Physics and the Immortality of the Soul

[createdtoworship]

I imagine these same people would think Gene Ray an idiot savant.

never heard of him, sorry to disappoint.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

never heard of him, sorry to disappoint.

Check him out, he's right up your alley.

time cube - gene ray interview - YouTube

Time Cube

 

[Davian]

Matter cannot travel faster than light according to GR,

Citation please, as it applies to inflation theory.

and "space" never does any magic expanding tricks in the lab.

Other than your own protestations, on what do you base this 'in the lab' expectation for inflation theory?

 

[Michael]

Citation please, as it applies to inflation theory.

Other than your own protestations, on what do you base this 'in the lab' expectation for inflation theory?

That's like asking me for a published citation as it applies to Godflation (or supernatural entity of choice). How would such a thing even exist?

You can't demonstrate that anything travels faster than the speed of light in a lab. Nothing could prevent Godflation, or any of the supernatural brands of inflation from otherwise violating the laws of physics as we know them.

Worse for your position is the fact that plasma redshift has already been observed and documented in the lab, and C# code already applies several plasma redshift models to cosmological events. The final nail in the coffin for mainstream BB theory will be due to the fact that various wavelengths travel at different speeds through the plasmas of spacetime.

There isn't even any need for me to falsify any other "supernatural/metaphysical explanation for redshift and broadening events observed from space. There is already a sufficient empirical explanation for that observation that has nothing to do with faster than light speed expansion, acceleration, inflation or dark energy.

Why do I need another young universe creation mythos anyway? I'm perfectly comfortable with an eternal universe, a static universe, an infinite universe if that happens to be the case. I don't have any emotional attachment to BB theories of any kind. The more I study the various tired light proposals that have been put forth by various scientists over the years, the less need I have for any supernatural constructs of any sort.

 

[mkatzwork]

Matter cannot travel faster than light according to GR

Another extremely basic error, you're stacking them up in this thread.

That would be special relativity, not general.......and just to demonstrate if you want to claim it was a typo, which would be understandable - can you explain why SR prohibits the superluminal velocity of information or matter?

and "space" never does any magic expanding tricks in the lab.

Did you get locked in a lab as child or something? Your obsession is repetitively boring. Mercury has never orbited the sun in the lab either, yet GR (a mathematical idea) predicts its orbital peculiarities better than Newton's theories (also mathematical ideas). Things don't have to be "played with" in a lab with white coats on to make them valid ideas. You can and have repeated this notion a thousand times, it makes it no less wrong.

Objects move, but "space" does not

So what happens when a neutron star reaches the Schwarzchild limits and collapses into a black hole - inducing the fairly sudden creation of a huge distortion in space-time itself where space-time itself clearly 'moves'? No space-time moving going on there??

Or do you dispute that because "space does not move", according to you?

HINT: Your concept of 'move' is what is faulty here. No serious physicists (including pretty much all the ones who dislike inflation immensely) suggest that inflation's problem is that it violates SR because of space-time expanding superluminally. You're decades behind. Redefine 'move' in a relativistic sense, learn a bit about comoving coordinates, and you'll understand why inflation doesn't contradict SR...

The problem as I see things, is that "Godenergy" and "Godflation" isn't "incompatible" with GR theory either.

It's not.

I mean if you're going to stuff GR full of metaphysical entities, how is it then any different from a "religion"?

Well, solely in the sense that its so far unobserved directly and we imply it indirectly from observations of phenomena that we're looking for an explanation, it's not, except that as you well know "religion" implies so much more, and you use the word pejoratively for the sole reason that you know it annoys people. As usual, you can't help yourself. I don't know why you do that.

"Dark energy" is the name for a proposed cause, a constant that is (rather like the Higgs field in proposition) everywhere, a fundamental property of space-time. What it is, we don't know, but mathematically, since inflation as it seems to be happening (seems) is constant in all respects, logically if inflation its cause must also be constant, and so we can mathematically formulate what properties should be observed, implications that might be testable since direct detection of something so small would be beyond our current technology, and so on and so forth.

I hear you, that "technically" it's acceptable to do such things in GR in terms of the math, but in terms of empirical physics, it's a giant step backwards IMO.

Many mathematical formulations have preceded the actual observation (which has often not been 'in a lab', fyi), often well before the ability to observe it was even there (as it is with dark matter and cosmological constant theories). There's nothing unempirical about that.

What's worse IMO is that plasma redshift has already been documented in the lab and the "smoking gun" that kills your interpretation is the fact that the various wavelengths do not all arrive at the same time as "predicted" in an expansion theory. You're interpretation is pretty much in opposition to the empirical facts, where as a simple plasma redshift theory is not. There are even C# models now to "explain" the effect in plasma and they "correctly predict' the fact that various wavelengths are affected differently and arrive and different times.

