An open letter to Mr. Ross A. Finlayson

[patd...@comcast.net]

I have truly enjoyed reading Mr. Finlayson’s posts to this forum. He certainly lives up to his boast “I consider myself a pro-relativist, as a means”. He has a command of the subject matter that is unmatched in this forum; which is quite obvious from the hands-off attitude that Dono, Bodkin, et al have adopted towards him. He documents well and writes even weller. He slings the Latin better than any previous Latin slinger. His paraconsistent logic is para-flawless. And he loves to hate on the muons as much as I. But this new man Finlayson has come too far, too fast for my tastes. As astonishing an admission as it might seem, I believe him to be threatening my primacy as the top relativity slayer around these parts.

Therefore, in order to re-establish my title (or to finally lose it once and for all) I do hereby challenge Mr. Ross A. Finlayson to a dual as to which of us can devise the most outrageous and hilarious reductio ad absurdum argument against Relativity, Special or General.

Do you accept sir?

(I hereby select Mitch as my second.)

[Dono,]

On Sunday, December 15, 2019 at 7:08:21 PM UTC-8, patd...@comcast.net wrote:
> I do hereby challenge Mr. Ross A. Finlayson to a dual

"dual"? Imbecile

[patd...@comcast.net]

On Sunday, December 15, 2019 at 7:08:21 PM UTC-8, patd...@comcast.net wrote:

How about dual duels Dono?

[Ross A. Finlayson]

On Sunday, December 15, 2019 at 7:08:21 PM UTC-8, patd...@comcast.net wrote:

Relativity of simultaneity is non-local?


If you'd allow me to humbly concede,
my study is mathematics with physics second.

[patd...@comcast.net]

Mr. Finlayson,

I will spend the evening considering whether or not to let you go (this time). But I demand a price: can you devise and argument, method, tensor operation or combination of tensor operations that reduces the space-time curvature in the vicinity of the sun (and so reduces the (we are told illusion of) gravity) as a function of an observer's relative velocity wrt the sun?

Otherwise, Mitch and I await you at dawn on the field of honor.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

What of Dr. Carlip's very explanation about the photon rocket?

https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909087

"Although gravity propagates at the speed of light
in general relativity, the expected aberration is
almost exactly canceled by velocity-dependent terms
in the interaction. [...] require that any causal
theory have such a cancellation.
[...]
It is certainly true, though perhaps not widely appreciated,
that observations are incompatible with Newtonian gravity
with a light-speed propagation delay added in."


I can only think you mean in some other theory
than General Relativity, where all the potentials
depend on retarded quantities.

Or, Newtonian gravity is quite well held up.


Without contriving inputs to the solar system,
eg an extra-solar object crossing the face of the Sun,
the Solar System's approximately Keplerian.

As what such an input would also disturb Steve's
(Dr. Carlip's resp.) settlement of Van Flandern's
argument for c_g >> c, in General Relativity,
would as soon involve
"illusory" superluminal motion as
"illusory" classical equilibrium.


Please rephrase your question with an answer.

It seems you're asking for a "levity" device.


Consider a ring cyclotron on a barge, there's
no such thing as a perpetual (reciprocal) motion
machine - but it could agitate quite freely.

A "spacetime wheel" sees two rings can only
observe each other at 0.5c.

In theories of gravity other than GTR which has
that gravity defines the geometry of the geodesy
whatever it is, for example a theory of fall gravity,
there are various notions that contrive a reduction
of space-time curvature (or gravity) without pulling
everything apart, about building a gravity shadow.
I'm not sure how that would be done without re-writing
the field equations.




I demand "space contraction".




https://books.google.com/books?id=Yd4wAQAAMAAJ

(The author puts forward that a rite of duelling
was in a sense as a "civilized" means of the
resolve of disputes. Though I grew up in the
West I'm not fast as a snake, and dueling makes
no sense but for bulls over a fence.)

"Fencing was once a very favorite amusement...".

"THE FIRST DUTY OF A SECOND,
Is to prevent, if possible, the affair
coming to a serious issue, without
compromising the honour of his friend."

[Odd Bodkin]

Try proofing your spell checker before you engage, Pat.

>
> Do you accept sir?
>
> (I hereby select Mitch as my second.)
>

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

[Odd Bodkin]

There are two kinds of hacks on this group.
Those who thrive on confrontational bickering for its own sake, and those
who just want to make passing comments and be left alone about them. Pat
and Ross, two exemplars.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 16-dec.-2019 om 04:08 schreef patd...@comcast.net:

> I have truly enjoyed reading Mr. Finlayson’s posts to this forum. He
> certainly lives up to his boast “I consider myself a pro-relativist,
> as a means”.

But Ross is well-known long-standing crackpot with no
idea about the subject whatsoever.
But you couldn't tell, could you :-|

Dirk Vdm

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Borel vs. Combinatorics, anyone?

Dirk, I made a sigma algebra for my little function.

I.e. it's formalized now what I said, then.

[patd...@comcast.net]

Is this not amazing! Is it genuine? Dono?

“You imagine that I look back on my life’s work with calm satisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track.”
— Albert Einstein

It looks like Einstein didn't want to go out like O'Barr. And I guess I have more respect for him. Now I can look back on my own life's work in this forum with....

[Dono,]

On Monday, December 16, 2019 at 9:18:41 AM UTC-8, patd...@comcast.net wrote:
> Now I can look back on my own life's work in this forum with....

Your only "work" is the collection of imbecilities you posted

[patd...@comcast.net]

On Monday, December 16, 2019 at 9:18:41 AM UTC-8, patd...@comcast.net wrote:

By Jove, I'm going to write a reductio absurdum in honor of Einstein's contrite spirit of self doubt.

We have always striven for more speed. From the time we were earthworms up through our apehood, speed meant life: who beat who to the best food, the best shelter, the best mates. When we became human we continued to strive for more speed for its own sake. Foot races first. Then on horseback. Then via the internal combustion engine. Jet engines and rocket engines. Faster, always faster. Then spake Einstein: "This fast, and no faster"

On that dark day in 1905 the world was deprived of its never ending quest for more speed. Therefore, in the spirit of the contrite Einstein, and in his honor, I shall give the world back it's unhampered, unimpeded, unlimited speed. Stand by.

[patd...@comcast.net]

The theory of special relativity itself predicts velocities many, many thousands of times faster than the speed of light. This is a necessary consequence of Lorentz contraction being a basic component of the theory of special relativity. As an observer accelerates, every other thing not accelerating contracts in the dimension of the direction of the observer’s acceleration. That contraction has a velocity that can be observed and measured in the accelerating frame; in the same way that the velocity of each end of a contracting accordion can be measured as the air is squeezed out of it. Let’s define the velocity of Lorentz contraction as a type of meta-velocity. It turns out that meta-velocities can be thousands of time greater than the speed of light for relatively small values of acceleration.

An example? Consider an observer situated halfway between the Milky Way galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy. Let the observer begin to accelerate at a comfortable and constant 1g towards Andromeda. Availing ourselves of the data on these two webpages

The Relativistic Rocket

and

Relativistic Rocket

we calculate that after 5 years the accelerating observer has traveled a distance of only 82.7 light years in the direction of Andromeda. But the observer has achieved a velocity equal to .99993c relative to the Milky Way and Andromeda rest frame. Because of this the 2,500,000 light years lying between the Milky Way and Andromeda has Lorentz contracted to a mere 29,000 light years. Just as the two ends of a contracting accordion converge towards the center from opposite directions, so too have Andromeda and the Milky Way each converged nearly 1,250,000 light years towards the accelerating observer in just 5 years, as measured by the observer. The Milky Way converges from behind the observer while Andromeda converges from in front of the observer so as to make a “Lorentz sandwich” from the three of them. Now convert the light years per year to meters per second and we find that both galaxies have converged at an *average* meta-velocity of 7.4 x 10^13 meters per second in the observer’s frame. That’s Twenty-Five Thousand times faster than c! And that’s just the average velocity for only 5 years, accelerating at only 1g, and only 2.5 million light years of distance. Increasing any of these parameters, especially the rest frame distance, results in vastly increased meta-velocities.

___________________________________________________

And now for the dazzling math. We have the very familiar Lorentz contraction formula

L’ = sqrt[1-(v/c)^2]L

where v = ctanh(at’/c) and L, L’, a, t’, c have their usual meanings.

Now take the time derivative of L’ to obtain

dL’/dt’ = -(a/c)tanh[t’a/c]sech[t’a/c]L

which when divided by 2 gives the instantaneous meta-velocity for the Lorentz contraction of objects in space, and space itself, in the direction of acceleration. This equation—which intriguingly has the dimensions of velocity m/s, and is signed correctly for contracting convergence—clearly implies that there is no upper speed limit for the meta-velocity of matter.

Voila! Unlimited speed is restored to the world.

[Dono,]

On Monday, December 16, 2019 at 11:21:26 AM UTC-8, patd...@comcast.net wrote:

> The theory of special relativity itself predicts velocities many, many thousands of times faster than the speed of light. T

No , it doesn't. Cretin.

[patd...@comcast.net]

Dono,

Einstein himself would praise the tight-as-a-drum reasoning, the compactness of derivation, the clearness of exposition, the daring of my deductions, and the oh-so solid one-two punch of my algebra, trig and calculus. It's a masterwork and my second greatest production for this forum. I might even turn it into a play with the help of mastermind and poet Mitch.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

This idea of a fall gravity is that instead of
each massy body (i.e., frames on down to
particles) perpetually working
to draw together in the Newtonian
or stake the curvature in the Einsteinian,
that instead, there's a universal field of the gravific,
matter and its associated inertia occupying it.

