the expanding space theory that is widely held as scientifically acceptable by certain subcultures of
science may very well have moved its last galaxy due to
its inability to support itself by any means.

and the culprit of its demise being Sir Isaac Newton and
his laws of motion.

the problem recently found with the theory is that the light
from distant galaxies that would travel through the expanding space that moves the galaxies further away from each other
would also move the light waves further away from each other

recently galaxies have been viewed by the hubble space telescope that are over 13 billion light years away from earth
and this of course means that the light that we now see has been traveling through space almost since the beginning of time because the universe is only 13.7 billion years old.

its obvious that the galaxies have expanded away from each other because we can see them.

and the reason we can see them is because the light from the
distant galaxies has not expanded , if the 13 billion year old light waves from any of the recently viewed distant galaxies had been expanding for 13 billion years then the light waves would be so diffused by the expanding space that you would need to have a universe sized telescope in order to collect and concentrate the light into anything that resembled a galaxy.

You're right Paul. The light from the most distant galaxies has expanded. The expansion produces the red shift experienced by the more distant galaxies. In fact the oldest light in the universe has also expanded. It is called the Cosmic Microwave Background. It has expanded so much that it has cooled so that its temperature is about 2.7 degrees K.

The discovery of the CMB was the final nail in the coffin of a static universe.

Bill Gill

I don't believe that you comprehended what was said.

(actually I do , I just wanted to refute your comments)

in order for the light from a galaxy that is collected by a telescope to be viewed , the light waves themselves could not have expanded away from each other.

light travels in single separate waves , and light travels in a straight line unless compelled to travel in another direction by an external force , so the distance between the light waves that have traveled from the distant galaxies to the telescope would for the most part be intact and could not have expanded.

using your 2 boats being carried in a current of water analogy.

only lets add 3 tiny boats to represent 3 light waves.

and lets space the 3 tiny boats ( light waves ) 1 cm apart.

after an amount of time has passed the expanding space theory
proposes that the 2 boats will be moved further apart from each other because the 2 boats will be carried on the expanding space.

lets say that the current of the expanding space theory has moved the 2 boats 5 billion miles apart from each other.

according to the theory the 3 tiny boats that represent the three light waves would also have moved 5 billion miles apart from each other , and they would spread out like three dots drawn on a balloon would spread out when the balloon is inflated to use another popular analogy.

causing the light to be diffused.

now lets make the light waves a little more compressed together by using our suns light waves as an example , if a exact copy of our sun was 13 billion miles away in space and being viewed through a very powerful telescope on earth and each light wave emitted by the exact copy of our sun was 5 billion miles from each other because the light waves had been expanding away from each other for 13 billion years then the light from the exact copy of our sun that enters the telescope would only be 1 light wave if there was a light wave that was moving towards the telescope.

we would not be capable of seeing a sun at all , only a single
light wave if we got extremely lucky.

I'm not sure what you mean by "light travels in single separate waves". But let's talk about the expansion of the waves. Let's go back to the good old fashioned balloon analogy. This time instead of drawing a bunch of dots on the balloon to represent galaxies let's draw some sine waves on the balloon. For simplicity let's just draw a series of individual sine waves in a line around the balloon. Now blow the balloon up. Notice that the separation between the individual waves increases. This is the standard analogy used for the separation of the galaxies as the universe expands. But now look at just one the individual sine waves. Well, well, what do you know. The length of the sine wave has also expanded. Light works just the same way.

Once again your refusal to accept anything that you don't want to believe in is refuted. Thinking about it your steadfast refusal to accept reality does do at least one good thing for me. It keeps me thinking up new ways to point out your continual errors and that is good. Thinking keeps my mind from failing.

Bill Gill

Is this the sort of thing you have in mind, Paul?

If space is expanding, it is doing so in every direction, not just along a line between observer and observed. We have to think not of a single wave, but of a whole lot of waves (it works better with photons) radiating from a source. The further we are from the source, the fewer photons we will see. Expansion of space would exacerbate this effect.



Perhaps this is why it is galaxies, rather than individual stars that are observed at great distances.

As far as I'm aware, the most remote galaxies have been observed owing to gravitational lensing. But of course, anyone who insists that GR is bunk will deny that. Just imagine, a photon takes 13 billion yrs on a journey to say "Hello", only to be told that it doesn't exist

What you are referring to there is the inverse square law. The number of photons you receive is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. I suspect that even Paul would agree with that. The expansion of the universe might indeed exacerbate that to some extent, but I don't think I have ever heard of any discussion of the matter. Astronomers are just glad to be able to get any light at all from distant galaxies.

The reason we see galaxies instead of individual stars at great distances is very simply due to the resolution of our telescopes. There is just no way to pick out one star in a galaxy at any great distance. It's kind of like going outside on a clear night and looking at the sky. If you live in a place where you can actually see the sky at night you will see the Milky Way. It looks like a diffuse band of light across the sky. But if you use a telescope it turns out to be a lot of stars. With your eyes you can't see the individual stars. At great distances even the best telescopes can't resolve individual stars in a galaxy.

Bill Gill

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/08/tech/innovation/universe-expansion-astronomers/index.html

this means that 13 billion years ago if two light waves were emitted 1 cm apart
and were pointed in the direction of where the earth is located today
( such as one of the recently viewed distant galaxies )
then those two light waves or photons would have been expanding away from each other
for 13 billion years if the expanding space theory and its description of how
space carries the galaxies apart from each other is true.

the light from the distant galaxies that we see today has been traveling and expanding
for 13 billion years because the galaxy is 13 billion light years away from the earth.

1 million ly = 5878625373183608000 miles
42 miles = 2,661,120 inches


5878625373183608000 miles/1,000,000 = 5,878,625,373,183.608 miles per 1 ly
2,661,120 inches/1,000,000 = 2.66112 inches per 1 ly

5,878,625,373,183.608 miles/365 days = 16,105,822,940.229063013698630136986 miles per day
2.66112 inches/365 = 0.00729073972602739726027397260274 inches per day

16,105,822,940.229063013698630136986 miles/24 hours = 671,075,955.84287762557077625570776 miles per hour
0.00729073972602739726027397260274 inches/24 = 3.0378082191780821917808219178082e-4 inches per hour

671,075,955.84287762557077625570776 miles/60 minutes = 11,184,599.264047960426179604261796 miles per minute
3.0378082191780821917808219178082e-4 inches/60 = 5.0630136986301369863013698630137e-6 inches per minute

11,184,599.264047960426179604261796 miles/60 seconds = 186,409.98773413267376966007102993 miles per second
5.0630136986301369863013698630137e-6 inches/60 = 8.4383561643835616438356164383562e-8 inches per second

8.4383561643835616438356164383562e-8 inches per second

the above is the speed of the expansion per second for each second in the next 13 billion years.

now we multiply to find the distance between the light waves that would reach the earth in 13 billion years.

there are 31,536,000 seconds in a year and the light has traveled for 13 billion years.

8.4383561643835616438356164383562e-8 inches per second x 31,536,000 seconds per year = 2.66112 inches per year

2.66112 inches per year x 13,000,000,000 years = 34,594,560,000 inches per 13 billion years

34,594,560,000 / 12 inches = 2,882,880,000 feet per 13 billion years

2,882,880,000 feet / 5280 ft per mile = 546,000 miles per 13 billion years.


each light wave would be 546,000 miles apart from its closest neighbor.

I highly doubt that a single light wave would enter any telescope.

but that would only happen if the expanding space theory were true , and it is
because the expanding space theory is not true that the observeable universe is observable.

The simple truth is that photons are received, without deference to your doubts. Your 'closest neighbour' distance is arbitrary, but taking your numbers as an example, 546000 miles is a mere 3 seconds of photon travel. Have you considered that exposure times can run in weeks? Have you considered that photomultipliers are used?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photomultiplier
These detectors multiply the current produced by incident light by as much as 100 million times (i.e., 160 dB), in multiple dynode stages, enabling (for example) individual photons to be detected when the incident flux of light is very low.

Of course a galaxy emits a lot more than 2 light waves. It emits many multiples of billions of photons. I did a quick check on the web on how many photons are emitted by the sun. The reference I found came up with approximately 4.2e44 photons/s. Multiply that by 300 billion stars in our galaxy and I think you will realize that there are plenty of photons to go around so that we will still be able to detect a lot of them.

Bill Gill

I didn't consider that the speed of light or of a photon would
affect the distance that the light waves would have to be moved
away from each other , and I didn't consider the exposure times
or multipliers involved because I didn't think that there would
be enough light that would actually enter any telescope.

as I have given an example of in my previous post that shows
an apx distance between light waves of 546,000 miles.

that's true a galaxy does indeed emit many multiples of billions or even multiples of trillions of photons etc...

but increasing the number of emitted photons would only exacerbate the issue that's why I only used 2 photons or light waves and showed how far apart the 2 photons would be today.

this distance between photons would be constant no matter how
many photons are emitted.

so in order to reassemble the galaxy into a recognizable image you would need to have a really powerful telescope placed in front of each the many multiples of billions of photons because the photons would all be spread out 546000 miles apart from each other in the cosmos.

there would be very few photons from the galaxy that would actually be traveling towards the earth or any point in the cosmos that is a distance of 13 billion light years away
from the galaxy for that matter

and you could set the exposure time to infinity and you would
never get a recognizable galaxy unless all the multiples of billions upon billions of telescopes were wired together to reconstruct the galaxy as a recognizable image of the galaxy.

Rose, Newton is at it again.

Bill Gill

I thought about this and decided that if the expanding space theory were correct then in either situation
either using a single telescope or using multiple billions of telescopes , if the telescope / telescopes are pointed at a
single galaxy the number of light waves from that single galaxy that would actually enter the telescope / telescopes would be extremely small if any , also pretty much any galaxy in the general direction that any telescope or array of telescopes are pointed could possibly be contributing tiny portions of its light waves into the telescope / telescopes.

so you would end up with a mosaic of tiny portions of billions
of galaxies in a image either produced by a single telescope
or an array of billions of telescopes.

Paul, you are treating a galaxy as though it were a single point in space. If two photons, emitted from a single point, are 546,000 miles apart, two photons that were 546,000 miles apart when emitted could arrive together. Unlikely? Yes if there were only a few photons, but, as Bill points out, approximately 4.2e44 photons, multiplied by 300 billion are emitted by our galaxy every second.

according to what I understand about the expanding space theory , all objects that are not within a gravitationally
bound area of space , for example the stars and planets of a
galaxy would be carried by the expanding space just like
entire galaxies are carried by the expanding space as the
expanding space expands.

this means that when two photons are emitted 546,000 miles apart from the inside of a galaxy the photons will continue
along their initial path unless compelled to change direction by some external force as long as they are inside the galaxy.

the expanding space theory only applies to objects outside
of gravitationally bound areas which includes the space inside the gravitationally bound areas so as long as the two photons
are inside the gravitationally bound area of the galaxy they
are not affected by the proposed expanding space theory.

it is only after the two photons leave the galaxy that the photons would supposedly become affected by the expanding space theory.

after the two photons have left the galaxy the two photons will supposedly be carried away from each other because of
the effect of the proposed expanding space.

and that's why they call it the expansion of space theory.

so the two photons that were emitted 546,000 miles apart from inside the galaxy would increase the distance between each other to 1,092,000 miles after they have traveled for 13 billion years.

of course if the distance between the two photons did
not increase then that would clearly show that the expanding space theory is incorrect.

the only reason why we have images of complete galaxies is
because the expanding space theory is incorrect and the
subculture that brought this theory into being widely accepted into science and the scientist who have accepted the theory just don't have the needed ability to apply thought to the theory.

otherwise they would have rejected the theory.

The expanding space theory applies to all space, that outside of galaxies and that inside of galaxies, and for that matter inside of stellar systems. However, the gravitational bonding between closely adjacent masses is strong enough so that it overrides the expansion. So gravitationally bound objects are not separating due to the expansion. It is something like a lot of objects floating in the sea. If they are tied together with ropes they will stay together. If they are not they will tend to disperse with time. That isn't a really good analogy, but I hope it gets the idea across.

Bill Gill

ok I get it now , so the photons inside a galaxy are being
carried by the proposed expanding space theory because they
are not gravitationally bound to other objects in the galaxy.

this would add even more distance between the photons.

heres a excerpt from an article I just read.



matter* meaning the planets and stars are not growing in size.

http://www.universetoday.com/107142/is-everything-in-the-universe-expanding/


the above is similar to many articles I have read in the past
that are attempting to explain the expanding space theory.

and the articles all pretty much say the same things about it.

Im going to go with what the articles are saying about it
because they aren't discussing the expansion with me even
though the authors of the articles may believe in the theory.

I actually like your analogy about the boats tied together
floating on the currents of the sea.


the current of the sea would be moving each of the boats that
are tied together , and that is not a good analogy of the
inside of a galaxy when describing the expanding space theory
because according to the theory space does not expand inside a galaxy.

because light waves are not gravitationally bound to the
planets or suns in a galaxy , this means that light waves can pass through a galaxy without bending unless they become close enough to a gravity field to be bent by the gravity field.

and at the same time the light waves will be carried along
with the expanding space , even though the planets and stars are not being carried by the expanding space , if the theory were correct that is.

geez... I just read what I wrote and it has nothing to do
with anything logical and that is why I struck it from the record.

I must be careful or soon I will find myself venturing down
fantasy lane along with the qmers and the space expanders.

so here is my correction of my misguided thoughts.

since the space between the planets and stars would not be expanded by the proposed expanding space theory then the
light from a star inside a galaxy would not be carried by the proposed expanding space theory because the space inside the galaxy is not expanding.

but the light that exits a galaxy would be carried by the expanding space if the expanding space theory is correct.

