LIGO.
cliff wright
the LIGO sites. Just checked again and saw that "Gravitational waves"
should be being detected by 2005.
Well it is now 2007, and I ain't heard nuthin!
Since 1989 I have had a bet with some of my old colleagues at Auckland
university that these waves (if they exist at all) will not be
detectable by such a system.
Indeed we are apparently looking for a "wave" whose velocity of
propagation is not known at all, and whose characteristics may involve
extra dimensions of Space or even other potential universes.
I would just love to be proved wrong: as it would at least mean that
physics was on the right track, but I don't think that I will.
Note to LIGO produce fully backed up measurements of a gravitational
wave, like a coincidence with a GRB, and I'll donate $50 from a retired
electronics engineer.
BTW it has happened before look up "Nancy radiation" in the very early
20th century some time.
It may not be much. But at least I'm putting some money where my mouth is!!!
Regards Cliff Wright.
Sue...
Few are loosing sleep over the speed or existance of magnetic
waves or London waves. Related experiments would be
much easier to conduct. I fear this means the LIGO group hasn't
given enough thought to what they are really looking for.
Sue...
"Tajmar/deMatos experiment"
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
Seven Seas Oscirius
Sue...
wrote:
> Whatever happened to Gravity Probe B, BTW?
http://einstein.stanford.edu/
http://google.com/
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=free+browser&btnG=Search
Sue...
dlzc
On Feb 7, 3:39 am, cliff wright <c.c.wri...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> For some years now I have from time to time kept up with
> developments at the LIGO sites. Just checked again and
> saw that "Gravitational waves" should be being detected
> by 2005.
There are some preliminary results (2003) here:
http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/docs/G/G030003-04/G030003-04.pdf
... which you can get to from the LIGO home page.
> Well it is now 2007, and I ain't heard nuthin!
What they appear to be saying is how "Enhanced LIGO" and "Advanced
LIGO" and "in combination with Virgo" these things will be
detectable. So what you should hear is "we can't detect what the
Universe is producing in quantity, with what we have". They are
saying that randomly they *might* detect one event a year, rather than
1 every 450 years.
Seems to me, if it is close enough to detect *in quadrature* with this
equipment, then one of our close neighbors will have gone SN. We may
not care about GW at that point, especially if gravity waves do
disperse / propagate at c.
David A. Smith
Rip Tide
cliff wright wrote:
>
> For some years now I have from time to time kept up with developments at
> the LIGO sites. Just checked again and saw that "Gravitational waves"
> should be being detected by 2005.
> Well it is now 2007, and I ain't heard nuthin!
> Since 1989 I have had a bet with some of my old colleagues at Auckland
> university that these waves (if they exist at all) will not be
> detectable by such a system.
>
> Indeed we are apparently looking for a "wave" whose velocity of
> propagation is not known at all, and whose characteristics may involve
> extra dimensions of Space or even other potential universes.
NASA Achieves Breakthrough In Black Hole Simulation
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/gwave.html
"According to Einstein's math, when two massive black holes merge,
all of space jiggles like a bowl of Jell-O as gravitational waves
race out from the collision at light speed.
Previous simulations had been plagued by computer crashes.
The necessary equations, based on Einstein's theory of
general relativity, were far too complex. But scientists
at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.,
have found a method to translate Einstein's math in a way
that computers can understand."
I'd like to see what their new math looks like.
Martin Hogbin
"cliff wright" <c.c.w...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message news:45c9...@clear.net.nz...
> For some years now I have from time to time kept up with developments at
> the LIGO sites. Just checked again and saw that "Gravitational waves"
> should be being detected by 2005.
> Well it is now 2007, and I ain't heard nuthin!
> Since 1989 I have had a bet with some of my old colleagues at Auckland
> university that these waves (if they exist at all) will not be
> detectable by such a system.
> Indeed we are apparently looking for a "wave" whose velocity of
> propagation is not known at all, and whose characteristics may involve
> extra dimensions of Space or even other potential universes.
> I would just love to be proved wrong: as it would at least mean that
> physics was on the right track, but I don't think that I will.
> Note to LIGO produce fully backed up measurements of a gravitational
> wave, like a coincidence with a GRB, and I'll donate $50 from a retired
> electronics engineer.
I see LIGO as a latter day equivalent of the Michelson-Morley
experiment. Physicists confidently(?) expect to detect gravity
waves in the same way that they expected to measure the
aether drift. If no waves are detected then a rethink of
cosmology and possibly GR may be required.
I will bet you $50 that gravity waves are detected by 2010.
Not many people are prepared to put their money where
their mouths are. I once asked on this group what results
people expected. Nobody gave a straight reply.
Martin Hogbin
cliff wright
Either way there might be something decided and someones pet theory will
go down the Physicists Gurgler (a black hole presumably!).
I have been involved in a lot of research projects in my nearly 50 years
in science, and I've grown very suspicious of experimenters who keep
saying "Just give us another $5,000,000 and it is certain to work".
Already they really should be very suspicious that something is awry
with their theory. After all most genuine detectors of real phenomena
detect something, even if unintended. Early radios detected lightning
, telescopes showed all sorts of things that were unexpected throughout
their history and even "particle detectors" keep showing up oddball
reasonances.
Some far many millions of dollars have detected ZIP by their own admission.
Just think! If gravitation propogates at anything but c, whether slower
or faster then their coincidence detectors won't work as far as I can
determine. So they are making a helluva lot of assumptions about the
nature of the signals they are looking for.
Yes Sue I have wondered about the wonderful Gravity probe B too.
Years of university politics make me suspicious of "dissapearing
programmes" too.
My son has more formal training in Physics than I and pointed out to me
a very serious problem based on the old "rubber sheet" analogy.
In the analogy 2 dimensional space ( the sheet) is distorted by 3
dimensional mass in a third dimension. Therefore in 3 dimensional space
doen't the alleged spacetime distortion have to occur in a higher
dimension?
Philosophically I am drawn to modern multi dimension theories and this
it seems could imply the existence of other "universes".
Perhaps the weakness of gravity as a force and its unshieldabilty imply
that it "leaks" between many potential "worlds" and is greatly
attenuated as a result.
However I will not be surprised if a theoretical physicist shoots me
down in flames. The trouble is they ususally use an abstruse form of
calculus that only 5 people understand and they don't agree about much.
Always remember who checks their results?
Certainly many review journals have great trouble finding anyone to
adjudicate. Problem is they then tend to look for what for one of the
"authorities" and/or a "visible scientist".
Nice to know there are still a few of us sceptics left!
Regards Cliff Wright.
Regards
harry
"dlzc" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1170869333.3...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Dear cliff wright:
>
> On Feb 7, 3:39 am, cliff wright <c.c.wri...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>> For some years now I have from time to time kept up with
>> developments at the LIGO sites. Just checked again and
>> saw that "Gravitational waves" should be being detected
>> by 2005.
>
> There are some preliminary results (2003) here:
> http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/docs/G/G030003-04/G030003-04.pdf
> ... which you can get to from the LIGO home page.
>
>> Well it is now 2007, and I ain't heard nuthin!
>
> What they appear to be saying is how "Enhanced LIGO" and "Advanced
> LIGO" and "in combination with Virgo" these things will be
> detectable. So what you should hear is "we can't detect what the
> Universe is producing in quantity, with what we have".
Effectively, that is a null result - except if they found an error in the
design of their experiment. Right?
Thanks,
Harald
dlzc
On Feb 8, 7:29 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> wrote:
> "dlzc" <d...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1170869333.3...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Dear cliff wright:
>
> > On Feb 7, 3:39 am, cliff wright <c.c.wri...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> >> For some years now I have from time to time kept up with
> >> developments at the LIGO sites. Just checked again and
> >> saw that "Gravitational waves" should be being detected
> >> by 2005.
>
> > There are some preliminary results (2003) here:
> >http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/docs/G/G030003-04/G030003-04.pdf
> > ... which you can get to from the LIGO home page.
>
> >> Well it is now 2007, and I ain't heard nuthin!
>
> > What they appear to be saying is how "Enhanced LIGO"
> > and "Advanced LIGO" and "in combination with Virgo"
> > these things will be detectable. So what you should
> > hear is "we can't detect what the Universe is producing
> > in quantity, with what we have".
>
> Effectively, that is a null result - except if they found an
> error in the design of their experiment. Right?
Well they have "signal" in the 2003 report, but they consider it to be
"noise". I think they are looking for the equivalent of a
characteristic frequency response, much as you do from a mass
spectrometer. But it will be a blip for some short period of time.
Like a cop with a radar gun...
So yes, they have a null result with what they have. And no, there is
no error in the design of their experiment, just (apparently) much
room for improvement in the apparatus that will allow additional
resolution and increase the S/N ratio.
Even MMX was repeated for many decades, even though an aether was
falling out of favor, and continually yielded null results. So we
should still refine our tools, and keep looking. This is Science, not
first grade.
But what we have here is "propagation velocity" not of "gravity waves"
but angular momentum. How fast (and how) do members of the Universe
communicate with it, since light is not the carrier of gravitation?
Is the Universe present at each point as some sort of remoted aether
or "proxy", or is it simply present at each point with only some
"flavors" diminished by distance? Mach would have an answer that will
yield a null result (I think) for any tool we could make.
It is all illusion anyway. ;>)
David A. Smith
Bullion
dlzc wrote:
>
> But what we have here is "propagation velocity" not of "gravity waves"
> but angular momentum. How fast (and how) do members of the Universe
> communicate with it, since light is not the carrier of gravitation?
> Is the Universe present at each point as some sort of remoted aether
> or "proxy", or is it simply present at each point with only some
> "flavors" diminished by distance? Mach would have an answer that will
> yield a null result (I think) for any tool we could make.
>
What is a wave in space-time?
That is what they are looking for, isn't it?
A wave in space-time caused by some large wobbling mass?
I can certainly understand time going forward
more or less quickly but the idea of time going
in reverse is more difficult. Does a wave in time
have a positive offset, like a D.C. offset in electricity?
I can certainly understand space contracting or
expanding but the idea of gravity waves making
regions of negative space is more difficult.
Does a wave in space have a positive offset?
dlzc
On Feb 8, 9:35 am, Bullion <Bull...@dumpling.org> wrote:
> dlzcwrote:
>
> > But what we have here is "propagation velocity" not of
> > "gravity waves" but angular momentum. How fast (and
> > how) do members of the Universe communicate with
> > it, since light is not the carrier of gravitation? Is the
> > Universe present at each point as some sort of
> > remoted aether or "proxy", or is it simply present at
> > each point with only some "flavors" diminished by
> > distance? Mach would have an answer that will yield
> > a null result (I think) for any tool we could make.
>
> What is a wave in space-time?
Good question. Would it be resolvable, in some part, in space-only?
> That is what they are looking for, isn't it?
> A wave in space-time caused by some large wobbling
> mass?
That is how it is loosely described yes.
> I can certainly understand time going forward
> more or less quickly but the idea of time going
> in reverse is more difficult.
No one is suggesting it would go in reverse. When you have c as a
limit, "more or less quickly" should be enough to express what we
predict we can see.
> Does a wave in time have a positive offset, like a
> D.C. offset in electricity?
>
> I can certainly understand space contracting or
> expanding but the idea of gravity waves making
> regions of negative space is more difficult.
> Does a wave in space have a positive offset?
I don't think "negative spacetime" is necessary to transfer energy,
any more than negative pressure (or antimatter gas) is necessary to
transmit sound energy.
We are looking for a "spatial strain" in local geometries when a
distant mass-pair "pops the clutch" and sends the excess torque into
the "frame" that is the Universe. If this propagates instantly, we'll
never see it. If it propagates via spacetime, we might never see it.
So we look anyway...
David A. Smith
Tom Roberts
> Bullion wrote:
>> What is a wave in space-time?
> Good question. Would it be resolvable, in some part, in space-only?
No.
The LIGO interferometer mirrors are held apart with constant spacelike
proper distance by the inter-atomic force of their supports and beam
pipes. The lasers measure the distance between the mirrors along a null
geodesic. Their signal is the difference between the lengths of these
two geodesics. They usually describe this as a variation in the distance
between the mirrors (implicitly using c=constant all along the light path).
Tom Roberts
Martin Hogbin
"cliff wright" <c.c.w...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message news:45cb...@clear.net.nz...
Excellent! Let us hope that we remember the bet when
the time comes. It might be best to appoint a referee
to decide who wins if the result is not clear cut.
> After all most genuine detectors of real phenomena
> detect something, even if unintended. Early radios detected lightning
> , telescopes showed all sorts of things that were unexpected throughout
> their history and even "particle detectors" keep showing up oddball
> reasonances.
Yes, but to make the bet clear, I a saying that gravitational waves,
as predicted by GR, will be detected by 2010 (I guess that means
by December 31 2010). If something else interesting is detected
then I loose.
> Some far many millions of dollars have detected ZIP by their own admission.
> Just think! If gravitation propogates at anything but c, whether slower
> or faster then their coincidence detectors won't work as far as I can
> determine. So they are making a helluva lot of assumptions about the
> nature of the signals they are looking for.
The physics of GR is pretty clear on what is expected. The
most likely problem I can see is the frequency of appropriate
cosmological events.
> My son has more formal training in Physics than I and pointed out to me
> a very serious problem based on the old "rubber sheet" analogy.
> In the analogy 2 dimensional space ( the sheet) is distorted by 3
> dimensional mass in a third dimension. Therefore in 3 dimensional space
> doen't the alleged spacetime distortion have to occur in a higher
> dimension?
In GR, 4-dimensional spacetime is curved by the presence of
matter and energy. A curved space does not have to embedded
in a higher dimensional flat space, it can be just curved.
> Nice to know there are still a few of us sceptics left!
I am moderately confident and prepared to put my
money where my mouth is.
I suspect that many physicists are hedging their bets by
saying nothing. If waves are detected then they will simply
say 'of course they were - everybody knew that', if they
are not detected they will be able to say, 'I always
suspected that nothing would be found'. I believe
some physicists made comments of this sort after the
null result of the MMX.
Martin Hogbin
sal
Say what? Tom, would you be so kind as to expand that paragraph to
include a definition of "distance" in each place where you used it, and
please explain what you meant by the "length" of each of the geodesics
which are being compared? I'm sorry, but as written, I didn't understand
what you said.
Distance along a null geodesic could mean 3-d _coordinate_ distance of the
endpoints projected into 3-d spacetime, _coordinate_ time difference, or
proper distance (which is zero).
>
>
> Tom Roberts
--
Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email
I can be also contacted through http://www.physicsinsights.org
Sue...
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 17:44:25 +0000, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > dlzc wrote:
> >> Bullion wrote:
> >>> What is a wave in space-time?
> >> Good question. Would it be resolvable, in some part, in space-only?
>
> > No.
>
> > The LIGO interferometer mirrors are held apart with constant spacelike
> > proper distance by the inter-atomic force of their supports and beam
> > pipes. The lasers measure the distance between the mirrors along a null
> > geodesic. Their signal is the difference between the lengths of these two
> > geodesics. They usually describe this as a variation in the distance
> > between the mirrors (implicitly using c=constant all along the light
> > path).
>
> Say what? Tom, would you be so kind as to expand that paragraph to
> include a definition of "distance" in each place where you used it, and
> please explain what you meant by the "length" of each of the geodesics
> which are being compared? I'm sorry, but as written, I didn't understand
> what you said.
>
> Distance along a null geodesic could mean 3-d _coordinate_ distance of the
> endpoints projected into 3-d spacetime, _coordinate_ time difference, or
> proper distance (which is zero).
>
Sal,
Clearly, you are unfamilar with the semantic-operator. It is
hard to find in math texts but can save you a lot of unpleasent
operations when dealing with an expression like this:
<<.. you will notice that the space part enters as if it were
imaginary
R2 = (ct)2 + (ix)2 + (iy)2 + (iz)2 = (ct)2 + (ir)2
>>
http://www.aoc.nrao.edu/~smyers/courses/astro12/speedoflight.html
;-)
Sue...
"Relativity and electromagnetism"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node6.html
Ken S. Tucker
> http://www.aoc.nrao.edu/~smyers/courses/astro12/speedoflight.html
>
> ;-)
> Sue...
No Sue, you're out of date,
We received an order to update that program,
back in the 1970's.
http://physics.trak4.com/
((I'm just catching up on the mail)).
Are we the only SOBs we got that 1983 update??
Ken
Sue...
> ((I'm just catching up on the mail)).
>
> Are we the only SOBs we got that 1983 update??
Many thanks for the new index. Were you going to
tell us which paper resolves the Tate anomaly so
we can cheat on the homework?
It won't be necessary because I know the trick.
I'll read the last one first and have comments in
your MST thread by tomorrow. :o)
Sue...
> Ken
Tom Roberts
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 17:44:25 +0000, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> The LIGO interferometer mirrors are held apart with constant spacelike
>> proper distance by the inter-atomic force of their supports and beam
>> pipes. The lasers measure the distance between the mirrors along a null
>> geodesic. Their signal is the difference between the lengths of these two
>> geodesics. They usually describe this as a variation in the distance
>> between the mirrors (implicitly using c=constant all along the light
>> path).
>
> Say what? Tom, would you be so kind as to expand that paragraph to
> include a definition of "distance" in each place where you used it, and
> please explain what you meant by the "length" of each of the geodesics
> which are being compared? I'm sorry, but as written, I didn't understand
> what you said.
The fields on earth are so small one can use a background Minkowski
frame encompasing all of a given LIGO interferometer. As all of the
interferometer components are supported against the earth's gravity, one
can neglect it. All distances can be measured in this frame. An incoming
gravitational wave distorts the metric from those Minkowski components,
and the laser interferometer can detect that.
> Distance along a null geodesic could mean 3-d _coordinate_ distance of the
> endpoints projected into 3-d spacetime, _coordinate_ time difference, or
> proper distance (which is zero).
It is easiest to use the background Minkowski frame, as above. But one
can also analyze LIGO in a coordinate-independent manner, which is more
what I was thinking when I wrote this. Each pair of atoms maintains
their proper spacing in their instantaneously-comoving inertial frame
(that's what inter-atomic forces do); that is a separate frame for each
pair. The no-gravitational-wave light beam is adjusted to give no output
from the interferometer when everything is settled down, and this is
modeled by computing the light's total phase difference over the path
length by integrating over all those atomic-sized inertial frames (in
practice one uses a coarser approximation), for each arm. The initial
phase delay is equal for the two arms, because that is the condition for
null output. When a gravitational wave comes by, those integrals will
change (one arm increases in total phase delay while the other
decreases), implying that the interferometer output will no longer be
nulled.
Tom Roberts
Joe M.
Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> The no-gravitational-wave light beam is adjusted to give no output
> from the interferometer when everything is settled down, and this is
> modeled by computing the light's total phase difference over the path
> length by integrating over all those atomic-sized inertial frames (in
> practice one uses a coarser approximation), for each arm. The initial
> phase delay is equal for the two arms, because that is the condition for
> null output. When a gravitational wave comes by, those integrals will
> change (one arm increases in total phase delay while the other
> decreases), implying that the interferometer output will no longer be
> nulled.
>
Is the phase delay measured by the spatial displacement of
interference fringes, or pulse time delay?
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> When a gravitational wave comes by, those integrals will
>> change (one arm increases in total phase delay while the other
>> decreases), implying that the interferometer output will no longer be
>> nulled.
>
> Is the phase delay measured by the spatial displacement of
> interference fringes, or pulse time delay?
Basically the former. But the actual detector is more complicated; go to
http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/ and poke around for details.
Tom Roberts
cliff wright
Well this is all very interesting but we still appear to have a non
functional, very expensive apparatus here! Michelson and Morley used an
old cellar and a realtively simple optical interfernometer, in fact they
had to cut their programme short because someone else needed the cellar.
Perhaps, it being in Dublin, a Guiness delivery was expected.
Strange, I always thought that Semantics were to do with the meaning
of language, but I suppose that mathematicians are running out of mames
for ever more abstruse calculations and logical operations.
None of this however more than partially answers my original question.
Though I see someone has phrased it quite well- In effect what are you
actually measuring and how does propagation speed enter the equation?
Electromagnetism had Maxwell, but can Einstein now join his illustrious
company or not?
Maxwell of course had the advantage of already knowing the approximate
velocity of electromagnetic radiation he did not have to assume it.
BTW how is the nature of the "space/time" positioning of the light paths
determined? Or is it assumed that space is substantially "flat" and
unstressed around the mirrors?
I presume that ant "directional" information depends on the time dealy
of signals and therefore the velocity of propagation, but I stand to be
corrected on that.
I fully understand that Einstein's original work as regards
"gravitational radiation" has been much "worked on " since his death 50
years ago, but his name keeps coming up.
One day we may get to the bottom of this gravity well !
Regards Cliff Wright.
Martin Hogbin
"cliff wright" <c.c.w...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message news:45cd6bab$1...@clear.net.nz...
>
> Well this is all very interesting but we still appear to have a non
> functional, very expensive apparatus here!
Not yet functional! You have not responded to my latest
post about our bet. I want to place a serious bet. We need to
agree some basis on which the winner is decided otherwise it
could end up as an argument as to who has won. I will not
pay up unless I am sure that you would have paid up had you
lost.
Do you want to place a serious bet or shall we cal it off?
> Michelson and Morley used an
> old cellar and a realtively simple optical interfernometer, in fact they
> had to cut their programme short because someone else needed the cellar.
> Perhaps, it being in Dublin, a Guiness delivery was expected.
> Strange, I always thought that Semantics were to do with the meaning
> of language, but I suppose that mathematicians are running out of mames
> for ever more abstruse calculations and logical operations.
> None of this however more than partially answers my original question.
> Though I see someone has phrased it quite well- In effect what are you
> actually measuring and how does propagation speed enter the equation?
