Would astronomers be comfortable without ever confirming dark matter/energy in the lab?

[Michael]

Who are you trying to kid?
You have zero understanding of tensor analysis and Riemannian geometry which forms the backbone of GR and is taught at post grad level in physics and applied maths; not as a maths minor.

It's not like I stopped studying math the moment I left college, and it's not like I haven't read *hundreds* if not thousands of papers on various topics related to astronomy. I didn't study MHD theory until maybe 14 years ago either. So what?


I certainly don't profess to be an "expert" on GR theory, but I do know enough about it to know where it's core requirements end, and the requirements of the LCDM cosmology model begin.

If you understood the maths you would have noted that Einstein’s original equations were used where there was no cosmological constant and energy was found not to be conserved in curved spacetime.
This was the status of GR in 1915.

And yet astronomers also claim that the universe is "flat", not curved.

Given the maths is beyond your level of comprehension,....

Your constant use of insult in debate simply demonstrates the overall weakness of your argument. You're incapable of providing laboratory support for any of your key claims, so you simply attack the individual. It's childish.

One would have expected a computer programmer where logic is a prerequisite would have used the same logic to realise their error into thinking GR only “validated” the non conservation of energy after the additions of expanding spacetime and dark energy.

Actually I logically deduced that GR theory does not *require* that we throw the laws of physics out the window *in every possible scenario*. I simply chose an alternative that doesn't require me to do so. It's a completely logical choice.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yet humans have reported experiencing something they call "God" for thousands of years of recorded history, and a living universe offers an explanation of such "effects".

As I said, we already have satisfactory natural explanations for God experiences and beliefs, supported by extensive evidence from anthropology and neuroscience.

It demonstrates that even particles are optional when it comes to transferring information, so again, ruling out the possibility of faster than light communication is a personal subjective choice.

Whether viewed as particles or waves, it's the propagation velocity of the electromagnetic field that matters. Subjective choice can't change that.

As I've pointed out however, it's not even *necessary* that such a process has to occur for the universe to be "conscious".

Empty assertion. The 'cosmic brain' you proposed obviously can't work, and the scientific evidence indicates that consciousness is a function of brains.

Chinese Researchers Achieve Stunning Quantum-Entanglement Record

Your theorem has been falsified.

What has that article got to do with the no communication theorem? Either you're trolling or you've really have not the slightest idea what you're talking about.

How is that any different than me assuming that the standard model of particle physics is correct, and the conservation of energy laws are valid?

The Standard Model is self-consistent but incomplete and the conservation of energy laws are valid, but you don't seem to understand what that means for either.

You're essentially "assuming" that an intelligence that could be *eternal* for all we know is utterly incapable of having more advanced technology and more information than we do.

Nope, I'm assuming that the fundamental laws of physics as we understand them will continue to apply. You can discard that assumption for the purposes of 'soft' (fantasy) science fiction, but I'm not talking about fantasy fiction.

Except you never did that with the standard model of particle physics, now did you?

The LHC established the Standard Model is self-consistent but it leaves a number of particle observations unexplained, so it is known to be an incomplete model - hence the disappointment that the LHC hasn't yet found any 'new' physics.

Yet somehow you shirked your own burden of proof?

No. Yet again, when your ideas are challenged, you constantly try to deflect and evade by tu-quoque counter attacks.

The other thing you keep blatantly ignoring is the fact that FTL communication isn't even necessary in the first place.

Nope - it was you that tried to introduce FTL signal transmission via quantum woo when it was pointed out that light-speed transmission couldn't possibly satisfy the requirements of your 'cosmic brain'.

And likewise there are QM interpretations where it *does* happen. You can't simply rule it out because it's inconvenient in terms of your argument.

I don't rule out instantaneous quantum correlation - it's been observed. What it can't do is transmit classical information, as explained several times; you can't make it possible by constant repetition or wishful thinking.

Yet you refuse to allow me the same consideration?

