*Slow clap*
leading to
*thunderous roar*

Are we permitted to discuss research done by some of the scientists mentioned in the previous thread?

This looks fascinating:

> Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (2008) 131302
>
> Living in a Void: Testing the Copernican Principle > with Distant Supernovae
>
> Timothy Clifton, Pedro G. Ferreira, Kate Land

I, for one, would like to know more. Are the areas of research covered in these papers that were accepted for publication fair topics here?

In any case, thank you for your interesting articles, Mr. Siegel. I have been able to better understand cosmology from following your work.

Judging from this post, it is obvious that your mind has been addled by wireless internet and fluoridated water.

/justkidding.

@Luke Lucas, thank you; I'm glad that this seems fair to you.

@Fred B, Pedro Ferreira is the name I recognize in that paper. He's been someone for a very long time who has been testing and questioning the standard cosmological (Big Bang + DM + DE + inflation) framework, and proposing alternatives along the way. This one in particular called the "Universe is isotropic and homogeneous" assumption into question, and claims that we could be in a gross underdensity. If that were the case, the type Ia Supernovae data would bear that out, and the paper details how one would look for that.

This was motivated by Large-Scale Structure observations that pointed towards us living in a large, underdense region of the Universe. Further observations from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey do not, in fact, support this picture, but it will be interesting (and would be an unexpected surprise) if the supernova data disagree with the standard LCDM / dark energy cosmology once that data is available. We think it's very unlikely, but it isn't impossible.

But it also has nothing to do with geocentrism.

@Drivebyposter, don't get me started on fluoridated water. My city (Portland, OR) is the largest in the USA that doesn't fluoridate their drinking water, and we're about to start. I don't want to jinx it!

My, it appears that this seems to be directed at me.

May I first say that if geocentrism is a banned subject on this blog, you certainly could have fooled me.

If defense of geocentrism is instead what is banned on this blog, then simply say so, I will certainly not impose on your hospitality further; after all, it is your blog.

But, given that this might be the last post I make here, intellectual honesty requires that I address a few points:

E: " from the perspective of an observer on Earth — it is completely indistinguishable whether it is the Earth that rotates on its axis every 24 hours or whether the entire Universe and everything in it rotates ones every 24 hours around the Earth. That much is true."

>> We begin from a point of complete agreement.

E: "However, these two perspectives are not equivalent for everything else in the Universe. Every naked-eye star in the night sky — including Polaris, by the way — would be breaking the speed of light if they were moving around the Earth."

>> I am afraid that nothing we see from the standpoint of a stationary Earth is in violation of General Relativity.

All superluminal velocities are completely consistent with GR.

Rosser:
"Relative to the stationary roundabout [ i.e. the Earth], the distant stars would have a velocity rw [radius x angular velocity] and for sufficiently large values of r, the stars would be moving relative to O' [the observer] with linear velocities exceeding 3 x 10^8 m/sec, the terrestrial value of the velocity of light. At first sight this appears to be a contradiction…that the velocities of all material bodies must be less than c [the speed of light]. However, the restriction u > This would seem to constitute a violation of Relativity, which must be able to formulate precisely the same observed rotational disturbances from the assumption that a leap-second value variation in cosmic rotation is occurring.

E: "And, on cosmological scales, a rotating Universe (which is an interesting toy model) is constrained to be less than one rotation of the Universe about any axis over the entire history of the Universe."

>> I have never heard such a thing asserted before. Do you have any support for this?

Now let us determine whether the above questions are to be considered grounds for a ban.

If so, may I say that I will have been silenced, but not answered.

If so, then perhaps we can get down to the true examination, with an eye toward falsification, of the geocentric hypothesis.

Thanks.

While I still read your (really excellent) posts, I had pretty much given up reading the comments in the last couple of months. Hopefully, that won't be true anymore. Thanks Ethan!

Woops, let's try this again.

Formatting issues.

********

May I first say that if geocentrism is a banned subject on this blog, you certainly could have fooled me.

If defense of geocentrism is instead what is banned on this blog, then simply say so, I will certainly not impose on your hospitality further; after all, it is your blog.

But, given that this might be the last post I make here, intellectual honesty requires that I address a few points:

E: ” from the perspective of an observer on Earth — it is completely indistinguishable whether it is the Earth that rotates on its axis every 24 hours or whether the entire Universe and everything in it rotates ones every 24 hours around the Earth. That much is true.”

>> We begin from a point of complete agreement.

E: “However, these two perspectives are not equivalent for everything else in the Universe. Every naked-eye star in the night sky — including Polaris, by the way — would be breaking the speed of light if they were moving around the Earth.”

>> I am afraid that nothing we see from the standpoint of a stationary Earth is in violation of General Relativity.

All superluminal velocities are completely consistent with GR.

""Relative to the stationary roundabout [the Earth], the distant stars would have a velocity rw [radius x angular velocity] and for sufficiently large values of r, the stars would be moving relative to O' [the observer] with linear velocities exceeding 3 x 10^8 m/sec, the terrestrial value of the velocity of light. At first sight this appears to be a contradiction…that the velocities of all material bodies must be less than c [the speed of light]. However, the restriction u > I have never heard such a thing asserted before. Do you have any support for this?

Now let us determine whether the above questions are to be considered grounds for a ban.

If so, may I say that I will have been silenced, but not answered.

If not, then perhaps we can get down to a true examination, with an eye toward falsification, of the geocentric hypothesis.

Thanks.

Sheesh.

At least let's get the Rosser quote in then:

"Relative to the stationary roundabout [the Earth], the distant stars would have a velocity rw [radius x angular velocity] and for sufficiently large values of r, the stars would be moving relative to O' [the observer] with linear velocities exceeding 3 x 10^8 m/sec, the terrestrial value of the velocity of light. At first sight this appears to be a contradiction…that the velocities of all material bodies must be less than c [the speed of light]. However, the restriction u > I have never heard such a thing asserted before. Do you have any support for this?

Now let us determine whether the above questions are to be considered grounds for a ban.

If so, may I say that I will have been silenced, but not answered.

If so, then perhaps we can get down to the true examination, with an eye toward falsification, of the geocentric hypothesis.

Thanks.

OK I give up.

Thanks, Ethan.

Peace be with you.

Rick,

The rotating model you are considering, for the Universe, is known as the Godel Universe. (There's an umlaut there, but not on my keyboard.)

Rotation of the Universe is highly constrained from observations of the Cosmic Microwave Background, which you can learn from this paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/703/1/354

If you had the Universe rotating at the angular velocity (once per 24 hours) that you require, you would see effects in the Universe many trillions of times the magnitude they are constrained to be below in the paper I linked to above.

It is a prediction of a stationary Earth and a rotating Universe that is falsified by observation. And now you have heard such a thing asserted with the central point of your argument -- that a rotating Earth and a rotating Universe would be indistinguishable -- explicitly refuted.

You are certainly not the only example, Rick, of someone who has posted the type of content you have posted, you are merely the latest. And part of why I set this up is to give you (and everyone else) the benefit of the doubt. If you're truly here to learn and enhance your understanding of the Universe with others, this is the place to do it. The question, now, is how you'll respond, and that's up to you.

You are responsible for what you say.

Really Rick? Really? You think scientists everywhere, NASA, NSF, Europe, Russia, China, EVERYWHERE have been keeping the true nature of the universe a secret?

"An eye toward the falsification of of the geocentric hypothesis."

How else would NASA or any other space agency (be they in Europe, China, Russia, etc) be able to launch a vehicle into space. Guide said vehicle to ANOTHER PLANET, and LAND IT without knowing ALMOST EXACTLY the laws the of universe/physics/chemistry/astronomy.

Come'on! If you want spend your life repeating the experiments performed by the greatest thinkers from hundreds of years ago to convince yourself, have at it.

When you're on your death bed, and the reporter from the local news asks, "Why did you waste so much of your life reexamining such basic tenets of science?" for the late night color story. I, for one will be changing the channel.

Ethan Starts With A Bang Blog is learning place.
It is an open classroom of physics, astronomy and other topics that Ethan chooses.
And like all classrooms, Ethan cannot allow one commentor to disrupt, dominate or in any way ruin the discussion.

So Ethan's policy update is welcome.
His poilicy would be sensible on any blog regardless of topic. But yes this is a science blog.

If you don't like science, I suggest that you take a deep breath and try to learn a little bit more about science. I think that you might find that science leaves enough room for whatever your particular beliefs.

Personally, I think that beliefs are to be lived.
They are a private thing; not to be bragged about but lived.
Thus if you want to know what I believe; you don't need to ask, you just need to observe me.
Am I respectful or not?
Am I honest or not?
And so on.
My observation, Ethan is civil, open, welcoming, honest.
I don't want to disrespect his welcome.

There are real monsters in the world; but I don't think that they are not commenting on this blog. So maybe we can all ratchet down our righteousness a little bit.

Someone once said, "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"

May I suggest a modern paraphrase, "Render unto science the things which are science's, and unto God the things that are God's"

Finally, I want to thank Ethan for this page.
It is a very interesting update to his comment policy.
If you are honest; then use this page which Ethan has given you to raise your honest questions here, to raise your point of views, to whatever.

If you aren't here for science; at least be honest about it.
I for one will check this page from time to time and will discuss civilly our different point of view.

Ethan:

Thank you for the citation concerning rotation, and I will be responding once I have had a chance to go over it.

To my immense frustration, repeated efforts to reproduce the Rosser quote have met with failure.

Perhaps the length is the problem, so I will break it up.

I do consider this to be a direct refutation, according to your own ground rules, of your first objection above; that the superluminal velocities of objects in a rotating universe are inconsistent with General Relativity.

According to Rosser, your objection is wrong.

""Relative to the stationary roundabout [eg, the Earth], the distant stars would have a velocity rw [radius x angular velocity] and for sufficiently large values of r, the stars would be moving relative to O' [the observer] with linear velocities exceeding 3 x 10^8 m/sec, the terrestrial value of the velocity of light. At first sight this appears to be a contradiction…that the velocities of all material bodies must be less than c [the speed of light]. However, the restriction u < c = 3 x 10^8 m/sec is restricted to the theory of Special Relativity.

"According to the General theory, it is possible to choose local reference frames in which, over a limited volume of space, there is no gravitational field, and relative to such a reference frame the velocity of light is equal to c However, this is not true when gravitational fields are present.

Rosser continues:

"In addition to the lengths of rods and the rates of clocks the velocity of light is affected by a gravitational field. If gravitational fields are present the velocities of either material bodies or of light can assume any numerical value depending on the strength of the gravitational field. If one considers the rotating roundabout as being at rest, the centrifugal gravitational field assumes enormous values at large distances, and it is consistent with the theory of General Relativity for the velocities of distant bodies to exceed 3 x 10^8 m/sec under these conditions." (An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, W. G. V. Rosser, London, Butterworths, 1964, p. 460)

So I consider that objection fairly refuted, and will proceed to an examination of your paper concerning rotational constraints.

Ethan:

From your cited paper:

"To develop a model that preserves the homogeneity and isotropy of the mean CMB, we study the rotation of the universe as a perturbation in the Robertson–Walker framework with a cosmological constant in this paper."

Why didn't you say right up front that your paper *assumes* a Copernican, isotropic/homogeneous. LCDM cosmos?

Obviously, no such universe can be geocentric, by definition!

Let me be sure I am not to understand your new policies to involve an identity beyween the terms "science" and "LCDM universe"?

If that is the case, then your policy is quite reprehensible, but it is after all your blog.

Please speak plainly on this.

Is it against the policy of this blog to explore other cosmologies besides consensus, LCDM cosmology, or not?

Rick,

You can explore whatever you want on this thread; it's the one thread where you can say whatever you want about science, whether it's true and accurate or not.

What you miss -- and there's a lot -- is that matter and energy determine the gravitational field in general relativity, and if you're demanding that we accept general relativity and the Universe we observe, geocentrism is out. If you demand that the Universe obey general relativity and you consider a Universe that rotates once-per-day, the results are unphysical and inconsistent with every space-based observation ever taken. But I don't expect you to consider those; I expect you to find some real or imagined fault with every argument made against geocentrism, I expect you to quote books and papers that you do not fully understand (possibly out of context) in ways that appear to support your contentions, and I expect no amount of theory, experiment or observation to ever dissuade you from your already-reached conclusion.

In short, I expect your comments on geocentrism to be the scientific equivalent of Walter Wagner's on black holes at the LHC.

That -- explicitly -- is the behavior that is banned from all other threads. I am optimistic that you can distinguish, "I think it works this way because of this and not this other way because of that; is that mistaken?" from "I do not know what I'm talking about but here are some things I strung together and science has it all wrong." If you can make that distinction and abide by that, you are welcome to continue to comment here.

And if you choose to stay, enjoy the journey; there is a very big and interesting Universe for you to learn a great deal about.

Ethan:

Ah.

I see.

We will create the ghetto then, shall we?

Well, it's your blog.

Your points:

E: "What you miss — and there’s a lot — is that matter and energy determine the gravitational field in general relativity,"

>> I do not miss that at all, and neither does Rosser, who just told us that superluminal velocity in a rotating universe is perfectly consistent with GR.

I notice you did not refute this.

Forget me, Ethan.

Can you refute Rosser?

You haven't so far.

E: "and if you’re demanding that we accept general relativity and the Universe we observe, geocentrism is out."

>> This has not been demonstrated in any way thus far, Ethan.

If we accept GR and observations, then geocentrism cannot be falsified, since the falsification of the geocentric frame would, of necessity, falsify GR itself, which insists that there are no preferred frames.

I find this troubling, myself- God ought to have provided us the means, it seems to me, by which to establish whether we are moving or not, by direct experiment.

GR insists that He did not.

