Why do you have to invoke me in every discussion, my signatures are getting imprinted on the inner walls of your brain, like that entire past history is imprinted on the BH Event Horizon interior. Realx Boy, sleep well, there are superior commanders for the well being and safety of prevalent mainstream.
Gravity: The why and the how:
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
Why do you have to invoke me in every discussion, my signatures are getting imprinted on the inner walls of your brain, like that entire past history is imprinted on the BH Event Horizon interior. Realx Boy, sleep well, there are superior commanders for the well being and safety of prevalent mainstream.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Paddoboy, sorry, but I don't understand your posting.
One interpretation would be that you whine about the point that I criticize you, instead of caressing you from time to time with "oh, this is nice, paddoboy". Hm. In fact, this is what is recommended to do with small children, and I fully agree with this, if I do something with children, I tend to praise them for small advantages, and to ignore their faults. And, in principle, one can think about a professional scientist, in comparison with a layman, is in a similar role as a teacher with a schoolboy. But, sorry, praise is necessary only for small children, older pupils, and adults certainly, do not need this. To teach them means to show them their errors, not to tell them where they are correct - because, if no error is found, everything is fine.
The other interpretation would be that you really think that you have found some points where I'm really wrong, and don't want to accept this. Sorry, but this has not happened. There have been and will be a lot of inaccurate oversimplifications in my posts, its a forum and not a scientific paper, and for some of them - say, where I have simply said "supernova" talking about the inner part of big supernovas which lead to a creation of a BH - are misleading enough to name them errors. Nonetheless, with "really wrong" above I mean something more serious - where I really have believed something which appeared to be wrong. This has not happened.
One interpretation would be that you whine about the point that I criticize you, instead of caressing you from time to time with "oh, this is nice, paddoboy". Hm. In fact, this is what is recommended to do with small children, and I fully agree with this, if I do something with children, I tend to praise them for small advantages, and to ignore their faults. And, in principle, one can think about a professional scientist, in comparison with a layman, is in a similar role as a teacher with a schoolboy. But, sorry, praise is necessary only for small children, older pupils, and adults certainly, do not need this. To teach them means to show them their errors, not to tell them where they are correct - because, if no error is found, everything is fine.
The other interpretation would be that you really think that you have found some points where I'm really wrong, and don't want to accept this. Sorry, but this has not happened. There have been and will be a lot of inaccurate oversimplifications in my posts, its a forum and not a scientific paper, and for some of them - say, where I have simply said "supernova" talking about the inner part of big supernovas which lead to a creation of a BH - are misleading enough to name them errors. Nonetheless, with "really wrong" above I mean something more serious - where I really have believed something which appeared to be wrong. This has not happened.
In #267, there is a second link, to an article "Evidence for a Universe Expanding at the Speed of Light": http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0407/0407084.pdf
My comments appear below within [square brackets]. Under Conclusion, we read:
From top of p2:
My comments appear below within [square brackets]. Under Conclusion, we read:
[GR forbids any change in G, hence author's speculation is contrary to GR]
[Self-contradictory - author obviously does deny GR, and as further illustrated below.]
From top of p2:
[Rejects thus both BB model and GR, so beloved and fanatically defended by poster of link to this article. Poster has been caught out, having clearly either not read or poorly comprehended contents of article cited.]
Both of you commit the cardinal sin of linking to the arXiv PDF file and not the cover page: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0407084 which is the best place to see the author's history and if there are attempts to advertise it as a preprint of an actual published article. Without which you are judging the authors credibility only by association, not by the history of the person or paper.
The abstract alone is painful to read from the viewpoint of mainstream physics, and the history is none too promising with none of the papers having formats other than PDF or notes relating to publishing.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.3179 (Supporter of MOND)
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0610197 (Eclipse-modified gravity?)
But it looks like he did get "published" in a "journal" that sometimes copies its index page to vixra.
