“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Please note the revealing usages - and contextual applications - of the word 'creation' in the above quote (by Stephen Hawking - Page 3, post 29). ”
AN:
Nothing in creationism motivated the big bang theory. The claims of the Bible are inconsistent with experiments and observations. The only similarities is the notion of a finite age to the universe. You are taking that one thing and claiming there's some kind of connection between the two. You claim there's a 'creationist initiative', which implies some kind of motivation on religious grounds. You are wrong.
Kai:
The BBT parallels creationist principles - however inadvertently. It contributes to the 'creationist initiative'. Stephen Hawking himself makes a note of it - what does, we may agree, amount to a 'coincidence'. This is not a wrong proclamation, it's a rightly manifest fact; with Stephen Hawking's qualified agreement.
AN:
You claimed there's a lot of argument in the physics community. You are wrong. Once again you quote someone on a topic you don't understand and fail to grasp what they say.
Kai:
Have you polled the 'physics community', AlphaNumeric? I have not, yet I do witness right here on the net, a lot of disagreement within professional ranks.
AN:
Don't you think it would be better if you actually learnt something?
Kai:
Certainly you've deservedly accredited yourself with and proved to know, a lot of physics in general, and string 'theory' in particular.
On the other hand, what I do know about String 'theory' is that it alludes to and depends a great deal upon factors that are short of Planck length (ergo, the immeasurable), hence it's well known further dependence on specialized mathematics, that, often, even accomplished mathematicians either don't understand, and/or don't agree with.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Presently, one of the more recent modifications include LCDM - the reinstatement of Einstein's formerly abandoned Cosmological Constant - Lambda /\ - which strongly supports a steady state condition. ”
AN:
No, the inclusion of a cosmological constant does not support the steady state condition. The universe has increasing expansion, observations show that.
Kai:
You would know that doesn't disqualify the Steady State theory, if you recognized the 4-D accelerating expansion of the physical universe itself.
AN:
The requirement of a steady state, where the universe is at a constant size, is a very very particular result and one which is not compatible with observations.
Kai:
Refer above.
AN:
I am absolutely certain you don't know any general relativity, specifically the application of the FRW metric to cosmology, given you admit you don't know any mathematics so your claims are based on nothing but you desire for your claims to be right. You aren't doing any analysis of the observational data or any model construction. You just make baseless claims.
Kai:
The GR is based on the equivalence principle; more specifically, the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass values; contingent to the so called 'universal rate of descent of test objects in free fall in the absence of air resistance'. Moreover, Einstein's 4th D is a product of GR. Both of these fundamental facts play a principle role in what you say I know nothing about.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
The subtitle of the latest two editions of my book is: Reinstatement of Cosmological Constant and Steady State theories. ”
AN:
So?
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
This includes the 'transition' of past perspectives shifting from a common, axial source of expansion, to the present perspective that 'the center is everywhere' - which is characteristic of a repelling force acting out of all gravitational matter, except, in the opposite direction of gravity. Which fulfills Friedmann's observation (and that of others) that Einstein's CC 'might expand or contract at the slightest provocation'. ”
AN:
'The centre is everywhere' is simply a result of isotropy and homogeneity. The issue of expansion or collapse is a different thing.
Kai: In your last sentence, above, are you alluding to 'inflation' and 'the big crunch'? If so, they are relatively recent terms/concepts, which by no means enjoy any kind of consensus among astrophysical authorities.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Allowing that the Big Bang had a beginning (in the words of Stephen Hawking), from a tiny point - everywhere is no longer 'all at the same place.' ”
AN:
No, running the clock back results in the universe becoming a point. If you knew how to do any analysis of the FRW metrics you'd know how to compute the equation of motion for the scale factor a(t).
Kai:
In a physically/materially expanding universe, 'running the clock back', does not result in the intersection of the two exemplary lines (in a diagramatically employed slice of pie plate chart) - < and the accompanying restriction on the continuance of universal existence.
No indeed. In a physically/materially expanding (4-D) universe, the apparent 'intersection' (of the expanding universe) where the running clock registers zero amounts of remaining space - the universe, at what you call 'the beginning': is approximately just as it is now, except that it is much smaller and more dense in the Past (A), than our existence in the Present (B) at the middle of the V shaped, pie slice diagram (consider the cross post in the capital letter A, as marking the Present Moment B - the 'eternal now'...). Just as the Future (C) of the V shape is larger and more tenuous when compared to itself at earlier Moments B and A. This is a Steady State model of the universe.