This is possible, but if GR is true, then its predictions (in FLRW solutions) of isotropy and homogeneity on cosmological scales ought to have been affirmed.

They have instead been observationally falsified.

E: "If you demand that the Universe obey general relativity and you consider a Universe that rotates once-per-day, the results are unphysical and inconsistent with every space-based observation ever taken."

>> This directly contradicts not only Rosser, but Einstein himself:

""The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS [coordinate system] could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves', or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest', would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS [coordinate systems]."
 
---"The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, New York, Simon and Schuster 1938, 1966 p.212

Is Einstein wrong here?

Did he mean something other than what he said?

E: " I expect you to quote books and papers that you do not fully understand (possibly out of context) in ways that appear to support your contentions, and I expect no amount of theory, experiment or observation to ever dissuade you from your already-reached conclusion."

>> Yes, I understand you would expect these things, but I have not in fact *done* these things. I have instead provided direct citations from recognized authorities that contradict what you say, and asked you to address them.

Please, do.

If I am misunderstanding them, or quoting them out of context, please show this to be the case.

I am defending geocentrism here, Ethan. While you might find this offensive, it is certainly not unreasonable to supply you with direct citations from recognized authorities who are directly contradicting you, is it?

Rick, your copious blatherings are just plain stupid.

The mass of the Earth is an infinitesimal proportion of the mass of what's around us. There is absolutely no reason why anybody could sanely choose to believe that all that vast mass around us would somehow choose the virtually nil mass of this Earth as its focal point.

It smacks of utter delusion and hints of a desire to shoehorn reality into some kind of ego-driven, irrational belief and no doubt superstitious about the Universe.

In fact, you remind me of the twits at Sydney University who formed their "Flat Earth Society" and used to get out into Hyde Park with a soap box and expound their utterly idiotic arguments in favour of the flat earth.
It was nothing more than an exercise in practicing argument and trying to feel clever.

Never mind the fact that I, having personally circumnavigated the globe and being perfectly aware that the observations from the real world did not one iota support their contentions, they ignored reality and insisted that nobody had proven them wrong and nobody could, and that the (many) observations contradicting them were all either wrong or misinterpreted.
It was an exercise is futile stupidity. Just like yours, Rick.

Vince:

All due respect, you do not understand the concept of a barycenter.

A barycenter is not the most massive object in a system.

A barycenter is the point at which the sum of all motions in a system, sum to zero.

The barycenter itself need not correspond to a body.

It might occupy empty space, and all the stupendous mass of even such a system as a closed, rotating universe, might revolve around it.

I do appreciate- completey!- that this truth is unknown to you.

But it is a scientifically certain truth.

In short, Vince, the entire universe can rotate around the Earth, in perfect obedience to well-established physical laws.

Rick-head.

People when faced with a question will attempt to start at the top of that triangle.

When after several attempts that doesn't work, the next layer is tried.

And when that doesn't work at all, moving to the lower and lower segments.

Until, in frustration, they move to the bottom layer, not to solve YOUR problem, but to ameliorate theirs: the dickhead who isn't listening.

And if the aforementioned idiot is doing so just to get people to that level, they're disruptive and have no place in society. If they're doing it so as to get these others banned, they are called trolls.

And a final segment of those whose only intent is to see this descend inevitably are those who wish to find some place where they are "unfairly persecuted" so they can feel like they MUST be right, else there would be nowhere near the level of displayed hate (suffering leads to hate, as Yoda wisely said).

A self-fulfilling prophesy. Which is rather appropriate since this tack is usually taken by the mainstream christianity sects in areas where they are still in power but losing it, most especially to secularism, but just having to share power with another religion is enough.

All you're going to get is Vinny mad, Ethan banning your arse and mailing Vinny to say "calm down, I'll deal with this asshole".

Ethan,

But the unreasonable person would shift the goalposts, bring up a new argument, point to some misinterpreted piece of evidence, etc., in some never-ending game of cat-and-mouse.

The little mouse is not unreasonable for using its tactics against a mighty giant in this game called life: http://tinyurl.com/game-of-cat-and-mouse

Would FredB or all the other faithiests be fine with someone turning up to EVERY SINGLE church ceremony, sitting in the pews and, ever single time the pastor says something yelling out "RUBBISH!!!"?

No?

Would the anger of these people be evidence that these people wanted EVERYWHERE to be the same sect and worship the same way?

Definitely not all of them.

Ethan, your label for ad hominem is incorrect.

The attacking of the character or ability of the arguer is not an ad hom unless you are drawing your conclusion of error solely from the assertion of poor character in that argument.

Since ad hominem is irrevocably linked to the ad hominem FALLACY, maybe a better word would be denigration.

This is where you decide to dismiss the argument from the characterisation as laid out (whether true or not) BECAUSE of those characteristics. Which is pretty much what you have for ad hom and what most people who are trying to make out that the ones arguing with them are making a fallacious argument are doing, so as to avoid having to make an argument themselves.

The benefit of using denigration is it covers the act but doesn't get tied to the fallacy, which is about the only place internet trolls get their latin from.

When denigration is done without reference to the argument, you have simple name-calling.

" "But the unreasonable person would shift the goalposts, bring up a new argument..."

The little mouse is not unreasonable for using its tactics..."

Have you ever gotten proof of a theory this fast, Ethan?

Ah finally this great blog is getting back on track! :)

Very happy! Yeeyyy!! :))

FredB, I note that you think something is fascinating when your only introduction to it has been its assertion by another faithiest that it falsifies mainstream science.

Is it that which fascinates you, or are you really interested in the local superclustrers' structure?

Perhaps you could borrow PZ's disenvoweler.

Rick, the impression I get from your posts is that there is no experimental observation that can distinguish between the current Big Bang model and a geocentric one, or am I wrong?. Scientists with the relevant areas of expertise clearly think there are many, and all point to the current model being correct, but even if they are wrong it is indisputable that their mathematics is far far simpler even at non relativistic velocities. So until you have a method of measuring the vast forces required to make the universe spin around your barycentre (even if the resultant force is zero), and your hypothesis models the universe more accurately than current models, why should scientists not use the simplest solution that works. Unless of course you have an entirely unscientific reason why we just have to be at the centre of everything.

ETHAN, perhaps you should also prevent comments on this post appearing in the Recent Comments list.

Ethan, thanks for your blog! It's really inspiring.
AND you gave me a chance to answer my incredibly stupid question... You see, I do not understand Einstein's relativity theory (at all). So, I do have a very simple model in my head, which obviously doesn't work: If you accelerate something (a ball, for example) it gets faster. Ok. If you accelerate it further, it goes even faster.
Why -- oh why -- should there be a "final" speed limit?

I mean, what if, in a vacuum, you'd be able to accelerate an object "infinitely"? What would happen if you approach light speed??
Would space curve?
Or would we just seem to _observe_ that space would curve, because the light reflecting from the object that is accelerated beyond light speed (or close to) would take longer to reach our eyes and thus "invalidate" our observations?

Ok -- I realize I am way off here and I don't know my basics. So, please forgive me for intruding. I think, a link to a page (document), which answers my question (in layman terms, please) would perfectly suffice for an answer.

Thank you!
Just me, the simpleton...

Hmph. Can't even write correct English. Sorry:

"AND you gave me a chance to answer my incredibly stupid question…" is obviously supposed to mean:

_ask_ my incredibly stupid question...

@Rick - Isn't it extremely egotistical to assume that there is anything special about our location in space? I guess when I was younger perhaps I would agree... Back then I knew that as soon as I walked into any room of people I knew I had made that room a more interesting and generally "cooler" place to be. Are you assuming that by your presence on this planet that therefore this planet is the center of the universe (leaving aside for now that there is no center, or that all points can be considered "center")?

I guess since one cannot experience the universe beyond ones own viewpoint, it is actually reasonable to state that you ARE the center of the universe from your perspective, just as I am, however to go so far as to assume that you are the center of the universe from the perspective of the universe does seem to take "god complex" to a completely new level (I do consider myself a type of god too, but thats a discussion for another time and blog).

Anyway, I'm not interested in arguing the points of geocentrism as I'm actually interested in how you actually came to be arguing FOR geocentrism. What led you down this path of reasoning? It's not often I consider any theory beyond an Occam's razor perspective, and considering the huge number of assumptions one would have to make to end up on a geocentrist viewpoint, it is of interest of me to know how you arrived at it. Please do not quote sources (unless you really feel they are required) - I'm only looking for your personal viewpoint.

Also @Ethan - Once again thank you for this wonderful blog, and I think you've really taken a step in the right direction here. I've been put off commenting for some time now due to the increasing amount of pseudo science we've been getting in the comments, and I hope this reduces it, or at least reduces it to a more managable level. I've truly loved your blog (and your beard) for at least 2 years now, please keep both of these efforts up.

Ethan, might I suggest banning responding to trolling as well other than, perhaps, succinctly and politely pointing out why the post is inappropriate?

So often the replies to the initial trolling post themselves violate the rules and work on the lower levels of the pyramid being filled with attacks on character, intelligence, and by being all around tedious. Even if they are good natured and attempting to educate the troll it is those who respond to the troll who perpetuate the distraction, not the troller themselves.

"Why — oh why — should there be a “final” speed limit?"

From the point of view of the ball, there isn't.

From the point of view of anyone detecting it, it cannot arrive quicker than the light it emits:

Carl Sagan's COSMOS has a section about what the problem is with light not being the same for all observers.

Imagine that I am riding a bicycle toward you. As I approach an intersection I nearly collide, so it seems to me, with a horsedrawn cart. I swerve and barely avoid being run over. Now think of the event again, and imagine that the cart and the bicycle are both traveling close to the speed of light. If you are standing down the road, the cart is traveling at right angles to your light of sight. You see me, by reflected sunlight, traveling toward you. Would not my speed be added to the speed of light so that my image would get to you considerably before the image of the cart? Should you not see me swerve before you see the cart arrive? Can the cart and I approach the intersection simultaneously from my point of view, but not from yours? Could I experience a near collision with the cart while you perhaps see me swerve around nothing and pedal cheerfully on toward the town of Vinci? These are curious and subtle questions. They challenge the obvious. There is a reason that no one thought of them before Einstein. From such elementary questions, Einstein produced a fundamental rethinking of the world, a revolution in physics.
Engrave this quote in Our Store! | Rate this Quote! | Tell a Friend

Simpleton,

Relativity tells us that massive objects, like a ball or even a proton, require ever greater amounts of energy to accelerate the closer they travel to the speed of light. Maybe think of it as an asymtote in a graph of the particle's velocity verses energy. The particle's energy would have to reach infinity before I would travel at the speed of light. Or conversely, an infinite amount of energy would be required to accelerate the particle to the speed of light.

This isn't to say it is impossible to get VERY close to the speed of light if the particle has very little mass, as in a proton. This is what the LHC accelerates and smashes together on a regular basis at NEARLY the speed of light. I'd hate to see how much the electricity bill is at CERN!

While there is no way to surpass the speed of light in a vacuum, it is possible to accelerate a particle to move faster than light through a medium, such as water, glass, or diamond. In fact, photons only move at ~ 40% of the speed of light through a vacuum as it passes through diamond.

If a massive particle is accelerated to travel faster than light through a medium, but still slower than the speed of light through a vacuum, then that particle will give off light itself. This light carries energy away from the speeding particle causing it to slow down. (Nature's way of putting the brakes on speeders)

Ethan has written a good post about much of this previously. Give me a minute to track it back down.

Simpleton,

The others above have done a good job with your question, but maybe another way to think about it is this (and this is NOT really how it's thought of by actual physicists, but it may help a layperson).

Perhaps the most famous mathematical formula in relativity, and maybe all of science, is E=mc^2. In this formula, E stands for energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light. Typically mass is considered to be an invariant quantity and the E in this formula is the rest energy of a particle.

However, in earlier formulations of relativity, m was NOT considered to be invariant, and these formulations spoke of "relativistic mass". In this formulation, as a body increases in energy, it also increases in mass. Since, as you try to accelerate an object, it's energy increases, you can look at this as resulting in an increase in mass. For a given accelerating force, a body with a greater mass accelerates less. In this formulation, as the speed approaches c, the energy, and thus the mass tends to infinity, and the acceleration therefore tends to zero, and the body stops accelerating even though you continue to apply the same force.

Simpleton,

Here are the links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/05/18/the-fun-of-going-fas…

BTW, Simpleton, and others like him/her, please don't be intimidated by this thread. It certainly seems like you are NOT the type of person that prompted this. Your question, while pretty basic, certainly is not stupid, and more importantly, you aren't coming off as one who is going to argue that science has it all wrong, no matter what the answer you get.

Jeez, wasn't Geocentrism disproved way back in Newton's day? Surely, all you need to see is that the other planets revolve around the sun. Given Newtonian gravity, the earth must do so too. We know that the Earth revolves, because that movement drives the weather. Why the need to invoke relativity?

@David 4:04am

D: "Rick, the impression I get from your posts is that there is no experimental observation that can distinguish between the current Big Bang model and a geocentric one, or am I wrong?."

>> You are exactly right.

D: "Scientists with the relevant areas of expertise clearly think there are many, and all point to the current model being correct,"

>> Really? Not these scientists:

"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS [coordinate system] could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves', or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest', would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS [coordinate systems]."
 
---"The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, New York, Simon and Schuster 1938, 1966 p.212
***************************
"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space.

Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right." Max Born, "Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:
******

"We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance." Sir Fred Hoyle,Astronomy and Cosmology - A Modern Course, (San Francisco:W. H. Freeman & Co.), p. 416,1975.

“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.” George Ellis, Scientific American, Oct 1995

So how come these guys agree with me, if "all of science" disagrees with me?

