Dark Energy Really IS Real

[The Starmaker]

Why is it...you people
come up with Headlines like:

Dark Energy Really IS Real


and then in the first paragraph:

The rest, physicists believe,...


"believe"? religious fatih? Accepting as true?


This is an example of 'limited intelligence'.
When you try to get pass your limits, it just turns to...

ridiculous contradictions.



The Starmaker


http://news.discovery.com/space/new-study-re-confirms-evidence-for-dark-energy-120912.html



Really Really Real, Really.

Babies talk like that....



This is what limited intelligence looks like:
http://fohn.net/gorilla-pictures-facts/images/Gorilla-Face-800x600.jpg

[The Starmaker]

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Why is it...you people
> come up with Headlines like:
>
> Dark Energy Really IS Real
>
> and then in the first paragraph:
>
> The rest, physicists believe,...
>
> "believe"? religious fatih? Accepting as true?
>
> This is an example of 'limited intelligence'.
> When you try to get pass your limits, it just turns to...
>
> ridiculous contradictions.
>
> The Starmaker
>
> http://news.discovery.com/space/new-study-re-confirms-evidence-for-dark-energy-120912.html
>
> Really Really Real, Really.
>
> Babies talk like that....

what i cannot figure out is..
Why this unrelentless belief that
Dark Energy is real...
Is there money in it for someone?

Is it the kind of energy i can put in my car, or spaceship?

Or is it the kind of energy Einstein likes to build atomic bombs with?

Oh, i forgot...it's not really real.

It's just a belief.. a cosmic religion.


The Starmaker

[Koobee Wublee]

Dark Energy violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. Just like
discovering a muon’s speed to be greater than the speed of light will
give a self-styled physicist a heart attack, discovering a violation
to the conservation law in energy will give engineers heart attacks
too. Oh, yes. From Euler’s work 3 to 4 centuries ago, we learn the
conservation law is based a null Euler-Lagrange equation which was
rediscovered by Noether. This means Noether Theorem must always hold
whenever the concept of energy does pop up. <shrug>

The effect of Dark Energy is like antigravity that comes from within
the vacuum itself. On a close examination of Newton’s law of gravity,
if the gravitating mass is negative, the result becomes antigravity.
This should be a no brainer. The Poisson equation also shows if
vacuum has negative mass density, the whole universe will accelerate
its expansion. If anyone studies Newtonian physics, this fact should
be ever so obvious. So, without even evoking GR, Dark Energy is
basically negative mass density in vacuum. Suggestion of negative
mass density is just so ludicrous, and that is why Poisson did not
want to go there. <shrug>

In GR, the Dark Energy comes from the Cosmological Constant which is
basically a mass density in vacuum. Guess what. A negative mass
density will result in a Cosmological Constant that becomes this Dark
Energy. After all, the field equations (of GR) degenerate into the
Poisson equation. So, expecting anything different is like spinning a
different scripture for his religion. <shrug>

So, what evidence is there on an accelerated expanding universe? That
comes from the recent Nobel Prize in physics. These guys made three
assumptions. If any of these assumptions is wrong, there is no case
for an accelerated expanding universe.

** Hubble’s Law

In the 20’s, Hubble discovered more distant galaxies would recede at a
faster speed. This receding speed is linear up to 20 mega parsecs or
so. Even if Hubble’s law is valid, extrapolating Hubble’s law over
100’s, 1000’s megaparsecs is pure speculation. If the Hubble’s law
follows a square root function instead of linear where nearby galaxies
up to 20 mega parsecs would behave linearly, the case for an
accelerated expanding universe would be seriously challenged.

** Chandrasekhar Limit

Chandrasekhar won a Nobel Prize by marrying Newtonian gravity with
quantum mechanics. There remain no test to this hypothesis.
Everything about the Chandrasekhar Limit is theoretical. If
Chandrasekhar Limit is not valid in general, Type Ia supernovae cannot
used as standard galactic candle to calibrate for luminosity.

** Definition of Luminosity

Light are photons which do not attenuate over distance. Thus, any
measurement in luminosity has to deal with the frequency of detecting
photons. This issue becomes very tricky very fast on deciding
luminosity over an exposure lasting for several days, weeks, or even
months.

Thus, Dark Energy remains a comic book curiosity. <shrug>

[7]

Koobee Wublee wrote:

> Dark Energy violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. Just like
> discovering a muon’s speed to be greater than the speed of light will
> give a self-styled physicist a heart attack, discovering a violation
> to the conservation law in energy will give engineers heart attacks
> too.

Space inside a container expands by about 1 proton diameter every 100
seconds. That ought to be detectable in a calorimeter
if Dark Energy Really IS Real.

[mpc755]

'Was the universe born spinning?'
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46688

"The universe was born spinning and continues to do so around a
preferred axis"

The Universe spins around a preferred axis because the Universe is, or
the local Universe we exist in is in, a jet; analogous to the polar
jet of a black hole.

'Mysterious Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Tracked Deeper into Universe'
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/releases/2010/10-023.html

'The clusters appear to be moving along a line extending from our
solar system toward Centaurus/Hydra, but the direction of this motion
is less certain. Evidence indicates that the clusters are headed
outward along this path, away from Earth, but the team cannot yet rule
out the opposite flow. "We detect motion along this axis, but right
now our data cannot state as strongly as we'd like whether the
clusters are coming or going," Kashlinsky said.'

The clusters are headed along this path because the Universe is, or
the local Universe we exist in is in, a jet.

The following is an image analogous of the Universal jet.

http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html

The reason for the 'expansion' of the universe is the continual
emission of aether into the Universal jet. Three dimensional space
associated with the Universe itself is not expanding. What we see in
our telescopes is the matter associated with the Universe moving
outward and away from the Universal jet emission point. In the image
above, '1st Stars' is where aether condenses into matter.

Dark energy is aether emitted into the Universal jet.

It's not the Big Bang. It's the Big Ongoing.

[The Starmaker]

Have you noticed?
If you mention
"God is Real"
to these people..
they scream,
"WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE? WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE??"

but, when it comes to their...pet projects,
the word evidence doesn't even exist.

wats dat all about?

[space...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, September 12, 2012 7:48:36 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>

You would bump into it all of the time and there is never any sign of such a snowballing effect of energy.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Martin Phipps]

On Sep 13, 10:48 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>
> > The Starmaker wrote:
>
> > > Why is it...you people
> > > come up with Headlines like:
>
> > >    Dark Energy Really IS Real
>
> > > and then in the first paragraph:
>
> > > The rest, physicists believe,...
>
> > > "believe"? religious fatih? Accepting as true?
>
> > > This is an example of 'limited intelligence'.
> > > When you try to get pass your limits, it just turns to...
>
> > > ridiculous contradictions.
>
> > > The Starmaker
>

> > >http://news.discovery.com/space/new-study-re-confirms-evidence-for-da...

>
> > > Really Really Real, Really.
>
> > > Babies talk like that....
>
> > what i cannot figure out is..
> > Why this unrelentless belief that
> > Dark Energy is real...
> > Is there money in it for someone?
>
> > Is it the kind of energy i can put in my car, or spaceship?
>
> > Or is it the kind of energy Einstein likes to build atomic bombs with?
>
> > Oh, i forgot...it's not really real.
>
> > It's just a belief.. a cosmic religion.
>
> > The Starmaker
>
> Have you noticed?
> If you mention
> "God is Real"
> to these people..
> they scream,
> "WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE? WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE??"
>
> but, when it comes to their...pet projects,
> the word evidence doesn't even exist.
>
> wats dat all about?

God isn't real. It's just your imagination.

And, yes, belief in Dark Energy is belief but it is not religious
belief. Astrophysicists would be happy if you showed them where they
made a mistake. One possibility is that time passes more slowly in
empty space and thus distant galaxies appear farther away than they
actually are. Alternatively empty space has to be applying some
outward pressure that causes the universe to expnad. It's one or the
other. You have to follow the evidence.