> Electromagnetism had Maxwell, but can Einstein now join his illustrious
> company or not?
Tom has carefully answered your question using the correct
technical language because that is the easiest way to do so.
Many words (such as 'energy' or 'momentum') have much more
precisely defined meanings in technical usage than in everyday
speech. You need to find out what the terms Tom has used mean
in order to get your answers.
> Maxwell of course had the advantage of already knowing the approximate
> velocity of electromagnetic radiation he did not have to assume it.
> BTW how is the nature of the "space/time" positioning of the light paths
> determined? Or is it assumed that space is substantially "flat" and
> unstressed around the mirrors?
> I presume that ant "directional" information depends on the time dealy
> of signals and therefore the velocity of propagation, but I stand to be
> corrected on that.
You are falling into the trap of expecting distance to be
a 'real' pre-defined thing. We can ultimately only define
distance by how we would measure it. Historically, different
methods have been used. In 1889 one metre was defined as
the distance between two marks on a platinum alloy bar kept
in Paris (this is the constant spacelike proper distance Tom
referred to). On this basis, LIGO would measure a variation
in the speed of light.
However, today one meter is defined as the distance travelled
by light in a specified time. In free space, away from gravitation
and other influences, this gives exactly the same result as using the
metal bar would. In the case of LIGO, because the speed of light
is now defined as a constant, we would now say that the length of
metalwork changes. It all depends on how you choose to define
'distance'.
> I fully understand that Einstein's original work as regards
> "gravitational radiation" has been much "worked on " since his death 50
> years ago, but his name keeps coming up.
An quite rightly so. It is still his theory, unchanged, that is used.
It is just that more details have been worked out.
Martin Hogbin
cliff wright
correlates with the observation (using radio or optical techniques) of
some phenomenon. For example an especially close or powerful gamma ray
burst or supernova event. Then I will gladly stand corrected and pay
you the $50 US (about $74 NZ). However if by the end of 2011, an extra
year please note, no correlated signal which can be independently
checked is received then you owe me $50. The correlated event is
required based on the alleged signals detected by Weber (or was it
Wagner) back in the 1970's which turned out to be unrepeatable.
Does that seem fair to you?
Actually you know I have quite a lot of background in practical Physics
even though my degree was in the history of Technology. I spent most of
my career as an electronics design engineer, and I am an active Amateur
astronomer.
I have most defintely tried NOT to fall into the "trap of distance"
problem. However since Einstein and Quantum mechanics fail to agree on
so many points I get a definite inkling that this whole experiment might
be falling into difficulties beacause of the difference between "macro"
real world conditions and the behaviour of the universe at a quantum level.
At a macroscopic level it is patently absurd to suggest that distance is
not "real". While at the level of quantum effects it is obviously quite
a different thing, otherwise how could a device like a tunnel diode or
any very rapid switching semiconducting device operate.
From my reading it appears that the hypothetical "gravity wave" will
have a longer wavelength than most EM radiation used today and this
necessitates very large (Km size) detectors.
If that isn't Macroscopic what is?
After all the intention of the experiment is not like a CERN type
particle accelerator where one is concentrating the maximum energy in
the minimum volume, but just about the absolute reverse.
I must confess though Martin that as an old time practical experimental
type I still have reservations about the apparent inability of many
theoroticians to explain the basics of their ideas by analogy or some
form of modelling.
If they can't visualise what is happening well enough to explain it to
someone with say basic University level Physics and a reasonable
education background then I am always left with a "emperor's new
clothes" suspicion.
In my 40 years at university I have attended lectures by many visiting
scientists well known internationally in their fields of Physics,
Astronomy and Cosmology and have found that those who can do useful work
can ususally come up with a very good explanation of it to a good
general audience.
Total theoreticicians were another breed however and only exceptional
individuals seemed to be able to communicate their ideas.
A bit of Latin is in order here "Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodies"
( roughly "Who Guards these Guardians").
In a field which I did a lot of work, Acoustics I came across an
instance where the "scientific establishment" refused grants on the
basis of "bad science" to projects which are now in general use.
Look up electronic noise cancellation, otherwise known as "Essex Noise
Reduction" sometime.
Experiences like that shake one's faith in the judgement of some menbers
of the scientific community for good.
I really hope this produces some result for us. If they can detect
"something" when something big goes "bump" then it will be well worth
the money.
Best Regards Cliff Wright.
Ken S. Tucker
...
>I spent most of
> my career as an electronics design engineer, and I am an active Amateur
> astronomer.
Me too!
...
> In a field which I did a lot of work, Acoustics
Me too!
I helped design this little product...
http://earco.travisktucker.com/
...
> I really hope this produces some result for us. If they can detect
> "something" when something big goes "bump" then it will be well worth
> the money.
Me too!
> Best Regards Cliff Wright.
Sure is nice to find someone agreeable :-).
Even IF LIGO remains mute, it will still rank
as one this century's greatest experiments.
It would contribute to unified field theory.
I understand the LIGO type detectors to be
basically MMX type interferometers lying on
the ground, simple in principle but techno-
logically challenging, noise vs signal processing
algorithm, (you'd know a lot about that).
Regards
Ken
Martin Hogbin
"cliff wright" <c.c.w...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message news:45cdc049$1...@clear.net.nz...
I would prefer a generally accepted statement from the scientific
community that gravity waves have been detected. That I why I
suggest that we find an independent referee.
> Actually you know I have quite a lot of background in practical Physics
> even though my degree was in the history of Technology. I spent most of
> my career as an electronics design engineer, and I am an active Amateur
> astronomer.
> I have most defintely tried NOT to fall into the "trap of distance"
> problem. However since Einstein and Quantum mechanics fail to agree on
> so many points I get a definite inkling that this whole experiment might
> be falling into difficulties beacause of the difference between "macro"
> real world conditions and the behaviour of the universe at a quantum level.
> At a macroscopic level it is patently absurd to suggest that distance is
> not "real".
Perhaps 'real' is not the right term to use. What I am saying is that,
at any scale, we must define what we mean by distance before we
can argue about it. The best way to define exactly what we mean is
say how we would measure it. In 1889 the meter was defined one
and today it is defined another.
> From my reading it appears that the hypothetical "gravity wave" will
> have a longer wavelength than most EM radiation used today and this
> necessitates very large (Km size) detectors.
> If that isn't Macroscopic what is?
Agreed, but we must still define what we mean by 'distance'.
> I must confess though Martin that as an old time practical experimental
> type I still have reservations about the apparent inability of many
> theoroticians to explain the basics of their ideas by analogy or some
> form of modelling.
Who are these people who cannot explain their ideas?
Einstein's theory of general relativity has been explained in
many ways by may different people.
> If they can't visualise what is happening well enough to explain it to
> someone with say basic University level Physics and a reasonable
> education background then I am always left with a "emperor's new
> clothes" suspicion.
Firstly, I am not sure how you can tell if someone else is
visualising what is happening.
Secondly GR is not easy to visualise because it takes place
in 4-dimensional spacetime. Imposing a 3-dimensional
Euclidean space on the subject and then trying ti visualise
what happens is doomed to failure.
> In my 40 years at university I have attended lectures by many visiting
> scientists well known internationally in their fields of Physics,
> Astronomy and Cosmology and have found that those who can do useful work
> can ususally come up with a very good explanation of it to a good
> general audience.
> Total theoreticicians were another breed however and only exceptional
> individuals seemed to be able to communicate their ideas.
> A bit of Latin is in order here "Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodies"
> ( roughly "Who Guards these Guardians").
Oh dear. I hope you are not going to turn out to be one of those
who claim that science is a great conspiracy to defraud the
public.
> In a field which I did a lot of work, Acoustics I came across an
> instance where the "scientific establishment" refused grants on the
> basis of "bad science" to projects which are now in general use.
> Look up electronic noise cancellation, otherwise known as "Essex Noise
> Reduction" sometime.
> Experiences like that shake one's faith in the judgement of some menbers
> of the scientific community for good.
Nobody claims to get everything right all of
the time but GR has been subject to nearly
100 years of scrutiny and passed all tests so
far with flying colours.
> I really hope this produces some result for us. If they can detect
> "something" when something big goes "bump" then it will be well worth
> the money.
Yes, I hope something happens.
Martin Hogbin
Androcles
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMO...@hogbin.org> wrote in message news:auCdnYuj0KAcklPY...@bt.com...
Perhaps you listen to Humpty Roberts.
"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:hG3Sf.54263$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
| GSS wrote:
| > Tom Roberts wrote:
| >> I repeat: that is not really "speed".
| > Let us elaborate this point.
|
| Imagine a train leaving one city at 12:00 and arriving in a city 60
| miles to its west at 12:01. Do you really think that train traveled
| 3,600 miles per hour? Of course not! This example used two _different_
| coordinate systems for "time", the two timezones of those two cities. To
| obtain the speed you _must_ use a single coordinate system; then you'll
| realize it traveled just under 60 miles per hour.
|
|
| > If a time interval *dt* is measured by using UTC (or TAI) time
| > standards in reference frames K1, K2, K3 etc. in relative motion within
| > our solar system, will you regard this time interval as real or not
| > real?
|
| "real" has nothing to do with it.
|
|
| > If a distance interval *ds* is measured by using a standard meter rod
| > as per SI standards in reference frames K1, K2, K3 etc. in relative
| > motion within our solar system, will you regard this distance interval
| > as real or not real?
|
| "Real" has nothing to do with it.
|
| To obtain a speed, you must divide the distance traveled by the travel
| time, and _all_ quantities _must_ be measured in a single coordinate
| system. In Newtonian mechanics and SR, the coordinate system must be
| inertial, using standard clocks and rulers. In GR (or other coordinate
| systems) this merely yields coordinate speed.
|
| _Nothing_ else is speed. Because that is what we mean by the word. <shrug>
|
|
| Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
"The Magpie" <use...@mpreston.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e0u2ol$2e8$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
| Hexenmeister wrote:
| > "The Magpie" <use...@mpreston.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
| > news:e0qpkh$8ba$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
| > | No it is not. Space is space, time is time. Together they form a
| > | four-dimensional continuum of which and within which the universe
| > | exists. They are by no means equivalent or similar.
| >
| > Yep. But as the shithead relativist Roberts says:
| > "Real" has nothing to do with it.
| >
| SO who mentioned "real"? Not me.
That's ok. You can say whatever you like in
sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics
as long as it isn't connected to, related to or involves reality. Most do.
You were getting might close to reality with that "four-dimensional
continuum", "universe" and "exists".
Perhaps you don't mean "exist". Shrugging Humpty Roberts doesn't mean
the words he uses either.
Humpty Roberts in Wonderland:-
| Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
From: Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@lucent.com> - Find messages by this
author
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:57:18 GMT
Local: Sat, Sep 17 2005 6:57 pm
Subject: Re: Does the 'Curvature of Spacetime' cause gravity?
"Yes, tests of strong fields are few and far between, but there are
some:
the binary pulsars, and observations of accretion disks near black
holes
`I don't know what you mean by "observations",' Alice said.
Humpty Roberts smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell
you.
I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"' <shrug>
`But "observations" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice
objected.
`When I use a word,' Humpty Roberts said, in rather a scornful tone,
<shrug>,
`it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' <shrug>
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many
different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Roberts, `which is to be master -- that's
all.' <shrug>
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Roberts
began again. `They've a temper, some of them -- particularly verbs: they're
the proudest -- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs --
however,
I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'
<shrug>
"And you never responded to how a 2-d surface in a flat 4-d spacetime can
have nonzero curvature, and why that shows that the curvature of such
2-d surfaces is useless in "describing" the geometry of the 4-d
manifold...." he
droned on.
"If you say that the curvature of 2-d surfaces is useless in
"describing" the geometry of the 4-d manifold....I am willing to agree
with you. But I just wanted you people to help me visualize the
intrinsic curvature of 3-d Schw. space. I was told that the Gaussian
curvature of certain 2-d surfaces will represent the intrinsic
curvature of 3-d Schw. space. When I wanted these 2-d surfaces to be
identified, Jan PB had given some interesting suggestions. But now you
say it is *useless*....." said Alice.
"_SOME_ 2-d surfaces can be useful in describing the geometry of 4-d
spacetime, in particular those spanned by a 2-d vector space of
geodesics. But you were discussing 2-d surfaces defined by coordinates,
and _those_ are useless because coordinates are completely arbitrary,
and introducing that arbitrariness destroys their usefulness" replied Humpty
Roberts.
"That means the notion of intrinsic curvature of space is either too
complex that it cannot be visualized or it is just invalid." exclaimed
Alice.
"No. But in many cases using a ball of dust particles is a better
visualization tool than 2-d surfaces.", said Humpty Roberts, teetering
on his wall.
"Mathematically it is good enough to state that in Riemannian geometry
the Riemann tensor is non-zero. Where is the necessity of associating
it with a cooked up fictitious term 'curvature of space'? " asked Alice,
thinking of the cooked up egg she had for breakfast.
"Mathematicians and physicists are human. We share the common desire to
communicate with each other easily, accurately, and concisely -- that's
why technical vocabularies were invented." said Humpty Roberts scornfully
and pretending he is human by saying "we".
Alice pondered this for moment, then asked "Was it required to fool and
mislead the 'layman'?"
"Your problem, not mine", said Humpty Roberts, then realizing his
Freudian slip, he was pretending to be human, added "(ours).
But this technical vocabulary is not secret or unfathomable, it just
takes _STUDY_. <shrug>"
Alice then went back to say "The term *curvature* basically applies to
the bending of curves and 2-d surfaces."
Ho ho, thought Humpty Roberts, "Not in differential geometry or GR.
The term "curvature" was borrowed by analogy with 2-d surfaces, and
has come to mean the Riemann curvature tensor. That is, a manifold of
_any_ dimension with nonzero Riemann tensor is said to be curved."
and he shrugged like this :- "<shrug>"
Alice asked "Why *said* to be curved when it is actually not curved?"
Humpty Roberts let out a great sigh.
" <sigh>", he said.
"The nuances of English. I was discussing the usage of words and
not the concepts they represent."
-- Tom Humpty Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
news:ZDmYf.51582$2O6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com
The end.
With thanks to Lewis Carroll.
The reader should take careful note here.
Humpty Roberts is not discussing the concepts words represent, he is
discussing the meaning of words. The rest of us use a dictionary.
Professor Androcles.
|
cliff wright
Hi Martin. Just had time to read and inwardly digest your latest.
I think I now see the whole nub of our differences, such as they are on
the nature of "proof" in science.
A big problem is of course what constitutes a "general acceptance" by
the scientific community? Then we have the bigger problem of who
constitutes a "Neutral referee" Potential for even further arguments
here I fear.
You have probably noted that I am a great believer in experiment as the
only "real" proof of theory. That is why I suggest that an independent
check on potential sources of "gravitational waves" has to be a
condition of a claim of sucessful detection. It might in an extreme case
even be a previously unobserved phenomenon but the correalation is all!
An apparatus as delicate as LIGO is inherently prone to noise problems
of all kinds and sooner or later some correaltion might turn up between
the two LIGO detectors purely by chance.
Since many GR theorists careers are riding on LIGO, I merely suspect
that they are as human as anyone else and we all know that we often see
what we expect, as any amateur astronomer knows all too well.
After all the "real" universe is what all our theory is supposed to be
modelling and Not vice versa.
No I'm not one of those people you speak of with regard to science being
a con job. Just as well that it usually isn't. Religion and Politics are
quite enough in that department.
I might add that it would be remarkable if I gave up many hours of my
time to listen to a lot of Con men while spending a lot of my time in
retirement building telescopes and observatories and researching the
history of electronics, one of my pet subjects, if I was anti science.
The fact is most people think of me as fanatically pro Science
especially the local Creationists and members of the anti Space lobby.
regards Cliff Wright.
Ken S. Tucker
> a con job. Just as well that it usually isn't. Religion and Politics are
> quite enough in that department.
> I might add that it would be remarkable if I gave up many hours of my
> time to listen to a lot of Con men while spending a lot of my time in
> retirement building telescopes and observatories and researching the
> history of electronics, one of my pet subjects, if I was anti science.
> The fact is most people think of me as fanatically pro Science
> especially the local Creationists and members of the anti Space lobby.
> regards Cliff Wright.
Cliff makes a point, we can all see faces
in clouds, that's human, but what he fails
to realize is the effort put into the evolving
the algorithm that combines the signals.
Dr. Baez explained that awhile ago, it takes
serious processing power + algorithm.
Ken
BTW, Al Gore did NOT invent the algorithm!
cliff wright
My son for example is an expert (and highly qulified and experienced)
software engineer so I have acess to pretty good technical advice on
software.
My WHOLE POINT is that the detection of a previously unobserved
phenomenon requires definitive and independent proof. This was for
example fortunately insisted on in the case of "Cold fusion" and the
infamous "n" rays early last century. No matter what results the 2
LIGO's give the definitive prooof of "gravitational radiation" is not in
until a source for the signal can be at least strongly suggested which
agrees with the current state of Physics knowledge, or which by
observation extends our knowledge.
I have seen just how far astray the use of massive computing power can
lead in the case of Acoustics modelling. Indeed a post doc student I was
working with once discovered that the algorithm used in the standard
reverberation tests for auditoria by some of the worlds best equipment
companies was seriously flawed.
No matter what the old maxim still applies GIGO to LIGO just as much as
any other use of computing analysis.
Doing maths on its own does not constitute complete scientific
investigation, it remains a thought experiment or model until tested in
the real world.
Regards Cliff Wright.
karand...@yahoo.com
You just registered a "2.7 Wright"
Ken S. Tucker
I can write software, the problem is (I repeat) the
"numerical analysis" algorithm(s), the situation
calls for a "phase arrayed" analysis, looking in the
data to detect a common harmonic "thumping",
using time triangulation. A "one off" event is not
likely to be taken as proof, but it's encouraging
if it corresponded to a visually confirmable event.
> My WHOLE POINT is that the detection of a previously unobserved
> phenomenon requires definitive and independent proof. This was for
> example fortunately insisted on in the case of "Cold fusion" and the
> infamous "n" rays early last century. No matter what results the 2
> LIGO's give the definitive prooof of "gravitational radiation" is not in
> until a source for the signal can be at least strongly suggested which
> agrees with the current state of Physics knowledge, or which by
> observation extends our knowledge.
Again agreed, I've published this paper,
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/KST/GR_Charge_Couple3.pdf
that suggests g-waves will appear as EMR,
and that in turn leads to a Unified Field Theory.
Do you know how much work it is to write
up a UFT (?), well it's a lot, so if LIGO works,
I can get out of doing that, otherwise I got a
serious homework assignment. That's ok but,
I'd rather make sure it's necessary.
> I have seen just how far astray the use of massive computing power can
> lead in the case of Acoustics modelling. Indeed a post doc student I was
> working with once discovered that the algorithm used in the standard
> reverberation tests for auditoria by some of the worlds best equipment
> companies was seriously flawed.
It's not that simple. The complex "search" algorithm
differs from the simple "verification" algorithm,
a verification algorithm is straightforward.
> No matter what the old maxim still applies GIGO to LIGO just as much as
> any other use of computing analysis.
> Doing maths on its own does not constitute complete scientific
> investigation, it remains a thought experiment or model until tested in
> the real world.
It's being tested in "the real world" right now,
and the procedure looks really good to me.
> Regards Cliff Wright.
Thanks, Regards
Ken
cliff wright
tho with my maths I would have to sit down for a while to work it all out.
The residual attractive force looks very well worth following up.
Does it roughly give the correct result for the enormous difference
between gravitational and electromagnetic forces? If so you may indeed
be on to something.
It reminded me of a very good book on Physics I came across probably 20
years ago, I think it was by a lady physicist actually but I can't
remember her name. This gave a very good non mathematical (or reasonably
so) suggestion that the nuclear "weak force" was a similar "imbalance"
of "strong forces" in the nucleus. Has that theory stood the test of time?
If so this might be a big step towards a "unified field" theory.
As soon as I get a bit of time I must really work my way thru your
equations and get a better handle on it. Despite being retired I have 3
grandsons and in 2 weeks time they will rise to 6 as my son is getting
married with a ready made family so I don't have all the time I'd like!
Best Regards Cliff Wright.
Ken S. Tucker
No prob, Eq.(4) "S^2=X^2+ab" is the key,
Eq.(1,2,3) are formalities, so that the article is
founded within established General Relativity
Theory, (GR).
> The residual attractive force looks very well worth following up.
> Does it roughly give the correct result for the enormous difference
> between gravitational and electromagnetic forces?
Yes, GR provides a means to convert length and
mass-energy, for example the mass of the Sun is
approximately 1.47 kilometers, and that figure has
been verified fairly well by measuring the deflection
of light.
In Special Relativity (SR) recall E=mc^2, well GR
blows the doors off that, it gives,
E = L c^4/G ,
where L=Length and G=Newtons gravitational constant.
So a small difference like S-X (From (4)), provides the
enormous energy that powers ElectroMagnetism.
>If so you may indeed be on to something.
Maybe, but it would cost $billions if it's true,
many current text-books would be obsoleted,
professors and teachers would have to be
retrained, and new text books written and
that's why LIGO is such an important test.
> It reminded me of a very good book on Physics I came across probably 20
> years ago, I think it was by a lady physicist actually but I can't
> remember her name. This gave a very good non mathematical (or reasonably
> so) suggestion that the nuclear "weak force" was a similar "imbalance"
> of "strong forces" in the nucleus. Has that theory stood the test of time?
There seems to be some mediocre consensus
on strong and weak force theory, but I think the
smart guys would like something better.
> If so this might be a big step towards a "unified field" theory.
> As soon as I get a bit of time I must really work my way thru your
> equations and get a better handle on it. Despite being retired I have 3
> grandsons and in 2 weeks time they will rise to 6 as my son is getting
> married with a ready made family so I don't have all the time I'd like!
