Minkowski Space Time Briefly Revisited

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by danshawen, Nov 24, 2014.

  1. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    OK, so show us how to do a gravitational physics problem with curved spacetime and an electromagnetic field physics problem with curved space.

    Either you have evidence to support your claim or you are a fraud. Show us even a small amount of evidence.
    As you seem to be doing, since you dodge every question involving directly using your claims to do physics. That is evidence you are a fraud.
    It is pathological to want a physicists to abandon working through physics in order to do physics in order to appease blog commenters. If Carroll ignored your comments (or those of some other crank), it is likely because he cares about real physics and not unsupported fantasy. You have yet to give us any support for your fantasies.
    Sure, because it is part of your fantasy. If you had some evidence, then you could show it. Please show us your mathematical derivation.
    krash661 likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    What kind of trash is this?

    I find that many people who don't like contemporary math education do so because a) they don't understand how children learn or b) have never had to really work a day in their life with a cash register, so they don't understand the relevant mathematics.

    As to the mathematics behind the "big bang", most of the mathematics required for contemporary cosmology has been around for a century. The mathematics of primordial nucleosynthesis, some very complicated parts of contemporary cosmology, have been dramatically tested in developing the hydrogen bomb.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    brucep and you, PhysBang, are the only ones here or anywhere else I know of who would agree with each other about the state of contemporary or what is called mainstream cosmology.

    If a science (ANY) science thinks it has a mainstream view of anything, it is at that point it becomes pseudoscience.

    Every theory and every assertion of science is up for revision and review at all times. This is one reason Popper had such a difficult time trying to get a handle on the discipline, and as you may recall, he was not even a scientist, nor did he have a theory about what demarcates the philosophy he was doing from pseudo philosophy, which you would think would be a reasonable first step. Nonetheless, I will attempt to spell out for you what it is that demarcates cosmology from pseudo cosmology.

    Cosmology distinguishes itself as the most fad-and speculation-driven part of the observational science of astronomy. It's been like that since Ptolemy's fevered observations of epicycles. Observing and calculating without understanding is not science. The instruments we have at our disposal to observe are always improving, but are anything but infallible. The BICEP fiasco at Harvard last year is only one example.

    No one has ever observed evidence of a multiverse or a block universe. No one has ever created a "wormhole" in any sense, and our knowledge about vacuum fields and energy evidently leave much to be desired. When you can't even observe something, you can't do "science", and even if think you can, well, this might not be exactly the stone age, but some things never change. I don't care how much geometry and relativity you think you know. The things you are speculating about are far too distant in both time and space to triangulate. Black holes may be fun to speculate about, and Sagitarius A is an interesting diversion, but we could never build a probe durable enough to go in there and tell us what it saw, or if it did, it would take longer for it to tell us about it than the age of the universe. The science of cosmology as it relates to black holes, or even the big bang, stops dead in its tracks long before it reaches anything like an event horizon.

    I like the recent work done on primordial nucleosynthesis and relative abundances, but that only gets you up to - what? Lithium? That's enough. There's nothing else to say about it, or if you do, it isn't science any more. We already knew about nucleosynthesis in supernovas, since Carl Sagan, whom I particularly liked (although many astronomers didn't) because he wasn't exactly given to wild speculation on the subject of cosmology. For reasons I don't understand, we've gone from cosmologists like Sagan to a "no holds barred" and more speculative brand of cosmology.

    I have no real interest in cosmology, at any rate, but that's my problem. Now you both know my reasons. What's your excuse?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    That is a useless viewpoint. Indeed, it makes you a despicable human being.

    There is a mainstream view on vaccines. There is a mainstream view on heart disease. People rely on these mainstream views in order to survive.

    You are telling people to ignore the mainstream view and instead embrace fantasy or paralysis.

    Do scientists make mistakes? Yes. Is it possible to correct these mistakes by abandoning the evidence that we have collected? No.

    The demarcation was the one thing that Popper did have. He was pretty much wrong about that like he was on so much. He is not as wrong as the cartoon version of Popper.

    Yes, it was an example of a single research program that got results that the mainstream scientific community could not adopt, because of evidence.

    You seem to focus on one example, an example of where the mainstream got things correct, it seems, and use it to claim that everything else the mainstream cosmologists have done is incorrect. You seem to say this in ignorance of the actual science.

    Not part of mainstream cosnology.
    Not part of mainstream cosmology.
    Sure, but that doesn't mean we know nothing. People are getting a lot of evidence about the nature of vacuum energy, at least good limits.

    Newton did not know what gravity was, but he was able to show how it worked.
    No shit. But you seem to ignore all the observations we have of things that are indirect. According to you, we can never have a science of the spherical Earth, since nobody can "observe" that the Earth is spherical.

    Primordial nucleosynthesis is one of the most amazing pieces of astrophysics developed in the twentieth century. It has relationships to many, many observations and is integral to a web of evidence available to cosmology. Ignoring this web of evidence is foolish.

    You are confusing the nature and uses of the two fields.
    We can see that you don;t understand. You clearly don't know what cosmologists are doing at all.