The simple truth is that geocentrism is rejected on philosophical/metaphysical grounds.

It has to be, since Relativity can never provide us with any direct experimental evidence falsifying it.

Capiche?

So the consensus is a metaphysical consensus, which is fine, as long as it is recognized as such.

Ethan has claimed that GR disallows geocentrism because of superluminal velocities of the rotating objects.

Rosser directly contradicts him, above.

D: " but even if they are wrong it is indisputable that their mathematics is far far simpler even at non relativistic velocities."

>> You really have to be kidding in terms of "simplicity" of mathematics. Go read Ethan's link "Is the Universe Rotating", and report back to us concerning the simplicity of the math, will you? :-)

Additionally, our consensus cosmology has now added in by hand, entities which have never been observed, consisting of 96% of the universe, so as to make this math work out right.

This is not a good sign, as far as the shelf life of the theory is concerned.

D: So until you have a method of measuring the vast forces required to make the universe spin around your barycentre (even if the resultant force is zero),

>>The strange thing is, all the forces are already measured. We are just missing 96% of the energy required to fit the equations.

We could just add it in by hand and call it dark mattr and dark energy, I guess.

Or we could start examining the assumptions which have led us to this impasse.

I like the latter approach.

D: "and your hypothesis models the universe more accurately than current models, why should scientists not use the simplest solution that works."

>> Because it no longer works. The universe *must* be isotropic and homogeneous on its largest observable scales for this math to work.

It isn't.

Game over.

Next.

D: "Unless of course you have an entirely unscientific reason why we just have to be at the centre of everything."

>> Same as you have one for why we can't be. Metaphysical preference.

D: "ETHAN, perhaps you should also prevent comments on this post appearing in the Recent Comments list."

>> Oh come on, Ethan is a pretty good fellow for not simply pulling the plug long ago. Certainly us ghetto folk don't threaten you *that much*, do we?

Howdy, Ethan and fellow followers. I read an excellent article on just this topic (being a good commenter) a couple of days ago. I would like to add it this discussion if I may. It contains a nice checklist to use before adding a comment anywhere.

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/09/18/how-to-be-a-good-commenter/

If space was rotating at about day^-1, then as spacecraft moved away from the Earth, they would appear to be in different regions (because light from them is taking different times to get to Earth). This is not observed.

Images of objects would appear "smeared" in time based on the object's dimensions in c* time. This is not observed.

The Sun is ~1.4 e+6 km in diameter, about 4 light seconds. We know stars are of similar size because we can tell their temperature from their spectra, their mass from gravitational perturbation of that spectra, and their apparent magnitude and size implies cosmological distances (light years).

At 10 light years from Earth, a star would travel 2*pi*10 light years per day or about 8 e+9 km/sec. Such a star would not appear to be a point, its image would be spread out because of the different travel time of light from the surface and the perimeter.

At 10 light years from Earth, one second produces an angular motion of 1/24/3600 or 1.2 e-5. This is an angular distance of 15 arc seconds.

Turbulence in the atmosphere limits angular resolution of Earth based telescopes to ~1 arcsecond, so even Earth based observations would be able to see the smear. There would be no improvement in angular resolution for space based telescopes. Hubble has a resolution of ~0.1 arcsecond. VLBA astronomy has resolution of 0.01 arcsecond or better. If the universe were rotating that motion would be obvious even for very near objects. Distant objects would not be observable at all because such a small fraction of their emitted light would be present at the same angular position in space.

Can we get rid of Dick now?

He's unreformed.

>> Oh come on, Ethan is a pretty good fellow for not simply pulling the plug long ago. Certainly us ghetto folk don’t threaten you *that much*, do we?

I was not asking for censorship, just a request to separate those who want to discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin from those who want to discuss science.

And if you concede your model is scientifically indistinguishable from Ethan's, then debating the difference is not Science. If they do make differing predictions, (which they really really seem to) then let science resolve between the two. And assigning equivalence to "we are special" and "we are not special" is the same as saying either there is a god or there is not, so it is a 50-50 chance there is.

Rick,

What Ellis is referring to in the passage you are quoting is making a coordinate transformation, and noting that physics is invariant under coordinate transformations.

Which is true.

What you are advocating, however, goes beyond that, and claims that one cannot measure which part of a system is rotating. That is untrue, and has been known all the way back since the time of Newton. Have a google of "Newton's bucket" for how we could tell.

You also claim that you can have a geocentric Universe -- which you arrive at via a coordinate transformation from our standard cosmology -- without having everything else that our standard cosmology comes along with. Dark matter, dark energy, a Big Bang, an isotropic, homogeneous Universe, etc. Think hard about that. Or even better, do the math and show how, in your geocentric cosmology, all the observations can be explained with a self-consistent, predictable set of laws.

I suspect you will find... difficulty... to say the least.

DavidL, I can either enable recent comments or disable them; I cannot (with the current software I have) enable them except for this post.

Also -- perhaps regrettably -- I am going to have to get back to my regular day job(s), which include creating new content about science, education, etc., and which will preclude me from further commenting on my own blog for at least a few days.

I'll do my best to moderate during this time, and contact/ban anyone who cannot follow the simple instructions articulated by the policy here, in as timely a fashion as I can muster.

Maybe a request for improvement along the lines of "Specify latest posts per thread maximum".

Maybe a Widget could put the latest post responses under each post would solve the issue?

Instead of

Recent Comments
[lots of spam comments to this thread because the idiots can't shut up about how great they are, hiding any other posted threads]

You'd have

Recent Posts
Weekend Diversion: You are responsible for what you say

“In the long run, we shape our lives, and we shape ourselves. The process never ends…
[latest five posts on this thread]

Guest Post: Shooting the Stars on a Budget

“Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day. But when I…
[latest five posts on this thread]

etc.

Then either the "Recent Comments" is turned off or it can get spammed but doesn't hide the recent comments on more rational threads.

Wow
I think Ethan's meaning is that Rick DeLano or Chelle or anyone is welcome to post their pet theories on this page forever.
No need to keep saying, "This is not even speculative science."

Rick seems to be keeping his private speculations to this page. Thanks, please continue.

Chelle on the other hand is not.

On this page, it seems that Ethan intends that we are stuck with each other. A very interesting idea.

So Chelle,
Be a smart mouse.
Ethan has given this field for your speculative ideas; a field where no science cat can touch you.
So use this field

The undecided (whether the issue is aether, creationsim, or climate change) are not fooled by your political disruptiveness; they want your best insight.

So be a bold and honest mouse.
Put your best insight here.
Use this page again and again.
This page will be read and reread by cat and mouse alike.
Look how many comments it already has.

Be a proud mouse.
Tell us what is important to you; what you believe.
Never mind those cats that laugh.
I never laugh at honesty.
Are you brave enough to be honest here?

OKThen, the problem is that if Dick keeps posting 15 times on this thread then no other thread will display recent threads and we haven't actually improved anything.

It reads to me more like this is a "You're getting nowhere, running round in circles. Here's a thread that explains how to deal with this CONSTRUCTIVELY, so post on there and become constructive."

But if you still can't manage to be constructive, you obviously aren't worried in the least about learning or informing, only trolling.

And why, exactly, should a science blog be somewhere to do that?

So movement to here should be a wake-up call for the responses to try and, if that fails, then those continuing may have their messages deleted.

Otherwise all this thread can currently do is put all the garbage in one big pile. If the pile still covers the entire space, it's not fixing anything.

Wow:

Quit whining and answer the citations.

@Ethan:

"Rick,

"What Ellis is referring to in the passage you are quoting is making a coordinate transformation, and noting that physics is invariant under coordinate transformations.

Which is true."

>> Excellent. We agree.

What you are advocating, however, goes beyond that, and claims that one cannot measure which part of a system is rotating. That is untrue, and has been known all the way back since the time of Newton. Have a google of “Newton’s bucket” for how we could tell.

>> I have had the pleasure of discussing Newton's bucket with perhaps the greatest living "Machian", and he emphatically disagrees with you.

Newton's bucket sank Newton's physics, by falsifying his metaphysical assumption of absolute space.

Now we have a metaphysical assumption about relativity.

That one requires isotropy and homogeneity at cosmological scales.

This too has now been observationally falsified.

The Copernican principle, and hence FLRW/LCDM consensus cosmology, is certainly wrong.

That much is observationally established by the CMB Axis.

E: "You also claim that you can have a geocentric Universe — which you arrive at via a coordinate transformation from our standard cosmology — without having everything else that our standard cosmology comes along with. Dark matter, dark energy, a Big Bang, an isotropic, homogeneous Universe, etc. Think hard about that."

>> Not quite. I claim, exactly that we *cannot* have a Copernican principle universe *without* adding in 96% of the universe by hand, in the form of dark matter/energy which can be literally sprinkled in to order wherever observation contradicts theory.

Now *that* is one hellaciously dangerous epicycle.

I am also saying that even *with* the DM/DE, we *still* don;t have a Copernican universe, because the CMB itself is aligned with the ecliptic and equinoxes of.........

Earth.

If the universe is not Copernican (isotropic/homogeneous)

E: "Or even better, do the math and show how, in your geocentric cosmology, all the observations can be explained with a self-consistent, predictable set of laws.

I suspect you will find… difficulty… to say the least."

>> Point very well taken. But we are further along than you might imagine, thanks of course in great measure to the stupendous work of the Copernicans, who are going to have to get used to the idea that the times they are a'changin :-)

Wow
Yes I see your point. But I also see Ethan's wish not to ban anyone.

Your issue is that the Comments to (Weekend Diversion: You are responsible for what you say) will flood the Recent Comments section of Starts With A Bang and render the Recent Comments Section useless. I agree.

A technical solution may be very simple.
Ethan can set up a separate blog titled "Starts With a Bang Comments Policy". As a separate blog, comments in its Recent Comments section will not be visible in the Recent Comments section of Starts With A Bang blog.
Given Ethan's preference not to outright ban anyone.
I think Ethan needs to consider setting up a separate Starts With a Bang Comments Policy blog or something similar.

But a separate Comments Policy blog and outright banning seem to only solutions to a determined disrupter.

My concern is for a comments policy that is easy policy for Ethan to set up and manage.

Ethan's steps so far have all been important. Especially Ethan calling out Chelle by name.

Let's watch and see if this PAGE settles down.

Outlook says: Not good.

The "determined disrupter" has offered on several occasions to thank his host kindly and depart.

For some incredibly noble reason Ethan has not chosen to do this, and it never ceases to amaze me how sensitive the hoi polloi are about this question.

Thank God the leading cosmologists in the world are much, much different.

Ethan:

"I don’t want to have to ban anybody!"

This doesn't say "I will not ban anybody".

And lording it around as if you have the god given right to be a dickhead isn't going to paint you as anything other than a disruptive troll.

"Wow" equates a church service oriented around worship by believers with a blog discussion open to the internet about unsettled science... and thinks that is an argument against people discussing (calmy, compared to his temper tantrums) what he doesn't like.

"Wow", you need to put down your computer and go outside. Breathe some fresh air. Your comments add nothing to the discussion.

Please. Cease with your tantrums. It is funny, but disturbing. You look as though you might burst a blood vessel.

But you already know that you look, at the least, immature and raving. Thus the lack of any name given, instead associating your vile comments with one of the most unoriginal nicknames conceived, "wow".

The outside world beckons; take advantage of it before the sun "goes down" (perhaps literally, if the earth really is stationary!)

Nope, Fred.

But that's what you want to read, isn't it.

You complained that the anger was "proof" that science wants to shut down other views.

Except that same argument is not applied by you if someone turnes up to your church and yells "RUBBISH!" at everything the priest says.

What makes you insist they are different?

Merely because you treat them differently and wish to pretend you're not a hypocrite (or, worse, wrong)?

Fred:

You nailed it.

For Wow, this really is a matter of a fellow whose religion is being defiled.

This is in fact his church, the standard model and consensus cosmology is his magisterium, and he is not satisfied that the infidel has merely been safely restricted to a ghetto.

He is not satisfied by this at all.

But gotta hand it to Ethan.

He could have handled this a whole lot worse than he has.

"Course he coulda handled it a whole lot better too :-)

But we "faitheists" will have to take whatever crumbs fall from our masters' table.......

for a while.

To Rick and Fred,

spare us the "poor little old you" story. If you truly lived by what you preach, you wouldn't be here spreading your rubish in the first place. This is isn't a religious blog and noone forces you to be here. By the very act of you doing here what you're doing, you are showing all that is wrong with modern christianity.

So don't whine when you get a bitchslap. You asked for it in the first place...

" If you truly lived by what you preach, you wouldn’t be here spreading your rubish in the first place. "

>> Ummm, how does that work out, exactly? Are you saying that it is unChristian to discuss science? Not a very well-supported historical assertion, given that essentially every great discoverer of scientific principle has been a theist.

The folks seeking to ossify science into a three-dollar-bill counterfeit and substitute for religion are the ones exhibiting the disturbingly Inquisitional mentality here.

"This is isn’t a religious blog and noone forces you to be here"

You were the one that asked the question about religion, Sinisa.

Any commentary on the recent announcement of larger, more massive galactic halos?
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/H-12-331.html
Does this scale back the need for dark matter (as opposed to dark energy) for balancing galactic rotation numbers?

@Mobius 3:44:

"Does this scale back the need for dark matter (as opposed to dark energy) for balancing galactic rotation numbers?"

>> Nope. This is part of the four percent- the baryonic matter.

Some of that is missing also.

But this doesn't address the kinds of missing matter required to fix the galaxy rotation curve problem.

For that you need much, much, much more.

Or else a new approach to gravity.

Mobius, I think you're demonstrating one of the other problems with this thread being made visible in the Recent Comments thread (maybe the simplest short term solution is just to take off all the Recent Comments. Anyone interested can still find this thread).

