|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
Quote:
I don't know you since BAUT displays on my comp with a lot of errors and doesn't allow to see the profile of the person whom I'm responding to (neither allows to set a profile). I was able to figure out that you are not a physicists if you have to look to wikepedia for definition of Poynting vector. Had I have known this I wouldn't use Poynting vector as an example but I'd try to use some other vector that is also conserved and which you might understand better. Like e.g. (pseudo)vector of angular momentum (I hope you know this one). Since the principle works for either of them the same way in curved spacetime. This way you might start understanding what it is all about and why your ideas about conservation of energy in curved spacetime are ATM ideas. Of course you need to understand what curved spacetime is, but if you want to discuss Einstein's universe coming to this thread you have to understand at least what we are talking about here. Quote:
Second, your questions aren't about "Einstein's universe" that I hoped to discuss in this thread but they are your private ATM questions on a different subject (and so your action is called here "highjacking the thread" and is a bannable offense). Third, I'm not interested very much in discussing your ATM ideas on curved manifolds and Noether theorem, that you don't understand. What I answered is a plain mainstream response and if you don't accept the mainstream you should open your own ATM thread dedicated to those questions and put there your point of vew on conservation of energy. I might come there and explain to you why you should rather stick to the mainstream point of view. I said in my first message that I hope to bring into the discussion "people who are supporting the mainstream view (others don't need to apply)" and I'd like to keep it this way. Your ATM ideas, though interesting, I can handle when you open a thread about them. I might come there and explain all your doubts in detail. Just make your own thread and don't highjack mine. Fourth, wikipedia does not represent the mainstream view. By design it expresses the opinion of majority (decided by editors through concensus) in hope that it turns out to be the mainstream opinion. In most cases it is unless about things that people have strong opinions about. An example may be wikipedia's article on gravitation where the authors, almost a century after Einstein's gravitation theory has been discovered, are still talking about the "attractive force", since this is what the majority still believe in (they think that Einstein didn't explain gravitational force just made it more accurate -- whatever it means). Of course it is not the mainstream opinion. The mainstream uses Einsteins gravitation since always. If you want to follow wikipedia blindly then you are bound at some point to get into conflict with the mainstream (like those "gravitation" authors). I may be a sculptor, but I have also MS in electronics, so I happen to know a lot of physics and math and since I'm involved in gravitation for over 20 years and I'm right now doing my PhD work in it I could also explain to you some interesting things if you are willing to learn. At least I can tell you what's ATM and what's the mainstream. I don't have any business in misleading you about anything and if wikipedia delivers partial knowledge don't blame me for not agreeing with wikipedia but rather learn what is the mainstream view on it from some mathematical physics or astronmy professor whom you trust. Fifth, about your questions: let specify in sufficient detail what you didn't understand in my last response. When I know what you don't understand I may explain it to you better. Repeating the same thing twice without saying what part you don't understand makes no sense. Quote:
|
|
|||||||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Before I get to the questions, I would like to point you to the rules of the board, which includes the following: Quote:
Note that it does not say ATM proponents may pick and choose which questions to answer; all direct questions must be answered. As I said earlier, it wasn't that I didn't understand your previous answers. They were simply wrong. So, once again, here are my direct questions for you: 1. Please show us, mathematically, why energy cannot be conserved in an expanding universe. 2. Please show us, mathematically, why conservation of energy necessarily implies a stationary universe. 3. Which physicists oppose Big Bang because of conservation of energy? So far you have only one who may or may not fit that description. Needless to say, "one" != "many". To which I will also add: 4. If Wikipedia's description of Noether's theorem is incorrect, please cite relevant scientific sources (published papers, journal articles, textbooks, etc.) that refutes Wikipedia's description and/or confirms your description of Noether's theorem. 5. If Wikipedia's description of Poynting's theorem is incorrect, please cite relevant scientific sources (published papers, journal articles, textbooks, etc.) that refutes Wikipedia's description and/or confirms your description of Poynting's theorem.
