Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #526497 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-16 19:26 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-11-02 12:22 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 179 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 19:26 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-16 20:44 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-17 15:14 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 22:18 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 22:21 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 22:34 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 09:26 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 10:34 -0700
Why is/isn't the cosmological constant's value a "real" mathematical infinitesimal? was Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 14:55 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? richard@microscitech.com - 2015-10-18 13:28 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 13:36 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-18 15:17 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 15:50 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 16:33 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 19:20 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-18 22:37 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 22:58 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 23:05 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 23:15 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 10:49 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 11:09 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-10-17 12:03 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-17 12:26 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-19 04:45 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 14:32 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 10:03 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 09:55 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 10:11 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 12:27 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 12:30 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 10:54 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 12:58 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 11:45 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 14:01 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 13:32 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 14:15 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-19 10:02 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 12:08 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-19 10:24 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 12:29 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 12:25 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-19 10:47 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 12:55 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-19 11:35 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 13:49 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-20 07:10 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 09:58 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 12:32 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 16:55 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 21:06 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 21:40 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-21 00:03 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-21 01:12 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-21 02:42 -0700
The Cosmological Constant is a real mathematical infinitesimal, Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-21 17:37 -0700
free space w/ atoms therof noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 17:27 -0700
Re: free space w/ atoms therof "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 17:46 -0700
Re: free space w/ atoms therof "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 18:23 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-21 19:58 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-21 20:27 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-21 21:51 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-21 22:02 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-21 23:10 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 12:32 -0700
ask why, that noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-21 13:03 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-22 13:20 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 14:47 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 14:55 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 16:56 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 15:10 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 19:08 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 22:57 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 08:57 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 08:23 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 10:44 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 08:54 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 11:01 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 09:12 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-23 11:52 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 12:17 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-23 22:56 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 23:35 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-24 22:43 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-25 14:03 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-25 15:17 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-26 10:40 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 11:00 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-26 13:43 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-26 14:44 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 15:05 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-26 17:35 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 17:38 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-26 18:27 -0800
Universe is curved locally, seems flat over teraparsecs noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 18:40 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 19:51 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 20:03 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 20:26 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 20:34 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 20:42 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 21:00 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 05:42 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 10:01 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 08:16 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 08:24 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-27 14:26 -0800
