Misconceptions in Relativity

Err, did you read this?

quote:

---

The First Six Days of the Universe
Professor Moshe Carmeli

​

Abstract
The early stage of the universe is discussed, and the time lengths of its first six days are given, as well as the age of the universe. There seems to be no contradiction with the biblical claim that the universe was created in six days.

---

No, nor did I work on the dimension of the lengths of rabbits' ears, nor the dimension of gulibility of creationists, though the latter shows some strong promise. You cannot string a bunch of cosmological terms together in random order and hope that it makes some sort of sense, even if they were suggested by a *once* respected scientist. No, he did not. He "predicted" (the quotes are because his derivation is completely nonsensical) three states, dependent on the critical density, which we still don't know for certain. Our best estimates for the critical density come from interpretations that are not even valid in his "comsology"... see section three of his update of that book. Dark matter is the simplest explanation for the non-Newtonian behaviour of galactic rotation curves. I agree that it does have a fudge-factor-like appearance, but now with strong independent observational evidence coming from observations such as those of the Bullet Cluster it is starting to appear unassailable as a feature of the Universe.Dark energy is certainly no fudge-factor, and the myriad of such accusations simply express the extreme ignorance of relativistic cosmology. For nearly a century we have been considering the effect of the cosmological constant in General Relativity, and one of the biggest mysteries in cosmology was its apparent absence. We have now found evidence of its existence. It's value is still surprisingly small (not zero, but very close) but to many of us, it is a relief to find one. Not only that, it is fantastic evidence of post-Standard Model physics, something that those of us in quantum gravity, string theory, etc have been desperate to find.

MISQUOTED??? It was his fucking abstract. I'm sorry, but you a rapidly losing any credibility. And I thought you might be a breath of fresh air here... grow up, or be ignored.Who the hell cares if he follows up his abstract with some screwed up cosmological theory. How does that make him NOT creationist leaning??? I guess you're going to tell me that Humphreys is not a creationist because he knows what a metric is? No, I have not 'been there, done that', when 'that' is pure utter bullshit and the ravings of a once-respectable scientist. There are many concepts of multi-dimensional spaces in mathematical physics, not just those in string theory. I know what Carmeli is proposing, and it is nonsense. Fair enough if he was just creating a larger parameter/moduli space, through which he was tracing some evolution, but this is not what he is doing. He is bastardising the physics and maths and in his delusional state thinks that this is meaningful. kid, when you can describe stuff in your own words rather than just parroting idiotic terms you have picked up from his papers, let me know. The problem is you haven't a fraction of the understanding to be able to see this as utter gibberish. Go and study that maths and physics, and come back in eight years or so and we can talk. First, I do not have access to his 1996 publication, only his papers in 2004. He makes no claim that he had predicted acceleration back in 1996, and he does not even cite the 1996 book, despite having it listed in the references! Can you shed any light on this? Yes, the old old cosmology statement crap - you will find a handful of respectable astronomers in there, many more astronomers of Arp's camp, all seriously pissed off at how much they've been ignored for decades and at how unfair reality is when observations do not conform to what they want them to be. And the vast majority? Idiot engineers and cosmological wannabees who mistakenly think they have an opinion that matters. Harnett said this?? He doesn't have the first fucking clue How can someone write papers on cosmology and not know what the CMBR is? And this is the guy the creationist community is heralding as their new saviour... A question asked by Harnett? I thought we'd already ascertained his complete lack of credibility?And "On the absence of gravitational lensing of the Cosmic Microwave Background" - cited four times, and only once is it specifically mentioned, with the comment: "The contrary claim in ref (31) is erroneous."Notice that neither author ever cites their own paper, even though they both go to work in similar territory, especially Lieu. I think you need to stop listening to Hartnett if you want any hope of credibility.

An appreciation of how to use journals and citations to gain an understanding of the acceptability of an idea. Furthermore, Slevesque has provided himself just what we needed: an obvious and critical *layman* error on the part of Hartnett to immediately destroy his credibility. Anyone can go look up CMBR at Wikipedia, and see that it does not correspond in any way to what Hartnett said. It is quite possible that Hartnett has since been corrected of error, but that is immaterial. For someone claiming to be a cosmologist, to be ignorant of this fact is like a chemist thinking molecular bonding has something to do with glue.In the case of Carmeli and the "cosmology", it is very difficult to argue at the layman's level. Similarly with Humphreys' cosmology. Have you ever read the back and forth between Don Page and Humphreys? It was exceptionally painful, because Humphreys knows just enough to be able to sound like he know exactly what he is talking about, and I have read several creationists' posts claiming that he won the exchange. But to those of us who actually understand the subject, the issues are blatently clear, and Humphreys just does not get it (or he does, but is in denial.) But to translate the deeper issues into layman language? *shudder*

True, I did think of this earlier today, but even if this was his meaning it still suggests a very loose understanding of the CMBR. The CMBR does not emanate from "behind" the galaxies, whatever the hell that means.Anyway, back to this

quote:

---

After all, cosmic microwave radiation... ...should be lensed by foreground galaxiesbut it isn’t.

