Finally I have understood the problem. You have mixed physical law with physical system. While the first might be preserved in expanding universe physical system might change so that its energy isn't conserved (in other words the words "translation through time" don't mean the same thing for both). E.g. two charges separated by a certain distance in expanding universe are a second later separated by a greater distance. So depending on the sign of the charges their energy either grows or becomes smaller, or in other words, energy changes. It is not conserved. Since their physical system can't be translated through time in expanding universe, while all physical physical laws (even the conservation of energy) can. That's why the energy can be conserved in expanding universe in separated islands and so that law of conservation of energy can, but energy can't be conserved globally. It is kind of ironic but it is just how it is. It can be conserved globally in a static universe though, since the example with two charges don't work there since their system is translated through time but only in a static (or stationary) universe.

I hope you learned something and later I'll try to explain you more physics since it must be frustrating not to understand basic ideas like "translated through time". But don't worry just imagine my problems while changing from a sculptor to a relativist. But I'm already there and still remember my old problems so I may help you a lot. Just cheer up

The irony of this superior and condescending post is that the information in it is still wrong.

easy now , no need to get pompus and/or arrogant just state your case

there are bound to be holes in your theory


well... then explain " translated through time " for us all

I'm certainly interested in this definition

Do you realize how silly you just made yourself look? Noether's says that conservation of energy is a consequence of laws of physics being invariant over time. It's right there in Wiki's description (first paragraph, second sentence), which you yourself have conceded as correct. You also conceded that the laws of physics are invariant over time in Big Bang cosmology. Your continued insistence that Noether's does not apply to Big Bang's expanding universe, despite Big Bang cosmology meeting exactly the conditions laid out by Noether's, makes it clear that it is you who have a problem with mixing things up (to put it mildly).

I'm assuming that when you said energy, you were referring to the electric potential energy between the two charges. In which case your example is invalid, as electric potential energy only makes sense in an electrostatic system, where the charges are not moving relative to each other. If you are using some other definition of energy, please state what it is.

Since you have failed yet again to give support for your claim that Noether's does not apply to an expanding universe, I do not consider this question answered.

__________________
"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'm not pompus. I just wanted to help the guy to understand the difference between real "translation through time" and figure of speech expressed with the same words which he was using all the time but I didn't realize this first, and I thought he is using it in a literal sense. That's why I was puzzled. It often happens between various fields of science when each has its own vocabulary. I'm accustomed to physics maybe he's accustomed to some other branch in which they use different language. I suspect he's a retired science teacher.

A good example of using the same word in two meanings might be "mass". In physics it is always so called "invariant mass" (a mathematical abstraction equal to the "rest energy of the object") and in every other branch of science it means "total energy of the object". The most difference there is in "mass" of a photon which is zero for a physicist and something else for everybody else. And most physicists even don't know about it, So when a physicists starts talking with any non physicists it is bound soon to call him an idiot and v.v. before both realize that they are talking about different things just using the same word. It is not even funny.

"Translated through time" means very often the same as "motionless". It refers to fourth axis of 4 dimenssional system of spacetime coordinates where fourth dimenssion is time and it is denoted most often by zero to be more interesting. So x^0 is temporal dimenssion of spacetime and if something is "translated through time" it means that it moves along this axis without any rotations. In other words it does not move at all, just let the time "to flow" through it. When expanding space moves through it it produces an interesting affect of more and more space contained in the same spatial (motionless) structure, e.g. in a cube. Then the cube has more and more volume without doing a thing. Just being "translated through time". Of course if the cube has various charges at its eight corners it might gain energy without any effort, just sitting pretty. That's the whole mystery of being "translated through time".

I don't have any theory of my own. It is Einstein's. I just want to popularize it since I think that Einstein's was shortchanged by mathematicians who highjacked his theory and converted it into a monster whom now even they don't understand. Being not physicists they don't even realize how Einstein's theory works. What is generating gravitational force. They say "curvature of spacetime" but try to ask them what they mean by this. Then they say: "imagine it as an attractive force between two objects because it is too complicated for you to understand without studying it for 15 years, as we all had to, and only now we are beginning to understand it". I explain gravitational force in 15 minutes (during a break between two lectures), and no physicists wants to believe that it might be so simple and nobody yet told him that. So naturally they suspect that I want to cheat them and promis to find an error in the explanation when they have time. No on ever did. Apparently all are too busy.