Paul: "the expanding space theory only applies to objects outside
of gravitationally bound areas so as long as the two photons
are inside the gravitationally bound area of the galaxy they
are not affected by the proposed expanding space theory"

Bill Gill then explains the facts; but still:

Paul: "since the space between the planets and stars would not be expanded by the proposed expanding space theory then the
light from a star inside a galaxy would not be carried by the proposed expanding space theory because the space inside the galaxy is not expanding"

To reiterate:

The theory says: Space is expanding everywhere - outside galaxies, inside galaxies even within the cells of your body. Galaxies retain their physical integrity due to gravity, and your body due to nuclear forces. The photon, being massless, is affected by gravity only indirectly due to the effect of mass upon the geometry of the space through which the photon passes. So, no matter where the photon happens to be it's affected by the expansion of space, i.e, its wavelength is increased over time in accordance with the Hubble constant.

But, hey, what are we trying to do here? Educate you? Clearly a waste of time, since all the information is available to you from expert sources on the net, and you are totally rejecting it, so why would you heed what you are told by we amateurs? Like the rest of your baloney, your above posts are not really worth responding to. You are scientifically illiterate, yet you pretend to know more about science than rest of the world combined. You have a bee-in-your-bonnet about science - rather, a hornet's nest - and you're not here to be elucidated.

Good luck Bill Gill, keep pushing that rock up the hill if you must

Rede, As I said, at least this gives me some mental exercise. They do say that mental exercise is a good way to keep your mind working as you grow older.

Partly I respond to Paul as a knee jerk reaction when he says something that is totally out of line with what we actually know about how the universe works. But I also hope to help other people who read his stuff to understand that he really doesn't know, or at least refuses to acknowledge he knows, how the universe works. I have never quite been able to decide if he really believes what he writes or if he is a basic troll trying to stir up trouble. If he is a troll at least he isn't as obnoxious as some trolls who really try to start flame wars. That is he generally doesn't use particularly objectionable language the way a lot of trolls do.

Bill Gill

rede

I cant seem to find the theory anywhere and that may be
part of the reason that I cant fully understand the theory
and how it is supposedly moving galaxies around.

is the theory called "the expanding space theory"?

you really cant blame me if I cant find the theory
and you two guys are explaining it differently than the
internet articles I have read.

is your explanation a secret or is it just that no one
wants to put their name on it?

anyway unless you actually have access to the written
theory and can supply a link to it , at least I now have
your definition below.





so far as I recall none of the articles that I have read mentioned that space inside of the human cells was expanding.

and most of the articles state that the expansion is not occurring inside a galaxy.

so , unless you or bill can supply a link to the information
where this is written down , Im afraid that I will just have to dismiss the information as heresay.



I have read articles that state that a photon is only referenced as being massless because its mass is really
tiny , but it still has mass.

even though a photon has a tiny amount of mass a very strong
gravity field will cause it to change its direction.

the wiki article on a photon states that a photon has a mass
of <1×10&#8722;18 eV/c2 , how could a massless particle have mass?
it also has an electric charge
of <1×10&#8722;35 e , how could a massless particle have an electric charge?

so either the person who wrote the wiki article
is wrong or you are wrong , I wonder which one?

heres the really tricky part where you seem to add some mass
in there , but if the photon does not have any mass then where does the mass come from or does the space itself have the mass somehow.






how could the geometry be affected by a photon that has no
mass.

I suppose that you mean the shape of space when you say geometry , I couldn't figure out what that part means.

but if so , how could the shape of the massless space
affect a massless photon?

I suppose that the reason that you use this description
of why a photon can be affected by space geometry is mainly
due to the fact that you want to try and say that a photon
has no mass at all.

this way the photons will not be influenced to move the way
that the entire galaxies are moving in the expanding space theory.

but then maybe the expanding space theory doesn't need
an object to have mass in order to carry the object.

but would a object require mass in order to be an object?

the theory is absolutely fantastic and actually amazing
although Im not sure exactly what it says but what I really find hard to believe is that I cant find the theory itself , because it is supposedly so widely accepted.

Can you explain this discrepancy between what you say Wiki says and what I found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon?

Or are you trying to confuse us by claiming that the upper limit of electron mass, based on experimental testing is the actual mass. That is the absolute maximum that electron mass could be if it had a mass. The consensus is that photons are massless but in science there are always people checking to make sure that our assumptions are correct. So far nobody has come up with anything that says that the photon does have mass.

In the meantime keep checking and you will find that the statements that the expansion of space doesn't occur in gravitationally bound systems is really just saying that the stars and galaxies in those systems aren't spreading apart. It doesn't say that the expansion of space isn't happening.

Bill Gill

of course not , I leave that up to people such as yourself

if you look on the page again under the picture below
you will find where I copied the text from.



here are a few things said in the article that seem to say
that photons are not massless under the following subsection
of the article.

Experimental checks on photon mass













still , I would like to see what the expansion of space theory
actually says , would you happen to know where the wording
of the theory can be located , its obvious that you believe
the theory to be correct therefore you must have read the actual theory somewhere , do you remember where you read it?

Paul, in your link, under the picture, what do you think the 0 (zero) means that is to the right of and on the same line as the term "Mass" and likewise to the right of and on the same line as "Electric Charge"?

pokey

the 0 means 0

then under that 0 there is more information

why do you think that there is added information and to the
left of that information there is nothing saying what the
information is?

could the authors have meant that the blank space to
the left of the information should also be Mass but just figured that people would be capable of figuring that out?

or did they just want to put in more information as filler
to make the number of characters on the page increase??

I cant understand why the information would be there unless
the information is about the mass of the photon , if you
will read the article you can find the same information within
its text however so the information must have some value
wouldn't you think?

I would think that if the authors believed that a photon
had no mass they would have put a 0 (zero) there and left it
at that , but they didn't do that did they , perhaps you also should contact the authors and tell them about the mistake they made.


BTW , how's Gumby doing these days?

also , would you happen to have the wording of the
expanding space theory?

does science have it somewhere?

I have just found some evidence ((( and a theory ))) Yea!!!!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp27bi.html



the expanding universe was the same in all directions -- the same laws applied, and its composition was the same -- but it was not static.



He had no data to prove this, so many scientists ignored it.

it wasn't Einstein or hubble that first found that the universe was expanding.

the article then states that what started the expansion
was the big bang.

I still cant find the expanding space theory however so
I cant compare the two theories.

its almost as though there really isn't a expanding space theory at all.

also, I had a really hard time finding what I did find
about the expanding universe.

my thoughts on this new influx of seemingly disappearing data

(1) the big bang happened.

(2) the universe is still expanding because of the initial
momentum of the big bang.

(3) the acceleration of the expansion of the universe is due to the loss of mass accompanied by less resistance to movement.

stars loose mass.

(1) Nuclear fusion
when 4 hydrogen nuclei are combined to form a single He nucleus, about 0.3% of the original mass is converted into energy. However, this is an extremely slow process and much less important than:

(2) A star expels matter
in the form of a "stellar wind". Although it happens to all stars to some extent (including our Sun), and can be spectacular for some stars at certain stages of their life cycle, it's not particularly strong for a star changing from a main sequence star to become a red giant.

and a star drags everything within its gravitational field along with it as it moves through space.

the black holes at the center of galaxies are constantly
squeezing the energy out of mass on the atomic level as pressures are compounded squeezing the electrons of atoms
inward to the center of the atom resulting in enormous releases of energy.

(3) this causes the galaxy to loose the energy part of the
mass inside the black hole.

therefore , all the stars in all the galaxies in the universe are loosing mass.

and all of the galaxies are accelerating because of this loss of mass , the galaxies at the edge of the universe accelerate faster because the overall gravity of the universe is weaker
at the edge of the universe so the galaxies at the edge of the universe are presented with less resistance to movement.

so the loss of mass and the lowered resistance to movement
results in acceleration of the galaxies.

P=mv

Gentle Readers: Here we have another prime example of cherry picking. Study it carefully so that you can recognize it when you meet it in other places. Cherry Picking is the art of taking statements out of context to prove that the person doing the picking is correct. Of course they have to be taken out of context because if the whole statement was given it would show that the person doing the picking was wrong. Paul did a fine job of this when he actually quoted Wikipedia on the mass of a photon.

Cherry Picking is very popular among politicians. They use it widely to show that their opponents are evil. This being an election year in the USA we are getting lots of chances to see it in the political advertising we are being inundated with.

Bill Gill

perhaps coming from you , your choice of wording should be

Gullible Readers: as these two words would fit in with your agenda
for what the science readers need to be in order for your cults beliefs
to spread or to maintain its base of followers.

BTW again , where is the expanding space theory located?

is it available to the general public for viewing or is
it locked away somewhere in the cult headquarters for fear
that some might recognize it for what it is , BS gibberish.

http://estfound.org/

This is not what you were asking for, Paul, but if you have not already seen it, it might provide you with some fun.

your right Bill S. , and thanks for the effort.

I had already visited that web site trying to find the
wording of the expanding space theory but I couldn't find it there either.

I believe that web site is a book site where you can actually
download the entire book and read it in your spare time.

what Im looking for is something more like what rede posted
earlier , but I cant find it.

I don't really need someone or some book to tell me how something works , I can figure that stuff out myself , and
that is why I need to have the wording of the theory and
what it claims will happen or does happen.

and Im certainly not going to simply believe that
somehow expanding space is what is carrying the
galaxies just because someone or some book said
that is whats happening.

and Im certain that there are a few of us left

Paul, You seem to be certain that you know more than the thousands of scientists that have studied the evolution of the universe. So you must have some kind of information to back up your beliefs. Please provide a link to a site that disproves the theory that the universe is expanding. If you can provide such a link I will go ahead and find one more link that tells us how it works, so you can't keep griping that none of the searching you have found is complete enough to satisfy you. Oh, and could you make that a reliable site? Not one that includes all the various nut case claims about various non-scientific theories. You know the kind of stuff that Newton keeps posting on here.

I realize that the fact that thousands of real scientists have studied the data and found the expansion of the universe to be real doesn't cut much ice with you, so I don't expect you to accept it. But you could try something more than your unsupported word to see if that would convince me. Contrary to your beliefs I can be convinced if I am given good enough evidence.

Bill Gill

I never have claimed that the universe was not expanding.

I have said that I don't believe that the universe is expanding
because space is expanding and supposedly everything in the universe is being carried by the expanding space.

I cant remember ever thinking that the universe was not expanding.

and Sir Isaac Newtons laws of motion explain that the universe
is expanding , because they state that an object will travel
in a straight line unless acted on or compelled to change
its direction by an external force.

but you can still post your link if you are allowed to , I
will give you time to ask permission from your higher powers
in the cult if needed.

theres really no hurry as far as Im concerned , but the Gullible masses might be getting impatient.



I have no doubt that you can be convinced about things
but as far as the "good enough evidence" goes , well that
remains to be seen.

BTW , what was the "good enough evidence" that convinced
you that the expanding space could carry a galaxy away?

There you go folks. Once more Paul wants it both ways. Space isn't expanding, but the universe, which completely fills space is. He doesn't even bother with logic. He just claims that he knows it all and we have to accept his explanation with no attempt to reconcile it with what people who have studied the data in detail say. Paul is the most intelligent person in the world and we need to throw away all the science that has been developed over hundreds of years because he has all the answers.

Bill Gill

that's exactly right , Bill.
except for the part I struck through.



that's absolutely wrong , Bill.



there is no data , if you have any data that would show that
the space is somehow carrying the galaxies away then please
post it.

for that matter if anyone else has any data you should also post it.

the universe is indeed expanding but it is not expanding because space is expanding , the universe is expanding because
everything in the universe is moving away from the big bang.

so post your link if you ever had one , or post some data that
shows that I am wrong , or at least post the theory that claims
that space is expanding.

space does not expand the way the science clowns and the
science cults seem to think it does.

the universe is inside of space

( notice I didn't make the broad impossible to support claim that the universe fills space like you have as if space is required to expand because everything in the universe is moving away from the big bang )

space may have a boundary just like
EVERYTHING IN THE OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE HAS

we don't know if space has a boundary or not now do we?

therefore since everything we can and have observed in the universe throughout history does have a boundary then logic
should tell us that space also has a boundary.

the edge of everything that exist in this universe that we
know exist may be trillions upon trillions of light years away from that boundary if there is a boundary , but we don't know
and we shouldn't make ridiculously broad claims about things
that we don't know.

we should follow the logic that we have gained and not throw
that logic away simply to pacify a group of illogical thinkers that claim that space is expanding and is dragging entire galaxies along with it as it expands.

the expanding space theory is by far
the stupidest and most illogical theory that science has ever fell victim to.

there is of course a simple test to find out if space is
expanding or not , you already know that the expanding space
is the strongest force in the galaxy because it is moving
all of the galaxies around.

and that is a strong force!

so build a space tight box with a space valve on it.

place the box in the expanding space.

open the space valve to allow space to fill the box.

then weld the valve closed and sit back and watch the
box explode from the tremendous force that the expanding
space is presenting to the sides of the box.

the box should expand at the same rate of speed that the galaxies are being moved apart from each other, because it
has the expanding space stuff inside it.

in fact you can build it here on earth according to you
and rede , oh wait we already have things such as that on
the earth , any air tank should explode by that extreme force.

does anyone know where a air tank is that has been sealed up
awhile?

better go let the expanding space out before it explodes!

WOW! Paul is getting even further out. He is proposing absolutely impossible things, even if you believe he knows what he is talking about.

By the way Paul, you might just check this about General Relativity. That is the basis for the expanding universe.

Bill Gill

Bill



rede posted the following in post # #52384 - 06/22/14 06:19 PM

what he posted clearly supports my experimernt if the space really does expand everywhere!




LOL , you didnt disagree with rede , so its obvious that you agree with rede , the expanding
space stuff would fit inside the box unless it has already expanded too much and once inside
the box and the space valve is welded shut the expanding space stuff would begin to expand and
because the expanding space stuff is so powerful and it can move everything in the universe
around then it can certainly explode a tiny space tight box.

unless you are saying that the expanding space stuff will only expand when its outside the box.

BTW , Bill

just how powerful is that expanding space stuff , what if
we were to build a box around the entire universe and what
if the box has a pressure guage that registers the pressures
that the expanding space stuff and the galaxies would present to the sides of the box?

not a pressure guage like an air pressure guage on a air tank , but like a stress guage that is used to measure stresses on materials to find the pressures that deformity
and failures will occur.

after all the bigger box would be the same exact experiment
as the tiny box and the results should be similar even though
there is regular stuff and expanding space stuff in the larger box.

that would make a really good thought experiment.

