The common explanation for the observation that galactic distance is generally proportional to the "redshift" of spectral absorption lines is that "space itself is expanding" (source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang).

However, this explanation is revealed in its utter absurdity when a simple thought experiment is done concerning any typical computer graphics program. Consider that there is an "observer world" (just like yours) and a "picture world" that resides only on a computer screen. The observer is perfectly free to change the scale of the picture world in any manner that he sees fit. However, this change in scale cannot possibly have any meaning to the inhabitants of the picture world. That is, there is no possible experiment that can be performed within the picture world to verify that its scale has ever changed in any way. A change in scale only becomes manifest in relation to the inhabitants of the observer world.

A full understanding of the implications of this simple thought experiment reveals the utterly absurd position in which mainstream Western cosmology finds itself. It has inexplicably confused the concept of absolute scalar change (experimentally unverifiable) with relative positional change (experimentally verifiable). Only in the latter case does the analogy of the Doppler effect make sense (which is the essence of Hubble's Law).

Because of these observations, another explanation of the redshift phenomenon is drastically needed. However, the explanation that I have to offer is far too large of a paradigm shift to attempt to convey it here. Suffice it to say that I have gotten rid of the ridiculous duality between "stuff" (mass-energy) and dimensionality (space-time) that has been haunting the Western scientific establishment since its very inception. (Hint: the concepts of "time" and "energy" are different ways of describing the same essential "idea-thing".)


Dennis Kane

The common explanation for the observation that galactic distance is generally proportional to the "redshift" of spectral absorption lines is that "space itself is expanding" (source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang).

Wikipedia should not be taken as always correct. It is a great resource in general, but it is kept up by the general public, and therefore subject to many discrepancies. On the other hand, the concept of 'expanding space' is valid as long as you realize the term 'space' really just refers to the distances between objects.

Space should not be thought of as a physical thing that actually stretches or expands. In the case of universal expansion, it is the objects themselves that are CO-MOVING.. not space that is physically expanding as if it were a material thing.

HERE (http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.0380) is a reference.

For some reason, there is a hideously subversive element that is missing from our common language experience when it comes to simple discussions concerning dimensionality. On one side, there are "dimensional absolutists" (like me) who claim that discussions concerning dimensional variation are philosophically absurd. On the other side, there are "dimensional relativists" who claim that dimensionality is just one more "entity" that can be experimentally verified.

I know perfectly well what scientists are attempting to claim, and I counter that this claim is profoundly misguided. I understand spatial dimensionality to be an absolute scale, just as I attempted to convey in my thought experiment. There is an enormous difference, however, between spatial dimensionality (as such) and the measurable "space gap" between objects that co-exist within the same dimensional framework. The former is a matter of principle and the latter is a matter of a particular experiment performed within the context of a particular instantiation of this principle.

The bottom line is that there cannot be such a thing as a fixed, universal dimensional context that exists apart from the particular dimensional contexts within which each observer finds himself. When talking about the universe as a whole, the notion of dimensionality simply does not apply. This is because the observer is taken out of the picture, leading to a scenario whereby scientific determinations necessarily do not apply.

If you haven't been able to guess, my arguments are far more philosophical in nature than the type that you typically get on these message boards. I have been developing a "philosophy of dimensionality" for most of my adult life, and the question of the meaning of such a thing as "universal expansion" is right up my alley.

So, for anyone else who wants to travel down this road on which I've been traveling for many years, I welcome you aboard. I just don't know how much more I can say to you guys who seem so satisfied with all of those philosophically ungrounded explanations that you have come to know and love.

well the fact that you can think or go down a road or put forward an idea is philosophically ungrounded.

i dunno much about physics but what you say seems viable, but when trying to persuade people don't give them a serious insult at the end - especially about philosophy when so much of human action is ungrounded.

[QUOTE=dkane75;1681115]For some reason, there is a hideously subversive element that is missing from our common language experience when it comes to simple discussions concerning dimensionality. On one side, there are "dimensional absolutists" (like me) who claim that discussions concerning dimensional variation are philosophically absurd. On the other side, there are "dimensional relativists" who claim that dimensionality is just one more "entity" that can be experimentally verified.

I know perfectly well what scientists are attempting to claim, and I counter that this claim is profoundly misguided. I understand spatial dimensionality to be an absolute scale, just as I attempted to convey in my thought experiment. There is an enormous difference, however, between spatial dimensionality (as such) and the measurable "space gap" between objects that co-exist within the same dimensional framework. The former is a matter of principle and the latter is a matter of a particular experiment performed within the context of a particular instantiation of this principle.

The bottom line is that there cannot be such a thing as a fixed, universal dimensional context that exists apart from the particular dimensional contexts within which each observer finds himself. When talking about the universe as a whole, the notion of dimensionality simply does not apply. This is because the observer is taken out of the picture, leading to a scenario whereby scientific determinations necessarily do not apply.

If you haven't been able to guess, my arguments are far more philosophical in nature than the type that you typically get on these message boards. I have been developing a "philosophy of dimensionality" for most of my adult life, and the question of the meaning of such a thing as "universal expansion" is right up my alley.

So, for anyone else who wants to travel down this road on which I've been traveling for many years, I welcome you aboard. I just don't know how much more I can say to you guys who seem so satisfied with all of those philosophically ungrounded explanations that you have come to know and love.


Can you provide a few references to peer-reviewed papers you have published ?

The redshift can be matched up with other distance indicators. There are supernova brightnesses, variable stars , intrinsic galaxy brightness and sizes, as well as gravitational lensing and for smaller scales parallax measurements. All these different techniques would need alternative explanations if the redshift did not have a direct connection with the expansion of spacetime.

And if we were to discount the evidence from redshift there are still the other distance indicators to show that spacetime is indeed expanding. The logical explanation is that at some time in the distant past all the galaxies were `here`.

Yes. There are other confirming distance markers that support cosmological redshift.

Another genius who thinks that thousands of scientists over decades of time have - oops! - missed something so basic.

The "scalar" change is not proportional, as this genius's thought (or lack of thought) experiment would claim. It exhibits in a measurable way only over immense distances.

The sad thing is that it really does correllate to distance, as other known markers (type II supernovae?) show.

Because of these observations, another explanation of the redshift phenomenon is drastically needed. However, the explanation that I have to offer is far too large of a paradigm shift to attempt to convey it here. Suffice it to say that I have gotten rid of the ridiculous duality between "stuff" (mass-energy) and dimensionality (space-time) that has been haunting the Western scientific establishment since its very inception. (Hint: the concepts of "time" and "energy" are different ways of describing the same essential "idea-thing".)


Dennis Kane

{heavy sigh...}

Yet another self-proclaimed genius steps forward to claim that ALL the professional physicists and cosmologists in the whole world are wrong - and that HE has the real answer!!!

Kane, when will you and the other fruitcakes ever learn that you aren't nearly as bright as you think you are? Whenever you - and ONLY you - claim to have found some serious loophole in mainstream physics, that should serve as a major clue that you really have no idea of what you are talking about.

Without even realizing it, you've clearly made a BOLD statement that you are smarter than all the scientists who collectively have untold thousands of man-years of work and study in their fields. Yet you are egotistical enough to stand on the fringe and make your ridiculous claim. I also strongly suspect that you've never bothered to actually get a formal education in any of these areas.

Without even realizing it, you've clearly made a BOLD statement that you are smarter than all the scientists who collectively have untold thousands of man-years of work and study in their fields.

Yes. I am a bold, bad man. I am philosopher. (The origin of scientist.)

Would you care do get into a real conversation with a real man? Methinks that is not very likely! :p

Yes. I am a bold, bad man. I am philosopher. (The origin of scientist.)

Would you care do get into a real conversation with a real man? Methinks that is not very likely! :p

Only pussies say "Methinks". Therefore you can't be a real man. You lose! Game over!

http://nomm.com/Stills/images/CheckmateD.jpg

So, space isn't expanding, but the stars and galaxies are moving away from each other?

So, space isn't expanding, but the stars and galaxies are moving away from each other?
Err... whatever.



*bangs head in hopless despair after nearly a thousand posts on the subject* :wallbang:

Everyone else,

Read the opening post again. I am not claiming that there is no such phenomenon as the proportionality between galactic distance and the redshift of spectral absorption lines. I am claiming, however, that this relatively determined phenomenon cannot possibly indicate such a thing as the absolute expansion of the dimensional context of the universe.

By the way, I am also aware of the phenomenon of CMBR. Again, I submit that this phenomenon has precisely nothing to do with such a ridiculous notion as a "relic of the Big Bang".

Don't get your shorts in a bunch, folks. There is no rush for me to take you into territory that I dare say you've never before ventured. It has taken me a long time to develop my theories, and to attempt to shove it down your throats all at once would do both of us a disservice!

such a ridiculous notion as a "relic of the Big Bang".
Completely rediculous.

There is no rush for me to take you into territory that I dare say you've never before ventured.
I'm afraid, dave. Please stop.

It has taken me a long time to develop my theories, and to attempt to shove it down your throats all at once would do both of us a disservice!
Unless we like having things shoved down our throats. I wish my girlfriend liked having things shoved down her throat. :(

So, space isn't expanding, but the stars and galaxies are moving away from each other?