The idea behind Einstein universe is that the same Hubble redshift that is observed in our universe can be obtained by letting photons have dynamical friction in a static universe of approximately the same density as ours due to the conservation of energy. So far ca. 57% of the mass of the universe is missing but the character of this readshift is the same as in our universe, i.e. it simmulates an accelerating expanssion with approximately the same acceleration that is observed in our universe. So I assume that our universe is just Einstein's static universe and the cosmologists screwed up badly. However those results can't be published since "there is no new physics in them". Boring stuff. So I stop boring everybody and try to get some sleep.

What is dynamical friction of photons??? I've asked you this before when you tried to backdoor this into a Q&A thread, but you did not answer. So I'll ask you again: What is your source, Einstein or otherwise, for this concept of "dynamical friction of photons"?

__________________
"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

You're making a lot of mistakes on basic physics concepts for someone who claims to be accustomed to physics. And no, I'm not a science teacher, retired or otherwise.

__________________
"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 see that finally I made myself look silly and so there is no more need to pretend that I know something. Time to admit that I don't know nothing and I'm utterly confused as Chris Hillman have already noticed. So its time to admit the truth:

Don't know.

Don't know.

Don't know.

Don't know. What's Poynting's theorem?

Don't know.

Don't know.

Oh, this one. I made it up.

Ned Wright told me about dynamical friction of other objects than photons. I figured out that if all objects are subject to dynamical friction photons must be subjects to dynamical friction as well. I asked around how it is calculated and stuff and no one knew so I calculated it myslelf. Trivial, almost Newtonian, physics. And it really came out as friction so Wright was right about naming it. Cosmologists were wrong though not calculating it and considering it negligible since the result turned out to be purely relativistic depending purely on the curvature of space. Non existent in Newtonian physics and that's why it escaped the attention of astrophysicists who prefer Newtonian calculation since they suffice in most cases. Not in this one though where only the conservation of energy had to bring it to the daylight so to speak.

So the dynamical friction of photons turned out to exist in relativity and, funny thing, it produces more than half of the observed cosmological redshift (a.k.a. Hubble redshift). Perhaps the whole thing. In Einstein's universe. Funny, isn't it?

I'm glad I could answer at least one question of yours so I hope you ask me more. Since I'm here to answer questions about Einstein's universe (or should I call it "JimJast universe" since I'm abusing Einstein's universe by assigning to it the dynamical friction of photons which Einstein has never heard about and I made it up?)

BTW, there is more interesting features of the "dynamical friction of photons" than just producing a large Hubble type redshift. It produces also an illusion of accelerating expansion with characteristic that happen to be observed. I don't know how closely it is observed, I recon within 10% but I might be wrong, being wrong so many times. It might be to 1%, how do I know.

Another interesting (to me) feature is that this "dynamical friction of photons" produces large redshifts in relatively dense clouds of dust or gases which according to my poor knowledge of astrophysics might surround quasars. But it should rather interest Halton Arp than me.

What interests me though is the mechanism of this "dynamical friction of photons" since it can't be the infamous "tired light effect" since in Einstein's gravitation no gravitational forces act on photons. So I figured out that it must be the effect similar to "gravitational redshift", simply the time running slower the farther into space we look. And the effect is coupled to the curvature of space (as the calculations reveal) in such way that it makes spacetime flat (in the sense of scalar curvature only of course, since the space is still curved and the time is dilated; they just fit one another making flat the sum of both, the spacetime).

An interesting paradox, that the time is running everyplace slower than everyplace else in the universe I leave for curious characters to solve. The sufficient solution is to demonstrate that it does not cause a logical contradiction. Solution is surprizingly simple, just one more Einsteinian paradox, this time in the general relativity. Who solves it first gets as an award a short explanation of mechanism of gravitational force in Einstein's gravitation which most people don't know or don't want to believe, but it is even more interesting than the mentioned temporal paradox. It demonstrates also that Einstein's gravitation is already a quantum theory and photons might be its bosons (which might be of course also wrong as everything else what originated in the demented mind of JimJast).