Terry Pratchett describes a thought experiment as “One that you can’t do, and which won’t work”.

Makes you wonder about this scientific stuff.

Wiki describes



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment

I suppose that the best way for you to retain your belief
in your cults fantasy science teachings is to avoid serious
thought about its teachings.

I have provided a simple method to examine the seemingly
invisible expanding space theory , and you being a follower
of the modern science fantasy cults teachings obviously do
not have the ability to apply logical thought as logical thought requires
logic and logic is not a part of the modern science fantasy cult nor is it allowed to be practiced by its followers or applied to the theories that squirt out of real sciences anus yet all the while the followers of the cult line up with there soup bowls in hand to collect and nourish their minds with the
putrid discards of real sciences scientific method.


1) if the space is expanding , it would expand inside the
big box that is built around the known and the unknown universe. ( because we know that the universe is expanding )

2) since ( reportedly ) the theory states that objects in the expanding space do not grow in size , this means that the big box would not grow in size to avoid a collision with the expanding universe.

3) since the big box would not grow in size , the objects inside the big box ( all of the mass in the universe )would be "carried" towards the sides of the big box.

4) these objects would press against the sides of the big box.

5) if the expanding space theory is correct then when
the expanding space has expanded to all of the sides
of the big box , then it could no longer expand and the
universe would stop expanding

or

the expanding space has the ability to pressurize the space inside the big box by continuing to add more and more space inside the big box which would eventually cause the big box to
explode.

I like the thought experiment, Paul, but then, I like odd ideas.

How does it work if the Universe is infinite?

I just thought of something else , Bill.

if the expanding space is the REASON why the galaxies
are all moving away from each other then this proves that

FREE ENERGY REALLY IS POSSIBLE

not that I ever doubted that it was , except for when I
really didn't know much about physics that is , even then
I didn't really know the concept of what free energy actually meant.

actually I firmly believe that energy can be made free.

once energy has been expended to build a machine that will
continuously output energy 24/7 without the need for energy input of any type and that type of machine would be described as a free energy machine.

the machine itself cost energy but the energy that it outputs
would be free , therefore the energy that it outputs would be free energy

simply tie a string from one of the expanding galaxies to
a spool of string that is attached to a electricity generator
on another one of the expanding galaxies.

the galaxies will expand away from each other because
the space is expanding , this will cause the spool of string
to unwind from the spool and will turn the electricity generator that will generate FREE ENERGY


TA DAAAA !!!


now if theres anything that simply cannot be tolerated by
either real science or ( possibly )even the fantasy science cults it would be the existence of
FREE ENERGY

some might say that the free energy would only be available
until the string unwinds from the spool and that would of
course be true , but if free energy is not possible then
it should not be possible for even a short amount of time.

so either the galaxies are moving because of the initial momentum of the big bang which would be the energy input.

or

the galaxies are moving because of the expanding space
that results in zero input energy to the free energy machine.

if the universe is infinite then you would never be able to
build a box around it.

What about an infinite box?

Every so often you actually think Paul

The situation is elegantly described for a layman by Sascha Vongehr in his article (http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/energy_not_golden_holy_cow_urine-72881)

So science agrees totally with you Energy is not conserved if space-time is not static.

The problem part from a science perspective is trying to exploit the loophole and that is a whole different ballgame.

It is interesting watching you guys go at it, so many errors but finally an answer that is correct

does that mean that I can resubmit my ideas to the
department of energy and they cant deny funding because of
violations of thermodynamic laws?

It would be nice if it were that simple , but Im certain
that they would only feel the way you do about it when it
fits into their agenda exactly like you feel about things when they fit into your agenda.



just because free energy really is possible does not mean that the expanding space theory is correct , it
only means that energy always has been free it just has not been allowed to
be free.

you would still need a finite universe in order to build anything outside of the finite universe.

You miss the more important part of that thought which is what is energy?

You are defining something as being free without defining exactly what it is ... are you sure it is something in the first place? A whole lot of nothing is still nothing and it's always free

This is the same problem as the ingredient rubbish none of you want to define an ingredient and you don't see the issue and why the whole discussion cracks me up.

There is another thing you use everyday which has these same problems it's called currency and in your case it would be US dollars. The US dollar is real and you use it everyday but what is it's real value in the universe? If I was a alien from across the other side of the universe does it have any value to me at all?

Do you see the issue here it's called A REFERENCE POINT and what all this stupid discussion from everyone is just ignoring that problem.

Energy may have a value to you but please prove to me it has value to the universe as a whole please and it doesn't take US dollars either they are worthless as well

Cantor identified various sizes of infinity. Couldn't your infinite box be larger than your infinite universe?

This brings to mind a discussion, years ago, in college, about the statement: "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts". I was the only one in a group of 30+ who disagreed with this statement.

to me , which may not be the way that the new modern science cult feels about it or should I say is allowed to feel about it , to put it in layman logic no matter which so called form of energy you use , energy is simply motion.

for example:

gasoline is not energy!
but by using gasoline in a machine , gasoline can be used to make motion.

so , anything that has motion , is energy .

Paul, I thought you might like this quote from New Scientist.

"The universe today is a little like one of those ghost movies. Galaxies whirl around in unexplained ways. Groups of stars race across space, pulled by forces from beyond the visible universe. The fabric of space is inexplicably elastic, expanded ever faster by an inscrutable energy all of its own.

Not an overly superstitious bunch, cosmologists invent names for the poltergeists responsible – dark matter, dark flows, dark energy – and invest a lot of effort in proving they are real. But might they, too, be chasing ghosts?"

I know , I suppose they want to use that type of terminology
for sensationalism in order to draw in more victims into their web of fantasy , and of course to compliment the absolutely fantastic unbelievable theories or beliefs.

I cant wait until the entertainment industry picks up on it
resulting in spoof movies and tv shows that reflect what the
new modern science cults beliefs look like to normal logical thinkers , in comparison to the abnormal illogical thinkers of the nmsc.

That is an interesting view so potential energy, chemical energy and electro-magnetic energy don't exist. More than a few issues with observation and experiments

So you really do have a lot in common with Marosz, ask him to explain snikers

Under classical physics that is one of the problems with energy is you can't develop a universal value for it. It is the identical problem to the value of US dollars it only has meaning to a discrete reference point.

I think I will side with the science cult group on this one, hopefully no goats involved in the cult

I wouldn't expect anything else from you , orac



you have only listed forms of energy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy#Forms

and these forms of energy do exist.

but they are not energy , they can only be used
to cause motion which is energy.

if energy is not motion then why do all of the energy
and work and power equations used in physics describe
motion?

or do you think that these equations would be better
by simply not using motion to calculate energy?


Energy
E=m
vs
E=m(c^2 motion)

Kinetic Energy
Ke=.5m
vs
Ke = .5m(v^2 motion)

Potential Energy
Pe =m
vs
Pe= m(gh potential motion)


one of the main issues I have with the qmers
is that they simply lack logic.

in your post you asked me to define energy and I have defined energy , and in all of your wisdom you have attempted to refute my definition of energy using forms of energy.

I guess the real difference between real science and
the new modern science cult is that when real science goes
to the bathroom they give a [censored] and then when the new modern science cult goes to the bathroom they actually do take a [censored].

striving for perfection here !!

and thats probably why you and the new modern science cult are so full of [censored]

you can add me in there Bill S.

I certainly wouldn't agree either.

they probably used a saw with a thick blade and didn't weigh
the sawdust when they weighed the parts.

the universe or cosmos is by definition everything that exist.

so if the universe is infinite then placing a box anywhere in
the universe would make the box a part of the infinite universe.

I'm not alone!!!!!

refuted? Sorry I just laughed I am not sure I would bother even discussing much less refute. One can only discuss goats for so long before they become tiresome

What do I care what you think, I am not here to convert anyone

Paul you are sounding more and more like Marosz every post, even down to the repetition. Seriously you guys need to get together and discuss snikers, Ask Marosz to explain.

So lets just say you are free to believe whatever you want, may the big goat in the sky be with you!!!!

as expected , orac.

once again you have opened access to the thing you call
your brain and attempted to retrieve some defensive morsel of value that you believe to be there stored deep within the few
remaining healthy brain cells that you have left
in defense of my post.

the results of your attempt to access some measure of value that may or may not still reside in your knowledge acquisition and storage device that flowed from the mangled mass inside your head through your fingers tips and was deposited onto the keyboard of your computer clearly implies the current status of your so called brain.

it may be that your brain is just saying [Censored] it
this guy is trying to make me look like im stupid so im
going to turn the table on him.

you rarely do have anything correct or relevant to say when
you say anything , so from now on im just going to request
that your post be removed from my discussions.

Hmm lets see you are the one using expletives and carrying on, I am merely saying you have the right to believe whatever you want even if it is really crazy

Lets see what the moderator does so complain away my old son because I have been nothing but civil. I have simply refused to bother arguing because it' far too stupid and for some reason that annoys you

Hell I am hoping the moderator does act because then we have a standard that can be applied on all threads and somehow I don't think you are going to like that. Perhaps put in a prayer to the big guy up stairs and maybe your wish will be granted.

orac

I have taken your advice and made it a reality.

and I want you to understand why I decided to act
on your suggestion.

1) if your going to make claims , you need to be able and willing to back up those claims.

2) you cannot back up a claim simply through insult or flaming.

3) if you find that you are not able to back up your claim
then you should have the decency to express that your claim
was either incorrect or was a mere assumption or hypothesis.

here is my request to the moderators.

Cool and I will simply ask that any post with science is evil blah blah blah be removed from threads that are not yours.

They meet all the same criteria you have described above and far far worse ... this will be great

What you didn't use the expletives when describing your argument to the moderator or was that the "(in similar words)"

Lets see where this all goes shall we, I have long been advocating more moderator involvement.

I wish you 2 would get back to science and quite tittle-tattling. I'm not going to remove posts that are within the bounds of the discussion. As for myself, you can't make a box that will not expand with the space that is expanding, because all stuff is expanding, including the box and what it is made of. No, the box full of matter would not explode, it would simply seamlessly expand just like the matter inside and outside of it expands. You would not be able to tell it was expanding. Unless you have some sort of miracle matter that does not expand with the rest of the universe, your hypothesis will go unproven. Since all matter is part of the same universe, the matter that the box is made up of is going to expand at exactly the same rate as the rest of the universe. Your experiment is fallacious. You cannot make up some special matter that doesn't expand with the rest of the universe. Let's not be silly about this.

Your lets not get silly about this was what I was in trouble for so in the interest of impartiality and fairness I have to object on Paul's behalf ... that was a joke hopefully my English works

For my part I actually tried not to get in an argument for once, I know it is rare but I am short on time at the moment.

Take care and I will try and keep the my arguing down to a dull roar.

Rose, your following statements are incorrect:

"all stuff is expanding, including the box...the matter that the box is made up of is going to expand at exactly the same rate as the rest of the universe".

- In fact, that's untrue at this particular point in the history of the universe. Currently, any stuff that is sufficiently bound by either gravity or the nuclear forces does not expand. That includes everything from an atom to a galaxy.

According to the Big Rip theory:
Since the rate of expansion is increasing, galaxies within galaxy clusters will eventually begin to move apart. In the remoter future, all currently observable galaxies will recede beyond the observable universe. Ultimately, the molecular structure of all things (including our hypothetical box) will disintegrate. So, it's a matter of degree, and space is not yet expanding to that degree***

So sayeth the theory. Don't blame me, it wasn't my idea

*** Presently, the Hubble constant (rate of expansion) is about 70 km/s/megaparsec. That's 1 nanometer (1 billionth of a meter) per second, per 441,000 km.

Thanks Rede. I knew I had seen that some where and wanted to throw it into this discussion, but couldn't find it.

Bill Gill

Even that is not accurate or up to date probably start with Ethan's article but you also need to read the comments of WOW in it that fixes a couple issues up.

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/...verse-combined/

From the QM field and the standard model we can also add in a few bits in but I will throw them when you get to them I don't want to be accused of having an agenda here ... you guys keep thinking.

What I will say there are a number of things currently in cosmology that run smack up against the standard model and you even get some nutcase cosmology professors who think they can somehow invalidate the standard model based on garbage cosmological observation. Meanwhile the standard model keeps proving reliable to an incredible accuracy

Bill's man Prof Matt Strassler did a fairly good article on it this year which is worth a read. At the extreme technical I have one quibble with it but for a layman it's very good
http://profmattstrassler.com/2014/03/26/which-parts-of-the-big-bang-theory-are-reliable/

My only comment to provoke thought is no-one has thrown in the idea that we are one universe in a bigger bunch of universes and are being pulled apart. Whats wrong with the idea and how could you test it?

You are all literally thinking inside the box

Yes the Standard Model does work with incredible accuracy. GR also works with incredible accuracy, don't forget that. I know you don't believe in GR but I will keep my faith until it is invalidated, while recognizing that there are conflicts between GR and QM.

I'm not too concerned with multiple universes. If they exist, and there is no real evidence that they do, then they still don't have much to do with our universe. That is the only one we can observe. We have to work with what we have, not what some people think may be.


Of course we are thinking inside the box. Paul's box encloses the whole universe, so we have to think inside it.

Bill Gill

You keep saying that and I have no idea why I have repeated over and over so lets do it one more time in red

I believe in GR as much as I believe in QM but BOTH have issues.

You seem to ignore my issues underlying QM as it stands but focus on my issues with GR ... be consistent I either believe them both or don't believe either. I personally don't care which way you go but I think both have about the same standing so it's both together whichever way you want.

So lets clarify my issues once more

GR my issue is it is a theoretical and mathematical match to a problem with only partial direct evidence because we don't have solid understanding of the origin of gravity. I am completely sold on GR if there is a direct detection of a gravity wave which everything says should be there. That result should come from LIGO in the next couple of years and I will fully and happily accept that.

Science nor I accepted the Higgs without direct evidence so you can't say my stance is unusual or I hate GR or half the rubbish you try and intimate that I have towards GR.

