• 558 Days Ago
• 07/28/2010

Re: The Crackpottery

The 'Big Bang' never gained traction with my thinking . . . 'no beginning no end', though difficult to grasp via Our Physically 'finite' roles, has long been accepted by my mind.
Einstein need not have apologized for his 'Cosmological Constant' calculations . . . Those were the best 'Tools' at his disposal for that era; not unlike 'Surveying Land' with floating transits.  He had to start somewhere and have the capability of looking back.
The variable 'light speeds' we routinely see more demonstrations of 'Light's Lack of Constancy'!
Thank you for your post/thoughts!

Roy Stewart,
Phoenix AZ

Sweeping Physics under the rug, is hardly the path to gaining either converts or longevity of position(s).

• 557 Days Ago
• 07/29/2010

Re: The Crackpottery

Hey, I just signed up to point out that the speed of light is constant even in a material. What happens in the material is that light photons hit the atoms of the substance they are traveling through and are briefly absorbed by the atom's electrons. The light photons ceases to exist until the electron emits the light photon to drop back to its original energy state. However, the light is always traveling at c.

• 553 Days Ago
• 08/02/2010

Re: Forces of Attraction

Can this explain why someone in traveling elevator feels heavier?

• 535 Days Ago
• 08/20/2010

Re: The Crackpottery

Thank you for a length communication.

Here is a comparatively brief response:

[I]. The SR is logically and mathematically inconsistent for the following reasons:

1. Assume that bikers A and B run in parallel with the same speed. Assume A emit a light signal towards B. According to the biker's perspective B receives the light signal in lieu of the Constancy of the Speed of Light. According to the perspective of an observer on the road, the light misses B as B moves on again in lieu of the CSL.

2. Assume a train runs on a track. When the front of the train and the rear of the train touch the track at F and R, assume lighting hits F and R. Then an observer located at the middle of the train will observe that F and R are hit at the same time as they are points of the train. But he will also observe that F is hit first and then R is hit as F and R are points of the track.

3. Assume that a train runs on a track. When an observer on the train is on the right bisector of AB lighting hits A and B. According to Einstein who used Galilean reasoning, this observer will observe that A and B are hit at different moment. This is how Einstein claimed that there is no universal simultaneity. But when we consider the CSL, the speed of light and light path is independent upon the motion of the emitter of light and so, this observer will observe that AS and B are hit at the same moment as A and B are  points moving backward in the perspective of the observer. So, SR deduces both the loss of simultaneity and its negation.

4. In the thought experiment of Einstein to establish the length contraction, when we consider the point where light is emitted towards the moving mirror, there is no length contraction.

5. Einstein correctly argued that we can place synchronised clocks along a train track. Now assume a train runs on this track and when two operators one at the front and the other at the rear of the train see 12:00 they mark the track. Let A and B be the marked points. A ground level observer can measure the original length of the train by measuring the length of the line segment AB. However, due to the length contraction, he will also observe that the length of the train is shorter than AB.

6. SR is built from thought experiments which involved the events of light emission and light reception. However, at a more developed stage of the theory its light cone interpretation invalidates all such thought experiments as there is no causality between emission of light and reception of light.

7. SR is an axiomatic reasoning system with axioms {d=vt,PoR, CSL}. From d=vt and PoR we can deduce Galilean Transformation. GT is nothing but d=vt observed from different inertial frame. We can deduce Length Contraction and Time Dilation from SR = {d=vt,PoR,CSL}. By applying LC and TD to GT, we deduce Lorentz Transformation. So, SR deduces both GT and LT which again is a contradiction.

[II]. Relativistic theory of photons is invalid and inconsistent for the following reasons:

1). By assuming that photon has zero resp mass, Einstein managed to remove the problem of diverging relativistic mass and relativstic energy problem. He did not see that this still creates a mathematical contradiction at the length contraction formula:

d = sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)d'.

