or science supplying store. That might be wrong but it was something sort of like that.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2014
I did this already here http://phys.org/n...ong.html
And got no where
&
Holy smokes, Captain (pun intended), it's not like we haven't TRIED. All we've ever gotten from Reg was excuses
@Gawad
@thefurlong
sorry guys... that was hyperbole. my sense of humour... LOL
it was also actually part of the point I was trying to make about reg... LOL

I was driving home the point that there are hundreds (if not more) of posts here of people asking the same things, from orbits etc and all he has even offered was excuses, the "read my book" BS, a "you wouldn't understand" BS post or more BS Pseudoscience backtalk that requires everyone to suspend all logic and sense!

see http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/ for more of Reg's tactics... as well as CD, zeph, and many more!
otero
Jul 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
otero
Jul 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Gawad
5 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2014
BTW Isn't "putz" https://sciencex....comments Jewish slang? The intelligent but formally thinking Jews are particularly unhappy with me: their way of thinking is dual (orthogonal) to this mine one.


Depends. Is it any ruder to call someone stupid and worthless than senile? Hummm? Zeph, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Gawad
5 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2014
Actually, my time spent on PhysOrg is quite marginal with compare to my activity at many other forums (1, 2).


--Shudder--

My job is well payed, so I've enough time for it including a few additional hobbies, like the electronics and programming


Yes, well I'm a world class neuroscientist in Qatar on my spare time myself. It helps me keep up my Lamborghini collection.
otero
Jul 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 03, 2014
@ Reg-Skippy, what is this theory nobody likes?
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Jul 04, 2014
Well, I've considered the various posts from Irate, Cap'n Grumpy, furbrain, Gawpard, etc., and I have come to the conclusion I should try harder to help them, so here is a link:- https://docs.goog...WmM/edit
Gawad
5 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2014
Well, I've considered the various posts from Irate, Cap'n Grumpy, furbrain, Gawpard, etc., and I have come to the conclusion I should try harder to help them, so here is a link


See what we mean, Captain? It's all you EVER get from Muddy: excuses. Even Johan Prins does WAY better than that!
DeliriousNeuron
1 / 5 (3) Jul 04, 2014
Aunt Ira....you are one of those skippies. I have yet to see you post anything technical here. Only making fun of people fed up with mainstream physics.
I'm more than happy to debate with you on Cosmology right here for all to read.

Until then, quit wasting our time with your mindless posts here.
Gawad
5 / 5 (7) Jul 04, 2014
Aunt Ira....you are one of those skippies. I have yet to see you post anything technical here. Only making fun of people fed up with mainstream physics.
I'm more than happy to debate with you on Cosmology right here for all to read.

Until then, quit wasting our time with your mindless posts here.


Nope, he makes fun of people who do not *understand* mainstream physics, but like to pretend they do and then go on to fill popular science forums with bullshit.

If he calls the crackpots on what the mods don't bother to, more power to him.

Si tu comprenais, tu l'apprécierais peut-être plus ; à moins que ce soit que tu te sens visé? Les promoteurs de foutaise c'est comme ça. J'ai comme l'impression qu'il est un peu " inventé " l'oncle-skippy, mais qu'est-ce que je le trouve efficace ;^)
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (8) Jul 04, 2014
Aunt Ira....you are one of those skippies. I have yet to see you post anything technical here. Only making fun of people fed up with mainstream physics.
I'm more than happy to debate with you on Cosmology right here for all to read.


I am happy you are more than happy Delicious-Skippy. How's this for a technical cosmology for you? If you wouldn't keep sticking your finger in that electric universal socket maybe you wouldn't need a new silly looking pointy cap everyday. You know that the ones I buy for you are made from aluminum wrap? Electricity is something you want to keep them away from.

Until then, quit wasting our time with your mindless posts here.


Don't blame me for your time getting wasted Skippy. Nobody but you brought you through the door. And nobody locked him behind you when you get here so when ever you got something more important to do with your time, you can just walk back out of him the same way you walk in.

Uncle Ira
3.2 / 5 (9) Jul 04, 2014
Si tu comprenais, tu l'apprécierais peut-être plus ; à moins que ce soit que tu te sens visé? Les promoteurs de foutaise c'est comme ça. J'ai comme l'impression qu'il est un peu " inventé " l'oncle-skippy, mais qu'est-ce que je le trouve efficace ;^)


Non podna, what you see is what you get when it comes to ol Ira. I first come here a while back from following my ol buddy Zephir around the interweb having the fun on him.

I got lots of time free when I am working and like to mess peoples who think they have something special and secret and smart that nobody else but them is smart enough to know about it. There are a lot of couyon like that here so I stick around to mess with them.

The electric-plasma-Skippy is really weird. He tells us the mythology is better than the science, the electricity rules the universe, and anyone who goes to the science school is lazy and stupid. But he is also the Nazi and the racist so go figure just how smart he could be, not too much huh?
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Jul 04, 2014
Well, I've considered the various posts from Irate, Cap'n Grumpy, furbrain, Gawpard, etc., and I have come to the conclusion I should try harder to help them, so here is a link


See what we mean, Captain? It's all you EVER get from Muddy: excuses. Even Johan Prins does WAY better than that!

Yeah, and even Johan has given up on you, he doesn't waste any more of his time! Meanwhile. if you are really interested in my theories (which I doubt, you are too full of your own magniloquence), then borrow the book from a library. Its got some pretty pictures to amuse you when you can't understand the words.......
Nah, you won't do it, you prefer to remain a moron...
Uncle Ira
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 04, 2014
Meanwhile. if you are really interested in my theories (which I doubt, you are too full of your own magniloquence), then borrow the book from a library. Its got some pretty pictures to amuse you when you can't understand the words.......
Nah, you won't do it, you prefer to remain a moron...


I will do it me Reg-Skippy. If they got it at the St Martinville library that I have the card for. Does it have your Skippy name from here on it or some other like a normal name on it? And I need for you to tell me the name of the book because if you have told me before I forget that you did.
DeliriousNeuron
1 / 5 (2) Jul 04, 2014
I understand mainstream physics just as much as everyone else. I have for over 30 years but became very bored with it. What I observe and photograph through my telescopes don't fit mainstream fairytales. We see this more and more everyday with advanced telescopes observing multiple wavelengths. Your very own schooled skippies write papers all the time that defy relativity. If you'd like to see for yourself, I'll be more than happy to provide you with links.
Relativity makes for great story telling and brainwashing science students.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2014
@Gawad et Uncle Ira
Moi je l'ai toujours cru authentique le vieux Ira, ça façon naturelle d'apporter des éléments de son quotidien ainsi que son franc parler ne laissent que peu de doutes. Mais parfois je le préférerais un peu moins impétueux; les ambassadeurs de la science sont aussi ceux de la culture et, dans le cas d'Ira, le seul ambassadeur ici de la culture Cajun.
Uncle Ira
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 04, 2014
@ Delicious-Skippy that may be the truth you are telling me about the 30 years so I am not calling you the liar no.

I got a choice of who to believe:

1) These scientist-Skippys get paid to do all the things they do. And they pay the good money to go to the school for 15 or 12 years. And they got offices and web places and names connected to schools. These things I know about them just by reading the articles here on the physorg.

OR

2) Then there is some Skippy who names himself DeliciousNeutron says he knows more than those real scientists. You got no school that I can check. You got no job that I can check. You got nothing but a weird interweb name and a bunch of postums on the commenting part of the phyorg.

Now you tell me why I should pick you and not the scientist-Skippys that I check up on? That is why you get a silly looking looking pointy cap to wear all day because you think someone could be fooled into taking choice number two up there.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (8) Jul 04, 2014
@Gawad et Uncle Ira
Moi je l'ai toujours cru authentique le vieux Ira, ça façon naturelle d'apporter des éléments de son quotidien ainsi que son franc parler ne laissent que peu de doutes. Mais parfois je le préférerais un peu moins impétueux; les ambassadeurs de la science sont aussi ceux de la culture et, dans le cas d'Ira, le seul ambassadeur ici de la culture Cajun.


I am ignorant on most of the proper science words but I understand more than I can explain. But I know peoples. I don't want to be the ambassador of anything but ol Ira. I am the expert at me. I know push/tow boats too. But I am not the good ambassador for that either because that is just the only job I ever had and don't have much else to compare him to.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Jul 04, 2014
@Uncle Ira I think the person/people you are conversing with, consider they have better ideas about 'mainstream physics' than the rest of us. But lest's get this straight. For the ordinary 'skippy' (no offence inteneded) in the street the greater % of 'mainstream physics' works very well. We get in our cars and expect them to behave just as they did an hour ago. Aircraft take us away on trips and ships don't sink unless another part of 'mainstream physics' dictates otherwise (e.g Titanic?). Okay, so these are basically Newtons results but that's still part of mainstream physics and we spend most of the time depending on it.
QM and Relativistic applications may be growing in number but we still depend on a washing machine and detergent to get our clothes clean and not make them more dirty. It is the lesser % of 'higher mainstream physics' that causes the problem because most of us can't test it.
So Uncle Ira I wish you luck with DeliciousNeutron (sounds like cake to me ha) etc.
Mimath224
1 / 5 (1) Jul 04, 2014
@Uncle Ira I think the person/people you are conversing with, consider they have better ideas about 'mainstream physics' than the rest of us. But let's get this straight. For the ordinary 'skippy' (no offence intended) in the street the greater % of 'mainstream physics' works very well. We get in our cars and expect them to behave just as they did an hour ago. Aircraft take us away on trips and ships don't sink unless another part of 'mainstream physics' dictates otherwise (e.g Titanic?). Okay, so these are basically Newton's results but that's still part of mainstream physics and we spend most of the time depending on it.
QM and Relativistic applications may be growing in number but we still depend on a washing machine and detergent to get our clothes clean and not make them more dirty. It is the lesser % of 'higher mainstream physics' that causes the problem because most of us can't test it.
So Uncle Ira I wish you luck with DeliciousNeutron (sounds like cake to me ha) etc.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Jul 04, 2014
Apologize for repeat (with corrections) my IE browser would not allow me to edit so had to change browser
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Jul 05, 2014

And I need for you to tell me the name of the book because if you have told me before I forget that you did.

Can't do that, Irene, would just be accused of promoting book. Suggest you look up everything about expansion theory, and identify the logic fault in refutations of how expansion causes orbits (clue - no instant of time is different to any other). Then think about the redshift of light, why the establishment insists it is caused by the expansion of the universe as opposed to a property of light/time that we observe as increasing wavelength with time leading to eventual decay of photon (hence we are not burnt to a frazzle by infinite number of stars in every direction....). Incidentally, this effect also powers "gravity". Finally, why everything we measure at a microscale turns out to be quantum. In fact, it is not radiation etc. which is quantum but time itself. Plenty to keep you busy....
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Jul 05, 2014
Meanwhile, I advise all mainstream physicists to avoid reading my posts, as contemplation of the true nature of reality, what time is, how "gravity" is created, etc., will cause your brain to melt. Society needs you to keep functioning as you are with what works for you, a bit like the Roadrunner who has gone over the edge of a cliff...he doesn't fall until he realizes there is nothing holding him up.....
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2014
decay of photon


Into what decay products?

advise all mainstream physicists to avoid reading my posts...


I understand you're just answering Uncle Ira's request, but if you don't like to be exposed then just stop posting altogether.
Uncle Ira
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 05, 2014
@ Reg-Mundy first you say to read the book. I say okayeei, I will and ask what the name is so I can go get him from the library. Then you say you can't give me the name because the promoters won't like that. Now why you tell me to go read him if the name is secret?

Cher don't take this the wrong way no. But unless the book is better than what you write here I can see why nobody likes the book. What you write here is foolishment but at least it is free and I can see why the library might not want to spend their money to buy more of it instead of spending the money on books that make more sense.

So either tell me the name of the book so I can look for him next time I am in St Martinville and have time to go by the library or SIT DOWN and SHUT UP about the book because I am starting to think that it might be like the Really-Skippy's imaginary book about his imaginary theory.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (2) Jul 05, 2014
Apologize for repeat (with corrections) my IE browser would not allow me to edit so had to change browser
@Mimath
Still using Explorer! It is not that I dislike Microsoft since my OS is Windows 7 but, with so many very efficient browsers available to experiment for free, one can wonder about your critical thinking.
will do it me Reg-Skippy. If they got it at the St Martinville library that I have the card for.
@Uncle Ira
You will not find this book in any public library around the world since it is a self published book.

Uncle Ira
2 / 5 (4) Jul 05, 2014
@Uncle Ira
You will not find this book in any public library around the world since it is a self published book.


What does that mean the self published? It is like a pretend book and he is lying to us when he tells us to go to the library to read him? I thought the Captain-Skippy or the Q-Skippy said they read it and it was just the same foolishment he writes here that we get for free.

I am confused on this one about the book he keeps talking about. That maybe is my fault but I don't think so because the Reg-Skippy is all over the place on this stuff about the book..
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (2) Jul 05, 2014
@Uncle Ira
The book is real but you can publish your own book the same way he did: https://www.createspace.com/ Than you can brag about your own book! But do not expect any public library to have it. Even if Reg Mundy would go and give them one copy, the public libraries would not put them in their shelves; else they would be filled with crappy books, as anybody can do the same now.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (6) Jul 05, 2014
@ Techno-Skippy. Thanks. I did not know about that place. Seems to me a lot of people here might be practicing for using that place. Maybe since you post the linkum some of these couyon will write there instead of here with their new great theory that the scientist-Skippys are to stupid to think of.

