Sunday, September 17, 2017








Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank
Display comments: newest first
dnatwork
2.3 / 5 (10)Sep 13, 2017
I commented a couple weeks ago with the idea that dark energy (and dark matter) need not exist if the theory took the frame of reference as a real thing to be accounted for, not just an analogy to explain things near the speed of light. This article is basically what I meant; they are talking about the clocks, but of course, the speed of your clock depends on your frame of reference.

I was also thinking gravity is not a real force, but an emergent effect, just inertia in another form. We'll see.
Parsec
3.8 / 5 (5)Sep 13, 2017
The principle of Occam's Razor favors the model without cosmological acceleration.
Hyperfuzzy
1.4 / 5 (9)Sep 13, 2017
First, you are looking at it all wrong. Space is infinite in time and physical dimension. Charge is infinite from it's center to infinity. The motion of a charge's center produces a wave in its field, no other field affected only another's center may be affected, effected, whatever ... This describes space as it is, not how you are calculating. Light, or a wrinkle in its field ... all that exists. There is no "thing" called mass but a "mass" of these centers!

Get it? These fields are everywhere, there does not exist "Nothing!". So yes, your dark mattter is created by assuming "Nothing" really exist. LOL! So from a distance, how may any wavelet be perceived? Forward, backward? Also from within an atom and within greater and greater numbers ... does attraction always win? Note: These centers only obey the law; there is no law defining any configuration other than the applied field or lack thereof. So each center may occupy the same point in space and time.
Hyperfuzzy
1.5 / 5 (8)Sep 13, 2017
Hope you guys are not using QM and GR. You know that's nonsense, mostly. Good try, start with potential and kinectics into a wave equation, compute theorectical possibilities, evaluate reality with this?

Speed of light? Come on! Emitted_wavelength/Measured_Period, what is that? Velocity(+/-)?
oxivape
Sep 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
oxivape
Sep 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
oxivape
Sep 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
oxivape
Sep 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
oxivape
Sep 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
oxivape
Sep 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
oxivape
Sep 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
oxivape
Sep 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
1 / 5 (1)Sep 13, 2017
FTA;
"Dark energy is usually assumed to form roughly 70% of the present material content of the Universe."
So, since when did dark energy become "material"?!?
oxivape
Sep 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (8)Sep 13, 2017
Schneibo is now oxivape.

why 1 star me?
Schneibo, for the same reason I always 1 star you.
oxivape
Sep 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
oxivape
Sep 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (6)Sep 13, 2017
@dnat, I assume you're talking about this thread: https://phys.org/...rgy.html

I note that it is still open for comment. I note that you did not respond to my posts. It was an interesting conversation but in the absence of any response from you I think I showed that gravity is a "real thing," not an analogy. We can continue here or there, your pleasure.

Meanwhile, I don't understand why you think the timescape model of Smale et al. is anything like saying gravity is not real, and is an analogy. Can you explain that in a bit more detail for us please?
oxivape
Sep 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (8)Sep 13, 2017
Is no one around?


You should be conversing with the guy right above you, schneibo, he's one of those s'plainers.
oxivape
Sep 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
oxivape
Sep 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (8)Sep 13, 2017
The principle of Occam's Razor favors the model without cosmological acceleration.
But it doesn't explain the supernova data, which means a model without cosmological acceleration doesn't fit reality. Occam's Razor doesn't work if the models it's being used on don't fit reality well. In other words, if you shave too close. ;)
Benni
1.6 / 5 (10)Sep 13, 2017
Can you explain that in a bit more detail for us please?


Well Schneibo, why don't you try more of that Funny Farm Physics stuff & be more clear as to why gravity is DENSITY DEPENDENT & not MASS DEPENDENT.

Explain the Law of Physics that demonstrates how a given mass can change it's gravity field to the point that a given mass stellar body can be made so small that it's gravity field at the surface reaches infinity,
oxivape
Sep 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
oxivape
Sep 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8)Sep 13, 2017
i got banned from all science forums long ago. only can talk science at glp. now they banned me again, even i use new ip. this is the new place/only one i can learn science.

before i get benned , please talk with me!


oxi......please don't despair, Schneibo is now on site & will converse with you. At he moment he's a little busy on some other Funny Farm explanations of science, but I guarantee he'll be along he will be here for you & to be your friend, you seem just like his type of guy.
oxivape
Sep 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4)Sep 13, 2017
Here is the arXiv open access copy of this paper: https://phys.org/...rgy.html

There is a very active debate going on right now about dark energy, regarding whether the presumption of the overall FLRW evenness applies in a non-homogeneous universe like ours, with voids and filaments. This paper provides some evidence using lately collected data. It will be interesting to see how this falls out when all is said and done.
oxivape
Sep 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
oxivape
Sep 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
oxivape
Sep 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
oxivape
Sep 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
oxivape
Sep 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
oxivape
Sep 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
oxivape
Sep 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
oxivape
Sep 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
oxivape
Sep 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
oxivape
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
kjung6921
5 / 5 (10)Sep 14, 2017
Aren't there any moderators on this site? Too bad. It's a great site with great articles and the comment section (at least at the end of this article where I hoped to find some intelligent discussion of this latest news on the dark energy front) is literally the drooling ward in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

Very sad. Very sad indeed. Does anyone know where physics students meet to discuss these things, where moderators kick out the dingbats?

Just curious.
oxivape
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
oxivape
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
oxivape
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Eikka
3.7 / 5 (6)Sep 14, 2017
maybe they agreed with my comment.

can you debunk any? please!

i want to learn better theory.


A famous university professor went to a monastery to hear about zen. The abbot of the monastery agreed to meet him for tea. Once the professor was seated, the master poured tea into a cup, slowly filling it to the brim until tea was spilling to the table and onto the floor.

"Enough, the cup is full!", said the professor.

"You are like this cup, so full of opinions and ideas. How can I tell you of zen if you don't first empty your cup? Come back when your cup is empty.", said the teacher.
oxivape
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
oxivape
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
oxivape
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
oxivape
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
oxivape
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
wduckss
1 / 5 (2)Sep 14, 2017
@oxivape
I'll add a little proof about manipulation with readers.
http://www.svemir...-correct
Still, part "force is proportional to sun's temperature and mass, inversely proportional to distance squared". Not true, the temperature on the dark side of Mars is more than the Moon and the Mercury.
oxivape
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
oxivape
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
oxivape
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
oxivape
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
oxivape
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ViperSRT3g
3 / 5 (1)Sep 14, 2017
I'm still wondering if this will eventually be explained with the universe was expanding faster in the past, and so because we're seeing things not as they are now, but as they were, they appear to be moving away from us at a much greater speed than objects closer to us in time and space.
oxivape
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (4)Sep 14, 2017
Finally, measure the speed of light this way emitted_wavelength/measured_period. Now, the way I see it, we do not have enough information to determine the flow of our local universe, let alone the entire bucket of worms.

If you notice, attraction trumps repulsion, i.e. unlike charges will tend to be closer together than like charges; thus, the supperposition of each charge center will be like-wise! But, think you need a few more vector quantities. If you go with Einstein, bets are off you will ever enter space!
oxivape
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (3)Sep 14, 2017
So I would expect something bigger than I've ever seen that can control the flow of galaxies, juz say'n The expansion from us? We're all in a stream, acclerating? Well, first which galaxies are moving away and in what direction are they moving relative to us. Be esiear if you let a computer tell you what is really going on than these guys who say, "I don't know, Dark Matter?" LOL

if it is a stream it can be a supposition of 3 points, us centered; therefore, verifiable data, ...
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (3)Sep 14, 2017
Anyway, the stream shall define an unseen object! Not something that we do not know exist and what it is, a real object!

So, looking at the distances, we got time! But don't know about life on earth.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (3)Sep 14, 2017
Your eyes, you see a light, did the plane wave move over you front to back or back to front. In other words, can you update each wavelet as a time sequence, forward or backward. I'm afraid, you will be required to know exactly what you are observing and can absolutely define the time line. Just when you thought this was getting to be really fun, isolated objects in space, of stable sizes, may have which rotators? Either!!! Anti-Matter?
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (3)Sep 14, 2017
Being a member of a stream and an isolated object; what would be the observable differences? Remember, we are new to this world; I think we get only one shot at getting it correctly speaking, i.e. it better be right!
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (3)Sep 14, 2017
We quote PhD's, that's because, some of these actually measure nature and collect knowledge; like Maxwell; others invent knowledge. I fly upon the wings of Maxwell and those who provided the data that properly defines knowledge!
oxivape
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
oxivape
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (3)Sep 14, 2017
the mechanism of electromagnetism is simple, the force f=Ke x e1e2/rr between matters is the carrier of electromagnetism.

there is no field but force between two parallel copper wires at distance r. the repulsion force between electrons on the surface of the two wires. f=Ke x e1e2/rr.

if electrons move/accelerate in one wire, that repulsion force between electrons on the two wires will move/accelerate electrons in the other wire. the mechanism of electromagnetism.

there is no field, only electrostatic force at work.

Lay off the pipe, dude. Or just mellow out, think, don't write $hit! You are repeating $hit, what is it you know about "that will add knowledge or change perspective?"
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2)Sep 14, 2017
OK, study Maxwell, see the "understood" axioms? What is charge? Therefore ... Not about new physics. It was stated that at the turn of the century(20th), we knew everything! Black Body radiation? Really? Sounds more like data not well understood, what is a black body? Really, we know the physics, ...
oxivape
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
oxivape
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
oxivape
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
oxivape
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5)Sep 14, 2017
wonder how many times they tried to ban me?

People are keeping count Zeph. Don't you worry your pretty littel head

...and they will ban you this time, too.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2)Sep 14, 2017
if i am a blind, i never see my face. i touch my face, i imagine my face, listen to people telling me about my face all my life.

i day by chance, a traveling magician meet me and opened my eyes.

what should i repay?

if i look into the mirror, find a monkey.

should i hate the magician? science knowledge is the face of my mind.

tptb nailed a magician 2000 years ago. remember? i love my pipe.

You know, that makes no sense. Everything is what it is! So maybe you prefer blinders?
oxivape
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
oxivape
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5)Sep 14, 2017
Whops...that worked fast. Thanks mods!
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Reg Mundy
1.3 / 5 (3)Sep 14, 2017
@dnatwork
I commented a couple weeks ago with the idea that dark energy (and dark matter) need not exist if the theory took the frame of reference as a real thing to be accounted for, not just an analogy to explain things near the speed of light. This article is basically what I meant; they are talking about the clocks, but of course, the speed of your clock depends on your frame of reference.

I was also thinking gravity is not a real force, but an emergent effect, just inertia in another form. We'll see.

Congratulations, you have seen the light.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5)Sep 14, 2017
Persistent, isn't he, our Zeph,
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7)Sep 14, 2017
Persistent, isn't he, our Zeph,

He likes to type for the circular file.
(and I guess he hasn't figured out that non one is reading his walls of text anyways.)

Oh, well...one more crazy kept off the street.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Reg Mundy
3.3 / 5 (7)Sep 14, 2017
@moderators
Howz about stopping anybody from posting more than, say, three times on any thread? The idiots have ruined this interesting and perfectly good discussion...
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8)Sep 14, 2017
@moderators
Howz about stopping anybody from posting more than, say, three times on any thread? The idiots have ruined this interesting and perfectly good discussion...


Then Schneibo wouldn't be able to push his DENSITY DEPENDENT theories of gravity versus the demonstrable Fundamental laws of Physics that gravity is MASS DEPENDENT.

So be careful what you wish for, it may only result in a tradeoff of one kind of a fruitcake for another.
dnatwork
2.6 / 5 (5)Sep 14, 2017
@dnat, I assume you're talking about this thread: https://phys.org/...rgy.html

I note that it is still open for comment. I note that you did not respond to my posts. It was an interesting conversation but in the absence of any response from you I think I showed that gravity is a "real thing," not an analogy. We can continue here or there, your pleasure.

Meanwhile, I don't understand why you think the timescape model of Smale et al. is anything like saying gravity is not real, and is an analogy. Can you explain that in a bit more detail for us please?

