At Rest with our Hubble view

[brucep]

Some people, like Ray Kurtzweil see it as a positive thing. Others see it as negative. I don't agree with Kurtzweil's ideas. He seems a little unbalanced to me. But I am no expert.

A good fictional film about the subject is Colossus: the Forbin Project. It is a dystopian view but kind of fun in a way. We give control of our country to a computer, the computer gets super smart, contacts a soviet computer and takes over the world.

[video=youtube;CDrRrZSEqxI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDrRrZSEqxI[/video]

I remember seeing that the first time it was shown on the Living Room tube. I'm going to watch it again. Thanks.
Back then I was a young husband and father who thought way to much about the next wave I was going to drop into and what kind of stoned I could get on before I went out. IE: Pretty stupid but fun. I didn't get interested in theoretical and experimental science until I was in my mid forties. Always been into science fiction, pulp fiction and fantasy. Tolkien being my absolute favorite of all time with Asimov, Clarke, and Heinlein running a group close 2nd. Since I'm just off topic I'm to shut myself down.
Later.

 

[Cheezle]

I remember seeing that the first time it was shown on the Living Room tube. I'm going to watch it again. Thanks.

It is a good film. So many modern films have no plot, no theme and no acting. They are produced as hype and I find them boring.

 

[Aqueous Id]

It starts with the question that you cannot answer, what caused the initial expansion that we observe via the redshift data.

Yes it has been answered. The answer is that the question is absurd. Further, you can not improve on this by compounding absurdity. You can't just start inventing explanations for the Big Bang.

The point in asking is not to disparge you or science, but to find what people who have thought about it think about the beginning, and/or preconditions, as a discussion starter.

In the beginning there was no beginning because there was no space. There was no time. There was only singularity.

My proposed revision to Gen 1:1.

When someone replies on topic we will talk, and if there is no active on-topic discussion I will offer my so called model.

Nobody wants to talk about ether. It died after Maxwell put the old farts to bed with their nightcaps and gruel. At least advance your idea-clock to the year 1905.

Still, the matter of aether or no aether, the "medium" of space,

Told ya.

the energy of curvature, and related discussion don't have to be expressed in the language of GR and math on this thread.

Then yes, you were right from the get go. This thread does not belong in Physics. It belongs quarantined in Denial Of Physics.

They can be if you like to do that yourself but please explain in layman terms when you do.

You don't even want to give it a shot yourself?

My interests are in the cosmological implications of various sets of perconditions,

You mean laws?

in layman terms with other science enthusiasts.

That's fine, but let's not throw out the math & science or it goes to pot.

The rest of you, have at me for violating your sensibilities, but I am not violating the forum rules, and if moderation decides otherwise, they will let me know.

I'm sure you'll be the last to know.

 

[Tach]

You profess to have and understand the "answer" according to "Rindler". Please elaborate (by assuming a non-rotating planet to simplify matters) on how the empirically very short on-radial oscillation/separation path/distance between horizontal face parallel mirrors in a light clock can "lengthen" according to actual (not abstract theoretically "constructed") path traversed along that short radial distance like you keep asserting.

Very easy, the period of the light clock is tied to the acceleration via the function:

$$T=T(g)=\frac{\sqrt{c^2+2gH}-\sqrt{c^2-2gH}}{g}$$

It is easy to show that $$T$$ increases when $$g$$ increases. Since $$g=g(r)=\frac{GM}{r^2}$$, this means that $$T$$ is larger when $$r$$ is smaller, i.e. clocks deeper in a gravitational well, tick slower than clocks "higher" up. Numerous experiments confirm that.

And we cannot yet proceed to conclude anything about the energy density aspect until you have actually answered straightforwardly whether you agree or disagree with Markus Hanke's statement: "curvature is energy!"

You need t stop trolling with your crank concept of "spacetime energy density". I know that you learned this concept from Farsight, keep talking with him about your "invention".

So far you have avoided actually answering the Markus Hanke question straightforwardly.

Markus hasn't asked any question, you are just trolling using your crackpot concept.

