Measuring gravitational waves with eLisa

Aug 04, 2014 by Max Gleber
NASA Goddard intern Robert Buttles adjusts equipment used for the eLISA mission, which will test for vibrations that could reveal subtle changes in gravity. Credit: NASA Goddard/Kristen Basham

(Phys.org) —Puffs of smoke waft from a circuit board as interns solder tiny circuits for the Evolved Laser Interferometer Space Antenna.

"We're looking for evidence of black holes," Robert Buttles said. "As of now we only have images of material spinning around a black hole, but we haven't been able to physically measure the black hole itself."

Pairs of black holes radiate gravitational waves as they orbit each other in a binary system. Analyzing these waves can allow scientists to study directly.

"All other emission from a black hole binary is actually from material around the black hole—for example, gas falling into the black hole from an accretion disk and generating x-rays—but not [data] from the black hole itself," said Jeffery Livas, an astrophysicist working on the eLISA.

Ripples occur when a stone falls into the water. The same applies with gravity when a black hole binary disturbs nearby regions of spacetime. These gravitational ripples cause the cosmos to oscillate imperceptibly, stretching even our bodies here on Earth by trillionths of meters.

The eLISA mission aims to identify, locate, and study the sources of these waves to learn about the formation of large-scale structure in the universe and test general relativity with precise observations. This observatory consists of three satellites, each housing two metallic test masses that magnetism, radiation, and interplanetary fields cannot rattle.

NASA Goddard intern Hudson Loughlin calibrates the equipment to be used for eLISA. Credit: NASA Goddard/Kristen Basham

"You want the masses to be shielded from everything except for gravity," Livas said. "We don't know how to shield from gravity. And these masses floating in space have no net force on them. We then range the distance between them with a laser beam. And if we see a pattern where the distance changes, where the shape stretches in one direction and scrunches in another, we mark that oscillation as a gravitational wave."

Gravitational waves require incredibly dense masses moving at extremely high speeds to form. Binary star systems, galaxies colliding, and other forces scientists have yet to discover could also generate .

"We expect there will be sources we don't know anything about or have not yet imagined," Livas said.

Explore further: Black hole trio holds promise for gravity wave hunt

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Black hole trio holds promise for gravity wave hunt

Jun 25, 2014

The discovery of three closely orbiting supermassive black holes in a galaxy more than four billion light years away could help astronomers in the search for gravitational waves: the 'ripples in spacetime' ...

Can light orbit a black hole?

Mar 25, 2014

Since black holes are the most powerful gravitational spots in the entire Universe, can they distort light so much that it actually goes into orbit? And what would it look like if you could survive and follow ...

Newly merged black hole eagerly shreds stars

Apr 08, 2011

A galaxy's core is a busy place, crowded with stars swarming around an enormous black hole. When galaxies collide, it gets even messier as the two black holes spiral toward each other, merging to make an even ...

Measuring galaxy black hole masses

May 27, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Black holes, one of the most amazing and bizarre predictions of Einstein's theory of gravity, are irresistible sinks for matter and energy. They are so dense that not even light can escape ...

Recommended for you

Can astronomy explain the biblical Star of Bethlehem?

Dec 24, 2014

Bright stars top Christmas trees in Christian homes around much of the world. The faithful sing about the Star of Wonder that guided the wise men to a manger in the little town of Bethlehem, where Jesus was ...

Hubbles spies the beautiful galaxy IC 335

Dec 24, 2014

This new NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope image shows the galaxy IC 335 in front of a backdrop of distant galaxies. IC 335 is part of a galaxy group containing three other galaxies, and located in the Fornax ...

Image: Multicoloured view of supernova remnant

Dec 22, 2014

Most celestial events unfold over thousands of years or more, making it impossible to follow their evolution on human timescales. Supernovas are notable exceptions, the powerful stellar explosions that make ...

Ultra-luminous X-ray sources in starburst galaxies

Dec 22, 2014

Ultra-luminous X-ray sources (ULXs) are point sources in the sky that are so bright in X-rays that each emits more radiation than a million suns emit at all wavelengths. ULXs are rare. Most galaxies (including ...

When a bright light fades

Dec 22, 2014

Astronomer Charles Telesco is primarily interested in the creation of planets and stars. So, when the University of Florida's giant telescope was pointed at a star undergoing a magnificent and explosive death, ...

User comments : 101

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Shitead
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 04, 2014
If gravity behaved even remotely similar to what we think it should, we would have detected gravity waves over forty years ago. Meanwhile we continue to search under the streetlight because the light is better there.
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (12) Aug 04, 2014
we would have detected gravity waves over forty years ago.

You don't appreciate how tiny the effects are.

And we have indirect evidence. The Hulse Tailor binary seems to spiral inward exactly the way predicted by gravity wave emission.
Shitead
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 04, 2014
Physicists have been searching for gravity waves for 98 years with absolutely zero success. If gravity behaved like Big Al said it does, we would have found it. But "not finding it" has generated thousands of successful PhD dissertations so it wasn't a total failure. Maybe it is time to stop looking under the streetlight because the light is better there, and start exploring out in the dark where Al said it could not be.
Arties
Aug 04, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RobertKarlStonjek
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 04, 2014
Matter can not fall into a black hole in a finite interval as measured by a space based observer.

Relative Time dilation at the event horizon freezes time completely.

Although there is a path that an in falling object can take in a finite proper time as measured by that in falling object, an infinite amount of time passes during this transit as measured by a distant observer (one that is not also falling into the same Black Hole).

Thus Black Holes (inside the event horizon) can not gain mass after their formation in a finite interval as measured by a distant observer.

So why is this article pretending that time dilation does not exist??
Bob Osaka
1 / 5 (4) Aug 04, 2014
Ripples form when one drops a stone into..fluid dynamics. So requiring space to have a surface tension and medium to propagate waves hasn't worked out well, so far. Gravity seems like the monopole appearing in Maxwell's equations. Most dismiss the monopole as nonexistent, well, uh, it does mathematically. Gravitational waves appear to propagate inwardly and may not be detectable in the EM spectrum, making only anecdotal observations possible. Ok, film the simultaneous dropping two stones into a smooth pond and when the waves propagate from one mass to the other observe the film in reverse. Still it may have nothing to do with how gravitational waves work.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (3) Aug 05, 2014
Matter can not fall into a black hole in a finite interval as measured by a space based observer.

Relative Time dilation at the event horizon freezes time completely...

Thus Black Holes (inside the event horizon) can not gain mass after their formation in a finite interval as measured by a distant observer.

So why is this article pretending that time dilation does not exist??


I don't agree with this observation.

If matter is falling and encounters the event horizon, it is being accelerated by the mass of the black hole. However, we know that as it increases in velocity toward C it both has time dilation and mass increase. The reason that no massive object can reach C is that it would take infinite energy to accelerate it to C because the mass/energy increases. So, it could never reach C and the time dilation would always be less than infinite. So, it would take a finite time to fall in. Any comments to help out here?
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (8) Aug 05, 2014
Matter can not fall into a black hole in a finite interval as measured by a space based observer.

This doesn't mean anything to the matter concerned.

An outside observer will just observe the object falling in. However, light from the object will take longer and longer to reach the outside observer. Light emitted very close to the event horizon will take 'nearly forever' to reach the outside observer (Note that the amount of light per second received from the object will drop SHARPLY and will also be exteremly red shifted. So while 'ideally' the outside observer would see the object falling in forever/ever more slowly in reality the number of photons received per second will quickly go to near zero (it becomes practically invisible) once the object gets close to the event horizon.

From the object POV it will APPEAR as if the event horizon is always ahead. But it can calculate when it has crossed over the thershold of the event horizon agreed upon by external observers.
RobertKarlStonjek
1 / 5 (5) Aug 05, 2014
Right and Wrong. Black holes are frozen by definition. Gravitational Time Dilation means that clocks on a massive body run slower to those of clocks far away.

For instance it has been established, empirically, that clocks on Earth and clocks in space actually diverge. If this was a phenomena only of light being stretched them when the clocks came back to together the clocks would again be synchronised.

But clocks diverge more and more the longer they are separated. This effect was first established empirically by Pound and Wilson in the 1960s with two famous papers on gravitational redshift measured at just a few meters separation.

But this red shift could be resolved by the blue shift when light from a high altitude is measured at a lower altitude and this is the claim you are making for black holes, that the light is just stretched.

