At Rest with our Hubble view

David has conceded, that, even in multi-verse scenarios, that gravity is the one--- if not the only ---force that inter-connects/inter-links all of those multi-verses.

It is only those who do not use rationality and logic who do not understand that gravity is operative at any distance.

The same is true of charge, in multi-verse scenarios, charge does not link between the multi-verses.

Gravitational spacetime/membrane is omni-embracing, omi-constraining, ommi-cohering etc.....

< ( O ) >

Simple not complex. imho I.e. alll Universes sum-total to a finite amount ergo multi-verse = mnay small 'u' univese's, the collective equal;

Universe. r6

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree that distortion was a problematic word to use. I thought about changing it but didn't. I kept it because a lay person could say that gravity distorts the space around it. Remote measurements causally follow those distortions along light paths through the distortions. In the visual perspective case, a lot of people would have problem with me saying that the appearance of distance objects is distorted there too. Perhaps "changed" would have been a better word choice. It is distortion in the sense that it is different from a flat euclidean geometry.

I actually expected people to have a problem with my declaring both systems to be projective. It seems to me that any remote measurement has to be projective, even if you disregard GR and visual perspective. The very fact that there is a distance between the observer and observed makes this so. And even the blind man's measurements are projective, but they are orthogonal projections by his walking to each clock and so he gets the local answers always. And yes, I am pretty naive about GR. But I don't let that stop me from thinking or talking about stuff. If not for QM and Farsight (and the like) being here I would not ever post here in physics and math.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I just brought it up for you to think about. I understand what you wrote down and think you're very observant with great critical thinking skill. When you do read a textbook on GR those skills are going to help you understand what the derivations mean. Your examination of the language you use in scientific discussion is something I try to do also. Re-reading your post I see where you spoke of projection. Look at page 2-35
and the Schwarzschild map. In a loose way 'projection' fits the global Schwarzschild map.
Pick Chapter 2 Curving
http://www.eftaylor.com/download.html#general_relativity

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The difference is that in one version, energy density curves spacetime and light follows the curve. In the other, energy density of the medium of space governs the speed of light and light bends as it goes from one density to another.

 

The first is the scientific explanation, confirmed by countless experiments.
The second one is pure BS made up by Farsight and falsified by countless experiments.

 

So far you've written 13 really ignorant posts. Keep it up.

 

Ha ha, yeah, I bet you like to believe that

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Petty for you that no one else agrees, so it's precisely statements like this that make you look like a complete fool.

You have been failing to do just that for years now, John. Why are you demanding it from others ?

The fact that you consider any of your false assertions to be hard scientific evidence, even after they have been shown to be wrong, demonstrates just how deeply deluded you really are.

 

I find it highly questionable that there seems to be no evidence of moderator action here. Farsight's nonsense has been repeatedly exposed as ramblings of an aether proponent, by a number of very knowledgeable members. Farsight will point out this post of mine as a call for censorship, but the fact of the matter is that his ideas are not mainstream in any sense of the word, hence they do not belong into the main physics section. Come on guys, this is basic !

Since my previous report on the matter has thus far been ignored without even the courtesy of a reply by PM, I am herewith putting this into the form of a public post. Hopefully someone in charge will have enough cop-on to realise just what is going on here. If no reaction is forthcoming, I will need to re-consider whether it is worthwhile to contribute my expertise to this community. I mean no disrespect to any member here, but if the basics ( like proper classification of posts and ideas into appropriate subsections ) is not taken care of, then this whole place simple becomes a waste of time for people looking to find information on real physics.

If this post of mine is considered inappropriate, please just say so and I will depart voluntarily.

 

Moderation is at a minimum, and there is certainly a story that could be told about the "behind the scenes" interplay that has brought us to this point. Maybe someone will post some details on the Site Feedback or the SF Open Government forums.

I have asked twice that the tread be moved to Alternative Theories because I personally like to explore alternative ideas, and Physics and Math is not the appropriate place for that. I like to see the Physics and Math forum as a place to go to get mainstream answers. However, I also can understand there being discussions here where alternative ideas are addressed in the context of what is wrong with them from a mainstream perspective.