2). Photons are not quantum particles of light waves as Einstein claimed. There are two know quantisation know to physicists. Neither of them apply to light waves. First quantisation does not apply to light wave equations as they are not energy wave equations. Second quantisation does not apply to light waves as we get nothing new by Fourier expanding sinusoidal functions.

3). Uncertainty principle does not apply to photons. The so called energy-time uncertainty of light-photon is false as uncertainty principle applies only to non commuting self-adjoint operators. Time is not even observables (self-adjoint operator) in QM.

[III]. Relativistic mechanics of Einstein is inconsistent and invalid.

(1). Einstein did not prove the conservation of momentum in relativistic mechanics. He assumed it and from that he proved that p=mv where m is relativistic mass.

(2). He wrongly differentiated p by t as follows:

dp/dt = mdv/dt + vdm/dt.

The error is that he forgot that v in m is constant, a most fundamental assumption of the concept of inertial frames. This was needed to make sure that all frames share the same laws of physics. Once this is violated, virtually anything will happen and it did indeed happen as we will present in what follows:

(3). In relativistic mechanics, E^2/c^2 - p^2 is relativistic invariant. Also
E^2 = (m0c^2)^2+(pc)^2. From them we can conclude that E is relativistic invariant. From E=mc^2 we can conclude that E is relativistic variant.

(4). In relativistic mechanics, the direction of force applied and direction of acceleration caused by the force do not agree.

[IV]. Relativistic theory of waves is inconsistent. It concludes that

v_g = C^2/w

where v_g and w are group speed and phase speed of waves. This implies that unless wave has the same value for the group speed and phase speed which is c, either group speed or phase speed exceeds c. This contradicts SR. Relativists claim that this is no contradiction as the energy of wave travel with the group speed and so we can set the phase speed exceed c. This is not a logical reasoning as SR is a theory which rejects all wave mediums. It is a theory of vacuums and so, there is no room for considering the energy of waves.

Putting aside this fatal error, still considering the energy of waves does not help at all. We know that sound wave travelling air has the same value for group and phase speed which is not c.

[V]. There are many mutually contradicting concepts of photons. Planck defined them as energy quanta. Einstein defined them as quanta of em waves. Dirac defined them as quanta of em fields. All of them are different and contradict each other.

[VI]. GR is invalid.

1. Assume that A accelerates away from C with rate a and B accelerates away from C with rate b in opposite direction. Then A accelerates away from B with rate a+b. This cannot be understood using force. So, Einstein's PoE is false. This means that GR is invalid. Indeed, if PoE is valid, Einstein should have had no difficulty in unifying EM theory and GR.

2. Gravity makes stars move around in the universe due to the gravitational interaction among stars. GR fails to capture this gravitational dynamics of the universe.

[VII]. Relativistic astronomy is bunk.

1). Unless we are sure that the gravity and light travels in precisely the same path with precisely the same speed, we know nothing about our universe. This is because the optical location and gravitational location of stars are then all different. By observing the stars, we will never get any tangible information about the universe.

2). If space is curved due to the distribution of stars in the universe, we will never know or universe. This is because to know how the universe is curved due to the spacial distribution of stars,  we have to measure the distance between stars. To do that we have to know how space is curved.

[VII]. I am not an experts in politics and so I cannot say more than just some naive thoughts. However, I feel disgusted by those who try settle scieitific disputes using politics. I was told that Capitalism and Marxism are the opposite side of the same coin. It is a historical fact that Capitalists planned, financed and carried out October Revolution in Imperial Russia. The involvement of the US establishments such as Wall Street, Federal Reserve, The International Corporation of America, President Wilson are all documented historic fact. Record shows that Leon Trotsky was financed by the Wall Street bankers to carry out October Revolution and President Wilson gave him US passport so that he could safely travel back to Russia from New York where he worked as a journalist for communist news paper. That the US establishments backed up Nazis and Facists in Europe and Japan is also a well documented historic fact. Eugenics was invented in America, MIT and Chicago University were the international HQ for this pseudoscience which lead to the Holocaust. Neither MIT nor Chicago University publically apologised for theri involvement in Holocaust. Hitler sent German students to USA to study eugenics. Winston Churchill chaired the first international conference on eugenics held in Paris. He was known to have said that the suffering of Jews were mostly self-inflicted. Henry Ford was an American Nazi who wrote an anti-Semitic book "International Jews" which are still circulated in South America. Prof. Dr. William Dodd, a history Prof. at Chicago University wrote a book on his astounding experience as the American ambassador to Nazi Germany revealing close tie between Nazis  and US establishments.