This has been shown not to be the case with experiments whereby two atomic clocks were synchronised and then one flown at altitude and returned.
RobertKarlStonjek
1 / 5 (5) Aug 05, 2014
Let us consider that a clock sends back a signal every 1 hour as it proceeds toward a massive body, stopping and hovering each time (to eliminate Doppler effect from our observation.) The interval between signals will get longer as the object moves to an ever lower altitude whether toward Earth or Black Hole.

But if we also send a signal from space to the descending observer the signals received by the descending observer will be blue shifted ie the intervals will be shorter.

Near a Black Hole these will easily fall to half hour. That means that in one hour by the descending observer's clock, two one hour signals are received.

As the descending observer can not receive signals from the future, time, and the clocks that measure it, must actually be running at different rates.

This is not an effect of light being stretched and there is no other valid explanation for the blue shift phenomena which also occurs and can be measured here on earth.

Therefore time stops at the event. Hori.
RobertKarlStonjek
1 / 5 (6) Aug 05, 2014
From the perspective of the infalling observer they do cross the event horizon, but an infinite amount of time passes for all other object in the universe outside the event horizon during this passage across the event horizon.

So Black Holes (beyond the Event Horizon) can not gain mass in any coordinate time far from the Black hole. (the accretion disc can gain mass so the BH region will gain mass)

"Oppenheimer and his co-authors interpreted the singularity at the boundary of the Schwarzschild radius as indicating that this was the boundary of a bubble in which time stopped. This is a valid point of view for external observers, but not for infalling observers. Because of this property, the collapsed stars were called "frozen stars", because an outside observer would see the surface of the star frozen in time at the instant where its collapse takes it inside the Schwarzschild radius."

http://en.wikiped...ack_hole
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 05, 2014
I'm not sure what you mean by frozen. Stuff is going on inside a black hole. Stuff is going on outside. Stuff is crossing the event horizon. Hawking Radiation is (presumably) looking like it's coming out (though Hawking Radiation isn't crossing the event horizon).

There are various POVs from which stuff does not APPEAR to be happening - but that's not the same thing as nothing happening.
RobertKarlStonjek
1 / 5 (4) Aug 05, 2014
Pick up a text book and read it. Read the Wikipedia entry on Black holes. Read any academic work on the subject.

On Hawking radiation, have you read an outline of this theory? To overcome the problem of the Black Hole being frozen the world line must trace all the way back to the time the Black hole formed.

In other words, each bit of radiation must project back in time to the Black hole's formation. The problem is called the 'Trans-Planckian problem' which is more or less the time dilation problem I mentioned earlier.

"...so Hawking used a black hole solution without a past region which forms at a finite time in the past. In that case, the source of all the outgoing photons can be identified–it is a microscopic point right at the moment that the black hole first formed."
http://en.wikiped...adiation

Hawking agrees with me...
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Aug 05, 2014
Thus Black Holes (inside the event horizon) can not gain mass after their formation in a finite interval as measured by a distant observer.

How do you explain their apparent accretion of local matter, then? Additionally, if nothing changes after event horizon, how do you explain the axis jets? They must be pulling something in to make up for putting something out.
Sounds like a perfect perpetual motion device....

RobertKarlStonjek
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 05, 2014
Black holes typically have an accretion disc. This is OUTSIDE the event horizon and is responsible for all the phenomena you mention.

Now, why not have a read of this Wikipedia entry that gives all the basic material on Black Holes. When you're done with that try 'Black Holes: The End of the Universe' by John Taylor ~ is a good read without being too technical.

'Exploring Black Holes: Introduction to General Relativity' by Taylor and Wheeler is more advanced and there is plenty of math.

'Gravitation' by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler is near enough to a bible on these issues. Black Holes are covered in part VII 'Gravitational Collapse and Black Holes', chapters 31~34 (p.819~941)

If you find anything in MTW Gravitation that contradicts my position then please let me know with page numbers so that I can look it up. I also have the other books mentioned above.

Thanks, look forward to a list of page numbers or references from you :)
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (5) Aug 06, 2014
Thanks, look forward to a list of page numbers or references from you :)

RKS
I'm gonna take that as snide sarcasm.
Just for future reference, I am an artist, not a scientist, working my butt off to pay the mortgage. Time is at a premium. I will do my best to get to your reading list, but don't hold your breath...:-)
As to refuting your position - wouldn't even try. I prefer holding up my hand and asking questions that might aid me in refining your statements and UNDERSTANDING your position.
The only stupid question is one not asked, so your downvote of my question seems denigratory and belittling. Ergo, I must extrapolate - you're a little full of yourself (AND your position) and need to take it down a notch...
RobertKarlStonjek
1 / 5 (3) Aug 06, 2014
Thanks Whydening,
yeah you're right of course. I was just in a similar debate in an FB Cosmology group where, in the end, the experts all agreed with me but they hated to do so.

So I was already fired up.

Marked your last comment 4/5..ok? :)
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (3) Aug 07, 2014
Thanks Whydening,
yeah you're right of course. I was just in a similar debate in an FB Cosmology group where, in the end, the experts all agreed with me but they hated to do so.

So I was already fired up.

Marked your last comment 4/5..ok? :)

The mark up wasn't necessary but thanks, RKS. Hope the "chastisement" didn't come across too strong.
(Maybe I had just gotten out of a "discussion" with my wife about something and so was also fired up...:-))
Pexeso
5 / 5 (1) Aug 07, 2014
Thus Black Holes (inside the event horizon) can not gain mass after their formation in a finite interval as measured by a distant observer.
It's true, compare the derivation here, in which event horizon behaves like the white hole for infalling matter (after all, it behave so even for photons at the photon sphere radius). The black holes can still grow with mutual mergers of heavier stars and another black holes.
RobertKarlStonjek
1 / 5 (4) Aug 07, 2014
Yes, the black hole can gain mass but this extra mass accumulates outside the event horizon.

Note also that just as light from the accretion disc is red shifted, light received at the accretion disc is blue shifted and therefore extremely energetic. This is why there is so much high energy activity with huge hot jets streaming from the general area of black holes.

I'm not sure on mergers, but it is a good point to consider :)

Don't people hate the fact that black holes remain the same after their formation. Hawking radiation address this problem directly, so one assumes that the experts agree, but so many books and articles speak of Black Holes as greedy eaters of matter that people form an incorrect impression.

The problem is that the phrase 'Black Hole' can refer to that thing beyond the event horizon or to the entire BH system including event horizon and accretion disc and little or no effort is made to differentiate between the two :(
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Aug 08, 2014
Yes, the black hole can gain mass but this extra mass accumulates outside the event horizon.

I see this clearly now.

Note also that just as light from the accretion disc is red shifted, light received at the accretion disc is blue shifted and therefore extremely energetic. This is why there is so much high energy activity with huge hot jets streaming from the general area of black holes.

Question here, about the accretion envelope and the jets - are they spinning around a central point? Are the jet streams emitting along the axis of that spin? Are the jets spinning?

RobertKarlStonjek
1 / 5 (4) Aug 08, 2014
There is not reason why the accretion can not spin. Black Holes can not spin as such (they are 'frozen" but they can have angular momentum.

As for other details I don't known. Maybe could ask here:
https://www.faceb...7490267/
Pexeso
not rated yet Aug 08, 2014
Black Holes can not spin as such (they are 'frozen" but they can have angular momentum.
Black holes can indeed spin if they've angular momentum. It's even visible at their images, where they look like the gigantic pulsars with asymmetric jets.
the fact that black holes remain the same after their formation. Hawking radiation address this problem directly
They don't: black holes at the center of old galaxies are very small and quiet, different from active but sparse black holes inside the young ones. Hawking radiation doesn't address the problem of their evaporation at all, but there are another theories already (1, 2). Stop with BS'ing people here.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Aug 08, 2014
But if we also send a signal from space to the descending observer the signals received by the descending observer will be blue shifted ie the intervals will be shorter

Ah, I see where your misunderstanding is. Gravitational blueshift doesn't make the intervals shorter (the interval of signals sent from a ship to a guy falling in get longer as well, since he moves away at an accelerated rate from the ship. This is necessary since in his frame of reference the ship is moving away at an accelerated rate and therefore suffers time dilation).

