At Rest with our Hubble view

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by quantum_wave, May 26, 2013.

  1. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Here is the Wiki:–Cartan_theory
    Oh well, forget it because Brucep says ixnay.

    But wait. Since when is Brucep a reliable source of unbiased information?

    And furthermore, he is wrong to trash can this theory on the basis that it is falsified by WMAP. Even an accelerating expansion of the observable universe can support a cosmology that features crunch/bangs, sometimes referred to as the collapse bounce of a big crunch.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    Einstein also, in one of your all time favourite passages from the Leyden address, says "space" while referring to what is actually the spacetime metric:

    This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that “empty space” in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials \(g_{\mu\nu}\)), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty.

    So it is not tenable to say that Einstein consistently used the word "space" exclusively to refer to literal three-dimensional space.

    Well there's your problem right there. You based your understanding of David Deutch's view on a picture.

    The simple fact that David Deutch is a proponent of the Many Worlds interpretation (whether you agree with it or not) means he can't possibly think of the photon as something as simple as a billiard ball. For starters, the Many Worlds interpretation assumes the reality of the wavefunction as one of its basic tenets.

    This is a lie. Your post #158 fails at scientific rigour at even the most basic level. It is based entirely on quote mining, superficial analysis of evidence (that we could already explain), and a personal set of views you have on space, spacetime, and motion that nobody reading your post would have any reason to take as fact.

    Furthermore, since physics is a quantitative science and we all know your level of mathematical literacy is basically nil, this means you are crippled in two ways that nobody calling themselves a physicist should suffer from:
    1. You have no way of checking the correctness of any reference you might try to use in your support (and so must take it on faith that all your sources are accurate).
    2. You have no way of being sure that you have understood any such reference the way the authors intended it to be understood.

    Seriously. It's as if you'd heard somewhere that good science involved "evidence" and "references", but you never bothered to learn where and how to use them.

    Your post #158 was basically a regurgitation of arguments that had already been demolished beyond any reasonable hope of repair by a number of individuals for basically as long as you have been appearing on this forum.

    Not that I used that as an excuse to ignore your post #158. I responded in a number of posts in the same thread, starting with my [POST=3067535]post #227[/POST]. Post #227 in particular included a lengthy explanation of why your interpretation of certain material written by Einstein was not consistent with how he defined general relativity in his 1916 paper on the subject. Your [POST=3067796]response[/POST] was very far from adequate. All of this is on record where anyone who cares to can read it, so you are lying when you say that your post #158 has never been rebutted.

    Seriously, when are you going to face reality? You are the only person who is impressed with yourself and your post #158.
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2013
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. brucep Valued Senior Member

    His entire function is to troll the forum with his brand of nonsense. The moderation here can't seem to be consistent about recognizing and getting rid of folks trolling nonsense in the physics and math section. Maybe it's because they can't recognize the difference between physics and bullshit nonsense to start with. Instead of wasting effort correcting everything this 'goofball' posts the discussion might go beyond trying to teach basics to uneducable uninterested cranks.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Can you show how your gif relates in any way to any physical situation? I am sure that you won't answer that question, but I am also sure that you will lie about always answering questions.
  8. Farsight

    As far as I know Einstein thought the universe was a hypersphere, which is the first picture here. My understanding of GR is that the universe is flat. On the large scale space is inhomogeneous, as per the FLRW metric, which "starts with the assumption of homogeneity and isotropy of space". Curved spacetime equates to inhomogeneous space, so if you start by assuming homogeneous space, you've got a flat universe. Which is what WMAP has found. Two out of those three "shapes" were always going to be wrong anyway.

    Fair enough. But be wary of objects "following" the curvature of a mathematical model. When they move in a curved path they do it for a physical reason which the model quantifies.

    Physics and cosmology.

    It does get very conjectural. IMHO saying the universe was born of a quantum fluctuation isn't much better than saying God did it.

    The universe didn't collapse when it was small and dense, so it isn't going to collapse now.

    Spacetime, not space! When spacetime is curved, space is inhomogeneous.

    Good stuff.

    He was front page news in 1919. But still SR wasn't mainstream until the late twenties. Physics has always been full of diehards.

