Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #379551 > unrolled thread

Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-19 13:02 -0700
    Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World cryptoclearance <cryptoclearance@cryptoclearance.net> - 2016-03-19 20:35 +0000
    Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-19 14:20 -0700
    Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 17:27 -0700
      Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 00:13 -0700
        Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 00:16 -0700
        Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-20 09:50 +0100
          Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 15:00 -0700
            Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-21 00:55 +0100
              Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 20:50 -0700
                Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 21:01 -0700
                Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-21 17:38 +0100
                  Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 16:43 +0000
                    Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-21 17:54 +0100
                  Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 18:59 -0700
                    Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 19:12 -0700
                      Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 07:23 -0500
                        Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-22 05:30 -0700
                          Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-22 19:59 +0100
                        Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 19:42 -0700
                          Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 20:21 -0700
                    Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-22 08:42 +0100
    Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-20 09:26 +0100
      Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-20 02:47 -0700
        Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 03:21 -0700
        Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-20 12:40 +0100
          Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-20 04:54 -0700
            Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-20 13:47 +0100
            Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World cryptoclearance <cryptoclearance@cryptoclearance.net> - 2016-03-20 14:10 +0000
    Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-20 04:07 -0700
      Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World cryptoclearance <cryptoclearance@cryptoclearance.net> - 2016-03-20 11:46 +0000
        Re: Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-03-23 06:52 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#379551 — Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/09/05/perimeter-institute-and-the-crisis-in-modern-physics/ 
 Neil Turok: "It's the ultimate catastrophe: that theoretical physics has led to this crazy situation where the physicists are utterly confused and seem not to have any predictions at all." 

http://www.edge.org/response-detail/23857 
 Steve Giddings: "What really keeps me awake at night (...) is that we face a crisis within the deepest foundations of physics. The only way out seems to involve profound revision of fundamental physical principles."

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/the-ultimate-simplicity-of-everything-1.3490322 
 Neil Turok: "It looks like the founding principles of modern physics - quantum theory and relativity - have played out and they have not given us the answers we need. And so we have to go back and question those founding principles..."

Needless to say, Einsteinians have already questioned the founding principles. They have discovered that the consequences of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate are absurd, which means that the postulate is false:

http://community.bowdoin.edu/news/2015/04/professor-baumgarte-describes-100-years-of-gravity/ 
 "Baumgarte began by discussing special relativity, which Einstein developed, 10 years earlier, in 1905, while he was employed as a patent officer in Bern, Switzerland. Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime."

https://edge.org/response-detail/25477 
 What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE 
 Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257 
 Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/31/science/e-and-mc2-equality-it-seems-is-relative.html 
 "...Dr. Magueijo said. "We need to drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of the speed of light."

https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-185331159.html 
 "Einstein introduced a new notion of time, more radical than even he at first realized. In fact, the view of time that Einstein adopted was first articulated by his onetime math teacher in a famous lecture delivered one century ago. That lecture, by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled Space and Time, and it introduced to the world the marriage of the two, now known as spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists passion for spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce. (...) Einstein's famous insistence that the velocity of light is a cosmic speed limit made sense, Minkowski saw, only if space and time were intertwined. (...) Physicists of the 21st century therefore face the task of finding the true reality obscured by the spacetime mirage. (...) Andreas Albrecht, a cosmologist at the University of California, Davis, has thought deeply about choosing clocks, leading him to some troubling realizations. (...) "It seems to me like it's a time in the development of physics," says Albrecht, "where it's time to look at how we think about space and time very differently." 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html 
 "...says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter." 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029410.900 
 New Scientist: "Saving time: Physics killed it. Do we need it back? (...) Einstein landed the fatal blow at the turn of the 20th century." 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730370-600-why-do-we-move-forwards-in-time/ 
 "[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. Although you might have seen three things happen in a particular order – 
A, then B, then C – someone moving 
at a different velocity could have seen 
it a different way – C, then B, then A. 
In other words, without simultaneity there is no way of specifying what things happened "now". And if not "now", what is moving through time? Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review 
 "And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin." 

http://www.bookdepository.com/Time-Reborn-Professor-Physics-Lee-Smolin/9780547511726 
 "Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..." 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721.200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-spacetime.html 
 "Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time (...) The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. (...) Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser." 

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#379555

Pentcho Valev wrote:

> http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/09/05/perimeter-institute-and-the-crisis-in-
modern-physics/
>  Neil Turok: "It's the ultimate catastrophe: that theoretical physics
>  has led to this crazy situation where the physicists are utterly
>  confused and seem not to have any predictions at all."