I would challenge you on this mechanism of "dynanamical friction of photons", but I just don't have any more patience for you. Throughout this thread you've displayed a general lack of understanding of basic concepts in physics and cosmology. But when people, like Chris Hillman point out your mis-conceptions, you ignore their corrections. You make up claims that you cannot defend when asked to do so. And perhaps worst of all, you continue to proclaim that physicists don't understand Einstein's theories and cosmologists don't understand redshift, that only you understand how these things really work, when all evidence points to exactly the opposite conclusion. I'm done with this nonsense.

My suggestion to you is to go back and learn what mainstream science really says. And if you come up with an idea not in agreement with mainstream science, instead of jumping to the conclusion that everyone else is wrong, you might consider the possibility that your idea is wrong or that your interpretation of mainstream science is wrong. I think you'll find studying physics much easier once you let go of the belief that everyone else is wrong and you are right.

__________________
"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

Too bad you didn't start from the dynanamical friction of photons instead of wasting time on things that you could learn from the mainstream textbooks.

I was aready there. Now I'd rather discuss only the dynanamical friction of photons. Thanks for trying.

OK, tell us what the 'Dynamical Friction of Photons' is

__________________
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 ►

The "dynamical friction of photons" is a particular case of "dynamical friction" and it is particular only in this that it is related to photons. Everything else is the same as in ordinary "dynamical friction".

A model of such a phenomenon might be an object moving through a stationary (e.g. virialized) cloud of dust not colliding with the dust particles of the cloud. The object by its passage though the cloud agitates somehow the cloud through gravitational interaction so the cloud particles gain kinetic energy. The total energy of the cloud and the object that moves through it remains constant and so the kinetic energy of the object becomes smaller. This reason for the loss of kinetic energy of the object due to its passage through a cloud of dust without touching the dust is called "dynamical friction".

Now, if the object is a photon, it can lose energy too. However for the photon the loss of energy translates into its redshift, and so a passage of a photon through a cloud of dust is bound to result in some kind of redshift.

It all happens in a stationary space. Therefore we have here a qualitative reason for a Hubble type redshift in a stationary space. Now we need to investigate it quantatively.

We can't use for the calculations directly the Newtonian gravitation since Newtonian gravitation doesn't work for photons. So we are using the following trick: we take a space with a uniform distribution of dust and radiate out photons from a certain place in that space. The space becomes less uniform, which means gravitational field gets created, and when the photons are gone we can use our Newtonian gravitation again to calculate gravitational energy in this field. We know that it has to be equal the energy lost by the readiated out photons. Then we may convert it into thie redshift (Z) for specified density of space (rho) and the distance traveled by the light (x).

To make long story short, this method of calculating, gives us redshift
Z=x*sqrt(4pi G rho)/c ........ (1), where (G) is Newtonian gravitational constant and (c) is speed of light.

If we take redshift (Z) for Doppler redshift resulting from expansion of space we may set the Hubble constant for this expansion as
H_o=Zc/x=sqrt(4pi G rho) ........ (2)

For density of space 6x10^{-27}kg/m^3 we would have H_o=70km/s/Mpc which is observed in our, supposedly expanding universe.

It is interesting, that when we put into (2) the value of the radius of curvature of Einstein's universe (R) then our Hubble constant simplifies to
H_o=c/R ........ (3)
suggesting that the only reason for the Hubble redshift in the universe might be its curvature of space.

Not much, if the "object" is a photon.

No, that's called gravitational interaction.

More likely, it will be absorbed and re-emitted by dust particles or atoms or molecules, which opens up a whole slew of possibilities for what happens. But if a photon makes it through without hitting anything, then depending on the mass of the cloud, it will be gravitationally redshifted as it climbs out of the cloud's gravity well. (Of course, it may have been blue-shifted as it fell into the well, but that's another story.)

Physicists and cosmologists are very well aware of gravitational redshifting. I don't know why you think it needs another name.

According to calculations, for very distant and very massive objects, the gravitational redshift is nevertheless negligible when compared to the cosmological redshift due to Hubble expansion. It contributes less than 1% of the measured redshift.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Of course not much, but even such a tiny effect after billions of years of accumulation finally becomes visible.