If you look back at my historic posts I was actually betting against the Higgs which based on the new evidence I fully accept. I am no harder on GR than I am on any other part of science including the Higgs prior to confirmed discovery.

My issues with QM are totally different in that we have millions of direct observations of it at work but we have no underlying mechanism if we are going to throw out string theory. So right now you have a rather awkward choice of use QM and ignore the why or keep the why an pray the experiments ruling against string theory can be explained down the track. Ethan and Matt Strassler and all the media writers openly admit the same issue so I am not alone.

Again the idea that QM and GR are conflict is not a fact I would support, it is simply a possibility I couldn't rule out with certainty. I would say it is less likely now than it ever has been given we now understand a lot more of macro scale QM. There are several experiments underway, two will be launched next year, and this issue will be settled one way or another.


I guess my responses to that are simple

One of your alternative answers is dark matter and all searches for that keep turning up empty so does dark matter exist in Bill's science?

How do you know such a thing would not be observable exactly what are you basing your answer on Bill?

The problem with Paul's box runs around the very problem Bill S was on, you have to first assume you can put the whole universe in a box

I thought the fact that there is a great deal of observational evidence for predictions made by GR was pretty good direct evidence. GR has a solid understanding of the origin of gravity. Gravity is the result of the distortion of space by mass-energy. That is just as good as the observational evidence for QM. I don't see that direct detection of gravity waves will necessarily validate or invalidate GR. If we don't detect gravity waves then it may require a change to GR, but all of its other predictions will still be fully valid. In my opinion we will detect gravity waves. If we don't I will be surprised, but will wait for people who understand this sort of thing to come up with the needed corrections.




I'm not quite sure what dark matter has to do with multiple universes. As far as I know multiple universes will be totally unobservable. They will be completely separated from our universe by whatever it is that separates the universes. As far as dark matter is concerned, there is something that is causing galaxies to move wrong according to Newton. Whatever that is acts like it has gravity. Gravity is associated with matter (or energy). Therefore dark matter is as good a tag for it as anything. I realize that some people are looking at Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND), but MOND doesn't match well with GR, which works extremely well in other situations. Right now I think that most people that are working on it will go with dark matter.

Bill Gill

There are only two sources of partial direct evidence data around a supernova explosion still disputed and the release of the BICEP2 data a few weeks ago also still disputed. Perhaps review the background on direct evidence of GR again.

Outside of that what we have is lots and lots of very very strong correlation to theory (I could add more very's if you like). If you asked me to bet then I would bet on GR being right but that differs from me being able to say conclusively.

As I said go back to the Higgs it lived in exactly the same condition as a theory, was I supposed to accept the Higgs before it's formal detection?

Gravitational waves are a direct consequence of GR theory if it is correct they have to be there which is the point that is important they can't be explained any other way.


But you haven't defined what mass or energy is you can only scale it to observation and round and round the classic physics merry go round you go. I am not trying to create and argument here they are the facts everyone agrees on, I know you have read Matt Strasslers discussions on this.

So if you use that criteria then go the whole way please because using that criteria and I also don't accept QM for the same reasons. As I said it's both or neither for me depending how you set the criteria on "believing". I guess if we were in climate science stupidity we could apply the 97% rule and by that standard I am off the hook with you and a GR and QM believer.


By that argument we didn't need to build the LHC then because it was obvious the Higgs existed ... science doesn't work like that.


Haha that's the whole problem is modified GR still actually "GR" it would be the same question if we found a slightly different Higgs to the standard model Higgs ... is it still "the Higgs" then.

Remember gravitational waves are a direct consequence of Einstein's theory and a prediction of it. I am not sure I would call anything that didn't have them Einsteins theory or GR.

There is no right and wrong on that it's a perception thing and because the Higgs was so spot on it is hard to have any evidence of what happens in that case.


I totally agree I expect the solution they have the detector working now to the QM limit as reported last week

http://phys.org/news/2014-06-smallest.html

So if LIGO doesn't see a gravitational wave at that point then you have to say it either doesn't exist or QM and GR are both missing something.

So we are back to the none or both scenario again for me.

It's not like this is an argument that has no hope of answering we are in the same position as the moments before the LHC was fired up. LIGO will give us a definite answer to the question but what you are asking me to do is jump the gun before the result all so you can put it in your little "in" box.

All I am saying is the argument will be definitively and positively answered once and for all by LIGO to the QM limit of measurement and I will hold judgement until that point and I will be accepting that answer not some speculation of today.



The issue isn't multiple universes it's the fact we have failed to detect any sign of it other than some theories use it. So is this in or out of your science standards? I am trying to work out what criteria you are using to decide what is in and out of what you accept since what I do and don't say I accept causes you issues.


Again I am not answering either way I want you to tell me why you believe that because there is an interesting fact in the background to it.

Orac, There is no positive evidence for any modern physical theory. There is just an overwhelming lot of evidence that they work. You will find many places where people explain that there is no expectation of full confirmation. Theories are accepted as long as they work. Both GR and QM work so they are accepted. If gravitational waves are found they will be one more confirmation that the theory works, but they still won't prove that it is right. It will just be one more confirmed prediction.

I love it when I make a statement and you come back with a statement like: "Again I am not answering either way I want you to tell me why you believe that because there is an interesting fact in the background to it". It would give me a lot more confidence in your statements if you would show why I was wrong instead of implying that you are smarter than I am because you know something I don't. Then of course you don't really show that you know something I don't. If you do know something tell us. If you don't really know something don't imply that you do.

Bill Gill

That was refreshing, Bill; and exactly right.

If I tell you the answer then I am accused of lecturing or trying to steer the conversation etc. Personally I have long since given up caring what anyone on this forum says or believes I just practice my English and maybe provoke some actual thought if people are interested.

So I will go out on a limb and actually answer this stupidity you are discussing. Note I am not going to argue this garbage I will give you a statement of the stupidity of the argument take it or leave it. Personally I care little of what you make of my answer.

The problem with Paul's box is nothing to do with the sort of physicality that you are all discussing it means the universe as a SYSTEM IS CLOSED that is it's technical name call it what it is.

The problem with that is simple, energy comes from spacetime translational invariance which does not exist in general relativity and you now want to close the system good luck with that. If you need that dumbed down then energy of movement etc has nothing to do with gravity it works just fine with or without gravity.

You can try and derive the energy density in general relativity and when you do you will get zero. The variation of the action to the metric tensor gives you something that must vanish. Why?? Well because the metric tensor is a dynamical degree of freedom in general relativity and the action must be stationary with respect to all the dynamical degrees of freedom (in layman words your moving object needs to see gravity like a stationary object) - which now includes the metric tensor, too! Technical way of saying your stuffed because your energy value must disappear under Einstein's equations of general relativity.

So now you have a problem Noether's theorem mathematically proves that any boundary (ie. any asymmetry )in time or of a smooth continuous physical space with linear translation and/or angular translation, specifically means that conservation laws of mass-energy, linear momentum and angular momentum respectively, are violated at those boundaries.

Now I am afraid it gets worse not better under QM, Shan Gao did a recent article which neatly covers then problem. It's highly technical but it covers the problem in depth of how QM which we now know is correctly describing energy must sort of meet GR.

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/9969/1/STSCH_v9.pdf

So I am sorry this garbage about putting the universe in a box is beyond stupid and why specifically I didn't want to get into arguing about it.

Now what is the connection to gravity waves well I will refer you to Phil Gibbs who is an expert you might accept and gets the argument right while explaining it to a student.

Please read his answer carefully at number 5
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2597/energy-conservation-in-general-relativity

You will note he correctly identifies that even Einstein changed his mind back and forward on whether gravity waves would exist and why ... he must be a GR denier like me

Now in the article Phil also gives the cosmologists some latitude but that was in 2011 lets just say they have a whole lot less wiggle room in 2013.

So there you have it the connection between GR, gravity waves and conservation of energy and the argument goes all the way back to Einstein himself ... which I thought was an interesting fact about this garbage you guys were discussing.

You guys can dribble all you like about how you think science works but when you run hard against mathematical and observation proofs layman, crackpot cosmologist professor or a media writer you are about to go down in flames no matter how science actually works.

END OF STORY.

Orac, whilst your misrepresentation of the thread contents can be attributed to your apparently limited ability to understand English, that doesn't excuse your unsavoury and discourteous use of such English as you have mastered. You prattle excessively, it may be said; but perhaps that's excusable. More to the point, you prattle rudely and abusively - frequently and regularly - and that's inexcusable. Stop it, if you can. If you can't, you will not be missed.

Since I was one of the first to complain about Paul's box I am surprised that your study of English hasn't led you to recognize irony when you see it.


And I wasn't aware that GR was about energy. I thought it was about gravity. Of course gravity is closely related to the mass-energy of objects and radiation in space. And of course objects are moved around by the interchange of energy. It is all tied together, just as it is in Newton's Laws. As far as closing the system. We don't know that the universe is a closed system, but it can certainly be handled that way. After all we cannot detect any effects created by objects that are beyond the observable universe. Therefore we are essentially in a closed system.

And then we have a lot of piffle which doesn't explain anything except that once again you know more than we do and can't be bothered to tell us poor ignorant peasants.

Bill Gill

And there you go it's all my fault that you can't understand the problem you are up against which you can't argue around, no-one can.

Cool I will accept that I have broad shoulders and it's not my problem I don't need or want to convert you

I have given you the prompt Einstein flip-flopped on this issue and the underlying problem if you are interested you will bother to read and understand why I will not argue it because I will get in trouble.

I will give you a small hint at part of your problem Bill which you should be able to understand and it is embedded in this comment


You sit there and you don't feel like you are moving. Only as we pull back we realize you are spinning around the earth's axis. Pull back further you are also moving in an ellipse around the sun. Historically people thought the earth was flat and the earth was stationary using your exact logic in that statement. Hopefully that makes you see the issue that lack of detected effects in no way implies a closed system it simply means lack of observation. The only way to close a system is to IMPLICITLY KNOW the system is closed or be able to prove it. The proof part gets interesting you might like to read up on that and it starts at Noether's theorem as a start point for you.

The other side I was trying to get you to think about that even under what you have expressed 75% of the energy is MIA in dark energy/dark matter. So you actually know that you don't have all observational data explained and still you want to close the system? That is why I questioned what you thought of Dark matter/Dark Energy as I assume you don't believe it from that statement.

For me personally I can't and won't close the universe system and so our disagreement starts there and gets worse and worse at every level and hence I am not going to bother arguing it.

What you, Rede say about the issue is your view frankly and in some ways differs little from Paul to me. So I bow out of this topic leaving you all to free to continue discussing it.

Somehow things seem to be shifting again. We started out with Paul claiming that the expansion of the universe wasn't real. Now somehow this becomes a problem with dark matter and dark energy. Is it just that I am too dumb to follow the track or is Orac once again trying to shift the field when he gets to a point that he doesn't have a good response to? The last point I was trying to address was gravity waves. That doesn't seem to have much to do with dark matter or dark energy.

Bill Gill

you see , it is a cult , orac has stated that he will get
in trouble if he talks about it.

its not much about science either , its a cult that deprives its followers the ability to reveal certain aspects of their
belief system.

also I just need to clear this up again , Bill.



I never have claimed that the universe wasn't expanding.

I have claimed that the expansion of space

( as described in the expanding space theory ,wherever it is)

itself is not what is carrying everything with it as space expands
thereby causing everything in the universe to expand away
from everything as if everything were in a type of water current.

1) the universe is expanding.
2) its expanding because of the momentum of the big bang.
3) the acceleration of the expansion is due to loss of mass and less resistance to movement.

try to remember that please.

or it is still traveling as light energy away from what we
call our universe.

stars convert mass into light energy , that light energy
eventually leaves what we call our universe.

13.8 billion years traveling at the speed of light.

how far is that?

also the black hole at the centers of galaxies crunch stars
until their energy builds up high enough to escape the gravity of the mass inside the black holes.

that light energy also leaves what we call our universe.

so now just how much energy is supposedly missing in the
MIA fantasy dark matter and all the dark sensationalism.

was this lost energy that is still there traveling through
the void accounted for?

Paul I have to give you credit that at least you realize there is an issue and your own answer to this therefore tells you that you can't close the universe as a system and so your idea of the universe in a box is trivially wrong.

If you wanted to contain what we observe in the universe as a box it becomes no different to the solar system or a galaxy as you go out and out each level. So there would be no reason you couldn't go up a level and have our universe rotating with a clump of other universes around in some sort of super universe thing. We would have no observational data because we don't see the motion so how could you exclude it. Lack of data does not mean a system is closed it means you don't know and there you have a definitive answer.

It also means you can't use that sort of argument against expanding space because it's illogical. I was laughing at both sides in the discussion because there was so much wrong it was like a train wreck.

I could never agree with Bill and on some technical points Rede with what they seem to view as some sort of standard science interpretation, I care little for their interpretation and am happy to be a stupid crazy janitor if I had to believe that as science. I also do not intend to argue this with you as from your comments you clearly understand what I am saying and the sorts of issues it raises and the universe is most definitely an open system unless you can prove it to me to be closed.

I am glad you understood and now I will leave you with it.

Bill, I thought about answering your post but to be honest I don't think you want to understand the connections and so I am happy to say you are right I am wrong, whatever you want. To be honest I really don't care you are as correct as Marosz, just ask him ... what can I say I am wrong yet again it;s already in my byline

orac, it is a thought experiment , it began with
a small box built inside the universe.

it was to test if the space inside the small box would expand.

the larger box was to confirm the small box.

1) if the space would expand inside the large box.
it would also expand inside the small box.

seeing that the universe is expanding and would expand
inside the large box , then the space inside the small
box must also expand , it does not , so the test worked
as well as was expected.

the results logically show , that the space is not expanding.

Orac,
Please confine yourself to answering questions. The forms you are using to reply to others are bordering on the abusive. Please have respect for you fellow forumites. I have received complaints about your posts, and if you continue with contempt for the rules of this forum you will not be allowed to continue to post. Your English needs practice, particularly with punctuation. If you can't respect the other posters here, then don't post. I would be glad to correct your English. I cannot correct your attitude.