Would they let peoples like the Zephir make a book there? I bet he could keep them busy full time huh? They would probably quit doing it if many like him show up.
Mimath224
1 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2014
@TechnoCreed ref. createspace is quite correct as I have done this self publishing myself. TechnoCreed, it seems that no matter which broswer I use, and I've tried ha, something is always not quite right. One feature will work one but not on another. It's more likely to do with settings etc but since I don't do a lot of surfing it isn't that important to me. So no need to bother about '...one can wonder about your critical thinking...' I do just fine for my purposes.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2014
@Mimath
Have you tried Chrome? The setups are very easy to understand and the program auto update when it is needed. In bonus, if you create an account, you will have some cloud space and your surfing history and favorites will follow on any computer you logon. As for the critical thinking comment, it was inspired by the quote below. Are you suspicious of fundamental research? Is it just a misunderstanding on my behalf? Explain a bit please.
It is the lesser % of 'higher mainstream physics' that causes the problem because most of us can't test it.

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2014
and I have come to the conclusion I should try harder to help them, so here is a link:
@regtarded
imagine that. still nothing... still can't explain it. still can't offer anything of substance supporting your philosophy
if you are really interested in my theories (which I doubt, you are too full of your own magniloquence), then borrow the book from a library
imagine that! another "red flag" of quackery from reg! http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/
IOW - reg has no foundation in physics and cannot explain his philosophy because, according to those who've read it, it is blatantly obvious to even the uninitiated that it is pseudoscience and has no basis in reality, and no valid math to support it.

THANKS for playing reg.

Your post is TROLLING and SPAM as you refuse to explain and the only thing you keep saying is "buy my book"...
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2014
Can't do that....would just be accused of promoting book
@regtarded
LMFAO! so... repeatedly telling everyone to go buy your book is NOT promoting your book here? are you really that F-ing stupid?
Suggest you look up everything about expansion...blah blah blah...Plenty to keep you busy
more pseudoscience?
What's the matter reg? got tore up in this thread: http://phys.org/n...ong.html
and now you think that there is enough meat in your BS pseudoscience posting there that we should get your book? IF YOUR POSTS here are any indication of the math or science in your book, then your book is about as helpful as used toilet paper...
avoid reading my posts
hard to do when you keep TROLLING and spamming the comments.

EXPLAIN ORBITS, FUSION, etc or go away... you STILL can't do that, can you Reg! because there is no science in your book.
even CD puts the occasional science in his posts...
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Jul 06, 2014
@TechnoCreed, yes I have a Chrome account and I use this for watching youtube. Chrome allows full screen viewing whereas the same on IE is non active. But then when viewing email on Chrome certain features are missing that are present on IE. I have ivestigated including asking Support but as yet what they suggest hasn't worked...keep trying eh?
As for '...suspicious of fundamental research?' No, not really, no more than the next guy. In fact I think that more money should be available for all branches of science (only have to look the situation with Astronomy/Physics in England for example). Fundamental research does have spin-offs for the general public which eventually become accepted as 'mainstream'. I think that, just sometimes, it's a bit unfair to 'knock' 'mainstream' science when it gives so much in our daily lives. I like to see the frontiers pushed a bit further and my remarks were not meant to offensive to anyone. Hope that makes my position, as a layman, a bit clearer.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Jul 06, 2014
it seems that no matter which broswer I use, and I've tried ha, something is always not quite right.
@Mimath224
also, you can download Mozilla Firefox and run it in Windows ...
another possibility is to download Ubuntu Linux to a disk/dvd and run it along side your OS. this might not work if you are running Win8 or higher, but I know it works for Win7.Running from disk lets you run Linux from a DVD as the OS but still save to Hard drive. You can also partition your hard drive and setup a second OS and run linux that way too.

just some more options
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Jul 06, 2014
@Captain Stumpy, sounds interesting...I'll try it and let you know. Thanks for your help.

Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Jul 06, 2014


EXPLAIN ORBITS, FUSION, etc or go away... you STILL can't do that, can you Reg! because there is no science in your book.
even CD puts the occasional science in his posts...

Wow, Cap'n, I seem to have lit your blue touchpaper......
Don't take it all so hard, you can't help being thick.
Have you ever considered reading things for yourself, rather than accepting other peoples' (biased) opinions?
Anyway, as I've explained many times in the past, a simple one-paragraph explanation of life, the universe, everything, just cannot be done. It has to be the whole thing, i.e. a book, 'cos each part in isolation is meaningless. Meanwhile, I would point out that there are no explanations of what gravity is that do not require the invention of space/time continuums with curvature or similar fabrications, or Higgs Fields, etc., EXCEPT mine. Unless you can point one out to me....
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2014
Have you ever considered reading things for yourself, rather than accepting other peoples' (biased) opinions?
@regtarded
you feel like mailing me a book? I promise I will read it.
however, I can base certain FACTS upon your posts here. you have NOT defined your philosophy here, only touched upon it, and what you have touched upon is so full of holes that it sinks faster than you can spit it out. Given your posts here in conjunction with the feedback of Q-Star, who HAS read it and who basically said it was a nice piece of fiction with your life story... then my critique stands...
you've never offered up anything that would work!

be advised: if you DO send me a book, I promise to read it, but I also promise to PUBLICLY review it. Including any and all "graphs" that you say explain it all.

feel free to contact me and send a book... you can get my contact info at Sciforums.com
Truck Captain Stumpy
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2014
a simple one-paragraph explanation of life, the universe, everything, just cannot be done
@reg
then it is wrong
It has to be the whole thing
if you cannot break down certain sections and give a working answer that will likn up to itself when the next piece comes in, then (again) it is wrong. Thats how our knowledge of physics/QM/relativity/reality has progressed... no one physicist suddenly went "Eureka" and had a ToE! STILL haven't had one do that!
Meanwhile, I would point out that there are no explanations of what gravity is that do not require the invention of space/time continuums with curvature or similar fabrications, or Higgs Fields, etc., EXCEPT mine
and as long as your proof is locked in that book, it is fallacious.

you can't prove it here, it doesn't exist... the ploy of the pseudoscience: bait and deny.

if you were on to something, you would have published to a peer reviewed journal.

you didn't = proof of pseudoscience
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2014
@Mimath
As for '...suspicious of fundamental research?' No, not really, no more than the next guy... I like to see the frontiers pushed a bit further and my remarks were not meant to offensive to anyone. Hope that makes my position, as a layman, a bit clearer.

So, it was a misunderstanding, thank you for your gracious reply. And hey, there are no needs to be so humble, we are all peers here. As far as I am concerned, it is just the pleasure to follow scientific progress that brought me here. I have spent money on science magazines for many years but no more, prints are just a waste of resources anyway, and when I find an interesting article I go straight to the source (arXiv e.g.).
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2014
a simple one-paragraph explanation of life, the universe, everything, just cannot be done
@reg
then it is wrong

So, Einstein explained Relativity in a paragraph, did he? Newton the same with Gravity?
Planck? Heisenberg? Try explaining String Theory!
I don't think so! You are a very stupid person.
the feedback of Q-Star, who HAS read it and who basically said it was a nice piece of fiction with your life story..

Q-Star said a lot more than that BEFORE he read the book(s)! Afterwards, it was just an exercise in self-justification. In the end, HE COULD NOT REFUTE THE THEORIES!
Nobody has been able to refute them, and this article provides more direct evidence that I am right.
Anyway, I do not accept him as a genuine scientist, after he admitted reviewing the books without reading them. He is a clown, just like you.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (4) Jul 06, 2014
@TechnoCreed yes, basically the same for me. I'd rather come to sites like this and find out what's going on in science than buy mags that may be way out of date and be unable to see what other people think. As a layman I watch my 'Ps' and 'Qs' and sometimes ask a genuine question if I don't understand something and cannot find an answer elsewhere on the net. Posters, such as your good self have been most helpful and and that makes all the more interesting.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2014
I don't think so! You are a very stupid person
@reg-tard
oh, the pain from that insult. oo. ahh. oo. ah.
back to business: You cannot even explain relevant parts of your model that pertain to orbits or fusion etc so it's not stupidity on my part, IT IS blatant stupidity on your part though
Q-Star said a lot more than that BEFORE he read the book
and I am referring ONLY to what he said ABOUT the book AFTER HE READ IT. which was not flattering to you as an author or as a scientist
HE COULD NOT REFUTE THE THEORIES
THERE WERE NO THEORIES TO REFUTE - you even said yourself it was a philosophy here: http://phys.org/n...ong.html
So my theory is actually a philosophy, and therefore unproveable
Feb 5, 2014 post
it boils down to this, reg: you want to sell your book but we are asking you to produce some actual science to support the fact that you know at least a LITTLE bit about what you are saying... you've given us NADA... nothing... zilch.
so send me the book.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2014
Nobody has been able to refute them
@wee little reg
you couldn't even hold your own with Furlong et al on the other comment thread, so what makes you think your book can't be refuted?
IF it was so powerful and legitimate, WHY did you self publish instead of publishing to a peer reviewed journal? I can answer this for you without reading your book... FEAR! You don't know what you are talking about... thats why you argue here. You think you are superior to people here, but you've been called out by scientists like Q, Gawad and furlong et al... and you've NOTHING to show for it.
no science
no maths
no logical descriptors
NOTHING

your posts read like spam ads "read my book" or "if you would read my book"....
given your lack of ability here, i am surprised you can sell it anywhere. I know my library will not purchase it.

so... get some free publicity. send me a copy. let me review it on-line...
now's your chance...
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
Oh dear, you really are ina dream world, aren't you! You think I would send a freeby to a prat like you. Review it! You can't even read or write properly! Your comments are full of grammatical errors, you don't even know when to use capital i. Why don't you just do a Q-Star? Review it without reading it. Oh, you already have....
Mimath224
5 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2014
@Reg Mundy Please tell me (by private message if you wish) the name of your book and I'll look it up. Many book sellers these days have a 'look inside' tag so if I like what I see I'll buy a copy. I think that's fair, don't you? I won't 'review' it because I'm not qualified to do so but will compare it to what I have in my personal library. if you don't agree to such a simple offer I will have to assume negatively.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2014
Review it without reading it. Oh, you already have....
@emasculated reg
I haven't reviewed your book yet... only YOU.
and you have shown that, considering your lack of info and your inability to prove your points or prove your philosophy without appealing to "buy my book", you are NOT a legitimate scientists... you are a putz, or a hack, or a prat... choose your own derogatory term, because the one thing you are NOT is a scientists, and that is reinforced every time you fail to prove anything and resort to whining.(like above)

You are the perfect example of a PSEUDOSCIENCE CRACKPOT, and you've shown on PO that you are just another failed wanna-be science major who has been emasculated publicly by real physicists and physics students.

PRODUCE PROOF
PRODUCE THE BOOK
or go away and stop TROLLING and SPAMMING
ina dream
send a freeby
and you are the grammar/punctuation expert?LMFAO
EPIC FAILURE
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2014
@Reg Mundy Please tell me (by private message if you wish) the name of your book and I'll look it up. Many book sellers these days have a 'look inside' tag so if I like what I see I'll buy a copy. I think that's fair, don't you? I won't 'review' it because I'm not qualified to do so but will compare it to what I have in my personal library. if you don't agree to such a simple offer I will have to assume negatively.

Mimath. Here is the link for you - http://www.amazon...JA7WXUO.
The "Look inside" gave no info on his "Theory". Only a condemnation of "what we have been taught". I would not purchase based in this look inside. And Mr. Mundy should do a little reading up on the proper method of marketing a book.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2014
@Reg "I HAVE GREAT THEORY THAT EXPLAINS EVERYTHING BUT HAS NO MATH" Mundy
So, Einstein explained Relativity in a paragraph, did he? Newton the same with Gravity?
Planck? Heisenberg? Try explaining String Theory!


Ahh, but they did each provide a small set of fundamental differential equations from which the finer points of the rest of their theory could be reproduced. I asked you before to provide a differential equation describing how matter expands in general. You were unable to do this.

If you are actually interested in getting at the truth, I don't know why you think an effective way of doing it is to completely reject established theory, construct ad-hoc arguments supporting your pet idea, do no math to actually confirm that they work--even approximately, and then try to get people to read your math-less book challenging the last 100+ years of physics research. Please, tell me how you expect to get any traction out of this approach.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2014
@Whydening Gyre thanks for the link but unfortunately when I clicked it I got the following; amazon document error 404 'We're sorry. The Web address you entered is not a functioning page on our site.' Since Reg Mundy has not replied to my request yet can you tell me the title?
Thank you

Uncle Ira
2 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2014
@Whydening Gyre thanks for the link but unfortunately when I clicked it I got the following; amazon document error 404 'We're sorry. The Web address you entered is not a functioning page on our site.' Since Reg Mundy has not replied to my request yet can you tell me the title?
Thank you


Reg-Skipppy won't tell me the name of the book either no. And I ask 7 or 6 times to tell me what it is about or the name. Ol Ira is beginning to think that it is like the Really-Skippy's theory, secret and pretend. Or maybe it is so bad and so many peoples make big fun with Reg-Skippy about him so Reg-Skippy is ashamed with him. The Q-Skippy said he read the book with the peoples he works with but didn't say so much about what he is about, just that he is not a very good book no.