    Yep. But note by equatorial plane I meant a horizontal slice though the Earth and the surrounding space. Light-clocks near the surface run slower than those out in space.

    They are. The wave nature of matter is rock-solid science. We can diffract electrons.

    To me too. It's there because the energy density varies. Not because there's a curvature in the energy density when you plot it out.

    I'm sure. There is no action-at-a-distance. There is no magick.


    Because the latter involves interactions with electrons etc, which vary according to wavelength.

    That sounds good to me.
  9. rr6 Banned Banned

    Eternally realative

    Fullers toy-model--- jitterbugging cubo-octahedron --- presents itself in all three of well l known cosmic spatials

    1) positive space, albeit the Eucledean( straight line ) version of positive curvature associated with spherical ergo spherical polyhedron of any frequency,

    2) negative space i.e. the jitterbugging VE infolds to a quasi-2D saddle-shaped space,

    3) seeming, quasi-2D, flat space of jitterbug occurs in 5 distinct polygonal shapes;

    ..1) 2 frequency triangle--see my heat death scenarios to understand how this 2-1 ratio determine a primarily matter vs anti-matter Universe,

    ..2) square with 4 triangles bordering the square---and this is the precursor for the jitterbug folding into theEuclidean, double EM sine-wave pattern, 2 above and 3 as follows are intimately related
    ..3) 4 triangles,

    ..4) triangle---8 triangles fold into seemingly one 2D triangle,

    ...5) hexagon--albiet a tainted 2D triangle as some of its 6 triangles will have various numbers of vectorial edges and radials.

    Physical/energy = motion/dynamic eternally and all individual pattern integrities are eternally in relationship to all others, minimally via gravity.

    The jitterbug expresses the 6 cosmic fundamental motions of Universe;

    ..1) contraction-expansion-- and some configurations are both occurring at same time

    ..2) torque/twist/skew--left-right

    ..3) precession---most often at 90 degrees--left right,

    ..4) spin--left-right,

    ..5) inside-outing and outside-out--think of turning a glove or sock inside-out---

    ..6) orbit.

    In addition the jitterbug/VE/cubo-octahedron infolds or out-folds to other exotic spatial shapes--- ex complex octa(8)gon as a rippled space --- while maintaining its systemic and structural integrity.

    There exists no known toy-like model-- that I'm aware of --that does more to exhibit the operational functioning of our finite, Universe, than of jitterbug/VE/cubo-octahedron.

    Oh yeah, in its higher frequency sphericity phase's expresses some basics of black hole phenomena regarding the information inside of black hole being expressed on the black holes event horizon surface.

    Want to see a singularity, the understand what happens when the minimal 3D structure of Universe is brought to zero-volume.

    Equilibrium is what appears to happen along with radiational phenomena.


  10. Farsight

    I know. And it's perfectly consistent with what Einstein said.

    Thank you.

    I have done so previously, in for example post #235 addressed to Tach. The parallel-mirror light-clocks are a simplified version of the NIST optical clock. See this interview with David Wineland re "when we compare clocks, if one clock in one lab is 30 centimeters higher than the clock in the other lab, we can see the difference in the rates they run at". Einstein said repeatedly that the speed of light varies with gravitational potential, which is recognised by the Baez article. wherein light curves because the speed of light varies with position. Markus doesn't recognise it, and paints himself into a tautological corner wherein light curves because it curves. The Baez article says "This interpretation is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense, but a more modern interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general relativity". That sounds reasonable. However the article later says "the speed of light is not only observed to be constant; in the light of well tested theories of physics, it does not even make any sense to say that it varies". How can something be perfectly valid and make good physical sense, and not make sense? The article contradicts itself.

    That's right, przyk. And that's the speed of light. The locally-measured speed of light is only constant because we use the motion of light to define the second and the metre. This is the "most fundamental" way of doing that, due to the wave nature of matter. But the result is that we use the motion of light to define the second and the metre and then use them to measure the motion of light. Tautology again.