Sorry Rose it is very hard to hide my disdain for something I find rather silly to be even discussing on a science forum. I will attempt to either not comment or try and hide my disdain better in future and improve my punctuation.

On the content of my posts, I see no question in Bill's, Rede's last posts they are comments of statements of belief and really just attacks on me. Paul's last couple contains clarifications which I understood, however in many of the posts above I am not sure the expletives helped me understand anything.

However I never complain about anything said at or about me as you know. I have only ever complained about one post which was on the topic of the holocaust and had a brief discussion on how to handle Marosz.

I would also like you to read back up and it was Bill who wanted me to make a statement because he objected to me continually asking prompting questions. He categorically insisted on it and I quote "If you do know something tell us. If you don't really know something don't imply that you do". So if I ask prompted and directed questions like new forum policy I am condemned and if I answer them I am condemned ... not sure where I go from there.

As you obviously got a complaint from Rede, and you already had one from Paul, I think it best I just leave them to it and ignore this like Marosz's posts.

Paul: I would have liked to explain the problem with your clarification but as per above to Rose I am out of here ... good luck.

Paul, I think there are a couple of problems with your idea that there is light energy traveling beyond the universe and therefore being lost.

1. By definition the universe is everything that there is. Everything there is includes light. Therefore no matter where light travels it is still in the universe.

2. The universe is about 13.8 years old. The oldest light we see, the Cosmic Background, is almost that old. So the light hasn't had time to travel "outside the universe" it is just now reaching us.

That's 2 different ways of looking at it, and neither allows light to be lost.

Bill Gill

Bill

what we call our universe is what we know exist because
we have seen it , or detected it.



well Im certainly not going to suggest that you have any
problems , you do seem to have an uncanny ability to find things that I have said that I havent said , but that wouldnt be a problem that would be more of an advantage in a discussion wouldnt it?



true , and the light that is traveling away from us , is not seen unless it is reflected off of some object.

also the 13.2 billion year old light from the galaxy that was emitted in our direction way before the earth was even formed was also being emitted away from where the earth is today
and has been traveling for 13.2 billion years.

so as far as we know the light that we can see from that particular galaxy that is sent outwards from the galaxy has a radius of
at least 13.2 billion light years in distance , which tells
me that parts of the light that the galaxy emitted 13.2 billion years ago would now be at least 26.4 billion light years away from the earth because the light would be traveling in all directions.

and thats not counting any movement of the galaxy to the place where it actually is today , if its even there at all.

most likely the light from the galaxy is much further than the 26.4 billion light year distance from the earth.



I never did say that the light was lost!
heres what I said.

You said it was missing. When something is missing that means it is lost. And the energy isn't lost. It is still wandering around the universe in one form or another. We can tell it is there by measuring the movements of the various components of the universe. The components include matter, electromagnetic energy, gravitational energy, dark matter, and dark energy. They have all been accounted for.

Some scientists believe the movement of stars in galaxies and galaxies in galactic clusters can be explained by Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND). MOND works great for the motion of galaxies, but doesn't explain a lot of other effects, so it is still questionable. GR explains almost everything else, and makes some very strong predictions that MOND doesn't. So most think that MOND is wrong, they just don't know how.

Bill Gill

What do we mean by expanding space? If two objects are moving apart through space, the space between them is increasing. Presumably this differs from expanding space, because the totality of space remains the same.

Expanding space must imply that space is getting bigger. Two possibilities come to mind:

1. New space is being created everywhere.

2. The boundary of the Universe is constantly moving “outward”, without anything extra being added.

Either of these seems reasonable, if space is considered as “nothing”; but such, we are assured, is not the case.

If space is something, then the expansion of space must involve more than simply an increase in the size of the Universe, unless the something that is space is becoming increasingly rarefied.

Given that the galaxy groups are moving apart, it seems reasonable to suggest that this rarefaction is what is happening.

Does this leave us with a paradox?

If space is something, and this something is a quantum entity, its quanta must be moving apart. If they are moving apart, the area between them must be increasing.

Unless new quanta are being created to fill this “void”, what should we call this void? It cannot be space, because space is something, and this must be nothing.

no bill , now your saying that im saying the things that
orac is saying , where does it all stop?
please try to keep up with what is being said and
who is saying what in the discussion.

that was what orac said when he said MIA in
the below as in missing in action !!

Bill, as we know, the electromagnetic waves that happen to be passing through space are stretched, but the energy of the space itself remains the same per unit of volume. There are just as many virtual particle per cubic unit in the expanded space. Whatever the nature of dark energy, that too appears to be undiluted. If you find anything to the contrary, I'd be interested.
____

Adding this YouTube link. The topic has been thrashed out already, but this is a clear and simple explanation of how it works. It also applies to boxes, btw.
Do We Expand With The Universe?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th_9ZR2I0_w

embedded

that video is the same exact crap , as the expanding space
theory.

if it has any substance to validity then it
must not want to explain the substance that it has because
it only states that space is expanding but it gives no reason for the expansion , and it only does that to negate newtons laws of motion that present a clear reason for the expansion.

I personally think that the entire can of rubbish
is no more than a desire to lay claim on something new.



It hurts to see this type of video made to try and
explain something as ridiculous as space expansion.

the idiot that made the video didn't even mention momentum
which is the true reason why everything in the universe is moving away from everything else and that momentum is the
true reason why gravity cannot hold the galaxies from moving away from each other

its looking like becoming a science student will require
one to become an idiot in the process.

but that will be fine because all the other scientist will
eventually be idiots and they will all blend in perfectly.

the really sad thing about this type of crap science is
that the students who have the ability to think this crap
through and determine that it is crap may just give up on
education because they don't want their minds to become
polluted with this type of garbage , or their logic will
cause them to fail classes.

my response to redes crap science video.

the below video will explain why the universe is expanding.
all of you students of science should let your teachers
know that you know that they are idiots if they tell you
otherwise.
but you should also let your idiot teachers know that
you will play the game only to get your degree.

this way at some point in the future there will at least
be some hope for science.

revolt !!!

thats the problem I have with it.

they just want us to believe that ( without any reasonable cause ) space is just expanding.


and on top of that they want us to believe that because
space ( without any reasonable cause ) is expanding , everything
in the universe is being carried by the expanding space as it expands
as if everything were somehow attached to the expanding space.



we can add a third possibility to that list

3. the universe expands into an infinite void.

there really is no expansion however its just like an
explosion.

mass from an explosion also expands away from its center.




I think that teaching the crap science should be a criminal offence because a degree in science is a paid for item.

I also think that todays sensationalism of science is to
attract new students which could easily be viewed or construed
as fraud.

maybe some of the schools and teachers need to be summoned
to a court of law where they can explain just how the space
is expanding.

judging from the lack of any evidence presented so far
in my quest to find a reason for space to expand I dont
think that a 1st year law student would ever lose any
case that was held to determine if the schools were involved
in fraud to enhance their incomes and number of students.

schools of all types that teach the crap , fake , science as
being true should be held liable for the criminal act that
they are engaging in unless they teach it as a belief and
not as a fact.

Paul: "it only states that space is expanding but it gives no reason for the expansion
Paul: "they just want us to believe that ( without any reasonable cause ) space is just expanding"

It's observation evidence, Paul. The same as Newton's apple falling. Do you reject his mathematical description of gravitation because you can't provide a 'reasonable cause' for the apple falling to the ground? Just, calling it 'gravity' doesn't tell you (or Newton) how it works, any more than the name 'Dark Energy' tells you how that works.

Why do I bother? I swore I wouldn't

Can I offer at least a simple suggestion why don't you all at least read a simple layman FAQ on dark energy. You might then at least get the basics right.

Rede is at least semi close but the rest of you are so far off it hurts. Sean Caroll's FAQ would be a good layman readable start point.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/10/04/dark-energy-faq/

Rede got to the point he realized the dark energy stayed constant and it gives the direct problem that comes under the special title in the FAQ


Think carefully about the answer and what it implies and see if you agree with Sean Caroll.

So either you choose dark energy or you choose conservation of energy you can not have both.

Good luck people.

Newton not Invented gravitation

Galileo Natural fall down Law was First !!!

Important problem that we must solve

apple----Earth---apple >>> motion

apple left or right will hit earth First ?

why above question is soo importnat !!!


HISTORY
" Galileo postulated his relativity hypothesis: any two observers moving at constant speed and direction with respect to one another will obtain the same results for all mechanical experiments (it is understood that the apparatuses they use for these experiments move with them).
This idea has a very important consequence: velocity is not absolute. This means that velocity can only be measured in reference to some object(s), and that the result of this measurment changes if we decide to measure the velocity with respect to a diferent refernce point(s). Imagine an observer traveling inside a windowless spaceship moving away from the sun at constant velocity. Galileo asserted that there are no mechanical experiments that can be made inside the rocket that will tell the occupants that the rocket is moving .
The question ``are we moving'' has no meaning unless we specify a reference frame (are we moving with respect to that star'' is meaningful). This fact, formulated in the 1600's remains very true today and is one of the cornerstones of Einstein's theories of relativity."

Marosz ( me and my Idea )
Gravitation = EM wave
Gravitation is not moving with body ( not Exist C speed + V !!!) exist only C speed

we can use Inverse Square Law and Gravitation to evaluate motion !!!

We can solve Mr Gallileo problem !!! in 2012 I made in home
first test for light. http://tesla4.blogspot.com

p1...p2...p3...p4....M >>>
.
.
.
.
m

mass M is moving
Inverse Square Law
and huge distance 1000000000000000.....0000... light years



mass m will acelerate
but if the distance is huge ( Intensity of the signal is almost constant )



L

no , its not the same as newtons apple , because the apple falls due to the force of gravity , and because we can observe
how gravity works and we can measure the effects of gravity on an object and between objects.

classical science provided a reason why the apple falls.

modern science and its EST provides nothing as a reason why space is supposedly forcing everything to move by expanding.

it just states that "space expands" and gives the gullible
masses no reason as to why it expands , this leads to the gullible masses devouring any crap that modern science can think of to spew out of its anus to feed its hungry children and the gullible masses will devour every bit of it and then they will lick the bowl clean and ask for more.

because its fantastic , incredible , and sensational.

not to mention unbelievable.

science is the only discipline where you can have
pure fantasy in a real world.

Paul: "classical science provided a reason why the apple falls"

No, it only provided a mathematical description of the effects of what Newton called gravitas. He called it 'gravitas' for want of a label. It did not provide a reason.

You accept that gravity exists because you see the evidence. You don't accept that space is expanding, because only scientists can verify the evidence. Therefore it's a conspiracy? I expect that puts the cap on the discussion then.

then your expectations are too high.



yes , I accept that gravity exist , and the FORCE that
gravity places on the apple , is why the apple falls.



of course not , I have never been presented with a shred
of evidence that shows how space is expanding.



well then if scientist have verified the evidence that
space is expanding then perhaps you would be so kind as
to let us in on the tightly kept secret?

lets see the evidence !!!

Interesting link, Orac. I struggled with this, though.

The answer to the question:

“If negative pressure is like tension, why doesn’t it pull things together rather than pushing them apart?”

is as follows:

“Sometimes you will hear something along the lines of “dark energy makes the universe accelerate because it has negative pressure.” This is strictly speaking true, but a bit ass-backwards; it gives the illusion of understanding rather than actual understanding. You are told “the force of gravity depends on the density plus three times the pressure, so if the pressure is equal and opposite to the density, gravity is repulsive.” Seems sensible, except that nobody will explain to you why gravity depends on the density plus three times the pressure. And it’s not really the “force of gravity” that depends on that; it’s the local expansion of space.
The “why doesn’t tension pull things together?” question is a perfectly valid one. The answer is: because dark energy doesn’t actually push or pull on anything. It doesn’t interact directly with ordinary matter, for one thing; for another, it’s equally distributed through space, so any pulling it did from one direction would be exactly balanced by an opposite pull from the other. It’s the indirect effect of dark energy, through gravity rather than through direct interaction, that makes the universe accelerate.
The real reason dark energy causes the universe to accelerate is because it’s persistent.”

Perhaps it’s just me, but this doesn’t seem to answer the question.

LOL





Bill S , I think its all the pulling together of everything by the dark energy that is pushing everything apart , its like bad is good these days , and orange is the new black , so
smart must be the new stupid.

in order to appear smart you must present yourself as
being someone who is stupid , and the stupider you can
present yourself to be , the smarter the other stupid smart people will think you are.

forest gump told us all about it , when he said

stupid is stupid does.

dark energy sounds a lot like gravity to me.

I guess the stupid are trying to lay claim on gravity now
but only the gravity that exist outside of galaxies and clusters.

how convenient for them.


I suppose the dark energy that pulls on everything causing everything to move away from everything does not
also pull on other dark energy or you would get clumps of even darker energy pulling on the smaller individual singularities of dark energy that are further away and they may eventually
form into a giant ball of darkness with dungeons and dragons
and the Dungeon master would roll the dice and cast spells on the real energy and cause it to also become dark , then lord cashmere pops in through the quanta portal and claims victory over all of everything in the new dark universe that the stupid have dreamed up in their spare time because they
dont really know squat about science or what science is all about so they get together and claim this and claim that and never ever show any tidbit of evidence to back any of it up.

You are not alone Bill's

You might want to go back and revise our discussion of Energy and QM and you may notice there is a much much deeper problem in the answer given.

Part of the problem is Sean Carroll who runs the FAQ believes in a rather strange version of the many world's interpretation and even when he gives the answer in the classic sense it carries the heavy and arguable very wrong undertone. You might care to read Lubos tipping a bucket on poor Sean as a backdrop (http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/many-worlds-pseudoscience-again.html)

There is no consensus on the issue and even Einstein waivered on the issue because of it's implications and he did not even have all the information we have today.

WE CAN PROOVE / DISPROOVE THAT SPACE IS EXPANDING WE NEED MAKE EXPERIMENT

how ?

