Relativity

[Michael]

More crackpot blabber.

Your use of the term "crackpot" is akin to me calling you "evil" in post after post. It's a pointless personal insult that doesn't absolve you from having to demonstrate your claims *empirically* in *controlled* experimentation. If you can't demonstrate your claims in controlled experimentation, then it's a *statement of faith* on your part, nothing more. Your dogma is more impotent on Earth than most religions, *by design*.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You don't need GR to demonstrate...

You do if you're trying to take part in the same conversation I'm having. Let's recap:

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

you: I don't *know* that.

me: Scattering is not going to have much effect on the large-scale structure of spacetime. [i.e. in GR]

you: As Holushko's paper demonstrated, it can make the difference between expansion and a static universe.



Holushko rejects relativity and rejects expansion, and then (in order to explain away the redshift) tries to cobble together a tired light scenario.

You can barely bring yourself to accept Einstein as an authority on whether or not GR allows for the metric expansion of space, and then you turn around and point to a non-peer-reviewed paper by a crank.

If I take two objects and charge them, I can get them to either A) attract each other or B) repulse each other.

Whooptidoo. The question on the table is what causes space to expand and accelerate in GR. And the answer is something that exhibits negative pressure, and such a thing cannot be made of ordinary matter and fields.

If you want to abandon GR, that's fine with me. You'll just have to come up with alternate explanations for Mercury, lensing, time dilation...

But you can't accept the predictions of GR that you like, and reject the ones that you don't.

 

[TheBear]

What is this, a tag-team game or a discussion? I mean, really. Speak for yourselves and address the topic from your own, individual perspective. All this "ask them" and "we" and "they'll say", and all that goes with it, is quite immature and childish.

Is that concept too hard to get you're heads around?

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Plasma redshift has been falsified from one end to the other. It is not an explanation for the observations.

Expansion does fit the observations.

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

And you are just running away from the evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your use of the term "crackpot" is akin to me calling you "evil" in post after post. It's a pointless personal insult that doesn't absolve you from having to demonstrate your claims *empirically* in *controlled* experimentation. If you can't demonstrate your claims in controlled experimentation, then it's a *statement of faith* on your part, nothing more. Your dogma is more impotent on Earth than most religions, *by design*.

That is the crackpot blather I am talking about. Only crackpots ignore evidence gathered outside the arbitrary confines of a building. That is what makes you a crackpot.

I also point to real world observations, and you call it a statement of faith. That is another piece of crackpot blather.

 

[Michael]

You do if you're trying to take part in the same conversation I'm having. Let's recap:

Um, *you* are the only one claiming that cosmic redshift is *necessarily* related to GR, not me. Tired light theory is technically not related to GR, rather it's it's related to distance and/or potentially wavelength. We seem to be having *two* separate conversations, one related to GR (charged object repulsion) and one not (inelastic scattering).

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

Are you claiming that you won't get object repulsion if both objects have the same charge?

Holushko rejects relativity and rejects expansion, and then (in order to explain away the redshift) tries to cobble together a tired light scenario.

He technically isn't rejecting GR (at least not in that paper), he's simply describing the maths related to the supernova data set based on tired light principles.

You can barely bring yourself to accept Einstein as an authority on whether or not GR allows for the metric expansion of space,

Ultimately I don't accept *any* authority figure based upon what they "say", but rather based upon what they can actually *do* in controlled experimentation. Einstein rejected QM. Why should I hold him up as some sort of infallible figure? On the other hand many of his ideas have been proven to be true based on active experimentation. Why in the world would I reject those ideas?

and then you turn around and point to a non-peer-reviewed paper by a crank.

The whole "crank/crackpot" routine is akin to me labeling you folks "evil" for not agreeing with me on the topic of God. It's only purpose is to smear the individual.

It's simply *a* paper that includes math and addresses the topic directly.

Whooptidoo. The question on the table is what causes space to expand and accelerate in GR.

I was addressing your *need* for expansion to occur in the first place. It's apparently just an *emotional* requirement to start with.

I was *also* talking about the fact that you blatantly *left out* the EM field effects of charged objects in GR, specifically their ability to *repel* each other. Two different issues.

And the answer is something that exhibits negative pressure, and such a thing cannot be made of ordinary matter and fields.