You can propose as many alternatives as you like. I will point out when your speculations contradict the laws of physics.

I've provided you with a perfectly 'plausible' definition of the term and it doesn't even "require" FTL processes in the first place!

Really? So far you've said it's:

1. Just the physical universe
2. Some unspecified form of pantheism
3. Some unspecified form of panentheism
4. The universe functioning like a biological brain(!)
5. Some form of panpsychism

I already asked you to be more specific, but I can see that's not going to happen. I'm no longer interested.

You clearly have a prior belief system for which you try to cherry-pick science to fit. You prepared to disparage, reject, ignore, misunderstand, and misinterpret any science that contradicts how you would like the world to be. This is the opposite of a scientific approach. I don't know why you bother with the scientific pretence at all.

I'm out.

 

[Michael]

As I said, we already have satisfactory natural explanations for God experiences and beliefs, supported by extensive evidence from anthropology and neuroscience.

I'm not sure the whole post is worth responding to since the conversation is becoming redundant, but I'll pick a few key points to respond to, starting with this one.

This is nothing but a highly *subjective* choice on your part. There are also "satisfactory natural explanations" for "missing mass" too, starting with all of the identified problems in the baryonic mass estimates that astronomers have been using.

There are likewise "satisfactory natural explanations" for redshift that work in the lab and which do *not* require us to toss out the laws of physics.

In short, all so called "evidence" of "effect" is subjective. That's why laboratory testing is more valuable than mere "speculation" over pure observation.

You're still ignoring the fact that FTL communication isn't even an *absolute necessity* to start with, and the fact that a living conscious universe might in fact be a bit more "clever" and "knowledgeable" about nature than human beings on Earth. The fact that *we* can't communicate FTL yet doesn't mean it's not possible, anymore than the fact we've been unable to support non-standard particle physics models *yet* demonstrates the non-existence of "dark matter".

The "space expansion" claims of the LCDM model allow *that model* to transmit information across the universe at superluminal speeds. What a blatant double standard.

Nope, I'm assuming that the fundamental laws of physics as we understand them will continue to apply.

Except you aren't assume they will continue to apply when it comes to astronomy. The LCDM model tosses *out* the conservation of energy laws entirely, not just once, but twice, in two entirely different ways. You appear to be subjectively picking and choosing which laws you're concerned about only to support your own beliefs.

You can discard that assumption for the purposes of 'soft' (fantasy) science fiction, but I'm not talking about fantasy fiction.

Yet the LCDM model is almost entirely 'fantasy fiction", requiring *multiple* leaps of faith in the unseen (in the lab), and requiring it's proponents to toss out the conservation laws of physics entirely. It simply doesn't get anymore "fantasy fiction" than that.

The LHC established the Standard Model is self-consistent but it leaves a number of particle observations unexplained, so it is known to be an incomplete model - hence the disappointment that the LHC hasn't yet found any 'new' physics.

AFAIK, the only thing that's significantly "incomplete" about the standard particle physics model is the fact that it doesn't predict the mass of neutrinos, but that is something that we can eventually determine via active experimentation, like every other aspect of the standard particle physics model. It didn't "predict" the *exact* energy state of the Higgs either, but again, that's something we *learned via experimentation* over time. It's therefore not worth tossing out the entire model simply because it's "incomplete" in some small area.

What is also "noteworthy" about the results of the LHC experiments is that the standard model did *so well* at predicting various decay rates of secondary particles. It's passed all those tests with flying colors, whereas the various non standard models failed to predict *anything useful at all*.

No. Yet again, when your ideas are challenged, you constantly try to deflect and evade by tu-quoque counter attacks.

Nope, I'm simply pointing out the hypocritical nature of your core argument. You're intent on tossing out any other cosmology model based on your *subjective* opinions about some "laws of physics" in spite of the fact that the LCDM model violates those very same laws all the time. You're insisting that any *other* cosmology model be 100 percent complete in terms of demonstrating it's core claims, in spite of the fact that the LCDM model doesn't. In fact the LCDM model is 95 percent "unexplained".