    I engage, przyk. Others don't. In my last exchange with Markus I pointed to the use of c in an expression which demonstrates that Einstein was giving a local-viewpoint description rather than a big-picture description. After that Markus started calling me names in earnest. See page 21 post #436
  11. Tach Banned Banned

    ...and I explained in the next post why you are wrong, Duffield. Despite your crank claims, you are not "with Einstein".

    You still don't get it , Duffield. Still stuck in your fringe claims of "variable light speed". You see, Einstein made a mistake in the beginning, it took him a while to realize it but he corrected it. You are still stuck with his initial, incorrect claim.
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2013
  12. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    It's consistent with more than one possible interpretation of what Einstein said. Most importantly, it is all perfectly consistent with general relativity as we all understand it today.

    There is no factual basis for that. There is no reason atomic clocks should be completely reducible to the parallel mirror light clock, and we certainly don't understand them that way.

    That is the end result: an experimental fact. It is not its own explanation.

    I've been over this with you before. You are mischaracterising general relativity's account of things. Light technically doesn't curve in general relativity, it simply follows a geodesic path in curved spacetime. There's virtually nothing to explain here since light follows the simplest path it possibly can according to GR.

    It is only the description of light's path in certain coordinate charts that appears curved. But there is no actual physical curving.

    How about: the interpretation in which the speed of light varies turns out not to make so much physical sense after all (i.e. upon more careful reflection).

    Either way, his end point is perfectly valid: the (coordinate) speed of light is far too observer- and coordinate-system dependent to be considered a sensible physical quantity.

    (In fact, many of the simple examples of a varying coordinate speed of light aren't actually new or unique to general relativity. So it's not accurate to say that the invariance of c postulate has been relaxed in any meaningful way. It's true in GR in exactly the same sense and with exactly the same limitations and caveats as it is in special relativity.)

    No it's not. Use some common sense here: special relativity was proposed by Einstein in 1905. General relativity in 1915-1916. These theories didn't automagically become true when and just because someone sitting in an office in 1983 decided that the metre should be defined a certain way.

    Huh? The Einstein field equation is only a "local-viewpoint" description in the trivial and obvious sense that it is a differential equation. It is no more or less a "local-viewpoint description" than Maxwell's equations or the Navier-Stokes equation. The c appearing in the EFE is a constant simply because that's what it needs to be in order for the equation to be correct and make sense. Why should it demonstrate anything more than that?
  13. Farsight

    You describe the state of space by referring to the spacetime metric which is all to do with measurement of things moving through space over time. There's no problem with that. The problems start when people confuse the metric with space. When the metric is curved there's a curve in your plot of equatorial-plane light-clock rates. But space isn't curved.

    Come off it przyk, the guy has a website. Here it is: . And here's an excerpt:

    "A growing number of physicists, myself included, are convinced that the thing we call ‘the universe’ — namely space, with all the matter and energy it contains — is not the whole of reality. According to quantum theory — the deepest theory known to physics — our universe is only a tiny facet of a larger multiverse, a highly structured continuum containing many universes".

    He doesn't think of it as an extended-entity wave.

    No it isn't. You were unable to rebut my post #158.

    No it doesn't and no it isn't. It's all plain-vanilla simple physics. So simple that you feel the need to be disparaging about it rather than addressing it.

    That isn't true.

    I don't take anything on faith, and I can refer to hard scientific evidence to check what the authors said.

    Yawn. You've got nothing przyk.

    They haven't been demolished though, have they? Markus made a series of mistakes, lost the argument, and lost his cool. Sounds like you're following suit.

    Your post #227 does not respond to my post #158.

    I'm not lying. You linked to a post that doesn't address my post #158. Previously you said you'd rebutted my post before I'd even posted it, and that I was failing on the rational logic front. And now you're saying I'm lying. It doesn't look too good przyk.

    I'm the one who is facing it. The speed of light is not constant, just like Einstein said. You're the one who won't face up to it, just as you won't face up to post #158. Just do the normal thing, do a quote and reply, and go through it point by point shooting down my argument. Only you can't can you? You can't face up to that either.
  14. Tach Banned Banned

    Few ideas but fixed.
  15. Farsight

    I have and you know it. See post #507 where I told przyk about what I've said previously. Now tell us all that the two light-pulses are moving at the same speed.
  16. Tach Banned Banned

    They are moving at the same speed, Duffield. What you don't know is that they are not spanning the same distance (they aren't). The problem with cranks like you is that you never learn , Duffield.
  17. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    No it's not. I can't imagine anyone who understood Riemannian geometry would want to put it that way.

