Relativity

[Loudmouth]

It's still an appeal to authority claim that defies empirical support.

False. The authorities continually point to the evidence for support.

Whereas moving objects and inelastic scatter *do* have empirical effects on photons, your supernatural invisible stuff has *zero* effect on a photon in a lab.

It does in this lab:

GR can model an expanding, a contracting, and even a *static* universe. It can model any of those scenarios, not just *one* of them!

So the universe can expand, according to GR, correct?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

False. The authorities continually point to the evidence for support.

What evidence? Electrodynamic moving bodies, like E told them was there?

So the universe can expand, according to GR, correct?[/quote]

It can contract as well, GR declares that it is neither expanding, nor contracting. GR does not predict dark matter. GR does not predict black holes. GR does not predict neutron stars. GR does not predict any of your Fairie Dust you need to make it fit anywhere but in this solar system.

Such a sad religion you follow, that denies it's very creator.

 

[Loudmouth]

What evidence?

Already given to you multiple times.

It can contract as well,

It can expand as well, correct? Just a yes or no will do.

GR declares that it is neither expanding, nor contracting.

GR says that space can expand, correct?

GR does not predict dark matter.

Then why do you keep going on about it in a thread about relativity?

 

[essentialsaltes]

GR does not predict ... GR does not predict ... GR does not predict ... GR does not predict ...

Newtonian physics does not predict baseball. But that is not evidence that baseball doesn't exist. The important thing is that Newtonian physics allows for baseball. Similarly, GR allows for the things you have named, and other empirical evidence is used to support their existence.

 

[Michael]

False. The authorities continually point to the evidence for support.

Your so called authorities haven't a clue where dark energy comes from, nor can they explain a way to "control" dark energy in a lab. Their entire so called "evidence" amounts to a pure affirming the consequent fallacy with invisible supernatural friends. Worse yet, their menagerie of supernatural entities are more impotent on Earth than your average concept of "God".

It does in this lab:

Sorry, but that's only a telescope that is utterly devoid of any ability to "control" anything in spacetime. You never did understand the difference between empirical experimentation with real control mechanisms, and pure observation.

So the universe can expand, according to GR, correct?

Assuming you stuff the right supernatural garbage into that formula, you can get it to do just about anything. I hear that the new supernatural curvatons are all set to "save the day" in terms of supposedly "explaining" all those PLANCK anomalies. If three supernatural claims aren't enough, you folks just add a few more.

I'm sure you could get GR to play tennis with enough supernatural entities.

 

[Michael]

It can contract as well, GR declares that it is neither expanding, nor contracting. GR does not predict dark matter. GR does not predict black holes. GR does not predict neutron stars. GR does not predict any of your Fairie Dust you need to make it fit anywhere but in this solar system.

I've come to realize that all their claims about "predicting" things with their theory is pure nonsense. GR doesn't *predict* any of their nonsense. Furthermore, GR theory can be *abused* to "predict" anything and everything. Inflation never "predicted" a homogenous layout of matter, it *postdicted* that claim from *observation*. Their entire claim about GR "predicting" anything, or their supernatural entities "predicting' anything is pure false advertizing. Dark energy wasn't even a 'prediction' at all, it was a "postdicted ad hoc fit" to supposedly 'explain" a supernova data set. Nothing about their claims is actually "predicted" based on physics. It's composed of *postdicted* claims based on *postdicted* observation.

Such a sad religion you follow, that denies it's very creator.

Indeed.

 

[Michael]

What evidence?

What they mean by the term 'evidence' is that they intend to pull a pure affirming the consequent fallacy with a trio of invisible, impotent on Earth, friends while pointing at the sky.

Honestly, no other branch of "physics" would dare pull a stunt like this.

Even though every major SUSY theory blew up in their face in LHC data, astronomers continue to point at the sky and claim that SUSY particles emit positrons and bend light. Their *entire* game is one giant affirming the consequent fallacy, from beginning to end. Worse yet, they simply *lie* to the public about the actual results of their claims. SUSY theories didn't "pass" the mathematical test or physics tests at LHC. They got *destroyed* by the handful. SUSY theory even failed it's so called "golden test" at LHC. It's therefore completely and utterly irrational for astronomers to continue to point at the sky and claim that SUSY particles did this, and SUSY particles did that and SUSY particles do things at all!