Nope - it was you that tried to introduce FTL signal transmission via quantum woo when it was pointed out that light-speed transmission couldn't possibly satisfy the requirements of your 'cosmic brain'.

There's nothing 'woo' about it. FTL signal transmission has been *verified* experimentally in the realm of quantum entanglement. We don't even fully understand it yet, and in fact we don't even fully understand all the physics behind QM in the first place. We just know the formulas work. There is still a *lot* we need to learn about QM, starting with understanding the physical processes that it describes.

I don't rule out instantaneous quantum correlation - it's been observed.

That's great. Then you really shouldn't be ruling out FTL communication either.

What it can't do is transmit classical information, as explained several times; you can't make it possible by constant repetition or wishful thinking.

What *we* cannot do *yet* is use that "demonstrated natural process" to transmit information. That's not evidence that FTL communication cannot ever be done by any form of intelligence ever. You also seem to "wishfully think" it's reasonable to toss out conservation laws of energy when it suits you however, so your choices as to which parts of physics you wish to "stand behind" and which ones you do not is entirely subjective.

You can propose as many alternatives as you like. I will point out when your speculations contradict the laws of physics.

And yet you do not apply the same criteria to all cosmology models.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There's nothing 'woo' about it. FTL signal transmission has been *verified* experimentally in the realm of quantum entanglement.

Nope, it really hasn't; you just don't understand the difference between that and what has been demonstrated. Last time: entanglement produces quantum state correlation, but not classical signal transmission.

But just out of interest, if you walk me through how you think entanglement could be used to send a signal, I'll be happy to explain where you're going wrong. It's really pretty simple in principle.

 

[Michael]

Nope, it really hasn't; you just don't understand the difference between that and what has been demonstrated. Last time: entanglement produces quantum state correlation, but not classical signal transmission.

The fact that it produces FTL quantum state "correlation" precludes you from *assuming* it cannot ever be used for FTL signal transmission, even if we don't know how to do that yet. We don't even fully understand QM at the level of physics, we just know that it works mathematically.

How can you simply "assume" that we have more to learn about particle physics, and also assume that we don't have more to learn about QM as it relates to quantum entanglement?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The fact that it produces FTL quantum state "correlation" precludes you from *assuming* it cannot ever be used for FTL signal transmission, even if we don't know how to do that yet. We don't even fully understand QM at the level of physics, we just know that it works mathematically.

How can you simply "assume" that we have more to learn about particle physics, and also assume that we don't have more to learn about QM as it relates to quantum entanglement?

The relevant point here is that measurements on quantum systems are probabilistic; the wavefunction will tell you the probability of seeing any particular measurement outcome. For example, if you decide to measure an electron's spin about its vertical axis, you will observe it to be clockwise or anticlockwise with equal probability; before measurement, the particle is said to be in a superposition of those possibilities.

When two particles interact, their wavefunctions are entangled and their superpositions combine so that, for example, the result of measuring the spin of one particle will correlate with the result of measuring the spin of the other. So no matter how far you separate them before measuring, you know that if you measure clockwise spin for one particle, when the other is measured it will be anticlockwise.

What prevents this being useful for signalling is that you can't know the state of either particle until you measure one of them, a measurement destroys the entanglement, and any attempt to discover the state is a measurement that will destroy the entanglement.

You can't set the state of a particle in advance because at entanglement the wavefunctions become a joint superposition, e.g. each particle in a superposition of clockwise and anticlockwise spin.

So superposition and the probabilistic nature of quantum measurement, basically the core of QM, 'conspire' to prevents signals being sent via entanglement.

The kicker is, that to become entangled, the particles must interact at an event in spacetime; from which they must then travel (at luminal or subluminal velocities), undisturbed by any interaction, to their respective points of measurement.