So, shall I ask you to leave science alone. We have our own corruption problem and we do not need further corruption of politics creeping into science.

Best regards,

AKT

• 535 Days Ago
• 08/20/2010

Re: The Crackpottery

> Ninety-five Percent of Matter in the Universe Exists in the Form of Energy According
To Einstein’s Formula E=mc2! Black Holes Completely Reverse that Relationship and
Solve the Equation for Mass: m=E/c2 thus Supplying the so-called “Missing Mass”!

Einstein's E=mc^2 is obtained from invalid  argument. He obtained this formula which made him a household name as follows:

1. He ASSUMED the conservation of momentum and from that he calculated the relativistic momentum of a particle as p = mv where m is relativistic mass.

2. Then he obtained relativistic energy E of a particle as E = dp/dt = mdv/dt + vdm/dt. This is where the error is. the v in p is not time variant under the most basic assumption of SR. So, we cannot obtain E from p as dp/dt. If we allow v to be time variant, then all SR kinematics fail as PoR fails.

3. Oddly but totally expected as an owner of inconsistent theory, Einstein defined relativistic kinetic energy and relativistic potential energy in his relativistic mechanics and proved the conservation of energy. So, according to him concept of momentum is more fundamental than that of energy.


It is my current view that Marxism and Capitalism are the opposite side of the same bunk: they use indoctrination and intimidation under iron fist as the only method of "teaching". If you question about the iron fist of Capitalism, ask those who were colonised or invaded in the name of "democracy". Contemporary physics also is nothing but unsubstantiated (or unsubstantiable)) indoctrination which was forced upon scientists with iron fist.

Those who have less than secondary school mathematics students have have no place in considering what is universe etc. For example, these morons while receiving the "honor" and "wealth" as the "geniuses" did not know that the very concept of photons they use are complete nonsense. There are several mutually contradicting concepts of photons mixed up and used in contemporary theoretical physics.  Most of the fatal errors of contemporary physics are very elementary which can be well recognised by secondary school students. It was the ambition of those morons with filthy appetite to money and power which brainwashed us into this devastating end.

Best regards,

AKT

• 535 Days Ago
• 08/20/2010

Re: The Crackpottery

> The NASA propagandists now ridiculously claim that “the only thing necessary for evolution of life is water because every drop of water on Earth contains some bacteria.” (National Geographic Channel, August 15, 2010).

This is what we normal people call faulty logic. A -> B does not imply B -> A. Relativists and Quantum mechanists are even worse than general public when it comes to logic.

1. Physicists think that we can "verify" a theory by experiments. A theory makes general statements and such cannot be verified by presenting several experimentation which "confirms" the statements. This primitive erroneous reasoning is called "proof by examples" whose existence I learned only when I started to teach in the US universities.  The only correct way of understanding experiments v.s. theory is that under the "positive experimental result" we still failed to falsify the theory. Eventually experiments will falsify any theory after sufficient number of experiments but never ever "verify" a theory as we cannot exhaust all required experiments, as there are infinitely many of them. About 3/4 century ago, Karl Popper got fed up with the stupidity of physicists and empirical scientists and as a logician who understood science gave a stern warning to these idiots who had no intellectual capability to understand his warning that there is no such thing as empirical "verification" of a physical theory. All empiricism can do is to "falsify" physical theories. He correctly observed that all physical theories we creates are false compared with the entirety of empirically observable physical reality and so all physical theories must be "falsifiable". Thus your attitude of worshipping Einstein is anti-science. Einstein himself said that. He was bothered by those who blindly follow him. He said "Question the authority". He also said that "As I am a revolutionary, they made me a sort of authority."

