User talk:Duae Quartunciae/W. Kehler/Issues

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< User talk:Duae Quartunciae | W. Kehler

This is a talk page set up by Duae Quartunciae. It may be used for discussion of issues arising from the User:Duae Quartunciae/W. Kehler/Issues page, including different perspectives on physics which have been raised in various wikipedia pages.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming

Archive
Caution. This archive is maintained as links into old revisions, not as distinct archive pages. This is an unusual archive method, which means archive text is not accessible with the search function, and cannot be reformatted or refactored once archived. The archive consists of links into the major section headings within the revision just before they were deleted. This archive first created on August 25, 2007. Sectioning Handling English issues Fragmenting other people's text Remark on other people interested in editing here On the freedom to read and evaluate scientific papers Keeping size under control Jim Jastrzebski and doctoral studies Please read JimJast questions on photon mass DeepBlueDiamond's response to Duae Quartunciae on tired light models and Einstein effect Feynman and light Jim's Seminar on Einstein's general relativity for anti-BB folks Arguments in edit summaries On crank physics Significant restructuring. I am not an admin

[edit] Long anouncement of a short seminar for BB opponents written by one of them

(Copied from the main page. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 12:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC))

Hi Chris, I appologize for placing it on a wrong page. Jim 12:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 13:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Guys, I set a seminar on my talk page meant to explain, from a POV of a physicist, why BB (the Big Bang hypothesis) is a pseudo science. You may use it to defend your POV against people who believe for some reason that BB is science.

Except, an argument raised by Stephen Hawking that BB didn't delivier a single verifiable prediction yet while a real science is supposed to make predictions, a sufficient reasons for BB not being a science is a basic BB's assumption of possibility of creaton of matter from nothing. It makes from BB a pseudo science, or a religion: a false explanation of made up observations. It doesn't even make out of BB a magic, which is a false explanation of real observations like e.g. "universal gravitational attraction" that does not exist in the universe, at least according to general relativity, but it is close enough to the real thing that it may be used by astrophysicists as if it were true and no harm is done. BB is not even close to the real thing since even its observations are made up (like in a typical religion).

The main assumption of BB follows directly from an assumption by Wheeler that the spacetime is curved for which there is no evidence and exists an evidence to the contrary which has been also noticed by Narlikar. For those who can't tell the curavature of spacetime form the curvature of space I might add that while space is a 3-D object the spacetime is 4-D object and so it may have fourth dimenssion compensating for the curvatures of the first three so that the 4-D object — spacetime — comes out as flat, which actually must happen if energy is to be conserved globally.

In the BB the made up observation is the "expansion of the universe". It is a false interpretation of the effect called Hubble redshift which according to Einstein's relativity is an illusion caused by one of relativistic features of gravitation which I'm trying to turn the attention of cosmologists to. Which without possibility of publishing in scientific journals is rather a difficult thing to achieve.

The seminar is meant for those who are interested in science, especially those who ask questions about what they don't understand (even if the questions are based on false assumptions). An activity forbidden in the BB religion — see epistemological theorem made up by one of high prists of BB, John Baez — on my talk page in section Why astronomers believe in BB and physicists don't. Apparently it is since the astronomers found an easy explanation of the effect of Hubble redshift without thinking about the consequences and the physicists don't care about the redshift (they think it's going to be explained anyway if not now then in the future) as much as about the consequences of the explanation which shouldn't violate any known physics (also an opinion of Feynman).

The seminar contains an explanation of Einstein's gravitation and how it explains the Hubble redshift. It shows on an example of Landau's Theory of fields (to avoid tiresome suggestions that I made it all up) that there is a strict conservation of energy in gravitation. People not interested in science, who just want to comment on their attachment to BB "don't need to apply".

Please log in and sign your questions with 4~ and don't start them with a blank that I will have to remove afterwards (as I'm removing them in this page). Use rather a colon (or a few) for an indent. Jim 11:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation and response to an invitation for participation

I left a few comments for you there previously. But I've lost interest in leaving more. Good luck with it. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 13:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I read your comments and I'd like you to do me a favor and read one more section there "Why most astronomers believe in BB and most physicists don't" that was not there since I added it specially for you. I learned from Zimbardo that the best way to try to change peoples attitudes is to tell them what's true and what's not and possibly to show them that those whom they trust just have them for easy to manipulate fools (way of deprogramming of followers of various cults:). Luckily you trusted John Baez who did just that. He tried with his epistemological theorem (shown in my seminar in subsection Why most astronomers believe in BB and most physicists don't): "It is always surprising when it happens, but sometimes to learn more about the world we must stop asking certain questions... ... namely, those based on false assumptions", to talk physicists into not asking questions and if it didn't work to bar them from sci.physics.research where he was a moderator. I was bared from it just for asking a question about energy which is allegedly not conserved globally in GR. And which is repeated by all gravity physicists and some people who believe them, on a basis that the spacetime is curved while there is no evidence that it is in a mathematical sense (of an intrinsic curvature) and it is "curved" only figuratively since all 3-D subspaces are curved. So here a figure of speach is used as a substitute for physics and people believe. Astrophysicists even believe that gravity physicists know that Hubble redshift in a stationary space isn't zero but think that it is negligeble since otherwise gravity physicists couldn't maintain that there is zero (as they do since their spacetime metric tensor is symmetric so it has to be zero since they don't have any choice after assuming a phony metric against Einstein's advice of a non symmetric metric tensor [Einstein, "Scientific American", On the Generalized Theory of Gravitation, April 1950]). For some reason astrophysicists assume that gravity physicists act in good faith. They didn't read Feynman so they didn't know what kind of people gravity physicists are. Have you read Feynman's opinion about gravtiy physicists? And if you had what is you reason for trusting them? Are you sure that your understanding of GR is good enough not to trust Feynman? Jim 21:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I read it already Jim, before I made my earlier comment above. Indeed, it was a major part of why I lost interest. The notion that most physicists don't believe the Big Bang is a fantasy. You previously stated yourself that you are the only person in your physics department who does not accept expanding space. You drop these ludicrous assertions into your comments with distracting regularity. I am pretty sure that Zimbardo would find you of more interest as a case study of a tenuous grasp on reality than as a perspicacious reader drawing valid conclusions from his work. No offense intended, but your discussion is massively unpersuasive. I provided some comments to you already, to which you are welcome. I see no reason to modify them, despite you thinking them awfully uninformed. I guess we'll both have to remain monumentally unimpressed with each others insight into physics. I take no offense at that, and continue to wish you well in your studies. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Chris, if you have read it then we shouldn't argue any more, especially when you neither answer nor ask any questions (which, as you must know, is a typical cult member behavior). Apparently you must have been turned into BB believer early in your childhood and (as Zimbardo says) it is sometimes impossible to get rid of so deeply rooted convictions (not always though since e.g. Einstein believed in God and stopped at age of 12 "when he got his first scientific book" as he said; apparently it must have been a different book than yours).

I just an answet to your implied question in your comment above, that I should answer since unlike you I'm trying to answer all questions (even silly ones as you may see from the objections against my texts). BTW, if you had any rational or irrational objection against my texts (as the other authors did and then I had to respond) I'd add it to this file with my response.

The implied question is "why do I say that most physicists don't believe in BB while "[I] previously stated [myself] that [I'm] the only person in [my] physics department who does not accept expanding space"?

The answer is that physicists accept expanding space if they don't know or don't care that it involves non conservation of energy. The same reason why astronomers accept it. Apparently I'm the only person here who knows and cares. But those physicists here aren't all whom I know (I'm only for 3 years here in Warsaw, Poland, after over 30 years in the US). Many physicists aren't interested in cosmology enough to know that BB introduces non conservation of energy to science others rely on Feynman's opinion about gravity physicists. Those physicists I didn't count into "most". I counted only those having an informed opinion.

Luckily you said that you know that non conservation of energy is there in BB and you believe it is a proper thing to have in a scientific theory. But then how creation of matter from nothing is different from a religion about W. Kehler speaks?

I know I don't get an answer. My Socratic method that Zimbardo advises to use to turn people attention to contradictions in their minds, to turn them off the cults, won't work this time neither. It is since for you the creation of matter from nothing surely is a legitimate action performed on a daily basis. But if you believe that matter can be created from nothing on a daily basis then we should stop our argument since it is not a matter of science (since science doesn't know it yet it exists only in BB) but a matter of faith and while I'm trying to use a scientific approach you are discussing it from the position of faith. If you said it at the beginning that science doesn't interest you, we could save oursleves a lot of time. Beause it is nothing wrong in representing a faith side of the issue. My promotor BTW is also a very religious guy and extremely nice one. The same as some of his friends physicists. I'm not religious and this may be the only problem in our argument. So I'm gald we finally found what is the reason of being against each other and we may part as friends. Jim 17:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No Jim. Not as friends. I wish you well, but I have come to dislike you, and the backhanded insincere way in which you behave, seen in the above insulting comments. As always, the real problem is not that you express strong disagreements and criticism. It is that you try to pass them off with phrasing that pretends all kind of of default agreement with your assertions. You presume agreement where there is none, all over the place. It makes communication impossible; every attempt to engage your mad ideas with a modicum of respect only gets twisted into more confusion.

I leave you to your little fantasy world, where you stand in your own mind with Einstein, Landau and Feynman against a world filled with cultists and psychologically blinded fools. It is all quite pathetic Jim. Either you are trolling, or you have serious problems much more far reaching than your confusions on physics. I can not possibly help you deal with them; so I prefer to leave you severely alone, and request you do the same for me, please. You may continue to comment here, of course. But I doubt anyone else is reading. This whole page was an exercise in futility from the start, well before you joined us.

Please do not presume that I agree with anything you say, or expect any further response. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Chris, It took me a while to uderstand what happened. Finally I came to a conclusion that you exploded (see your "seen in the above insulting comments" which I couldn't find above, if you think they are above please quote them) because we are just from different cultures. I'm guessing (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you just don't accept the culture like mine. You say "where you stand in your own mind with Einstein, Landau and Feynman against a world filled with cultists and psychologically blinded fools". Why do you think that "Einstein, Landau and Feynman" are with me against the world? My guess: since they all are atheists who don't believe in the supernatural as you and this ironically mentioned "world filled with cultists and psychologically blinded fools". So we offended your feelings. And we are insulting your culture.