And you continue to make allusions to "Rindler" etc references/explanations without any clarification as to how exactly they apply/support your claims in the up/down path between the mirrors where no longer 'spiral path distance' as for the side/side case which you used earlier. Can you just address the points/questions as asked and not default to insults and references whose relevance you have not explained clearly? Thanks.

False, I just gave you the mathematical explanation and the experimental support. Not that you can follow.

 

[quantum_wave]

Very easy, the period of the light clock is tied to the acceleration via the function:

$$T=T(g)=\frac{\sqrt{c^2+2gH}-\sqrt{c^2-2gH}}{g}$$

It is easy to show that $$T$$ increases when $$g$$ increases. Since $$g=g(r)=\frac{GM}{r^2}$$, this means that $$T$$ is larger when $$r$$ is smaller, i.e. clocks deeper in a gravitational well, tick slower than clocks "higher" up. Numerous experiments confirm that.

Now why is that not what the controversy is all about. At least from my layman perspective, and I didn't get if from Farsight, Undefined, or anyone else specifically, the different tick rates is all that we can observe. As for the reason for the difference in tick rates, you can say it is curved spacetime all you want, and no one can falsifiy it. But can you falsify the wave energy density cause, or do you not understand it well enough to do anything but call it crank science?

 

[brucep]

I will as soon as the mods change the title of this one to "QW's covert aether pipedream coded as 'Hubble' etc with the express intent of ridiculing science."

Neither GR, gravitational waves, fields, waves, propagation, technical language , math or physical interpretation are off-topic. there is almost nothing else in this thread that doe not relate to the preceding, except the divisive stuff you now pretend to be opposed to, after posting it yourself.

Nothing I have posted can be properly called a strawman without calling your posts straw men since you opened I responded directly to your openings.

The dark energy that we have, in this universe, is the cosmological constant [WMAP]. You could describe this acceleration as a continuance of inflation. The expectation value at the end of the first inflation event was > minimum and this acceleration is a consequence of expectation value moving toward minimum. The thing we gotta worry about is a sudden change in the expectation value over the entire universe or in a specific place. There's surely a 'better way' to describe the acceleration but that's the idea I have. Pretty amazing coming from somebody tied down by 'mainstream' science. LOL.

 

[Tach]

Now why is that not what the controversy is all about. At least from my layman perspective, and I didn't get if from Farsight, Undefined, or anyone else specifically, the different tick rates is all that we can observe. As for the reason for the difference in tick rates, you can say it is curved spacetime all you want, and no one can falsifiy it.

FALSE: the effect is explained by GR. GR produces the mathematical formalism. Anytime you have a mathematical formalism, you have means of falsifying it via experiment.

But can you falsify the wave energy density cause, or do you not understand it well enough to do anything but call it crank science?

Produce the mathematical formalism for your crank theory of "spacetime energy density" and I will falsify it in a few minutes. Work with the "co-inventors" of this crank theory: Farsight and Undefined. Let's see the mathematical formalism, you guys have been trolling long enough.

 

[quantum_wave]

FALSE: the effect is explained by GR. GR produces the mathematical formalism. Anytime you have a mathematical formalism, you have means of falsifying it via experiment.

Yes, that is true. I meant it hasn't been falsified.

Produce the mathematical formalism for your crank theory of "spacetime energy density"...

Stop right there. Remove the word spacetime, that is not my description.

... and I will falsify it in a few minutes. Work with the "co-inventors" of this crank theory: Farsight and Undefined. Let's see the mathematical formalism, you guys have been trolling long enough.

Your are the troll, but who is and isn't trolling is subjective. My question is, can you falsify gravitational wave energy before it is formalized? I mean, save me the wasted time of watching and waiting for a quantum solution to gravity if you can falsify it now.

 

[Tach]

Yes, that is true.
Stop right there. Remove the word spacetime, that is not my description.

But it is in the specification of the co-authors of the crank theory (Farsight and Undefined). Doesn't really matter, even without "spacetime" , it is equally crackpot.

Your are the troll, but who is and isn't trolling is subjective.

Not really, I simply point out the crankiness in your posts <shrug>

My question is, can you falsify gravitational wave energy before it is formalized?