Martin

[hanson]

"7" <email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:

>
>
Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dark Energy violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. Just like

discovering a muon�s speed to be greater than the speed of light will

give a self-styled physicist a heart attack, discovering a violation
to the conservation law in energy will give engineers heart attacks

too. Oh, yes. From Euler�s work 3 to 4 centuries ago, we learn the

conservation law is based a null Euler-Lagrange equation which was
rediscovered by Noether. This means Noether Theorem must always hold
whenever the concept of energy does pop up. <shrug>

The effect of Dark Energy is like antigravity that comes from within

the vacuum itself. On a close examination of Newton�s law of gravity,

if the gravitating mass is negative, the result becomes antigravity.
This should be a no brainer. The Poisson equation also shows if
vacuum has negative mass density, the whole universe will accelerate
its expansion. If anyone studies Newtonian physics, this fact should
be ever so obvious. So, without even evoking GR, Dark Energy is
basically negative mass density in vacuum. Suggestion of negative
mass density is just so ludicrous, and that is why Poisson did not
want to go there. <shrug>

In GR, the Dark Energy comes from the Cosmological Constant which is
basically a mass density in vacuum. Guess what. A negative mass
density will result in a Cosmological Constant that becomes this Dark
Energy. After all, the field equations (of GR) degenerate into the
Poisson equation. So, expecting anything different is like spinning a
different scripture for his religion. <shrug>

So, what evidence is there on an accelerated expanding universe? That
comes from the recent Nobel Prize in physics. These guys made three
assumptions. If any of these assumptions is wrong, there is no case
for an accelerated expanding universe.

** Hubble�s Law

In the 20�s, Hubble discovered more distant galaxies would recede at a

faster speed. This receding speed is linear up to 20 mega parsecs or

so. Even if Hubble�s law is valid, extrapolating Hubble�s law over
100�s, 1000�s megaparsecs is pure speculation. If the Hubble�s law

follows a square root function instead of linear where nearby galaxies
up to 20 mega parsecs would behave linearly, the case for an
accelerated expanding universe would be seriously challenged.

** Chandrasekhar Limit

Chandrasekhar won a Nobel Prize by marrying Newtonian gravity with
quantum mechanics. There remain no test to this hypothesis.
Everything about the Chandrasekhar Limit is theoretical. If
Chandrasekhar Limit is not valid in general, Type Ia supernovae cannot
used as standard galactic candle to calibrate for luminosity.

** Definition of Luminosity

Light are photons which do not attenuate over distance. Thus, any
measurement in luminosity has to deal with the frequency of detecting
photons. This issue becomes very tricky very fast on deciding
luminosity over an exposure lasting for several days, weeks, or even
months.

Thus, Dark Energy remains a comic book curiosity. <shrug>>
>
>

"7" <enemygadgets> wrote:
Space inside a container expands by about
1 proton diameter every 100 seconds.
That ought to be detectable in a calorimeter
if Dark Energy Really IS Real.
>

hanson wrote:
Yo, "7-enemygadgets", which comic book
did you get that curio from?
Thanks for the laughs, in advance, & darkly
ahahaha.... ahahahahanson

[The Starmaker]

[The Starmaker]

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to see it, is there really a tree?

[Martin Phipps]

Did you even bother reading the articles you linked to?

Martin

[Koobee Wublee]

On Sep 12, 9:31 pm, Martin Phipps wrote:

> And, yes, belief in Dark Energy is belief but it is not religious
> belief.

The belief comes out of several assumptions. It is fine if you can
show these assumptions are valid. However, there have been no
quantitative discussions on the validities of these assumptions.
<shrug>

> Astrophysicists would be happy if you showed them where they
> made a mistake.

Hmmm... You have not read Koobee Wublee’s post in this thread. Being
stupid is OK, but when presented with information, playing dumb is
evil. <shrug>

> One possibility is that time passes more slowly in
> empty space and thus distant galaxies appear farther away than they
> actually are.

This a possibility out of trillions. What is the chance of your
speculation turns out to be valid without anything supporting your
assumption. <shrug>

> Alternatively empty space has to be applying some
> outward pressure that causes the universe to expnad.

The best the Newtonian law of physics and GR can offer is the negative
mass density in vacuum which sounds so fvcking absurd. There are just
no alternatives. It is time to question the so-called fabulous
observations which have plenty of holes. <shrug>

[Martin Phipps]

Right now you are giving me nothing but reasons to ignore your posts.
<shrug>

Martin

[Sheikh Zubair]

On Sep 12, 10:47 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Why is it...you people
> come up with Headlines like:
>
>    Dark Energy Really IS Real
>
> and then in the first paragraph:
>
> The rest, physicists believe,...
>
> "believe"? religious fatih? Accepting as true?
>
> This is an example of 'limited intelligence'.
> When you try to get pass your limits, it just turns to...
>
> ridiculous contradictions.
>
> The Starmaker
>

> http://news.discovery.com/space/new-study-re-confirms-evidence-for-da...

>
> Really Really Real, Really.
>
> Babies talk like that....
>
> This is what limited intelligence looks like:http://fohn.net/gorilla-pictures-facts/images/Gorilla-Face-800x600.jpg

WHo decides the limits

[mpc755]

Yes.

[suzeeq]

Martin Phipps wrote:

> Did you even bother reading the articles you linked to?
>
> Martin

Of course not, that would require a mind that isn't flitting off into
space...

[kenseto]

On Wednesday, September 12, 2012 1:47:59 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> Why is it...you people
>
> come up with Headlines like:
>
>
>
> Dark Energy Really IS Real

According to my theory Model Mechanics: dark energy is the result of matter objects confine to the divergent structure of the medium (called the E-Matrix)occupying all of space. The papers in the following links describes this dark energy:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011universe.pdf
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011unification.pdf

[Mason Barge]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 21:31:18 -0700 (PDT), Martin Phipps
<martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[...]

>
>God isn't real. It's just your imagination.
>
>And, yes, belief in Dark Energy is belief but it is not religious
>belief. Astrophysicists would be happy if you showed them where they
>made a mistake. One possibility is that time passes more slowly in
>empty space and thus distant galaxies appear farther away than they
>actually are. Alternatively empty space has to be applying some
>outward pressure that causes the universe to expnad. It's one or the
>other. You have to follow the evidence.

Alternatively?

In other words, this is nothing but a lot of guesses to hide the fact that
physics cannot, at least at this point, explain how the universe workd.

[mpc755]

On Sep 13, 11:25 am, Mason Barge <masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 21:31:18 -0700 (PDT), Martin Phipps
>

Some of us understand how the Universe works.

Aether has mass and physically occupies three dimensional space.
Aether is physically displaced by matter.

Displaced aether pushing back toward matter is gravity.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and
the associated aether wave through both.

[The Starmaker]

What? Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society???

"Monthly Notices"??? ?

Where are the Daily Notices?


Are you guys joking?



You get your evidence from a 'internet news article'?

By a female journalists?


Are you high?


Dark Energy comes from the imagination, exist only in the mind, nowhere else.