If I guessed right (and if I did, you won't protest since it would be to stand against your God, so you have an option not to respond) please accept my appologies since I never meant to make fun of your faith. I just don't believe it is true in a scientific sense so the offense is somehow automatic if an atheist (who is never offended by someone elses opinion on the scientific truth) discusses science with a believer. I should be taught by experience, since BB proponents are always offended by my texts and until now I'd never understood the reason, before I read Zimbardo, that is, and learned about deep feelings of those people. Deep feelings that atheits like myself don't have and that's why I've never uderstood them earlier.

If I'm wrong (you don't believe that there is a God) then I have to think that you are just a fool if you are feeling offended by my disagreement to a certain scientific hypothesis (actually considered by me an unscientific but to be PC we can't discuss it anymore). So suddenly the discussion became an ideological one. Advice to BB folks: state up front that you are supporting an idea that there is a God and then you won't need to feel offended since no one is going to discuss BB with you. Otherwise you'll be automatically offended by atheists like Einstein, Landau and Feynman since they don't understand fully the issue and the deep feelings that religious people have. Jim 07:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for organizing the page in a better way than I did. Jim 04:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I agree with the theist, Georges Lemaître, that the Big Bang is simply an empirical model, "entirely outside any metaphysical or religion question". I am personally a strong atheist. I don't believe there is any such thing as God or gods. I am not aggressive about this. What other people believe is up to them. I find it somewhat startling the weird things people believe or even invent out of thin air, based on bad reasoning and unexamined assumptions of their own. The notion that I believe in God seems to be another example of this. C'est la vie. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 07:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm confuesd (you may score an easy shot by insisting that I always was :). But if you don't believe in God, what do you need the non consevation of energy for? Why do you insist that it is a fact? While it is only an assumption, a conviction that Einstein's theory can't explain the Hubble redshift otherwise. I showed that it can, very easily (just six lines of high school calculus), didn't I. Jim 12:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't "need" the non-conservation of energy at all. Neither do I "need" the conservation of energy. The notion of a personal "need" for any particular theory, law, model, principle, or doctrine is, in my opinion, fundamentally in conflict with the open willingness to study the natural world and be informed as best we can by that. In my opinion, the bedrock foundation for science does not incorporate any assumption at all about necessary features of the theories we consider. The foundation of science is the methods or procedures by which theories are developed, discarded and refined; and this includes also the willingness to be wrong about any assumptions we may start out with.

I am a student of physics, not a scientist who works at the cutting edge. I am persuaded that general relativity does not have any formal expression of a conservation of energy law that can be given in global terms; other than things like the pseudo-tensors I mentioned previously. I am sure you disagree with that, but I am equally sure you are incapable of giving such an expression. I suspect that you are not actually able to tell the difference between the formal expression of a conservation of energy law, and incomplete discussions of some aspects of energy such as is represented in your "six lines of calculus". Either that, or you have been trolling.

I expect general relativity to be superseded by some more accurate theory at some point well within my own lifetime, and I have no expectation one way or the other about whether a replacement theory will include any global conservation of energy law. Einstein's own personal intuitions showed remarkable insight and helped usher in a much improved understanding of the natural world; but his insights were also fallible and sometimes mistaken. Regardless of his intuitions, he never provided a formal energy conservation law in global terms either.

Relativity is a mathematical model. The implications and consequences of relativity follow from this formal expression; not from informal intuitions of any scientist, however illustrious. The following is taken from one of the texts I have been using to learn more about general relativity. I don't take any text as gospel, and am aware any text can have errors or infelicitous expressions. Never-the-less; the following is an example of something that could be included in wikipedia; and it would be just about impossible to put in something that denies it. The reasons for this are bound up not in anything to do with physics or relativity, but exclusively with basic general principles adopted at wikipedia and intended to ensure good encyclopedic content. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 13:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Imagine two gravitating bodies that fall together from a great distance. In Newtonian theory, they would be said to have zero initial kinetic or potential energy and, hence, zero total energy. Over time they would each gather kinetic energy while their mutual potential energy decreased by the same amount. Hence, total energy would be conserved. But when the same problem is regarded in general relativity, the conclusion is different. In this case, the initial energy contained in $T 44$ integrated over space does not remain constant as the objects fall toward one another. This is because there is no compensating potential energy term implicit in $T 44$ . A similar fate befalls momentum conservation over finite regions of space. Hence, the energy and momentum contained in the tensor $T μν$ do not always satisfy a global principle of conservation in general relativity.

Having said that, it should be noted that one can always defined a quantity that plays the same role of gravitational potential and that, when added to the matter-energy tensor, does preserves global energy and momentum. However, this quantity is not a tensor. It is a 4 x 4 pseudotensor denoted by $t μν$ ; and it, of course, referred to as the gravitational potential energy of the field. When added to $T μν$ it not only allows energy and momentum to be conserved over finite regions that completely enclose the system, but it can be shown that it also assures angular momentum conservation in those regions. You should recognize that this pseudo-tensor provided for energy and momentum conservation by definition, so that it is more of a formal identity than it is a physical principle that reflects a limitation in nature. This is not an objection, however, for as much could be said of gravitational potential energy in Newtonian physics. A conserved quantity is always valuable, whatever its pedigree.

There is nonetheless an objection to the matter-energy pseudotensor: It is a pseudo-tensor. It can take on nonzero values in a flat, matter-free space simply by changing co-ordinates, so that it does not have a very convincing physical presense (or absence). Because it cannot be transformed from one coordinate system to another like a tensor, it cannot be incorporated smoothly into the laws of nature, which are assumed to be locally form invariant under any coordinate transformation. You can preserve the form invariant statement of the relativity principle introduced by Einstein, but then you must accept the consequence that gravitational energy and momentum are not generally conserved.

Mould, Richard A. (1994), Basic Relativity, Springver-Verlag, ISBN 0-387-94188-6, page 337.

Mr. Mould says "In this case, the initial energy contained in $T 44$ integrated over space does not remain constant as the objects fall toward one another". Why not? I'm proving in my PhD work, between other things, that the real world behaves just opposite to what Mr. Mould thinks (

T 44

remains constant). Of course Mr. Mould doesn't have to know any physics if he is only a gravity physicists but you say "I am persuaded (presumably by Mr. Mould) that general relativity does not have any formal expression of a conservation of energy law that can be given in global terms" so I hope that you understand what you are saying and therefore you know why

T 44

does not remain constant. I can't wait to hear for what reason it does not remain constant. Jim 23:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be Professor Mould; now professor emeritus at the State University of New York, Stony Brook. Not that it matters; I had no idea of his professional standing until just now when I looked it up.

Jim's bare assertion that he has proved constancy for $T 44$ (the "energy density" term, more usually given as $T 00$ ) is worthless. He's done no such thing. He also has the onus backwards. A "constancy" result needs to be proved, not asserted and then left for other people to refute. If Jim did actually have a proof, then the onus might switch; but he's not given anything of the kind here.

In fact, Jim has yet to actually express his claim here in coherent terms. Asserting "constancy" of $T 44$ does not even rise to the level of coherence. What we sometimes call "the tensor" for convenience is more properly "the tensor field", with different values for the tensor over the spacetime continuum. What has to be constant is some invariant over the field; not one component of a tensor. That is why Mould speaks of an integration of $T 44$ over space, whereas Jim's reference to the tensor itself being constant is not even meaningful. It may be that Jim has some meaningful expression of what he means by constancy of $T 44$ ; but I've never seen it and the levels of basic comprehension he shows for everything else gives me no basis for confidence.

Then there is the problem that energy is carried by gravitation itself, and so a conservation result has to deal with gravitational energy. But this energy is not accounted for in the stress-energy tensor. If there was such a thing as a proof of constancy for $T 44$ , or an integration of same over some region, this would break even the local forms of energy conservation that continue to apply in general relativity. So what people do — Landau most emphatically included — is incorporate into energy conservation results some representation of gravitational energy. A famous example is the Landau-Lifschitz energy-momentum pseudotensor of the gravitational field. This is described in chapter 96 of The Classical Theory of Fields, by L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifschitz, and it needs to be added to T before you can hope for any generalized energy conservation result. From that chapter:

In the absence of a gravitational field, the law of conservation of energy and momentum of the material (and electromagnetic field) is expressed by the equation ${\partial T^{ik}}/{\partial x^k} = 0$ . The generalization of this equation to the case where a gravitational field is present is equation (94.7):

$T^k_{i;k} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{-g}}\frac{\partial (T^k_i \sqrt{-g})}{\partial x^k} - \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial g_{ki}}{\partial x^i} T^{ki} = 0$

(96.1)

In this form, however, this equation does not express any conservation law whatever. This is related to the fact that in a gravitational field the four-momentum of the matter alone must not be conserved, but rather the four-momentum of matter plus gravitational field; the latter is not included in the expression for $T^k_i$ .

(...snip a couple of pages developing the energy momentum pseudo tensor...)

... If the tensor $T i j$ is zero at some world point, then this is the case for any reference system, so we may say at this point there is no matter or electromagnetic field. On the other hand, from the vanishing of a pseudo-tensor at some point in one reference system it does not follow at all that this is so for another reference system, so that it is meaningless to talk of whether or not there is gravitational energy at a given place. ...

The discussion of this pseudo-tensor underlines all the same fundamental problems with expressing a law of conservation of energy that various people have tried to explain for Jim, and which he has apparently never accepted or even understood.

A good test case for Jim's claim to have a proof of energy conservation of some kind would be to apply it to the case of the "Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar" PSR B1913+16. This was the basis for the 1993 Nobel prize in physics, as study of this pulsar gave the first observational evidence for energy being lost from a system through gravitational waves, as had been predicted from general relativity. There is energy conservation in this local system; but to show conservation you have to consider also the gravitational energy not included in the stress energy tensor T. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 01:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Chris, thanks for the material. Finally it is something concrete, nothing that I didn't know though, so it doesn't let me to stop working on my PhD (I hoped that your revelations might free me from that burden).