You're beating this horse like a child with a new favorite toy...I'm examining this one closely. I'm not sure that 'discovery' is exactly what you think it is - I'm not sure even the original authors would agree with your extension of it, but I haven't had time to scrutinize it closer. I think you're drawing conclusions that aren't valid, but I'll back this up when I have some time.

 

[mkatzwork]

That's like asking me for a published citation as it applies to Godflation (or supernatural entity of choice). How would such a thing even exist?

You can't demonstrate that anything travels faster than the speed of light in a lab. Nothing could prevent Godflation, or any of the supernatural brands of inflation from otherwise violating the laws of physics as we know them.

No, it's not like that at all: and so we see your mistake wasn't a typo. Matter cannot travel faster than light as a derivation of special relativity, and you could have simply cited the 1905 paper. Still interested if you can show you understand why SR prohibits superluminal travel of information or matter...

Not citing the correct paper to answer such an easy question simply shows you don't even know the basics...

 

[Michael]

No, it's not like that at all: and so we see your mistake wasn't a typo. Matter cannot travel faster than light as a derivation of special relativity, and you could have simply cited the 1905 paper. Still interested if you can show you understand why SR prohibits superluminal travel of information or matter...

Not citing the correct paper to answer such an easy question simply shows you don't even know the basics...

First of all, it has nothing to do with a "typo" and everything to do with the fact that your creation mythos begins by putting all the mass/energy of an entire universe into a single "clump", smaller than the size of a single atom in most folks telling of the cute little story. *YOU* folks chose to start with a near singularity, a singular clump and special relativity. Don't blame me.

You're right that GR doesn't prevent you from using comoving coordinate systems and such, provided you can explain how your singular "clump" got from a single atom in size in SR to GR.

 

[mkatzwork]

First of all, it has nothing to do with a "typo" and everything to do with the fact that your creation mythos begins by putting all the mass/energy of an entire universe into a single "clump", smaller than the size of a single atom in most folks telling of the cute little story. *YOU* folks chose to start with a near singularity, a singular clump and special relativity. Don't blame me.

You're right that GR doesn't prevent you from using comoving coordinate systems and such, provided you can explain how your singular "clump" got from a single atom in size in SR to GR.

Hmmm...watching you wriggle away from your errors is entertaining.

You said:

Matter cannot travel faster than light according to GR.

Davian asked you:

"Citation please"

and you replied:

You can't demonstrate that anything travels faster than the speed of light in a lab. Nothing could prevent Godflation, or any of the supernatural brands of inflation from otherwise violating the laws of physics as we know them.

Which is an incorrect response. The correct response would have been:

"Oops - sorry, special relativity is the one that implies that matter or information cannot travel at superluminal speed, and it's the 1905 paper entitled On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies that you're looking for".

The notion that "you can't demonstrate that anything travels faster than the speed of light in a lab" is irrelevant and incorrect - the reason we have the idea is as a mathematical derivation of SR. There's no 'lab' involved, once again.

Trying to complain about the mind-bending ideas of singularities to obfuscate the issue is a little silly, especially when you're trying to veer us away from the fact that you don't seem to know what SR and GR actually say enough to differentiate between them.

Incidentally the singularity in most mathematical senses has no volume - 'size' is irrelevant since we don't have a unified theory of QM and gravity....but since you've not really read the material, I wouldn't expect you to know that.

 

[Michael]

Another extremely basic error, you're stacking them up in this thread.

That would be special relativity, not general.......and just to demonstrate if you want to claim it was a typo, which would be understandable - can you explain why SR prohibits the superluminal velocity of information or matter?

It would require an infinite amount of energy for anything with mass to achieve light speed. You're technically correct about the SR, GR issue, but you're the one mucking things up to start with by putting everything into a ONE area that is smaller than a breadbox.

Did you get locked in a lab as child or something?

No, I just have a special fondness for empirical physics.

Your obsession is repetitively boring.

The fact you're ignoring the fact that plasma redshift is a valid empirical alternative is likewise rather boring from my perspective.

Mercury has never orbited the sun in the lab either, yet GR (a mathematical idea) predicts its orbital peculiarities better than Newton's theories (also mathematical ideas). Things don't have to be "played with" in a lab with white coats on to make them valid ideas. You can and have repeated this notion a thousand times, it makes it no less wrong.

