In other words you cranks will not change because learning is too difficult. Got that.
At Rest with our Hubble view
- Thread starter quantum_wave
- Start date
In other words you cranks will not change because learning is too difficult. Got that.
That's not it. Try again.
Maybe not anything I say, but there are plenty of great teachers at this site who can -- and probably are -- changing people's ideas all the time. Look at Cheezle. Rather than bickering, he's diving in to it. Way to go, Cheez.
Tach said:
You picked an advanced topic without the skills to do 1st year science. You should expect Tach to be right for that reason alone, even if he turned out to be skilled in nothing more than basketweaving, which obviously isn't the case.
True, he is. Good on him.
Antagonistic, judgemental, and trolling for an argument. Try again.
I definitely don't want to discourage you. You asked what you got to lose. Nothing in my estimation. Don't think you're not ready to start to seriously study gravitational physics. As a side it's interesting to note that the folks who think mainstream science is somehow defective is comical. That just tells me how intellectually dishonest it can get. They couldn't have read anything or they would have realized how fantastic interesting our universe is and continued on the journey. It's always the difference between a real interest in science or a real interest in 'personal world view' regardless how ignorant it is. It just occurred to me that you might think my comments were about 'discovery'. I generally think about science in terms of theoretical predictions and the experiment we can build to falsify or confirm those predictions. Makes it easier for me to understand in a meaningful way.
Last edited:
So you are saying that a photon isn't a particle and can't be a standing wave because it goes linearly at c, and I don't know why it can't go linearly at c and still be a standing wave particle? If a standing wave has an inflowing and out flowing component, since a photon travels a c, it would get all of its inflowing wave energy from the direction of motion.
Since my hypothesis is that the motion of an object or particle is determined by the net directional inflowing wave energy, then a photon, as a standing wave, would be getting all of its inflow from one direction, and moving at the speed of light in that direction as a result.
Sounds like a fun experiment. I'll fill the role of Dingbat. Folks arguing with you in disagreement with your comments about the scientific method, or the folks who practice those principles, need a brain transplant. Maybe a new hobby?
Clearly there are a few different discussions going on, and that is fine. If you don't want to actually respond to my on-topic posts, then don't. But I would appreciate it if those who will discuss my posts with me start talking about the cause of the initial expansion that is cleary indicated by the raw redshift data. I know that the current cosmology, BBT, does not address the cause. And I am asking for discussion about what impact the various alternative theories might have on the physics of BBT?
I'm not asking for an answer to the unanserable question as to what the cause was, I am just wondering if anyone will acknowledge that different sets of preconditions to the initial expansion would have differing affects on the physics that we know.
I understand your enthusiasm for the subject. I did start that Speeding chapter that you recommended and immediately noticed that I had some concepts completely backwards. I am going to take it slow and figure out where I made my mistake. Unfortunately, while in my work I am very focused, in my free time investigations I am easily distracted. I will (hopefully) eventually make my way through the material but it might take some time. I also mess around with electronics and have an ambitious project underway. And that does not even include family, friends and home / lawn / auto maintenance etc. I learned long ago about trying to recommend material or give advice to others. It always ends up their goals don't really align with mine. Not to say you should not express your enthusiasm and recommend, just that your milage may vary with respect to acceptance by others.
In my experience, some people are just mavericks. Maybe I would even go as far as to say iconoclasts, wanting to tear down any symbol of stability or convention. There is also the desire to be somebody who makes a difference. We all had those daydreams of being a rockstar or just someone extremely cool. Even an Einstein. Farsight and QW are prime examples. It does not matter what the subject they will buck the authoritative view. I see this mostly in politics with anarchist types and extreme libertarians. Not that they don't have a few good points. Nothing is all or none. <--- its a joke.
Anyway, I appreciate your advice. I have intention to follow it, but it will be a slow process that might never be completed.
Wow we're on the same wavelength. Without going into detail what's going on in our congress is intellectual dishonesty to it's most annoying level since it screws all of us over rather than just them. It's an embarrassment to the human race. You're going to have a lot of fun over the journey which never ends.
Peace and Prosperity.
Since I brought up the human race and embarrassment I should bring up pride also. The human race should take great pride in the scientific literature it's accumulated. Since I'm a big NFL fan, a real hobby, I really like this
It's not pass attempts/interception it's touchdown completions/interceptions. We set the bar higher for important stuff. LOL.
Certainly you are going to learn by following that approach. But is it fair to say that you have shown no intention of discussing my topic?
Wow. This is starting to sound a mock trial. Watch out for that evidence, bub, it will eat your lunch. If I were you I'd move to get it thrown out.
I will add one more thing, to go with the discussion of the role of math in science. First a word about the Pythagorean Theorem as it happens to relate to this topic. Pythagoras being from way back long before the Greek Empire. His observation had to do with the areas of two squares, which when joined at one vertex of each, to form a right angle, yielded a new distance (hypotenuse), the one that closes the figure into a right triangle, and the area of the square whose side matched that new length, to his surprise, turned out to be exactly equal to the sum of the other two areas. Now count how many words I used, and note how much easier it is to simply write a² + b² = h².