The Starmaker

[Koobee Wublee]

On Sep 13, 12:48 am, Martin Phipps wrote:

> On Sep 13, 3:23 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > On Sep 12, 9:31 pm, Martin Phipps wrote:

> > > And, yes, belief in Dark Energy is belief but it is
> > > not religious belief.
>
> > The belief comes out of several assumptions. It is fine if
> > you can show these assumptions are valid. However, there
> > have been no quantitative discussions on the validities of
> > these assumptions. <shrug>
>
> > > Astrophysicists would be happy if you showed them where
> > > they made a mistake.
>
> > Hmmm... You have not read Koobee Wublee’s post in this thread.
> > Being stupid is OK, but when presented with information,
> > playing dumb is evil. <shrug>
>
> > > One possibility is that time passes more slowly in
> > > empty space and thus distant galaxies appear farther away
> > > than they actually are.
>
> > This a possibility out of trillions. What is the chance of
> > your speculation turns out to be valid without anything

> > supporting your assumption? <shrug>

>
> > > Alternatively empty space has to be applying some
> > > outward pressure that causes the universe to expnad.
>
> > The best the Newtonian law of physics and GR can offer is
> > the negative mass density in vacuum which sounds so fvcking
> > absurd. There are just no alternatives. It is time to
> > question the so-called fabulous observations which have
> > plenty of holes. <shrug>
>
> Right now you are giving me nothing but reasons to ignore your posts.
> <shrug>

If Martin Phipps does not have anything to offer, just say so instead
of giving out excuses on why he has his tail between his legs
attempting to do a not so graceful retreat. What a dumb ass! <shrug>

[Martin Phipps]

On Sep 13, 11:25 pm, Mason Barge <masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 21:31:18 -0700 (PDT), Martin Phipps
>

> <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> >God isn't real.  It's just your imagination.
>
> >And, yes, belief in Dark Energy is belief but it is not religious
> >belief.  Astrophysicists would be happy if you showed them where they
> >made a mistake.  One possibility is that time passes more slowly in
> >empty space and thus distant galaxies appear farther away than they
> >actually are.  Alternatively empty space has to be applying some

> >outward pressure that causes the universe to expand.  It's one or the

> >other.  You have to follow the evidence.
>
> Alternatively?
>
> In other words, this is nothing but a lot of guesses to hide the fact that
> physics cannot, at least at this point, explain how the universe workd.

"One or the other" applies to just about everything.

The defendant is guilty... or he isn't.
My wife is pregnant... or she isn't.
I'm going to get paid today... or I won't.

In this case the rate of the universe's expansion is increasing and
dark energy is real... or it isn't and it's not.

It's called being honest. The original poster was claiming that
scientists are nor being honest, that they are just goiung by beliefs
and not following evidence. Well... that's not true. On the
contrary, scientists believed that the rate of the universe's
expansion had to be slowing down because gravity would cause the
galaxies to clump together. That galaxies seem to be moving away from
each other at an increasing rate was not expected and, frankly, was
not even asked for. Yes, scientists like to find unexpected results
but they also like to be able to explain the unexpected results.
Maybe some scientists are saying that dark energy is "really real"
because they don't like not knowing. Well, I'm fine with not
knowing. Like I said, it's either one or the other. I can live with
that.

Martin

[Martin Phipps]

On Sep 15, 2:04 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What a dumb ass!  <shrug>

Well, at least you can admit that about yourself.

Martin

[David Fuller]

Probably
Dark energy would be residing in octaves above ours and not interact much with ours. It would seem to be in the past when the universe was only half its current size or less. but it is inter weaved with ours.

Dark energy would seem to interact when and where its harmonic would (coincide line up) with ours, which would seem to be 2 to 2.5 billion light years away. the cosmological constant or expanding universe.

"Play it for me Daisy."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghUcoyL2EtI

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114746/soundtrack


"Sleep Walk"
(1959)
Written by Johnny Farina (as John Farina), Ann Farina, Santo Farina
Performed by B.J. Cole

Time Travel

[David Fuller]

On Wednesday, September 12, 2012 3:11:10 PM UTC-5, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Probably
Dark mass would be residing in octaves below ours.

meaning it is below the "horizon" of our view.

Below your feet. If protons and neutrons are by chance fractal Black holes, then "em" is Fractal hawking radiation.

"Play it for me Daisy"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghUcoyL2EtI

[kenseto]

There is no dark enery. The apparent of the accelerated expansion of the universe is that gravity repulsive at distance over the radius of the universe. The paper in the following link describes this new concept:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011universe.pdf

[mpc755]

It's not the Big Bang; it's the Big Ongoing.

[Mason Barge]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 03:14:35 -0700 (PDT), Martin Phipps
<martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sep 13, 11:25 pm, Mason Barge <masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 21:31:18 -0700 (PDT), Martin Phipps
>>
>> <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>
>> >God isn't real.  It's just your imagination.
>>
>> >And, yes, belief in Dark Energy is belief but it is not religious
>> >belief.  Astrophysicists would be happy if you showed them where they
>> >made a mistake.  One possibility is that time passes more slowly in
>> >empty space and thus distant galaxies appear farther away than they
>> >actually are.  Alternatively empty space has to be applying some
>> >outward pressure that causes the universe to expand.  It's one or the
>> >other.  You have to follow the evidence.
>>
>> Alternatively?
>>
>> In other words, this is nothing but a lot of guesses to hide the fact that
>> physics cannot, at least at this point, explain how the universe workd.
>
>"One or the other" applies to just about everything.
>
>The defendant is guilty... or he isn't.
>My wife is pregnant... or she isn't.
>I'm going to get paid today... or I won't.
>
>In this case the rate of the universe's expansion is increasing and
>dark energy is real... or it isn't and it's not.
>
>It's called being honest.

Nice bit of condescending tone.

These are not "alternatives". They are two unproven hypotheses to explain
an unproven and unmeasured phenomenon. They don't even know if the math
is valid.

[The Starmaker]

Selection.

[The Starmaker]

Yeah, but it's not "either one or the other" that the ariticle
states...it's 'one *and* the other'! Contradictions. Ridiculous
contradictions.


Get off the fence. Take a stand.


The Starmaker



Is Ian going to win the Big Brother TV show? The producers have come up
with every game to help Ian *only*. Cheating.
Ian has a photographic mind, so they come up with a game
called...Photoraphic Mind. There are chemestry games, mazes for the
little
men in their wihite suits...memmory games, ...all to help one person,
Ian. The show is ...rigged.

[The Starmaker]

You can see that this gorilla has 'limited intelligence' just by looking
at him.
http://fohn.net/gorilla-pictures-facts/images/Gorilla-Face-800x600.jpg

He is not going to be building any atomic bombs soon..

But I cannot post a photo of what a 'limited intelligence' human being
looks like,
because...you cannot tell.

[The Starmaker]

The Starmaker wrote:

>
> Is Ian going to win the Big Brother TV show? The producers have come up
> with every game to help Ian *only*. Cheating.
> Ian has a photographic mind, so they come up with a game
> called...Photoraphic Mind. There are chemestry games, mazes for the
> little
> men in their wihite suits...memmory games, ...all to help one person,
> Ian. The show is ...rigged.

Ian should be disqualified for carry a concealed camera...

[Martin Phipps]

On Sep 15, 11:53 pm, Mason Barge <masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 03:14:35 -0700 (PDT), Martin Phipps

> <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 13, 11:25 pm, Mason Barge <masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 21:31:18 -0700 (PDT), Martin Phipps
>
> >> <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> [...]
>
> >> >God isn't real.  It's just your imagination.
>
> >> >And, yes, belief in Dark Energy is belief but it is not religious
> >> >belief.  Astrophysicists would be happy if you showed them where they
> >> >made a mistake.  One possibility is that time passes more slowly in
> >> >empty space and thus distant galaxies appear farther away than they
> >> >actually are.  Alternatively empty space has to be applying some
> >> >outward pressure that causes the universe to expand.  It's one or the
> >> >other.  You have to follow the evidence.
>
> >> Alternatively?
>
> >> In other words, this is nothing but a lot of guesses to hide the fact that
> >> physics cannot, at least at this point, explain how the universe workd.
>
> >"One or the other" applies to just about everything.
>
> >The defendant is guilty... or he isn't.
> >My wife is pregnant... or she isn't.
> >I'm going to get paid today... or I won't.
>
> >In this case the rate of the universe's expansion is increasing and
> >dark energy is real... or it isn't and it's not.
>
> >It's called being honest.
>
> Nice bit of condescending tone.

Thank you. I try my best to let my distain for ignorance get across.

> These are not "alternatives".