> Best Regards Cliff Wright.
Congrads Cliff, I'm a grandpa too.
Best to you too.
Ken
harry
Exactly - the main purpose is not to "look for whatever", but to test GRT.
> The
> most likely problem I can see is the frequency of appropriate
> cosmological events.
>
>> My son has more formal training in Physics than I and pointed out to me
>> a very serious problem based on the old "rubber sheet" analogy.
>> In the analogy 2 dimensional space ( the sheet) is distorted by 3
>> dimensional mass in a third dimension. Therefore in 3 dimensional space
>> doen't the alleged spacetime distortion have to occur in a higher
>> dimension?
>
> In GR, 4-dimensional spacetime is curved by the presence of
> matter and energy. A curved space does not have to embedded
> in a higher dimensional flat space, it can be just curved.
Curved in what? The very meaning of curved is that it is curved in another
dimension - for example a curved 2D plane (like a bent piece of paper) is
curved in the third dimension. How do you want to curve a thin sheet in 2D
space? IOW, "curved" is probably a misnomer.
>> Nice to know there are still a few of us sceptics left!
>
> I am moderately confident and prepared to put my
> money where my mouth is.
>
> I suspect that many physicists are hedging their bets by
> saying nothing. If waves are detected then they will simply
> say 'of course they were - everybody knew that', if they
> are not detected they will be able to say, 'I always
> suspected that nothing would be found'. I believe
> some physicists made comments of this sort after the
> null result of the MMX.
Right. And most likely, many have (like myself) not studied that issue - so
they don't have an opinion about it.
Harald
Tom Roberts
> "Martin Hogbin" <goatREMO...@hogbin.org> wrote in message
> news:OuqdnVmyorm18VbY...@bt.com...
>> matter and energy. A curved space does not have to embedded
>> in a higher dimensional flat space, it can be just curved.
>
> Curved in what? The very meaning of curved is that it is curved in another
> dimension
No. In this context, "curved" is a technical word meaning "the Riemann
curvature tensor is nonzero". That is a purely intrinsic meaning, and no
embedding manifold is needed. When the spacetime manifold is a model of
the entire universe, such embedding would make no sense. Fortunately, GR
needs none.
> - for example a curved 2D plane (like a bent piece of paper) is
> curved in the third dimension.
Yes, that is an _EXAMPLE_. It is not an exhaustive definition.
And a "bent piece of paper" is NOT "curved" in this
technical sense -- Riemann remains zero for any bending
of the paper that does not stretch, fold, or cut it.
>> I suspect that many physicists are hedging their bets by
>> saying nothing.
It's more that most physicists are saying nothing because they know they
have nothing to say. The vast majority of physicists do not know or
understand GR, and unlike so many people around here, they KNOW that
they do not understand it.
LIGO is now running with roughly twice its initially advertised
sensitivity (private communication from a friend at Hanford).
Unfortunately, continued lack of any signal can be explained by a much
lower rate of sources than estimated. So lack of signal does not really
provide any useful information, except possibly on the incidence of
astrophysical sources....
Personally, I am disappointed and mildly perplexed at their lack of
signals. But like the other potential refutations of GR, this is nowhere
near well enough established to be considered a refutation of GR.
Tom Roberts
cliff wright
Hi Folks.
A quick query here to make sure everyone is "on the same wavelength".
The abbreviation GR are we using it for "gravitational radiation" or
"general relativity" or (horrors) perhaps both.
Ther is so much hot air expended over relativity but what strikes me is
that relativity is classical physics and corrected (slightly by our
direct experience) Newtonian physics. Relativity doesn't have to be
total rubbish, it could just be another in a long sequence of approaches
to the "real world". How come the almost violent emotional reaction to
any suggestion that further corrections might be needed by some
"scientists"? They should learn from the examples of Geophysics and
Paeleontology that paradigms sometimes shift and not behave like a 16th
century churchman.
I wonder what the excuse for lack of signals will have to be if
sensitivity is increased by say another order of magnitude? Not
impossible with modern technology.
Cliff Wright.
shuba
> How come the almost violent emotional reaction to
> any suggestion that further corrections might be needed by some
> "scientists"? They should learn from the examples of Geophysics and
> Paeleontology that paradigms sometimes shift and not behave like a 16th
> century churchman.
Which scientists are you referring to? The blanket indictment of
scientists is pretty standard around here, so I think you ought
to name names. It seems to me that most theorists believe that
there is a level at which general relativity breaks down,
especially at the quantum domain. There are ongoing attempts to
create valid quantum gravity theories, but no one has quite put
it all together yet in a convincing manner. There are various
flavors of string theory, M-theory, loop quantum gravity and
other contenders, as well as many fringe and crank theories. So
again, exactly which people are you attempting to equate to the
persecutors of Galileo?
---Tim Shuba---
cliff wright
Tim.
Personally I don't consider anyone with a totally closed mind to
be a "scientist". That most honourable term should denote a genuine
seeker of the rules by which the universe operates not someone who
operates under some of the same "rules" as a religious or a politician.
That is exactly why I used inverted commas. There is no need to give a
list of names, most people with a genuine interest in the subject can
pick a "holy writ" scientist or a "crackpot" out by their behaviour
fairly quickly.
It puzzles me though as to why so many folks in this group are so
hypersensitive to any and all queries (not even criticisms) about their
current theories.
As to who I equate with Galileo's persecutors( and incidentally he did
rather ask for it, have you ever read "dialogue on the 2 world systems),
well I still think our old mate William of Occam said it well in the
14th century- paraphrased- "the least number of unknowns is the most
likely answer". Cosmology at the moment is a textbook case of ignoring
"Occam's Razor" for example.
Many modern theories are quite fascinating especially some string
theories and I personally tend to philosophically favour some kind of
multi universe theory involving the extra spatial dimensions.
It is not the theory they put forward that marks them as "bad"
scientists, but their attitude to others with a different approach.
As an amateur astronomer for example I am very familiar with the case of
Dr Arp and the refusal to grant him equipment access because of his
heterodox theories on Quasars.
Hope this makes my meaning clearer to all.
Regards Cliff Wright.
Tom Roberts
> The abbreviation GR are we using it for "gravitational radiation" or
> "general relativity" or (horrors) perhaps both.
I use it only for General Relativity. I have not seen it used for
gravitational radiation -- that would definitely be unusual.
> Ther is so much hot air expended over relativity
Yes. By people who do not understand it.
> but what strikes me is that relativity is classical physics and
> corrected (slightly by our direct experience) Newtonian physics.
Not at all! GR is based on a completely different worldview. Yes, in a
suitable limit it agrees with Newtonian mechanics, but the two theories
are utterly incommensurate in the way they model the world.
> Relativity doesn't have to be total rubbish, it could just be another
> in a long sequence of approaches to the "real world".
Relativity is not any sort of "rubbish". But yes, it is almost certainly
just one more step on the path to some "ultimate" theory.
> How come the almost violent emotional reaction to any suggestion that
> further corrections might be needed by some "scientists"?
I have no idea what you are talking about. It is the CRITICS of
relativity that get so emotional, and most of them are not "scientists"
by any definition of the word. Modern physicists understand that GR
cannot possibly be the "ultimate" theory, and is most likely some sort
of low-energy limit or effective field theory.
> I wonder what the excuse for lack of signals will have to be if
> sensitivity is increased by say another order of magnitude? Not
> impossible with modern technology.
LIGO is contemplating turning off for several months and upgrading their
system to improve its sensitivity by a factor of ~5. This would be
primarily increasing the power in its interferometer. This requires even
better nulling of the signal, to avoid melting the photodiode.... It is
currently about a factor of 2 more sensitive than their initial plans.
> I still think our old mate William of Occam said it well in the 14th
> century- paraphrased- "the least number of unknowns is the most
> likely answer". Cosmology at the moment is a textbook case of
> ignoring "Occam's Razor" for example.
Obviously you do not understand modern cosmology or astrophysics.
Observations of the world are driving current theory, and "simple"
explanations simply do not work.
Einstein said "Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler."
-- that's a much more accurate description of the current situation.
Tom Roberts
cliff wright
Well Tom, I already knew of the first of these upgrades of LIGO, indeed
that prompted my first posting when results still did not come.
It is good to hear that they have further improvements in train also,
after all the LIGO's are there so one might as well make the very best
of them. BTW how do they manage with thermal noise in the photodiodes?
If I remember my time in semiconductor research 40 years ago I seem to
recollect that Johnson noise is proportional to 1/f and so would be more
of a problem down at frequencies where "gravitational waves" would be
expected. A really powerful laser would therefore have problems as well
as benefits.
As one who has spent most of his carreer designing and building
scientific electronics I remain highly suspicious of very low
signal/noise results. Such things are fine when you know exatly what you
are looking for (like a GPS signal for example), but when looking for
proof of a debatable result then things are not so "safe".
As to my understanding, or lack of it in cosmology and astrophysics,
well I may not be up with the mathmetical methods used in modern
cosmology and astrophysics but I flatter myself that I know a lot more
about both subjects than the average "man in the street".
I had the good fortune over my years with Auckland University to meet
many of the world's foremost researchers in various fields notably
galactic evolution and clustering,GRB's and extra solar planet detection.
I found these gentlemen to be able to explain their work very clearly
and cogently in the various seminars I attended so that I was able to
raise what they considered very reasonable questions and have very
fruitfull discussions when time permitted.
Apparently they did not think I was being stupid or ignorant about their
work!
I hope that by now you realise that I am very far from being ANTI
science, but I do consider it my right to question some directions that
science is apparently taking.
You live, I presume in a society with a democratically elected
government and you need money for salary and research. Thus in your own
interest and that of science in general, explaining one's work is a very
important part of one's job. Senate may dole out the research grants,
but sooner or later the public want to see and hear some results.
As to our old friend Albert's modification of Occam's razor. Well I'm
not sure when he made that comment but I would guess in the 1940's,
after all he died in 1955.
At that time we knew of something like 5 atomic particles and cosmology
extended not much futher that the Local Group of galaxies with MT Wilson
being the world's largest telescope. Then quite possibly he had a point.
But history has a way of leaving things behind.
Now we have a vast "zoo" of particles, despite valiant efforts to
simplify things and can "see" out to a rerasonable sample of the
universe, if the simple "Big Bang" theory is accepted.
We now need "missing mass" as WIMPS or MACHOS or something even more
esoteric, "dark energy", mysterious anti-gravity forces and divers other
"odds and sods" like cosmic strings.
Sorry if it offends you, but as a science historian this begins to
remind me of Crystal Spheres and Epicycles and other pre Copernican
machinery.
IMO it is well past time that physics in particular took stock of the
situation and re evaluated the "big picture" by giving more attention to
simplifying theories.
My experience in science over 45 years has always been that real
advances tend to come at the interface between disciplines rather than
from those deeply centred in them.
As to " emotional reactions" to heterodox ideas well a year or two back
a modified theory of gravity at very large distances was proposed which
appeared to remove most of the "missing mass" problem. The reaction I
saw from some physicists was practically a howl of rage.
But the most reprehensible thing was that very few that I came across
actually bothered to show exactly where this theory went wrong.
It is just not good enough to say that "It doesn't agree with Newton" or
"It is incompatible with GR". After all I think you would agree that
when GR may need modification it will most likely be under extreme
conditions and this must include distance.
The mathematics of basic gravitation (as an apparent force between
objects ) are simple enough even for even me to use,so why this knee
jerk reaction.
It is almost like our old aquaintance "Archimedes Plutonium" in reverse,
and is simply not good enough for respectable scientists.
Cliff Wright
Tom Roberts
> Now we have a vast "zoo" of particles, despite valiant efforts to
> simplify things and can "see" out to a rerasonable sample of the
> universe, if the simple "Big Bang" theory is accepted.
> We now need "missing mass" as WIMPS or MACHOS or something even more
> esoteric, "dark energy", mysterious anti-gravity forces and divers other
> "odds and sods" like cosmic strings.
> Sorry if it offends you, but as a science historian this begins to
> remind me of Crystal Spheres and Epicycles and other pre Copernican
> machinery.
Yes. There is currently a "crisis" [#] in theoretical physics, and has
been one for many decades: the incompatibility between GR and quantum
mechanics. And a large number of theorists are attempting to address
this issue -- that's what string theory is all about (not to mention
loop quantum gravity and ...).
[#] See Kuhn, _The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions_.
> IMO it is well past time that physics in particular took stock of the
> situation and re evaluated the "big picture" by giving more attention to
> simplifying theories.
GR is quite clearly the "simplest" theory within its domain, for
essentially any meaning of "simplest" based on a theory's foundations or
concepts. This may come as a surprise, as GR it quite complicated to
apply, but its theoretical foundations are quite simple: the equivalence
principle, local Lorentz invariance, and coordinate independence.
> My experience in science over 45 years has always been that real
> advances tend to come at the interface between disciplines rather than
> from those deeply centred in them.
Yes. The intersection between GR and QM is a hotbed....
> As to " emotional reactions" to heterodox ideas well a year or two back
> a modified theory of gravity at very large distances was proposed which
> appeared to remove most of the "missing mass" problem. The reaction I
> saw from some physicists was practically a howl of rage.
Hmmm. My interpretation of that was not "rage" but incredulity --
surprise anyone would think it made sense. It is not science to "tweak"
a theory with the sole purpose of making it agree with observations, and
such theories are FAR more complicated than GR (even Newtonian mechanics
is more complicated than GR, in this sense). IIRC such theories have as
many free parameters as observations to fit, so it's no surprise they
can fit them, but they don't "teach" anything -- what you get out is
just what you put in.
Tom Roberts
JanPB
[...]
> We now need "missing mass" as WIMPS or MACHOS or something even more
> esoteric, "dark energy", mysterious anti-gravity forces and divers other
> "odds and sods" like cosmic strings.
> Sorry if it offends you, but as a science historian this begins to
> remind me of Crystal Spheres and Epicycles and other pre Copernican
> machinery.
Yes - I call it "it smells of aether". Clearly the situation in
physics now is very reminiscent of pre-1905.
--
Jan Bielawski
Eric Gisse
I don't recall there ever being an experiment that indirectly showed
the aether existed.
As far as dark matter is concerned, we know it is there. It has to be
there unless gravitational lensing has been lying to us.
>
> --
> Jan Bielawski
Ken S. Tucker
LOL, I quote, "we know it is there. It has to be"
A bird talking to another bird about air.
A fish talking to another fish about water.
A worm talking to another worm about earth.
Species dependant arguments, science has
taken a great leap, but in what direction?
Ken
Barry
> Yes. There is currently a "crisis" [#] in theoretical physics, and has
> been one for many decades: the incompatibility between GR and quantum
> mechanics. And a large number of theorists are attempting to address
> this issue -- that's what string theory is all about (not to mention
> loop quantum gravity and ...).
>
> [#] See Kuhn, _The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions_....
>
> ....It is not science to "tweak"
> a theory with the sole purpose of making it agree with observation...
Kuhn's view was that "normal science" is not done by objective and
independent thinkers. "Normal science" accepts what has been taught
and aims to confirm what is already known.
According to Kuhn, "normal science" handles theoretical crises
"tweaking" a theory to make it agree with observation.
Hence if objects don't behave as a theory says that they should, it is
"normal" for the theory to be "tweaked" by postulating the existence
of "ghost matter" - the only evidence for which is that the current
theory doesn't fit the current observations.
Barry
cliff wright
Good Day Tom.
Well there we agree, there is indeed a crisis in Physics and
ubfortunately it has gone on now for decades with very little
resolution. Perhaps that is why so much esoterica keeps bubbling up in
what looks like increasingly desperate attempts to salvage a coherent
"world view" from the chaos.
The multi universe implications of some string theories I fine
especially philosophically interesting but the only, very dubious test I
have heard for any of this so far is an examination of the variations in
the "cosmic background" radiation which looks to me neither very
sensitive or inherently reliable.
GR is indeed the simplest available theory of "almost everything" to
date but then we already know that GR does NOT apply in quantum
mechanics and some of its predictions lead to far too many infinities
for my taste. Here of course we run into the boundary (if any) between
Philosophy and science.
No argument at all, about the interface between disciplines. I still
reckon the whole problem about the "cold fusion" phenomenon was that
chemists didn't fully understand Physics and vice versa.
Now here is where we do differ-
Historically science is full of what you describe as "tweaks".
Kepler did a lot of them with his laws of planeatary motion for example
based on Tycho Brahe's observations.
In my day we called really bad tweaking "Cook's Constant".
In any case postulating invisible and almost undetectable matter and
energy to fit the observations is EXACTLY what modern cosmology has done.
One poster pointed out about Gravitational lensing as a "proof" of the
existence of "dark matter", but since this has proved completely
undetectable except in so far as it saves the theory how is it in any
way superior to a modification of Newtonian/Einsteinian gravity at
extreme distances. Indeed "dark matter" has to be very selective in its
location to have anything like the effects we observe.
I'm getting pretty sure in my old age that much of the problem stems
from the very poor standard of science teaching these days. In my time
(the 1950's) we did lots of hands on experimentation, I'm sure that we
ended up with a far better grasp of the realities of science and
experiment than modern students have.
Cliff Wright.
Koobee Wublee
> cliff wright wrote:
> > Now we have a vast "zoo" of particles, despite valiant efforts to
> > simplify things and can "see" out to a rerasonable sample of the
> > universe, if the simple "Big Bang" theory is accepted.
> > We now need "missing mass" as WIMPS or MACHOS or something
> > even more esoteric, "dark energy", mysterious anti-gravity forces
> > and divers other "odds and sods" like cosmic strings.
> > Sorry if it offends you, but as a science historian this begins to
> > remind me of Crystal Spheres and Epicycles and other pre
> > Copernican machinery.
>
> Yes. There is currently a "crisis" [#] in theoretical physics, and has
> been one for many decades: the incompatibility between GR and
> quantum mechanics.
There has been a crisis for almost two hundred years. Starting with
the ad hoc work of the fathers of electromagnetism to the faulty
concept of SR to the absurd hypothesis of GR, the BS is just piling up
higher and deeper.
Electromagnetism:
** Green's Theorem is wrong.
** Stokes' Theorem based on Green's Theorem is also wrong.
** That was some mathemagic trick by Heaviside to treat a total
derivative like a partial derivative.
Special Relativity:
** Consistent interference pattern can only occur if there is
absolute simultaneity. Poincare really screwed up on this one.
** Lorentz transform is wrong. It only predicts one-way
observation. The reciprocal property of SR is never observed. The
symmetry of the Lorentz transform is the basis of SR. Thus, SR has
not been proven to be valid. In fact, the twin's paradox which
describes any observations or experiments simply proves SR wrong.
General Relativity:
** There are many ways to write or group connection coefficients in a
general geodesic equation of several dimensions. Christoffel only
discovered the most symmetric form. It is through the Christoffel
symbols of the second kind that allowed Ricci to design his covariant
derivative. The covariant derivative is totally groundless.
** From this designer's derivative (the covariant derivative), Ricci
designed his Riemann curvature tensor. There are actually many ways
to write or group the results of geodesic variation. Ricci only found
the most symmetric form.
At this stage, it should be so obvious that GR is pure nonsense, but
there are more.
** Hilbert's Lagrangian does not even satisfy as a Lagrangian where
it is a function of the Ricci curvature tensor. Ricci curvature
tensor was designed by Ricci's student Levi-Civita by modifying the
Riemann curvature tensor.
** The concept of the geodesics follows the path of maximum spacetime
or proper time is utterly absurd because this would not allow a photon
to travel through space. A photon always experiences null spacetime.
** The field equations require the Einstein tensor to be equivalent
to the energy-momentum tensor. The Einstein tensor represents the
invariance of spacetime itself. However, the energy-momentum tensor
is observer dependent because energy and mass are observer dependent.
This should make a sane physicist throw up.
** The Cosmological constant (finally of Einstein's creative work)
was no creative at all. One can achieve the same by modifying
Newtonian law of gravity. <shrug>
** The invariant curvature in spacetime is described by an observer's
choice of coordinate system where each observer would observe a
different curvature depending on his own choice of coordinate system.
For example, the Minkowski metric does not necessarily describe flat
spacetime. Even if spacetime is curved, this curvature would be
observed to be flat given the Minkowski metric with this non-linear
coordinate system. Another example is the flat spacetime can be
described by a non-linear metric with the polar coordinate system.
With the curvature in spacetime being described by a particular set of
coordinate system, the solutions to the field equations become
infinitely many. One can even find a metric that describes the
expanding and accelerating expanding universe without evoking the
Cosmology constant. What good is a set of field equations that can
give you a universe of your imagination?
** Mercury's orbital anomaly is only explained if geodesics follow
the path of maximum spacetime. This concept in geodesics would not
allow a photon to travel through spacetime. The photon bending can
only occur if geodesics follow the path of minimum time. The
mathemagic tricks treat Mercury problem with maximum spacetime but
treat photon bending with minimum time. You cannot have both ways.
** Shapiro's experiment did not verify photon bending but
gravitational time dilation. He needs to establish the distance from
Venus to the earth extremely accurately at the moment where the photon
is transmitted and detected. He did not use an interferometer. Thus,
his result is very convoluted.
The list just goes on.
> And a large number of theorists are attempting
> to address this issue -- that's what string theory is all about (not to
> mention loop quantum gravity and ...).
We probably have to bulldoze the entire work from Thomson and up into
the ocean and start out new. No more mathemagic tricks please.
> > IMO it is well past time that physics in particular took stock of the
> > situation and re evaluated the "big picture" by giving more
> > attention to simplifying theories.
>
> GR is quite clearly the "simplest" theory within its domain, for
> essentially any meaning of "simplest" based on a theory's foundations or
> concepts. This may come as a surprise, as GR it quite complicated to
> apply, but its theoretical foundations are quite simple: the equivalence
> principle, local Lorentz invariance, and coordinate independence.