This was considered by Fatio/LeSage as a
push gravity, contra Newtonian's pull gravity,
where here instead it's a fall gravity as there's
no notion that each massy body is a constantly
working system with influence over each other
throughout the universe.

(Gravity is well known to be proportional to
inverse square, which though attenuating is
still non-zero everywhere for each pair-wise
combination of frames, eg particles.)

Then, the idea of a two-body system is
that instead of a pair of strings (wires)
each pulling the other, that about them
both is the entire field of the universe,
that the inertia of the objects is that
they are at rest, not that they work,
that the line between them only happens
to be what it is the center of a potential,
and that the maximum value of the force
vector in the gravitic field, is the maximum
value of the potential vector in the gravific
field.

Then, this isn't like "ultramundane corpuscles"
of Fatio/LeSage, though that's descriptive,
instead that the objects happen to fall together,
instead of that they pull each other or are pushed
both.

I.e. gravity isn't constantly everywhere
violating conservation of energy.

I.e. the classical system is actually defined
by this super-classical regime.

Cf. Allais effect.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

1700's "ultramundane corpuscles"
-> 21'st century "fundamental flux"


LeSage gravity was the usual
between Newton and Einstein.

Mass-energy equivalence and
relativistic mass are very significant
features of GTR.


https://www.scirp.org/pdf/OALibJ_2016032511014873.pdf

N.V. Dibrov describes some alternatives of
features of the memory as to explain away
perpetual or infinite inputs, about the
thermodynamic. (From searching for
"shadow gravity".)

Unification is a goal of physics and some
idea that a fall gravity is one-and-the-same
as the strong nuclear force isn't much of
a leap.

With the notions "fations" or "lesageons" are
photon-like for a "light-like" model of such
a flux, obviously it wouldn't be exactly a
light-like model no more than pulsing or
undulating wave models are the same,
or for example skin effect versus core effect
in fluid models of electrical and liquid current.

I.e., there's an idea that the particle model of
the field would have zero viscosity (superfluidity),
as about what the pounding of the waves would have
them in some "sea as foam" type model. There's
a similar notion of the state of such a substance
always evaporating, i.e. for pressures and tensions
at the interfaces between massy bodies and
the space full of echoes of some universal
field of flux.

That's not quite so totally unusual for someone
who might consider something like Bohm-deBroglie,
pilot wave, and the wave of the wave equation
collapsing everywhere at once, that is, where its
real character meets more than simple models
of periodic motion.


Tait on LeSage circa the 1870's:

"The most singular thing about it is that, if it be true,
it will probably lead us to regard all kinds of energy
as ultimately Kinetic."


It's one of those things when, in usually broadly
reviewing the subject matter of a corpus of a
field with much background, sometimes one can
conceive such notions as ideas from existing data,
as what otherwise is a usual ingestion of examples
and the formal outlay of dogma and lecon about
a subject. Here I _think_ I already had a theory of
fall gravity before I heard of Fatio or Lesage,
though of course I'd already heard of Newton
and Einstein, then of course finding that
science spent about a hundred years with
LeSage as the hypothetical theory where the
high energy apparatus wasn't quite available yet
to test it, it already made sense philosophically.


An article on correspondence in letters,
in science, of Euler:
https://www.cairn-int.info/article-E_RHS_662_0361--false-agreements-and-true-dissensions.htm

"In Euler's exchanges with the Genevan scholars
Charles Bonnet, Gabriel Cramer, and George-Louis
Lesage on topics as varied but also as perilous as
preformist and epigenesist theories of generation,
the analog between physical manifestations of
sound and light and the mechanical explanation
of gravitation, all the correspondents tack around
the reefs of a dispute, always beginning by praising
the other's work before daring to launch a critique
that is quickly neutralized by fresh compliments. It
is only a last resort, which the dispute seems insurmountable,
that the tone hardens, perhaps to put an end to
an exchange that has run into an impasse. Such
is the case of the correspondence with Lesage, [...]."

[Sylvia Else]

Alleged proofs of the falsehood of relativity posted to this group can
mostly be categorised as:

A) Assume it's true, and show that this leads to a contraction.

So far, all such attempts have contained errors.

B) Assume that it's false, and show that this is consistent with its
being false.

Why anyone thinks this says anything about relativity is beyond me.

C) Totally incomprehensible.

Speaks for itself.

Presumably your intent is that the argument fall within A, and that it
will indeed contain at least one error, since if it were a valid
argument, it would be neither hilarious nor outrageous.

I don't see how one can objectively judge either how outrageous, or how
hilarious, such an argument is, much less compare one combination of
such with another. Your proposal does not identify the criteria to be
applied.

It doesn't even state who will do the judging.

Sylvia.

[pat dolan]

On Monday, December 16, 2019 at 8:15:10 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:

Sylvia,

Mr. Finlayson has satisfied Mitch and my honor by conceding the duel. So I repurposed my intended dueling weapon for the dual purpose of an ode to Einstein's moment of weakness and self-doubt at the end of his old age. Please see both my ode and Einstein's quote farther up. Naturally I am interested in receiving your opinion as to any faults the ode might contain before Mitch and I proceed with the task of turning it into a play.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Carl Boyer is an great historian perhaps
best known for his book on the development
of the integral calculus.

His "The Rainbow: From Myth to Mathematics"
is also an excellent documentary and survey of
the development of the theory of the properties
of the arc-en-ciel.

From antiquity and Aristotle to DesCartes and
Newton, Huygens, Grimaldi and his introduction
of diffraction (or Grimaldi's "inflection"), Fresnel
and Young, Airy, Boyer details theories of light and color
and what became of the intromissive, extromissive,
corpuscular, undulatory, caustical, polarized,
theories of visible light and color.

The excellent chapters "A New Theory" and "The
Mathematician's Rainbow" detail many of the
same notions in concepts about the properties of
light and shadow as what would today inform again
notions of light as gravity-like.

Boyer's "The History of the Calculus and its
Conceptual Development" should be read by
any student of the calculus.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

From Barrow's "The book of nothing: vacuums, voids,
and the latest ideas about the origins of the universe":

"One of the most dramatic consequences of the
wavelike character of all mass and energy is
what it does for our idea of a vacuum. If matter
is ultimately composed of tiny particles, like bullets,
then we can say unambiguously whether the particle
is in one half of a box or the other. In the case of
a wave, the answer to the question 'Where is it?' is
not so clear. The wave spans the whole box."


Quantum mechanics? Continuum mechanics.


About "sea as foam", see for example a description
as by "quantum foam", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam .

"Spin foam theory is a modern attempt
to make Wheeler's idea quantitative."


Sea foam: foam in the sea, compressible
"Sea Foam" brand: drain cleaner, rust remover, radiator flush

I heard of quantum foam theories before, but now I have
a place to fit the metaphor: fall gravity and omnidirectional flux.

Cf. https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath426/kmath426.htm



The Dirac positronic sea is a hypothetical
uniform media throughout space.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam :
"In 2009 the two MAGIC (Major Atmospheric Gamma-ray
Imaging Cerenkov) telescopes detected that among
gamma-ray photons arriving from the blazar Markarian 501,
some photons at different energy levels arrived at different
times, suggesting that some of the photons had moved
more slowly and thus contradicting the general relativity's
notion of the speed of light being constant, a discrepancy
which could be explained by the irregularity of quantum foam.
More recents experiments were, however, unable to confirm
the supposed variation on the speed of light due to the
graininess of space."



Quantum mechanics? Continuum mechanics.


https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/news/17dec03.html :
"These results may also be telling us the correct form of
string theory or quantum gravity and must obey the
principle of Lorentz invariance."

I demand 'space contraction'.

Quantum mechanics? Continuum mechanics.

[Tom Roberts]

On 12/16/19 10:15 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> Alleged proofs of the falsehood of relativity posted to this group can
> mostly be categorised as:
> A) Assume it's true, and show that this leads to a contraction.
> So far, all such attempts have contained errors.

Yes. For this to succeed one must also show that Euclidean geometry is
internally inconsistent, and that real analysis is internally
inconsistent, or show an error in the proofs that the math of SR is as
self-consistent as they are.

Nobody who claims SR is "inconsistent" has even recognized the need to
do that.

(That's a self-fulfilling prophecy: anyone who recognizes
that need already knows that SR is self-consistent.)

> [... other ways of attempting to show SR is inconsistent]

Yes, none of those silly attempts succeed, either.

Tom Roberts

[Ross A. Finlayson]

"Non-Euclidean geometries" are usually "after" Euclid
and about independence of the parallel postulate, i.e.,
"Semi-Euclidean geometries", for preserving all other
matters of proportion and form accorded geometry,
and straight lines and right angles in the neighborhood
of any co-ordinate origin.


Some "Pre-Euclidean geometry" that actually builds the
objects of Euclid's Elements from simpler principles
as about point-wise points and total spaces, might seem
to follow from some notion of a "spiral space-filling
curve as a natural continuum" and some "axiomless geometry".

That though would be as much about showing Euclidean geometry
to be a consistent and in a sense privileged geometry,
with the parallel postulate and non-Euclidean geometries
as only defined in terms of Euclidean geometry (or this
"axiomless" geometry). I.e. in a sense, non-Euclidean
geometries are in a sense more degenerate, "derived from",
than more general, "generalizing", than Euclidean geometry.

It's similar with real analysis whether really "the
usual standard complete ordered field after Cauchy,
Weierstrass, Dedekind is the only model of a continuum",
when for example there are others eg this idea of a
"natural continuum".

"SR is local" is a not unusual modern refrain.
(I.e. to keep it consistent.)

[pats]

On Tuesday, December 17, 2019 at 11:29:53 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:

Einstein’s theory of relativity is a theory in crisis. Of those who actually study it, approximately half come away doubting its validity in spite of the experimental evidence. This situation can’t be entirely due to misunderstanding the theory. Newton’s three laws of motion, the ideal gas law, Coulomb’s law, etc. generate nowhere near as much controversy. Clearly something somewhere is amiss in the world of Relativity.