Spatial dimensionality is the absolute context whose "absoluteness" is required in order to make any kind of relativistic determination such as motion. In other words, it is nonsensical to speak of a change in our absolute context.

Sure, there is relative motion of galaxies within our local galaxy cluster (caused by gravity), but the galaxies that lie along Hubble's interpolated line do not lie within the reach of this gravitational field.

What I'm trying to say is that the shifting of spectral lines can be caused by one of two things:

1) Ordinary Doppler effect instances whereby gravity is in play
2) Stay tuned...

Yes. I am a bold, bad man. I am philosopher. (The origin of scientist.)

Would you care do get into a real conversation with a real man? Methinks that is not very likely! :p

To the contrary. I'm very much a real man in every sense of the word, including being retired after having spent many years doing actual science - and NOT wishy-washy amatuer philosophical stuff.

So if you happen to know of another REAL man that's interested in a REAL conversation, be sure to point him in my direction.

What I'm trying to say is that the shifting of spectral lines can be caused by one of two things:

1) Ordinary Doppler effect instances whereby gravity is in play
2) Stay tuned...

1) Ordinary Doppler effect instances whereby gravity is in play

and,

2) Stay tuned...

I like option #2.

[QUOTE=dkane75;1681115]Can you provide a few references to peer-reviewed papers you have published ?


If any of us could do this, we would waste our time debating on this forum? Chill out.

Space should not be thought of as a physical thing that actually stretches or expands. In the case of universal expansion, it is the objects themselves that are CO-MOVING.. not space that is physically expanding as if it were a material thing.


So, how come everything is moving away from everything else? Local gravity we are told can overcome expansion (or perhaps a new description is needed?), yet there was a time when everything was close enough that local gravity would not have allowed such expansion. If space is not the mechanism, what is the latest excuse?

Maybe DE, except you have to explain that away. Where it originally come from, when it appeared, why there seems to be ever more of it causing faster expansion, etc.

Another BB fudge is urgently needed. :D

The redshift can be matched up with other distance indicators. There are supernova brightnesses, variable stars , intrinsic galaxy brightness and sizes, as well as gravitational lensing and for smaller scales parallax measurements. All these different techniques would need alternative explanations if the redshift did not have a direct connection with the expansion of spacetime.


Measuring cosmic distances is a progressive thing. If you are wrong close up, then you are far more wrong far away. Type 1A supernovae is fairly close up and is not the standard candle claimed originally. With various factors allowing upto twice as much mass on the dwarf star that goes super-nova, it allows the possibility of an incredibly wrong reading for distance.

Evidence that spacetime is expanding is the redshift. Evidence that the redshift is correct in this incidence is that spacetime is expanding and GOD himself has told us that there cannot be any other expalantion for it, so it is infallibly true.

The sad thing is that it really does correllate to distance, as other known markers (type II supernovae?) show.

Furthermore, because of sensitivity limitations, the statistics of radio emission from different types of optical SNe is very poor, with only 6 examples of SNe Ib/c and no examples of SNe Ia ever detected. Even the generally radio-brighter Type II SNe have only a dozen detections and fewer than half of that number have well measured, multi-frequency radio light curves.


http://www.ras.ucalgary.ca/SKA/science/node20.html

As they are believed to result from core collapses of hydrogen rich supergiants from 8-40 solar masses, they are not exactly "standard".

Read-Only. Isn't there a forum solely for silly parrots who do nothing but quote from text books and curse all original thought as evil?

Read-Only. Isn't there a forum solely for silly parrots who do nothing but quote from text books and curse all original thought as evil?

I've never once said original thoughts were evil. But I HAVE said repeatedly that to present speculation as fact should be considered a crime.

Tell us something: at exactly what point in your self-education process did you teach yourself that everything printed in textbooks (that's one word, by the way, not two) was wrong?????

He found there was only one way to introduce a NEW idea into the closed minds of big bangers :


http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s217/neufen/Superlopez1.jpg

He found there was only one way to introduce a NEW idea into the closed minds of big bangers :




"He" who? And you haven't answered my question...

Read-Only. You criticise everyone here who comes up with anything original. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, if any of us could do peer reviewed papers, we would not waste our time here.

No one here gives speculation as fact. We say what we believe. Let's face it. Most of the BB itself is speculation. To say otherwise is to be dishonest.

This is a debating site where we go beyond text books. To merely quote what is in a text book must be infallibly true so any answer that says otherwise is automatically wrong is a waste of time here on a debating forum. Just trolling.

While you can say that for instance we know completely about how electricity goes through a wire (Maybe. New Scientist several years back reported we didn't), we can only theorise about most of the universe, how it came about, etc, based on what goes on in about 1 part in 10^30 of it. It is dishonest to say for a scientist to claim to know what goes on in black holes, or to talk about the big bang as though it actually happened when we have no evidence it did. We just have a few effects that MAY have been caused by it but which may have other causes, as even other scientists admit so do not believe in the BB idea themselves.

You are like a creationist in that you believe your text book is infallibly true from the first word to the last. However, science prefers the word theory rather than the word fact because they themselves cannot accept that their own text books are the last word on any subject.

Read-Only. Maybe 1 of the 27 top men in the field who signed a document printed in New Scientist several years back saying that they believed the BB was wrong and that other ideas should be looked at and given a chance?

Read-Only. Isn't there a forum solely for silly parrots who do nothing but quote from text books and curse all original thought as evil?

He found there was only one way to introduce a NEW idea into the closed minds of big bangers

Counterintuitive ideas hardly constitutes original thought. I have yet to see any NEW ideas from you.

Read-Only. You criticise everyone here who comes up with anything original. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, if any of us could do peer reviewed papers, we would not waste our time here.

No one here gives speculation as fact. We say what we believe. Let's face it. Most of the BB itself is speculation. To say otherwise is to be dishonest.

This is a debating site where we go beyond text books. To merely quote what is in a text book must be infallibly true so any answer that says otherwise is automatically wrong is a waste of time here on a debating forum. Just trolling.

While you can say that for instance we know completely about how electricity goes through a wire (Maybe. New Scientist several years back reported we didn't), we can only theorise about most of the universe, how it came about, etc, based on what goes on in about 1 part in 10^30 of it. It is dishonest to say for a scientist to claim to know what goes on in black holes, or to talk about the big bang as though it actually happened when we have no evidence it did. We just have a few effects that MAY have been caused by it but which may have other causes, as even other scientists admit so do not believe in the BB idea themselves.

You are like a creationist in that you believe your text book is infallibly true from the first word to the last. However, science prefers the word theory rather than the word fact because they themselves cannot accept that their own text books are the last word on any subject.

I don't have NEARLY as much faith in textbooks (that's STILL just one word, by the way - can't seem to learn, can you?) as you think. In fact, I have some serious doubts about several things presented in them.

But my problem with YOU and your buddy is that you both totally ignore time-proven basic principles in your "free-thinking" process.

There are TONS of things that aren't fully understood (and there always will be) - but while attempting to explain or examine them, you do a great disservice to everyone here by not understanding very basic, simple principles.

Your self-education has not served you well at all.

Photons come in all energies from radio waves to gamma rays, but they are not fixed forever to that frequency. Travel at C/2 (93,000 mps) and shine a torch in the direction of travel. Though the beam is moving at C, it is EFFECTIVELY only moving at C/2. This gives it a surplus energy of C/2 which would blue shift the beam. A photon always travels at a set speed in a set medium. This means that the surplus energy is put into frequency (vibration rate) which is proportional to wavelength so as the frequency increases, the wavelength of the torch beam shortens towards the blue end of the spectrum.

The reverse of this happens when photons are caused to lose energy over cosmic time, for whatever reason, and explains the red shift (so the further, the more redshifted) and how infra-red can change to microwave, as in CMB.

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s217/neufen/EMRspectrum.jpg

Since light will always travel at 186,282 mps, what difference does it make if over that second, that distance has expanded by an atom's radius. It is not going to travel that extra distance in that second because it works at a SET speed, so how can light STRETCH?

There are TONS of things that aren't fully understood (and there always will be) - but while attempting to explain or examine them, you do a great disservice to everyone here by not understanding very basic, simple principles.

Your self-education has not served you well at all.


A silly, empty statement which you have not backed up. Your quotations from text books and internet sites are often at best what we already know and are extrapolating or speculating from. Other times, we just do not believe the accepted IDEAS.

Gravitons are nonsense. Dark energy is rubbish. Branes are brainless. And so on. Such things are merely ideas from other people. Just because they have a qualification from BLAH University, it does not mean that they are infallibly right. Even Hawkings admits he has been wrong a number of times, so what his followers accepted as infallibly true before because they come from the great Stephen Hawkings (pbuh), suddenly they find he has changed his mind and they are no longer true. :bawl: :bawl: :bawl:

Your self-education appears to be non-existant.

Photons come in all energies from radio waves to gamma rays, but they are not fixed forever to that frequency. Travel at C/2 (93,000 mps) and shine a torch in the direction of travel. Though the beam is moving at C, it is EFFECTIVELY only moving at C/2. This gives it a surplus energy of C/2 which would blue shift the beam. A photon always travels at a set speed in a set medium. This means that the surplus energy is put into frequency (vibration rate) which is proportional to wavelength so as the frequency increases, the wavelength of the torch beam shortens towards the blue end of the spectrum.

