New evidence: Dark Energy Key Assumption is Wrong

[Engr. Ravi]

https://phys.org/news/2020-01-evidence-key-assumption-discovery-dark.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21974117

[Hank Beavers]

Engr. Ravi wrote:

> https://phys.org/news/2020-01-evidence-key-assumption-discovery-dark.html
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21974117

puts down relativity for good. Can't account for the
missing 96% of the observed. Defaults naturally to the
_Divergent Matter_ of the Moving Objects Theory.

[Ed Lake]

On Tuesday, January 7, 2020 at 3:27:15 AM UTC-6, Engr. Ravi wrote:
> https://phys.org/news/2020-01-evidence-key-assumption-discovery-dark.html
>
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21974117

When the universe expands, everything does NOT move away from us. We are
NOT the center of the universe. What happens is that we move away from
some point midway between us and Galaxy-X, and Galaxy-X likewise moves away
from that point.

Galaxy-X <-------------------------- | ---------------------------> Earth

According to Einstein's Second Postulate, the speed at which Galaxy-X is
traveling does not affect the light Galaxy-X emits. Therefore it is the
fact that the EARTH is moving away that point midway between us and
Galaxy-X that causes the red-shift we see when we look at Galaxy-X.

And that red-shift does NOT represent how fast Galaxy-X is moving away from
us. It represents how fast Galaxy-X is moving away from that point midway
between us, and it represents 1/2 of Galaxy-X's actual speed away from us.

So, it isn't "dark matter" that is making the universe expand faster than
gravity says it should, it is merely the fact that we're measuring the
expansion as being away from us, while in reality everything we see is moving
away from everything else.

Ed

[Odd Bodkin]

Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:

>
> So, it isn't "dark matter" that is making the universe expand faster than
> gravity says it should, it is merely the fact that we're measuring the
> expansion as being away from us, while in reality everything we see is moving
> away from everything else.

It has never been claimed that dark matter is responsible for an increased
expansion. What physicists attribute this to is dark energy.

You have managed to become confused.

Feel free to blame others for that condition.

>
> Ed
>



--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Ed Lake]

Okay, that last paragraph should probably read:

So, it isn't "dark matter" OR "dark energy" that is making the universe

[Michael Moroney]

Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> writes:

>On Tuesday, January 7, 2020 at 3:27:15 AM UTC-6, Engr. Ravi wrote:
>> https://phys.org/news/2020-01-evidence-key-assumption-discovery-dark.html
>>
>> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21974117

>When the universe expands, everything does NOT move away from us. We are
>NOT the center of the universe. What happens is that we move away from
>some point midway between us and Galaxy-X, and Galaxy-X likewise moves away
>from that point.

>Galaxy-X <-------------------------- | ---------------------------> Earth

>According to Einstein's Second Postulate, the speed at which Galaxy-X is
>traveling does not affect the light Galaxy-X emits. Therefore it is the
>fact that the EARTH is moving away that point midway between us and
>Galaxy-X that causes the red-shift we see when we look at Galaxy-X.

>And that red-shift does NOT represent how fast Galaxy-X is moving away from
>us. It represents how fast Galaxy-X is moving away from that point midway
>between us, and it represents 1/2 of Galaxy-X's actual speed away from us.

So what happens in this case for Galaxy Y:

Galaxy-X <-------------------------- | ---------------------------> Earth -------------> Galaxy Y

Remember, we see galaxies in all directions from us.

(The actual theory is there is no center, everything moves away from everything
else, like dots painted onto an inflating balloon. No one particular dot can be
singled out as the center of the balloon's surface, but all dots will see all
other dots moving away from it)

[Ed Lake]

Of course, when I show this description:

Galaxy-X <-------------------------- | ---------------------------> Earth

Galaxy-X is virtually EVERY galaxy. There are exceptions, of course,
where galaxies are colliding. But, generally speaking, galaxies are moving
away from each other. In nearly every case, they are moving away from a
point midway between galaxies because all matter was together before the
Big Bang.

That means that they are moving away from that point at the speed
indicated by the red-shift. HOWEVER, it also means that when we look
at a galaxy from a point on Earth, the red-shift for that galaxy
represents approximately 1/2 the speed that galaxy is moving away from us.

So, if you fantasize that "dark energy" is pulling that galaxy away from
us faster than the redshift indicates, or if you fantasize that light
slows down over time and changes the amount of redshift, what you really
need to do is learn what Einstein's Second Postulate really means, and
forget about the invalid interpretations by mathematicians that are taught
in schools.

Ed

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/7/20 12:02 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> (The actual theory is there is no center, everything moves away from
> everything else, like dots painted onto an inflating balloon. No one
> particular dot can be singled out as the center of the balloon's
> surface, but all dots will see all other dots moving away from it)

Yes. But that is an ANALOGY that misses a key aspect of the universe. On
the balloon, Ed Lake can use a pen to place a mark on the balloon midway
between two dots, and his discussion makes sense (the mark persists and
remains midway between the dots).

But in the universe, which we model as a spacetime manifold, Ed Lake
cannot "draw" any marks, and in any case he would have to mark a
WORLDLINE, not just a single point. There is no a priori way to
determine the inclination of that worldline, and one simply cannot say
"the EARTH is moving away from that point midway between us and
Galaxy-X", because there is no such POINT, there is at best only a
WORLDLINE, which could be inclined toward earth, toward Galaxy-X, or
neither. So his discussion presumes he can do something (mark a
"midpoint") that is not possible.

Remember that a point in spacetime has zero duration and
no permanence, like snapping your fingers. To have
duration or permanence requires a worldline, not just a
point.

Ed Lake keeps making stuff up out of his personal FANTASIES, and
pretending it is what "relativity says". And since he does not know what
many of the words he uses actually mean, he gets VERY confused.

Tom Roberts

[Ross A. Finlayson]

"Dark matter" and "dark energy" are
non-explanations and un-scientific.

They're placeholders for
"the theory doesn't hold up
and it needs improvement".

A lot of the sky survey has changed
(in its methods and interpretation)
over time and needs to be re-evaluated
instead of stacked on mistake over mistake.

Now, something like, Lambda-CDM, Cold Dark Matter,
has a lot going on with running constants of physics,
instead of following standard deviations, that
1 s.d. 2 s.d. 3 s.d. ... is gone.

With Omega or the Lambda of CDM as 50% or 85%,
and you should notice that's under the usual
confidence intervals of the most simple kind
of statistical analysis, these days MOND seems
rather matching the data instead of fudging to it.

[Ed Lake]

On Tuesday, January 7, 2020 at 8:24:19 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 1/7/20 12:02 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > (The actual theory is there is no center, everything moves away from
> > everything else, like dots painted onto an inflating balloon. No one
> > particular dot can be singled out as the center of the balloon's
> > surface, but all dots will see all other dots moving away from it)
>
> Yes. But that is an ANALOGY that misses a key aspect of the universe. On
> the balloon, Ed Lake can use a pen to place a mark on the balloon midway
> between two dots, and his discussion makes sense (the mark persists and
> remains midway between the dots).
>
> But in the universe, which we model as a spacetime manifold, Ed Lake
> cannot "draw" any marks, and in any case he would have to mark a
> WORLDLINE, not just a single point.

The problem is that there is no good way to create illustrations on
this forum. Your "model" does not represent reality if it cannot show
a point midway between two moving galaxies.

> There is no a priori way to
> determine the inclination of that worldline, and one simply cannot say
> "the EARTH is moving away from that point midway between us and
> Galaxy-X", because there is no such POINT, there is at best only a
> WORLDLINE, which could be inclined toward earth, toward Galaxy-X, or
> neither. So his discussion presumes he can do something (mark a
> "midpoint") that is not possible.

Visualize it as a V with a vertical line down the center of the V. That,
in effect, creates two Vs with a common base point. The base point is
the point of the Big Bang.

The material that formed Galaxy-X followed the left arm of the V, the
material that formed the Milky Way followed the right arm of the V, and
the center line is the midway point between those two galaxies as they
formed and moved away from the Big Bang. Yes, that is a "worldline." It
does not actually exist as an object, but it can be easily visualized
and understood.

The hard part is visualizing other galaxies that are ahead of or behind
(above or below) the two galaxies at the top tips of the V. Those galaxies
are moving away from us, too. That is because the universe is NOT like the
SURFACE of a balloon. The universe also includes everything that is INSIDE
the balloon. As the universe expands, every collection of matter INSIDE the
balloon also moves farther and farther apart, not just laterally, but also
vertically and in all directions.

>
> Remember that a point in spacetime has zero duration and
> no permanence, like snapping your fingers. To have
> duration or permanence requires a worldline, not just a
> point.

So, use a worldline instead of a point. I used a | not a .

That worldline begins at the Big Bang, just as the two galaxies began
at the Big Bang. It is a MOVING POINT. It moves away from the point
of the Big Bang at the same rate as the galaxy material.

It's purpose is to help explain that the distance between any two
galaxies cannot be measured by measuring the redshift. The redshift
represents only 1/2 of the distance, the distance to that halfway point.

The redshift of a galaxy does NOT represent how fast is it moving away
from us. It represents how fast WE are moving away from that half-way
point. That is because, as Einstein's Second Postulate says, "light is
always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." So, the light
emitted by Galaxy-X is not redshifted due to any movement of Galaxy-X.
Movement of the emitter does not affect the photons that are emitted.
The light we see from Galaxy-X is redshifted due to OUR movement away
from that midway point between us.

>
> Ed Lake keeps making stuff up out of his personal FANTASIES, and
> pretending it is what "relativity says". And since he does not know what
> many of the words he uses actually mean, he gets VERY confused.

I quoted Einstein's Second Postulate. I didn't make anything up. It is
you and other mathematicians who make things up by claiming Einstein
didn't MEAN what he wrote, or that what he STATED as his "Second Postulate"
is not really his "second postulate," it is what you BELIEVE he MEANT as
his Second Postulate.

It's all really very simple. Fantasizing about some mystical "dark energy"
is just another way that your beliefs do not represent reality.

Ed

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

On Tuesday, January 7, 2020 at 10:14:29 AM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > So, it isn't "dark matter" that is making the universe expand faster than
> > gravity says it should, it is merely the fact that we're measuring the
> > expansion as being away from us, while in reality everything we see is moving
> > away from everything else.
>
> It has never been claimed that dark matter is responsible for an increased
> expansion. What physicists attribute this to is dark energy.
>
> You have managed to become confused.
>
> Feel free to blame others for that condition.

The physics is interesting either way. If the accelerating expansion of the
universe is real, what is causing the expansion? Dark energy is only one of
a plurality of possible explanations. If the accelerating expansion of the
universe is -not- real, why is the cosmological constant fine-tuned so that
it equals almost exactly zero even when measured on the scale of the Sn Ia
measurements?

Null measurements can lead to crises in physics. The best known of such is,
of course, the Michelson-Morley experiment. Another recent null result that I
found to be of great interest was that of the MICROSCOPE experiment, which
showed the equivalence principle to hold true to 10^-15. Equivalence principle
tests are nearing a level of sensitivity such that violations -must- be
detected, otherwise our best alternative theories of gravity, which generically
predict such violations, are in trouble.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262728890_STEP_the_Satellite_Test_of_the_Equivalence_Principle

The next few decades will prove to be very interesting...

[Ross A. Finlayson]

It's like:

"MOND is not the same as GR".
"No!!!"
"Dark matter doesn't say anything".
"Alright maybe then."


You do realize that "Modified Newtonian"
also means "Modified Einsteinian", right.

And vice versa - ....

There's that anything that unifies GR and QM
with pull gravity is going to be a little different
from each: and resolve to each in their sectors.

Because "science".

[Ross A. Finlayson]

It's almost like you can measure
the cosmic microwave background
at 3.5 degrees K, at 2 degrees K, ...,
i.e., that's pretty much what
it's tuned to find (instead of,
i.e., slightly greater than zero,
or zero).

[kenseto]

This is true only if the distance between Galaxy X and the earth is the diameter of the universe....it is not.

[Ed Lake]

It has nothing to do with the diameter of the universe. It is only about
the distance between ANY TWO galaxies and how redshifting works.

Earth<----------|----------->Galaxy-X
Earth<----------------|--------------->Galaxy-Y
Earth<---------------------|-------------------->Galaxy-Z
Earth<-------|------->Galaxy-A

The redshift viewed from Earth represents the speed at which Earth
is moving away from that midway point between Earth and the other galaxy.

That midpoint represents the point from which Earth (and the Milky Way)
moves to the left and the other galaxy moves to the right. It is also a
"worldline" back to the Big Bang.

If you believe the redshift represents the speed at which the other
galaxy is moving away from the Earth, you make 2 false assumptions:
(1) you falsely assume the Earth is at the center of the universe, and
(2) you falsely assume that the movement of the emitter alters the
speed of the light being emitted, in violation of Einstein's Second
Postulate.

Ed

[kenseto]

There are blue shifted galaxies. Also what is your point of mid-point between earth and Galaxy X.

>
> That midpoint represents the point from which Earth (and the Milky Way)
> moves to the left and the other galaxy moves to the right. It is also a
> “worldline" back to the Big Bang.

No it is not a worldliness back to the Big Bang.

>
> If you believe the redshift represents the speed at which the other
> galaxy is moving away from the Earth, you make 2 false assumptions:
> (1) you falsely assume the Earth is at the center of the universe, and
> (2) you falsely assume that the movement of the emitter alters the
> speed of the light being emitted, in violation of Einstein's Second
> Postulate.

I made no such assumptions.

>
> Ed

[Ed Lake]

Yes, I know. And they are ALL in one area of the sky. Blue shifted
galaxies appear to be galaxies that are AHEAD of us as we move away
from the point of the Big Bang. Our speed toward them is greater than
their speed away from the point of the Big Bang.

> Also what is your point of mid-point between earth and Galaxy X.