The Theory of Relativity nearly died in infancy when it was learned in 1907 that it was useless for describing physical phenomena in non-inenertial frames of reference. And what possible use can a theory spoiled by gravity have in a universe that is permeated by gravity. Einstein’s patch for this glitch came to be known as the theory of General Relativity. General Relativity is meant to provide a glitch-free arena in which Special Relativity can successfully operate in the presence of gravity.

But does Einstein’s General Relativity actually fix Einstein’s Special Relativity? For instance, below is described a perfectly plausible physical situation in which Relativity is asked to calculate two very simple, simultaneous and equal scalar quantities—quantities that are easily calculated everyday by engineers, students and scientists where space and time are separate entities. While the same calculations in relativistic space-time have proven to be absolutely and constitutionally incapable of providing consistent values for these two scalars.

Task: calculate in newtons the magnitudes of the centrifugal force and the gravitational force observed to be acting on the Earth as it orbits the Sun, by a distant observer traveling at .9c relative to the Solar System along the line that is collinear with the Sun’s axis of rotation. And please show us your work just for the fun of it. Thanks.

In consideration of the foregoing, is it finally time to carefully scrutinize the experimental evidence for relativity? Here again we find much controversy.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Newton's is a centripetal force,
the true centrifugal would be
via for example a fall gravity.

gravitic -> centripetal
gravific -> centrifugal

This is that the potential is real.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_centrifugal_force

[Odd Bodkin]

pats <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:

In this day and age, shameless propagandizing seems to be a fad. Let’s just
digest this in smaller chunks.

>
> Einstein’s theory of relativity is a theory in crisis.

Unsubstantiated.

> Of those who actually study it, approximately half come away doubting its
> validity in spite of the experimental evidence.

Made up number, completely incorrect as well.

> This situation can’t be entirely due to misunderstanding the theory.

You mean the made up situation?

> Newton’s three laws of motion, the ideal gas law, Coulomb’s law, etc.
> generate nowhere near as much controversy.

Not today, 350 years later. But then again, relativity doesn’t generate
much controversy either, outside the small group you belong to, which is
about the same size as the Flat Earth Society that has problems with Newton
or the creationists who have a problem with Darwin. Is evolution highly
controversial? Is a round earth controversial?

> Clearly something somewhere is amiss in the world of Relativity.
>
> The Theory of Relativity nearly died in infancy when it was learned in
> 1907 that it was useless for describing physical phenomena in
> non-inenertial frames of reference.

Also untrue. What evidence from 1907 do you have for the claim?

> And what possible use can a theory spoiled by gravity have in a universe
> that is permeated by gravity.

I don’t know why you think that relativity doesn’t apply in a weak gravity
case. One of the foundational aspects of GR is that a free fall frame is an
acceptable SR inertial frame for sufficiently small lab and sufficiently
short time.

> Einstein’s patch for this glitch came to be known as the theory of General Relativity.

Going from a special treatment to a general treatment is not patching a
glitch.

> General Relativity is meant to provide a glitch-free arena in which
> Special Relativity can successfully operate in the presence of gravity.

Well not completely. See above.

>
> But does Einstein’s General Relativity actually fix Einstein’s Special
> Relativity? For instance, below is described a perfectly plausible
> physical situation in which Relativity is asked to calculate two very
> simple, simultaneous and equal scalar quantities—quantities that are
> easily calculated everyday by engineers, students and scientists where
> space and time are separate entities. While the same calculations in
> relativistic space-time have proven to be absolutely and constitutionally
> incapable of providing consistent values for these two scalars.
>
> Task: calculate in newtons the magnitudes of the centrifugal force and
> the gravitational force observed to be acting on the Earth as it orbits
> the Sun, by a distant observer traveling at .9c relative to the Solar
> System along the line that is collinear with the Sun’s axis of rotation.
> And please show us your work just for the fun of it. Thanks.

0 and 0. The work for your fun is omitted. Do some work instead.

>
> In consideration of the foregoing, is it finally time to carefully
> scrutinize the experimental evidence for relativity? Here again we find much controversy.
>

What controversy did you have in mind?

[pats]

On Tuesday, December 17, 2019 at 12:28:15 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:

Bodkin, my boy, thank you for your careful attention to my essay. But there is only one line of your commentary which sums up your entire effort:

[Ned Latham]

Odd Bodkin wrote in <qtbdor$2gd$1...@gioia.aioe.org>:

>
> Is a round earth controversial?

It never was, Slow Boy.

[pat]

> Is evolution highly
> controversial?

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

Bodkin, do you ever get out of the Shire every now and then? Do you not know or care about the battlefield of debate currently going on over Evolution???

Here, let me compose you another essay:

There is a mountain of experimental results in the 10,000 years of human-driven artificial selection on the farms, in the fields, pastures, pens and gardens of every culture in every corner of the world in addition to 150 years of intense artificial selection in academic and industrial laboratories all over the world on all kinds of plants and animals—this must be the equivalent of 150 billion years of natural selection—and yet not one single solitary example of cladogenesis as a result of accumulated anagenesis. Then there’s Richard Lenski ‘s 68,000 generations of E. coli up at the U of MI, with no speciation. The theory of Evolution is the most experimentally disconfirmed theory in the entire history of Science.

Both component parts of the theory—selection operating on mutation—are scientifically demonstrated by experiment to be in good working order. But the major prediction of the theory is found by exhaustive experimentation to be false. The science is clear that no amount of accumulated anagenesis can cause species to transcend their biological boundaries. Why not??? What a great question to research and study. And a question that sadly won’t be worked on until the last of the closed-minded, anti-inquiry evolutionists is finally laid to rest.

[Barry Aecca]

Tom Roberts wrote:

> (That's a self-fulfilling prophecy: anyone who recognizes
> that need already knows that SR is self-consistent.)
>
>> [... other ways of attempting to show SR is inconsistent]
>
> Yes, none of those silly attempts succeed, either.

actually it does, since it needs a bunch of dark matter, whatever you
want to call it. It's just not there, to satisfy the needs of relativity.

[Ned Latham]

pat wrote in <eaacd2b2-e0f6-43b2...@googlegroups.com>:
> Odd Bodkin w4rote:
> >
> > Is evolution highly controversial?

>
> Bodkin, do you ever get out of the Shire every now and then?

LOL.

> Do you not know or care about the battlefield of debate currently
> going on over Evolution???
>
> Here, let me compose you another essay:
>
> There is a mountain of experimental results in the 10,000 years of
> human-driven artificial selection on the farms, in the fields,
> pastures, pens and gardens of every culture in every corner of the
> world in addition to 150 years of intense artificial selection in
> academic and industrial laboratories all over the world on all kinds

> of plants and animalsi "this must be the equivalent of 150 billion

> years of natural selection" and yet not one single solitary example
> of cladogenesis as a result of accumulated anagenesis. Then there's
> Richard Lenski's 68,000 generations of E. coli up at the U of MI,
> with no speciation. The theory of Evolution is the most experimentally
> disconfirmed theory in the entire history of Science.

That's not true. The theory *as put by Darwin* is contradicted as
regards anagenesis and accumulated anagenesis, but only in that area
of detail. Stephen Gould's variation suffers no such contradictions.

> Both component parts of the theory "selection operating on mutation"
> are scientifically demonstrated by experiment to be in good working
> order. But the major prediction of the theory is found by exhaustive
> experimentation to be false.

That's not true. It's only the gradualism that's contradicted.

> The science is clear that no amount of
> accumulated anagenesis can cause species to transcend their biological
> boundaries. Why not???

The DNA molecules of different species don't match up: they can't combine.

> What a great question to research and study.

Might even be a Nobel in it. But not until they face up to the idiocy
of their "steady rate' hypothesis and their "eve" hypothesis.

> And a question that sadly won't be worked on until the last of the
> closed-minded, anti-inquiry evolutionists is finally laid to rest.

They *do* sound like physicists, don't they?

[Odd Bodkin]

Don’t confuse careful attention with what I did there.

[Ned Latham]

Odd Bodkin wrote:

----snip----

> Don't confuse careful attention with what I did there.

Or anywhere.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Shoo, trolls. Shoo (imp.), skedaddle.

[Tom Roberts]

On 12/17/19 1:54 PM, pats wrote:
> Einstein’s theory of relativity is a theory in crisis.

Not really, but it depends somewhat on what you mean. If you mean
SPECIAL relativity in the experimentally-reachable domain today, then
you are flat-out wrong. If you mean SR beyond that domain, then it is
not a "crisis", it is merely the usual issue of not being omniscient. If
you mean GENERAL relativity, then it is not really GR that is in crisis,
but rather all of fundamental theoretical physics -- we DON'T KNOW
whether it is GR, QM, or both that needs to be changed, we only know
that they are incompatible. We also know that the standard model [#] is
not self-consistent at some energy higher than our experiments can reach
today, so it is not at all inconceivable that it is QM that must change
the most, not GR. But GR is not a quantum theory, so it also seems
likely that it must be replaced with something else, generically called
"quantum gravity" but currently unknown.

[#] The standard model is the best model we have of quantum
phenomena and the behavior of elementary particles.

> Of those who actually study it, approximately half come away doubting its validity in spite of the experimental evidence.

Just making stuff up and pretending it is true is USELESS.

There have been 1000 - 1800 Ph.D. in physics awarded in the U.S. each
year (1972-2017), many more in other countries, and EVERY ONE of them
understands SR without "doubting its validity". Some fraction of them
understand GR as well, without you fantasized doubts. This COMPLETELY
DWARFS the thiny number of vocal crackpots who do indeed doubt the
validity of relativity, without understanding it.