Compare http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0407077 with http://www.k1man.com/Macleod1.pdf as reported in the 2012-04-15 edition of Belgrade Lakes Institute For Advanced Research - Scientific Journal http://www.k1man.com/120415.pdf
It's just unfortunate that Alasdair Macleod is a fairly common name.
Perhaps you don't want to understand?
No, I'm just commenting on how you are renowned to twist, squirm, misinterpret, obfuscate, rather than address the real issue.
And yet you rage against my simplifications.
Like I said, spacetime is not curtailed by the speed of light, and it will take far more than your lengthy obfuscating ranting to change my mind on that simplified issue.
I could go on and illustrate the total hypocrisy in your above paragraph, but knowing how you invoke conspiracies to cover your short comings, I'll let it go.
Last edited:
I accept your criticism in the first sentence. My only excuse is lack of linking to and overall knowledge of scientific papers.
In saying that let me add, that I was making a point re spacetime expansion FTL and I certainly did not read all the paper, and just as obviously evidenced in many of my past posts, do not claim to support some of the papers other claims. In fact as evidenced in other posts of mine, I do not support MOND or some of his other even more bizarre claims.
Taken in conjunction with the other half a dozen or so links I gave, I think it is obvious the point I was making, in the face of some extreme obfuscation.
No, no , no my friend....Just illustrating a few facts that others are now realizing.
And without checking, I'll lay any bet you like that you invoke me in far many more discussions than I do you. Alrighty?
And as I said earlier, with the evidence that your posts are religiously driven and which you surprisingly confirmed, certainly explains your anti mainstream science rants and your attempts to discredit them.........
Who is your god of choice, if I may ask? One of the following?
Attachments
Last edited:
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
I correct errors when I see them, and think they are worth to be mentioned.
And I have no objection at all if you do the same. In the case with the supernova you have found an inaccuracy, fine.
Yes, this is what is named "uneducable".
What would a reasonable person do if confronted with my claim that spacetime does not have a velocity in the spacetime interpretation of GR, and something without speed cannot have a speed limit? First of all, he would try to find out if there is such a velocity of spacetime or not. And, if there is, try to find a formula. And, if he does not find, simply accept this as a fact. And, in future, avoid to talk about the speed of the spacetime and what curtails it or not.
This would give you something, or you would have understood that there is no such animal as a speed of spacetime, or you would have found a formula for this, and would have been much more certain about this, knowing there really is such a speed of spacetime. So you have nothing of this.
No, not as simple as that. If it was you would certainly be correcting other errors particularly from one individual: That highlights your agenda.
Let me say again....
The speed of light applies to mass: Spacetime is not curtailed by "c"
I'm not one that picks up on pedant: You were the one who strangely questioned my definition.
No, this is what is called pedant, squirming, misinterpreting, and obfuscating.
And you do do it quite well as others have noted.
You mean take your word for it?
Again, the universal speed limit applies to mass: Space time is not curtailed by any speed limit and as supported by my many links.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/10...g-faster-than-the-speed-of-light-intermediate
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0310808.pdf
Last edited:
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
No, to search for a formula for the speed of spacetime. Learn to read. And, again, light has no mass, but nonetheless has a speed, and this speed has a limit, namely the vacuum speed of light c.You mean take your word for it?
And, again, the spacetime has no speed, and, therefore, no speed limit too. Sloppy speech in popular explanations does not prove otherwise. What would prove that spacetime has a well-defined velocity is a formula for this velocity in a textbook. Try to find such a formula in http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0310808.pdf There are many. You will find that they are mainly about comoving matter, thus, roughly, about the speed of the galaxies, not of the mystical spacetime.
And only after you give up to find a formula which refutes my claim that there is no speed of spacetime, only then, it would be reasonable to take my word for it that there is none in the spacetime interpretation.
And, BTW, before answering somebody, I first have to read him. I do not read everything here.
I do read, while you play your pompous games.