I didn't say this article said anything about gravity being an effect rather than real, just that that was the other thing I said two weeks ago. I was not convinced by your statements, but I don't have the math to support my intuition, so I dropped it.
dnatwork
2.6 / 5 (5)Sep 14, 2017
Anyway, if the light we observe had to pass through billions of years and quadrillion's of miles of space, it must have passed through many different reference frames, all of which are different from ours. Moreover, either the universe was expanding throughout that time, or the space around every bit of mass was collapsing in on itself, but either way everything was getting farther apart. These guys had the math and the knowledge to point out that therefore it is not valid to assume the Friedman law is correct, that space is flat or whatever. It would have to be tested and proven instead.

If that's true, then what other assumptions in the standard model are untested and unproven? Yes, your equations produce the correct results for the perihelion of Mercury. Does that mean there are no other equations that could do the same? Or that every assumption in the model is correct? No, and no.
dnatwork
2.6 / 5 (5)Sep 14, 2017
So if I say "gravity might just be inertia in curved space, not any kind of force at all," and you say "the standard model explains all this so gravity is a real force, but our theory leads us to have no clue what 95% of the universe is" well, I'm not going to be convinced. And that was before these guys pointed out the weakness of the assumptions on flat space. It just didn't pass any sniff test.
dnatwork
2.6 / 5 (5)Sep 14, 2017
I'm actually arguing for most of the standard model to be kept, I just think it's overbuilt. Take away a few things, but don't replace them with anything. No gravity, because inertia does all the work you need if you let it follow the curves of spacetime. No dark energy or dark matter, because changing reference frames do all the work you need if you let spacetime warp and stretch in different ways (but always according to the same laws applied in differing environments) throughout space and time. Derive those effects from first principles, don't assume they are laws.

I don't know what else might be pruned, but any model that forces you to weird conclusions needs to be cut back until it matches the facts.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
fthompson495
1 / 5 (2)Sep 14, 2017
We are in the outflow of a Universal black hole. As ordinary matter falls toward the Universal black hole it evaporates into dark matter. It is the dark matter outflow which pushes the galaxy clusters, causing them to move outward and away from us. The dark matter outflow is dark energy.
kjung6921
5 / 5 (4)Sep 14, 2017
"The accelerating expansion of the Universe may not be real..."

The biggest NEVER MIND in the history of science (following the extreme upheavals to cosmology, astronomy and physics that the 1998 discovery of accelerating expansion brought).

And what about the 3 Nobel Prizes awarded to participants in that discovery? Do they have to now be returned.

The fact that the posted article doesn't even mention what a revolution in astronomy they would be effecting if their claim that the acceleration is "could just be an apparent effect" is proved leads me to believe there's not much there here.

I am extremely skeptical. The acceleration was discovered nearly 20 years ago. It was corroborated in 2011 by another mammoth study of millions of galaxies.

And now today it's what? All nothing? Mirage? Never mind?

Color me extremely skeptical. This is the scientific-world's equivalent of click-bait, or grant-bait.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
kjung6921
5 / 5 (7)Sep 14, 2017
Google this: "No, Astronomers Haven't Decided Dark Energy is Nonexistent"

It's in Scientific American and it answers a previous "reframing" attempted in 2016.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
kjung6921
4.3 / 5 (6)Sep 14, 2017

the sun's energy/vibrating electrostatic force/radiation ... produces earth magnetic field, causes polar lights.


You really don't know that the Earth's magnetic field is produced in the Earth's core? What grade are you in? Your elementary school science teachers should be ashamed of your ignorance.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4)Sep 14, 2017
Somehow my link to the open access arXiv paper got munged above, and with @Zeph hammering the thread I didn't notice. The correct link is: https://arxiv.org...06.07236
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5)Sep 14, 2017
@kjung, Yes, I read that SciAm post. I am still reading the paper this article is about, and thinking about the objections raised against DE. There is no question whether there is an effect. The sticking point is and always has been that we simply don't know what it is.

The particular study in the current paper proposes that this effect is due to a difference in the way redshift happens in voids as opposed to the way it happens in filaments (the authors talk about "walls," but if you look at the plots they show, it's apparent they have at least some evidence that a large portion of our sky looks into large voids).

Like you I am skeptical; the standard interpretation of GRT says that voids cannot cause a blueshift in light, and mass concentrations cannot cause a redshift, in sufficient quantity to account for the redshift we see. Wiltshire et al. claim they can. The evidence is equivocal at this point (though it leans 99% against the Wiltshire claim).
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6)Sep 14, 2017
@Zeph so you know I reported one of your posts. I expect you'll be out of here when the mods come back on line.

I don't know why you bother. Did you get kicked off another science site?
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4)Sep 14, 2017
@dnat I saw your posts. I'll try to respond today, work permitting. Short form, all the void proposals are extensions to GRT to try to account for Lambda on the RHS of the EFE despite claims to the contrary. It's OK to claim redshift for entry into the filaments, but to flesh these out these folks pretty much always require non-GRT to introduce blueshifts into voids; that is, really nothing doing something. I am very skeptical.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Hyperfuzzy
5 / 5 (1)Sep 14, 2017
what is time?

if we put the same clock in the sun and the earth for 1 day

the earth clock will read/run 24 hours, the sun clock will read fewer hours.

which clock is correct? what time is correct time?

we use matters movement to measure time, what we measured is the changing of the movement, the reading on the timer.

all matters, all things are constantly moving, never stop.

time is always moving with all things right now.

past and future only exist in our minds.

a living tree can be a timer

a blooming flower can be a timer

but the tree and the flower are not time

nor the readings on the clock

all the time we/the universe/existence have is ever changing now

WHAT WE BECOME IS THE MATTER

Prove it, do it!
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Tuxford
1 / 5 (3)Sep 14, 2017
The principle of Occam's Razor favors the model without cosmological acceleration.

And tired light over inter-galactic distances explains it rather simply, as LaViolette has pointed out decades ago. But merger mania is forever. What is the maniac going to do now? Squirm?
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JongDan
3 / 5 (2)Sep 14, 2017
I was also thinking gravity is not a real force, but an emergent effect, just inertia in another form. We'll see.

Dude I hope you're aware that entire general relativity is build upon this idea.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
dnatwork
4 / 5 (4)Sep 14, 2017
I was also thinking gravity is not a real force, but an emergent effect, just inertia in another form. We'll see.

Dude I hope you're aware that entire general relativity is build upon this idea.


Odd, others have been telling me that contradicts general relativity.

Wikipedia: Phenomena that in classical mechanics are ascribed to the action of the force of gravity (such as free-fall, orbital motion, and spacecraft trajectories), correspond to inertial motion within a curved geometry of spacetime in general relativity; there is no gravitational force deflecting objects from their natural, straight paths. Instead, gravity corresponds to changes in the properties of space and time, which in turn changes the straightest-possible paths that objects will naturally follow.


Huh, sounds like GRT says gravity is not a force, just an effect of inertia in curved spacetime. Good thing I'm just a guy on the internet, reading press releases about science-y stuff.
dnatwork
3.5 / 5 (4)Sep 14, 2017
Okay, then I need to know more before spewing thoughts.

Still thinking dark energy and dark matter look like attempts to pick up the soup after you've dropped the bowl.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Hyperfuzzy
3 / 5 (2)Sep 14, 2017
Okay, then I need to know more before spewing thoughts.

Still thinking dark energy and dark matter look like attempts to pick up the soup after you've dropped the bowl.

All you need is an MSEE and common sense!
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3)Sep 14, 2017
@dnat, your point that relativists contend that gravity is not a force is well taken; it rather washes the sand out from under their feet. If this is what you meant by your statement I may not have an argument against it, but I don't agree that this is an argument against dark energy, and it certainly isn't an argument against dark matter.

I'll show why when I have a chance to think about this, and post soon. Thanks for your patience.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5)Sep 14, 2017
@Zeph so you know I reported one of your posts. I expect you'll be out of here when the mods come back on line.

I don't know why you bother. Did you get kicked off another science site?

DS, I don't think cigg is Zeph. Not his writing and posting style.
Neither was the Oxivape one
this one is more like Hyper's Uncle or something...
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1 / 5 (6)Sep 14, 2017
this is serious matter, no one gives a fuck? what's wrong with you people?


@ciggenie...........Have you yet met Schneibo? He sometimes goes by Da Schneib. You have become a good match for him when it comes to serial posting, I swear he sometimes becomes out of breath blue from the arduous exercise he puts those fingers through, exhausting stuff talking about nothing or Copy & Pasting other people's stuff.

But hey guy, don't worry, he's been here for a few years posting the same slop & swill over & over again, so you should be OK, I won't give you any ones, I'll just continue reserving those for copycat Schneibo.

Oh, one thing missing if you imagine you want to compete with Schneibo, you need to upgrade your name calling & foul mouthed profanity skills, that would easily tack another 50 points onto your IQ, Schneibo learned that shortcut almost right off the bat, he gets up to grade school level of science from time to time.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Hyperfuzzy
3.7 / 5 (3)Sep 14, 2017
As we mumble and seek approval of what is published due to [ Publish or perish ] does not define truth! Truth is, wither you believe it, can explain it, understand it, it is!

So, kudos to those who observe! Then ...
ciggenie
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (6)Sep 14, 2017
@ciggenie...........Have you yet met Schneibo? He sometimes goes by Da Schneib. You have become a good match for him when it comes to serial posting, I swear he sometimes becomes out of breath blue from the arduous exercise he puts those fingers through, exhausting stuff talking about nothing or Copy & Pasting other people's stuff.

But hey guy, don't worry, he's been here for a few years posting the same slop & swill over & over again, so you should be OK, I won't give you any ones, I'll just continue reserving those for copycat Schneibo.

Oh, one thing missing if you imagine you want to compete with Schneibo, you need to upgrade your name calling & foul mouthed profanity skills, that would easily tack another 50 points onto your IQ, Schneibo learned that shortcut almost right off the bat, he gets up to grade school level of science from time to time.


I removed yu from ignore this one time to say this:

You are a fucking moron.
ciggenie
Sep 15, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ciggenie
Sep 15, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ciggenie
Sep 15, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Ojorf
3 / 5 (2)Sep 15, 2017
Finally!
Something I agree with.

Anyway, about the article, I'm also somewhat skeptical, will have to see how it pans out.
Just a point, if this study is correct, it does not mean the universe is NOT expanding, it means expansion is not accelerating.
Expansion due to BB & inflation still applies.
ciggenie
Sep 15, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nikola_milovic_378
3 / 5 (2)Sep 15, 2017
Every day there is increasing evidence that science either does not know or accepts to understand the structure of the universe. The universe is an infinite sphere, and neither does it spread nor in it there is dark energy and dark matter. The nerve is filled with the substance AETHER from which the substance is formed in two basic "states: solid and liquid").
A solid state with Aether causes gravity, and the fluid state of matter is caused by magnetism. That's why everything is solved and can be proven. The only problem is how to enlighten so many scientists, and prove them contaminated with the wrong and even stupid theories.
isawit
1 / 5 (1)Sep 15, 2017
i got banned from all science forums long ago. only can talk science at glp. now they banned me again, even i use new ip. this is the new place/only one i can learn science.

before i get benned , please talk with me!


I find missing comments at fuckedscience.com
isawit
1 / 5 (1)Sep 15, 2017
The first blog on that site says

i am not sure all these concepts are true. based on the 2 greatest physics laws, they are true to me.

the structure of the atom, the mechanism of gravity and magnetism, the mechanism of light quanta and quantum entanglement.

the definition of energy, the sun's energy source, how energy transfer between matters.

why energy is conserved, why time travel is an illusion, why gravity has nothing to do with space and time.

i am part of the whole, just like you. we all want a better world. we should help each other to improve things.

please don't against people, against bad information and knowledge.

enjoy life, be happy!

The missing comments are in the next few blogs. Enjoy it, spread it.
isawit
1 / 5 (2)Sep 15, 2017
the mechanism of electromagnetism is simple, the force f=Ke x e1e2/rr between matters is the carrier of electromagnetism.

there is no field but force between two parallel copper wires at distance r. the repulsion force between electrons on the surface of the two wires. f=Ke x e1e2/rr.

if electrons move/accelerate in one wire, that repulsion force between electrons on the two wires will move/accelerate electrons in the other wire. the mechanism of electromagnetism.

there is no field, only electrostatic force at work.