 

[Michael]

Newtonian physics does not predict baseball. But that is not evidence that baseball doesn't exist. The important thing is that Newtonian physics allows for baseball. Similarly, GR allows for the things you have named, and other empirical evidence is used to support their existence.

But you really aren't providing any 'empirical evidence' to support your claim. It's one big, gigantic affirming the consequent fallacy.

You can't get "space" to do any "expanding" in a lab on Earth. You can't get inflation or dark energy to "redshift" a single photon in a lab. You can't get SUSY theory to even pass it's own "golden test", let alone have any tangible effect on a photon in a real experiment. There is absolutely no empirical link between redshift, or light manipulation and *any* of your claims. It's only when you *lump them all together* into a single supernatural frankenstein of a theory, and point at the sky with an affirming the consequent fallacy, that any so called 'evidence' shows up!

Of course those various anomalies in the PLANCK data set do not actually support your theory, so here we go again with a *new* supernatural ad hoc claim that must now be added to your host of unsupported claims to supposedly 'fit' the data set!

Honestly, Lambda-CDM is a *pure embarrassment* to physics at this point. The only part of it that could be tested in real experimentation was the CDM claim, and that got *fried* at LHC.

That hasn't stopped your industry from pointing at the sky and claiming that various SUSY particles do things in space, from emitting positrons and gamma ray photons, to bending light.

None of your claims actually enjoy empirical experimental support in the lab.

Meanwhile moving objects and inelastic scattering *can* and have been linked to photon redshift in the lab, and every new bit of matter "discovered" over the past 7 years has been in the form of ordinary plasma and dust.

 

[essentialsaltes]

But you really aren't providing any 'empirical evidence' to support your claim.

Gravitational time dilation.
Bending of light by gravity. Both by the sun and by distant galaxies.
The anomalous precession of Mercury.
Gravitational redshift.

All of these are empirical evidence that support General Relativity as the best existing explanation for these phenomena. This has immediate implications for our understanding of gravity and the large-scale structure and dynamics of space and time.

However, GR does not provide one single unique theory. There are various constants that need to be determined experimentally.

Newtonian physics doesn't tell us the mass of a baseball. But if you know the mass of the bat, and run some 'experiments', you can determine the mass of the ball.

The empirical evidence from astronomy helps us pick out the particular constants that best describe the universe we live in. This task yielded some surprising results. But they are unavoidable without modifying the theory in some other way (which is another task that people are actively working on).

But sticking ordinary matter and fields (which have positive pressure in GR) into the GR equation is not going to work.

 

[Michael]

Gravitational time dilation.
Bending of light by gravity. Both by the sun and by distant galaxies.
The anomalous precession of Mercury.
Gravitational redshift.

That's fine, it's supports GR in a *general sense*, but none of that requires "space expansion", nor does it demonstrate any of your claims related to photon redshift caused by "space expansion".

All of these are empirical evidence that support General Relativity as the best existing explanation for these phenomena. This has immediate implications for our understanding of gravity and the large-scale structure and dynamics of space and time.

Ok, I'm fine with that logic. Then again, none of that requires "space expansion".

However, GR does not provide one single unique theory. There are various constants that need to be determined experimentally.

Experimentally speaking however, all my claims and concepts of GR work in the lab.

Newtonian physics doesn't tell us the mass of a baseball. But if you know the mass of the bat, and run some 'experiments', you can determine the mass of the ball.

The empirical evidence from astronomy helps us pick out the particular constants that best describe the universe we live in. This task yielded some surprising results. But they are unavoidable without modifying the theory in some other way (which is another task that people are actively working on).

But sticking ordinary matter and fields (which have positive pressure in GR) into the GR equation is not going to work.

I don't *know* that. I see little evidence that much work has been done on various types of inelastic scattering in various plasma conditions, nor do I see any evidence of the inclusion of EM fields into your calculations.

Without such things, I have no evidence at all that these ideas won't work, particularly since charged objects (like plasma and cathode suns) tend to repel. We could easily see a scenario where gravity basically holds everything together, and EM fields help to "stabilize" the process and keep it from imploding.

In an "expanding objects" scenario, it's not even necessary to keep it from imploding.