    So what does this have to do with thinking the photon is like a billiard ball?

    There's no reason he should.

    And it's not like the photon either has to be a billiard ball or it has to be an extended-entity wave. That's a false dichotomy, and neither is an accurate summary of quantum physics.

    Your plain-vanilla simple physics consists of quote mining, arguments from authority, and statements with no factual basis. The particular way you try to apply the few bits of evidence you consider consist of a logical fallacy.

    That's what your post #158 amounts to. It was born dead. There was no chance it was ever going to convince anyone.

    So you've personally checked GRs derivation of the perihelion advance of Mercury? You've personally gone through every line of the rederivation of Newtonian gravity from the Einstein field equation? You've actually properly studied Riemannian geometry, and you properly studied a mathematical definition of GR to make sure your interpretation of Einstein's words is actually consistent with the definition of the theory and the Riemannian geometry on which it is based?

    If not, practically everything you say about general relativity is based on faith. You are not showing that general relativity can be understood as a theory based on inhomogeneous space. You are asserting it and simply taking it for granted that all the details will work out in the end.

    All the evidence you keep citing can already be accounted for perfectly anyway. So you cannot claim it supports you exclusively.

    You understand that evidence can under no circumstances prove any possible given explanation for it, right? It is a logical fallacy to try to use evidence this way.

    The basic errors in style and judgement that you make in your post #158 (see above) have been pointed out to you many times by many people. You have done nothing to try to fix that in the many years you've been active here.

    You can't seem to grasp that there are fundamental problems in your whole attitude to physics. It's a problem of quality, not quantity. It's simply not something you can fix by posting more Einstein quotes or more pictures or more Google hits for the word "aether". You very fundamentally misunderstand science if you expect that to work on scientists.

    When you post the same line of argument over and over again, and everyone with any sort of physics background consistently says "nope, not convincing", maybe you should start to wonder just what it is we're all seeing that you're not.
  18. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    I'd like to test my understanding here of the difference between what Farsight is saying from his perspective, and what Tach is saying which I presume is GR plain and simple.

    GR explains the difference in observations of clock tick rates between two different frames by transforming the measurements of distance from one frame to the other. The equations include the constant speed of light as a common denominator and thus, they calculate what the difference in distance measurements would have to be between frames in order to make the speed of light come out the same, and thus to explain the observed difference in clocked time by a difference in the distance light has to travel. Yes?

    Farsight, on the other hand, is saying that the speed of light is variable based on relative motion through space or based on the elevation in a gravitational field. In that case the difference in clock tick rates between frames can be transformed to calculate the difference in the speed of light, given that the distance travelled is the same in each frame, thus explaining why the clocks tick rates are different . Right?
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2013
  19. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Duplicate post deleted.
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2013
  20. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Farsight just doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. When he says the speed of light is variable he has mixed up a frame invariant local coordinate frame measurement [c] with the remote coordinate speed of light which is frame dependent. He conflates this nonsense by saying that's what Einstein meant after misinterpreting what Einstein said. What Einstein meant can be completely found in the theoretical model he built. GR and it's special case for flat spacetime SR. The derivation for the local coordinate speed of light and the derivation for the remote coordinate speed is really simple. The fact Farsight can't tell these two derivations describe different natural phenomena is comical.

    The radial local coordinate speed of light

    dr/dt=1. In geometric unit's c=1. [radial]

    The remote coordinate speed of light

    dr/dt = 1-2M/r. In geometric units c=1. [radial]

    This is the 'extreme' difference between these two very different measurements. At the event horizon the local coordinate speed of light is predicted to be c. The remote coordinate speed of light is predicted to be 0.


    r=2M the event horizon for a non rotating spherically symmetric black hole.

    dr/dt = 1-2M/r = 1-2M/2M = 0.

