Lambert-Charlier Hierarchical Cosmology

[FOLZONI]

You are fooling no one but yourself.
PhysBang is correct. Science does progress and along with that progression is the fact that space and time, as separate real entities, are also reflected as a 4 D spacetime entity.
If you have anything of substance refuting any of accepted mainstream GR physics, then get it peer reviewed.

No can do! Because the peer reviewers have sown up the whole of physics with their prejudices. To appeal to them is like appealing to Mohammed, Luther, Buddha & Shogun Tokugawa Iemitsu when addressing the College of Cardinals on who should be the next Pope.

People laugh at Catholicism's statement that "Mary is the Mother of God" (instead of just Jesus) since it contains an inherent absurdity - but Einstein's relativity is no less absurd as I have already shown with its logical paradoxes - i.e. clock A is faster than clock B and clock B is faster than clock A amounting to 'Batman is taller than Robin and Robin is taller than Batman.' This is Einstein's intellectual essence - ridiculous even in comparison to Christianity!

If mankind cannot break out of the covert religious bigotry exhibited by Einsteinian thinking (i.e. the acceptance of logical paradox as somehow 'physical') then mankind's future is ONLY that of religious bigotry and wars - since Einstein-dominated 'physicists' have no interest in practical issues, though they continue to miseducate physics students with relativity.

Note that Galileo too was peer-reviewed by the intellectuals (i.e. Aristotelians within the Church) and condemned as guilty, only his fame, his recantation (this done so he could write his last book) & the influence of friends sparing him the fate of being burnt at the stake like Giordano Bruno.

Still, paddoboy, I can appreciate how you might feel. A cardinal's cape seems much more credible among the peers than capering around in Batman's!

FOLZONI

*PS: As for space & time being 'reflected' as 4-D spacetime, all this means is to reflect the physical world as a deterministic (Parmenidean) block universe, then claiming that the reflection - and not the physical world of space & time - is the true & physical world we live in!

 

[PhysBang]

Your statement is an evasion, PhysBang!

Well, since I used sense, it is likely that you can't follow my posts.

Space and time were in use as separate entities, conceptually & observationally, before the time of Galileo. As you rightly state above, Galileo, Newton & Maxwell developed this insight as to the separation of space and time as practical science - just as we see in the dimensions given in physics textbooks.

Einstein however is the one who fudged the fundamental distinction between space and time (and then matter) by concocting the nonsensical notion of 'spacetime'.

Nonsense to you, since you can't follow it. But this is where you should probably either work harder or accept your intellectual limitations.

You are not less of a person because you can't do this kind of science. You are doing something wrong if you decide to insult others because they can do something that you cannot.

Einstein did not fudge anything, he showed how to think of space and time in a more general way than previous scholars and how to use this more general approach to construct a more accurate physics.

In order to muster support for it he then labels all work on space and time that presumed their ontological separation 'prescientific'! You are evading the issue PhysBang: i.e. Einstein is labelling the work of Galileo, Newton & Maxwell as prescientific because they presume the ontological separateness of space and time, unlike Einstein himself who prefers 'spacetime'.

Except, as a look at the text shows, you are completely wrong when you say that Einstein called Galileo, Newton, and Maxwell scientific. If I thought you could read properly, I would say you were lying, but I am sure that you lack the ability to understand this topic in the slightest. Einstein specifically mentioned that Newton and Maxwell were discussing space and time in a scientific way. Einstein generalized their work and showed how, using the standards of Newton and Maxwell, that considerations of spacetime lead to better science.

Again, if your (crackpot) ideas can be compared to measurements, show us. Otherwise, you are clearly not doing anything that is physics.

 

[FOLZONI]

You have misquoted me & misrepresented Einstein's opinion (by leaving out the word 'not' or 'pre-' in the red section) - though if the words in red are actually what you intend to say, then I have to agree with your stance on Einstein's implicit claim that Galileo Newton & Maxwell were merely pre-scientific in their thinking.

Except, as a look at the text shows, you are completely wrong when you say that Einstein called Galileo, Newton, and Maxwell scientific. If I thought you could read properly, I would say you were lying, but I am sure that you lack the ability to understand this topic in the slightest. Einstein specifically mentioned that Newton and Maxwell were discussing space and time in a scientific way. Einstein generalized their work and showed how, using the standards of Newton and Maxwell, that considerations of spacetime lead to better science.

Einstein wrote:

Science has taken over from pre-scientific thought the concepts space, time, and ...