2. Einstein did not see that though as planned the rest mass zero assumption of photon cancels the diverging effect on the rest mass and rest energy caused by v=c, it fails to cancel yet another contradiction at the length contraction formula of SR:

d = sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)d'.

He did not understand that as m is relativistic mass which assumes that v is constant, we cannot take the following derivative with out a serious consequence which will kill relativity theory:

E= dp/dt = dmv/dt = mdv/dt + vdm/dt.

The consequences were severe, inconsistency. For example, E^2 = (mc^2)^2 = (m0c^2)^2 + (pc)^2 together with that E^2/c^2 +p^2 being relativistic invariant establishes that E is a relativistic invariant which contradicts E = mc^2.

Before you accuse NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC for basic logical errors, you should be critical of your own reasoning. All I see in your post is ugly "intellectual elitism" which is unfounded. Einstein was not God. 


Best regards,

AKT

• 535 Days Ago
• 08/20/2010

Re: The Crackpottery

> It is a fact that Lemaître applied Albert Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity to Cosmology, but was NOT a spearhead of religion supposedly leading physics as Lemaître is presently falsely being portrayed on the so-called “History Channel.” Lemaître also preceded Edwin Hubble in deriving what became known as Hubble’s Law and even calculated the Hubble Constant but was not able to prove the linear relation which Hubble did in 1929. Lemaître has rarely been given the credit he is due for first proposing the Big Bang Theory for 3 reasons: 1.) The theory of an expanding Universe was opposed at the time he first proposed it by Einstein and others, 2.) For political-religious reasons explained herein the capitalist dictatorship has always opposed the Big Bang Theory because the natural logic of a Big Bang implies a Big Crunch and a cyclic nature of the Universe rather than a single creation which leaves the most room for “a creator” and 3.) U.S. nationalism/jingoism, where the U.S. capitalist dictatorship always prefers that whenever possible credit be given to an American. Edwin Hubble was an American lawyer. Although Lemaître had received numerous Belgian and international scientific honors only recently have the capitalists been pushing Lemaître in order to focus on the fact that he was a priest and that his theory speaks of a moment of “creation.” The so-called “History Channel” focuses on this language in an attempt to inject the sophisticated form of neo-creationism/intelligent design also espoused by Francis Collins, Obama’s new choice for head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). See below. Both Michio Kaku and Stephen Hawking have also now identified themselves as neo-creationists/”intelligent design” advocates! See below.

As I have shown many times, physicists and empiricists in general are incapable of rational thinking. All they can do is to conduct expensive experiments at the cost of general public to "verify" or falsify physical theories which are framed totally illogically. All logically inconsistent theories are pure bunk as Popper stated. By concatenating and symmetrising one bunk theory after the other, they created a most bizzare "theory" in the history of human intellectual activity. 

You should learn the history of science and .... Newton was not an empiricist. He was not a physicist. He was not a mathematician. He was a theologian for most of his adult life. He did physics and mathematics only for a few years. He did physics way better than any of his stupid ignorant successors.

Physics came from theology. Physics cannot preach such thing as universe. The problem we have now is not religion tying to control science but physics trying to become a religion.

Best regards,

AKT

• 558 Days Ago
• 07/28/2010

Re: Nucleosynthesis?

In dense aether theory the Universe does it simultaneously. It's entropy is decreasing above the CMB wavelength scale (~ 2 cm), which should lead to blue shift and strengthening for radiowaves (between others). 

• 558 Days Ago
• 07/28/2010

Re: What Constancy of the Speed of Light?