Maybe if I ask google about the Reg-Mundy-Skippy's-Book-About-The-Universes I can find something about him. If I do I will post him here later.
Uncle Ira
2 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2014
@ Mimath-Skippy I found him. Actually I didn't but the google did so here I am putting the linkum for him.

http://www.amazon...p;sr=1-1

I am not 100% certain that it is our Reg-Skippy, because ours one doesn't believe in the gravity. But this was the only thing the google knows about that is close. And it only has the one about this Reg-Skippy.

There is a whole lot about Reg-Mundy-Musical-Skippy but I don't think it is him no. What you think? Could our Reg-Skippy also be the Musical-Skippy? I wonder what instrument he plays probably the triangle or maybe a rubboard because he ain't smart enough to play something hard.
otero
Jul 07, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2014
I don't want to read these sh*ts here all the time, just face it.


Well Socratic-Skippy ain't nobody making you read him. So you can Skippy skip right over anything that has ol Ira's name on him. And for another thing you, you got the lot nerve complaining about my POINTLESS VERBIAGE. You postum more pointless verbiages than anybody here except for maybe Returnering-Skippy and that is a close call between the two of you.

I'm reporting you for the calling me names using the bad words. Just kidding, I'm not going to report you for that no. But I am going to have to put you on the regular bad karma points list for awhile.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2014
@Uncle Ira thank you. There are several editions but an early non-kindle edition has one review by 'Qinn'...wonder if that is Q-star? This reviewer speaks of 'absurdities' and asks 'why buy later editions.' I took a 'look inside' and have decided I WON'T buy it. The only equation I found was Newton's law of Gravitation but it was in Text format. Wow, I thought, even I bought the MathType for my PC and it does a pretty good job, for the layman that is. Even the MS Office from early versions to my 2010 version has an equation writer so why did the author, Reg Mundy, not use that?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2014
so why did the author, Reg Mundy, not use that?
@Mimath224
If you will read the comments posted here: http://phys.org/n...ong.html

I know it is a long comment thread, but you will immediately see the answer to your question as well as understand WHY he will not post anything here on PO.

the simple answer: there is none
the Q-Star answer: not only is there no math, but there is no valid formula/method/anything that would allow you to test the theory, and if you read all those posts, you will see that he fails at a few basic logic answers as well... HIS WORDS
There is more mass in the Earth, therefore more acceleration at its surface. But remember, the number of atoms remains the same
if the mass doubles in size and the acceleration depends on the mass, and the mass doubles in size again, the acceleration doubles again
and he can't see how this is testable...

I will read it if its free, but I will also give public feedback.
not worth good money for it
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2014
@Captain Stumpy yes I did read that thread continually. I just wanted RM to put his BOOK where his mouth was, and of course he hasn't yet...surprise, surprise. Comparing to myself I have an idea that at c em rides on the surface of a 4th physical dimension but I haven't got very far with the maths (Tensors and Spinors) so I HAVE to accept that it is NOT a theory but remains JUST an IDEA. I wouldn't think of putting it in print unless I had something that was either testable or falsifiable or even at the debate level. But then that is me. I think RM has just put his thoughts on paper and therefore should be put in the Mind/Body category of the bookseller.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2014
OK, I suppose I had better defend myself. The only reason I posted on this thread is that the difference in the speed of photons as opposed to c (which I consider the theoretical maximum speed, never quite attained) is fundamental to my theory which postulates that ALL matter expands over "time" (photon wavelength increases) giving rise to the expansion of matter (if you must have an equation, start from e=mcc and thus the number of photons equivalent to a kilogram of mass) , the increased wavelength of light over time (redshift over the time photon created to measured) and the resulting expansion of that kilogram/second, and the observed effect by you when standing on planet Earth, i.e. what you call gravity. But like I say, if everything, including you, is expanding, how do you measure it? Which leads on to the nature of "time", what "time" actually is. Now do you see why you need a book?
Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 08, 2014
Now do you see why you need a book?


No Cher. But I do see why you maybe should not being trying to write one. That was one big bunch of foolishment in one little paragraph. A whole book full of it would be a wasting of my time and my money. Considering that I can get kind of foolishment for free here with the crankpot postums.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2014
@Irene
So, no attempt to logically refute the theory, just the usual insults without a shred of thought. I knew I was wasting my time with you, so no surprise there. Go back to sitting on your stump in your swamp, Irene, its where you belong.
Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 08, 2014
@Irene
So, no attempt to logically refute the theory, just the usual insults without a shred of thought. I knew I was wasting my time with you, so no surprise there. Go back to sitting on your stump in your swamp, Irene, its where you belong.


Reg-Skippy I did not see a theory in there for refuting. How I am supposed to shred the thoughts if you don't say something shredable? I try to picture what you said and all I got was a picture of what the crankpot looks like. It sounded like something that the no-Skippy or the cantdrive-Nazi-Skippy writes. You didn't say it does so I am asking, does it have the magnets doing what everybody else has the gravity doing? Or is your theory thing different from that?

What you got against the swamps and marshes? Maybe you get lost him sometime? Careful if you do that Skippy because you maybe not make it home again.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2014
@Uncle Ira note RM just slaps on the '...defend myself...' bit...there, there, there RM don't feel so dejected just because you've been found out.
Uncle Ira, Captain Stumpy, Whydening Gyre and others since the smallest unit of matter is an atom maybe RM is talking about Phonons and not Photons...nah, I must be wrong.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Jul 08, 2014
(if you must have an equation, start from e=mcc and thus the number of photons equivalent to a kilogram of mass)

Wow, Reg. Really? e=mc^2? Please give me a moment to adjust my worldview to this earth-shattering, completely original, equation.

You might just be the laziest crackpot I have ever known. Maybe you could...I don't know...actually give us an equation that describes how matter expands.

Do you even know what a differential equation is?

Here's an example: dp/dt = u*p^2 + v*p, where u and v are constants, and p is mass density. Notice how I don't solve this equation. I just give you a differential equation modeling how mass density changes.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2014
my theory which postulates that ALL matter expands over "time"
@still backpedaling reg
you've already stated that in the other thread with your claims that expansion is mass dependent
more acceleration at its surface. But remember, the number of atoms remains the same
&
if the mass doubles in size and the acceleration depends on the mass, and the mass doubles in size again, the acceleration doubles again
you've NEVER explained WHY? you've never offered any logical reason or maths.
The expansion, as you explained it in the other thread, is testable today, but your philosophy fails that test. We've already discussed THAT too... to which you STILL have no logical reason why I was wrong, only that I should buy your book. Why is THAT, reg?

IF you can't explain your mass dependent issue here with any valid maths or logical discussion, then your book is not likely to have any better explanations... and it is finite. you cannot go deeper into the explanation

EXPLAIN IT
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2014
one last point, reg
But like I say, if everything, including you, is expanding, how do you measure it?
according to your own words in the other thread with the explanation
more acceleration at its surface. But remember, the number of atoms remains the same
which means that expansion is mass dependent, and your claim afterwords of
if the mass doubles in size and the acceleration depends on the mass, and the mass doubles in size again, the acceleration doubles again
then the ability to test THIS is easy.
IF it is MASS DEPENDENT, then two objects with separate and unequal mass would expand at different rates
therefore there would be a proportional difference, per your argument above, between objects that differed in mass, as one would expand at a much higher rate than the other -PER YOUR OWN WORDS.

and as I said before, THIS IS EASILY TESTABLE between objects of large mass difference, and WE DO NOT OBSERVE IT TODAY

THEREFORE your philosophy failed a crucial test
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2014
Humm, Reg, you said photons decay ; what, pray tell, are their decay products?

Thanks much!
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2014
Humm, Reg, you said photons decay ; what, pray tell, are their decay products?

Thanks much!

G,
You'll probly have to buy his book to find out...
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 08, 2014
Humm, Reg, you said photons decay ; what, pray tell, are their decay products?

Thanks much!

G,
You'll probly have to buy his book to find out...


You really think Reg-Skippy put it in there? My guess is that he did not do that because then he not only trying to say all the gravity physics science is wrong, he have to add in how all the little particle pieces physics sciences is wrong too. There is only so much you can squeeze into a 90 or 80 page book even if the book atoms are expanding like he says.
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2014
Humm, Reg, you said photons decay ; what, pray tell, are their decay products?

Thanks much!

G,
You'll probly have to buy his book to find out...


Well, maybe, but Reg usually uses the "Buy my book" excuse along with a claim that things would be too complicated otherwise (mind you, given the limitations of this comment section...). Thing is, I'm not even asking for an explanation, I just want to know the identity of the decay products, that's all. I await with baited breath....
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2014
Well, maybe, but Reg usually uses the "Buy my book" excuse along with a claim that things would be too complicated otherwise (mind you, given the limitations of this comment section...). Thing is, I'm not even asking for an explanation, I just want to know the identity of the decay products, that's all. I await with baited breath....

Since you put it that way - now I'm curious, too...:-)
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2014
Oh come on chaps, don't words in RM's mouth or he'll come up with a Feynman for VPT since we all know 'photon decay' is sometimes, incorrectly, used ha!
Reg Mundy
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2014
Humm, Reg, you said photons decay ; what, pray tell, are their decay products?

Thanks much!

Tirds, my boy, tirds! A plus tird (written t+rd) and a negative tird (written t-rd). Or an equal number of t+rds and t-rds.
Now you are going to ask what a tird is! Well, that's explained in the book.......
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2014
Humm, Reg, you said photons decay ; what, pray tell, are their decay products?

Thanks much!

Tirds, my boy, tirds! A plus tird (written t+rd) and a negative tird (written t-rd). Or an equal number of t+rds and t-rds.
Now you are going to ask what a tird is! Well, that's explained in the book.......

We don't need to read your book to know it's full of tirds.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2014
@Reg Mundy
Now you are going to ask what a tird is! Well, that's explained in the book.......

Ooh! I got another one: We already know what a tird is. We've read your arguments!

I am here all night, folks.
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2014
@Reg Mundy
Now you are going to ask what a tird is! Well, that's explained in the book.......

Ooh! I got another one: We already know what a tird is. We've read your arguments!

I am here all night, folks.


Crap, you beat me to it!

Oh, sorry, I meant "tirds, you beat me to it!"

Reg Mundy, you LYING CRIMINAL TRAITOR! YOU SHOULD BE DRAWN AND QUARTERED BY FIRING SQUAD...oh wait, no, sorry, different thread, wrong crackpot (but at least that nother one put in a genuine effort...)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2014
Crap, you beat me to it!

Oh, sorry, I meant "tirds, you beat me to it!"


He walked so easily into that one, I am almost forced to consider that this is a well played execution of Poe's Law.

Then again, he is rather lazy.
otero
Jul 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2014
They apparently don't realize, they're blocking the access for more relevant discussion


They aren't blocking access for the Socratic-Skippy now are they Cher. Otherway you wouldn't be able to make as many postums as you do.

I'm in suspicion, they're tolerated here with forum admins just because of it: as a form of hidden censorship of really insightful ideas.


Do you ever get suspicious that you might be bat doo doo crazy?

Mimath224
5 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2014
@Gawad '...YOU SHOULD BE DRAWN AND QUARTERED BY FIRING SQUAD...' that's a new one! I thought one got SHOT by a firing squad...oh I see, the firing squad gets some o/t by doing extra activities.
otero
Jul 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2014
@Gawad '...YOU SHOULD BE DRAWN AND QUARTERED BY FIRING SQUAD...' that's a new one! I thought one got SHOT by a firing squad...oh I see, the firing squad gets some o/t by doing extra activities.


I think he making the fun on the JohnPringles-Skippy, he talks like that. Sort of like the Really-Skippy with TROLL/MOD/MAFIA/BOTGOT/GANG.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 09, 2014
This discussion here is already kept with only few old farts, the names of which just repeat: the more it's apparent, the intelligence of these guys is unable to maintain coherent matter of fact discussion about topic
@zephir-otero-Technico-et al
some genuine insight into the madness of eastern European idiocy as well as your own private delusions! thanks...
so basically, what you are saying here is that challenging someone to present empirical data and support their stance in a scientific post is wrong! ESPECIALLY if you are over some arbitrary age or some self-perceived intellectual capacity!
this explains a lot about your posts and your beliefs.
Question: is the intelligence thing based upon the IQ standard, SAT scores, ASVAB, or even ACT scores? Let us know YOUR IQ and then we can establish whether or not you should be allowed to post at all.
or is it only what you THINK your IQ SHOULD be?

better clarify... we meet with the mods later to vote and keep oppressing you
Technico
1 / 5 (3) Jul 09, 2014
@Captain Stumpy: Just keep the subject and nobody will doubt your age, intelligence or its definition, whatever.... This article is about variable light speed and it has nothing to do with the above two hundred posts.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Jul 09, 2014
@Captain Stumpy: Just keep the subject and nobody will doubt your age, intelligence or its definition, whatever.... This article is about variable light speed and it has nothing to do with the above two hundred posts.

