Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-25-2017 4:50 PM
397 online now:
Asgara (AdminAsgara), Coyote, jar, JonF, kjsimons, PaulK, RAZD, Son Goku (8 members, 389 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 812,089 Year: 16,695/21,208 Month: 2,584/3,593 Week: 51/646 Day: 51/78 Hour: 0/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
12131415Next
Author Topic:   Ruling out an expanding universe with conventional proofs
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9650
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 151 of 223 (705139)
08-23-2013 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Alphabob
08-23-2013 11:51 AM


Re: Minority Report
Arxiv is the controlling body of preprints, as posting on vixra seemingly makes you a "crank". I received endorsement to upload, where the endorser is suppose to skim through the paper and ensure it meets the requirements of arxiv (so it is actually being endorsed). Arxiv moderation suppressed my research as they determined it to be inconvenient with respect to their interests.

Sounds like you want to continue Operation Foot-Bullet.

Nobody suppressed your speech. You have no God given, constitutionally provided, or inherent right to speak in someone else's auditorium. Arxiv did not facilitate your speech. Neither did CNN.

"Arxiv is the controlling body of preprints,"

No Arxiv is not the controlling body of preprints. Arxiv controls only what gets uploaded to their own servers. And if indeed it is true that other similar services are considered hosts of cranky papers, it surely must be arxiv's acceptance/rejection policy that has created the distinction between themselves and others.

"My second paper will be finished soon and I'll let that do the talking."

My guess is that there will be more whining to come. But I'd love to be wrong about that.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Alphabob, posted 08-23-2013 11:51 AM Alphabob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Alphabob, posted 08-25-2013 12:40 PM NoNukes has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5765
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 152 of 223 (705155)
08-23-2013 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Alphabob
08-23-2013 11:51 AM


Re: Minority Report
Arxiv is the controlling body of preprints

Ohh, no. Care to provide any evidence for this? No where do they claim they will post whatever is sent to them.

Arxiv moderation suppressed my research as they determined it to be inconvenient with respect to their interests.

You have provided no evidence showing this. All we have are your claims.

My paper was under peer review from January 2013 to April 2013...

Please show us the reviews and comments.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Alphabob, posted 08-23-2013 11:51 AM Alphabob has not yet responded

    
Alphabob
Member (Idle past 1289 days)
Posts: 55
Joined: 06-28-2013


Message 153 of 223 (705246)
08-25-2013 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by NoNukes
08-23-2013 1:46 PM


Re: Minority Report
If you want to discuss the specifics of arxiv then I have no problem. From the wiki page: "In many fields of mathematics and physics, almost all scientific papers are self-archived on the arXiv. " It is a fact the arxiv is the controlling body of preprints, which use to be a government funded server. Considering that public funding has been used to create arxiv, it's not really their "auditorium".

http://physicsworld.com/...ling-site-challenges-arxiv-server
It is a fact that arxiv censors based upon personal interests rather than scientific quality or correctness. Ginsparg has admitted this "He told Physics World that Cornells filtering system is only biased in the sense that it seeks 'to accommodate the interests of people within the research community' and not 'outsiders'". To further my point, we can look at Wetterich's media success and acceptance onto Arxiv.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...-cosmologist_n_3606136.html
"The idea may be plausible, but it comes with a big problem: it can't be tested."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-...
You can google the characteristics of pseudoscience, as they all will arrive at this "Popper famously declared falsifiability as the ultimate criterion of demarcation."

Falsifiability is directly related to a theories ability to make predictions. The entire scientific method requires for a hypothesis, predictions of that hypothesis, experimental (direct observations) and either a negative result or verification. From my paper I count 8 predictions and positive results.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...-cosmologist_n_3606136.html
"And the current cosmos could be static, or even beginning to contract."
This is because scientist are beginning to realize that angular diameter distances (how big things appear in size) do not fit big bang cosmology as I've proven through several methods. To fix this they need objects to be redshifted without any relative motion. So Wetterich's theory essentially claims that the conservation of energy is constantly violated, matter gains mass and this generates cosmological redshift. It is a non-testable theory that directly fits the criteria of pseudoscience, i.e. what cranks usually work on.

With these very basic facts, my question is why pseudoscience that supports the big bang theory is allowed while actual science that proves the big bang theory wrong is censored?

Also if you want to see the referee report, my response and the journals response then I can send it over email. My public email is listed on my paper (it will take me a couple of days to get around to).

Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by NoNukes, posted 08-23-2013 1:46 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by NoNukes, posted 08-25-2013 1:02 PM Alphabob has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9650
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 154 of 223 (705248)
08-25-2013 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Alphabob
08-25-2013 12:40 PM


Kook Report
Considering that public funding has been used to create arxiv, it's not really their "auditorium".

By your reasoning, you have a right to drop by a naval base and take a ride on an F-18 plane at your whim. After all those jets are paid for with public money.

Paid for by public money does not mean that a resource belongs to you. And by your own admission arxiv is not a government server. It belongs to the people who run it.