Actually the same argument can be applied even to light spreading through the density gradient of gravitational field.

http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/aether/light_gravity.gif

In dense aether theory the speed of light simply depends on the observational perspective choosed.

http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2008/09/aether-and-light-speed-invariance.html

The intrinsic perspective of special relativity always considers light speed invariant, the extrinsic perspective of quantum mechanics always considers light speed variant.

• 557 Days Ago
• 07/29/2010

Re: Energy Conservation

What you are describing is very similar to the subatomic quantum fluctuations, where particles (galaxies) form, dissipate (or meet opposite charged particles and annihilate each other) and reappear elsewhere as the (to us) large masses of matter evaporate from the galaxies and reform into new ones.  Could we actually be at the quantum level equivalent for a much larger Universe and our Galaxies be their subatomic particles?  If this is the case, and the "Big Bang" DID happen, would we not be very early on That Universes timeline and thus we are seeing their Universe only seconds or less after their Big Bang from a quantum scale viewpoint, of course?  This might help explain the rapid expansion of our Universe as we see it and might provide clues as to how Our Universe coalesced in those few seconds after the Big Bang event.
If there is a basis for a never beginning/never ending Universe, we could instead be seeing local expansions or contractions due to heat or gravity affecting all of what we see yet that immense space could be less than the point of a pin on a higher level of scale.  Considering the huge number of fractals we find in the Universe we can observe, it would make sense that what we see of our outer Universe (space as far as we can see) is the equivalent of our quantum scale and it's interactions just writ VERY Large on a super sized scale.  The Speed of light constant may well stay the same as the time frame would have to be immensely stretched compared to our frame of reference that or even slower such that some effects like the Massive Jets from galactic very large black holes, with their oscillations creating a wave form, may be the basis of light on That scale.  Again, I will leave the math to the Mathematicians, but I think that there may be some fruit to these ideas if pursued far enough.

• 557 Days Ago
• 07/29/2010

Re: yes subject

What happens when light is red shifted so far that it stops being a wave form altogether

That doesn't make sense. It will always be a wave, it's wavelength will just get progressively longer.

.. and the ultimate consequence of that is that it becomes a straight line not a wave form, surely ?

Since you're clearly interested in this material, I strongly recommend this video, A Universe From Nothing. It answers many of the questions you posed.

Thanks for the link. When I get to a machine with sound I'll watch it.

• 557 Days Ago
• 07/29/2010

Re: yes subject to Quantum Effect

Let me ask you a question. What do you mean by Quantum Mechanics?

Many physicists in main stream physics claim that photons are quantum particle of em waves. Let me see where this assumption will lead us.

First of all, in QM, classical entities are quantised in two possible ways. First quantisation and second quantisation. First quantisation was introduced by von Neumann as representing classical quantities in Schrodinger's wave equation as self-adjoint operators over complex Hilbert spaces. This gives us epistemology of quantum measurement via eigenvalue analysis of such operators. Clearly this will not give us photons as the em wave equations are not Schrodinger equations.

Dirac introduced a new method of quantisation aka second quantisation which involves Fourier expansion. He introduced photons through second quantising Maxwell's em fields in vacuum. But these photons are not the quanta of light waves as em fields and em waves are different things. Indeed, Fourier expanding a sinusoidal function will not give us anything new.

So Einstein's claim that photons are quanta of em waves is invalid. Moreover his speculation that it has speed c and rest mass zero works to prevent the divergence of relativistic mass and relativistic energy due to the gamma factor. But it causes a contradiction at the length contraction formula of SR:

d=sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)d'.

Despite all of this main stream physicists claim that photons are quantum particles of em waves.

On this line they go even further to claim the following "UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPL" for light (or photons).

They cite that there is an uncertainty in measuring the frequency in wave theory:

(delta)f*(delta)t is approximately equal to 1.

This comes from the "uncertainty" in counting numbers of cress of a wave. This is a classical uncertainty.