Einstein classifies the treatment of time and space as independent entities as characteristic of pre-scientific thinking while he considers ONLY spacetime to be scientific. Hence he implies that Galileo's, Newton's & Maxwell's thinking is pre-scientific! IOW Einstein is not calling them scientific at all by his own standards - indeed, Einstein's 'revolution' in science has thrown physics back past the Dark Ages, back to the time of Aristotle who denied the vacuum, i.e. Aristotle like Einstein denied that space actually existed.

Aristotle claimed that what appeared to be space was actually full - calling it 'the plenum' - and 'proving' this nonsense by demonstrating the existence of air. Hence his erroneous physics, such as the claim that bigger objects fell faster. While Einstein doesn't invoke that particular Aristotelian nonsense (he doesn't dare!) his own nonsense leads to that kind of thinking being reinstituted e.g. the central nonsense of Relativity, TD&LC with the resulting logical paradoxes - something still more absurd than Aristotle's claims on falling objects!*

FOLZONI

*So note that Galileo proved Aristotle wrong by revealing the logical paradox in Aristotle's explanation of bigger falling bodies falling faster!

 

[paddoboy]

No can do! Because the peer reviewers have sown up the whole of physics with their prejudices. To appeal to them is like appealing to Mohammed, Luther, Buddha & Shogun Tokugawa Iemitsu when addressing the College of Cardinals on who should be the next Pope.

The usual plaintive cry of our delusional conspiracy pushers
Try something more original as an excuse.

 

[paddoboy]

Again, if your (crackpot) ideas can be compared to measurements, show us. Otherwise, you are clearly not doing anything that is physics.

And along with the other crackpots on this forum that claim to have a ToE, there "secrets" will eventually go to the grave with them, while science and cosmology in particular, advances, and progresses as observations increase with new state of the art equipment.

 

[PhysBang]

Einstein wrote:

Yes, I see you continue with selectively quoting Einstein. You should run off and join Farsight's message board, there you can enjoy telling falsehoods by selective quoting together.

Einstein uses "pre-scientific" in only these ways in the document cited:
"Science has taken over from pre-scientific thought the concepts space, time, and material object (with the important special case "solid body") and has modified them and rendered them more precise." In this statement he is including Newton's work.

"The concept of space as something existing objectively and independent of things belongs to pre-scientific thought, but not so the idea of the existence of an infinite number of spaces in motion relatively to each other." This is not a statement about scientists, just about a pre-scientific notion of space.

"All these space-like concepts already belong to pre-scientific thought, along with concepts like pain, goal, purpose, etc. from the field of psychology." Again, a statement about what exists in pre-scientific thought. Much of Einstein's discussion was about how people like Newton turned this pre-scientific thought into science. It is false to say that Einstein claimed that Newton was not engaged in science in Newton's work on physics.

"Science has taken over from pre-scientific thought the concepts space, time, and material object (with the important special case "solid body") and has modified them and rendered them more precise." E.g., as Newton did.

That's it, no claim that certain scientists are pre-scientific, just the claim that we had certain ideas before we made them scientific.

So, this once again leaves us in the position where FOLZONI cannot produce actual evidence for his (crackpot) idea.

 

[FOLZONI]

It is crystal clear from your accurate Einstein quotations (given in red), PhysBang...

Einstein uses "pre-scientific" in only these ways in the document cited:
"Science has taken over from pre-scientific thought the concepts space, time, and material object (with the important special case "solid body") and has modified them and rendered them more precise." In this statement he is including Newton's work.

"The concept of space as something existing objectively and independent of things belongs to pre-scientific thought, but not so the idea of the existence of an infinite number of spaces in motion relatively to each other." This is not a statement about scientists, just about a pre-scientific notion of space.

...that Einstein still classifies Galileo, Newton & Maxwell as pre-scientific! Now Einstein would undoubtedly concede that a more scientific outlook was progressing thru them nevertheless, but the important point, as our intellectual gangster (i.e. Big Al Einstein of the Prohibition Era in physics: "nothing can travel faster than light") tells us, is that nearly all scientists before Big Al himself treated space and time as "something existing objectively and independent of things", this notion being unquestionably "pre-scientific" according to the same quotation above. Hence Einstein treats almost all earlier scientists (Galileo, Newton & Maxwell too) as pre-scientific in their most fundamental conceptions - i.e. their conceptions of space and time!

That is, Einstein has rubbished the efforts of earlier scientists in trying to understand physics objectively, replacing their efforts with his own logical-paradox-generating theories. For Einstein however, the true scientists are ones who abandoned the "pre-scientific" notions of time and "space as something existing objectively and independent of things".