__________________
"It's over you head now. Time to get some professional help." - My fortune cookie from lunch Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial Usenet Physics FAQ Last edited by CodeSlinger; 03-April-2008 at 12:02 AM.. Reason: typo in the last sentence |
|
|||
|
Quote:
If you still insist that the mianstream supports global conservation of energy in expanding universe then we may move ''Einstein universe" from ATM section to the mainstream section since we may utilize conservation of energy as legitimate means of deriving results. Which so far the mainstream opposed since it maintanied (e.g. prof. John Baez) that energy is not globally conserved. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
You know what I don't see? Anything that actually supports your claim that energy is not conserved in curved spacetime. Your citation of this article to support your claim is... puzzling (I've already used "plain wrong" enough times in my previous post). Quote:
Quote:
Still waiting for you to answer my direction questions to you.
__________________
"It's over you head now. Time to get some professional help." - My fortune cookie from lunch Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial Usenet Physics FAQ |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Please feel free to point out any other errors I have made!
__________________
"It's over you head now. Time to get some professional help." - My fortune cookie from lunch Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial Usenet Physics FAQ |
|
|||
|
Quote:
since it is also my opinion. Actually my opinion is that its "total curvature" is exactly zero everywhere (unfortunately also an ATM opinion but I don't want to argue this point now, since there are more imporatant things to argue first, like e.g. the expansion of the universe, so far ATM as well).Quote:
This way without any other delay we may skip arguing an irrelevant (since I'm exectly of your opinion about conservation of energy) question whether the conservation of energy is an ATM or for the mainstream issue. We have also an expansion to discuss, which is for sure an ATM issue, and also it is related to astronomy. Since the rules are that we may only discuss questions related to astronomy and what's ATM and what's not is not an astronomy question then fromally we can't even discuss it. In any case I propose to discuss formal things like "what's what" only when we have time left for it since we have only a month for everything (for discussing my whole PhD work about "Einstein's universe"). And questions related to astronomy are more interesting anyway. Since you both are representing (at least in your mind) mainstream opinion, and luckily both agree (like me) to the conservation of energy (which I consider ATM but you don't) than it may be easier job (than with cosmologists from my U) to show you why I think that the universe is "Einstein's". Let's start with a question why mainstream physicists don't believe that the universe is (a non expanding) "Einstein's universe". You can present your thoughts about it. My knowledge (since I discussed it already with mathematical physicists so it is a concrete konwledge) is that mathematical physicists don't believe in conservation of energy. But since you believe that energy is globally conserved, what are your reason for such mainstream thoughts like that the universe is expanding? My role is to show you that you can't have both thing: the expansion and conservation of energy at the same time. That's why mathematical physicists has chosen the former against the latter. They think it is better assumption. But you apparently hadn't (the same as me) so if you are cosistent in your beliefs, you have to tell me what your belief that the universe is expanding is based on. |
|
||||
|
JimJast, apparently you don't understand how this works. As the proponent of an ATM idea, it is your responsibility to address questions asked about your idea and claims you make in support of your idea. We, on the other hand, are under no obligation to answer your attempts to challenge mainstream science. If there is a mainstream concept you wish to inquire about, feel free to create threads for your questions in the Q&A section (with the caveat that you do not attempt to advocate your ATM position in the Q&A threads).
Quote:
1. Please show us, mathematically, why energy cannot be conserved in an expanding universe. 2. Please show us, mathematically, why conservation of energy necessarily implies a stationary universe. 3. Which physicists oppose Big Bang because of conservation of energy? So far you have only one who may or may not fit that description. Needless to say, "one" != "many". 4. If Wikipedia's description of Noether's theorem is incorrect, please cite relevant scientific sources (published papers, journal articles, textbooks, etc.) that refutes Wikipedia's description and/or confirms your description of Noether's theorem. 5. If Wikipedia's description of Poynting's theorem is incorrect, please cite relevant scientific sources (published papers, journal articles, textbooks, etc.) that refutes Wikipedia's description and/or confirms your description of Poynting's theorem. Oh, and since you're throwing around remarks like this one: Quote:
6. Which mathematical physicists do not believe in conservation of energy?
__________________
"It's over you head now. Time to get some professional help." - My fortune cookie from lunch Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial Usenet Physics FAQ |
|
||||
|
I subscribed to this thread in order to keep an eye on it. I got an email notification this morning that Chris Hillman had responded to this thread. But I don't see his post for some reason, so I'm reposting it below as it appeared in the notification I got.