This is a crackpot question. In addition, since the trio" quantum-wave, Farsight, Undefined is incapable of formalizing anything, let alone this "theory" of yours, the point is moot. You will never produce anything that is anywhre close to a scientific theory. Because you can't, you do not have the knowledge.

I mean, save me the wasted time of watching and waiting for a quantum solution to gravity if you can falsify it now.

What does your crackpottery have to do with QG? Nothing.

 

[quantum_wave]

But it is in the specification of the co-authors of the crank theory (Farsight and Undefined). Doesn't really matter, even without "spacetime" , it is equally crackpot.



Not really, I simply point out the crankiness in your posts <shrug>



This is a crackpot question. In addition, since the trio" quantum-wave, Farsight, Undefined is incapable of formalizing anything, let alone this "theory" of yours, the point is moot. You will never produce anything that is anywhre close to a scientific theory. Because you can't, you do not have the knowledge.



What does your crackpottery have to do with QG? Nothing.

You are trolling when you defer to the crank ad hom in every post, but everyone knows that is who you are. The request for formalization from a layman is also trolling if you intend it to insight a negative response. Do you know anything about anything other than the math of GR? Why is the topic of QG off limits to me? Why should I have to be able to formalize it to talk about it. It all amounts to you being wrong in your attitude toward my discussions and playing to your audience of other people for the laughs, and your failure to be able to talk with people about anything other than your chosen topic.

However, QG, as you know, is said to be a possible means of reconcilling the micro and marco theories, since you asked.

 

[Undefined]

Yes it has been answered. The answer is that the question is absurd. Further, you can not improve on this by compounding absurdity. You can't just start inventing explanations for the Big Bang.


In the beginning there was no beginning because there was no space. There was no time. There was only singularity.

Hi Aqueous Id.

For the sake of your further discussion with q_w on this particular aspect, I would ask you to please be aware that, since the early days, a lot has happened in learned professional circles regarding such questions, and that more recently, some of the very people who constructed the "everything from nothing" Big Bang model have been quietly rethinking such "glib" answers.

For example, here is an excerpt from an interview (I think it's from a science documentary called "What happened Before the Big Bang?") in which Sir Roger Penrose effectively admits the unsatisfactory nature of such evasive "explanations" from the past, when asked the big question as to how the Big Bang "happened" at all.

When people would ask me "What happened before the Big Bang?", my normal answer would have been:

"Well, you know, the word "before" , you see, what does that mean; that's sort of temporal concept; and if the Big Bang was a singularity in space-TIME, that means the very notion of TIME loses its meaning at this event, so called, of the Big Bang. And if the notion of TIME loses its meaning, then the very notion of "before" loses its meaning."

So we would then pretend to say: "Well, it's a meaningless question to ask for a "before"; that's the wrong kind of notion".

And I would have perhaps gone [on] along with this [earlier] point of view, until I'd had some different ideas more recently!

Anyhow, I trust you will note that if Sir Roger Penrose is not ashamed or out of line for rethinking his and his fellow professionals' previous "glib' answers and 'dismissive' attitudes to such questions, then it would be double standard to insist that q_w (and others whom you may not agree with) be called "cranks" for pursuing his own rethinking of the very same questions for himself on a public science discussion forum. Just my two cents observation on this for your and others' benefit when opining about this aspect in future. Thanks.

 

[quantum_wave]

Hi Aqueous Id.

For the sake of your further discussion with q_w on this particular aspect, I would ask you to please be aware that, since the early days, a lot has happened in learned professional circles regarding such questions, and that more recently, some of the very people who constructed the "everything from nothing" Big Bang model have been quietly rethinking such "glib" answers.

For example, here is an excerpt from an interview (from a science documentary called "What happened Before the Big Bang?") in which Sir Roger Penrose effectively admits the unsatisfactory nature of such evasive "explanations" from the past, when asked the big question as to how the Big Bang "happened" at all.