Couldn't say it better by myself. But they are not confuses, but driven by 
profit and personal interest.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379559

On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 2:02:46 PM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> Needless to say, Einsteinians have already questioned the founding
> principles. They have discovered that the consequences of Einstein's
> 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate are absurd,

"The most absurd and reckless aspirations have sometimes led to
extraordinary success." -- Luc de Clapiers

> which means that the postulate is false

Not even close.  Absurd does not equal false, as anyone with a brain knows.
"Absurd" is a subjective assessment and can tell us more about the one
making that claim than it does about reality.

Gary

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379569

On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 1:02:46 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
[the usual]

Any reason why you titled this thread "panic"? What panic? The title again shows you are
interested in pushing an infantile agenda, not science.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379578

On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 5:27:58 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 1:02:46 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> [the usual]
> 
> Any reason why you titled this thread "panic"? What panic? The title again shows you are
> interested in pushing an infantile agenda, not science.
> 
> --
> Jan

Valev is a bit of a sensationalist.

That noted, modern physics is in a bit of a rut.

There's no dark matter, for example.  "Higgs" is 
not a "field", it's a contradiction in terms.  
For what string theory does have as a substrate 
for continuum analysis, needs the mathematics to 
bridge that.  The tachyonic effect of gravity about 
light isn't accommodated in the Standard Model, yet.  
(Not information, just gravity.)  There's that Higgs 
the "particle" is like "asymptotic freedom" of gluons, 
it's the usual inverse square but with a spike in the 
middle.  These and a variety of other concerns and 
even the usual plain "wave model" or "colorspace" 
in their limited metaphor basically leave textbook 
modern physics a cripple.

Warm regards

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379579

On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 12:13:48 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 5:27:58 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 1:02:46 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > [the usual]
> > 
> > Any reason why you titled this thread "panic"? What panic? The title again shows you are
> > interested in pushing an infantile agenda, not science.
> > 
> > --
> > Jan
> 
> Valev is a bit of a sensationalist.
> 
> That noted, modern physics is in a bit of a rut.
> 
> There's no dark matter, for example.  "Higgs" is 
> not a "field", it's a contradiction in terms.  
> For what string theory does have as a substrate 
> for continuum analysis, needs the mathematics to 
> bridge that.  The tachyonic effect of gravity about 
> light isn't accommodated in the Standard Model, yet.  
> (Not information, just gravity.)  There's that Higgs 
> the "particle" is like "asymptotic freedom" of gluons, 
> it's the usual inverse square but with a spike in the 
> middle.  These and a variety of other concerns and 
> even the usual plain "wave model" or "colorspace" 
> in their limited metaphor basically leave textbook 
> modern physics a cripple.
> 
> Warm regards

Don't get me started about usual applications 
and usual solutions in modern mechanics and 
electrodynamics, I'm talking about novel foundations 
and completeness in theories, and modern physics' 
lack of direction, vision, or traction.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379581

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

> On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 5:27:58 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
>> On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 1:02:46 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> [the usual]
>> 
>> Any reason why you titled this thread "panic"? What panic? The title
>> again shows you are interested in pushing an infantile agenda, not
>> science.
> 
> Valev is a bit of a sensationalist.

More, he is a crackpot.  And from your postings follows that so are you.
 
> That noted, modern physics is in a bit of a rut.

It is not.
 
> There's no dark matter, for example.

/Argumentum ad ignorantiam/.  That dark matter has not been detected yet 
(with significant certainty, but see [1]) does not mean that it does not 
exist.  Those who doubt the existence of dark matter first have to come up 
with at least a self-consistent theory (preferably, it would be consistent 
with at least some other theory – say, general relativity) that explains 
gravitational lensing caused by something between galaxies where nothing is 
shining *and* the data is not consistent with black holes. [2]

[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Detection>
[2] <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo&feature=youtu.be&t=1538>

> "Higgs" is not a "field", it's a contradiction in terms.

Not even wrong.  To educate yourself, read *at least*
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson>.

> […] The tachyonic effect of gravity about
> light isn't accommodated in the Standard Model, yet.

To what “tachyonic effect” are you referring?

> There's that Higgs the "particle" is like "asymptotic freedom" of gluons,

No, it is not.  Arranging scientific terms alone does not make a scientific 
statement (that makes sense).