Namely, your query is more suited to another thread and should be on there.

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/08/09/what-does-the-univer…

is the most recent.

This thread is for questions going nowhere because the questioner isn't interested in answers, just the sound of their own voice.

Thank you Ethan for setting out your policy in a clear, respectful and fair way. 100% support!

I'm not a scientist and I've never studied cosmology or anything similar...but I love to learn and reading your blog has been an inspiration to me.

@Wow -
sorry - I was just trying to derail the thread from the on topic discussion of wacky science to something actually interesting.

I promise I won't be off topic on this thread again, ever.
(Or is this the Russel's Paradox of thread topics?)

Well, at least you got your question answered, Mobius :-)

Thanks @Wow, Richard, and Sean -- I'll have something to start now. While I still have a long way to go (I have difficulties wrapping my brain around the horse carriage/bicycle example already -- but I get your point), it surely is an interesting way...

And just as a side note: I didn't feel intimidated by this blog entry (to the contrary; I read the comments before, so I was pretty sure at whom it was directed), but while I have had this question for a while, I always felt it was too off-topic (and I didn't yet read all of Ethan's blog entries, otherwise I might have found the one you posted ;)).

Anyway: Thanks for getting me started... Now I'm off trying to ride a bicycle at nearly light-speed.... :)

Rick, as far as I remember, and am sure you can scroll up and check, you were the first to post about god here. What followed was your doing. As for science, again it was you mixing religion and science here. And yes, I asked for proof, which I didn't get. If you consider proof "it is because he has", where both "he" and "has" are nothing more than hearsay words of some people who lived centuries after proposed events, and ONLY those people and noone else. Sorry, but that is not evidence. Is Tolstoy's novel proof that Ana Karenina is a historical figure, of course not. Yet it's all you have. Funny how no one else after 2000 years had any "real" experience of your so called god. Like I said in the beginning, have no interest in changing your beliefs, just don't mix your beliefs with science here. Science doesn't deal with personal "feelings".

Mobius, it's not so much it's OT but that this thread is for the arguments going nowhere, therefore it's neither necessary to bring it on to topic, and you're likely to get lost in the crap.

I think the answer to your question isn't yet ready. the X-Ray absorption and emission indicates that this matter isn't actually dark and may be already accounted for in looking at the more distant galaxies. And we're looking for maybe 30x as much missing matter as visible, so may not be enough.

Measures of density, volume, progression (was it always 1 million kelvin?) need answering.

It's only the faithiest who lives to jump to a conclusion on little evidence.

the horse and bike is to illustrate that the speed of light MUST be the same for EVERY observer no matter his frame of reference.

The slowing down of time and gain of mass and speed limit are all consequences of that fact being enforced.

Any A-level physics textbook will show you how to calculate the lorentz contraction from considering a light clock (a beam bouncing between two plates, a tick being a reflection) on a moving train and looking at what that clock says about the rate of ticking with respect to their identical reference clock.

The moving light beam travels further from the POV of the person standing by the track, but the one on the carriage shouldn't be able to see any difference in how quickly the clock ticks.

Therefore the time of the moving person from the perspective of a watcher standing still beside the track, their time must pass more slowly to allow the light to cover the greater distance they see the light beam moving in the same perceived time with a constant and consistent light speed.

Simple geometry gives you the lorentz time dilation.

Using that gives you the contraction and settling both gives you E=mc^2.

An "ignore" button would also be nice. If you don´t like the commenter you can simply press on "ignore" et voila, you´ll never be bothered again.

"But we “faitheists” will have to take whatever crumbs fall from our masters’ table…….
for a while."

Is that a threat?

It is a promise, Michel.

Allow me to elaborate.

Consensus cosmology; that is, the FLRW/LCDM universe, is false.

We know this, as a matter of scientific certainty.

FLRW/LCDM consensus cosmology requires that the universe be isotropic/homogeneous (Copernican) on its largest scales.

It isn't.

We know this as a scientific certainty.

Sit back and wait for the Planck observations; perhaps there is hope.

Perhaps Planck, please science, will contradict COBE and WMAP, which show a preferred direction in space. related to the ecliptic and equinox of Earth.

It won't.

Now there is a falsifiable prediction for you, Michel.

When Planck reports the Axis, if you had an ounce of integrity, you would apologize to me, but you won't.

This is because you have not a shrivel of scientific integrity.

That's OK.

I understand.

Since I, unlike you, do have scientific integrity, I tell you here and now that the universe is not Copernican, is not isotropic/homogeneous, is not LCDM/FLRW.

This is not an opinion.

This is a matter of scientifically certain, observationally established fact.

You, of course, care nothing for scientifically certain, observationally established fact.

You are determined to uphold an observationally falsified metaphysical world view.

This is, of course, the exact opposite of science, which is exactly the irony here,

Do you grasp this?

Do you understand the magnitude of your problem here?

No.

That's OK.

I do.

Now I really want an "ignore" button.

Dick has one built in...

Oops, wrong, loginname.

Anyway, you are a waste of my precious time.

@ Rick

OMG!

"Consensus cosmology; that is, the FLRW/LCDM universe, is false. We know this, as a matter of scientific certainty.
This is not an opinion.
This is a matter of scientifically certain, observationally established fact."

HO HO HO... and what facts, certainty and observations are those?? Please do share!

Maybe we are getting Rick rolled...

Same feeling I get wehen people strt blabbering that soon the Sun will pass the galactic blablablabla... and I´m gone and switched off.

@Sinisa:

"HO HO HO… and what facts, certainty and observations are those?? Please do share!"
>> Gladly.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.5602v2.pdf

Relevant excerpts:

"According to the standard concordance model of cosmology, over 95% of the energy content of the universe is extraordinary — dark matter or dark energy whose existence has been inferred from the failure of the Standard Model of particle physics plus General Relativity to describe the behavior of astrophysical sys-tems larger than a stellar cluster — while the very homogeneity and isotropy (and inhomogeneity) of the universe owe to the influence of an inflaton field whose particle- physics-identity is completely mysterious even after three decades of theorizing."

" the normals to these four planes are aligned with the direction of the cosmological dipole (and with the equinoxes) at a level inconsistent with Gaussian random, statistically isotropic skies at 99.7% C.L.;
• the ecliptic threads between a hot and a cold spot of the combined quadrupole and octopole map, following a node line across about 1/3 of the sky and
Quadrupole and octopole (l = 2 and 3) temperature
5 separating the three strong extrema from the three weak extrema of the map; this is unlikely at about the 95% C.L.

Do you grasp the significance of this, Sinisia?

No.

That's OK.

I do.

Relevant excerpt:

"At the very least, probes of the large-angle (low-l) properties of the CMB reveal that we do not live in a typical realization of the concordance model of inflation-ary ΛCDM. We have reviewed a number of the ways in which that is true: the peculiar geometry of the l = 2 and 3 multipoles — their planarity, their mutual align- ment, their alignment perpendicular to the ecliptic and to the dipole; the north-south asymmetry; and the near absence of two-point correlations for points separated by more than 60o and the near absence of two-point correlations for points separated by more than 60o."

Do you grasp this, Sini?

No.

That's OK.

I do.

No. You don´t.

Ricky

How old is this "stationary Earth?"

It *turns* twenty this year!

(see what I did there)

"Do you grasp the significance of this, Sinisia?
No.
That’s OK.
I do."

hahaha, thank you very much indeed for showing again what kind of "christian" you are. Some of my closest friends who are christians and whom I consider honorable and decent people would not wish to share the same room with someone who claims to be a christian yet has this attitude. Read the scriptures again, reflect on them. Until you change yourself, you are on a wrong path. Until that time you nothing more than a self-centered zealot. It's sad that some fundamental truths elude you.

But back to science. Thank you for conveniently cutting the parts you want to be true and leaving out the rest, and even calling them relevant, thus implying the rest to be irrelevant. Cogh cogh, anyone sa BIAS? Hmm.. LOL. You see, I like to read the whole paper. And let me copy paste some parts of it, that I find relevant. But before that... Are there anomalies out there? Absolutely. Is our knowledge of Universe complete? Not by a long shot. But what you do is twist the truth and lie. So let's quote the paper.

"This is strongly suggestive of an unknown systematic in
the data reduction; however, careful scrutiny has revealed
no such systematic" - this is very indicative of what happened with OPERA. 5 years they searched and couldn't find a systematic, then it turned out it was a cable and a faulty clock. This is of course a gross simplification of what happened. But systematics can be a bitch.

"There are four classes of possible explanations:
1. Astrophysical foregrounds,
2. Artifacts of faulty data analysis,
3. Instrumental systematics,
4. Theoretical/cosmological."
How fortunate for you to delete all of those above and only focus on theoretical model. Not only focus, but blatantly lie and say that somehow this paper makes isotropic/homogeneous universe wrong a scientificaly proven fact. Nowhere in the paper do authors say that or even hint.

Further more in the section where they try offer possible explanations for the anomaly, they say:
"the multiplicative mechanisms, where the intrinsic temperature is multiplied by a spatially varying modulation, are phenomenologically more promising. WMAP data by
a factor of exp (16=2) and, at the same time, increase the
probability of obtaining a sky with more alignment (e.g.
higher angular momentum statistic) 200 times, to 45%;
Indeed, Groeneboom et al. [42], building on
the work of Groeneboom & Eriksen [43] and Hanson &
Lewis [44] and motivated by a model due to Ackerman
et al. [45], have identied a 9 quadrupolar power asymmetry,
recently conrmed by the WMAP team [46]; this
anomaly can, however, be fully explained by accounting
for asymmetric beams [47]. Recently, Hoftuft et al. [48]
found a greater than 3- sigma evidence for nonzero dipolar
modulation of the power."

then....

"Another possibility is that an imperfect instrument
couples with dominant signals from the sky to create
anomalies."

And finaly their own conclusion (not yours mind you)
"The CMB is widely regarded as offering strong substantiating evidence for the concordance model of cosmology. Indeed the agreement between theory and data
is remarkable.... This agreement should not be taken lightly; it shows our precise understanding
of the causal physics on the last scattering surface. Even
so, the cosmological model we arrive at is baroque, requiring the introduction at different scales and epochs
of three sources of energy density that are only detected
gravitationally | dark matter, dark energy and the inflation. This alone should encourage us to continuously
challenge the model and probe the observations particularly on scales larger than the horizon at the time of last scattering....."

And that's what science does, continuosly challenge everything. Unlike religion where you're likely to get burned on a pole for challenging something. And yes, this put CDM model into the question, that is true. But you were arguing against isotropy and homogenity. This still stand pretty fine. So I have no choice but to call you a liar.

I know you must like the dark ages with inquisition and everything. It allowed people like you to force (literaly) your beliefs upon everyone else with penalty of death. No free thinking. No discussion, no open and transparent examination. Well, be glad that the western world isn't ruled anymore by the likes of you Ricki boy. Otherwise you would have been burned to the stake for your last post, by your own kind.
Do you grasp that, Ricky?
No.
That’s OK.
I do.

bye bye...

And if the entire universe is revolving about the centre of this stationary Earth at pi/12 rads/hour, does this not require that either the "stationary" Earth effectively has a back spin of pi/12 rads/hour, or that somewhere between r=4000 miles and r = "a lot" there is a massive shear zone between our stationary zone ant the rest of the revolving universe?

As I commented on BA´s blog:

I had a nice button (´t was the 70´s and buttons were all the fab) that said:

“My Car ma ran over my Dog ma.”

BTW My mum never got it.

“My Car ma ran over my Dog ma.”

oh that's a good one! :D

Ok. Now let´s all get mad about this:

"Public prosecutors in L’Aquila, Italy, have requested a four-year prison term for the six scientists and one government official charged with manslaughter after a magnitude-6.3 earthquake hit the city and its surroundings on 6 April 2009, killing 309 people (for more background on the case, read the Nature feature article ‘Scientists on trial: At fault?‘).

All those indicted took part in a meeting held in L’Aquila on 30 March, 2009, during which they were asked to assess the risk of a major earthquake in view of many shocks that had hit the city in the previous months. At the end of the meeting the Department of Civil Protection held a press conference where it downplayed the risk of a major quake and urged the population to stay calm. In particular Bernardo De Bernardinis, then deputy head of the department and among those indicted, said in a TV interview: “The scientific community tells me there is no danger because there is an ongoing discharge of energy”, a statement that most seismologists consider to be scientifically incorrect. According to the relatives of some victims and to the prosecutors, those reassurances prompted many people not to evacuate, hence the manslaughter charge (See ‘Italy puts seismology in the dock‘)."

Full Story:
http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/09/porsecution-asks-for-four-year-sen…

Wonder why the church is not in the dock sinse all those disaters are made (according to them) by a single guy...

I´m so hopping mad that I´m going to ignore myself.

"statistically isotropic skies at 99.7% C.L.;
this is unlikely at about the 95% C.L.

Do you grasp the significance of this, Sinisia? No. That’s OK. I do."

Really? You understand that there's a 0.3% and 5% chance respectively that these apparent alignments are due to chance alone? Ignoring the possibilities of any systemic errors or other reasonable explanations? That it is completely bogus and unfounded to say this disproves the Copernican model?

That's weird, because you've been saying the opposite. It's almost like you actually don't understand, and only care about grasping at whatever proves your pre-conceived model of the universe correct and ignoring anything contrary.

But this disregard for science isn't that troubling to me; it's all too typical. Here's what really bothers me at the end of the day: The notion that God needs to put humanity in the center of the universe in order to give us our due attention. That God in all His infinity couldn't have sent His son to die for us without us also being at the physical center of the cosmos.

What is the most important thing in the universe? Is it God? Or is it Man? Who are you really worshiping with this model of the universe?