The main problem here is that so called "gravitational energy" of "gravitational field" is a myth (it does not exists in the real world) left from Newtonian physics and Einstein's approach to the problem (leaving gravitation to "gravity physicists"). That's why we have the problem with the expanding universe now. The gravity physicists, directed by Wheeler, screwed the physics which they didn't understand (nor cared about) being application mathematicians. They probably trusted Wheeler that he knew what he was talking about (against advice of Feynman; what a mess :-).

Now I "have a duty" (according to one professor here) to tie the loose ends in Einstein's gravitation. Luckily it can be done by adding one more "tensor" to it (quote since I use word "tensor" in slightly different way than gravity physicists do, as you aptly noticed, but gravity physicists rarely do anything right). The problem isn't likely to fix itself, which I hoped for, waiting for it for over 20 years (doing other things in the meantime and just trying to explain physics to gravity physicists). Apparently no one cared so it is still left for me to fix. As Einstein said: "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe". And of course the uiverse isn't infinite. Thanks again for responding. Jim 09:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

PS. Don't worry about PSR B1913+16 since this is already one of my projects (given me in the spring by one professor here, and waiting, due to my laziness, to be sloved) so I'll let you know when I'm through with it. Or, if for some reason, I'm not able to solve it, which I doubt, since once one has a right theory everything can be sloved. I'm pretty confident that Einstein's is a right theory and it would be strange if this case wouldn't fit while everything else fits. Jim 10:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A hypothesis of BB folks feeling presently extremely insecure.

Would it be because they have severe doubts whether the universe is really expanding and whether it was not Einstein who was right while designing his Einstein's universe. At least Friedmann's solutions work for Einstein's stationary universe and they don't for Wheeler's the one with accelerating expansion that astrophysicists insist on observing due to the supernova project.

At a cosmology seminar I witnessed as theorists asked astrophysicists whether they didn't make an error and the expansion of the universe isn't actually decelerating.

The astrophysicists very happily responded that it is not common even in astrophysics to miss by six standard deviations.

Yet theorists still hope since Friedmann's solutions don't exist for such a strange thing as accelerating expansion. BB folks are left without any math only with a hope for "dark energy" and God to rescue them somehow. Don't even know how. Just hope that somehow. Typical hope as if cut out of pages of famous (and apparently prophetic) "Atlas Shrugged". Jim 23:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

PS. "Atlas Shrugged" is a philosophical novel by an objecivist philosopher Ayn Rand describing what happens when idiots take over the world and prosecute people like Einstein, Feynman, and Landau since those idiots know better what's true and what's not true just by not asking questions based on wrong assumptions. Jim 23:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continuation of material from Tired light talk page

On the tired light talk page, Jim has pursued some matters that are not appropriate for discussion on an article talk page, as set out in the Wikipedia talk page guidelines.

Here is a copy of the exchange, for the record:

Discussion from tired light talk page. Hit "show" to view.
== Are we under attack by theists? == My adits with Einsteinian model (of tired light) are gone. They lasted just a few minutes. There is an interesting trend in gravity physics: articles that make no sense from point of view of physics may be and are published all over the palce. Once you show with legitimate math that matter can't be created out of nothing, even in gravitation, then your article becomes uninteresting to the public (as contradicting the Big Bang) and nobody prints it "just to save vauluable space in a scientific journal". After 20+ years I'm beginning to be suspicious whether we aren't controlled by theists dreaming about the return of Dark Ages. Otherwise why for 20+ years, despite that referees can't find a single error in my 6 page paper, it can't be printed? Actually it turns out to be "not interesting to readers" despite explaining, with Einstein's theory, things like conservation of energy in gravitation, Hubble redshift = c/(4.3 Gpc) (as observed), illusion of accelerating expansion of space (observed as predicted), "anomalous" acceleration of Pioneers (observed as predicted), even Arp's local quasars (possibly observed as predicted, but it is for Arp to tell). We are supposed to be nice to theist and not making them feeling bad. Shouldn't they be nice also to us and let us to continue with our science, where violation of conservation of energy is not allowed. Not alowed at least until someone demostrates beyond any reasonable doubt with some legitimate experiment that it is possible and not by supressing any idea that does not fit the creation of matter from nothing? Jim 10:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Please don't attack the motives of other editors. You added a section discussing your ideas, which were rejected by peer reviewed journals. Thees journals may be correct or incorrect in doing so, but under the policies of Wikipedia, such edits have no place on Wikipedia either. Either try to change the policies or try to get your article published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, but don't edit articles with sections you know will be removed anyway, just to follow that removal with an attack on the motives of other editors. This is disurption of Wikipedia to make a point and will not be tolerated. Fram 11:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Hi Fram, You're not quite correct. (i) These aren't my ideas but only the conclusions of Einstein's general relativity. I just wanted to present them to the public guessing that the public might be interested. For this purpose, using Einstein's theory, I calculated in 1985 the amount of tired light in a stationary space which just turned out to be the same as observed. (ii) The results were not rejected but were not printed as not interesting to the readers (referees didn't report any error in my calculations — if there were the referees would gladly reported it). According to the editors of scientific journals the readers aren't interested in a fact that Einstein's theory explains tired light effect with the principle of conservation of energy. According to them the readers prefer to think that there is no such an effect as tired light and so the expanding universe hypothesis may be treated as the only possible solution. For your information: I don't have any theory of my own, and right now I'm doing my PhD work on Einstein's theory. The referees of my paper agreed that my paper contained no new physics and that's why it didn't fit a scientific journal. I don't know why public is not interested that we have to have a tired light effect in a stationary space so I proposed a hypothesis (a title of this section) because this hypothesis explains why the tired light isn't explained by now, while old physics is enough to explain it (old Einstein's theory will do). Questions to you: (1) Is supporting the principle of conservation of energy (pretty well documented in my opinion) against Wikipedia's policy? (2) How could I try to change this policy to include publication of consequences of the old physics such as the principle of conservation of energy which is apparently very unpopular with theists — when the University of Kansas declares that stationary universe is an atheistic plot? Thanks in advance for responding. Jim 15:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Fram is 100% correct. And by the way, this discussion page is not for general discussion of policy or physics. It is for discussing the Tired light article only. Your own calculations of ANY theory are original research, under Wikipedia policy. Your declaration that your ideas are "old physics" is itself a substantive claim about your ideas, which can only be used when backed up by reliable sources. You do not use Wikipedia to present your own arguments on anything, no matter how well founded you think they are. Arguments, calculations, or emphatic bare assertion are all inappropriate. You KNOW this, Jim. Your very claim to be using "old physics" is a personal claim of your own, that would need to be backed up by reliable sources. This policy prevents the presentation of novel ideas just because of a bare fatuous declaration that they are based on old physics. When I first saw some of Jim's writings I was interested and started to look into it a bit. I am now inclined to think that Jim misunderstands Einstein, relativity, conservation of energy, propagation of light, and the notion of what constitutes an original idea; or else perhaps he does understand and is just trolling without sincerity. Jim is NOT publishing old physics. His ideas constitute a putative refutation of the work of all the various famous physicists of the past that he is inclined to cite. Landau, Einstein, and Feynman in particular. Jim and I have an exchange on these matters here: a user talk page. Jim is also putting together stuff on his own talk page. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 19:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Which part of Landau's book is written by Jim? Jim 20:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Or how is it invented by me if it is in a book written in 1973 and known practically to every physicist in the world (L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Theory of Fields, equation 88.9)? Jim 20:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion from tired light talk page. Hit "show" to view.

== Are we under attack by theists? ==

My adits with Einsteinian model (of tired light) are gone. They lasted just a few minutes.

There is an interesting trend in gravity physics: articles that make no sense from point of view of physics may be and are published all over the palce. Once you show with legitimate math that matter can't be created out of nothing, even in gravitation, then your article becomes uninteresting to the public (as contradicting the Big Bang) and nobody prints it "just to save vauluable space in a scientific journal".

After 20+ years I'm beginning to be suspicious whether we aren't controlled by theists dreaming about the return of Dark Ages.

Otherwise why for 20+ years, despite that referees can't find a single error in my 6 page paper, it can't be printed? Actually it turns out to be "not interesting to readers" despite explaining, with Einstein's theory, things like conservation of energy in gravitation, Hubble redshift = c/(4.3 Gpc) (as observed), illusion of accelerating expansion of space (observed as predicted), "anomalous" acceleration of Pioneers (observed as predicted), even Arp's local quasars (possibly observed as predicted, but it is for Arp to tell).

We are supposed to be nice to theist and not making them feeling bad. Shouldn't they be nice also to us and let us to continue with our science, where violation of conservation of energy is not allowed. Not alowed at least until someone demostrates beyond any reasonable doubt with some legitimate experiment that it is possible and not by supressing any idea that does not fit the creation of matter from nothing? Jim 10:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't attack the motives of other editors. You added a section discussing your ideas, which were rejected by peer reviewed journals. Thees journals may be correct or incorrect in doing so, but under the policies of Wikipedia, such edits have no place on Wikipedia either. Either try to change the policies or try to get your article published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, but don't edit articles with sections you know will be removed anyway, just to follow that removal with an attack on the motives of other editors. This is disurption of Wikipedia to make a point and will not be tolerated. Fram 11:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fram, You're not quite correct. (i) These aren't my ideas but only the conclusions of Einstein's general relativity. I just wanted to present them to the public guessing that the public might be interested. For this purpose, using Einstein's theory, I calculated in 1985 the amount of tired light in a stationary space which just turned out to be the same as observed. (ii) The results were not rejected but were not printed as not interesting to the readers (referees didn't report any error in my calculations — if there were the referees would gladly reported it). According to the editors of scientific journals the readers aren't interested in a fact that Einstein's theory explains tired light effect with the principle of conservation of energy. According to them the readers prefer to think that there is no such an effect as tired light and so the expanding universe hypothesis may be treated as the only possible solution.