Inverse Square Law ( Intensity of the signal )



More far from place where signal started = lower intensity of signal
( "lower brightness" )
1R = X , 2R = X/4 , 3R = X/9
X- brightness, R- radius
the same energy portion but different area


IF SPACE EXPANDING WE SHOULD OBSERVE THAT ENERGY FROM MASTER SOURCE OF LIGHT IS NOT WORKING LIKE WE HAVE IN INVERSE SQUARE LAW ( EXPENDING SPACE SHOULD CHANGE INTENSITY OF THE SIGNAL THAT IS GOING INSIDE SPACE ) !!!

IF INVERSE SQUARE LAW IS WORKING WE NOT HAVE EXPANDING SPACE
SPACE THAT KEEP CONSTANT DENSITY WILL NOT CHANGE INTENSITY OF SIGNAL (EXPANSION should change electric's capacity of space - we schould observe different "not natural" ---> " INTENITY JUMP " JUMP and Intensity can be describe by function we can test expantion !!! )

Maciej Marian Marosz ( Poland ) 07/07/2014

If space is not expanding we schould measure below efect
Energy is going isotropy respect to point where wave started live

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dS-cUmBntzA/UoRVdV1-UdI/AAAAAAAABQQ/TF91UPHWIk8/s1600/1aaa.JPG

ABOVE POST = NOBEL PRIZE LEVEL !!!
NOBODY BEFORE ME TEST SPACE EXPANSION
http://tesla4.blogspot.com


**************************************
******************************************

below my test ( Inverse Sguare Law and Motion or Expantion or Fizeau problem )

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QAAvQuZjtmI/UOhDTjKm0uI/AAAAAAAAAbU/_g7IkKC_K00/s1600/8x.JPG

Discovery : brightness of pictures West and East are not the same
Reason ? Eart's Velocity 30 km/s = 30 000 000 mm/s
(NIKON 5000d remote start, zero outsite light ,stative, manual set ,
time 10s , F 8 , Iso 200 - /10 cm to bulb / filtre is important !!!)

first test inside AIR
> http://youtu.be/XF_npmQ8kGY

first pictures
( brightness - photoshop 10 histogram) west ( -30km/s ) and East (+30 km/s )

> http://youtu.be/O9k-zidfJZg

proffesional test proposition

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8wjLt-hPeu0/Utvr6OSc5II/AAAAAAAABkc/4lngY1EJC9o/s1600/tower+1.JPG

ORAC
step by step My Michelson Morley ( Inverse Square Law EDITION )

WILL CHANGE PHYSICS !!!

it is very natural that new feel resistance but
My test it is not a joke ( it will be future for modern more closed true physics )

Inverse Square Law is much more important than any .... 1000 space thoretical talking...

belwo experiment made Mr Lagiewka in 2013 ( Newton Not Exist )

http://www.spacetimeandtheuniverse.com/space-time-universe/7688-huge-question-about-symetry.html

I cant speak for Bill S , Orac , but I certainly intend to
go back and revise everything I think I know about Energy and QM , also there are several hundred books that members of this forum have suggested that I read in order to understand QM
and GR and SR and I now feel as if I need to read and study
them all in order to fully understand Energy and QM , I was kind of wanting to do something else with the rest of my life but this stuff interest me , so I guess I'll get started reading and studying all of the books that will help me to
understand Energy and QM and SR and GR.



































































































not happening , sorry!

source >>> ENERGY in SPACE >>> detector


source can be on Earth
detector can be on Moon


we turn on bulb ( 0,5 sec only )

light need 1 sec to touch the detector
(distance moon-Earth = 300 000 km )


detector is checking Intensity [ Joules / mm^2 ]
if Inverse Square Law works we not have Expantion


if Detector showing that we not have Inverse Square Law
exist other reson that signal is losting power

( space that is expanding reduce joules/mm^3 )


principle of conservation of energy
the same enegy but more biger space = lover intensity

people like me like simple physics without mathematica

very good detector = photocamera [ joules/ mm^2 ]



TWO PERPENDICULAR CAMERA = Joules / mm^3 detector !!!

JOULES / cubic mm

Nobody before Maciej Marosz
designed detector
that is able show 3D energy density

NOBEL

mit about SRT and GRT can confirm or disaprove

yes , I fully understand what your saying , newton.

and I have been thinking again !



in multiple worlds where one chooses to make a decision
and that choice combined with an action causes another exact
duplicate world to come into existence , wouldn't that other
world need a supportive sun and moon and galaxy and universe?

but wouldn't the action of thought about the many choices that
the person has cause hundreds , dare I say thousands , possibly millions of other worlds to come into existence.

oh , look a squirrel



and when these other worlds do come into existence along with
his exact duplicate person would all of the him's still be thinking about the possible choices and thus the many duplicates also cause other universes to come into existence ,

or is there a timeframe involved in the process , ie...
does the person doing the thinking only have a given amount of
time before the universal creation through thought process come to a halt due to time limit possibly associated with a lack of use.

but if that is true , and it certainly must be possibly , then if the person is shrodingers cat then wouldn't half of the cats be dead?

awww , look at this baby squirrel



and according to some , wouldn't some of the cats become
dogs and mice and lions and tigers and boars , oh my...

what if the cat then thinks about something else in that time frame and that thought causes a live cat to exist in front of
the mouse that was a cat , if the cat eats the mouse , he would in essence be eating himself would he not?

but Im sure we can find a way around this problem , after all
we all have keyboards in front of us at this time unless we
are using a tablet that uses a touchscreen , this will not however prevent billions upon billions of other new universes to come into existence that will also have many other cats that will cause some of the trillions of new cats to simply die.


Im not certain that this has anything to do with this
discussion , not that it really matters however because
I just had several million dead cats appear in my living room
and I am now afraid to think about anything.

oops , I just had another thought , how many cats have I
murdered through the simple act of thinking , its getting really spooky here in this forum , I certainly hope that the universe is infinite else we may soon be squished by all the extra universes that we cause to come into existence.

but we will find an answer to that problem also , we all
have brains to think with so certainly someone will find a
solution to the problem.

lets all think about it and that will solve our problems.

heres a very inventive way to amuse ones self with the cats
as one is thinking of what to do with all of ones cats that they find appearing in ones living room.

Paul, I think we have in common an inclination to assume that when scientists make a statement, or propose a theory, that statement or theory should be taken at face value. For example, if a scientist says that when a choice is made, the universe divides and each/every possible outcome happens in a different universe, this should be taken to mean that the universe physically divides and becomes two or more universes.

The more I have tried to understand how this could be possible, or how anyone could defend such a proposal, the more I have come to believe that many (possibly most) physicists don’t actually subscribe to the physical reality of this. To most, it is a mathematical model which, sort of, plugs a gap.

Perhaps the entire concept of QM is the same. Perhaps the “shut up and calculate” brigade are on the right track. Perhaps QM is no more than a convenient model used to explain why certain predictions turn out to be correct; and certain technical ideas actually work.

For my part Bill.S your view has now come very close to mine with one major exception.

The exception being I think we have enough observation and experiments to say conclusively the universe can not actually divide. So I like many others disagree with some in the QM field who seem to play with that idea of which Sean Caroll is just one.

We have the Ligo experiment, new LHC power runs and the first entangled space communication experiments to look forward to over next 18 months. Hopefully something unusual will turn up in one of those.

Light >>> SPACE <<< light

How many signals can go in one cubic meter space

what about energy lost . I would like to recognize Intensity limit for space

Wave 1 + Wave 2 = Wave 3

Bil S.



that's the way I think about it.

unless they want to make up another new word that replaces the
real world definition of the word choice.

a prediction is like a roll of the dice , you can achieve a
higher rate of close predictions if you lessen the number of
sides of the dice.

but its still nothing more than a prediction.

even if it happens to be right every now and then , it boils
down to how many times you roll the dice.

we have always had range of occurrence which is the same as
prediction when you know that the outcome of a set of events
that include unknown events will produce a set range of possible outcomes.

purely standard math , nothing fantastic about it , and no need
for fake math.

honestly if it were not for the fake math , I would not have
any problems with it as then it could be calculated to a exact.

orac



your beginning to think about the possibilities of having reality in a fantasy world.

they will not mix , ever.

how can a discipline that has a foundation built upon fantasy
claim that anything is impossible.

Actually, I agree with this. I started, some years ago, with a most unscientific bias against any form on multiverse theory. Realising that this was not the way to "do science", I have done my best to reach some sort of unbiased opinion. I think the best I can do is to say that I accept the possibility that there may be other universes, but I cannot see any way in which the observation of a quantum reaction, or the decision of an individual in one universe could cause the creation of another universe.

I like to think the mind is still open on that question, but I would be surprised if that openness admitted a change of opinion.

this is something I have thought of that may not be unacceptable
to QM judging from the tensions that appear to be manifesting within the ranks of QM , orac has a seemingly deep interest in QM yet theres
something in the things he says that makes me think that he
may be questioning the methods used for prediction.

why not let QM purge itself , if QM would just back away from
the fake math and create its own math that is reality based
and not depend on any theory that cannot be backed up by
standard physics math.

dont even consider that Einsteins theories are incorrect or correct when making the math , give nothing any thought except reality.

in other words do not use any of GR SR math or theories !

and do not place any limits on nature.

because in the long run as things are found reality will
make QM into a true scientific discipline but the opposition to leave the fantastic behind will be great as many never
really did have much of a grasp on reality and used fantasy as a crutch , and as each peg falls into place the deeper you go into the quanta , the next peg that falls into place will be found much quicker and easier.

guessing about things will leave you with billions of
possible results whereas following a known set of events
can only lead to a much smaller range of possible results.

On the face of it, Paul, that seems like a reasonable idea. One doubt I have about it is that you seem to be trying to force 20th and 21st century ideas into the possibly ill-fitting mould of pre-20th century mathematics.

Newton had to invent calculus in order to develop and express his revolutionary ideas. Might not the same sort of thing be necessary in order to express more modern concepts?

Your suggestion must be tantamount to clinging to a personal mumpsimus and trying to use it as a benchmark for scientific rectitude.

You may counter this by pointing out that you suggest that QM should "...create its own math that is reality based and not depend on any theory that cannot be backed up by standard physics math." If it creates its own math, how does that differ from the current situation?

You really have become the little thinker haven't Bill.S, I will have to come up with a question to stretch you

Paul the issue is simple try proving the existence of zero which is why many primitive cultures don't have it in numbering systems. Even on things you may use everyday like temperature what exactly is zero degrees Fahrenheit, its not really zero ask anyone who uses Celsius

Everything built that includes the concept of zero is usually a fabricated concept ... sort of fits Bill.S byline in some ways.

That is why I challenged you to define energy and matter and you never really defined matter but you defined energy as movement or motion. So take that thought further and if everything in the universe stopped moving does that mean there is zero energy? Do you see the problem with the idea your zero is totally reference arbitrary because how do you know everything in the universe actually has no movement because you can't prove it. It is the whole flat earth problem and your box all over again as you pull back you might suddenly find the whole known universe is all moving relative together.

It is the same problem Bill Gill was having in trying to use observation to close a system the answer is you can't. Every time it has been tried historical we got things badly wrong like Flat Earth, like Earth is center of universe etc and it goes on and on.

Do you see the point I am trying to get you to see because there are two concepts intimately linked, something everyone in the whole conversations above ignores and it can be stated like this

TO KNOW AN ACTUAL ZERO EXISTS REQUIRES A CLOSED SYSTEM

It's not a hard concept yet look back at all the conversations above and you might begin to understand why I was showing disdain at the discussion.

So hopefully the point is made the universe is an open system and I don't care what physics you are using they will all disappear back down the same hole. Rede and Bill G approved physics is not immune to the problem and Paul physics certainly falls down the same hole.

you only wanted me to define energy.

go back and check it yourself.



yes it does mean that there is no energy.

its late and I'll leave that for you to contemplate.

It doesn't matter they both disappear down the same hole.



But your no energy could actually be some energy because the whole universe could be moving together how would you know? You can only judge by what you can observe, there is no way to prove it isn't moving and no way to measure zero energy

See the issue you aren't a GOD there is no way you will ever be able to tell when there is exactly zero energy under your definition. Your zero energy is just a random position you are calling zero very much like zero degree fahrenheit.

Your whole idea hinges around something you can only guess at unless you can circumnavigate the universe, you may well be going down the flat earth path

Are we defining stationary (ie no movement) as including zero motion within subatomic particles?

Paul, I assume that as a "QM denier" you would have no problem with temperature reaching 0K.

perhaps your only hope would be if you could bribe the dungeon master into conjuring up the dark lord cashmere to pop something in your favor into existence.

your question to me...



your reply to me...



how would I know?
you propose a situation for me to consider , then as a defense
to your proposition you state that I could not know.

when your proposition questioned if there would be any
energy if the whole universe had no motion.

so , your wrong again , I do know because your proposition
requires no motion.

that's like asking someone to add 1 and 1 , then when they
answer with 2 , you say that there is only 1 so you cant add.

you need to remember that I don't concern myself with the
fantasy world that you surround yourself with so when you
ask me a question you need to remember that I don't have
access to the fantasy , so I cant respond with a fantastic
reply as your peers can , due to their lack of logic and
their reality slippage.



I think the fantasy you surround yourself with is getting entangled with your reality.

Bill S



exactly.



its not really that I deny QM , its the fantasy included that
I deny , and the math.

I certainly do not deny that the quanta with all of its unknowns exist , but I do not believe that fantasy would be the
proper path to take during the dig to expose the diverse members of the quanta.

as far as temperature reaching 0K , it would be really close to
impossible due to heat transfer.

but 0 Kelvin has almost been achieved.

I think you are trying to avoid the problem Paul

All I am saying if you define zero energy as no movement then your zero doesn't exist because there is no way you can tell if you are moving.

You have to be aware sitting at your computer you are spinning and twirling thru space at some horrific speed!!!!!

There is also no device you can make that will tell you that you are moving at constant speed in space.

So your physics you have created around your energy definition is therefore totally abstract you can't relate it to anything because you can't tell when you are moving in space and hence you have no real zero.

Don't feel bad normal classical physics goes down the same rabbit hole, the problem isn't unique to your physics.