My point is that that mid-point is ZERO when measuring our speed
away from Galaxy-X. Galaxy-X is moving away from the mid-point, too,
but the light it emits is NOT redshifted. Its light is only redshifted
due to OUR movement away from that midpoint.

Think of it this way: You and I are standing on a street corner. You
start walking west at 2 mph, and I start walking east at 2 mph. We are
moving away from each other at 4 mph, even though neither of us is walking
at 4 mph. When you measure redshifts, you measure it from 2 mph, not from
4 mph.

>
> >
> > That midpoint represents the point from which Earth (and the Milky Way)
> > moves to the left and the other galaxy moves to the right. It is also a
> > “worldline" back to the Big Bang.
>
> No it is not a worldliness back to the Big Bang.

Declarations are meaningless. The midway point is a point in time and
space that traces back to the Big Bang when both galaxies were together.

>
> >
> > If you believe the redshift represents the speed at which the other
> > galaxy is moving away from the Earth, you make 2 false assumptions:
> > (1) you falsely assume the Earth is at the center of the universe, and
> > (2) you falsely assume that the movement of the emitter alters the
> > speed of the light being emitted, in violation of Einstein's Second
> > Postulate.
>
> I made no such assumptions.

You are making some kind of screwball assumption if you believe that

"the distance between Galaxy X and the earth is the diameter of the

universe" just because there is a midpoint half way between us.

Ed

[Michael Moroney]

Ed: No answer to this?

:So what happens in this case for Galaxy Y:

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/8/20 9:56 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> Your "model" does not represent reality if it cannot show
> a point midway between two moving galaxies.

Nonsense! There can be no such "point", but for a given definition of
simultaneity there is a worldline that is midway between a given pair of
galaxies. But different definitions of simultaneity will give different
worldlines, so there is no generality to this -- you only get out what
you put in (drawing that worldline is equivalent to selecting a
definition of simultaneity).

> Visualize it as a V with a vertical line down the center of the V. That,
> in effect, creates two Vs with a common base point. The base point is
> the point of the Big Bang.

You merely display your personal ignorance of cosmology. There is no
"point of the big bang", because the big bang occurred everywhere: for
any given point right now, at cosmological scales [#] all galaxies are
moving away from it, with speeds increasing with distance. This is known
as the cosmological principle: 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale,
the properties of the universe are the same for all observers' (i.e.
there is no special location in the cosmos).

[#] ignoring local proper motions.

Worse, you are implicitly assuming some sort of "absolute space" in
which you can make your drawing. There is no such thing. There is only
an infinite number of definitions of simultaneity, each with a DIFFERENT
worldline midway between the two galaxies.

> The material that formed Galaxy-X followed the left arm of the V, the
> material that formed the Milky Way followed the right arm of the V, and
> the center line is the midway point between those two galaxies as they
> formed and moved away from the Big Bang. Yes, that is a "worldline." It
> does not actually exist as an object, but it can be easily visualized
> and understood.

Only for a given definition of simultaneity. Different definitions yield
different worldlines. Your claims simply do not hold up.

> The redshift of a galaxy does NOT represent how fast is it moving away
> from us. It represents how fast WE are moving away from that half-way
> point.

Except that any calculation of the redshift does not involve that
fictitious "half-way point" in any way. The calculation involves the
metric and geometry at the point of emission, parallel transport to the
observer along the line-of-sight, and the metric and geometry at the
point of observation. Unless some massive object is located near the
line-of-sight, the redshift can be related to the proper motion of the
galaxy relative to earth.

> That is because, as Einstein's Second Postulate says, "light is
> always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
> independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." So, the light
> emitted by Galaxy-X is not redshifted due to any movement of Galaxy-X.

When you quote Einstein, you must apply the quote AS HE GAVE IT; you
MUST NOT make up something else and fantasize that the quote applies to
your fabrication. You confuse redshift with the (local) speed of light.
If your claim were true, there could never be any Doppler effect on
light at all. There is.

Hint: since "light is always propagated in empty space
with a definite velocity c", redshift cannot possibly be
related to the speed of light.

(I repeat: that quote is NOT Einstein's second postulate,
it is merely a SUMMARY of the postulate from his
introduction.)

> Movement of the emitter does not affect the photons that are emitted.
> The light we see from Galaxy-X is redshifted due to OUR movement away
> from that midway point between us.

Except, as I said, the calculation of redshift does not involve that
"midway point" at all.

>> Ed Lake keeps making stuff up out of his personal FANTASIES, and
>> pretending it is what "relativity says". And since he does not know what
>> many of the words he uses actually mean, he gets VERY confused.

You just MADE UP the notion of a "midway point" involved in the redshift
of a distant galaxy.

> It's all really very simple.

No, it isn't "very simple" at all. GR and cosmology are among the most
complicated fields of science. YOU don't have a clue. Making stuff up
and pretending it is true is USELESS.

Tom Roberts

[kenseto]

The mid point between each and galaxy X is not the point of the Big Bang.

>
> Think of it this way: You and I are standing on a street corner. You
> start walking west at 2 mph, and I start walking east at 2 mph. We are
> moving away from each other at 4 mph, even though neither of us is walking
> at 4 mph. When you measure redshifts, you measure it from 2 mph, not from
> 4 mph.

But the result you get is from 4 mph because you consider yourself is at rest.

>
> >
> > >
> > > That midpoint represents the point from which Earth (and the Milky Way)
> > > moves to the left and the other galaxy moves to the right. It is also a
> > > “worldline" back to the Big Bang.
> >
> > No it is not a worldliness back to the Big Bang.
>
> Declarations are meaningless. The midway point is a point in time and
> space that traces back to the Big Bang when both galaxies were together.
>
> >
> > >
> > > If you believe the redshift represents the speed at which the other
> > > galaxy is moving away from the Earth, you make 2 false assumptions:
> > > (1) you falsely assume the Earth is at the center of the universe, and
> > > (2) you falsely assume that the movement of the emitter alters the
> > > speed of the light being emitted, in violation of Einstein's Second
> > > Postulate.
> >
> > I made no such assumptions.
>
> You are making some kind of screwball assumption if you believe that
> "the distance between Galaxy X and the earth is the diameter of the
> universe" just because there is a midpoint half way between us.

I said that the mid-point between galaxy X is the point of the BB only if the distance between earth and Galaxy X is the diameter of the universe.

[Ed Lake]

On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 6:05:54 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 1/8/20 9:56 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > Your "model" does not represent reality if it cannot show
> > a point midway between two moving galaxies.
>
> Nonsense! There can be no such "point", but for a given definition of
> simultaneity there is a worldline that is midway between a given pair of
> galaxies. But different definitions of simultaneity will give different
> worldlines, so there is no generality to this -- you only get out what
> you put in (drawing that worldline is equivalent to selecting a
> definition of simultaneity).

Wow! It appears you are TRULY unable to understand anything except
some screwball mathematical representation of the universe.

Try to visualize the Big Bang. Material is emitted in all directions,
not as from an explosion, but as from a highly compressed cluster of
rubber balls. The balls spread in all directions, with the balls from
the top of the cluster moving ahead of balls from the interior of the
cluster.

Then, after millions of years, as a result of gravity between the balls,
the balls (a.k.a. sub-atomic particles such as quarks) collect and form
hydrogen atoms, which in turn collect into larger bodies which eventually
become stars. At that point, light appeared for the first time in the
Big Bang universe. And then the stars collected into galaxies.

So, now we have galaxies scattered all around the universe, all moving
away from the point of the Big Bang. We can only see galaxies that are
relatively nearby, since light from the more distant galaxies has not
yet had time to reach us.

If you look at galaxies through a telescope, you will see that they
are at many different distances away from us. And most of them still
seem to be moving away from us AND FROM ALL OTHER GALAXIES as a result
of the original Big Bang decompression.

Now, if you view Galaxy-X, it is moving away from us. AND we are moving
away from Galaxy-X. We are both moving away from a POINT that traces
back to the Big Bang.

No one is comparing observations, so this has NOTHING to do with
"simultaneity." We just look at Galaxy-X as an object that is moving
away from a point midway between us, just as we move away from that
same point. The point is easier to visualize if two galaxies are at
the same distance from the point of the Big Bang than if one is ahead
of the other, but if the initial balls leaving the point of the Big
Bang moved faster than the balls that left later, the idea is about the same.

>
> > Visualize it as a V with a vertical line down the center of the V. That,
> > in effect, creates two Vs with a common base point. The base point is
> > the point of the Big Bang.
>
> You merely display your personal ignorance of cosmology. There is no
> "point of the big bang", because the big bang occurred everywhere: for
> any given point right now, at cosmological scales [#] all galaxies are
> moving away from it, with speeds increasing with distance. This is known
> as the cosmological principle: 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale,
> the properties of the universe are the same for all observers' (i.e.
> there is no special location in the cosmos).

You merely display your personal ignorance of cosmology. The Big Bang
Universe is much bigger than our OBSERVABLE universe. In our OBSERVABLE
universe it APPEARS that everything is moving away from us, and everything

is moving away from everything else.

Unfortunately, there is no way to show images here. But this is a link
to an image showing the difference between the Big Bang universe and our
OBSERVABLE universe: https://i.imgur.com/yCw9Er9.jpg

>
> [#] ignoring local proper motions.
>
> Worse, you are implicitly assuming some sort of "absolute space" in
> which you can make your drawing. There is no such thing. There is only
> an infinite number of definitions of simultaneity, each with a DIFFERENT
> worldline midway between the two galaxies.

Nonsense. While there may be such a thing as "absolute space," it has
NOTHING to do with what we are discussing. And neither does "simultaneity."
You have complicated things beyond your own ability to understand.

You clearly do not know what a "postulate" is. A postulate is
"a hypothesis advanced as an essential presupposition, condition, or
premise of a train of reasoning." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/postulate

Einstein stated his postulate (or idea or hypothesis) on page 1 of his
1905 paper, and then he spent the rest of the paper explaining the
implications of his postulate or idea.

>
> > Movement of the emitter does not affect the photons that are emitted.
> > The light we see from Galaxy-X is redshifted due to OUR movement away
> > from that midway point between us.
>
> Except, as I said, the calculation of redshift does not involve that
> "midway point" at all.

Yes, it does. Since we are moving away from Galaxy-X and Galaxy-X
is also moving away from us, the redshift ONLY applies OUR movement.
Galaxy-X is moving at speed-1 and we are moving at speed-2, which
means we are moving APART at speed-1 PLUS speed-2. But, Galaxy-X's
speed does not apply, since it is the EMITTER. It's speed does not
produce any redshift. The redshift we see is TOTALLY the result of
OUR movement away from Galaxy-X. It is speed-2 only. To simplify
things, you can compute it as 1/2 of speed-1 plus speed-2. OR you
can compute it as the speed at which we are moving away from a
point midway between us.

>
> >> Ed Lake keeps making stuff up out of his personal FANTASIES, and
> >> pretending it is what "relativity says". And since he does not know what
> >> many of the words he uses actually mean, he gets VERY confused.
>
> You just MADE UP the notion of a "midway point" involved in the redshift
> of a distant galaxy.
>
> > It's all really very simple.
>
> No, it isn't "very simple" at all. GR and cosmology are among the most
> complicated fields of science. YOU don't have a clue. Making stuff up
> and pretending it is true is USELESS.

When I see you are totally incapable of visualizing a point midway between
galaxies, and you endlessly talk about "simultaneity" when "simultaneity"
has NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING we are discussing, what I see is that you
have complicated things far beyond your own understanding.

You do not understand anything because you have complicated everything
beyond your capability to understand.

It is all really VERY simple.

BTW, this is probably the most fascinating discussion we have ever had.
I may someday include it in a book. It truly demonstrates how mathematicians
have complicated things beyond their own ability to comprehend.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

Correct. No one said it was, But that midway point traces back to the
Big Bang, since it can be assumed that the Earth has always been moving
away from Galaxy-X at the same speed that Galaxy-X has been moving away
from the Earth, even back to when there were no galaxies but just clusters
of hydrogen atoms that were forming into solid bodies due to gravity.

>
> >
> > Think of it this way: You and I are standing on a street corner. You
> > start walking west at 2 mph, and I start walking east at 2 mph. We are
> > moving away from each other at 4 mph, even though neither of us is walking
> > at 4 mph. When you measure redshifts, you measure it from 2 mph, not from
> > 4 mph.
>
> But the result you get is from 4 mph because you consider yourself is at rest.

Only mathematicians consider moving bodies to be "at rest." In reality,
you and I are both moving. Neither of us is "at rest." You FANTASIZE that
one of us is "at rest" because of a MORONIC belief that movement can only
be measured from a stationary body. It is why mathematicians dreamed up
the "ether." There is no "ether" (or "aether"). But, since there is a
maximum speed at which light can travel in our universe, we can measure
speeds relative to that maximum. But you shouldn't need to do the
calculations just to understand that my speed is 2 mph, not 4 mph.

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > That midpoint represents the point from which Earth (and the Milky Way)
> > > > moves to the left and the other galaxy moves to the right. It is also a
> > > > “worldline" back to the Big Bang.
> > >
> > > No it is not a worldliness back to the Big Bang.
> >
> > Declarations are meaningless. The midway point is a point in time and
> > space that traces back to the Big Bang when both galaxies were together.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > If you believe the redshift represents the speed at which the other
> > > > galaxy is moving away from the Earth, you make 2 false assumptions:
> > > > (1) you falsely assume the Earth is at the center of the universe, and
> > > > (2) you falsely assume that the movement of the emitter alters the
> > > > speed of the light being emitted, in violation of Einstein's Second
> > > > Postulate.
> > >
> > > I made no such assumptions.
> >
> > You are making some kind of screwball assumption if you believe that
> > "the distance between Galaxy X and the earth is the diameter of the
> > universe" just because there is a midpoint half way between us.
>
> I said that the mid-point between galaxy X is the point of the BB only if the distance between earth and Galaxy X is the diameter of the universe.