The reverse of this happens when photons are caused to lose energy over cosmic time, for whatever reason, and explains the red shift (so the further, the more redshifted) and how infra-red can change to microwave, as in CMB.


Since light will always travel at 186,282 mps, what difference does it make if over that second, that distance has expanded by an atom's radius. It is not going to travel that extra distance in that second because it works at a SET speed, so how can light STRETCH?

See?!?! This is exactly the sort of thing I was complaining about. You don't even realize that photons - regardless of their energy levels - don't experience time at all. That IS a basic principle that you've completely failed to teach yourself.

Counterintuitive ideas hardly constitutes original thought. I have yet to see any NEW ideas from you.


To name one to show you wrong yet again. Show me where I got my idea about gravity from; that we are falling to a zero dimension point in our centre (of mass) in an unknown direction which in massive objects in space is seen as rotation.

This is a debating site where we go beyond text books. To merely quote what is in a text book must be infallibly true so any answer that says otherwise is automatically wrong is a waste of time here on a debating forum. Just trolling...

You are like a creationist in that you believe your text book is infallibly true from the first word to the last. However, science prefers the word theory rather than the word fact because they themselves cannot accept that their own text books are the last word on any subject.

You are contradicting yourself in the same paragraph.

You are wrong on the 'infallibly true' part. You are right that science does not accept their own textbooks as the last word. Just because we are saying that you are most probably wrong in almost every "original thought" you have come up with so far, does not require that we believe that the BB, relativity, or anything else in science is 'infallibly true'. Quite the contrary, science is very much open to change... but the ideas that will change the textbooks must have evidence to support them. You are constantly trying to debunk things that you, quite obviously, don't even understand. If I were you, I'd take some courses, learn a little (or a lot) more. You might discover that a lot of the ideas you are coming up with have already been thought of on the way to where we are today, and there is good reason that they have been put aside in favor of current theories.

See?!?! This is exactly the sort of thing I was complaining about. You don't even realize that photons - regardless of their energy levels - don't experience time at all.

Explain how you know that photons do not experience time, so cannot change their wavelength or change in any way.

I have already pointed out in the past that the double slit experiment is easily explained because as waves, photons do not have a set size (though they do seem to have a preferred size) but under set conditions they can become smaller waves and so "one photon" can divide and go through all routes at once.

The mere fact that you are probably willing to admit that photons can red or blue shift proves you wrong. Something that does not experience time does not experience change, which photons do, so you are wrong!

losfomoT. If you had nothing to say, why didn't you leave it at that instead of that embarrassingly awful twaddle?

Show me where I got my idea about gravity from; that we are falling to a zero dimension point in our centre (of mass) in an unknown direction which in massive objects in space is seen as rotation.

You got me there... I have absolutely no idea what that statement is supposed to mean.

losfomoT. If you had nothing to say, why didn't you leave it at that instead of that embarrassingly awful twaddle?

Or that.

You got me there... I have absolutely no idea what that statement is supposed to mean.

That's because it's original and not in any of your text books, leaving you without anything to quote in answer to it. :bawl:

Explain how you know that photons do not experience time, so cannot change their wavelength or change in any way.

I have already pointed out in the past that the double slit experiment is easily explained because as waves, photons do not have a set size (though they do seem to have a preferred size) but under set conditions they can become smaller waves and so "one photon" can divide and go through all routes at once.

The mere fact that you are probably willing to admit that photons can red or blue shift proves you wrong. Something that does not experience time does not experience change, which photons do, so you are wrong!

Tisk, tisk. In that very post of yours that I quoted from you gave an indication that you do understand just a bit about blue-shift BUT in the same post you clearly show that you do not understand red-shift at all!! To me, that's about the height of sheer ignorance.

Tell me - do you understand ANYTHING about Doppler shift and that it applies to EM radiation just as well as it does to sound? Or perhaps you'd like to explain to the companies that make radar guns based on EM wave-shifting that their product actually works based on some sort of magic rather than a very simple principle of physics????????????

[QUOTE=dkane75;1681374]Yes. I am a bold, bad man. I am philosopher. (The origin of scientist.)

Would you care do get into a real conversation with a real man? Methinks that is not very likely! :

How about those references I asked for ?

[QUOTE=dkane75;1681400]Everyone else,

Read the opening post again. I am not claiming that there is no such phenomenon as the proportionality between galactic distance and the redshift of spectral absorption lines. I am claiming, however, that this relatively determined phenomenon cannot possibly indicate such a thing as the absolute expansion of the dimensional context of the universe.

By the way, I am also aware of the phenomenon of CMBR. Again, I submit that this phenomenon has precisely nothing to do with such a ridiculous notion as a "relic of the Big Bang".

Don't get your shorts in a bunch, folks. There is no rush for me to take you into territory that I dare say you've never before ventured. It has taken me a long time to develop my theories, and to attempt to shove it down your throats all at once would do both of us a disservice!

How about those references I asked for ? If you have published nothing can you not just say so ?

[QUOTE=kaneda;1681753][QUOTE=Myles;1681200]


If any of us could do this, we would waste our time debating on this forum? Chill out.

Don't let idiot scientists get you down. They have a vested interest in promoting textbooks. Just remember that original thought such as yours is invariably scoffed at. Just look at what happened to Gallileo!

[QUOTE=kaneda;1681753][QUOTE=Myles;1681200]


If any of us could do this, we would waste our time debating on this forum? Chill out.

Don't let idiot scientists get you down. They have a vested interest in promoting textbooks. Just remember that original thought such as yours is invariably scoffed at. Just look at what happened to Gallileo!

And also don't forget what happened to Pons and Fleischmann! :D

http://www.ras.ucalgary.ca/SKA/science/node20.html

As they are believed to result from core collapses of hydrogen rich supergiants from 8-40 solar masses, they are not exactly "standard".
Didn't understand a thing about that article, did ya? Thought not.

ENOUGH!!!!!!! - You NEED TO GET ALONG, if not, it revises that no one get's anywhere;)

ENOUGH!!!!!!!

Reiku's thundering command echoes throughout the forums!!!

did you feel that?

was that an earthquake?

ENOUGH!!!!!!! - You NEED TO GET ALONG, if not, it revises that no one get's anywhere;)


You don't make it easy.

Didn't understand a thing about that article, did ya? Thought not.


Pope Superluminal I makes another infallible papal bull. When asked, Pope Superluminal said: "Well, it saves me having to look in my text book for a pat answer I can quote word for word for as everyone knows, I am infallible so do not need to answer anything. Just make some cheap remark." :p

[QUOTE=Myles;1681826][QUOTE=kaneda;1681753]

And also don't forget what happened to Pons and Fleischmann! :D


There was an article in New Scientist 3-4 years back which showed about 25% of all great discoveries come from maverick scientists who don't follow the field.

As to P&F, some people have had limited success with cold fusion and the research continues. Hot fusion is hardly a runaway success story with the untold billions pumped into the field so we can finally get as much energy out as we put into the reaction. :bugeye:

As I have pointed out elsewhere, the redshift backing up expansion relies on the idea that light which always travels at a set speed will somehow notice that the 186,282 miles it covers in a single second has expanded by an atom's width in that time, BUT IT WILL STILL ONLY TRAVEL THAT 186,282 MILES IN THAT SECOND AND NOT AN ATOM'S WIDTH FURTHER.

So for the geniuses and text book quoters among you, tell me how light can expand when it can travel no further? (No infallible Papal bulls accepted as answers).

[QUOTE=Myles;1681826]


There was an article in New Scientist 3-4 years back which showed about 25% of all great discoveries come from maverick scientists who don't follow the field.

No argument there but I aaume you can see from that report that fully three times as many great discoveries came from people who DID follow the field. So where would YOU want to place YOUR research money, eh? :D


And with that out of the way, do you plan on answering the question I put to you about the Doppler effect and the frequency shift thereof ??

Tisk, tisk. In that very post of yours that I quoted from you gave an indication that you do understand just a bit about blue-shift BUT in the same post you clearly show that you do not understand red-shift at all!! To me, that's about the height of sheer ignorance.

Tell me - do you understand ANYTHING about Doppler shift and that it applies to EM radiation just as well as it does to sound? Or perhaps you'd like to explain to the companies that make radar guns based on EM wave-shifting that their product actually works based on some sort of magic rather than a very simple principle of physics????????????


Another empty post from an empty head. You explain NOTHING but just babble on. Did the place you worked for have a quota on idiots so they needed to employ you?

And with that out of the way, do you plan on answering the question I put to you about the Doppler effect and the frequency shift thereof ??

This from someone who answers no questions but just makes silly remarks so his lack of science is not shown for all to see.

Tell us again about how you worked in science for many years and how smart you are. Reading your posts, I find I keep forgetting that you know anything about science.

Another empty post from an empty head. You explain NOTHING but just babble on. Did the place you worked for have a quota on idiots so they needed to employ you?

Forget the RUDE remarks, Bub and answer the question. We're talking about REAL science here - the kind I did vs your dreaming. Do you understand that the Doppler effect is real and even some common speed detection devices make good use of the red and blue shifts????

Tell me - do you understand ANYTHING about Doppler shift and that it applies to EM radiation just as well as it does to sound? Or perhaps you'd like to explain to the companies that make radar guns based on EM wave-shifting that their product actually works based on some sort of magic rather than a very simple principle of physics????????????