The only way to sort of solidify things a bit is to fix the reference somehow. In normal physics they do it by using the speed of light which they say is the same for all observers. I have no idea how you want to do it in your physics but that is what is required if you want your zero to be real.

So explaining done let us ask the question which becomes this, you are out in deep space there is not even any star light you can see it is too dim.

What is the reference for being able to tell if you are moving in your physics?

that is exactly correct , orac.

without motion , human beings could not tell.

without motion , measuring instruments could not detect.

no thing could work , as even work requires motion.



for starters , orac
your question stated that everything in the universe had
stopped.

do you quacks have some other definition for the word stopped?

ie... does stopped actually mean unstoppable , as in the pulling force that pushes everything away?

you may not realize it , orac , but in science an observer does not need to be a physical being or a physical piece of detection equipment.

and in your question an observer would detect zero energy
because there would be zero motion in the universe.

Im going to guess that you never studied physics before
you started trying to understand the quackery stuff.

this is why you quacks can always be defeated by people
who own logic.



classical physics has no problems , but the fake physics that
you hold so dear is falling apart at the seams , even the quacks at the top of the cult are positioning themselves for
a type of coup detat that will determine the beliefs that the
followers in the cult will be allowed to believe.

and don't worry yourself about my feelings , orac.

you have never made me feel bad , I have often thought
about how it would feel to be as stupid as you are however and being that stupid would probably make me feel bad , but I don't think its possible that I will ever be as stupid as you are , so you shouldn't worry about my feelings.



my physics does not have constraints on an observation point of reference , I can have an observer at a single point or I can have a observer at any number of points.

this has no bearing on the question that you asked.

because your question requires zero motion.

I don't really need an observer , tell you what ask your
cult friends if they will help you out in the forum , you certainly could use some help , get all the cult members together and form a group that will attempt to disprove
what I say.

I can go ahead and say that just as humpty dumpty has fallen
off the wall and all the kings horses and all the kings men couldn't put humpty together again , so goes your cult down
the rabit hole as you call it.

hows that?

Again you haven't answered the question or posed a new one I thought that was the new rules. We aren't talking about QM or science or anything else we are talking about your physics. I am not interested in those other ones I understand how they all work and resolve this issue and I even had to clarify it for Bill G and Rede if you bring in dark energy.

Rose would you care to step in and explain the new forum rules again to Paul? His posts above clearly meets all the criteria we aren't allowed to do.

The question is simple Paul under your physics how do I tell if I am moving or not?

The issue is real as you sit there typing your reply on the screen thinking you are stationary and therefore zero energy under your physics. The reality is you are moving and therefore under your same physics your energy is not zero.

So simple question as you sit there do you have energy or not Paul?

So to be clear, I am not remotely interested in QM, Bill and Rede sanctioned science, classical science or any other version of science except your version, I want to see how you resolve the problem of movement since that defines energy for you. Even Marosz knows he has to answer this basic problem and it needs to be addressed.

not this time , orac.

you ask me a question , then when I answer your question you
pretend that you meant something else.

and you try to make it look as if you were right about it all
along.

we started off with you asking me what energy was.

I answered your question then you proceeded to make it look
as though I was wrong , then you changed the subject to
another question which was would there be any energy if
the universe had stopped.

I answered , and you still proceeded to try to make it look
as though I was wrong , and now your changing the question
again.



and yet another question below.



what needs to happen first if we are going to have a discussion is you are going to have to admit that you
were wrong when you tried to make it look as if I was wrong.

I cant see any point in answering your questions only to
have you dream up another silly question to ask in order
to try and avoid or dodge admitting that you are wrong.



I have answered all, of your questions so far.

but , I will not answer any more until you stop acting
like a little child when someone tells you something
that you do not agree with.

heres something else that you are wrong about...of course.



1) you cant define energy , but I have.

2) you didnt know that there would be no energy if everything in the universe stopped.

3) I never have moved at a constant speed , nor have you.

4) you cant win.

Ah so I see when when I do exactly what you and Rose asked and just ask questions then I am also doing it all wrong. It's weird everyone wants me just to ask questions and when I do I still get in trouble. Obviosuly I ask the wrong questions

I even refined the question down as exactly as I could because you were off on a tangent that really wasn't the bit I couldn't understand. You are trying to explain your argument to me aren't you? I understand all your other stuff that QM and science is fake but I don't get the bit around zero energy in your argument at all.

Remember I am not agreeing or disagreeing with anything you say because that would get a complaint from you. Hell if you want I will agree with anything you say just to avoid the issue, so Paul I believe you, if thats important to you. All I am doing is asking for you to explain your idea so I can understand it and obey the rules I have been given for posting.

So I guess I am sorry I didn't know I was only supposed to ask specific questions. Perhaps you could list what is okay to ask so I don't cause problems.

Now, one I am really interested in is you have suggested that there is some device that can detect constant motion. So that begs a simple answer and so I will give a simple question which hopefully is on the sanctioned list.

Paul, what device do you know of that can detect smooth constant motion?

An interesting observation is I am the only one on the forum ever wrong. Marosz, Paul, Bill G, Rede they are always right so I am struggling to keep up with what I am supposed to believe today so cut me some slack. I am running out of room on my byline

its not that your asking the wrong questions.



that's the problem , you refine the question without stating
that your original question was not what you wanted to ask
and you do that because I give you an answer that you don't like or understand.

when someone answers a question that you ask him to
answer , you should acknowledge that either you agree or you disagree and if you disagree you should express why you disagree and the reason you disagree.

you shouldn't simply refine the question without giving a reason for the refinements.



if you don't express that you agree or disagree with the
answers that I supply and all you do is extend or modify or
completely change the question then that tells me that you
are avoiding admitting that you were wrong in your assumption
of an expected answer from me , but you never do acknowledge
the answer you merely change the question as if you are leveraging the previous question in hopes that the current question will receive a answer that you will appreciate or will somehow lessen the impact of your original question.



your not supposed to ask specific questions.
but you should ask questions that are relevant to the topic.



Im not certain , orac , but I believe that the below is what
you based and constructed your above comments and question from.



I am on a planet that rotates each 24 hour period.
I am on a planet that orbits around a sun each 365 day period.
that sun is located in a arm of a galaxy that is orbiting round its center.
that galaxy is traveling through the universe.


I have never been in constant linear motion.
I have never been in constant angular motion.
I have never moved at a constant speed in one direction.

therefore

I have never moved at a constant speed.



you could save some space in your tag line by simply
putting a one word description in it.

can I supply the word?

Orac, it isn't so much what you say as how you say it. I think you would find that if what you said was more conversational and not a bunch of snide remarks then your comments would be much more acceptable.

Also if you made some brief explanation of what you are trying to say it would make it a lot easier for others, including myself, to understand your position. Just saying somebody is wrong doesn't help much without a clear explanation of why they are wrong.

Personally I am here to a certain extent to show off how smart I am. But I want to do that by helping other people understand science in all of its applications. Just dazzling people with my great intellect doesn't do much to help others. I really try not to make comments that are basically a snow job.

Bill Gill

Ummm if I give my reason for disagreement you complain because a lot of the time it is because your logic makes no sense. This goes back to when you complained to Rose and even she describes it as silly, so how would you like me to deal with such issues?


The reason for the refinement is I don't understand the answer. How do I explain something I don't understand.

Your zero energy thing makes NO SENSE TO ME. It is one of the silly things that can't be argued because you can't tell when you are moving unless you are accelerating or decelerating. Marosz is about the only one who claims different but all his experiments fail.


Ah so now I am to ask questions but not specific questions. I see so basically as long as I don't ask about the bits in an argument that make no sense it's fine, is that about it.


All of that is true but if you could build this wonderful device it would therefore act like a motion compass. Think carefully it should specifically show you are moving in the motions you describe it is not hard to follow the logic.

So your answer is like saying wow I never know which way I am facing so a compass wouldn't be useful.

So the question stands and I will refine it do you know of a device that could act as a motion compass?

You need to think and reverse problems sometimes Paul to see that the answer matters and may be important. A little lesson in that for you as I catch you out with it a lot. Motion includes a direction so if you can detect it you have yourself a compass which science would be very excited about.

The question is why you think it matters what you think of me

They are only snide because you guys are never wrong... oh wait

Oh no not going to fall for that again.

An example I explained in detail to you and Rede the technical problem dark energy gives. Admit it neither of you even bothered to try and understand it you simply brushed it off as piffle I think was the comment. The joke was I was simply detailing the standard cosmology logic (which I actually don't buy either) but it put you and Rede at odds with standard cosmology. It was always going to be wrong just because I said it and so I played a little joke on you and Rede and you took it hook line and sinker.

The other issue I have is not one of you can even correctly get my position. You for example always totally misrepresent my position on GR and QM even when I have corrected you numerous times.

The problem is sometimes your answers aren't a help they actually badly wrong and unhelpful and you are prejudging answers by who said them. Both you and Rede fell for my little joke because of that problem.

Paul for all his religious bias etc does sometimes give sensible answers and I feel at times you end up in strange positions just because he said them as well.

For my part I don't ever think there is a right answer or that I know it, it is the way I practice science. There is always just less wrong answers which are the ones you can not falsify. I don't have in and out boxes in science and a standard views, there is only one box which is stuff I know not to be false and throw everything else out. It may not be the way you or Rede want science to work, but I am sorry to say I don't care it is the way I do it and you don't get a vote.

Paul wants his little tantrum rant about how science ate his GOD so I sort of understand how he acts. You have changed over the period and now dig into weird almost totally crazy positions. At times I find it hard to differentiate you from Paul, and so yes all I can often muster is a jibe at you to see if you actually get it that you have become him.

For me the forum is somewhere to practice a bit of English on subjects that may interest me. I will push people to read things if they are interested and try to point out things that have been falsified if people give clearly wrong answers.

All that reminded me of a Russian school of science joke I will share.

A mathematician, Western physicist and a Russian physicist are challenged to build a fence around a flock of sheep using as little material as possible.

The mathematician forms the flock into a circular shape and constructs a fence around knowing the circle is the most compact shape to boundary of any standard shape.

The Western physicist builds a fence with a massive diameter and pulls it tighter and tighter until it fits the flock because he knows this allows for uneven size and gives the best fit actually possible.

The Russian physicist thinks for a bit then builds a fence around himself and defines where he is standing as the outside.

ok, Bill , if you are now me , then who is rede?

or is rede you and I am rede?

I feel the same , dont I , do I feel ok , uh...Paul?

orac , this is Bill or Rede but not Paul because we havent
yet determined who I am yet , anyway , I started reading your short story above , but my eyes became tired from all the crying.


























(sometimes I cry when I laugh too heavily and too often)

Was there a question in that Paul? You know the forum rules don't you

So the question I guess I could ask to stay on forum rules is why do you think I would care what you think? Is that too specific do I need to make it more general?

I think that may be the start point to think about if we are going down this path. Funny enough the answer doesn't change if you are Bill, Rede or Paul. So you be whoever you want to be Paul it's perfectly fine with me and I don't mind your crying.

If TT is around I am sure he can tell me why I should care and that deep down I really do care etc because of my ego blah blah blah.

Now lets get serious are you ever going to get back to actually explaining about the motion/energy problem and what you know about a motion compass?

That was actually interesting and actually about science and on topic.

I don’t know what you guys are arguing about. Obviously Marosz has identified “zero motion”……….It’s in Poland!!!

You haven't missed much it took 2 pages of posts to cover what really is very basic. So count your lucky stars you missed out.

what problem? , I wasn't aware that there was a problem.

could you please reveal the problem you are suggesting?

Hmm lets see if I can dumb this down to layman level.

I think you agreed in the end you can't detect constant motion, you haven't offered us the legendary motion compass you sort of suggested exists. Detect motion or not detect motion makes no difference you need to be able to distinguish one state from the other to get a zero reference.

Why, well you are equating energy >> directly and only << to motion as I understand it and if you don't know where zero is then you can't equate two energies. Normal science resolves the reference in a very different way but lets ignore that for now because you have excluded that because of how you have defined energy and you don't believe science.

So if we can't work an common frame for your motion you can't equate energy between two sites. For example someone at the pole of earth is moving at a totally different rate to someone on the equator.

So lets turn this to a very American problem since you do love your guns. The bullet impact energy is due totally to it's energy of momentum and I think you agree with that.

So your theory says interesting things about the energy of a bullet for a gun fire at the pole and the equator. You are either going to have decide on a relative frame for energy or an absolute frame?

If you choose absolute space even our good mate Marosz recognizes the problem and suggests not only is it true but you can measure it. He kind of does a weird graphic most people don't get but it is the above problem he is expressing



Do you see why this would occur?

The bullet speed gets added to the velocity of the person shooting and so the absolute speed of the bullet on the equator is faster than then the person shooting at the pole viewed to some absolute space.

The other choice is a relative reference frame for energy which at least makes the energy of impact the same in both cases but at a cost. The cost is energy is relative so there is no zero except at a local reference to you.

The relative frame probably doesn't sound like a problem initially but to give you the layman version of the problem. Try spending your US dollars in some back street in China which doesn't have foreign exchange capabilities.

Science goes with the relative option but now we have to somehow equate energies. We need foreign currency exchange everywhere even the back blocks of China because energy is everywhere.

You can't solve the problem under your definition do you see why?

Hint: You only have motion to do it because look how you defined energy >> as only motion <<

That is why your energy is only motion MAKES NO SENSE to me.

I am left with two choices in the end
1.) it's a very silly idea badly thought out
2.) What you call energy is not the same thing I call energy.

in other words you want to make it easy for me to understand
because Im not as stupid as you are?



no , I didnt.



no , you are the one who suggested it , not me.



why would I need a reference , you are the one who required
zero motion in the universe.

and with zero motion there would be zero energy.

you set the stage and the actors and then you and your
obviously less than layman level , can I say less than
grade school level of intelligence now require a reference?



that is exactly right , dumbo , if you had a tiny amount of
intelligence then you would realize that you cannot have
energy without motion , if you think I am wrong then please
show your high level of intelligence that you have hidden so
well and so often here on SAGG by telling us what you know of
that does have energy and at the same time is not in motion.

that should be so easy for you to do orac , simply because
you are such a self proclaimed brilliant non layman type scientist.

this is why I truly believe that you quack pots should first
be forced to study normal physics before you are allowed to study the abnormal physics.