But you haven't explained *why* it cannot be made of ordinary EM fields, specifically fields that *repulse* one another? I can use charge to attract or repulse various objects. Two "repulsive" objects will cause each other to separate, effectively increasing the *space* between them.

If you want to abandon GR, that's fine with me. You'll just have to come up with alternate explanations for Mercury, lensing, time dilation...

I don't have any emotional need (nor desire) to abandon GR, just blunder theory. I don't doubt time wiggles in real experiments, but I've yet to see you demonstrate that space wobbles in real experiments. That's an "optional" claim in GR that has no effect on the rest of GR.

But you can't accept the predictions of GR that you like, and reject the ones that you don't.

I can however accept any claims from any theory that *do show up in the lab* and reject the ones that don't. You seem to think GR, including your blunder variation is an *all or nothing* proposition. It's not.

It's also *not* my fault you started with a singular "clump" of stuff (SR rather than GR), and it's not my fault you cannot demonstrate *some* of your very specific claims about GR.

I'm curious why an atheist of all people would expect me to simply take *any* claim at face value without an empirical demonstration of the claim. Why would I do that?

If we start at a singular clump, and we make that clump expand by separating the clump into individualized particles with outward momentum, indeed my "spacetime" will grow in physical size. Light from any particle that happens to reach another particle will always be redshifted. I can explain redshift based on moving objects, and I can explain redshift based on inelastic scattering. These are the two more *probable* and *empirically demonstrated* ways to explain photon redshift from distant objects.

What you're asking me to do essentially is "make believe" that photons never ever ever experience any inelastic scattering no matter how far they travel, no matter how much plasma they traverse, to arrive *without incident* in every telescope ever built by man. I'm sorry, I just don't buy your dogma. It's not believable from my perspective. It's rather *unbelievable* in fact.

I don't even believe that you can justify your claim that "negative pressure" from some "special" kind of field is necessary to cause two or more objects to repulse each other.

It seems to me that your fixation on GR to the exclusion of the EM fields of spacetime is your basic problem in a nutshell. Care to explain how I cannot use a two object universe, charge and EM fields to explain an "accelerating" universe?

 

[Loudmouth]

You have one gigantic affirming the consequent fallacy based on *three* unsupported (in the lab) claims.

Again, only crackpots put "in the lab" in their posts.

This is not affirming the consequent. Expansion has been tested through very diverse sets of observations other than redshift, and it has passed all of those tests.

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

Redshift by expansion is real because it passes several DIFFERENT tests.

Space doesn't expand in the lab.

Again with the crackpottery.

Inflation doesn't cause space to expand in the lab (0 for 2).

Then cite the experiment that was sensitive enough to measure it.

Dark energy doesn't cause space expansion to accelerate (0 for 3 demonstrated claims).

The observations demonstrate that expansion is accelerating. You are running away from the observations.

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

That has already been falsified:

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

 

[essentialsaltes]

The whole "crank/crackpot" routine is ...

entirely appropriate to describe someone who is not a scientist, rejects several fundamental scientific theories, and self-publishes his work on a non-peer-reviewed website.

I was addressing your *need* for expansion to occur in the first place. It's apparently just an *emotional* requirement to start with.

Ludicrous. I have no emotional need for cosmological expansion. It is a conclusion based on GR and the observed cosmological redshift. Your proposed alternative, whether you call it tired light or scattering, is not supported by the evidence.

 

[Michael]

That is the crackpot blather I am talking about. Only crackpots ignore evidence gathered outside the arbitrary confines of a building. That is what makes you a crackpot.

Then your requirement for God to show up at your door one day makes you evil.

I also point to real world observations, and you call it a statement of faith. That is another piece of crackpot blather.

You can't demonstrate that redshift is related to your supernatural claims in real experiments. It's not my fault that your supernatural constructs are more impotent on Earth than any ordinary religious concept of "God".

Your personal desire for empirical evidence of God must be the cause of all the evil spewing you do.

 

[Michael]

entirely appropriate to describe someone who is not a scientist, rejects several fundamental scientific theories, and self-publishes his work on a non-peer-reviewed website.

Inflation and dark energy are not fundamental scientific theories, and almost all of Ned Wrights derogatory comments about tired light are likewise unpublished.

Ludicrous. I have no emotional need for cosmological expansion. It is a conclusion based on GR and the observed cosmological redshift. Your proposed alternative, whether you call it tired light or scattering, is not supported by the evidence.