Anyhow, I trust you will note that if Sir Roger Penrose is not ashamed or out of line for rethinking previous "glib' answers and 'dismissive' attitudes to such questions, then it would be double standard to insist that q_w (and others whom you may not agree with) to pursue his own rethinking of the very same questions for himself on a public science discussion forum. Just my two cents observation on this for your and others' benefit when opining about this aspect in future. Thanks.

I appreciate you respondng to AI. I didn't get very far into his post before I knew it was more of his trash. He denies being the stawman king, but he is unequalled in that respect, unless you consider his insincerity to be equal to his ever present straw men.

 

[Tach]

You are trolling when you defer to the crank ad hom in every post, but everyone knows that is who you are.

Someone who exposes cranks.

The request for formalization from a layman is also trolling if you intend it to insight a negative response.

You are not a layman, a layman is willing to learn, you prefer posting nonsense to learning.

Do you know anything about anything other than the math of GR?

GR IS math. Physics is math. The language of physics is math. Something that you know nothing about.

Why is the topic of QG off limits to me?

Because you have demonstrated time and again, through your posts, that you do not have even the most basic knowledge of the most elementary physics.

 

[Undefined]

Very easy, the period of the light clock is tied to the acceleration via the function:

$$T=T(g)=\frac{\sqrt{c^2+2gH}-\sqrt{c^2-2gH}}{g}$$

It is easy to show that $$T$$ increases when $$g$$ increases. Since $$g=g(r)=\frac{GM}{r^2}$$, this means that $$T$$ is larger when $$r$$ is smaller, i.e. clocks deeper in a gravitational well, tick slower than clocks "higher" up. Numerous experiments confirm that.



You need t stop trolling with your crank concept of "spacetime energy density". I know that you learned this concept from Farsight, keep talking with him about your "invention".



Markus hasn't asked any question, you are just trolling using your crackpot concept.




False, I just gave you the mathematical explanation and the experimental support. Not that you can follow.

Why do you keep trying to frame this as an argument on what is already agreed by everyone, Tach? We all agree on the observed effects of clock rate slowing etc.

The discussion is about your claim that the observed/agreed effects are due to "longer light travel distance due to spiral path" etc.

Until you answer why the up/down path (on-same-radial above a non-spinning planet) case of light clock with horizontal mirror surfaces should have some 'spiral path' lengthening of the light traverse distance between those horizontal mirror surfaces, your claims etc are inconsistent and not an actual "explanation" of anything despite the abstractions, maths and theories "constructs" you want to overlay on the empirically observed and agreed facts of the slowing.

And just why won't you answer this question directly:
Do you agree or disagree with Markus Hanke's statement that:

...curvature is energy!

Take your time and actually address the questions/points that are at issue, and not wander off into what has already been agreed from the start. That diversion/evasion tactic will not work anymore since Pete and others rumbled your tactics when you cannot support your stances.

 

[quantum_wave]

Someone who exposes cranks.




You are not a layman, a layman is willing to learn, you prefer posting nonsense to learning.




GR IS math. Physics is math. The language of physics is math. Something that you know nothing about.





Because you have demonstrated time and again, through your posts, that you do not have even the most basic knowledge of the most elementary physics.

Your impression of my posts is quite misdirected. The discussions I start and the contributions I make toward open and educational discussion falsifies your disparagement. But say what you want. I was wondering if you understood the concept of gravitaional wave energy as I have described it, and if so, why don't you address any actual content of my position on it that is absurd? I know you will respond disparagingly, but putting the question to you gives you another chance to show who you are.

 

[Tach]

Why do you keep trying to frame this as an argument on what is already agreed by everyone, Tach? We all agree on the observed effects of clock rate slowing etc.

The discussion is about your claim that the observed/agreed effects are due to "longer light travel distance due to spiral path" etc.

You asked this, is your memory that short:

Please elaborate (by assuming a non-rotating planet to simplify matters) on how the empirically very short on-radial oscillation/separation path/distance between horizontal face parallel mirrors in a light clock can "lengthen" according to actual (not abstract theoretically "constructed") path traversed along that short radial distance

You no longer understand even your own questions?