    Farsight is saying his interpretations are Einstein's interpretations. Continuing this ridiculous trolling should result in a trip to the woodshed.


    By comical I mean really comical for someone who actually understands the physics Farsight claims he knows. You should have been able to figure this one out by now. But since you haven't I thought I spell it out for you.
  21. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Last edited: Jul 16, 2013
  22. Cheezle Hab SoSlI' Quch! Registered Senior Member

    There are 3 people and 3 light clocks. The people are a naive sighted man, a blind man and a scientist. As an experiment they set up two of the clocks in a field, one clock is 10 meters away and the other is 20 meters away. They all observe the clocks. They they all use the third clock as a reference to compare the ticks of the clocks and they all agree that the clocks are ticking at the same rate. The naive sighted man holds out his thumb at arms length and sights the clocks and notices that the first clock looks to be one thumb high and the second clock is half a thumb high. He knows how to calculate speed and declares that the light in the farther clock has slowed. The blind man takes the 3rd clock and walks to each of the two clocks in the field and measures the length of each clock with a braille tape measure. He declares that just as expected the clocks are exactly the same dimensions and the speed of light is the same in each clock. The scientist holds out his thumb and sights the two clocks and sees that one appears to be half as high. Then he paces off the distance to each clock and discovers that one clock is twice as far away. He pulls out a paper and pencil and calculates and finds that the speed of light is the same in each clock. He explains to the sighted man that vision is a projective system and that things that are farther away seem to be smaller by proportion.

    Next the 3 men place one clock next to them in the field and the second clock on the top of a tall building. Both clocks are visible. Using the third clock as a reference, the sighted man can see that the clock on the high building is ticking faster. He declares that the light in the higher clock has sped up. He understands perspective now and is not fooled by the apparent size difference and so ignores it. The blind man takes the reference clock and finds the lower clock is ticking at the same rate as the reference. He then takes the reference clock up the to the top of the building and finds the clocks are ticking at the same rate. He declares that everything is working as expected, all the clocks agree. The speed of light is the same in all clocks. The scientist looks up the height of the building in a book, and using a handy chalkboard he does some math and declares that the blind man is correct. All the clocks are ticking at the same rate and the speed of light is constant. The scientists explains that GR, like visual perspective, is a projective system. This type of projective system will change the remote measurements of both length and time. Visual perspective projection is due to the geometric nature of flat euclidean 3-space. GR projection is due to the geometric nature of 4D spacetime.

    A blind man is always correct because he has to make his measurements locally. Visual perspective is a very strong effect and we sighted persons are intuitively aware of it. I have read that people blind since birth are not necessarily aware of the existence of perspective. Perspective is so strong of an effect that it would swamp out any visual distortion due to GR. Time on the other had is not effected by perspective, but it does appear to change with GR. We can use scientific instrumentation to measure these apparent differences in time without too much difficulty. Remote measurements are always subjected to possible distortion due to visual perspective and GR. We say these distortions give “unreal” or incorrect measurements. But the systems of projective eyesight and projective spacetime are both real. The speed of light is a constant.

    It is worth mentioning that Farsight is the naive sighted man.
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2013
  23. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Nice. The local coordinate speed of light is an invariant in your clocks regardless where you place them in the universe. This means any measurement will be in the local proper frame of each clock. These measurements are invariant. For light it's c. The remote coordinate measurements are frame dependent. For the example I wrote for QW the remote coordinate speed of light reckoned from remote bookkeeper coordinates is 0. It's essentially a global reckoning of the light path over remote coordinates to the event horizon. IE it accounts for spacetime curvature over the entire path. The local measurement is an invariant because it's a direct measurement where the spacetime event occurs. In GR we get to do most the local physics using SR because the tangent space local to the points where spacetime events occur is ~ flat. An experiment where we have to account for gravitational effects is the GPS. Because even in the tangent space measurements in nanoseconds can be critical. If Farsight learned any of this stuff he'd have to be an Ostrich the rest of his trolling physics forums career. Just to clear it up none of this is a consequence of any distortion. If it was the theoretical model would be useless. If you think in terms of measurement all the vague interpretation hits the road out of physics town.

Share This Page