So if FTL signalling becomes possible, it will not be via quantum entanglement.

 

[sjastro]

It's not like I stopped studying math the moment I left college, and it's not like I haven't read *hundreds* if not thousands of papers on various topics related to astronomy. I didn't study MHD theory until maybe 14 years ago either. So what?


I certainly don't profess to be an "expert" on GR theory, but I do know enough about it to know where it's core requirements end, and the requirements of the LCDM cosmology model begin.

Oh I see so reading hundreds or even “thousands” of astronomy papers make you proficient at tensor analysis and Riemannian geometry so you understand the maths.
The irony is if this was true you wouldn’t be making ludicrous comments about the conservation of energy.

As your boast is nothing more than a bluff it is being called.
Show the covariant derivative of the energy momentum tensor;

is zero then energy is conserved.

Since you “understand” the maths, the answer should be relatively straightforward.

And yet astronomers also claim that the universe is "flat", not curved.

An irrelevant and nonsensical comment.

Your constant use of insult in debate simply demonstrates the overall weakness of your argument. You're incapable of providing laboratory support for any of your key claims, so you simply attack the individual. It's childish.

Pointing out you are out of your depth is a statement of fact not an insult.
If you want to pollute the SF with opinion based garbage that is not even science, such as lab tests being used to reproduce physical phenomena, then it is going to be rightfully challenged.

I’m being generous by giving you the opportunity of answering the above question to prove me wrong.
Since history has shown every other question ends up with an irrelevant response designed to sidetrack the issue, I predict this will be no different and will confirm yet again you are out of your depth.

Actually I logically deduced that GR theory does not *require* that we throw the laws of physics out the window *in every possible scenario*. I simply chose an alternative that doesn't require me to do so. It's a completely logical choice.

And I logically deduced your response is a profound case of either special pleading or wilful ignorance as it ignores by your own standards GR “throws out” the laws of physics from its very inception as has been mentioned on multiple occasions via the mathematics which is beyond your capacity, or by the history which you conveniently ignore.

 

[Michael]

Oh I see so reading hundreds or even “thousands” of astronomy papers make you proficient at tensor analysis and Riemannian geometry so you understand the maths.

Apparently you missed that line where I acknowledged that I'm *not* an expert on GR theory?

It's rather obvious that every single time that you get yourself backed into a corner over the numerous qualitative problems in your model that you try to cover it up by talking about quantitative aspects that have little or nothing to do with the basic problem. I guess it's a self defense mechanism that allows you to think that you can brush of qualitative problems in your model by asserting your mathematical superiority in some way. It's silly. I didn't claim your model was mathematically problematic, I pointed out that it violates the conservation laws of energy! The fact you wish to try to brush it off by noting that various GR configurations do the same thing is irrelevant!

Since you “understand” the maths, the answer should be relatively straightforward.

Let's look at the last time that you two (you were involved after the fact) folks gave me a math homework assignment. Since I refused to bark math on Selfsim's command, he went ahead and posted his "solution", only to include an error in it, and he also failed to simplify the formula. I then pointed out his error, simplified the formula to a *single* variable, and used it properly in the very next post.

You then personally twisted my response like a pretzel to suit yourself, pretended that I didn't simplify it to a single variable, and pretended that I didn't use it correctly. You burned that strawman of your own creation for months! And you wonder why I don't bark math for you folks on command? Get real.

You're not making your case any stronger by noting that variations of GR theory can and do violate the conservation of energy laws, particularly when you can't demonstrate that they do so inside of our solar system or inside of our galaxy.

An irrelevant and nonsensical comment.

It's a completely logical and relevant response. As far as anyone knows we live in a flat universe so your violation of the conservation of energy laws are *optional*.

I’m being generous by giving you the opportunity of answering the above question to prove me wrong.

No you're not. You're diverting the conversation *away* from the topic, again!

And I logically deduced your response is a profound case of either special pleading ....