For your information: I don't have any theory of my own, and right now I'm doing my PhD work on Einstein's theory. The referees of my paper agreed that my paper contained no new physics and that's why it didn't fit a scientific journal. I don't know why public is not interested that we have to have a tired light effect in a stationary space so I proposed a hypothesis (a title of this section) because this hypothesis explains why the tired light isn't explained by now, while old physics is enough to explain it (old Einstein's theory will do).

Questions to you: (1) Is supporting the principle of conservation of energy (pretty well documented in my opinion) against Wikipedia's policy? (2) How could I try to change this policy to include publication of consequences of the old physics such as the principle of conservation of energy which is apparently very unpopular with theists — when the University of Kansas declares that stationary universe is an atheistic plot? Thanks in advance for responding. Jim 15:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Fram is 100% correct. And by the way, this discussion page is not for general discussion of policy or physics. It is for discussing the Tired light article only. Your own calculations of ANY theory are original research, under Wikipedia policy. Your declaration that your ideas are "old physics" is itself a substantive claim about your ideas, which can only be used when backed up by reliable sources. You do not use Wikipedia to present your own arguments on anything, no matter how well founded you think they are. Arguments, calculations, or emphatic bare assertion are all inappropriate. You KNOW this, Jim. Your very claim to be using "old physics" is a personal claim of your own, that would need to be backed up by reliable sources.

This policy prevents the presentation of novel ideas just because of a bare fatuous declaration that they are based on old physics. When I first saw some of Jim's writings I was interested and started to look into it a bit. I am now inclined to think that Jim misunderstands Einstein, relativity, conservation of energy, propagation of light, and the notion of what constitutes an original idea; or else perhaps he does understand and is just trolling without sincerity. Jim is NOT publishing old physics. His ideas constitute a putative refutation of the work of all the various famous physicists of the past that he is inclined to cite. Landau, Einstein, and Feynman in particular. Jim and I have an exchange on these matters here: a user talk page. Jim is also putting together stuff on his own talk page. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 19:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Which part of Landau's book is written by Jim? Jim 20:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Or how is it invented by me if it is in a book written in 1973 and known practically to every physicist in the world (L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Theory of Fields, equation 88.9)? Jim 20:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

In my response at the tired light talk page, have pointed to this page here for some relevant discussion that has taken place in a more appropriate venue. Just in case anyone actually drops by to have a look, I am adding a reply to the latest bit of nonsense from Jim. Copied from the other page:

Which part of Landau's book is written by Jim? Jim 20:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

My response: Jim wrote nothing in Landau's book, and Landau's book contains nothing to support Jim's unique perspective. As seen in the discussions earlier in this page relating to the pseudotensor, Jim misrepresents Landau, apparently with full knowledge, when he speaks of Landau supporting his ideas. Unlike Jim, Landau recognizes the importance of gravitational energy, and the need for this to be added into any general energy conservation result. Unlike Jim, Landau recognize the difficulty with trying to give a global energy conservation result for general relativity, and indeed was one of the major physicists who clarified the matter.

In this latest distraction, Jim cites a totally irrelevant equation. It is not a general energy conservation result and it has nothing at all to do with tired light. It is a simple equation for a conserved quantity during motion of a particle in a static gravitational field. It is NOT a general energy conservation result. For energy conservation laws, you should look to chapter 96, which I have quoted above, because in general gravitational fields are not static, and they do contribute important considerations for energy.

The equation is

$\mathcal{E}_0 = \frac{mc^2\sqrt{g_{00}}}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}$

(88.9)

The start of the chapter notes that this is about a constant gravitational field. Landau and Lifschitz note early in the chapter:

Strictly speaking, only the field produced by a single body can be constant. In a system of several bodies, their mutual gravitational attraction will give rise to motion, as a result of which the field produced by them cannot be constant.

Einstein's theory of general relativity carries within it as a necessary consequence the transport of energy away from bodies in orbit about each other through gravitational waves. Landau deals with this in a section I quoted previously in this page, by adding the energy momentum pseudotensor of the gravitational field. (Chapter 96 of The Classical Theory of Fields.) The discovery of changing orbit periods of binary pulsars corresponds exactly to the expected loss of energy calculated from Einstein's theory of general relativity.

In the 1950s and 1960s many gravitational physicists were slow to grasp the implications for gravitational radiation and energy. Landau stands out from the crowd as a physicist who was able to address the matter satisfactorily, in the very book Jim has cited. To compound the rich irony of Jim's appeal to outstanding physicists of the past, there is one other famous physicist who also stands out for the clarity of his insight into the matter... none other than Richard Feynman.

Feynman attended a conference on gravitation at Chapel Hill in 1957, where this was being debated. Feynman was a a great showman, and also remarkable for his ability to cut to the heart of a problem with simple elegant practical examples. He showed the necessity for gravitational waves to carry energy, with a simple thought experiment involving beads on a wire. Unfortunately Feynman never published on gravitation, but the posthumously published lectures on gravitation briefly address the matter of gravitational waves and energy, and forthrightly declare that there is no question about the energy content of gravitational waves.

Feynman was quite contemptuous of gravitational physicists in his time. The slowness with which they grasped this very point contributed to Feynman's low regard. Landau had already got it right by then, in 1947; but this was not as widely recognized at the time as it should have been. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Duae_Quartunciae: "In this latest distraction, Jim cites a totally irrelevant equation." How do you know if it is irrelevant if you didn't ask Jim what he meant? (Rhetoric question since you don't answer any questions, you just comment on Jim's stupidity, but it's ok since even then I can learn about what you know and what you don't and I may help you with your problems (Jim turns out not only to be stupid but also patronizing, what a shame).

So in this case you didn't get the relevance of the equation. So look: $\frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}=m$ (just replacing contemporary definition of mass with the Einstein's old

m

, restoring

m 0

where it's due, to make everything look simpler). Now $c^2\sqrt{g_{00}}$ might be replaced by

c 2

for convinience since this is this variable speed of light that Einstein was talking about when he mentioned that "speed of light of course can't be constant in a gravitational field" (of course not says Jim. Why? A question to you. If you don't know the answer read the introduction to my Short seminar).

Anyway, what we got after those substitutions is

E = m c 2

that must be more familiar to you than Landau's form. Of course it means the same thing since it is the same equation. And now in a static field it is constant. When the particle moves in such static field of another particle. Now do you see the relevance of it? If you still don't then read the next section of my Short seminar, and so on. If you still don't understand such a few simple things but you want to understand them then ask. But uderstanding gravitation is not mandatory. No gravity physicists does and most feel quite happy. Jim 15:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Landau and Lipschitz note explicitly that this cannot be used as an invariant with multiple particles, because it breaks the constant field requirement. They recognize the reality of gravitational waves, their capacity to carry energy, and the need for the energy momentum pseudotensor of the gravitational field to manage conservation of energy. You get gravitational waves any time there are two particles interacting gravitationally. I don't need to ask you about this. It is a consistent problem with all your writings that they are riddled with undefended assertions and presumptions that just ain't so. This equation 88.9 is given for a clearly explained limited case, and so does not stand as a general energy conservation law. Your method of extending it to other particles is explicitly in conflict with the very reference you are citing.

I'm not pointing this out to ask you about it. I'm explaining your mistakes in case anyone drops in on this page to find out what the heck you were talking about when you mentioned equation 88.9 in the tired light talk page.

This is not you as an established physics genius and me as the student at your feet. This is you making concrete claims and me making different concrete claims. We disagree. You apparently think I am mistaken, which does not give me slightest pause for concern. I still have lots to learn, but I've got a lot under my belt as well, and I don't consider you to be a useful guide on anything. No offense intended; you after all have rubbished my understanding as well. I assert that your understanding is completely mistaken. You don't accept that, which is fine. It's not a problem. It's what happens when people disagree on something like this.

You need to make a case; not drop hints and wait for questions. If you make claims, and they are wrong, then that will get pointed out. There's no presumption of innocence in physics.

Referring to other papers you've written is not impressive when the things you do say are so plainly mistaken. You've said that you are just following Landau. I have shown that to be false. At this point you are pretty much in the position of trying to carry on a lecture when you've forgotten to put on your trousers.

I intend this to be a side by side comparison of claims you make on your own behalf, and claims I make in response. You are welcome to use these comments, or ignore them. I am not requesting a response, and I am not seeking to persuade you. I am maintaining this primarily in case anyone else wanders in from the links now present in other pages. You challenged my comments on physics; and made obscure remarks which I understand but for which you give inadequate context for people who happen across them for the first time. Equation 88.9 indeed! This page now gives a bit more detail, with no expectation that anything could ever actually persuade you. I am happy for us to disagree, and for this discussion to stand as my explanation for my reactions. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 17:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concerns and I appreciate them but they are besides the point which was creation of energy out of nothing in gravitation. Could you also indicate at which point the energy is created? I maintained that the whole energy involved is only

m c 2

, which is conserved according to Landau, at least in static situations (however he does not say that in other situations it is not conserved). Do you think it might be created somehow in dynamical situations? Just say how. Jim 17:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of any issue in relation to creation of energy out of nothing in gravitation. I don't have any idea what you mean by this; it looks like some kind of weird strawman. My position has nothing to do with energy being created anywhere. I realize that you maintain that the only energy involved is

m c 2

with m as a relativistic mass. This is the energy of a particle, and the energy of a particle is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether that's the only kind of energy you need to consider. Landau, Lipschitz, Einstein and Feynman all recognize the importance of gravitational energy not represented within the stress-energy tensor at all. In contrast to all those physicists and indeed with the whole of modern physics, you appear to disagree. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More continuation of material from Tired light talk page

Followup to the above point. A major problem with all of Jim's discussions on anything is the difficulty he has in making a plain statement of his own position as a contrast with that of others. That appears to be insoluble, because Jim insists that actually, his own position is not in contrast to that of classical physics as understood and developed by Einstein, Landau, etc. In this Jim is incorrect; his view is a drastic contrast both with classical and with modern relativistic physics; and the earlier discussions in the page now establish that pretty well.