Hmmm right you are a mental genius .. I am always in awe of it


So lets just stick with one point at a time rather than everything.

So apparently Paul can detect constant motion.

So please show us poor science mortals how great guru wise one?

There you go one point and one point only to deal with because science can't manage what you can

an idiot is someone who cannot learn.

either you are an idiot , or you were not capable of understanding when I have previously told you several times that you are the one who suggested that , not me.

Lets see the issue you are suggesting I made was about a device I was referring directly to these two statements.

Orac: I think you agreed in the end you can't detect constant motion

Paul: no , I didnt.

Well if you didn't agree you can't detect constant motion I thought that meant you think you can detect constant motion. Maybe I was confused by the guru's answer or perhaps starstruck and in my total awe for which I apologize.

So lets try once more to clear any confusion:

Paul can you detect constant motion or not .. this is the key point?

It's a yes or no answer, surely that is not beyond your massive intelligence to answer.

orac , you have truncated this thread enough with your idiotic
method of discussion that you alone created in order to sway
attention away from your stupidity.

here is where you began your revelation.



you are the one who suggested that I was moving at a constant speed.

when you stated the following...



all you are doing is trying to hide your ignorance by insisting
that I know of a device that can detect constant motion because I pointed out your ignorance when I said the following
about your ignorant statement.



since you were the one who first mentioned constant speed then
doesn't that reveal that you would be the one who has knowledge of a device that can measure constant speed?


I would call this a clear example of someone who is complaining
about the color of their red barn to the paint salesman as the paint salesman loads more red paint into oracs truck.

If it makes you happy the confusion is all my fault and I am not complaining this is the bit that causes me trouble with your argument so I just want it settled. It has massive implications.

So do we get an answer or not here lets do multiple choice for you select A or B

A) I believe you can't detect constant motion
B) I believe you can detect constant motion

Why do you keep avoiding the question I am really interested in your answer?

For the record I choose A it's not hard even someone as stupid as me and not in your intelligence guru status can do it.

So which is it Guru A or B?

orac



now before I give you my answer lets make sure that we
understand what you actually mean by "constant motion"


what do you mean by constant motion?

the reason Im questioning you , orac

is that you were formerly concerned with constant speed which
is different from constant motion.

to recap , here is what I said in an earlier post to you , orac.

Constant linear motion and lets define how we determine that shall we

Rotation is easy to detect with any gyro-compass device because of the centripetal acceleration. A gyro compass for example easily picks up earths movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrocompass)

The modern version of this is a laser device which uses Sagnac effect and will pick up any rotation at all (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect)

So can you detect any constant motion when a gyro-compass or sagnac device remains at zero, most spacecraft are flown and guided that way ... technical enough or do you need it further refined.

You can easily detect acceleration and deceleration as well if you don't know but I assume you would know that from driving a ca, so constant would mean neither accelerating or decelerating.

The technical term for the whole lot is called an Inertial navigation system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_navigation_system)



So if an INS says you are moving in a constant linear motion can you detect it any way?

so you are saying that the "constant motion" in your question above is referencing "constant linear motion" , but you
want to use detection equipment that is used to detect "rotation" .... ?

ok , orac , I will be right back.


I know this is important to you , but I have to go and find
someplace to contemplate your reply.

Paul it's that inversion thing again ... you really struggle with it don't you

If you can detect rotation then you also know when you aren't rotating. If you can detect acceleration and deceleration then you can also know when you aren't.

So smooth linear motion would be define by science as

A) Not rotating
B) Not accelerating or decelerating

Given you can detect all those, if your devices are reading zero then you are going in what science describes as a linear constant motion.

This really shouldn't be hard for someone of your mental genius.

It is after all how every spaceship has been guided thru space so this is not some theory it is a practical implementation in the real universe.

orac




can we now revise your above with whats below?

A) I believe you can't detect constant linear motion
B) I believe you can detect constant linear motion

Why do you keep avoiding the question I am really interested in your answer?

For the record I ( orac ) choose A it's not hard even someone as stupid as me and not in your intelligence guru status can do it.

So which is it Guru A or B?


can we?

Sure guru no problems

Definitions:

"Constant linear motion" is now defined as the motion when an inertial navigation system reads zero on all rotations and acceleration and deceleration instruments on a vessel, spaceship or vehicle that is moving

"detect" means by use of local device or setup and may not use external reference. On a spaceship external reference would be stars etc.

So Paul the choice is now A or B

A) I believe you can't detect "Constant linear motion" as defined
B) I believe you can detect "Constant linear motion" as defined

Again I take firmly take A as the answer.

did you mean constant linear motion ?

and you didn't supply your answer , but you changed the
multiple choice answers.

also , Im certain that I cannot agree with your definition
of constant linear motion below.



if you could remove the vessel and vehicle in the definition
above then your definition would be acceptable to me as a vessel could implicate a ship on a ocean and a vehicle could implicate a car on a highway.

so that the definition reads as follows.

That is fine none of that changes anything.

It doesn't even matter if you don't want to call it linear call it whatever you like the kicker isn't in any of the descriptions.

As this wasn't intended as something to have a go at you and you seem to be overly cautious I will give you a heads up of the problem it throws up for science.

The problem for science is when the spaceship or whatever is moving in such a manner it isn't what the movement looks like or how you want to define or describe it. The problem is that it can not detect the movement in any way !!!!! That means the spaceship could literally be doing any speed from stationary up to the speed of light (if you accept that is the upper limit).

Fine you say you can just look out the window an see if you are moving by looking at a star. The problem is you don't know that star is stationary and in fact as you know it is most likely moving as well. The end point of the problem for science is there is no point or object or anything else it can isolate in the universe that is stationary. All we can really measure is motions relative to us.

There is a slightly funny ending to that situation which won't be immediately be obvious until I give you a situation to consider.

Anyhow that is what happens when you choose A which I have.

This is really getting ridiculous. I have no idea what this thread has devolved to. I cannot follow what either Paul or Orac is talking about. It's time to forget this 2nd grade squabble and discuss something that actually means something.

Bill Gill

I totally agree.

It's the most basic motion and universe problem there exists and unless you can resolve it nothing else makes sense.

So failure to understand the choices and the implications probably explains a great many things

Orac,

"The end point of the problem for science is there is no point or object or anything else it can isolate in the universe that is stationary. All we can really measure is motions relative to us."

So you're saying without a fixed reference point all motion is relative.

1) Is there a theory about this.

2) Doesn't this mean Marosz is wrong.

orac



it may throw up a problem for fake science , but for real science there are no problems.

there is only the lack of a device for measuring.

and who knows whats on the horizon there may be a device
in the making , maybe not.

but you have made a broad statement stating that constant
motion can not be detected.

Im certain that a device or method of detecting linear and angular motion in the universe will be achieved as soon as we determine where we are located in the universe.

Im not sure where you were intending to go with this as you
flip flopped from post to post , and my belief that you were
simply trying to cover up your mistakes was made evident in your attempt.

this all started when I described energy as anything that
has motion , in effect motion is energy , I firmly stand on that ground while you dance around with a bottle of fake science snake oil trying to sell it to whomever will be
gullible enough to buy it.

many years ago Sir Isaac Newton explained that a body will travel in a right line
( meaning a straight , not a curved line )
until impressed
( meaning by an added force in a different direction )
to change its direction.

that may not be the exact wording/translation but its pretty close and it carries the same meaning.

so , and this is my kicker to you , constant linear motion
is most definitely not a problem to real science and if you
would have taken the time to first study real science before
you began your journey down fantasy lane you would have already known that.

Yes science believes in general and special relativity and this is the start point. There is no zero reference frame that being defined as one you can detect all motions from. So your answer to point 1 from you is the fact two of the most important theories in science based on this.

Marosz at least understands the start point and for all his faults the most glaring of which is to not accept anything that falsies his view. The fact you can falsify his idea was done over a century ago and makes the idea falsified. However science being science we do cut some slack that stuff can always be tested so I have no issue with Marosz testing it. The issue is if he finds something his theory will not be accepted there must be some other theory that explains both the current science theory and his new observation. We could never install his theory because we already know it fails quite a few tests the ones GR and SR pass. So he is only wrong in thinking his theory would ever be accepted and why everyone ignores him.

I thought Bill believed in GR and SR as well and so would be interested in this but either he doesn't or this is one of those strange examples of his help. So here I am as the QM crazy having to defend this stuff while the GR in box man goes for the hill .... interesting.

One man keep LED bulb (120 Mhz , Ideal 3D signal )
next man keep detector

Detetor and Bulb are moving in space

p1..p2..p3..p4..p6...p7...Bulb >>> motion

bulb started 3D wave in past in point p1 ..p2......p7..
detector can not register light from "fresh bulb position L1 distance "
light need time to touch the detector !!!

for distance L3 light need time T
during the same time T Earth made distance L2


Intensity of the signal = Joules/ mm^2



Inverse Square Law
( exist strong relations between distance
and Intensity ) !!!

More far from place where signal started = lower intensity of signal

( "lower brightness" )

1R = X , 2R = X/4 , 3R = X/9


X- brightness, R- radius


the same energy portion but different area


Person that keep detector is able recognize how far from place where signal started he is registering the signal

Above test we making on the Earth we are sure about bulb's power and size ( we can measure all bulb's electric variable)


Above test have smaler verion ( very important is dark filtre
virtual distace can be equal 150 000 000 km or more ... )
Camera--- bulb distance is 100 mm but dark filtre simulate long distance




Marosz
Light it is not single flat line --- it is always 3D signal
Energy is going isotropy 3D respect to point where wave started. Not exist C +V or C -V exist only C !!!

The kicker for you is that therefore you are saying you can't say anything really at all about anything. You want to know you know everything before you begin the process, that is after all what you statement above translates too.

So my question to stay on rules would be Paul how will you know if a device to detect "linear constant motion" is actually possible or not to make your decision as to how to resolve the issue and adhere to the way you want to do physics?

Orac,

Ok, I'll go with choice A (I believe you can't detect constant linear motion).

But now the definition of energy, as given in this thread, seems incomplete.

Bingo you got it ... and now you understand the relevance.

I would say more than incomplete I would say undefined and meaningless at that point. So it needs to be fixed doesn't it.

That is the real problem and why when Paul makes motion as the only definition of energy I have more than a little confused unless he is going to invoke absolute space and that is going to hit a very large wall.

That is why I actually needed an answer to that question from Paul to understand his idea because I assume he has to invoke absolute space.

If you are interested in how science starts to resolve the issue you have to follow the energy story and that starts with Max Planck and light but you need energy outside just motion.

Orac,

"If you are interested in how science starts to resolve the issue..."

Actually I'd be more interested in how they finally resolved it!
But I assume that hasn't happened yet.

Typical of the modern era everyone wants spoilers to the ending of the story

What I will say is whether the story is complete ultimately ends in another A/B question and so the end or not depends on your choice.

I am all for choice I am not here to convert or give the answer, make your choices and follow the implications.

no thats not how the below translates , orac.



the above translates into "constant linear motion is most definitely not a problem to real science"

perhaps it may translate that way to you, however.



its constant linear motion , orac.

I guess I'll have to wait for the tv ads or make sure I
keep up with the daily mail.

BTW , I dont do the philosophical stuff orac , I leave
that type of stuff to others.

so Im not going to do the "invoke absolute space" bit with
you nor will I do the absolute time bit either.

I try not to get caught up in that type of stuff.

but since you have already broke it out of the box , why
do you think that I would need to invoke absolute space?

why would you think that there would even be a need to?

and why would you think that my definition of energy
needs to be fixed?

are you saying that my definition is too simple?
and that it needs to be obscured in order to fit into
science?

No Paul it implies you have to have absolute space because the answer is totally inconsistent with any form of relativity and that is what it took around 5-6 pages of posts to get too. Your idea has a lot in common with Marosz.

You sort of got there in the end you even setup the defense that maybe we haven't discovered the device that can detect motion and so maybe we have absolute space.

I will leave Bill to explain Bill and Rede to explain the problem of absolute space because they are right into GR and after that effort to discuss the most basic science I am worn out.

It was pleasing to see at least one person in Pokey got the problem instantly once it was broken down.

Anyhow I will leave you gurus to it.

perhaps that's why my answer is correct !

obscuring it by making it incorrect in order to "fit it into"
relativity should not be scientific.

but since you don't really do scientific stuff , I can understand why you would believe that correct just will
not work with incorrect so as usual in order for it to
work in relativity you would first need to destroy it
so that it becomes useless in reality.



Im not going to fall for that , orac.

I really don't think you know very much about anything , and
mostly what you do is you allow others to provide any content
other than your consistent boasting about how your at a much
higher level of intelligence than they are.



I can tell your worn out , "bill to explain bill" LOL

but I cant understand why physics would wear you out if you understand it.
I can understand that if your mind has to constantly find work
arounds in order to pacify the fake science , well that could
quickly and easily wear anyone out , and that's the reason why
I don't even take any of the fake science serious , its just to
damaging for the brain.

lets list a few motion/power observations of motion in reality.

the motion of water = water power
the motion of wind = wind power
the motion of light = solar power

now a list of a few motion/power observations of motion using fuels.

burning coal = the motion of wind ( steam )= coal power
burning gas = the motion of wind ( explosion) = gas power

by replacing the word motion with the word energy
in the above there is no change because energy is motion.

every type of power plant that I can think of uses motion
as a means of generating electricity.

energy is motion

no matter how you look at it.

why is it that I can so neatly and correctly define energy
but you cant?

is it that your poisoned brain is keeping you from understanding that energy is motion because it is simply
maintaining a work around to pacify the fake science?

but you haven't given your definition of energy yet , orac.

have you considered that energy is a part of reality
and that is the reason why you cant give a definition of energy
as your brain is rejecting reality in order to pacify the
fake science?




can you explain why reality allows this man to power his home this way using the fake science in your brain?