CB
You don´t give a rats ass about science. You are here to blabber about your imaginary friend.

That´s ok, but be honest about it.

I´m gone here and go back to frontpage were there is real science and leave this little niche to you guys.

Somebody said something about Rick representing "modern christianity".

That's total bullshit for starters - the Vatican is very clear that it considers Creationism to be dangerous nonsense, as with any other ideologically-held objection to scientific observation.

Rick represents "regressed christianity" - a christianity that has decided to unlearn all the lessons of the last few centuries, (and to unlearn most of Jesus' teachings while they are at it) in order to regress back to a state of ignorant superstition.

Somebody else asked Rick,
"I’m actually interested in how you actually came to be arguing FOR geocentrism. What led you down this path of reasoning?"

Don't you remember the smart-arses at school that would "prove" that 1 = 0 ? A long string of apparently viable maths with an illegal operation snuck in. Exactly what Rick's doing with his nonsense here.

"Really? You understand that there’s a 0.3% and 5% chance respectively that these apparent alignments are due to chance alone?"

Oh my.

And so we come full circle.

The "scientists" say- "oh, there exists on 0.3% chance we might be right".

Actually, the combined probabilities of these alignments are approximately one in eighty million.

But this is of course irrelevant.

What is important is that the hilarious hypocrisy of the standard consensus be exposed for what it is, and this has been accomplished.

The standard model is wrong, and it will be replaced.

Eart is in a very special, non-random location wrt to the structure of the cosmos.

This will have to be acknowledged, and will be.

Eventually.

"The “scientists” say- “oh, there exists on 0.3% chance we might be right”."

No, dick, that's what YOU are saying.

"Don’t you remember the smart-arses at school that would “prove” that 1 = 0 ?"

"You understand that there’s a 0.3% and 5% chance respectively that these apparent alignments are due to chance alone?"

Wow.

We have reached the stage where the best arguments againt consensus cosmology, are advanced by its defenders.

QED.

Ethan...

Really man, you have to start banning these dorks!
This isn't going anywhere and more people are just going apeshit, longer this goes on.
Bananas are for monkeys!

I have a couple of questions for Rick since he seems to be willing to answer. Sinisa pointed out a few reasons why you seem to be jumping to some hasty conclusions regarding the CMB. I can see why you would conclude that such would point to a privileged position but I was wondering how exactly such an alignment if it actually exists proves that the entire universe revolves about the earth every 24 hours? And I was also wondering how it is that you seem to agree that moons revolve around a common barycenter with their more massive planet according to Newton's laws and planets share a common barycenter with respect to their more massive sun and the earth just happens to to be at the very distance and have just the right period of revolution around it sun to obey those same laws but you conclude that rather the sun and planets and moons and all the other objects in the universe revolve around the earth instead?

"We have reached the stage where the best arguments againt consensus cosmology, are advanced by its defenders."

That would be an ad hom, dick.

My full support for the new policy!
The thing that annoys me the most in some posts on science section in a couple of local online magazines is the comments section - full of gibberish and non scientific arguments that just spoil the discussion. And we all loose...

"..full of gibberish and non scientific arguments"......

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.5602v2.pdf

"According to the standard concordance model of cosmology, over 95% of the energy content of the universe is extraordinary — dark matter or dark energy whose existence has been inferred from the failure of the Standard Model of particle physics plus General Relativity to describe the behavior of astrophysical sys-tems larger than a stellar cluster — while the very homogeneity and isotropy (and inhomogeneity) of the universe owe to the influence of an inflaton field whose particle- physics-identity is completely mysterious even after three decades of theorizing.”

Ethan, you can always ask me to leave.

I have told you several times that if you do I will thank my host and depart.

But you must, I am afraid, do this, in order to bring this to its logical conclusion.

Unless you are an exception to the "logic" of your fans.

I have a bet in place btw......

The intolerance of other ideas and rudeness towards Rick DeLano by commenters here is astounding.
Not that I care for the insults made towards me over my sparse comments, but from reading the past conversations,
I didn't expect any different. The attitude towards Mr. DeLano quickly shows the true colors of many of the commenters however, who ordinarily would have people believe they are simply interested in the truth.

And Sinisa Lazarek criticizes him for not being what he considers a good Christian. Expecting in advance the same dismissing nature of others' responses is hardly bad behavior. No insults were made.

But none of the commenters are taken to task by Sinisa or anyone else for their derisive behavior, insults, even to the extent of name calling.

"Nerd bullying", how effective for discussion!

No criticism of the calls for bans.

Instead we see additional calls for scrubbing this site of discussion of non-standard-model ideas, going so far as not being able to bear seeing the comments being listed in the "Recent Comments" block.

All this behavior is truly comical.

Mr. DeLano, I found your blog and am reading the entries with interest. I am also glad I know where to continue reading more, should "Wow", et al., have their way in purging this site (and now, this single page) of your valuable contributions towards a greater understanding and appreciation for the manner in which God created our Universe. It's going to take some time to wrap my head around it, but this model appears to actually make more sense than all the dark energy and dark matter "just so" speculations.

Thank you for your patience here.

I am also fairly confident that I am not the only lurker reading with an open mind and willing to consider what you have been pointing out. Discussions with commenters' nerd bullying like this tend to discourage many decent folks from participating, but that doesn't mean they aren't able to think for themselves and accept new information when appropriate.

Michael:

I don't care if you don't appreciate my taking a theological swipe at someone's theology-derived "scientific" argument.

Rick:
You still don't understand.

Things a lot less probable than that have turned out to be statistical flukes or coincidences. And that's still ignoring any possible other explanation that would leave no 'coincidence' to explain at all. Turning that statement into a positive statement in favor of your theory is unfounded and unscientific, and runs smack into the problem of everything else in the universe. It's like using the Pioneer Anomaly to disprove modern physics. It doesn't work. Sorry.

Ethan,
This was an self fullfilling experiment.
And there is no point continuing it.
Let´s get back to beautiful things and science.
And really I love your blog and the almost daily lovely lectures you give.
Plus, you can handle a kilt.

Rick,

Dark matter, dark energy and inflation are the three greatest unsolved puzzles of modern cosmology. They're also the three best explanations for the observed Universe that we have. The paper you cite has 3 authors I am familiar with, including Glenn Starkman, whom I not only recognize but have corresponded with. He has, since WMAP first came out, been analyzing the results and looking for any hints that might lead us towards new physics and away from the concordance cosmology.

But he is still an adherent to the concordance cosmology, as it's the best explanation the Universe gives us.

The observation of a statistically unlikely outcome is a hint that something may be amiss, but is more often an artifact of the fact that we only have one Universe, and it's very easy to mislead ourselves that way.

For what it's worth, 95% corresponds to a 2-sigma significance; 99.7% corresponds to 3-sigma. In physics, results are not regarded as conclusively statistically significant at those levels; it generally requires 5-sigma.

Compare that to the observation that the Bullet Cluster shows a separation of dark and normal matter to 12-sigma significance, or that CMB follows the expected spectral shape (from COBE) from the Big Bang Model to -- are you ready -- 400-sigma.

It is important to look at the places where hints of new physics may lie, but it is far more important to not lose sight of what we already know and how we know it. Which I will continue to blog about, and which you are of course more than welcome to continue to follow.

I do not miss that at all, and neither does Rosser, who just told us that superluminal velocity in a rotating universe is perfectly consistent with GR.

Forgive for intruding, but AIUI any superluminal particle traveling through regular space is going to emit Cerenkov-like radiation. If most of the far objects we observe through telescopes are moving this quickly, where is it?

"He has, since WMAP first came out, been analyzing the results and looking for any hints that might lead us towards new physics and away from the concordance cosmology."

I don't think he will ever believe that some people actually seek to find new things, unexplained things, things that show their previous understanding was wrong or incomplete, rather than searching for new ways to reassure themselves that what they already thought was true is true.

Nevertheless, it's beautiful.

"In physics, results are not regarded as conclusively statistically significant at those levels; it generally requires 5-sigma."

In part because when they used a lower standard, it resulted in at least one embarrassing "discovery" that turned out to really be a statistical fluke. Oops!

How did earth-launched spacecraft reach Mars, if Mars is not where we think it is?
Why did the Voyager 1 & 2 photos show the members of the solar system exactly where we think they are?

Rick's just running a variant on the Flat Earth argument. If we know something "by inference" then a completely different and illogical explanation is justified.

@Ethan:

Rick,

"Dark matter, dark energy and inflation are the three greatest unsolved puzzles of modern cosmology."

>> I have noticed we always seem to start off in agreement on your initial assertions :-)

E: "They’re also the three best explanations for the observed Universe that we have."

>> Let us stipulate to this. The fact remains, it is certainly wrong. I don't know how many of the really big names agree with that, but I suspect the number is not small.

I am completely persuaded the number will rise, steadily, once Planck confirms the Axis.

E: "The paper you cite has 3 authors I am familiar with, including Glenn Starkman, whom I not only recognize but have corresponded with. He has, since WMAP first came out, been analyzing the results and looking for any hints that might lead us towards new physics and away from the concordance cosmology."

>> Corpi, Huterer, Schwarz and Starkman have done incredible work on the Axis. The thoroughness with which they have analyzed seven years' worth of WMAP data, and slowly, carefully, and methodically demolished all claims of foreground contamination, of a "local pancake", of scanning beam anomalies, etc. has been an incredible lesson for me.

Now Dragan Huterer refused to talk to me when he found out I was a geocentrist, but I have had the pleasure of talking at some length with the actual discoverer of the Axis, and he is one of the most fair-minded persons I have ever met.

E: "But he is still an adherent to the concordance cosmology, as it’s the best explanation the Universe gives us."

>> But it is wrong. They know it. That's why we are about to set sail off into the multiverse.

They know this exquisitely, carefully developed, powerful cosmological consensus, the first one informed with true "precision cosmology" observational precision, is wrong.

They have nothing better, I understand, but this one is wrong and will have to be replaced.

Just sayin'.

E: "The observation of a statistically unlikely outcome is a hint that something may be amiss, but is more often an artifact of the fact that we only have one Universe, and it’s very easy to mislead ourselves that way."

>> I agree completely that statistical arguments are of limited utility outside the com boxes.

But this is not a statistical issue.

This is an observational issue.

The Axis has been shown to involve preferred galaxy spin handedness, and to have a measurable effect on the polarization of quasar photons.

Something is organizing phenomena involving the CMB, galaxies, and photons, along a special preferred Axis across the entire Universe.

That is a Big Red Dot.

E: "For what it’s worth, 95% corresponds to a 2-sigma significance; 99.7% corresponds to 3-sigma. In physics, results are not regarded as conclusively statistically significant at those levels; it generally requires 5-sigma.

>> Huterer et al have made statistical arguments that raise the unlikelihood of *all* the alignments taken together to 1 in 80,000,000 (I can find the reference if you like).

I suspect that is either a six-sigma, or a five-sigma signal.

But I agree with your point above concerning having only one universe in our sample size. I personally used to be a lot more impressed with statistical arguments than I am now, but they are not entirely useless, they can point us toward the useful and wonderful Red Dots which will be the keys to the next cosmology.

E: "Compare that to the observation that the Bullet Cluster shows a separation of dark and normal matter to 12-sigma significance,

>> It is quite easy to achieve twelve sigma results when you can sprinkle in the missing matter anytime you like, Ethan

E: "or that CMB follows the expected spectral shape (from COBE) from the Big Bang Model to — are you ready — 400-sigma."

>> The blackbody curve is amazing, isn't it :-) Breathtaking. Until those strange alignments among the multipoles themselves, and with the local ecliptic and equinoxes, started showing up, which is, frankly, devastating to any Big Bang at all.

It is quite possible for the CMB to present us with an almost perfect black body curve, without assuming it to be the remnant of a Big Bang.

As a matter of fact, it will have to be treated that way, in the next cosmology.

E: It is important to look at the places where hints of new physics may lie, but it is far more important to not lose sight of what we already know and how we know it."

>> Unless that "far more important" part is employed as a fortress against threats to a consensus.

Ethan, we clearly do not agree on the prospects for the standard model and consensus cosmology.

You think it can be salvaged.

I think it cannot, and will instead fly off in to the never-never land of the multiverse, where, ironically, we really *can* look forward to a century or two of arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

What forces us to a multiverse?

The Copernican Principle.

Not science.

Metaphysical assumption.

E "Which I will continue to blog about, and which you are of course more than welcome to continue to follow."

>> I thank you very kindly for the invitation.

@Eric:

"Forgive for intruding, but AIUI any superluminal particle traveling through regular space is going to emit Cerenkov-like radiation. If most of the far objects we observe through telescopes are moving this quickly, where is it?"

Space is a substance. Cerenkov- like radiation is proposed to be emitted when an object moves superluminally through nothing containing something which is really nothing except it bends and curves.

Not surprisingly, it has never been observed in the real world.

@deadalus:

Sorry I missed this one in the flurry.

D: "If space was rotating at about day^-1, then as spacecraft moved away from the Earth, they would appear to be in different regions (because light from them is taking different times to get to Earth). This is not observed."

>> Your assertion is incorrect. The observations would be precisely the same whether the Earth was rotating on its exis once per day, or whether the universe was rotating once per day around Earth, and carrying the spacecraft along with it.

D: "Images of objects would appear “smeared” in time based on the object’s dimensions in c* time. This is not observed."

>> Neither is it true. The light cone would remain perfectly consistent with GR under either assumption- an Earth revolving on its axis, or a cosmos revolving around a fixed Earth.

D: At 10 light years from Earth, a star would travel 2*pi*10 light years per day or about 8 e+9 km/sec. Such a star would not appear to be a point, its image would be spread out because of the different travel time of light from the surface and the perimeter."