Pure projection. You're insisting I give you some kind of free pass because GR theory *allows* for violations of the conservation of energy laws, but it doesn't *require* them in every single instance! Pure special pleading on your part.

 

[sjastro]

Apparently you missed that line where I acknowledged that I'm *not* an expert on GR theory?

It's rather obvious that every single time that you get yourself backed into a corner over the numerous qualitative problems in your model that you try to cover it up by talking about quantitative aspects that have little or nothing to do with the basic problem. I guess it's a self defense mechanism that allows you to think that you can brush of qualitative problems in your model by asserting your mathematical superiority in some way. It's silly. I didn't claim your model was mathematically problematic, I pointed out that it violates the conservation laws of energy! The fact you wish to try to brush it off by noting that various GR configurations do the same thing is irrelevant!



Let's look at the last time that you two (you were involved after the fact) folks gave me a math homework assignment. Since I refused to bark math on Selfsim's command, he went ahead and posted his "solution", only to include an error in it, and he also failed to simplify the formula. I then pointed out his error, simplified the formula to a *single* variable, and used it properly in the very next post.

You then personally twisted my response like a pretzel to suit yourself, pretended that I didn't simplify it to a single variable, and pretended that I didn't use it correctly. You burned that strawman of your own creation for months! And you wonder why I don't bark math for you folks on command? Get real.

You're not making your case any stronger by noting that variations of GR theory can and do violate the conservation of energy laws, particularly when you can't demonstrate that they do so inside of our solar system or inside of our galaxy.



It's a completely logical and relevant response. As far as anyone knows we live in a flat universe so your violation of the conservation of energy laws are *optional*.



No you're not. You're diverting the conversation *away* from the topic, again!



Pure projection. You're insisting I give you some kind of free pass because GR theory *allows* for violations of the conservation of energy laws, but it doesn't *require* them in every single instance! Pure special pleading on your part.

Let’s call your post for what it is a con job based on deception and dishonesty.

Your refusal to “bark maths” which is your standard line of defence on other forums such as Reddits when challenged, has nothing to do with a reluctance to demonstrate an understanding as you would have us to believe, but a cop out to admitting you don’t comprehend the maths.
What is offensive about your post is thinking the reader is stupid enough to fall for this con.

The facts are you can’t even do simple algebra as you have reminded us with your 1=0.5 nonsense which is your lasting legacy.

If you don’t understand the maths you don’t understand the physics, such as your absurd notion of thinking the violation of the conservation of energy and its non application are one in the same thing.
If this was true then the conservation of energy is violated in our every day lives such as the change of pitch of a passing police siren due to the sound waves gaining or losing energy via Doppler shift.

On top of your complete lack of understanding is your denial of the history of GR and the conservation of energy.

 

[Michael]

Let’s call your post for what it is a con job based on deception and dishonesty.

Let's call your last post what it is, specifically a personal attack, a blatant deflection tactic, a hijack of my thread, and purely dishonest on your part. I admitted from the start that I don't profess to be an expert on GR. You keep ignoring that point.

Your refusal to “bark maths” which is your standard line of defence on other forums such as Reddits when challenged, has nothing to do with a reluctance to demonstrate an understanding as you would have us to believe, but a cop out to admitting you don’t comprehend the maths.

No, it's simply irrational that you folks try to cover up your *qualitative* mistakes by trying to act mathematically superior to everyone. It's an absurd self defense mechanism.

What is offensive about your post is thinking the reader is stupid enough to fall for this con.

Hopefully they won't be taken in by your hijack of the thread and they'll just ignore your endless string of personal attacks like I typically do.

The facts are you can’t even do simple algebra as you have reminded us with your 1=0.5 nonsense which is your lasting legacy.

This is *exactly* why I do not bark math on command for you folks. I had to *fix* the error in Selfsim's post, *and* I had to simplify his formula to a *single* variable, specifically the number of flip attempts. I even used the simplified formula that I came up with for you in the very next post. Instead of acknowledging my "fix" of his error, you made up a ridiculous strawman argument and you've been burning it ever since. That's about as dishonest as it gets.