--- Text deleted. Codeslinger, Chris Hillman chose to delete his post. You should not post it here. (If I erred and deleted your words, let me know and I can restore them.)
__________________
"It's over you head now. Time to get some professional help." - My fortune cookie from lunch Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial Usenet Physics FAQ Last edited by Jim; 03-April-2008 at 11:38 PM.. Reason: given |
|
||||
|
JimJast, two items...
First, it is a violation of BAUT Rules to discuss a Moderator's action in-thread. If you have problems with a Mod's action, you should PM that Mod, another Mod, or an Administrator. There is a list in the About BAUT forum. Second, it is a violation of BAUT Rules not to answer direct, pertinent questions about your ATM idea. From what I can tell, Codeslinger's questions are direct and pertinent; in several cases, they address issues you raised yourself. Please answer them asap. (Keep in mind that an answer can be "I don't know" or "I can't answer now but will [when].") I'd also strongly urge you to read the BAUT Rules for Posting and the Advice for ATM theory supporters. They might help you understand how we (try to) operate this forum.
__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity. Isaac Asimov |
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"It's over you head now. Time to get some professional help." - My fortune cookie from lunch Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial Usenet Physics FAQ |
|
||||||||||||
|
Quote:
--- Quote:
(Jonh Baez gave you out). Quote:
It can be easily shown with differentiating E=mc^2 along distance (taking dE/dx and showing in about 5 minutes that it is equal -mg, just try it substituting -g/(2c) for dc/dx as it follows from Einstein's accelerating rocket or elevator, and from his equivalence principle). Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Of course it produces Hubble constant H_o=c/R. Which happens to be observed if R=4.3 Gpc. What is not observed is about 57% of the mass of the universe required to produce average density needed for conservation of energy to work. One reason why my professors maintain that energy "is not concerved in gravitation". What do you think? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
not science. And only since cosmologists (at least in my U and on the internet) say "we won't talk to you unless you give up that nonsense that energy can be conserved in gravitation". But if it is conserved then "Einstein universe" can handle quite nicely the illusion of accelerating expansion, CMBR, and presumably other things that I don't know about, so I'd like to learn which things it can't handle. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
[QUOTE] 3. Which physicists oppose Big Bang because of conservation of energy? So far you have only one who may or may not fit that description. Needless to say, "one" != "many". [\QUOTE] I have to ask them if they want to have their name published on BAUT forum and if they agree I come back and let you know which. Last edited by JimJast; 04-April-2008 at 11:39 AM.. Reason: typos |
|
||||
|
Quote:
You said "It cannot be done mathematically." Nonsense. You may as well have answered "because it's magic." |
|
|||||||
|
Quote:
Let me remind you what you said in comment #24 of this thread: Quote:
Your claim was that "energy can't be conserved in the expanding universe" is an easy-to-show mathematical result. But you seem unwilling or unable to show this math. I do not consider this question answered. Quote:
Quote:
I remind you again that the rules require you to answer all direct questions. You do not get to pick and choose. Once again, here are my direct questions that you have not answered: 1. Please show us, mathematically, why energy cannot be conserved in an expanding universe. 2. Please show us, mathematically, why conservation of energy necessarily implies a stationary universe. 4. If Wikipedia's description of Noether's theorem is incorrect, please cite relevant scientific sources (published papers, journal articles, textbooks, etc.) that refutes Wikipedia's description and/or confirms your description of Noether's theorem. 5. If Wikipedia's description of Poynting's theorem is incorrect, please cite relevant scientific sources (published papers, journal articles, textbooks, etc.) that refutes Wikipedia's description and/or confirms your description of Poynting's theorem. 6. Which mathematical physicists do not believe in conservation of energy? (This is a different question than question 3, because they are asking about opposite beliefs. Question 3 asks which physicists oppose Big Bang because of their belief in conservation of energy. This questions asks which physicists do not believe in conservation of energy.)