    Our problem is that you wan to pontificate on something that you have no interest in learning anything about.
    My excuse is I've read and studied too much to simply throw away science and to insult the people who do good work.
  8. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Physbangs said enough about your lack of scholarship on good physics. So it's the idiot wind for you danshawen. Clearly you're scientifically illiterate. Crank knucklehead.
    BTW calling BICEP2 a fiasco shows just how illiterate you are about that experiment. Your attack on the science of physics is juvenile illiterate. Spewing nonsense in a public science forum is juvenile illiterate. You're juvenile illiterate. For the most part juveniles haven't had the time to gather scholarship so we love them. What's your excuse?
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2015
  9. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Physbang said:

    …according to you, we can never have a science of the spherical Earth, since nobody can "observe" that the Earth is spherical.

    Everyone here getting that? Physbang is a moon landing denier. You're just saying things like that to make me happy, aren't you? Thanks.


    Say… you're weren't associated with BICEP were you? 'brucep', 'bicep', 'tomato', 'potato'.

    There's no shame, brucep. Matt Dressler 'Of Particular Significance' was part of the OPERA superluminal neutrino fiasco, and he's still quite popular. I still like him, and you too, by the way, whether you were involved or not.

    Oh, no, brucep; there are lots more fiascos in cosmology for me to rant about. Please don't get me started about Alan Guth's inflationary theory.
  10. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Seems like nothing more than mud slinging survives!
  11. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Yeah, this thread was born in darkness.
  12. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

  13. Farsight

    Dan: you should have a read of this article on John Horgan's blog: Physicist Paul Steinhardt Slams Inflation, Cosmic Theory He Helped Conceive:

    "The whole point of inflation was to get rid of fine-tuning – to explain features of the original big bang model that must be fine-tuned to match observations. The fact that we had to introduce one fine-tuning to remove another was worrisome. This problem has never been resolved..."

    The more I think about it, the more unnecessary inflation seems to be. Especially now it's morphed into a slippery old shaggy-dog story that can't be disproven. I don't have an issue with the expanding universe, just inflation. NB: I recommend that you ignore abusive insincere posters.
  14. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    'Matt Strassler' is whom I meant, obviously. Matt, by the way, is the one who convinced me that if the Higgs mechanism was responsible for gravitational (in addition to inertial) mass, it would have to be a secondary effect, as predicted by the standard model. This idea does not violate any substantive physics or QFT math.
  15. Farsight

    Dan, it isn't true. See A a Zeptospace Odyssey by CERN physicist Gian Francesco Giudice:

    “The most inappropriate name ever given to the Higgs boson is ‘The God particle’. The name gives the impression that the Higgs boson is the central particle of the Standard Model, governing its structure. But this is very far from the truth…”

    “The Higgs sector is that part of the theory that describes the Higgs mechanism and contains the Higgs boson. Unlike the rest of the theory, the Higgs sector is rather arbitrary, and its form is not dictated by any deep fundamental principle. For this reason its structure looks frightfully ad hoc…”

    “In summary, the Higgs mechanism accounts for about 1 per cent of the mass of ordinary matter, and for only 0.2 per cent of the mass of the universe. This is not nearly enough to justify the claim of explaining the origin of mass”.

    Some guy called Bob Anderson asked Matt Strassler about that here and referred to an article by John Butterworth. Matt's answer was vague.
  16. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    By insincere, do you mean that they make claims about the nature of science that they have no evidence for? Remember, you have claims outstanding and it might make you look insincere.

    1. Show how the assumption of the FLRW metric changes the prediction of a galaxy rotation curve, as you have claimed.
    2. Produce an example of a scientist using the assumption of the FLRW metric in order to calculate a galaxy rotation curve (from a legitimate source used to derive the presence of anomalous non-luminous mass within a galaxy), as you have claimed that all scientists working on this problem do.
    3. Produce the correct way to predict a galaxy rotation curve using your understanding of general relativity, since you are the relativity expert and you claim to know the correct way.
  17. brucep Valued Senior Member

    • The personal insults in this post are unacceptable. 10 point warning given.
    Your rants are based on crank physics and your need to bolster low self esteem. IE your delusion that what you say is relevant to the science. Idiot wind. You just can't help making a fool of yourself danshawen. Juvenile illiterate. Why are you here spewing nonsense. Because you can't do anything else. Juvenile illiterate. Your theory, LOL, is crank rubbish roundfiled.
  18. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    I was going to ignore that, because it's just pathetic, but there is an important point about science to be made.

    Traveling to a point off the Earth and looking at it does not produce a three-dimensional observation, except in the sense that we can put together a number of observations and use them to infer the three-dimensional nature of the Earth. (Though, in reality, one had to have already made that inference in order to make the trip.) All human looking is a collection of two-dimensional images.

    danshawen's insistence that, 'When you can't even observe something, you can't do "science",' is a mockery of science.
  19. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Even Euclid observed before he created geometry. You are only digging yourself a deeper hole. PhysBang.
  20. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Would you like to explain how Euclid observed a three-dimensional Earth?
  21. QuarkHead Remedial Math Student Valued Senior Member

    Is it worth pointing out that in any geometry known to man, beast or bacterium a sphere is a 2-dimensional object?
  22. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    No. I'm waiting for danshawen's story about Euclid flying to the moon with his magical 3D sense.
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    That would have to be one of the most inane statements I have seen made on this forum.

    Sure it is.....And every theory and every assertion in science, gains in certainty the longer it successfully aligns with observational and experimental data and keeps making successful predictions.
    The theory of you or I jumping up into the air and coming back down to Earth is a reasonably well supported theory.

Share This Page