Sorry to disagree, Technico, but most of the posts are concerned with variable light speed. Mine certainly are. I believe it to be one of the most important observations this century, as it strikes at the very heart of establishment physics and supports my long-held theory. If you can ignore the jocularity for the moment, I am actually making a sincere point, and providing the only known (to me) explanation of what gravity actually is, with a means of deriving an equation to calibrate it.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Jul 09, 2014
@zephir-otero-Technico-et al
some genuine insight into the madness of eastern European idiocy as well as your own private delusions! thanks...
so basically, what you are saying here is that challenging someone to present empirical data and support their stance in a scientific post is wrong! ESPECIALLY if you are over some arbitrary age or some self-perceived intellectual capacity!
this explains a lot about your posts and your beliefs.
Question: is the intelligence thing based upon the IQ standard, SAT scores, ASVAB, or even ACT scores? Let us know YOUR IQ and then we can establish whether or not you should be allowed to post at all.
or is it only what you THINK your IQ SHOULD be?

better clarify... we meet with the mods later to vote and keep oppressing you

Careful, Grumpy, you are slipping out of character! Your last couple of comments have been almost sensible, and lack your usual invective. Are you feeling yourself lately? If so, I wish you would stop, as its a filthy habit.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (3) Jul 09, 2014
@Technico okay let's do that. Some time back I read a science article that suggested the EM had some similarities to gravitation in that it may be geometric. I have been trying half the day trying to find the article but can't so perhaps someone here knows the idea. As far as I can recollect the idea incorperates the 'connections' of GR, that is the Christoffel symbols, into Maxwell's equations. This would imply that EM experience curvature and when used with SR 4D and might appear to have varible v.
TechnoCreed, thefurlong....any thoughts?

Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Jul 10, 2014
@Reg Mundy
Now you are going to ask what a tird is! Well, that's explained in the book.......

Ooh! I got another one: We already know what a tird is. We've read your arguments!

I am here all night, folks.


Crap, you beat me to it!

Oh, sorry, I meant "tirds, you beat me to it!"

Reg Mundy, you LYING CRIMINAL TRAITOR! YOU SHOULD BE DRAWN AND QUARTERED BY FIRING SQUAD...oh wait, no, sorry, different thread, wrong crackpot (but at least that nother one put in a genuine effort...)

I know you think I am being facetious, but I call the fundamental particles from which matter is created tirds because the smallest charge known to science is one third of the charge on the electron, so the components of the electron must be one third of the charge or less, i.e. a tird.
I believe all matter is made up of these electric charges and virtual charges, and the reasoning behind this is explained in the book together with the creation of mass and momentum.
Uncle Ira
2.8 / 5 (5) Jul 10, 2014
I know you think I am being facetious, but I call the fundamental particles from which matter is created tirds because the smallest charge known to science is one third of the charge on the electron, so the components of the electron must be one third of the charge or less, i.e. a tird.
I believe all matter is made up of these electric charges and virtual charges, and the reasoning behind this is explained in the book together with the creation of mass and momentum.


Is that what you believe Skippy? Well as long as you are telling what you believe, maybe you could tell us the answer to the question he asked. It was about what the photon decay into not the electron no.

Cher you must just be the troll looking for some playmates huh? Because you just go from silly idea to another without having them connected and waiting on somebody to bite on the new silly idea. Sort of like you don't really believe what you say only want somebody to say something back to you.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Jul 10, 2014
A photon is N t-rds and N t+rds where N > 0, probably 1,
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (2) Jul 10, 2014
A photon is N t-rds and N t+rds where N > 0, probably 1,


You giving charges to the pieces the photon in your theory decay into? Is that right? I think you might be making a lot more peoples than just the gravity physicist-Skippy mad with you.

But then you should fit right in here with the Zephir-Skippy, the Nazi-cantdrive-Skippy, the no-Skippy and Tuxford-Skippy and a few others I forget right now. You should forget the book writing stuffs,,,, if all of you got together in one place you could probably rake in beaucoup money at the door to give talks about it on open mike nights. You could even make your own youtube to get the peoples teased into wanting more and willing to pay for it.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Jul 11, 2014
@Technico okay let's do that. Some time back I read a science article that suggested the EM had some similarities to gravitation in that it may be geometric.

The idea that EM is geometric is not new. If you aren't already familiar with it, look up Kaluza Klein geometry.
I have been trying half the day trying to find the article but can't so perhaps someone here knows the idea.

I tried looking for such an article, and couldn't find it unfortunately. Also, as I am just beginning to study GR, I can't comment much further than that. At any rate, expressing EM as geometric has always struck me a little as unnatural. Gravity lends itself so well to a geometric description because everything in a gravitational field follows the same path, so everything in free fall would agree on the same metric. This is not so with EM, so it seems a little forced to do it this way. But people who know better than me should comment on this.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jul 11, 2014
@Reg Mundy
Not that I have any faith whatsoever in your ability to understand, but here is another problem with your expansion idea (as if it isn't already plagued with problems). It doesn't obey the equivalence principle. If gravity is an effect of matter expanding outward, then we should locally be able to tell the difference between being in an accelerating reference frame and sitting still in a gravitational field. Namely, if we are accelerating, far away from anything else, there would be no other matter nearby to expand. Hence, locally, we'd know we weren't in a gravitational field.

I can't believe I didn't see that before.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2014
I can't believe I didn't see that before.
@furlong
I don't know who, maybe you, but this has been mentioned before.
and i don't feel like sifting through pages of comments from different articles (especially with the long thread linked above)

but I DO remember this point being brought up in the past.
just not when or who said it (sorry)
it was not answered then
I hope to see an answer now
Mimath224
5 / 5 (3) Jul 12, 2014
@thefurlong yes thanks for that. I found a piece of paper that suggested I viewed the article under 'magnetism' not EM where M's eq's are discussued in various approaches such as 'field' and 'geometric field with curvature'. Having said that, I hadn't noted the title and I still haven't found it (ha).
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2014
@Reg Mundy
Not that I have any faith whatsoever in your ability to understand, but here is another problem with your expansion idea (as if it isn't already plagued with problems). It doesn't obey the equivalence principle. If gravity is an effect of matter expanding outward, then we should locally be able to tell the difference between being in an accelerating reference frame and sitting still in a gravitational field. Namely, if we are accelerating, far away from anything else, there would be no other matter nearby to expand. Hence, locally, we'd know we weren't in a gravitational field.

But there aren't any "gravitational fields"! Anyway, in isolation with nothing around you, remembering that ALL matter is expanding, how would you know you were expanding? It's only by being next to another object (e.g. standing on Earth) that you experience anything at all (i.e acceleration). Nothing causes acceleration except force provided by an expanding body or electro/magnetics etc.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2014
But there aren't any "gravitational fields"! Anyway, in isolation with nothing around you, remembering that ALL matter is expanding, how would you know you were expanding?
What would one year of earth expansion do? Speed(meter/second) = acceleration(meter/second²) x time(sec) = 9.8m/s²(earth's gravitational acceleration) x 60(seconds) x 60(minutes) x 24(hours) x 365(days) = 309052800(meter/second) oops faster than light! Your proposition is moot.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2014
But there aren't any "gravitational fields"!

Uhhh...what? Yes, we all know that you are crazy, and don't believe gravity is actually a force field, but, nonetheless you can agree that there is something that seems very much like a force field, which we call gravity, and the equivalence principle says that we can't locally tell the difference between when we are accelerating, and when we are sitting still in what appears to be a gravitational field. Sorry, Reg, but you need to try harder.

We know there is a gravitational field because we can measure its tidal forces IN EMPTY SPACE (among other things).

Speaking of which, where do tides come from, if gravity is just expansion of matter?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jul 13, 2014
But there aren't any "gravitational fields"
@Reg
this is YOUR unproven personal conjecture
and given your explanation below your comment, it is still unproven. You've said expansion was also mass dependent and that
more acceleration at its surface. But remember, the number of atoms remains the same
as well as
if the mass doubles in size and the acceleration depends on the mass, and the mass doubles in size again, the acceleration doubles again
logically, this is measurable in the known universe with simple observation, and because we do NOT observe this in the universe, it is just another nail in the coffin of your philosophy.
given your explanation about expansion, especially the above comments, any large mass that is sufficiently larger (at least double) form another object will expand at twice the rate, therefore will show a proportional distortion over observable time, making the growth 2:1, change to 3:1, then 5:1 etc
This directly disproves your philosophy
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2014
We know there is a gravitational field because we can measure its tidal forces IN EMPTY SPACE (among other things).

Speaking of which, where do tides come from, if gravity is just expansion of matter?


Ouch! Indeed, hadn't thought of that one. As bad as "natural spirals" and "instantaneous coordinate resets" are for orbits...tides...yeah. Expalain that from you gettin' bigger, Reg.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2014
But there aren't any "gravitational fields"! Anyway, in isolation with nothing around you, remembering that ALL matter is expanding, how would you know you were expanding?
What would one year of earth expansion do? Speed(meter/second) = acceleration(meter/second²) x time(sec) = 9.8m/s²(earth's gravitational acceleration) x 60(seconds) x 60(minutes) x 24(hours) x 365(days) = 309052800(meter/second) oops faster than light! Your proposition is moot.

Velocity of light also expands, i.e. seems the same to us.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2014
but, nonetheless you can agree that there is something that seems very much like a force field, which we call gravity,

No, I don't agree. You call it gravity and consider it a field. I do not.
we can't locally tell the difference between when we are accelerating, and when we are sitting still

Oh yes we can! Try holding a glass of water whilst accelerating....

We know there is a gravitational field because we can measure its tidal forces IN EMPTY SPACE (among other things).

No you can't, not if it is EMPTY space.

where do tides come from, if gravity is just expansion of matter?

Expansion takes place in the COMPOSITE object, i.e. all objects, as explained in the book. Consider any normal mass, the relative distance between an atomic nucleus and an electron compared between the distance between, say, the Earth and the Moon (which are part of a composite object).
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
logically, this is measurable in the known universe with simple observation

Look, Grumpy, you are doubling in size as well. Just how do you observe and measure this in the known universe? Try to THINK before commenting!
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2014
No, I don't agree. You call it gravity and consider it a field. I do not.

That's a load of crap and you know it. Functionally, it acts like a field.
Oh yes we can! Try holding a glass of water whilst accelerating....

lol. What? Why don't you try that. Go into free fall, collect water in a glass, and then fire some rockets. You'll find that if you hold the glass with top to bottom facing opposite acceleration, the water will stay in the glass. Then, take the same glass and hold it perpendicularly to acceleration. Holy crap! The water spills!
No you can't, not if it is EMPTY space.

By empty space, I mean space devoid of matter. There are still force fields permeating that space.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2014
Expansion takes place in the COMPOSITE object...

That's not an explanation, just more ad-hoc, special pleading, hand waving--as usual. I don't think you can even tell the difference.

A differential equation, from you, describing general expansion would go along way, though. I mean, are you telling me that you are that incompetent that you can't construct a differential equation--or even an integro-differential equation, describing how matter expands? If you had any experience with non-freshmen physics at all, you would know that once you've had your key insights, deriving a differential equation is the EASIER part of constructing a theory. The harder part is finding a solution, or showing that it even has one. I am not asking you for a closed form (as if you know what that is), just an equation that says how matter expands from one state of the universe to another. Hell, I would even settle for a difference equation. What is so hard about that?
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2014
Velocity of light also expands, i.e. seems the same to us.
Impossible, the energy of every photons in the universe would have to change; once a photon is emitted the energy of this photon do not change it is a 'quanta'. (The energy of a photon) = ħv ; if v change than the energy of the photon change! Still moot.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2014
Just how do you observe and measure this in the known universe?
@reg
and like I told you, it would produce an observable proportional anomaly that is measurable based upon THIS statement
if the mass doubles in size and the acceleration depends on the mass, and the mass doubles in size again, the acceleration doubles again
these are YOUR words quoted
IF EXPANSION is MASS DEPENDENT &
IF you had a mass like Jupiter which is 317 times the mass of Earth ( http://www.univer...o-earth/ )
you would see a proportional disparity after time and measurements because Jupiter is expanding, PER YOUR STATEMENTS, at 317 times FASTER than the Earth.

This would change the VISIBLE proportion that we see in the sky and show a VISIBLE measurement that we could see over time. Jupiter would HAVE to grow to a much larger state from its ORIGINAL state of measurement

proportions would GROW under your statement
today 317:1
next? 500:1
then 700:1

YOUR LOGIC
not mine
Mimath224
5 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2014
@thefurlong ref. diff. eqn's. Think you were being a bit unfair to poor old Reg (joke). Since he is claiming matter expansion one has to assume that he started with an elementary pde and the simplest I can think of is the basic gas eqn. δ p =( ∂ p/ ∂ v ) δ v + ( ∂ p/ ∂ T ) δ T
In Reg's idea this would then have to be combined with his (simple) time dependent pde and then go on from there to more complicated expressions. Using Poisson's eqn might be a next guess. If he hasn't done this, or something similar then he definitely needs to go back to 'drawing board' and start over.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2014
@furbrain
Functionally, it acts like a field.

Oh, so it isn't a field, then....
You said
we can't locally tell the difference between when we are accelerating, and when we are sitting still

To which I replied
"Oh yes we can! Try holding a glass of water whilst accelerating...."
to which you now say
lol. What? Why don't you try that. Go into free fall, collect water in a glass, and then fire some rockets. You'll find that if you hold the glass with top to bottom facing opposite acceleration, the water will stay in the glass. Then, take the same glass and hold it perpendicularly to acceleration. Holy crap! The water spills!

That was exactly my point, that YOU CAN TELL LOCALLY if you are accelerating.
Now you are reversing your argument! Grow up, you twerp.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2014
Expansion takes place in the COMPOSITE object...


A differential equation, from you, describing general expansion would go along way, though. I mean, are you telling me that you are that incompetent that you can't construct a differential equation--or even an integro-differential equation, describing how matter expands? If you had any experience with non-freshmen physics at all, you would know that once you've had your key insights, deriving a differential equation is the EASIER part of constructing a theory. The harder part is finding a solution, or showing that it even has one. I am not asking you for a closed form (as if you know what that is), just an equation that says how matter expands from one state of the universe to another. Hell, I would even settle for a difference equation. What is so hard about that?