__________________
"It's over you head now. Time to get some professional help." - My fortune cookie from lunch Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial Usenet Physics FAQ Last edited by CodeSlinger; 04-April-2008 at 01:54 PM.. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Unfortnately it requires to repeat my calculations of redshift for curved space to make them more accurate as required by your question. It might requre solving some nonlinear equations. For the time being I just demonstrated in a nearly flat space that contrary to the mainsteam assertion there is a non negligible Hubble type redshift in Einstein's universe, which also simulates an accelerating expansion of space, hoping that astronomers take over from there. Becaue of lack of interest in such issues (as editors of Phs. Rev. Lett. assured me) there was no reason to work on the details. Since you are the first guy who asked about "increase in the apparent angular diameter of galaxies with redshifts" I'm going to try to derive what this curve should show exactly for Einstein's universe. I hope at least that except working out the scales on both axes I'm going to get the density of the unverse more accurately. So this work will have more advantages than one. It may also have an advantage of eliminating Einstein's universe as a possibility, which, to the best of my knowledge, nobody worked on it yet. But before I can do this I have to respond to a few questions related to sociology of science, which I don't even understand yet exactly. So please be patient, since it might take time. |
|
||||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In expanding universe we don't have the universe (and whatever is there) the same as time passes. So at least if we insist that energy can be conserved in an expanding universe we should deliver a separate theorem for such case when all things do change as time passes. We need something better then the Noehter theorm for the conservation of energy to be proved, not to be just our assumption. E.g. we might want it at least to be shown by observations. So let's look for observations to see if energy can be conserved in a non expanding universe. It can (since Noehter theorem works there: the universe does not change as time passes). And also we see only as much redshift as delivered by this conservation of energy (see my paper). If it were any greater then we would have imbalance of energy. Luckily we don't so we just showed that we don't have automatic conservation of energy in expanding universe, but we have in stationary. ... to be coninued (for lack of time) ... And then we are going to address the rest of this question and other questions as ... Quote:
|
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Oh, and I note that you are now quoting directly from Wikipedia's description of Noether's theorem; does this mean you concede that Wikipedia's description is correct? Quote:
__________________
"It's over you head now. Time to get some professional help." - My fortune cookie from lunch Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial Usenet Physics FAQ |
|
||||
|
JimJast, three more points...
First, I edited Codeslinger's quote of Chris Hillman's post because Chris Hillman chose to delete it. Based on the time stamps on Codeslinger's, my, and your posts, you downloaded the Hillman quote, developed a response, and posted it two hours after I deleted it. You most certainly must have seen my post before making yours. Did it not occur to you that you were violating the privacy of another Member? Second, your recent attempts at answering Codeslinger's questions were apparently none too satisfying. I will suggest to you that a mathematical response probably contains mathematics. If you can post the math, do so; if you cannot, say so and drop that argument. Your last post refers to Codeslinger's questions and says you will address them next week. Do not post anything to this thread until you have addressed those questions.
__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity. Isaac Asimov |
|
|||||||||||||
|
Thanks to Jim (the moderator) for trying to fix it. Codeslinger, you are forgiven.