Photons change wavelength, as in experience time, which proves you wrong.:bawl:

This from someone who answers no questions but just makes silly remarks so his lack of science is not shown for all to see.

Tell us again about how you worked in science for many years and how smart you are. Reading your posts, I find I keep forgetting that you know anything about science.

Once again, nothing from you but rude, abusive remarks. I HAVE posed a very scientific fact and question for you - which you seem to be dodging. Does that mean you are unable to answer??

Forget the RUDE remarks, Bub and answer the question. We're talking about REAL science here - the kind I did vs your dreaming. Do you understand that the Doppler effect is real and even some common speed detection devices make good use of the red and blue shifts????

Since when is serving burgers at McDonald's doing real science?

I did four years of science in a lab at the start of my career and got paid absolutely crap money for it so went to another job, working with people who had to take their shoes off to count above ten. But they earned more than most top scientists did.

I have already explained to you that according to the BB idea, things in space should not move in expansion. There should either be more space or space should expand, so giving the appearance that objects move.

You have yet to explain how light can recognise the expansion of space since it always travels at a set speed. Your answer is.... missing!

Once again, nothing from you but rude, abusive remarks. I HAVE posed a very scientific fact and question for you - which you seem to be dodging. Does that mean you are unable to answer??

This from the master of rude remarks, even though they are of very poor quality. I have answered your question. Check your text book to see how our answers compare.

Photons change wavelength, as in experience time, which proves you wrong.:bawl:

That's just plain nuts and does NOT address the question at all. Want to try one more time before I completely blow you out of the water with a detailed ACTUAL scientific description of what's involved?

(Actually, I suspect you probably already realize that your take on the Doppler effect is in complete error and you don't want to admit it.)

Since when is serving burgers at McDonald's doing real science?

I did four years of science in a lab at the start of my career and got paid absolutely crap money for it so went to another job, working with people who had to take their shoes off to count above ten. But they earned more than most top scientists did.

I have already explained to you that according to the BB idea, things in space should not move in expansion. There should either be more space or space should expand, so giving the appearance that objects move.

You have yet to explain how light can recognise the expansion of space since it always travels at a set speed. Your answer is.... missing!

No, Bub, you are the one that's ALWAY rude.

And I can answer your question easily. But first you have to face up to my question about the Doppler effect and stop all these rather childish attempts at distraction and diversion - they are NOT going to work.

Spatial dimensionality is the absolute context whose "absoluteness" is required in order to make any kind of relativistic determination such as motion. In other words, it is nonsensical to speak of a change in our absolute context.

Sure, there is relative motion of galaxies within our local galaxy cluster (caused by gravity), but the galaxies that lie along Hubble's interpolated line do not lie within the reach of this gravitational field.

What I'm trying to say is that the shifting of spectral lines can be caused by one of two things:

1) Ordinary Doppler effect instances whereby gravity is in play
2) Stay tuned...


But how do you account for the existence of the relative absolutes associated with the event horizon of a black hole ?

[QUOTE=Read-Only;1681863][QUOTE=Myles;1681826]


There was an article in New Scientist 3-4 years back which showed about 25% of all great discoveries come from maverick scientists who don't follow the field.

As to P&F, some people have had limited success with cold fusion and the research continues. Hot fusion is hardly a runaway success story with the untold billions pumped into the field so we can finally get as much energy out as we put into the reaction. :bugeye:

You are overlooking one small thing; they were scientists as well as mavericks.

“ Originally Posted by kaneda
You have yet to explain how light can recognise the expansion of space since it always travels at a set speed. Your answer is.... missing!
kaneda seems to be missing a fundamental understanding of light.

A photon has a wavelength in a given frame. There are three basic ways for the wavelength of this photon to be observed to change.

1) Simple doppler shift. You move toward or away from the photon.

2) Gravitational redshift. A photon climbing out of a gravity well loses energy, which is inversly proportional to wavelength. Lower energy, longer wavelength.

3) Cosmological redshift. This is similar to doppler redshift, but is attributed more to light actually "stretching" along with expanding space as it traverses billions of light years.

You can argue all you want. But the fact is that the BB model predicts this expansion and the redshifting of light.

Is anyone interested in my " Simulate the Universe Kit ". First you need a round balloon. preferably pink. Next paint spots of different colours on the surface to epresent , stars. galaxies . black holes and so on. Now, stand in front of a mirror. Take a deep breath and start inflating the balloon, paying close attention to the spots. There you have it, your very own pocket universe.
If you burst the balloon, that signifies the end of the universe. My method proves that the universe ends with a big bang. It certainly does not begin with one.

kaneda seems to be missing a fundamental understanding of light.

A photon has a wavelength in a given frame. There are three basic ways for the wavelength of this photon to be observed to change.

1) Simple doppler shift. You move toward or away from the photon.

2) Gravitational redshift. A photon climbing out of a gravity well loses energy, which is inversly proportional to wavelength. Lower energy, longer wavelength.

3) Cosmological redshift. This is similar to doppler redshift, but is attributed more to light actually "stretching" along with expanding space as it traverses billions of light years.

You can argue all you want. But the fact is that the BB model predicts this expansion and the redshifting of light.

He's missing several fundamentals all over the place.

Oh - and I'm certain that you already know this - but you should make a small addition to your list above:

1)a The source of the photons can be moving towards or away from you. The result is identical to you yourself being in motion.

He's missing several fundamentals all over the place.

Oh - and I'm certain that you already know this - but you should make a small addition to your list above:

1)a The source of the photons can be moving towards or away from you. The result is identical to you yourself being in motion.

Right.

Right.

I admire your patience. I take it you realize you are pissing against the wind.

I apologize. it's none of my busines

Take a deep breath and start inflating the balloon....My method proves that the universe ends with a big bang. It certainly does not begin with one.

Er,
it could be said that inflating the balloon was the bigbang.

Er,
it could be said that inflating the balloon was the bigbang.


Not if you blow quietly. The bang comes when the baloon bursts.

I admire your patience. I take it you realize you are pissing against the wind.

I apologize. it's none of my busines
Actually I was just agreeing with Read Only in the point he mentioned. The source or observer can be moving (of course, without reference to a third point, who is moving? ;) ).

Not sure what you were referring to Myles?

That's just plain nuts and does NOT address the question at all. Want to try one more time before I completely blow you out of the water with a detailed ACTUAL scientific description of what's involved?

(Actually, I suspect you probably already realize that your take on the Doppler effect is in complete error and you don't want to admit it.)

Time is change in anything. Something that does not experience time is something that does no change. What do you not understand about that? If a photon is infra-red light and it is redshifted to microwaves, then there is a time when it was IR and a time (now) that it is MW. Understand, or should I get the crayons out and draw some kind of diagram that even you may be able to understand?

Doppler effect. You have a fence that has slats 6 inches apart. If you run past it fast, those slats close up so that they are 5 inches apart, 4 inches apart, 3 inches apart, etc. That is the official explanation of a doppler shift, which you obviously believe. Do you want to admit that?

Not sure what you were referring to Myles?

I think he was referring to convincing kaneda of these facts. You see, you can't just start throwing facts at him (proven or not), he will not accept them as facts, and therefore they are not applicable to anything you might be trying to explain to him. He argues facts and theories simply because he does not understand them... when they are explained to him he either dodges the explanations or just dismisses them outright... it seems simple to me:

He is a TROLL!!

kaneda seems to be missing a fundamental understanding of light.

A photon has a wavelength in a given frame. There are three basic ways for the wavelength of this photon to be observed to change.

1) Simple doppler shift. You move toward or away from the photon.

2) Gravitational redshift. A photon climbing out of a gravity well loses energy, which is inversly proportional to wavelength. Lower energy, longer wavelength.

3) Cosmological redshift. This is similar to doppler redshift, but is attributed more to light actually "stretching" along with expanding space as it traverses billions of light years.

You can argue all you want. But the fact is that the BB model predicts this expansion and the redshifting of light.


Isn't it great how you again do not answer direct question but play to the gallery instead. Anyone would think you were trying to hide the fact that you don't know. I have started 2 new threads; one about how the BB doesn't do what you say and one on redshifts where you may like to pretend you have answers on and do a bit of grandstanding about.

(2) explains (1). You admit that a lower energy gives a longer wavelength though you try to doubt it every time I mention it that if you are moving away from an obuject, a photon will hav less "impact". Example; you throw a ball and it hits the back of a stationary car. Again you throw a ball and this time the car is moving away from you so less force on impact. Understand? That is how the redshift works.

(3) Light always travels at a set speed. We are led to believe that in one second where light has travelled at 186,282 mps and space has expanded in that second over that distance by about the width of an atom that this will somehow affect light which has not travelled that extra atom's width.

How does that happen? If 186,282 miles expands by just an atom's width, how far does a wavelength of light expand in that time? So we have a photon (size?) which in one second is stretched by 0.4275x10^-18. Call it Planck length. Is that possible? Feel free to dodge this question like you have dodged all the others I have asked you.

You are so gullible you believe everything you read in a book.

I think he was referring to convincing kaneda of these facts. You see, you can't just start throwing facts at him (proven or not), he will not accept them as facts, and therefore they are not applicable to anything you might be trying to explain to him. He argues facts and theories simply because he does not understand them... when they are explained to him he either dodges the explanations or just dismisses them outright... it seems simple to me:

He is a TROLL!!