That should pretty much clear up the rest of your logic chain. Stuff falls into a black hole just fine.
RobertKarlStonjek
2 / 5 (4) Aug 08, 2014
No. Hawking, Wikipedia, John Wheeler. Kip Thorne etc etc all agree with me.

You are confusing Doppler effect, relativistic Doppler effect and gravitational time dilation.

Here is how to differentiate them.

1) Doppler effect on its own can be understood if we think of a beam of light emitted from a moving beacon. If the beacon is moving toward us then the light is blue shifted. If it is moving away from us then it is red shifted.

No implication about clocks so far.

2) Time dilation of a moving object means that if the object is moving relative to the observer then time runs relatively slower and so the light is red shifted regardless of whether the object is moving toward or away from you.

3) Relativistic Doppler effect is the combination of the Doppler effect and time dilation, more or less (3)=(1)+(2) above.

Gravitational Time dilation can be understood by considering static points above massive body, say on the surface of a body like Earth. cont. below.
RobertKarlStonjek
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 08, 2014
For an object on Earth light coming from space is blue shifted and light emitted into space is received as red shifted. Sending a signal once every second will result in the intervals being longer than one second when received in space and shorter when received on Earth. This difference in clocks requires satellites above Earth to run their clocks slower to remain synchronised.

When an object free falls then time dilation caused by gravity is completely cancelled out by the time dilation caused by its motion so that no time dilation occurs. Only The Doppler and not the Relativistic Doppler effect need be considered. That is proper time of the infalling object.

But this does not mean that it can pass through a region of space that is greatly time dilated. Each Satellite must adjust their clocks by a tiny fraction. But if the satellites was orbiting a black hole then to match the clock at the event horizon the satellites clock would have to stop completely. cont below :)
RobertKarlStonjek
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 08, 2014
For a traveller falling into a Black Hole they would not notice anything unusual and will eventually pass over the event horizon. But an infinite amount of time passes for the space observer during this interval. Thus nothing actually ever passes over the event horizon. This is called the 'Trans-Planckian problem' in Hawking Radiation. All Hawking Radiation must be traced back to the formation of the Black Hole according to theory. This is the only way around the problem.

A further problem is the experience of an infalling observer. They would just seem to be travelling forever without getting anywhere.

See Wikipedia for the 'Trans-Planckian problem'
http://en.wikiped...adiation
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2014
Yet another article referring to gravitational waves as if they were a proven fact, when they are actually just a theory and may not exist at all - which I believe to be the case. The whole edifice built on the existence of gravity (Dark Matter, Dark Energy, gravity waves, etc.) is questionable and lacks proof.
Pexeso
3 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2014
Yet another article referring to gravitational waves as if they were a proven fact, when they are actually just a theory and may not exist at all - which I believe to be the case
Or rather they would behave quite differently, than the physicists expect. This is another example of situation, when the mainstream science "pretends to know what reality is" for the sake of occupation of scientists involved, thus violating it's own scientific method.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
Yet another article referring to gravitational waves as if they were a proven fact, when they are actually just a theory and may not exist at all - which I believe to be the case. The whole edifice built on the existence of gravity (Dark Matter, Dark Energy, gravity waves, etc.) is questionable and lacks proof.

yet another pointless post referring to a philosophy which is only supported by a delusion and a pseudoscience self published book with a vanity press that holds NO evidence or supporting corroboration for the claims of the author

The whole edifice built on the non-existence of gravity (and especially reg's book) is questionable and lacks proof, per his own admission... AND his inability to produce anything of substance here in posts other than "read my book"
which I believe to be the case
believe being the key word since there is no proof

EPIC FAILURE
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
You should read it, Grumpy, it would open your eyes. Can you produce ONE proof that gravity exists?
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 13, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
You should read it, Grumpy, it would open your eyes. Can you produce ONE proof that gravity exists?
well, I could throw your useless book at you, and using newtonian or relativity, I can calculate with great accuracy where it will hit you and how much damage it will do...

you can't even describe orbits, tides, or tidal forces, Nor why your mass dependent philosophy is not visible to us today as it should be given the criteria that you've given in the comments to date. Like the ones here:

http://phys.org/n...ong.html

Given your lack of ability to describe your own model, and your constant trolling against gravity, making post ofter post with no proof or supporting evidence at all, then the fact that I can describe and predict with incredible accuracy the motions of a book in flight at your head, or the planets, stars and more in our solar sys/galaxy, especially when you've given NO MATHS to date
I'd say I win that argument
checkmate
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
As exactly the same formula and calculations apply to expansion theory as to "gravity", your "proof" is worthless.
Nor why your mass dependent philosophy is not visible to us today as it should be

Is gravity visible today? Where are the Gravity Waves, gravitons, gravitinos, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, etc., etc., examples of "visible" evidence? All the details of orbits, tides and tidal forces, plus a lot more, are provided in the book, plus actual "visible" evidence for expansion in the "expansion" of photons over time as opposed to the risible explanation offered by the establishment that the rest of the universe is flying away from us and was originally a tiny dot before the "Big Bang" computed to be about 14 billion years ago - there are galaxies older than that, for heavens sake! Grow up, Grumpy, and THINK for yourself!
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 13, 2014
As exactly the same formula and calculations apply to expansion theory as to "gravity"
@redtarded
and given that you've never published ANY proof of concept for your philosophy in a peer reviewed publication and legitimate journal with an impact in physics, your continued admonitions and denigration of gravity means that you are more clueless than my pet Woodpecker.

Your continued attempts at explanation have failed miserably because you've based your "philosophy" upon a personal bias and not observation or empirical data... IOW, you cannot get a peer review of your book because it contains NO empirical data nor does it contain even enough to be considered a hypothesis

Sorry, reggie... time for YOU to "Think for yourself" and grow up...
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
You wouldn't recognize "empirical data" if it fell on your foot! It is precisely because of empirical data that current explanations of gravity fail. If "empirical data" is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation, then the "laws" of gravity are demonstrably incorrect in many instances. If you refuse to read my book on a replacement theory for gravity, at least read http://leesmolin....physics/ where your cherished beliefs are debunked with copious examples and links to observations and demonstrable facts.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2014
You wouldn't recognize "empirical data"
@regtarded
take a look at this link: http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/
How many categories do YOU fall into?
Your post above argues about MY inability to recognize empirical data rather than providing your own to support your philosophy.
THEN you appeal to authority with Lee Smolin (BTW- I have the book) all in an attempt to DIVERT attention away from YOUR LACK OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE supporting your philosophy.
Then you attempt to say my "cherished beliefs are debunked with copious examples and links to observations and demonstrable facts"
but you can provide NO examples.
What next, your appeal to your book? IF there was ANY LEGITIMATE PHYSICS AND EVIDENCE in your book, you would have submitted it to a peer reviewed journal with a physics impact... but you didn't (OR you couldn't )

What does that leave us with?
EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that you are a pseudoscience CRACKPOT troll
IN YOUR OWN WORDS
BY YOUR OWN POSTS

thanks for playing
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 14, 2014
and OF COURSE Toiea-Zephir doesn't like those kind of comments... because it points out the fact that he posts pseudoscience regularly...

and ANYONE pointing out that zephir posts pseudoscience is a bad person, right zephir?

Why haven't I seen EMPIRICAL proof refuting THIS study:
http://arxiv.org/...1284.pdf

The post that SINKS your Aether bullsh*t
or maybe you prefer to refute THIS study: http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf

You've COMPLAINED about them in the past, and tried to say "blah blah blah" can't be right because "blah blah blah"...
BUT
I noticed you NEVER post empirical PROOF of that
NOR do you EVER post links to studies from reputable sources that refute these studies?
http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/

How many of the red flag categories do YOU fall into zeph?

CHECKMATE
to BOTH ZEPH and REG
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
The empirical evidence supporting my theory is well known. It is the expansion of photons over a period of time, otherwise known as redshift. Mainstream science continues to ascribe this to an inflating universe, which is palpable nonsense. Where's your empirical evidence for gravity, dickhead?
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2014
It is the expansion of photons over a period of time, otherwise known as redshift.


@ Reg-Skippy, this is the serious question I have. It's not about the gravity or the no gravity, it's about the photons.