IMO the Achilles heal of your entire claim is that you've allowed for *zero* inelastic scattering in plasma over *billions of light years* of distance. Talk about miracles.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I don't *know* that. I see little evidence that much work has been done on various types of inelastic scattering in various plasma conditions

Scattering is not going to have much effect on the large-scale structure of spacetime. It would add some complexity to the equation of state used for the matter that you stick into the stress-energy tensor. Have at it.

nor do I see any evidence of the inclusion of EM fields into your calculations.

I previously showed you the Maxwell stress-energy tensor, which accounts for any E and B fields you'd like to make. It has positive pressure.

I have no evidence at all that these ideas won't work

Well, since you won't take my word for it, maybe you should try to make them work. Otherwise, all you're doing is rejecting the scientific consensus, and then trumpeting an alternative you haven't even investigated. You just hope you say 'plasma' enough and it will all work.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your so called authorities haven't a clue where dark energy comes from, nor can they explain a way to "control" dark energy in a lab.

They do point to evidence showing an expansion of space, as well as an acceleration of that expansion. They point to evidence of dark matter as well, such as the bullet cluster:

August 21, 2006 - Dark Matter Observed: Most Direct Measurement of Dark Matter Allows Study of its Nature - Press Release

Dark energy is the hypothetical construct that scientists are currently testing as a cause for the OBSERVED accelerating expansion. Whether dark energy turns out to be wrong or right has little to do with the observation that the universe is expanding.

Their entire so called "evidence" amounts to a pure affirming the consequent fallacy with invisible supernatural friends.

False. It has to do with testing hypotheses and having those hypotheses pass those tests. It's called the scientific method. You should look into it.

Worse yet, their menagerie of supernatural entities are more impotent on Earth than your average concept of "God".

Accelerating expansion is observed.

Sorry, but that's only a telescope that is utterly devoid of any ability to "control" anything in spacetime.

It doesn't need to in order to test for the expansion of spacetime.

You never did understand the difference between empirical experimentation with real control mechanisms, and pure observation.

No, that would be you. You still don't understand how experiments work, and every one of your posts demonstrates that.

Assuming you stuff the right supernatural garbage into that formula, you can get it to do just about anything.

Expansion is an observation.

 

[Michael]

Scattering is not going to have much effect on the large-scale structure of spacetime. It would add some complexity to the equation of state used for the matter that you stick into the stress-energy tensor. Have at it.

As Holushko's paper demonstrated, it can make the difference between expansion and a static universe. Of course it doesn't have to have that large of any effect to do away with the need for 'dark energy'. That alone would get rid of about 70 percent of your metaphysics in one fell swoop.

I previously showed you the Maxwell stress-energy tensor, which accounts for any E and B fields you'd like to make. It has positive pressure.

It has positive pressure compared to *what*? All vacuums contain *positive* pressure.

 

[essentialsaltes]

As Holushko's paper demonstrated

What paper is this? Holushko is a relativity denier. I doubt any paper he wrote

1) uses general relativity
2) was published in a peer-reviewed journal

It has positive pressure compared to *what*?

Compared to what? Compared to zero. That's what the word positive means.
The measurement that the universe is accelerating requires negative (i.e. less than zero) pressure in the stress-energy tensor. Ordinary matter and fields don't behave like that.

 

[Michael]

They do point to evidence showing an expansion of space,

Your entire argument begins with an affirming the consequent fallacy. You don't have experimental evidence to suggest that "space" does any expansion tricks. Space certainly doesn't *expand* in the lab.

You then *claim* that there's some "special" place, somewhere that humans can *never* reach, that does some magic kind of expansion. You're trying to provide *evidence* of your claim from an *uncontrolled* observation, when *other empirical* alternatives already exist! It's akin to me claiming that "God did it" in relationship to that very same redshift pattern. You can't demonstrate your space expansion god exists, or that it has an effect on a photon. It's one giant affirming the consequent fallacy.

as well as an acceleration of that expansion.

You can't demonstrate that claim either. It's a two for one supernatural claim. First you claim "space" (physically undefined) does an expansion trick, and now you're telling me that "dark energy" makes space "accelerate". You've turned the term *space* into a supernatural demigod.