Lay off the pipe, dude. Or just mellow out, think, don't write $hit! You are repeating $hit, what is it you know about "that will add knowledge or change perspective?"


Why delete such comment? Thank god they can't delete quoted comment!
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5)Sep 15, 2017
And he's back....and he's gone (soon-ish)
isawit
1 / 5 (3)Sep 15, 2017
open your palm dividing above and below

reach your arm defining east and west

point a finger tingling the sun

kiss the moon with soft dreams
isawit
1 / 5 (2)Sep 15, 2017
school and media are responsible for fooling people.

bs top scientists are leading the world's science.

those should go to the hospital.

Those monkeys are professors at Cambridge University. similar monkeys are teaching are at MIT.

This is the world we live, wake the fuck up.

Their math is incorrect.

Positive numbers can never equal to negative numbers.

Do you think they don't know that equation is totally wrong? they knew it 100%.

Then why they put the video on youtube to fool the world?

What else are they teaching in school?

Those people own the education system, own science. don't let them owning you.

Don't let them owning your kids. https://www.youtu...6XTVZXww
dnatwork
3 / 5 (2)Sep 15, 2017
@dnat, your point that relativists contend that gravity is not a force is well taken; it rather washes the sand out from under their feet. If this is what you meant by your statement I may not have an argument against it, but I don't agree that this is an argument against dark energy, and it certainly isn't an argument against dark matter.

I'll show why when I have a chance to think about this, and post soon. Thanks for your patience.


Hey, thanks for continuing to be serious and respectful of me as a person, despite my ignorance.

My disagreement with (A) dark energy and dark matter is not dependent on (B) the idea that gravity is not a force, just inertia in curved spacetime.

Rather, I'm starting from the rubber sheet analogy of gravity wells. How real is that image in the theory? Does the theory hold that, like the rubber sheet, the gravity well of a massive object reaches a certain point and then stops?
isawit
1 / 5 (3)Sep 15, 2017
last night i had a strange dream

in that dream i farted hard

i saw 21 million fart atoms

some blue some purple

i look at my watch

0.33 second has passed
isawit
1 / 5 (3)Sep 15, 2017
Every day there is increasing evidence that science either does not know or accepts to understand the structure of the universe. The universe is an infinite sphere, and neither does it spread nor in it there is dark energy and dark matter. The nerve is filled with the substance AETHER from which the substance is formed in two basic "states: solid and liquid").
A solid state with Aether causes gravity, and the fluid state of matter is caused by magnetism. That's why everything is solved and can be proven. The only problem is how to enlighten so many scientists, and prove them contaminated with the wrong and even stupid theories.


solid gold not for swines
dnatwork
3 / 5 (2)Sep 15, 2017
cont'd.

If it stops at a certain degree of curvature, what stops it? Is there a countervailing force pushing up (I don't know, vacuum energy?)? Does space itself have structure or stiffness that must be overcome by the mass to induce the curvature?

If yes, where is that force or structure expressed in the theory? Is it explicit, or does the theory carry the effects of such a force implicitly? In other words, is the theory based on assumptions that things like Friedmann's equation are true, but no one ever talks about those fundamentals or examines them?

If that is the case, why are those assumptions not examined when you get odd results like "95% of the universe is invisible, and we can't interact with it, but it affects gravity." (Which is doubly odd if gravity is an effect of spacetime being curved by mass, not a force in its own right.)

The authors of this article are questioning that fundamental assumption, so I see that as the same basic question I was asking.
dnatwork
3 / 5 (2)Sep 15, 2017
cont'd.

I don't know what this thing they are calling "timescape" is really supposed to mean, but conceptually it seems to have the same effects as my alternative: What if the rubber sheet analogy should not be allowed to be carried into the theory, and the theory should not include anything that pushes back up against mass?

Then spacetime would continue to curve indefinitely around every object, each within its own reference frame. From that, the space between objects would get larger over time, even if they were not "moving" relative to each other, because each would be in a deeper and deeper gravity well. Within each gravity well, no observer would ever find any local effects from this because they are within their own reference frames. The only way to see the deepness of the wells increasing would be to observe distant massive objects over large timescales. The same things that are taken as evidence of dark energy and dark matter.
isawit
1 / 5 (2)Sep 15, 2017
before we fully understood atoms structure, why predict the universe?

science or religion?
dnatwork
3 / 5 (2)Sep 15, 2017
cont'd.

So when you say you will show me why I'm wrong, I think you will also have to show why these authors are necessarily wrong. But since they are questioning a (hidden) fundamental assumption of LCDM, you'll need to defend all those assumptions first.

Like I said, I'm just a guy without much knowledge, but I think these questions are valid no matter who asks them: What are the assumptions behind the theory, why is any given assumption true, and if it can't be proven true, in what ways might it lead you astray?

Put another way, does the emperor have any clothes, and who is going to speak up if he doesn't?

Pointing me to evidence like the Bullet Cluster just begs the question. That is just an observation, and its import has been disputed by serious and respected physicists. I get it, you must have dark matter to explain it within standard theory. But saying THAT is evidence of dark matter means you are assuming every part of the standard theory was correct.
isawit
1 / 5 (2)Sep 15, 2017
The first blog on that site says

i am not sure all these concepts are true. based on the 2 greatest physics laws, they are true to me.

the structure of the atom, the mechanism of gravity and magnetism, the mechanism of light quanta and quantum entanglement.

the definition of energy, the sun's energy source, how energy transfer between matters.

why energy is conserved, why time travel is an illusion, why gravity has nothing to do with space and time.

i am part of the whole, just like you. we all want a better world. we should help each other to improve things.

please don't against people, against bad information and knowledge.

enjoy life, be happy!

The missing comments are in the next few blogs. Enjoy it, spread it.


if any claims is true, is more than a nobel. i beg you differ.
isawit
1 / 5 (2)Sep 15, 2017
school and media are responsible for fooling people.

bs top scientists are leading the world's science.

those should go to the hospital.

Those monkeys are professors at Cambridge University. similar monkeys are teaching are at MIT.

This is the world we live, wake the fuck up.

Their math is incorrect.

Positive numbers can never equal to negative numbers.

Do you think they don't know that equation is totally wrong? they knew it 100%.

Then why they put the video on youtube to fool the world?

What else are they teaching in school?

Those people own the education system, own science. don't let them own you.

Don't let them own your kids. https://www.youtu...6XTVZXww


even a warmblood animal shall be convinced. who are you? what are you?
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4)Sep 15, 2017
Anyway, if the light we observe had to pass through billions of years and quadrillion's of miles of space, it must have passed through many different reference frames, all of which are different from ours.
That's not what a reference frame is. A frame of reference is some place you stand and a coordinate system you define from which you make measurements. Many different frames of reference are possible at the same place to stand, all with different coordinate systems. Many different reference frames are possible at many different places to stand. The point of physics is that it doesn't matter which one you choose, you get the same physics after you apply a transformation (a mathematical operation) to convert between them.

Until we can talk about frames without you thinking they are some part of physical reality other than the particular one you choose to measure relative to, we probably won't make much headway.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4)Sep 15, 2017
Let me try this again.

When you measure a physical system, you must choose a position and a coordinate system from which you will perform the measurement. This position and coordinate system are part of the measurement, not part of what is measured. This position and coordinate system *you have chosen* are called a "frame of reference."

When Einstein discovered relativity, he pointed a couple of things out.

The first is an *inertial* frame of reference. This is a frame in which an accelerometer would show zero acceleration. The laws of physics are the same from all inertial frames; they can be transformed using the Lorentz Transformation, and no matter which frame you look from you will see the same laws of physics. That does not, however, mean you will see the same events, or even the same order of events!

When we consider light from two different frames, *the energy must be transformed*.
[contd]
Hyperfuzzy
2 / 5 (4)Sep 15, 2017
Let me try this again.

When you measure a physical system, you must choose a position and a coordinate system from which you will perform the measurement. This position and coordinate system are part of the measurement, not part of what is measured. This position and coordinate system *you have chosen* are called a "frame of reference."

When Einstein discovered relativity, he pointed a couple of things out.

The first is an *inertial* frame of reference. This is a frame in which an accelerometer would show zero acceleration. The laws of physics are the same from all inertial frames; they can be transformed using the Lorentz Transformation, and no matter which frame you look from you will see the same laws of physics. That does not, however, mean you will see the same events, or even the same order of events!

When we consider light from two different frames, *the energy must be transformed*.
[contd]

Bull$hit!
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5)Sep 15, 2017
[contd]
Consider two inertial frames with not only different positions and coordinates, but with constant motion. An observer in one frame will see light from a particular source with a particular frequency shift from the frequency in that source's frame of reference; an observer in the other frame will see a different shift. This means that the energy of the light in the first frame is not the same as the energy of the light in the second frame, and furthermore neither is necessarily the same as the energy of the light in the frame of the source. In other words, when switching between frames, the amount of energy is not the same; it must be transformed.

This in turn means that the common notion of light "changing frequency while moving through expanding space" is nonsense. The light does not change frequency in any frame (unless the frame is accelerating, and that gets much more complex; it's the difference between SRT and GRT).
[contd]
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5)Sep 15, 2017
[contd]
In any one inertial frame of reference, the light *does not change frequency*. (Under GRT it's possible for it to change frequency if the acceleration changes; in other words, if the frame undergoes jerk, but that's a different matter. We can discuss it later if you like.)

Since light moving through open space is not being measured, it doesn't make any sense to speak of its frequency. It only makes sense to speak of its frequency *in a frame*.

In the frame of the source, spectral lines occur at the standard frequencies (in the source's frame) controlled by atomic physics. If the frame of the source and the frame of the observer are moving relative to one another (even if both are inertial), then those frequencies (in the observer's frame) *always were redshifted*. The light wasn't somehow magically changed between the source and the observer. In any one frame, energy is conserved; but when shifting among frames there is no such concept.

[contd]
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5)Sep 15, 2017
[contd]
Measuring light "in open space" is meaningless. If you measure, you define a frame; if light is emitted, that also defines a frame because of the atomic interactions that generate spectral lines. It's therefore not correct to talk about light "being expanded by spatial expansion between here and there" because no frame of reference has been defined in which this measurement can be made.

Does that clarify the frame of reference thing for you, and explain Hubble redshift? Let's just start with those two.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5)Sep 15, 2017
One more way to look at frames:

Suppose I say "object A is moving at 30 m/s." Now we have some questions here:
1. 30 m/s in what direction?
2. 30 m/s relative to what particular place?
3. Is that place moving?
4. Is that place accelerating?

The answers to these questions define a frame a reference: a particular coordinate system defining directions, a "zero" point for those coordinates, a state of motion of that zero point, and a state of acceleration of that zero point. You can't make a measurement without this; but it's completely arbitrary and not part of what you're measuring, but of the measurement itself.

If I pick two points from which to measure with different coordinate systems moving differently from one another with different accelerations then I will get two different answers for how the object is moving.

Those are different frames of reference.
[contd]
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5)Sep 15, 2017
[contd]
It is obviously incorrect to claim the object is "moving at 30 m/s;" it is only meaningful to say it is "moving at 30 m/s relative to frame one" or "moving at 30 m/s relative to frame two." And that is what frames are, and are for: to define measurements.
dnatwork
3 / 5 (2)Sep 15, 2017
[contd]
It is obviously incorrect to claim the object is "moving at 30 m/s;" it is only meaningful to say it is "moving at 30 m/s relative to frame one" or "moving at 30 m/s relative to frame two." And that is what frames are, and are for: to define measurements.


Okay. I think I never said anything about frequency, but the redshift is about that, so let's say I did.

In LCDM, if I understand correctly (a phrase that constantly earns me derision around here), the increase in redshift over time is taken as evidence that the expansion of the universe has been accelerating, and that is where dark energy is postulated to explain the acceleration. Correct?

That would seem to be true if relative motion is the only way to increase the space between objects. The speed of light is constant, so if i move away from the light source I get redshift. I'm postulating an additional way to increase the amount of space over time.
dnatwork
3 / 5 (2)Sep 15, 2017
cont'd.