inside & outside of cell noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 17:11 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 19:36 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 15:44 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-28 23:07 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-28 23:43 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-28 23:46 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 00:08 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-29 00:13 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-29 10:26 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-29 10:37 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-29 10:51 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-29 10:59 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 06:17 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 06:30 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 08:33 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-31 11:58 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 12:01 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-31 13:20 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 15:24 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-31 15:02 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 15:37 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 15:59 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 15:25 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 14:41 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 16:04 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-31 20:47 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 21:02 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 07:38 -0600
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-01 15:08 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 15:38 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 23:02 -0400
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 20:22 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-31 20:40 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 20:58 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 07:43 -0600
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 10:38 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 12:55 -0600
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 11:02 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? Jeffrey Bannister <jban48@pannelcamarena.org> - 2015-11-01 19:15 +0000
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 13:22 -0600
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-01 15:07 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 15:34 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-01 16:18 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 17:08 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-01 23:10 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-01 23:19 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 07:46 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 07:40 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 07:42 -0600
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 07:40 -0600
Re: Why is the universe flat? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 12:21 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-27 14:33 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 14:47 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 18:10 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-26 23:54 -0800
on, re noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 12:16 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 12:55 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-23 14:00 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 14:42 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-24 19:12 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 03:12 -0400
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 13:08 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-18 15:10 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 13:56 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 12:49 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 13:50 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 16:45 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 12:39 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-10-19 14:23 -0700
theodolites noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 19:13 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-21 10:17 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-10-24 15:05 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 10:23 -0600
Re: Why is the universe flat? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:22 -0800
Page 3 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 12:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <KeqdnbELmIoQurjLnZ2dnUU7-YPOydjZ@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #526863 |
On 10/19/15 12:02 PM, jay moseley wrote: > Sam wrote... >> Tired Light > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light > >> Despite periodic re-examination of the concept, tired light has not >> been supported by observational tests,... > > What observational tests do not support tired light? > Observations that Contradict "Tired Light" > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html > Has the time dilation of distant source light curves predicted by the > Big Bang been observed? > > This time dilation is a consequence of the standard interpretation of > the redshift: a supernova that takes 20 days to decay will appear to > take 40 days to decay when observed at redshift z=1. The time > dilation has been observed, with 5 different published measurements > of this effect in supernova light curves. These papers are: > > Leibundgut etal, 1996, ApJL, 466, L21-L24 > Goldhaber etal, in Thermonuclear Supernovae (NATO ASI), eds. R. Canal, P. Ruiz-LaPuente, and J. Isern. > Riess etal, 1997, AJ, 114, 722. > Perlmutter etal, 1998, Nature, 391, 51. > Goldhaber etal, 2001, ApJ, 558, 359. > These observations contradict tired light models of the redshift. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 10:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2fe6cc0a-0d4a-4ccc-9b86-9e972510fb74@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #526869 |
Sam wrote... > On 10/19/15 12:02 PM, jay moseley wrote: - show quoted text -Observations that Contradict "Tired Light" > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html > Has the time dilation of distant source light curves predicted by the > Big Bang been observed? > > This time dilation is a consequence of the standard interpretation of > the redshift: a supernova that takes 20 days to decay will appear to > take 40 days to decay when observed at redshift z=1. The time > dilation has been observed, with 5 different published measurements > of this effect in supernova light curves. These papers are: > > Leibundgut etal, 1996, ApJL, 466, L21-L24 > Goldhaber etal, in Thermonuclear Supernovae (NATO ASI), eds. R. Canal, P. Ruiz-LaPuente, and J. Isern. > Riess etal, 1997, AJ, 114, 722. > Perlmutter etal, 1998, Nature, 391, 51. > Goldhaber etal, 2001, ApJ, 558, I think the one you *really* want is Knop et al. And you made a mistake about time dilation being seen in SN data. If you take data of supernova lightcurves, chi square it etc...youll find that the data fits as well if not better to a non dilated model as it does to an expanding model. In fact Knop even admits this in his paper. In an underhand way of course. Like Kim et al he plays fast and loose with the facts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 12:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Keqdna0LmIros7jLnZ2dnUU7-YPOydjZ@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #526877 |