> [... many more unsubstantiated claims, and much nonsense]

You need to come out of your fantasy world and join the real world.
Fantasies and made-up "statistics" are USELESS.

Tom Roberts

[Ross A. Finlayson]

(
Many dictionaries have "shoo" as an interjection,
or exclamation, but as an imperative it's not a
one-sided, uninterpreted, grunt.

I.e., "trolls, get thee shoo'd", not "shoo you".

Physicists culturally are not rarely among the more
humorous kinds of often the nerd-ish sort, eg for
differences between nerd-ish and gang-rish (gang-lish).
)

Pat: Proton/electron lifetime: if not infinite, then it's
part of a ratio about something else i.e. particles
that have zero lifetime but effectively exist briefly.

Electrons are slow, it's the holes that are fast and
define amperage/current. Fast-moving electrons,
aren't really electrons of the usual sort, though of
course in terms of Pauli they either are or aren't.

Electromagnetism has a slew of fields in a sense
like the particle physics has a zoo of particles. It's
important to remember there 's an 'A' potential
field before there's a 'B' magnetic flux density field,
about B, H and usual solutions to statics and dynamics
in electromagnetics. Maxwell lettered a slew of fields.

Ouside the magnetic field the field strength is
usually considered to be zero, but there's potential
attenuated out to infinity.

Consider (if you would) this article from Bork, 1967:
"Maxwell and the Vector Potential":
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/350221?journalCode=isis

"Sometimes we find an ontological statement that
the electric and magnetic fields are real quantities
but the potentials are mathematical fictions introduced
only for convenience in solving the basic equations of
electromagnetic theory. [...] I am interested in what
seems to be a historical form of the same idea. [...]
Here we investigate the introduction of the vector potential
in the work of James Clerk Maxwellm and we shall see that
the above view is far from accurate in representing the
historical situation."

(The "real" potential field might be as "wells" besides "vectors".)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_potential :

"In more advanced theories such as quantum mechanics,
most equations use potentials rather than ["real"] fields."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagneatic_four-potential

("Wells" or here for example "four-potentials".)

Scales of length and mass: 1 amu vis-a-vis Planck
length, superstring length, this is about issues at
scale where length to area to volume aren't the
usual fungible things. There are similar notions
about Schw. radius and other examples of white holes.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Thanks Tom.

I agree except that students of SR must
actually _test_ its validity besides _examine_ it
(or receive it).

I.e., unconditional acceptance is shallow, and different
kinds of thinkers or computers handle it very variously.

The "philosophical" approach might itself be weak, but
combined with the deliberate approach it's deep,
and thorough.

Thanks for your point that GR, QM, and a theory of gravity
are yet in the works about physics' search for unification
of theory.

Your point about statistic is two-sided, physics has quite
a bunch it depends upon in the statistics, as for what
Quantum Mechanics is inherently probabilistic even if
the actual wave might have an interpretation where
Heisenberg is re-interpreted as moot, after Bohm-deBroglie,
it's not just that there are Bose-Einstein and Dirac-Fermi
and parastatistics as parameterized, for tuning or model-fitting,
but the theory of probability _owes_ physics more than the
Central Limit Theorem.

[pat]

On Tuesday, December 17, 2019 at 8:10:16 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:

ANSWER MY PROBLEM Tom Roberts or admit defeat. Like Bodkin, you will never, ever show us your work or you solution to my problem. I am by far the more formidable relativist, but only as a means, as R.A. Finlayson might put it. I can show you why the Dolan paradox is insoluble because I AM THE BETTER MAN, THE BETTER THINKER. PROVE ME WRONG.

TAKE A LOO...JUST A MINUTE, MY CAPS KEY IS STUCK...take a look a how Dono slithered away into the shadows under the same challenge and provocation. And how Bodkin was all bluster but no calculation. I rule here and don't forget it!

[Odd Bodkin]

That sentence right there is where you put a hole in your own shoe with
your pistol.

>
> TAKE A LOO...JUST A MINUTE, MY CAPS KEY IS STUCK...take a look a how Dono
> slithered away into the shadows under the same challenge and provocation.
> And how Bodkin was all bluster but no calculation. I rule here and don't forget it!
>

[Dono,]

On Wednesday, December 18, 2019 at 1:30:44 AM UTC-8, pat wrote:

> ANSWER MY PROBLEM Tom Roberts or admit defeat. Like Bodkin, you will never, ever show us your work or you solution to my problem.

What "problem", cretinoid?

[Odd Bodkin]

Calculating centrifugal force in GR.

He’s just being an asshat.

[Dono,]

We already gave (the same) answer. ZERO.
patty-boy IS an asshat.

[pd]

Two rock climbers are halfway up Half Dome when their rope breaks. One learned Newton. The other Learned Einstein. Einstein's student doesn't survive because of 0 and 0. Both are just as dead.

Calculate in newtons the magnitudes of the centrifugal force and the gravitational force observed to be acting on the earth as it orbits the sun, by a distant observer traveling at .9c relative to the solar system along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis of rotation. Show your work.

If your answer is 0 and 0 then show us how you calculated it, if you can. If you cannot then be man or Sylvia enough to admit it.

[Dono,]

Asshat patty

In the frame of the Sun, coplanar with the Earth orbit we select the axes as follows:

z pointing East
y pointing South
x perpendicular on the yz plane (the orbital plane of the Earth)

In this frame, the Earth speed components are:

v_x=0 (obviously)
v_y=\omegaR cos \omega t
v_z=- \omega R sin \omega t


The components of the gravitational force in this frame are:

F_x=0
F_y=\frac{GmM}{R^2}sin \omega t
F_z=\frac{GmM}{R^2}cos \omega t

In the frame attached to imbecile patty dolan whizzing at v=0.9c along the x axis, the forces are:

F'_x=F_x-\frac{v/c^2(F_y*v_y+F_z*v_z}{1-v*v_x/c^2}=0-0=0

F'_y=\frac{F_y}{\gamma*(1-v*v_x/c^2)}=\frac{F_y}{\gamma}

F'_z=\frac{F_z}{\gamma}

\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}

Now, eat my shit, asshole

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Light's speed is c: in a vacuum, in deep space.

(Approximately.)

Boyer saves some of his most emphatic points in
"The Rainbow:..." for the closing pages:

"The structure of vibrating atoms is vastly more
complicated than the few simple motions proposed
by Huygens, Newton, Young, Fresnel, and Maxwell.
In 1887, the year before Hertz discovered his waves,
Stokes wrote of the wave theory as ''a thing at the
present day resting on evidence quite overwhelming''.
Today the situation has changed so radically that as
to occasion the facetious remark that physicists accept
the wave theory three days a week and hold to the
corpuscular doctrine three days a week, and every
seventh day they humbly admit their lack of understanding."

"[Boitel] concluded that ''the theory of Airy seems to
need to be completed.'' Moreover, through very carefully
conducted experiments of his own, Boitel obtained results
not entirely consistent with those from the Airy integral,
and he suggested that ''the theory of Airy is therefore but
a first approximation.'' How familiar a situation this is
in the history of science, and especially in the story of
the rainbow! What one generation hails as a ''complete
theory'', the next relegates to the status of a ''first
approximation''."

"Pernter took particular pains to point out the inadequacy
of the Cartesian explanation and to clarify the theory of
Airy. As he pointed out, the phrase ''Cartesian effective
ray'' is misleading. It is not the only effective ray; and, indeed,
Airy had shown that among all the effective rays, it is not
even the most efficacious. The phrase ''least deviated'' is
the correct designation for DesCartes' ray."

"Pernter reiterated that the geometrical [corpuscular,
rectilinear] theory cannot account for any of these
variations, and ''inasmuch as it only holds for drops of
infinite radius, it must be completely abandoned.'' While
Pernter's extreme position is of course correct, in a strict
sense, the Cartesian theory has remained the backbone of
the schoolboy's explanation of the rainbow because it
affords so eminently clear and direct a first approximation."


"Aesthetes were grieved at Newton's simple materialistic
explanation of color. But if they could know of the intricate
maze of creative mathematics required for the study of the
rainbow, they would realize how misguided they are - or else
how thoroughly avenged! Within a raindrop the interaction
of light energy with matter is so intimate that one is led directly
to quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity."

"The corpuscular and wave theories of light seem to have
far more in common than Newton and Huygens had ever
dreamed, for in 1924 Louis de Broglie (b.1892) established
a synthesis of views in which light is made up of tiny entities
dragging trains of waves with them."

[pat]

Dono,

Do you realize you are trying to snow one of the world's greatest forensic relativists with a bunch of algebra. My expertise lies EXACTLY in exposing the very flaws that the algebra hides. Your mind has been softened by years of writing algebraic verse, the likes of which Mitch might write if he knew some algebra (No slight intended Mitch. I love your physical phree verse).

So let's solve this crime together using fact witnesses: THE ACTUAL NUMBERS.

Step 1. a distant observer at rest wrt the Solar System and on a line collinear with the axis of the sun's rotation uses a very powerful telescope to observe the small hand on Big Bend in London while the earth orbits the sun.

Question 1. How many times does our observer see the little hand go around Big Ben for every 2pi revolution that the earth makes around the Sun?

You too Bodkin. Come over here and take the seat next to Dono. This will be beneficial for you too.

[Dono,]

Keep eating my shit, patty

[Barry Aecca]

Dono, wrote:

>> > Dono slithered away into the shadows under the same challenge and
>> > provocation. And how Bodkin was all bluster but no calculation. I
>> > rule here and don't forget it!
>>
>> Dono,
>> Do you realize you are trying to snow one of the world's greatest
>> forensic relativists with a bunch of algebra.
>
> Keep eating my shit, patty

No problem.