> it's the usual inverse square but with a spike in the middle.

Not even wrong.


PointedEars
-- 
Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity
   does it take to change a light bulb?  
A: Two: one to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe.
(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379642

On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 1:50:27 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> 
> > On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 5:27:58 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> >> On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 1:02:46 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >> [the usual]
> >> 
> >> Any reason why you titled this thread "panic"? What panic? The title
> >> again shows you are interested in pushing an infantile agenda, not
> >> science.
> > 
> > Valev is a bit of a sensationalist.
> 
> More, he is a crackpot.  And from your postings follows that so are you.
>  
> > That noted, modern physics is in a bit of a rut.
> 
> It is not.
>  
> > There's no dark matter, for example.
> 
> /Argumentum ad ignorantiam/.  That dark matter has not been detected yet 
> (with significant certainty, but see [1]) does not mean that it does not 
> exist.  Those who doubt the existence of dark matter first have to come up 
> with at least a self-consistent theory (preferably, it would be consistent 
> with at least some other theory - say, general relativity) that explains 
> gravitational lensing caused by something between galaxies where nothing is 
> shining *and* the data is not consistent with black holes. [2]
> 
> [1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Detection>
> [2] <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo&feature=youtu.be&t=1538>
> 
> > "Higgs" is not a "field", it's a contradiction in terms.
> 
> Not even wrong.  To educate yourself, read *at least*
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson>.
> 
> > [...] The tachyonic effect of gravity about
> > light isn't accommodated in the Standard Model, yet.
> 
> To what "tachyonic effect" are you referring?
> 
> > There's that Higgs the "particle" is like "asymptotic freedom" of gluons,
> 
> No, it is not.  Arranging scientific terms alone does not make a scientific 
> statement (that makes sense).
> 
> > it's the usual inverse square but with a spike in the middle.
> 
> Not even wrong.
> 
> 
> PointedEars
> -- 
> Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity
>    does it take to change a light bulb?  
> A: Two: one to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe.
> (from: WolframAlpha)

The "tachyonic" is that's gravity's speed is that 
the effect of changes in relative position are 
immediate and instantaneous and essentially 
unbounded by any speed.

About the inflationary hypothesis or other fitting 
of data to the "Big Bang", what you can find is that 
2MASS has that most of sky surveys to date finds all 
the local galaxies are part of a jet as to why they 
scatter.  Galaxies on average these days are pretty 
much random in their motion, although that's not in 
the order of their discovery.

You are reconciling gravity, relativity, and quantum 
mechanics so neatly?

Gravity waves can be predicted by classical effects.  
You're trying to attach their source to the <0.5c 
components on either side of a binary pulsar or 
binary black hole, with that then again those system 
stronly repel each other, that again like "asymptotic 
freedom" in gluons", when they do collide there is 
a shock wave (eg a classical shock wave.  So, you're 
looking for that, but no one's found one to show to 
you yet.  Ditto dark matter: it doesn't exist, and 
instead people forget that there could be other 
energetic moments in large scale systems like galaxies 
(besides that, again as above, the universe isn't so 
much expanding as our tiny 70-year window into 
cosmological time had yet shown you).  

Lensing is often optical.  

Dark matter is a bucket that fills with dribble, 
that's unscientific wishful thinking.

Now string theory, some interpretations of string 
theory have a lot going for them, about mathematical 
foundations for continuum analysis and continuum 
mechanics.  (This is where some demand a continuous 
space-time.)  You can note that space-time is not 
flat, but also it's not curved, and rather, others 
note each of these things, then:  Einstein's constant 
is somehow a mathematical infinitesimal, and theory 
really must encompass somehow that both Big Bang and 
Steady State are so, the relative of motion and absolute 
of location, and so on and so forth.

These dichotomies and what would be paradoxes are 
resolved together instead of discarded each.


Then, it's not so much Einstein's dilemma, because 
he's not around and it's not his fault, it's the 
bunch of pin-head ignoramii.


So, dark matter is unscientific, "Higgs" does not 
explain anything that wasn't already explained, 
(and doesn't explain why the system of waves and 
particles that is a "Higgs boson" doesn't add up 
and keeps slipping).