No one said that the mid-point between Earth and Galaxy-X is the point of
the Big Bang. But since we are both moving away from the point of the
Big Bang AND away from each other, that point midway between us traces
back to the point of the Big Bang.

Someone on my "Do Not Reply" list asked this question:

------ start quote ----

So what happens in this case for Galaxy Y:

Galaxy-X <-------------------------- | ---------------------------> Earth -------------> Galaxy Y

------ end quote -----

He claimed I did not reply. I didn't. It was a meaningless question.
But I RESPONDED by addressing the question in a reply to myself.
I used this:

Earth<----------|----------->Galaxy-X
Earth<----------------|--------------->Galaxy-Y
Earth<---------------------|-------------------->Galaxy-Z
Earth<-------|------->Galaxy-A

I suppose I could have used this:

Galaxy-X<------|------>Earth<--------|-------->Galaxy-Y

The two midway points between the Earth and the two galaxies can
be traced back to the Big Bang. If I had the ability to show
illustrations here, I'd draw a line from those 5 points back to
the Big Bang as a big V with 3 more diagonal lines converging on
the single point at the bottom, which is the point of the Big Bang.
At that point, everything was in one place.

How can that not be understood? It is incredibly simple.

But, based upon the post by Tom Roberts, it appears that mathematicians
have complicated things so much that they can no longer comprehend what
they themselves are talking about ... even if it is incredibly simple.

Ed

[Odd Bodkin]

Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 6:05:54 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 1/8/20 9:56 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> Your "model" does not represent reality if it cannot show
>>> a point midway between two moving galaxies.
>>
>> Nonsense! There can be no such "point", but for a given definition of
>> simultaneity there is a worldline that is midway between a given pair of
>> galaxies. But different definitions of simultaneity will give different
>> worldlines, so there is no generality to this -- you only get out what
>> you put in (drawing that worldline is equivalent to selecting a
>> definition of simultaneity).
>
> Wow! It appears you are TRULY unable to understand anything except
> some screwball mathematical representation of the universe.
>
> Try to visualize the Big Bang. Material is emitted in all directions,
> not as from an explosion, but as from a highly compressed cluster of
> rubber balls. The balls spread in all directions, with the balls from
> the top of the cluster moving ahead of balls from the interior of the
> cluster.

Visualize whatever you want. That is not in fact what happened with the Big
Bang, not even metaphorically.

[Paparios]

El sábado, 11 de enero de 2020, 13:32:01 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió:
> On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 6:05:54 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
> > On 1/8/20 9:56 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > > Your "model" does not represent reality if it cannot show
> > > a point midway between two moving galaxies.
> >
> > Nonsense! There can be no such "point", but for a given definition of
> > simultaneity there is a worldline that is midway between a given pair of
> > galaxies. But different definitions of simultaneity will give different
> > worldlines, so there is no generality to this -- you only get out what
> > you put in (drawing that worldline is equivalent to selecting a
> > definition of simultaneity).
>
> Wow! It appears you are TRULY unable to understand anything except
> some screwball mathematical representation of the universe.
>
> Try to visualize the Big Bang. Material is emitted in all directions,
> not as from an explosion, but as from a highly compressed cluster of
> rubber balls. The balls spread in all directions, with the balls from
> the top of the cluster moving ahead of balls from the interior of the
> cluster.
>

Actually, Cosmic inflation expands space by a factor of the order of 10^26 over
a time of the order of 10^−33 to 10^−32 seconds.

You should try to study first what the Big Bang model is
(see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang and the figure there)

> Then, after millions of years, as a result of gravity between the balls,
> the balls (a.k.a. sub-atomic particles such as quarks) collect and form
> hydrogen atoms, which in turn collect into larger bodies which eventually
> become stars. At that point, light appeared for the first time in the
> Big Bang universe. And then the stars collected into galaxies.
>

This is all wrong. The time line of the model is described in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe
Light appeared only after 377000 years after the Big Bang.

[Ed Lake]

On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 11:35:17 AM UTC-6, Paparios wrote:
> El sábado, 11 de enero de 2020, 13:32:01 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió:
> > On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 6:05:54 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > On 1/8/20 9:56 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > Your "model" does not represent reality if it cannot show
> > > > a point midway between two moving galaxies.
> > >
> > > Nonsense! There can be no such "point", but for a given definition of
> > > simultaneity there is a worldline that is midway between a given pair of
> > > galaxies. But different definitions of simultaneity will give different
> > > worldlines, so there is no generality to this -- you only get out what
> > > you put in (drawing that worldline is equivalent to selecting a
> > > definition of simultaneity).
> >
> > Wow! It appears you are TRULY unable to understand anything except
> > some screwball mathematical representation of the universe.
> >
> > Try to visualize the Big Bang. Material is emitted in all directions,
> > not as from an explosion, but as from a highly compressed cluster of
> > rubber balls. The balls spread in all directions, with the balls from
> > the top of the cluster moving ahead of balls from the interior of the
> > cluster.
> >
>
> Actually, Cosmic inflation expands space by a factor of the order of 10^26 over
> a time of the order of 10^−33 to 10^−32 seconds.
>
> You should try to study first what the Big Bang model is
> (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang and the figure there)

Since nonsensical mathematical models are the PROBLEM, the task is to
find the SOLUTION, i.e., what is REAL.

>
> > Then, after millions of years, as a result of gravity between the balls,
> > the balls (a.k.a. sub-atomic particles such as quarks) collect and form
> > hydrogen atoms, which in turn collect into larger bodies which eventually
> > become stars. At that point, light appeared for the first time in the
> > Big Bang universe. And then the stars collected into galaxies.
> >
>
> This is all wrong. The time line of the model is described in
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe
> Light appeared only after 377000 years after the Big Bang.

Okay, I didn't check the number before writing what I wrote. My
point was that the universe was DARK for a LONG TIME before the
first stars formed.

I wouldn't used Wikipedia as a source for this. I'd use NASA:

"Results from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) released in
February 2003 show that the first stars formed when the universe was only
about 200 million years old. Observations by WMAP also revealed that the
universe is currently about 13. 7 billion years old. So it was very early
in the time after the Big Bang explosion that stars formed."

Source: https://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question55.html

If you assume that NASA is lying, try Space.com:

"Stars Formed Only 250 Million Years After the Big Bang"

Source: https://www.space.com/40603-stars-formed-soon-after-big-bang.html

Or Scientific American:

"The first stars did not appear until perhaps 100 million years after the
big bang, and nearly a billion years passed before galaxies proliferated
across the cosmos.

Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-first-stars-in-the-un/

So, my sources agree with me and say Wikipedia is WRONG.

Ed

[Python]

Well, for someone who appears to seriously assume that 377000 years
after the big bang is *later* than 200 million years after the
big bang, it may look so.

Good one, Ed! You're definitely a GENIUS!

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 11-jan.-2020 om 20:54 schreef Python:

According to this genius, only stars can produce light.
So that makes edsense.

Dirk Vdm

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/11/20 10:31 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> Wow! It appears you are TRULY unable to understand anything except
> some screwball mathematical representation of the universe.

No. It's just that YOU are TRULY unable to think abstractly.

> Try to visualize the Big Bang. Material is emitted in all directions,
> not as from an explosion, but as from a highly compressed cluster of

> rubber balls. [...]

That is NOT what the big bang is. You are insisting that it is like
something you are personally familiar with, but it ISN'T -- the big bang
is something completely outside of any human experience. As is most of
modern physics. YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE.

Tom Roberts

[Ed Lake]

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 9:22:44 AM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 1/11/20 10:31 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > Wow! It appears you are TRULY unable to understand anything except
> > some screwball mathematical representation of the universe.
>
> No. It's just that YOU are TRULY unable to think abstractly.

Hmmm.

"Abstract thinking is the ability to think about objects, principles,
and ideas that are not physically present. It is related to symbolic
thinking, which uses the substitution of a symbol for an object or idea."

Source: https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychpedia/abstract-thinking

"Concrete thinking is the opposite of abstract thinking. While abstract
thinking is centered around ideas, symbols, and the intangible, concrete
thinking focuses on what can be perceived through the five senses: smell,
sight, sound, taste, and touch. The vast majority of people use a
combination of concrete and abstract thinking to function in daily life,
although some people may favor one mode over the other."

It appears I am using a combination of abstract and concrete thinking,
since I am talking about the Big Bang, which cannot be seen but can be
examined abstractly from what is currently seen in the universe.

You, on the other hand, just fantasize about things abstractly. Your
fantasies have little or nothing to do with reality.

Is it a serious problem for you to discuss things that are real?
Can you only discuss fantasy abstractions?

>
> > Try to visualize the Big Bang. Material is emitted in all directions,
> > not as from an explosion, but as from a highly compressed cluster of
> > rubber balls. [...]
>
> That is NOT what the big bang is. You are insisting that it is like
> something you are personally familiar with, but it ISN'T -- the big bang
> is something completely outside of any human experience. As is most of
> modern physics. YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE.

Claiming it is "completely outside of any human experience" is just
claiming that it is something you BELIEVE that has nothing to do with
reality.

If you aren't interested in reality, why argue with someone who is?
Can't you just be content with your fantasies? Do you want everyone
to ignore reality and join you in your fantasies? That is NOT going
to happen.

Ed

[Paparios]

According to the latest data, the big bang occurred 13.799 ± 0.021 billion years
ago.

The farthest object we have observed is GN-z11, whose light departed from that
object when it was at a distance of 13.4 billion light-years. However its
proper distance is 32 billion light-years. Can you explain how that is possible?

[Ed Lake]

According to Wikipedia:

"At first glance, the distance of 32 billion light-years (9.8 billion parsecs)
might seem impossibly far away in a Universe that is only 13.8 billion (short
scale) years old, where a light-year is the distance light travels in a year,
and where nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. However, because
of the expansion of the universe, the distance of 2.66 billion light-years
between GN-z11 and the Milky Way at the time when the light was emitted
increased by a factor of (z+1)=12.1 to a distance of 32.2 billion light-years
during the 13.4 billion years it has taken the light to reach us."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GN-z11

So, when GN-z11 emitted the light we see today, it was only 2.66 billion
light years away. But, due to the expansion of the universe, GN-z11 moved
a lot farther away while the light from it was traveling to us at the
speed of light. CALCULATIONS show that GN-z11 is NOW 32.2 billion
light-years away. That means that 32.2 billion years from now, we'll
be able to see what GN-z11 looks like right now. And the OBSERVABLE
universe will be much larger than it is today.

I hope that answers your question.

Ed

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Oh, that's misdirection as much as mathematics.

Maybe that's why you think mathematics for physics is
wrong, for example where you say "due to the expansion
of the universe", that is just a "mathematical expectation",
that under some model of "an expanding universe" or "where
everything diverges together for some reason then mathematically",
that doesn't explain at the same time "and the universe went to a dot".

That's indirection, excuse me, not misdirection, here about
what otherwise the timing of the events or as what is this
basically run out in some model "constants" about the "infinity"
and "zero" that define what is "constant", here for example
this "expansion of the universe" or here "local expansion"
simply as the mathematics, of the otherwise forward expectations
in space, in time, as all.

Then besides where mathematics is used reversed because it's a
matter of overloading the terms, that's another reason I could
think you would argue "against mathematics" in physics, i.e.,
it would only be for some other mathematics.

The idea of unification in theory is there's only one variable,
a constant, unification of theory for some reason has that
gravity itself for example, in space-time, of massy bodies,
is unified with subatomic physics by gravity the motion in time.

Or, that's all mathematics to me.

[Ed Lake]

I cannot decipher any of what you wrote. I have no problem
with using mathematics AS A TOOL in physics to explain
observations and to make predictions.

The problem I have is when mathematicians build mathematical "models" of
their fantasies and then proclaim them to have some meaning in reality.

I believe in the scientific method. If there is no way to confirm or
demonstrate an idea (or aspects of an idea) via an EXPERIMENT, then it's
a waste of time to argue about it. Alternate universes and parallel
universes are examples. There is no way to prove or disprove their
existence, so why waste time even thinking about them?

Ed

[Paparios]

It should answer your gedanken, regarding the impossibility of the search for
the place of the Big Bang.

In the time lapse between 10^−33 to 10^−32 seconds after the Big Bang, space grew by a factor of the order of 10^26, basically to the size of the current
Universe (see the figure in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe)
The afterglow light pattern, at 375000 years after the Big bang, are photons which define the current limit to what how close we can observe the Big bang.
At that point on time, there were no stars yet.
New observatories, such as the European Extremely Large Telescope and the
Giant Magellan Telescope, currently under construction in Chile, will allow us
the get near that 375000 year limit but no closer to where the Big Bang happened.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 12-jan.-2020 om 23:05 schreef Ed Lake:

> On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 3:32:52 PM UTC-6, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

[snip]

>> Oh, that's misdirection as much as mathematics.
>>
>> Maybe that's why you think mathematics for physics is
>> wrong, for example where you say "due to the expansion
>> of the universe", that is just a "mathematical expectation",
>> that under some model of "an expanding universe" or "where
>> everything diverges together for some reason then mathematically",
>> that doesn't explain at the same time "and the universe went to a dot".
>>
>> That's indirection, excuse me, not misdirection, here about
>> what otherwise the timing of the events or as what is this
>> basically run out in some model "constants" about the "infinity"
>> and "zero" that define what is "constant", here for example
>> this "expansion of the universe" or here "local expansion"
>> simply as the mathematics, of the otherwise forward expectations
>> in space, in time, as all.
>>
>> Then besides where mathematics is used reversed because it's a
>> matter of overloading the terms, that's another reason I could
>> think you would argue "against mathematics" in physics, i.e.,
>> it would only be for some other mathematics.
>>
>> The idea of unification in theory is there's only one variable,
>> a constant, unification of theory for some reason has that
>> gravity itself for example, in space-time, of massy bodies,
>> is unified with subatomic physics by gravity the motion in time.
>>
>> Or, that's all mathematics to me.
>
> I cannot decipher any of what you wrote.