What you mean he expand? How big he was to start? How big he is now? Does anybody know what the size of him is? I know they think they know how fast he goes. And how fast he wiggles in a wave. But I can not find anything on the google about how big he is. That might be my fault because I'm not sure how to ask the google about how big he is and so far I'm not getting an answer.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 14, 2014
The empirical evidence supporting my theory is well known
@regtard
IOW - buy your book, right?
which means, in laymans terms YA GOT SQUAT FOR EVIDENCE
known as redshift
Oh MY, and there is NO OTHER POSSIBLE known, tested, empirically proven moethod that explains this either, is there? https://en.wikipe...Redshift
which is palpable nonsense
because only YOU can see the truth, right? must not have read that link I left... here, try it now: http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/

Where's your empirical evidence for gravity
Ok, first off: YOU made the claim, so the burden of PROOF is upon YOU to refute the known evidence and physics, to which I would point out that YOU NEVER HAVE.
Second: why should ANYONE produce evidence when you have YET to be able to produce ANYTHING compelling enough to make anyone consider there may be anything to your BS denigrations of gravity other than PSEUDOSCIENCE NONSENSE?

just one more crackpot on the fire of reality
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
The empirical evidence supporting my theory is well known.
@regtard

i will make you a deal
YOU send me a copy of YOUR BOOK
Send me an E-mail or PM on http://www.sciforums.com

or here: http://saposjoint.net

I will give you an address (P.O. Box) to mail it to
In return, I will read it with an open mind
BUT
I will also REVIEW IT publicly
I will do it on AMAZON as well as HERE and submit an article also as a review, to PO as well as AAAS

How is THAT for free publicity?

I figure, IF i read the BOOK, then it is the BEST chance of convincing me of your anti-gravity stance... there is no way to lose... unless your book ALSO has no means of proving the point

I even promise to take anything I DONT understand to a physicist, AND contact YOU personally for a rebuttal

this is a win-win for you reg
the CHANCE to convince someone who you've battled with

I will wait for your reply
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
As a well known nutter, your opinion counts for nothing, and I wouldn't think your recommendation would influence anybody to do anything, never mind buy a book!
I've never battled with you, Cap'n, only pointed out your crass pigheadedness in never considering a new theory, and immediately condemning things you know nothing about and freely confess to never having read! I am content for you to remain in your sty of blissful ignorance for as long as you want, I am quite happy giving you an occasional poke to rouse your standard reaction, its always good for a laugh.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Aug 15, 2014
It is the expansion of photons over a period of time, otherwise known as redshift.


@ Reg-Skippy, this is the serious question I have. It's not about the gravity or the no gravity, it's about the photons.

What you mean he expand? How big he was to start? How big he is now? Does anybody know what the size of him is? I know they think they know how fast he goes. And how fast he wiggles in a wave. But I can not find anything on the google about how big he is. That might be my fault because I'm not sure how to ask the google about how big he is and so far I'm not getting an answer.

Irate, I'm suggesting that the size of a photon is directly related to, or can be considered as, its wavelength. I'm suggesting that a photon is either the smallest or one of the smallest "particles" that exist in our universe, and is comprised of at least two sub-particles which, not being particles, are not part of our particle-based universe in which everything is particles.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (1) Aug 15, 2014
Irate, I'm suggesting that the size of a photon is directly related to, or can be considered as, its wavelength. I'm suggesting that a photon is either the smallest or one of the smallest "particles" that exist in our universe, and is comprised of at least two sub-particles which, not being particles, are not part of our particle-based universe in which everything is particles.


@ Reg-Skippy. Okayeei. That does not help me much understand what you are getting at no. The expanding particle and the two sub-particle and the not a particle all at the same time has me really confused. I hope you say it better in your book Cher because most of the real scientist-Skippys can say what they think so I can understand what they are getting at. At least most of the times they can if I read him over a couple of times.

What your theory have that is better than the the real scientist-Skippys don't have? What makes your one better then the ones everybody can understand?
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Aug 15, 2014
I've never battled with you, Cap'n
@reg
this is totally true... mostly because you STILL cannot explain your idiocy regarding your philosophy. you keep posting about no gravity, but you have YET to find ANY EVIDENCE to support your position, or your philosophy, and you even admitted as much in your own words here: http://phys.org/n...ong.html

You have NO empirical data, as well as NO MATHS for your philosophy... so you are right. you've never battled me because you lost the arguments right out of the gate!
your opinion counts for nothing
and yet it is far more accurate than your philosophy with NO support or evidence
freely confess to never having read
if your answers HERE are ANY indication of the drivel that you put in your book, and we DO have proof that it is verified by someone who HAS read your book, then I don't need to read it to know it has SQUAT for evidence.

MANY people will only have to look here for proof of your inadequacies, reg
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 15, 2014
I wouldn't think your recommendation would influence anybody to do anything, never mind buy a book
@regtard
well, i've convinced quite a few NOT to buy YOUR book... just by forwarding your comments from here... as well as your answers to everyone at this link: http://phys.org/n...ong.html

you only proved that you have as much background in physics as my latest pair of shoes, and probably have as much sense as they do, although I am not quite sure

Ok, reg... I accept that you don't want to be called out by me. It would make you look worse than you already do...
GOtta run, regtard.... things to do. sorry you failed miserably
again
or should I say "STILL"?
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
I've provided the evidence for expansion as being the redshift of light over time, but you are too thick to appreciate that. You have not given ONE piece of evidence for the existence of gravity which is not equally applicable to expansion theory. All you do is throw out insults.
Well, I'm getting bored of casting pearls of wisdom before you, so if you want to call time on our friendly chat, that's fine by me.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2014
@Irate
What your theory have that is better than the the real scientist-Skippys don't have? What makes your one better then the ones everybody can understand?

As simply as I can put the answer to your question without writing a book:-
Light redshifts when travelling from distant objects to Earth (the wavelength increases). Either the universe is expanding at ever-greater velocity the further away from us we go (the mainstream view) or light "ages" or "decays" with time (my theory). If mainstream science is right, at a certain distance from us, stars/galaxies must recede at more than the speed of light, which contravenes the rest of "mainstream" science. Also, the universe must have started from an incredibly small point with a "big bang", also a contentious point. In my theory, the universe is steady-state, and photons and all other particles of matter decay from the moment they are created (i.e. expand) and this gives rise to the effect mainstream science calls gravity.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (1) Aug 16, 2014
As simply as I can put the answer to your question without writing a book:-
Light redshifts when travelling from distant objects to Earth (the wavelength increases). Either the universe is expanding at ever-greater velocity the further away from us we go (the mainstream view) or light "ages" or "decays" with time (my theory). If mainstream science is right, at a certain distance from us, stars/galaxies must recede at more than the speed of light, which contravenes the rest of "mainstream" science. Also, the universe must have started from an incredibly small point with a "big bang", also a contentious point. In my theory, the universe is steady-state, and photons and all other particles of matter decay from the moment they are created (i.e. expand) and this gives rise to the effect mainstream science calls gravity.


I guess everybody needs a hobby. Still doesn't explain why your idea is better. What can you do with him? More than just talking I mean.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 16, 2014
I've provided the evidence for expansion as being the redshift of light over time, but you are too thick to appreciate that
@regtard
this does NOT prove your theory any more than this proves my cat is flightless
You have not given ONE piece of evidence for the existence of gravity which is not equally applicable to expansion theory
YOU are the one making the grandiose claims that goes against all known science... therefore the burden of PROOF is upon YOUR shoulders...

but even with THAT, I have asked pertinent questions about certian things that COMPLETELY undermine your philosophy... that is ONLY and INSULT to YOU, because you cannot define it or explain how your fallacious proclamations can be explained in physics...

you also have NO empirical data or even a mathematical model supporting your conclusions, which AGAIN, is NOT an insult, it is PROOF that you push pseudoscience
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 16, 2014
All you do is throw out insults
Well, I'm getting bored of casting pearls of wisdom before you
@Reg
again, the RED FLAGS of pseudoscience raises its ugly head!
http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/

I ask for proof or empirical data supporting your position, you say I am insulting you
I ask you to define and explain orbits, tidal forces and the mass dependent NON EXISTENT proportional anomaly and you say it is insulting

IOW - you got nothing worth talking about, you just come to TROLL and shove your anti-gravity scat all over the thread disrupting a good article

Tell you what... WHEN YOU PUBLISH A PEER REVIEWED STUDY IN A REPUTABLE JOURNAL THAT HAS A HIGH IMPACT IN ASTROPHYSICS, then you can come back and talk about it...

until then, you are pushing a known PSEUDOSCIENCE and it has ZERO supporting evidence

and I will CONTINUE to let people know this every time I see your BS
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 16, 2014
(the mainstream view) or light "ages" or "decays" with time (my theory)
@reg
according to your "PHILOSOPHY"... expansion is also MASS DEPENDENT and therefore this should give us a VISIBLE means to OBSERVE WHETHER THIS IS TRUE in today's universe...