The most recent comments from Jim just above speak of energy being "created out of nothing in gravitation". As far as I can see, this could be a reference to one of two things.

It might be a strawman objection to Big Bang cosmology, thinking that the Big Bang requires something out of nothing. But in fact, Big Bang cosmology does not as yet address a so-called moment of creation. The earliest origins are an unsolved problem, and there is no requirement for something out of nothing. Whether there is a role for some kind of fluctuation that could be called something out of nothing, I don't know. Big Bang cosmology, as far as I am concerned, is about the development of the universe from conditions of extreme energy density and tiny scale factor; and does not have a good account of those conditions of or the history of the universe right back to the point where classical physics is driven to a singularity. The basics of Big Bang cosmology back to primordial nucleosynthesis are solid empirical testable science.
Alternatively, Jim might be making a more general point about the exchange of energy between particles and gravitational energy of a dynamic spacetime. This is not the same as potential and kinetic energy, but refers to energy that is part of the geometry of spacetime, and which is not represented as part of the stress-energy tensor. If someone denies the reality of such energy, then a system radiating energy as gravitational waves might appear to be losing energy, and a system taking up energy from passing gravitational waves might be described as "energy created out of nothing". If this is Jim's concern, then a more accurate description of the matter needs to deal not with energy being created out of nothing, but with the reality or otherwise of gravitational energy not captured in the stress-energy tensor T.

As an example of energy being taken up from a form Jim apparently considers unrealistic, and transferred into a form that is captured within the stress energy tensor, one can do no better than Feynman's sticky bead argument. Feynman presented this argument at a conference in gravitation in 1957, though he did not publish it. It was an important contribution for sorting out the confusions that riddled gravitational physics at the time. Feynman demonstrated, without any need for complex maths, the need for gravitational waves to carry energy by imagining the effect of such waves on a detector composed of beads on a wire, which would be heated a tiny amount by the passage of the gravitational wave. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Duae, asking Jim would save you a lot of speculations. The violation of the principle of conservation of energy in BB is hidden in an assumption that there is no dynamical friction of photons in a stationary space. This is in "Gravitation" by MTW (I'll tell you which page when I get the book). Photons, unlike anything else, are assumed to move in space containing matter without any gravitational resistance (gravitational drag) which then would cause a redshift (something that was basis of theories of tired light, and in math of BB the lack of this effect is represented by symmetric metric of spacetime — opposed by Einstein in 1950). This loss of enery (for regular dynamical friction — observational efect for any other object containing energy) is compensated by this assumed energy created out of nothing. It's a very small amount but enough to violate the principle of conservation. If it weren't so than redshift in stationary space were 70 km/s/Mpc and so there woldn't be any basis for maintaining that space is expanding. Jim 13:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

In the unlikely even that you ever give a clear presentation of your position, without including a presumption of a whole pile of obvious errors and misrepresentations of others, then it may be of interest. Mostly because it would let your errors be identified plainly, I suspect.

I'm not going to play twenty questions to tease out basic details that you need to make plain yourself even in an introduction of your case. All that you seem capable of doing is repeating ad infinitum the claim that you are only reading the equations of Landau, or Einstein, or whoever, with the presumption that everything is in those equations. It isn't. Your interpretation of these various physicists seems to be unique to you alone; and frequently in explicit contrast to their own writings in the immediate context. But because you can't admit any distinction, it become impossible for you to actually describe your position clearly. All we get are repeated original statements sprinkled through your text, which are unreferenced, obscure, and in conflict with well established physics.

For example, your energy conservation stuff from Landau, discussed above. Landau in chapter 88 gives a simple reduced case for the energy of a particle. He notes explicitly that it is an approximation, and that it fails to capture in full the situation when you have more than one particle involved. He goes in in chapter 96 to give a more thorough general account of energy using the pseudotensor to capture the effects of gravitational energy. You, on the other hand, say that the pseudotensor "has no physical meaning" [1] along with a bunch of other stuff that continues to presume you are doing nothing but repeating what is said by Einstein and Landau, and that any objecting to you is actually objecting to Einstein and Landau, and give Landau's equation for invariant particle energy in a static field as if it was a general energy conservation result. Sheesh!

The obscure references to asymmetric tensors, which Einstein did indeed investigate as part of an unsuccessful attempt at unification of gravity with other forces, seems to be linked with your own mad confusions on Big Bang cosmology and energy conservation in a way that is unique to you alone. You can try and describe it yourself if you like; but frankly I don't think you have the capacity to give a coherent description of what you are proposing; in part because you keep insisting that your peripheral commentary is actually a part of the work of Einstein and Landau and so on. It is not. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Duae, you are right on many points. I'm using only some of Landau's and Einstein's statements, and not using others (if you asked this directly I'd tell you since I don't have any secrets). It might be since I don't understand how they are connected one to the other and since there is no one to explain it to me, possibly sice there is no one who understands them either. Every professor I talk to, says it is over his head.

The main point is the existence of so called "gravitational energy" which I fail to see and yet both Einstein and Landau are talking about it. So I'd need someone to show me where this energy is. Never met such a guy and both Einstein and Landau are dead. So what is your advice? Should I believe that "gravitational energy" exists without ever seeing one myself? Why it is so difficult to show if it exists? Yet Landau's equation shows convincingly that there is no such thing as "gravitational energy" since otherwise this equation wouldn't be true (even in stationary situation). So there is a contradiction. The same with Einstein. He maintains that one has to add "gravitational energy" to

T μν

but does not specify what this energy is, and I don't see it anywhere.

Do you have any idea what this "gravitational energy" is, if it really exists and so I'm wrong maintainig that it is an illusion inherited from Newtonian gavitation, as the potential energy of "gravitational field" — I don't see any "gravitational field" neither since all I see are inertial forces generated by deviation of worldlines of particles from the geodesics in spacetime. So what I "know" is pretty consistent with Einsteinian physics, except for the (undocumented) "gravitational energy", and what I "know" is consisten with his physics and math even if not with his speeches. But having to choose I keep the physics and math ignoring the speeches. So you are of course right that I'm only talking about Einstein's physics and not about his ideas about "gravitational energy" which I don't understand.

The next point is that his physics contradicts also the BB. So either you believe Einstein's physics with global conservation of energy or the BB without global conservation of energy. Since all my predictions about the universe come out right when they were observed in the universe (even 'anomalous' acceleration of Pioneers, which I didn't expect, and think this is just accidental) and all the BB's predictions come out wrong (especially its assurance that expansion is decelerating for sure as there is "no other possibility" — no freedom to select different parameters — "Gravitation" by MTW) I'm inclined to think that I'm right and BB is wrong. If you can prove otherwise this is all I'm asking for. Just disprove anything that I think is right. It would be enough if you showed that there is such thing as "gravitational energy" (different from

m c 2

as Landau's equation says that it's all what is there). Or if you proved somehow that enrgy isn't conserved globally. Or if anyone can do this. So far no one volunteered any proof neither, everything is just a lot of hot air by gravity physicists. All I ask is to prove the existence of "gravitational energy" or violation of conservation of energy. So I'm not insisting on Einstein's physics since I'm mad but since I can't see any other theory consistent with Einstein's gravitation. And ignoring private opinions of Einstein is not such a big deal as you think. At least not to any physicists. Einstein himsels said: "That fellow Einstein suits his convenience. Every year he retracts what he wrote the year before." Jim 07:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

One more thing about obscure stuff: if energy were consrved globally then the metric tensor of the spacetime couldn't be symmetric since with symmetric one there wouldn't be any dynamic friction for photons (the mythical "gravitational field" would be as in Newtonian gravitation, a conservative one; the photons running in circles wouldn't lose any energy). But we may assume that we observe the dynamical friction of photons as an illusion of the accelerating expansion of space since we observe it with a predicted value $dH/dt=H_0^2/2$ (which BB can't explain otherwise than by the existence of an exotic dark energy). So we have an observational evidence that the metric of spacetime is not symmetric (as Einstein might have already guessed — ignored by MTW, as well as Zwicky's tired light, even in biography of their "Gravitation", where they have written on page 775 "no one has ever put forward a satisfactory explanation for cosmological redshift other than the expansion of the universe"; they should at least mention Einstein's and Zwicky's attempts). Besides being non symmetric the metric has to be also a degenrate and I proposed such an example of a metric since it is easy to construct. Even if it isn't a right metric then at least it contradicts BB with its pseudo Riemannian metric producing no (observed) accelerating expansion. So far observations confirm (Einstein's) non symmetric metric and BB has to invent non observed phenomena to support their pseudo Riemannian metric. So why should I believe BB that can't present neither any verifiable observationally physics nor math? Jim 08:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Another thing that may show you the situation with energy creation out of nothing. Since you mantion sticky bead argument you understand it and so I can use it with no further explanation: There is a claim by gravity physicists that when photon approaches a galaxy it is "accelerated" (its momentum goes up) and when it goes away after it passes the galaxy it is "decelerated" (momentum goes down) by the same amount so according to BB folks net action of the galaxy on the photon is zero. But imagine all the sticky beads in the galaxy. They generate heat during the passage of the photon through the galaxy. Where the energy of this heat comes from? If from the photon than it must have a redshift. Simple calculations shows that in space of curvature

1 / R

there is exactly so much of this energy that Hubble constant of this (stationary) space is

H 0 = c / R

which for our universe comes out as observed (without any expansion of space yet). So why gravity physicists ignore Feynman's argument? My private opinion agrees with Feynman's.

Additional point that might be confusing to non physicists when they don't ask questions just assume that they understand what is being said: one may call

m c 2

"gravitational energy" since the gravitational force

F = - (d / d x)(m c 2)

with

m

being rest mass (see Landau), so it is the same thing as "Newtonian gravitational energy", but it won't be this "gravitational energy" that "has to be added" since this is already there in

T μν

as "rest energy of a particle". So when I'm saying that I don't see any "gravitational energy" I mean something beyond old "Newtonian gravitational energy" expressed by

m c 2

. Some additional "energy of field of attractive forces". Of course this

m c 2

has to be also a part of gravitational radiation, unless someone demonstrates that gravitational radiation is completely different kind of energy. Then this kind might be called legitimatly "gravitational". The one I fail to see since rotating binary system seem to lose just their regular internal energy (called "gravitational" only in Newtonian physics).