If space is defined by the mass and energy in it, and I have mass A over here and mass B over there, then the space between them is defined by the relation of A and B. Wouldn't that be both the shape of the space and the amount of space?

Now A is sitting in its own space, doing its own thing, and so is B. Each continues to be the source of the definition of its own space, including the depth of its own gravity well.

What stops a gravity well from getting deeper over time? I haven't seen anyone address that yet. Is there something in the theory that sets a limit, or is it assumed somewhere that X amount of mass will produce Y amount of curvature of spacetime, no more, no less?

If one assumes that nothing stops it, then the well of A gets deeper, and the well of B gets deeper, gradually over time. The speed at which each well gets deeper would depend on the amount of each mass.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5)Sep 15, 2017
That would seem to be true if relative motion is the only way to increase the space between objects. The speed of light is constant, so if i move away from the light source I get redshift. I'm postulating an additional way to increase the amount of space over time.


You just describe Doppler Effect Redshift. The effect being that as objects move away from one another that this increased distance causes light between the two objects to shift to longer wave frequencies of the visible light spectrum, that is a shift to the direction of the red frequency of visible light, but not that all the visible light actually becomes red. If the light between the two objects was originally purple then after a certain distance of constantly increasing distance of travel it means that light will downshift to a blue lower energy wavelength.

Schneibo is doing a lousy job explaining this stuff in terms of reference frames.
dnatwork
3 / 5 (2)Sep 15, 2017
cont'd.

So, what happens to the space between A and B? If "gravity wells getting deeper" means anything (you can say it doesn't, but I'm positing that it does), then the space between them would have to be increasing.

Light has to pass through space as defined by matter, along geodesics or whatever. It should have to climb all the way out of one gravity well, then fall all the way into the other. If the distance up and down increased over time, it should take longer for light to travel from A to B now than it did a billion years ago, even if A and B are not moving relative to each other.

And if the distance changed while the light was in transit from A to B (say they're ten billion light-years apart), wouldn't that cause redshift? Not by measuring the light somewhere in empty space, but by virtue of the fact that the speed of light is constant but the distance changed? The normal reason for redshift, in other words, just a different reason for the change in distance.
Hyperfuzzy
2 / 5 (4)Sep 15, 2017
wavelength.

Schneibo is doing a lousy job explaining this stuff in terms of reference frames.

Lambda_emitted * frequency_observed = speed; speed <= infinity; -infinity <= velocity <= infinity; Lambda_Observed <= infinity! The framing as a God is obvious; choose an isomorphic space with each dimesionnal scaled as lambda, duh!
dnatwork
3 / 5 (2)Sep 15, 2017
cont'd.

What I'm saying is, you clearly understand the theory and the math better than I do (I address that to da Schneib and Benni equally, even though you seem to hate each other), but if nothing stops mass from drilling its own gravity well "deeper" until the end of time, why doesn't space necessarily increase? Is there some "conservation of space" axiom that I'm missing? Would that be Friedmann's equation?

And if space is not conserved, but instead necessarily increases (because it is the measurement of the distance from the bottom of one gravity well to the bottom of the next, or more accurately the time it takes light to travel from one to the other), why do you need dark energy?
isawit
1 / 5 (2)Sep 15, 2017
Doppler Effect Redshift?

there is no wave in space, no medium to carry any waves.

fact or not?
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5)Sep 15, 2017
(because it is the measurement of the distance from the bottom of one gravity well to the bottom of the next


What do you mean by "gravity well"? I take it you mean any gravitating body no matter how large or small, that to me is a "gravity well".

Gravity Wells are most often used in reference to discussions of black holes where the term "INFINITE GRAVITY WELL" is a frequently used terminology.

What I'm trying to figure out here is how you are trying to connect GRAVITY WELLS together if by other than gravitational attraction.
dnatwork
3.7 / 5 (3)Sep 15, 2017
(because it is the measurement of the distance from the bottom of one gravity well to the bottom of the next


What do you mean by "gravity well"? I take it you mean any gravitating body no matter how large or small, that to me is a "gravity well".

Gravity Wells are most often used in reference to discussions of black holes where the term "INFINITE GRAVITY WELL" is a frequently used terminology.

What I'm trying to figure out here is how you are trying to connect GRAVITY WELLS together if by other than gravitational attraction.


Mass curves spacetime. In the rubber sheet analogy, the gravity well is the bowl created by the mass sitting in the middle of the rubber sheet. Light has to travel on the geodesics of that bowl.

With a black hole, that bowl does down forever, or close enough, as light cannot get out. It is deeper than other gravity wells.

I'm saying all such wells get deeper over time. But the effect of deepening is not more black holes.
isawit
1 / 5 (3)Sep 15, 2017
HOW light propagate in space? Is light particle or wave? Is light carrying e and m field at 90 degrees and moving at light speed in space?

What facts? What mechanism?

Without those to support, none scientific theory stands true.
isawit
1 / 5 (2)Sep 15, 2017
last night i had a strange dream

in that dream i farted hard

i saw 21 million fart atoms

some blue some purple

i look at my watch

0.33 second has passed


lay off the pipe, dude.
dnatwork
3.7 / 5 (3)Sep 15, 2017
Let's say you have a point in space with no mass or energy in it. It is locally flat there.

Now you have mass A and mass B on either side of that empty space. The masses there create gravity wells centered on A and B.

Light traveling from A to B has to follow the geodesic up out of one well to the flat spot in the middle, then back down into the other well. (The passage of the light momentarily curves the "empty" space, but that's not material.)

So if the wells are following rubber sheet physics, they immediately a certain depth and stop, and the space never increases unless A and B are moving relative to each other.

But if there is no rubber sheet, no upward force in the real world, then the wells would each get deeper over time. The curvature of spacetime would be defined not just by the amount of matter and energy in space, but also the amount of time that mass was there. It would be a rate of drilling, not a set well depth.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4)Sep 15, 2017
It is obviously incorrect to claim the object is "moving at 30 m/s;" it is only meaningful to say it is "moving at 30 m/s relative to frame one" or "moving at 30 m/s relative to frame two." And that is what frames are, and are for: to define measurements.
Okay. I think I never said anything about frequency, but the redshift is about that, so let's say I did.
As soon as you mention redshift you're talking about frequency *and* wavelength (they vary inversely). Redshift is measured by finding the exact frequencies of the spectral lines, indicating the motion of the source. If the source is moving away then there will be redshift; the amount of change in the frequency of the spectral line shows how fast it's moving away. It doesn't matter how or why it's moving away; the only question here is how fast. And the amount of redshift shows that.
[contd]
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3)Sep 15, 2017
[contd]
In LCDM, if I understand correctly (a phrase that constantly earns me derision around here), the increase in redshift over time is taken as evidence that the expansion of the universe has been accelerating, and that is where dark energy is postulated to explain the acceleration. Correct?
No, it's more complicated than that. The amount of redshift increases with distance. This is simply because space is expanding, and because there is more space between us and something farther away. The measure of how velocity increases with distance is called the "Hubble Constant."

LCDM says space isn't just expanding at a constant rate; it's expanding at an accelerating rate. To see this, we have to check how the Hubble Constant varies over time. Now, this seems simple enough but it's really not. Before the supernova data, we didn't have a good way to judge galaxy distance.
[contd]
dnatwork
3 / 5 (2)Sep 15, 2017
The effect of the well getting deeper would be that things outside of the well would seem to get farther away over time because the geodesic for light to travel would get deeper.

The effect would have to be very small, or you would see it in local settings. If you shared a well with some other object (stars in your galaxy, galaxies in your local group), or not much time had passed, you would not see it. For massive galaxy groups far away in time and space, it would appear, and its magnitude would be proportional to the time and distance.

I.e., I'm taking the evidence for dark energy as my evidence.

You would also see it when gravity wells got so deep so fast that light couldn't get out. Thus, black holes are not infinite, the space they define is just getting deeper at rate that light cannot overcome. The same exact explanation must necessarily apply to the Hubble distance. Things that far away are in wells that, relative to our own well, are getting deeper too fast.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3)Sep 15, 2017
[contd]
We used redshift (which is a circular definition you'll immediately notice) and galaxy brightness. Galaxy brightness varies a lot over different galaxies, and we think it varies a lot with the age of the galaxy too. But once we had supernova data, we could find the distances of galaxies a lot more easily.

This in turn allowed us to make a much more accurate plot of distance vs. redshift, that is of the variation of the Hubble Constant over time, and when we did that we found out that starting about 6 billion years ago, the Hubble Constant started increasing. This is what is meant by "accelerating expansion."

The supernova data came in during the 1990s, so this is when people started talking about "dark energy." Now, dark energy is the Lambda, the L, in LCDM. It's not just about expansion; it's about *accelerating* expansion.
[contd]
isawit
1 / 5 (2)Sep 15, 2017
Doppler Effect Redshift?

there is no wave in space, no medium to carry any waves.

fact or not?


no one wants to answer or what? why? please
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3)Sep 15, 2017
[contd]
Notice the Hubble Constant isn't a constant any more. It varies over time; that's LDCM as opposed to the old Big Bang theory. It's not the only difference between them, but you're focusing on dark energy so I'm focusing on Lambda because that's dark energy.

That would seem to be true if relative motion is the only way to increase the space between objects. The speed of light is constant, so if i move away from the light source I get redshift. I'm postulating an additional way to increase the amount of space over time.
No. What this is, is a way to make it increase *faster* over time. That's what acceleration is. What you need the additional way for is to make it do it faster. That's what Lambda is: the acceleration factor. But the space expands the same way.
isawit
1 / 5 (2)Sep 15, 2017
HOW light propagate in space? Is light particle or wave? Is light carrying e and m field at 90 degrees and moving at light speed in space?

What facts? What mechanism?

Without those to support, none scientific theory stands true.


I want to learn, please help me!
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3)Sep 15, 2017
If space is defined by the mass and energy in it, and I have mass A over here and mass B over there, then the space between them is defined by the relation of A and B. Wouldn't that be both the shape of the space and the amount of space?

Now A is sitting in its own space, doing its own thing, and so is B. Each continues to be the source of the definition of its own space, including the depth of its own gravity well.
Sure, and there is some gravity between A and B too, which also defines the shape of the space between them.

What stops a gravity well from getting deeper over time? I haven't seen anyone address that yet.
The depth of a gravity well is defined by the amount and density of the matter in it. There isn't any definition other than that, and neither Hubble Constant nor Lambda influences that. If more matter infalls, then the gravity changes, but that's the only way.
[contd]
dnatwork
3 / 5 (2)Sep 15, 2017
What's the point?

Dark energy has to comprise most of the universe to explain the accelerating expansion of the universe, but we can only see it by virtue of the fact that space is expanding faster. It is the proof of its own existence, or the theory falls apart.

My deepening gravity wells posit no new structures or matter or energy--gravity wells already exist in standard theory, space exists (whatever it is), light travels at a constant speed, etc.

The difference is that the depth of a gravity well seems to be defined only in space in standard theory:

(if it was spacetime was curved X degrees by mass A at time T, it will also be curved X degrees by mass A at every other time),

but it is defined in both space and time in my little theory:

(at time T+1, spacetime around A will be curved more relative to any locality defined by other masses).

It has to be one or the other. With my version, you get accelerating expansion for free if you believe the rest of GRT.
dnatwork
3.7 / 5 (3)Sep 15, 2017
Doppler Effect Redshift?

there is no wave in space, no medium to carry any waves.

fact or not?


no one wants to answer or what? why? please


Nobody understands your question. That, coming from the guy who understands less than most. It's partly a language barrier.

Do what I do: Assume you know nothing, that all of your assumptions are false, and build up your question from there.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3)Sep 15, 2017
[contd]
Is there something in the theory that sets a limit, or is it assumed somewhere that X amount of mass will produce Y amount of curvature of spacetime, no more, no less?
Yes, precisely. And since we've never found anything that makes the part of gravity created by mass change, and since mass is conserved, we don't know of anything that will do that. So it's a pretty good assumption.