The difference is that I can personally feel and experience the effect of gravity on me. The mathematical model you choose to use to get to the moon, or to describe the universe is therefore no skin off my nose. When however you start stuffing magic energy into what was formerly a ZERO in GR, then I have a right to expect you to demonstrate that magic energy isn't a figment of your wild imagination.

So what happens when a neutron star reaches the Schwarzchild limits and collapses into a black hole - inducing the fairly sudden creation of a huge distortion in space-time itself where space-time itself clearly 'moves'? No space-time moving going on there??

That depends on whether you assume it actually collapses to a point of infinite density, or not.

Scientist says neutron stars, not bla... - Astronomy & Astrophysics - tribe.net

Or do you dispute that because "space does not move", according to you?

HINT: Your concept of 'move' is what is faulty here. No serious physicists (including pretty much all the ones who dislike inflation immensely) suggest that inflation's problem is that it violates SR because of space-time expanding superluminally. You're decades behind. Redefine 'move' in a relativistic sense, learn a bit about comoving coordinates, and you'll understand why inflation doesn't contradict SR...

Actually, the problem is very simple from my perspective. I already have an empirical solution to the problem. Plasma redshift has been documented in the lab. "Space expansion" never occurs in any lab. That only "appears" in one otherwise falsified cosmology theory that I have no use for in the first place.

I'll skip a bit and cut to the chase:

Well, solely in the sense that its so far unobserved directly and we imply it indirectly from observations of phenomena that we're looking for an explanation, it's not, except that as you well know "religion" implies so much more, and you use the word pejoratively for the sole reason that you know it annoys people. As usual, you can't help yourself. I don't know why you do that.

There 'should be' a significant difference between *physics* and religion in terms of what can be "tested". There isn't one in your belief system. It begins with 'faith' in something Guth called "inflation". Even though his brand was actually later falsified, the 'religion/faith' lived on anyway.

Dark energy was purely an "ad hoc" construct to save one otherwise falsified interpretation of the redshift phenomenon. It serves no other useful purpose whatsoever, because apparently it's more impotent on Earth than your average concept of God. I can't even test your concepts of inflation or 'dark energy' in any lab on Earth, but I have dreamed up some ways I might test my empirical concepts of "God". That's just "wrong" IMO that your cosmology beliefs are less empirically testable than a simple physical concept of "God".

"Dark energy" is the name for a proposed cause, a constant that is (rather like the Higgs field in proposition) everywhere, a fundamental property of space-time.

I've already cited a more likely "cause". It's called spectral broadening. It's been documented and applied to the issue and it has one very unique "prediction" that is going to sink your dark energy ship. It predicts that various wavelengths travel at different speeds through the plasma and that's what we do in fact observe. Time dilation prediction methods don't work to explain that feature.

What it is, we don't know, but mathematically, since inflation as it seems to be happening (seems) is constant in all respects, logically if inflation its cause must also be constant, and so we can mathematically formulate what properties should be observed, implications that might be testable since direct detection of something so small would be beyond our current technology, and so on and so forth.

What you don't seem to realize is that two years ago "current technology" (now old technology) demonstrated the effects of plasma redshift in the lab. They also determined that number of free electrons determined the rate of redshift. I can kill two metaphysical birds now with a single empirical stone. I don't have any use for dead inflation sky entities or invisible sky entities of any sort. Why on Earth would I choose such a "religion" over a form of pure empirical physics?

Many mathematical formulations have preceded the actual observation (which has often not been 'in a lab', fyi), often well before the ability to observe it was even there (as it is with dark matter and cosmological constant theories). There's nothing unempirical about that.

That's true. Tired light/plasma redshift theory could not be demonstrated in a lab back in Hubble's day. Doppler redshift *could* be demonstrated in a lab. That gave expansion theory a leg up for a time. Now that the tables have turned however, there is no need for any of the ad hoc entities of mainstream theory, and there is one sure fire 'test' of the theory in terms of the propagation speed of various wavelengths.

If you expect me to take your beliefs seriously, I strongly suggest you make the time to checkout the links I provided. Not only has plasma redshift been documented in the lab, it's been successfully applied to cosmology theory by Ashmore and many other authors over the years.