So who does Einstein have in mind here? Perhaps Ernst Mach but more particularly the Three Stooges: i.e. George Fitzgerald (who introduced length contraction), Henri Poincare (who introduced time dilation) and Hendrik Lorentz (who applied both concepts to a stagnant aether/absolute reference frame in an abstract discussion about electrons). These fools invented TD&LC and thus the resulting logical paradoxes but they were evidently too stupid to understand what they were doing. In contrast, Einstein differed from the Three Stooges fundamentally because Einstein thoroughly understood philosophy - something those clowns, and the bulk of physicists today, do not! (The hidden message, PhysBang, is: learn some philosophy - e.g. why Karl Popper called Einstein 'Parmenides' to his face, without Einstein objecting to the label.)

FOLZONI

 

[paddoboy]

These fools invented TD&LC and thus the resulting logical paradoxes but they were evidently too stupid to understand what they were doing.
FOLZONI

Oh the outright Irony of it all!!
DIAGNOSIS: :DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR: :TALL POPPY SYNDROME:
FATAL.

 

[FOLZONI]

How true, especially by combining the irony of the three stooges...

Oh the outright Irony of it all!!
DIAGNOSIS: :DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR: :TALL POPPY SYNDROME: FATAL.

...and the two caped crusaders for subjective truth and the Eins-teinian way. (I.e. the irony of 3 + 2 + 1 = 0 progress)

I.e. Einstein sure found an effective way to institute delusions of grandeur with physics departments as fields full of tall poppies.

FOLZONI

 

[paddoboy]

How true, especially by combining the irony of the three stooges...
...and the two caped crusaders for subjective truth and the Eins-teinian way. (I.e. the irony of 3 + 2 + 1 = 0 progress)

I.e. Einstein sure found an effective way to institute delusions of grandeur with physics departments as fields full of tall poppies.

FOLZONI

A few facts for you Folzy.....
[1] Einstein was actually a very humble man, coupled with the fact that all his theories have been verified observationally, so much so, that the certainty they have gained over time, puts them in the near factual class.

[2] Unlike your crackpot ideas, Einsteins models passed appropriate peer review and have been accepted in mainstream cosmology as a result.

[3]Any Alternative hypothesis, must also run the gauntlet of peer review without exception.

[4]The Alternative hypothesis pushers that fail to follow the correct scientific method and peer review, will without doubt, have there ideas confined to the only outlet such crackpots have....that is, online science forums such as this.

[5]Science/cosmology advances via the scientific method and peer review without exception, and although not perfect, has over the last century, taken science and cosmology to unheard of heights of knowledge and vision.

[6]Most of the Alternative hypothesis pushers that haunt forums such as this, with unsupported crap, will eventually over time, as a matter of necessity, advance to nutty conspiracy status, claiming that scientific method and peer review are riddled with corruption and close minds.

[7] While the aformentioned maladies of delusions of grandeur and tall poppy syndrome continue to claim victims on isolated science forums such as this, the real scientists, and cosmologists, are at the cutting edge of new and newer instruments, with there noses to the grindstone working and advancing in all areas of study, in spite of the odd oddball crackpot working in the name of speudoscience and general quackery.

[8]Layman such as myself recognise the overall benefits of the science method and peer review, and by standing on the shoulders of giants of the present and past, are generally quite adapt at sorting out the wheat from the chaff.

[9] Being labeled a "caped crusader" for the establishment, is something that should be worn with pride and humility, as it shows that the ability to sort the wheat from the chaff, has been achieved.

[10] You are in the fringe section, which is appropriate, and a such, you do have the right to "preach" any anti science crap that tickles your fancy, as long as you realise that even in the fringe sections, they will be derided and refuted as necessary.

 

[FOLZONI]

If Einstein's teachings were self-evident, paddoboy , there would be no need for all the hullabaloo in your post #50. Rather, as even Thomas Kuhn, a believer in Einstein's BS, points out in that book - The Structure of Scientific Revolutions 2nd edition Postscript p. 206...

I do not doubt... that Newton's mechanics improves on Aristotle's and that Einstein's improves on Newton's as instruments for puzzle-solving. But I can see in their succession no coherent direction of ontological development. On the contrary, in some important respects... Einstein's general theory of relativity is closer to Aristotle's than either of them is to Newton.

...Einstein's views are in vital respects (e.g. the denial of difference between space and matter) a throwback to Aristotelian conceptions. That is, Einstein constitutes the intellectual vanguard of an emerging intellectual dark age that has deepened since 1919 - despite the Moon landings in the 1960s-70s - a dark age more apparent in the 21st century as the economic growth & optimism of the previous century has faded away completely in the West (except for arms manufacturers ) - and very soon among the Rest.