On 10/19/15 12:47 PM, jay moseley wrote: > And you made a mistake > about time dilation being seen in SN data. Errors in Tired Light Cosmology > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm > Tired light models invoke a gradual energy loss by photons as they > travel through the cosmos to produce the redshift-distance law. This > has three main problems: > > There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy > without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of > distant objects which is not observed. The Compton shift in > particular does not work. > The tired light model does not predict the observed time dilation of > high redshift supernova light curves. This time dilation is a > consequence of the standard interpretation of the redshift: a > supernova that takes 20 days to decay will appear to take 40 days to > decay when observed at redshift z=1. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 11:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <77071cef-e1e9-4b5b-b142-a1c69a4ccd45@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #526879 |
Sam wrote... > On 10/19/15 12:47 PM, jay moseley wrote: > And you made a mistake > about time dilation being seen in SN data. Errors in Tired Light Cosmology > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm > Tired light models invoke a gradual energy loss by photons as they > travel through the cosmos to produce the redshift-distance law. This > has three main problems: > > There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy > without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of > distant objects which is not observed. The Compton shift in > particular does not work. > The tired light model does not predict the observed time dilation of > high redshift supernova light curves. This time dilation is a > consequence of the standard interpretation of the redshift: a > supernova that takes 20 days to decay will appear to take 40 days to > decay when observed at redshift z=1. Two points I must make. First... who says tired light has to be photons. ? Classical physics used to have it as waves only. Still does. And waves dont have momentum. Second point is the claim that higher redshift SN have longer decay rates. This is untrue. Analysis of decay rates show that in fact,... decay rates for observed high redshift SN are not dilated compared to low redshift SN. Dont believe me? Look at the most famous of all the pro dilation papers by Knop et al. Analyse the supplied data and youll find all SN data fits a non dilated model as well or better then a dilated model. Knop admits this in his paper.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 13:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ULCdnRctKvi2prjLnZ2dnUU7-cmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #526887 |
On 10/19/15 1:35 PM, jay moseley wrote: > Second point is the claim that higher redshift SN have longer decay rates. > This is untrue. What you say is untrue, is observed and published in peer reviewed papers. Perhaps you don't understand the methodology. TIME DILATION IN TYPE Ia SUPERNOVA SPECTRA AT HIGH REDSHIFT > http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/589568/pdf;jsessionid=818FE7769A758AB22F9AA2E4613F19F8.c1 > ABSTRACT > We present multiepoch spectra of 13 high-redshift Type Ia supernovae > (SNe Ia) drawn from the literature, the ESSENCE and SNLS projects, > and our own separate dedicated program on the ESO Very Large > Telescope. We use the Supernova Identification (SNID) code of Blondin > and Tonry to determine the spectral ages in the supernova rest frame. > Comparison with the observed elapsed time yields an apparent aging > rate consistent with the 1/(1 þ z) factor (where z is the redshift) > expected in a homogeneous, isotropic, expanding universe. These > measurements thus confirm the expansion hypothesis, while > unambiguously excluding models that predict no time dilation, such as > Zwicky’s ‘‘tired light’’ hypothesis. We also test for power-law > dependencies of the aging rate on redshift. The best-fit exponent for > these models is consistent with the expected 1/(1 þ z) factor. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 07:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a286019b-c8fd-47c5-8178-d2c1182a9724@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #526892 |
Sam wrote... > > This is untrue. >What you say is untrue, is observed and published in peer reviewed papers. Perhaps you don't understand the methodology. I know the methodology better then you. Ive analysed the data from Knop et al 2003 and one can get fits to the data for a nonexpanding model as well as Knops. You on the other hand have probably never been near an analysis such as this. (Ill have to admit its not an easy task, which is to their advantage. Nobody whos interested in an impartial analysis will attempt it) Ill tell you how Knop did it and thats probably what your citation did too. First of all look at his fits in his paper. They arent that close as he wants us to believe. Second, he has to "adjust" all of his HST data to make it fit his expanding model. I cant remember offhand the exact percentage but its between 15-20% !!!!!!!!!!!. Knop even admits this in his paper . FIFTEEN percent%? Call that science? Then he use a handy trick called stretch or s factor. This an additional +- " adjustment that further stretches the data to fit his preferred model. I can gaurantee that all the data DOES fit a non expanding model. This is one of the greatest scams in modern physics.( Alongside Kim et al and his delayed choice quantum eraser paper.) Ive checked using their methods. You havent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 09:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o8GdnVU1q7wKy7vLnZ2dnUU7-SWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #527026 |
On 10/20/15 9:10 AM, jay moseley wrote: > I know the methodology better then you. Ive analysed the data from > Knop et al 2003 and one can get fits to the data for a nonexpanding > model as well as Knops. You on the other hand have probably never been > near an analysis such as this. Jay, you are at odds with the astrophysics community. My astrophysics colleagues here at Iowa State observe time dilation in distance supernovae data. TIME DILATION IN TYPE Ia SUPERNOVA SPECTRA AT HIGH REDSHIFT > http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/589568/pdf;jsessionid=818FE7769A758AB22F9AA2E4613F19F8.c1 > ABSTRACT > We present multiepoch spectra of 13 high-redshift Type Ia supernovae > (SNe Ia) drawn from the literature, the ESSENCE and SNLS projects, > and our own separate dedicated program on the ESO Very Large > Telescope. We use the Supernova Identification (SNID) code of Blondin > and Tonry to determine the spectral ages in the supernova rest frame. > Comparison with the observed elapsed time yields an apparent aging > rate consistent with the 1/(1 þ z) factor (where z is the redshift) > expected in a homogeneous, isotropic, expanding universe. These > measurements thus confirm the expansion hypothesis, while > unambiguously excluding models that predict no time dilation, such as > Zwicky’s ‘‘tired light’’ hypothesis. We also test for power-law > dependencies of the aging rate on redshift. The best-fit exponent for > these models is consistent with the expected 1/(1 þ z) factor. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 12:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <297f8dfb-2fa8-424c-92a6-5ce75fe9402a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #527033 |