If one assumes that nothing stops it, then the well of A gets deeper, and the well of B gets deeper, gradually over time. The speed at which each well gets deeper would depend on the amount of each mass.
I don't quite follow you here. If nothing stops what, exactly? Gravity is gravity; mass is mass. Why would the gravity change?
dnatwork
3 / 5 (2)Sep 15, 2017
[contd]
Notice the Hubble Constant isn't a constant any more. It varies over time; that's LDCM as opposed to the old Big Bang theory. It's not the only difference between them, but you're focusing on dark energy so I'm focusing on Lambda because that's dark energy.

That would seem to be true if relative motion is the only way to increase the space between objects. The speed of light is constant, so if i move away from the light source I get redshift. I'm postulating an additional way to increase the amount of space over time.
No. What this is, is a way to make it increase *faster* over time. That's what acceleration is. What you need the additional way for is to make it do it faster. That's what Lambda is: the acceleration factor. But the space expands the same way.


I think we said the same thing. The redshift should not increase in the absence of Lambda, but it does, so Lambda is needed to expand space. In LCDM.
dnatwork
3 / 5 (2)Sep 15, 2017
[contd]
Is there something in the theory that sets a limit, or is it assumed somewhere that X amount of mass will produce Y amount of curvature of spacetime, no more, no less?
Yes, precisely. And since we've never found anything that makes the part of gravity created by mass change, and since mass is conserved, we don't know of anything that will do that. So it's a pretty good assumption.

If one assumes that nothing stops it, then the well of A gets deeper, and the well of B gets deeper, gradually over time. The speed at which each well gets deeper would depend on the amount of each mass.
I don't quite follow you here. If nothing stops what, exactly? Gravity is gravity; mass is mass. Why would the gravity change?


Why would it not, is the question I started from. I'm saying you did find something that shows the part of gravity created by mass changing over time (accelerating expansion), but you've decided that is evidence of dark energy instead.
Benni
1 / 5 (4)Sep 15, 2017
the gravity well is the bowl created by the mass sitting in the middle of the rubber sheet. Light has to travel on the geodesics of that bowl


With a black hole, that bowl does down forever, or close enough, as light cannot get out. It is deeper than other gravity wells


The "bowl" in the middle of the rubber sheet defines the geodesics that a photon will travel, this is discussed in Einstein's General Relativity section "Photon Deflection". The Sun as a gravity well bends the path of a photon just passing it's peripheral disk by 1.75 arcseconds or 0.000486 degrees.

Equation of Deflection of light by the sun = 4GM/c²R, this is the exact equation Einstein used in GR & was subsequently measured to be accurate within 0.02% of accuracy, this is the curvature of deflected (gravitationally lensed) starlight, a simplified explanation of the formation of a gravity well if you please. From this has come all the complicated explanations of SPACETIME CURVATURE.
dnatwork
3 / 5 (2)Sep 15, 2017
You can see the effects of gravity wells (gravity itself, gravitational lensing, black holes, etc.). So you don't have to posit anything unsupported physics or circular arguments to say that gravity wells exist. The only thing you need to do with them is figure out how they behave in time and space. You don't have to defend their existence.

Dark energy is not that. The only reason for it is that it is needed to explain accelerating expansion within GRT. And the evidence for dark energy is...accelerating expansion. It's circular, and it serves no other purpose in the theory.

Occam's Razor says, cut that ugly thing off if you can find any other explanation.

You say, why would gravity change? I say, I don't know, but aren't you all trying to deal with the fact that it did, somehow or other? Isn't accelerating expansion exactly that?

Let gravity depend on both mass and time, see whether that leads to accelerating expansion, with everything else in GRT held the same.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3)Sep 15, 2017
I think we said the same thing. The redshift should not increase in the absence of Lambda, but it does, so Lambda is needed to expand space. In LCDM.
No, we didn't. Redshift increases with distance. It would even without Lambda. What it *doesn't* do without Lambda is increase at a *changing rate*.
dnatwork
3 / 5 (2)Sep 15, 2017
the gravity well is the bowl created by the mass sitting in the middle of the rubber sheet. Light has to travel on the geodesics of that bowl


The "bowl" in the middle of the rubber sheet defines the geodesics that a photon will travel, this is discussed in Einstein's General Relativity section "Photon Deflection"...

Equation of Deflection of light by the sun = 4GM/c²R, this is the exact equation Einstein used in GR & was subsequently measured to be accurate within 0.02% of accuracy, this is the curvature of deflected (gravitationally lensed) starlight, a simplified explanation of the formation of a gravity well if you please. From this has come all the complicated explanations of SPACETIME CURVATURE.


I'll take that as "You understood that part correctly."

So I guess I would change that equation to add a time factor, and that would create all kinds of havoc.
Hyperfuzzy
2.3 / 5 (3)Sep 15, 2017
Better idea, lets burn these papers.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3)Sep 15, 2017
@dnat, I don't understand what you mean by "drilling [a gravity well] deeper." X mass makes a gravity well Y deep. That's how deep it is and that's how deep it will stay, unless the mass or density changes. The mass, and the well, just sit there. Redshift doesn't change that, Lambda doesn't change that, Hubble Constant doesn't change that. The only things that change a gravity well is the mass getting bigger or smaller, or changing density.
Reg Mundy
3.3 / 5 (3)Sep 15, 2017
This thread is getting dangerously close to becoming almost sensible again, if we could just get rid of isatit. At least dgnatwick is putting forward a new idea, a rare burst of originality in amongst the usual dogmatic drivel. Mind you, I'm not saying he is right, but it bears consideration.
By the way, I won't mark him out of five as the whole rating system has long been discredited by sock-puppeteers who mark themselves up and anybody who disagrees with them down.
isawit
1 / 5 (2)Sep 15, 2017
HOW light propagate in space? Is light particle or wave? Is light carrying e and m field at 90 degrees and moving at light speed in space?

What facts? What mechanism?

Without those to support, none scientific theory stands true.


I want to learn, please help me!


PLEASE HELP!
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2)Sep 15, 2017
Also, if the gravity well changed over time, then *all* the light, not just that from far away, would show changing gravitational redshift (and BTW that's different than doppler, either due to the Hubble Constant or due to peculiar motion of the source). We wouldn't see that as a change in redshift for more distant objects; we'd see it as a change in redshift for *all* objects.

This is difficult, I know, @dnat, but you're making progress. Keep at it. You're still asking good questions.
Reg Mundy
5 / 5 (1)Sep 15, 2017
@Schnib
The only things that change a gravity well is the mass getting bigger or smaller, or changing density.

What's density got to do with it?
dnatwork
3.7 / 5 (3)Sep 15, 2017
I think we said the same thing. The redshift should not increase in the absence of Lambda, but it does, so Lambda is needed to expand space. In LCDM.
No, we didn't. Redshift increases with distance. It would even without Lambda. What it *doesn't* do without Lambda is increase at a *changing rate*.


I said it poorly, but that's what I was trying to say. I am taking redshift as change, do changing redshift is acceleration in my poor phrasing.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3)Sep 15, 2017
Why would it not, is the question I started from.
The question is not, "why would it not," but "why could it not." The answer is, if mass changed over time then we'd be able to tell because gravity would change over time for a given object, and we've never seen that (and we've looked). We make tables of where planets will be and they are checked by astronomers every day. If the masses of planets and the Sun changed over time, those tables would be inaccurate, and they're not. We've been doing this for hundreds of years, and for masses to change enough to do what you're talking about we'd be able to see it. And we don't. This is also true of galaxy clusters, and of double stars, and of globular clusters orbiting our galaxy and other nearby ones.

There really isn't anyplace to hide this sort of effect where we wouldn't see it. It cannot be true; the data say so. If a hypothesis does not match the data then it is incorrect.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6)Sep 15, 2017
Redshift increases with distance. It would even without Lambda


Schneibo, you just totally blew it, Tired Light by Zany Zwicky.

Redshift does not increase with distance if there is no Lambda, that's the reason Lambda was invented, to come up with the physics for Doppler Effect Redshift.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4)Sep 15, 2017
I said it poorly, but that's what I was trying to say. I am taking redshift as change, do changing redshift is acceleration in my poor phrasing.
But changing redshift doesn't in and of itself indicate an accelerating rate of change of redshift. This is like confusing velocity and acceleration; acceleration is *rate of change of velocity*. They are not the same. In math terms, this is confusing the first derivative of distance with the second derivative, if you know the math to do derivatives.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5)Sep 15, 2017
Caper and lie all you like, @Lenni, this is a serious conversation so you are incapable of participating.

Unlike you @dnat is capable of changing opinions when presented with clear and compelling evidence. Not to mention polite.
dnatwork
3.7 / 5 (3)Sep 15, 2017
There really isn't anyplace to hide this sort of effect where we wouldn't see it. It cannot be true; the data say so. If a hypothesis does not match the data then it is incorrect.

I'm positing something so small you wouldn't see it in hundreds of years or within the local group.

But if you're right, you're stuck with dark energy. Other than the fact that it's the factor that's needed to make the equations fit the observations of accelerating expansion, is there any possible evidence for it?
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5)Sep 15, 2017
And @dnat, note that @Lenni is giving you 1s because he's an azzhole. I have given you 5s because this is an interesting conversation.

In case you were wondering who the azzhole giving you 1s is. Ordinarily I might not give you 5s but azzholes like @Lenni must be opposed maximally. This does not always include bothering to respond to their azzhole posts, and I'm a lot more interested in you than @Lenni.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4)Sep 15, 2017
There really isn't anyplace to hide this sort of effect where we wouldn't see it. It cannot be true; the data say so. If a hypothesis does not match the data then it is incorrect.

I'm positing something so small you wouldn't see it in hundreds of years or within the local group.
It's not only the Local Group. It's other galaxy clusters within half a billion lightyears or so of here.

But if you're right, you're stuck with dark energy. Other than the fact that it's the factor that's needed to make the equations fit the observations of accelerating expansion, is there any possible evidence for it?
The evidence at hand is sufficient; but the explanation of it as Lambda is only a hypothesis, technically. It's currently only at 3 sigma, which may be sufficient for astronomers but is not for physicists. You shouldn't conclude that "dark energy" is some sort of thing. It's a placeholder for a thing we haven't fully figured out yet.
isawit
1 / 5 (2)Sep 15, 2017
Better idea, lets burn these papers.


TOILET PAPER?
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3)Sep 15, 2017
I queried Ethan Siegel regarding the interpretation that light is somehow "stretched by expanding space" and not due to motion (whether Hubble Flow or peculiar). I have not yet received a response and I expect none; Ethan is very conservative and probably doesn't understand the question I am asking. I still think that this whole "stretched by expanding space" thing is BS. I think it comes from not understanding frames of reference, or trying to avoid explaining them to "novices." Chickensxxt, quite frankly.

The right way to understand this is to comprehend that different frames see things in different ways. Not make up fairy stories about how "expanding space changes frequency." Pick a frame and stick to it. Energy is conserved in a frame; it is not conserved when shifting frames. This is obvious from SRT, you don't even need GRT for it.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6)Sep 15, 2017
Caper and lie all you like, @Lenni, this is a serious conversation so you are incapable of participating.

Unlike you @dnat is capable of changing opinions when presented with clear and compelling evidence. Not to mention polite.


Schneibo, just get off the subject matter. All you are is a computer gadget geek trying to attain some self serving status as some kind of a scientist.

Anyone, and I mean ANYONE who would make so foolish a statement as
Redshift increases with distance. It would even without Lambda
is someone not worth another fraction of time for further reading.

Only one KNOWN thing causes redshift and Lambda does not fall into the realm of KNOWN.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6)Sep 15, 2017
Since @antialias appears to have reported @isatwit, I expect this next @Zeph clone to be gone shortly.

@Lenni, your MO is obvious to a three-year-old child. Why bother? You have already demonstrated that you cannot either do the math or understand the concepts; what do you think you have to contribute here besides fecal matter and rotting discards?
isawit
1 / 5 (2)Sep 15, 2017
last night i had a strange dream

in that dream i farted hard

i saw 21 million fart atoms

some blue some purple

i look at my watch

0.33 second has passed


smells good?
dnatwork
3.7 / 5 (3)Sep 15, 2017
Difficult to quote on phone. I'm still having the intuition that something about gravity is what's missing and it is not Lambda.