>> Simply not true. Under GR, the light cones would be exactly the same under either hypothesis.

D: At 10 light years from Earth, one second produces an angular motion of 1/24/3600 or 1.2 e-5. This is an angular distance of 15 arc seconds.

Turbulence in the atmosphere limits angular resolution of Earth based telescopes to ~1 arcsecond, so even Earth based observations would be able to see the smear. There would be no improvement in angular resolution for space based telescopes. Hubble has a resolution of ~0.1 arcsecond. VLBA astronomy has resolution of 0.01 arcsecond or better. If the universe were rotating that motion would be obvious even for very near objects.

>> No it wouldn't. Not in a GR universe, anyway. The SOL is independent of the velocity of the emitter, remember?

Of course in GR space is a nothing which contains something which is really nothing except it bends and curves.

In reality, space is a substance.

D: "Distant objects would not be observable at all because such a small fraction of their emitted light would be present at the same angular position in space."

>> As far as the observer on Earth is concerned, under GR, those objects could be moving at ten trillion times c, given a sufficiently large universe, and we would observe them identically as we would were we to assume that instead the *relative* superluminal velocities are attributable to Earth's rotation.

@Piltdown:

"I have a couple of questions for Rick since he seems to be willing to answer. Sinisa pointed out a few reasons why you seem to be jumping to some hasty conclusions regarding the CMB."

> If Sinisa, or yourself, had read the paper you would understand that each and all of those objections are dealt with in detail.

Short version: if the observations are the result of foreground contamination, beam scanning errors, etc, then everything else which *does* work to confirm the LCDM model has to be thrown out too.

Considering the importance of that first peak in the CMB as a predicted triumph for the LCDM cosmos, we we would be looking at some mighty magical foreground contamination/beam anomalies indeed.

:-)

P:"I can see why you would conclude that such would point to a privileged position but I was wondering how exactly such an alignment if it actually exists proves that the entire universe revolves about the earth every 24 hours?"

>> It doesn't. Two separate issues here. My original post here was in response to Ethan's "How The Earth Moves", and was intended specifically to answer his objections in that piece.

The Axis does not prove centrality, since it is after all an axis, an anisotropy axis such as in a crystal.

Earth could be anywhere along that Axis.

The arguments for centrality involve galaxy distributions from SDSS, which under Fourier analysis confirm preferred, concentric redshift values out at least a billion light years, centered on our location (these observations place the Milky Way galaxy at the center, but the one of the authors of that analysis (Hartnett) has done additional work, and Earth is very near the exact center of the distributions, far closer than just within a galaxy's reach- in fact, within observational margins of being at the exact center.

Of course, we knew this as far back as Hubble, but it was explained away by the spacetime curvature factor, which exists today as the Friedman Lemaitre Robertson Walker "expanding balloon" universe.

In such a universe no such concentric structure centered on Earth is possible, the universe must be approximately isotropic and homogeneous ("Copernican") on cosmological scales.

The Axis and the SDSS Fourier analysis (Hartnett Hirano 2008, Hirano 2010) tell us that it isn't.

P: "And I was also wondering how it is that you seem to agree that moons revolve around a common barycenter with their more massive planet according to Newton’s laws and planets share a common barycenter with respect to their more massive sun and the earth just happens to to be at the very distance and have just the right period of revolution around it sun to obey those same laws but you conclude that rather the sun and planets and moons and all the other objects in the universe revolve around the earth instead?"

>> Yes. There can be only one location in the Universe where Earth does not orbit the Sun- the barycenter.

Only there would the hierarchy of motions for the entire universe sum to zero.

So the Copernican Principle insists that Earth is not in a special position.

This is generalized into the cosmological principle,. that there are no special positions.

Geocentrism requires a completely opposite metaphysical assumption; that Earth is indeed in the most special of all positions.

@FredB:

Glad that you are intrigued enough to keep investigating, and thanks for the moral support as well :-)

@CB:

"Things a lot less probable than that have turned out to be statistical flukes or coincidences."

>> Sorry, that doesn't work either. The statistical anomaly argument needs to explain why galaxies exhibit a preferred spin-rotation handedness along the same axis.

It's there, and the irony is, if it weren't, then we should have to throw out every CMB observation which supports LCDM too.

Read the paper.

Copi, Huterer, et al are very thorough, and all of the proposed errors are untenable.

CB: "And that’s still ignoring any possible other explanation that would leave no ‘coincidence’ to explain at all."

>> "Possible other explanation"? That's not sc fence. That's not even metaphysics.

The evidence is quite clear.

The largest observable structure in the universe is aligned with the eclip[tic and equinoxes of Earth.

Galaxies spin with preferred handedness along this axis.

Game over.

Next.

I mean, everyone is waiting for Planck and I imagine they are hoping that something shows up from that scanning methodology which makes the Axis go away.

I have read Copi/Huterer and I have spoken with the discoverer of the Axis.

They expect it is not going away, and I expect they are right.

"Turning that statement into a positive statement in favor of your theory is unfounded and unscientific, and runs smack into the problem of everything else in the universe."

>> To the contrary. The Axis constitutes direct, observational falsification of LCDM cosmology.

It can't be there in an LCDM universe.

Sorry, but there it is.

Since without the FLRW/LCDM expanding universe, *all* cosmological observations show Earth in the center of an isotropic but *inhomogeneous* distribution of structure.......

Well.

I think it is clear where this is headed.

CB: It’s like using the Pioneer Anomaly to disprove modern physics. It doesn’t work. Sorry.

>> Why not? The Pioneeer anomaly is fascinating. Did you know that if one discards atomic clock time, and returns to astronomical sidereal time, the anomaly disappears?

Too bad for you Rick that Pioneer Anomaly is no longer an anomaly.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/new_scientist/2012/08/…

" *all* cosmological observations show Earth in the center of an isotropic but *inhomogeneous* distribution of structure"

LOL.. all observations from my terrace show that I'm in fact the center of Earth and therefore the center of the Universe. That mean's you can't be. Since it's only me in the center and not you... ROFL. Just wait for first maned trip to Mars. Then you'll see that you were wrong all along and that it's Mars that's the center of the Universe and not Earth. Cause all observations from there clearly show it's mars that's stationary and everything is rotating around it. Man you're thick!

This David Ropeik video is awesome.
http://bigthink.com/users/davidropeik
Watch and learn about how we make informed decisions or not.

His articles below the video are also intereseting.

Rick still hasn't answered how old the Earth is..

HA HA HA! Thanks Rick, that was perfect. I could not have asked for more.

The Pioneer Anomaly is a classice litmus test for who starts with their conclusions and works backwards, who have no interest in finding out what is REALLY happening, and only care about finding whatever might support what they ALREADY believe. So they use this one anomalous measurement, ignoring everything that contradicts it, to prove they are right everywhere.

And so you ignore other possibilities, like, oh I don't know, maybe physics is actually pretty accurate, and we just aren't understanding the specifics of the situation in sufficient detail. Like, maybe the Pioneer probe ISN'T a sphere of uniform density. Maybe it DOES have a preferred direction for the emission of radiation.

And gee, it turns out, it does. The probe's shape and composition means that it emits more radiation anti-sunward than in other directions, causing a slight acceleration which explains the discrepancy between expectation and reality to the extent of our ability to measure.

Crackpots like you never even considered the possibility, because you aren't interested in looking at the universe to see how it works. You think you already know how it works.

What's funny is that now, with the expected acceleration changed and the anomaly explained, you and every other crackpot's explanation for the anomaly would now CREATE one, demonstrating those theories wrong.

But will you take this evidence into account? No, of course not. You'll just scratch the Pioneer Anomaly off the list of things that 'prove' you right, leaving it in the giant bucket of things that are ignored.

Thank you Rick for your answers. You still seem willing to be engaged here so I will respond again if you don't mind. You said to my first question concerning the CMB and the centrality of the earth that "The Axis does not prove centrality, since it is after all an axis, an anisotropy axis such as in a crystal. Earth could be anywhere along that Axis."

Very good I am glad that you were aware of this.

To my question about the earth's being positioned just where Newtonian mechanics would predict it should be place if it was orbiting a common barycenter with the sun you said that "Yes. There can be only one location in the Universe where Earth does not orbit the Sun- the barycenter. Only there would the hierarchy of motions for the entire universe sum to zero. So the Copernican Principle insists that Earth is not in a special position."

I hope Rick that you will admit that your answer here is less than satisfactory. I repeat that we observe in the solar system that each moon and each planet is positioned and rotates at a period precisely as predicted by Newtonian mechanics to an extremely precise estimate.

The same holds true for the earth and its position and period about the sun. They are precisely what we would predict from Newtonian mechanics. This would seem to be a strong indication that the sun and the earth orbit a common barycenter.

You are impressed by evidence of the positioning of galactic distributions which I think you would have to admit is measured only indirectly and is by nature imprecise. Why are you not more impressed by the precise position and period of the earth with respect to the sun which we can measure directly and very precisely and which indicate that the earth and sun share a common barycenter?

What do you supposed is the statistical likelihood that the earth just happens to be at this precise distance and moves with precisely the correct period with respect to this barycenter, while in "fact" all the planets, moons, stars, galaxies, the entire universe rotates around the earth? Why on scientific grounds should somebody believe that?

How come gravity operates to create the orbits of the planets around the sun and each moon around its planet, but NONE of these other planets or their moons are affected by the earth's gravitational attraction that causes the earth's moon and the sun around the earth.

Does the earth have some special gravity and our moon is affected only by this gravity, whilst the sun is affected by earth's gravity but only gives out this planetary gravity to the other planets?

And what about satellites. Happily orbit the earth (affected by our gravity), but when around the other planets or sun, will orbit them. How can that happen? Does the matter from the earth that these satellites are made of get stripped of this mystical force that enables their orbit around the earth so it can be affected by the gravity of other planets, which are impervious to the earth's attraction?

@Piltdown Man:

P: "Thank you Rick for your answers. You still seem willing to be engaged here so I will respond again if you don’t mind."

>> Thanks for your questions. I don't mind at all.

P: "You said to my first question concerning the CMB and the centrality of the earth that “The Axis does not prove centrality, since it is after all an axis, an anisotropy axis such as in a crystal. Earth could be anywhere along that Axis.”

Very good I am glad that you were aware of this."

>> I have been the beneficiary of dialogue with some very smart scientists as I have investigated this.

P: "To my question about the earth’s being positioned just where Newtonian mechanics would predict it should be place if it was orbiting a common barycenter with the sun you said that “Yes. There can be only one location in the Universe where Earth does not orbit the Sun- the barycenter. Only there would the hierarchy of motions for the entire universe sum to zero. So the Copernican Principle insists that Earth is not in a special position.”

I hope Rick that you will admit that your answer here is less than satisfactory.

>> I certainly do appreciate that a geocentric model has yet to be exhaustively developed. I hope you will appreciate that we are dealing with two separate issues, both of which are important, but they are in fact separate issues:

1. Whether observations have shown that the LCDM consensus cosmology is unviable going forward;

2. Whether geocentrism constitutes the correct metaphysical foundation upon which to construct its replacement.

I think the answer to number one is "yes", as a matter of *science*; that is, of reproducible experimental outcome.

The answer to number two is, at this point, not a matter of reproducible experimental outcome, but I will add this:

Given a falsification of LCDM/Copernican principle cosmology, *every* observation of large-scale structure shows Earth in the center of it all.

*Every* observation at strictly local scales is consistent with Earth being a planet orbiting the Sun- except one.

We have never been able to directly measure the universally-assumed motion of Earth around Sun (Fizeau, Arago, Airy, Michelson-Morley, etc).

We *have*, however, been able to directly measure a relative diurnal rotation of Earth/cosmos (Michelson Morley, Michelson Gale).

These experiments are reported as "null", but that is not what the experiments actually showed.

MMX showed a relative velocity of Earth/aether of one quarter, and probably one sixth, than that required for an annual Earth orbit of Sun.

Michelson Gale showed a relative velocity of Earth/aether consistent with a diurnal relative rotation.

Lorentz proposed shrinking rods in the direction of motion of the measuring apparatus, which was unpalatable for a number of reasons.

Einstein (the genius) came along and proposed that time was dilating, instead.

That one, as counter-intuitive as can be imagined, was nonetheless adopted, since the only alternative was exactly that the Earth was not in fact orbiting the Sun.

Einstein's Special theory proposed that the aether did not in fact exist.

Sagnac *experimentally proved* otherwise.

Einstein's General theory re-introduced the aether, but as a mathematical, not a ponderable, object.

Ever since, it seems to me, science has proceeded to answer problems where *c* is constant, with SR, and problems where *c* isn't constant, with GR.

All seemed well.

But the problem is that GR (in its FLRW solutions) requires a universe which is approximately isotropic/homogeneous on cosmological scales.

The universe is *not approximately isotropic/homogeneous on cosmological scales*.

Now GR can be used in an isotropic, non-homogeneous universe with Earth in a special, privileged position, at or near the center (this is what Ellis has been doing for forty years, using Lemaitre Tolman Bondi solutions).

I would call this "weak geocentrism". It puts Earth in a special position at the center, but it retains GR.

"Strong geocentrism"- the Earth ain't moving and the Sun is- is an even much more radical hypothesis, but it cannot be experimentally falsified, according to GR.

If space is a substance (and certainly quantum physics leads us toward the possibility that it is) then GR is wrong, and we will eventually have to abandon the notion of "empty space".

This process is already well underway.

Once space becomes a substance, then we are right back at Michelson Morley, and the result is no longer "null".

It is simply inconsistent with an Earth orbiting the Sun, but consistent with a diurnal relative motion of Earth/cosmos.

At this point "strong" geocentrism becomes a very viable candidate. In fact the only viable candidate.