I have just asked superluminal some questions on the redshift. Feel free to get your text books out and parrot something from them in the hope that I will believe you have a clue.:D

Time is change in anything. Something that does not experience time is something that does no change. What do you not understand about that? If a photon is infra-red light and it is redshifted to microwaves, then there is a time when it was IR and a time (now) that it is MW. Understand, or should I get the crayons out and draw some kind of diagram that even you may be able to understand?

Doppler effect. You have a fence that has slats 6 inches apart. If you run past it fast, those slats close up so that they are 5 inches apart, 4 inches apart, 3 inches apart, etc. That is the official explanation of a doppler shift, which you obviously believe. Do you want to admit that?

Can you not see just how silly you are being? Walking or running past a picket fence has absolutely NO effect on their spacing! :bugeye:

But sound waves and EM waves are an entirely different matter. If either the source or observer are moving toward the other, compression of the waves occur. The sound will take on a higher pitch and the EM waves shift in the blue direction. Moving in the opposite direction produces the opposite effect - sound waves drop in pitch and EM waves shift in the red direction.

THAT'S the real Doppler effect - nothing to do with your rather dumb picket fence example.

He's missing several fundamentals all over the place.

Oh - and I'm certain that you already know this - but you should make a small addition to your list above:

1)a The source of the photons can be moving towards or away from you. The result is identical to you yourself being in motion.

Read-Only. I have answered these points to your fellow trolls superluminal and losfomoT. Feel free to show me where I am wrong, or you can show everyone that you don't have a clue by doing some grandstanding, superluminal-style.
:D

You are so gullible you believe everything you read in a book.

While you, sir (and I use that term very loosely) are so gullible that you won't even read the book. :bugeye:

I hereby pronounce you a TROLL just as others have done. Do you wish to join Rieku in his fate? It would appear so.

Can you not see just how silly you are being? Walking or running past a picket fence has absolutely NO effect on their spacing! :bugeye:

But sound waves and EM waves are an entirely different matter. If either the source or observer are moving toward the other, compression of the waves occur. The sound will take on a higher pitch and the EM waves shift in the blue direction. Moving in the opposite direction produces the opposite effect - sound waves drop in pitch and EM waves shift in the red direction.

THAT'S the real Doppler effect - nothing to do with your rather dumb picket fence example.

That is the standard explanation of doppler shift. If the spacing of the slats (or waves) does not change, then there is no doppler shift. Just because you pass more waves over the same time, nothing is going to change. They are still the same waves.

Don't you recognise your term "compression" as a smaller spacing of the waves/slats? See how silly it sounds?

Is anyone interested in my " Simulate the Universe Kit ". First you need a round balloon. preferably pink. Next paint spots of different colours on the surface to epresent , stars. galaxies . black holes and so on. Now, stand in front of a mirror. Take a deep breath and start inflating the balloon, paying close attention to the spots. There you have it, your very own pocket universe.
If you burst the balloon, that signifies the end of the universe. My method proves that the universe ends with a big bang. It certainly does not begin with one.


This requires a four physical dimensional hypersphere which is expanding. It does not work with 3D expansion where you have a definite poin of origin.

With the balloon, you are filling it with air. So how is the 4D hypersphere expanding since it only has what it had the first moment everything appeared? (however that was). Where is that new energy coming from?

It works better if you can visualise it because the spots you put on the balloon should not grow in size. As I showed elsewhere, if you can imagine a tiny ball (univese one billion years old) and stick knitting needles in it, then the sphere expanding at 4,7,10 billion years later till the present day, you'll find that none of the spots actually move in relation to the centre. It is the space in between them which is expanding.

This is the problem. Does space expand or is thre ever more of it? It is unlikely that it can seemingly infinitely expand since it does sem to be a material and I would think that that would change basic things like the speed o light, etc. So more of it but from where?

And I can answer your question easily.

So, when are you coming out as a creationist? That is their standard answer when they don't know.

That is the standard explanation of doppler shift. If the spacing of the slats (or waves) does not change, then there is no doppler shift. Just because you pass more waves over the same time, nothing is going to change. They are still the same waves.

Don't you recognise your term "compression" as a smaller spacing of the waves/slats? See how silly it sounds?

From what you've just said it's very clear that you do not understand even the most simple, basic, fundamental facts concerning frequency. Passing more waves in the same amount of time ALWAYS produces an increase in frequency!

Tell me this - how do YOU explain the rise in pitch in the sound of an oncoming train or siren?

Read-Only. Did you read about my example of a ball hitting a stationary car and one moving away from you? The same with a car moving towards you, so more impact. superluminal seems to think that energy only has something to do with it when talking about gravity.

OK, you are passing more waves but they are always the SAME waves. They do not change. They do not redshift in form. The slats in the fence. You are on a train passing them and it speeds up from stationary. You pass 1 per second, 5 per second, 10 per second. They are still the same slats though they may begin to look blurred now.

Read-Only. Did you read about my example of a ball hitting a stationary car and one moving away from you? The same with a car moving towards you, so more impact. superluminal seems to think that energy only has something to do with it when talking about gravity.

OK, you are passing more waves but they are always the SAME waves. They do not change. They do not redshift in form. The slats in the fence. You are on a train passing them and it speeds up from stationary. You pass 1 per second, 5 per second, 10 per second. They are still the same slats though they may begin to look blurred now.

Your fence analogy is still very ignorant.

And the waves are NOT the same if you are stationary and the source - like a train or ambulance is approaching you. They've become compressed and that results in an increase in pitch when it's sound and a blue shift in frequency when it's EM radiation. I cannot see WHY you don't understand something as simple and basic as that.

[QUOTE=kaneda;1684154]This requires a four physical dimensional hypersphere which is expanding. It does not work with 3D expansion where you have a definite poin of origin.

With the balloon, you are filling it with air. So how is the 4D hypersphere expanding since it only has what it had the first moment everything appeared? (however that was). Where is that new energy coming from?

It works better if you can visualise it because the spots you put on the balloon should not grow in size. As I showed elsewhere, if you can imagine a tiny ball (univese one billion years old) and stick knitting needles in it, then the sphere expanding at 4,7,10 billion years later till the present day, you'll find that none of the spots actually move in relation to the centre. It is the space in between them which is expanding.

This is the problem. Does space expand or is thre ever more of it? It is unlikely that it can seemingly infinitely expand since it does sem to be a material and I would think that that would change basic things like the speed o light, etc. So more of it but from where?

My balloon shows exactly what is going on. The surface is 2 dimensional, the inside is 3 dimensional and my breath when I inflate the balloon represents the energy required by the system. Now we know that the faster an object travels the bigger it becomes and this is represented by the spots becoming larger. The balloon is expanding into the room which represents what is outside the universe. The reflection of the balloon in the mirror represents a parallel universe. That covers everything needed to show what's going on.

Actually I was just agreeing with Read Only in the point he mentioned. The source or observer can be moving (of course, without reference to a third point, who is moving? ;) ).

Not sure what you were referring to Myles?

I was referring to your patience with kaneda. I'm having problms with him too because he is trying top shoot down my " balloon universe"

Isn't it great how you again do not answer direct question but play to the gallery instead. Anyone would think you were trying to hide the fact that you don't know. I have started 2 new threads; one about how the BB doesn't do what you say and one on redshifts where you may like to pretend you have answers on and do a bit of grandstanding about.

Ok. Check my tagline. im an idiot.

(2) explains (1). You admit that a lower energy gives a longer wavelength though you try to doubt it every time I mention it that if you are moving away from an obuject, a photon will hav less "impact". Example; you throw a ball and it hits the back of a stationary car. Again you throw a ball and this time the car is moving away from you so less force on impact. Understand? That is how the redshift works.
When and where have I ever argued this with you? All I have ever said is that the wavelength of a photon is related to its energy by E = hc/lambda. You must be reading someone elses posts.

(3) Light always travels at a set speed. We are led to believe that in one second where light has travelled at 186,282 mps and space has expanded in that second over that distance by about the width of an atom that this will somehow affect light which has not travelled that extra atom's width.
Well, I don't know about your numbers (space expanding the width of an atom in one second over 186,282 miles). But let's go with it anyway.

The first problem I see is that you are interpreting the "wavelength" of a photon as a property of a pointlike object only. Yes, a photon is a particle, but what is it's "wavelength"? How can a particle have a "wavelength"? The interpretation that physicists use today is QED. You should read feynmans book "QED: The strange theory of light and matter". The wavelength of a photon is more corrctly thought of as a time interval that the photon progresses through as it travels. Feynman uses the rotating hands of a clock to represent this. And he goes to some lengths to poit out that this is a completely valid way to do it. What takes years of training is the mastery of the mathematics to solve complex real-world situations.

So, either read the book, or accept what I tell you. The "wavelength" of a photon is an attribute that is related to it's energy and is expressed as a distributed time feature that can indeed be modified ("stretched") as it traverses huge distances of space that is expanding. If the space that the photon is travelling through is stretching, then the number of "cycles" it takes to get to us is increased as compared to one travelling through non-stretching space. This is obviously seen as an increase in "wavelength".