I think I read somewhere recently about statistical gravity. What if your chances of being affected by the gravity of an object depend on distance?

Flip a coin and if it's close by you are near 100%. You would never be able to see any effect at near distances or any human timescale.

But if it's really far away, the chances that you will miss become larger and larger. Flip the coin enough times and you will necessarily miss some percentage of the time. If you were moving in space at that moment, you would necessarily slip away from that distant object a little bit. Inertia. Add up all your percentages over billions of years and you will find yourself accelerating away from distant objects at a faster and faster rate.

Would this not derive the effects of lambda without having any unobservable energy out there to be called dark?
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4)Sep 15, 2017
@dnat, I will point out that now you are retreating to more and more esoteric definitions of "gravity."

The facts are that we still don't know exactly what either dark energy or Lambda are; we know they are there because we can measure them.

I think you have overanalyzed what scientists think these things are; many people are making proposals to explain them. None has even really believable proof so far.
Hyperfuzzy
2.3 / 5 (3)Sep 15, 2017
@dnat, I will point out that now you are retreating to more and more esoteric definitions of "gravity."

The facts are that we still don't know exactly what either dark energy or Lambda are; we know they are there because we can measure them.

I think you have overanalyzed what scientists think these things are; many people are making proposals to explain them. None has even really believable proof so far.

https://drive.goo...=sharing
isawit
1 / 5 (2)Sep 15, 2017
i wonder how many science students will change their major after reading all the comments.

how do you think?
Benni
1.2 / 5 (6)Sep 15, 2017
@Lenni, your MO is obvious to a three-year-old child. Why bother? You have already demonstrated that you cannot either do the math or understand the concepts; what do you think you have to contribute here besides fecal matter and rotting discards?


Aw Schneibo, please do not accuse me of trying to be your clone.

I just love bouncing off the entertainment you provide to those of us who are serious about science but who also get a measure of enjoyment from the light hearted entertainment you so frequently provide with all your silly concepts of Black Hole Math & the like.

Hey, Schneibo, I'll ask it again.......Ever seen a Differential Equation you could solve?
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4)Sep 15, 2017
@dnat, we have light, and light gives us information. It gives us spectra, and it gives us intensity, and it gives us presence of bright matter. From these three things we can tell much more than you might imagine.
isawit
1 / 5 (2)Sep 15, 2017
if i can afford, will do the double slit experiment first.

the light source/laser can be in the air, a square glass bottle, on the 2 parallel inside walls are the slits and the screen. connect the bottle to a vacuum pump.

show the light wave interference on the screen first, then pump the air out.

as the air pressure gets lower and lower, the light pattern on the screen should be changing.

until a hard vacuum, it should be only 2 bright lines left on the screen right behind the slits.

PLEASE, GIVE IT A SHOT.
dnatwork
3.7 / 5 (3)Sep 15, 2017
I have to wait to see this on a computer screen. I can't see quote levels and I can't tell who said what is chickenshit to whom.

I would say I'm not retreating to esoteric forms of gravity, I'm entertaining all of them at the same time.

Wouldn't reconciling GRT with quantum mechanics involve some statistical treatment of gravity anyway?
isawit
1 / 5 (2)Sep 15, 2017
science says electron/particle beams pass double slit showed same wave patterns.

i doubt.fake data, or fake data.

modern science lied so much, i can predict it is a lie.

particle beam will never show wave property. in a medium or vacuum.

particles move a straight line along the force accelerates it.

there is no transverse wave in vacuum space.

maxwell was wrong. all waves are matter waving. vibrating charged particles produce vibrating electrostatic force, that force passing through matter/medium becomes em wave.

there is no electric field moving in vacuum space because there is no charged particle moving in vacuum space.

what is photon? electrons change energy level and emit little energy pocket we call it photon?

so the photon carries electric field? Will it produce a 90-degree magnetic field and move at light speed?

total BS.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3)Sep 15, 2017
@dnat, reconciling GRT with QM requires quantum gravity, and we don't know much about quantum gravity. So far no one has a quantum gravity theory that makes predictions that are testable either mathematically or in the most powerful particle accelerators we have. I don't know what "some statistical treatment of gravity" means.
isawit
1 / 5 (2)Sep 15, 2017
since i was young, gravity is always in my head.

i was willing to trade my life for the answer of gravity.

a friend visited me every week, smoke my weed for 20 years.

we talked gravity all the times.

i been seeking mysteries for so long, i found most of it about matters.

Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. Nikola Tesla

so true

the establishment is deep, the momentum is huge.

but i dare to change its course.

because i found the truth.

with a little seed of faith, i will move the mountain.

so help me!
isawit
1 / 5 (2)Sep 15, 2017
force exists, no field.

what is a field? made of what? what property?

how can you tell there is a field without a matter/test body?

without matters, there is no force. a single matter has no force. force can only exist between matters.

without a test body where is the electric or magnetic field?

shameless scientists cannot explain how atoms are formed.

they invented orbital model/bohr, improved it to the standard model, made up quantum mechanics.

push uncertainty principle, wave-particle duality, black holes, tbb, relativity, time travel, simulation, space travel.

will, every dog has its day.

fake science is the next.

If energy is as present science said, the capacity to do work is fact.

Where is the free workers?

Wind? Solar? Coal? Water? Vacuum?

BS is BS, not your fine heads.
isawit
1 / 5 (2)Sep 15, 2017
red or blue?

good or bad?

right or wrong?

ask your cat and dog

if they have no clue

ask a smart monkey!
dnatwork
5 / 5 (2)Sep 15, 2017
I've passed the point of just being annoying. Signing off.
isawit
1 / 5 (2)Sep 15, 2017
i bet they didn't teach you those in college
Benni
1 / 5 (3)Sep 15, 2017

Wouldn't reconciling GRT with quantum mechanics involve some statistical treatment of gravity anyway?
....here quoted directly from GRT:

Part III: Considerations on the Universe as a Whole- the structure of Space
Albert Einstein – General Relativity 1916

If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical). Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical, i.e. the universe will be quasi-spherical. But it will be necessarily finite. In fact, the theory supplies us with a simple connection between the space-expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it.

.....the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
isawit
1 / 5 (2)Sep 15, 2017
@dnat, I will point out that now you are retreating to more and more esoteric definitions of "gravity."

The facts are that we still don't know exactly what either dark energy or Lambda are; we know they are there because we can measure them.

I think you have overanalyzed what scientists think these things are; many people are making proposals to explain them. None has even really believable proof so far.

https://drive.goo...=sharing


so deep, envy your math skills!
isawit
1 / 5 (2)Sep 15, 2017
An elementary question: Is it true that today scientifical body of knowledgement covers every single manifestation of forces as their effects are perceived/used by humans?

If you answer is YES, then go to sleep. Everything has already discovered, as Newton said.

If your answer is NO, because you are aware of thin and weak manifestation of forces that have a glitch of existance before your eyes, once in a while in your lifetime, then we should keep loking for the right theories.

For instance, PLASMA, the fourth state of matter.

For the last 100 years, hundred of theories tried to fill the void about plasma. And all of them fail, because not a single theory covers the non-linearities of plasma, here on Earth, at the Sun or between galaxies (with energies beyond comprehension).

How does the Sun works? We are stuck with theories developed between 1910 and 1940, but the Sun defies any explanation.
Not only within the quantum, atomic world but at the gravitational realm. 
isawit
1 / 5 (2)Sep 15, 2017
The Sun expells energy. As measured today, it averages 5500 Watts/m2 at the outer layer of Earth shields (van Allen, magnetosphere) and the "solar wind" hits the ground (filtered) at about 30% of this value (particles and heavy light). Why can't we harness this energy that strikes our planet on a constant basis?

And what if this incoming radiation has a large portion of energy that hasn't been discovered yet, because science is just at the stone age?

Call it dark energy, gray energy, whatever. But it is out there and over here, surrounding us.

Unaware of its existence, we keep living as if we discovered everything. But, every time an abnormal behavior is witnessed, we resort to what? To NOTHING!

We are told to bury it and keep doing.

But some persons know a little more. And we resort to the first defense mechanism: DENIAL.
isawit
1 / 5 (2)Sep 15, 2017
everyone is out to party?

sure, Saturday night is the party night

don't sleep around, sleep together.
Hyperfuzzy
3 / 5 (2)Sep 15, 2017
or try
file:///C:/Users/Hyperfuzzy/OneDrive/Share/ModernPhysics.pdf
isawit
1 / 5 (1)Sep 15, 2017
What Is Gravity? What Is Light?

youtubed many, this i like. https://www.youtu..._iu0fXrc

Thanks for the link!
isawit
1 / 5 (2)Sep 16, 2017
last night i had a strange dream

in that dream i farted hard

i saw 21 million fart atoms

some blue some purple

i look at my watch

0.33 second has passed


smells good?


last night i had a strange dream

in that dream i farted hard

i saw 21 million fart atoms

some blue some purple

i look at my watch

0.33 second has passed


smells good?


last night i had a strange dream

in that dream i farted hard

i saw 21 million fart atoms

some blue some purple

i look at my watch

0.33 second has passed


smells good?


******
isawit
1 / 5 (2)Sep 16, 2017
don't blame me, blame your science.

it is fucked up.
isawit
1 / 5 (2)Sep 16, 2017
google fucked science if you don't trust me.

smells awesome, that's why you make students to swallow it?
isawit
1 / 5 (2)Sep 16, 2017
Thank God

Thank You

Great Weekend
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4)Sep 16, 2017
@dnat, in case there is some question, no, I didn't call you or your ideas chickensxxt. I was referring to a pet peeve of mine, about how the redshift due to expansion is, IMNVHO, mispresented to the lay public. Light doesn't get its frequency changed by moving through space. The idea is farcical. The very concept comes from not properly representing how frames of reference work, because they're "too complicated" for the "hoi polloi to understand." I have nothing but contempt for this. I think the "hoi polloi" should be respected, and I think it's chickenshxxt not to respect them in this.

When someone tries to lay this BS on you, you should immediately mark them as one of the arrogant pseudo-scientists, and tell them so in no uncertain terms. I hope to provide you with the ammunition to do so. But first you must understand frames of reference.
isawit
1 / 5 (2)Sep 16, 2017
I beg you to twitter the most powerful man

He listens to little people

He does great thing
isawit
1 / 5 (2)Sep 16, 2017
grabbed all the pussy

pissed every cock

God Bless America
isawit
1 / 5 (2)Sep 16, 2017
https://www.thena...ard=12.0

they banned me in 6 minutes
isawit
1 / 5 (2)Sep 16, 2017
deleted my 4 posts

free speech?

try yourself
isawit
1 / 5 (2)Sep 16, 2017
they own science

they own your balls
Reg Mundy
3.7 / 5 (3)Sep 16, 2017
@Schnib
The only things that change a gravity well is the mass getting bigger or smaller, or changing density.

What's density got to do with it?

Mmmm...it seems the only density relevant here is your density....
isawit
1 / 5 (2)Sep 16, 2017
dude got style
isawit
1 / 5 (2)Sep 16, 2017
all gravity wells dried up last night

flies drop died everywhere
isawit
1 / 5 (2)Sep 16, 2017
why 1 star me all the way?

am i a porn star?
isawit
1 / 5 (2)Sep 16, 2017
Good Morning!
Benni
2.3 / 5 (3)Sep 16, 2017
@Schnib The only things that change a gravity well is the mass getting bigger or smaller, or changing density

What's density got to do with it?

Mmmm...it seems the only density relevant here is your density


OK, then you imagine you know so much about General Relativity along with Schneibo, let's see you produce the section of GR in which Einstein produced a new Fundamental Law of Physics that states an INFINITE WELL OF GRAVITY can exist above, at, or below the surface of a stellar mass called a black hole? Can you do it?