Yes. It is gravitational interaction. Astrophysicists call this kind of gravitational interaction "dynamical friction" though since it has certain particular features differentiating it from other kinds of gavitational interaction. We are free to use a different name but since this one is already used in the literature then changing the name might confuse some people. I propose not to multiply names unnecessarily and leave the name already used by specialists.

Of course but I'm not concerned with this effect here since I analyze here only the dynamical friction.

It may be shown that this effect is negligible comparing to the gravitational friction. You may notice that the photon before climbing out of a well has to fall into it first, and it leaves only the first well in which it was generated as a subject of any concern, while the effects of dynamical friction accumulate during the whole lifetime of the photon, from its source to the detector. So even being exceedingly small they may be not negligible.

For the time being I'm not commenting on the nature of gravitational redshift since popular saying "climbing out of gravity well", despite that it does not represent contemporary physics of the curved spacetime, suffices here as a didactic tool.

I don't need another name for "gravitational redshift" and I'm surprised that you think that I do, as I never expressed such a need.

You got it just right, however on what observation you base the assumption that it is an expansion? I call it just "Hubble redshift" since I don't see any reason to call it "due to Hubble expansion". As my calculations indicate, it is only the redshift due to dynamical friction. It seems a simpler solution since it does not require to invent new things and the old dynamical friction suffices to explain this redshift.

The only problem might be that someone has to calculate this redshift instead of assuming that it is Doppler shift which might be easier but not necessarily reflect the reality. I'm puzzled why it is so difficult to find any trace of calculations of the redshift resulting from the dynamical friction of photons in the literature of the subject. It is the reason why I made these calculations myself and presented the results here for astronomers to tell me why they are not interested in them (as editors of scientific journals keep telling me that it is the case and that's why those results aren't worth publishing in a scientific journal despite being formally right according to the referees who evaluated them).

Ok so show your calculations.

Codeslinger has asked for that for pages now. Good luck.

I showed them in the first paragraph of the first message of this thread as a link to my page, when I didn't know yet that I'm not supposed to advertize my page here. So the best way it would be to look at them using this link (since it is there anyway) or I repeat them here step by step. They are rather simple, almost Newtonian just with finite speed of light (c). They are based on the conservation of energy in gravitation (which is separetly proved there too on an example of gravitational energy of a particle) and can be done in only about 6 lines of high school calculus so they are easy to understand even for a high school student.

Which way do you prefer? I'd advise reading the paper first and then ask questions since many questions might be answered by this paper (as e.g. all Cougar's questions might but he couldn't know it choosing not to read the paper).

Codeslinger was interested in different issues than Einstein's universe and tried to get responses only to questions that interested him (like who considers energy to be conserved and why, Noether's theorem, Poynting's theorem, and which professors think what). I advised him to open his own thread dedicated to those questions where he could discuss those issues with me without crowding this thread where someone might want to discuss only Einstein's universe. I didn't have time yet to find out if he did but I'm going to after I solve the problem of angular diameters of galaxies that are most likely the result of curvature of space of the universe.

I didn't solve this problem yet since I thought that it is a job for an astrophysicist rather than a sculptor and so I didn't even toutch the problem of curvature of space in my paper. My results from the paper are good only for approximately flat space. However the Hubble constant turned out to be equal to c/R, R being Einstein's radius of curvature of space so the problem of growing angular diametr of galaxies after Z=1.5, though roughly agreeing with the geometry of Einsein's universe, is an interesting one, and I plan to solve it before engaging in solving problems proposed by Codeslinger.

If the solution isn't going to produce observed results then the whole Einstein's universe theory collapses and I wouldn't have any more reasons to ask about it. On the other hand if Einstein's uiverse theory produces results as they are observed then they become the sixth piece of evidence for Einstein's universe. That's why it is worth to explain the results of relation between angular diameters of galaxies and the cosmological redshift.