How does that happen? If 186,282 miles expands by just an atom's width, how far does a wavelength of light expand in that time? So we have a photon (size?) which in one second is stretched by 0.4275x10^-18. Call it Planck length. Is that possible? Feel free to dodge this question like you have dodged all the others I have asked you.
I think I've thoroughly answered your question. And helped you to understand that your understanding of a photon's wavelength is not complete and therefore causes you to be confused as to how the stretching of space can increase it's "wavelength". You are quite welcome.

You are so gullible you believe everything you read in a book.
Perhaps... again, check my tagline...

Read-Only. Did you read about my example of a ball hitting a stationary car and one moving away from you? The same with a car moving towards you, so more impact. superluminal seems to think that energy only has something to do with it when talking about gravity.
You have trouble reading what others are actually saying in their posts, yes?

I was referring to your patience with kaneda. I'm having problms with him too because he is trying top shoot down my " balloon universe"


As I point out to christians on religious boards, if you religion is true, then you should be able to answer my questions. Maybe your balloon model just needs a bit more thought?

You have trouble reading what others are actually saying in their posts, yes?

You made the point (No.2) that photons can change energy, so change wavelength because of gravity. I was pointing out that maybe they can change energy, so change wavelength for other reasons.

superluminal. No a photon is not a particle. Matter is particles and cannot travel at light speed. Photons carry information about their origin which can later be changed under various stimulii. As with sea waves, they can seemingly act in formation but it is still photons acting in unison rather than a "real wave".

I know it sounds pompous but I disagree with Feynman on a number of points. All the maths looks nice and complicated and all the ideas look good but at the end of the day that is all they are. Ideas. As I have explained elsewhere, light always travels at a set speed so it is not going to stretch because it always travels at a set speed. Simple as that. If you could show that light managed to travel that much further each second to cover the expansion of space, then I would have to agree with you. But it doesn't.

The wavelength is down to the energy of the photon. Decrease it and it red shifts. Increase it and it blue shifts. It's not rocket science.

We both know you are not an idiot. Gullible yes in believing what you are told without questioning it but not an idiot.

Your fence analogy is still very ignorant.

And the waves are NOT the same if you are stationary and the source - like a train or ambulance is approaching you. They've become compressed and that results in an increase in pitch when it's sound and a blue shift in frequency when it's EM radiation. I cannot see WHY you don't understand something as simple and basic as that.


I am sorry that the fence analaogy was beyond your intellect. I made it easy as I could. I explained about the slats being "compressed", something you talk about in the post above, but still you did not understand it.

We have established that photons can gain and lose energy (as when they pass close to a star so are blue shifted on the way in and red shifted on the way out). So is there a difference in their energy between impacting on a stationary target and impacting on something that is moving towards them at C/2 ? Would the electrons of the fast moving object not reflect the photons with more energy, so blue shift them?

I am sorry that the fence analaogy was beyond your intellect. I made it easy as I could. I explained about the slats being "compressed", something you talk about in the post above, but still you did not understand it.

We have established that photons can gain and lose energy (as when they pass close to a star so are blue shifted on the way in and red shifted on the way out). So is there a difference in their energy between impacting on a stationary target and impacting on something that is moving towards them at C/2 ? Would the electrons of the fast moving object not reflect the photons with more energy, so blue shift them?

You clearly cannot understand the Doppler effect. Until you are able to do so, you will never progress beyond the meager understanding of cosmic things where you currently stand. Sorry, but that's a fact and if you wish to remain ignorant, well, that's YOUR choice.

You made the point (No.2) that photons can change energy, so change wavelength because of gravity. I was pointing out that maybe they can change energy, so change wavelength for other reasons.

I think Loop Quantum Gravity has a feature which allows for a difference in propagation over long distances based on wavelength. Maybe they have something that allows for a change in wavelength over long distances as well. Have you ever written to one of the LQG physicists to see? I think Lee Smolin and Jorge Pullin are two of the more prominent ones.

As I point out to christians on religious boards, if you religion is true, then you should be able to answer my questions. Maybe your balloon model just needs a bit more thought?

You are knocking my balloon model because you cannot fault it. It is beyond your understanding.

[QUOTE=kaneda;1685178]I am sorry that the fence analaogy was beyond your intellect. I made it easy as I could. I explained about the slats being "compressed", something you talk about in the post above, but still you did not understand it.

We have established that photons can gain and lose energy (as when they pass close to a star so are blue shifted on the way in and red shifted on the way out). So is there a difference in their energy between impacting on a stationary target and impacting on something that is moving towards them at C/2 ? Would the electrons of the fast moving object not reflect the photons with more energy, so blue shift them?

The fence example is more than an analogy. I know because I put it to the test. I decided to run past a long picket fence ansd see for myself what happens. Can you imagine my astonishment when, before I started running. I looked along the fence and saw that the further away the slats were, the closer they were together. This means that the textbooks are wrong about Doppler. The further away, the greater the compression. In other words the slats are blue shifting as they move away and red shifting as they approach. You wont find that in any of your textbooks.

The fence example is more than an analogy. I know because I put it to the test. I decided to run past a long picket fence ansd see for myself what happens. Can you imagine my astonishment when, before I started running. I looked along the fence and saw that the further away the slats were, the closer they were together. This means that the textbooks are wrong about Doppler. The further away, the greater the compression. In other words the slats are blue shifting as they move away and red shifting as they approach. You wont find that in any of your textbooks.

I tried it about an hour ago and I found the same thing... this is groundbreaking stuff... didn't physicists know about the fence analogy? Wow, whoever thought of the whole fence slat thing is going to be famous... oh yeah, it was kaneda. Man, I'm sorry for anything I might have said earlier, I didn't realize the genius I was dealing with.

We have established that photons can gain and lose energy (as when they pass close to a star so are blue shifted on the way in and red shifted on the way out). So is there a difference in their energy between impacting on a stationary target and impacting on something that is moving towards them at C/2 ? Would the electrons of the fast moving object not reflect the photons with more energy, so blue shift them?

Is this an honest question?

If it is, you must understand the futility of anyone answering it. Any answer they give, you will refute as being the 'textbook answer'... you will attempt to mock their apparent trust in 'infallible science'... so why should anyone bother to answer... in fact, why bother asking?. I'll tell you why, because you are a TROLL

I know it sounds pompous but I disagree with Feynman on a number of points. All the maths looks nice and complicated and all the ideas look good but at the end of the day that is all they are. Ideas.

Well then, the fact that you are going to ignore experimental evidence that that shows 100% (so far) that feynman, et al, are completely correct and that the observed behavior of nature is 100% (so far) correctly predicted by these "dabblers" means that I have no reason to discuss things that are now considered elementary physics. Advanced highschool level stuff.

You may disagree with Feynman, Einstein, etc, but exactly why would I give any weight to things that you say (like the already known nature of photons and time dilation) when it's already been demonstrated that that's the way nature actually works?!?

Let's not dispute actual facts. What these gentlemen had were ideas. They have now been transformed into actual facts by the ultimate test in science - rigorous experimental verification. The problem is that you are attacking the fact that the earth is a slightly oblate spheroid (i.e. round) , so to speak. I have no need to debate at that level.

I tried it about an hour ago and I found the same thing... this is groundbreaking stuff... didn't physicists know about the fence analogy? Wow, whoever thought of the whole fence slat thing is going to be famous... oh yeah, it was kaneda. Man, I'm sorry for anything I might have said earlier, I didn't realize the genius I was dealing with.

Yes, credit where it's due. Kaneda puts things in a new perspective.

Yes, credit where it's due. Kaneda puts things in a new perspective.

Right - a severely distorted perspective! :bugeye:

You clearly cannot understand the Doppler effect. Until you are able to do so, you will never progress beyond the meager understanding of cosmic things where you currently stand. Sorry, but that's a fact and if you wish to remain ignorant, well, that's YOUR choice.

Tell us again about how you worked in science and all you know about science. Every time I read one of your science-free posts whose only answer to any question is insults, I keep forgetting how much you claim to know.

[QUOTE=kaneda;1684154].
My balloon shows exactly what is going on. The surface is 2 dimensional, the inside is 3 dimensional and my breath when I inflate the balloon represents the energy required by the system. Now we know that the faster an object travels the bigger it becomes and this is represented by the spots becoming larger. The balloon is expanding into the room which represents what is outside the universe. The reflection of the balloon in the mirror represents a parallel universe. That covers everything needed to show what's going on.

For the balloon yes but for the universe, no. god is not blowing the universe up like a giant balloon.

You clearly cannot understand the Doppler effect. Until you are able to do so, you will never progress beyond the meager understanding of cosmic things where you currently stand. Sorry, but that's a fact and if you wish to remain ignorant, well, that's YOUR choice.

Read-Only. You remind me of AlphaNumeric, claiming a good education but unable to understand the simplest of things which stray a millimetre off of the accepted norm. I can see why you used Read-Only as an alias. ROM but no RAM.

I think Loop Quantum Gravity has a feature which allows for a difference in propagation over long distances based on wavelength. Maybe they have something that allows for a change in wavelength over long distances as well. Have you ever written to one of the LQG physicists to see? I think Lee Smolin and Jorge Pullin are two of the more prominent ones.

I have written to a few people in the past on different points but whether the recipient thought: "This guy's an idiot" or "That's good, I'll borrow that", no one has ever bothered answering.

You are knocking my balloon model because you cannot fault it. It is beyond your understanding.


Sure :D

Is this an honest question?