GR is total nonsense. <shrug> Since GR has to be backward compatible
with Newtonian physics, it is achieved by setting a few integration
constant to satisfy that. <shrug> It is not surprising that GR
agrees with Newton. The problem lies in the second order effect.
> > My experience in science over 45 years has always been that real
> > advances tend to come at the interface between disciplines rather than
> > from those deeply centred in them.
>
> Yes. The intersection between GR and QM is a hotbed....
There should be no comparison.
> > As to " emotional reactions" to heterodox ideas well a year or two back
> > a modified theory of gravity at very large distances was proposed which
> > appeared to remove most of the "missing mass" problem. The reaction I
> > saw from some physicists was practically a howl of rage.
>
> Hmmm. My interpretation of that was not "rage" but incredulity --
> surprise anyone would think it made sense. It is not science to "tweak"
> a theory with the sole purpose of making it agree with observations, and
> such theories are FAR more complicated than GR (even Newtonian mechanics
> is more complicated than GR, in this sense). IIRC such theories have as
> many free parameters as observations to fit, so it's no surprise they
> can fit them, but they don't "teach" anything -- what you get out is
> just what you put in.
So far from what I have seen, what you call science is in fact a form
of alchemy with mathemagic tricks and very liberal interpretation of
the data (such as the experiments of SR). <shrug>
Eric Gisse
"Forward" would be the likely choice.
cliff wright
Really Jan you ought to do better than that.
How is your knowledge of the history of science?
In the 18th century there was a theory of "oxidation" that required the
existence of a substance called "Phoglostigon" (my spelling may need
correction here as I can't find my reference right now). This had
negative weight in some circumstances and beautifully described the
chemical results of combustion. However it simply didn't exist as
Lavoisier, Priestly et al finally sorted out.
It has to be there, forsooth! Really!!!
Certainly gravitational lensing appears to be a real effect, indeed I
have actually observed what is said to be an example visually with a 25"
reflector a year or two back. But to assume that "dark matter" made of
undetectable particles or massive halo objects that so far do not seem
to exist in sufficient numbers is responsible for the effect is jumping
about 5 steps ahead into the unknown. Especially when alternative
explanations have not been exhausted.
I've just picked up march "Sky and telescope and the editorial
actually points out that "dark matter" remains an unproven hypothesis.
Is it not strange that the larger the scale of observation, the higher
the proportion of "dark" to normal matter has to be?
To me that is a very good pointer to the effect actually being a scale
effect based on distance rather than some undetectable "matter".
As to the old Aether argument, well since most current Quantum theories
I am aware of require a "sea" of "virtual particles" throughout the
universe. That looks pretty damn close philosophically to me.
Of course if they are omnipresent then measuring relative to them would
be a big problem, but in a sense a medium would exist for the
propagation of radiation etc.
Sometimes I realy wish that more theoretical Physicists simply spent
some time considering the "real world" implications of their theoretical
work. I am quite sure that this would save them years of computer and
paper time and greatly improve their useful output.
Cliff Wright.
Eric Gisse
Actually, they have. There are no alternative explanations that hold
muster with the discovery of the non-interaction of dark matter with
regular matter in the bullet cluster.
>
> I've just picked up march "Sky and telescope and the editorial
> actually points out that "dark matter" remains an unproven hypothesis.
Mostly because it is impossible to prove a hypothesis to be true.
> Is it not strange that the larger the scale of observation, the higher
> the proportion of "dark" to normal matter has to be?
Yes, because it isn't true.
> To me that is a very good pointer to the effect actually being a scale
> effect based on distance rather than some undetectable "matter".
>
> As to the old Aether argument, well since most current Quantum theories
> I am aware of require a "sea" of "virtual particles" throughout the
> universe. That looks pretty damn close philosophically to me.
...except virtual particles have many consequences that are detectable
and verified through experiment. The same cannot be said about the
aether.
Quit using irrelevant historical arguments. The discredited ideas of
the past never had the level of support that dark matter and dark
energy have.
> Of course if they are omnipresent then measuring relative to them would
> be a big problem, but in a sense a medium would exist for the
> propagation of radiation etc.
The quantum vacuum is not a medium.
>
> Sometimes I realy wish that more theoretical Physicists simply spent
> some time considering the "real world" implications of their theoretical
> work. I am quite sure that this would save them years of computer and
> paper time and greatly improve their useful output.
Sometimes I wish folks with no training in a field would stop telling
the professionals what to do.
>
> Cliff Wright.
Koobee Wublee
> On Feb 20, 6:00 pm, cliff wright <c.c.wri...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> > As they say in British courtroom dramas "I rest my case M'lud".
> > Really Jan you ought to do better than that.
> > How is your knowledge of the history of science?
> > In the 18th century there was a theory of "oxidation" that required the
> > existence of a substance called "Phoglostigon" (my spelling may need
> > correction here as I can't find my reference right now). This had
> > negative weight in some circumstances and beautifully described the
> > chemical results of combustion. However it simply didn't exist as
> > Lavoisier, Priestly et al finally sorted out.
> > It has to be there, forsooth! Really!!!
>
> > Certainly gravitational lensing appears to be a real effect, indeed I
> > have actually observed what is said to be an example visually with a 25"
> > reflector a year or two back. But to assume that "dark matter" made of
> > undetectable particles or massive halo objects that so far do not seem
> > to exist in sufficient numbers is responsible for the effect is jumping
> > about 5 steps ahead into the unknown. Especially when alternative
> > explanations have not been exhausted.
>
> Actually, they have. There are no alternative explanations that hold
> muster with the discovery of the non-interaction of dark matter with
> regular matter in the bullet cluster.
More recital of BS from the gizzard himself. You are very good with
subjects without math. Physics without math is purely philosophy.
> > I've just picked up march "Sky and telescope and the editorial
> > actually points out that "dark matter" remains an unproven hypothesis.
>
> Mostly because it is impossible to prove a hypothesis to be true.
It is hard to prove because GR is BS, and all that crap is based on
GR. <shrug>
> > Is it not strange that the larger the scale of observation, the higher
> > the proportion of "dark" to normal matter has to be?
>
> Yes, because it isn't true.
Only according to the absurdity of GR. <shrug>
> > To me that is a very good pointer to the effect actually being a scale
> > effect based on distance rather than some undetectable "matter".
>
> > As to the old Aether argument, well since most current Quantum theories
> > I am aware of require a "sea" of "virtual particles" throughout the
> > universe. That looks pretty damn close philosophically to me.
>
> ...except virtual particles have many consequences that are detectable
> and verified through experiment. The same cannot be said about the
> aether.
More speculation on your part. It is time to rest from more BS.
> Quit using irrelevant historical arguments. The discredited ideas of
> the past never had the level of support that dark matter and dark
> energy have.
History is still very important in understanding of what becomes of
us.
Some of us know Poincare was not a vegetable compared to Einstein. In
fact, Einstein should appear to be retarded in front of Poincare.
Some of us also know Hilbert was not brain-dead. In fact, Einstein
should appear to be a rock in front of Hilbert, and this is not an
understatement.
> > Of course if they are omnipresent then measuring relative to them would
> > be a big problem, but in a sense a medium would exist for the
> > propagation of radiation etc.
>
> The quantum vacuum is not a medium.
It is totally subjective.
> > Sometimes I realy wish that more theoretical Physicists simply spent
> > some time considering the "real world" implications of their theoretical
> > work. I am quite sure that this would save them years of computer and
> > paper time and greatly improve their useful output.
>
> Sometimes I wish folks with no training in a field would stop telling
> the professionals what to do.
What qualifies you as a professional? The "professional" tend to
conjure mathemagic tricks and convoluted experimental results. Just
because they got where they are with subsidized funding does not mean
they are true professionals. A lot of us would call that "well fare"
at the academic level. <shrug> Not all of us are as stupid as
mushrooms who cannot even do simple algebra. Some of us are very
capable of checking their math and their experiment results.
JanPB
For some reason I feel dark matter is an irrelevant kludge, like
aether. It just seems to have "data overfitting" and "fudge factor"
written all over it IMHO.
--
Jan Bielawski
Eric Gisse
I am also very good with subjects *with* math. It is just hard to show
because math translates very, very poorly into ASCII. If you'd like, I
could scan the homework sets that I have done this week. Perhaps you
could critique them.
Anyway, I fail to see how you can even begin to make such a statement,
oh true disciple of Riemann. Would you please be so kind as to tell me
again the story of how you can introduce curvature into a flat
manifold simply via a coordinate transformation. Or how about the
legendary denial about the true surface area of a sphere of constant
radius in the Schwarzschild geometry even while the explicit
derivation was staring you in the face?
>
> > > I've just picked up march "Sky and telescope and the editorial
> > > actually points out that "dark matter" remains an unproven hypothesis.
> >
> > Mostly because it is impossible to prove a hypothesis to be true.
>
> It is hard to prove because GR is BS, and all that crap is based on
> GR. <shrug>
Since your understanding of differential geometry is flawed from the
basics up, it is hard to take such a statement from you seriously.
>
> > > Is it not strange that the larger the scale of observation, the higher
> > > the proportion of "dark" to normal matter has to be?
> >
> > Yes, because it isn't true.
>
> Only according to the absurdity of GR. <shrug>
GR has nothing to do with it, capricious idiot.
>
> > > To me that is a very good pointer to the effect actually being a scale
> > > effect based on distance rather than some undetectable "matter".
> >
> > > As to the old Aether argument, well since most current Quantum theories
> > > I am aware of require a "sea" of "virtual particles" throughout the
> > > universe. That looks pretty damn close philosophically to me.
> >
> > ...except virtual particles have many consequences that are detectable
> > and verified through experiment. The same cannot be said about the
> > aether.
>
> More speculation on your part. It is time to rest from more BS.
*yawn*
Vacuum polarization, Lamb shift, Casimir effect.
All of the arrogance, none of the knowledge.
>
> > Quit using irrelevant historical arguments. The discredited ideas of
> > the past never had the level of support that dark matter and dark
> > energy have.
>
> History is still very important in understanding of what becomes of
> us.
Of course.
>
> Some of us know Poincare was not a vegetable compared to Einstein. In
> fact, Einstein should appear to be retarded in front of Poincare.
Naturally this is the opinion fronted by someone who is explicitly
anti-Einstein.
>
> Some of us also know Hilbert was not brain-dead. In fact, Einstein
> should appear to be a rock in front of Hilbert, and this is not an
> understatement.
More anti-Einstein gibberish from the guy who thinks Einstein had
difficulty with algebra.
>
> > > Of course if they are omnipresent then measuring relative to them would
> > > be a big problem, but in a sense a medium would exist for the
> > > propagation of radiation etc.
> >
> > The quantum vacuum is not a medium.
>
> It is totally subjective.
>
> > > Sometimes I realy wish that more theoretical Physicists simply spent
> > > some time considering the "real world" implications of their theoretical
> > > work. I am quite sure that this would save them years of computer and
> > > paper time and greatly improve their useful output.
> >
> > Sometimes I wish folks with no training in a field would stop telling
> > the professionals what to do.
>
> What qualifies you as a professional? The "professional" tend to
> conjure mathemagic tricks and convoluted experimental results. Just
> because they got where they are with subsidized funding does not mean
> they are true professionals. A lot of us would call that "well fare"
> at the academic level. <shrug> Not all of us are as stupid as
> mushrooms who cannot even do simple algebra. Some of us are very
> capable of checking their math and their experiment results.
Well, I'm a senior in a physics degree program and I'll be done with
the theoretical component of my bachelors at the conclusion of this
semester. At any rate, I never said I was a professional. I simply
asked how someone who is quite unfamiliar with recent developments in
a field can have the chutzpah to tell the professionals what to do and
what to think.
Since you brought up the subject, why don't you explain to me where
you were taught your general relativity and differential geometry? You
are a retired aerospace engineer, judging from what you have said in
the past. The closest you would get to differential geometry is
complex analysis and the closest you would get to general relativity
is when you walked by the physics building that one time when you were
an undergrad.
It certainly would be nice to read about the background of a person
who thinks that both general relativity and Riemannian geometry are
fundamentally flawed. I'm especially curious to see if that person's
education actually contains anything regarding either subject.
Androcles
"JanPB" <fil...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1172045864....@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
"A-A <> 0" - Bilewacky
Eric Gisse
I believe the time for that type of opinion has passed.
http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/21/dark-matter-exists/
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060824.html
Dark matter, once upon a time, was simply a way of explaining away
what we were expecting.
The idea wasn't without precedent. Pluto's existence was first
inferred through explaining Neptune's odd [at the time] orbit. Black
holes are discovered by explaining the orbits of stars - even though
they are not directly visible.
Then weak lensing showed us that dark matter is everywhere in the
halos of galaxies _everywhere_. It still could be argued that it was
gravity fucking with us. Then the bullet cluster was discovered - dark
matter got a whole lot more substantial.
Then again, a similar process was attempted on Mercury and it took
general relativity to explain it. I do think, though, that the
evidence weighs in enough to make dark matter a viable concept.
Especially when the bullet cluster results shredded competing theories
like MOND [Hell, MOND was simply curve fitting as well - no less
satisfying].
The comparison between dark matter and aether, or various past ideas,
irritates me because the such ideas never had the kind of support that
dark matter does today.
>
> --
> Jan Bielawski
cliff wright
I know history is "bunk" these days but let's set a few things straight
here.
1. Pluto was discovered accidentally by Clyde Tombaugh when extending
the search for Lowells "planet X" in 1930. It was way outside the
ecliptic (I presume that you know what that is ?) and many magnitudes
fainter than the expected object. As an observing assistant that is one
of the reasons why Clyde had the job, it proved to be much longer and
more difficult than expected and the "professionals" didn't want the
hard work. Clyde did a marvellous job and is deservedly famous, but he
didn't find Planet X and neither has anyone elese since.
The pertubations, such as they are, of Neptunes orbit are still
largely unexplained.
And yes, I have seen the original discovery plates at the Lowell
observatory for myself!
2. What the orbital dynamics of some stars show is the presence of a
highly condensed massive object which may, or may not, be some kind of
singularity.
3. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit had been known
since the late 19th century, it is a very small effect measured in
seconds of arc. Although often quoted as an early proof of relativity it
is not totally "bulletproof" as effects like the dynamics of the solar
wind were not understood at the time. Not to say relativity isn't very
useful where Newtonian Physics breaks down but when putting all one's
eggs in one basket it pays to be very, very careful with your basics.
4. As an astronomer with my own modest observatory, could you please
quote me the catalogue number (NGC etc) of this "bullet cluster" to
which you refer (rather unscientifically) so I can do some research for
myself. Or are you simply referring to a scatter of images?
5. I was reliably informed by at least two well respected US
professional astronomers 3 or 4 years ago at seminars at Auckland
University that the effects of "missing mass" increased in proportion to
the scale of the universe being observed. That is it was small in a
typical spiral, larger in a cluster of galaxies and much larger in
superclusters. Were these professionals wrong and if not can someone
please explain why this could not be seen as a property of space/time
or an effect of distance on known forces.
Please note I fully accept that gravity deflects light, that is one
thing about which I hope we can all agree. And condensed objects like
galactic nuclei can indeed cause notable lensing effects.
As I get older I realise how true it is that real advances are made by
what A.C.Clarke called "young "scientists, the one's who don't think
that their professor or tutor is the fount of all knowledge.
His job should be to help them to think, unfortunately as I have seen
for myself in 40 years at University these days he is there more to help
them pass examinations.
BTW if you read my earlier posts you will find one very good example of
an historical theory that was highly accepted but proved to be rubbish.
The trouble with people who despise history is that it means they just
continue making the same mistakes (just like economists!).
Cliff Wright.
Androcles
"cliff wright" <c.c.w...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message news:45dc...@clear.net.nz...
1) No comment needed.
2) Other than Sirius, nobody has observed any orbital dynamics of stars.
3) The advance of perihelion of Mercury is entirely predicted
by Newtonian Mechanics to within 43 arc seconds per century
as of 1913, so initial accurate and precise observations must have
begun in 1813.
415 orbits * 360 degrees = 149400 degrees
149400 degrees * 60 arc minutes = 8964000 arc minutes
8964000 arc minutes * 60 arc seconds = 537840000 arc seconds.
43
-------------------------------- x 100 = 000007.99494273389855719%
537840000
and Einstein with his 4-figure log tables and 3-figure sliderule
could not be that accurate.
Moreover, Einstein left out the pull of Venus, Earth and Jupiter.
4) No comment.
5) Crackpottery breeds young crackpots.
bz
@clear.net.nz:
> 4. As an astronomer with my own modest observatory, could you please
> quote me the catalogue number (NGC etc) of this "bullet cluster" to
> which you refer (rather unscientifically) so I can do some research for
> myself. Or are you simply referring to a scatter of images?
>
The Bullet cluster (1E 0657-56)
google is your friend.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172050703.8...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 20, 11:17 pm, "JanPB" <film...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>> > As far as dark matter is concerned, we know it is
>> > there. It has to be there unless gravitational lensing
>> > has been lying to us.
>>
>> For some reason I feel dark matter is an irrelevant
>> kludge, like aether. It just seems to have "data
>> overfitting" and "fudge factor" written all over it IMHO.
>
> I believe the time for that type of opinion has passed.
>
> http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/21/dark-matter-exists/
> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060824.html
Eric, you are putting your hopes in one basket.
Take two galaxies and smash them together. The gasses interact,
and stay at the common center of momentum. The stars and planets
(and yes Dark and unlit Matter) for the most part do not, but
continue on with their paths only slightly altered... unless they
directly collide. This should be a rare occurance. The Bullet
Cluster is not proof of Dark Matter, because we cannot resolve
stars at that distance.
There is at least one flavor of GR that does not require Dark
Matter, and there is MOND. The former will also describe
gravitational lensing.
Try and keep an open mind.
David A. Smith
Eric Gisse
wrote:
> Dear Eric Gisse:
>
> "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1172050703.8...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Feb 20, 11:17 pm, "JanPB" <film...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> >> > As far as dark matter is concerned, we know it is
> >> > there. It has to be there unless gravitational lensing
> >> > has been lying to us.
>
> >> For some reason I feel dark matter is an irrelevant
> >> kludge, like aether. It just seems to have "data
> >> overfitting" and "fudge factor" written all over it IMHO.
>
> > I believe the time for that type of opinion has passed.
>
> >http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/21/dark-matter-exists/
> >http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060824.html
>
> Eric, you are putting your hopes in one basket.
I see your point.
>
> Take two galaxies and smash them together. The gasses interact,
> and stay at the common center of momentum. The stars and planets
> (and yes Dark and unlit Matter) for the most part do not, but
> continue on with their paths only slightly altered... unless they
> directly collide. This should be a rare occurance. The Bullet
> Cluster is not proof of Dark Matter, because we cannot resolve
> stars at that distance.
But the normal matter, even if it is noninteracting, should be visible
at some wavelengths either through direct excitation or blocking of
wavelengths.
>
> There is at least one flavor of GR that does not require Dark
> Matter, and there is MOND. The former will also describe
> gravitational lensing.
Eh?
MOND is explicitly nonrelativistic - MODIFIED NEWTONIAN DYNAMICS.
It is simply a scaling of good ol' GmM/r^2 - something like exp(-
ar)GmM/r^2.
Gravitational lensing and all the other fun relativity-only effects
that exist are not described by MOND, nor can they be.
>
> Try and keep an open mind.
When a credible alternative comes up, sure.
>
> David A. Smith
Koobee Wublee
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > More recital of BS from the gizzard himself. You are very good with
> > subjects without math. Physics without math is purely philosophy.
>
> I am also very good with subjects *with* math. It is just hard to show
> because math translates very, very poorly into ASCII. If you'd like, I
> could scan the homework sets that I have done this week. Perhaps you
> could critique them.
In another words, you want me to do your homework for you.
> Anyway, I fail to see how you can even begin to make such a statement,
> oh true disciple of Riemann.
I am no disciple of Riemann. He was crazy enough to believe in the
curvature of space that gravity is caused by the curvature in space.
As I have pointed out, gravity is not caused by the curvature of
spacetime either. Gravity is a sole manifestation of gravitational
time dilation only regardless if space is curved or not. However, I
seem to be the only one who can understand the curvature thing since
Riemann himself.
> Would you please be so kind as to tell me
> again the story of how you can introduce curvature into a flat
> manifold simply via a coordinate transformation.
I did not do that. You have failed to understand me. Your
mathematical skill is very piss poor. <shrug>
> Or how about the
> legendary denial about the true surface area of a sphere of constant
> radius in the Schwarzschild geometry even while the explicit
> derivation was staring you in the face?
How about it? Both Mr. McCullough (instigator) and Mr. Bielawski
(follower) screwed up on that one royally. Both subscribes to the
area of a sphere with the following metric being (4 pi (R + K)^2).
ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 / (1 + K / r) - (1 + K / r) dr^2 - (r + K)^2 dO^2
> > Some of us know Poincare was not a vegetable compared to Einstein. In
> > fact, Einstein should appear to be retarded in front of Poincare.
>
> Naturally this is the opinion fronted by someone who is explicitly
> anti-Einstein.
I am not anti-Einstein. I am just not anti-history.
> > Some of us also know Hilbert was not brain-dead. In fact, Einstein
> > should appear to be a rock in front of Hilbert, and this is not an
> > understatement.
>
> More anti-Einstein gibberish from the guy who thinks Einstein had
> difficulty with algebra.
Einstein had difficulty with simple math. He said
"Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you
mine are still greater."
I can assure you that Einstein was not a humble man even when he said
that.