FYI, plasma redshift, a “prediction” of many Plasma Cosmology/Electric Universe models has now been confirmed in the lab.
ScienceDirect.com - Optik - International Journal for Light and Electron Optics - Investigation of the mechanism of spectral emission and redshifts of atomic line in laser-induced plasmas

These results do fit with a number of “tired light” proposals including one by Lyndon Ashmore who cites that Chen paper and explains how it relates to his ‘New Tired Light’ theory and cosmology.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0010v1.pdf

Herman Holushko has published C# code using these plasma redshift/tired light models to explain why light of various wavelengths is broadened and why they arrive at different times.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1203.0062v1.pdf

The ‘prediction’ that wavelengths travel at different speeds though the plasmas of spacetime have also been confirmed in recent years.
UC Davis News & Information :: Gamma Ray Delay May Be Sign of 'New Physics'

As of this moment in time I have absolutely no need, nor any use for dead inflation entities, impotent on Earth dark energy, or any other mythological forms of matter or energy of any sort. I have a "better" empirical solution to the problem which more "correctly predicts" the wavelength separation that occurs in plasma over distance. I therefore can't even think of any logical reason to ever look back in terms of young universe creationism. It seems absolutely childish from my vantage point today, almost as bad as you probably feel about YEC. There seems to be all kinds of emotional attachment to *one* particular way of subjectively interpreting the redshift data, and a lot of collective burying of heads in the sand over the speed propagation issues that will eventually overturn BB theory IMO.

 

[Michael]

Hmmm...watching you wriggle away from your errors is entertaining.

No, I'll cop to the fact I "should have" said "SR" not "GR".

Care to admit you can't get space to do any magic expanding tricks in the lab yet and new observations from the lab of plasma redshift makes the concept unnecessary and therefore obsolete?

 

[Michael]

http://www.holushko.net/tiredlight.html

You'll find the C# code at the bottom of this page.

 

[mkatzwork]

No, I'll cop to the fact I "should have" said "SR" not "GR".

Ok, I'll stop haranguing you on that, and wait for your next basic error. ;-)

Care to admit you can't get space to do any magic expanding tricks in the lab yet and new observations from the lab of plasma redshift makes the concept unnecessary and therefore obsolete?

Can you point me to the lab where Einstein formulated SR? No?

Can you then admit that scientific ideas can be valid and be "lab-free"? At least just say 'experimentally' instead of hammering that dead "lab" horse more and more. It's just painful to watch an intelligent person fall back on something you've obviously coined as a slogan, a soundbite designed purely to bamboozle the ill-informed.

Incidentally, I'm getting more and more sure that you're drawing unsubstantiated conclusions from the 'one' paper you have (you do only just have one, right...?).

Might email the original authors to check, but I'll do my best to do without that. I have a lot of work at the moment which makes it hard to read it in depth but I'll get it to it as soon as I can.

You still haven't shown, even if you could show that this one experiment demonstrates 'plasma redshift' on the small scale (which I'm not sure it does in the sense you'd like it to), why on big scales the problems that we've cited many times - almost complete blurring of distant galaxies, for example - are avoided, for example, on a cosmological scale.

 

[Michael]

Ok, I'll stop haranguing you on that, and wait for your next basic error.

You do that. If that's the best you can do, your belief systems related to cosmology are toast.

Can you point me to the lab where Einstein formulated SR? No?

Can you then admit that scientific ideas can be valid and be "lab-free"?

It's one thing to 'formulate' ideas without a lab, it's another thing entirely to formulate ideas that defy validation in any lab on Earth. With or without Newton's ideas to replace (or not), Einstein provided enough evidence that gravity exists to validate his quantification of that phenomenon and test those aspects of his quantification on Earth in a lab on Earth. Admittedly the lab results didn't provide definitive results to choose between Newton's ideas and Einstein's ideas, but many parts of Einstein's maths were testable here there on lil' Ol' Earth.

Inflation on the other hand was killed off by it's creator in the very event in which it was created, never to be seen again. Dark energy is such a big wimp on Earth, it has no "testable" predictions in the lab, (unlike tired light theory), no defined source, and no use whatsoever outside of *one* cosmology theory.

At least just say 'experimentally' instead of hammering that dead "lab" horse more and more. It's just painful to watch an intelligent person fall back on something you've obviously coined as a slogan, a soundbite designed purely to bamboozle the ill-informed.

FYI, I started by using the term "experiment" years ago, but I learned rather quickly that astronomers don't know the difference between an actual experiment with actual control mechanisms and an "observation" that includes all sorts of subjective *interpretations*. I changed my lingo to "simplify* the conversations. I did in fact intentionally 'dumb it down' to a standard that nobody was confused by.

You still haven't shown, even if you could show that this one experiment demonstrates 'plasma redshift' on the small scale (which I'm not sure it does in the sense you'd like it to), why on big scales the problems that we've cited many times - almost complete blurring of distant galaxies, for example - are avoided, for example, on a cosmological scale.

I haven't avoided any of that. I've provided you with links to Ashmore's work where he applies Chen's work directly to his model. I have also provided you with links to C# code that are based upon tired light concepts that address all the same observations that are typically used to support expansion claims. I've gone through the 'website slam jobs' of unpublished material related to tired light theories and addressed the points that I could address like that bogus claim about loss of momentum equating to blurring rather than redshift. What more can I do?