This is because we could not observe varying lengths of solar day if the Earth were rotating on its axis, but not orbiting the sun.

Therefore we are left with the "strong geocentrism" hypothesis:

1. The Earth is motionless at the universal barycenter.
2. The Moon orbits the Earth.
3. The Sun and all the planets orbit the Earth along the ecliptic.
4. The ecliptic must be a cosmological, not merely a local, phenomenon under this hypothesis.
5. Astonishingly enough, this is exactly what the CMB Axis confirms.

This is only a beginning, of course, but I can tell you that one of the physicists working on the scientific elaboration of strong geocentrism (yes there are such scientists, and a bunch more who are "Machians", and we benefit from their work) has completed a paper and submitted it for peer review which shows that, given an initial condition of a rotating cosmos, the physics of a strong geocentric universe can be shown to be completely consistent, using only Newton and Mach.

P: I repeat that we observe in the solar system that each moon and each planet is positioned and rotates at a period precisely as predicted by Newtonian mechanics to an extremely precise estimate.

>> This is quite true. It is also quite true that the Newtonian predictions and solutions fail drastically at cosmological scales.

They cannot be right.

P: The same holds true for the earth and its position and period about the sun. They are precisely what we would predict from Newtonian mechanics. This would seem to be a strong indication that the sun and the earth orbit a common barycenter."

>> Indeed. This is exactly why heliocentrism was adopted, and geocentrism abandoned, in the first place.

If the universe consisted only in the solar system, the case would be closed.

The universe does not consist only in the solar system, and the case is still closed, but closed *against* Newton.

P: You are impressed by evidence of the positioning of galactic distributions which I think you would have to admit is measured only indirectly and is by nature imprecise. Why are you not more impressed by the precise position and period of the earth with respect to the sun which we can measure directly and very precisely and which indicate that the earth and sun share a common barycenter?"

>> Because these solutions are utterly falsified by cosmological observations. They cannot be right.

P: What do you supposed is the statistical likelihood that the earth just happens to be at this precise distance and moves with precisely the correct period with respect to this barycenter, while in “fact” all the planets, moons, stars, galaxies, the entire universe rotates around the earth? Why on scientific grounds should somebody believe that?"

>> Because it is going to be the last man standing, is why.

Maybe Rick didn't buy a TV set yet, so the news that we left planet earth and ventured to space never reached him. Thus we are now able to view the heavens not only from earth. But seriously, didn't imagine in my wildest dreams that in 21st century there still people who believe that earth is the center of solar system and that it's static... I mean.. WTFFFFFF?????????????

Aquanerd:

Since that is a different topic, perhaps you would like to engage with me at my blog on the question?

See "Mary's Bones".

Maybe Siniza hasn't realized yet that the space-based observations (WMAP) are precisely the ones which demolish the Copernican Principle?

Maybe she hasn't realized the implications of the fact that "the cosmological model we arrive at is baroque, requiring the introduction at different scales and epochs
of three sources of energy density that are only detected
gravitationally | dark matter, dark energy and the inflation."

Maybe she hasn't realized that the dark energy can be dispensed with, even under GR, provided we consider Earth to be at a privileged, central position wrt to the structure of the cosmos?

"Sagnac experimentally proved [there is an aether]"

Oh ho ho. Your interpretation of experiment is as hilarious as everything else you say. What's really funny about this is that, aether or no, what Sagnac experimentally demonstrated was that the earth is rotating.

Oh and Rick, yeah, then you just need an even more mysterious explanation for the curvature of spacetime that allows for the rotation of the heavens at very nearly constant angular velocity regardless of distance, from an unobservable energy source. It's the galactic rotation curve problem only the size of the universe.

But that problem doesn't matter, because it arrives at the conclusion you already "know" is correct.

Rick, you miss the point. Distant objects are not point light sources, they are extended, they have a size. The travel time for light from different parts of those extended objects to the Earth will be different. If the objects move during that time, the light appears to be coming from where the object was at the time the light was emitted.

If the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the emitter, then light from an extended object, such as the sun, takes different times to go from the circumference that it takes to go from a pole. From Euclidean geometry, the travel path from the Sun's pole is longer than the travel path from the point nearest the Earth. If the speed of light is constant, and the travel paths are of different length, then light received at a common time must have been emitted at different times.

How can an extended object such a galaxy appear as a single object if it is moving tangentially at high speed? Light from different parts of a galaxy has travel times different by many years, different by many hundreds of thousands of years to reach the Earth.

Rick is as much a trolling twat as Chelle.

He's here for nothing other than being an arsehole and doing exactly the same bollocks routine as chelle did.

Deadalus:

In the frame of the emitting object, its velocity is relatively tiny (only its own proper motion).

In the frame of the Earth-based observer, the velocity is gigantic (in some cases thousands of times *c*).

This is because either

(a) the Earth is rotating on its axis, or
(b) the cosmos is rotating about the Earth, and carrying the stars along with it.

Under GR, there is no physical difference whatsoever between (a) and (b).

Simply go outside tonight and watch the stars travel overhead.

They are moving many times *c*, from our frame of reference.

No smears.

"Aquanerd:

Since that is a different topic, perhaps you would like to engage with me at my blog on the question?

See “Mary’s Bones”."

No thanks... I'm sure you'll just tell me that humans rode dinosaurs... or that humans poofed out of thin air... blah blah blah

@CB:
Rick earlier: "Sagnac experimentally proved [there is an aether]”

CB "Oh ho ho. Your interpretation of experiment is as hilarious as everything else you say."

>> It is not my interpretation. It is Sagnac's.

"It has been very easy for me to find at the outset the evidence for the ether by causing a small optical circuit to rotate. A frequency N of 2 revolutions per second (successively in each direction) has furnished me a degree of relative whirling of the ether of 4πN or 25 radians per second. A uniform clockwise rotation of the interferograph produces, relatively, a counter-clockwise ether wind....The distance between the fringes is here from 0.5 to 1 millimeter....The observed interference effect is clearly the optical whirling effect due to the movement of the system in relation to the ether and directly manifests the existence of the ether, supporting necessarily the light waves of Huygens and of Fresnel."---- Georges Sagnac, Comptes Rendus de l’ Académie des Sciences (Paris) 157, 1913.

"What’s really funny about this is that, aether or no, what Sagnac experimentally demonstrated was that the earth is rotating."

>> What is really funny is that you ought to start checking your sources.

Sagnac supports a diurnal relative rotation of Earth/aether.

Since all similar experiments have failed to show a similar relative motion of Earth/Sun in an annual orbit, you have a problem.

Experimental evidence which you yourself support shows a diurnal motion.

No experimental evidence supports the annual orbital motion.

Therefore the existence of varying lengths of days on Earth supports geocentrism, since we would not have seasons were the Earth rotating on its axis, but not orbiting the Sun.

@Aquanerd:

Ah.

Very well then.

It appears we have reached the logical conclusion of our exchange.

All the best.

LOL RICK! Number one it's HE not a SHE. Number two, not all of us morons like you seem to be, so don't evade by introducing DM, relativity, DE, inflation and such with your retarded view of Earth being the center. If you can't distinguish that those two are different topics.. to bad for you.

But just out of curiosity, and honestly need another laugh. how does your geocentric model explain the phases of Venus, or parallaxes of stars, or moons of jupiter and other planets.. or the precise motions without the need of epicycles and such etc..?

@Sinisa:

My apologies for incorrectly assuming your gender.

As for your other questions, they were answered, completely, in my very first post here, back on "How The Earth Moves".

I reproduce the answer.

If you think it through, you will see that all of your observations are fully accounted for- if you do not see how, ask me and I will show you.

1. The Earth is stationary.
2. The Moon orbits the Earth.
3. The Sun and planets orbit the Earth along the ecliptic.
5. The stars orbit the Earth along with the Sun, along the ecliptic.
6. This ecliptic must, under this hypothesis, be cosmological, not merely local.
7. The CMB axis, along which preferred galaxy spin handedness is observed, corresponds to the ecliptic- in other words, the ecliptic *is* cosmological, just as geocentrism predicts, and just as all other cosmologies did not.

This accounts for the phases of Venus, parallaxes of stars, moons, and planets.

let's just stick to the solar system for now..

ok, and what's the order of planets (including the sun)? I mean in which order to they rotate beginning from Moon.. ?

Off topic, but I simply had to share this. Because it was the first day in many years I felt happy again. So here goes.
Today I went to Mahon, the capital and saw the Red Arrows display team. It was great.

If you think it through you will find that standard cosmology completely accounts for

1. The Earth is spinning on its axis.
2. The Earth orbits the sun along the ecliptic of the earth's orbit.
3. The planets orbit the earth along their ecliptic.
5. The stars of this milky way orbit the centre of the Milky Way along with the Sun.
6. This ecliptic must, under this hypothesis, be set for each orbit of each planet in the solar system
7. The satellites and rockets do not change the forces under which it achieves its trajectory

This accounts for the phases of Venus, parallaxes of stars, moons, and planets without postulating unphysical nonsense and unverifiable extra forces.

How, PRECISELY does the stars being orbiting around the Earth explain the parralaxes of those stars?

Rick, how does the light "know" what spiral path to take so that all the light from the stars in a distant galaxy all get to the Earth at exactly the same instant?

In the case of really distant galaxies, (more than 5 billion light years distant, they started emitting light before the Earth coalesced and had a rotation rate.

How does light from stars 5 billion light years away, that are separated by thousands of light years "know" to take the exact spiral path that leads the light from those two different stars to hit the eye of the astronomer at exactly the same moment? One photon traveled 5 billion light years, the other photon traveled 5.0001 billion light years.

That spiral has a frequency of 1/day, so there the spiral has over 15 trillion whorls in it. How does the light know which spiral path to take?

It may be worth rmembering that Dick's "firmament" is merely Chelle's "Aether" (as they've just given away recently in a post), merely written as more overtly taken from the bible.

It's still the same old crap.

Still the same old method of continued assertion.

Still the same run-on gish gallop.

Still the same misrepresentation of papers and results.

Indeed, if it weren't for the fact that they have not said they are the same person, you would be forgiven for thinking they were the same person!

Well Rick you gave us many words there. It seems that within those words we are still looking for a reasonable answer to my question. As I see you have admitted that at least most of the physical evidence which we can measure most directly and most certainly is contrary to your view but you are presuming that a new cosmological paradigm will overthrow it without giving us the connection of how this new larger paradigm would overturn that which we can directly measure. As Ethan said above "It is important to look at the places where hints of new physics may lie, but it is far more important to not lose sight of what we already know and how we know it."

But back to our immediate question it remains mysterious to me that a god/God who made an entire universe of celestial bodies rotate around a single planet would have placed that planet at just the distance and made the period of rotation with respect to the nearest star just so that it accords with the rotational laws governing the other planets and moons which we can directly measure. Very strange. would it not be more consistent with something other than a capricious god to suppose that the earth follows those same physical laws and that its position and period with respect to the sun indicates a shared barycenter rather than being some sort of cosmic trick?

I did find interesting your statement that "The universe is *not approximately isotropic/homogeneous on cosmological scales*." It seems to me this causes you greater difficulty than you are acknowledging since it would seem that a non-isotropic and non-homogeneous rotating system will not have a precisely fixed barycenter.

"it remains mysterious to me that a god/God who made an entire universe of celestial bodies rotate around a single planet would have placed that planet at just the distance and made the period of rotation with respect to the nearest star just so that it accords with the rotational laws governing the other planets and moons which we can directly measure."

That´s what´s called "a miracle".

Sagnard's results were consistent with a fully stationary ether, but also consistent with Special Relativity. They were inconsistent with an ether dragged by earth's motion, as required to explain the null result of Michelson-Morely (or, of course, a stationary earth). The stationary ether is inconsistent with many other experiments conducted which show a constant speed of light (and which a stationary earth does nothing to help). So, by further experiment we have distinguished, and Sagnard's interpretation of his result was incorrect, and the Special Relativity interpretation is.

Also, even assuming your premise, your explanation for the behavior of the sun, planets, and stars is on its face incorrect. Specifically, the stars do not orbit the earth around the ecliptic, they orbit around an axis that is offset from the ecliptic at an angle that varies by over 45 degrees over the course of a year. Or, perhaps more plainly, the daily orbit of the sun with respect to the earth changes by 45 degrees over the course of a year in a way not exhibited by the stars. The parallax of stars is both minute and perpendicular to this perturbation of the Sun's orbit. How such an "orbit" is even possible in a universe allegedly compatible with General Relativity is a mystery. And how supposedly distant galaxies know to wobble in time with this ecliptic while nearby objects (excepting the sun and planets) do not is also a mystery. The "ecliptic" as a stationary plane to measure against only even begins to make sense in non-geocentric models.

* Sagnac lol

@David 4:04am
Rick's universe appears to be identical to a Ethan's with a displaced co-ordinate system and lots of angular momentum. and no theory on the source of the force generating the required centripetal acceleration.

Further up the thread I asked :

: “Rick, the impression I get from your posts is that there is no experimental observation that can distinguish between the current Big Bang model and a geocentric one, or am I wrong?.”

On September 24, at 8:58 am he replied:

>> You are exactly right.

Unless, it seems, when he thinks experimental observations can be interpreted to confirm his model!

@Piltdown:

Well Rick you gave us many words there. It seems that within those words we are still looking for a reasonable answer to my question.

>> We would disagree about that.

P: As I see you have admitted that at least most of the physical evidence which we can measure most directly and most certainly is contrary to your view

>> I have not admitted anything of the kind. Perhaps you read some other post than the one I addressed to you.

P: but you are presuming that a new cosmological paradigm will overthrow it without giving us the connection of how this new larger paradigm would overturn that which we can directly measure.