You cannot seem to drop this subject. I note here that you are the one who brought the subject up this time. I also note that you cherry picked a single one of my observations about you and that your response has the underpinning of entitlement that pervades your presence here.

Nobody owes you a spot in a journal or on any server that you don't pay for. Nobody is deleting your work from your hard drive or taking any other steps to prevent you from displaying your work. A number of people are not assisting you in doing so, but they don't owe you that.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Alphabob, posted 08-25-2013 12:40 PM Alphabob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Alphabob, posted 08-27-2013 12:11 PM NoNukes has responded

    
Alphabob
Member (Idle past 1289 days)
Posts: 55
Joined: 06-28-2013


Message 155 of 223 (705450)
08-27-2013 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by NoNukes
08-25-2013 1:02 PM


Re: Kook Report
I think you are missing the point of what censorship actually is. The form I've been dealing with is: "Internet censorship is control or suppression of the publishing or accessing of information on the Internet. It may be carried out by governments or by private organizations either at the behest of government or on their own initiative. Individuals and organizations may engage in self-censorship on their own or due to intimidation and fear."

By definition it does not matter who is doing the censoring as long as they are the controlling body. Second, my taxes also pay for parks; are you saying that those are not open to anyone who wishes to use them? NASA data and images are also paid for the public and are free to use by anyone. There is a large difference between publicly paid for things that everyone can use and supersonic jet fighters.

Although Arxiv is now paid for by other universities and third parties, it was created with public funds and is the controlling body of preprints.

Now, we can end this pointless discussion on censorship and cranks unless you have a better definition for these words. The facts have already been laid out and it appears that you wish to ignore most of them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by NoNukes, posted 08-25-2013 1:02 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Percy, posted 08-27-2013 1:03 PM Alphabob has responded
 Message 158 by NoNukes, posted 08-27-2013 2:14 PM Alphabob has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15645
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


(2)
Message 156 of 223 (705455)
08-27-2013 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Alphabob
08-27-2013 12:11 PM


Re: Kook Report
Hi Alphabob, just a couple brief comments.

I wish Son Goku were here. He must have run out of time again. Cavediver is also fluent in this area, but he hasn't been around in a while.

Getting involved in discussions about whether or not you're a crank is the kind of things cranks do. The rest of your behavior is also just like a crank. Cranks are unable to make their ideas comprehensible to laypeople, and they prefer less to discuss their ideas than complain about perceived censorship and ill treatment.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Alphabob, posted 08-27-2013 12:11 PM Alphabob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by NoNukes, posted 08-27-2013 2:12 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 166 by Alphabob, posted 08-28-2013 12:24 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9650
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 157 of 223 (705462)
08-27-2013 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Percy
08-27-2013 1:03 PM


Re: Kook Report
and they prefer less to discuss their ideas than complain about perceived censorship and ill treatment.

Exactly.

John Baez created a Crackpot Index that points some humor at this phenomena. A good portion of the index involves assigning points for paranoid/martyr behavior.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Excerpts below:

quote:
20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.

20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)

20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".

20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".


ABE: I cannot believe I did not highlight this one:

quote:
40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

I believe Dr. Baez could add a few more lines to his index by borrowing from this thread.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Percy, posted 08-27-2013 1:03 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9650
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 158 of 223 (705463)
08-27-2013 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Alphabob
08-27-2013 12:11 PM


Re: Kook Report
Now, we can end this pointless discussion on censorship and cranks unless you have a better definition for these words. The facts have already been laid out and it appears that you wish to ignore most of them.

You can stop participating in this discussion anytime you'd like. You've already claimed to have quit at least once. I thought that my prediction that you'd return to whine more would slow you down a bit, but apparently not.

ABE:

I'm going to note that your non-response did not address a single point I made in contradiction to your claims of suppression. You simply repeated your ridiculous claim that arvix failure to host your paper at your request is actually suppression. I suppose that kooky claims are part of your charm.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Alphabob, posted 08-27-2013 12:11 PM Alphabob has not yet responded

    
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1069
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005


(1)
Message 159 of 223 (705467)
08-27-2013 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Alphabob
08-21-2013 12:22 PM


Re: Questions.
But the classical electromagnetic tensor is directly included in the Lagrangian, so I don't see how it's not derived from it.

This doesn't really make much sense as a response to my statement.

I said that "Quantum Mechanics is not derived from Classical Field Theory". That is, the principles of quantum mechanics were/are not developed out of the physics of classical field theory.

Saying that the electromagnetic field tensor* is in the Lagrangian has nothing to do with this.

As an analogy, imagine if I had made the statement that "Darwin did not deduce evolution from medical descriptions of the liver". Your response would be equivalent to "But this evolutionary textbook has a chapter about the liver".

If you start with basic quantum mechanics, the entire theory is based upon the position and momentum of an electron in a classical potential.

Quantum mechanics doesn't rest on the position and momentum of the electron. It can describe any particle we've currently observed, none are fundamental to the formalism.