It is not wrong, it simply isn't being considered at all. The BBT is thought to be a concept without any alternative consideration. You - and all BBT advocates - are wrong about that.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
The omission of any defined volumetric consideration in order to preserve the concept that everything - including 'empty' space itself - commenced from a singular point is IMHO, categorically untenable. Volumetric space inevitably extends indefinitely, with or without contents. ”
AN:
Ah, so because you have absolutely no experience with geometry, calculus, cosmology, general relativity and any of their applications to physical models then because you find something 'categorically untenable' then everyone else must, irrespective of how much more experience and knowledge they have in relevant topics than you?
Kai:
'Everyone else' may calculate as they wish. It doesn't take a mahematician or phyicist to conclude that volumetric space, be it occupied or not, is endless, just as is the - whatever given quantity of - material of the universe. The presence of which is self evident, and when observed under the law of Conservation of MassEnergy, has always beeen here in one form or another. The burden of proof for the argument pro-nothingness, is upon the pro-nothingness advocates. Whether philosophically categorized or not, the premise that 'Nothing begets nothing' is much more tenable than that 'Nothing begets something'. Or, is 'common sense' uniformly disproven, also?
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
I have listed the non-mathematical achievements within my book, twice, within this thread. You ignored them then, as you ignore them now. ”
I missed that. Which post are you referring to? I have not seen you mention anything which could be regarded as relevant 'achievements'. You still haven't explained why you think you have some amazing grasp of a topic which is written in a language (ie mathematics) which you admit you have no understanding of.
Kai:
Please refer to the projected time line in a diagrammed 'hypercube'/'super cube'. It represents the three recognized dimensions of space as moving at right angles from themselves, generating the 4-dimensional space-time continuum, and joining space 'and' time, into 'space-time', as per description of same by H. Minkowski.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Whereas, you have repeatedly admitted routinely skipping and otherwise 'scrolling past' my posts. Consequently - especially including your not having read my book - 'you have learned very little'... ”
AN:
I have replied to posts of yours where you illustrate you know no particle physics or relativity. You admit you don't know any mathematics. You quote people who agree with your preconceived notions, irrespective of whether you understand what they say or whether they understand the topic of which they speak.
Kai:
Understanding the meaning of the 4-D space-time continuum as no one ever understood it before, has gifted me with an insight I wouldn't have, without it. It likewise has empowered many others.
AN:
You not knowing any mathematics means you couldn't even get onto a university physics course. So that means you have at best a pop science understanding of physics and at worst a layperson's understanding. Given you claim you are translating advanced physics into something more understandable to a layperson but you are incapable of understanding the advanced physics I find your claims laughable and your knowledge extremely lacking.
Kai:
This means that you consider the perpendicular axis projected from the interior cube in a hypercube to be a space line, or, that you cannot understand (and reject) it as a time line, or both. I find much of your critique is handicapped by your ignorance of what the 4-D space-time continuum really is, and, consequently, particularly as a professional, your knowledge is (avoidably) lacking.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
I requested your perspective of whether the hyper cube / super cube projection perpendicular to itself is a time line or a space line. Given the fact that it represents what Einstein meant by having discovered a previously unrecognized 4th dimension of time, inherent to the three recognized dimensions of space, it is my conclusion that said projection is a time line. If that is in fact the case, then it is proof that the entire physical universe, being at least 4 dimensional, is constantly moving at right angles to itself. ”
AN:
I've previously explained to you that a mathematical result doesn't prove anything about physics. And now you claim some geometry result about cubes proves your claims about dimensions. You mention Einstein's work but you haven't ever studied in, other than pop science books.
Kai: Ideas & Opinions - the second half of which is 'Contributions to Science', is not a pop physics book. I've worn out several copies of it in the process of referencing it as a matter of routine. It confirms my work, which was well underway before I was aware the book existed - a partial autobiographical adventure, which you may read about on page 25, post 245, in Total Field Theory w'out mathematics.
AN:
The fact spacial directions are orthogonal to temporal ones in Minkowski or Euclidean space-time isn't some amazing result. Orthogonal coordinates is something students learn in their 1st year when doing basic geometry. You haven't come up with some amazing result, you've realised people pick directions which are at right angles to one another, ie Cartesian coordinates. Well done on grasping high school geometry.
Kai:
It is that very high school geometry which has been rejected as being applicable to the real world, when it establishes that the 'hyper cube' depicts a projection of physical matter at right angles from itself. Since that 'obviously isn't happening' (do you see your keyboard expanding?) it has been denied and discarded as meaning what it means.