I hope finally I made myself clear even to a non physicist however I still can't be sure without being asked questions. Jim 02:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Jim, that is clueless on so many levels that I am overwhelmed. Whatever you are, you are no physicist.

Gravitational energy is a straight prediction of Einstein's general relativity. That's not a proof of its reality, of course. Relativity is just a model, subject to falsification if its predictions fail to match reality. But gravitational energy is one of those predictions, and if the details in MTW or Landau are not enough for you, then I certainly can't help you.

As for what it is; try reading Feynman on the subject of "understanding", which I cited previously. It is at the end of the section "Feynman and light" in the archives of this page: here. If it violates your intuitions, tough. Work though the maths of it anyway, and see if that helps.

Best way to think of gravitational waves, in my view, is a ripple in spacetime. The effect (predicted) is of a tiny oscillation in proper distance transverse to the direction of the wave propagation. Feynman's argument with the bead is the best way to see that it has to transport energy.

Your comments on Feynman's sticky bead are gibberish. You've misunderstood it completely. You speak above of heat in the beads generated by passage of a photon. But its not about photons. Photons will have no effect on a sticky bead on a wire. The bead argument is for detection of a wave that increases proper distance. You conclude "So why gravity physicists ignore Feynman's argument? My private opinion agrees with Feynman's." No Jim, you don't even grasp the first elementary basics of Feynman's argument. In fact, Feynman's argument was accepted immediately by gravitational physicists and went a long way to helping clear up the confusions on this point which Feynman saw at the conferences. It is an argument for the energy transmission within gravitational waves; and the beads pick up energy through the effect of a passing ripple in space.

Your formula $dH/dt = H_0^2/2$ is hilarious. At first, I wondered if you forgot the minus sign. But as far as I can tell see it appears the same way in the "paper" you wrote back in 1985. Jim... dH/dt is negative. It is pretty close to the negative of the number you give; best estimates reckon the magnitude at present around about $-0.4 H_0^2$ or so. (I just calculated that myself from the Λ-CDM model with Ω_M as 0.27 and Ω_Λ as 0.73.)

And no, you can't call gravitational energy

m c 2

You've made yourself abundantly clear, Jim. You don't understand even the first little bit about this subject. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 13:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Duae, I did forget the minus sign since I use time runing backwards (as explained in my paper) to avoid negative values and I forgot to negate the result for you. So you are right once again. I'm happy that you also calculated the result and you missed only by -0.05 since the observed value is not -0.4 but -0.45 (while predicted value is -0.50) which is also a little bit approximate. Anyway, with accuracy of observations in tens of percents the observed result is called in astronomy "exactly equal" to predicted value). BB on the other hand was not capable of predicting acceleration and before this result BB predicted decelerating expansion. I.e. a qualitative failure. The observation was specifically made to confirm the prediction of BB that the expansion is decelerating as required by Wheeler's "theory" (to make finally the BB a science — in words of Hawking). Why BB has survived such a catastrofic failure of its first prediction ever? I recon, since a religion does not collapse when science proves that one of its assumption is false. It just reverses this assumption by adding more epicycles to the "theory". Burning some opponents at the stake if possible helps too. If not possible then just taking away telescope time from them (Arp's case) or firing them to prevent them from gathering even more observational evidence against "the only proper theory".

I am glad to take back the minus sign.

The value for dH/dt is much closer to -.4 than -0.45. You are right than these numbers are all approximate, but wrong to claim -0.45 as a better figure. For a universe driven by cold non-relativistic matter and a cosmological constant, you calculate dH/dt as

$dH/dt = -1.5 H_0^2 \Omega_M$

where

Ω M

is the amount of matter as a fraction of critical density.

These models are generally given with two parameters, Ω_M and Ω_Λ. The current consensus is for (Ω_M, Ω_Λ) to be around about (0.3, 0.7). That will give you the -0.45. But if you want to be accurate about what is the supported by observation, note that this is really a ball-park estimate, and careful fitting to data gives the model more accurately as (0.27, 0.73). Plug that in, and you get -0.405, which is around -0.4 to -0.41.

In fact, careful fit to WMAP data gives Ω_M as about 0.268, which gives -0.402 as the value. There is no justification for that level of accuracy, however. They quote 68% confident limits as ±0.018. That gives you -0.402±0.027 as your values. I'm using the latest WMAP estimates arXiv:astro-ph/0603449v2. You can find there listed also some older estimates; the largest of which are approaching 0.3, and your -0.45 estimate. But the current data is indeed closer to -0.4, with -0.5 far outside the bounds of reasonable error. You need to hope for some kind of large systematic error, which is not beyond the bounds of possibility. But the current observational status of -0.5 is that it looks pretty sick.

You are quite right that BB was not capable of predicting the acceleration. Observations of the acceleration are data that constrains parameters, not a prediction. The historical remarks you make are hopelessly biased. Big Bang cosmology in general has a strong record of predictions. What predicts decelerating expansion is the model without a cosmological constant. That IS falsified, and now pretty much discarded.

I thought that you understood the sticky bead argument as applied to BB. If not then I owe you an explanation: When a photon (which carries energy and so it modifies "gravitational field") approaches the bead the bead slides on its wire towards the photon, out of its equlibrium position. When the photon passes the galaxy and the "gravitational field" gets back to its previous state, the bead slides back towards its equlibrium position. During its whole movement it generates heat through friction against the wire. If you still don't understand then you must be a mathematician and so I give up.

At this point, I have no regard whatsoever your estimations, and would be delighted for you to give up. I most certainly do understand the sticky bead argument, and your comments here are beyond ridiculous. The whole point of the sticky bead argument is that proper distance between beads is increased by a passing ripple in spacetime, while the rod is kept at the same proper distance by the action of atomic forces binding the rod to a stable proper length, leading to friction of beads moving against the rod. Your account has nothing in common with Feynman's argument. You take an elegant carefully constructed argument by one of the twentieth centuries most brilliant intuitive physicists, and distort it into a clumsy account of gravitation from an electromagnetic field, which was never in doubt, never needed explaining at the Chapel Hill conference, and which is explained far better without the distraction of the rod.

The gravitational drag effect you describe, by the way, does exist, and is far and away smaller than what is needed for cosmological redshift.

Is there any ref for the above? Jim 17:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The above argument is a very good example of a difference between way of thinkig of mathematicians (like Rosen who knew everything about GR) and of a physicists (like Fenman who didn't care about it at all). That's why physicists tend to think that mathematicians have some brain defects that prevent them from noticing simple things obvious to a physicist. But it is only since mathematicians work with idealized models and not with reality as physicists do. As Einstein once said: "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." That's why mathematicians aren't able to discover anything in physics (neither physicists in mathamatics — they are too scaterminded, just see Jim, and that's why Einstein needed Rosen). Jim 18:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

ROFL. Feynman had an excellent grasp and appreciation of general relativity. The idea that he "didn't care for it" is another private fantasy. He was dismissive of some of the gravitational physics folks, and with some cause; but not because of any problem with GR. His own major work was in quantum physics, but check out those lectures on gravitation by Feynman. The combination of Einstein and Rosen is another interesting bit of history where the facts are an embarrassment to your spin on the matter, but you can produce nonsense much faster than I can refute it, so I'll leave it for now. Go away Jim. You don't have the faintest idea about this stuff, and you have no capacity to learn even from the very people you keep citing. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your agreement on gravitational drag implies a solution

Duae, I said "the sticky bead argument as applied to BB". I was not talking about Feynman's argument about gravitational waves. If you see that it leads qualitatively to "gravitational drag" than argument worked and we need to find the value. You say "the gravitational drag effect [...] is far and away smaller than what is needed for cosmological redshift". How much smaller?

According to my calculations the effect is just right and no referee ever questioned its value nor did a professor who taught general relativity at Harvard, Cambridge, MA. He checked my results before I sent them to "Nature" and said "formally OK". I consider very unlikely that all those people (referees and especially the professor) didn't know math well enough not to find an error in a few lines of high school calculus.

You know my calculations but I don't know yours. Could you quote them because if you are right I must be wrong and so I'm just as stupid as you thought I am. But at least your calculations help me to find the error and I stop insisting that they are right knowing for sure what the error is. Otherwise it is still only your belief. Jim 07:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

By agreeing to "gravitational drag" (astronomers call it "dynamical friction" and observe as predicted for bigger objects than photons) you are in direct disagreement with BB folks who don't allow any "dynamical friction for photons". In BB "theory" it is exactly zero and BB folks claim some not explained yet "quantum effects" that according to them prevent the existence of "dynamical friction for photons" — professors in my university claim the existence of such effects, saying it is the only possibility if the space is expanding.

Once they agreed to "dynamical friction of photons" the whole BB is riuned since then it is only a matter of what is the value of this friction. And if it is what I calculated (according to my knowledge it was never calculated exactly before) then there is no expansion but only an illusion of accelerating expansion. So you may still go back to BB if you can explain those "quantum effects" that BB folks claim. They are of course also the place where energy is created from nothing (to compensate for the dynamical friction of photons — a new science). The thing that BB folks believe in but phisicists, who believe in the principle of conservation of energy, like me, don't (an old science). Jim 09:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I found an interesting aricticle about the paradigm shift. It turns out that new science may be replaced by the old one if the old one is able to explain 'abnormalities' that the new science can't handle (like it is presently in the case of BB and Einstein's physics that is capable — in my opinion — of explaining all those things that BB can't). But for this to take place we would need a paradigm shift, returning of the mainstream to Einsteinian physics of gravitation (perhaps without his "gravitational energy" which has never been explained anyway). Before it happens there is no hope that anyone will ever read my stuff. Not even referees since now they treat, quite properly, the agreement with Einstein's physics as contradicting the BB. So if you are sure that your calculations are right you are getting yourself into bigger trouble than before since your calculations neither fit the BB nor Einstein's. That's why I'd like to see them since they must be interesting and possibly right while mine might turn out wrong. And so it might turn out that there is a third way of explaining the universe. So don't be shy. Jim 11:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The calculations Jim cites are pretty much worthless. They are based on the idea of photons radiating away from a central point, with the use of symmetry arguments to justify a spurious argument about energy and gravitational friction; where no calculations actually relevant to gravitational friction are given. The situation described has no meaningful connection to the real universe where you have a universe bathed in photons from every direction. The appropriate response is to shrug, and say "so what".