On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 7:58:34 AM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 10/20/15 9:10 AM, jay moseley wrote: > > I know the methodology better then you. Ive analysed the data from > > Knop et al 2003 and one can get fits to the data for a nonexpanding > > model as well as Knops. You on the other hand have probably never been > > near an analysis such as this. > > > Jay, you are at odds with the astrophysics community. My astrophysics > colleagues here at Iowa State observe time dilation in distance > supernovae data. > > > TIME DILATION IN TYPE Ia SUPERNOVA SPECTRA AT HIGH REDSHIFT > > http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/589568/pdf;jsessionid=818FE7769A758AB22F9AA2E4613F19F8.c1 > > > ABSTRACT > > We present multiepoch spectra of 13 high-redshift Type Ia supernovae > > (SNe Ia) drawn from the literature, the ESSENCE and SNLS projects, > > and our own separate dedicated program on the ESO Very Large > > Telescope. We use the Supernova Identification (SNID) code of Blondin > > and Tonry to determine the spectral ages in the supernova rest frame. > > Comparison with the observed elapsed time yields an apparent aging > > rate consistent with the 1/(1 þ z) factor (where z is the redshift) > > expected in a homogeneous, isotropic, expanding universe. These > > measurements thus confirm the expansion hypothesis, while > > unambiguously excluding models that predict no time dilation, such as > > Zwicky's ''tired light'' hypothesis. We also test for power-law > > dependencies of the aging rate on redshift. The best-fit exponent for > > these models is consistent with the expected 1/(1 þ z) factor. > A supernova is quite extromissive, including with the shock front. (Which is quite deformed, whether space is flat or not.) Space-time curvature is just a notational relic. The effects are still the same, and also it's still the Dirac positronic sea or aether (which experiment also supports and yes it does.) We need mathematics of infinities/infinitesimals and the real effects in the numbers to reduce these "systems of numerical appeasement" to "systems in numbers".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 16:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d86f266b-d1b8-4aca-be05-2dc8735e667d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #527067 |
expanding Universe has long been passe', since the plasma cosmology of Alfven has shown that a) most of Universe is plasma > > > Zwicky's ''tired light'' hypothesis. We also test for power-law > > > dependencies of the aging rate on redshift. The best-fit exponent for > > > these models is consistent with the expected 1/(1 þ z) factor. > > > > A supernova is quite extromissive, including > with the shock front. (Which is quite deformed, > whether space is flat or not.) > > Space-time curvature is just a notational relic. > The effects are still the same, and also it's > still the Dirac positronic sea or aether (which > experiment also supports and yes it does.) > > > We need mathematics of infinities/infinitesimals > and the real effects in the numbers to reduce these > "systems of numerical appeasement" to "systems > in numbers".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 21:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8fcb27fa-4db5-4a0c-ad12-1ed300cad9eb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #527120 |
On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 4:55:35 PM UTC-7, noTthaTguY wrote: > expanding Universe has long been passe', > since the plasma cosmology of Alfven has shown that a) > most of Universe is plasma > > > > > Zwicky's ''tired light'' hypothesis. We also test for power-law > > > > dependencies of the aging rate on redshift. The best-fit exponent for > > > > these models is consistent with the expected 1/(1 þ z) factor. > > > > > > > A supernova is quite extromissive, including > > with the shock front. (Which is quite deformed, > > whether space is flat or not.) > > > > Space-time curvature is just a notational relic. > > The effects are still the same, and also it's > > still the Dirac positronic sea or aether (which > > experiment also supports and yes it does.) > > > > > > We need mathematics of infinities/infinitesimals > > and the real effects in the numbers to reduce these > > "systems of numerical appeasement" to "systems > > in numbers". These "systems of numerical appeasement" are uncomfortable accommodations of physicists that would rather expect reduction and spareness of framework. These "fudge factors", here as the placement of the cosmological constant and what its value and import is in projection, are an arithmetic kludge to match data to model. "Systems of numerical appeasement", often ad-hoc and particular to configuration of experiment, find themselves somehow systematically reducing to features of the numbers, that in the interest of conservation of "numerical and mathematical resources" (the principle of conservation of numerical content), are eventually reduced to more "fundamental" numerical frameworks and as of effect in numbers. This is a role for effects at the demarcator between continuous fields and discrete events in them, that of the infinitesimal composition of continua as of points, collected. Point!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 21:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c87f411d-d537-45e4-be57-e3024bc80492@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #527166 |
what is the notation in hte denominator. there ain't anmy curvature of time, whereas curvature of space is easily demonstrable, that is, measurable with theodolite e.g positronic sea is passe', since hte work of Alfven, along with EinsteinmaniA > > > > > these models is consistent with the expected 1/(1 þ z) factor. > > > Space-time curvature is just a notational relic. > > > The effects are still the same, and also it's > > > still the Dirac positronic sea or aether (which > > > experiment also supports and yes it does.) > This is a role for effects at the demarcator > between continuous fields and discrete events > in them, that of the infinitesimal composition > of continua as of points, collected. > > Point!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 00:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <52f77645-39d7-400e-a87e-c4663de3afd0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #527166 |