AND WE DO NOT SEE IT

therefore, we can conclude that YOUR "pearls" PHILOSOPHY is WRONG
In my theory, the universe is steady-state
For most cosmologists, the refutation of the steady-state theory came with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1965, which was predicted by the Big Bang theory. Stephen Hawking described this discovery as "the final nail in the coffin of the steady-state theory". The steady-state theory explained microwave background radiation as the result of light from ancient stars that has been scattered by galactic dust. However, the cosmic microwave background level is very even in all directions, making it difficult to explain how it could be generated by numerous point sources...
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Aug 16, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy Once again, you peddle twaddle.
expansion is also MASS DEPENDENT and therefore this should give us a VISIBLE means to OBSERVE WHETHER THIS IS TRUE in today's universe...
You (the observer) are also expanding at the same rate, so cannot observe expansion except by its effect, i.e. what you call gravity. As for cosmic radiation coming evenly from all directions, there are an infinite number of stars/galaxies in every direction, so it would be, wouldn't it? As for orbits, tidal forces, and your inferred mass dependent proportional anomaly, they are all explained in detail in the books if you could be bothered to actually read them BEFORE announcing your opinion on their content. You really are a complete twerp.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Aug 16, 2014
I guess everybody needs a hobby. Still doesn't explain why your idea is better. What can you do with him? More than just talking I mean.

Well Irate, I answered your question, provided evidence which supports my theory where there is no evidence for the existence of "gravity". Is this the best response you can make? I knew I shouldn't have bothered with someone as superficial as you!
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (1) Aug 16, 2014
I guess everybody needs a hobby. Still doesn't explain why your idea is better. What can you do with him? More than just talking I mean.

Well Irate, I answered your question, provided evidence which supports my theory where there is no evidence for the existence of "gravity". Is this the best response you can make?


Well Reg-Skippy the answer made no sense. The only evidences you give was "because I like this of thinking about it". So yeah that is the best response I can make.

I knew I shouldn't have bothered with someone as superficial as you!


You are not bothering me no. And there ain't nothing super about me, I have always said I don't understand a lot of the science stuff first time reading it. All I did was ask you to explain it where I could understand what you were talking about.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 17, 2014
You (the observer) are also expanding at the same rate, so cannot observe expansion except by its effect, i.e. what you call gravity
@regtard
and again, your twaddle is showing through
OK, using your example andbBased upon YOUR words, given that your expansion is MASS dependent, then two objects of EQUAL size but different MASS would "expand" at different rates (as you state above- it is the different "feel" of gravity)
THEREFORE, logically speaking, the heavier mass object will EXPAND at a higher rate
and THUS we can conclude, using logic, that the high mass object would show a larger rate of expansion and be visibly larger than the other object in time, which would grow proportionally larger than the smaller mass object REGARDLESS of other mass objects and expansion around it
THERE WOULD BE A VISIBLE proportional difference over time WHICH IS NOT CURRENTLY OBSERVED

YOUR WORDS, not mine reg
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 17, 2014
which brings us to THIS comment
As for orbits, tidal forces, and your inferred mass dependent proportional anomaly, they are all explained in detail in the books if you could be bothered to actually read them BEFORE announcing your opinion on their content. You really are a complete twerp
I am basing my arguments upon YOUR OWN WORDS WRITTEN HERE ON PO
I am NOT going to go buy a book of PSEUDOSCIENCE when you cannot even take a little time to link a graph here or describe certain basics of your fallacious claims

YOU started this argument about no gravity and then pushed a PSEUDOSCIENCE PHILOSOPHY
now you are saying that unless I buy YOUR book, i am a twerp and wrong?
sorry reg... but that smacks of your PSEUDOSCIENCE
http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/

perhaps you should consider turning your book into a peer reviewed journal?
or are you afraid that, since high school level physics can pick your argument apart then you have no basis fora legitimate hypothesis?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 17, 2014
As for cosmic radiation coming evenly from all directions, there are an infinite number of stars/galaxies in every direction, so it would be, wouldn't it?
@regtard
not necessarily
IF the background radiation were due to a lot of single sources then you would have a background that was SIMILAR to the cosmography maps showing huge threads and patterns that mimic the mapped area that we are well aware of
https://www.youtu...i4hioFEI

Because our background radiation does NOT look like the cosmography map used above in the awesome youtube video, then we can conclude that the radiation is NOT a product of the local stars and a constant feed from them

Then there is the whole temperature thingy of the universe
Constant feed from separate sources would indicate a higher temp universe... and likely brighter

Da Schneib would be more able to answer that one more clearly...

but you don't want answers, you want to sell your PSEUDOSCIENCE FALLACIES
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 17, 2014
I guess everybody needs a hobby. Still doesn't explain why your idea is better. What can you do with him? More than just talking I mean.

Well Irate, I answered your question, provided evidence which supports my theory where there is no evidence for the existence of "gravity". Is this the best response you can make? I knew I shouldn't have bothered with someone as superficial as you!
and LASTLY...
given that this is YOUR philosophy and YOU made it up with YOUR rules... if you cannot explain it well enough for a layman to understand it, then you only underscore how completely ignorant you are of the basics of YOUR OWN WORK

which can only mean that you are making stuff up as you go OR that you don't know enough about your own subject to explain it

epic failure reg rides off into the expansion again
maybe this time you should just make your OWN page (and GO AWAY) so you can talk to yourself and appoint some acolytes from the looney bin?
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
....your expansion is MASS dependent, then two objects of EQUAL size but different MASS would "expand" at different rates (as you state above- it is the different "feel" of gravity)
THEREFORE, logically speaking, the heavier mass object will EXPAND at a higher rate
and THUS we can conclude, using logic, that the high mass object would show a larger rate of expansion and be visibly larger than the other object in time, which would grow proportionally larger than the smaller mass object REGARDLESS of other mass objects and expansion around it
THERE WOULD BE A VISIBLE proportional difference over time WHICH IS NOT CURRENTLY OBSERVED

Rubbish! Any student of the most basic maths will tell you that proportionality is maintained. "Gravity" (acceleration) at the surface of a planet is the CHANGE in velocity of the expansion of the surface over time, and is dependent on the initial velocity away from the centre of mass and the final velocity away from the centre of mass.---
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
(continued)
Basic equations of motion in the laws of physics which guide our path thru' time include
v squared = u squared + 2AS where v is the final velocity, u is the initial velocity, A is the acceleration and S is the distance covered over a period of time. Given the limitations of this medium (one of the reasons you need to read the book, I can't provide detail here for most things) I'll write it as vv = uu +2AS
So, using the example of Mercury and Callisto, and imagining that the "gravity" on Mercury is double that on Callisto, the equations become:-
VmVm = UmUm + 2AmS and VcVc = UcUc + 2AcS where S is the same for both when they double in size (if initial radius = r, new radius = 2r so S =r for both).
So, you have (VmVm - UmUm)/(VcVc -UcUc) = 2 or in the general case
(VmVm - UmUm)/(VcVc -UcUc) = Relative density of Mercury to Callisto ("gravity" dependent directly on mass therefore density).
So, irrespective of time, this is true.
Now shut up, you twerp.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy Once again, you peddle twaddle.
expansion is also MASS DEPENDENT and therefore this should give us a VISIBLE means to OBSERVE WHETHER THIS IS TRUE in today's universe...
You (the observer) are also expanding at the same rate, so cannot observe expansion except by its effect, i.e. what you call gravity. As for cosmic radiation coming evenly from all directions, there are an infinite number of stars/galaxies in every direction, so it would be, wouldn't it? As for orbits, tidal forces, and your inferred mass dependent proportional anomaly, they are all explained in detail in the books if you could be bothered to actually read them BEFORE announcing your opinion on their content. You really are a complete twerp.