So why don't you do it? I've explained how, so come on genius, produce your differential equation but remember you can't use time.
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2014
@furbrain
You said

we can't locally tell the difference between when we are accelerating, and when we are sitting still
The part you are omitting is
in a gravitational field

Are you lazy that you can't even bother to read the rest of my sentence?
That was exactly my point, that YOU CAN TELL LOCALLY if you are accelerating.
Now you are reversing your argument! Grow up, you twerp.

Lol. Learn to read English.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2014
Velocity of light also expands, i.e. seems the same to us.
Impossible, the energy of every photons in the universe would have to change; once a photon is emitted the energy of this photon do not change it is a 'quanta'. (The energy of a photon) = �v ; if v change than the energy of the photon change! Still moot.

It doesn't change TO US! Apart from the increase in wavelength over time.......
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2014
So why don't you do it? I've explained how, so come on genius, produce your differential equation but remember you can't use time.

hahaha. What a weaksauce argument.
1) You are the originator of a fringe idea, which, on its face, seems preposterous. I have no incentive to explore it on my own.
2) If you really want the truth, it is YOUR PEROGATIVE, NOT MINE, to derive your own differential equation to properly tell if your idea even works. Meanwhile, I will continue to learn and understand theories that are actually effective. I had a pretty cool idea today about using GR with QM, by the way. Currently, I am thinking about how I could derive the corresponding diff. eq.
3) I think you have achieved laziness perfection here. Though I might be wrong. Perhaps the only way in which you could be lazier is to post nothing at all. You could be like the John Cage of commenters, except he put some actual thought into the emptiness of his product.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2014
and like I told you, it would produce an observable proportional anomaly that is measurable based upon THIS statement
if the mass doubles in size and the acceleration depends on the mass, and the mass doubles in size again, the acceleration doubles again
these are YOUR words quoted
IF EXPANSION is MASS DEPENDENT &
IF you had a mass like Jupiter which is 317 times the mass of Earth ( http://www.univer...o-earth/ )
you would see a proportional disparity after time and measurements because Jupiter is expanding, PER YOUR STATEMENTS, at 317 times FASTER than the Earth.

This would change the VISIBLE proportion that we see in the sky and show a VISIBLE measurement that we could see over time. Jupiter would HAVE to grow to a much larger state from its ORIGINAL state of measurement

YOUR LOGIC
Whats the matter with you, you haven't understood a word I've said. Everything expands, therefore proportions remain the same! You really are dim.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2014
@furbrain
You said

we can't locally tell the difference between when we are accelerating, and when we are sitting still

The part you are omitting is
in a gravitational field

Are you lazy that you can't even bother to read the rest of my sentence?
That was exactly my point, that YOU CAN TELL LOCALLY if you are accelerating.
Now you are reversing your argument! Grow up, you twerp.

Lol. Learn to read English.
I did. Like I said, there ain't no gravitational field (and you agreed with me.....). So, if you feel a force you are accelerating, if you don't you are sitting still. Meanwhile, the Earth is coming up to meet you.....
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2014
Whats the matter with you, you haven't understood a word I've said. Everything expands, therefore proportions remain the same! You really are dim
@reg
I understood completely... those were YOUR WORDS I posted, not mine. YOU made the claim that acceleration was mass dependent

NOW you are trying to say that you didn't claim this? the evidence is on the link I provided!
Therefore my logic and argument stands!
PER YOUR OWN WORDS FOUND HERE: http://phys.org/n...ong.html

You have NEVER successfully answered ANY claim (like mine above)
YOU USUALLY say that we don't understand
then say something that COUNTERS your earlier statements

I am using YOUR WORDS
and you cannot explain YOUR OWN STATEMENTS HERE on PO, let alone justify your statements that gravity doesn't exist

THIS is why you are considered a PSEUDOSCIENCE CRACKPOT
this is why I say your book likely has ZERO SCIENCE
because you cannot answer your own claims here
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2014
Whats the matter with you, you haven't understood a word I've said
@reg
another fallacy? try to make the claim that I didn't understand so that you can make the claim that proportions don't change? Argument from blatant fallacy? THIS IS YOUR ANSWER?

it is YOU who does not understand
I am NOT making up some random argument and posting another random thought: PER YOUR OWN WORDS, QUOTED ABOVE AND LINKED TO THE SITE OF ORIGIN, HERE: http://phys.org/n...ong.html
YOU, not I, but YOU make the claim that expansion is mass dependent
and I argue that IF it is mass dependent, then you would see measurable results, and give a logical reason why, which DECIMATES your lack of logic OR comprehension of physics

No need for formula's when logic will do... and until you can give a FORMULA that proves your philosophy, it is PSEUDOSCIENCE

so it is YOU who cannot understand simple English here, and your OWN WORDS, to boot!

YOUR WORDS + YOUR ARGUMENT = YOUR FAILURE
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2014
I did. Like I said, there ain't no gravitational field (and you agreed with me.....).

Reg, you can't just make stuff up. That's not how it works. For example, it is readily evident that I have done anything but agree with you on that.

Look, I am not going to stop hammering you about differential equations. Do you, or do you not have a differential equation--or any dynamic equation describing how matter expands? If you do, then please, share it. If you don't, how do you know your idea works?
So, if you feel a force you are accelerating, if you don't you are sitting still. Meanwhile, the Earth is coming up to meet you.....

But when you are sitting still in a gravitational field, you do feel a force. Namely, there would be something keeping you from actually falling--say, the ground--or are you telling me that you don't actually feel the ground pushing against you? Please do continue to make your claims as preposterous as possible. That will definitely convince us.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2014
another fallacy? try to make the claim that I didn't understand so that you can make the claim that proportions don't change? Argument from blatant fallacy? THIS IS YOUR ANSWER?

It is clear that Reg Mundy isn't interested in arguing rationally. A person interested in doing so wouldn't demand that his opponent come up with reasons to support his own argument, which he continues to do by requesting that we furnish him with an equation describing his own theory, and that we magically develop an incentive to read his self-published book.

Reg Mundy is either the laziest crackpot in the world, or the one of the most ambitious trolls I have ever encountered, having self-published a 90 page pseudoscience book, just to annoy physorg commenters.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2014
Functionally, it acts like a field.


Oh, so it isn't a field, then....


I missed that part.
Yes, Reg, that's entirely how it works. Saying A functionally acts like B definitely implies that A isn't the same as B.
In fact, this was proven by none other than the great logician Rertrand Bussel, himself.
Before, hunters would labor under the false notion that quacking, waddling, feathered, creatures with beaks and webbed feet, were actually ducks, consistently hunting game, which only afterwards, turned out to be burly men in duck suits. Further inspection would reveal that these duck-cosplaying, formerly upright walking, cogitating hominids were, in fact, not men at all, but midget bears in tutus. It was only after Bussel proved this celebrated theorem that, people learned to recognize that true ducks were those which behaved not as ducks but as Darth Vader. After that, world hunger was reduced by half.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
I don't know why I bother responding to your stupidity, but I suppose I may as well seeing as I've tried to educate you so often in the past....
YOU, not I, but YOU make the claim that expansion is mass dependent
and I argue that IF it is mass dependent, then you would see measurable results, and give a logical reason why, which DECIMATES your lack of logic OR comprehension of physics

Of course the expansion is mass-dependent! And you do see measurable results, e.g you weigh more on Earth than you do on the Moon. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

No need for formula's when logic will do... and until you can give a FORMULA that proves your philosophy, it is PSEUDOSCIENCE

No need for formula when logic will do? Tell that to furbrain! Then you say, until I give one, it is pseudoscience! Make your mind up, twit!
Reg Mundy
1.2 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2014

Look, I am not going to stop hammering you about differential equations. Do you, or do you not have a differential equation--or any dynamic equation describing how matter expands? If you do, then please, share it. If you don't, how do you know your idea works?

As mass expansion is a property of quantum time, can you suggest a basis for such an equation? What exactly you would be equating to what?
So, if you feel a force you are accelerating, if you don't you are sitting still. Meanwhile, the Earth is coming up to meet you.....

But when you are sitting still in a gravitational field, you do feel a force. Namely, there would be something keeping you from actually falling--say, the ground--or are you telling me that you don't actually feel the ground pushing against you?

Whenever you feel a force, you are accelerating, and vice versa. You are not sitting still in your so-called non-existent gravitational field.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2014
Functionally, it acts like a field.


Oh, so it isn't a field, then....


I missed that part.
Yes, Reg, that's entirely how it works. Saying A functionally acts like B definitely implies that A isn't the same as B.
In fact, this was proven by none other than the great logician Rertrand Bussel, himself.
etc., etc.

Do try to include a shred of logic in your comments. Is it a field, or does it just act like a field? You are losing your own argument here. I do not deny that the laws of gravity as expressed by Newton/Einstein etc. provide a good MODEL for reality, but, just like a computer simulation, they are only a model and will diverge from reality in significant respects. We can continue refining the model by sticking plasters on it, like QM, Dark Matter, etc., etc., but we are not getting nearer the fundamental truth which requires a complete rethink.
Dr_toad
Jul 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2014
As mass expansion is a property of quantum time, can you suggest a basis for such an equation? What exactly you would be equating to what?

I don't know, Reg. It's your "theory". I mean, if you, the proponent of your own magnificent idea, can't come up with a basis for describing it, maybe you haven't thought it through enough.

I mean, I could suggest a myriad of ways to go about it. You could, for example, attach a coordinate to each quantum of matter and energy, and then describe how those coordinates change from one state of the universe to another. These coordinates aren't necessarily spatial coordinates, just abstract. Then, once you do that, you could describe how this changing of abstract coordinates affects our notions of space and time.

And since you refer to time as quantum, then that sounds like you would want to construct a difference equation. Here's an example: f(t+1) = 3f(t) + 5. But, I won't hold your hand any more than that.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2014
Do try to include a shred of logic in your comments. Is it a field, or does it just act like a field?

Or...it could be...both! Mind blown, Reg. Mind blown.

I mean, are you Reg Mundy, or do you act like Reg Mundy? It can't be both, right?
You are losing your own argument here.

I suppose if you imbibe copious amounts of dextromethorphan, it might seem like that's happening.
I do not deny that the laws of gravity as expressed by Newton/Einstein etc. provide a good MODEL for reality, but, just like a computer simulation, they are only a model and will diverge from reality in significant respects.

And you know this because...uh...you developed a theory that is so weak and ineffective that there is no way to even perturbatively describe how its key concept connects with reality. Yeah, that's how science works.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2014
We can continue refining the model by sticking plasters on it, like QM, Dark Matter, etc., etc., but we are not getting nearer the fundamental truth which requires a complete rethink.

Well, suppose you are correct, and that GR does not provide a sufficient model for gravity. Then, the way you would handle would be is to make an EFFECTIVE theory to supplant it, and then use it to make specific predictions. That would be a theory with a handful of fundamental equations that COMPLETELY DESCRIBE how gravity behaves. Those equations don't have to be solvable.

The 3-body problem is not solvable. It is still completely described by a handful of fundamental equations.

You are not, however, going to arrive at the truth by creating a patchwork of ad-hoc explanations supporting your idea, but not doing the math to actually confirm that it works.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2014
Whenever you feel a force, you are accelerating, and vice versa. You are not sitting still in your so-called non-existent gravitational field.

Nope! Not even close. Put your hand in a vice, turn the screws, and then tell me again that you don't feel a force (two forces, actually). And yet...your hand would not be accelerating! It's magical how the real world works!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2014
Of course the expansion is mass-dependent
@reg
already established that fact
e.g you weigh more on Earth than you do on the Moon
assuming gravity, yes, but I was specifically talking about your expansion theory
No need for formula when logic will do?
this is specific to OUR conversation, Furlong is REQUESTING the maths. You are not thinking things through IMHO. so it is you being obtuse here. You think that if expansion is mass dependent that there would be NO visible effects, and I have proven to you that IF it is mass dependent, e.g it expands FASTER when you have larger mass, which is what mass dependent expansion MEANS, then there would be a METHOD for measurement in modern observations to test your philosophy
Then you say, until I give one, it is pseudoscience! Make your mind up, twit!
ANY theory/hypothesis without the math is no better than used toilet paper. IN OUR SPECIFIC conversation, logic will do..

continued
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2014
@reg, cont'd
in other words, reg, when you can prove that mass dependent expansion will NOT show a proportional difference as I said above, then by all means, share it. SO far, your argument has been "buy my book", or "its explained in my book" but we're requesting at least SOME science here: and don't keep changing the information.
There can be NO constant acceleration IF THE EXPANSION IS MASS DEPENDENT. Constant expansion would also negate tides, as well as orbits and a few other things mentioned, to which you said there was a dependency on MASS.
this is the key, reg... MASS DEPENDENCY. this is also the reason that one mass would expand at a higher rate than another per your words, and WHY it is testable by observation. It is the downfall of your philosophy, IMHO (other than the lack of math)

MATH, and specifically the equations describing/defining your POV as Furlong keeps requesting, is the REASON that it will never be anything other than a philosophy or pseudoscience
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2014
Do try to include a shred of logic in your comments
@reg
to prove a point about my comments: Gravity is also mass dependent
When you are in Earths gravitational field, you accelerate towards the Earth at a higher, faster rate than, say, the moon, or Pluto. This is a measurable effect. We know it. We KNOW... that if we go into a mass DOUBLE that of earth, that the acceleration would increase proportionally.