Until you answer why the up/down path (on-same-radial above a non-spinning planet) case of light clock with horizontal mirror surfaces

This is precisely what I answered. Can you stop trolling now?

should have some 'spiral path' lengthening

It doesn't. You are mixing it with the case when the photon path is transverse to the gravitational field. Tough.

And just answer directly: Do you agree or disagree with Markus Hanke's statement that: "...curvature is energy!"

I did, you are trolling.

 

[Undefined]

You asked this, is your memory that short?


You no longer understand even your own questions?





This is precisely what I answered. Can you stop trolling now?




It doesn't. You are mixing it with the case when the photon path is transverse to the gravitational field. Tough.







I did, you are trolling.

The exchange is clear. You have not answered to the point, but merely overlaid theoretical arguments over your own claims, and just asserted that it supports your claims.

I am not mixing up anything. Your previous longer, spiral path, "explanation" for the slowing was for the vertical mirror surface case.

I asked you to elaborate how your "explanation" applies to the case where the same light clock is rotated such that its mirror surfaces are horizontal and the light bounces up/down between the surfaces on the same radial (above a non-spinning planet for simplicity).

And do you agree or disagree with Markus Hanke's statement:

...curvature is energy!

Stop spuriously accusing others of trolling. Just answer the questions and support your contentions properly.

 

[Tach]

.

I am not mixing up anything. Your previous longer, spiral path, "explanation" for the slowing was for the vertical mirror surface case.

Err , no, you have some very severe comprehension problems. For the fourth time:

1. For the case of the "vertical" clock (photons move radially), there is (obviously) no spiral motion for the photons (since they move radially, DUH)

2. In the case of the "horizontal" clock (photons move transversely to the gravitational field lines), the photons describe a spiral motion.

I cited for you the exact page in the Rindler book, are you too cheap to buy it?

I asked you to elaborate how your "explanation" applies to the case where the same light clock is rotated such that its mirror surfaces are horizontal and the light bounces up/down between the surfaces on the same radial (above a non-spinning planet for simplicity).

It is two DIFFERENT cases, two different explanations. See above.

And do you agree or disagree with Markus Hanke's statement:

I agree with Markus' statement, I disagree with your crank elaboration from his statement.

 

[Undefined]

Thanks for your response, Tach.

Err , no, you have some very severe comprehension problems. For the fourth time:

1. The "vertical" clock (photons move radially), there is (obviously) no spiral motion fot the photons (since they move radially, DUH)

2. The "horizontal" clock (photons move transversely to the gravitational field lines), the photons describe a spiral motion.

I cited for you the exact page in the Rindler book, are you too cheap to buy it?


It is two DIFFERENT cases, two different explanations. See above.

Yes, we all knew the difference already, as I later pointed out after my original question asking for your "explanation" for slowing in case #2. The different 'light path' scenario for case #1 (ie, no "spiral path") was my point. You're just repeating back the two different scenarios I asked about.

Now remember that your "explanation" for slowing in the #2 case was "spiral motion makes path longer for the light".

The next question then logically indicated was:

If longer "spiral path" was the "explanation" for slowing in case #2, then when we remove the supposed "spiral path" (as I already implied when posing my further question for case #1), then the slowing should not arise according to your initial "explanation" for slowing.

Then you nebulously refer to "Rindler" without actually explaining how, if the 'spiral path' was the cause of slowing in the #2 case, the slowing still arises despite the fact your longer "spiral path distance" is removed!

So, please can you elaborate clearly what supposedly happens when your "Rindler" theoretical "explanation" meets the reality of the case #1 situation where there is no longer a supposed "longer spiral path" which you depended on to account for the slowing as in case #2?

I agree with Markus' statement, I disagree with your crank elaboration from his statement.

So you agree that curvature is energy? Then please explain where exactly is your disagreement with my references to gravitational energy density differences between different (upper/lower) same radial GR "local frame" space regions affecting clock processes/rates as observed?


Thanks again for your increasingly polite responses, Tach. Much appreciated.

 

[quantum_wave]

OH Dear Moderator in Heaven, please save us from ourselves. Man-up here and send the evil devils to their Hell. And send your experiment of a science forum without moderation down as well.