Besides being compact, the math gives us something we can quickly recognize as a proven element of a derivation, without having to stop and rework the math every step of the way. That is, we have building blocks to work with that can be plugged in easily. That's why you don't want to bicker about whether the math is being abused in the mainstream. From now on you can notice that a² + b² = h² always applies to a right triangle.
By the same token you can always recognize it in its equivalent form $$h\quad =\quad \sqrt { { a }^{ 2 }\quad +\quad b^{ 2 } } $$ which stems not only from the rule above but from the recognition that when we solve the preceding the full answer is really $$h\quad =\quad \pm \sqrt { { a }^{ 2 }\quad +\quad b^{ 2 } }$$, but since h > 0, we just discard the negative root.
Now count my words and compare it to writing $$h\quad =\quad \sqrt { { a }^{ 2 }\quad +\quad b^{ 2 } } $$. I presume you aren't choking on what I've said so far, and I assume you've had this much math, though you seem to be avoiding it like the plague. Now let's go a step further:
If we try to explore the discovery and formulation of the conic sections (circle, ellipse, parabola, hyperbola) we will come to Euclid, early in the Greek empire, at a time the math was quite developed (in comparison to Pythagoras). Euclid, and his successors, would be more likely to write a² + b² = h², because it says what Pythagoras already proved. And Euclid was at least aware of conics. But he had no logical way to arrive at a conclusion like Pythagoras did; he could not physically section a cone and mark off by squares of a given area the relationship that describes them, not like Pythagoras did. However, if he'd been aware of algebra (remember - it was an Arabic invention, putting it 500-600 yrs after Euclid) he might possibly have come up with the formulas we now know - circle: x² + y² = r²; ellipse = x² / a² + y² / b² = 1; parabola: 4px = y² (p = distance from vertex to focus); hyperbola: x² / a² - y² / b² = 1.
Do you really want to tell us that there is something wrong with me insisting that there are physical interpretations to what we write? I have written several elementary formulas and given a physical interpretation along the way. Does that diminish the accuracy of either the physics (in the case pure geometry) or the math (algebra) in any way? You may be choking a little, but more likely that's just bile.
This is just to make a point. You don't get to be right just because you say you are. There has to be a physical connection to what is being described. The description has to have an accurate physical interpretation, and vice-versa, or you are committing a physical felony. You can no more dismiss a formula (as you would like to) than you can claim a circle is not round and a square is. This is what we mean by "Nature's got laws".
Onward to step 2.
In order to be "correct" in anything you say, you/we have to strive for the correct language. Just for the same reason a serious person who is trying to be understood by an audience does not get in front of a microphone and butcher the language, it grates on the ear to come across really bad wording. You can't be expected to do well in this either, so everyone will cut you a lot of slack.
My suggestion for you, though, is to try to introduce a few technical terms into your speech. For this thread, I suggest world line, geodesic and free-fall, for starters. I think it would help you get off the ground. This is more important than you think. Tach and przyk are nailing the cranks for not only obliterating the language (since they refuse to post any math) but also for what looks like a deliberate or just plain nutty way of changing the physical interpretation and/or the literal meanings of words.
If you begin with a simple statement of what GR says, using at least those three words, you have a shot at getting to the math. But blanket denial of the equations given by Tach, przyk and brucep merely because you are suspicious of something you never studied is sheer denial. It's the same thing as claiming the circle is not round and a square is. But you will only understand what I'm talking about by learning the subject matter, esp. the simple math they've given.
Tach was right. Saying a lot of messed up stuff does force us to try to explain things we thought everyone already knew.
The rest is all BS. It's not mainstream vs. New Age Kool Kat brainiacs. It's science vs. fiction.
So there's a challenge for you. Try restating Einstein's revision to Newton's description of the gravitational force using world line, geodesic and free fall.
Except for the last sentence, that is meaningless drivel.
Your arrogance is only exceed by your determination to change the topic to your staw men.
I actually attempted a few times to steer the discussion back to Hubble and the rest state. I failed. I actually think it is an interesting topic, though I know where you are trying to take it. Obviously you started this thread as a hope to justify your alternative theory so called model. Aether and all that stuff.
Note, I was editing when you grabbed that.
As you see I have requested that you discuss GR in the common parlance, and to apply the relevant math. Again, it's not a straw man, only a response to factual predicates you opened.
Don't get me going. But while I have a viewpoint that is firm, I also understand the opposing view. I wrote a bunch more and the deleted it. Best to stay clear of politics. There are no answers there.
Not exactly. I started the thread to learn about the CMB rest frame, the interpretations of the redshift data, and related discussions. After getting a lot of good input, the trolls took over and expressed their disdain for my interest in topics that they think I shouldn't broach. The antagonistic fervor kicked in, as it always does when the so called experts decide it is time.
After the thread became a frenzy of contempt and disparagement, I decided to turn it into what you say, sort of. It is now just a vehicle for me to toss out what interests me, ask questions that can be respond to on-topic, and seek discussion of the related things that interest others. The rest is just noise to me, and I'm sure that the thread will fade away or be closed in due time.
Opps, wrong post quoted, sorry.