Actually, they are in so far as if time slows down in empty space then
there is no need to presume that the rate of the expansion of the
universe is increasing. It's like this: as the universe expands there
is more empty space between the galaxies. We expect the rate of
expansion to slow down because galaxies are attracted to each other
and, thus, it comnes as a surprise when astromers measure the rate of
universal expansion and find it to be increasing. Dark energy is a
hypothesis: it isn't really a theory because the use of the word
"theory" presumes that scientists know what dark energy is. Basically
the idea is that empty space isn't really empty: quantum fluctuations
allow matter to exist in a vacuum. Physicists are busy trying to come
up with theories to explain why empty space would exert a repulsive
force which would cause galaxies to move away from each other.

To suppose that time passes more slowly in empty space is an
alternative. Imagine if light from a galaxy two million light years
took three million years to get to Earth: we would assume the galaxy
was three million light years away; as the universe expanded it would
appear as though the rate of expansion of the universe were
increasing. The idea that time passes more slowly in empty space
would mean that general relativity as it is now formulated is wrong so
that would be a big deal. In general relativity, gravitation is due
to the presence of matter creating a non-inertial frame of reference:
on result is that time passes at different rates inside a gravity
well; for example, if you were about to fall into a black hole then it
would appear to an observer from far away as though you were moving
very slowly as you passed the event horizon whereas you yourself would
feel as though you were suddenly being ripped apart by the noticably
different extent of gravitational pull being exerted on different
parts of your body.

Another poster claimed that there were a "trillion" different
explanations for dark energy. Well, that's not true: most
explanations assume that the measured expansion of the universe is
accurate; if it isn't then there is no need to hypothesize about dark
energy. Basically, this is how any phenomenon is explained: either it
is a real phenomenon and you have to explain how it occurs or it is
not a real phenomenon and you have to explain why it appears to
occur. Either way you have to explain what is going on and there is
no question of lazily "shrugging" and saying you "can't explain" it
and leaving it at that. Again, if you want to explain what is going
on then you have two alternatives: you either presume the phenomenon
is real and explain how it occurs or presume it is not real and
explain why it appears to occur. Those are two alternatives that you
have available to you every time when you are faced with an
unexplained phenomenon.

> They are two unproven hypotheses to explain
> an unproven and unmeasured phenomenon.

You are misusing the word "proven" here. Theories are not "proven".
Indeed, one explanation for the apparent increased rate of expansion
of the universe requires the presumption that general relativity is
wrong. This is a big deal but, then again, general relativity itself
proved Newton's theory of gravity to be wrong. If general relativity
is wrong then it is a big deal but it is something that physicists
will be able to live with. A lot of physicists would probably be
happier with a new theory of gravity than a theory of dark energy that
presumes the existance of a "negative mass density" in seemingly empty
space. The idea of a "negative mass density" in seemingly empty space
is not satisfying at all: I think physicists would rather dark energy
involved either some sort of electrostatic repulsion or a fifth force,
possibly related to dark matter. On one hand, exotic theories are fun
to speculate about but, on the other hand, it makes physicists feel
unsettled because they know from experience that the simplest
explanation is always more likely to be true.

> They don't even know if the math
> is valid.

Oh they know that the math is valid: the problem is that the math is
very difficult. When Einstein formulated general realtivity he made
at least one simplifying assumption that simplified the math
considerably. If you don't make simplifying assumptions when you
formulate a theory then the math can become too difficult and you
won't be able to make any predictions. The question then becomes if
the theory is robust; that is, if you were to work everything out in
full would you still get the same result. Some physicists believe
that it may be possible to reformulate general relativity and find
that time does proceed at a slower rate in empty space: one physicist
tried and ended up finally having to make a simplifying assumption
that reduced his theory back to general relativity. General
relativity may be robust or physicists may find that small corrections
to the theory can account for the observations that general realtivity
alone cannnot account for.

Martin

[Martin Phipps]

> Yeah, but it's not "either one or the other" that the ariticle
> states...it's 'one *and* the other'! Contradictions. Ridiculous
> contradictions.

No, it isn't. When they say "Dark energy is really real" what they
mean is that their observations are consistant. There are no
contradictions. The question is whether or not the observations
require entirely new physics or a modification of an existing theory.

Martin

[Martin Phipps]

On Sep 16, 1:19 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>
> > Sheikh Zubair wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 12, 10:47 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > > Why is it...you people
> > > > come up with Headlines like:
>
> > > >    Dark Energy Really IS Real
>
> > > > and then in the first paragraph:
>
> > > > The rest, physicists believe,...
>
> > > > "believe"? religious fatih? Accepting as true?
>
> > > > This is an example of 'limited intelligence'.
> > > > When you try to get pass your limits, it just turns to...
>
> > > > ridiculous contradictions.
>
> > > > The Starmaker
>
> > > >http://news.discovery.com/space/new-study-re-confirms-evidence-for-da...
>
> > > > Really Really Real, Really.
>
> > > > Babies talk like that....
>
> > > > This is what limited intelligence looks like:http://fohn.net/gorilla-pictures-facts/images/Gorilla-Face-800x600.jpg
>
> > > WHo decides the limits
>
> > Selection.
>
> You can see that this gorilla has 'limited intelligence' just by looking

> at him.http://fohn.net/gorilla-pictures-facts/images/Gorilla-Face-800x600.jpg

>
> He is not going to be building any atomic bombs soon..
>
> But I cannot post a photo of what a 'limited intelligence' human being
> looks like,

It's easy: buy a digital camera, stand in front of a mirror, take a
picture of yourself and upload it to a blog.

Martin

[Lofty Goat]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 14:36:08 -0700, Martin Phipps wrote:

> ... To suppose that time passes more slowly in empty space is an

> alternative. Imagine if light from a galaxy two million light years

> took three million years to get to Earth....

To say that time slowing in empty space creates the illusion that space is
larger than it really is is kind of odd. If time slows in empty space
then the effect is exactly the same as if empty space were larger. Kind
of difficult to test that sort of hypothesis.

--
Goat

[Chaldean]

"I am black but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem."


Since this got mis-sent to alt.tv.big-brother, I thought I'd pop it
back with what came to mind after scanning it.
--

Bob

[The Starmaker]

You don't seem to understand...
a human brain cannot analyze another human brain..
only an alien from another planet with higher intelligeince
can see what a 'limited intelligience ' human being looks like.

http://bppa.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/11-3-0712-096.jpg

http://media.avclub.com/images/articles/article/66/66357/peoplearealike_jpg_627x325_crop_upscale_q85.jpg

[The Starmaker]

http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/mix941kmxj.com/files/2011/06/people-are-alike.png

[The Growler(formerly known asTupac)]

On 9/15/2012 6:48 PM, Chaldean wrote:
> "I am black but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem."

"Black is beautiful" - James Brown

[David DeLaney]

The Growler(formerly known asTupac) <gr...@thugpoetry.com> wrote:
>On 9/15/2012 6:48 PM, Chaldean wrote:
>> "I am black but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem."
>
>"Black is beautiful" - James Brown

"Black boys are delicious / chocolate-flavored loooove" - Hair

Dave "my mo-ther calls them rubble / they're my kind of trouble" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[The Growler(formerly known asTupac)]

On 9/15/2012 10:25 PM, David DeLaney wrote:
> The Growler(formerly known asTupac) <gr...@thugpoetry.com> wrote:
>> On 9/15/2012 6:48 PM, Chaldean wrote:
>>> "I am black but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem."
>>
>> "Black is beautiful" - James Brown
>
> "Black boys are delicious / chocolate-flavored loooove" - Hair
>
> Dave "my mo-ther calls them rubble / they're my kind of trouble" DeLaney
>

Lol

[Martin Phipps]

Trust me. There are plenty of people out there with "higher
intelligeince" than you. Most people, in fact.

Martin

[Mason Barge]

How about your distain for spelling?

>> These are not "alternatives".
>
>Actually, they are in so far as if time slows down in empty space then
>there is no need to presume that the rate of the expansion of the
>universe is increasing.

Operative word: presume.