On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 9:06:19 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 4:55:35 PM UTC-7, noTthaTguY wrote: > > expanding Universe has long been passe', > > since the plasma cosmology of Alfven has shown that a) > > most of Universe is plasma > > > > > > > Zwicky's ''tired light'' hypothesis. We also test for power-law > > > > > dependencies of the aging rate on redshift. The best-fit exponent for > > > > > these models is consistent with the expected 1/(1 þ z) factor. > > > > > > > > > > A supernova is quite extromissive, including > > > with the shock front. (Which is quite deformed, > > > whether space is flat or not.) > > > > > > Space-time curvature is just a notational relic. > > > The effects are still the same, and also it's > > > still the Dirac positronic sea or aether (which > > > experiment also supports and yes it does.) > > > > > > > > > We need mathematics of infinities/infinitesimals > > > and the real effects in the numbers to reduce these > > > "systems of numerical appeasement" to "systems > > > in numbers". > > These "systems of numerical appeasement" are > uncomfortable accommodations of physicists that > would rather expect reduction and spareness of > framework. These "fudge factors", here as the > placement of the cosmological constant and what > its value and import is in projection, are an > arithmetic kludge to match data to model. > > "Systems of numerical appeasement", often ad-hoc > and particular to configuration of experiment, > find themselves somehow systematically reducing to > features of the numbers, that in the interest > of conservation of "numerical and mathematical > resources" (the principle of conservation of > numerical content), are eventually reduced to > more "fundamental" numerical frameworks and as > of effect in numbers. > > This is a role for effects at the demarcator > between continuous fields and discrete events > in them, that of the infinitesimal composition > of continua as of points, collected. > > Point! " ... find themselves somehow systematically reducing to features of the numbers ...." Examples (of successful reductions to the fundamental) include "Maxwell equations" and "E = mc^2". There's a perceived need, for mathematical physics, of these features of real mathematical infinitesimals that they are.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 01:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <562748F5.3133@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #527175 |
Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 9:06:19 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 4:55:35 PM UTC-7, noTthaTguY wrote: > > > expanding Universe has long been passe', > > > since the plasma cosmology of Alfven has shown that a) > > > most of Universe is plasma > > > > > > > > > Zwicky's ''tired light'' hypothesis. We also test for power-law > > > > > > dependencies of the aging rate on redshift. The best-fit exponent for > > > > > > these models is consistent with the expected 1/(1 þ z) factor. > > > > > > > > > > > > > A supernova is quite extromissive, including > > > > with the shock front. (Which is quite deformed, > > > > whether space is flat or not.) > > > > > > > > Space-time curvature is just a notational relic. > > > > The effects are still the same, and also it's > > > > still the Dirac positronic sea or aether (which > > > > experiment also supports and yes it does.) > > > > > > > > > > > > We need mathematics of infinities/infinitesimals > > > > and the real effects in the numbers to reduce these > > > > "systems of numerical appeasement" to "systems > > > > in numbers". > > > > These "systems of numerical appeasement" are > > uncomfortable accommodations of physicists that > > would rather expect reduction and spareness of > > framework. These "fudge factors", here as the > > placement of the cosmological constant and what > > its value and import is in projection, are an > > arithmetic kludge to match data to model. > > > > "Systems of numerical appeasement", often ad-hoc > > and particular to configuration of experiment, > > find themselves somehow systematically reducing to > > features of the numbers, that in the interest > > of conservation of "numerical and mathematical > > resources" (the principle of conservation of > > numerical content), are eventually reduced to > > more "fundamental" numerical frameworks and as > > of effect in numbers. > > > > This is a role for effects at the demarcator > > between continuous fields and discrete events > > in them, that of the infinitesimal composition > > of continua as of points, collected. > > > > Point! > > " ... find themselves somehow systematically reducing to > features of the numbers ...." > > Examples (of successful reductions to the fundamental) > include "Maxwell equations" and "E = mc^2". Just studying one google page result is an example of successful reductions to the fundamental. > > There's a perceived need, for mathematical physics, of > these features of real mathematical infinitesimals > that they are. There is nothing REAL about "real mathematical infinitesimals". The chance that real mathematical infinitesimals is real is...infinitesimal. The laws of physics is not real The laws of nature are not real math does not exist anywhere out there...it's not real. Have you tried learning to play a guitar?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 02:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f945ea87-10e2-431c-8f4e-3bc1cf3e4638@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #527176 |
On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 1:12:36 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 9:06:19 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 4:55:35 PM UTC-7, noTthaTguY wrote: > > > > expanding Universe has long been passe', > > > > since the plasma cosmology of Alfven has shown that a) > > > > most of Universe is plasma > > > > > > > > > > > Zwicky's ''tired light'' hypothesis. We also test for power-law > > > > > > > dependencies of the aging rate on redshift. The best-fit exponent for > > > > > > > these models is consistent with the expected 1/(1 þ z) factor. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A supernova is quite extromissive, including > > > > > with the shock front. (Which is quite deformed, > > > > > whether space is flat or not.) > > > > > > > > > > Space-time curvature is just a notational relic. > > > > > The effects are still the same, and also it's > > > > > still the Dirac positronic sea or aether (which > > > > > experiment also supports and yes it does.