They point to evidence of dark matter as well, such as the bullet cluster:

We already know how badly the mainstream botched the mass estimates of galaxies. There's only evidence from that data that your galaxy mass estimates of normal matter aren't worth the paper they are printed on. But we already knew that:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/H-12-331.html

Dark energy is the hypothetical construct that scientists are currently testing as a cause for the OBSERVED accelerating expansion.

Your claim is absolutely no better than claiming "dark God did it"! Its just another *perfect* example of an affirming the consequent fallacy.

Whether dark energy turns out to be wrong or right has little to do with the observation that the universe is expanding.

Even your unsupported claim that it's expanding is dubious.

False. It has to do with testing hypotheses and having those hypotheses pass those tests. It's called the scientific method. You should look into it.

Bah! Your original BB theory *failed* it's 'test' in the supernova data set. You then *made up* more gap filler to "fix' your otherwise falsified theory. The PLANCK data anomalies *destroy* your claims about a homogenous layout of matter too, and the entire industry either A) ignores it, or B) invents a new supernatural ad hoc metaphysical gap filler and away they go. Every single *failure* of your theory is but another excuse to load it up with more and more supernatural junk.

Accelerating expansion is observed.

False. Redshift has been observed. The rest of your claim is purely subjective nonsense.

It doesn't need to in order to test for the expansion of spacetime.

Your religion is just goofy supernatural nonsense. It's akin to me claiming that same telescope sees "God" in the form of "God energy", "God matter" and "Godflation". You really don't know the difference between real experiments with real control mechanisms and an uncontrolled observation followed by *pure dogmatic* leaps of faith that you invented in your head.

You can't link "space expansion" to photon redshift. You can't link "dark energy" to photon redshift. You can't empirically link "inflation" to photon redshift. All three claims are pure affirming the consequent fallacies.

No, that would be you. You still don't understand how experiments work, and every one of your posts demonstrates that.

Sorry, but I *do* know that Doppler redshift works in the lab. I do know that inelastic scattering causes photon redshift too *in the lab*, in various experiments.

I know that your supernatural constructs are more impotent on Earth than your average *theistic* claim. You'd have to compare your religion to a type of "disinterested deism".

Expansion is an observation.

Expansion of objects is an observation you can repeat in the lab. Expansion of space only works in *one* religious dogma, certainly not in any labs on Earth. Your dark sky trio is utterly impotent on Earth.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your entire argument begins with an affirming the consequent fallacy. You don't have experimental evidence to suggest that "space" does any expansion tricks.

We do have that evidence, and you keep ignoring it.

Space certainly doesn't *expand* in the lab.

Expansion is seen in this lab:

You then *claim* that there's some "special" place, somewhere that humans can *never* reach, that does some magic kind of expansions.

Are you telling us that we can't observe distant galaxies? You have heard of telescopes, haven't you?

You're trying to provide *evidence* of your claim from an *uncontrolled* observation,

False. Those observations are controlled. All of the equipment is run through controls to make sure they are recording the wavelengths accurately. There are also experimental controls where you measure the amount of redshift for stars that are gravitationally bound to the observer. All of these are controls, and they satisfy the requirements of the scientific method.

when *other empirical* alternative already exist!

No, they don't.

"Tired-Light" Hypothesis Gets Re-Tired | Science/AAAS | News

"There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed. The Compton shift in particular does not work. "
Errors in Tired Light Cosmology

It's akin to me claiming "God did it" in relationship to that redshift pattern.

No, it isn't. The expansion is observed.

You can't demonstrate that claim either.

Yes, I can, and have.

The Dark Energy Survey

The acceleration is an observation.

First you claim "space" (physically undefined) does an expansion trick,

I supplied the evidence, as do physicists and astronomers. It is not our fault that you run away from the evidence.

and now you're telling me that "dark energy" makes space "accelerate".

No, I am telling you that the evidence demonstrates that the expansion is accelerating.

We already know how badly the mainstream botched the mass estimates of galaxies. There's only evidence from that data that your galaxy mass estimates of normal matter aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

Empty claims.

Your claim is absolutely no better than claiming "dark God did it"! Its just another *perfect* example of an affirming the consequent fallacy.

It is better because I have the evidence to back it.