[pat]

On Wednesday, December 18, 2019 at 11:31:40 AM UTC-8, pat wrote:

Now Dono ""Keep eating my shit, patty" is neither a real, rational, complex, cardinal, natural nor p-adic number. Did I see Barry Aecca's hand raised? Bodkin's head is on the desk, he has fallen asleep again.

[Dono,]

Dumbestfuck,

You demanded the solution, you were given the solution but you are reduced to trolling since you can't read and understand it. So, you are reduced to shit-eating.

[pat]

Dono, I was given no answer to MY question by you. You answered your own question. I've been using that same tactic when you were still learning your first curse words. Here is my prediction: you will NEVER answer MY "show the work" question. Neither will Bodkin, Barry, or anyone else. It will stand eternal. I have resigned myself to that fact. And I am proud of that fact. However, there is still one person whose answer I would appreciate and value, if only for the esthetic aspect...

Mitch, if you please. You will be more interesting than Dono, et. al.

[Dono,]

Asshat patty

You are too imbecile to figure out that your "problem" has been answered. Face it, you are a cretin.

In the frame of the Sun, coplanar with the Earth orbit we select the axes as follows:

z pointing East
y pointing South
x perpendicular on the yz plane (the orbital plane of the Earth)

In this frame, the Earth speed components are:

v_x=0 (obviously)

v_y=\omega R cos \omega t

[pat]

Don't change the subject Dono. Save the fake algebra is for the beginners, not for your superiors.

Distant observer at rest wrt to Solar system. Big Ben. Small hand. Number of revolution around face per revolution of earth around sun. Now!

Everyone is watching.

[Odd Bodkin]

pd <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 18, 2019 at 8:58:14 AM UTC-8, Dono, wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 18, 2019 at 8:50:48 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> Dono, <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, December 18, 2019 at 1:30:44 AM UTC-8, pat wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ANSWER MY PROBLEM Tom Roberts or admit defeat. Like Bodkin, you will
>>>>> never, ever show us your work or you solution to my problem.
>>>>
>>>> What "problem", cretinoid?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Calculating centrifugal force in GR.
>>>
>>> He’s just being an asshat.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>
>> We already gave (the same) answer. ZERO.
>> patty-boy IS an asshat.
>
> Two rock climbers are halfway up Half Dome when their rope breaks. One
> learned Newton. The other Learned Einstein. Einstein's student doesn't
> survive because of 0 and 0. Both are just as dead.

That’s right. There is a collision between the rock climber and the earth
which kills the climber, even with GR.

But what you’re saying is that the only way you can conceive of this
outcome is if there is a force of gravity Newtonian style that is causing
it. No other conceptual framework seems to work for you and do you ask all
other frameworks to be translated into Newtonian forces.

So two follow up comments:

1. It’s clear you have no idea how everyday ideas like “falling” or
“orbiting” or “deflecting” are conceptually framed in GR.

2. You seem to be oblivious to the fact that quantum electrodynamics, the
theory of the electromagnetic interaction that is the most exquisitely
verified theory of all time, does not express those interactions in terms
of forces either. Same for the strong and weak nuclear interactions.

>
> Calculate in newtons the magnitudes of the centrifugal force and the
> gravitational force observed to be acting on the earth as it orbits the
> sun, by a distant observer traveling at .9c relative to the solar system
> along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis of rotation. Show your work.
>
> If your answer is 0 and 0 then show us how you calculated it, if you can.
> If you cannot then be man or Sylvia enough to admit it.
>

You mean “show me”. And since you couldn’t be bothered to crack even a
basic book on the subject, the answer is “no”. Not catering to the
pathologically lazy.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 18-dec.-2019 om 22:00 schreef pat:

> On Wednesday, December 18, 2019 at 12:52:57 PM UTC-8, pat wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 18, 2019 at 12:19:45 PM UTC-8, pat wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, December 18, 2019 at 11:31:40 AM UTC-8, pat wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, December 18, 2019 at 1:30:44 AM UTC-8, pd wrote:

[snip self-talk]

> Everyone is watching.

Yes, you bet they are:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnzHtm1jhL4

Dirk Vdm

[p]

Dirk doth lirk. Yes, a little overstated to be sure. But only to push Dono's buttons--buttons I only know too well. We are of the same vintage I see. When I was in high school, the guys in college thought your video was so cool. They also thought that Tom Lehr singing about elements...I just thought they were dumb.

*You mean “show me”. And since you couldn’t be bothered to crack even a

basic book on the subject, the answer is “no”. Not catering to the

pathologically lazy.*

How convient for you Bodkin.

I grant your conventional 0 and 0 answer as claimed by Einstein. My point is that neither you nor anyone else can demonstrate it by means of the tools of Einstein. Or move from the general (Einstein) to the particular (Newton) and derive Newtonian values, values that will kill a climber, by means of Einstein's teachings. In fact, I claim it an impossibility because Einstein is inconsistent. And I can demonstrate this by calculation. Whereas you are unwilling and unable to demonstrate the opposite.

It all starts with Big Ben's little hand. En garde? I'll get Mitch.

[Odd Bodkin]

p <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 18, 2019 at 2:09:26 PM UTC-8, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> Op 18-dec.-2019 om 22:00 schreef pat:
>>> On Wednesday, December 18, 2019 at 12:52:57 PM UTC-8, pat wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, December 18, 2019 at 12:19:45 PM UTC-8, pat wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, December 18, 2019 at 11:31:40 AM UTC-8, pat wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 18, 2019 at 1:30:44 AM UTC-8, pd wrote:
>>
>> [snip self-talk]
>>
>>> Everyone is watching.
>>
>> Yes, you bet they are:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnzHtm1jhL4
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> Dirk doth lirk. Yes, a little overstated to be sure. But only to push
> Dono's buttons--buttons I only know too well. We are of the same vintage
> I see. When I was in high school, the guys in college thought your video
> was so cool. They also thought that Tom Lehr singing about elements...I
> just thought they were dumb.
>
> *You mean “show me”. And since you couldn’t be bothered to crack even a
> basic book on the subject, the answer is “no”. Not catering to the
> pathologically lazy.*
>
> How convient for you Bodkin.
>
> I grant your conventional 0 and 0 answer as claimed by Einstein. My
> point is that neither you nor anyone else can demonstrate it by means of
> the tools of Einstein.

You cannot read.

Quantum electrodynamics does not characterize the electromagnetic
interaction as a force. Asking QED to produce an answer for the
electromagnetic force is like asking a fish for a ride to the train
station. A force is a concept that applies only to Newtonian physics.

GR does not characterize the gravitational interaction as a force. Asking
GR to produce an answer for a gravitational force is like asking an
obstetrician for a dishwasher. A force is a concept that applies only to
Newtonian physics.

There IS NO POINT in asking modern physics to calculate Newtonian values
for a concept (force) that applies only in a Newtonian description.

Now, you might well ask, how does falling in GR happen without using a
Newtonian force? And the answer to that, you lazy dim bulb, is obtained by
READING, not by trying to wheedle, cajole, dare, or taunt for answers on
Usenet.

> Or move from the general (Einstein) to the particular (Newton) and derive
> Newtonian values, values that will kill a climber, by means of Einstein's
> teachings. In fact, I claim it an impossibility because Einstein is
> inconsistent. And I can demonstrate this by calculation. Whereas you
> are unwilling and unable to demonstrate the opposite.
>
> It all starts with Big Ben's little hand. En garde? I'll get Mitch.
>

[Tom Roberts]

On 12/18/19 3:30 AM, pat wrote:
> ANSWER MY PROBLEM

Your "problem" is of the form:

Calculate how strongly invisible blue fairies push on earth
as it orbits the sun.

Yes, "centrifugal force" is an invisible blue fairy in GR. And in SR. In
Newtonian mechanics it is a blue fairy that can be visible in certain
physical situations.

That is, of course, all metaphor.But this isn't:

You don't even know enough about basic physics to ask sensible questions.

Tom Roberts

[Ross A. Finlayson]

On Wednesday, December 18, 2019 at 11:31:40 AM UTC-8, pat wrote:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Patrick_Dolan2

A Patrick Dolan of Imperial College writes interesting
papers in physics since the 1960's.

These days the poster might be a shallow-fake chat-bot.

https://books.google.com/books?id=VWKhEf6Q8A4C&lpg=PA141&ots=sqFaI5l9kH&dq=Dolan%20Pat%20S%201968%20electromagnetic&pg=PA141#v=onepage&q=Dolan%20Pat%20S%201968%20electromagnetic&f=false

"Nuclear Science Abstracts, Vol.24, No. 1"

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Looking at a copy of "Problem book in relativity and gravitation",
1975, Princeton U.P., "...almost 500 problems and solutions in the
fields of special relativity, general relativity, gravitation,
relativistic astrophysics, and cosmology".

"The collection is motivated by a simple premise: that the
most important content of this field does not lie in its
rigorous axiomatic development, nor, necessarily, in its
intrinsic aesthetic beauty, but rather does lie in computable
results, predictions, and models for phenomena in the
real universe."

The authors "also try to show the reader ''good'' ways
to compute things, methods and tricks which can vastly
reduce the labor of a plug-in and grind-away approach,
but we also try to avoid the opposite pitfall of introducing
too much confusing but powerful formalism for an easy problem."

"... unless noted otherwise throughout this book, we use units
in which c, the speed of light, is unity."

Problem 1.6: "Tachyons are hypothetical particles whose velocity is
faster than light. Suppose that a tachyon transmitter emits particles
of a constant velocity u > c in its rest frame. [...] Show that ... the
reply can be received before the signal is sent!"

[That appears to depend on the solution to 1.2
"Show that the boosts, in x then y, performed in
the reverse order would give a different transformation."]