Nobody can decipher his nonsense.
Nobody even looks at it.

Dirk Vdm

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Those are hypothetical, and obvious as you say "beyond verifiability",
what "alternate" universes aren't "the" universe.

For example, flip two coins, each is a separate "universe":
only of those two coin flips together.

Here's more about "parallel" universes, only as resulting from
"splitting and never rejoining", just forward in time series
as what effectively results that if two quantum twins went
into a black hole that split, they could have separate outcomes,
but really at the end of the universe it would be the same.

Time, chance, and outcome is pretty much forward and one-way.


Then, for something like "the mathematics of the universe's
expansion since the Big Bang event and why to say expansion
in a flat space-time today", it's a metaphor, that suffices
because it's assumed expansion is _monotone_, always increasing,
since the event. I.e. it suffices even when sometimes it could
be wrong.

Here then this "object farther away or older than the visible
universe" has that "expanding universe must be right", in a
parallel universe that the one where the theory is "the
universe gets older and visible universe gets bigger as
higher-energy and more sensitive instruments come online
in the experiment catalog".

Yeah 13.4 billions years, or 13.6, last I heard.


I would look at mathematics this way: first it's the
most direct and easiest it could be, in the classical,
then for the keeping of linearity, a usual expectation
of the monotone.

For then the fitting of data, as to "verify" (or,
not mis-match), the model, the high-energy experiments
can even suffer from combining linear model moments in
the high-energy and high-precision, as under tolerance.

Of course when something like the catalog is collected
over many years, effective measurable moments (and for
where their real moments might be outside as much as
inside, the trace of the moments), these can't really
be drawn back into the catalog, except with: for
example, figuring out where there is uncertainty and
blurring down all the ("bounds on the limits of the
expectations of the") data.

Here "Dark Energy" as a parameter for "what keeps
the universe expanding and including on our models where
we kept expanding universe also variable besides monotone,
an input of energy that is otherwise conserved and should
have for example already filled the universe or will",
it's an explanation in the theory, in the weakest part
of the theory.

(Here conservation versus transit, over symmetry,
is the "weakest part" only that the one ideal of
each, the rest or motion, is the opposite in the other,
i.e., it doesn't just hold weakly rather break strongly.)

The "Big Bang" as "observable universe" at least has data
for all of it (the observable universe).

[Ross A. Finlayson]

"WMAP nine-year results combined with other measurements
give the redshift of photon decoupling...".
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

[Ed Lake]

Who was searching for "the place of the Big Bang"? I use this illustration
to show that "the place of the Big Bang" is far outside of our OBSERVABLE
universe: https://i.imgur.com/yCw9Er9.jpg

If it cannot be observed, there is no point in looking for it.

>
> In the time lapse between 10^−33 to 10^−32 seconds after the Big Bang, space grew by a factor of the order of 10^26, basically to the size of the current
> Universe (see the figure in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe)
> The afterglow light pattern, at 375000 years after the Big bang, are photons which define the current limit to what how close we can observe the Big bang.
> At that point on time, there were no stars yet.
> New observatories, such as the European Extremely Large Telescope and the
> Giant Magellan Telescope, currently under construction in Chile, will allow us
> the get near that 375000 year limit but no closer to where the Big Bang happened.

I don't think ANYONE believes they can see "WHERE the Big Bang happened."
But I think it might be possible to figure out in WHICH DIRECTION the
point of the Big Bang happened.

My current thinking is that the Big Bang happened in the opposite direction
from Andromeda and the "Local Group."

Ed

[Julio Di Egidio]

On Monday, 13 January 2020 16:17:25 UTC+1, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 4:10:49 PM UTC-6, Paparios wrote:

<snip>

> > It should answer your gedanken, regarding the impossibility of the
> > search for the place of the Big Bang.
>
> Who was searching for "the place of the Big Bang"? I use this illustration
> to show that "the place of the Big Bang" is far outside of our OBSERVABLE
> universe: https://i.imgur.com/yCw9Er9.jpg

To conjecture: you have no supporting data or argument. Anyway, to the
point, we should certainly not visualise the Big Bang as material emitted
in all directions, our Universe expands *within* the Big Bang, it does not
explode out of it... So, our Universe is rather *coextensive* with it.

At best one might ask about the center of our Universe, rather than the
place of the Big Bang, which is literally a meaningless question, but
even that is already assuming a very special intrinsic geometry, one
where there is a boundary of (the intrinsic) space, hence a center, to
begin with. OTOH, we might entertain the idea that the Universe was
(intrinsically) infinite in extent since the outset, just the level
of fine-graining of things is apparently increasing... for example.

> If it cannot be observed, there is no point in looking for it.

Since there is no such thing, problem solved... :)

Julio

[Ed Lake]

On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 10:09:49 AM UTC-6, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> On Monday, 13 January 2020 16:17:25 UTC+1, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 4:10:49 PM UTC-6, Paparios wrote:
> <snip>
> > > It should answer your gedanken, regarding the impossibility of the
> > > search for the place of the Big Bang.
> >
> > Who was searching for "the place of the Big Bang"? I use this illustration
> > to show that "the place of the Big Bang" is far outside of our OBSERVABLE
> > universe: https://i.imgur.com/yCw9Er9.jpg
>
> To conjecture: you have no supporting data or argument. Anyway, to the
> point, we should certainly not visualise the Big Bang as material emitted
> in all directions, our Universe expands *within* the Big Bang, it does not
> explode out of it... So, our Universe is rather *coextensive* with it.

It's called "the Big Bang" because all evidence shows that the universe
is expanding away from some point. Many texts refer to the original point
as a "singularity." I along with many others, however, think the original
"point" was a highly compressed mass of elementary particles. The heat
resulting from that compression became too great, and the mass "exploded,"
not like a bomb, but more like gas bursting from a fractured container.

Then, as things cooled, the elementary particles began collecting into
sub-atomic particles, like protons and electrons.

Then the protons and electrons combined to form hydrogen atoms.

The hydrogen atoms collected to form the first stars, and for the first
time there was light in the universe.

Gravity, of course, caused the stars to collect into galaxies.

>
> At best one might ask about the center of our Universe, rather than the
> place of the Big Bang, which is literally a meaningless question, but
> even that is already assuming a very special intrinsic geometry, one
> where there is a boundary of (the intrinsic) space, hence a center, to
> begin with. OTOH, we might entertain the idea that the Universe was
> (intrinsically) infinite in extent since the outset, just the level
> of fine-graining of things is apparently increasing... for example.
>
> > If it cannot be observed, there is no point in looking for it.
>
> Since there is no such thing, problem solved... :)

Your CLAIM doesn't make it so. COUNTLESS astronomers and physicists
disagree with you.

The problem is showing a three dimensional expanding universe in a
two dimensional illustration. So, they usually show the universe
from a side angle expanding like a cone. The point of the Big
Bang is at the small end, and "present day" is at the large end.

Examples:

https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/history.bigbang.jpg
http://cdn.spacetelescope.org/archives/images/screen/opo9919k.jpg
http://cdn.spacetelescope.org/archives/images/screen/opo0109g.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/CMB_Timeline300_no_WMAP.jpg
https://www.wonderopolis.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/dreamstime_m_112764179_1.jpg
https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960x0/https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fstartswithabang%2Ffiles%2F2018%2F05%2Fhistory.jpg

Ed

[kenseto]

Finlayson is a computer.

[Ed Lake]

On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 11:02:40 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> Finlayson is a computer.

I think a computer would be easier to understand.

Ed

[Odd Bodkin]

Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 10:09:49 AM UTC-6, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>> On Monday, 13 January 2020 16:17:25 UTC+1, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 4:10:49 PM UTC-6, Paparios wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>> It should answer your gedanken, regarding the impossibility of the
>>>> search for the place of the Big Bang.
>>>
>>> Who was searching for "the place of the Big Bang"? I use this illustration
>>> to show that "the place of the Big Bang" is far outside of our OBSERVABLE
>>> universe: https://i.imgur.com/yCw9Er9.jpg
>>
>> To conjecture: you have no supporting data or argument. Anyway, to the
>> point, we should certainly not visualise the Big Bang as material emitted
>> in all directions, our Universe expands *within* the Big Bang, it does not
>> explode out of it... So, our Universe is rather *coextensive* with it.
>
> It's called "the Big Bang" because all evidence shows that the universe
> is expanding away from some point.

Nope. That is your assumption and yours only. That is not what that phrase
is intended to convey. Don’t blame others for what you mistakenly infer.

[Ed Lake]

Here's how NASA describes the "Big Bang":

"The big bang is how astronomers explain the way the universe began.
It is the idea that the universe began as just a single point, then
expanded and stretched to grow as large as it is right now (and it
could still be stretching)."

and

"In 1927, an astronomer named Georges Lemaître had a big idea. He said
that a very long time ago, the universe started as just a single point.
He said the universe stretched and expanded to get as big as it is now,
and that it could keep on stretching."

and

"When the universe began, it was just hot, tiny particles mixed with light
and energy. It was nothing like what we see now. As everything expanded and
took up more space, it cooled down.

"The tiny particles grouped together. They formed atoms. Then those atoms
grouped together. Over lots of time, atoms came together to form stars and
galaxies.

"The first stars created bigger atoms and groups of atoms called molecules.
That led to more stars being born. At the same time, galaxies were crashing
and grouping together. As new stars were being born and dying, then things
like asteroids, comets, planets, and black holes formed!"

Source: https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/big-bang/en/

Ed

[Julio Di Egidio]

On Monday, 13 January 2020 17:57:30 UTC+1, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 10:09:49 AM UTC-6, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> > On Monday, 13 January 2020 16:17:25 UTC+1, Ed Lake wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 4:10:49 PM UTC-6, Paparios wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > > It should answer your gedanken, regarding the impossibility of the
> > > > search for the place of the Big Bang.
> > >
> > > Who was searching for "the place of the Big Bang"? I use this illustration
> > > to show that "the place of the Big Bang" is far outside of our OBSERVABLE
> > > universe: https://i.imgur.com/yCw9Er9.jpg
> >
> > To conjecture: you have no supporting data or argument. Anyway, to the
> > point, we should certainly not visualise the Big Bang as material emitted
> > in all directions, our Universe expands *within* the Big Bang, it does not
> > explode out of it... So, our Universe is rather *coextensive* with it.
>
> It's called "the Big Bang" because all evidence shows that the universe
> is expanding away from some point.

No, there is no space into which it could explode, rather even the most
elementary presentations start by emphasising that you should not think
about it as literally an explosion, it does "explode" (read, inflation),
but *within itself*, i.e. producing the very fabric of space-time in the
process!

> Many texts refer to the original point as a "singularity."

Rather in cosmology the Big Bang is not even the singularity but what
happens just after it. We do not have a theory of the singularity at
all, there are some conjectures at best.

<snip>

> The problem is showing a three dimensional expanding universe in a
> two dimensional illustration.

The problem is rather showing a four dimensional *space-time* in just
two dimensions: it's space-time, not just space, that is depicted in
those illustrations. But the real problem remains that you should
not think about it as an explosion out into something: something
that indeed those pictures fail to capture.

HTH,

Julio

[Julio Di Egidio]

On Monday, 13 January 2020 18:27:40 UTC+1, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 10:57:30 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 10:09:49 AM UTC-6, Julio Di Egidio wrote:

<snip>

> Here's how NASA describes the "Big Bang":
>
> "The big bang is how astronomers explain the way the universe began.
> It is the idea that the universe began as just a single point, then
> expanded and stretched to grow as large as it is right now (and it
> could still be stretching)."

Very poorly put if you ask me...

Julio

[Ed Lake]

On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 11:33:46 AM UTC-6, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> On Monday, 13 January 2020 17:57:30 UTC+1, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 10:09:49 AM UTC-6, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> > > On Monday, 13 January 2020 16:17:25 UTC+1, Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 4:10:49 PM UTC-6, Paparios wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > > > It should answer your gedanken, regarding the impossibility of the
> > > > > search for the place of the Big Bang.
> > > >
> > > > Who was searching for "the place of the Big Bang"? I use this illustration
> > > > to show that "the place of the Big Bang" is far outside of our OBSERVABLE
> > > > universe: https://i.imgur.com/yCw9Er9.jpg
> > >
> > > To conjecture: you have no supporting data or argument. Anyway, to the
> > > point, we should certainly not visualise the Big Bang as material emitted
> > > in all directions, our Universe expands *within* the Big Bang, it does not
> > > explode out of it... So, our Universe is rather *coextensive* with it.
> >
> > It's called "the Big Bang" because all evidence shows that the universe
> > is expanding away from some point.
>
> No, there is no space into which it could explode, rather even the most
> elementary presentations start by emphasising that you should not think
> about it as literally an explosion, it does "explode" (read, inflation),
> but *within itself*, i.e. producing the very fabric of space-time in the
> process!

To me it seems that mathematicians cannot compute distances unless the
distances are between solid objects. Therefore, they cannot visualize empty
space beyond the Big Bang universe. Everything must be WITHIN the
universe or it is not a "universe." Empty space cannot exist except
BETWEEN objects. "It does not compute."

That is nonsense to me.

>
> > Many texts refer to the original point as a "singularity."
>
> Rather in cosmology the Big Bang is not even the singularity but what
> happens just after it. We do not have a theory of the singularity at
> all, there are some conjectures at best.
>
> <snip>
> > The problem is showing a three dimensional expanding universe in a
> > two dimensional illustration.
>
> The problem is rather showing a four dimensional *space-time* in just
> two dimensions: it's space-time, not just space, that is depicted in
> those illustrations. But the real problem remains that you should
> not think about it as an explosion out into something: something
> that indeed those pictures fail to capture.
>
> HTH,

The universe is three-dimensional. Time is a human construct. It
is an explanation for why things age and decay, and it explains how
we can remember things and record them.