Sorry, this should have been "ALMOST infinite number of stars/galaxies in every direction" as light decay eventually limits the distance light can travel before being reduced to its component parts.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2014
Any student of the most basic maths will tell you that proportionality is maintained
@regtard
how would THAT be if expansion is MASS dependent? like i said, LOGICALLY, given TWO same size objects that are of different mass, the higher mas object will, and MUST expand faster, PER YOUR OWN WORDS, in order to show the "gravitational feel" that you suggest, therefore REALITY as well as YOUR OWN WORDS say that ONE MUST EXPAND FASTER THAN THE OTHER in order to maintian that feel
IOW - there SHOULD BE A VISIBLE AND MEASURABLE DIFFERENCE THAT WE CAN OBSERVE, AND IT IS NOT OBSERVED TODAY
Now shut up, you twerp
YOU STILL haven't proven your point regarding EXPANSION

At least NOW we can see some math and WHY you are wrong... you are STILL MAKING ASSUMPTIONS that your expansion theory must work ONLY IF GRAVITY IS ALSO PRESENT

see above for details
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2014
(acceleration) at the surface of a planet is the CHANGE in velocity of the expansion of the surface over time
@regtard
here is ONE fallacy which undermines your entire philosophy

the next is this
Any student of the most basic maths will tell you that proportionality is maintained
especially considering this statement
expansion is mass dependent
lastly... GRAVITY is visible and measurable. We can see its effects and we have a description of the effects that makes ACCURATE PREDICTIONS

your "philosophy" makes NO predictions, it has NO proof and if you are going to require someone to "buy your book" in order to comprehend your BS, then you should have published a peer reviewed study proving your point, which would have been more reputable and carried more weight than a VANITY press
http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2014
light decay eventually limits the distance light can travel before being reduced to its component parts
@regtard
would you please provide supporting evidence of the decay of light
as well as studies published in a peer reviewed reputable journal/publication which proves your comment

and don't mention your BOOK again unless you are going to PROVIDE IT AS A SOURCE FOR RESEARCH AND REVIEW

continual mentioning of the "book" produced by a vanity press which is NOT peer reviewed and contains unproven conjecture is just like using star trek episodes or even early sci-fi papers where people use DUCKS to fly to the moon to prove a point

again, refer to here: http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2014
@cap'n Grumpy
Expansion is mass dependent. The effect you call gravity is the ACCELERATION felt at the surface, NOT THE VELOCITY OF EXPANSION. Do try to actually read what I said and think things thru' before putting your mouth into gear or your fingers to the keyboard. ALL this meaningless chunter and silly insults just waste every bodies time. Be pithy and to the point!
And the whole point of all this is that "peer review" means asking what mainstream science thinks, and I guess we already know that, so stop ranting about it.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 17, 2014
The effect you call gravity is the ACCELERATION felt at the surface, NOT THE VELOCITY OF EXPANSION. Do try to actually read what I said
@regtard
but thats NOT what you said above... you said
"Gravity" (acceleration) at the surface of a planet is the CHANGE in velocity of the expansion of the surface over time
now, a CONSTANT speed would be felt as a constant rate of gravity... but you state, right there in your own words, that it is a change in velocity...
But that isn't even important... you STILL state that it is MASS DEPENDENT, and therefore there must be an ACCELERATION as the mass grows.
IF there are TWO EQUAL SIZED objects of DIFFERENT MASS
and their EXPANSION is MASS DEPENDENT, as you state
Then there is NO WAY that a heavier mass object will NOT outpace/expand faster than a low mass object
THIS IS ONE OF THE BASIC FALLACIES OF YOUR PHILOSOPHY

you can't have it both ways
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 17, 2014
Do try to actually read what I said and think things thru' before putting your mouth into gear or your fingers to the keyboard
@regtard
I've been telling you this for a while now and it ain't stopped YOU YET... but maybe you will learn
ALL this meaningless chunter and silly insults just waste every bodies time
It also TEACHES those who read and expect empirical evidence that you are a fake with a large ego wrapped in conspiracy and pseudoscience
THIS is my reason for constantly proving you wrong
So that someone else doesn't see your irritating denigration and obfuscation of real science and believe it... http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/
"peer review" means asking what mainstream science thinks
it also requires empirical evidence and logic, and it also does not let stupidity like yours into literature when basic logic and high school physics will debunk it within seconds

peer review keeps out pseudoscience
THAT is why you don't have PEER REVIEW
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 17, 2014
And the whole point of all this is that "peer review" means asking what mainstream science thinks, and I guess we already know that, so stop ranting about it
@regtard
also, it is NOT an INSULT to prove you wrong... it only bothers YOU because you have NO MEANS to prove your delusions correct...

and about the quote... I will stop ranting about Empirical Data and evidence and Peer review when YOU CAN PRODUCE some peer reviewed evidence linking YOUR stupidity published in your vanity press to REALITY and observation/evidence

THIS is how SCIENCE WORKS
THAT is the real reason that you have NO PEER REVIEW
do you even have ANY publications in a reputable peer reviewed journal? ANYTHING AT ALL that gives you the ability to push such nonsense against PROVEN science?

You have NO PROOF
you have NO EMPIRICAL DATA
you have NO PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLES SUPPORTING YOUR CONCLUSIONS

only postings here on PO with a total and EPIC failure to prove ANYTHING
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Aug 18, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
Then there is NO WAY that a heavier mass object will NOT outpace/expand faster than a low mass object

Ah, Cap'n, that's what your intuition tells you, is it? Like your intuition tells you that the Earth is flat? Look, even your mainstream theory of gravity states that,on a heavier object, time goes more slowly than on a lighter object, e.g. to an outside observer, time goes more slowly on Mercury than it does on Callisto. What's this? Time VARIES according to where you are? Stops on the event horizon of a black hole? If your were on that event horizon,your intuition would doubtless tell you different! I earnestly hope that you personally experience this in the near future. Meanwhile, this is a good example of why I don't usually try to present my theories in bits and pieces herein, you have to understand THE WHOLE THING, and that's obviously beyond your ken.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Aug 19, 2014
that's what your intuition tells you
@regtard
nope. that is what YOU tell me when you say that EXPANSION is MASS DEPENDENT
even your mainstream theory of gravity states that,on a heavier object, time goes more slowly than on a lighter object, e.g. to an outside observer, time goes more slowly on Mercury than it does on Callisto
so now you are changing the subject because you cannot define your own philosophy properly enough? THIS is one of your main problems
this is a good example of why I don't usually try to present my theories in bits and pieces herein, you have to understand THE WHOLE THING
http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/

and so OBVIOUSLY the only one capable of comprehending this is YOU and a few rare geniuses who agree with you?
like I said... you've presented NO empirical evidence supporting your conclusions and your statements thus far only support the conclusion that you are TROLLING and SPAMMING
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 19, 2014
and that's obviously beyond your ken.
@regtard the TROLLING SPAMMING crackpot

actually, it is beyond ANY persons "ken" to be able to comprehend the delusions and reasons behind the clinically insane. We can only surmise the reasons you continue to post such NONSENSE and drivel which is NOT ONLY UNSUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE AND OBSERVATION but is also simply a fairy tale sold to a vanity press because it is not even good enough to be sold to a sci-fi publishing company

You don't have any peer reviewed support, and I can't even find ANY PEER REVIEWED STUDIES published in your name! this means, IMHO, that you are Joe Average trying to push a crackpot PSEUDOSCIENCE in the hopes of being another L.Ron Hubbard and forming your own cult/religion

you should be posting this on fan fiction or sci-fi or PSEUDOSCIENCE forums, NOT ON A SCIENCE SITE with REAL SCIENCE ARTICLES
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Aug 19, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
Same old, same old! Ranting on about peer revue again. And despite my giving irrefutable evidence that photons decay (redshift) and that the result of applying this to other particles is expansion, therefore the effect you call gravity, you persist in saying I haven't provided any evidence! What do you want, a deputation from God to thrust it up your nostril?
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 19, 2014
Same old, same old! Ranting on about peer revue again
@regtard
NO PEER REVIEW = PSEUDOSCIENCE
you are nothing but a religious fanatic with a tenuous grasp on reality in this case. you have NOTHING to show or prove, therefore you attack the peer review process, or say we don't understand, or redirect into an already fallacious assumption... http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/

therefore the effect you call gravity
fallacios comment called personal conjecture not supported by evidence
you persist in saying I haven't provided any evidence
because YOU HAVEN'T. just because there is a redshift doesn't prove that there is a connection between your delusion and book and the non-existence of gravity. that is like saying that because there is a BIBLE there is absolute proof against the existence of Zues.