I deleted my post because on reflection I began to recall why I stopped talking to JimJast 15 years ago and decided that despite his mangling a theory I have come to know and love (general relativity), nothing would be gained by my weighing in. Unfortunately, JimJast replied with quotes of my self-deleted critique after Jim (the moderator) appeared to have fixed things, which places me in an awkward position. I myself bear some responsibility for creating this mess but beg indulgence for a newbie (to BAUT) if I push any boundaries. I don't wish to appear to bully JimJast but at this point it's difficult to avoid stating that it seems to me that despite 22 years of study, he just doesn't get it. Quote:
[sic] Quote:
Near an isolated massive ball, tidal acceleration scales like m/r^3 while the acceleration required to sit on the surface r=R of the ball scales like m/R^2 (approximately), in both Newtonian gravitation and in gtr. Mathematically speaking, tidal acceleration is represented in gtr by part of the Riemann tensor while the acceleration of a small body (test particle) sitting on the surface of the Earth is represented by the magnitude of the curvature vector of that test particle's world line. The latter vector is the covariant derivative of the tangent vector to the world line taken along itself. In geometric units, tidal acceleration has the units of reciprocal area, i.e. the units of sectional curvature, or the units of energy density. The magnitude of the acceleration vector of a test particle has units of reciprocal length, i.e. the units of path curvature. These are three ways in which it is clear that you are confusing two completely different things. Quote:
The particular FRW dust (with nonzero Lambda) which you are calling "Einstein's static universe" (see for example eq. (5.7) of Hawking and Ellis) is -static- because its timelike Killing vector field is vorticity-free. The Kerr vacuum (for example) is only -stationary- because its timelike Killing vector field has nonvanishing vorticity. You can obviously generate misstatements faster than I (or anyone else) can try to correct them. The two I just noted are minor in comparision with several whoppers which I tried to correct in my self-deleted post. To recapitulate: Quote:
It is true that in gtr, a timelike Killing vector field is associated with a quantity which remains invariant during the motion of a test particle and which can often be interpreted as the "energy" of the test particle. It is also true that expanding or contracting FRW models lack timelike Killing vector fields. The existence (or not) of invariants has to do with whether or not we can integrate the geodesic equations in closed form, in other words, in how easy it is to mathematically describe test particle motion. But this is a purely mathematical issue and largely irrelevant to "conservation of energy" in the sense you are trying to discuss. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
A tiny anecdote about John Baez, which I heard from Nathan Urban: a student came up to him after the first day of class and said "I didn't understand a word you said. I think I need to get into the calculus for poets class". John replied "This -is- the calculus for poets class!" See Kroger and Dunning, "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments", J. Pers. and Soc. Psych. 71 (1989):1121-1134 http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf Quote:
Quote:
(vanishing Ricci scalar) < "Ricci flat" (vanishing Ricci tensor; equivalently, vanishing Einstein tensor, or in gtr, vacuum solution) < "locally flat" (vanishing Riemann tensor, locally isometric to Minkowski spacetime). "conformally flat" (vanishing Weyl tensor; no light bending) < "locally flat" The FRW dusts are conformally flat but not Ricci flat (and thus, not Riemann flat). The Schwarzschild vacuum is Ricci flat but not conformally flat (it exhibits light bending). The Reissner-Nordstrom solution has vanishing Ricci scalar but is neither conformally flat nor Ricci flat. Any solution with nonzero Lambda term (these days this is normally considered just another term in the energy-momentum tensor) will have a nonzero contribution to the Ricci scalar coming from this term. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You're asking me to teach you, but you say you don't trust me and on the evidence of your own writings, you don't understand anything I try to tell you. For this reason, I'll bow out of this thread here. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Shouldn't I answer your questions first? Should I treat them only as rhetorical questions? I'm rather new guy here so I don't know the culture here yet. |
|
|||
|
Jim asked me not to place anything in this forum before answering direct Codeslinger's questions. To honor Jim's wish I can't write to Chris and ask him why he avoids answering direct questions (e.g. how the gravitational attractive force is acting through vacuum in his opinion) and I'd like to turn his attention to a more important problem the best expressed by Feynman: "Let me also say something that people who worry about mathematical proofs and inconsistencies seem not to know. There is no way of showing mathematically that a physical conclusion is wrong or inconsistent. All that can be shown is that the mathematical assumptions are wrong. If we find that certain mathematical assumptions lead to a logically inconsistent description of Nature, we change the assumptions, not nature.
The possible existence of Hubble redshift in "Einstein's universe" in observed amounts leads to a logically inconsistent description of Nature. This inconsistence is in a form of expanding universe hypothesis and all the briliant math of many briliant people behind it. So briliant that it would be real pitty if it were not true. That's the only thing that I wanted to show in this thread. I might very well be an uneducated moron who just noticed this one inconsistence. So I'll leave this briliant math to the billiant people who created it, for them to fix it. Since Jim asked me to switch back to responding to Codeslinger questions, the best as I can, this is what I'm intending to do. |
|
||||
|
Hi Codeslingr, I'm back!