A four dimensional universe is just a mathematical construct to show
where a given object was at some point in time. You need four dimensions
to describe time in our three dimensional universe.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

Very nicely explained, if you ask me. It eliminates all the CRAP
mathematicians require before they can understand things.

Ed

[Julio Di Egidio]

The fact remains that those are space-time diagrams, that you like them
or not. Indeed, with all due respect, it is you talking nonsense, on the
whole line.

(EOD.)

Julio

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/13/20 10:57 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> I use this illustration to show that "the place of the Big Bang"
>>> is far outside of our OBSERVABLE universe:
>>> https://i.imgur.com/yCw9Er9.jpg

Pure fabrication from your personal fantasies. That does not agree with
modern cosmological models at all. Note that those models are highly
constrained by observations, and COMPLETELY eliminate your picture.

Why do you bother to just make stuff up and pretend it is true? -- All
you do is confuse yourself.

> It's called "the Big Bang" because all evidence shows that the
> universe is expanding away from some point.

This is just plain not true. The evidence shows that at present the
universe is expanding from EVERY point of the current universe, not just
some single point. Again, your FANTASY does not agree with modern
cosmological models and the observational constraints on them.

> Many texts refer to the original point as a "singularity."

You CLEARLY have not understood them: they refer to the BIG BANG as a
singularity, not any fictitious "original point" -- that is YOUR
fabrication, and indicates how profoundly you do not understand this.

Yes, in modern cosmological models the big bang is a singularity, BUT IT
IS NOT A POINT. In such models one can follow a geodesic emanating from
the big bang back to a limit point, which is (loosely) as close to the
singularity as one can be and still remain in the manifold. For two such
geodesics, the distance between their limit points is unbounded -- so
the singularity is NOT AT ALL a point (if it were a point, the distance
between the limit points of any two such geodesics would be zero).

This is a concept completely outside of your experience or
understanding. Forcing it to agree with your LIMITED experience is useless.

Tom Roberts

[Ed Lake]

Julio, you are talking about MATHEMATICAL space-time diagrams. All I
am saying is that those diagrams do NOT represent reality. They
are MATHEMATICAL MODELS which can be used to CALCULATE certain things,
but there are other important things that are not part of the model.
Those other things are just not important to the mathematics.

I'm interested in how the universe WORKS, not in how to calculate
some distance or speed or effect.

I'm not saying your MATH is wrong. But I am saying that your VIEW
of the universe is TOTALLY WRONG. NASA's description is correct (as
far as we know). Here is part of that description again:

"In 1927, an astronomer named Georges Lemaître had a big idea. He said
that a very long time ago, the universe started as just a single point.
He said the universe stretched and expanded to get as big as it is now,
and that it could keep on stretching."

and

"When the universe began, it was just hot, tiny particles mixed with light
and energy. It was nothing like what we see now. As everything expanded and
took up more space, it cooled down.

"The tiny particles grouped together. They formed atoms. Then those atoms
grouped together. Over lots of time, atoms came together to form stars and
galaxies.

"The first stars created bigger atoms and groups of atoms called molecules.
That led to more stars being born. At the same time, galaxies were crashing
and grouping together. As new stars were being born and dying, then things
like asteroids, comets, planets, and black holes formed!"

Source: https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/big-bang/en/

You cannot calculate anything from that description. It is astronomy,
history and science, not mathematics. If all you are interested in is
mathematics, then you will not like that description.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 12:27:18 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 1/13/20 10:57 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> I use this illustration to show that "the place of the Big Bang"
> >>> is far outside of our OBSERVABLE universe:
> >>> https://i.imgur.com/yCw9Er9.jpg
>
> Pure fabrication from your personal fantasies. That does not agree with
> modern cosmological models at all. Note that those models are highly
> constrained by observations, and COMPLETELY eliminate your picture.

Nonsense. That diagram is in full accord with NASA's description of
the Big Bang as quoted in other posts here. It does not agree with
modern MATHEMATICAL cosmological models because those models ARE
"highly constrained by observations," and there is much to the
universe that we cannot OBSERVE but can LOGICALLY figure out.

>
> Why do you bother to just make stuff up and pretend it is true? -- All
> you do is confuse yourself.

What I am saying is in FULL agreement with countless descriptions of
the Big Bang. Those description (and my diagram) just include things
that are not in your MATHEMATICAL MODELS.

You cannot cope with reality.

Reality: Space is emptiness.
Mathematics: Space is emptiness between objects.

Reality: The Big Bang began at a point outside of the observable universe.
Mathematics: If it cannot be seen it cannot exist, so there is nothing
outside of the observable universe.

>
> > It's called "the Big Bang" because all evidence shows that the
> > universe is expanding away from some point.
>
> This is just plain not true. The evidence shows that at present the
> universe is expanding from EVERY point of the current universe, not just
> some single point. Again, your FANTASY does not agree with modern
> cosmological models and the observational constraints on them.

You model does not affect the single point description. If the universe
is expanding away from a single point that is not visible, it will still
APPEAR as if all the visible points are moving away from each other.

>
> > Many texts refer to the original point as a "singularity."
>
> You CLEARLY have not understood them: they refer to the BIG BANG as a
> singularity, not any fictitious "original point" -- that is YOUR
> fabrication, and indicates how profoundly you do not understand this.

My understanding is in full agreement with all the descriptions of
how the universe was formed. Examples:

https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/history.bigbang.jpg
http://cdn.spacetelescope.org/archives/images/screen/opo9919k.jpg
http://cdn.spacetelescope.org/archives/images/screen/opo0109g.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/CMB_Timeline300_no_WMAP.jpg
https://www.wonderopolis.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/dreamstime_m_112764179_1.jpg
https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960x0/https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fstartswithabang%2Ffiles%2F2018%2F05%2Fhistory.jpg

Your description is a view from INSIDE the Big Bang universe. My
description is a view from OUTSIDE the Big Bang universe.

>
> Yes, in modern cosmological models the big bang is a singularity, BUT IT
> IS NOT A POINT. In such models one can follow a geodesic emanating from
> the big bang back to a limit point, which is (loosely) as close to the
> singularity as one can be and still remain in the manifold. For two such
> geodesics, the distance between their limit points is unbounded -- so
> the singularity is NOT AT ALL a point (if it were a point, the distance
> between the limit points of any two such geodesics would be zero).
>
> This is a concept completely outside of your experience or
> understanding. Forcing it to agree with your LIMITED experience is useless.

No one is asking you to force anything to agree with me. You cannot cope
with anything abstract, such as empty space beyond an object. To you,
space is something between two objects.

The universe is expanding. You claim it is just the space between
objects that is expanding. The fact that you cannot increase the space
between objects without expanding the total volume occupied by the objects
is something you cannot cope with. It is a logical deduction, not a
mathematical model. It requires expansion into the unknown, and
mathematics cannot cope with anything unknown.

I find this all to be EXTREMELY fascinating. My arguments with you
simply show me that I am right. When I explain things to you in a hundred
different ways, I learn things, even if you do not. Thanks.

Ed

[Python]

Ed Lake wrote:
...>

> I find this all to be EXTREMELY fascinating.

Definitely, you ability to misunderstand almost EVERYTHING is properly
fascinating Ed.

[Julio Di Egidio]

On Monday, 13 January 2020 19:27:18 UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote:

> Yes, in modern cosmological models the big bang is a singularity,

No, it isn't: the "Big Bang" comes *after* the "singularity", and in
standard cosmology even after inflation.

Here is something I have quickly dug up yesterday, but the point, and
overall what I had said up-thread, is made in any decent presentation
of cosmology:

Cosmology Lecture 9
"Leonard Susskind presents the theory of cosmological
inflation under which the early universe expanded
exponentially **before** the Big Bang." (my emphasis)
<https://youtu.be/hADOY0TzLic?t=4160>

HTH,

Julio

[Julio Di Egidio]

On Monday, 13 January 2020 22:47:57 UTC+1, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 12:01:37 PM UTC-6, Julio Di Egidio wrote:

<snip>

> I'm not saying your MATH is wrong. But I am saying that your VIEW
> of the universe is TOTALLY WRONG.

There was no math in what I have explained. You are really talking
nonsense on the whole line, Ed: I suggest you try Susskind's Cosmology
course if you are moderately serious about this, and rather come back
here to ask specific questions.

> NASA's description is correct (as far as we know).

I did not say incorrect, you are also a very sloppy reader. NASA's
description is just bad enough as to have the public miss the essential
points altogether. (So I'd surmise: I have just seen the excerpt you
have posted here, and I haven't checked whether it's just you skipping
the premises.)

You should rather try and *study* some of this stuff for a change,
you won't get your head around any of it if you just extrapolate
from pop science...

HTH,

Julio

[Ed Lake]

Okay, this discussion has become a waste of time. The Susskind course
is all about MATHEMATICS. I'm not interested in mathematical explanations.
You can create mathematical "models" for almost any idea. They once used
mathematics to prove that sun went around the earth and that the earth was
the center of the universe. It's not.

You wrote in an earlier post:

"No, there is no space into which it could explode, rather even the most
elementary presentations start by emphasising that you should not think
about it as literally an explosion, it does "explode" (read, inflation),
but *within itself*, i.e. producing the very fabric of space-time in the
process! "

That is PURE MATHEMATICAL CRAP. There is no actual math in what you wrote,
but it is something that makes sense ONLY TO A MATHEMATICIAN.

Logically speaking, there WAS an expansion/explosion AND there IS
EMPTY SPACE into which the matter moved. Objects cannot move unless
there is space to move into.

Why do you BELIEVE there is no empty space beyond the universe? It appears
to be because you cannot compute something that has no known size.

The real problem is that no one wants to argue with mathematicians. They
only understand mathematics, and they can only discuss things in
mathematical terms. They simply cannot understand a universe where
there are UNKNOWNS. They cannot visualize empty space of UNKNOWN
dimensions, so they fantasize that all space is between objects. And
when those objects move apart, they do not move into empty space, they
create space between objects. And if anyone argues against that, the
mathematicians will produce mathematical equations to prove it. And
if you do not accept their mathematical equations, they will argue it
is because you are too ignorant and uneducated.

Math is a RELIGION to mathematicians. To them, you must BELIEVE in the
infallibility of mathematics or you will be considered too ignorant to
be bothered with.

So, we have mathematicians stating their beliefs, and we have scientists
explaining how the Big Bang happened. The two sides are in TOTAL
disagreement, but there can be no resolution because the mathematicians
are CERTAIN they are right and anyone who disagrees is just stupid.

We are at an impasse. You cannot discuss things in non-mathematical
terms, and I have no interest in mathematical explanations. As far as
I am concerned, you do not really understand something unless you can
explain it to others in simple terms and get them to understand it, too.

I can explain the Big Bang in a hundred ways using simple terms.
All you can do is explain the math.

Ed

[Julio Di Egidio]

On Tuesday, 14 January 2020 17:08:42 UTC+1, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 6:58:37 AM UTC-6, Julio Di Egidio wrote:

<snip>

> You wrote in an earlier post:
>
> "No, there is no space into which it could explode, rather even the most
> elementary presentations start by emphasising that you should not think
> about it as literally an explosion, it does "explode" (read, inflation),
> but *within itself*, i.e. producing the very fabric of space-time in the
> process! "
>
> That is PURE MATHEMATICAL CRAP. There is no actual math in what you wrote,
> but it is something that makes sense ONLY TO A MATHEMATICIAN.

Nope, it's STANDARD COSMOLOGY. And it's just *not* mathematics, though
mathematics does play a significant role in all modern physic and beyond.

You just won't listen...

*Plonk*

Julio

[Dono,]

On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 8:08:42 AM UTC-8, Ed Lake wrote:

> Okay, this discussion has become a waste of time. The Susskind course
> is all about MATHEMATICS. I'm not interested in mathematical explanations.

Because you are incapable of following them. Stick to coin peddling, imbecile.

[kenseto]

My model of the Big Bang is somewhat in agreement with you.
Take a look in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015universe.pdf

[Odd Bodkin]

I just love Ed’s philosophy about things. If you remind him that
mathematics is a language essential to doing and describing physics, he has
a wave of nausea and complains, “No, no, no! Mathematics is a language for
mathematics, nothing more! I’m not interested in mathematics!” Which is no
surprise because he utterly lacks the requisite skill.

Requisite skills are too onerous for Ed to accept.

[Ed Lake]

On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 10:36:45 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> > I can explain the Big Bang in a hundred ways using simple terms.
> > All you can do is explain the math.
> >
> > Ed
>
> My model of the Big Bang is somewhat in agreement with you.
> Take a look in the following link:
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015universe.pdf

I have a copy of it in my files, Ken. I don't think it has
anything to do with this discussion.

Ed

[Julio Di Egidio]

On Tuesday, 14 January 2020 17:55:22 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Dono, <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 8:08:42 AM UTC-8, Ed Lake wrote:
> >
> >> Okay, this discussion has become a waste of time. The Susskind course
> >> is all about MATHEMATICS. I'm not interested in mathematical explanations.
> > Because you are incapable of following them. Stick to coin peddling, imbecile.
>
> I just love Ed’s philosophy about things. If you remind him that
> mathematics is a language essential to doing and describing physics, he has
> a wave of nausea and complains, “No, no, no! Mathematics is a language for
> mathematics, nothing more! I’m not interested in mathematics!” Which is no
> surprise because he utterly lacks the requisite skill.

That is bullshit in itself: sure we need some mathematics even to count
the socks in a pair, arguably, but the idea that no physics can be
explained other than by mathematical formulas is plain misrepresentation
and the other side of the coin of a blind shut up and calculate.

That said, while Susskind does get through quite a bit of maths in his
courses, as necessary to give substance to the models that are used, the
link I had posted has Susskind for several minutes answering questions
about what it all means with no reference to the maths at all other than
maybe the "here the potential was very high, here it is very low", so
that Ed is really just in denial on the while line.