Jim's repeated declaration that no-one has found errors in his work is odd. My own guess is that Jim is fixating on the lack of any errors in simple algebra or calculus; and dismissing out of hand all the negative comments from reviewers about whether it means what Jim says it means.

The real basis for gravitational friction, in which momentum gets transferred between many gravitationally interacting objects, was worked out by Chandrasekhar in the 1940s. The effects of friction was demonstrated to become less as the mass of objects decreases and their velocity increases. This indicates dynamical friction for photons is negligible. Jim's calculations have no bearing on the matter because there's no actual connection to dynamical friction given and the situation described bears no correspondence to how particles are arranged in the universe.

Dynamical friction can go in two directions. For a particle moving sufficiently slowly, the effects of a surrounding cloud of highly energetic particles will be to give it a gain in energy, transferred from the cloud to the other particle. This is the same process as dynamical friction, but applied in reverse. Normally, the term is used where energy is transferred from a moving heavy particle to the cloud of lighter particles. As an easy thought experiment, consider a massive particle completely at rest within a sea of moving particles. Assume no direct collisions. As the system relaxes, the massive particle will tend to pick up a small amount of energy by a kind of Brownian motion through gravitational interactions with the other particles, until it comes to a thermal equilibrium.

In the case where you have a massive object moving through a sea of photons, or where you have a hot plasma with highly energetic particles, the effects of dynamical friction are in general to transfer energy from the moving particles to the photons. That is, the other particles experience the friction, and photons get spread out with a tendency to blueshift; though too small to be measured. A paper which has a discussion of dynamical friction and photons is David Syer (1994). "Relativistic Dynamical Friction in the Weak Scattering Limit" arxiv:astro-ph/9404063v1..

A thought experiment involving thermodynamics is able to show the problems with Jim's model. Consider a container holding a gas of hot particles in rapid motion, like the plasmas of deep space. Consider a channel through which thermal photons may pass; with the photons produces as the radiation from a cooler body. Jim's notion of dynamical friction involves a transfer of energy from the photons to the gas. Conventional understandings of dynamical friction involve a transfer of energy from the fgas to the photons. The latter is the only one consistent with thermodynamics.

The idea that Big Bang requires an identically zero dynamical friction effect appears to be another mad fantasy. Conventional physics implies that the effect of gravitational dynamical friction on photons is negligible; not that it be exactly zero. There's nothing in Big Bang cosmology that makes the slightest difference to this point. Jim's calculations have no meaningful connection to dynamical friction or the the dynamics of photons or other particles in space. Jim's repeated insistence that he's just doing Einsteinian physics is without any foundation.

Good luck Jim; but frankly, I don't think you have a prayer of ever getting a PhD in physics. I'm sure you'll continue to blame this on everyone else, with wild claims about bias and blindness and psychological blocks in all the rest of the physics world, and that you will continue to insist that you are just defending Einstein and Landau and Feynman, despite your inability to deal with the plain demonstration founded on their work of the reality of gravitational energy bound up in gravitational waves. This is a part of your tragedy. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Duae, you may be right that the effect is not a dynamical friction: The effect is purely relativistic (does not exist in Newtonian physics) and the dynamical friction on the other hand is basically a Newtonian effect. The effect showed up when checking what happens to the energy of photons when the photons travel through space that contains a motionless dust. And the effect turned out to be proportional only to the curvature of space, a zero in Newtonian physics. So you may see that discussing science is good :-).

When I asked astronomers what would such an effect be called in stronomy, Ned Wright responded This would be "dynamical friction". Since then I didn't give it any more consideration relying just on conservation of energy as the basis of all relevant calculatons. It was enough for me that I got a right Hubble constant and a "right" acceleration of expansion (though you think that I missed by about 20%), and the local quasars. Unfortunately no scientific editor cared about those effects :-).

John Baez argued that my arguments are invalid since "energy is not conserved in gravitation" and refused to discuss it. Since he was a moderator he could block my questions about conservation of energy in gravitation from sci.physics.research to prevent discussion with physicists. Which he did.

This way I only learned that the effect might be considered dynamical friction (from Wright) and that gravity physicists don't believe in conservation of energy (from Baez). Also I learned from my friend, a mathematician who taught GR at Harvard, and checked my results, that the spacetime does not have to be curved which in my opinion nullified the argument that energy is not conserved. That's about it.

I still fail neither to see any new physics in it (except perhaps for the tensor of generalized time dilation, that's the same as the tensor of curvature of space just negated and so it fits very well Einstein's physics) nor how it would prevent reality of gravitational waves (since accelerating binary systems are an observational fact and also consistent with Einstein's reason for gravitational force as I described it in my short seminar) nor why it might be "a part of my tragedy". I'd be happy giving up this whole business to have more time to follow my main interest: sculpting nude women (I happen to be a sculptor, for crying out loud, not a cosmologist). I do physics only to convince physicists to take this burden off my back either by showing that I'm wrong or by acknowledging that Einstein's theory is more than what gravity physicists see. Before it happens I consider it my moral duty to try to prevent the civilization from slipping back into Dark Ages and belief in ghosts and creation of matter from nothing (which this civilization seems to be very close to) and into burning the smartest, the bravest, and the most beautiful women at stakes to satisfy those ghosts as it already happened not so long time ago. Jim 00:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Jim, what you asked Ned about the question and answer that you linked was exactly dynamical friction. What you describe in your equations appears to be pretty meaningless, given that it is based on conditions that don't actually apply anywhere. There is certainly no sensible connection between your equations and your question as phrased to Ned.

As far as I can see, physicists have already shown you are wrong, and you just can't or won't admit it. There comes a point when people just give up. Sufficiently obstinate determination is invincible in argument, if the object of the argument is to actually persuade you. But that really doesn't mean much. Your errors have been shown to the satisfaction of everyone else, as far as I can see, and your own inability to see it is rather surreal; but not particularly important. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Duae, I think you are right. I just misunderstood what Ned said :-). I was just barking at the wrong tree. The main difference is (as you might have already noticed) that my dust is completely motionless. So the tree was real :-) just different. The effect must exist if energy is going to be conserved. And it depends only on the curvature of space. So thanks to you we can now see clearly what the effect is: relativistic dynamical friction that gives as a result cosmological redshift of

70 k m / s / M p c

while common (Newtonian) dynamical friction produces only about

10 - 100 k m / s / M p c

. Jim 01:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Where am I wrong if my algebra is OK and my results are as observed? Jim 01:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an unfortunate use of terms. The term relativistic dynamical friction is already taken; see the 1994 paper by Syer that I cited just above. Here it is again: David Syer (1994). "Relativistic Dynamical Friction in the Weak Scattering Limit" arxiv:astro-ph/9404063v1.. This is not the only reference using the term.

Your notion does not have any association with dynamical friction at all that I can see. It appears to be based on an invalid argument about about a mass dissipating as a spherical sheet of photons from some central point, combined with a bunch of simplifying assumptions that are not actually properly worked out. It is pretty much meaningless.

Your predictions are not actually all that close to reality, as far as I can see. You have the rate of expansion only by tuning a radius of curvature to be a value at least ten times smaller than what is conventionally used in cosmology. So that is a bust. You also have nothing to correspond to the switch from deceleration to acceleration of expansion, which is currently an active focus of research, because of the constraints it gives on the equation of state for dark energy in conventional models. Observations currently suggest that the transition was around about z=0.5. See, for example, Ruth A. Daly & S. G. Djorgovski (2006). "A Nearly Model-Independent Characterization of Dark Energy Properties as a Function of Redshift" arxiv:astro-ph/0609791v1.. Added this this, the conventional model now used by pretty much by everyone has implications for the luminosity and angular size of objects at given z values, which I rather suspect would falsify your model. However, the other inconsistencies are such that I don't think anyone will bother refuting your model. You simply have not made any kind of a credible case; in particular you have not given any kind of analysis of these very basic observational requirements. A part of your problem is that you repeatedly work from a presumption that the onus is on everyone else to refute your model. You've made sufficient errors by now for me to be pretty sure that your basic grasp of the relevant physics is actually pretty tenuous. You are not simply calculating consequences of relativity. You are not consistent with the work of Landau or Feynman or Einstein. And you have not worked out the consequences of your putative model for the relevant data. At a minimum, you need to consider luminosity and angular size as a function of redshift z. The onus is not on me to calculate the implications of your model. That's your job.

I'm getting a feel for how your supervisor must feel. In the face of such resolute determination, all attempts to actually persuade you of anything are pretty much futile. If you are determined to rewrite modern physics, then the best thing to do is give you a couple of suggestions and let you carry on, and wish you the very best in that endeavour. If you totally confound all my expectations and come up with something not riddled through and through with misrepresentations about all your sources (as we see on this page!) and if it does usher in a new understanding, then great! You get your Nobel, and we are all the richer. I don't think there is a hope in hades of any such result; but that's just my opinion, based on the kinds of problems I've seen and described here on this page. I don't have any particular stake in that opinion; and I am positively expecting a drastic new development in foundational physics sometime in the near future. I'm not betting on you being the one to bring it about; but if you beat the odds, great.

Couple of suggestions, then. You can take it or leave it as you choose.

Don't pepper your reports with claims that you are just following in the steps of Landau, Einstein and Feynman. This just shows you don't understand your sources.
Don't use phrases like thanks to you we can now see clearly (quoted from just above). That is just being stupid. Nothing I said contributes to the conclusions you append to that remark, nothing. If my remarks are to be accepted, then your model is nonsense. If your model is coherent, then my remarks are rejected. Stick to describing your model on your own behalf.
If you want to work on your model, a useful step would be to give functions for luminosity and angular size in terms of z.
If your notion of energy conservation admits no role for energy being transported away from a system by gravitational radiation, then you need to find some explanation for the binary pulsar. Your supervisor's advice for you to look at that example was good.

—Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Duae, "my model" happens to be known in the literature as "Einstein's model". If you insist that it is "mine" then I agree, not wanting to arguee about small things.

Having invented "my model" I calculated the value of cosmological redshift in it for the density of space $6\times10^{-27}kg/m^3$ and it came as

70 k m / s / M p c

. Then I thought it might help astronomers to know what is the density of space of "my universe". This was as far as I wanted to get in my PhD.

If you think that I should go a bit farther and interfere even more with the work of astronomers by explaining binary pulsars with "my" model of gravitation I'll try to do it if I have enough time. However I think that demonstrating convincingly that our universe is stationary is enough for one PhD paper.

What is this "You have the rate of expansion only by tuning a radius of curvature to be a value at least ten times smaller than what is conventionally used in cosmology" about? What is conventionally used in cosmology? Jim 16:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You are being deliberately obtuse. Either that or profoundly ignorant. Probably a bit of both.

Both but hardly deliberately. I've been born this way.

I know that you are making superficial use of Einstein's model for a static universe, in which there is a balance between a cosmological constant and the effects of conventional stress-energy. Your major work, however, which is uniquely yours and as far as I can see founded on nothing but your own confusions, is the description of how photons lose energy; the tired light bit. THAT is your model.

I explained why the tired light doesn't exist in Einstein's gravitation. Too bad you deleted my desctription of Einstein's tired light from tired light page before reading it. If there is no tired light in my model then THAT can't be my model. You said you've done your PhD in logic?

In Einstein's model, which is just the static solution to the FRW equations for a homogeneous universe, you can derive an equation for the radius of curvature in terms of the density of matter in the universe. Current estimates for conventional matter are about $4 \times 10^{-28} kg/m^3$ . Including dark matter you get about $2.5 \times 10^{-27}$ . You've chosen a number more than twice as large again. Where did you get this number?

From the principle of conservation of energy (see the first sentence of the abstract of my article).

I think I can guess. If I'm wrong, no big problem. But it looks awfully close to old values of the critical density of the universe. Either that; or 2/3 critical density; which can show up in some other calculations. But the critical density is not observed; it is rather calculated from the Hubble constant. However you managed to obtain this large density value, you have then applied it to a model in which the universe is flat and has no cosmological constant. Which when you think about it, is rather funny.

It is rather amusing that BB experts have never done simple Newtonian calculations based on conservation of energy in a stationary universe that would have shown them the reason for the colsmological redshift.

Einstein's static model is well understood. Your model is the basis for calculation of H corresponding to some kind of tired light or gravitational drag or whatever; and this is not due to Einstein at all. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it is due to Einstein. I said it is due to features of Einstein's physics that Einstein didn't want to bother any more with and that's why I had to add this additional tensor of general time dilation to it to make the spacetime flat.

PS. Current values for radius of curvature are based on models you don't accept; but they basically constrain an Ω term for curvature, which is still possibly zero within error bars (for effectively infinite radius and flat universe) or else corresponding to a radius at least ten times larger than what you propose. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In Einstein's physics zero curvature of space implies no gravitation. So this is not Einstein's physics. Q.E.D. Jim 18:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to even bother with all of this latest set of remarks. I've long considered that when someone attempts a response by fragmenting a passage with a long series of line by line interspersed objections, then they have run out of useful input. Call it Duae's heuristic. I'll look at two items here only. The comment immediately above on curvature and gravitation; and the basis of the number given for energy density of the universe.

The comment on curvature and gravitation is very revealing; and suggests that this also can be added to the long list of basic ideas in physics that Jim just doesn't get. Radius of curvature for the universe is a measure of large scale trends over the whole universe, related to energy density over the whole of space, and any cosmological constant term as well. Gravitation effects locally show up as localized curvature of spacetime, which has nothing to do with radius of curvature for the universe.

Jim's objection here is the equivalent of dismissing notions of the radius of the Earth and consequent curve of the Earth's surface, based on measurements of the curves in the hills and valleys in his home town. Whether Jim is being silly, or is just trying to thrown up a smoke screen of confusion, or actually doesn't understand the notions of localized curvature and radius of the universe, is all a bit immaterial. Pragmatically, there's no real difference between being an actual dunce in physics, or just pretending to be a dunce in physics.

Jim's figure for density of matter in the universe is far in excess of observation. He appears to have developed it as a consequence of his theory. But from what data? The long and the short of it that he picks that value that will, according to his own private theory, give the right value for the Hubble constant. Ergo; Jim has no prediction of the the Hubble constant at all. He has a prediction of density... one that is a bit more than than twice as large as the density currently used in cosmology, and which is already about 80 to 90 percent dark matter. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finally Duae_Quartunciae is beginning to understand Jim

Jim took the previous comment of mine (dated 00:05, 13 Sept, just above), removed all indentation, and placed it in this new section with the ridiculous heading. He then interspersed a series of comments of his own, which I merely ignored. diff I don't know why Jim carries on in the way that he does; but I suspect there is something genuinely wrong with him. After no reaction, Jim posted another subsequent section to make a unilateral declaration of victory. I am now restoring my comment of 13 Sept to its original position and indentation. I have left a second copy of it here, since Jim likes a fragmented style of commenting; but I've put the second copy into a small typeface. As I said previously; I'm just not bothered anymore with these latest remarks. There's nothing particularly new, nothing insightful and a level of determined self-delusion that makes further ongoing attempt to help pointless. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 13:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Locating the comments where they belong would spare us explanation of where they belong. Which seems to be the indication of superiority of Jim's heuristics (and possibly everyone else's) by making it clear to what question we are responding at the time. So let everyone use his own style for the time being just to test its usefulness. The author of questions is given an opportunity of splitting his issues into paragraphs which Duae's heuristic allow anyway and indent's are invented not to mix the responses with questions.

Of course it is always possible that a questioning party does not get certain things in physics and assumes that it is a common defect of all parties. That's why it is always better when both parties speak the same language (of physics or math or logic or whatever) but it is not alway possible especially in places like Wikipedia. So the earlier the parties realize it the better. It spares a lot of texts wasted on useless translation from one language into another.

Blah blah blah...

Exactly. Finally you got it! You could read this in Jim's paper if you didn't think that reading it is useless since Jim must be an idiot if he doesn't believe in BB. However you still didn't get the source of his data: the principle of conservation of energy. It happens to be an important part of physics since a lot of stuff can be deduced just from this simple principle without doing much work (e.g. that the spacetime must be flat). The non physicists don't appreciate it and that's why we have BB instead of a footnote in some cosmology textbook. But as Feynman said: "few of the best men are doing work in it" (just see Jim, "profoundly ignorant" and with severe AS, who just happened to know this principle, and luckily it turned out to be enough to explain the cosmological redshift, "accelerating expansion", and a few other things).

...one that is a bit more than than twice as large as the density currently used in cosmology, and which is already about 80 to 90 percent dark matter.

It's probably much more than 90. The density that BB has no tool to determin while Jim did it smply with the principle of conservation of energy and high school math based on Newtonian approximation (showing that in this case it was a rigorous derivation). A principle that is known for a few centuries, unfortunately not to BB experts, none of whom is a physicist (they claim to be gravity physicists — e.i. application mathematicians and that's why they missed all the physics in Einstein's gravitation, believing that "physics equals math", as "bad mathematicians" — again quoting Feynman — tend to believe. It turned out that not even the most sophisticated math can replace the simplest physics. Not to mention even the situation in QM.

— Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Jim 11:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It looks like Duae_Quartunciae agrees with Jim

Over 10 days after Jim's explained the data and Duae is not protesting. He must have finally realised that the principle of conservation of energy is not invented by Jim (neither Einstein and that the gravitation is Einstein's discovery, not Jim's). This principle is just a central principle whith which every sensible physical theory has to comply. Since BB does not, we are sorry for dear BB. Jim 10:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Your major problem is not merely that you are an idiot. It is that you are dishonest. It's a rather pathetic form of dishonesty; in that the person you are lying to is yourself. But it does make discussion pointless. I'm content with what has been said already in this page. It would certainly be possible to go on; but you simply don't have the integrity or the ability to make it worthwhile. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 13:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure it does not apply to you as a common psychological effect of projection? You are never showing any concrete examples that I could reject or agree to and according to Karl Popper your theory (that I'm an idiot) neads to be falsifiable to be scientific. That's why I started to suspect that you don't have anything against my physics and you are just projecting something on me (actually a psychologist with whom I discussed your case turned my attention to the possibility).

Because otherwise why would't you show my failed physics instead of saying that I'm an idiot? Or you did show me the failed physics and I conviniently forgot? So please remind me where my physics fails. You wasted already enough time on trying to convince me that I'm an idiot that this little reminder shoudn't count for much.

I'll be only grateful since I explain physics in hope that someone finds an error in the explanation (and if there is an error I don't need to do my PhD and save myself a lot of time). So far all referees, textbooks, and professors here failed to find an error (all say it might be right) and so I still don't know any rational objection against a stationary universe. I think there are none and that the universe is actually a stationary one since there are objections against an expanding one. I gave you a chance to show that it can't be (providing a non believer) but the only thing that you comes up with is an idea that I might be an idiot. Which shows only that we both might be (probably are) and it still doesn't lead to anything particularly interesting. Jim 06:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Duae Quartunciae/W. Kehler/Issues

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Long anouncement of a short seminar for BB opponents written by one of them

[edit] Invitation and response to an invitation for participation

[edit] A hypothesis of BB folks feeling presently extremely insecure.

[edit] Continuation of material from Tired light talk page

[edit] More continuation of material from Tired light talk page

[edit] Your agreement on gravitational drag implies a solution

[edit] Finally Duae_Quartunciae is beginning to understand Jim

[edit] It looks like Duae_Quartunciae agrees with Jim

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search