Given this statement, then, and reversing it to expansion, we can see, logically, that expansion, IF mass dependent, would show the EXACT SAME RESULTS if two bodies are expanding per the same mass dependent rules.

Earth would EXPAND faster than the moon, and slower than Jupiter... and the result would give a growing proportional difference between the masses that is MEASURABLE by observation.

LOGIC

which I have said over and over to your expansion theory.

POSITIVE OBSERVED PROOF that it is not applicable to the known universe.

well, reg?
do you FINALLY get it?
Dr_toad
Jul 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2014
Nope! Not even close. Put your hand in a vice, turn the screws, and then tell me again that you don't feel a force (two forces, actually). And yet...your hand would not be accelerating! It's magical how the real world works!


I'm sorry you didn't suggest that he use his head, but we already know he can't.

I am beginning to have difficulty believing that somebody could misunderstand logic and physics that much and still be functional. I mean, what does he do when he is walking along and encounters a wall in his path? His life must be very exciting.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2014
I mean, what does he do when he is walking along and encounters a wall in his path? His life must be very exciting.
@furlong
I just spit coffee all over my laptop... if it fries....
but totally worth it!
thanks

more reg logic here:
https://www.faceb...;theater
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Jul 15, 2014
I mean, what does he do when he is walking along and encounters a wall in his path? His life must be very exciting.
@furlong
I just spit coffee all over my laptop... if it fries....
but totally worth it!
thanks

more reg logic here:
https://www.faceb...;theater

You're welcome. Even laptops need a little pick me up sometimes.

That link doesn't seem to work from my end.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2014
I mean, what does he do when he is walking along and encounters a wall in his path? His life must be very exciting.
@furlong
I just spit coffee all over my laptop... if it fries....
but totally worth it!
thanks

more reg logic here:
https://www.faceb...;theater

You're welcome. Even laptops need a little pick me up sometimes.

That link doesn't seem to work from my end.
@furlong
try this link then: http://www.funny-...ber.html

like I said: reg logic
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2014
@reg
to prove a point about my comments: Gravity is also mass dependent
When you are in Earths gravitational field, you accelerate towards the Earth at a higher, faster rate than, say, the moon, or Pluto. This is a measurable effect. We know it. We KNOW... that if we go into a mass DOUBLE that of earth, that the acceleration would increase proportionally.

That is exactly what I have been telling you, you dickhead.

Given this statement, then, and reversing it to expansion, we can see, logically, that expansion, IF mass dependent, would show the EXACT SAME RESULTS if two bodies are expanding per the same mass dependent rules.
Wow! You may have grasped the point!
Earth would EXPAND faster than the moon, and slower than Jupiter... and the result would give a growing proportional difference between the masses that is MEASURABLE by observation.

Crap! You have imploded again! Look, if object A is ten times the size of B, and both double in size, A is still 10xB.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2014
@furbrain
You are not, however, going to arrive at the truth by creating a patchwork of ad-hoc explanations supporting your idea, but not doing the math to actually confirm that it works.

Not like the current established theories, then?
Whenever you feel a force, you are accelerating, and vice versa. You are not sitting still in your so-called non-existent gravitational field.


Nope! Not even close. Put your hand in a vice, turn the screws, and then tell me again that you don't feel a force (two forces, actually). And yet...your hand would not be accelerating! It's magical how the real world works!

Even you must realize that this is a truly pathetic reply. How about trying to refute the point with some logic? Perhaps you could provide an equation?
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2014
Crap! You have imploded again! Look, if object A is ten times the size of B, and both double in size, A is still 10xB.


@ Reg-Skippy I think you might really get shown up on this one. It's bad when ol Ira shows you up and you don't want too many peoples to see that no.

If it double in size like the ball, the moon, the earth and the jupiter, it do a lot more than double in the weight of the stuffs in it. So you would be able to do just like the Captain-Skippy says you will when he say you can observe it, you can tell that. Well maybe you can't tell it, but the scientist-Skippys can tell that.

Doubling how you measure something make you have a lot more than double the volumes in it.

It's bad enough you wearing that silly looking pointy cap but now that ol Ira show you up so easy they really going to be having the big fun on you.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2014
Not like the current established theories, then?

Neither Newtonian Gravity, not GR is not a patchwork of adhoc theories. I am not talking about string theory, dark matter, cosmic inflation, or any other attempts at explaining things not currently explained by just assuming GR. Just regular old gravity--a theory that is wildly successful in its domain of inquiry. Focus, Reg, focus!

Your claims contest this theory. You are the one who claims that everything eventually returns under gravity, which is something that is demonstrably false. You are the one who claims that gravitational fields don't exist in space devoid of matter, even though we can measure those fields readily using current technology.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2014
Even you must realize that this is a truly pathetic reply. How about trying to refute the point with some logic?

Uhh...so...you don't agree that your hand feels a force from the vise, then?
Perhaps you could provide an equation?

That's an interesting challenge. There are two ways to look at this. First, there's the situation where the screw is actually being turned. In this case, there are several forces to think about. First, is the torque applied to the handle. Then, there's the normal force of the screw teeth against the ridges, that occurs in reaction to the torque, and the frictional sliding force. Finally, assuming that one end of the vise doesn't move, and that the hand is resting against this end, there's the normal force from the other end, and the resistance of the hand to internal pressure. (continued)
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2014
Crap! You have imploded again! Look, if object A is ten times the size of B, and both double in size, A is still 10xB.


Christ, Muddy, you are such an obtuse moron. You say it's related to both mass and expansion proportion, but your own example assumes that the differences in acceleration (a.k.a "gravity") are always proportional to a difference in size. But that's not how real gravity actually works.

Mercury and Callisto are the same SIZE (to a constant 30km difference in radius), therefore, according to YOU, they have to expand at the same RATE to remain proportional in size. But the "surface acceleration" (a.k.a. "gravity") of Mercury is THREE TIMES that of Callisto, meaning it has to "expand" three times faster to produce those Gs!

So how do the Turds you pulled out of your ass explain THAT, Eh?

And while you're at it, you still haven't explained ORBITS or TIDES.

Wow, Reg, seems like that makes you a total failure, quite unlike the Standard Model plus GR.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2014
(continued)
The second case is where the screw is no longer turned. In this case, we replace the frictional sliding force with a static frictional force that would completely counter any attempts to move the screw. Furthermore, we can approximate the hand's behavior by positing that the hand has some internal pressure corresponding to the amount of deformation from compression. This is the easier of the two cases to handle. Just determine this pressure for the hand, then you can simply just forget about the ridges and just model this as an equilibrium mechanics problem. This pressure would determine the forces of exerted by each rigid body on the hand. Let me think about that and get back to you--unless you want to try your hand at it (pun intended). I think we'd all be entertained by that.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2014
@Reg Mundy
Actually, Reg, if I will provide you with an equation modeling the force on a hand from a vise if you agree to provide me with an actual differential equation. That means no cop-outs like telling me e=mc^2, or f=ma. I would want an actual differential or difference equation describing how matter expands IN ANY CONFIGURATION. Deal?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2014
Crap! You have imploded again! Look, if object A is ten times the size of B, and both double in size, A is still 10xB.
@reg
Yes, very logical. but that is NOT what you said...
you said something more akin to thus:
Expansion is dependent upon MASS. If B= mass of 10
and A= 1000
and expansion of massB doubles every 1 day, it will exceed the CURRENT mass A in 4 days, correct?
your model quoted above ONLY WORKS with static acceleration dependent upon ONLY TIME

BUT you said expansion is MASS DEPENDENT, which means that mass A, being 10 times mass B, would accelerate 10 times faster!
which would mean that mass B would double in minutes, not a day. JUST LIKE GAWAD SAID!

PER YOUR OWN WORDS/CONCLUSIONS, NOT OURS

YOU TIED EXPANSION TO MASS to explain the feeling of Gravity, as gravity is also tied to mass, which undoes your expansion

THAT IS WHAT MASS DEPENDENT MEANS and where YOU keep getting tripped up in the logic
It also undoes ORBITS
TIDES
and MORE
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2014
which would mean that mass B would double in minutes, not a day. JUST LIKE GAWAD SAID!

Correction: above A mass would double in minutes, not a day,

JUST LIKE GAWAD SAID
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2014
Let's see, at the moment I am towing along:-
@Cap'n Grumpy
@furbrain
@Aunty Irene
@Gawphead
@Dr-Load
@TechnutCried
@MiMotheaten
@WhinedinGob
@anybody-else-sorry-I-missed-u

All having a go at me, criticizing my book without having read it, knocking my theories because you cannot isolate each bit, you have to understand THE WHOLE THING. It is time itself which is quantum, that is why everything we measure using time SEEMS to be quantum (light is corpuscular as well as wave, and travels in packets we call photons). Now, the current fixation in this thread is "gravity" caused by expansion. Think of it this way- when two different bodies expand, the basic components of those bodies expand. For arguments sake, at a macro level, these are atoms for normal matter, and the number of atoms remains the same. If the atoms double in size between two time quanta, then the effect at the surface of each sphere of that expansion causes "gravity". The number of atoms across each diameter is constant.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2014
All having a go at me, criticizing my book without having read it, knocking my theories because you cannot isolate each bit, you have to understand THE WHOLE THING.

No we don't. That's because some parts we already understand are known to be incorrect. One particularly egregious example is your assertion that, under gravity everything must return. This is demonstrably false. I can prove it to you mathematically, as I did before, and we can actually point to many examples of things that are known to have a hyperbolic or parabolic trajectory with respect to the solar system. This is freshmen physics.

And if you are incorrect such a basic physical concept, how can we have any hope you'd be correct about an advanced physical one, such as the origin of gravity? You tell me. Does that make any sense at all?

(to be continued)
Dr_toad
Jul 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2014
(continued)
Furthermore, even if you do have a theory, it is not an effective one. An effective physical theory starts with a handful of fundamental equations, WHICH ARE DIFFERENT FROM PREVIOUSLY KNOWN ONES, and, maybe a further handful of heuristics for METHODICALLY APPLYING THEM. For example, in basic Newtonian physics sans gravity and EM, we have Newton's 3 laws, the definition of work, and energy conservation. From these, the entire theory of basic Newtonian physics can be unambiguously and methodically deduced. That includes more advanced concepts like the inertial tensor.

All you have is an idea for which you have constructed elaborate ad-hoc explanations that support it. And considering your hesitation in providing even a subset of dynamic equations in this forum, it is safe to assume that your book doesn't have the equations to tie it all together.

(to be continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2014
(continued)
Let me put this another way. Let's say that all previous copies of your book, digital and otherwise, somehow were erased, and the only copy left of your theory was in your head. Furthermore, let's say you were going to die very soon, and knew you only had enough time to record a few key ideas so that a competent person could deduce an essentially identical theory. What would you record?

If I were the originator of Hamiltonian mechanics, I would write down the Lagrangian, and explain that it must be minimized or maximized by the calculus of variations, and include the resulting Hamilton equations. If I were the originator of SR, I would write down the two postulates of SR, and the resulting Lorentz transformation, relativistic momentum and energy, and maybe two thought experiment sketches.

What would you write down to be confident that somebody else could take up the mantle after you were gone and correctly deduce the rest of your theory?
Mimath224
5 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2014
@Reg Mundy so on your '...surface of each sphere...' the ratio of volume to surface area must remain constant so that the 'gravity' will be measured as constant too. Please show YOUR equation, and it's derivation, that will identify the mathematical constant, say κ that will keep volume and surface area constant through expansion. Obviously for gravity there must be matter & density considerations also so please give examples.
Don't evade the question by asking for mine because it's not my 'theory' it is yours!
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2014
knocking my theories because you cannot isolate each bit, you have to understand THE WHOLE THING.


No, no, Muddy, we DO understand THE WHOLE THING: The whole thing is a stinking cesspit of BS. That's your theory in a nutshell. Your crackpot BS contradicts itself (Mercury vs. Callisto), contradicts known physical phenomena (orbits, tides, escape velocity, etc.), and results in whining and hand waving from you that could cause a tropical storm. Your theory has more Ad hoc "epicycles" than phlogiston theory.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 16, 2014
criticizing my book without having read it
@reg
actually, right now I am criticizing YOU for not being able to logically answer the questions, and for not being able to demonstrate to furlong et al basic knowledge of physics you cannot isolate each bit, you have to understand THE WHOLE THING In the world of physics, we can ISOLATE GR and SR from the overall theories, as well as QM. Then there is MHD etc, etc etc... I could go on, but you wtill seem to completely miss the point.
EVEN IF all the points are connected in your philosophy, there SHOULD BE SOME LINEAR LOGICAL THOUGHT that allows a person to make a point in one small area without having to learn the whole

lastly... it is the refuge of the pseudoscience troll, crackpot, or con-man, (however you wish to see it), to continually reference a material that will only support and enrich the troll/con-man
IF SAID CON was legitimate, then there would be peer reviewed studies as well as the ability to EXPLAIN!!
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2014
Let's see, at the moment I am towing along:-
@Cap'n Grumpy
@furbrain
@Aunty Irene
@Gawphead
@Dr-Load
@TechnutCried
@MiMotheaten
@WhinedinGob
@anybody-else-sorry-I-missed-u


I do not belong on that list Skippy. All those peoples are a lot science smarter than ol Ira is.
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2014
Let's see, at the moment I am towing along:-
@Cap'n Grumpy
@furbrain
@Aunty Irene
@Gawphead
@Dr-Load
@TechnutCried
@MiMotheaten
@WhinedinGob
@anybody-else-sorry-I-missed-u


I do not belong on that list Skippy. All those peoples are a lot science smarter than ol Ira is.