Let's be clear on this. I pressed you on those issues because you made those claims in order to argue your case that Big Bang cosmology is wrong and we actually live in Einstein's universe (which, as you admitted, should really be called JimJast's universe, since dynamical friction of photons is something you made up). You claimed that Big Bang cosmology is wrong because it violates conservation of energy. You claimed that conservation of energy can only be true in a "stationary universe". You claimed that these results follow if one applies Noether's theorem and Poynting vectors. You claimed that many physicists oppose Big Bang cosmology precisely because of conservation of energy. And so on, and so forth. At the end, you failed to back up any of these claims. This should have been trivially easy for you to do if, as you implied, these claims are supported in mainstream textbooks. Except they are not, because mainstream science says none of these things. I have no idea why you are trying to paint a different picture of what happened, because the evidence is right here in this thread.

I was (and still am) disinterested in discussing your "dynamical friction of photons" idea because it's built on top of a foundation of misunderstandings, and I see no point in discussing a conclusion derived from incorrect premises.

I am interested, however, in these claims of yours (from this thread):

At the bottom of this page is a list of physics phd students at the University of Warsaw (Warsaw University's new English name). I don't see your name anywhere on that list. Please clarify exactly what you meant in the above claims.

__________________
"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'm impressed by the amout of time you sacrifice to learn things that usually don't interest even the most curious folks. As for the list I'm going to ask my professor whether he thinks that I need to be on the list (which frankly I doubt) and at the same time I ask him why his other phd student is missing from this list as well. Also I'm going to ask the other guy if he knows that he is missing from the list and if he cares. He may be happy to know that someone from BAUT forum cares about such thing to such a degree that he discovered not only the list, that we are missing from it, but also the new English name of our university Something we might have never known if not for you. Thanks for bringing those things to our attention.

Who's your professor?

__________________
"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

#204: prof. dr hab. Józef Namysłowski
Position: Professor
Unit: Institute of Theoretical Physics
Subunit: Department of Theory of Hadrons and Leptons
Office room: H213
Phone: +48-22-55-32-262
E-mail: Jozef.Namyslowski@fuw.edu.pl

Codeslinger, I got a bright idea Since you are so skillful in extracting information from the website of my university why don't you find one professor of Department of Theory of Relativity and Gravitation who believes that energy is globally conserved. This way you have answers to your questions and I have at least one professor who will support my phd thesis.

How about you do your own work and show your own math?
You have been asked, repeatedly, to show it. You provide a word salad answer each time. Making a subtle allusion to other posts or quibbling details about how who defines what in mathematics.

Stop making excuses and show your work.


If you have a professor supporting your claims, you should have no difficulty in showin' your work.

So far you have shown a lot of word salad and no meat.

What prevents you from looking at my math?
It sits here from the first message of this thread (paragraph 1).

I don't have any difficulty in showing my work (see?). Apparently you have difficulty in seeing it. Try again to click on this link and if nothing happens call the sysop and report the problem.

I don't have any professor supporting my claim that energy is conserved globally, neither I know if one such exists. That's why I'm here and that's why I count on Codeslinger since he claims that global conservation of energy is the mainstream science. He must have been out of touch with mainstream science for more than 30 years.

Looking at your link and reading.

Right off the top, I have noticed at least three misconceptions on your part- However, until I work my way all the way through it- I will refrain from commenting (in the hopes of not making a fool of myself in the process) until I have gone over it all.

Still waiting to hear back from Prof. Namyslowski.

Your "bright idea" is just another attempt to shirk your burden of proof. You want to claim that no professor at that department believes in global conservation of energy? Then it's up to you to prove it to us (consider this a direct question), otherwise it's just some more unsupported allegations.

I think this thread has made it abundantly clear just who is out of touch with mainstream science.

__________________
"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 agree. At first, when I clicked the link to JimJasts paper, I thought I had my work cut out for me.
As I browsed top to bottom, and then went back to the top and started slowly following the math, I began to see where one misconception led to another- til he was basing his math on the previous assumption.

Then, when I got to the bottom, I noticed the name "Chris Hillman" in the credits...

Is that the same Chris Hillman who was posting in this thread?
If so, I haven't got a chance of clarifying anything to JimJast, considering that he's demonstratively better at math than I am etc, he simply would not listen to me and tell me how I am the one who's wrong.

<shrug>

The same.

If anybody wants to write about possible errors in my texts, please do it in this thread and I place them (subject to moderation) in this special page dedicated to Jim's errors. Thank you.