You can't legitimately make that claim until you can explain to me why two identically charged objects in a vacuum won't repel each other. The only thing that you're accomplishing with "space expansion" is increasing the distance between two (or more) objects. I can increase (or decrease) the distance between objects with ordinary EM fields. Why do I need space to expand, or dark energy, to explain what can be explained with ordinary EM fields?

 

[Loudmouth]

Then your requirement for God to show up at your door one day makes you evil.

Nowhere did I say you are evil. I think a lot of crackpots are quite adorable and not evil at all.

Also, I don't require God to show up at my door. Outside of the lab is just fine.

You can't demonstrate that redshift is related to your supernatural claims in real experiments.

We can and have:

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

 

[Loudmouth]

Inflation and dark energy are not fundamental scientific theories, and almost all of Ned Wrights derogatory comments about tired light are likewise unpublished.

You keep confusing the observations with the hypothetical constructs. Accelerating expansion is the observation. It is not dark energy. They are two different things. You are just using the old bait and switch tactic to confuse the two.

The falsification of tired light explanations, as well as plasma redshift, are published.

[astro-ph/0106566] The Tolman Surface Brightness Test for the Reality of the Expansion. IV. A Measurement of the Tolman Signal and the Luminosity Evolution of Early-Type Galaxies

You can't legitimately make that claim until you can explain to me why two identically charged objects in a vacuum won't repel each other. The only thing that you're accomplishing with "space expansion" is increasing the distance between two (or more) objects. I can increase (or decrease) the distance between objects with ordinary EM fields. Why do I need space to expand, or dark energy, to explain what can be explained with ordinary EM fields?

Expansion is not the movement of objects through spacetime. Enough with your bait and switch.

 

[Michael]

Nowhere did I say you are evil. I think a lot of crackpots are quite adorable and not evil at all.

Get an empirical life already. Your supernatural cult attachments are irrelevant from my perspective.

Also, I don't require God to show up at my door. Outside of the lab is just fine.

Why in the universe do you reject God other than fact that you're evil?

We can and have:

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

Ooops:
A New Species of Type Ia Supernova?

You can't even demonstrate that supernovas *are* actually "standard candles" to begin with.

 

[bhsmte]

You guys should get a room.

 

[Loudmouth]

Get an empirical life already. Your supernatural cult attachments are irrelevant from my perspective.

Why in the universe do you reject God other than fact that you're evil?

Ooops:
A New Species of Type Ia Supernova?

You can't even demonstrate that supernovas *are* actually "standard candles" to begin with.

And more crackpottery.

 

[Michael]

You keep confusing the observations with the hypothetical constructs.

Not me. You're the one confusing the simple observation of photon redshift with a trio of supernatural sky claims.

Accelerating expansion is the observation.

BZZZT. Signal broadening and photon redshift are the observations. Your *supernatural trio* of invisible sky claims is the *explanation* (if you can can call it that).

It is not dark energy. They are two different things. You are just using the old bait and switch tactic to confuse the two.

The only one pulling a gigantic bait and switch is you. Redshift is *not* related to expanding space. Redshift is *not* related to 'dark energy'. Signal broadening is *not* related to dark energy. Redshift is *not* related to inflation. You're constantly baiting with words to describe your *beliefs*, not the actual *observations* themselves.

The falsification of tired light explanations, as well as plasma redshift, are published.

That's not a falsification of tired light theory because it assumes *zero* amount of signal broadening in a *mostly plasma medium*! It's an erroneous claim from start to finish to suggest that in any way 'rules out' tired light theory. You're just making up the claims as you go at this point. As Holushko's work demonstrates, your supernova data set does *not* rule out tired light theory, and you can't even be sure that supernova's are legitimately 'standard candles' in the first place!

Expansion is not the movement of objects through spacetime. Enough with your bait and switch.

Pfft. Your the one trying to ride the coattails of Doppler shift to explain cosmic redshift, not me. You're the one pulling the pure bait and switch routine, not me. When you go and remove all those Doppler shift references on WIKI astronomy webpages and astronomy textbooks, then you can lecture me about baiting and switching. Until then, it's your industry that does all the baiting and all the switching and the confusion was intentional from the start.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Inflation and dark energy are not fundamental scientific theories

Holushko rejects both special and general relativity, the big bang, gravitational lensing... Not to mention stating that "Gravitational shielding is possible," which is tantamount to antigravity. That, my friends, is a crank.