For years I've been challenging name calling neophytes like you & Schneibo to produce your Fundamental Laws of Physics that explains how INFINITE GRAVITY & INFINITE DENSITY can exist within the structure of a FINITE STELLAR BODY & this is the kind of slop & swill that comes back as an explanation:

what do you think you have to contribute here besides fecal matter and rotting discards?

isawit
1 / 5 (2)Sep 16, 2017
science says electron/particle beams pass double slit showed same wave patterns.

i doubt.fake data, or fake data.

modern science lied so much, i can predict it is a lie.

particle beam will never show wave property. in a medium or vacuum.

particles move a straight line along the force accelerates it.

there is no transverse wave in vacuum space.

maxwell was wrong. all waves are matter waving. vibrating charged particles produce vibrating electrostatic force, that force passing through matter/medium becomes em wave.

there is no electric field moving in vacuum space because there is no charged particle moving in vacuum space.

what is photon? electrons change energy level and emit little energy pocket we call it photon?

so the photon carries electric field? Will it produce a 90-degree magnetic field and move at light speed?

total BS.


all agreed?
isawit
1 / 5 (2)Sep 16, 2017
it is about time to wake the fuck up

time traveler is dumber than flat-earther

give you light speed ship, where do you want to travel? where is NOT now?

when you get there, what time it will be?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 59686777
United States
12/04/2016 07:16 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ++ I Am In Fact Elon Musk / I Believe Reality May Be a Simulation / Ask Me A Question
are we living in a zoo?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 59686777
United States
12/04/2016 09:27 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ++ I Am In Fact Elon Musk / I Believe Reality May Be a Simulation / Ask Me A Question
any biz is more than making our family smarter?
isawit
1 / 5 (2)Sep 16, 2017
WOW

Are even mods convinced?

Righteous Mods!

You are the salt of the earth
isawit
1 / 5 (2)Sep 16, 2017
Thank God

Thank You

Great Weekend

1 star this? must be a wise monkey!
isawit
1 / 5 (2)23 hours ago
why 1 star me all the way?

am i a porn star?


ugly ugly me then
artpletcher
2.3 / 5 (3)21 hours ago
I published this manuscript in 2015. (rejected by NRAC): tpbtheory dot com
dnatwork
3 / 5 (2)21 hours ago
@dnat, in case there is some question, no, I didn't call you or your ideas chickensxxt. I was referring to a pet peeve of mine... The very concept comes from not properly representing how frames of reference work, because they're "too complicated" for the "hoi polloi to understand." I have nothing but contempt for this.
When someone tries to lay this BS on you, you should immediately mark them ... But first you must understand frames of reference.


I actually do understand, but I've been talking in the sloppy way it is generally presented.

A light source that is emitting blue light and moving away from you will appear shifted toward the red because every photon that is emitted will start from a position that is slightly farther away than the previous one. Not due to stretching of space, due only to the relative motion and the fact that light always travels the same speed through a given medium.
dnatwork
3.7 / 5 (3)21 hours ago
But I also wasn't saying that the accelerating expansion might be due to stretching of space causing the light to stretch in transit. I was saying the effect of adding space in between two masses would be indistinguishable from relative motion. Therefore if you have relative motion causing a certain amount of redshift, but then you add more and more space on top of that relative motion, you would see an acceleration in the rate of apparent motion.

Dark energy says there is some new force being applied to push everything apart, faster and faster. My version says, no, that's just this obscure aspect of the gravity you already have in the system.
isawit
1 / 5 (2)20 hours ago
get off ur high horses

how the fuck 1 electron and 1 proton able to form a stable atom?

before you can fly, can you walk straight?
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4)20 hours ago
I actually do understand, but I've been talking in the sloppy way it is generally presented.
Frames are the only non-sloppy way to talk about this. It's been either tacitly or actively been part of physics since Galileo. The question has always been, "what frame are you measuring this in?" If it's not a consistent frame, then it quite simply is unphysical, because inconsistent frames mean energy is not conserved.

[contd]
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4)20 hours ago
[contd]
A light source that is emitting blue light and moving away from you will appear shifted toward the red because every photon that is emitted will start from a position that is slightly farther away than the previous one. Not due to stretching of space, due only to the relative motion and the fact that light always travels the same speed through a given medium.
This is incorrect. The frequency of a photon in a particular frame (in this case the observing frame) is determined by its source's motion in that frame. However, the frequency of a photon in the source frame is determined by atomic physics in that frame, so there is a record of the source frame as well.

It has nothing directly to do with "stretching space." In the observing frame, atomic physics in the source frame has always been slowed down by SRT. The photons were not altered by "stretching space." The observing frame was.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4)20 hours ago
But I also wasn't saying that the accelerating expansion might be due to stretching of space causing the light to stretch in transit. I was saying the effect of adding space in between two masses would be indistinguishable from relative motion. Therefore if you have relative motion causing a certain amount of redshift, but then you add more and more space on top of that relative motion, you would see an acceleration in the rate of apparent motion.
But this is precisely "dark energy" or "Lambda." It's the third term on the left hand side of the EFE. The question is why.

Dark energy says there is some new force being applied to push everything apart, faster and faster. My version says, no, that's just this obscure aspect of the gravity you already have in the system.
But for this to increase there has to be an additional effect; otherwise everything would just keep on the way it is.
Benni
1 / 5 (5)19 hours ago
In the observing frame, atomic physics in the source frame has always been slowed down by SRT


Schneibo, you don't even know what you meant with a gibberish statement like this, so with you trying to explain this kind of funny farm science gibberish, it's no wonder your just entertainment at it's.........
isawit
1 / 5 (2)19 hours ago
Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.

your friend steve jobs
isawit
1 / 5 (2)19 hours ago
grabbed all the pussy

pissed every cock

God Bless America


drain the science swamppppp
isawit
1 / 5 (2)18 hours ago
NASA Moon Landing Hoax 100% Proof

godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message3428651/pg1
isawit
1 / 5 (2)18 hours ago
I published this manuscript in 2015. (rejected by NRAC): tpbtheory dot com


even nobel is bs

they prized nothing they have a clue
isawit
1 / 5 (1)18 hours ago
Albert Einstein proposed that a beam of light is not a wave propagating through space, but rather a collection of discrete wave packets (photons), each with energy hν. This shed light on Max Planck's previous discovery of the Planck relation (E = hν) linking energy (E) and frequency (ν) as arising from quantization of energy. The factor h is known as the Planck constant.[1][2]

All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta? Nowadays every Tom, D i c k and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. -Albert Einstein 1953

planck pranked the world. h=horse shit
isawit
1 / 5 (2)18 hours ago
e=mcc=hv=horse shit horse shit
isawit
1 / 5 (2)18 hours ago
since i was young, gravity is always in my head.

i was willing to trade my life for the answer of gravity.

a friend visited me every week, smoke my weed for 20 years.

we talked gravity all the times.

i been seeking mysteries for so long, i found most of it about matters.

Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. Nikola Tesla

so true

the establishment is deep, the momentum is huge.

but i dare to change its course.

because i found the truth.

with a little seed of faith, i will move the mountain.

so help me!

isawit
1 / 5 (2)17 hours ago
All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, D i c k and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. -Albert Einstein

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. Albert Einstein

The most beautiful thing in the universe is the mystery. We all are leaves on the tree of life.

why did you take his gold as dirt, his dirt as gold?
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2)17 hours ago
I published this manuscript in 2015. (rejected by NRAC): tpbtheory dot com


even nobel is bs

they prized nothing they have a clue

tpbtheory? Dude, first logic, where is the unabigous truth, i.e. axiomatic first statement?
Try Charge exist and an E field relative to the center exist; charge is conserved; therefore, its field exist everywhere. The field only causes motion of other centers( else we'd be blind) ... Everything follows a set of rules defined by exach of these within an infinite space and an infinite set of pairs. Want me to define more details of common sense, theorectically? Each may occupy any point with another as long as the rules are satisfied. The rules tabulated by Maxwell!
isawit
1 / 5 (2)17 hours ago
If we were all born blind, no one can see a little worm on the tree, eats leave for a living, next day turned into a butterfly dancing in the wind.

Was a man is not blind, told us his true story, we nailed him on the wooden cross.

butterfly butterfly

open your palm dividing above and below

reach your arm defining east and west

point a finger tingling the sun

kiss the moon with soft dreams
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (3)17 hours ago
In the war of attraction and repulsion, attraction wins; however, the rest is controls!
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (3)17 hours ago
Pick a summation of each individual field upon each individual center of each body, i.e., use superposition, the other way is too complex even for your largest computer. After this see gravity, see atoms, crystals, supernovi, ... All the info is in the "emptiness" of space!
Benni
1 / 5 (4)16 hours ago
But this is precisely "dark energy" or "Lambda." It's the third term on the left hand side of the EFE.


......and is precisely the reason Science Professionals such as myself have problems with your DE math & anything else dealing with DE, it totally violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, but how would you know that Schneibo, you've never sat in a college classroom like I have studying Thermodynamics, taking a final exam & gotten a grade.

Schneibo, you don't even know what ENTROPY is, yet you pretend to know all there is to know about the EFE without ever having taken a courses in Nuclear Physics such as I have for which Thermodynamics is a pre-requisite.

The entire DE debate is an exercise in PERPETUAL MOTION because it is absent discussion of the fundamental law of thermodynamics of energy distribution, ENTROPY. Entropy is absent in the DE debate because DE requires an unbounded infinite environment which can't be had when inserting ENTROPY.
isawit
1 / 5 (2)15 hours ago
i wonder how many science students will change their major after reading all the comments.

how do you think?
isawit
1 / 5 (2)15 hours ago
e=mcc=hv=horse shit horse shit


all agreed?
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (3)15 hours ago
Emptiness of space, an oxymoron!
isawit
1 / 5 (1)12 hours ago
1 electron carries 1 negative charge

if we smash the electron into 1000000 equal pieces, each piece will carry 1/1000000 negative charge. Let's call it enertron.

since enertrons carry the same negative charge, they repel each other.

if we have a perfect bottle, which means no leakage, no react, like glass bottle to air.

we put 1000000 enertrons into the perfect bottle, since enertrons repel each other, they put a pressure on the bottle wall. let's measure and call that pressure 1 volt.

if we put 8000000 enertrons into the same bottle, the pressure on the wall should be 4 volts.

now if 1 enertron is moving or vibrating, the rest all enertrons will be energized.

that is the mechanism of light/quantum.

now if we put 1 positive charge into the perfect bottle, what will happen?
isawit
1 / 5 (1)12 hours ago
enertrons should be attracted by the positive charge and form a ball around it, the closer to the positive charge the denser enertron cloud. the density of the enertron is decay at 1/rrr due to the repulsion force between enertrons decay at 1/rr.

the enertron cloud is always vibrating, due to the existence of energy, the unbalance attraction force and repulsion force, within the enertron cloud and the center positive charge.

now image enertron is the real thing, it carries a tiny negative charge, something like 1/10^33 electron charge, but it has a stronger force field, similar to neodymium magnet compare with iron magnet.

image proton actually carries 918 positive charges, it attracted 917 total charges of enertrons formed a solid ball, 1 electron attached to the ball to form a neutrally charged hydrogen atom. 1 atomic weight equal to 1936 total charges, no matter positive or negative charges.

this is the realistic atomic structure.
Ojorf
3 / 5 (4)12 hours ago
@Schnib
The only things that change a gravity well is the mass getting bigger or smaller, or changing density.

What's density got to do with it?

Mmmm...it seems the only density relevant here is your density....


Higher density steepens the gravity well.

Even small masses can theoretically be turned into black holes if compressed into a small enough space, i.e. high enough density. 
isawit
1 / 5 (1)12 hours ago
atoms are solid balls, matter is not compressible. such as water.

if atoms are constructed as science told you, why matter is not compressible? electron shell/wave/cloud/orbital are negatively charged, they do not stick to positive changed nuclear is a magic, how can they stand any force/impact/reaction without crashing?

why is energy conserved?

if you push/put a moving force on any enertron with a force f, that force is spreading to all the enertrons in the bottle at light speed, they all are moving now, and cannot stop ever.

do we have a perfect bottle?

yes, every atom is a perfect bottle. all matters are a perfect bottle. energy has nowhere to go but bounce within and between matters.

the forces f=Ke x e1e2/rr and f=G x m1m2/rr are like perfect springs between/within matters, connected all matters in 1.
isawit
1 / 5 (1)12 hours ago
cosmologists think the mass of the universe is not enough to hold stars to forum present galaxies.

we don't even sure if mars has liquid water. how do they know the mass of the universe?

dark matter? dark energy? it is all bs.