Then they apply this to em wave whose energy is expressed as the energy E=hf of the photon of the light wave to obtain the following "Uncertainty Principle" of light waves (photons).

(delta)E*(delta)t is approximately equal to h.

What astounds me about this development is the lack of understanding of QM by main stream quantum mechanists. In QM uncertainty principle applies to two observables which do not commute, which impacts each other when measured. The above mentioned "Uncertainty Principle" has nothing to do with this. It is just a classical issue associated with waves.

To make the matter worse, in QM, time is not an observable and so the Uncertainty Principle just does not apply to time t.

Best regards,

AKT

• 556 Days Ago
• 07/30/2010

Re: Its a new model

What physicists and pseud physicists do not understand is the difference between empirical consistency and logical consistency.

Logical inconsistency has nothing to do with Popper's falsifiability. It means that the theory fails to discern what is true and what is false. Such theory predicts anything. Thus it is useless. Popper categorically rejects any logically inconsistent theory as total bunk. It is not even wrong.

Falsifiability applied to logically consistent physical theories. Now the theory is not a yes man. It says yes to some and no to some others. But still there is no assurance that everything the theory says yes will agree with what we find experimentally. Indeed, considering our ever expanding knowledge on observable physical reality, it is expected that eventually the theory fails to agree with some experimental finding. This is what Popper called falsification. Philosophers will call it "empirical inconsistency". It is a precondition that a physical theory is to begin with logically consistent and then empirically inconsistent.

Socially a physical theory which must be logically consistent is considered to be the truth until it is falsified.  Once falsified the theory looses its status and have to be thrown away.

Best regards,

AKT

• 554 Days Ago
• 08/01/2010

Re: Just another amusing and unrealistic model

"CLG J02182-05102, as the cluster is called, contains approximately 60 galaxies, including several enormous red galaxies at its center holding 10 times as many stars as the Milky Way. Such galaxies were thought to be rare in the universe at this early stage. Similar galaxy clusters today have had billions of more years to develop and grow."

This appears to be a real problem for the BB theory.  I don't see how it can be explained away by relative motion.

• 550 Days Ago
• 08/05/2010

Re: Singularity vs. Math

I suppose if you found a flaw in the expansion of the universe you could disallow the contraction to a point theory.

I for one believe the universe is a finite size expanding at speed c from its origin(or one of perhaps) to the time you measure it, however the observable universe is something different.

Whether the observable universe is expanding or not is neither here nor there...Thats like caring if a mirage is real or not. However if its under c its probably been proposed its equivalent of looking at the real universe.

If people are whining about the observable universe expanding at a faster rate than c, i consider that non-sensical.

• 551 Days Ago
• 08/04/2010

universe

As you have heard the universe is alledgedly accelerating in its expansion. Thats probably a misnomer and its the observable universe is expanding.

Its likely the observable universe is accelerating in its expansion just as it might be contracting. I dont have that data.

Since nothing can go faster than c, the universes true size cannot in principle expand beyond this without proving that the speed of light is not c.

Its possible something really strange and unknown is happening at the fringes of the universe, but again I don't know or doubt it. I can only speculate its not and light is happy moving at c out there just as its happy moving at c right here.


I can speculate that if ther observable universes expansion is acelerating its probably just an observable phenomenon. Ie a mirage. Though its possible its catching up to its true size because what we see has been temporally changed to appear that way.

I have never seen a calculation of the true universes size compared to the observable size. I assume if i did i would find a correlation and thus show you its just a normal phenomenon.

• 546 Days Ago
• 08/09/2010

Re: speed of light

> Apparently (our understanding of) the size of the universe is related to the distance light has travelled from its origin since its start time.

The distance the light has travelled is depending upon how the masses were created and they were "dynamically" distributed according to the GR which of course is invalid due to its inconsistency.

> (Time and age are two separate concepts in the context of relativity. So you have to be careful when using the terms.)

There is no such thing as the context of an inconsistent theory such as relativity.


Best regards,

AKT