Is it true? Is the universe flat?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by camilus, Dec 6, 2010.

  1. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    Yeah, um...
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,367
    And you were saying it was the stupidest thng you've ever read.

    Can you explain why it's stupid--that's what I asked you. So, do you read?
    Can you be honest about why you are accelerating, when "at rest with CMB"? Is that true if you're nowhere near any gravitational mass? I'd really like to know.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    Chinglu, you have a lot of catching up to do.

    What particular part of my post do you disagree with, why, and what exactly do you think Neil Ashby says about it?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    I suspect chinglu is confused about the accelerating expansion of the universe; that he thinks that if the expansion is accelerating, then "at rest with rest with CMB" must also mean accelerating.

    But, he's repeatedly shown complete ignorance of SR, GR, and the distinction between them, so this isn't that surprising.
     
  8. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    Do you read? I've explained several times now that I was referring to the dipole of the CMB. I said at rest wrt to large set of photons, not an individual photon, as such a thing isn't possible. Instead the large set of photons define a frame by their ensemble dipole.

    You accuse others of not reading, yet you repeatedly ignore what I've said to you and you deliberately misrepresent me.

    Totally failed at what? The only thing I've failed to do is get it through your thick skull that your understanding is wrong. Several people have tried to get you to understand and each time you've failed.

    Prove I'm wrong. I've explained it several times now and despite my repeated requests you do something more than just say "You're wrong!" you have failed to step up. I claim that at any particular point in space the instantaneous inertial frame defined by the vanishing of the CMB dipole is not 'special', it is just like any other instantaneous inertial frame defined by the instantaneous velocity of any other well defined physical system you might care to mention, like a planet or spaceship or brick. Prove that there is something inherently different about that frame at that location at that instant.

    No arm waving, I want you to provide quantitative work. You've called into question my understanding of relativity, both special and general, and I've explained myself. Now I'm calling into question yours. I want you to demonstrate your claim it is special algebraicly. Tensors, Lorentz transforms, metric and veirbeins, that sort of thing.

    Put up or **** off.
     
  9. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    Here us what you wrote.

    Besides, setting yourself to be at rest wrt to a particular huge set of photons is no different to setting yourself to be at rest wrt to anything else.

    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2690576&postcount=162

    As anyone can see, your statement is absurd and false.

    Then you post all that nastiness above simply bacause it hurts you to lick your open wound of failure.

    Simply admit you are wrong and failed and your wound will heal.
     
  10. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    Uh, thee are adjustment based on gravity, speed differentials and saganc.

    You have not read the article or cannot understand it.

    It is a positive to be quiet when you are ignorant.
     
  11. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637

    You can find this answer anywhere. Ask AN, at least he has this part correct.
     
  12. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    Wrong, the non-inertial issues have no inpact on GPS sagnac calculations as I said.

    Simply provide a link I am wrong and everyone will agree with you and laugh.

    Wouldn't you love that.

    Good luck!
     
  13. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    I don't think so.

    You should sit on the sidelines a bit longer because you are way behind.
     
  14. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    You provided the link yourself, chinglu. And yes, everyone is laughing.
    And no, I don't love it. It makes me sad.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    Good, prove from the link the sagnac is calculated based on GR.

    Everyone wants to see you back up your failed claims.
     
  16. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    I'm pretty sure "everyone" would rather you got banned for being an idiot again.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    Reported for trolling. I've explained this multiple times and each time you've ignored it. When I've asked you to explain precisely why you consider it wrong, you refuse. Its a case of 'do as I say, not as I do' and you're incapable of discussion.
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    chinglu:

    It is not true that "anyone can see" that AlphaNumeric's statement is self-evidently false. You must back up your claim that it is false with argument or evidence in rebuttal, or else drop this point and admit that you don't know whether the statement is false or not.

    I notice that you also have failed to address any of the points you need to prove in your other outstanding thread - this one:

    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2696567&postcount=339

    Please respond to the linked post in that thread.

    If you wish to continue to participate in either the current thread or in the linked thread, you will need to show that AlphaNumeric's statement is false in the current thread, or (for the other thread), address the points in the linked post.

    Further diversions and bald claims that other people are wrong will result in further bans for you from sciforums for trolling. Ban lengths will increase with each subsequent ban.
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    **** Moderator note: chinglu has been banned for 3 days for trolling - in particular claiming that other people are wrong while giving no reasons.
     
  20. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    Yup. It gets harder to put up with fools and charlatans when the world news gets depressing.

    Go for it, Brother Moderator!
     
  21. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,385
    Orbits are geodesics, unless a continuous thrust is needed to maintain that orbit. Einstein's whole starting point for GR was that an observer falling due to gravity won't realize they're falling- they'll feel weightless as if they were floating in empty space, and they may thus apply the laws of SR in their local frame, which GR then tells you how to convert to other frames, such as an observer standing on the Earth watching the first guy fall.

    SR applies to accelerating frames just fine. GR has a nicer, more natural way of doing it, but the only situations where GR must be applied are those situations where gravity is involved.
     
  22. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    This is a false statement.
    I explained thoroughly why the AN statement "Besides, setting yourself to be at rest wrt to a particular huge set of photons is no different to setting yourself to be at rest wrt to anything else." is false.
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2692395&postcount=173
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2692909&postcount=182
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2693624&postcount=184
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2695290&postcount=200
    Now, I will grant the "huge set of photons" in the context of AN is CMB.
    So, if I am a troll, then anyone here will explain and prove the AN FULL statement:
    "Besides, setting yourself to be at rest wrt to a particular huge set of photons is no different to setting yourself to be at rest wrt to anything else."

    Now, my proof is simple and I have stated it several times, setting your self at rest wrt CMB implies you are accelerating. It is therefore impossible this is logically equivalent to setting yourself at rest wrt to anything else, like an inertial frame, for example.
    AN never addressed or proved in this thread how setting yourself at rest wrt CMB is no different to setting yourself to be at rest wrt to anything else as I have pointed out.
     
  23. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    No, it doesn't.

    If you actually read the responses posted by AlphaNumeric and honestly attempted to understand, then perhaps you could learn why.

    But you refuse to learn. You will ever remain misguided because you would rather fool yourself that you already know the answers rather than actually learning something new.

    You dismiss explicit explanations (such as [post=2693886]post 187[/post] and [post=2694840]post 198[/post] by just ignoring what you don't understand and pretending it will go away. That really makes me sad.


    Look, in [post=2695290]post 200[/post], you said to AlphaNumeric:
    This is wrong. You don't seem to have even tried to understand the post to which you replied. Why not have another look?

    Chinglu, have you learned anything about relativity in your discussions at Sciforums? Or do you think that everything that anyone has said has been either wrong, or something you knew already?
     

Share This Page