Be that as it may, you certainly seem to be able to smell Tird from a pot crackin' stone's throw, so you may as well be on there ;^)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2014
I do not belong on that list Skippy. All those peoples are a lot science smarter than ol Ira is
@Ira
Don't sell yourself short, Ira. You might not have the same level of scientific literacy as Thermo, or furlong, BUT you have an ability to sniff out a crackpot... like RC, Reg, and others!
Take for instance RC:
You've offered more empirical evidence and references than he has! You research Google and you look things up. THAT IS THE BEST THING ANYONE CAN DO... it helps people LEARN! You find an answer for yourself and get others to respond with legitimate science!
Suggest you look up everything about expansion theory
Reg thinks you are a threat... because you have COMMON SENSE... which questions the validity of his claims

no proof = not valid = pseudoscience
THAT is why Reg, RC and others hate/fear you. you point out the OBVIOUS

like i said... don't sell yourself short
you got mad skillz

Dr_toad
Jul 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2014
I do not belong on that list Skippy. All those peoples are a lot science smarter than ol Ira is.

Agreed with Captain and Gawad. You're more of a scientist than hacks like Reg Mundy will ever be. That's because
1) You are able to perform basic research.
2) You admit that you are ignorant, and don't have all the answers
3) You can recognize pseudoscientific nonsense, through said basic research

You do not need to be a sanitary engineer to recognize crap.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2014
@MiMoth
@Reg Mundy so on your '...surface of each sphere...' the ratio of volume to surface area must remain constant so that the 'gravity' will be measured as constant too.

That's crap. and you know it. The volume is 4Pi x rrr/3, surface area is 4Pi x rr, "gravity" G(i.e. acceleration) given uniform density D is D x (4Pi x rrr/3) / rr, i.e D x 4Pi x r therefore proportional to r. To us, the observers, it remains constant because we are expanding along with everything else. That's called "time".
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2014
To us, the observers, it remains constant because we are expanding along with everything else. That's called "time"
@reg
known fallacy undermined by your claims that expansion is MASS dependent.
There can be NO constant acceleration if, as you claim, the expansion is all mass dependent.

See Gawads point above
Mercury and Callisto are the same SIZE (to a constant 30km difference in radius), therefore, according to YOU, they have to expand at the same RATE to remain proportional in size. But the "surface acceleration" (a.k.a. "gravity") of Mercury is THREE TIMES that of Callisto, meaning it has to "expand" three times faster to produce those Gs!
which is reinforced by MY point above

your claims cannot BOTH be true
given your historical lack of ability to produce legitimate knowledge or physics here along with your inability to produce any answers for tides, orbits or the conundrum I gave you, it is safe to assume that your book contains the same material.
IOW - NO SCIENCE
Mimath224
5 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2014
@Reg Mundy yes we all know a sphere and its surface is ∝ r but that was not my question....and by the way p=m/V and uniform p is already implied by V. Non uniform density requires calculus.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2014
@furbrain
One particularly egregious example is your assertion that, under gravity everything must return. This is demonstrably false. I can prove it to you mathematically, as I did before, .....

Demonstrably false? Demonstrate, please! Objects leaving Earth, the Solar System, etc., simply move into the "gravitational" field of other objects. If the universe consisted of only one object, it would be a black hole. You are persistently confusing mathematics with reality. Mathematics are simply a tool with which we try to best model reality. I suppose if I ask you to add 2 and 2 you will come up with an answer 3.99999 recurring, or asymptotically approaching 4 but never quite getting there....
I want you to think about the logic of an object leaving Earth if Earth was the only object in the universe. At what range does your mysterious force of gravity cease to be effective? Mathematically, at infinity, right? So gravity continues to exert force forever and must inevitably triumph.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2014
Demonstrably false? Demonstrate, please! Objects leaving Earth, the Solar System, etc., simply move into the "gravitational" field of other objects.

Well, demonstrably false to people who aren't insane that is. Tell me, how much gravity from the nearest star, other than the sun, is, say, voyager experiencing right now? Wait, don't do the math. You might hurt yourself. Here, let me make some simplifying assumptions. The nearest set of stars is the binary system, Alpha Centauri, and a red dwarf, Proxima Centauri. Proxima is the nearest of these stars. So, you'll agree that if I took all 3 stars and put them all where Proxima is, they'd have a larger gravitational effect on voyager 1, than if it were just Proxima alone. Well, combined, they'd have 2.1 solar masses, and would be a distance of approximately 4.2 ly away. Voyager is 722 kg. Given these numbers, the gravitational force on voyager would be less than 1.28 x 10^-10 Newtons. (to be continued)
thefurlong
4.8 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2014
(continued)
Do you understand how small that effect is? Well, let's compare it with the current gravitational effect from the sun. Right now, voyager 1 is about 150x10^9 m away from the sun. That means that the sun is still pulling voyager with an effect of 4.26 Newtons, or about 1/4 earth lbs. That's still quite significant. Let's compare the two effects, shall we? The sun still has a gravitational effect that is MORE THAN 3.34 x 10^10 larger than that of the nearest set of stars. That's more than 10 billion times! So, what this tells us is that the effect of the nearest stars IS NEGLIGIBLE compared with that of the sun. And yet, voyager keeps going, despite being pulled by the sun. So, no Reg. For all intents and purposes, voyager has not moved into the gravitational pull of other bodies. You are breathtakingly wrong about that.
thefurlong
4.8 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2014
Slight correction: I meant 4.26 Newtons is about an earth pound.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2014
@Reg Mundy Uh...No. You are confusing basic arithmetic, mathematical limits and a desk top calculator whose battery is low. And get your English/logic corrected. If '....Earth was the only object in the universe...', your words, then you couldn't have '...an object leaving Earth...'. If your book is written like that it must be a shambles.
The other point is that you are confusing BH's and Singularity. According to some theories, the origin of the universe was a singularity but distinct from a BH as in the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker model. So in that case ...'If the universe consisted of only one object, it would be a black hole...' (your post) you could be wrong....or perhaps you have a non-mathematical argument to 'disprove' FRW too...but I suggest you read MTW's Gravitation before you do.
Dr_toad
Jul 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2014
@furbrain
So there is still a "gravitational" force at any distance? Remove either the Sun or the Centauri group stars and the remaining object still exerts a force.....So Ok, its negligible, but it is still there, and will eventually IN REALITY cause the projectile to stop and reverse course - in your mathematical model, it would asymptotically approach zero velocity but the uncertainty principle would kick it either into reverse or speed it up - in which case "gravity" would continue to work on it and it would asymptotically approach zero velocity but the uncer....and so on and so on.
By the way, you picked Voyager as the example, not I. I never said Voyager had left the Sun's field.... but it will eventually. However, if there were NO OTHER OBJECTS IN THE UNIVERSE IT WOULD NEVER LEAVE THE SUN'S FIELD which would be infinite in size.
I can't help but notice that once again you eschew logic and start pouring out reams of meaningless equations, must be some sort of fixation you have.
Dr_toad
Jul 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2014
I can't help but notice that once again you eschew logic and start pouring out reams of meaningless equations


Even without equations (which are only "meaningless" in your deluded, imploded mind), if the Sun, or the Earth or an *apple* FWIW were the only thing in the universe other than a space probe, or car or grain of sand speeding away from said Sun, or Earth or apple, then neither ever returns to the other when their mutual gravitational influence *diminishes faster* than said influence decreases their velocity. All you demonstrate, time and time again with your pseudo-logic is that you haven't even got the vaguest notion of limits, asymptotes or calculus in general. Anyone with even a couple of brain cells can see that you're wrong (and declarations of "out to infinity don't save your flawed argument); anyone with collage math immediately sees what a laughable chump you are.

And please quit playing with your tirds, it's a filthy habit.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2014
I can't help but notice that once again you eschew logic and start pouring out reams of meaningless equations, must be some sort of fixation you have
@reg
The overwhelming stupidity of this remark is unbearable! I cannot believe you actually said it!

FIRST: THOSE REAMS OF EQUATIONS are NOT meaningless if you have at least a BASIC knowledge of physics, OR EVEN a basic knowledge of SCIENCE! Those "meaningless" equations are PURE LOGIC which explain, mathematically, why you are wrong, AS WELL AS WHY your book is considered PSEUDOSCIENCE!
IF YOU cannot comprehend or utilise equations here, there is likely nothing in your book worth reading

SECOND: as Gawad points out
All you demonstrate, time and time again with your pseudo-logic is that you haven't even got the vaguest notion of limits, asymptotes or calculus in general
THIS IS WHY your credibility here sucks!
YOU cannot explain your own philosophy
you continually say the answer is in your book
but you dont know equations!
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2014
.So Ok, its negligible, but it is still there

In other words, "I mean, yes, you just kind of made it apparent how starkly my ideas disconnect with physical reality, by actually doing calculations, but, I know in my heart that my idea is twoo." And why not, Reg? It works for religion!
but the uncertainty principle would kick it either into reverse or speed it up

Or...the third alternative--just make it have no effect at all. But why consider a third alternative when your heart of hearts tells you otherwise?
(By the way, there were no equations in those posts ;) Your innumeracy is showing.)
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (6) Jul 17, 2014
... neither ever returns to the other when their mutual gravitational influence *diminishes faster* than said influence decreases their velocity. All you demonstrate,time again with your pseudo-logic is that you haven't even got the vaguest notion of limits, asymptotes or calculus in general. Anyone with even a couple of brain cells can see that you're wrong; anyone with collage math immediately sees what a laughable chump you are.

Tut,tut, Gawphard, I almost believe you are trying to insult me.....
It is precisely due to idiots like you who brainlessly support the status quo in physics that there has been no progress in the fundamentals for the past century. Maths is ONLY A MODEL, there are no such things as imaginary numbers, space-time continuums, Dark Matter/Energy, etc. An asymptote is a THEORETICAL boundary or limit, not a real one, and parallel lines that meet at infinity do not exist in nature, they either meet or do not! Models, my child, models! Think REALITY!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2014
It is precisely due to idiots like you who brainlessly support the status quo in physics that there has been no progress in the fundamentals for the past century
@reg
so your suggestion is to accept anything coming down the pike? Here is a quote for you to remember: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"

Thus far, you've provided NO evidence for us to do ANYTHING WITH... nor have you given any logical arguments to support expansion philosophy. This means that, even if we WERE to take it seriously, we would STILL be in the same boat with the same arguments! THERE IS NO VIABLE SOLUTION TO YOUR PHILOSOPHY
Maths is ONLY A MODEL
but it gives a logical framework to explain what is being told. YOU have not even given a LOGICAL alternative with your explanations
Think REALITY!
THIS is EXACTLY THE PROBLEM!

WE are thinking REALITY, whereas you are off in FAIRY land looking for unicorn dust and a happy thought to fly with

Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2014
.So Ok, its negligible, but it is still there

In other words, "I mean, yes, you just kind of made it apparent how starkly my ideas disconnect with physical reality, by actually doing calculations...."

No, not in other words, twit, it is STILL THERE. Try actually understanding what is written.

but the uncertainty principle would kick it either into reverse or speed it up

Or...the third alternative--just make it have no effect at all. But why consider a third alternative when your heart of hearts tells you otherwise?

Ok, I'll phrase it as either kick it into reverse or not, in the latter case that just delays matters temporarily 'cos "gravity" is still there...

(By the way, there were no equations in those posts ;) Your innumeracy is showing.)

I think you do enough equations for the both of us, furbrain. I am a PureScience graduate of a world-class university and feel no need to insert meaningless equations into logical discussions, Why do u?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 17, 2014
I am a PureScience graduate of a world-class university and feel no need to insert meaningless equations into logical discussions, Why do u?
I find this incredibly difficult to believe.
WHAT type of science degree?
Your comments here and your inability to competently describe your philosophy or even explain known fallacies of your philosophy are stunning in their lack of a basic physics knowledge...
to think that you were offered a degree (2year? 4year? what?) and you are still ignorant to the level displayed in these comment sections on PO?

If I ever get your book and it mentions said "world-class university", I am going to petition the administration to review your dialogue here as well as elsewhere and ask for them to renounce your degree on the grounds of ignorance on your part, bad image on theirs, & that you didn't learn anything while present.
Given your abilities shown thus far, it is FAR more likely that you're not responsible for any work done in your time there.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 17, 2014
I am a PureScience graduate of a world-class university
and you have YET to be able to describe, logically, the simplest things like Tides, orbits, etc
or even explain the reason that you think there would be NO proportional disparity between objects if your expansion is mass dependent, which you've not only attested to, but you've said MUST be because of the feeling of gravity on said mass.

This claim is:
an attempt at the argument of Appeal to Authority (which is NOT shown as you're authority is negligent and proven thus by furlong, Gawad et al)

an attempt to distract from pointing out that you have no answers and cannot offer any for your own philosophy

an attempt to submit insult as well as negative image to an institution of higher learning

a known false statement used as distraction

please tell us what it is for clarification.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Jul 17, 2014
disregard this comment
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2014
Ok, I'll phrase it as either kick it into reverse or not, in the latter case that just delays matters temporarily 'cos "gravity" is still there...