Subtract Hubble, subtract Heisenberg, subtract Higgs.  
Then maybe you'll have a chance to re-evaluate from 
first principles what goes into a grand unified theory 
or "theory of everything".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379646

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

> On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 1:50:27 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> wrote:
>> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>> > [...] The tachyonic effect of gravity about
>> > light isn't accommodated in the Standard Model, yet.
>> 
>> To what "tachyonic effect" are you referring?
>> […]

Learn to quote.  Text that you do not refer to is not to be quoted by you.
Also, skip the attribution novel (see above).

> The "tachyonic" is that's gravity's speed is that
> the effect of changes in relative position are
> immediate and instantaneous and essentially
> unbounded by any speed.

Not even wrong.
 
> About the inflationary hypothesis or other fitting
> of data to the "Big Bang", what you can find is that
> 2MASS has that most of sky surveys to date finds all
> the local galaxies are part of a jet as to why they
> scatter.

Gibberish.  “The local galaxies” are definitely _not_ “part of a jet”.

> Galaxies on average these days are pretty
> much random in their motion, although that's not in
> the order of their discovery.

You better start making *at least* *some* sense *soon*.
 
> You are reconciling gravity, relativity, and quantum
> mechanics so neatly?

Straw man.

> Gravity waves can be predicted by classical effects.

You have no idea what you are blathering about.  (In fact, I get the 
impression that you have no idea what you are doing with the computer 
keyboard in the first place.)

First of all, learn the difference between *gravity* waves and 
*gravitational* waves:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave>

“Classical effects”, by which you maybe mean classical, Newtonian 
_mechanics_, predict the former, but not the latter.  *Gravity* waves then 
*are* a classical effect, not a prediction by them.

Effects do not predict; effects *are predicted* by _theories_.  A theory is 
*confirmed* if the effects predicted by it are *observed*, otherwise it is 
*falsified*.

> You're trying to attach their source to the <0.5c
> components on either side of a binary pulsar or
> binary black hole, with that then again those system
> stronly repel each other, [more pseudo-scientific gibberish, tl;dr]

Get well soon.


PointedEars
-- 
Q: Who's on the case when the electricity goes out?  
A: Sherlock Ohms.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379662

On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 4:55:50 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> 
> > On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 1:50:27 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> > wrote:
> >> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >> > [...] The tachyonic effect of gravity about
> >> > light isn't accommodated in the Standard Model, yet.
> >> 
> >> To what "tachyonic effect" are you referring?
> >> [...]
> 
> Learn to quote.  Text that you do not refer to is not to be quoted by you.
> Also, skip the attribution novel (see above).
> 
> > The "tachyonic" is that's gravity's speed is that
> > the effect of changes in relative position are
> > immediate and instantaneous and essentially
> > unbounded by any speed.
> 
> Not even wrong.
>  
> > About the inflationary hypothesis or other fitting
> > of data to the "Big Bang", what you can find is that
> > 2MASS has that most of sky surveys to date finds all
> > the local galaxies are part of a jet as to why they
> > scatter.
> 
> Gibberish.  "The local galaxies" are definitely _not_ "part of a jet".
> 
> > Galaxies on average these days are pretty
> > much random in their motion, although that's not in
> > the order of their discovery.
> 
> You better start making *at least* *some* sense *soon*.
>  
> > You are reconciling gravity, relativity, and quantum
> > mechanics so neatly?
> 
> Straw man.
> 
> > Gravity waves can be predicted by classical effects.
> 
> You have no idea what you are blathering about.  (In fact, I get the 
> impression that you have no idea what you are doing with the computer 
> keyboard in the first place.)
> 
> First of all, learn the difference between *gravity* waves and 
> *gravitational* waves:
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave>
> 
> "Classical effects", by which you maybe mean classical, Newtonian 
> _mechanics_, predict the former, but not the latter.  *Gravity* waves then 
> *are* a classical effect, not a prediction by them.
> 
> Effects do not predict; effects *are predicted* by _theories_.  A theory is 
> *confirmed* if the effects predicted by it are *observed*, otherwise it is 
> *falsified*.
> 
> > You're trying to attach their source to the <0.5c
> > components on either side of a binary pulsar or
> > binary black hole, with that then again those system
> > stronly repel each other, [more pseudo-scientific gibberish, tl;dr]
> 
> Get well soon.
> 
> 

Here I'll just trim the sigs.