---

And your 2005 paper, "Lieu, R, Mittaz, J.P.D., On the absence of gravitational lensing of the Cosmic Microwave Background, ApJ 628(2):583—593, 2005", with its total of four cites, is rather negated by the plethora of papers such as "Antony Lewis, Anthony Challinor, Weak Gravitational Lensing of the CMB, Phys.Rept. 429 (2006) 1-65", with its 70 cites. Consider it answered...

A paper may well refer to previous papers. These are the paper's references and they will be listed at the end of the paper. A paper will quite possibly be *referred to* by papers in the future. These are the paper's citations. Obviously, these will not be listed in the paper itself, but in the grand database of papers, a citation index can be built. In my day, the lanl online database was in its infancy, and citations were looked up in the very large SCI volumes in the library (Scientific Citation Index). A paper's "importance" is often measured by its number of cites. Of course, cites can be for good or bad reasons. A lack of cites is usually a measure of irrelevance or "so wrong, not even worth a reply".If we go back to Lieu and Mittaz you will see on the right hand side of the page "References & Citations", and under this the link to cited by where you will find the four citations. Nearly all of the literature points to CMBR gravitational lensing being just beyond the level of current detetction; hence Lieu and Mittaz being all but ignored. But here is a counterexample: Smith K, Zahn O, Dore O, Detection of Gravitational Lensing in the Cosmic Microwave Background, Phys.Rev.D76:043510,2007

According to General Relativity (and most related gravitational theories) gravitational effects propegate at the speed of light. This is consistent with the limited number of experimental/observational tests carried out.Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

I'm fond of pointing out that if you invoke magic to set up your experiment, you cannot expect meaningful results! You cannot simply vanish away the mass of the Sun using any physics of which we are aware.However, answering in the spirit of your question, GR is a *local theory*. Space-time geometry at a point depends on the mass/energy distribution at that point. There is no action at a distance. The space-time curvature 7 light minutes out from the Sun is not a direct result of the Sun's mass, but of the space-time curvature slightly less than 7 light minutes out. Think of the old rubber sheet analogy. So the space-time will relax outwards from the centre, and will take eight minutes to affect the space-time around us.

We use geometry - topology refers to the connectedness of a space, and is a whole new subject within General relativity - but yes, that is the idea. However, it is very difficult to test directly.

It can't Because you can't magic mass/energy into and out of existence. All you can do is shift it around. And I don't need to tell you that there is a limit to how fast you shift mass/energy around. Hence the problem...All you can do is look (indirectly) at gravitational waves. These do definitely appear to propegate at the speed of light. Not really. If the Sun collapsed to a black hole today, what gravitational effect would this have on us?

Yes it is, but the wormhole is still just an extension of space-time, so the Sun will start moving off through the worm-hole at finite speed, so its gravitational effect will simply diminish, not instantaneously vanish - and of course, the space-time curvature caused by the Sun will be dwarfed by that of the worm-hole that carries it away!! Exactly - and by looking at the enegy loss in those systems, we can calculate the speed of the gravitational waves. Not at all - as Nosy explains...

*We* haven't - we are a long way from the Sun. All we care about is how much mass/energy is contained within our orbital radius. We don't give a damn how dense it is, just so long as it is a spherically symmetric distribution. Blow the Sun up, and as long as the entire debris cloud remains within our radius, and remains spherically symmetric, we'll keep orbiting. Likewise, should the Sun collapse. The only difference the collapse will make is that we can know get much closer to the interesting parts of the Solar space-time: r=2M (the event horizon, about 3km for the Sun), and r=0 (the singularity). Normally, we cannot encounter these regions of space-time as they don't exist, as the Sun occupies that space.

If the Sun were to simply collapse inwards, maintaining spherical symmetry, there is absolutely no change to space-time outside of the Sun's original volume. The only space-time that would change would be in the new "space" left behind as the Sun collapses. SO if you were in orbit, just above the Sun's surface, you woudld remain in that orbit. To experience any of the "weirdness" of the new space-time, you would have to venture inwards into the newly accessible depths of the Sun's original core. It starts to get fun a few km from the centre.

Try this page on polytropes.

Well, let's take a look and see if this is worth reading... Interesting - this has to be worth a read: And there we have it - abject stupidity, parading as science. Since when is science advanced by claims of "defies logic and cannot be rationally explained"As the kids say, epic fail

I don't have an argument because there is nothing to argue. The symmetry of time dilation in S.R. is not paradoxical, it is bloody obvious if you have the first clue about the theory. The reason the Twins' Paradox is so-called, is because the ASYMMETRY is (incorrectly) regarded as paradoxical. Not appreciating this, yet thinking that one can write a critique of S.R. just makes one an idiot and a laughing-stock...