NO scientists know what is energy exactly. till now.

energy is vibrating/moving electrostatic force/coulomb force stored within matter/charged particles.

gravity is like water container, water is like energy. bigger mass carries more energy.

i think space is infinitely big, how long is a straight line?

what's the shape of something has no boundary?

we can hardly image infinity.

that's the beauty of life.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2)11 hours ago
@Ojorf, worth mentioning though that far from the center, the well is the same size no matter the density. It's only the slope inside that's affected by the density.
isawit
1 / 5 (1)11 hours ago
ASTOUNDING: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + ... = -1/12

that's their mathematics in modern science

astounding?

how shameless?

to even believe their shit? youtube.com/watch?v=w-I6XTVZXww
isawit
1 / 5 (1)11 hours ago
gravity is like an ice cream cone, the sun is the ball of ice cream, earth is a little mass on the tip of the cone. the cone is made of perfect spring, f=G x m1m2/rr.

the vibrating force/energy of the hot atoms/mass on the sun teleport to our upper atmosphere, those particles/gasses energized, vibrating faster, that energy is passing air atoms along the direction of the force.

the energy/vibrating force/light passes through matter/galss/water/air, the movement of the medium is so called light wave. Light is not wave, light is not matter/mass.

put the double slit in a vacuum, light will not show wave property.

pass a green light laser beam through a vacuum glass bottle, the beam will disappear inside of the bottle.

there is no light in empty space, light exists within matter.
isawit
1 / 5 (1)11 hours ago
when sunlight shines on a solar cell

the closest air particles transfer vibrating force to the surface atoms on the cell.

if the vibration force is bigger than the attracting force between the electron and the atom/proton and enertron ball/so called nuclear, the electron will jump out from the atom.

this is the true mechanism of photoelectric effect.

there is no photon knocking electrons out from solar cells.

free electrons in the antenna move back and forth

pass the energy to surrounding air along the force direction.

when the energy/light/em wave in the air reaches the receiving antenna, free electrons move/vibrate with the force, produce signals.

the true mechanism of man-made em waves.

in the vacuum, the repulsion force between free electrons in the 2 antennas f=Ke x e1e2/rr is the carrier of energy, quantum entanglement free electrons on the both antennas.Interstellar communication is instant.
isawit
1 / 5 (1)11 hours ago
e=mcc is wrong. matter is charged particles. energy is moving force produced by moving masses/charges.

energy and matter cannot interchange.

if you think matter can transfer into energy, by nuclear reaction, that is a mistake.

if you think energy can transfer into matter, by science story, that is a mistake.

nuclear energy is the same as chemical energy, both are stored within charged particles within atoms.

chemical energy is from releasing the bonding force between electrons and proton/enertron ball, nuclear energy is from releasing the bonding force between proton and enertrons.

this is too deep for you now, you need to understand the true structure of atoms.

modern science is based on false foundation. all the scientists cannot explain why electron and proton do not stick together within a hydrogen atom.

how can you trust any science theory involve atoms?
isawit
1 / 5 (1)11 hours ago
give you a magnet/proton and an iron bb/electron.

can you make an atom?

any high tech can make the bb waving/circling/clouding around the magnet to form a stable system/atom?

between proton and electron, there is only 1 force existing f=Ke x pe/rr. it is 10^39 times stronger than gravity.

it is IMPOSSIBLE 1 proton and 1 electron can form an atom.

the only possibility is they stick together under super strong attraction force.

standard model and orbital model are so wrong, mislead science into a dark age.
isawit
1 / 5 (1)11 hours ago
for those believe our sun is a nuclear reactor, ask yourself few questions.

why does all the nuclear fuel not ignite at once?

how nuclear reaction produces heat/energy?

how the energy reaches earth?

if the sun has radiated out energy for 5 billion years, where is all that energy?

what is energy? moving force produced by moving mass?

without matter, there is no force, no moving force, no energy.

matter is made from charged particles.

oppositely charged particles attract each other, they collide like magnet and iron ball. the impact force/energy becomes heat/thermal energy of the atoms.

the more atoms get together by gravity attraction, the more mass is added, the higher thermal energy density, the higher temperature.

so bigger star carries more energy, produces stronger light.

the energy is stored in vibrating atoms/charged particles.

the energy a star carry is the vibrating gravity and electrostatic force in its total mass/charges.
isawit
1 / 5 (1)11 hours ago
the sun's energy is from star formation, the sun is not an active nuclear reactor.

all energy cannot vanish into space but share with other matters surround according to their distance.
isawit
1 / 5 (1)11 hours ago
every atom in your body is very very old

no atoms will die ever ever

why is the sun will die? cus science told you so?

are u still a sheep?

the sun will never cool off a bit, the sun does not shoot out energy/photon into space around it.

the sun shares its radiant energy with matters around it.

hot atoms on the sun share their vibrating force with matters on earth, f=G x m1m2/rr and f=Ke x e1e2/rr are the carriers of sun's energy.

sun light/solar energy is not keeping shooting at earth,
but moving around the earth as earth spins.

the same energy circling around, never lose a bit into space.

is this westward moving energy producing current in the atmosphere and the crust?

is it creating earth magnetic field?

where is lighting energy came from?

do you understand energy now?

put a copper ring around the equator, will it produce dc current?
isawit
1 / 5 (1)10 hours ago
truth can set you free

after you understood matter and energy are immortal

you should question

how could our souls vanish ever?

the good news is

if you are bad, don't worry. you'll get paid with interest.

soon!
isawit
1 / 5 (1)10 hours ago
time travel?

where is past? where is tomorrow?

time is not a place, how to travel to nowhere?

when you get there, what time is it?

we measure time by measure matter's movement. earth moving around the sun, sand falling in sand timer.

if gravity increased, would earth move faster? would sand falling faster? gravity changes the reading/time on the clock, but time is always now, all matter and energy are alive, only in this moment.

the rest moments are in our heads, past, and future.
isawit
1 / 5 (1)9 hours ago
All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, D i c k and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. -Albert Einstein

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. Albert Einstein

The most beautiful thing in the universe is the mystery. We all are leaves on the tree of life.

why did you take his gold as dirt, his dirt as gold?


those voters are out their minds
isawit
1 / 5 (1)8 hours ago
school and media are responsible for fooling people.

bs top scientists are leading the world's science.

those should go to the hospital.

Those monkeys are professors at Cambridge University. similar monkeys are teaching are at MIT.

This is the world we live, wake the fuck up.

Their math is incorrect.

Positive numbers can never equal to negative numbers.

Do you think they don't know that equation is totally wrong? they knew it 100%.

Then why they put the video on youtube to fool the world?

What else are they teaching in school?

Those people own the education system, own science. don't let them own you.

Don't let them own your kids. https://www.youtu...6XTVZXww


why did you vote 1 *?
isawit
1 / 5 (1)7 hours ago
get off ur high horses

how the fuck 1 electron and 1 proton able to form a stable atom?

before you can fly, can you walk straight?


seriously, why 1*?

without a fair mind, hardly a fair man.
isawit
1 / 5 (1)7 hours ago
i think if the sun suddenly vanished, all planets will spread out follow their own path. the moon will still be orbiting us.

we will have star lights only see no moon, the day is the night. but we will not get colder.

heat radiation within the atmosphere will stay same strength/amount, radiate out to the stars is equal to they radiate in.

without sunlight, the food chain is gone, life will end, all organic will oxidize, decompose and return to the matter.

kind of waste time, cus the sun has no interest to vanish, it loves us, it is immortal.
isawit
1 / 5 (1)7 hours ago
they banned me 2 years ago, for what reason? https://www.thena...sg462714

if you can't talk science in science forums, talk to birds?

i did, birds are smart, they can count, and communicate with me, we say hello to each other when we met.

lonely night, sweet dreams.
Benni
1 / 5 (3)6 hours ago
Even small masses can theoretically be turned into black holes if compressed into a small enough space, i.e. high enough density.


ojorf,

No fundamental Law of Physics exists for this kind of ludicrous statement. Isawit makes more sense than you & Schneibo do.

According to BH theory, BHs form due to a well of gravitational attraction that becomes INFINITE at the surface of a stellar mass. It is an observed & measured Law of Physics that increased gravitational fields occurs ONLY by additional accumulation of MASS, not by increasing the DENSITY of a GIVEN MASS.

Keep it up, you're making Isawit look like a genius.
isawit
1 / 5 (1)6 hours ago
Even small masses can theoretically be turned into black holes if compressed into a small enough space, i.e. high enough density.


ojorf,

No fundamental Law of Physics exists for this kind of ludicrous statement. Isawit makes more sense than you & Schneibo do.

According to BH theory, BHs form due to a well of gravitational attraction that becomes INFINITE at the surface of a stellar mass. It is an observed & measured Law of Physics that increased gravitational fields occurs ONLY by additional accumulation of MASS, not by increasing the DENSITY of a GIVEN MASS.

Keep it up, you're making Isawit look like a genius.


told you my iq is 97, why tease me in public?? i am a pig compared to you guys.
isawit
1 / 5 (1)5 hours ago
please teach me/pig how 1 electron and 1 proton become a stable atom.

i asked many phds at science forums, they call me broken
pot. pest, ban me like a goat.

Benni1 / 5 (2)4 hours ago
Even small masses can theoretically be turned into black holes if compressed into a small enough space, i.e. high enough density.


ojorf,

No fundamental Law of Physics exists for this kind of ludicrous statement. Isawit makes more sense than you & Schneibo do.

According to BH theory, BHs form due to a well of gravitational attraction that becomes INFINITE at the surface of a stellar mass. It is an observed & measured Law of Physics that increased gravitational fields occurs ONLY by additional accumulation of MASS, not by increasing the DENSITY of a GIVEN MASS.

Keep it up, you're making Isawit look like a genius.


told you my iq is 97, why tease me in public?? i am a pig compared to you guys.


You're a genius compared to Ojorf & Schneibo, they think the hypotheses for the creation of Black Holes is a Fundamental Law of Physics, those two don't recognize Perpetual Motion even when it's slapping them silly up alongside of their heads.
isawit
1 / 5 (1)3 hours ago
i dream for learning something new, better, nearer to the truth.

wishing people can debunk and question.

we all seekers and confused to some degree.

isawit1 / 5 (1)2 hours ago
please teach me/pig how 1 electron and 1 proton become a stable atom.

i asked many phds at science forums, they call me broken pot. pest, ban me like a goat.


hundreds of comments, i still don't know how an atom is formed.

Good Morning!
isawit
not rated yet2 hours ago
fill bbs and some water in a long glass tube, let the water be the electrons.

the glass tube becomes a wire, the conductivity of the wire is proportional to the amount of the water.

when water is running in the tube, water pressure is the voltage of the wire, water amount is the current of the wire.

water can never leak into the bbs.
isawit
1 / 5 (1)2 hours ago
in reality, bb is atom/nuclear/enertron ball, a 3 d magnet, water is iron sand balls.

this is more likely the reality of atomic structure.

qm is a mistake.
isawit
not rated yet1 hour ago
see the multiverse in an atom

see no atom

we all blind
isawit
not rated yetjust added
school and media are responsible for fooling people.

bs top scientists are leading the world's science.

those should go to the hospital.

Those are professors at Cambridge University. similar are teaching at MIT.

This is the world we live, wake the fuck up.

Their math is incorrect.

Positive numbers can never equal to negative numbers.

Do you think they don't know that equation is totally wrong? they knew it 100%.

Then why they put the video on youtube to fool the world?

What else are they teaching in school?

Those people own the education system, own science. don't let them own you.

Don't let them own your kids. youtube.com/watch?v=w-I6XTVZXww

Based on their math, their science is mistake.

Well paid and higly respacted. In fact, they have less positive contribution than flipoiung burgers.

Please wake up, do the right thing for your kids, yourself and your God.

He loves righteous man. 


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-09-supernova-analysis-reframes-dark-energy.html#jCp

No comments:

Post a Comment