IOW our scientific progress (sic) in cosmology spanning over 2,500 years could now be illustrated as:

ANCIENT WORLD
...........˅
ARISTOTLE < EINSTEIN

...........˅ .................˄

GALILEO > NEWTON

i.e. arguing in a circle and ultimately getting nowhere because the vital ontological questions - i.e. the relationship of matter, space & time - are ignored by being edited out, reduced instead to nonsense conceptions like 'spacetime'.

FOLZONI

 

[JukriS]

The problem with these alternative cosmologies is that they only say, "what if?"and they never deal with measurement evidence.

I think, people who say, space expanding, have a huge problem, because they cant tell whatvhappaening for expanding space when it expanding or why and how it expanding!

Big Bang people just say, first was nothing and then hokkus pokkus space was and start expanxing extremely fast, but not outside, because space expanding some magic way, what you cant understund!

usually people believe, there is god and that god is something what they cant understund!

Big Bang people have a own gods, like expanding space!

you post to believe, there is expanding space, but cant try to get xpanding space expanding faster or slower, because there is no any kind of way to make science test with expanding space!

When i say, nucleus of atoms expanding and recycling expanding movement, it is science, because we can make science test with nucleus of atoms!

love

 

[JukriS]

When i say, light expanding, because photons are expanding densers which recycling expanding movement, it is science, because we can make a science test with light / with photons!

so, i say, light bending are old light is redshifting because phtons expanding and recycling expanding movement, later we can prove, i am wrong or i am right, because we can make a science test with photons!

Nobody cant prove, is there expanding space or not!

Love

 

[JukriS]

Sorry, light bending when is moving near star or near galaxy AND old light redshifting, because photons expanding and recycling expanding movement!

if you think, you can explain what happening for expanding space when it expanding, lets tell me that!

lets tell me also why and how expanding space expanding!

i can tell how and why expanding densers expanding and how expanding densers recycling expanding movement!

love

 

[PhysBang]

I think, people who say, space expanding, have a huge problem, because they cant tell whatvhappaening for expanding space when it expanding or why and how it expanding!

Except that they can, in great detail, and can support what they mean with a ton of measurements.

One of the huge problem with humans is that they assume that other humans are as lazy and ignorant as they are.

Big Bang people just say, first was nothing and then hokkus pokkus space was and start expanxing extremely fast, but not outside, because space expanding some magic way, what you cant understund!

No, you say that. That would be you telling falsehoods about cosmologists.

 

[PhysBang]

It is crystal clear from your accurate Einstein quotations (given in red), PhysBang...
...that Einstein still classifies Galileo, Newton & Maxwell as pre-scientific!

OK, I get it, you lack the ability to ever read the document that you cited.

I also get that you can't produce any physics evidence for your physics ideas. Goodbye.

 

[paddoboy]

i.e. arguing in a circle and ultimately getting nowhere because the vital ontological questions - i.e. the relationship of matter, space & time - are ignored by being edited out, reduced instead to nonsense conceptions like 'spacetime'.
FOLZONI

As of this morning Folzy ol son, the 29th day of September 2014, GR and standard cosmology is still accepted as I have been cheer leading for.....It is you casting conspiracy nonsense on the scientific method and peer review, it is you that is on the outer....it is you that is in the fringe section...it is you proposing nonsensical quackery and trying to draw attention to your self.
Best of luck with that.

 

[JukriS]

if you think, you can explain what happening for expanding space when it expanding, lets tell me that!

Lets tell me also why and how expanding space expanding!

with own words and no mathematics please!

you cant prove any gods with mathematics!

love

 

[JukriS]

How you can prove, there is curving space!

we can prove curving space with bending light!

Curving space get the light bending!

ok!

i say, spaghetmonster get the light bending!

you ask, how i can prove, there is spaghetmonster?

i say, i prove spaghetmonster with bending light!

and quess what, it is science!

love

 

[paddoboy]

How you can prove, there is curving space!

http://einstein.stanford.edu/

we can prove curving space with bending light!

Curving space get the light bending!

Observed gravitational lensing, Einstein crosses, etc etc etc

ok!

i say, spaghetmonster get the light bending!

you ask, how i can prove, there is spaghetmonster?

i say, i prove spaghetmonster with bending light!

Nup, spacetime curves/warps....see.....
.http://einstein.stanford.edu/

and quess what, it is science!
love

No, its crap, at least until you can show me your spaghetti monster.
It's like those that believe in God....we have no evidence of such a mythical concept.
Your spaghetti monster is akin to those that believe in God.
But hey!, just show me some evidence for either and I'll support your model to the ends of the Earth!
Best of luck!