Just what I said: Light has no mass and the speed limit applies to only stuff with mass. Got it?
Spacetime is not limited by any speed limit generally and simplistically speaking.
It depends on ones PoV and FoR.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/10...g-faster-than-the-speed-of-light-intermediate
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0310808.pdf
Again, hope that along with the rest of the links help.
Yes, recessional velocity caused by spacetime expansion.
https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q411.html
What is a space time continuum?
In 1906, soon after Albert Einstein announced his special theory of relativity, his former college teacher in mathematics, Hermann Minkowski, developed a new scheme for thinking about space and time that emphasized its geometric qualities. In his famous quotation delivered at a public lecture on relativity, he announced that,
"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality."
This new reality was that space and time, as physical constructs, have to be combined into a new mathematical/physical entity called 'space-time', because the equations of relativity show that both the space and time coordinates of any event must get mixed together by the mathematics, in order to accurately describe what we see. Because space consists of 3 dimensions, and time is 1-dimensional, space-time must, therefore, be a 4-dimensional object. It is believed to be a 'continuum' because so far as we know, there are no missing points in space or instants in time, and both can be subdivided without any apparent limit in size or duration. So, physicists now routinely consider our world to be embedded in this 4-dimensional Space-Time continuum, and all events, places, moments in history, actions and so on are described in terms of their location in Space-Time.
Space-time does not evolve, it simply exists. When we examine a particular object from the stand point of its space-time representation, every particle is located along its world-line. This is a spaghetti-like line that stretches from the past to the future showing the spatial location of the particle at every instant in time. This world-line exists as a complete object which may be sliced here and there so that you can see where the particle is located in space at a particular instant. Once you determine the complete world line of a particle from the forces acting upon it, you have 'solved' for its complete history. This world-line does not change with time, but simply exists as a timeless object. Similarly, in general relativity, when you solve equations for the shape of space-time, this shape does not change in time, but exists as a complete timeless object. You can slice it here and there to examine what the geometry of space looks like at a particular instant. Examining consecutive slices in time will let you see whether, for example, the universe is expanding or not.
Space is real. Time is real. Spacetime is real....All rather debatable points but that's the way I see it.
Here's Sean Carroll on the reality of time.
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/10/18/is-time-real/
????
Be careful, you are giving away almost with every post, this great line brings you to naught.
?????? I reject the use of 'both' above. Cover page is simply the intro of actual article. That cited in #283 was perfectly adequate for intended purpose - dealing with key statements of author, with nothing distorted or taken out of context. The author's credibility (in particular as it relates to the original linker's actual avowed beliefs) stands or falls on what he actually states there. And one has to actually read it and understand it to see that, as opposed to seizing the nearest curmudgeon that looks nice according to label.
Last edited:
I'll trust you'll get down on your knees and pray for me then?
I'll trust you'll get down on your knees and pray for me then?
Prayers won't help you. Only your Boss Brucep can help you, and he is dishonestly silent. he is finding fault in Folzoni and others but letting his factotum move around soiling each and every thread.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
But you show no signs of understanding the texts you read. So, you have repeated two links, which is meaningless, because I have already seen and commented them, one of them even very favorable. But you have not presented a formula for the speed of spacetime.
Given profs. Unruh & Hamilton's 'waterfall/river' analogy has again made an appearance re 'flowing space', might be best to link to a few posts in an old thread:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/gravitational-time-dilation.145889/page-30#post-3303745
and then #600, then over the page to #601, 602, with various heated member contributions before and after.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/gravitational-time-dilation.145889/page-30#post-3303745
and then #600, then over the page to #601, 602, with various heated member contributions before and after.
Last edited:
Because you say so?
Just like your worthless paper with no citations, you appear to be pissing in the wind like the other cranks and trolls.
At least now this forum can see where you are coming from and the reasons for your unprofessional rants against mainstream science.
Something that was actually always obvious.