Problem 1.11 refers to Sagnac.

1.23: "There is a special class of Lorentz transformations -
called the ''little group of p'', which leave the components of
p (p_0 = p^x = E, p_y = p^z = 0) unchanged, e.g. a pure rotation
through an angle alpha in the y-z plane [example] is such a
transformation. Find a sequence of pure boosts and pure
rotations whose product is _not_ a pure rotation in the y-z plane,
but _is_ in the little group of p."


1.28: "What is the least number of pure boosts which generate
an arbitrary Lorentz transformation?"

Answer 1.23 says "make an arbitrary boost", then "a pure rotation
lines up the coordinate frame again", but that "p^x doesn't
have its original magnitude", then "boost along p^x again".

"You can easily convince yourself that the product of these
transformations is not a pure rotation, there is in general
a net boost left over."

But, in 1.2 there isn't "a pure rotation
lines up the coordinate frame again".


About 1.28, matrix multiplication, and gimbal lock,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimbal_lock , about
the irreversibility of the application of boost, and some
pathological Lorentz transformation, is the "chasing its tail".

(I.e. stop hitting yourself.)


Einstein tensor
Riemann tensor
Weyl tensor
Ricci tensor

10.8: A metric is ''stationary'' if and only if it has a
Killing vector field E which is timelike at infinity
(the ''time'' direction is d/dt). There are [at least]
two ways to define a ''static'' metric:
(i) stationary and invariant under time reversal, d/dt = -d/dt, or
(ii) stationary and d/dt is hypersurface orthogonal (see Problem 7.23)
Show that the two definitions are equivalent.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_vector

The wiki article describes wave vectors about
SR and crystallography, where, these days,
Christoffel is about working up what happens
when space relaxes as about some infinitely-fine
lattice gauge theory.

"The direction in which the wave vector points
must be distinguished form the ''direction of
wave propagation''. The ''direction of wave
propagation'' is the direction of a wave's energy
flow, and the direction that a small wave packet
will move, i.e. the direction of the group velocity.
In other words, the wave vector points in the normal
direction to the surfaces of constant phase,
also called wavefronts."


Looking at a copy of Louck's "Augmented Plane
Wave Method", (Frontiers in Physics, a Lecture
and Preprint Series, 1967), from the beginning
of the foreword, "The problem of communicating
in a coherent fashion the recent developments in
the most exciting and active fields in physics
seems particularly pressing today. The enormous
growth in the number of physicists has tended to
make the familiar channels of communication
considerably less effective. It has become increasingly
difficult for experts in a given field to keep up with
the current literature; the novice can only be confused.
What is needed is both a consistent account of a field
and the presentation of a definite ''point of view''
concerning it."


"The [Augmented Plane Wave] method was originated
in 1937 by J.C. Slater. Of course, at that time there were
no high speed computers available."


"Descriptions of the other methods commonly used in
energy band calculations [...] include the tight-binding
method, the cellular method, the orthogonalized plane
wave (OPW) method, the pseudopotential method
and the Green's function method."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudopotential

Pseudopotential: not quite all the potential.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

"An electron outside the metal experiences
a polarization force towards the metal, the
so-called image force. While this is not a
true potential, it may nevertheless be
included in the potential energy diagram
as a rounding-off of the well edge."

(https://books.google.com/books?id=OWTlBwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA1267&ots=bfiSN8s3Z_&dq=%22energy%20band%22%20%22true%20potential%22&pg=PA1267#v=onepage&q=%22energy%20band%22%20%22true%20potential%22&f=false)

"London dispersion force
[instantaneous dipole-induced dipole force]
is the weakest intermolecular force."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_dispersion_force#Quantum_mechanical_theory_of_dispersion_forces

"Neglecting the mean-field interaction outside
the potential well gives raise to a major formal
simplification, since it makes possible to
analytically calculate the transport properties
of the system in terms of incoming and outgoing
waves and resonances and bound state are
obtained in closed form."

"Superfluid flow above the critical velocity"
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-08941-8

Still not quite the true potential....

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Tom Roberts wrote:

> […] We also know that the standard model [#] is not self-consistent at

> some energy higher than our experiments can reach today,

The standard model (of particle physics) is already not self-consistent
anymore because of neutrino oscillations *detected* at (relatively) *low*
energies, or is it?

--
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
<https://github.com/PointedEars> | <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | Please do not cc me./Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[Tom Roberts]

On 12/19/19 12:50 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>
>> […] We also know that the standard model [#] is not self-consistent at
>> some energy higher than our experiments can reach today,
>
> The standard model (of particle physics) is already not self-consistent
> anymore because of neutrino oscillations *detected* at (relatively) *low*
> energies, or is it?

The standard model has morphed to easily accommodate neutrino
oscillations. But what happens above 14 TeV [#] is completely unknown
(no experiments). The equations of the SM clearly fail at sufficiently
high energy, which most theorists thought would happen below 14 TeV.
Indeed this is a "puzzle" that rivals the puzzles of dark matter and
dark energy for GR; any of these puzzles could potentially become
well-enough established to refute the theory.

[#] The highest energy of the LHC.

Tom Roberts

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Scientific dogma of physics includes that it changes.

(The content of the working theories, not
necessarily the philosophy of the science and
otherwise the technical philosophy underpinning
the reasoning.)

The central dogma of physics is fair causality,
interpreted with the scientific method.

[Mitch Raemsch]

On Sunday, December 15, 2019 at 7:08:21 PM UTC-8, patd...@comcast.net wrote:
> I have truly enjoyed reading Mr. Finlayson’s posts to this forum. He certainly lives up to his boast “I consider myself a pro-relativist, as a means”. He has a command of the subject matter that is unmatched in this forum; which is quite obvious from the hands-off attitude that Dono, Bodkin, et al have adopted towards him. He documents well and writes even weller. He slings the Latin better than any previous Latin slinger. His paraconsistent logic is para-flawless. And he loves to hate on the muons as much as I. But this new man Finlayson has come too far, too fast for my tastes. As astonishing an admission as it might seem, I believe him to be threatening my primacy as the top relativity slayer around these parts.
>
> Therefore, in order to re-establish my title (or to finally lose it once and for all) I do hereby challenge Mr. Ross A. Finlayson to a dual as to which of us can devise the most outrageous and hilarious reductio ad absurdum argument against Relativity, Special or General.
>
> Do you accept sir?
>
> (I hereby select Mitch as my second.)

God creates gravity.
What can you do Roy masters?

Mitchell Raemsch

[Barry Aecca]

kiss ass.. etc

[Tom Roberts]

On 12/19/19 2:10 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> The central dogma of physics is fair causality,
> interpreted with the scientific method.

I have no idea what your "fair" means, but causality as a central tenet
of physics died with quantum mechanics. Of course it was outrageously
ambiguous long before that.

Today what physicists mean by "causality" is merely the restriction of
things that can affect what happens at a given event to that event's
past lightcone (including its interior). More accurately, that is called
the "causal structure of spacetime".

Tom Roberts

[Ned Latham]

Tom Roberts wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >
> > The central dogma of physics is fair causality,
> > interpreted with the scientific method.
>
> I have no idea what your "fair" means, but causality as a central tenet
> of physics died with quantum mechanics.

Neither of them died.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

About waves and resonances:

Leafing through a copy of "Enzyme Physics", Vol'Kenshtein, 1967,
translated from the Russian, Plenum Press, there's a mention of
Schnol in the chaper "Macromolecular Properties of Enzymes"
and this:

'[Schnol] suggested that the protein conformation varies, a process
accompanied by a change in the hydrophilic-hydrophobic properties
of the globule surface, which causes rearrangement of the water
structure. The ''hydrophilic-hydrophobic waves'' propagating in
the water cause coupling of the molecular vibrations and result
in their becoming synchronized throughout the entire solution
volume. The vibrations must have acoustic frequencies. These
results, although still partial, may be correlated with the drop
module of the globule. Another conceivable mechanism of
vibration - energy accumulation in the enzyme-substrate complex
is based on consideration of optical vibrations with frequencies
in the infrared region rather than acoustic vibrations. We will
proceed from the theory of thermal unimolecular decomposition.
Let us imagine a chemical bond incorporated into a complex system
of other bonds. The system as a whole undergoes thermal fluctuations.
There is a finite probability that energy sufficient for rupture will
accumulate at a given bond. This process is obviously impossible
for an isolated bond. It would appear that complexing of the
substrate and the enzyme can make it possible for energy to
accumulate at the substrate bonds."

Vol'Kenshtein notes "This notion is very attractive, but, unfortunately,
erroneous. [...]. The average vibration frequency in the enzyme-
substrate complex cannot differ materially from the vibration frequency
of the bonds in the substrate molecule."

Later, though, "According to Schnol, it is possible to detect
synchronous acoustic oscillations of protein molecules in
aqueous solution. "

"The oscillation interaction produces resonance and frequency
splitting. Attachment of a substrate to one globule throws it
out of resonance. Attachment of this same substrate to an
adjacent globule restores the resonance, but at different frequencies.
Let us evaluate the corresponding changes in free energy. [....]"


Here the point is about resonances and the macromolecular,
here in relation to the wave and wavefront of wave transport.

"Let us clarify the conditions under which this relationship
is satisfied."

[Ross A. Finlayson]

"First principles" / "Final cause" considerations are
usual tenets of physics since antiquity.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/

Heisenberg with uncertainty, has that another way to
look at uncertainty is that it is among the issues of
observer effect / measurement effect / sampling effect /
counting effect.

I.e., the particle does have a given position and momentum
at any given time, just, the system is so fine-grained that
measurements necessarily involve imprecision.

There are some people who believe that the wave
equation (eg Schroedinger's) does have real solutions.