[The Starmaker]

I'm talking about 'limited intelligence', meaning...;the IQ limit that is placed on human beings. It's limited. You've reached your limit.
A fish IQ does not go past a gorilla's IQ. It's limited. You cannot go ....higher than your limit. I'n not sure what number IQ your limit is,
but it's probably no higher than 250. So an alien from another planet with an IQ of 350 would see you as a monkey.

[The Starmaker]

What? He speled distain wrong? There are limits..

[David Fuller]

Alpha+

http://spicymoviedogs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/an-alpha-and-a-beta.jpg

[David DeLaney]

The Growler(formerly known asTupac) <gr...@thugpoetry.com> wrote:
>On 9/15/2012 10:25 PM, David DeLaney wrote:
>> The Growler(formerly known asTupac) <gr...@thugpoetry.com> wrote:
>>> On 9/15/2012 6:48 PM, Chaldean wrote:
>>>> "I am black but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem."
>>>
>>> "Black is beautiful" - James Brown
>>
>> "Black boys are delicious / chocolate-flavored loooove" - Hair
>>
>> Dave "my mo-ther calls them rubble / they're my kind of trouble" DeLaney
>
>Lol

the more things changeth
the samer they get

Burma Dave

[David Fuller]

Why is the empty space there to begin with?

[David Fuller]

On Wednesday, September 12, 2012 4:44:07 PM UTC-5, 7 wrote:
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dark Energy violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. Just like
>
> > discovering a muon’s speed to be greater than the speed of light will
>
> > give a self-styled physicist a heart attack, discovering a violation
>
> > to the conservation law in energy will give engineers heart attacks
>
> > too.
>
>
>

> Space inside a container expands by about 1 proton diameter every 100
>
> seconds. That ought to be detectable in a calorimeter
>
> if Dark Energy Really IS Real.

The container is 99.99999% empty space also. would it be difficult to spot the change?

[David Fuller]

On Wednesday, September 12, 2012 3:11:10 PM UTC-5, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> Dark Energy violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.

Dark Energy violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.

Gravity violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.
the mass beneath your feet growing, pushing up aganist your feet violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.

[Martin Phipps]

You don't really understand how math and science works, do you? We
presume that parallel lines never meet but this can actually never be
tested. It is, nevertheless, a presumption few people would disagree
over.

Martin

[Martin Phipps]

> I'm talking about 'limited intelligence', meaning...;the IQ limit that is placed on human beings. It's limited. You've reached your limit.
> A fish IQ does not go past a gorilla's IQ. It's limited. You cannot go ....higher than your limit. I'n not sure what number IQ your limit is,
> but it's probably no higher than 250. So an alien from another planet with an IQ of 350 would see you as a monkey.

IQ stands for "intelligence quotient". If you say a boy aged five has
an IQ of 160 it means that he has the intelligence of an 8 year old: a
boy aged ten who has an IQ of 160 has the intelligence of a 16 year
old and so on. It doesn't make sense to compare the intelligence of
different species: a dolphin, for example, can't pick up a pencil let
alone answer the test. If you want to measure the IQ of a dolphin
then you need to compare its intelligence to that of other dolphins.

There's also the question of what we mean by intelligence: there's
mathematical ability and spatial abilities such as the ability to read
a map or think in three dimensions. Then there's linguistic ability
and the ability to anticipate the emotional reactions of other
people. Some people are good at math but are very quiet and shy. It
is not uncommon for really really smart people to come across as
really really dumb depending on the circumstances.

Intelligence is limited by how fast we can think. It is also limited
by how much we can possibly know. Language is a problem: it's hard to
compare the intelligence of people who speak different languages
because they would have to take different tests. Meanwhile, a guy may
be smart enough to be in a Ph.D. program at a major university but be
very frustrated that he cannot easily pick up Japanese or Chinese. It
takes time to process information and commit it to memory.

Have I reached my limit? Then presumably I can't learn anything new
without forgetting something I used to know. Even if that were true
perhaps there is some useless information that I could choose to
forget. Intelligence depends a great deal on circumstances: if
learning Chinese means I forget all the Japanese I knew then so be it;
I'd look a bit stupid trying to talk to people in Tokyo but I'd
impress a lot of people in Beijing.

Martin

[Howard Brazee]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 18:44:09 -0700 (PDT), Martin Phipps
<martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>You don't really understand how math and science works, do you? We
>presume that parallel lines never meet but this can actually never be
>tested. It is, nevertheless, a presumption few people would disagree
>over.

If they meet, then by definition, they aren't parallel.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

[space...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, September 16, 2012 8:12:53 PM UTC-7, Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 18:44:09 -0700 (PDT), Martin Phipps
>
> <martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >You don't really understand how math and science works, do you? We
>
> >presume that parallel lines never meet but this can actually never be
>
> >tested. It is, nevertheless, a presumption few people would disagree
>
> >over.
>
>
>
> If they meet, then by definition, they aren't parallel.

We have never handled it on Earth. If it makes up most of the universe's mass from the big bang it must have commigled with the fundamental atom.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Wayne Throop]

:: You don't really understand how math and science works, do you? We
:: presume that parallel lines never meet but this can actually never be
:: tested. It is, nevertheless, a presumption few people would disagree
:: over.

What's going on here is more that *you* don't understand the difference
between an axiom in a formal system and a presumption of a physical system.

Don't worry about it. It's a very common mistake.

[Martin Phipps]

On Sep 17, 11:12 am, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 18:44:09 -0700 (PDT), Martin Phipps
>

> <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >You don't really understand how math and science works, do you?  We
> >presume that parallel lines never meet but this can actually never be
> >tested.  It is, nevertheless, a presumption few people would disagree
> >over.
>
> If they meet, then by definition, they aren't parallel.

That's not a definition. Parallel lines are defined as lines from
which a normal drawn from one line will meet the other line at right
angles. Presumably such lines never meet. To define parallel lines
as "lines that never meet" is not a useful definition because you
could never show that two lines are parallel this way: you would never
be able to demonstrate that the lines would not eventually meet.

Martin

[Martin Phipps]

Apparently, you don't understand the analogy I was making.
Mathematical axioms are presumptions that we are presuming to always
be true. Similarly, in quantum mechanics, we have, for example, the
Pauli Exclusion Principle. It's not a mathematical axiom but it is
something that is always presumed to be true. It's not the same as
when students in first year university are asked to ignore air
resistance when calculating trajectories: that's not a "presumption";
that's a simplification; it's something completely different and I'm
shocked to find you confused about that.

Martin

[Howard Brazee]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 06:25:35 -0700 (PDT), Martin Phipps
<martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> >You don't really understand how math and science works, do you? �We
>> >presume that parallel lines never meet but this can actually never be
>> >tested. �It is, nevertheless, a presumption few people would disagree
>> >over.
>>
>> If they meet, then by definition, they aren't parallel.
>
>That's not a definition.

At least one definition requires that.

>Parallel lines are defined as lines from
>which a normal drawn from one line will meet the other line at right
>angles. Presumably such lines never meet. To define parallel lines
>as "lines that never meet" is not a useful definition because you
>could never show that two lines are parallel this way: you would never
>be able to demonstrate that the lines would not eventually meet.

[Mason Barge]

You're still condescending. It hurts you more than me.

Untested, unproven, and yet few people disagree. Precisely my point.

There could easily be places, times, situations, etc., where parallel
lines cannot exist. We assume that our logic is absolutely correct, but
our only test for this is inside a contained sample of space/time and
distance. For that matter, we cannot even see much of what's in our
universe, much less have any clue what might or might not "exist" other
than within its confines and within the past 15 billion years, or whatever
the current agreement about the age of the universe might be.

[Michael Stemper]

In article <5bb08354-77d5-4935...@b9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martin...@yahoo.com> writes:

>On Sep 17, 11:12=A0am, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 18:44:09 -0700 (PDT), Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> >You don't really understand how math and science works, do you? We
>> >presume that parallel lines never meet but this can actually never be
>> >tested. It is, nevertheless, a presumption few people would disagree
>> >over.
>>
>> If they meet, then by definition, they aren't parallel.

You might look up the definition of "skew lines".