The shock wave(s) of what are the strongly 
repelling relativistic systems then slamming 
together, are classical, yes.  In a sense, 
then, that's a pressure, in space, and throughout 
space, but not of space, as it's as neatly 
modeled by gravity as a force as gravity as 
a configuration (as of a configuration of a 
configuration and in the reductio as of a force).  
How they got there is of the highly energetic and 
dynamic interaction of relativistic systems, what 
they are is classical.


Yes, "Get well soon" or along those lines is 
what many would hope of what they see as an 
illness or infirmity in the modern outlook 
(that posits, for example, "dark matter", as 
not even right).


You are not reconciling gravity, the relativistic, 
and quantum mechanics so neatly?


The "local galaxies" or the systems LaniaKea 
"Immeasurable Heavens" does quite appear to 
be a large jet.  And, various sky surveys do 
have galactic motion, overall, as rather uniformly 
direction-less.


Here's another one, the frequency or wavelength 
of light is continuous in its variation, which 
is why it's "red-shift" not "red-skip".


Now then I hope you'll look into "asymptotic 
freedom" so as to get a better idea of the 
workings of the subatomic particle organization 
of the Standard Model (of the zoo).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379664

On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 8:50:41 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 4:55:50 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 1:50:27 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> > > wrote:
> > >> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > >> > [...] The tachyonic effect of gravity about
> > >> > light isn't accommodated in the Standard Model, yet.
> > >> 
> > >> To what "tachyonic effect" are you referring?
> > >> [...]
> > 
> > Learn to quote.  Text that you do not refer to is not to be quoted by you.
> > Also, skip the attribution novel (see above).
> > 
> > > The "tachyonic" is that's gravity's speed is that
> > > the effect of changes in relative position are
> > > immediate and instantaneous and essentially
> > > unbounded by any speed.
> > 
> > Not even wrong.
> >  
> > > About the inflationary hypothesis or other fitting
> > > of data to the "Big Bang", what you can find is that
> > > 2MASS has that most of sky surveys to date finds all
> > > the local galaxies are part of a jet as to why they
> > > scatter.
> > 
> > Gibberish.  "The local galaxies" are definitely _not_ "part of a jet".
> > 
> > > Galaxies on average these days are pretty
> > > much random in their motion, although that's not in
> > > the order of their discovery.
> > 
> > You better start making *at least* *some* sense *soon*.
> >  
> > > You are reconciling gravity, relativity, and quantum
> > > mechanics so neatly?
> > 
> > Straw man.
> > 
> > > Gravity waves can be predicted by classical effects.
> > 
> > You have no idea what you are blathering about.  (In fact, I get the 
> > impression that you have no idea what you are doing with the computer 
> > keyboard in the first place.)
> > 
> > First of all, learn the difference between *gravity* waves and 
> > *gravitational* waves:
> > 
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave>
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave>
> > 
> > "Classical effects", by which you maybe mean classical, Newtonian 
> > _mechanics_, predict the former, but not the latter.  *Gravity* waves then 
> > *are* a classical effect, not a prediction by them.
> > 
> > Effects do not predict; effects *are predicted* by _theories_.  A theory is 
> > *confirmed* if the effects predicted by it are *observed*, otherwise it is 
> > *falsified*.
> > 
> > > You're trying to attach their source to the <0.5c
> > > components on either side of a binary pulsar or
> > > binary black hole, with that then again those system
> > > stronly repel each other, [more pseudo-scientific gibberish, tl;dr]
> > 
> > Get well soon.
> > 
> > 
> 
> Here I'll just trim the sigs.
> 
> The shock wave(s) of what are the strongly 
> repelling relativistic systems then slamming 
> together, are classical, yes.  In a sense, 
> then, that's a pressure, in space, and throughout 
> space, but not of space, as it's as neatly 
> modeled by gravity as a force as gravity as 
> a configuration (as of a configuration of a 
> configuration and in the reductio as of a force).  
> How they got there is of the highly energetic and 
> dynamic interaction of relativistic systems, what 
> they are is classical.
> 
> 
> Yes, "Get well soon" or along those lines is 
> what many would hope of what they see as an 
> illness or infirmity in the modern outlook 
> (that posits, for example, "dark matter", as 
> not even right).
> 
> 
> You are not reconciling gravity, the relativistic, 
> and quantum mechanics so neatly?
> 
> 
> The "local galaxies" or the systems LaniaKea 
> "Immeasurable Heavens" does quite appear to 
> be a large jet.  And, various sky surveys do 
> have galactic motion, overall, as rather uniformly 
> direction-less.
> 
> 
> Here's another one, the frequency or wavelength 
> of light is continuous in its variation, which 
> is why it's "red-shift" not "red-skip".
> 
> 
> Now then I hope you'll look into "asymptotic 
> freedom" so as to get a better idea of the 
> workings of the subatomic particle organization 
> of the Standard Model (of the zoo).