AGAIN i point out that YOU HAVE GIVEN PLENTY OF FALLACIOUS COMMENTS BUT NOT A SINGLE DROP OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 19, 2014
What do you want, a deputation from God to thrust it up your nostril?
@regtard
appealing to ANOTHER delusional belief to support YOUR delusional belief is one of the earmarks of PSEUDOSCIENCE as well as insanity, you know

let's break this down into small words so even YOU can understand them RM...
1- YA GOT NO PROOF
2- YA GOT NO WAY TO PROVE your delusion
3- YOUR COMMENTS are logically flawed and fallacious from the start
4- you don't have EXPERIENCE or AUTHORITY in the subject and so cannot even fall back upon your own published peer reviewed work
5- YOU HAVE NO PEER REVIEWED LEGITIMATE PAPERS substantiating even PART of your delusion

BUT MOSTLY... you cannot logically describe your own methodology without invoking one of the following:
-read your book
-WE don't understand
-there is no room to post
-modern physics is wrong
-attacking the peer review system which revoked/rebuked your fallacious stupidity

IOW - you push pseudoscience and get mad when pointed out as a crackpot
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Aug 19, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
You really are very tiresome, Grumpy, keep ranting on and on about the same things, and refusing to see the pearls I cast before you. How do you explain redshift? I say it is a manifestation of expansion. What do you say? (And don't rant in your answer! Stick to the point!)
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Aug 19, 2014
"How do you explain redshift? I say it is a manifestation of expansion."
Yes, an expansion of time - manifested by light's speed limit. Not anything else.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 20, 2014
keep ranting on and on about the same things
@regtard
appeal to delusion will only end in delusional distortion. since you CAN'T comprehend the physics of redshift... and because you obviously didn't get it the FIRST time:

let's break this down into small words so even YOU can understand them RM...
1- YA GOT NO PROOF
2- YA GOT NO WAY TO PROVE your delusion
3- YOUR COMMENTS are logically flawed and fallacious from the start
4- you don't have EXPERIENCE or AUTHORITY in the subject and so cannot even fall back upon your own published peer reviewed work
5- YOU HAVE NO PEER REVIEWED LEGITIMATE PAPERS substantiating even PART of your delusion

BUT MOSTLY... you cannot logically describe your own methodology without invoking one of the following:
-read your book
-WE don't understand
-there is no room to post
-modern physics is wrong
-attacking the peer review system which revoked/rebuked your fallacious stupidity

IOW - you push pseudoscience and get mad when pointed out as a crackpot
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Aug 20, 2014
I say it is a manifestation of expansion. What do you say? (And don't rant in your answer! Stick to the point!)
@regtard
almost forgot to add: https://en.wikipe...Redshift

you will NOT address the issues presented to YOU that undermine YOUR philosophy, but you expect to explain it somehow by trying to trip up others in their explanations?

you do NOT EVER ANSWER questions with valid physics or proven physics even... or with empirical data, but somehow your delusions about REDSHIFT will suddenly make it all clear?

YOU REFUSE to answer legitimate questions which PROVE your philosophy is complete PSEUDOSCIENCE and the writings of yet another crackpot looking for a cult following... but you DEMAND that I answer legit physics?

you really SHOULD read this: http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/

and AGAIN I ASK: WHERE IS YOUR EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING YOUR DELUSIONAL PHILOSOPHY?
there is NONE
not ONE IOTA!
your "book" is all you got, and that is nothing but fiction
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Aug 20, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
Well, Cap'n, your last two posts fully illustrate my point. Rant, rant, and more rant, and no attempt to think about what I said and answer logically.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Aug 20, 2014
Well, Cap'n, your last two posts fully illustrate my point. Rant, rant, and more rant, and no attempt to think about what I said and answer logically.
@regtard
and as you can see you also PROVE my point!

you IGNORED my link showing you the information regarding red-shift
that was MY answer to you, which shows that you only see what you WANT to see

and then you redirect to other topics and FAIL to answer the BASICS surrounding your philosophy

try again, sport
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Aug 20, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
No, I didn't ignore your link. I noted that it referred to the Wiki article on redshift which simply reiterates parrot-like the mainstream explanation for redshift, which any thinking physicist can see is nonsense.
Of course, it's right up your street, as you wouldn't want to strain your brain actually thinking about it! All you do is keep harking back to mainstream science, when what I am proposing is NOT COVERED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE, so cannot be supported by links to it.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (2) Aug 20, 2014
which any thinking physicist can see is nonsense.


@ Reg-Skippy, since you are not the thinking physicist or even the not thinking physicist-Skippy how do you know that? If there are 100,000 physicists in the world, are we supposed to believe that 99,999 of them don't think and the 1 foolish enough to listen to is the only thinking physicist?

Saying silly things like,

which any thinking physicist can see is nonsense.


Is why you have been wearing that silly looking pointy cap so long that even your hair-doo is permanently pointy shaped. Even when you forget the silly looking pointy cap everybody can still tell it's you by the silly looking way your hair is shaped.

Maybe if you were to go to the science school like the physicist-Skippys you wouldn't write such silly things as that.
Toiea
not rated yet Aug 20, 2014
If there are 100,000 physicists in the world, are we supposed to believe that 99,999 of them don't think and the 1 foolish enough to listen to is the only thinking physicist?
It depends. For example Galieo (and many others) got his business in this way. And the 100,000 physicists is already pretty big lobbyist group of people, who just want to protect their jobs and investments into existing education. They have many opportunities to achieve perfectly balanced stance in the same way, like they already have many reasons for overly protective stance against every idea from outside. That is to say, the size of group isn't automatic warranty of its unbiased stance. I'd rather say, that the overly small groups tend to be naturally chaotic and random in their opinions like the common quantum systems and very large groups tend to bias and instability like the large relativistic systems. The ideal group of experts shouldn't be therefore very large, monopolistic hegemony the less.
Toiea
not rated yet Aug 20, 2014
The main source of bias here is the internal cohesion of members of the social group, which may not be apparent at the first sight. For example the researchers of various methods of energy production, conversion, transport and storage are quite fancy mixture of scientists of various professions and focus (from solar cells over tokamaks to batteries). What makes this group unpleasantly large and as such potential barrier of further progress is their common motivation: the cold fusion is a competition for all of them. Therefore the scientists may behave as liberals toward ideas, for which they represent smaller incoherent groups - but quite conservatively against ideas/findings, which affect their common denominator and they even may not be aware of their groupthink and bias in this matter.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (1) Aug 20, 2014
It depends. For example Galieo (and many others) got his business in this way. And the 100,000 physicists is already pretty big lobbyist group of people, who just want to protect their jobs and investments into existing education. They have many opportunities to achieve perfectly balanced stance in the same way, like they already have many reasons for overly protective stance against every idea from outside. That is to say, the size of group isn't automatic warranty of its unbiased stance. I'd rather say, that the overly small groups tend to be naturally chaotic and random in their opinions like the common quantum systems and very large groups tend to bias and instability like the large relativistic systems.


How you are Zeph-Skippy? I would listen to you before I would spend any time paying attention to the Reg-Skippy. At least you sound like you went to the science school. Sometimes you do. Reg-Skippy only sounds like a troll making stuffs up to argue with peoples about.
Toiea
1 / 5 (1) Aug 20, 2014
only sounds like a troll making stuffs up to argue with peoples
For me it's rather difficult to follow this discussion, because one idea is interspersed with many OT subjective posts here. But if I understand it well, Reg Mundy's pushing tired light model, which I've nothing against. If you really need an external authority for judging of other ideas instead of your own brain, then you've my blessing for to listen and argue him.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Aug 20, 2014
Wiki article on redshift which simply reiterates parrot-like the mainstream explanation for redshift, which any thinking physicist can see is nonsense
@regtard
again, I point out that it is supported by empirical evidence and your philosophy is supported by your faith alone
again, i point out that you denigrate "mainstream" physicists because you assume they are not "thinking"... a HUGE red flag for any logical person, especially considering you have NO empirical data supporting your faith
again, I point out that your problem is that since you have NOTHING proving your philosophy EXCEPT that YOU BELIEVE IT, you are a troll pushing pseudosceince
What else can I do but laugh at your posts...