If you don’t understand the maths you don’t understand the physics,

In this case, baloney. I know that your error isn't mathematical in nature in the first place, it's a *qualitative* error. You're blatantly trying to deflect the conversation away from the qualitative mistake and the real issue and onto the *individual*. How sad.

such as your absurd notion of thinking the violation of the conservation of energy and its non application are one in the same thing.

Conservation of energy *does* apply to *some* instances of GR, specifically a *flat* static universe. Your personal choice to violate the laws of physics is *not* an absolute requirement of GR in *all* instances. Laws of physics are applicable in some instances of GR which is why you can't show it violates conservation of energy laws inside our solar system or galaxy.

If this was true then the conservation of energy is violated in our every day lives such as the change of pitch of a passing police siren due to the sound waves gaining or losing energy via Doppler shift.

Er no. Totally irrelevant. No energy is lost in that scenario.

On top of your complete lack of understanding is your denial of the history of GR and the conservation of energy.

The problem you have is that I understand that your violation of the laws of physics is a *choice* you're making and it's not absolutely mandatory in GR in *all* instances. You're making a *qualitative* error, and we both know it, so stop trying to deflect the conversation by pretending it has anything to do with your math.

 

[sjastro]

Let's call you last post what it is, specifically a personal attack, a blatant deflection tactic, a hijack of my thread, and purely dishonest on your part. I admitted from the start that I don't profess to be an expert on GR. You keep ignore that point.



No, it's simply irrational that you folks try to cover up your *qualitative* mistakes by trying to act mathematically superior to everyone. It's an absurd self defense mechanism.



Hopefully they won't be taken in by your hijack of the thread and they'll just ignore your endless string of personal attacks like I typically do.



This is *exactly* why I do not bark math on command for you folks. I had to *fix* the error in Selfsim's post, *and* I had to simplify his formula to a *single* variable, specifically the number of flip attempts. I even used the simplified formula that I came up with for you in the very next post. Instead of acknowledging my "fix" of his error, you made up a ridiculous strawman argument and you've been burning it ever since. That's about as dishonest as it gets.



In this case, baloney. I know that your error isn't mathematical in nature in the first place, it's a *qualitative* error. You're blatantly trying to deflect the conversation away from the qualitative mistake and the real issue and onto the *individual*. How sad.



Conservation of energy *does* apply to *some* instances of GR, specifically a *flat* static universe. Your personal choice to violate the laws of physics is *not* an absolute requirement of GR in *all* instances. Laws of physics are applicable in some instances of GR which is why you can't show it violates conservation of energy laws inside our solar system or galaxy.



Er no. Totally irrelevant. No energy is lost in that scenario.



The problem you have is that I understand that your violation of the laws of physics is a *choice* you're making and it's not absolutely mandatory in GR in *all* instances. You're making a *qualitative* error, and we both know it, so stop trying to deflect the conversation by pretending it has anything to do with your math.

Repeating the same nonsense only reconfirms you are out of your depth.
It's the same tired old formula that anything that is beyond your intellectual capacity such as the mathematics, is substituted with incoherent ramblings including attacking the individual with outrageous claims who points out your deficiencies.
Note I'm not the only individual that has made this observation.
One such deficiency is in your scenario Doppler shift is a violation of the conservation of energy and your summary dismissal of this point indicates your complete failure to understand why.

 

[Michael]

Repeating the same nonsense only reconfirms you are out of your depth.

Repeating your personal attacks and repeating your thread hijacking attempts only reconfirms the fact that you're unable to deal with your *qualitative* errors!

It's the same tired old formula that anything that is beyond your intellectual capacity such as the mathematics, is substituted with incoherent ramblings including attacking the individual with outrageous claims who points out your deficiencies.