> > What qualifies you as a professional? The "professional" tend to
> > conjure mathemagic tricks and convoluted experimental results. Just
> > because they got where they are with subsidized funding does not mean
> > they are true professionals. A lot of us would call that "well fare"
> > at the academic level. <shrug> Not all of us are as stupid as
> > mushrooms who cannot even do simple algebra. Some of us are very
> > capable of checking their math and their experiment results.
>
> Well, I'm a senior in a physics degree program and I'll be done with
> the theoretical component of my bachelors at the conclusion of this
> semester. At any rate, I never said I was a professional. I simply
> asked how someone who is quite unfamiliar with recent developments in
> a field can have the chutzpah to tell the professionals what to do and
> what to think.
6th year senior.
> Since you brought up the subject, why don't you explain to me where
> you were taught your general relativity and differential geometry?
Not U of Alaska for sure.
> You are a retired aerospace engineer, judging from what you have
> said in the past.
I have never said I was a retired aerospace engineer. I am not even
an aerospace engineer.
> The closest you would get to differential geometry is
> complex analysis and the closest you would get to general relativity
> is when you walked by the physics building that one time when you were
> an undergrad.
This is very amusing.
> It certainly would be nice to read about the background of a person
> who thinks that both general relativity and Riemannian geometry are
> fundamentally flawed. I'm especially curious to see if that person's
> education actually contains anything regarding either subject.
So, you want to get personal?
dlzc
On Feb 21, 11:00 am, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 21, 4:08 am, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <d...@aol.com>
It *must* be interacting, if it is normal.
> should be visible at some wavelengths either
> through direct excitation or blocking of
> wavelengths.
We cannot resolve individual stars at this distance. There is little
remaining dust / gas to diffuse the light sources that may be there.
Can we resolve what is essentially a cluster of nearly perfect point
sources into a single object? I don't think so, but I cannot say why
I think so. Any contribution of light from "that area" simply
resolves into Universal background... like how we have to image the
CMBR.
> > There is at least one flavor of GR that does not
> > require Dark Matter, and there is MOND. The
> > former will also describe gravitational lensing.
>
> Eh?
>
> MOND is explicitly nonrelativistic - MODIFIED
> NEWTONIAN DYNAMICS.
>
> It is simply a scaling of good ol' GmM/r^2 -
> something like exp(-ar)GmM/r^2.
>
> Gravitational lensing and all the other fun
> relativity-only effects that exist are not
> described by MOND, nor can they be.
If you have a modified [exp(-ar)GM/r^2], and we know that [GM/r^2]
distorts the path of light, why not?
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701848
(... which may still point to TeVeS ...)
But I said "former", not "latter". Which means I was referring to
"one flavor of GR"... namely
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0611777
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0412652
> > Try and keep an open mind.
>
> When a credible alternative comes up, sure.
Always keep an open mind. What is your favorite now, will probably be
an uncomfortable pair of shoes later.
Dark Matter *is* patched onto GR, to "agree with observational data",
and "keep the solution simple". And there *is* Dark Matter, matter we
know of and is not expected to interact with light. I just don't
believe that anyone has detected anywhere near enough of the stuff we
recognize. Yet.
Just realize that it is *your personal choice*, today. And your
statement "As far as dark matter is concerned, we know it is there."
is really too strongly worded. We *know* sh*t, until we can go there
and see, IMHO.
David A. Smith
Ken S. Tucker
> On Feb 20, 12:48 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> > > As far as dark matter is concerned, we know it is there. It has to be
> > > there unless gravitational lensing has been lying to us.
>
> > LOL, I quote, "we know it is there. It has to be"
> > A bird talking to another bird about air.
> > A fish talking to another fish about water.
> > A worm talking to another worm about earth.
>
> > Species dependant arguments, science has
> > taken a great leap, but in what direction?
> > Ken
>
> "Forward" would be the likely choice.
How about
A charge talking to another charge about
ElectroMagnetic Fields?
Do you know more about EMFs than a charge
who does it all the time :-)?
After-all, it is that charge we study and try to
observe.
Eric, why are you smarter than a charge?
Fun Regards
Ken
Eric Gisse
Except the only reason people were looking for Planet X was because of
Neptune's unexplainable orbit.
> The pertubations, such as they are, of Neptunes orbit are still
> largely unexplained.
I highly doubt this is true.
> And yes, I have seen the original discovery plates at the Lowell
> observatory for myself!
Neat.
>
> 2. What the orbital dynamics of some stars show is the presence of a
> highly condensed massive object which may, or may not, be some kind of
> singularity.
You might like this.
http://www.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/index.php
>
> 3. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit had been known
> since the late 19th century, it is a very small effect measured in
> seconds of arc. Although often quoted as an early proof of relativity it
> is not totally "bulletproof" as effects like the dynamics of the solar
> wind were not understood at the time. Not to say relativity isn't very
> useful where Newtonian Physics breaks down but when putting all one's
> eggs in one basket it pays to be very, very careful with your basics.
We didn't even know what made the sun "go" at that point in time.
However, the precession of Mercury's orbit stands as a valid test of
relativity. Like with the Eddington expedition, it does not matter at
this point except as a historical footnote whether or not if what was
seen at that time was correct.
In 2007, observation and theory are entirely compatible.
>
> 4. As an astronomer with my own modest observatory, could you please
> quote me the catalogue number (NGC etc) of this "bullet cluster" to
> which you refer (rather unscientifically) so I can do some research for
> myself. Or are you simply referring to a scatter of images?
Google is your friend.
>
> 5. I was reliably informed by at least two well respected US
> professional astronomers 3 or 4 years ago at seminars at Auckland
> University that the effects of "missing mass" increased in proportion to
> the scale of the universe being observed. That is it was small in a
> typical spiral, larger in a cluster of galaxies and much larger in
> superclusters. Were these professionals wrong and if not can someone
> please explain why this could not be seen as a property of space/time
> or an effect of distance on known forces.
It doesn't surprise me too much to hear that there is more dark matter
in a supercluster than around a galaxy.
> Please note I fully accept that gravity deflects light, that is one
> thing about which I hope we can all agree. And condensed objects like
> galactic nuclei can indeed cause notable lensing effects.
>
> As I get older I realise how true it is that real advances are made by
> what A.C.Clarke called "young "scientists, the one's who don't think
> that their professor or tutor is the fount of all knowledge.
> His job should be to help them to think, unfortunately as I have seen
> for myself in 40 years at University these days he is there more to help
> them pass examinations.
>
> BTW if you read my earlier posts you will find one very good example of
> an historical theory that was highly accepted but proved to be rubbish.
> The trouble with people who despise history is that it means they just
> continue making the same mistakes (just like economists!).
I value history, I don't reject it. I just don't believe the
comparison is apt.
> Cliff Wright.
cliff wright
that the relative abundance of "dark matter" vs "normal" matter had to
be increased with scale. It was NOT just a question of the volume of
space involved, but the ratio had to change to "fit" the observations of
intergalactic motion, from individual galaxies, to clusters, to
superclusters.
If this were not so it seems to me that "dark matter" or its equivalent
would have been postulated much sooner as observations showed
discrepancies of motion within galaxies themselves.
Thus either "dark matter" tends to infinity if the universe is
sufficiently large or it is an effect of distance and actually a
characteristic of our space/time which we have not yet seen at a local
scale. In that case mysterious matter may not be needed at all.
IMO the comparison is very apt. The mystery substance apparently
explained the observations but could not be isolated and had some very
unusual characteristics that hadn't been observed elsewhere.
How close an analogy do you need!
BTW I'm sorry to disillusion you, but despite the discovery of a whole
lot of "Plutos" out there recently and the latest computing techniques
the motion of Neptune is still not completely accounted for.
Actually we still don't completely understand what makes the Sun "go"
today. Fred Hoyle's work was almost 60 years ago and things haven't got
much further since, except for solar "Neutrinos" and these just made
things more mysterious.
If it were so we would have fusion power stations supplying our cities
and a lot less worry about global warming.
In fact the only "moderators" and containment we know of for fusion
reactions are 1/10 of a solar mass of hydrogen or so, or the fireball of
a fission bomb (which is very temporary indeed!).
It is I'm afraid very easy to swallow opinion (especially at University)
and take it as hard fact. When your grades depend on basically
regurgitating lectures and set books then the pressure is even harder to
resist.
My long experience of University life has perhaps made me rather cynical
about this, but I have had the experience myself (though not in a
Physics course) of running counter to the opinions of a senior lecturer
and having to do a lot of extra work to get good grades (in the end).
Cliff Wright.
Androcles
"cliff wright" <c.c.w...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message news:45dd...@clear.net.nz...
It will not matter how you put it, Gisse doesn't give a shit.
"Plus some other stuff like proofs, which I don't honestly give a shit
about. " - Gisse, 25 Oct 06
"I don't give a shit about philosophy." Gisse - 16 Nov 06
"perhaps you could explain to me why I should give a shit? " Gisse -20 Nov 06
Until Gisse is force-fed an enema he'll never understand mathematics,
physics or astronomy (subjects which are reliant on proof), he's full of shit.
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Yes. There is currently a "crisis" [#] in theoretical physics, and has
>> been one for many decades: the incompatibility between GR and quantum
>> mechanics. And a large number of theorists are attempting to address
>> this issue -- that's what string theory is all about (not to mention
>> loop quantum gravity and ...).
>>
>> [#] See Kuhn, _The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions_....
>>
>> ....It is not science to "tweak"
>> a theory with the sole purpose of making it agree with observation...
>
> "tweaking" a theory to make it agree with observation.
This is a different usage of the word "tweaking". As I said further on,
adding a new parameter for every new measurement is not science -- you
can ALWAYS do that and obtain "agreement" with all measurements.... But
all you get out is what you put in -- c.f. creationism, which is a
system just like this (every new observation is "explained" by a new
addition to the theory).
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Yes. There is currently a "crisis" [#] in theoretical physics, and
>> has been one for many decades: the incompatibility between GR and
>> quantum mechanics. And a large number of theorists are attempting
>> to address this issue -- that's what string theory is all about
>> (not to mention loop quantum gravity and ...).
>
> ubfortunately it has gone on now for decades with very little
> resolution.
Not for lack of trying or lack of recognition of the problem. It's just
that this is HARD. Current theories are quite clearly inadequate, and
new and better data are needed to test extensions to them (e.g.
extensions to the standard model which include supersymmetry, WIMPs,
etc.), or to forge ahead into new theoretical domains (e.g. string
theory, loop quantum gravity, ...).
> Historically science is full of what you describe as "tweaks".
The tweaks don't last. NONE of the ones you mention are in use today.
> In any case postulating invisible and almost undetectable matter and
> energy to fit the observations is EXACTLY what modern cosmology has
> done.
For the simple reason that this is the only thing they can do until
better measurements are available.
I don't think anybody is happy with this situation, and there are
numerous "dark matter searches" in progress. And particle physicists are
building a much bigger machine (LHC) which appears to have a good chance
to discover supersymmetry and/or WIMPs (there are reasonably good
theoretical indications that such particles appear at the TeV scale,
which is just beyond the Tevatron but (mostly) reachable by the LHC.
Certainly the next few years will be interesting....
> One poster pointed out about Gravitational lensing as a "proof" of
> the existence of "dark matter", but since this has proved completely
> undetectable except in so far as it saves the theory how is it in
> any way superior to a modification of Newtonian/Einsteinian gravity
> at extreme distances. Indeed "dark matter" has to be very selective
> in its location to have anything like the effects we observe.
Actually, the constraints on dark matter are now pretty tight -- it must
behave just like ordinary matter except not interact with anything
except gravitationally. Particle physicists are excited about this,
because that is precisely how the lowest-energy super-symmetric particle
would behave, and that is expected/hoped to be within reach of the LHC....
> I've just picked up march "Sky and telescope and the editorial
> actually points out that "dark matter" remains an unproven
> hypothesis.
If that's what they actually said, they are being too naive. There is no
"proof" in science.
> Is it not strange that the larger the scale of
> observation, the higher the proportion of "dark" to normal matter has
> to be? To me that is a very good pointer to the effect actually being
> a scale effect based on distance rather than some undetectable
> "matter".
Observations of the gravitational lensing of the "bullet galaxy" pretty
much eliminate such an explanation. To me that is one of the most
interesting of the recent results....
> As to the old Aether argument, well since most current Quantum
> theories I am aware of require a "sea" of "virtual particles"
> throughout the universe. That looks pretty damn close philosophically
> to me.
Not at all! The aether is a classical fluid which supports
electromagnetic waves, in essentially the same way water support ocean
waves. The quantum vacuum does no such thing. And the classical aether
has a rest frame, the quantum vacuum is Lorentz invariant.
Tom Roberts
Eric Gisse
I have never heard of that, and would be surprised if it were true.
> If this were not so it seems to me that "dark matter" or its equivalent
> would have been postulated much sooner as observations showed
> discrepancies of motion within galaxies themselves.
> Thus either "dark matter" tends to infinity if the universe is
> sufficiently large or it is an effect of distance and actually a
> characteristic of our space/time which we have not yet seen at a local
> scale. In that case mysterious matter may not be needed at all.
>
> IMO the comparison is very apt. The mystery substance apparently
> explained the observations but could not be isolated and had some very
> unusual characteristics that hadn't been observed elsewhere.
> How close an analogy do you need!
The aether was never detected, dark matter has been. The real question
is to find out what it is made of.
>
> BTW I'm sorry to disillusion you, but despite the discovery of a whole
> lot of "Plutos" out there recently and the latest computing techniques
> the motion of Neptune is still not completely accounted for.
I'd like to see a citation for that.
On one hand, I know there is a lot of junk out in the Kuiper belt. On
the other, I'd be surprised if there was enough distributed such to
significantly perturb Neptune's orbit.
>
> Actually we still don't completely understand what makes the Sun "go"
> today. Fred Hoyle's work was almost 60 years ago and things haven't got
> much further since, except for solar "Neutrinos" and these just made
> things more mysterious.
The neutrino problem has been figured out. It turns out neutrinos can
change types because due to them having mass. Fred Hoyle would have
liked the result, I bet.
> If it were so we would have fusion power stations supplying our cities
> and a lot less worry about global warming.
> In fact the only "moderators" and containment we know of for fusion
> reactions are 1/10 of a solar mass of hydrogen or so, or the fireball of
> a fission bomb (which is very temporary indeed!).
...as well as inertial and magnetic confinement...
>
> It is I'm afraid very easy to swallow opinion (especially at University)
> and take it as hard fact. When your grades depend on basically
> regurgitating lectures and set books then the pressure is even harder to
> resist.
That isn't what is in play at all and I tire of hearing it.
Eric Gisse
> On Feb 21, 1:25 am, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > More recital of BS from the gizzard himself. You are very good with
> > > subjects without math. Physics without math is purely philosophy.
>
> > I am also very good with subjects *with* math. It is just hard to show
> > because math translates very, very poorly into ASCII. If you'd like, I
> > could scan the homework sets that I have done this week. Perhaps you
> > could critique them.
>
> In another words, you want me to do your homework for you.
>
> > Anyway, I fail to see how you can even begin to make such a statement,
> > oh true disciple of Riemann.
>
> I am no disciple of Riemann. He was crazy enough to believe in the
> curvature of space that gravity is caused by the curvature in space.
> As I have pointed out, gravity is not caused by the curvature of
> spacetime either. Gravity is a sole manifestation of gravitational
> time dilation only regardless if space is curved or not. However, I
> seem to be the only one who can understand the curvature thing since
> Riemann himself.
Riemann was dead a full 50 years before Einstein published GR.
Riemann, as a person, was not involved with gravitation.
I find it interesting that a retired engineer manages to be, once
again, the only one who 'truly understands' a particular subject. This
time it is differential geometry.
>
> > Would you please be so kind as to tell me
> > again the story of how you can introduce curvature into a flat
> > manifold simply via a coordinate transformation.
>
> I did not do that. You have failed to understand me. Your
> mathematical skill is very piss poor. <shrug>
Do you say that because you realize how stupid it was, or do you say
that because you already forgot you said it?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/ce55cde7fd58464d?dmode=source
Oh, BTW. You transformed the line element wrong. At any rate, here is
one example of you claiming that you can introduce curvature by a
coordinate transformation. I can find several others, if you would
like.
>
> > Or how about the
> > legendary denial about the true surface area of a sphere of constant
> > radius in the Schwarzschild geometry even while the explicit
> > derivation was staring you in the face?
>
> How about it? Both Mr. McCullough (instigator) and Mr. Bielawski
> (follower) screwed up on that one royally. Both subscribes to the
> area of a sphere with the following metric being (4 pi (R + K)^2).
>
> ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 / (1 + K / r) - (1 + K / r) dr^2 - (r + K)^2 dO^2
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/48bfa8d7d6b5ef6e?dmode=source
You were proven wrong, but 6 months later you still deny it. Do you
deny it because you are upset you were proven wrong again?
>
> > > Some of us know Poincare was not a vegetable compared to Einstein. In
> > > fact, Einstein should appear to be retarded in front of Poincare.
>
> > Naturally this is the opinion fronted by someone who is explicitly
> > anti-Einstein.
>
> I am not anti-Einstein. I am just not anti-history.
Yes, you are anti-Einstein. You willfully overlook the multitudes of
papers Einstein published that contributed heavily to disjoint fields
as well as his PhD in physics and Nobel prize.
>
> > > Some of us also know Hilbert was not brain-dead. In fact, Einstein
> > > should appear to be a rock in front of Hilbert, and this is not an
> > > understatement.
>
> > More anti-Einstein gibberish from the guy who thinks Einstein had
> > difficulty with algebra.
>
> Einstein had difficulty with simple math. He said
>
> "Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you
> mine are still greater."
This is simply an anti-Einstein opinion. It is sad that you can't even
recognize that much. At least be honest in your idiocy.
No reasonable person would think that if a physicist said this, he
meant he had trouble with algebra.
>
> I can assure you that Einstein was not a humble man even when he said
> that.
>
> > > What qualifies you as a professional? The "professional" tend to
> > > conjure mathemagic tricks and convoluted experimental results. Just
> > > because they got where they are with subsidized funding does not mean
> > > they are true professionals. A lot of us would call that "well fare"
> > > at the academic level. <shrug> Not all of us are as stupid as
> > > mushrooms who cannot even do simple algebra. Some of us are very
> > > capable of checking their math and their experiment results.
>
> > Well, I'm a senior in a physics degree program and I'll be done with
> > the theoretical component of my bachelors at the conclusion of this
> > semester. At any rate, I never said I was a professional. I simply
> > asked how someone who is quite unfamiliar with recent developments in
> > a field can have the chutzpah to tell the professionals what to do and
> > what to think.
>
> 6th year senior.
How do you figure?
>
> > Since you brought up the subject, why don't you explain to me where
> > you were taught your general relativity and differential geometry?
>
> Not U of Alaska for sure.
Oh look, deflecting the question again. How about answering it instead
of answering with "not from <place>"? I think you don't want to answer
because you know the answer will make you look bad.
>
> > You are a retired aerospace engineer, judging from what you have
> > said in the past.
>
> I have never said I was a retired aerospace engineer. I am not even
> an aerospace engineer.
OK, what are/were you then?
>
> > The closest you would get to differential geometry is
> > complex analysis and the closest you would get to general relativity
> > is when you walked by the physics building that one time when you were
> > an undergrad.
>
> This is very amusing.
...because it is true. You don't know the first thing about either of
the topics. You continually treat differential geometry like it is
linear algebra. Do you know how a tensor transforms yet?
>
> > It certainly would be nice to read about the background of a person
> > who thinks that both general relativity and Riemannian geometry are
> > fundamentally flawed. I'm especially curious to see if that person's
> > education actually contains anything regarding either subject.
>
> So, you want to get personal?
Sure, why not?
Not as if you will answer my questions anyway. You know the answer
will make you look soooo bad. You were never taught any physics, and
it shows.
Koobee Wublee
> On Feb 21, 9:40 am, "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I am no disciple of Riemann. He was crazy enough to believe in the
> > curvature of space that gravity is caused by the curvature in space.
> > As I have pointed out, gravity is not caused by the curvature of
> > spacetime either. Gravity is a sole manifestation of gravitational
> > time dilation only regardless if space is curved or not. However, I
> > seem to be the only one who can understand the curvature thing since
> > Riemann himself.
>
> Riemann was dead a full 50 years before Einstein published GR.
That is correct. However, Hilbert gave a lecture about the field
equations at Goettingen one week before Einstein did at Berlin.
> Riemann, as a person, was not involved with gravitation.
You will be utterly surprised. Curvature in space as a cause of
gravitation originated with Riemann. He did not get anywhere due to
his short career and lack of discovery in gravitational time
dilation. As a genius Riemann, given with the concept of
gravitational time dilation or a curvature in the temporal dimension,
I have no doubt Riemann would have figured it out.
> I find it interesting that a retired engineer manages to be, once
> again, the only one who 'truly understands' a particular subject. This
> time it is differential geometry.
You are correct except the retired engineer part.
> Do you say that because you realize how stupid it was, or do you say
> that because you already forgot you said it?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/ce55cde7fd5...
I was describing two very independent curvatures.
> Oh, BTW. You transformed the line element wrong. At any rate, here is
> one example of you claiming that you can introduce curvature by a
> coordinate transformation. I can find several others, if you would
> like.
Remember that the curvature is invariant. However, in order to
describe any curvature, you need to do so with a set of coordinate
system and the metric. There is no other way. The metric along
cannot tell you how the invariant curvature is curved, and the
coordinates along cannot tell you how the invariant curvature is
curved either. Now, show where I transform what into what.
> > > Or how about the
> > > legendary denial about the true surface area of a sphere of constant
> > > radius in the Schwarzschild geometry even while the explicit
> > > derivation was staring you in the face?
>
> > How about it? Both Mr. McCullough (instigator) and Mr. Bielawski
> > (follower) screwed up on that one royally. Both subscribes to the
> > area of a sphere with the following metric being (4 pi (R + K)^2).