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We need mathematics of infinities/infinitesimals > > > > > and the real effects in the numbers to reduce these > > > > > "systems of numerical appeasement" to "systems > > > > > in numbers". > > > > > > These "systems of numerical appeasement" are > > > uncomfortable accommodations of physicists that > > > would rather expect reduction and spareness of > > > framework. These "fudge factors", here as the > > > placement of the cosmological constant and what > > > its value and import is in projection, are an > > > arithmetic kludge to match data to model. > > > > > > "Systems of numerical appeasement", often ad-hoc > > > and particular to configuration of experiment, > > > find themselves somehow systematically reducing to > > > features of the numbers, that in the interest > > > of conservation of "numerical and mathematical > > > resources" (the principle of conservation of > > > numerical content), are eventually reduced to > > > more "fundamental" numerical frameworks and as > > > of effect in numbers. > > > > > > This is a role for effects at the demarcator > > > between continuous fields and discrete events > > > in them, that of the infinitesimal composition > > > of continua as of points, collected. > > > > > > Point! > > > > " ... find themselves somehow systematically reducing to > > features of the numbers ...." > > > > Examples (of successful reductions to the fundamental) > > include "Maxwell equations" and "E = mc^2". > > Just studying one google page result is an example of successful reductions to the fundamental. > > > > > > There's a perceived need, for mathematical physics, of > > these features of real mathematical infinitesimals > > that they are. > > There is nothing REAL about "real mathematical infinitesimals". > > The chance that real mathematical infinitesimals is real is...infinitesimal. > > > The laws of physics is not real > The laws of nature are not real > > math does not exist anywhere out there...it's not real. > > > Have you tried learning to play a guitar? "Mathematical Platonists" have mathematical objects as real, even concrete (there are subcamps in Mathematical Platonism, but that the numbers are "real" or "exist" regardless our formation of them). A "Mathematical Universe Hypothesis" is popular these days a la Tegmark and etcetera, there are again various camps in that, of the _structure_ of things as of exactly their mathematical nature. You can look to my 10,000 posts to sci.math and sci.logic re "Null Axiom Theory: An Axiomless System of Natural Deduction, consistent, complete, concrete, and scientific". Mathematical infinitesimals are also built from the foundations, with complementary models of the real numbers (usually "R" in the set-theoretic setting for the modern algebraic complete ordered field) also as modern algebraic partially ordered ring (with rather restricted transfer principle). So, I actually have these over here and they appear to be what physics needs. This _builds_ a continuous function, in extension of the set theory of Cantor, showing that drawing the line segment is what Cantor proves as of how the line is formed. (Georg Cantor is the school of the trans-finite as led to Russell's criticism and the following modern standard set theory or "ZFC" and friends.) Continuum analysis a.k.a. the integral calculus a.k.a. infinitesimal analysis is most regular in usual field settings of physics then as to tensors and operators etcetera, this is another "rigorous, formal" implementation of the Intermediate Value Theorem and the resulting integral and differential calculus, also via these most simple means. This actually "is" a theory of "conservation of truth". I... have a guitar. (I have four guitars, and most enjoy the Epiphone FT-120.) You might review our recent thread on sci.physics on a "science of song".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 17:37 -0700 |
| Subject | The Cosmological Constant is a real mathematical infinitesimal, Re: Why is the universe flat? |
| Message-ID | <9b115657-bdd5-4dec-9472-442c508bc53f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #527177 |
I hope you can see why then when the cosmological constant is non-negative, real valued x > 0 and x < y for and "finite" value y, with strong inequalities, that it is only as the result of the infinitesimal process, or individuation to points of the continuum, the resulting value. I hope you can see that may be so, or, isn't not so, because it immediately follows from reading comprehension. So: where is the suitable mathematical framework for mathematical physics that then _particularly_ has the _features_ or _effects_ of the numbers that are "suprising", and true of the numbers, to explain the features of the effects of configuration of experiment, that are surprising and _not_ true of the current numbers (their model). As a neophyte researcher in physics I would find this the most direct approach to "explanations of yet-to-be-explained things in mathematical physics", then as a researcher in logic and mathematics there are some features already established that might be useful. Then, with the first query being "where are new features in mathematics", the second is: what parts of physics have the most cumbersome kludges that are exactly integer ratios, and as of the configuration of experiment. Also: which experiments in their extended configuration have different results just courtesy their "configuration", i.e. not just energy but unexpected "results" or data as due differences in geometry or different results in 2-D and 3-D or planar and volumetric applications (that are still areal together). For the bending of the light about the Sun, for example, lensing, this is where to the "space-time is flat" comment, it is most simple to explain lensing as of the curved space (that the wave of light propagates through). Then, where it is half or twice what is expected at the detector, or so for the electron of the EM wave at the detector with a difference between "light" and coincident electromagnetic radiation, I am looking for this kind of configuration where then from the satellite it is off a third, or otherwise of a quite simple integer factor of difference in any particular value of the measurement or detection. Also the dark matter and energy are of these kinds of fractions, 1/2 the dark, 4/5 the dark, .... Basically the goal is to pretty simply then predict that, given these "features" of the numbers that take "effect" in areal terms on the "individuation" or measurement/observer effect of the detector. So, if that makes sense to you and there are further examples to note, or references to read, I'd appreciate that thank you. Why yes, it is a quite total approach.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 17:27 -0700 |
| Subject | free space w/ atoms therof |
| Message-ID | <8ee2160b-1511-4355-9508-0796e885f159@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #527325 |
i.e density of "free space e.g > For the bending of the light about the Sun, for example, > lensing, this is where to the "space-time is flat" comment, > it is most simple to explain lensing as of the curved space > (that the wave of light propagates through). Then, where > it is half or twice what is expected at the detector, or > so for the electron of the EM wave at the detector with a > difference between "light" and coincident electromagnetic > radiation, I am looking for this kind of configuration where > then from the satellite it is off a third, or otherwise of a > quite simple integer factor of difference in any particular > value of the measurement or detection. > > Also the dark matter and energy are of these kinds of > fractions, 1/2 the dark, 4/5 the dark, .... Basically the > goal is to pretty simply then predict that, given these > "features" of the numbers that take "effect" in areal terms > on the "individuation" or measurement/observer effect of > the detector. > > So, if that makes sense to you and there are further > examples to note, or references to read, I'd appreciate > that thank you. > > Why yes, it is a quite total approach.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 17:46 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: free space w/ atoms therof |