If it is, you must understand the futility of anyone answering it. Any answer they give, you will refute as being the 'textbook answer'... you will attempt to mock their apparent trust in 'infallible science'... so why should anyone bother to answer... in fact, why bother asking?. I'll tell you why, because you are a TROLL


Since when have you tried answering me? You make a few pronouncements, a few insults and that's it. What a nobody.

You were probably one of the people who got Reiku banned from here by labelling him a troll too. He emailed me (a message I still have) that after his first short ban he had tried to kill himself because of the sheer nastiness he had had to put up with here. Now banned permanently, he has possibly succeeded on another attempt so you may have managed to get someone to commit suicide. How will you celebrate when you boast to your friends about it?

superluminal. We do not float off into space. That is proof that invisible demons are holding us down. As there are ever more people, ever more invisible demons are needed so their inbuilt hellfire is causing global warming. More proof that invisible demons exist. Just because you have a result, the reasoning used to get there is not necessarily correct.

So how is Feynman's "Partons" coming along? Those silly people who talk of quarks are obviously wrong.

Einstein couldn't even see how the double slit experiment worked. Child's play.

No, what I am attacking is your idea of invisible demons. We know for a fact that the Earth is not a sphere, so no comparison. We can only assume that certain things like the BB are true because of invisible demon-level reasoning which provides one particular interpretation of two pieces of evidence (redshift and CMB) and ignores all other possibilities.

You debate? How is saying; "My textbook is right" debate? Check the meaning of the word since you obviously do not know :

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/debate

We know for a fact that the Earth is not a sphere, so no comparison.
Uh oh. He's completely lost it. I can only hope that he didn't read my post correctly (he seems to not have a very good reading comprehension) where I said:

...the fact that the earth is a slightly oblate spheroid...

I sincerely hope he's not going to start arguing for a flat earth.

And I have no idea what to make of the magic demon stuff. Anyone have any ideas?

We can only assume that certain things like the BB are true because of invisible demon-level reasoning which provides one particular interpretation of two pieces of evidence (redshift and CMB) and ignores all other possibilities.
Or... just maybe... ACTUAL EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS?

Whaddya think? Want to explain again how photons lose energy by interacting with interstellar hydrogen? I can't wait. I'll take notes this time.

P.S. How can anyone possibly "debate" with you when you decide to toss (or just plain don't know) fundamental physics that any college freshman knows? Physics (like the behavior of photons - which are particles - as they interact with matter)? Give us all a break.

Unless you really do think the earth isn't an oblate spheroid...?

Read-Only. You remind me of AlphaNumeric, claiming a good education but unable to understand the simplest of things which stray a millimetre off of the accepted norm. I can see why you used Read-Only as an alias. ROM but no RAM.

I stray quite often several millimeters off the beaten path - unlike you who takes GIANT leaps into areas where the answers are already known (to pretty much everyone but you) and you totally lack a place (basis) from which to make that leap.

Say, have you ever noticed where practically no one ever agrees with your hare-brained take on science? I wonder why that is...

I have written to a few people in the past on different points but whether the recipient thought: "This guy's an idiot" or "That's good, I'll borrow that", no one has ever bothered answering.

Borrowing one line from my last response to you, "I wonder why that is..."

Could it possibly be that they read the first few lines and tossed it into the garbage where it belonged? Surely NOT!!!! Why, that was actually written by kandea - the tower of knowledge of physics who is smarter than Einstein and all of the world's professional physicists combined!!!!! :eek:

[QUOTE=Myles;1684302]

For the balloon yes but for the universe, no. god is not blowing the universe up like a giant balloon.

Of course not. The energy comes from the big bang.

Uh oh. He's completely lost it. I can only hope that he didn't read my post correctly (he seems to not have a very good reading comprehension) where I said:



I sincerely hope he's not going to start arguing for a flat earth.

And I have no idea what to make of the magic demon stuff. Anyone have any ideas?

7926 miles diameter at the equator and 7920 miles diameter at the poles. So not a sphere.

I used demons to illustrate that an explanation may fit known facts but is not necessarily true.

Borrowing one line from my last response to you, "I wonder why that is..."

Could it possibly be that they read the first few lines and tossed it into the garbage where it belonged? Surely NOT!!!! Why, that was actually written by kandea - the tower of knowledge of physics who is smarter than Einstein and all of the world's professional physicists combined!!!!! :eek:


I should imagine such people get lots of letters from people like us and most probably are only worth tossing in the bin and the rest not worth the time needed to read hundreds of letters to find something worthwhile.

I remember author Piers Anthony trying to let his letter writing fans down delicately by telling them that the more time he spends reading fan mail, the less time he has to write books for them.

Of course not. The energy comes from the big bang.


The BB would only have provided a set amount of energy which would slow down over time as the universe expanded ever larger.

I stray quite often several millimeters off the beaten path - unlike you who takes GIANT leaps into areas where the answers are already known (to pretty much everyone but you) and you totally lack a place (basis) from which to make that leap.

Say, have you ever noticed where practically no one ever agrees with your hare-brained take on science? I wonder why that is...


If I wasn't here -

Read-Only: What do you think of page 79 of QM for Dummies?
superluminal: I, of course agree with evcerything they say.
losfomoT: They had some nice pictures on that page.

How can you debate when everyone agrees with you?

superluminal. The BB-ers make it up as they go along. Hey, look. According to what we believe the universe started expanding faster several billion years ago. How can that happen. FUDGE ALERT! How about we say that gravity sometimes repels as well as attracts (they did). No, that doesn't sound right. How about a mysterious energy? Sounds good. Call it dark energy as we can't detect it.

And they still haven't detected it. Still no evidence for this stupid fudge. And you criticise me for not having everything proven. Double standards.

As to interstellar material, maybe Raman scattering? Then again, maybe space itself could be taking energy from light over cosmic time? We know if you gravitationally bend space, you bend the light going through it so space is not just a "nothing" but an actual material. Maybe the effort of going through space over such distances will take energy from photons and so redshift them?

You were probably one of the people who got Reiku banned from here by labelling him a troll too. He emailed me (a message I still have) that after his first short ban he had tried to kill himself because of the sheer nastiness he had had to put up with here. Now banned permanently, he has possibly succeeded on another attempt so you may have managed to get someone to commit suicide. How will you celebrate when you boast to your friends about it?

Wow, you are a sadistic SOB aren't you?

For the record, I have never labeled Reiku as a Troll, I have only ever implied that he was a brown-noser. However, looking at Reiku's posts, I would have to agree that he acted like a Troll many times, and I am surprised that the moderators put up with him as long as they did. I do not think you will last as long as he.

I figured you for a Troll for a long time, but after you wouldn't even admit the obvious difference between slowing down less and speeding up... it seems pretty obvious that either:

A- You are too stupid too understand even the simplest physics, and therefore we are wasting our time trying to sway you from your misguided ideas. (personally I don't think you are that stupid... I am sure it must be B)

or,

B- You simply won't admit when you are shown to be wrong, so you dismiss the answer outright, or you dodge it... and then continue arguing the same points that have been shown to be wrong. Arguing for the sake of arguing... you are a Troll.

Since when have you tried answering me? You make a few pronouncements, a few insults and that's it. What a nobody.

If I wasn't here -

Read-Only: What do you think of page 79 of QM for Dummies?
superluminal: I, of course agree with evcerything they say.
losfomoT: They had some nice pictures on that page.

Sometimes you make me smile.

On the off chance that A is the correct description of you, I am going to jump in again for a short while and help try to show you the error of your way.

As to interstellar material, maybe Raman scattering? Then again, maybe space itself could be taking energy from light over cosmic time? We know if you gravitationally bend space, you bend the light going through it so space is not just a "nothing" but an actual material. Maybe the effort of going through space over such distances will take energy from photons and so redshift them?

Space is not a material thing that bends. That is an analogy that is used to describe gravity.

Redshifting of light from objects moving away is a real thing. It is a proven thing. It is NOT a huge leap of faith to assume that the redshifting of light that we see in distant galaxies is due to the fact that they are moving away from us. It is actually quite a common sense assumption. Saying that the redshift we see MIGHT NOT be from expansion velocities is fine as well... anythings possible, science is not rock firm on the subject, science is open to possibilities. Giving a bunch of unsubstantiated MAYBEs (that WOULD require a huge leap of faith) to explain away the most substantiated possibility, is NOT fine.

7926 miles diameter at the equator and 7920 miles diameter at the poles. So not a sphere.

I used demons to illustrate that an explanation may fit known facts but is not necessarily true.
Just for the record, in every post I made regarding this, I said

...The earth in an oblate spheroid...

and kaneda simply refused to say "Oh yes, you're right..."

This is an insight into his psyche. Take it for what you will.

Just for the record, in every post I made regarding this, I said

...The earth in an oblate spheroid...

and kaneda simply refused to say "Oh yes, you're right..."

This is an insight into his psyche. Take it for what you will.

Yeah, that's VERY typical of him - and just one reason why I've started to ignore his garbage posts. He probably doesn't even know what an "oblate spheroid" is.

If everyone would just start doing what I'm now doing (ignoring him), he would quickly fade into oblivion where he rightly belongs. (Hint, hint.) For a while, it was rather fun shooting down all his uneducated nonsense but that's grown old now since he's totally incapable of learning.

Yep. You're probably right. We'll see...