Also:  SUSY, string theory, and QCD (Techicolour) 
all the way down.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379699

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

> Here I'll just trim the sigs.

Which, as I already told you, is inappropriate behavior.  You are supposed 
to trim *everything that you are not referring to*.

> The shock wave(s) of what are the strongly
> repelling relativistic systems then slamming
> together, are classical, yes. 

Gravitational waves are _not_ “shock wave(s) of what are the strongly 
repelling relativistic systems”.  For crying out loud, gravitational waves 
have been produced by the *merger* of two black holes, *spiraling in* on one 
another.  Do you know what “spiraling in” and a ”merger” are?  (Hint: It has 
nothing to do with repulsion.)

Neither are gravity waves “shock wave(s) of what are the strongly repelling 
relativistic systems”.

> In a sense, then, that's a pressure, in space, and throughout
> space, but not of space,

Gravitational waves cause spacetime strain.  I am not sure if your 
description of that as “pressure of space” is appropriate.

However:

> as it's as neatly modeled by gravity as a force as gravity as
> a configuration

“gravity as a force as gravity as a configuration” is pseudo-scientific 
gibberish.

> (as of a configuration of a configuration

“a configuration of a configuration” is pseudo-scientific gibberish.

> and in the reductio as of a force).

“in the reductio [a configuration] as of a force” is pseudo-scientific 
gibberish.  In particular, in general relativity, the theory that describes 
gravitational waves, gravity is _not_ a force, but an observable effect of 
spacetime curvature.

> How they got there is of the highly energetic and
> dynamic interaction of relativistic systems, what
> they are is classical.

Such gibberish, it is not even wrong.

> Yes, "Get well soon" or along those lines is
> what many would hope of what they see as an
> illness or infirmity in the modern outlook
> (that posits, for example, "dark matter", as
> not even right).

Ross, I am very sorry to break this to you, but all that you have posted so 
far is pseudo-scientific gibberish.  Either you are not a native speaker of 
English, in which case you should either post in your native language (this 
is an international newsgroup), or learn proper English; or you are a 
dyslexic, deluded native English speaker, in which case you should seek 
professional help, too.

If you do not understand the above, here it is in Simple English:

You are posting nonsense.

> The "local galaxies" or the systems LaniaKea
> "Immeasurable Heavens" does quite appear to
> be a large jet. [more pseudo-scientific gibberish]

Get well soon.


PointedEars
-- 
Heisenberg is out for a drive when he's stopped by a traffic cop. 
The officer asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?" 
Heisenberg replies "No, but I know where I am."
(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379701

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Gravitational waves are _not_ “shock wave(s) of what are the strongly
> repelling relativistic systems”.  For crying out loud, gravitational
> waves have been produced by the *merger* of two black holes, *spiraling
> in* on one another.  Do you know what “spiraling in” and a ”merger” are?
>  (Hint:
> It has nothing to do with repulsion.)

This coming from a notorious "not even a half-engineer" makes it sound 
wrong.

*bump*

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379703

bear making dust wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Gravitational waves are _not_ “shock wave(s) of what are the strongly
>> repelling relativistic systems”.  For crying out loud, gravitational
>> waves have been produced by the *merger* of two black holes, *spiraling
>> in* on one another.  Do you know what “spiraling in” and a ”merger” are?
>> (Hint: It has nothing to do with repulsion.)
> 
> This coming from a notorious "not even a half-engineer" makes it sound
> wrong.

Ah, the ’nym-shifting troll has a new ‘nym.  *PLONK*

> *bump*

Was that the sound of the bear falling into the dust?