And where is it going to get the energy for that, Reg? If gravity doesn't have enough energy to slow it down completely, where would it get the energy to actually kick it back? Remember, there are some trajectories for which the final velocity is not 0 "at infinity", but nonzero. In fact, we can choose initial conditions to make this velocity as high as we want (or at least as large as c).
Let me repeat that again. There are some initial conditions for which the final velocity IS NOT 0. Meaning that the traveling object has energies far above the domain of QM AT EVERY POINT OF ITS JOURNEY. THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE DOESN'T APPLY HERE.
This conversation is a joke. You are a joke.
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2014
It is precisely due to idiots like you who brainlessly support the status quo in physics that there has been no progress in the fundamentals for the past century.
You heard it here first, folks, and from Muddy himself: there has been no progress in physics fundamentals since 1914: GR, Weak and Strong interactions, QED & QCD, QFT, all pfft! And only idiots believe otherwise.

Maths is ONLY A MODEL
And Muddy is ONLY A MORON. Your dodge is noted, btw. You once again fail to respond to a challenge with anything other than whining. I mean, seriously, Muddy, "Maths is ONLY A MODEL" doesn't even rise to the level of logical fallacy. Try a little harder, please; you're hardly even qualifying as entertainment these days.

there are no such things as imaginary numbers
Uh huh. Do you even know what an imaginary number is? Do you know why it's called that? Do you understand that it's no more "imaginary" or abstract (or not) than Reals?
Think REALITY!
Think Clozapine, Muddy.
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2014
I am a PureScience graduate of a world-class university and feel no need to insert meaningless equations into logical discussions

Indeed! Of course! And I am actually the DEAN of said university, and I feel proud to say that we are SO WORLD-CLASS, so top-notch, sooooo suspender-snapping, back-slapping, hat-tipping hot shit, that NO ONE ever fails one of our courses or fails to graduate with anything short of Quintuple A's triple plus plus plus.

Oh, Reggy, I've been following your progress and you make me soooo proud living up to our illustribustious standards like that! Blub, blub, blub...nice book by the way, young man!
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2014
Ok, I'll phrase it as either kick it into reverse or not, in the latter case that just delays matters temporarily 'cos "gravity" is still there...

And where is it going to get the energy for that, Reg? If gravity doesn't have enough energy to slow it down completely, where would it get the energy to actually kick it back? Remember, there are some trajectories for which the final velocity is not 0 "at infinity", but nonzero. In fact, we can choose initial conditions to make this velocity as high as we want (or at least as large as c).
Let me repeat that again. There are some initial conditions for which the final velocity IS NOT 0. Meaning that the traveling object has energies far above the domain of QM AT EVERY POINT OF ITS JOURNEY. THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE DOESN'T APPLY HERE.
This conversation is a joke. You are a joke.

OK, show me the equation for an object under gravity with a velocity of c at infinity.
In fact just show me any object with a velocity of c.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2014
@Gawpard
Your last comment falls far short of your usual standard. Are you a sock puppet of Cap'n Grumpy?
And your previous comment, hardly any better. Even you know that an imaginary number, the square-root of -1, is only a mathematical tool, and does not really exist. Just like infinity, or dividing by zero. Whenever maths comes up against the real world in either macro or micro form, our models fail. Why is that? I suppose you will claim that there is no difference between flying a plane and flying a simulator next! Unless you crash.....
Uncle Ira
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2014
I am a PureScience graduate of a world-class university and feel no need to insert meaningless equations into logical discussions, Why do u?


Nothing personal Cher. But you are telling the GREAT BIG LIE on that one. Maybe you have the same mental condition that the Really-Skippy have, huh?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 17, 2014
GREAT BIG LIE on that one. Maybe you have the same mental condition that the Really-Skippy have, huh?
@IRA
yep. Delusions of grandeur... methinks he seeks to be a part of the intellectual circuit, but given his demonstrations thus far regarding science and "his OWN philosophy" then he is falling seriously short
Are you a sock puppet of Cap'n Grumpy?
@reg
I would say that you should know better, but given your latest series of posts and your inability (STILL) to answer my questions or address the situation that your mass dependency brings up, then it is likely that you are just trolling for hate mail...

It's not nice to insult Gawad like that. He is smarter than I am, and FAR smarter than you, so far.

Besides... I think at this time I am runrig, Thermodynamics, Dr. Toad, Ira, RockWolf, Bluehigh and the Python's only know who else...

quite funny, if you ask me, given the completely different styles of posting, syntax, grammar, punctuation and more...

thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2014
OK, show me the equation for an object under gravity with a velocity of c at infinity.
In fact just show me any object with a velocity of c.

I meant to write "no larger than c". Sheesh. You got me, Reg. Sometimes, I use some turns of phrase inappropriately.

Anyway, seeing as I don't completely understand GR yet, how about I give you something much less than c, but large enough so that QM doesn't apply. How about, say, a final speed of 30000 km/hr, for a craft with about 1000 kg of mass starting from the surface of the sun (neglecting all other planets). Sound good? But I am not sure what the point of that would be, when you'll just dismiss it as more "meaningless equations."
yyz
5 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2014
"In fact just show me any object with a velocity of c"

Hey Reg, any object with a redshift in excess of z=1.4 is moving away from us faster than the speed of light:

http://en.wikiped...xpansion

In fact, cosmologists refer to the region of space where the speed of recession is less than the speed of light as the Hubble Volume:

http://en.wikiped...e_sphere
Mimath224
5 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2014
@Gawpard........ Even you know that an imaginary number, the square-root of -1, is only a mathematical tool, and does not really exist. Just like infinity, or dividing by zero. Whenever maths comes up against the real world in either macro or micro form, our models fail. Why is that? I suppose you will claim that there is no difference between flying a plane and flying a simulator next! Unless you crash.....

You can't seriously believe that! Have you never read about Gerolamo Cardano,Nicolo Tartaglia, Rafael Bombeli, Sir W. R. Hamilton...? All of these knew √ -1 did not exist but through their efforts came Fractal artworks much of which you now use/see on your computer to name but one phsyical application. Imaginary numbers have all sorts of applications and maybe (I said MAYBE), IF you worked it through, you'd find it in your ideas too. You feel above those people, of the past, enough to insult their intelligence? I feel very sorry for you, one has missed out on so much!
Scroofinator
4 / 5 (2) Jul 18, 2014
I can't believe Reg is still trying to sell his book here. It's pretty simple Reg: yes, the universe is expanding, but no, atoms aren't also increasing the distance between their nucleus and the electron cloud.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2014
I can't believe Reg is still trying to sell his book here. It's pretty simple Reg: yes, the universe is expanding, but no, atoms aren't also increasing the distance between their nucleus and the electron cloud.

You KNOW that for certain, do you? In that case, I apologise for wasting your time, disregard everything I have said. Oh, you already have.....
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (6) Jul 18, 2014
Anyway, seeing as I don't completely understand GR yet, how about I give you something much less than c, but large enough so that QM doesn't apply. How about, say, a final speed of 30000 km/hr, for a craft with about 1000 kg of mass starting from the surface of the sun (neglecting all other planets). Sound good? But I am not sure what the point of that would be, when you'll just dismiss it as more "meaningless equations."

No, I won't, I promise to be a good boy.
By the way, when you eventually do understand GR, please let the rest of the world in on your secret.
And incidentally, there is nothing so large that QM doesn't apply, it's all a matter of statistics (that's a branch of mathematics, you know, and relates to the real world.) Its like, if you bash your head against the wall, there is a chance that the atoms of your head would slip thru' the atoms of the wall, but the chance is so small that, statistically, you would get a sore head. Try it, you'll see I am right.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2014
@furbrain
Sheesh. You got me, Reg. Sometimes, I use some turns of phrase inappropriately.

Amazing! Is this the same furbrain who challenged me to solve a problem, which I did succinctly in two lines using a tried and tested formula utilised by accountants and actuaries the world over, the same furbrain who then produced reams of equations deriving the wrong answer four times, then changed the thrust of the thread by wandering off into ASCII etc., and never admitting he was wrong and I was right? And now you are admitting you are fallible! This is a totally unexpected sign of maturity! Are you growing up? Has the reality of failing to fully comprehend GR actually got to you (join the club....)? I wait agog for the next development in your character, I can almost think there is hope for the likes of Cap'n Grumpy, Aunty Irene and some of the other morons who besmirch this thread - but no, they are beyond redemption, not possessing the necessary IQ for logical discourse.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
@furbrain
@Aunty Irene
@Gawphead
@Dr-Load
@TechnutCried
@MiMotheaten
@WhinedinGob
@anybody-else-sorry-I-missed-u

You have all dismissed my bold theories without proper consideration, and tried to persuade me that I am wrong utilising spurious logic and ridiculous insults. You have not succeeded so far, so perhaps you should try a different approach.
May I earnestly recommend that you visit http://medicalxpr...ely.html
Dr_toad
Jul 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2014
You have all dismissed my bold theories without proper consideration
@regtard
You have yet to produce a BOLD theory with any meat to consider... all you have done is produce fallacies that are proven wrong with basic physics. this is NOT bold, but outrageously stupid. it is not a theory but a philosophy
and tried to persuade me that I am wrong utilising spurious logic and ridiculous insults. You have not succeeded so far,
we haven't succeeded because YOU don't understand PHYSICS, despite your contrary statements of education.

I will not try another approach.. I will simply remind anyone and everyone that you have as much physics background as Mickey Mouse, and that your philosophy is every bit as real as him as well...

there is something to read, but it is backed up by NO VALID maths, and NO LOGIC. therefore USELESS.

thanks for proving it to everyone above.
NOT an insult... this is definitive proof that you are incapable of comprehending physics.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Jul 18, 2014
No, I won't, I promise to be a good boy.

Why engage in intellectual debate when you can put fingers in your ear and shout "lalalala"?
By the way, when you eventually do understand GR, please let the rest of the world in on your secret.

This isn't 1919. People understand it very well, now. Don't be bitter.
And incidentally, there is nothing so large that QM doesn't apply,

Oh, dear god, why do I have to explain everything to you? It's like you can't make inferences. When the final speed is much larger than 0, you need to impart enough energy to get it not only to stop, but to turn around. You cannot apply the uncertainty principle to this because the energy required is far more than the energy fluctuations that this principle can provide. Gravity is an inverse square law. The energy it can provide at increasing large radii gets EXTREMELY SMALL very quickly. Now, I have not included any equations, so that should be enough for you to understand.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Jul 18, 2014
Amazing! Is this the same furbrain who challenged me to solve a problem, which I did succinctly in two lines

You didn't do the problem. You didn't even solve an actual continuous population growth problem. You solved the compound interest problem. You ignored the linear term in the equation. But if equations are meaningless for you, I can see why you would confuse those things.
the same furbrain who then produced reams of equations deriving the wrong answer four times

But did, eventually produce the correct answer, unlike you. Also, I was the one to point out the flaws in my own numerical answers, not you. Try harder to be smug.
then changed the thrust of the thread by wandering off into ASCII

That wasn't ASCII. I see you still have absolutely no idea what I was doing there. Other people figured it out. You'd think that, being such an eminently intelligent person, you would have figured it out too. Guess they don't make geniuses like they used to.
Dr_toad
Jul 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2014
Even you know that an imaginary number, the square-root of -1, is only a mathematical tool, and does not really exist.


Every time one of you crackpots retreats to the "math is just a model" (not even correct; it's models that are made from math) corner in the face of defeat and use i as an example, all you do is further demonstrate your cluelessness.

Reg, i is no less real than the number 1; the difference is that the operations that produce the former take place on PLANE (the Complex Number plane) whereas those that produce the latter take place on a LINE (the Real Number line) which is actually just a subset of the PLANE.

So -1 [actually (-1,0) on the PLANE where -1 is in the x position and 0 in the Y position)] in fact has 2 roots, just as 1 does. They are (0,1) and (0,-1). And (0,1)*(0,1)=(-1,0) just as (0,-1)*(0,-1)=(-1,0). Those for 1 on the PLANE are (1,0) and (-1,0).

Is the POINT (0,1) less "real" than (1,0)? Answer: NO; it's just that you're CLUELESS.
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
@furbrain
@Aunty Irene
@Gawphead
@Dr-Load
@TechnutCried
@MiMotheaten
@WhinedinGob
@anybody-else-sorry-I-missed-u

You have all dismissed my bold theories without proper consideration, and tried to persuade me that I am wrong utilising spurious logic and ridiculous insults. You have not succeeded so far, so perhaps you should try a different approach.
May I earnestly recommend that you visit http://medicalxpr...ely.html

Can't dismiss what isn't there in the first place... You're "theory" is just that, a theory. And not really all that bold. Sorry Reg, but extrapolation based on imagination doesn't work in a physical reality.
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Jul 18, 2014
You have all dismissed my bold theories without proper consideration


Christ, Muddy, you should be grateful: we've already given your Inspiration more consideration that it deserves.

And I say "Inspiration" because AFAIC it doesn't even qualify as hypothesis, and, to differ with the Captain, I think even referring to it as a "philosophy" is insulting to philosophers.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (2) Jul 18, 2014
You KNOW that for certain, do you?

Yup, if this wasn't the case all of our physics that currently rely on this fact would have started to fall apart. But your still using a computer so things must still be working.
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Jul 18, 2014
Those for 1 on the PLANE are (1,0) and (-1,0).


I wanted to write "Those for 1 on Real number line on the PLANE are (1,0) and (-1,0)" but was short just a few characters. But adding that does makes it a little bit clearer.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jul 18, 2014
You KNOW that for certain, do you?

Yup, if this wasn't the case all of our physics that currently rely on this fact would have started to fall apart. But your still using a computer so things must still be working.

So... one more thing subject to rules of relativity, eh...:-)

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.