>
> > ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 / (1 + K / r) - (1 + K / r) dr^2 - (r + K)^2 dO^2
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/48bfa8d7d6b...
I believe both Mr. McCullogh and Mr. Bielawski have regrets on that
one.
> You were proven wrong, but 6 months later you still deny it. Do you
> deny it because you are upset you were proven wrong again?
You are not observant. Your head is still in the cloud or trapped in
the curvature in space.
> > I am not anti-Einstein. I am just not anti-history.
>
> Yes, you are anti-Einstein. You willfully overlook the multitudes of
> papers Einstein published that contributed heavily to disjoint fields
> as well as his PhD in physics and Nobel prize.
Einstein's 1905 papers are full of mistakes which I have claimed so
and pointed them out one by one already.
Einstein's derivation of Lorentz transform was a total gibberish. He
must have known the answer before hand. That means Einstein was a
plagiarist. His piss-poor attempt to re-derive the Lorentz transform
in his book some two decades later is totally mathemagical where he
pulled out the Lorentz transform from two equations equating zero with
zero. Einstein's derivation of (E = m c^2 / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2))
involved a series of mistakes. He must have known the answer, and
again that would make him a plagiarist.
Galileo's equivalence principle led to the Newtonian law of gravity.
Einstein's equivalence principle which is basically the same as
Galileo's did not go anywhere. Newton came up with the law of gravity
by watching an apple falling from the tree. Einstein and Grossmann
did not go anywhere by fancying themselves falling instead of Newton's
apple.
Einstein's derivation of Mercury's orbital anomaly before GR was a
modification of Gerber's result. Gerber modified the Newtonian
gravitational potential by making it a function of radial speed.
Einstein modified the Newtonian gravitational potential by introducing
second order terms to (GM/r). <shrug> However, Gerber was correct in
his subsequent derivation. Einstein got the number right because he
knew the answer before hand even if he screwed up on the derivation.
<shrug>
> > Einstein had difficulty with simple math. He said
>
> > "Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you
> > mine are still greater."
>
> This is simply an anti-Einstein opinion. It is sad that you can't even
> recognize that much. At least be honest in your idiocy.
>
> No reasonable person would think that if a physicist said this, he
> meant he had trouble with algebra.
This is reality. Einstein is your hero, and truth hurts.
> > I can assure you that Einstein was not a humble man even when he said
> > that.
> > 6th year senior.
>
> How do you figure?
Between you and I.
> > Not U of Alaska for sure.
>
> Oh look, deflecting the question again. How about answering it instead
> of answering with "not from <place>"? I think you don't want to answer
> because you know the answer will make you look bad.
How would the answer of where I was educated make me look bad? It is
not the place you are educated that counts. It is your education in
terms of what you know and how well you can analyze that counts even
if you are self-educated like Heaviside and many great scientists.
What you have leaned in school only represent a needle in a haystack.
It is your ability to educate yourself after schooling that counts.
> The closest you would get to differential geometry is
> complex analysis and the closest you would get to general relativity
> is when you walked by the physics building that one time when you were
> an undergrad.
>
> > This is very amusing.
>
> ...because it is true. You don't know the first thing about either of
> the topics. You continually treat differential geometry like it is
> linear algebra. Do you know how a tensor transforms yet?
This is still very amusing.
> > So, you want to get personal?
>
> Sure, why not?
Not me. Why? Getting personal with moortel and his buddies not good
enough for you?
> Not as if you will answer my questions anyway. You know the answer
> will make you look soooo bad. You were never taught any physics, and
> it shows.
Still amusing.
Barry
Which is why I wrote (and also why you clipped):
__________________
Hence if objects don't behave as a theory says that they should, it
is
"normal" for the theory to be "tweaked" by postulating the existence
of "ghost matter" - the only evidence for which is that the current
theory doesn't fit the current observations
__________________
Every new observation(e.g. galactic rotation) or non-observation (e.g.
gravity waves) is "explained" by a new addition to the theory. (e.g.
dark matter or Cosmic Censorship).
Which is why I also wrote (and you also clipped):
____________________
Kuhn's view was that "normal science" is not done by objective and
independent thinkers. "Normal science" accepts what has been taught
and aims to confirm what is already known.
____________________
Very little difference between "normal science" and "creationosm.
Barry
Eric Gisse
> On Feb 22, 10:41 am, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 21, 9:40 am, "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I am no disciple of Riemann. He was crazy enough to believe in the
> > > curvature of space that gravity is caused by the curvature in space.
> > > As I have pointed out, gravity is not caused by the curvature of
> > > spacetime either. Gravity is a sole manifestation of gravitational
> > > time dilation only regardless if space is curved or not. However, I
> > > seem to be the only one who can understand the curvature thing since
> > > Riemann himself.
>
> > Riemann was dead a full 50 years before Einstein published GR.
>
> That is correct. However, Hilbert gave a lecture about the field
> equations at Goettingen one week before Einstein did at Berlin.
>
> > Riemann, as a person, was not involved with gravitation.
>
> You will be utterly surprised. Curvature in space as a cause of
> gravitation originated with Riemann. He did not get anywhere due to
> his short career and lack of discovery in gravitational time
> dilation. As a genius Riemann, given with the concept of
> gravitational time dilation or a curvature in the temporal dimension,
> I have no doubt Riemann would have figured it out.
You have it backwards. Time dilation is an effect, not a cause.
>
> > I find it interesting that a retired engineer manages to be, once
> > again, the only one who 'truly understands' a particular subject. This
> > time it is differential geometry.
>
> You are correct except the retired engineer part.
Then correct it.
>
> > Do you say that because you realize how stupid it was, or do you say
> > that because you already forgot you said it?
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/ce55cde7fd5...
>
> I was describing two very independent curvatures.
Regardless, you claimed the curvature would be different.
>
> > Oh, BTW. You transformed the line element wrong. At any rate, here is
> > one example of you claiming that you can introduce curvature by a
> > coordinate transformation. I can find several others, if you would
> > like.
>
> Remember that the curvature is invariant. However, in order to
> describe any curvature, you need to do so with a set of coordinate
> system and the metric. There is no other way. The metric along
> cannot tell you how the invariant curvature is curved, and the
> coordinates along cannot tell you how the invariant curvature is
> curved either. Now, show where I transform what into what.
>
Not correct.
You need a particular representation of the metric to get the actual
curvature. However, it is independent of the coordinates used. Knowing
you, I'll skip the step where you deny it is true and simply ask you
to calculate an example from a given metric in which the curvature
[Riemann tensor, Ricci tensor, or Ricci scalar representation] is
different in between two representations of the same metric. I suggest
Minkowksi space in cartesian coordinates and then Minkowski space in
spherical coordinates.
You transformed the metric improperly.
You started off with Minkowski space:
ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2
You then used this coordinate transformation:
** t' = t
** x' = f(x)
** y' = y
** z' = z
You then expressed the metric, in prime coordinates, as:
ds'^2 = c^2 dt'^2 - dx'^2 - dy'^2 - dz'^2
Which then you expressed as:
ds'^2 = c^2 dt^2 - (df/dx)^2 dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2
This is wrong.
I hope it is obvious that x' = f(x), x = g(x'). Treating the one-forms
as differentials, we have dx = (dg/dx')dx', and (dx)^2 = (dg/
dx)^2(dx')^2. You can prove it another way by directly using the way
tensors change under a coordinate transformation.
> > > > Or how about the
> > > > legendary denial about the true surface area of a sphere of constant
> > > > radius in the Schwarzschild geometry even while the explicit
> > > > derivation was staring you in the face?
>
> > > How about it? Both Mr. McCullough (instigator) and Mr. Bielawski
> > > (follower) screwed up on that one royally. Both subscribes to the
> > > area of a sphere with the following metric being (4 pi (R + K)^2).
>
> > > ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 / (1 + K / r) - (1 + K / r) dr^2 - (r + K)^2 dO^2
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/48bfa8d7d6b...
>
> I believe both Mr. McCullogh and Mr. Bielawski have regrets on that
> one.
Shit, so would I. It must have taken forever to format the wedge
products in ASCII.
You still have no mathematics-based refutation of the derivation.
>
> > You were proven wrong, but 6 months later you still deny it. Do you
> > deny it because you are upset you were proven wrong again?
>
> You are not observant. Your head is still in the cloud or trapped in
> the curvature in space.
Forgive my lack of omniscience, oh guru of Riemann. Perhaps you would
be so kind as to point out where you showed that derivation to be
incorrect and in which you derived the result you claim is true.
>
> > > I am not anti-Einstein. I am just not anti-history.
>
> > Yes, you are anti-Einstein. You willfully overlook the multitudes of
> > papers Einstein published that contributed heavily to disjoint fields
> > as well as his PhD in physics and Nobel prize.
>
> Einstein's 1905 papers are full of mistakes which I have claimed so
> and pointed them out one by one already.
Of course your critique of Einstein's 1905 paper doesn't withstand
scrutiny. Not like it matters to you.
>
> Einstein's derivation of Lorentz transform was a total gibberish. He
> must have known the answer before hand. That means Einstein was a
> plagiarist. His piss-poor attempt to re-derive the Lorentz transform
> in his book some two decades later is totally mathemagical where he
> pulled out the Lorentz transform from two equations equating zero with
> zero. Einstein's derivation of (E = m c^2 / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2))
> involved a series of mistakes. He must have known the answer, and
> again that would make him a plagiarist.
Curiously enough you are the only one to 'notice' this, even after
nearly a century and review by literally thousands of people. Even
more curiously, you are incapable of supporting your assertions.
Also, I fail to see why you feel tearing apart Einstein's 1905 paper
[regardless of how well you did it] is an effective use of your time.
Special [and general] relativity are understood in different terms
than when they were originally published.
>
> Galileo's equivalence principle led to the Newtonian law of gravity.
> Einstein's equivalence principle which is basically the same as
> Galileo's did not go anywhere. Newton came up with the law of gravity
> by watching an apple falling from the tree. Einstein and Grossmann
> did not go anywhere by fancying themselves falling instead of Newton's
> apple.
So...what exactly?
>
> Einstein's derivation of Mercury's orbital anomaly before GR was a
> modification of Gerber's result. Gerber modified the Newtonian
> gravitational potential by making it a function of radial speed.
> Einstein modified the Newtonian gravitational potential by introducing
> second order terms to (GM/r). <shrug> However, Gerber was correct in
> his subsequent derivation. Einstein got the number right because he
> knew the answer before hand even if he screwed up on the derivation.
> <shrug>
What you wrote was interesting until I actually did a few minutes of
research.
A first search for Gerber and Einstein reveals nothing but references
by people who have an axe to grind. Mostly Bjerkens [Asshole who
published the incorrigible plagarist book] and Beckmann [idiot editor
of Galilean Electrodynamics - the only place to publish Ken Seto] -
two people who have a vested interest in being anti-Einstein, whether
they believe it or not.
A deeper search revealed, with the subtraction of all references to
these morons, something much better:
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm
Gerber's derivation is interesting but it isn't significant in way as
something other than a historical footnote. It certainly is NOT an
alternative to GR, much less a physically meaningful theory.
Don't trust stuff published by folks who are loudly anti-Einstein to
be completely, or even partially, true.
>
> > > Einstein had difficulty with simple math. He said
>
> > > "Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you
> > > mine are still greater."
>
> > This is simply an anti-Einstein opinion. It is sad that you can't even
> > recognize that much. At least be honest in your idiocy.
>
> > No reasonable person would think that if a physicist said this, he
> > meant he had trouble with algebra.
>
> This is reality. Einstein is your hero, and truth hurts.
Who wrote Einstein's paper on Brownian Motion? Who wrote Einstein's
paper on calculating the heat capacity of a solid using quantum
mechanics? Who wrote Einstein's SR and GR papers?
Did you choke on a visage of Einstein when you were wee? I don't see
why you hate the man so much.
At any rate, Einstein is not my hero. Binky is my hero.
http://www.alaskazoo.org/willowcrest/binky.htm
>
> > > I can assure you that Einstein was not a humble man even when he said
> > > that.
> > > 6th year senior.
>
> > How do you figure?
>
> Between you and I.
I repeat, how do you figure? You are off by several years. I graduated
high school in 2002, and 2 of those years were not spent on formal
education at UAF. I have a year left to beat out 3 lab classes and my
remaining humanities core.
>
> > > Not U of Alaska for sure.
>
> > Oh look, deflecting the question again. How about answering it instead
> > of answering with "not from <place>"? I think you don't want to answer
> > because you know the answer will make you look bad.
>
> How would the answer of where I was educated make me look bad? It is
> not the place you are educated that counts. It is your education in
> terms of what you know and how well you can analyze that counts even
> if you are self-educated like Heaviside and many great scientists.
> What you have leaned in school only represent a needle in a haystack.
> It is your ability to educate yourself after schooling that counts.
Oh, I would agree were all things equal. However, you exhibit serious
misunderstandings of subjects you claim to be an expert in. So
naturally I wonder where you were taught said subjects.
It looks like you have taught yourself differential geometry and
relativity. Is that an accurate assessment?
>
> > The closest you would get to differential geometry is
> > complex analysis and the closest you would get to general relativity
> > is when you walked by the physics building that one time when you were
> > an undergrad.
>
> > > This is very amusing.
>
> > ...because it is true. You don't know the first thing about either of
> > the topics. You continually treat differential geometry like it is
> > linear algebra. Do you know how a tensor transforms yet?
>
> This is still very amusing.
Do you know how a tensor transforms yet?
>
> > > So, you want to get personal?
>
> > Sure, why not?
>
> Not me. Why? Getting personal with moortel and his buddies not good
> enough for you?
Which is why you hide under a pseudonym and delete archived posts?
Eric Gisse
Exactly.
>
> > should be visible at some wavelengths either
> > through direct excitation or blocking of
> > wavelengths.
>
> We cannot resolve individual stars at this distance. There is little
> remaining dust / gas to diffuse the light sources that may be there.
> Can we resolve what is essentially a cluster of nearly perfect point
> sources into a single object? I don't think so, but I cannot say why
> I think so. Any contribution of light from "that area" simply
> resolves into Universal background... like how we have to image the
> CMBR.
I don't need to be able to see the atoms in my hand to not be able to
see through my hand.
>
> > > There is at least one flavor of GR that does not
> > > require Dark Matter, and there is MOND. The
> > > former will also describe gravitational lensing.
>
> > Eh?
>
> > MOND is explicitly nonrelativistic - MODIFIED
> > NEWTONIAN DYNAMICS.
>
> > It is simply a scaling of good ol' GmM/r^2 -
> > something like exp(-ar)GmM/r^2.
>
> > Gravitational lensing and all the other fun
> > relativity-only effects that exist are not
> > described by MOND, nor can they be.
>
> If you have a modified [exp(-ar)GM/r^2], and we know that [GM/r^2]
> distorts the path of light, why not?http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701848
> (... which may still point to TeVeS ...)
Deflection of light in Newtonian [or MOND] has a very, very poor
standing.
Think about F = ma. How do you have a force with m = 0? Do you bite
the bullet and move on? Do you assign a infintesimal mass and work
from there? Do you work backwards from E = hf and E = mc^2, regardless
of the validity of usage?
Using a infintesimally small mass and taking the limit to m = 0 gives
an answer for deflection in GM/r^2 that is off by a factor of two. Say
that gets 'fixed' in a way to give the observed answer.
That merely shifts the failures of Newtonian dynamics back a peg.
Next, MOND must be modified to handle _all_ relativistic effects [time
dilation, precession, Lenz-Thrilling effect, etc].
Then MOND [is it even Newtonian at this point?] has to be fudged such
that it explains maximal-spin black holes - which have been observed.
Is this any more satisfactory than postulating dark matter?
>
> But I said "former", not "latter". Which means I was referring to
> "one flavor of GR"... namelyhttp://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0611777http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0412652
>
> > > Try and keep an open mind.
>
> > When a credible alternative comes up, sure.
>
> Always keep an open mind. What is your favorite now, will probably be
> an uncomfortable pair of shoes later.
True.
>
> Dark Matter *is* patched onto GR, to "agree with observational data",
> and "keep the solution simple". And there *is* Dark Matter, matter we
> know of and is not expected to interact with light. I just don't
> believe that anyone has detected anywhere near enough of the stuff we
> recognize. Yet.
There isn't enough baryonic dark matter to do it. There isn't enough
known non-baryonic dark matter [neutrinos, photons] to do it by many
orders of magnitude.
>
> Just realize that it is *your personal choice*, today. And your
> statement "As far as dark matter is concerned, we know it is there."
> is really too strongly worded. We *know* sh*t, until we can go there
> and see, IMHO.
Lurking behind that is "...until something very, very compelling
disrupts our current notions".
Something in the bullet cluster is staring us in the face. Baryonic
matter would glow or disrupt in one way or another. Stuff like
neutrinos and photons move too quickly to be bound, nor are they
massive enough to make a difference.
Whatever the bullet cluster's mystery component is made of will answer
many questions when discovered.
>
> David A. Smith
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172201673....@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 21, 10:32 am, "dlzc" <d...@cox.net> wrote:
...
>> > should be visible at some wavelengths either
>> > through direct excitation or blocking of
>> > wavelengths.
>>
>> We cannot resolve individual stars at this distance.
>> There is little remaining dust / gas to diffuse the
>> light sources that may be there. Can we resolve
>> what is essentially a cluster of nearly perfect point
>> sources into a single object? I don't think so, but
>> I cannot say why I think so. Any contribution of
>> light from "that area" simply resolves into Universal
>> background... like how we have to image the CMBR.
>
> I don't need to be able to see the atoms in my hand
> to not be able to see through my hand.
Let's take the double negative out of that sentence, to see if
makes more sense...
"I need to be able to see the atoms in my hand to be able to see
through my hand."
Nope. So I'll try and guess what you meant...
I can see my hand glowing red by shining red light on it, or by
shining light behind it. I can see through my hand by using
X-rays (and appropriate film).
We see distant galaxies because of two things:
- stars (for light)
- and dust (for a target big enough to resolve as a thing)
The bullet cluster was stripped of its interstellar gas and dust.
So we cannot see the two galaxy's complements of stars (and of
course planets if any), because there is not a large enough
albedo for them to register even as two groups.
>> > > There is at least one flavor of GR that does not
>> > > require Dark Matter, and there is MOND. The
>> > > former will also describe gravitational lensing.
>>
>> > Eh?
>>
>> > MOND is explicitly nonrelativistic - MODIFIED
>> > NEWTONIAN DYNAMICS.
>>
>> > It is simply a scaling of good ol' GmM/r^2 -
>> > something like exp(-ar)GmM/r^2.
>>
>> > Gravitational lensing and all the other fun
>> > relativity-only effects that exist are not
>> > described by MOND, nor can they be.
>>
>> If you have a modified [exp(-ar)GM/r^2], and we know
>> that [GM/r^2] distorts the path of light, why not?
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701848
>> (... which may still point to TeVeS ...)
>
> Deflection of light in Newtonian [or MOND] has a very,
> very poor standing.
>
> Think about F = ma. How do you have a force with
> m = 0? Do you bite the bullet and move on? Do you
> assign a infintesimal mass and work from there? Do
> you work backwards from E = hf and E = mc^2,
> regardless of the validity of usage?
No, let's don't add insult to injury.
> Using a infintesimally small mass and taking the
> limit to m = 0 gives an answer for deflection in
> GM/r^2 that is off by a factor of two. Say that gets
> 'fixed' in a way to give the observed answer.
Better, but still bad.
> That merely shifts the failures of Newtonian
> dynamics back a peg. Next, MOND must be modified
> to handle _all_ relativistic effects [time dilation,
> precession, Lenz-Thrilling effect, etc].
>
> Then MOND [is it even Newtonian at this point?] has to
> be fudged such that it explains maximal-spin black
> holes - which have been observed.
>
> Is this any more satisfactory than postulating dark matter?
No. I do like quilts, but not for predicting experimental
results.
>> But I said "former", not "latter". Which means I was
>> referring to "one flavor of GR"... namely
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0611777
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0412652
>>
>> > > Try and keep an open mind.
>>
>> > When a credible alternative comes up, sure.
>>
>> Always keep an open mind. What is your favorite
>> now, will probably be an uncomfortable pair of
>> shoes later.
>
> True.
>
>>
>> Dark Matter *is* patched onto GR, to "agree with
>> observational data", and "keep the solution simple".
>> And there *is* Dark Matter, matter we know of and
>> is not expected to interact with light. I just don't
>> believe that anyone has detected anywhere near
>> enough of the stuff we recognize. Yet.
>
> There isn't enough baryonic dark matter to do it.
> There isn't enough known non-baryonic dark matter
> [neutrinos, photons] to do it by many orders of magnitude.
... that we know of. Of course, this would tend to place us in a
very special place in the Universe if we could not have detected
such excesses. Which presents its own problems.
>> Just realize that it is *your personal choice*, today.
>> And your statement "As far as dark matter is concerned,
>> we know it is there." is really too strongly worded. We
>> *know* sh*t, until we can go there and see, IMHO.
>
> Lurking behind that is "...until something very, very
> compelling
> disrupts our current notions".
>
> Something in the bullet cluster is staring us in the face.
> Baryonic matter would glow or disrupt in one way or
> another.
Yes and no. Baryonic matter is shining with the power of the Sun
all over the Andromeda galaxy, yet we cannot resolve stars as
stars unless they are exceptional. We see macroscopic
structures... namely lit dust clouds. It is a resolution thing.
I think. ;>)
> Stuff like neutrinos and photons move too quickly to be
> bound, nor are they massive enough to make a difference.
Neutrinos have have any energy, so consequently any speed. But
were they cold, I would think they would be *more* interactive,
making beta decay or positron production more likely. Or if they
existed in inordinate numbers, same song, second verse. So like
you say, they probably aren't there in numbers large enough to be
"all of it".