| Message-ID | <14412acf-e2a1-48aa-9706-fd91b6f69107@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #527789 |
On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 5:27:07 PM UTC-7, noTthaTguY wrote: > i.e density of "free space e.g > > > For the bending of the light about the Sun, for example, > > lensing, this is where to the "space-time is flat" comment, > > it is most simple to explain lensing as of the curved space > > (that the wave of light propagates through). Then, where > > it is half or twice what is expected at the detector, or > > so for the electron of the EM wave at the detector with a > > difference between "light" and coincident electromagnetic > > radiation, I am looking for this kind of configuration where > > then from the satellite it is off a third, or otherwise of a > > quite simple integer factor of difference in any particular > > value of the measurement or detection. > > > > Also the dark matter and energy are of these kinds of > > fractions, 1/2 the dark, 4/5 the dark, .... Basically the > > goal is to pretty simply then predict that, given these > > "features" of the numbers that take "effect" in areal terms > > on the "individuation" or measurement/observer effect of > > the detector. > > > > So, if that makes sense to you and there are further > > examples to note, or references to read, I'd appreciate > > that thank you. > > > > Why yes, it is a quite total approach. I remember driving through the country one time and finding the road-sign for "Zero-Point Way". Here, zero-point energy as of the zero-point field, that is yet the positronic Dirac sea. "In cosmology, the vacuum energy is one possible _explanation_ for the cosmological constant." [emph.added] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 18:23 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: free space w/ atoms therof |
| Message-ID | <7341fd9b-253d-4a8f-b3ad-ffe12e756886@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #527789 |
On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 5:27:07 PM UTC-7, noTthaTguY wrote: > i.e density of "free space e.g > > > For the bending of the light about the Sun, for example, > > lensing, this is where to the "space-time is flat" comment, > > it is most simple to explain lensing as of the curved space > > (that the wave of light propagates through). Then, where > > it is half or twice what is expected at the detector, or > > so for the electron of the EM wave at the detector with a > > difference between "light" and coincident electromagnetic > > radiation, I am looking for this kind of configuration where > > then from the satellite it is off a third, or otherwise of a > > quite simple integer factor of difference in any particular > > value of the measurement or detection. > > > > Also the dark matter and energy are of these kinds of > > fractions, 1/2 the dark, 4/5 the dark, .... Basically the > > goal is to pretty simply then predict that, given these > > "features" of the numbers that take "effect" in areal terms > > on the "individuation" or measurement/observer effect of > > the detector. > > > > So, if that makes sense to you and there are further > > examples to note, or references to read, I'd appreciate > > that thank you. > > > > Why yes, it is a quite total approach. I remember driving through the country one time and finding the road-sign for "Zero-Point Way". Here, zero-point energy as of the zero-point field, that is yet the positronic Dirac sea. "In cosmology, the vacuum energy is one possible _explanation_ for the cosmological constant." [emph.added] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 19:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <562850F2.33F9@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #527177 |
Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 1:12:36 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 9:06:19 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 4:55:35 PM UTC-7, noTthaTguY wrote: > > > > > expanding Universe has long been passe', > > > > > since the plasma cosmology of Alfven has shown that a) > > > > > most of Universe is plasma > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zwicky's ''tired light'' hypothesis. We also test for power-law > > > > > > > > dependencies of the aging rate on redshift. The best-fit exponent for > > > > > > > > these models is consistent with the expected 1/(1 þ z) factor. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A supernova is quite extromissive, including > > > > > > with the shock front. (Which is quite deformed, > > > > > > whether space is flat or not.) > > > > > > > > > > > > Space-time curvature is just a notational relic. > > > > > > The effects are still the same, and also it's > > > > > > still the Dirac positronic sea or aether (which > > > > > > experiment also supports and yes it does.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We need mathematics of infinities/infinitesimals > > > > > > and the real effects in the numbers to reduce these > > > > > > "systems of numerical appeasement" to "systems > > > > > > in numbers". > > > > > > > > These "systems of numerical appeasement" are > > > > uncomfortable accommodations of physicists that > > > > would rather expect reduction and spareness of > > > > framework. These "fudge factors", here as the > > > > placement of the cosmological constant and what > > > > its value and import is in projection, are an > > > > arithmetic kludge to match data to model. > > > > > > > > "Systems of numerical appeasement", often ad-hoc > > > > and particular to configuration of experiment, > > > > find themselves somehow systematically reducing to > > > > features of the numbers, that in the interest > > > > of conservation of "numerical and mathematical > > > > resources" (the principle of conservation of > > > > numerical content), are eventually reduced to > > > > more "fundamental" numerical frameworks and as > > > > of effect in numbers. > > > > > > > > This is a role for effects at the demarcator > > > > between continuous fields and discrete events > > > > in them, that of the infinitesimal composition > > > > of continua as of points, collected. > > > > > > > > Point! > > > > > > " ... find themselves somehow systematically reducing to > > > features of the numbers ...." > > > > > > Examples (of successful reductions to the fundamental) > > > include "Maxwell equations" and "E = mc^2". > > > > Just studying one google page result is an example of successful reductions to the fundamental. > > > > > > > > > > There's a perceived need, for mathematical physics, of > > > these features of real mathematical infinitesimals > > > that they are. > > > > There is nothing REAL about "real mathematical infinitesimals". > > > > The chance that real mathematical infinitesimals is real is...infinitesimal. > > > > > > The laws of physics is not real > > The laws of nature are not real > > > > math does not exist anywhere out there...it's not real. > > > > > > Have you tried learning to play a guitar? > > "Mathematical Platonists" have mathematical objects > as real, even concrete (there are subcamps in Mathematical > Platonism, but that the numbers are "real" or "exist" > regardless our formation of them). Well, can you tell me where do they exist at, what place are they at?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 20:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dcb508b9-ec9c-454b-befe-b3561f326946@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #527366 |