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
? Did I ever told you that Wikipedia's description of Noether theorem isn't correct? I told you that wikipedia description of gravitation isn't correct since the editors believe that Newtonian gravitation is right. In their minds gravitational forces "attract masses" through vaccum. Even Chris Hillman subscribes to this ancient point of view on gravitation and didn't responded to my direct question about it despite that he thinks that in all other place Einstein's gravitation is fine. At leaast he kew that tidal forces result from deviations of wordlines from geodesics. Yet he though that "gravitational attraction" is a different kind of force than tidal since tidal force has a cubic relation to the distance from the center of gravity. And the "attractive" one has quadratic though it is not existing at all (how non existing force can have the Newtonian quadratic relation with distance? Must be one of the mysteries of the expanding universe, just kidding). But we are drifting into physics instead to continue answering your direct questions.Let's recall the question: Quote:
The proof is this: Let establish signature + - - - (as it is done in physics) and let's forget signature - + + + used more often by mathematicians (I just mention this since I don't want to argue unnecessarily about the signature of our spacetime when you might have different prefference than I have). Take a Poynting pseudo vector s0^i (where i is 0 for time coordinate, and 1,2,3 for spatial coordinates) (with which you are already familiar and you know that it represents the energy of an electromagnetic wave) and locate it at coordinates x0^i. Now parallel transport s0^i to a new event in our spacetime by randomly chosen worline A to an event x1^i and call the Pointing vector sa^i. Then do the same thing to the same event x1^i by another path B and call the resulting coordinates of the Poynting vector sb^i. Note that there is a non vanishing difference sd^i=sa^i-sb^i which is another pointing vector representing energy of a some electromagnetic wave. Then try to respond to a question where the hell this energy came from? Of course in flat spacetime this enegy represented by sd^i=0 since paralled transport by any wordline results in the same vector. To be continued... |
|
|||
|
Quote:
I and others here fully understand this feeling. You should have seen some of the threads here before the thirty day rule was instituted. Again, welcome.
__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues. Neptune- The original Dark Matter. The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You then say you are going to answer my first question. But all you did was repeat the same argument about transport of Poynting vectors from before. As Chris Hillman has already told you, the argument does not work: Quote:
For your convenience (and as Nereid might say, avoidance of doubt), here are my direct questions that you have yet to answer: 1. Please show us, mathematically, why energy cannot be conserved in an expanding universe. 2. Please show us, mathematically, why conservation of energy necessarily implies a stationary universe. 3. Which physicists oppose Big Bang because of conservation of energy? 4. If Wikipedia's description of Poynting's theorem is incorrect, please cite relevant scientific sources (published papers, journal articles, textbooks, etc.) that refutes Wikipedia's description and/or confirms your description of Poynting's theorem. 5. Which mathematical physicists do not believe in conservation of energy? 6. Why do you think that Big Bang cosmology involves the laws of physics changing over time?
__________________
"It's over you head now. Time to get some professional help." - My fortune cookie from lunch Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial Usenet Physics FAQ |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
No, you do what the Mod suggests you do. If you wish to respond to my post, PM me or post after you do what was suggested.
__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity. Isaac Asimov Last edited by Jim; 07-April-2008 at 06:09 PM.. Reason: fixed code |
|
||||||||||
|
Quote:
And that's why it is easier with scientific theories. In a scientific theory after one false prediction the theory is out. Like e.g. Einstein's universe would be out if it predicted something wrongly. So far it exists in my mind as a possibility since, as far as I know, all its predictions agree with observations. The first suspected observation that I learned about, thanks to this thread, is the relation between angular diameter of galaxies and the reshift distance to them. On which I don't have time to work being busy with responding to your direct questions without which the thread can't continue. My results from my paper can't be used since they are derived only for small redshifts in approximately flat space, so they cover only linear part of the curve. The interesting question is how the angular size redshift relation would look for distances of order of Gpc, where space curvature decides about the shape of the relation. Qualitatively it looks the same as observations indicate and it is interesting if the scales on both axes come up the same as what is observed. If they do then it will be the sixth independent piece of evidence in favor of Einstein's uiverse. If not than it would be its first fatal flaw. And then it could go down as a serious piece of evidence supporting the Big Bang cosmology. So basically also the Big Bang supporters have a stake in testing the shape of the angular size redshift relation for