Anyway, enough said. Have fun,

Julio

[Odd Bodkin]

Julio Di Egidio <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 January 2020 17:55:22 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Dono, <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 8:08:42 AM UTC-8, Ed Lake wrote:
>>>
>>>> Okay, this discussion has become a waste of time. The Susskind course
>>>> is all about MATHEMATICS. I'm not interested in mathematical explanations.
>>> Because you are incapable of following them. Stick to coin peddling, imbecile.
>>
>> I just love Ed’s philosophy about things. If you remind him that
>> mathematics is a language essential to doing and describing physics, he has
>> a wave of nausea and complains, “No, no, no! Mathematics is a language for
>> mathematics, nothing more! I’m not interested in mathematics!” Which is no
>> surprise because he utterly lacks the requisite skill.
>
> That is bullshit in itself: sure we need some mathematics even to count
> the socks in a pair, arguably, but the idea that no physics can be
> explained other than by mathematical formulas is plain misrepresentation
> and the other side of the coin of a blind shut up and calculate.

There is SOME physics that can be described without math but it is precious
little. Most physics can be described well ONLY by using mathematics.

>
> That said, while Susskind does get through quite a bit of maths in his
> courses, as necessary to give substance to the models that are used, the
> link I had posted has Susskind for several minutes answering questions
> about what it all means with no reference to the maths at all other than
> maybe the "here the potential was very high, here it is very low", so
> that Ed is really just in denial on the while line.
>
> Anyway, enough said. Have fun,
>
> Julio
>

[kenseto]

On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 3:20:37 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Julio Di Egidio <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 14 January 2020 17:55:22 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> Dono, <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 8:08:42 AM UTC-8, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Okay, this discussion has become a waste of time. The Susskind course
> >>>> is all about MATHEMATICS. I'm not interested in mathematical explanations.
> >>> Because you are incapable of following them. Stick to coin peddling, imbecile.
> >>
> >> I just love Ed’s philosophy about things. If you remind him that
> >> mathematics is a language essential to doing and describing physics, he has
> >> a wave of nausea and complains, “No, no, no! Mathematics is a language for
> >> mathematics, nothing more! I’m not interested in mathematics!” Which is no
> >> surprise because he utterly lacks the requisite skill.
> >
> > That is bullshit in itself: sure we need some mathematics even to count
> > the socks in a pair, arguably, but the idea that no physics can be
> > explained other than by mathematical formulas is plain misrepresentation
> > and the other side of the coin of a blind shut up and calculate.
>
> There is SOME physics that can be described without math but it is precious
> little. Most physics can be described well ONLY by using mathematics.

That’s bullshit. All physics can be described without mathematic. Avoiding abstract math and its non-existing mathematical objects such as spacetime, fields, virtual particles, extra dimensions have benefits. It enabled me to invent a new theory of physics and eventually it become the only valid TOE of physics.

[Odd Bodkin]

kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 3:20:37 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Julio Di Egidio <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 14 January 2020 17:55:22 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> Dono, <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 8:08:42 AM UTC-8, Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Okay, this discussion has become a waste of time. The Susskind course
>>>>>> is all about MATHEMATICS. I'm not interested in mathematical explanations.
>>>>> Because you are incapable of following them. Stick to coin peddling, imbecile.
>>>>
>>>> I just love Ed’s philosophy about things. If you remind him that
>>>> mathematics is a language essential to doing and describing physics, he has
>>>> a wave of nausea and complains, “No, no, no! Mathematics is a language for
>>>> mathematics, nothing more! I’m not interested in mathematics!” Which is no
>>>> surprise because he utterly lacks the requisite skill.
>>>
>>> That is bullshit in itself: sure we need some mathematics even to count
>>> the socks in a pair, arguably, but the idea that no physics can be
>>> explained other than by mathematical formulas is plain misrepresentation
>>> and the other side of the coin of a blind shut up and calculate.
>>
>> There is SOME physics that can be described without math but it is precious
>> little. Most physics can be described well ONLY by using mathematics.
>
> That’s bullshit. All physics can be described without mathematic.

That’s simply not true. Your wishes are not fishes.

No physicist since the 1600s has managed to do physics without mathematics.
Not one. And there is good reason for that.

[maluw...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, 15 January 2020 00:33:58 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 3:20:37 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> Julio Di Egidio <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, 14 January 2020 17:55:22 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> Dono, <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 8:08:42 AM UTC-8, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Okay, this discussion has become a waste of time. The Susskind course
> >>>>>> is all about MATHEMATICS. I'm not interested in mathematical explanations.
> >>>>> Because you are incapable of following them. Stick to coin peddling, imbecile.
> >>>>
> >>>> I just love Ed’s philosophy about things. If you remind him that
> >>>> mathematics is a language essential to doing and describing physics, he has
> >>>> a wave of nausea and complains, “No, no, no! Mathematics is a language for
> >>>> mathematics, nothing more! I’m not interested in mathematics!” Which is no
> >>>> surprise because he utterly lacks the requisite skill.
> >>>
> >>> That is bullshit in itself: sure we need some mathematics even to count
> >>> the socks in a pair, arguably, but the idea that no physics can be
> >>> explained other than by mathematical formulas is plain misrepresentation
> >>> and the other side of the coin of a blind shut up and calculate.
> >>
> >> There is SOME physics that can be described without math but it is precious
> >> little. Most physics can be described well ONLY by using mathematics.
> >
> > That’s bullshit. All physics can be described without mathematic.
>
> That’s simply not true. Your wishes are not fishes.
>
> No physicist since the 1600s has managed to do physics without mathematics.

Speaking of mathematics, it's always good to remind that
your bunch of idiots had to reject its oldest, very
important and successful part, as it didn't want to
fit your moronic postulates.

[kenseto]

I saw a car crash the other day, one car jump the red light caused the crash..... No mathematic involved.

[Ed Lake]

On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 4:39:19 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 3:20:37 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > Julio Di Egidio <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 14 January 2020 17:55:22 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > >> Dono, <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >>> On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 8:08:42 AM UTC-8, Ed Lake wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Okay, this discussion has become a waste of time. The Susskind course
> > >>>> is all about MATHEMATICS. I'm not interested in mathematical explanations.
> > >>> Because you are incapable of following them. Stick to coin peddling, imbecile.
> > >>
> > >> I just love Ed’s philosophy about things. If you remind him that
> > >> mathematics is a language essential to doing and describing physics, he has
> > >> a wave of nausea and complains, “No, no, no! Mathematics is a language for
> > >> mathematics, nothing more! I’m not interested in mathematics!” Which is no
> > >> surprise because he utterly lacks the requisite skill.
> > >
> > > That is bullshit in itself: sure we need some mathematics even to count
> > > the socks in a pair, arguably, but the idea that no physics can be
> > > explained other than by mathematical formulas is plain misrepresentation
> > > and the other side of the coin of a blind shut up and calculate.
> >
> > There is SOME physics that can be described without math but it is precious
> > little. Most physics can be described well ONLY by using mathematics.
>
> That’s bullshit. All physics can be described without mathematic. Avoiding abstract math and its non-existing mathematical objects such as spacetime, fields, virtual particles, extra dimensions have benefits. It enabled me to invent a new theory of physics and eventually it become the only valid TOE of physics.

The LAWS OF PHYSICS CONTAIN NO MATHEMATICS. Examples:

Every object in a state of uniform motion will remain in that
state of motion unless an external force acts on it.
Force equals mass times acceleration.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

The second law DESCRIBES the math but is not math. It could also be
stated as "The rate of change of momentum is proportional to the impressed
force and takes place in the direction of the straight line in which the
force acts." You do not have to do the math or create a formula to
understand that. You only have to do the math if you want to demonstrate
the law with an experiment. Then you have to use actual numbers and calculate
what the resulting number should be.

There are 12 other laws of physics described in WORDS on this web page
without using any mathematical formulae: https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/important-laws-of-physics-1513943551-1

If you want to UNDERSTAND the laws, you need to describe them in words.
If you just look at the math, you just understand the math.

Ed

[Odd Bodkin]

And that isn’t a physics description.

Good heavens, man, can you not tell the difference between how a physicist
explains phenomena and how a third grader would explain phenomena?

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 9:42:03 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote:

> The LAWS OF PHYSICS CONTAIN NO MATHEMATICS. Examples:
>
> Every object in a state of uniform motion will remain in that
> state of motion unless an external force acts on it.
> Force equals mass times acceleration.
> For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
>
> The second law DESCRIBES the math but is not math. It could also be
> stated as "The rate of change of momentum is proportional to the impressed
> force and takes place in the direction of the straight line in which the
> force acts." You do not have to do the math or create a formula to
> understand that. You only have to do the math if you want to demonstrate
> the law with an experiment. Then you have to use actual numbers and calculate
> what the resulting number should be.
>
> There are 12 other laws of physics described in WORDS on this web page
> without using any mathematical formulae: https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/important-laws-of-physics-1513943551-1
>
> If you want to UNDERSTAND the laws, you need to describe them in words.
> If you just look at the math, you just understand the math.

If a verbal description of a putative "law of physics" cannot be
transcribed into a mathematical description capable of being used for
computation of measurable consequences, then the putative "law of physics"
is no more than worthless philosophical handwaving.

[Odd Bodkin]

First of all, that is not how Newton wrote those laws. It’s how a grade
school science site would state them.

Secondly, Newton himself cast these laws mathematically and illustrated
their use with math. He also derived other results from those laws that are
just as important, and the derivation is mathematical.

Third, you’ve cherry picked the simplest examples you can find to suit your
purpose. I’d challenge you to write Schrödinger’s law in words that convey
the information accurately.

>
> The second law DESCRIBES the math but is not math. It could also be
> stated as "The rate of change of momentum is proportional to the impressed
> force and takes place in the direction of the straight line in which the
> force acts." You do not have to do the math or create a formula to
> understand that. You only have to do the math if you want to demonstrate
> the law with an experiment. Then you have to use actual numbers and calculate
> what the resulting number should be.

And note that the predicted “resulting number” is what’s used to test the
theory. Without that test, the theory is scientifically useless. So to be
clear, being able to state a law in words and being able to understand
those words means little. Using the laws and testing them quantitatively is
the soul of science. Whether you have any interest in that soul is
inconsequential.

>
> There are 12 other laws of physics described in WORDS on this web page
> without using any mathematical formulae:
> https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/important-laws-of-physics-1513943551-1
>
> If you want to UNDERSTAND the laws, you need to describe them in words.
> If you just look at the math, you just understand the math.
>
> Ed
>

[Paparios]

El miércoles, 15 de enero de 2020, 12:42:03 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió:

>
> The LAWS OF PHYSICS CONTAIN NO MATHEMATICS. Examples:
>
> Every object in a state of uniform motion will remain in that
> state of motion unless an external force acts on it.
> Force equals mass times acceleration.
> For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
>
> The second law DESCRIBES the math but is not math. It could also be
> stated as "The rate of change of momentum is proportional to the impressed
> force and takes place in the direction of the straight line in which the
> force acts." You do not have to do the math or create a formula to
> understand that. You only have to do the math if you want to demonstrate
> the law with an experiment. Then you have to use actual numbers and calculate
> what the resulting number should be.
>

Without the math, all your examples serve no useful purpose. For instance,
how would you answer this question, by using those three laws:

Determine the force necessary to accelerate a 2000 kg standing car to 100 km/hr.

> There are 12 other laws of physics described in WORDS on this web page
> without using any mathematical formulae: https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/important-laws-of-physics-1513943551-1
>

Let us take example 3 which reads:

"3. Ohm's Law
It states that the current passing through a conductor between two points is
directly proportional to the potential difference across the two points provided
the physical state and temperature etc. of the conductor does not change."

I have a 1 meter long AWG-19 wire and I connect the extreme points of the wire
to a 1.5 V battery. What is the value of the current passing through the wire?
Note: the wire is fixed on a table and at a temperature of 15 Celsius.

> If you want to UNDERSTAND the laws, you need to describe them in words.
> If you just look at the math, you just understand the math.
>

How do you understand Ohm's Law only from that description?

[Python]

Ed Lake wrote:
...

> The LAWS OF PHYSICS CONTAIN NO MATHEMATICS. Examples:

Really?

> Every object in a state of uniform motion will remain in that
> state of motion unless an external force acts on it.

Which mathematically means "Coordinates transformations between
frames are linear", this is not quite mathematics isn't it Ed?

> Force equals mass times acceleration.

F = m * d^2 Position(t)/dt^2

Not quite mathematics either, sure.

> For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

d^x/dt = 0 => \exist P s.t. P = -F

Not quite mathematics, right, Ed?

Your ability to make a fool of yourself is amazing, I wonder
if it could be expressed mathematically though.

[Ed Lake]

On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 10:53:30 AM UTC-6, Paparios wrote:
> El miércoles, 15 de enero de 2020, 12:42:03 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió:
>
> >
> > The LAWS OF PHYSICS CONTAIN NO MATHEMATICS. Examples:
> >
> > Every object in a state of uniform motion will remain in that
> > state of motion unless an external force acts on it.
> > Force equals mass times acceleration.
> > For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
> >
> > The second law DESCRIBES the math but is not math. It could also be
> > stated as "The rate of change of momentum is proportional to the impressed
> > force and takes place in the direction of the straight line in which the
> > force acts." You do not have to do the math or create a formula to
> > understand that. You only have to do the math if you want to demonstrate
> > the law with an experiment. Then you have to use actual numbers and calculate
> > what the resulting number should be.
> >
>
> Without the math, all your examples serve no useful purpose.

That may be true, but the laws were developed WITHOUT USING MATH.
That is the point. Ideas come from UNDERSTANDING the laws. You
do not get ideas from doing the math. By doing the math and by
doing experiments you merely CONFIRM the laws.

You OBSERVE the universe and develop LAWS based upon what you
observe. When YOU UNDERSTAND THOSE LAWS, THEN you develop the
mathematics to TEST and DEMONSTRATE the laws.