If I wasn't here -

Read-Only: What do you think of page 79 of QM for Dummies?
superluminal: I, of course agree with evcerything they say.
losfomoT: They had some nice pictures on that page.

How can you debate when everyone agrees with you?
Look, Big k, there are certain things, like the behavior of photons, and the time dilation of non-comoving "things" and the QM violation of Bells inequality, that are experimentally shown to be true. This isn't a matter of belief or just agreeing with someone. These are fundamental facts of nature as we now know it.

So the real quetion is, how can you debate with someone who decides to disagree with what nature shows us and how it actually works?

To be honest, the few people I know that are like this are simply too egotistical (no offense) to accept that nature might have the audacity to behave in a way that dosen't fit their idea of logic or "common sense".

Your problem here is not that you have new ideas on things, but that you arer basing many of them on the premise that certain already known and demonstrated facts of nature are somehow wrong?!?!

Do you really wonder why we are dismissing you as a crank, loon, or troll?

I'm still not sure what you are (per LosFomoT's assessment above). Maybe you're a "C", whatever that is?

superluminal. The BB-ers make it up as they go along. Hey, look. According to what we believe the universe started expanding faster several billion years ago. How can that happen. FUDGE ALERT! How about we say that gravity sometimes repels as well as attracts (they did). No, that doesn't sound right. How about a mysterious energy? Sounds good. Call it dark energy as we can't detect it.

And they still haven't detected it. Still no evidence for this stupid fudge. And you criticise me for not having everything proven. Double standards.

As to interstellar material, maybe Raman scattering? Then again, maybe space itself could be taking energy from light over cosmic time? We know if you gravitationally bend space, you bend the light going through it so space is not just a "nothing" but an actual material. Maybe the effort of going through space over such distances will take energy from photons and so redshift them?
Look. Read your own paragraphs. You just raised as many questions in your second paragraph as you did in the first. Look at all the "maybes" in your second paragraph.

Inflation provides a mechanism for explaining what we observe. Not an explanation of why. Very few times in science, especially at the fundamental level, do we get to know why. Bothers you dosen't it?

But there is evidence for this "stupid" fudge. There is good independent evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating! Weird.

The problem is that you are invoking tons of "maybes" regarding the fundamental behavior of light.

You may be right. There may be some incredibly fundamental mistakes about light. But unless there's some compelling evidence for such a problem, you look elsewhere. That's how new physics are discovered (like dark matter and energy).

Just for the record, in every post I made regarding this, I said

...The earth in an oblate spheroid...

and kaneda simply refused to say "Oh yes, you're right..."

This is an insight into his psyche. Take it for what you will.

I used oblate as in flattened at the poles since the Earth is not prolate.

The people in white coats told me about your psyche, you naught boy! :p

superluminal. My second paragraph:

And they still haven't detected it. Still no evidence for this stupid fudge. And you criticise me for not having everything proven. Double standards.

Your quote:

Look at all the "maybes" in your second paragraph.

What maybes from me?

Inflation is little short of a fairy story. Nothing "in" space moves faster than light so space does not expand faster than light. It's own structure is self-limiting. Space does not split up into little lumps and then join together at a later date, so inflation is nonsense. Expansion can't decide whether it wants a 3D or 4D expansion, because neither work for it.

Evidence that the universe is expanding faster comes from Type 1A supernovae which are NOT a standard candle because they are NOT standard. Duh! So no evidence.

LosfomoT is an irrelevance. He comes here to whine about something he clearly knows nothing about and to insult people. A troll by any definition.

superluminal. Time does not exist as a dimension so no time dilation. Entangled particles are just stored memories and how you read them. Fundaamental facts? Not really. Conclusions based on effects.

Feel free not to debate with me. No loss since you merely quote the text book so not debate anyway.

Sure the BB is correct. Not.

If a dog barks at me, do I take notice of it? I have already dismissed a number of people on this forum so their barking is merely boring.

Yeah, that's VERY typical of him - and just one reason why I've started to ignore his garbage posts. He probably doesn't even know what an "oblate spheroid" is.

If everyone would just start doing what I'm now doing (ignoring him), he would quickly fade into oblivion where he rightly belongs. (Hint, hint.) For a while, it was rather fun shooting down all his uneducated nonsense but that's grown old now since he's totally incapable of learning.


Is this like the last time you lied about ignoring me? You are SO predictable RO. Don't make promises you can't keep.

losfomoT. Explain how light in space bends when travelling near a massive object without utilising space.

Since we do not float off into space, that proves that invisible demons are holding us down. An explanation of an effect is not necessarily the right one.

I used oblate as in flattened at the poles since the Earth is not prolate.

You're a fucking liar. You never said the word "oblate" in any of your posts.

losfomoT. Explain how light in space bends when travelling near a massive object without utilising space.

Gravitons?

General Relativity does a great job describing gravity. Incredible actually, as it is accurate to within about as close as we can confidently measure it. But GR only explains the effect of gravity, it does not explain the cause (mechanism).

There are a few possibilities, and these are being explored. When science knows more, I'll know more. (And you will have more to dismiss as being stupid).

If you are looking for a pseudo-scientific possibility, I always liked the idea of some sort of pressure (from particles or something) that pushes on everything in all directions. It is pushing on us right now in all directions, but it is pushing less from the bottom because the Earth is blocking some of that push, so we are being pushed more in the downward direction, which is why we are being held down (by demon particles). But this idea has a lot of problems, and has been pretty much dismissed. If you like the idea, you can read about it HERE. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation)

superluminal. Time does not exist as a dimension so no time dilation. Entangled particles are just stored memories and how you read them. Fundaamental facts? Not really. Conclusions based on effects.

Feel free not to debate with me. No loss since you merely quote the text book so not debate anyway.

Sure the BB is correct. Not.

If a dog barks at me, do I take notice of it? I have already dismissed a number of people on this forum so their barking is merely boring.


Have you read Don Quixote ?

Hi Kaneda,

I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on a problem for which I have never heard an explanation. It is this : As photons are particles , how do they escape from a lightbulb ?

Myles,

It's a shame to see someone as clearly intelligent as you descending to some 'others' level. It is well known that photons escape light bulbs through tiny holes (I like to think of them as little hatches) in the glass of the lightbulb. The "hatches" open and close when the photon's electrogravitational magnetospheric charge envelope interacts enough with the magnetohydrodynamic flux receptors on the little hatch.

Sheesh! Am I the only one that gets this stuff???

@dkane75
Hum,
i am not a philosopher so i cant comment; but frankly, i sense that it is perhaps better if we all share a common language or terms.
ie There is no point is saying you have the answer to some problem and them not be able t communicate it to other people.

Myles,

It's a shame to see someone as clearly intelligent as you descending to some 'others' level. It is well known that photons escape light bulbs through tiny holes (I like to think of them as little hatches) in the glass of the lightbulb. The "hatches" open and close when the photon's electrogravitational magnetospheric charge envelope interacts enough with the magnetohydrodynamic flux receptors on the little hatch.

Sheesh! Am I the only one that gets this stuff???

Party Pooper ! Let me have a little joke before he drives me nuts.

@dkane75
Hum,
i am not a philosopher so i cant comment; but frankly, i sense that it is perhaps better if we all share a common language or terms.
ie There is no point is saying you have the answer to some problem and them not be able t communicate it to other people.

If you are not a philosopher, how would you describe yourself ?

Party Pooper ! Let me have a little joke before he drives me nuts.
Sorry. I didn't mean to give away the magic mini hatch theory of photon/lightbulb escapage.

I'm glad to see that someone recognized that dkane75's idiotic post was nothing but sheer nonsense and had no place in this thread. THANK YOU!

Sorry. I didn't mean to give away the magic mini hatch theory of photon/lightbulb escapage.

I knew you were bullshitting because I have measured the size of the holes in lightbulb glass and they are all the same size. Now, as the size of the photons increase with an increase in wattage, fewer can escape , so the public are being ripped off. Why have a 100-watt bulb when two 50-watt bulbs will give a a higher light output.

Stop me if you've heard it. My favourite physics lesson was the one where I was asked to consider a perfectly smooth elephant of negligible weight.

If you are not a philosopher, how would you describe yourself ?

Er, not a philosopher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

Er, not a philosopher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

Well said. Would you now please describe yourself in terms of what you are not. You can add it to your cv.

I will do likewise and we can have some fun seeing the things we have not in common.

Well said. Would you now please describe yourself in terms of what you are not. You can add it to your cv.

I will do likewise and we can have some fun seeing the things we have not in common.

If you actually intend to do that, I suggest you do so via PMs or, at the very least, start another thread. While the two you might find it interesting personally, many others would not and it certainly has NOTHING to do with the topic under discussion here.

If you actually intend to do that, I suggest you do so via PMs or, at the very least, start another thread. While the two you might find it interesting personally, many others would not and it certainly has NOTHING to do with the topic under discussion here.

We'll start another thread ifyou agree to join us. I've already written down 8.5K things I am not and the list is nowhere near complete.

Alternatively we could start a thread on " What is humour "

Stop me if you've heard it. My favourite physics lesson was the one where I was asked to consider a perfectly smooth elephant of negligible weight.


I always hated that about mathsworld, where so many things have to be ignored to make something work. QM does that in some instances, even ignoring wrong results. But the gullible take it all in