Blah, blah, personal attack blah. You're entirely predictable.

One such deficiency is in your scenario Doppler shift is a violation of the conservation of energy and your summary dismissal of this point indicates your complete failure to understand why.

Oh, I understand perfectly that your "space expansion" claim has absolutely *nothing* to do with moving objects and Doppler shift. More special pleading, combined with "bait and switch" tactics to boot.

 

[sjastro]

Repeating your personal attacks and repeating your thread hijacking attempts only reconfirms the fact that you're unable to deal with your *qualitative* errors!



Blah, blah, personal attack blah. You're entirely predictable.



Oh, I understand perfectly that your "space expansion" claim has absolutely *nothing* to do with moving objects and Doppler shift. More special pleading, combined with "bait and switch" tactics to boot.

This is pure comedy.
You don’t have the vaguest idea about the science so you make up garbage and boldly declare anyone who doesn’t agree is making qualitative errors.
Evidently Einstein and Hilbert in 1915 made the same qualitative errors!!!!!

Doppler shift is yet another example in failing to comprehend the context of the post.
Energy is lost or gained in the observer’s frame of reference depending on the direction of motion in the object’s frame.
Since energy is not lost to or gained from the dynamical system, according to your nonsense the conservation of energy is violated.
It doesn’t violate the conservation of energy because no conservation law exists between frames.
Noether’s theorem, another aspect of physics beyond your understanding, does not define a time invariant Lagrangian for both object and observer frames where energy is conserved as both frames are separate dynamic systems each defined by their own Lagrangian.

For reasons far more complicated and also beyond your comprehension level in GR energy is not necessarily conserved (but not violated) as demonstrated by Einstein and Hilbert while Noether proved the conditions where the conservation of energy does apply to GR.

Your preference to remain in a permanent state of ignorance because you feel the need to declare war on anyone who has a greater knowledge and understanding there by preventing you actually learning something about mainstream science is so profoundly ridiculous.

 

[Michael]

This is pure comedy.

Indeed. Your "bait and switch" routine is pure comedy.

You don’t have the vaguest idea about the science so you make up garbage and boldly declare anyone who doesn’t agree is making qualitative errors.
Evidently Einstein and Hilbert in 1915 made the same qualitative errors!!!!!

Apparently so. Einstein also called the introduction of a non-zero constant his "greatest blunder", so apparently he was well aware of the fact that he wasn't infallible. Einstein originally rejected Lemaitre's claims. I think he should have stuck to his guns on that issue. The physics is indeed "abominable."

Doppler shift is yet another example in failing to comprehend the context of the post.

False. Doppler shift has *nothing* to do with your 'space expansion" claims because Doppler shift relates to *moving objects*, not 'space expansion". This is a pure bait and switch routine.

Energy is lost or gained in the observer’s frame of reference depending on the direction of motion in the object’s frame.

No, it's not. It never had a different energy state from the moment the light was emitted. Furthermore it's *not changing* with respect to the source as is the case with your "space expansion" fiasco.

Since energy is not lost to or gained from the dynamical system, according to your nonsense the conservation of energy is violated.

False. It's a completely *different* claim and issue.

It doesn’t violate the conservation of energy because no conservation law exists between frames.

False again. The various frames of reference simply allow us to *use* the conservation of energy laws to determine the relative movement of the objects.

The rest of your post is just pure personal attack nonsense. Your bait (Doppler) and switch (space expansion) routine is preposterous and ridiculous. They aren't the same claim!

That's the problem with all of of the LCDM nonsense. It's all based on pure bait and switch arguments, combined with special pleading, and a healthy dose of personal attack toward anyone who dares to question the pure metaphysical "dogma".

 

[sjastro]

Indeed. Your "bait and switch" routine is pure comedy.



Apparently so. Einstein also called the introduction of a non-zero constant his "greatest blunder", so apparently he was well aware of the fact that he wasn't infallible. Einstein originally rejected Lemaitre's claims. I think he should have stuck to his guns on that issue. The physics is indeed "abominable."