WHY are YOU ON A SCIENCE SITE? obviously you have nothing but disdain for reality and the scientific method... and you have NO CONCEPT of how science works, nor do you have the education needed to refute it.

you are a PSEUDOSCIENCE TROLL and you've just PROVED MY POINT
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Aug 20, 2014
when what I am proposing is NOT COVERED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE, so cannot be supported by links to it
@regtard
we KNOW it is not mainstream science... we can also SEE FOR OURSELVES that it is NOT SCIENCE AT ALL!
science is based upon the SCIENTIFIC METHOD: Empirical evidence... repeatable experiments... THINGS LIKE THAT...

what you've offered is CONJECTURE based upon your own personal DELUSIONS and SPECULATIONS. This is NO DIFFERENT that anyone saying that "Global Warming is due to Fairy Farts!"
YOU are making the SAME CASE FOR YOUR PHILOSOPHY THAT THEY WOULD MAKE FOR THEIR CONJECTURE

until you can provide PROOF
until you can provide a LOGICAL MATHEMATICAL MODEL supported by KNOWN, DEMONSTRATED and EMPIRICAL LAWS OF PHYSICS, then your PSEUDOSCIENCE is nothing but a PERSONAL FAITH in something that is untenable and unprovable

IOW - ya got NOTHING
(see above for the rest ... )
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Aug 20, 2014
For example Galieo
@zephir
first of all, it is NOT the same thing. apples and oranges.
RELIGION was all-powerful in those days, and you could lose your life arguing against it... but that is not your point... you only grasp that at one time someone stood against the horde of wrong. THIS is the thinking of a complete TROLL
see: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

you will notice that the arguments you use are exactly the same as described. You should have read it more carefully before posting below it too... it only reinforced the article and proved it with empirical evidence!
If you really need an external authority for judging of other ideas instead of your own brain
it is not a need for external "authority" but providing PROOF of claims
EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
something TROLLS never can do
NOR comprehend
and why you always fail epically regarding your precious awt pseudoscience

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Aug 20, 2014
For example Galieo
@zephir
you should have ESPECIALLY noted this part
The triumph of Galileo's views were a result of his capacity to develop scientific ideas and test them via observation. Newman, and many of those who attack science, notably lack this ability.
you cannot see the difference between today and "Galieo" days (which should either be Galileo Galilei or least Galileo - you can't even copy/paste this from research or google?? wtf?)
Ironically, the Galileo Gambit is often employed by those who have no scientific expertise and strong ideological reasons for attacking science
this perfectly describes you as well
you don't have enough comprehension of actual physics to argue against the model, so instead you latch onto a fringe idea that you can visualize better and use intuition to explain reality.
too bad your intuition has been empirically debunked and proven wrong.

SCIENCE WORKS
learn it or go away
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Aug 21, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
Yet more reams of crap! Don't you ever get tired of typing in all of this rubbish?
Incidentally, you say
again, I point out that it is supported by empirical evidence and your philosophy is supported by your faith alone

What's this empirical evidence, bird brain? I've provided empirical evidence for my theory (redshift) but you ignore it.
Watebba
1 / 5 (1) Aug 21, 2014
SCIENCE WORKS learn it or go away
It's nice to have the people like you here, as it makes the illustration of many religious attitudes of mainstream science supporters much easier. Of course the science works - but only in very distant perspective, in the same way, like the evolution. And the scientists have nowhere to hurry, until their money are going. The situation is further complicated with fact, the formal attitude of science is an advantage in many areas of research, where it advances the real needs of human society by many hundred years. In some other areas the mainstream science gets systematically retarded by decades of years behind experiments and observations. The first observations and patents of cold fusion, scalar waves and/or magnetic motors (negentropic phenomena) are nearly one hundred years old and they're still ignored with mainstream physics. The discussions whether the science is retarded or progressive therefore depend on particular research topic.
Watebba
3 / 5 (2) Aug 21, 2014
What we actually need is to fit the level of research more closely to actual needs of human society. The people who are playing the WoW or Civilization simulation games already know quite well, that for optimal winning strategy it's important to invest into research of stuffs the proper amount of resources in time depending on the actual level of civilization. It's simply a strategic decision. The research of Higgs boson and top quarks is fancy and all, but the potential usage of these findings is apparently quite minimal in the next one hundred years. And conversely the eighty years old observations of cold fusion and/or nuclear transmutations would have their practical applications already for fifty years - if only the researchers would be willing to deal with it seriously.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Aug 21, 2014
I've provided empirical evidence for my theory (redshift) but you ignore it
@regtard
you provided your INTERPRETATION of empirical evidence, which is NOT supported by anyone but YOU... there is a HUGE difference
you've not been able to PROVE those assertions either!

You should read this article: http://phys.org/n...lls.html

Your actions are nothing but TROLLING
what's the matter? not enough attention at home? can't find a real job?
go to a bar and leave the SCIENCE to those who CAN... because your attempts here are nothing but TROLLING and PSEUDOSCIENCE
What's this empirical evidence
https://en.wikipe...Redshift ,
if you could READ this link, you would have found studies linked in it... too bad you apparently are ILLITERATE

tell your caregiver to read you the studies, reg
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Aug 21, 2014
It's nice to have the people like you here, as it makes the illustration of many religious attitudes of mainstream science supporters much easier
@zephir/watebba-baby
let me also return the compliment

it is nice to have idiotic TROLLS who push PSEUDOSCIENCE like you and Reg here so that others may see first hand how to spot people like you who like to present your CONJECTURES as though it was proven and IGNORE EMPIRICAL DATA and never give empirical evidence of your suppositions.

you exemplify the troll attitude, as well as the pseudoscience crackpot

is that why you flooded this article? http://phys.org/n...lls.html

P.S. http://arxiv.org/...1284.pdf

Reg Mundy
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
You say watebba flooded this article? You really are a complete as*h*le. YOU posted twice as much as everybody else put together. And it was all crap......
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2014
You say watebba flooded this article?
@regtard
like i said... ILLITERATE
guess you couldn't figure out how to use that LINK after the comment?
or was that way to hard to figure out that it was what I was referring to? I mean... that IS why i left it on its OWN LINE... with nothing else... (sad, reg... sad)
tell me, reg... do you INTENTIONALLY TRY to be so stupid? or is it natural? I am thinking it is a natural reaction given your inability to even be able to explain your own philosophy...

Thanks for showing everyone how stupid you are. You think my posts are crap only because they completely undermine your philosophy with logic and science

of which you STILL haven't been able to use to show ANYTHING about your proclamations above...

thanks for playing reg

checkmate
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
You can't even play tiddly-winks, never mind chess! Yet another pointless crap posting by you to add to your many others. Give us all a break, and grow up!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 23, 2014
You can't even play tiddly-winks
@regtard
personal conjecture not based upon evidence
sources? links?
never mind chess
personal conjecture not based upon evidence
sources? links?
Yet another pointless crap posting
I see that you are still refusing to defend your philosophy with SOME kind of empirical evidence.
please feel free to add that in an ANY time. with links and references too.

and my conjecture about your illiteracy is supported by evidence, which includes your inability to open links above as well as read what is written and respond in kind. Your post above is just more proof of this adding fuel to my pronouncement.

again, thanks for helping me prove my points.
not only was that checkmate, but you still cannot comprehend that your game is over. you've been exposed as a crackpot pseudoscience troll loser who cannot validate its own philosophy with anything other than your personal faith in it.

sincere thank you for helping me prove that
checkmate
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
Ah, you still have delusions of grandeur, you haven't even taken one of my pawns (they are the little pieces in the front rank in case you are puzzled...)!
And like I said, redshift is empirical evidence, which supports my theory despite being explained away by mainstream science as all distant objects are accelerating away from us.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Aug 25, 2014
you still have delusions of grandeur
@regtard
unless you can present empirical evidence from a reputable peer reviewed source with an impact in the topic in question, then you cannot say that your conjectures are anything but an appeal to a FAITH with NO EVIDENCE, just like johanny
redshift is empirical evidence
Yes, it is, but not of YOUR faith. There are links on that page supporting my assertions... there were NO links supporting YOUR assertions... I looked

so again, until you have some proof (see definition at top of this comment) then you are arguing a conjecture based upon your FAITH, not a theory, not even a HYPOTHESIS, because there would be supporting evidence of those

and arguing against peer review is just another red flag for PSEUDOSCIENCE
(like johanny does)
http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/

appeal to self is another red flag

all you've produces so far is proof that you are pushing a PSEUDOSCIENCE
just like johanny

like I said

CHECKMATE

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.