QED reduces the degrees of freedom via minimal coupling

Wow, QED increases the degrees of freedom from conventional quantum mechanics by an infinite amount!
In the quantum mechanical theory of an electron in a potential there are only six degrees of freedom, the spatial coordinates of the spin up and spin down component of the electron (i.e. x,y,z position of each spin).

In QED there is an infinite number of degrees of freedom, a degree of freedom for the value of the electron and photon field at each spacetime point.

Einsteins field equations add a bit more than the space-time metric

True, but that has nothing to do with my statement, I never mentioned the metric.

but if you look at the mechanics of QED, the only additions with respect to classical Lagrangian dynamics are spin and probability

The addition of probability turns it into a completely different theory, described using a completely different branch of mathematics, with entirely different predictions.
Also the classical version of the Lagrangian already has spin.

Probability is the product of the ensemble interpretation of QM and requires nothing beyond classical position and momentum.

I don't really understand what this means. How does probability "require" classical position and momentum.

The Dirac field is only real in the sense of momentum and position.

The Dirac field doesn't describe position or momentum, so I don't understand what this means. The Dirac field is an object which fills spacetime and which commonly has excitations known as electrons. Can you explain what your statement means.

Using space-time algebra, the spinor component of the Dirac equation can be directly interpreted as a point spinning around the classical position of an electron.

A classical spinor can be viewed this way. That is, a single spinor can be viewed this way. However, a spinor field, where you now have a spinor at each point in spacetime can not.

More importantly: You seem to be conflating the Dirac field and the electron in your writings. Electrons are excitations of the Dirac field. For example:

These hidden variables determine the position and momentum of a particle, which is depicted by the Dirac field.

The Dirac Field does not depict or describe an individual electron, they arise as excitations of it.

Quantization is the procedure of constraining something from a continuous set of values to a relatively small discrete set

That is not the definition used in physics.

So if a particle is a localized field that exists over all points in space, quantization is reducing this continuous set of positions to the classical location

That sounds more like wave-function collapse.

QFT I believe refers to particles as field condensates, but it is in general the same concept.

Particles are excitations of the field in QFT.

*For those reading the electromagnetic field tensor is the mathematical object used to describe the electric and magnetic fields.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Alphabob, posted 08-21-2013 12:22 PM Alphabob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-27-2013 3:05 PM Son Goku has responded
 Message 167 by Alphabob, posted 08-28-2013 1:28 PM Son Goku has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11440
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 160 of 223 (705469)
08-27-2013 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Son Goku
08-27-2013 2:42 PM


Re: Questions.
Particles are excitations of the field in QFT.

Why do the fields get excited?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Son Goku, posted 08-27-2013 2:42 PM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Theodoric, posted 08-27-2013 4:53 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply
 Message 162 by Son Goku, posted 08-27-2013 5:57 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5765
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


(3)
Message 161 of 223 (705476)
08-27-2013 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by New Cat's Eye
08-27-2013 3:05 PM


Re: Questions.
Some hot muons just walked by.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-27-2013 3:05 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

    
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1069
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005


(1)
Message 162 of 223 (705478)
08-27-2013 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by New Cat's Eye
08-27-2013 3:05 PM


Re: Questions.
The fields contain a certain amount of energy, the energy they started with due to the big bang. This energy means they can't sit in their ground state, or state of minimum energy, which would appear to us as empty space with no particles. I say appear, because of course the fields are still there. This energy present in the fields causes them to be excited.
The rules of relativity and quantum mechanics demand that in most circumstances these excitations must take the form of small localised packets of energy which we call particles.

The expansion of space after the Big Bang would have provide this energy to the fields.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-27-2013 3:05 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-27-2013 11:44 PM Son Goku has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11440
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 163 of 223 (705493)
08-27-2013 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Son Goku
08-27-2013 5:57 PM


Re: Questions.
The fields contain a certain amount of energy, the energy they started with due to the big bang.

Is there another way for the fields to "get" the energy besides from the Big Bang?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Son Goku, posted 08-27-2013 5:57 PM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Son Goku, posted 08-28-2013 5:50 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1069
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005


(1)
Message 164 of 223 (705500)
08-28-2013 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by New Cat's Eye
08-27-2013 11:44 PM


Re: Questions.
Is there another way for the fields to "get" the energy besides from the Big Bang?

A given field can obtain energy from another. We would see this as particle decay and creation. For example the Higgs field can pass energy into the photon field. This would appear to us as a disappearance of a Higgs particle and the appearance of two photons, i.e. Higgs decay.

However ultimately this is just energy being passed back and forth among the fields. All the original energy comes from the Big Bang.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-27-2013 11:44 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-28-2013 9:31 AM Son Goku has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11440
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 165 of 223 (705518)
08-28-2013 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Son Goku
08-28-2013 5:50 AM


Re: Questions.
Makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Oh, if you don't mind:

When does it start getting to atoms of matter?

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Son Goku, posted 08-28-2013 5:50 AM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Son Goku, posted 08-29-2013 5:31 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
12131415Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017