Einstein's universe. Since you considered my first response to your questions insufficient, I'm now trying to find out what is your point of view on laws of physics. Since you don't agree with me that we should rather agree that energy is conserved, I'm trying to find out why you think so. Had you specified your point of view I could just say "agreed" or "not agreed, because of this or that" and then it were much faster discussion and we even might get to some conclusions before our time for chatting runs out. I want to continue the thread to find out either whether there is somethng wrong with Einstein's universe as an explanation of observed phenomena or why people don't understand that "Einstein's universe" might be all that we need to explain the observed phenomena. Perhaps members of this forum know something that I don't know and so when they reveal this knowledge I'll be satisfied. But before the thread can continue I have to answer all your "direct" questions, which I'm trying to do right now trying to figure out what you don't know. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If you showed me where the argument has a flaw then it would be easier for me to see the flaw. As it is now I have to guess what you consider a flaw. In my last message I thought that I showed you that depending on the path of transport the results are different in curved spacetime (contrary to the results in flat spacetime). Since both transports are legitimate, one can't choose one over another. So both transpors give legitimate results. But the law of conservation says that the result for x1^0>x0^0 is supposed to be unique. Since it is not unique (which is verifiable) it does not expresses the principle of conservation (in this case of energy). Q.E.D. Now is your turn to point to a flaw (rather than write "it is flawed" and make me guess what you mean). In a case you accept that curved spacetime does not produce unique results while parallely transporting vectors (since the results of such transport depend on the path) I should add that expanding universe corresponds to a curved spacetime of non zero global curvature (one that is proportional to the angle of rotation of parallely transported vector) and therefore the above reasoning is directly applicalble to the expanding uiverse. Which would concluded the respnse to question 1. Quote:
Quote:
Hubble constant H_o=sqrt(4pi G rho), where G is gravitational gonstant and rho is energy density of the universe (in units of mass), then we may observe both (H_o) and (rho) and verify with sufficient accuracy that it is so. Then any other result would violate the principle of conservation of energy. From which we conclude that a stationry universe is the only universe possible where energy is conserved. The expanding universe would have an additional Hubble type redshift resulting from Doppler effect and it had to be subtracted from the already determined Hubble type redshift violating the conservation of energy. Q.E.D. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
(1) Prof. Chris Meissner (you may buy his book on the Theory of Fields if it is still available). Prof. Meissner assured me personally in front of several witnesses that energy is not conserved globally (which makes my derivation of the Hubble redshift invalid) and he attributes to it a possibility of existence of supernatural being(s). He oranized a conference (which I witnesed) about relation between physics and faith, at Warsaw University with cooperation of a Catholic priest a Catholic thelogian and another mathematical physicist, prof. Kijowski, where all of them anylized in front of an audience of about one thousand arguments for and against the possibility of existence of a supreme being (for which the law of conservation of energy might have been a serious obstacle when treated seriously). (2) Prof. John Baez (who assured me personally through the internet that energy is not conserved "in general relativity", and there is a proof of his assertion, available through google). If you need more names for some reason I might be able to get a few more since most (if not all) mathematical physicists in my university as well as most (if not all) PhD candidates agrees with this proposition. I don't. Last edited by JimJast; 07-April-2008 at 09:08 PM.. Reason: adding some text fixing typos |
|
|||||||||||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Do you have an actual, valid, mathematical argument for why energy cannot be conserved in an expanding universe? If so, please show it. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Please answer all questions/requests I have bolded. Take as long as you need to in order to address them. But I will not put up with any more non-answers.
__________________
"It's over you head now. Time to get some professional help." - My fortune cookie from lunch Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial Usenet Physics FAQ |
|
||||
|
Private Message
__________________
All Moderation in Purple To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post: ───────────────────────────────────────────── ◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ► |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| The Shape of the Universe | dcl | Astronomy Cast | 36 | 18-April-2008 09:40 PM |
| Universe Expansion | earthman2110 | Astronomy | 109 | 13-April-2008 03:45 AM |
| The Cosmic | alkawn.net | Astronomy | 2 | 01-July-2006 07:56 PM |
| When Did Motion First Start ? | br dan izzo | Astronomy | 3 | 17-April-2005 10:20 PM |
| Big Crunch? | Jetmech0417 | Against the Mainstream | 15 | 29-November-2002 11:30 PM |