Let's be clear that any "violations of causality" are
_only_ hypothetical, and that, the "real" causality is the
strongest invariance, whether or not we actually know what it is.


The statistical ensemble is of course about a study of
random variables with unknown distributions using the
guarantees of probability theory.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

(Some mentions of Schnol:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1309.3950
https://arxiv.org/abs/0708.1501
https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.04603

"We also establish the connection between
the almost sure spectrum of long range random operators and
the spectra of deterministic periodic operators."
)

[Ross A. Finlayson]

(Cf. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/

"Indeed, Heisenberg says:
''The uncertainty relation does not hold for the past.''"

Cf. "Stop at the HUP-emitter, duh", sci.physics
)

[Ross A. Finlayson]

For some people, it's important to have uncertainty and
multiple-worlds so that they aren't convinced they have
no free will, or that their future is decided by "fate".
For others free will is essentially an admission of
limits of knowledge and that free will effectively exists.
(I.e. free will can't be disproven.)

I.e., vis-a-vis Einstein's "G-d does not play dice",
which is a usual reference to his rejection of
non-causality,
besides whether a
non-continuous and not
at least quasi-Euclidean space-time
is only hypothetical,
"G-d rolled one die, once, and it's still rolling".

There are many restitutive besides entropic
organizations in systems as effectively establish
"destiny" besides "fate".

Eg, Newton's objects stay in motion (or, rest),
besides that according to particle-wave duality
they also resonate.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

(Re "real wave equation", see also
https://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physfaq/topics/realWave
via
https://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physfaq/physics-faq.html .
)

[Tom Roberts]

On 12/20/19 12:30 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> Let's be clear that any "violations of causality" are
> _only_ hypothetical,

This is just plain not true. The decays of unstable particles are not
"caused" by anything. They most definitely are NOT "hypothetical" and
are observed every day.

There are many other phenomena that can be described only via
statistical techniques. For instance, when two protons collide with
energy > 1 TeV, the result can be any one out of millions of different
final states. Which one actually happens is not "caused" by anything.

> [... more nonsense]

Tom Roberts

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Radioactive isotopes eventually decay,
to, stabler isotopes,
in deep space in a vacuum.

(There's an ongoing consideration that
terrene iron Fe sits in the middle of
radioactive stability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_iron )

That is, radioactive isotopes in neutron bombardment
often transmute to elements with higher atomic weight,
but, such high energy neutron bombardment is not
a usual condition in deep space in a vacuum, where there
are effectively no contributions to the field effects from
any other system.

Here unstable or transient particles besides, a.k.a.
"exotic" "particles", are part of the states of systems
that have these intermediate particles as what are
the decay products of high-energy reactions, as
they are, for their natural tendency to equilibriate
(to lower energy states as what energetic states
have a tendency to change, then for naturally the
symmetric and restitutive reaction for stability).

In particle theory everything's a particle.
Transition states over time have them be
one particle or another.

When talking about single-valued results
(eg at the detector)
in multi-valued systems
(eg, over and past the particle's sum-of-histories in its transport as a wave),
the methods to arrive at single-valued results
are usually very effective and sound in the
resulting match of measurement to expectation.

Decay of un-stable particles is be-cause they're un-stable.

(This is a usual principle of least action,
that stable particles are stable.)

In no way ever does any real thing ever "violate causality".

I.e., if it really seems to: there theory would be
one of the varieties of "wrong" (of "the" laws of physics,
constant, consistent, complete, and concrete).

Causality is built into the scientific method,
with falsifiability as about theory's cause.

Of course, any theory has that, of hypothetical
theories, there are other theories where what it
has so: are not so. The suitability of "a theory" for
science with reproducibility has that
breaking the theory is breaking the theory (or model).


I'll certainly agree that "hidden variables" are implicit
in probabilistic theories with random variables and
unknown distributions.

(I.e., that's rather the point.)


The sampling, observation, and measurement effects are
of aptly more than one cause, in all the unknowns,
besides as that for one unknown there's only one cause.

[Ned Latham]

Tom Roberts wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >
> > Let's be clear that any "violations of causality" are
> > _only_ hypothetical,
>
> This is just plain not true. The decays of unstable particles are not
> "caused" by anything.

That is one *very* stupid hypothesis. A sensible alternative would be
that unstable particles tend to fracture at structurally weak points
under the stress of collision or their spin.

> They most definitely are NOT "hypothetical" and
> are observed every day.

And there's no violation of causality.

> There are many other phenomena that can be described only via
> statistical techniques. For instance, when two protons collide with
> energy > 1 TeV, the result can be any one out of millions of different
> final states. Which one actually happens is not "caused" by anything.

You can't *see* cause, that's all.

Try thinking.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

If you'd _please_ be polite and respectful, for where
the bombast incendiary gets read by everybody not just
their intended target and besides that it's uncouth,
there are many varying perspectives on the role of
determinism in physics and particularly quantum and
nuclear physics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Transactional_interpretation

If you have any point at all it carries just fine _politely_,
where the only people swayed by invective are haters and the cowed.

I.e., this is a setting about shared inference
not mutually unilateral tarnation.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory

Of the interpretations on the Wiki I don't see one with
real wave collapse and also no time-reversal symmetry,
because time-reversal symmetry's never been observed falsified,
so I tend to interpret Bohm-deBroglie as with a real wave function
(the wave function of a collapse of a wave to a particle).

This also has that particles are virtual until they're measured.


Quantum mechanics? Continuum mechanics.

[Ned Latham]

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Let's be clear that any "violations of causality" are
> > > > _only_ hypothetical,
> > >
> > > This is just plain not true. The decays of unstable particles are not
> > > "caused" by anything.
> >
> > That is one *very* stupid hypothesis. A sensible alternative would be
> > that unstable particles tend to fracture at structurally weak points
> > under the stress of collision or their spin.
> >
> > > They most definitely are NOT "hypothetical" and
> > > are observed every day.
> >
> > And there's no violation of causality.
> >
> > > There are many other phenomena that can be described only via
> > > statistical techniques. For instance, when two protons collide with
> > > energy > 1 TeV, the result can be any one out of millions of different
> > > final states. Which one actually happens is not "caused" by anything.
> >
> > You can't *see* cause, that's all.
> >
> > Try thinking.
>
> If you'd _please_ be polite and respectful, for where
> the bombast incendiary gets read by everybody not just
> their intended target and besides that it's uncouth,

I'd regard that as a fair summation if it included Roberts's behaviour.

> there are many varying perspectives on the role of
> determinism in physics and particularly quantum and
> nuclear physics.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Transactional_interpretation

For my money QM shouldn't *be* "interpreted".

> If you have any point at all it carries just fine _politely_,
> where the only people swayed by invective are haters and the cowed.
>
> I.e., this is a setting about shared inference
> not mutually unilateral tarnation.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory

That's getting closer to what I see as realistic. I would not attribute
the wave function with the ability to "guide" the particle[1], and I'd
ditch the "collapse" idea.

> Of the interpretations on the Wiki I don't see one with
> real wave collapse and also no time-reversal symmetry,

I reject the hypothesis of time as a phenomenon and a dimension of the
continuum; I view it as a noumenon; like Number it exists only in the
mind of man. Time reversal cannot occur.

> because time-reversal symmetry's never been observed falsified,
> so I tend to interpret Bohm-deBroglie as with a real wave function
> (the wave function of a collapse of a wave to a particle).
>
> This also has that particles are virtual until they're measured.

No wave function "guiding" particles, no wave collapses into particles,
no time reversals or dilations: just statistical predictions of the
movements of particles, which are real, never virtual.

> Quantum mechanics? Continuum mechanics.

Continuum statistics.

[1] The idea that a formula can itself affect a physical process is a
wild and woolly misapprehension of cause/effect: formulae *describe*
physical processes.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 12/19/19 12:50 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> […] We also know that the standard model [#] is not self-consistent at
>>> some energy higher than our experiments can reach today,
>>
>> The standard model (of particle physics) is already not self-consistent
>> anymore because of neutrino oscillations *detected* at (relatively) *low*
>> energies, or is it?
>
> The standard model has morphed to easily accommodate neutrino

> oscillations. […]

AFAIK the standard model requires neutrinos to have mass zero, but neutrino
oscillations are only possible if the mass of neutrinos is NOT zero.

AFAIK/AIUI this requires an extension of the standard model, contradicting
your claim.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

The idea is that the wave vector points to the particle.

Statistical means non-deterministic and it's via
a careful application of probability theory that
risks in statistical decision-making are minimized,
not eliminated, as what classical solutions offer.


I don't know what bad example you're following
to try and intimidate or embarrass people
into thinking or behavior,
if you walk around with carrots it's fine
but swinging a stick's one step away from
getting put the mad dog down.


Kant was a platonist, too. What "Ned Latham" has
there is a selfish objectivist interpretation. It's
not that there's anything wrong with that -
it's a usual stop in the passage into intellectual
maturity and depth, in the higher consciousness of self,
it's wrong to dwell in it, though, or not get past it.
Also it's not inherently scientific, and, doesn't communicate.

(It's fine to revel in it, though, a nice place to visit.)


Mathematical platonism has numbers exist,
a mathematical universe hypothesis even that they're real,
then for that theory arrives at a science,
courtesy _conscientiousness_. (Fairness.)


Thinking that one's thinking makes the world though
is just the wrong hallucination.


"Continuum statistics"? I'm interested in
mathematical continuity, if you don't believe
in real numbers or some such sense then
the ray of time won't offer a clock hypothesis.

What's a "continuum statistics"?

[Ned Latham]

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

----snip----

> "Continuum statistics"? I'm interested in
> mathematical continuity, if you don't believe
> in real numbers or some such sense then
> the ray of time won't offer a clock hypothesis.

You're way off. What I said is that Number and Time are noumena;
they exist, but only in the mind of man.