False. Doppler shift has *nothing* to do with your 'space expansion" claims because Doppler shift relates to *moving objects*, not 'space expansion". This is a pure bait and switch routine.




No, it's not. It never had a different energy state from the moment the light was emitted. Furthermore it's *not changing* with respect to the source as is the case with your "space expansion" fiasco.



False. It's a completely *different* claim and issue.



False again. The various frames of reference simply allow us to *use* the conservation of energy laws to determine the relative movement of the objects.

The rest of your post is just pure personal attack nonsense. Your bait (Doppler) and switch (space expansion) routine is preposterous and ridiculous. They aren't the same claim!

That's the problem with all of of the LCDM nonsense. It's all based on pure bait and switch arguments, combined with special pleading, and a healthy dose of personal attack toward anyone who dares to question the pure metaphysical "dogma".

I notice when quoting my post how you have cherry picked the parts you want to respond to and conveniently ignored the most important paragraphs which form the basis of my post.

Such as this;

Noether’s theorem, another aspect of physics beyond your understanding, does not define a time invariant Lagrangian for both object and observer frames where energy is conserved as both frames are separate dynamic systems each defined by their own Lagrangian.

And this;

For reasons far more complicated and also beyond your comprehension level in GR energy is not necessarily conserved (but not violated) as demonstrated by Einstein and Hilbert while Noether proved the conditions where the conservation of energy does apply to GR.

To then respond with an “air of authority” with such definitive terms such as “False” and “False again” including the usual ad hom attacks after you have deliberately butchered my post is poor form, unprofessional and dishonest.

 

[46AND2]

Let's look at the last time that you two (you were involved after the fact) folks gave me a math homework assignment. Since I refused to bark math on Selfsim's command, he went ahead and posted his "solution", only to include an error in it, and he also failed to simplify the formula. I then pointed out his error, simplified the formula to a *single* variable, and used it properly in the very next post.

Are you talking about that discussion you had concerning "ben" from that other forum?

Because your account of things here is a complete distortion of what happened.

 

[Michael]

Are you talking about that discussion you had concerning "ben" from that other forum?

Because your account of things here is a complete distortion of what happened.

No, that discussion took place on *this* forum, and ben was not involved.

 

[Michael]

I notice when quoting my post how you have cherry picked the parts you want to respond to and conveniently ignored the most important paragraphs which form the basis of my post.

I "cherry picked" the parts that were worth responding to, specifically your bait and switch routine. Doppler shift is *not* caused by "space expansion", and they are not equivalent.

Noether’s theorem, another aspect of physics beyond your understanding, does not define a time invariant Lagrangian for both object and observer frames where energy is conserved as both frames are separate dynamic systems each defined by their own Lagrangian.

The irony is that as a result of "space expansion" (and dark energy), energy isn't being conserved in *either* frame of reference!

To then respond with an “air of authority” with such definitive terms such as “False” and “False again” including the usual ad hom attacks after you have deliberately butchered my post is poor form, unprofessional and dishonest.

The only part of this conversation that's unprofessional, besides your constant string of personal attacks, is the dishonest equivocation fallacy, and your blatant bait (Doppler shift) and switch (space expansion) routine. Doppler shift has *nothing* to do with space expansion, and they aren't equivalent.

 

[46AND2]

No, that discussion took place on *this* forum, and ben was not involved.

Sorry for the confusion. I did not mean that it took place on another forum, nor that ben was involved in the discussion on this board.

What I was asking is if the discussion to which you were referring was the recent conversation that referenced that thread with ben on the other forum?

 

[Michael]

Sorry for the confusion. I did not mean that it took place on another forum, nor that ben was involved in the discussion on this board.

What I was asking is if the discussion to which you were referring was the recent conversation that referenced that thread with ben on the other forum?

Nope. Different conversation.