>That's not a definition. Parallel lines are defined as lines from
>which a normal drawn from one line will meet the other line at right
>angles.

That definition's not going to work too well in Riemannian Geometry, where
there aren't any parallel (non-intersecting) lines, but it's still possible
to have pairs of lines that share a common normal.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Life's too important to take seriously.

[The Starmaker]

I bet you can sell ice to eskimoes.

[The Starmaker]

The Starmaker wrote:

>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Why is it...you people
> > come up with Headlines like:
> >
> > Dark Energy Really IS Real
> >
> > and then in the first paragraph:
> >
> > The rest, physicists believe,...
> >
> > "believe"? religious fatih? Accepting as true?
> >
> > This is an example of 'limited intelligence'.
> > When you try to get pass your limits, it just turns to...
> >
> > ridiculous contradictions.
> >
> > The Starmaker
> >

> > http://news.discovery.com/space/new-study-re-confirms-evidence-for-dark-energy-120912.html

> >
> > Really Really Real, Really.
> >
> > Babies talk like that....
>

> what i cannot figure out is..
> Why this unrelentless belief that
> Dark Energy is real...
> Is there money in it for someone?
>
> Is it the kind of energy i can put in my car, or spaceship?
>
> Or is it the kind of energy Einstein likes to build atomic bombs with?
>
> Oh, i forgot...it's not really real.
>
> It's just a belief.. a cosmic religion.
>
> The Starmaker


Have you heard of a ....camera, that take pictures of...Dark Energy? It's called:

A Dark Energy Camera!

http://phys.org/news/2012-09-berkeley-lab-sensors-enable-dark.html



Where is the God Camera?


The Starmaker

[The Starmaker]

Of course parallel lines meet, ...it's called perspective lines.

http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Arts/drawings/PerspectiveDrawing/spec3.jpg


They meet at the vanishing point
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_xBwXCBrzLR0/TIlG5TTgrSI/AAAAAAAABJ4/ngUlQwyYYsU/s1600/1point.gif

[The Starmaker]

There is no limit to what you can possibly know. No limit at all! No limit to how much we can possibly know.

There is only a limit to what you *can* know.

You just need enough information to get that banana from the tree.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"Michael Stemper" <mste...@walkabout.empros.com> wrote in message
news:k37kre$jon$1...@dont-email.me

(trimming newsgroups)

If one really wants a concept of parallellism in a non-Euclidean geometry,
one can introduce a *local* definition, simply by demanding that two
curves are locally parallel in two of their resp. points if the (or, as there
could be more, perhaps at least one) geodesic through the points
orthogonally intersects the two curves.
In Riemannian geometry, take for instance two circles of longitude on
a sphere. These great circles are then "parallel on the equator".
Two circles of latitude are then "globally parallel" curves.
In Euclidean geometry local parallellism implies global parallellism.

Dirk Vdm

[Howard Brazee]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:58:22 +0000 (UTC),
mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:

>>> >You don't really understand how math and science works, do you? We
>>> >presume that parallel lines never meet but this can actually never be
>>> >tested. It is, nevertheless, a presumption few people would disagree
>>> >over.
>>>
>>> If they meet, then by definition, they aren't parallel.
>
>You might look up the definition of "skew lines".

I am very aware that parallel lines aren't the only lines that never
meet. But by definition, parallel lines never meet. That is a
necessary element of the definition (although obviously not the *only*
element).

[Wayne Throop]

:: If they meet, then by definition, they aren't parallel.

: Martin Phipps <martin...@yahoo.com>
: That's not a definition. Parallel lines are defined as lines from

: which a normal drawn from one line will meet the other line at right
: angles. Presumably such lines never meet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_geometry
Many alternative axioms can be formulated that have the same logical
consequences as the parallel postulate. For example Playfair's
axiom states:

In a plane, through a point not on a given straight line, at
most one line can be drawn that never meets the given line.

Which is to say, it's not a *presumption*, it's a logical consequence
of Euclid's fifth axiom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_geometry
1. "To draw a straight line from any point to any point."
2. "To produce [extend] a finite straight line continuously in
a straight line."
3. "To describe a circle with any centre and distance [radius]."
4. "That all right angles are equal to one another."
5. The parallel postulate: "That, if a straight line falling on two
straight lines make the interior angles on the same side less than two
right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on
that side on which are the angles less than the two right angles."

[Wayne Throop]

: Martin Phipps <martin...@yahoo.com>
: Apparently, you don't understand the analogy I was making.

: Mathematical axioms are presumptions that we are presuming to always
: be true.

OK. So when you say, as you did

We presume that parallel lines never meet but this can actually
never be tested.

you are expressing this in a remarkably bad way, because you using a non-standard word "presumption", which is most often used IME for initial conditions rather than axioms, and considering whethwr it can be tested.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message news:405f589l3hhe0khka...@4ax.com...

I am very aware that parallel lines aren't the only lines that never
meet.    But by definition, parallel lines never meet.  

 

-

Whose definition? Yours?

Lines of latitude never meet, lines of longitude always meet at

the poles. Yet both are “straight” on the familiar Mercator

projection every child learns in geography class.

Your Euclidean definition is adequate for planar geometry,

but fails in spherical geometry. And the term “geometry” means

measure the Earth, by definition of Greek bronze and copper age

roots.

Try to go a step beyond the clichés you learnt when you were

more interested in sex than education. Parallel lines can meet,

it only depends on your pre-conception of “parallel”.

 

 This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

 

[david.sh...@ymail.com]

On Sep 17, 9:25 am, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 17, 11:12 am, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 18:44:09 -0700 (PDT), Martin Phipps
>
> > <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >You don't really understand how math and science works, do you?  We
> > >presume that parallel lines never meet but this can actually never be
> > >tested.  It is, nevertheless, a presumption few people would disagree
> > >over.
>
> > If they meet, then by definition, they aren't parallel.
>
> That's not a definition.  Parallel lines are defined as lines from
> which a normal drawn from one line will meet the other line at right
> angles.

Parallel lines are defined by:
Παράλληλοί εἰσιν εὐθεῖαι, αἵτινες ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ ἐπιπέδῳ οὖσαι καὶ
ἐκβαλλόμεναι εἰς ἄπειρον ἐφ' ἑκάτερα τὰ μέρη ἐπὶ μηδέτερα
συμπίπτουσιν ἀλλήλαις.

That is:
"Parallel straight lines are straight lines which, being in the
same plane and being produced indefinitely in both directions,
do not meet one another in either direction.

[Martin Phipps]

> >> >Thank you.  I try my best to let my disdain for ignorance get across.

>
> >> How about your distain for spelling?
>
> >> >> These are not "alternatives".
>
> >> >Actually, they are in so far as if time slows down in empty space then
> >> >there is no need to presume that the rate of the expansion of the
> >> >universe is increasing.
>
> >> Operative word: presume.
>
> >You don't really understand how math and science works, do you?  We
> >presume that parallel lines never meet but this can actually never be
> >tested.  It is, nevertheless, a presumption few people would disagree
> >over.
>
> You're still condescending.  It hurts you more than me.
>
> Untested, unproven, and yet few people disagree. Precisely my point.
>
> There could easily be places, times, situations, etc., where parallel lines cannot exist.  We assume that our logic is absolutely correct, but
> our only test for this is inside a contained sample of space/time and
> distance.  For that matter, we cannot even see much of what's in our
> universe, much less have any clue what might or might not "exist" other
> than within its confines and within the past 15 billion years, or whatever
> the current agreement about the age of the universe might be.