Any way you look at it though, there are a lot of unprofessional professionals who use these threads for personal vendettas and or ego trips, and moderating the pettiness certainly is a disensentive for attracting and keeping good moderation.

I'll stick around so someone will be here to turn out the lights if that is the unavoidable outcome :shrug:

 

Yes, that much is obvious.

Well, I'm afraid that is exactly what will happen if people such as Farsight are allowed in the main sections. On a number of other forums he has been restricted to the "Alternatives" section, where he belongs - I don't see why this can't be done here. What I find most irritating though is that I have reported this obviously inappropriate material, but don't even get the courtesy of a short reply. My impression is that this is a forum that is basically left to its own devices. Not good enough for a site appearing in the first couple of Google search results; there is a serious risk here of allowing misinformation to be spread to casual and unsuspecting readers.

Also, for some reason no one here seems to be speaking up about this state of affairs, even the knowledgeable members who should know better; it's almost like rigor mortis has set in already.

I have not said this on any other forum ever before, but being here looks more and more like a waste of time.

 

Yes, SciForums is like a ghost ship lost at sea. It is almost noteworthy that the two of us, opposities in both professional credentials and in our level of interest in alternative theories, share the opinion about how it is more and more a waste of time to entertain the small number of active members who are interested in mainstream and/or alternative physics and cosmology. You find it difficult to protect the integrety of the information appearing in the hard science forums, and I find it difficult to have discussions on alternative ideas in the alternative science sub-forums.

But further, when moderation is abscent, satisfying discussion in either of those sub-forums is derailed by the personal attacks and ignorant know-it-alls, if you know what I mean. Smart guys who respect the hard sciences do it an injustice by flaming any layman enthusiast who dares to want their ideas addressed civily, and those of us who have a less rigorus approach to our interest in physics and cosmology find it unbecomming of credentialed members acting like antagonistic, egotisticaly, vindictive children.

 

Yeah...I'll give it a day or two, and see whether there is any response.

 

Your post again lacks any argument as to why your cartoon matches the physical systems. What is actually observed in different places? What is actually recorded? Once you can tackle that, then you have the beginnings of an argument, rather than the post-modern textual analysis that you have here. You know that this was the question, yet you lied again.

And note that once again you have refrained from answering any of my other questions!

 

Marcus, this is an open access public discussion forum. It is not as restrictive as Physics Forum, where any deviation form the prevailing mainstream view is not tolerated.

Look closely at the content of posts, even of many of those with some or at least a reasonably good understanding of currently accepted science, and you will find that all to often even those with the prevailing mainstream view on their side, resort to name calling, personal attacks and otherwise unscientific content. If an individual who misinterprets or misunderstands the science, is prevented from posting, those who do understand and still continue to post comments about persons rather than the science, would also have to be disciplined, in some way. Too much of what is posted by many if not most of those posting has little or nothing to do with any underlying discussion of the science. We all seem to fall into that kind of response to some degree. Some more than others.

I suspect that moderation here is a more difficult job than it would be on sites like Physics Forum, but then the opportunity to explore the implications of the science and inclusion of a more generally diverse and lay oriented discussion group is far greater here than on a more restrictive forum.

If all an individual is interested in is discussing what they already know, a more restrictive site might be a better choice. Then again most of those mainstream scientists we all rely on as authority, at sometime or another have suggested that progress and solutions to the issues that face physics today, are most likely to be found within a multidiscpline approach or even an entirely new conceptual interpretation of the evidence we currently have.

Even though the name calling and personal commentary all too often a major part of many discussions, bothers me.., I find the open format of this site leads to creative discussion, more often than more restrictive discussions... And though I began, long ago as an almost fanatic proponent of GR, over the last five or six years I have begun to see that many of the answers I have been looking for are more likely to be found within the context of a multidisciplinary approach. Sometimes, discsussions that include a fringe interpretation are more thought provoking than discussions, where everyone has read the same textbook.

 

Based on my experience over years the ratio

intellectually dishonest cranks/folks knowledgeable or interested in physics

Always increases.

If folks really want to learn physics they should read text on the physics they're interested in. Very few come here to learn. Unless learning = trolling nonsense.