I'm not sure what to call someone who prefers a crank over Einstein.

You can't legitimately make that claim until you can explain to me why two identically charged objects in a vacuum won't repel each other.

They do repel each other, but this has nothing to do with relativity and the dynamics of spacetime.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not me.

Yes you. You are using a bait and switch. The observation is accelerating expansion. The explanation is dark energy. They are two different things. If the explanation is wrong it does not falsify the observation.

You're the one confusing the simple observation of photon redshift with a trio of supernatural sky claims.

There is nothing supernatural about it. It is observed.

[qutoe] Redshift is *not* related to expanding space.[/quote]

Yes, it is.

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

That's not a falsification of tired light theory because it assumes *zero* amount of signal broadening in a *mostly plasma medium*! It's an erroneous claim from start to finish to suggest that in any way 'rules out' tired light theory. You're just making up the claims as you go at this point.

It most certainly is:

"The "tired light" hypothesis, mainstay of a dwindling band of contrarians who deny the big bang and its corollary, the expanding universe, has suffered a one-two punch. Observations of supernovae and of galaxies provide the best direct evidence that the universe is truly expanding."
"Tired-Light" Hypothesis Gets Re-Tired | Science/AAAS | News

As Holushko's work demonstrates,

Holushko doesn't demonstrate anything. He makes claims with no justification whatsoever, all the while rejecting relativity.

Your the one trying to ride the coattails of Doppler shift to explain cosmic redshift, not me.

There is the bait and switch again. Doppler shift is not cosmological redshift.

 

[Michael]

Holushko rejects both special and general relativity,

If so, nowhere in the paper is that "obvious" or relevant.

the big bang,

Lot's of folks reject that theory including pretty much the entire PC/EU community.

cosmologystatement.org

gravitational lensing...

Really? Where?

Not to mention stating that "Gravitational shielding is possible," which is tantamount to antigravity. That, my friends, is a crank.

I don't see any mention of those claims the paper I cited, do you? Would charging two objects amount to "gravitational shielding"?

I'm not sure what to call someone who prefers a crank over Einstein.

Well, that would not be me. The only thing I used Holushko's paper to demonstrate is that signal broadening in plasma does *not* rule out tired light theories.

I'm actually a fan of Einstein, I'm just not a fan of blunder theory.

They do repel each other, but this has nothing to do with relativity and the dynamics of spacetime.

There's your error. They do repel as you noted, the universe is primarily composed of charged particles in the plasma state, and EM fields do affect the dynamics of spacetime.

You keep *leaving out* repulsive EM fields in your claims, therefore you think you need "negative pressure" from a "vacuum".

 

[Michael]

Yes you. You are using a bait and switch.

Nope. Astronomers do that when they point at the sky and claim their invisible friends did it.

The observation is accelerating expansion.

False. The observation*s* (plural) are simply photon redshift and signal broadening. You *subjectively interpret* those observations as "accelerating expansion" whereas Holushko does not.

The explanation is dark energy.

That not even an "explanation", that's pure religious dogma. Where does dark energy even come from? Show me a real experiment where "dark energy' had some effect on a photon.

They are two different things. If the explanation is wrong it does not falsify the observation.

True. Your *explanation* (which isn't actually an explanation in the first place) is wrong, but the photons are still reshifted, and the signal still experiences signal broadening.

There is nothing supernatural about it. It is observed.

It's supernatural because you can't show that photons are affected by anything you've claimed. You can't show dark energy has an effect on a photon. You can't show that inflation has an effect on a photon. You can't show any effect on a photon from "space expansion' in controlled experimentation either. It's one gigantic string of 'supernatural" constructs that you created in your head.

Holushko doesn't demonstrate anything. He makes claims with no justification whatsoever, all the while rejecting relativity.

Pfft. He has exactly the same mathematical justification that you have, *and* he has laboratory physics on his side. Photons *are* affected by plasmas and light *does* experience signal broadening in plasma in the lab.

You've got nothing but metaphysical math on stick and not a single laboratory justification of any of your claims.

There is the bait and switch again. Doppler shift is not cosmological redshift.

Then go fix all the screwed up WIKI pages and astronomy textbooks that begin the entire discussion on redshift with "Doppler shift" and then "switch" to "space expansion" about midway through the presentation (or more).