PointedEars
-- 
Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet?  
A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front
   I find myself very attracted to you.
(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379788

On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 9:38:39 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> 
> > Here I'll just trim the sigs.
> 
> Which, as I already told you, is inappropriate behavior.  You are supposed 
> to trim *everything that you are not referring to*.
> 
> > The shock wave(s) of what are the strongly
> > repelling relativistic systems then slamming
> > together, are classical, yes. 
> 
> Gravitational waves are _not_ "shock wave(s) of what are the strongly 
> repelling relativistic systems".  For crying out loud, gravitational waves 
> have been produced by the *merger* of two black holes, *spiraling in* on one 
> another.  Do you know what "spiraling in" and a "merger" are?  (Hint: It has 
> nothing to do with repulsion.)
> 
> Neither are gravity waves "shock wave(s) of what are the strongly repelling 
> relativistic systems".
> 
> > In a sense, then, that's a pressure, in space, and throughout
> > space, but not of space,
> 
> Gravitational waves cause spacetime strain.  I am not sure if your 
> description of that as "pressure of space" is appropriate.
> 
> However:
> 
> > as it's as neatly modeled by gravity as a force as gravity as
> > a configuration
> 
> "gravity as a force as gravity as a configuration" is pseudo-scientific 
> gibberish.
> 
> > (as of a configuration of a configuration
> 
> "a configuration of a configuration" is pseudo-scientific gibberish.
> 
> > and in the reductio as of a force).
> 
> "in the reductio [a configuration] as of a force" is pseudo-scientific 
> gibberish.  In particular, in general relativity, the theory that describes 
> gravitational waves, gravity is _not_ a force, but an observable effect of 
> spacetime curvature.
> 
> > How they got there is of the highly energetic and
> > dynamic interaction of relativistic systems, what
> > they are is classical.
> 
> Such gibberish, it is not even wrong.
> 
> > Yes, "Get well soon" or along those lines is
> > what many would hope of what they see as an
> > illness or infirmity in the modern outlook
> > (that posits, for example, "dark matter", as
> > not even right).
> 
> Ross, I am very sorry to break this to you, but all that you have posted so 
> far is pseudo-scientific gibberish.  Either you are not a native speaker of 
> English, in which case you should either post in your native language (this 
> is an international newsgroup), or learn proper English; or you are a 
> dyslexic, deluded native English speaker, in which case you should seek 
> professional help, too.
> 
> If you do not understand the above, here it is in Simple English:
> 
> You are posting nonsense.
> 
> > The "local galaxies" or the systems LaniaKea
> > "Immeasurable Heavens" does quite appear to
> > be a large jet. [more pseudo-scientific gibberish]
> 
> Get well soon.
> 
> 
> PointedEars
> -- 
> Heisenberg is out for a drive when he's stopped by a traffic cop. 
> The officer asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?" 
> Heisenberg replies "No, but I know where I am."
> (from: WolframAlpha)

Sounds like sci.math or sci.logic ten years ago.

Now I'm a comedian.

It's been said my prose is dense.

That said, it very well is.


If you think my physics is funny, 
I frame it in "A" theory of 
mathematical logic.

For, after all, any "theory of 
everything" will encompass all 
of mathematics.

Re: Heisenberg:  
is, or is not, 
the wavelength of light 
continuously variable?

This is where 
measurement is effect, 
and the tree falling in 
a forest only makes a sound 
that you could hear, 
Heisenberg uncertainty 
doesn't follow from 
Pauli exclusion.

So, you can take your 
"Multiple Worlds Interpretation" 
and put it all back into one.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379789