 

I think this thread is just another example of how hard it is to get consensus, via the anonymous posting method.
Most threads, I think, end up being examples of people seeing what they want to see.

Added to that is a certain lack of language skills (here and there), about which I shall not digress.

 

True, in fact it is not the nature of most threads to get to a consensus. I have "reported" that the consensus cosmology that is codified by the popular scientific media is Big Bang Theory with Inflation, and BBT is General Relativity, Inflationary Theory, and the Cosmological Principle, and I like to mention the Hubble Redshift, and the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. That is a broad swath of scientific observation and theoretical physics, and even if it is a fair description of the consensus cosmological model, no one science professional will interpret and explain it in exactly the same way in all respects.

So what are threads like mine really trying to do? They are learning tools in which I and anyone participating can get exposed to the generally accepted mainstream science views and discuss alternatives to see how they differ from the mainstream. It is up to the individual to determine as best they can what is real mainstream science. There are many warnings and disclaimers included in threads like this, and it would be unlikely that anyone would accept any of the comments as fact, reality, or even actual mainstream science. Let the participants beware, let those with proper crendetial state them, let everyone act civily, and we can have a good discussion.

 

I don't care if moderation moves the thread or not, or whether a moderator PMs Markus for that matter. If someone wants to participate and share their knowledge, fine; if they want to close out the discussion from some members, let them start their own thread and then they can do as I do, let people know if you don't appreciate their presence on your thread. Then let them flame you for telling them that, lol.

As for the ongoing topic, I have made a distinction between the consensus cosmology and an alternative so called model as differentiated in the above quotes. I might have mistakenly attributed the alternative to Farsight because it seems like that is what he is saying, but really, the alternative is in line with my thinking, and I will stop saying it is Farsight's view; it may not be fair for me to attribute my words to his view.

He is invited to weigh in and say if he shares the alternative view stated above.

But if anyone wants to weigh in on either side or comment/question either view, I think it would help the forum by initiating interesting comments and discussion.

 

True, and that is fine. I am not at all advocating restriction and censorship; I merely advocate the proper classification of threads and posts. If someone goes into the mainstream physics & maths section, he should expect to be able to find...well...physics and maths. Not aether, not primer fields, not orgon generators, or any other crank stuff. That belongs into the "Alternatives" and "Fringe" section. So if the non-mainstream stuff pops up, put it into the non-mainstream sections. How difficult is this, really ? Most other science forums seem to manage that more or less well; here on the other hand, there seems to be a complete failure to even try. That's what bugs me. In fact, I have yet to see any moderator action in the maths & physics sections.

Physics Forums is too restrictive for my liking, but it is a good place to go if you are looking for real answers. I go there occasionally, but a lot of the material presented is more or less way over my head. I'm just not quite on that level yet.

That is a general issue which effects all public forums. On here though it is especially prevalent because no one keeps a check on the obvious trolls; after all, what else is someone who, after having been shown many times with links, explanations and maths that he is wrong, is still allowed to persist with his erroneous views in the main sections ? Farsight is a prime example - it has been shown conclusively that his idea cannot work, yet he keeps persisting with the same tired old quotations over and over and over again, completely ignoring all material presented which shows him wrong. To me, that is trolling, and the fact that this is allowed to continue unchecked reflects very badly.

Are you trying to tell me that Farsight repeating the same old textual quotes, and referring to meaningless animated GIFs, and proliferating ideas that have already been shown to be erroneous on countless previous occasions, qualifies as "exploring the implications of science" ? I call that trolling.

I completely agree; however, those new conceptual interpretations must be compatible with what we already know. For example, GR will not be superseded by a model that quite simply is not in accordance with experiment and observation, like the one Farsight tries to push.

I am sorry, but I disagree. I see very little evidence of any creative discussion happening on this forum. I see only repetitions upon repetitions of the same old arguments, all of which have already been shown to be erroneous. Where's the creative discussion ? Frankly, I don't see it. I should mention that I have been active on science forums for a number of years, so I do have numerous points of reference to compare against.

That may well be true, so long as the line is drawn between discussion and trolling.

 

Once again, this is not what I advocate. I simply expect the material posted on a forum to be categorised into the appropriate section. This is basic and perfectly reasonable.