I'm sorry, but now that the cat is out of the bag over the speed propagation problems of mainstream models, it's going to be very hard to convince me that the mainstream's sky entities have any value whatsoever.

You might also note that the neutron star paper by Manuel et all predicts higher energy emissions from neutron stars than is typically associated with them, and indeed that has now been observed as well.

MAGIC - Discovery of Pulsed VHE Gamma-Rays from Crab

The pulsar at the heart of the famous Crab nebula is bursting with energy. This was just confirmed by the MAGIC (Major Atmospheric Gamma-Ray Imaging Cherenkov) collaboration operating two large telescopes on the Canary island La Palma. The MAGIC telescopes have been used to observe the pulsar in gamma rays above 50 GeV, an inaccessible energy for most high energy instruments, and have detected periodic pulsed emission at energies as high as 400 GeV. This is 50-100 times higher than predicted by current theoretical models.

 

[mkatzwork]

It's one thing to 'formulate' ideas without a lab, it's another thing entirely to formulate ideas that defy validation in any lab on Earth.

Can you validate the orbit of Pluto (which has never been completely observed) in a lab on Earth with anything other than the mathematics?

 

[Michael]

Can you validate the orbit of Pluto (which has never been completely observed) in a lab on Earth with anything other than the mathematics?

IMO you're still ignoring the key difference between gravity an inflation. Gravity shows up in labs on Earth whereas inflation does not. You're essentially ignoring the difference between pure qualification of concept (showing that something actually exists and has a tangible effect on things) and quantification that might allow you to choose between competing ideas for the very same *qualified* concept. The various mathematical models of gravity simply allow us to chose which mathematical models are superior, they don't help us "qualify' the concept of the existence of gravity at all.

I know with absolutely certainty that gravity exists in nature because it exists here on Earth and has a tangible effect on me at the moment. The fact I'm sticking to my chair is all the demonstration that I need to accept the fact that gravity is real. I don't care if you use Newton's or Einstein's mathematical formulas to fly around inside of our solar system. One will simply be a bit more "precise" than the other but both maths will probably suffice for most applications.

Inflation and dark energy on the other hand are utterly incapable of having any tangible effect on anything outside of one cosmology theory. That's more akin to "religion" than to "physics", unlike the plasma redshift observation which is pure physics.

 

[Split Rock]

Yet another thread derailed by Michael into an argument over Inflation, Dark Matter and "The Electric Universe."

 

[Michael]

Yet another thread derailed by Michael into an argument over Inflation, Dark Matter and "The Electric Universe."

Unfortunately, I think you're right.

I'll try to come up with a few new tricks, and I'll try harder to keep conversations in their correct threads.

The original point that I was trying to make is that any physical theory that attempts to explain "soul" is at least as 'scientific' as many mainstream branches of "science", including cosmology theories and quantum mechanics. Even non standard branches of particle physics research are based on 'faith in the unseen' (in the lab). The fact that soul has yet to be observed in the lab is not evidence that it does not exist. That same criticism was true for the Higgs boson until just recently, and even that isn't an "absolute certainty" yet.

http://www.tecca.com/news/2012/07/10/higgs-boson-imposter-ian-low/

 

[Davian]

That's like asking me for a published citation as it applies to <snip rant>

No, it is not. You are making references to GR/SR, and I am asking you to cite specifically what you are referring to in GR/SR, as they apply to inflation theory, or retract.

 

[Michael]

No, it is not. You are making references to GR/SR, and I am asking you to cite specifically what you are referring to in GR/SR, as they apply to inflation theory, or retract.

Since I already copped to my original error (SR rather than GR imposes limits on the speed of objects with mass), and you still have no way to demonstrate that inflation has any effect on matter, I'm not exactly sure what exactly you expect me to retract?

I see no empirical connection whatsoever between GR theory and inflation, Godflation, magicflation, or dark energy for that matter. Stuffing GR full of metaphysical constructs isn't exactly useful IMO.

 

[Davian]

Since I already copped to my original error (SR rather than GR imposes limits on the speed of objects with mass), and you still have no way to demonstrate that inflation has any effect on matter, I'm not exactly sure what exactly you expect me to retract?

Show where SR applies to inflation theory.

I see no empirical connection whatsoever between GR theory and inflation, Godflation, magicflation, or dark energy for that matter. Stuffing GR full of metaphysical constructs isn't exactly useful IMO.

My mistake then; I assumed you were familiar with GR and inflation theory.