Better that I be 'embarassed', than that the entire 'physics community' be obliged to have collectively and individually overlooked something very fundamental, that they should have recognized much earlier
AN:
And by the way, only in simple systems are time and space directions orthogonal. Such things as a Kerr black hole violate that. Anything with an off diagonal metric.
Kai:
Btw, if black holes exist, my work explains what causes them.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Some basic geometry, although in the category of mathematics, I am able to work with, to a limited degree. ”
AN:
But not even to the level of Cartesian coordaintes, obviously.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
The hyper cube/super cube, and the list of contributions that you have apparently ignored, is in my book. ”
AN:
So you manage to state a result 17 year olds know. Good for you.
Kai:
Well, AlphaNumeric, it has to do with everyone who 'knows' it, but can likewise see that 'obviously physical reality at large is not expanding'. Which has to do with subjectively over ruling a list of experimental proofs of physical expansion, including the the equivalence of gravitationa & inertial mass values, and, the bending of light when passing near a large gravitational system.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
People who know less - and more - than me read my book and learn from it, because it approaches and resolves dissolute problems in a different way, from an axiomatic premise - that being that the perpendicular projection of the hyper cube/super cube is a time line; that, therefore, the physical universe is 4-dimensionally expanding (accelerating, ever faster). ”
AN:
You explain to them things you don't understand but think you do. They don't know about those things either so they don't realise you're wrong and thus you don't think you're wrong wehen no one complains. Then you take it to someone who does, they tell you you're wrong and you don't like it.
Kai:
Had a lot of people, including physicists tell me I'm wrong about the proved fact that the entire physical-material universe (electrons, neutrons, protons, et al) is expanding at right angles from itself. They're all wrong about that, and, I've written a book that - until its central themes are disqualified - proves it; based on previous proofs which have not been previously recognized.
AN:
Hence why after 40 years you're still on forums trying tyo push your work.
Kai:
Do you know what 'amateur' means? As a professional, you would do well to be reminded that 'amateur' means, 'he or she who loves his or her work'.
I have written, published, distributed and sold out my books. The word has been out for 50 (not 40) years (in three languages; since 1959, originally, in very widely distributed essay form) and the import of the contents of that work is gaining on the entire 'physics community'. It is unpilferable, and, it is unpurchaseable. I may even live to see it recognized and acknowledged by the majority of the 'physics community'.
Have I 're-written' physics? Of course not. What I have done is re-read it. In so doing, recognized previously unrecognized facts - falsely perceived to be unrelated; consequently unconsidered, often encountered-and-denied, facts.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Yes. I know that to be true from my correspondence - and personal rapport - with a small percentage of my readership (from whom I often thankfully learn more, while being complimented for what they have learned) ”
AN:
So people more ignorant than you don't notice you're ignorant and you see this as evidence you're not ignorant? The fact they don't know doesn't mean you do.
Kai:
It's one thing to not know, AlphaNumeric, and, it's another to refuse to know.
If you - or anyone else - disqualifies the central themes of my work, I will accept that, with gratitude. Even if disqualified, my work is a valuable contribution to the understanding of the Evolution of Physics; the very process of conceptualization and mental excersizes. As I have said of it many times before, even if disqualified, my work is an outstanding expeditiion in alternative thinking, and, if disqualified, a solved - self redeeming riddle, well worth having engaged.
Ophiloite calls it 'a wasted life'. Heard that before. It's a nervous tick that sometimes results from unexpected encounters with something which, once recognized, one questions why they didn't see it themselves, much earlier.
In matters of discovery, for the most part, it is not a matter of placing or displacing anything anywhere, it is more a matter of finding everything right where and how it's been, all along. A matter of recognizing what was previously known, but not understood; a matter of denying and rejecting something, on the false premise that it is understood, when it isn't.
In the words of Robert Pirsig: "One must try to avoid thinking they understand something, that they don't actually understand."
It's about something not being corrected, because no problem is perceived.
If and when, under such circumstances, dawn ever breaks over Marblehead, it can be embarrassing. Refer, distress, hinder, impede, disconcert.
Truly Yours is well versed in the possibility of being wrong - it doesn't make my life a waste, it merely proves that a great adventure wasn't exactly what I thought it was. Whereas, should my work be recognized and generally acknowledged, well, that could 'disconcert' a lot of people whose business it is, to have found and recognized what was recognized and found by an amateur.
Post Script:
It is fairly well known that Einstein abandoned his CC, in 1927 or so. It is not so well known that he was returned to working on it, in Princeton, before he perished in '55.