> Whatever the bullet cluster's mystery component is
> made of will answer many questions when discovered.
Maybe not in my lifetime then.
David A. Smith
Eric Gisse
wrote:
> Dear Eric Gisse:
>
> "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1172201673....@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Feb 21, 10:32 am, "dlzc" <d...@cox.net> wrote:
> ...
> >> > should be visible at some wavelengths either
> >> > through direct excitation or blocking of
> >> > wavelengths.
>
> >> We cannot resolve individual stars at this distance.
> >> There is little remaining dust / gas to diffuse the
> >> light sources that may be there. Can we resolve
> >> what is essentially a cluster of nearly perfect point
> >> sources into a single object? I don't think so, but
> >> I cannot say why I think so. Any contribution of
> >> light from "that area" simply resolves into Universal
> >> background... like how we have to image the CMBR.
>
> > I don't need to be able to see the atoms in my hand
> > to not be able to see through my hand.
>
> Let's take the double negative out of that sentence, to see if
> makes more sense...
> "I need to be able to see the atoms in my hand to be able to see
> through my hand."
Eek.
You know what I mean, though.
But it has been argued.
The particle physics folks think it is some massive, but stable,
particle in the TeV range that hasn't been detected yet. Hopefully,
the LHC will find it.
>
> >> Just realize that it is *your personal choice*, today.
> >> And your statement "As far as dark matter is concerned,
> >> we know it is there." is really too strongly worded. We
> >> *know* sh*t, until we can go there and see, IMHO.
>
> > Lurking behind that is "...until something very, very
> > compelling
> > disrupts our current notions".
>
> > Something in the bullet cluster is staring us in the face.
> > Baryonic matter would glow or disrupt in one way or
> > another.
>
> Yes and no. Baryonic matter is shining with the power of the Sun
> all over the Andromeda galaxy, yet we cannot resolve stars as
> stars unless they are exceptional. We see macroscopic
> structures... namely lit dust clouds. It is a resolution thing.
> I think. ;>)
Remember how the bullet cluster result was obtained : through
gravitational lensing. Admittedly it is weak lensing, but its a
nontrivial amount of mass.
>
> > Stuff like neutrinos and photons move too quickly to be
> > bound, nor are they massive enough to make a difference.
>
> Neutrinos have have any energy, so consequently any speed. But
> were they cold, I would think they would be *more* interactive,
> making beta decay or positron production more likely. Or if they
> existed in inordinate numbers, same song, second verse. So like
> you say, they probably aren't there in numbers large enough to be
> "all of it".
If I remember the WMAP results correctly, the number is 3% of dark
matter.
>
> > Whatever the bullet cluster's mystery component is
> > made of will answer many questions when discovered.
>
> Maybe not in my lifetime then.
LHC comes online this year. Patience.
>
> David A. Smith
Tom Roberts
> [much silliness and quibbling omitted]
> Neutrinos have have any energy, so consequently any speed. But
> were they cold, I would think they would be *more* interactive,
Nope. We know how neutrinos interact, and have measured their
cross-sections. Between 1 and 100 GeV, their interaction cross-section
is proportional to their energy, and it approaches zero as their energy
approaches zero. So cold neutrinos interact LESS.
Tom Roberts
cliff wright
the mathematicians seem to be leading the way in losing their cool.
I followed up the citation on the big "black Hole" at the galactic
centre, though actually the last I heard there were at least two.
Indeed I agree we do have a super massive highly condensed object, or
objects there. Lots of evidence supports this and a look at M77 a
Seyfert galaxy can be pretty convincing even visually.
My only reservation is the word "singularity" and the assumption of
infinite density, OK so I'm being philosophical again, but I cannot
bring myself to trust theories that give infinite results.
That is just what the "ultra violet catastrophe" of the late 19th
century led Physics into.
It is very instructive to look at text books of the time and see just
how their imaginations failed when faced with such results. Poor old
Lord Kelvin was never the same again!
It took Einstein among many others to find just a partial way around the
blockage. But even that led to nuclear energy, wireless and X rays.
I will do some research in a couple of weeks and give you some
references to Neptunes orbital anomalies.
As to Inertial and magnetic confinement of Fusion! Are you kidding!!!
I was 17 years old when Harwell announced fusion using ZETA, since then
there have been an army of other massive and expensive machines. There
is one thing so far though- "cold fusion" and "hot fusion" have one
thing in common. Neither have ever produced a useful amount of net power
in the form of electricity or even heat. I recently had my 66th birthday.
That's another thing I'd take bets on, even though it may spell the end
of the human race ultimately. Not a prospect I like.
In the end it will almost certainly be found that trying to contain a
working fusion reaction using electro-magnetic forces cannot be made to
work.
It does not seem to happen in nature as far as we know.
Gravity remains the only effective long term confinement system for a
fusion reaction. I wish it were not so, but nothing so far convinces me
to hope for a breakthrough.
Is it not that which is in play? My own degree is in the history of
science and technology, but I have spent my career as an electronics
engineer with side trips into semiconductor research, crystalography
and organic chemistry.
I have attended many Physics lectures up to graduate level and the most
common thing I noticed about them (with a few honourable exceptions) was
the pressure to pour out a lot of work while being discouraged from
asking "awkward questions". A lot of this pressure of course came from
an rigid curriculum and overloaded lecturers.
It is quite impossible for me to believe that this atmosphere does not
reflect on the students who pass through the system.
Cliff Wright.
Eric Gisse
cliff wright wrote:
[...]
> Weel this is all getting a bit abusive, and strangely enough, oris it,
> the mathematicians seem to be leading the way in losing their cool.
It just might be a manifestation of me being a little too used to
people being completely braindead on this newsgroup.
>
> I followed up the citation on the big "black Hole" at the galactic
> centre, though actually the last I heard there were at least two.
I had heard that, but I don't know anything substantial about it.
>
> Indeed I agree we do have a super massive highly condensed object, or
> objects there. Lots of evidence supports this and a look at M77 a
> Seyfert galaxy can be pretty convincing even visually.
> My only reservation is the word "singularity" and the assumption of
> infinite density, OK so I'm being philosophical again, but I cannot
> bring myself to trust theories that give infinite results.
> That is just what the "ultra violet catastrophe" of the late 19th
> century led Physics into.
Yup.
Relativity goes ape in the area close to a singularity. I sometimes
have to point out that folks who have a decent grasp of relativity are
well aware that it isn't a quantum theory and it utterly fails at the
core of a black hole.
Quantum field theory also plays fast and loose with infinity. Neither
are satisfactory, but we can't find an actual conflict.
> It is very instructive to look at text books of the time and see just
> how their imaginations failed when faced with such results. Poor old
> Lord Kelvin was never the same again!
>
> It took Einstein among many others to find just a partial way around the
> blockage. But even that led to nuclear energy, wireless and X rays.
Who knows the fun that awaits us when we figure out a quantum theory
of gravity. Personally, I'm hoping for FTL space travel. But I'd
settle for something more prosaic like an ansible or stargate.
>
> I will do some research in a couple of weeks and give you some
> references to Neptunes orbital anomalies.
It'd be appreciated.
>
> As to Inertial and magnetic confinement of Fusion! Are you kidding!!!
> I was 17 years old when Harwell announced fusion using ZETA, since then
> there have been an army of other massive and expensive machines. There
> is one thing so far though- "cold fusion" and "hot fusion" have one
> thing in common. Neither have ever produced a useful amount of net power
> in the form of electricity or even heat. I recently had my 66th birthday.
Congrats.
We have hit break-even with fusion as of late. We can make fusion do
stuff, but what we have trouble with is making it do a useful amount
of stuff.
> That's another thing I'd take bets on, even though it may spell the end
> of the human race ultimately. Not a prospect I like.
Fission will always be there, as will solar, tidal, and geothermal.
Fusion isn't the "last, best hope". People are simply interested in it
because it offers a crazy amount of energy with a [in comparison to
fission] amount of radioactive waste.
> In the end it will almost certainly be found that trying to contain a
> working fusion reaction using electro-magnetic forces cannot be made to
> work.
I doubt it, but that may be the case.
> It does not seem to happen in nature as far as we know.
> Gravity remains the only effective long term confinement system for a
> fusion reaction. I wish it were not so, but nothing so far convinces me
> to hope for a breakthrough.
I don't know enough about the field to offer any hopeful words.
>
> Is it not that which is in play? My own degree is in the history of
> science and technology, but I have spent my career as an electronics
> engineer with side trips into semiconductor research, crystalography
> and organic chemistry.
> I have attended many Physics lectures up to graduate level and the most
> common thing I noticed about them (with a few honourable exceptions) was
> the pressure to pour out a lot of work while being discouraged from
> asking "awkward questions". A lot of this pressure of course came from
> an rigid curriculum and overloaded lecturers.
> It is quite impossible for me to believe that this atmosphere does not
> reflect on the students who pass through the system.
Yes/no.
Quite a lot through in a semester myself or one of the other students
will bring up a point, and it will be explained that "we won't worry
about that. it is complicated, and much smaller than the effect we are
interested in". The handwaving is there, but it is rationalized and
fairly minimal. Often, such points digress into an interesting bit of
discussion. Especially in my quantum mechanics and solid state physics
classes.
It isn't the case that such things are swept under the rug. I suppose
a fair bit of that has to do with the fact that the classes in which
such things come up [quantum-heavy classes, heh] have 3 people each
and such digressions are tolerated by both students and professors. It
also certainly is not the case that we are discouraged from asking
tough questions. It is the opposite, in fact.
>
> Cliff Wright.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:GIvDh.509$8x....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
So they could be a significant candidate, since they still have
0<m<~50 eV of mass?
David A. Smith
Tom Roberts
> "Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:GIvDh.509$8x....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
>> measured their cross-sections. Between 1 and 100
>> GeV, their interaction cross-section is proportional
>> to their energy, and it approaches zero as their energy
>> approaches zero. So cold neutrinos interact LESS.
>
> So they could be a significant candidate, since they still have
> 0<m<~50 eV of mass?
Current limits on neutrino masses are <~ 1 eV/c^2 -- google "NuFact06"
for several up-to-date review papers. Neutrinos are not a viable
candidate for dark matter.
Tom Roberts
PD
>
> I followed up the citation on the big "black Hole" at the galactic
> centre, though actually the last I heard there were at least two.
>
> Indeed I agree we do have a super massive highly condensed object, or
> objects there. Lots of evidence supports this and a look at M77 a
> Seyfert galaxy can be pretty convincing even visually.
> My only reservation is the word "singularity" and the assumption of
> infinite density, OK so I'm being philosophical again, but I cannot
> bring myself to trust theories that give infinite results.
> That is just what the "ultra violet catastrophe" of the late 19th
> century led Physics into.
> It is very instructive to look at text books of the time and see just
> how their imaginations failed when faced with such results. Poor old
> Lord Kelvin was never the same again!
>
You have a point, and here it's worth mentioning a couple of things.
1. A black hole in some sense is defined by the event horizon. We have
*remarkably* little information about what's inside the event horizon,
aside from mass, charge, angular momentum. In a very real sense, what
lies beyond the event horizon no longer belongs in our observable
universe, and therefore any bad behavior (like infinities) are not
demanded to live *in* our universe.
2. A supermassive object that is NOT a singularity will still have an
event horizon. So the presence of an event horizon does not guarantee
what what's inside is indeed an singularity. About all we can *really*
say is that we don't know of anything that would prevent the collapse
to a singularity -- as far as we can tell, it is a runaway condition.
However, it is *known* that past a certain scale, our extrapolation to
the endpoint most certainly is unjustifiable. We simply don't know
what happens beyond that scale, and the extrapolation to singularity
is the only possible outcome of what we know *so far*. We don't even
know at this point whether, from a vantage point outside the event
horizon, there is any experimental way to distinguish a true
singularity from something that is *almost* a singularity.
PD
Koobee Wublee
> On Feb 22, 12:08 pm, "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You will be utterly surprised. Curvature in space as a cause of
> > gravitation originated with Riemann. He did not get anywhere due to
> > his short career and lack of discovery in gravitational time
> > dilation. As a genius Riemann, given with the concept of
> > gravitational time dilation or a curvature in the temporal dimension,
> > I have no doubt Riemann would have figured it out.
>
> You have it backwards. Time dilation is an effect, not a cause.
Who knows? The mathematics shows gravitation is a manifestation of
the gravitational time dilation and nothing else. Want to argue
against the math?
> > > I find it interesting that a retired engineer manages to be, once
> > > again, the only one who 'truly understands' a particular subject. This
> > > time it is differential geometry.
>
> > You are correct except the retired engineer part.
>
> Then correct it.
Already done.
> > > Do you say that because you realize how stupid it was, or do you say
> > > that because you already forgot you said it?
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/ce55cde7fd5...
>
> > I was describing two very independent curvatures.
>
> Regardless, you claimed the curvature would be different.
Of course, the curvatures of two independent geometries need not to be
the same. I don't have to claim it. It is called common sense.
> You started off with Minkowski space:
>
> ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2
>
> You then used this coordinate transformation:
>
> ** t' = t
> ** x' = f(x)
> ** y' = y
> ** z' = z
>
> You then expressed the metric, in prime coordinates, as:
>
> ds'^2 = c^2 dt'^2 - dx'^2 - dy'^2 - dz'^2
>
> Which then you expressed as:
>
> ds'^2 = c^2 dt^2 - (df/dx)^2 dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2
This is correct so far.
> I hope it is obvious that x' = f(x), x = g(x'). Treating the one-forms
> as differentials, we have dx = (dg/dx')dx', and (dx)^2 = (dg/
> dx)^2(dx')^2.
This is correct, too.
> You can prove it another way by directly using the way
> tensors change under a coordinate transformation.
And what is your point?
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/48bfa8d7d6b...
>
> > I believe both Mr. McCullogh and Mr. Bielawski have regrets on that
> > one.
>
> Shit, so would I. It must have taken forever to format the wedge
> products in ASCII.
>
> You still have no mathematics-based refutation of the derivation.
>
> Forgive my lack of omniscience, oh guru of Riemann. Perhaps you would
> be so kind as to point out where you showed that derivation to be
> incorrect and in which you derived the result you claim is true.
Yes, I did. Go look for it.
> > Einstein's 1905 papers are full of mistakes which I have claimed so
> > and pointed them out one by one already.
>
> Of course your critique of Einstein's 1905 paper doesn't withstand
> scrutiny. Not like it matters to you.
There is not a single challenge so far! The math is simple enough
even Dr. Roberts and Mr. Bielawski can understand.
> > Einstein's derivation of Lorentz transform was a total gibberish. He
> > must have known the answer before hand. That means Einstein was a
> > plagiarist. His piss-poor attempt to re-derive the Lorentz transform
> > in his book some two decades later is totally mathemagical where he
> > pulled out the Lorentz transform from two equations equating zero with
> > zero. Einstein's derivation of (E = m c^2 / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2))
> > involved a series of mistakes. He must have known the answer, and
> > again that would make him a plagiarist.
>
> Curiously enough you are the only one to 'notice' this, even after
> nearly a century and review by literally thousands of people.
I am also wondering the same thing. This proves a stagnation in the
academics.
> Even
> more curiously, you are incapable of supporting your assertions.
You are wrong again.
> Also, I fail to see why you feel tearing apart Einstein's 1905 paper
> [regardless of how well you did it] is an effective use of your time.
Keep thinking about it. Maybe one of these days you will figure it
out.
> Special [and general] relativity are understood in different terms
> than when they were originally published.
The math is very much the same just differences in choice of names for
the variables involved. <shrug>
> > Galileo's equivalence principle led to the Newtonian law of gravity.
> > Einstein's equivalence principle which is basically the same as
> > Galileo's did not go anywhere. Newton came up with the law of gravity
> > by watching an apple falling from the tree. Einstein and Grossmann
> > did not go anywhere by fancying themselves falling instead of Newton's
> > apple.
>
> So...what exactly?
What exactly what?
> > Einstein's derivation of Mercury's orbital anomaly before GR was a
> > modification of Gerber's result. Gerber modified the Newtonian
> > gravitational potential by making it a function of radial speed.
> > Einstein modified the Newtonian gravitational potential by introducing
> > second order terms to (GM/r). <shrug> However, Gerber was correct in
> > his subsequent derivation. Einstein got the number right because he
> > knew the answer before hand even if he screwed up on the derivation.
> > <shrug>
>
> What you wrote was interesting until I actually did a few minutes of
> research.
>
> A first search for Gerber and Einstein reveals nothing but references
> by people who have an axe to grind.
No, you can see that through the math --- how Gerber and Einstein
derive their math. <shrug>
> Mostly Bjerkens [Asshole who
> published the incorrigible plagarist book]
So, Mr. Bjerknes lowers the divine role of your hero, and you are hurt
by it. Well, truth hurts. You need to get over with that. <shrug>
> and Beckmann [idiot editor
> of Galilean Electrodynamics - the only place to publish Ken Seto] -
I can sense your jealousy. <shrug>
> two people who have a vested interest in being anti-Einstein, whether
> they believe it or not.
Mr. Bjerknes is a science historian. Mr. Beckmann publishes books for
a living. <shrug>
> A deeper search revealed, with the subtraction of all references to
> these morons, something much better:
>
> http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm
>
> Gerber's derivation is interesting but it isn't significant in way as
> something other than a historical footnote. It certainly is NOT an
> alternative to GR, much less a physically meaningful theory.
Even GR's derivation of Mercury's orbital anomaly follows very closely
how Gerber laid out the mathematics. You just don't understand the
math. <shrug>
> Don't trust stuff published by folks who are loudly anti-Einstein to
> be completely, or even partially, true.
I don't trust anything published by anyone anymore even Mr. Bjerknes
and Mr. Beckmann.
> > This is reality. Einstein is your hero, and truth hurts.
>
> Who wrote Einstein's paper on Brownian Motion?
I am not sure, but when someone points out not Einstein, I cannot
refute it.
> Who wrote Einstein's
> paper on calculating the heat capacity of a solid using quantum
> mechanics?
I am not sure, but when someone points out not Einstein, I cannot
refute it. It sounds like a plagiarism of Planck's work.
> Who wrote Einstein's SR
I am not sure, but when someone points out not Einstein, I cannot
refute it. It is definitely a plagiarism of Lorentz and Poincare's
works.
> and GR papers?
Einstein probably wrote his GR papers, but the field equations are
definitely a plagiarism of Hilbert's work.
> Did you choke on a visage of Einstein when you were wee?
I don't understand that one.
> I don't see why you hate the man so much.
I don't, but I just don't know why you love the man so much.
> At any rate, Einstein is not my hero. Binky is my hero.
You love the man. How can he not be your hero? You practically
worship the man.
> I repeat, how do you figure? You are off by several years. I graduated
> high school in 2002, and 2 of those years were not spent on formal
> education at UAF. I have a year left to beat out 3 lab classes and my
> remaining humanities core.
Again, I repeat. It is between you and I.
> > How would the answer of where I was educated make me look bad? It is
> > not the place you are educated that counts. It is your education in
> > terms of what you know and how well you can analyze that counts even
> > if you are self-educated like Heaviside and many great scientists.
> > What you have leaned in school only represent a needle in a haystack.
> > It is your ability to educate yourself after schooling that counts.
>
> Oh, I would agree were all things equal. However, you exhibit serious
> misunderstandings of subjects you claim to be an expert in. So
> naturally I wonder where you were taught said subjects.
You are talking about yourself. You cannot see the mistakes in
Einstein's 1905 paper. <shrug>
> It looks like you have taught yourself differential geometry and
> relativity. Is that an accurate assessment?
Does it matter?
> Do you know how a tensor transforms yet?
It is amusing when you ask me that.
> > > > So, you want to get personal?
>
> > > Sure, why not?
>
> > Not me. Why? Getting personal with moortel and his buddies not good
> > enough for you?
>
> Which is why you hide under a pseudonym and delete archived posts?
I don't understand that. <shrug>
bz
@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> So the presence of an event horizon does not guarantee
> what what's inside is indeed an singularity. About all we can *really*
> say is that we don't know of anything that would prevent the collapse
> to a singularity -- as far as we can tell, it is a runaway condition.
>
I have read some interesting speculation that OUR universe might be a 'black
hole'.
That if the mass is about what they think it may be, the event horizon would
be about the size of our universe.
In other words, we may KNOW what happens inside a black hole of a certain
size because we live inside one.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
PD
> "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in news:1172254549.216996.104420
> @q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > So the presence of an event horizon does not guarantee
> > what what's inside is indeed an singularity. About all we can *really*
> > say is that we don't know of anything that would prevent the collapse
> > to a singularity -- as far as we can tell, it is a runaway condition.
>
> I have read some interesting speculation that OUR universe might be a 'black
> hole'.
>
> That if the mass is about what they think it may be, the event horizon would
> be about the size of our universe.
>
> In other words, we may KNOW what happens inside a black hole of a certain
> size because we live inside one.
>
Hmmm. That's an interesting coincidence. I wonder about implications:
- Is there any evidence that the correlation persists in a time-
dependent way? That is, given the expected relationship between mass
of BH and size of event horizon, if the radius of the universe is
expanding then is the mass of the universe increasing?
- In the interior of a BH, the singularity lives in the future light
cone of all objects inside the horizon. And yet, astronomical data
says the expansion of the universe is accelerating. Aren't those two
statements incompatible?
PD
bz
news:1172267557.9...@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
> On Feb 23, 2:18 pm, bz <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
>> "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in news:1172254549.216996.104420
>> @q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > So the presence of an event horizon does not guarantee
>> > what what's inside is indeed an singularity. About all we can
>> > *really* say is that we don't know of anything that would prevent the
>> > collapse to a singularity -- as far as we can tell, it is a runaway
>> > condition.