Bah! Your original BB theory *failed* it's 'test' in the supernova data set. You then *made up* more gap filler to "fix' your otherwise falsified theory. The PLANCK data anomalies *destroy* your claims about a homogenous layout of matter too, and the entire industry either A) ignores it, or B) invents a new supernatural ad hoc metaphysical gap filler and away they go. Ever *failure* of your theory is but another excuse to load it up with more and more supernatural junk.

More crackpot blabber.

False. Redshift has been observed.

Yes, which is evidence for expansion along with many other tests that also confirm expansion.

"Tired-Light" Hypothesis Gets Re-Tired | Science/AAAS | News

The rest of your claim is purely subjective nonsense.

The rest of your post is you trying to run away from the observations.

[qutoe]Your religion is just goofy supernatural nonsense.[/quote]

Nope, based on observations that you have to run away from.

You can't link "space expansion" to photon redshift.

Yes we can, and have.

"Tired-Light" Hypothesis Gets Re-Tired | Science/AAAS | News

Sorry, but I *do* know that Doppler redshift works in the lab.

We also know that the expansion of space will produce redshift.

[qutoe]I know that your supernatural constructs are more impotent on Earth than your average *theistic* claim. You'd have to compare your religion to a type of "disinterested deism". [/quote]

More crackpot blather.

Expansion of objects is an observation you can repeat in the lab. Expansion of space only works in *one* religious dogma, certainly not in any labs on Earth. Your dark sky trio is utterly impotent on Earth.

And then the bait and switch. You replace spacetime with objects, and then you falsely claim that expansion has not been observed in labs with telescopes.

 

[Michael]

What paper is this?

http://www.holushko.net/download/TiredLightAndSupernovae.pdf

Holushko is a relativity denier. I doubt any paper he wrote

1) uses general relativity
2) was published in a peer-reviewed journal

You don't need GR to demonstrate tired light principles, and you're right on point 2 AFAIK.

Compared to what? Compared to zero. That's what the word positive means.
The measurement that the universe is accelerating requires negative (i.e. less than zero) pressure in the stress-energy tensor. Ordinary matter and fields don't behave like that.

If I take two objects and charge them, I can get them to either A) attract each other or B) repulse each other. They "behave" anyway I want them to behave in terms of the effect of the charge on the movement of the objects.

 

[Loudmouth]

http://www.holushko.net/download/TiredLightAndSupernovae.pdf

That is not a peer reviewed paper.

You don't need GR to demonstrate tired light principles, and you're right on point 2 AFAIK.

You do need inelastic scattering to not scatter. It does scatter. Therefore, it can not produce the observations we make.

 

[Michael]

We do have that evidence, and you keep ignoring it.

You have one gigantic affirming the consequent fallacy based on *three* unsupported (in the lab) claims. Space doesn't expand in the lab. Inflation doesn't cause space to expand in the lab (0 for 2). Dark energy doesn't cause space expansion to accelerate (0 for 3 demonstrated claims). You're trying to stuff *all three* unsupported claims into *one* otherwise *empirically dead* theory and you're claiming the one observation supports *all three* of your claims *simultaneously* no less!

Give it a rest. That's not 'evidence', that's *bad* supernatural dogma on a stick!

Expansion is seen in this lab:

The only thing seen in that telescope is inelastic scattering that results in redshifted photons.

Are you telling us that we can't observe distant galaxies? You have heard of telescopes, haven't you?

I've heard of inelastic scattering and moving object too. So what? You've yet to demonstrate space expands *in* galaxies, *or* between them.

False. Those observations are controlled.

False. You aren't controlling dark energy. You aren't controlling anything.

No, they don't.

Yes they do.

http://www.holushko.net/download/TiredLightAndSupernovae.pdf

"There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed.

That line is A) not published, and B) distant objects *are blurred*!

No, it isn't. The expansion is observed.

Nope, just redshift.

This is nothing but a pure rehash that clearly demonstrates that you don't know what a real *experiment* actually is, nor do you have a clue what a *control mechanism* might be.

You can't *control* dark energy, inflation, or 'space expansion' in any experiment on Earth, or anywhere else.

 

[Michael]

That is not a peer reviewed paper.

Your stupid quote from Ned wasn't published in a peer reviewed paper either! Oy Vey.

You do need inelastic scattering to not scatter. It does scatter. Therefore, it can not produce the observations we make.

When you can show me a Z>10 object that isn't blurred, you let me know. Until then you're just dreaming.