> For instance,
> how would you answer this question, by using those three laws:
>
> Determine the force necessary to accelerate a 2000 kg standing car to 100 km/hr.

The point is that: FIRST came the IDEA that the NATURE IS PREDICTABLE.
Then came the idea that there are LAWS of Nature. Then came the idea
that the laws of nature can be converted into mathematical formulae.
At that point you UNDERSTAND a law of physics.
THEN comes the idea that the math can be used to PREDICT how much force
is necessary to accelerate a car weighing 2000 kg to 100 km/hr.

There is a lot worth understanding that does not involve doing calculations
for a specific event or experiment.

>
> > There are 12 other laws of physics described in WORDS on this web page
> > without using any mathematical formulae: https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/important-laws-of-physics-1513943551-1
> >
>
> Let us take example 3 which reads:
>
> "3. Ohm's Law
> It states that the current passing through a conductor between two points is
> directly proportional to the potential difference across the two points provided
> the physical state and temperature etc. of the conductor does not change."
>
> I have a 1 meter long AWG-19 wire and I connect the extreme points of the wire
> to a 1.5 V battery. What is the value of the current passing through the wire?
> Note: the wire is fixed on a table and at a temperature of 15 Celsius.
>
> > If you want to UNDERSTAND the laws, you need to describe them in words.
> > If you just look at the math, you just understand the math.
> >
>
> How do you understand Ohm's Law only from that description?

If you do a Google search for "Ohm's Law" you will find various descriptions
of that law. You can understand Ohm's law from those descriptions.

What you are asking for is a NUMBER in a specific situation. That is not
a matter of UNDERSTANDING Ohm's law, it is a matter of APPLYING Ohm's law
to a specific situation, and that involves mathematics.

Ed

[Otha Burrow]

Ed Lake wrote:

>> Without the math, all your examples serve no useful purpose.
>
> That may be true, but the laws were developed WITHOUT USING MATH.
> That is the point. Ideas come from UNDERSTANDING the laws. You do not
> get ideas from doing the math. By doing the math and by doing
> experiments you merely CONFIRM the laws.
> You OBSERVE the universe and develop LAWS based upon what you observe.
> When YOU UNDERSTAND THOSE LAWS, THEN you develop the mathematics to TEST
> and DEMONSTRATE the laws.

Which math-less law of physics would be that?

[Python]

Ed Lake wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 10:53:30 AM UTC-6, Paparios wrote:

...

>> Without the math, all your examples serve no useful purpose.
>
> That may be true, but the laws were developed WITHOUT USING MATH.
> That is the point. Ideas come from UNDERSTANDING the laws.

You may have a point here. By a lot of means, Ed, you do have
exposed that you DO NOT UNDERSTAND any single of these laws you've
quoted. And you didn't have to misunderstand math in order
to do so: you've shown you misunderstand them with fucking
plain stupid idiotic bunch of words. Radar gun, and all this stuff,
remember Ed?

[maluw...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, 15 January 2020 17:53:30 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
> El miércoles, 15 de enero de 2020, 12:42:03 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió:
>
> >
> > The LAWS OF PHYSICS CONTAIN NO MATHEMATICS. Examples:
> >
> > Every object in a state of uniform motion will remain in that
> > state of motion unless an external force acts on it.
> > Force equals mass times acceleration.
> > For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
> >
> > The second law DESCRIBES the math but is not math. It could also be
> > stated as "The rate of change of momentum is proportional to the impressed
> > force and takes place in the direction of the straight line in which the
> > force acts." You do not have to do the math or create a formula to
> > understand that. You only have to do the math if you want to demonstrate
> > the law with an experiment. Then you have to use actual numbers and calculate
> > what the resulting number should be.
> >
>
> Without the math, all your examples serve no useful purpose.

Speaking of math, it's always good to remind
that your bunch od idiots had to assume false
(reject) its oldest, very important and successful
part, as it didn't want to fit your madness.

[Otha Burrow]

maluwozniak wrote:

>> Without the math, all your examples serve no useful purpose.
>
> Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that your bunch od idiots
> had to assume false (reject) its oldest, very important and successful
> part, as it didn't want to fit your madness.

math can't age, my Chekoslovaki friend. Nor the law of physics. Old Math,
there is no such thing.

[Ed Lake]

Okay, I didn't state that correctly. I should have written the last part
first. And the wording was wrong. Here's another try:

You OBSERVE the universe and develop IDEAS based upon what you observe.
Then you develop EXPERIMENTS to test those ideas. The experiment is
based upon a "mathematical model." If the experiment fails, you learn
from your mistake, you re-think things and you develop a new mathematical
model.

If the experiment works, then you do a variation on the first experiment
to test the mathematical model.

If the experiment works, then you have found a LAW of physics that can
be verified by a variety of experiments AND described mathematically.

Ed

[Otha Burrow]

Ed Lake wrote:

>> Which math-less law of physics would be that?
>
> Okay, I didn't state that correctly. I should have written the last
> part first. And the wording was wrong. Here's another try:
> You OBSERVE the universe and develop IDEAS based upon what you observe.
> Then you develop EXPERIMENTS to test those ideas. The experiment is
> based upon a "mathematical model." If the experiment fails, you learn
> from your mistake, you re-think things and you develop a new
> mathematical model.
> If the experiment works, then you do a variation on the first experiment
> to test the mathematical model.
> If the experiment works, then you have found a LAW of physics that can
> be verified by a variety of experiments AND described mathematically. Ed

everything you said are merely suppositions which are wrong.

[Python]

Drunk in the night, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
...

> Speaking of math, it's always good to remind
> that your bunch od idiots had to assume false
> (reject) its oldest, very important and successful
> part, as it didn't want to fit your madness.

We were missing your old silly crazy rant, Malu, not dead yet?

Usually you are off at that time since you're posting early morning
drunkard posts. Are you considering stop drinking on the morning
in 2020? Good!

[Odd Bodkin]

Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 10:53:30 AM UTC-6, Paparios wrote:
>> El miércoles, 15 de enero de 2020, 12:42:03 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió:
>>
>>>
>>> The LAWS OF PHYSICS CONTAIN NO MATHEMATICS. Examples:
>>>
>>> Every object in a state of uniform motion will remain in that
>>> state of motion unless an external force acts on it.
>>> Force equals mass times acceleration.
>>> For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
>>>
>>> The second law DESCRIBES the math but is not math. It could also be
>>> stated as "The rate of change of momentum is proportional to the impressed
>>> force and takes place in the direction of the straight line in which the
>>> force acts." You do not have to do the math or create a formula to
>>> understand that. You only have to do the math if you want to demonstrate
>>> the law with an experiment. Then you have to use actual numbers and calculate
>>> what the resulting number should be.
>>>
>>
>> Without the math, all your examples serve no useful purpose.
>
> That may be true, but the laws were developed WITHOUT USING MATH.
> That is the point. Ideas come from UNDERSTANDING the laws. You
> do not get ideas from doing the math. By doing the math and by
> doing experiments you merely CONFIRM the laws.

That is simply wrong. Regardless what you would prefer to be the case,
this is not how physicists work.

>
> You OBSERVE the universe and develop LAWS based upon what you
> observe. When YOU UNDERSTAND THOSE LAWS, THEN you develop the
> mathematics to TEST and DEMONSTRATE the laws.
>
>> For instance,
>> how would you answer this question, by using those three laws:
>>
>> Determine the force necessary to accelerate a 2000 kg standing car to 100 km/hr.
>
> The point is that: FIRST came the IDEA that the NATURE IS PREDICTABLE.
> Then came the idea that there are LAWS of Nature.

Skipping a few steps here, aren’t you?
How do you imagine a scientist infers what the laws ARE?
(That’s a different statement than figuring out that there are laws.)
Explain, for example, how you imagine Newton arrived at his law of
gravitation WITHOUT math.

I repeat: the challenge in physics is not just understanding what the laws
say. It’s figuring out what the laws are in the first place. And that takes
math.

[Julio Di Egidio]

On Wednesday, 15 January 2020 19:36:23 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:
<snip>

> Explain, for example, how you imagine Newton arrived at his law of
> gravitation WITHOUT math.

An apple fallen from a tree. Or was it Galileo from the tower who
throw one down hoping to hit on Newton's head? Anyway, to think that
physics boils down to mathematics is plain upside down nonsense.

> I repeat: the challenge in physics is not just understanding what the laws
> say. It’s figuring out what the laws are in the first place. And that takes
> math.

Then you just don't know what physics is.

HTH,

Julio

[Odd Bodkin]

Julio Di Egidio <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:

> On Wednesday, 15 January 2020 19:36:23 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>> Explain, for example, how you imagine Newton arrived at his law of
>> gravitation WITHOUT math.
>
> An apple fallen from a tree. Or was it Galileo from the tower who
> throw one down hoping to hit on Newton's head? Anyway, to think that
> physics boils down to mathematics is plain upside down nonsense.

Somehow that falls short of arriving at his law.

There ARE prerequisite skills.

>
>> I repeat: the challenge in physics is not just understanding what the laws
>> say. It’s figuring out what the laws are in the first place. And that takes
>> math.
>
> Then you just don't know what physics is.

That’s rich.

>
> HTH,
>
> Julio

[RichD]

On January 7, tjrob137 wrote:
>> (The actual theory is there is no center, everything moves away from
>> everything else, like dots painted onto an inflating balloon. No one
>> particular dot can be singled out as the center of the balloon's
>> surface, but all dots will see all other dots moving away from it)
>
> Yes. But that is an ANALOGY that misses a key aspect of the universe. On
> the balloon, Ed Lake can use a pen to place a mark on the balloon midway
> between two dots, and his discussion makes sense (the mark persists and
> remains midway between the dots).
> But in the universe, which we model as a spacetime manifold, Ed Lake
> cannot "draw" any marks, and in any case he would have to mark a
> WORLDLINE, not just a single point. There is no a priori way to
> determine the inclination of that worldline, and one simply cannot say
> "the EARTH is moving away from that point midway between us and
> Galaxy-X", because there is no such POINT, there is at best only a
> WORLDLINE, which could be inclined toward earth, toward Galaxy-X, or
> neither.

Sorry, Lake has a point.

Denote ink spots {A, B, C} on the balloon,
where B locates the midpoint of the line
(geodesic) between A and C.

In our universe, we can draw a line between the
centers of Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies.
Place a light house at the midpoint.

The analogy is exact. In the 2-D balloon universe,
the ink spot B remains at the midpoint, as the balloon
expands. Analogously, the light house remains at the
midpoint of the galaxies, as the 3-D universe expands,
for all time, and all observers, regardless of their
state of motion. The tilt of the world line, varying
among observers, has no bearing on this fact.

Apparently, you're fixated on the distinction between
a point and a sequence of points. That's a red herring,
in this case. Regardless of time evolution, both objects
remain at the midpoints.

--
Rich

[maluw...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, 15 January 2020 19:17:46 UTC+1, Ed Lake wrote:

> You OBSERVE the universe and develop IDEAS based upon what you observe.
> Then you develop EXPERIMENTS to test those ideas.

They observe nothing and their ideas base on nothing.
And their experiments are not intended to test them,
but to give them another excuse to scream that their
ideas are obviously right.

[kenseto]

On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 12:09:43 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 10:31:27 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 9, 2020 at 4:28:24 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:
> > > On Thursday, January 9, 2020 at 12:49:07 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, January 9, 2020 at 10:19:37 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, January 9, 2020 at 7:05:46 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 10:56:29 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 7, 2020 at 8:24:19 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:

> > > > > > > > On 1/7/20 12:02 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > > > > > > (The actual theory is there is no center, everything moves away from
> > > > > > > > > everything else, like dots painted onto an inflating balloon. No one
> > > > > > > > > particular dot can be singled out as the center of the balloon's
> > > > > > > > > surface, but all dots will see all other dots moving away from it)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes. But that is an ANALOGY that misses a key aspect of the universe. On
> > > > > > > > the balloon, Ed Lake can use a pen to place a mark on the balloon midway
> > > > > > > > between two dots, and his discussion makes sense (the mark persists and
> > > > > > > > remains midway between the dots).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But in the universe, which we model as a spacetime manifold, Ed Lake
> > > > > > > > cannot "draw" any marks, and in any case he would have to mark a
> > > > > > > > WORLDLINE, not just a single point.
> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The problem is that there is no good way to create illustrations on
> > > > > > > this forum. Your "model" does not represent reality if it cannot show
> > > > > > > a point midway between two moving galaxies.

> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There is no a priori way to
> > > > > > > > determine the inclination of that worldline, and one simply cannot say
> > > > > > > > "the EARTH is moving away from that point midway between us and
> > > > > > > > Galaxy-X", because there is no such POINT, there is at best only a
> > > > > > > > WORLDLINE, which could be inclined toward earth, toward Galaxy-X, or

> > > > > > > > neither. So his discussion presumes he can do something (mark a
> > > > > > > > "midpoint") that is not possible.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Visualize it as a V with a vertical line down the center of the V. That,
> > > > > > > in effect, creates two Vs with a common base point. The base point is
> > > > > > > the point of the Big Bang.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The material that formed Galaxy-X followed the left arm of the V, the
> > > > > > > material that formed the Milky Way followed the right arm of the V, and
> > > > > > > the center line is the midway point between those two galaxies as they
> > > > > > > formed and moved away from the Big Bang. Yes, that is a "worldline." It
> > > > > > > does not actually exist as an object, but it can be easily visualized
> > > > > > > and understood.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is true only if the distance between Galaxy X and the earth is the diameter of the universe....it is not.
> > > > >
> > > > > It has nothing to do with the diameter of the universe. It is only about
> > > > > the distance between ANY TWO galaxies and how redshifting works.
> > > > >
> > > > > Earth<----------|----------->Galaxy-X
> > > > > Earth<----------------|--------------->Galaxy-Y
> > > > > Earth<---------------------|-------------------->Galaxy-Z
> > > > > Earth<-------|------->Galaxy-A
> > > > >
> > > > > The redshift viewed from Earth represents the speed at which Earth
> > > > > is moving away from that midway point between Earth and the other galaxy.
> > > >
> > > > There are blue shifted galaxies.
> > >
> > > Yes, I know. And they are ALL in one area of the sky. Blue shifted
> > > galaxies appear to be galaxies that are AHEAD of us as we move away
> > > from the point of the Big Bang. Our speed toward them is greater than
> > > their speed away from the point of the Big Bang.
> > >
> > > > Also what is your point of mid-point between earth and Galaxy X.
> > >
> > > My point is that that mid-point is ZERO when measuring our speed
> > > away from Galaxy-X. Galaxy-X is moving away from the mid-point, too,
> > > but the light it emits is NOT redshifted. Its light is only redshifted
> > > due to OUR movement away from that midpoint.
> >
> > The mid point between each and galaxy X is not the point of the Big Bang.
>
> Correct. No one said it was, But that midway point traces back to the
> Big Bang, since it can be assumed that the Earth has always been moving
> away from Galaxy-X at the same speed that Galaxy-X has been moving away
> from the Earth, even back to when there were no galaxies but just clusters
> of hydrogen atoms that were forming into solid bodies due to gravity.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Think of it this way: You and I are standing on a street corner. You
> > > start walking west at 2 mph, and I start walking east at 2 mph. We are
> > > moving away from each other at 4 mph, even though neither of us is walking
> > > at 4 mph. When you measure redshifts, you measure it from 2 mph, not from
> > > 4 mph.
> >
> > But the result you get is from 4 mph because you consider yourself is at rest.
>
> Only mathematicians consider moving bodies to be "at rest." In reality,
> you and I are both moving. Neither of us is "at rest." You FANTASIZE that
> one of us is "at rest" because of a MORONIC belief that movement can only
> be measured from a stationary body. It is why mathematicians dreamed up
> the "ether." There is no "ether" (or "aether"). But, since there is a
> maximum speed at which light can travel in our universe, we can measure
> speeds relative to that maximum. But you shouldn't need to do the
> calculations just to understand that my speed is 2 mph, not 4 mph.

You assumed that both of us are moving at the same speed from the mid point. This is not true....you can be moving away from the mid point at 3mph and I am moving at a speed of 1 mph our relative speed is still 4 mph.

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That midpoint represents the point from which Earth (and the Milky Way)
> > > > > moves to the left and the other galaxy moves to the right. It is also a
> > > > > “worldline" back to the Big Bang.
> > > >
> > > > No it is not a worldliness back to the Big Bang.
> > >
> > > Declarations are meaningless. The midway point is a point in time and
> > > space that traces back to the Big Bang when both galaxies were together.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If you believe the redshift represents the speed at which the other
> > > > > galaxy is moving away from the Earth, you make 2 false assumptions:
> > > > > (1) you falsely assume the Earth is at the center of the universe, and
> > > > > (2) you falsely assume that the movement of the emitter alters the
> > > > > speed of the light being emitted, in violation of Einstein's Second
> > > > > Postulate.
> > > >
> > > > I made no such assumptions.
> > >
> > > You are making some kind of screwball assumption if you believe that
> > > "the distance between Galaxy X and the earth is the diameter of the
> > > universe" just because there is a midpoint half way between us.
> >
> > I said that the mid-point between galaxy X is the point of the BB only if the distance between earth and Galaxy X is the diameter of the universe.
>
> No one said that the mid-point between Earth and Galaxy-X is the point of
> the Big Bang. But since we are both moving away from the point of the
> Big Bang AND away from each other, that point midway between us traces
> back to the point of the Big Bang.
>
> Someone on my "Do Not Reply" list asked this question:
>
> ------ start quote ----
> So what happens in this case for Galaxy Y:
>
> Galaxy-X <-------------------------- | ---------------------------> Earth -------------> Galaxy Y
>
> ------ end quote -----
>
> He claimed I did not reply. I didn't. It was a meaningless question.
> But I RESPONDED by addressing the question in a reply to myself.
> I used this:
>
> Earth<----------|----------->Galaxy-X
> Earth<----------------|--------------->Galaxy-Y
> Earth<---------------------|-------------------->Galaxy-Z
> Earth<-------|------->Galaxy-A
>
> I suppose I could have used this:
>
> Galaxy-X<------|------>Earth<--------|-------->Galaxy-Y
>
> The two midway points between the Earth and the two galaxies can
> be traced back to the Big Bang. If I had the ability to show
> illustrations here, I'd draw a line from those 5 points back to
> the Big Bang as a big V with 3 more diagonal lines converging on
> the single point at the bottom, which is the point of the Big Bang.
> At that point, everything was in one place.
>
> How can that not be understood? It is incredibly simple.
>
> But, based upon the post by Tom Roberts, it appears that mathematicians
> have complicated things so much that they can no longer comprehend what
> they themselves are talking about ... even if it is incredibly simple.
>
> Ed

[Ed Lake]

On Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 10:23:47 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 12:09:43 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:
> > > The mid point between each and galaxy X is not the point of the Big Bang.
> >
> > Correct. No one said it was, But that midway point traces back to the
> > Big Bang, since it can be assumed that the Earth has always been moving
> > away from Galaxy-X at the same speed that Galaxy-X has been moving away
> > from the Earth, even back to when there were no galaxies but just clusters
> > of hydrogen atoms that were forming into solid bodies due to gravity.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Think of it this way: You and I are standing on a street corner. You
> > > > start walking west at 2 mph, and I start walking east at 2 mph. We are
> > > > moving away from each other at 4 mph, even though neither of us is walking
> > > > at 4 mph. When you measure redshifts, you measure it from 2 mph, not from
> > > > 4 mph.
> > >
> > > But the result you get is from 4 mph because you consider yourself is at rest.
> >
> > Only mathematicians consider moving bodies to be "at rest." In reality,
> > you and I are both moving. Neither of us is "at rest." You FANTASIZE that
> > one of us is "at rest" because of a MORONIC belief that movement can only
> > be measured from a stationary body. It is why mathematicians dreamed up
> > the "ether." There is no "ether" (or "aether"). But, since there is a
> > maximum speed at which light can travel in our universe, we can measure
> > speeds relative to that maximum. But you shouldn't need to do the
> > calculations just to understand that my speed is 2 mph, not 4 mph.
>
> You assumed that both of us are moving at the same speed from the mid point. This is not true....you can be moving away from the mid point at 3mph and I am moving at a speed of 1 mph our relative speed is still 4 mph.

That is possible, but there is no way to determine it. All we know is
that neither of us is stationary, and therefore both of us MUST be
moving away from each other.

In theory, we can tell how fast I am moving away from you by the amount of
redshift I observe. But to know if you are moving faster than I am
requires knowing the exact frequency of your light when emitted and the
exact frequency of the light I receive. I assume we can measure the
frequency of the received light, and we can determine it is MUST BE
redshifted, since it is redshifted compared to light from our sun,
but what do they do next?

Frequency difference can be converted to speed, but what is the distance?
They use cepheid variables to judge distances, but that is an ESTIMATE,
and a PRECISE measurement is needed to compute distances accurately via
a redshift in frequencies.

Anyway, as I see it, it is simpler to just assume we are moving apart
from each other at equal speeds. We have no way to be precise. If we
did, then we could measure all the galaxies in the observable universe
and tell which are beside us as we move away from the Big Band, which
are ahead of us (like the "local group") and which are behind us, and
which are at some other angle.

Good question, though.

Ed

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/14/20 6:49 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> On Monday, 13 January 2020 19:27:18 UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote:
>> Yes, in modern cosmological models the big bang is a singularity,
>
> No, it isn't: the "Big Bang" comes *after* the "singularity", and in
> standard cosmology even after inflation.

Only in one specific NON-MAINSTREAM model, which is NOT "standard
cosmology". And it seems to be using a PUN on "big bang".

The mainstream cosmological model is called "/\CDM":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model

A few quotes:
The model includes a single originating event, the "Big Bang"
[though "event" is used in its colloquial sense, not its
technical meaning of point in the spacetime manifold.]

The model uses the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric,
[which necessarily has a singularity in the past of every
timelike or null geodesic, called "the big bang".]

Various extensions to /\CDM add inflation/quintessence/something-similar
after the big bang, which are "current areas of speculation and research
in cosmology".

> Cosmology Lecture 9
> "Leonard Susskind presents the theory of cosmological
> inflation under which the early universe expanded
> exponentially **before** the Big Bang." (my emphasis)
> <https://youtu.be/hADOY0TzLic?t=4160>

Yeah, there are many, NON-MAINSTREAM models. But the big bang is a
singularity BY DEFINITION, so it makes no sense to have "something"
"before" it. Susskind is making PUNS on technical words and not warning
his audience. (I did not watch the 2-hour video, so it could be the
YouTube summary that is at fault, not Susskind.)

Tom Roberts

[Chuck Oberwise]

Tom Roberts wrote:

>> Cosmology Lecture 9 "Leonard Susskind presents the theory of
>> cosmological
>> inflation under which the early universe expanded exponentially
>> **before** the Big Bang." (my emphasis)
>> <https://youtu.be/hADOY0TzLic?t=4160>
>
> Yeah, there are many, NON-MAINSTREAM models. But the big bang is a
> singularity BY DEFINITION, so it makes no sense to have "something"
> "before" it. Susskind is making PUNS on technical words and not warning
> his audience. (I did not watch the 2-hour video, so it could be the
> YouTube summary that is at fault, not Susskind.)

Relativity only applies to close to a steady-state universe, not close to
the big bang.

[Julio Di Egidio]

On Thursday, 16 January 2020 21:29:44 UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 1/14/20 6:49 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> > On Monday, 13 January 2020 19:27:18 UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> Yes, in modern cosmological models the big bang is a singularity,
> >
> > No, it isn't: the "Big Bang" comes *after* the "singularity", and in
> > standard cosmology even after inflation.
>
> Only in one specific NON-MAINSTREAM model, which is NOT "standard
> cosmology". And it seems to be using a PUN on "big bang".
>
> The mainstream cosmological model is called "/\CDM":
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model
>
> A few quotes:
> The model includes a single originating event, the "Big Bang"

Very poorly put if you ask me: indeed there is no reference to the
word "singularity" in that article, nor any other reference to a
putative "originating event", whatever that was meant to mean.

> [though "event" is used in its colloquial sense, not its
> technical meaning of point in the spacetime manifold.]

Indeed! A true statement is that "we do not understand the initial
point", as Susskind puts it, which, for how informal, is exactly what
is crucial about it: that all our theories break in that limit, so
we really don't know, and (standard) cosmology literally skips it.

> The model uses the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric,
> [which necessarily has a singularity in the past of every
> timelike or null geodesic, called "the big bang".]

We do not even understand the "singularity" inside a black hole, Mr
Roberts, do we? Moreover, if you read the whole sentence, you would
actually read: "The model uses the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker
metric, the Friedmann equations and the cosmological equations of state
to describe the observable universe **from right after the inflationary
epoch** to present and future", emphasis mine (and thanks Wikipedia),
so it appears you are truly just making stuff up.

> Various extensions to /\CDM add inflation/quintessence/something-similar
> after the big bang, which are "current areas of speculation and research
> in cosmology".
>
> > Cosmology Lecture 9
> > "Leonard Susskind presents the theory of cosmological
> > inflation under which the early universe expanded
> > exponentially **before** the Big Bang." (my emphasis)
> > <https://youtu.be/hADOY0TzLic?t=4160>
>
> Yeah, there are many, NON-MAINSTREAM models. But the big bang is a
> singularity BY DEFINITION, so it makes no sense to have "something"
> "before" it. Susskind is making PUNS on technical words and not warning
> his audience. (I did not watch the 2-hour video, so it could be the
> YouTube summary that is at fault, not Susskind.)

The summary? Non-mainstream?? PUNS??! Susskind would slap you in
the face at that point... You really stopped at the summary? That
would explain a lot.

EOD.

Julio

[Chuck Oberwise]

Julio Di Egidio wrote:

>> The model uses the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric,
>> [which necessarily has a singularity in the past of every
>> timelike or null geodesic, called "the big bang".]
>
> We do not even understand the "singularity" inside a black hole, Mr
> Roberts, do we?

does not matter. Singularities, any, are not there to be understood. You
misunderstood what is going on.

[Julio Di Egidio]

You should go play somewhere else.

*Troll alert*

Julio

[Chuck Oberwise]

I guess I'm not alone here, _intending_ to understand singularities would
be the stupidest in the world. Which reveals you have no clue about what
singularities stands for. Completely uneducated with the basics in math
and physics.

[Odd Bodkin]

ALL measurements have a limit of precision.
That being said, it’s false to claim that if it isn’t exact or super
precise then it’s “just an estimate”.

The relationship between the period of variation and absolute luminosity is
remarkably tight.
See
http://astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit4/images/plrelation.gif

And the connection between distance and the ratio of apparent to absolute
luminosity is VERY solid.

>
> Anyway, as I see it, it is simpler to just assume we are moving apart
> from each other at equal speeds.

No, that’s FAR too simplified to be consistent with the data numbers and
their precisions.

> We have no way to be precise. If we
> did, then we could measure all the galaxies in the observable universe
> and tell which are beside us as we move away from the Big Band, which
> are ahead of us (like the "local group") and which are behind us, and
> which are at some other angle.
>
> Good question, though.
>
> Ed
>

[Chuck Oberwise]

kenseto wrote:

> You assumed that both of us are moving at the same speed from the mid
> point. This is not true....you can be moving away from the mid point at
> 3mph and I am moving at a speed of 1 mph our relative speed is still 4
> mph.

Then that's not a _midpoint_. The midpoint would be somewhere else, in
the middle, as the term suggests. Your _Model Mechanics_ cannot be valid,
since it has NOT _mathematical beauty_. You don't even know how a
mathematical beauty looks like.