Physicist suggests speed of light might be slower than thought

Supernova
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.

Journal information: New Journal of Physics

© 2014 Phys.org

Citation: Physicist suggests speed of light might be slower than thought (2014, June 26) retrieved 19 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2014-06-physicist-slower-thought.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
12697 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jun 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

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.

Jun 26, 2014
@mohammadshafiq_khan_1

Go away.

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'.

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.

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.

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

Jun 26, 2014
Wow, this could get interesting. I suppose the warp drive on the Enterprise will need to be re calibrated.

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.

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.

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.

Jun 26, 2014
Astrophysical model needs tweaking

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?

Jun 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Jun 26, 2014
So my posts are deleted because I point out flaws in computer simulations?

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.

Jun 26, 2014
@TechnoCreed

Ahhhh, of course, application of knowledge, it's a wonderful thing... Thanks :D.

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.)

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.

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?

Jun 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

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.

Jun 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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...

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.

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.

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).


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?

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.

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."

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...

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?

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.

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.

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

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...

Jun 27, 2014
calculate.

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.

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.

Jun 27, 2014
Argh, double post.

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

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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..

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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...

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.

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...

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?

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.

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.

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?..

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Jun 27, 2014
Reported for slander and personal attacks.

I'm sick of your bullshit.

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.

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

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.

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.

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??

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 ;^)

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."

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.

Jun 27, 2014
Sort of explains the redshift maybe.
-- Khawar
http://dubai-comp...ices.com

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.

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


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.

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


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.

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


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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

Jun 28, 2014
SickManSam's comments reported for pseudoscience: creationnism

Jun 28, 2014
SickManSam's comments reported for pseudoscience: creationnism

That's the complete opposite of what SickManSam was arguing.

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.

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/

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

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.

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.

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!

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".

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

Jun 29, 2014
Someone enlighten me why a photon would lose speed rather than momentum.

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.

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.

Jun 29, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

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.


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?

Jun 29, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

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!

Jun 29, 2014
See next!


Is it the one with you wearing the silly looking pointy cap? Looks good on you Cher.

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...

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.

Jun 29, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

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.

Jun 29, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Jun 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

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.

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?

Jun 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

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.

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?

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...

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.


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

Jun 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

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.

Jun 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

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.

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

Jun 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

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

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

Jun 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

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.

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

Jul 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

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?

Jul 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

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.


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.

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)


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.


Jul 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

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!

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!

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.

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).

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?

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

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

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.

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!

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

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. :-)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

Jul 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

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.

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.

Jul 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 03, 2014
@ Reg-Skippy, what is this theory nobody likes?

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

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!

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.

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 ;^)

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.


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?

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Jul 04, 2014
Apologize for repeat (with corrections) my IE browser would not allow me to edit so had to change browser

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....