The problem is that if you wish to describe any complex system you
have to make assumptions. There is even a theorem called the
Incompleteness Theorem which states that one not only needs to make
assumptions to describe complex systems but that you cannot describe
everything using a finite number of assumptions. It isn't just a
problem of our limited understanding: part of the problem is
continuously having to make new assumptions in order to make any more
progress. Now you can ask "If everything is ultimately based on
assumptions then do we know anything for certain?" and the answer is
"No... probably not". :)

Martin

[Nadegda]

Martin Phipps formulated on Tuesday :

> On Sep 18, 12:13ï¿œam, Mason Barge <masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 18:44:09 -0700 (PDT), Martin Phipps
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>> On Sep 17, 12:51ï¿œam, Mason Barge <masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 14:36:08 -0700 (PDT), Martin Phipps
>>>> <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>>> On Sep 15, 11:53ï¿œpm, Mason Barge <masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 03:14:35 -0700 (PDT), Martin Phipps
>>>>>> <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>>>>> On Sep 13, 11:25ï¿œpm, Mason Barge <masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 21:31:18 -0700 (PDT), Martin Phipps
>>>>>>>> <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> [...]
>>

>>>>>>>>> God isn't real. ï¿œIt's just your imagination.

>>>>>>>>> And, yes, belief in Dark Energy is belief but it is not religious

>>>>>>>>> belief. ï¿œAstrophysicists would be happy if you showed them where they
>>>>>>>>> made a mistake. ï¿œOne possibility is that time passes more slowly in

>>>>>>>>> empty space and thus distant galaxies appear farther away than they

>>>>>>>>> actually are. ï¿œAlternatively empty space has to be applying some
>>>>>>>>> outward pressure that causes the universe to expand. ï¿œIt's one or the
>>>>>>>>> other. ï¿œYou have to follow the evidence.

>>>>>>>> Alternatively?
>>
>>>>>>>> In other words, this is nothing but a lot of guesses to hide the fact
>>>>>>>> that physics cannot, at least at this point, explain how the universe
>>>>>>>> workd.
>>>>>>> "One or the other" applies to just about everything.
>>>>>>> The defendant is guilty... or he isn't.
>>>>>>> My wife is pregnant... or she isn't.
>>>>>>> I'm going to get paid today... or I won't.
>>>>>>> In this case the rate of the universe's expansion is increasing and
>>>>>>> dark energy is real... or it isn't and it's not.
>>>>>>> It's called being honest.
>>
>>>>>> Nice bit of condescending tone.
>>

>>>>> Thank you. ï¿œI try my best to let my disdain for ignorance get across.

>>>> How about your distain for spelling?
>>>>>> These are not "alternatives".
>>
>>>>> Actually, they are in so far as if time slows down in empty space then
>>>>> there is no need to presume that the rate of the expansion of the
>>>>> universe is increasing.
>>
>>>> Operative word: presume.
>>

>>> You don't really understand how math and science works, do you? ï¿œWe

>>> presume that parallel lines never meet but this can actually never be

>>> tested. ï¿œIt is, nevertheless, a presumption few people would disagree
>>> over.
>>
>> You're still condescending. ï¿œIt hurts you more than me.

>>
>> Untested, unproven, and yet few people disagree. Precisely my point.
>>
>> There could easily be places, times, situations, etc., where parallel lines

>> cannot exist. ï¿œWe assume that our logic is absolutely correct, but our only
>> test for this is inside a contained sample of space/time and distance. ï¿œFor

>> that matter, we cannot even see much of what's in our universe, much less
>> have any clue what might or might not "exist" other than within its confines
>> and within the past 15 billion years, or whatever the current agreement
>> about the age of the universe might be.
>
> The problem is that if you wish to describe any complex system you
> have to make assumptions. There is even a theorem called the
> Incompleteness Theorem which states that one not only needs to make
> assumptions to describe complex systems but that you cannot describe
> everything using a finite number of assumptions. It isn't just a
> problem of our limited understanding: part of the problem is
> continuously having to make new assumptions in order to make any more
> progress. Now you can ask "If everything is ultimately based on
> assumptions then do we know anything for certain?" and the answer is
> "No... probably not". :)

No, probably so.

>
> Martin

[Walter Bushell]

In article
<b73a561d-ccac-4b75...@lo4g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

Martin Phipps <martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Intelligence is limited by how fast we can think.

I would take this out as a factor in evaluating intelligence. I would
base the evaluation intelligence on the deepness of the concepts that
can be understood.

For example, some of my students in bone head math never seemed to
understand what "x" was in algebra, after a semester, even though it
was well known that the math class was a flunk out course. It was at a
state university and everyone with a sea level average in an academic
program was granted admission which meant far to many students and
wurst to many students who were unready of just not capable.

Another hypothetical suppose we meet a race of aliens that think one
tenth as fast but have a technology that makes ours look neolithic.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

[Nadegda]

Walter Bushell submitted this idea :

We will kill them and steal their technology.

[Michael Stemper]

In article <proto-D12F68....@news.panix.com>, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> writes:
>In article <b73a561d-ccac-4b75...@lo4g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> Intelligence is limited by how fast we can think.
>
>I would take this out as a factor in evaluating intelligence. I would
>base the evaluation intelligence on the deepness of the concepts that
>can be understood.
>
> For example, some of my students in bone head math never seemed to
>understand what "x" was in algebra, after a semester, even though it
>was well known that the math class was a flunk out course. It was at a
>state university and everyone with a sea level average in an academic
>program was granted admission which meant far to many students and
>wurst to many students who were unready of just not capable.

ARRGH! Make it stop!

[Nadegda]

Michael Stemper formulated on Tuesday :

> In article <proto-D12F68....@news.panix.com>, Walter Bushell
> <pr...@panix.com> writes:
>> In article
>> <b73a561d-ccac-4b75...@lo4g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, Martin
>> Phipps <martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Intelligence is limited by how fast we can think.
>>
>> I would take this out as a factor in evaluating intelligence. I would
>> base the evaluation intelligence on the deepness of the concepts that
>> can be understood.
>>
>> For example, some of my students in bone head math never seemed to
>> understand what "x" was in algebra, after a semester, even though it
>> was well known that the math class was a flunk out course. It was at a
>> state university and everyone with a sea level average in an academic
>> program was granted admission which meant far to many students and
>> wurst to many students who were unready of just not capable.
>
> ARRGH! Make it stop!

Weak mind?

[kenseto]

You described SRT perfectly....everytime SRT run into trouble they invented new epicycles to explain. For example:
1. They couldn't measure the one-way speed of light come out to be c so they redefine the meter as 1/299,792,458 light-seconds. This circular definition guarantees that the speed of light to be c.
2. The constancy of the speed of light gives rise to all sorts of paradoxes...so they invented the bogus concept of relativity of simultaneity (RoS) to explain these paradoxes. It turns out that RoS violate the isotropy of the speed of light.

[Howard Brazee]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 19:02:03 -0700 (PDT), Martin Phipps
<martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Intelligence is limited by how fast we can think. It is also limited

>by how much we can possibly know. Language is a problem: it's hard to
>compare the intelligence of people who speak different languages
>because they would have to take different tests. Meanwhile, a guy may
>be smart enough to be in a Ph.D. program at a major university but be
>very frustrated that he cannot easily pick up Japanese or Chinese. It
>takes time to process information and commit it to memory.

We've also have types of thinking which have changed over the years
which have made significant differences to intelligence. There's no
reason to assume that this process has reached its limit.

[Mason Barge]

That's fine and good. My problem with science trying to assess religion
is that the enormous gaps in what we are able to measure and the resulting
lack of testing in any capacity -- including the usefulness of the math --
to describe phenomena that our logic tells us must exist. It is not
simply based on assumption, it is entirely assumption.

[The Starmaker]

Why kill them, you can just download it...

i know no one here would ever consider...buying technology.

[Wayne Throop]

:: The problem is that if you wish to describe any complex system you

:: have to make assumptions. There is even a theorem called the
:: Incompleteness Theorem which states that one not only needs to make
:: assumptions to describe complex systems but that you cannot describe
:: everything using a finite number of assumptions.

Two problems with that. You have to wait for new phenomena to make
new assumptions. That's what incompleteness is all about; any finite
set of assumptions can't completely give unambiguous answers to all
statements that can be made. If you make those statements in a model
that's an attempt to model reality, you have no reason to make more
assumptions until you find some new observation. So, making the
assumptions that "you can create negative matter, start and stop
an alcubiere warp, and there's a solution to the chonology problems",
you'd have to have a phenomenon that needs explaining, not just
a wish to go FTL.