>>
>> I have read some interesting speculation that OUR universe might be a
>> 'black hole'.
>>
>> That if the mass is about what they think it may be, the event horizon
>> would be about the size of our universe.
>>
>> In other words, we may KNOW what happens inside a black hole of a
>> certain size because we live inside one.
>>
>
> Hmmm. That's an interesting coincidence.
Yep.
Googling on 'universe as a black hole' yealds interesting things like
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/white_hole_030917.html
> I wonder about implications:
> - Is there any evidence that the correlation persists in a time-
> dependent way? That is, given the expected relationship between mass
> of BH and size of event horizon, if the radius of the universe is
> expanding then is the mass of the universe increasing?
> - In the interior of a BH, the singularity lives in the future light
> cone of all objects inside the horizon. And yet, astronomical data
> says the expansion of the universe is accelerating. Aren't those two
> statements incompatible?
Perhaps from outside the black hole 'what happens on the inside' looks
different.
Maybe it is turtles(or black holes) all the way down. :)
Anyway I thought you would enjoy contemplating the idea.
cliff wright
Some more good points have come up, and less insulting is going on. well
done all, you give me a bit more hope for the future of science! Eric
had some interesting points, especially about Physics education.
Indeed Eric, your rematks illustrate exactly what I mean and add another
important part of the situation.
You find enormous classes at basic Physics levels at universities, maybe
200 or 300 students per lecture.
Then when one specialises the numbers collapse down to 3 or 4 perhaps.
Both situations have their dangers. Eric well sees what happens in a
large class, but in a very small one personalities come into play to a
great extent.
Perhaps some of us have had the problem of a lecturer whose "world view"
differs from one's own. With me it was in a history paper I was doing
in my final undergraduate year.
I can well imagine that in the "hard" sciences it could be very much worse.
As to "black holes". Yes that is just what I was getting at!
We do not have any real understanding of anything after the point where
the escape velocity =c. So to talk of "infinite" density is actually
meaningless from the point of view of an outside observer.
I too well remember seeing suggestions that our entire universe is a
"black hole" in a greater cosmos. It is very instructive to see just how
low a density of matter could "close" such a large system.
As to Fusion, well I guess I shouldn't quite give up yet. but the
thought of succession of mini H bombs exploding every few milliseconds
gives one pause. So far that looks like the only potential way.
"Cold Fusion" was a very interesting sideline though. I had the good
fortune to meet 2 of the early workers in the field (no, not from Utah)
and although what they found was certainly not fusion in the normal
sense, there was just about enough evidence to do more work.
As I had used Palladium to hyper-purify Hydrogen in my semiconductor
research days I had a sort of personal interst in the subject.
My "gut feeling" is that there may be some new form of energy storage
going on when conditions are right.
It may not ever be a source of energy, but as we all know a means of
storing large amounts of energy in a very small space would solve nearly
all our energy problems.
Regards Cliff Wright.
Eric Gisse
> On Feb 22, 7:14 pm, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 22, 12:08 pm, "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > You will be utterly surprised. Curvature in space as a cause of
> > > gravitation originated with Riemann. He did not get anywhere due to
> > > his short career and lack of discovery in gravitational time
> > > dilation. As a genius Riemann, given with the concept of
> > > gravitational time dilation or a curvature in the temporal dimension,
> > > I have no doubt Riemann would have figured it out.
>
> > You have it backwards. Time dilation is an effect, not a cause.
>
> Who knows? The mathematics shows gravitation is a manifestation of
> the gravitational time dilation and nothing else. Want to argue
> against the math?
Sure.
Hopefully it wont be a trainwreck of confusion like your previous
attempts.
>
> > > > I find it interesting that a retired engineer manages to be, once
> > > > again, the only one who 'truly understands' a particular subject. This
> > > > time it is differential geometry.
>
> > > You are correct except the retired engineer part.
>
> > Then correct it.
>
> Already done.
Wonder twin powers ACTIVE! Form of...WILLFUL IGNORANCE!
I wanted to know what your profession was, or is in case you aren't
retired.
>
> > > > Do you say that because you realize how stupid it was, or do you say
> > > > that because you already forgot you said it?
>
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/ce55cde7fd5...
>
> > > I was describing two very independent curvatures.
>
> > Regardless, you claimed the curvature would be different.
>
> Of course, the curvatures of two independent geometries need not to be
> the same. I don't have to claim it. It is called common sense.
Yet you continue to refuse to do the one simple thing that would prove
you right: compute any one of the curvature tensors or scalar.
Is it that you don't know how to do it? Would you like me to do it for
you?
>
>
>
> > You started off with Minkowski space:
>
> > ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2
>
> > You then used this coordinate transformation:
>
> > ** t' = t
> > ** x' = f(x)
> > ** y' = y
> > ** z' = z
>
> > You then expressed the metric, in prime coordinates, as:
>
> > ds'^2 = c^2 dt'^2 - dx'^2 - dy'^2 - dz'^2
>
> > Which then you expressed as:
>
> > ds'^2 = c^2 dt^2 - (df/dx)^2 dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2
>
> This is correct so far.
>
> > I hope it is obvious that x' = f(x), x = g(x'). Treating the one-forms
> > as differentials, we have dx = (dg/dx')dx', and (dx)^2 = (dg/
> > dx)^2(dx')^2.
>
> This is correct, too.
>
> > You can prove it another way by directly using the way
> > tensors change under a coordinate transformation.
>
> And what is your point?
Wonder twin powers ACTIVE! Form of...WILLFUL IGNORANCE!
My point is that the line element you wrote down is not the correct
representation of the metric tensor.
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/48bfa8d7d6b...
>
> > > I believe both Mr. McCullogh and Mr. Bielawski have regrets on that
> > > one.
>
> > Shit, so would I. It must have taken forever to format the wedge
> > products in ASCII.
>
> > You still have no mathematics-based refutation of the derivation.
>
> > Forgive my lack of omniscience, oh guru of Riemann. Perhaps you would
> > be so kind as to point out where you showed that derivation to be
> > incorrect and in which you derived the result you claim is true.
>
> Yes, I did. Go look for it.
Why not provide a direct link?
[snip remaining]
Ken S. Tucker
Education is the intergenerational propagation
of knowledge and (hopefully) understanding
and with luck, wisdom.
I have found that most prof's are quite open to
discussion once you have respected and
understood their PoV, in fact they they get rather
excited about some new insights.
> As to "black holes". Yes that is just what I was getting at!
> We do not have any real understanding of anything after the point where
> the escape velocity =c. So to talk of "infinite" density is actually
> meaningless from the point of view of an outside observer.
>
> I too well remember seeing suggestions that our entire universe is a
> "black hole" in a greater cosmos. It is very instructive to see just how
> low a density of matter could "close" such a large system.
>
> As to Fusion, well I guess I shouldn't quite give up yet. but the
> thought of succession of mini H bombs exploding every few milliseconds
> gives one pause. So far that looks like the only potential way.
>
> "Cold Fusion" was a very interesting sideline though. I had the good
> fortune to meet 2 of the early workers in the field (no, not from Utah)
> and although what they found was certainly not fusion in the normal
> sense, there was just about enough evidence to do more work.
> As I had used Palladium to hyper-purify Hydrogen in my semiconductor
> research days I had a sort of personal interst in the subject.
> My "gut feeling" is that there may be some new form of energy storage
> going on when conditions are right.
> It may not ever be a source of energy, but as we all know a means of
> storing large amounts of energy in a very small space would solve nearly
> all our energy problems.
Well to get UL approval,for the mass market, the high
energy storage device can't be set to produce a fast
discharge...you know.
Ken
> Regards Cliff Wright.
cliff wright
his little test specimens (about as big as a D flashlight cell)
exploding for no apparent reason. As they say it needs a bit of work!
Regards Cliff Wright.
bz
Some with strong delusions get vicious when backed into a corner.
> well
> done all, you give me a bit more hope for the future of science! Eric
> had some interesting points, especially about Physics education.
The professors I know are always interested in discussing new ideas.
> Indeed Eric, your rematks illustrate exactly what I mean and add another
> important part of the situation.
> You find enormous classes at basic Physics levels at universities, maybe
> 200 or 300 students per lecture.
> Then when one specialises the numbers collapse down to 3 or 4 perhaps.
> Both situations have their dangers. Eric well sees what happens in a
> large class, but in a very small one personalities come into play to a
> great extent.
The graduate students in this chemistry department must attend and give
seminars. There are healthy discussions that follow.
> Perhaps some of us have had the problem of a lecturer whose "world view"
> differs from one's own. With me it was in a history paper I was doing
> in my final undergraduate year.
> I can well imagine that in the "hard" sciences it could be very much
> worse.
Or much better. History is entirely based upon opinions about what
happened. The results of the past events is that we are alive and able to
talk about them. What 'would have happened if' is not testable. The losers
don't write history books. Lacking a time machine, we can NOT go back and
check to see what really happened. Of course, there is some cross check
that can be done, but it is always subject to interpretation.
Whereas in science one can go into the lab and test things. What counts is
what happens, not what happened.
> As to "black holes". Yes that is just what I was getting at!
> We do not have any real understanding of anything after the point where
> the escape velocity =c. So to talk of "infinite" density is actually
> meaningless from the point of view of an outside observer.
>
> I too well remember seeing suggestions that our entire universe is a
> "black hole" in a greater cosmos. It is very instructive to see just how
> low a density of matter could "close" such a large system.
Yes. They point out that IF the universe is closed, it MUST also have an
event horizon.
> As to Fusion, well I guess I shouldn't quite give up yet. but the
> thought of succession of mini H bombs exploding every few milliseconds
> gives one pause. So far that looks like the only potential way.
>
> "Cold Fusion" was a very interesting sideline though. I had the good
> fortune to meet 2 of the early workers in the field (no, not from Utah)
> and although what they found was certainly not fusion in the normal
> sense, there was just about enough evidence to do more work.
It is unfortunate that the palladium just seems to accumulate hydrogen and
(occasionally, for no particular known reason) catalyze the 'rapid
burning[oxidation]' of that hyrdogen, thus producing bursts of heat.
> As I had used Palladium to hyper-purify Hydrogen in my semiconductor
> research days I had a sort of personal interst in the subject.
> My "gut feeling" is that there may be some new form of energy storage
> going on when conditions are right.
I suspect you are right, but it may not be 'new'.
> It may not ever be a source of energy, but as we all know a means of
> storing large amounts of energy in a very small space would solve nearly
> all our energy problems.
There are many ways of storing large amounts of energy in a very small
space. One of the most efficient ones is known as photosynthesis.
Nickel Metal hydride batteries store a lot of energy but can be dangerous.
Storage is a necessary but not sufficient part of the solution.
0) Moving all our heavy industries into space is the solution to many of
mankinds problems.
1) need more energy, build a larger reflector.
2) need mineral resources, capture earth orbit crossing asteroids.
3) need protection from dinasour killers, see 2)
4) different groups want their 'own space to live in', see 0)
5) tired of being poor? see 0)
6) earth is getting polluted, see 0)
7) species are being exterpated, see 0)
once we climb out of the cradle, we can clean the earth up, turn it into
parklands and bring back those species that mankind exterpated.
Warning, if we don't do 0) soon, we will have exhausted the vast store of
fossil solar energy that would have allowed us to climb out of the cradle.
Mankind will, for the rest of its existance (which the next dinasour
killer will end if pollution, war, or terrorists do not end us first) our
decendents will curse our stupidity while they drag their plows across
their fields.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"bz" <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns98E15DA1594CEWQ...@130.39.198.139...
...
> 0) Moving all our heavy industries into space is the solution
> to many of
> mankinds problems.
> 1) need more energy, build a larger reflector.
> 2) need mineral resources, capture earth orbit crossing
> asteroids.
> 3) need protection from dinasour killers, see 2)
> 4) different groups want their 'own space to live in', see 0)
> 5) tired of being poor? see 0)
> 6) earth is getting polluted, see 0)
> 7) species are being exterpated, see 0)
>
> once we climb out of the cradle, we can clean the
> earth up, turn it into parklands and bring back those
> species that mankind exterpated.
>
> Warning, if we don't do 0) soon, we will have
> exhausted the vast store of fossil solar energy that
> would have allowed us to climb out of the cradle.
For what it is worth, the lion's share of energy, and water, (and
consequently wastewater) is consumed by homes... not production
facilities.
Rather than be a solution, I'm afraid Earth would just be our
dumping ground in your scenario. It costs us thousands of
dollars for each pound delivered to orbit, and we simply dump
spent / damaged parts Earthward.
Not that the thread isn't diverging...
David A. Smith
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Juan R." <juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in message
news:1172335244.2...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 22, 5:07 am, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 2. What the orbital dynamics of some stars show is the
>> > presence of a
>> > highly condensed massive object which may, or may not, be
>> > some kind of
>> > singularity.
>>
>> You might like this.
>>
>> http://www.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/index.php
>
> That web page you refer has little or none scientific
>validity. You were thought this before. From
> Experimental Evidence of Black Holes
> [1]:
>
> "Many astronomical observations suggest that black
> holes really exist in nature. However, an unambiguous
> proof for their existence is still lacking."
Not a very good resource. Science is about disproof, not proof.
There are objects that have the interactions of material trying
to fall onto them (just like with neutron stars), but no
interactions of this stuff landing against a surface (unlike with
neutron stars).
> "Neither event horizon nor intrinsic curvature
> singularity have been observed by means of
> astronomical techniques."
A really *bad* resource, in fact. An event horizon can *never*
be observed, "astronomical techniques" or not.
> "Principal and technical obstacles avoid undoubtfully
> proving black hole existence."
>
> [1] http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701228
I think it may just be translation errors regarding "proof".
Perhaps you missed this last sentence:
"However, classical rotating Kerr black holes are still the best
theoretical model to explain astronomical observations."
David A. Smith
bz
$0u1....@newsfe15.phx:
> Dear bz:
>
> "bz" <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
> news:Xns98E15DA1594CEWQ...@130.39.198.139...
> ...
>> 0) Moving all our heavy industries into space is the solution
>> to many of
>> mankinds problems.
>> 1) need more energy, build a larger reflector.
>> 2) need mineral resources, capture earth orbit crossing
>> asteroids.
>> 3) need protection from dinasour killers, see 2)
>> 4) different groups want their 'own space to live in', see 0)
>> 5) tired of being poor? see 0)
>> 6) earth is getting polluted, see 0)
>> 7) species are being exterpated, see 0)
>>
>> once we climb out of the cradle, we can clean the
>> earth up, turn it into parklands and bring back those
>> species that mankind exterpated.
>>
>> Warning, if we don't do 0) soon, we will have
>> exhausted the vast store of fossil solar energy that
>> would have allowed us to climb out of the cradle.
>
> For what it is worth, the lion's share of energy, and water, (and
> consequently wastewater) is consumed by homes... not production
> facilities.
Support facilities and workers for the production facilities would also
move.
> Rather than be a solution, I'm afraid Earth would just be our
> dumping ground in your scenario.
It WILL take a while to clean up the mess we have made. But climbing out of
the cradle will give us the time.
If we stay in the cradle, our time is very limited.
> It costs us thousands of
> dollars for each pound delivered to orbit, and we simply dump
> spent / damaged parts Earthward.
Every dollar spent on putting something into orbit has gone to feed
someone.
The value of the mass of elements we have orbited is very small and more
than counterbalanced by infalling mater from space.
The money goes to pay people's salaries as they mine minerals, refine ore,
machine parts, design machines, advance technology, invent things, build
rockets, write papers, etc.
Every penny stayed here on earth.
The spend/damaged parts are a drop in the bucket compared to the tons of
trash and obsolete consumer goods discarded by households each year.
After we get out of the cradle scarce natural resource will no longer be a
limiting factor. The ONLY scarce resource will be the human mind.
>
> Not that the thread isn't diverging...
>
> David A. Smith
>
>
>
--
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
So you move "everything" into space. Leaving only "remediators"
and caretakers behind?
>> Rather than be a solution, I'm afraid Earth
>> would just be our dumping ground in your scenario.
>
> It WILL take a while to clean up the mess we
> have made. But climbing out of the cradle will
> give us the time.
>
> If we stay in the cradle, our time is very limited.
We cannot clean up our mess, because we always make more. We are
engines of entropy. However, we can work in concert with our
environment... but not at the population levels we currently
have.
>> It costs us thousands of dollars for each pound
>> delivered to orbit, and we simply dump spent /
>> damaged parts Earthward.
>
> Every dollar spent on putting something into orbit
> has gone to feed someone.
*Lots* of someones.
> The value of the mass of elements we have orbited
> is very small and more than counterbalanced by
> infalling mater from space.
It took energy to form those materials, and yet we vaporize them
and spread them over the globe. And this is from a few hundred
"out of cradlers". Discipline starts at home, it doesn't come
from being in a frontier.
> The money goes to pay people's salaries as they
> mine minerals, refine ore, machine parts, design
> machines, advance technology, invent things, build
> rockets, write papers, etc.
>
> Every penny stayed here on earth.
Money is only a unit of trust. The trip out of the cradle will
keep people employed, but, will *not* necessarily change who we
are. If we change who we are first, maybe then getting out of
the cradle will be easier... fun rather than "escape from doom".
> The spend/damaged parts are a drop in the
> bucket compared to the tons of trash and obsolete
> consumer goods discarded by households each year.
All will still be generated in space. And what is more, one will
be consuming one's own excreta... rather than that of our
ancestors (processed by a massive biosphere). We move closer to
imminent disaster, not further, should safety systems fail.
> After we get out of the cradle scarce natural resource
> will no longer be a limiting factor. The ONLY scarce
> resource will be the human mind.
We need space travel. But more than this, we need a frontier.
Minds we've got. But they hardly ever look up from the navel. I
like your intention, *and* the discipline needs to start here and
now.
David A. Smith
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
> On Feb 24, 6:44 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
> <d...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>> Dear Juan R.:
>> > From
>> > Experimental Evidence of Black Holes
>> > [1]:
>>
>> > "Many astronomical observations suggest that black
>> > holes really exist in nature. However, an unambiguous
>> > proof for their existence is still lacking."
>>
>> Not a very good resource.
>
>
>> Science is about disproof, not proof.
>
> dictionary of science. Do not confound with logical or
> mathematical proof or the Law...
"scientific proof" is unattainable in science. We can *prove*
nothing, and we search for disproof of our theories... looking
for the edges, the limits of applicability. Do not confound what
you imagine to be true, to in fact be the case.
>> There are objects that have the interactions of material
>> trying to fall onto them (just like with neutron stars),
>> but no interactions of this stuff landing against a
>> surface (unlike with neutron stars).
Ignored.
>> > "Neither event horizon nor intrinsic curvature
>> > singularity have been observed by means of
>> > astronomical techniques."
>>
>> A really *bad* resource, in fact. An event horizon can
>> *never* be observed, "astronomical techniques" or not.
>
> However, many sites speak about BH as if they were
> really observed or detected.
Canditates have been detected, that are as- or more-massive than
neutron stars, are not larger, and have no surface interactions
of material landing. If we start getting surface interactions,
those candidates will be discounted.
> "and the geometric centre of our Galaxy harbours a
> supermassive black hole"
>
> "the physical properties of the central supermassive black
> hole"
>
> "The central black hole is located in the centre of the box
> which
> marks the area shown in the images above and below."
>
> "The supermassive black hole in the centre of the Milky Way was
> discovered as"
There is a central mass that has objects orbitting it, that could
never have escaped if it were not as dense (ie: massive but
small) as a BH.
> Eric Gisse often speak here about BH like they were
> already detected
Candidates that are not neutron stars, but act like BHs have been
found. What you you call them?
> and he _never_ notices that characteristic BH horizon
> was _never_ detected
*cannot* be detected, as you manage to ignore.
> and, therefore, none BH has been in rigor detected.
We need to look for a second Einstein ring. The first Einstein
ring can (just) be produced by a neutron star. The second ER
cannot be produced by a neutron star. We already have candidates
for BH. We just need to get into space to see if we can see more
/ better by being closer.
> The author is fine, really fine, discrediting others by
> explicitely writting that none astronomical thecnique
> has detected a BH horizon and therefore a BH.
Which shows his ignorance and yours.
> Sure real expertises know that, but the author was
> speaking for a general audience, an audience can be
> confused by webpages as that cited by Gisse.
>
> Webpage where event horizons are named but in no
> part it is done explicit that BH horizon is not measured.
>
> Maybe you attack is ad hominem,
It is not.
> but that author is a specialist in BH he, unlike Gisse,
> knows he is speaking about.
Not based on the abstract. There are serious errors in basic
logic in the abstract. Things you should have caught, had you
not been defending your pre-chosen position.
>> > "Principal and technical obstacles avoid undoubtfully
>> > proving black hole existence."
>>
>> > [1] http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701228
>>
>> I think it may just be translation errors regarding "proof".
>> Perhaps you missed this last sentence:
>> "However, classical rotating Kerr black holes are still the
>> best
>> theoretical model to explain astronomical observations."
>
> Maybe you are unable to notice that extrapolation from the
> theoretical BH model in no way proves the existence of BH
> nor horizons.
>
> Extrapolation from theory, indirect proofs and beliefs are
> very different from a scientific proof.
>
> That is because the author of that work can recognize that
> alternative models (he revised) are not working whereas
> firmly says that ***none*** BH has been detected (contrary
> to a popular press releases and distorted webpages).
There is no scientific proof. This is what is so hard for the
"popular press" to understand.
We have models. These models provide expectations. We test
those expectations. If we find what we expect, we find new
expectations. If we don't find what we expect, we know a limit
of our theory.
We have found objects more dense than neutron stars, that have
matter falling in, but no matter ever lands. These are
candidates for BHs. Until such time as we can see a surface, we
can call them BHs.
So do you have a problem with a "Rindler horizon"?
David A. Smith