On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 6:59:10 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 9:38:39 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > 
> > > Here I'll just trim the sigs.
> > 
> > Which, as I already told you, is inappropriate behavior.  You are supposed 
> > to trim *everything that you are not referring to*.
> > 
> > > The shock wave(s) of what are the strongly
> > > repelling relativistic systems then slamming
> > > together, are classical, yes. 
> > 
> > Gravitational waves are _not_ "shock wave(s) of what are the strongly 
> > repelling relativistic systems".  For crying out loud, gravitational waves 
> > have been produced by the *merger* of two black holes, *spiraling in* on one 
> > another.  Do you know what "spiraling in" and a "merger" are?  (Hint: It has 
> > nothing to do with repulsion.)
> > 
> > Neither are gravity waves "shock wave(s) of what are the strongly repelling 
> > relativistic systems".
> > 
> > > In a sense, then, that's a pressure, in space, and throughout
> > > space, but not of space,
> > 
> > Gravitational waves cause spacetime strain.  I am not sure if your 
> > description of that as "pressure of space" is appropriate.
> > 
> > However:
> > 
> > > as it's as neatly modeled by gravity as a force as gravity as
> > > a configuration
> > 
> > "gravity as a force as gravity as a configuration" is pseudo-scientific 
> > gibberish.
> > 
> > > (as of a configuration of a configuration
> > 
> > "a configuration of a configuration" is pseudo-scientific gibberish.
> > 
> > > and in the reductio as of a force).
> > 
> > "in the reductio [a configuration] as of a force" is pseudo-scientific 
> > gibberish.  In particular, in general relativity, the theory that describes 
> > gravitational waves, gravity is _not_ a force, but an observable effect of 
> > spacetime curvature.
> > 
> > > How they got there is of the highly energetic and
> > > dynamic interaction of relativistic systems, what
> > > they are is classical.
> > 
> > Such gibberish, it is not even wrong.
> > 
> > > Yes, "Get well soon" or along those lines is
> > > what many would hope of what they see as an
> > > illness or infirmity in the modern outlook
> > > (that posits, for example, "dark matter", as
> > > not even right).
> > 
> > Ross, I am very sorry to break this to you, but all that you have posted so 
> > far is pseudo-scientific gibberish.  Either you are not a native speaker of 
> > English, in which case you should either post in your native language (this 
> > is an international newsgroup), or learn proper English; or you are a 
> > dyslexic, deluded native English speaker, in which case you should seek 
> > professional help, too.
> > 
> > If you do not understand the above, here it is in Simple English:
> > 
> > You are posting nonsense.
> > 
> > > The "local galaxies" or the systems LaniaKea
> > > "Immeasurable Heavens" does quite appear to
> > > be a large jet. [more pseudo-scientific gibberish]
> > 
> > Get well soon.
> > 
> > 
> > PointedEars
> > -- 
> > Heisenberg is out for a drive when he's stopped by a traffic cop. 
> > The officer asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?" 
> > Heisenberg replies "No, but I know where I am."
> > (from: WolframAlpha)
> 
> Sounds like sci.math or sci.logic ten years ago.
> 
> Now I'm a comedian.
> 
> It's been said my prose is dense.
> 
> That said, it very well is.
> 
> 
> If you think my physics is funny, 
> I frame it in "A" theory of 
> mathematical logic.
> 
> For, after all, any "theory of 
> everything" will encompass all 
> of mathematics.
> 
> Re: Heisenberg:  
> is, or is not, 
> the wavelength of light 
> continuously variable?
> 
> This is where 
> measurement is effect, 
> and the tree falling in 
> a forest only makes a sound 
> that you could hear, 
> Heisenberg uncertainty 
> doesn't follow from 
> Pauli exclusion.
> 
> So, you can take your 
> "Multiple Worlds Interpretation" 
> and put it all back into one.

Of course, you can't _measure_ 
the position and momentum, both, 
but it has them, the particle.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379822

On 3/21/2016 9:12 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> Of course, you can't_measure_
> the position and momentum, both,
> but it has them, the particle.

Of course you can. You just can't do both to infinite precision.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379825

W dniu wtorek, 22 marca 2016 13:23:29 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> On 3/21/2016 9:12 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > Of course, you can't_measure_
> > the position and momentum, both,
> > but it has them, the particle.
> 
> Of course you can. You just can't do both to infinite precision.

And how about "position and momentum
of a particle in the particle frame"?
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379874

mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:

> W dniu wtorek, 22 marca 2016 13:23:29 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:

Attribution line, not attribution novel.

>> On 3/21/2016 9:12 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>> > Of course, you can't_measure_
>> > the position and momentum, both,
>> > but it has them, the particle.
>> Of course you can. You just can't do both to infinite precision.

Full ACK.  (*That* is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle).

> And how about "position and momentum of a particle in the particle frame"?

Define “the particle frame”.


PointedEars
-- 
Q: Where are offenders sentenced for light crimes?  
A: To a prism.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379903

On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 5:23:29 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 3/21/2016 9:12 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > Of course, you can't_measure_
> > the position and momentum, both,
> > but it has them, the particle.
> 
> Of course you can. You just can't do both to infinite precision.
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Right, you've caused an effect, the measurement 
has interfered with what otherwise would be but 
a path element in the path integral of the sum-
of-histories.  That is to say, the measurement's 
probabilistic, but to sum, the path elements that 
are un-interrupted are deterministic.  

Then I'm encouraging you to look into the asymptotic 
freedom of gluons, SUSY, some of string theory, and 
QCD (Technicolour), as more-than-less the real 
"state of the art".

Then, about a theory of everything, it would 
have all of mathematics.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web