createdtoworship
In the grip of grace
- Mar 13, 2004
- 18,941
- 1,758
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I imagine these same people would think Gene Ray an idiot savant.
Check him out, he's right up your alley.never heard of him, sorry to disappoint.
Citation please, as it applies to inflation theory.Matter cannot travel faster than light according to GR,
Other than your own protestations, on what do you base this 'in the lab' expectation for inflation theory?and "space" never does any magic expanding tricks in the lab.
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?
Matter cannot travel faster than light according to GR
and "space" never does any magic expanding tricks in the lab.
Objects move, but "space" does not
The problem as I see things, is that "Godenergy" and "Godflation" isn't "incompatible" with GR theory either.
I mean if you're going to stuff GR full of metaphysical entities, how is it then any different from a "religion"?
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.
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.
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...
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.
Michael said:Matter cannot travel faster than light according to GR.
Michael said: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.
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?
No, I just have a special fondness for empirical physics.Did you get locked in a lab as child or something?
The fact you're ignoring the fact that plasma redshift is a valid empirical alternative is likewise rather boring from my perspective.Your obsession is repetitively boring.
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.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.
That depends on whether you assume it actually collapses to a point of infinite density, or 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??
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.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...
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.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.
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."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 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?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.
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.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.
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?
Ok, I'll stop haranguing you on that, and wait for your next basic error.
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.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"?
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.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.
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?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.
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.
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?
Yet another thread derailed by Michael into an argument over Inflation, Dark Matter and "The Electric Universe."
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.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.
Show where SR applies to inflation theory.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?
My mistake then; I assumed you were familiar with GR and 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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?