> What's a "continuum statistics"?

Think of QM as a quantification of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

But, I don't necessarily care what you say.

Quanta are individuated components,
individua, of continua
(for the quantitative besides qualitative ).

Quantum theory follows atomic theory following atomism.

The hydrogen atom, among atomic elements as chemistry
explains, is about 10^15 smaller than us. Planck regime
is about another 10^20 smaller than that. Superstrings
are about 10^50 smaller than us.

Those scales are still discrete,
real mathematical infinitesimals
as of a mathematical continuum
are infinitely smaller than us.

The anthropic argument includes that
we have the opportunity to be thinking beings
about in the middle of the scale of things.

And, there are definitely varieties in that.

[Ned Latham]

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:

----snip----

> > > What's a "continuum statistics"?
> >
> > Think of QM as a quantification of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
>
> But, I don't necessarily care what you say.

Okay. Don't think.

----snip----

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Trepaning is an ancient and usually obsolete
surgical method to reduce swelling in the brain.


Stachel writes an interesting paper
"Structure, Individuality and Quantum Gravity",
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0507078 .


Quantization is a usual term applied in physics,
quantification is a usual term applied in logic.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

In fact Stachel writes a bunch of very interesting papers.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

(Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorana_fermion )

[Julio Di Egidio]

On Saturday, 21 December 2019 04:41:55 UTC+1, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Friday, December 20, 2019 at 5:29:50 PM UTC-8, Ned Latham wrote:
> > Tom Roberts wrote:

<snip>

> > > There are many other phenomena that can be described only via
> > > statistical techniques. For instance, when two protons collide with
> > > energy > 1 TeV, the result can be any one out of millions of different
> > > final states. Which one actually happens is not "caused" by anything.
> >
> > You can't *see* cause, that's all.
> >
> > Try thinking.
>
> If you'd _please_ be polite and respectful, for where
> the bombast incendiary gets read by everybody not just
> their intended target and besides that it's uncouth,

You fucking stupid agent of the enemy, Roberts is indeed always just talking
cheap bullshit out of his agency-paid ass, while the "target" you are talking
about is on the verge of total *extinction* together with all life and
intelligence on this planet, thanks to you and your cheap and vile denial
of all that in fact counts.

> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Transactional_interpretation>

Indeed, you fucking idiot and dog of the vilest empire, you are the typical
example of a retarded fucking cunt, always just defending the worst filth, and
another instance of argument from authority, essentially.

Fuck you too.

Julio

[Ross A. Finlayson]

On Friday, December 20, 2019 at 10:30:47 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Friday, December 20, 2019 at 7:03:06 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
> >
> > Today what physicists mean by "causality" is merely the restriction of
> > things that can affect what happens at a given event to that event's
> > past lightcone (including its interior). More accurately, that is called
> > the "causal structure of spacetime".
> >
>

> "First principles" / "Final cause" considerations are
> usual tenets of physics since antiquity.
>

Reading Guth's "The Inflationary Universe" is a
not uninteresting recollection of events surrounding
the inception and development of inflation as
basically following Hubble and Le Maitre about
the Big-Bang theory as would usually then see Zwicky
when Bondi, Gold, and Hoyle's Steady-State theory
and other theories without necessarily a singularity
at a beginning of time after Starobisky are left aside.

It's not necessarily the most familiar perspective, Guth's,
not having eidetic memory or constantly journaling
day's activities and events, where I'm not so much a
"visual" learner.

These days the (measured) Hubble "constant" is smaller
and inflation a bit less compelling while the cosmological
constant being both vacuum energy density and the
curvature constant fits pretty well being positive but
vanishing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law#Determining_the_Hubble_constant

The uniformity or very much flatness of the universe also
changes some of the expectations from an era of the '80's
to an era of the '90's covered by the chronolog, as Guth
details attempt after attempt after attempt of fine-tuning
the many various theories of inflation as what arrive at over
time more than less some model-fitted framework that lines up
with Le Maitre.

One of my usual refrains is "revisit Hubble, Heisenberg, Higgs",
Higgs after Hubble has over time very much development and
derivation, in the emplacement of theories. A chronolog like
Guth's "The Inflationary Universe" can be helpful to help
demarcate where expectations and assumptions begin and
the derivations as so follow for that when expectations and
assumptions change, it's a simpler matter to find the relevant
factors or moving parts, than simply discard the entirety and
start anew from first principles as the a priori.

Theories of inflation are a usual complement to early 19'th
century cosmology after Hubble, Le Maitre, Zwicky.

One thing Guth notes and I don't share but there's nothing
necessarily wrong with it, is to pick up and throw away
theories where basically his goal seems for print or priority,
if not posterity, that it is though agreeable that the very
looseness of attachment to theory means he seems quite
ready to change any and all features of it as long as it fits.

This helps establish that theories of inflation are secondary
in a sense that it is an organization of model-tuning and fitting
across multiple realms like cosmology, relativity, and particle
physics the results, the more fundamental theories are left
authoritative.

Or, "many modern theories are joinery".

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Julio's usual style is that when he's not spitting and cursing
that it may be a tendered reserve, that more-than-less
the most he will accept is "I don't have to believe and
may disagree". He sees politesse as capitulation and
anti-intellectualism, when it isn't necessarily, just that
as among other instruments of rhetoric, the glib aren't
necessarily constant through-and-through.

So, it's discardable the offense, not quite being sure
how many lines there is to read between, that Julio's
style is read generously or charitably (which he will hate),
that all the time it's a tendered reserve and bravado.

From his own part though he will sometimes allude to
beautiful things, it's though he's a gentle egg-shells
sort and will quickly snap back to holding his chin in.

Julio, if you would _please_ remember that not all
readers know that it's all about love and beauty,
and the caustic humility of a staunch opponent,
whether you do or don't has that usually I won't
bother to correct the limits of their interpretation.

Or, Julio might be a troll, but he does seem _sincere_.


As at least one saying goes:
"If you believe everything you read,
maybe you shouldn't."

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

> On Friday, December 20, 2019 at 8:54:44 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn wrote:
>> AFAIK the standard model requires neutrinos to have mass zero, but
>> neutrino oscillations are only possible if the mass of neutrinos is NOT
>> zero.
>>
>> AFAIK/AIUI this requires an extension of the standard model,
>> contradicting your claim.
>

> (Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorana_fermion )

How is that relevant?

[Ross A. Finlayson]

The neutrino that oscillates is a Majorana fermion.

[Julio Di Egidio]

On Saturday, 21 December 2019 16:21:09 UTC+1, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 3:16:54 AM UTC-8, Julio Di Egidio wrote:

<snip>
> > Fuck you too.
> >
> > Julio

>
> He sees politesse as capitulation and
> anti-intellectualism

Nope, you rather won't stop making stuff up. And I won't explain my reasons
because I rather take understanding the basics of true respect a prerequisite
for entry, anyway (you and any others who might be perplexed) be reassured that
it's mainly hyperbolic rhetoric, one with showing the extreme consequences of
things: boundary analysis, or as in the proverbial guardians of directions...

Julio

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Semiotics.

https://www.google.com/search?q=semiotics+physics
https://www.bing.com/search?q=semiotics+physics
https://www.dogpile.com/serp?q=semiotics+physics
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=semiotics+physics
https://www.webcrawler.com/serp?q=semiotics+physics
https://search.yahoo.com/search?p=semiotics+physics

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/search?q=semiotics+physics
https://arxiv.org/search/?query=semiotics+physics&searchtype=all
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/semiotics$20physics


Charles Sanders Peirce, Umberto Eco.

[Julio Di Egidio]

On Saturday, 21 December 2019 19:27:04 UTC+1, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 9:31:55 AM UTC-8, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> > On Saturday, 21 December 2019 16:21:09 UTC+1, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 3:16:54 AM UTC-8, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > > Fuck you too.
> > > >
> > > > Julio
> > >
> > > He sees politesse as capitulation and
> > > anti-intellectualism
> >
> > Nope, you rather won't stop making stuff up. And I won't explain my reasons
> > because I rather take understanding the basics of true respect a prerequisite
> > for entry, anyway (you and any others who might be perplexed) be reassured that
> > it's mainly hyperbolic rhetoric, one with showing the extreme consequences of
> > things: boundary analysis, or as in the proverbial guardians of directions...
>

> Semiotics.

It's *logic* that is a pre-requisite to the rational endeavour, without which
you won't understand semiotics any more than you can understand anything else.

Not per chance logic proper has been obliterated from the public "discourse",
together with all that in fact counts: so we are permanently back to square
one, ad nauseam and ad libitum for the perpetrators...

Julio

[Ross A. Finlayson]

For example: https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.physics.particle/glI-4D36-F0/discussion

[Tom Roberts]

On 12/20/19 4:22 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> I'll certainly agree that "hidden variables" are implicit
> in probabilistic theories with random variables and
> unknown distributions.

No "hidden variable" theory can reproduce the correlations demonstrated
in quantum entanglement.

Look up "Bell's theorem", and related experiments.
(BTW this is quite different from "Bell's paradox",
though they share the same author.)

Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 12/20/19 7:29 PM, Ned Latham wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>>>
>>> Let's be clear that any "violations of causality" are
>>> _only_ hypothetical,
>>
>> This is just plain not true. The decays of unstable particles are not
>> "caused" by anything.
>
> That is one *very* stupid hypothesis. A sensible alternative would be
> that unstable particles tend to fracture at structurally weak points
> under the stress of collision or their spin.

That is one *very* IGNORANT claim.

Tom Roberts

[Julio Di Egidio]

"No, again, there is no such conclusion."

Your "discourse" is equivalent to word salad: indeed, stuck at square one,
to be more precise...

EOD. (There can always be a conclusion.)

Julio