And second, it's not as easy as you seem to be implying to come up with
a question that isn't unambiguously answerable yes or no, so as to
*require* a new axiom on grounds of incompleteness. In fact, in
large part, this is having to *alter* axioms that have given an
unambiguous answer which you don't like.

So, incompleteness is not at issue at all.

[Rod Speed]

Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote

> Martin Phipps <martin...@yahoo.com> wrote

>> Intelligence is limited by how fast we can think.

> I would take this out as a factor in evaluating intelligence.

I wouldn�t. It is in practice one thing that distinguishes the
more intelligent from the less intelligent, how quickly they
can solve a particular problem, particularly a complex one.

> I would base the evaluation intelligence on the
> deepness of the concepts that can be understood.

That�s just one aspect of intelligence.

> For example, some of my students in bone head math never seemed
> to understand what "x" was in algebra, after a semester, even though
> it was well known that the math class was a flunk out course.

Sure, but clearly intelligence also determines how quickly
you can understand a new concept like that too. It isnt just
about whether you can grasp it eventually, even if that is
after someone has pounded it into your thick skull etc.

> It was at a state university and everyone with a sea level average in an
> academic program was granted admission which meant far to many
> students and wurst to many students who were unready of just not capable.

> Another hypothetical suppose we meet a race of aliens that think one
> tenth as fast but have a technology that makes ours look neolithic.

That leaves open the question of how long they have been developing
the technology, and other things like what was the trigger for the
development of the technology that makes ours look neolithic.
Doesn�t say anything useful about the intelligence of those aliens.

[Martin Phipps]

Well, not entirely assumption. Science does rely on observation,
after all. It's in trying to explain the observations that you might
have to make assumptions.

Martin

[Mason Barge]

Of course. The ax I have to grind is with statements like Steven Hawking
saying that God could not have created the Universe, because there was no
time prior to the Big Bang.

He may be making his statement based on the observation available to him,
but his years concentrating on astrophysics have given him tunnel-vision.
He simply assumes that something can only exist in time, because what he
can observe exists in time.

And, we cannot even observe the edge of our universe, or even close. I
give about as much respect to Hawking's ideas about God about as I give to
a Renaissance pope's ideas about the solar system.

[HVAC]

On 9/19/2012 11:34 AM, Mason Barge wrote:
>
>
> Of course. The ax I have to grind is with statements like Steven Hawking
> saying that God could not have created the Universe, because there was no
> time prior to the Big Bang.

The big bang is clearly when all space, all energy, and all time began.
What the conditions were at the moment of the big bang is probably
unknowable. To insert 'god' into the mix is absurd.

> He may be making his statement based on the observation available to him,
> but his years concentrating on astrophysics have given him tunnel-vision.
> He simply assumes that something can only exist in time, because what he
> can observe exists in time.

And YOU have observations that go beyond this?

> And, we cannot even observe the edge of our universe, or even close. I
> give about as much respect to Hawking's ideas about God about as I give to
> a Renaissance pope's ideas about the solar system.

One is based upon science, the other on faith. You figure out which is
which.




--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. 变亮

[Dano]

"Mason Barge" wrote in message
news:h0pj58h6mb87uc9an...@4ax.com...

====================================================

This is WHY I feel the very concept of "God" is useless to argue. It's a
personal feeling or belief beyond our own "rational" concepts of reality
itself. Like how can one wrap one's head around the notion of "infinity"?
A space...time...or continuum without beginning or end. For me the very
concept of an infinite universe is indistinguishable from the idea of "God"
itself. One cannot exist WITHOUT the other. In other words...in my own
modest view...for ME...God actually IS the universe. ALL of creation
itself. Merely transforming over "time" itself. Which makes all these
discussions foolish and meaningless IMHO.

[Martin Phipps]

That's not exactly what he said, not if you are referring to comments
he made over twenty years ago in the book "A Brief History of Time".
Paraphrasing he said "What if the universe just is? What then is the
need for a creator?" His argument is that, as a physicist, he deals
with space-time and not just space and time and he thinks of the
universe as a four dimensional object in space-time. He argues that
the passage of time is an illusion created by our brains because they
are "biological machines". When he says this he is referring to the
2nd Law of Thermodynamics which states that the entropy of a closed
system is always increasing: this determines the arrow of time and
creates the illusion that we are traveling forward in time whereas in
reality, he would argue, we are objects in four dimensional space-
time. Now at the boundary of space-time obviously both space and tiem
come to an end so you could argue that this is "the beginning of time"
but that is only "the beginning of time" for this universe. Also if
the universe is a fourth dimensional object in space time then any
point along the boundary can be considered "the beginning". There's
no need for a creator because in fourth-dimensional space-time there
is no well defined point where the universe "begins". Essentially the
big bang is a time when the universe was at zero entropy and if the
universe is constantly increasing in entropy with time then we observe
the big bang to be the "beginning of time". This is equivalent to
saying hat the beginning of time was the big bang except that it
reverses the causality: according to Hawking's logic, the big bang
didn't create the universe; the universe created the big bang and
there was absolutely no reason for a supernatural being to have caused
it. It makes 100% perfect sense to me. Really.

Martin

[Martin Phipps]

On Sep 20, 2:41 am, "Dano" <janeandd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> God actually IS the universe.

Which is entirely consistent with Spinoza, Einstein and Hawking.

Martin

[Sam Wormley]

Truth in science, as opposed to philosophy, is determined by the
results of observation and experiment.

[Dano]

"Martin Phipps" wrote in message
news:631946d6-761a-4f4d...@a11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

On Sep 20, 2:41 am, "Dano" <janeandd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> God actually IS the universe.

Which is entirely consistent with Spinoza, Einstein and Hawking.

===========================================

Pleased to be in their company. Wise folks. Different from "smart" BTW.

[mpc755]

The results of observation in a double slit experiment is the particle
always enters, travels through and exits a single slit.

In a double slit experiment does the field wave? If not why not?

If the particle is always detected entering, traveling through and
exiting a single slit in a double slit experiment then how is this not
evidence the particle always enters, travels through and exits a
single slit and it is the wave in the field which passes through both?

Q. In a double slit experiment, why does ‘something else’ occur
when the particle is not detected entering, traveling through and
exiting a single slit?
A. ‘Something else’ does not occur. The particle always enters,
travels through and exits a single slit. It is the associated wave in
the field which passes through both.

[The Starmaker]

"the universe created the big bang"???? What are you smoking?

[The Starmaker]

Hawking is just trying to stay within his limits. A world without time simply makes
no sense to him, ...because, it is beyond his mental intellect...he reached a...'dead end'.

Don't ask a clown fish in your aquarium to help you with your homework.


The Starmaker

[The Starmaker]

This is Usenet Mr. Martin Phipps. I don't allow people coming into my threads making absurd ridiculous assumptions like
"the universe created the big bang", ...there are 3 year olds reading this stuff...when i said you can sell ice to eskimoes, I was only joking.

Not even an eskimoe will fall for a line like..."the universe created the big bang". That's old Twilight Zone episode talk. You are a relic
of the 1960 old Twilight Zone episodes, The Paralllel Universe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPjScccVRUY

Here's what The Big Bang looked like before The Big Bang:
http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k540/TheStarmaker1/?albumview=slideshow


The Starmaker

[The Starmaker]

Of course it's foolish and meaningless to you, you're a woman...
your function in this world is to just move furniture around the house.

"Now, where should I put the chair?"

I usually ask girls, "Where do you think I should put this pillow?"





The Starmaker

[P. Taine]

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 14:10:32 -0700, The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

The obvious reply is "On your face until you stop breathing.

[P. Taine]

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:45:49 -0700, The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

So you admit there are people smarter than you reading this!

[The Starmaker]

There is always somebody smarter..