On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 7:59:01 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 1:12:36 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 9:06:19 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 4:55:35 PM UTC-7, noTthaTguY wrote: > > > > > > expanding Universe has long been passe', > > > > > > since the plasma cosmology of Alfven has shown that a) > > > > > > most of Universe is plasma > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zwicky's ''tired light'' hypothesis. We also test for power-law > > > > > > > > > dependencies of the aging rate on redshift. The best-fit exponent for > > > > > > > > > these models is consistent with the expected 1/(1 þ z) factor. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A supernova is quite extromissive, including > > > > > > > with the shock front. (Which is quite deformed, > > > > > > > whether space is flat or not.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Space-time curvature is just a notational relic. > > > > > > > The effects are still the same, and also it's > > > > > > > still the Dirac positronic sea or aether (which > > > > > > > experiment also supports and yes it does.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We need mathematics of infinities/infinitesimals > > > > > > > and the real effects in the numbers to reduce these > > > > > > > "systems of numerical appeasement" to "systems > > > > > > > in numbers". > > > > > > > > > > These "systems of numerical appeasement" are > > > > > uncomfortable accommodations of physicists that > > > > > would rather expect reduction and spareness of > > > > > framework. These "fudge factors", here as the > > > > > placement of the cosmological constant and what > > > > > its value and import is in projection, are an > > > > > arithmetic kludge to match data to model. > > > > > > > > > > "Systems of numerical appeasement", often ad-hoc > > > > > and particular to configuration of experiment, > > > > > find themselves somehow systematically reducing to > > > > > features of the numbers, that in the interest > > > > > of conservation of "numerical and mathematical > > > > > resources" (the principle of conservation of > > > > > numerical content), are eventually reduced to > > > > > more "fundamental" numerical frameworks and as > > > > > of effect in numbers. > > > > > > > > > > This is a role for effects at the demarcator > > > > > between continuous fields and discrete events > > > > > in them, that of the infinitesimal composition > > > > > of continua as of points, collected. > > > > > > > > > > Point! > > > > > > > > " ... find themselves somehow systematically reducing to > > > > features of the numbers ...." > > > > > > > > Examples (of successful reductions to the fundamental) > > > > include "Maxwell equations" and "E = mc^2". > > > > > > Just studying one google page result is an example of successful reductions to the fundamental. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There's a perceived need, for mathematical physics, of > > > > these features of real mathematical infinitesimals > > > > that they are. > > > > > > There is nothing REAL about "real mathematical infinitesimals". > > > > > > The chance that real mathematical infinitesimals is real is...infinitesimal. > > > > > > > > > The laws of physics is not real > > > The laws of nature are not real > > > > > > math does not exist anywhere out there...it's not real. > > > > > > > > > Have you tried learning to play a guitar? > > > > "Mathematical Platonists" have mathematical objects > > as real, even concrete (there are subcamps in Mathematical > > Platonism, but that the numbers are "real" or "exist" > > regardless our formation of them). > > > Well, can you tell me where do they exist at, what place are they at? http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/ How do we categorize experiments and ultimate or penultimate results of both the absolute and relative that experimental data has integer or fractional factors that seems to appear and disappear over the bounds of the range of the experiment. "?" These are to be considered for what effect to the model there would be of a numerical or mathematical effect, basically building the observation/measurement as the action of "counting" over these "numbered" fields (vector, force fields), as that these factors would follow or be explained (falsifiable predictions for hypothesis testing of the scientific method). That's defensively written, here with this admission that aprocryphally infinities and infinitesimals are ubiquitous in cosmological and atomic scale physical systems. As example, framed in the context of "normalization", that is in a sense "de-re-normalization", with the maintenance in variables for cancellation of these "infinite" terms (and their numerical approximations and the conditions under "linearization" as a numerical method feature with "normalization") - replaced with some infinity or infinitesimal, what other factors like Einstein's cosmological constant or Planck's big C and small c, are infinities or their inverses? (Or vice versa?) This is where, otherwise the "real infinities" as they are, have not yet been found to be of, say, our transfinite cardinals that otherwise we have in terms of "counting" (which is not the same thing as "numbering" which is more fundamental). Here, if we have some putative object or structural feature of what that infinite value would be under the condition of what detection/measurement/observation or the measurement effect has: where is the measured data that is off so thrown out as to that the interaction of an otherwise closed system by measurement, has these integer or fractional ratios that may be accounted for, by features of a numerical "infinity", as a scalar. This is where the line between (0,0) and (1,1) has area underneath of 1/2, and the points are all one-sided on through in the line, then that as each point gets to have both sides on the line, the area under the function defined on the integers, of the "constant monotonically (infinitesimally) increasing in the range from 0 to 1", _doubles_ the area, as the feature (or numerical effect). "Mathematical Platonism" isn't necessarily part of a numerical model of this construction of a model of the real numbers suitable for standard and extra "continuum infinitesimal analysis", though it neatly is a part: here given features of the scalar (infinite) under normalization/linearization and otherwise action: what comes to mind in the experimental data that is already there, in addition to the electron/photon "integer" deflection and dark matter/energy "fractional" ratios, other "integer" and "fractional" corrections. "?"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web