>> Newtonian mechanics has been overthrown more than a century since, Piltdown. If this is news to you then I apologize; I am assuming knowledge of this on your part.

But please believe me: Newtonian physics has been observationally falsified.

This is why we now have a different physics, Relativity.

P: As Ethan said above “It is important to look at the places where hints of new physics may lie, but it is far more important to not lose sight of what we already know and how we know it.”

>> Actually, both are equally important.

But when our theory requires us to invent 96% of the observable universe out of hypothetical entities never observed, and even once this has been done, requires us to assume that the rest of the universe can never be observed sciehtifically in any way at all.......

Well.

A wrong turn has been taken somewhere.

As Dr. Ellis succinctly puts it:

"If our theory continues to return unphysical results, perhaps it's time to check the theory."

P: But back to our immediate question it remains mysterious to me that a god/God who made an entire universe of celestial bodies rotate around a single planet would have placed that planet at just the distance and made the period of rotation with respect to the nearest star just so that it accords with the rotational laws governing the other planets and moons which we can directly measure.

>> Why would that be mysterious to you? Newton's edifice, as stupendously accurate at local scales as can be imagined, has been observationally falsified more than a century ago.

It cannot be correct.

It's utility at local scales is irrelevant except as a matter of handy-dandy engineering usefulness.

As a cosmology, it has been scientifically falsified, conclusively.

P: Very strange. would it not be more consistent with something other than a capricious god to suppose that the earth follows those same physical laws and that its position and period with respect to the sun indicates a shared barycenter rather than being some sort of cosmic trick?

>> Not in the slightest. You are imposing upon God your own metaphysical preference (in fact your statement above boils down to nothing other than a statement of the Copernican Principle).

P: I did find interesting your statement that “The universe is *not approximately isotropic/homogeneous on cosmological scales*.” It seems to me this causes you greater difficulty than you are acknowledging since it would seem that a non-isotropic and non-homogeneous rotating system will not have a precisely fixed barycenter.

>> The system is isotropic, but non-homogeneous.

@CB:

CB:'Sagna(c)’s results were consistent with a fully stationary ether, but also consistent with Special Relativity.

>> No it isn't. *c* +/- v is not consistent with Special Relativity, and *c* +/- v is what Sagnac measures.

CB: They were inconsistent with an ether dragged by earth’s motion, as required to explain the null result of Michelson-Morely (or, of course, a stationary earth).

>> It is true that entrained aether models are inconsistent with Sagnac (as well as MMX and Michelson-Morley-Miller). It is not true that rotating aether/stationary earth models are inconsistent
with Sagnac (as well as MMX and Michelson-Morley-Miller).

CB: Also, even assuming your premise, your explanation for the behavior of the sun, planets, and stars is on its face incorrect. Specifically, the stars do not orbit the earth around the ecliptic, they orbit around an axis that is offset from the ecliptic at an angle that varies by over 45 degrees over the course of a year.

>> This is simply wrong, since the ecliptic is inclined to the Earth's equator at an angle of approximately 23.5 degrees.

CB: Or, perhaps more plainly, the daily orbit of the sun with respect to the earth changes by 45 degrees over the course of a year in a way not exhibited by the stars.

>> This is also wrong. The nearer stars (those which present a measurable parallax) do in fact show the 23.5 inclination wrt Earth's equator. The more distant ones do not, but then again they also do not show parallax in the heliocentric model, since they are too far away.

CB: The parallax of stars is both minute and perpendicular to this perturbation of the Sun’s orbit. How such an “orbit” is even possible in a universe allegedly compatible with General Relativity is a mystery.

>> Well, Relativity is certainly mysterious :-)

But if you have a problem with GR, you will have to take it up with Einstein.

The orbital motions of all observed objects, including parallax, are perfectly consistent, under GR, with a motionless Earth around which the cosmos revolves along the plane of the ecliptic.

CB: And how supposedly distant galaxies know to wobble in time with this ecliptic while nearby objects (excepting the sun and planets) do not is also a mystery."

>> That is not a mystery, it is a misapprehension of the mkodel on your part.

I have stated this a number of times, I will state it once more:

1. The Earth is motionless.
2. The Moon orbits the Earth.
3. The Sun and planets orbit the Earth along the ecliptic
4. The stars and Sun orbit the Earth along the ecliptic
5. The ecliptic must be a cosmological, not merely a local, phenomenon under this hypothesis.
6. The CMB axis is aligned with the ecliptic, showing that only geocentrism has correctly predicted the cosmological significance of the ecliptic.

Now, given 1-6 above, every observed motion of planets, moons, Sun and stars is accounted for exactly as we see them, including parallax for stars near enough to exhibit this phenomenon under the heliocentric model.

CB: The “ecliptic” as a stationary plane to measure against only even begins to make sense in non-geocentric models.

>> Actually, the ecliptic is a local phenomenon in all but the geocentric model.

In reality, the ecliptic is a universe-spanning plane, exactly as geocentrism requires and predicts.

Rick

May I ask you the degrees you hold?

@ Rick

still waiting for you tell me the order of planets in your geocentric model. You can do that, can't you, Rick?

No, Rick, Sagnac is not incompatible with Special Relativity. It's trivially understood by realizing the distances traveled by the light beams would not be the same and by assuming constant velocity for light you get the correct fringes. And there have been 100 years of experiments since Sagnac and Michaelson-Morely that are inconsistent with any kind of ether.

The stars do NOT rotate around the ecliptic. They rotate around the equator. During the course of a year, the position of the stars with respect to the equator changes only minutely. The position of the sun with respect to the equator, and thus in the geocentric model the plane defined by the orbit of the sun around the earth (approx. if you also include other planets) changes on a daily basis. While the orbit of the stars do not.

This issue of course goes away completely if you assume instead that the earth is orbiting the sun. Then it's not the ecliptic that moves, but the earth's position in orbit thus trivially creating a changing position of the ecliptic relative to the equator.

You're accidentally letting the heliocentric model of the solar system inform your ideas of what constitutes the ecliptic and the star's position relative to it, and thus missing the problem of building a geocentric model on its own.

@Siniza:

Can you really not get this?

There do exist animations and gifs on the net- simply google "Tychonic geocentrism".

But to answer your question:

The Sun is 1 AU from Earth.

Now try this.

Take the heliocentric model.

Transpose the Sun and the Earth.

All other geometric relationships remain exactly the same.

Here, click on this:

http://www.keplersdiscovery.com/Hypotheses.html

CB: "No, Rick, Sagnac is not incompatible with Special Relativity."

>> Well, there is CB and then there is Rick and Sagnac. Let's examine which view is the correct one.

CB: "It’s trivially understood by realizing the distances traveled by the light beams would not be the same"

>> But this cannot be right.

Consider the apparatus at rest.

The time taken for the beams to traverse the stationary apparatus (ie, the path length divided by the speed of light) would be:

t = 2πr/c

But the time taken for the counter-rotating beam to traverse the apparatus when it rotates is:

t' = 2πr/( c + v)

And the time taken for to co-rotating beam to traverse the apparatus when it is rotating is:

t′′ = 2πr/( c - v)

So.

The time for the counter-rotating light to circle the ring is less than when stationary, so this beam is superluminal. The co-rotating beam takes a longer time to traverse the circle, so its speed is subluminal. In either case the speed of light exhibits anisotropy, contrary to Special Relativity.

Obviously.

CB: "and by assuming constant velocity for light you get the correct fringes."

>> No. By assuming SR- a constant velocity for light- you would get zero fringes-

t = 2πr/c

But that is not what Sagnac gets.

Because the constant velocity of light is exactly what the Sagnac experiment shows is not occurring.

Instead it shows that the velocity of light is c +/- v.

In direct contradiction to the foundational postulate of Special Relativity.

Now shall we move on to the obvious next stage, and surrender SR, and move to GR?

CB: And there have been 100 years of experiments since Sagnac and Michaelson-Morely that are inconsistent with any kind of ether.

>> To the contrary. Every single inertial navigational system (most especially including GPS) requires the incorporation of the Sagnac effect.

Sagnac, as we have seen, experimentally confirmed the existence of the aether, since we do not get a constant speed of light when his apparatus rotates.

Which is in direct violation of Special Relativity, and which is confirmed billions of times a day, in every inertial guidance system.

So.

Care to try and deal with Sagnac through GR?

Or can we agree that Sagnac is a clear and decisive refutation of SR?

Can´t you just don´t say:

1: Earth
2.Moon
3. Sun
4. etc.

Just answer the question!

What is the order of planets in your geocentric model?

Or are you just sticking to "thou shall not lie"?

@ Rick,

such a simple question yet you try to evade.. lol.. I know why I'm asking you to list the planets.. You can't.. any list you give from any geocentric model just don't work. If you are so ignorant to claim no observation can distinguish between heliocentric and geocentric model, you are sadly living in dark ages. Since 19th century they can. Go read a bit Rick. I asked you for order of planets because in no geocentric model can you have all phases of Venus accounted for (except if you invent some bizzare situations as this rotates around this, but not that, bla bla bla..). Further more the one argument Tycho had for it's model was parallax. Yet parallax can now be readily observed, he just didn't have good enough telescopes back when he proposed the theory. One other was he couldn't believe that heavenly objects were made of same stuff as earth. He couldn't believe they can move at speeds that they do. Well, guess what, we landed on asteroids, we landed on the moon, we landed on mars. We have plenty of samples. WE KNOW heavenly bodies aren't made of puffy aether stuff. IT'S ALL BEEN DISPROVED for such a long time it's become ancient history. You try to hide your failed model behind irrelevant topics, big words and unrelated answers. The truth is, it just doesn't work. The fact you can't accept it is rather sad, and doesn't make you a scientist (like you so wish to be called) but a zealot and a quack. Just like Chelle and couple of others. Well, rant in this little corner for eternity if you want... I care not. Since you can't even carry a scientific discussion.. pathetic.

Rick, you forgot Max von Laue when making your appeal to authority. Unlike you, he did not forget to account for the motion of the apparatus while the light was circling, causing the co- and counter-rotating beams to travel different distances before reaching the detector.

You also forgot that in the fixed-aether theory the velocity of light did not depend on the velocity of the source, which is why both it and SR explain the results. If the velocity of light was v + c, then the relative velocities of the two light beams would exactly be canceled by motion of the apparatus -- the counter-rotating beam would travel slower, but also a commensurately shorter distance as the detector approached it at the same velocity v, and vice-versa for the co-rotating.

Also, conducting a Sagnac Effect experiment with a large, fixed ring as in the Michelson–Gale–Pearson experiment has amply demonstrated that the earth is rotating.

Which, combined with a heliocentric model of the solar system, amply explains the motion of planets and the existence of seasons. And unfortunately the geocentric model cannot, and ascribing a universal importance to the 'ecliptic' when in this model it oscillates annually while the rest of the firmament does not, makes the whole idea untenable.

Siniska:

"I asked you for order of planets because in no geocentric model can you have all phases of Venus accounted for (except if you invent some bizzare situations as this rotates around this, but not that, bla bla bla..)."

>> Poor Sinica.

"One of the principal advantages, not celebrated in practice until after Tycho's death, is that the model accounts for the change of phases (the apparent illumination, similar to earth's moon) undergone by Mercury and Venus. The fact is, these two inferior planets go through phases (most notably Venus) ranging from a nearly perfect full disk to a thin large crescent shape. That the Tychonic Model could account (indeed would predict) such changes, notably in the wake of Galileo's telescopic discoveries, proved a very strong attraction. These changes of phase could not be accounted for in the Ptolemaic Model, which assumed that Mercury and Venus moved on circles on a line between the earth and Sun, hence, they could not be imagined to go through phase. In Tycho's Model, as in the Copernican, Mercury and Venus were understood to revolve around the Sun and, hence, they would go through phases like the earth's moon."

http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/ufhatch/pages/03-Sci-Rev/SCI-REV-Home/res…

Poor Rick.. yes, they rotate around sun.. not earth.. it's a clumsy innadequate model. It tried to mix and mach both worlds, observational (copernican) and religious. It worked for couple of decades but was abandoned, except for quacks like you. That's just the scratch.. if we go further and introduce gravity and other things, it just falls/fails completely.

Proof:
Assume velocity of light and source add.
Let a = angular velocity of source and detector
C = angular velocity of light with source at rest.
t0 = time of flight of counter-rotating light beam of angular velocity C - a
t1 = time of flight of co-rotating light beam of angular velocity C + a

t0 = (2*pi - t0*a) / (C-a) -- during the time t0 it takes the counter-rotating beam to reach the detector, the detector will have moved t0 * a radians in the opposite direction, so the total distance is 2*pi - t0*a radians.

t0(C-a) = 2pi - a*t0 -- multiply both sides by C-a
t0*C - t0*a = 2pi - a*t0 -- distribute C-a on left side
t0*C = 2pi -- add a*t0 to both sides
t0 = 2pi / C
If the velocity of light is additive with the source, then the time of flight is independent of the angular velocity of the apparatus, QED.

And of course the same thing happens for t1.

Because the Sagnac experiment shows interference fringes dependent on the angular velocity of the apparatus, the speed of light cannot be additive with the source.

@CB:

"The stars do NOT rotate around the ecliptic. They rotate around the equator. During the course of a year, the position of the stars with respect to the equator changes only minutely. The position of the sun with respect to the equator, and thus in the geocentric model the plane defined by the orbit of the sun around the earth (approx. if you also include other planets) changes on a daily basis. While the orbit of the stars do not."

>> Since the sun is 1 AU from Earth, and the most distant star visible to the naked eye (V762 Cas in Cassiopeia) is 1,031, 313,411.0311 AU from Earth, let's try an experiment here.

Hold your finger up a foot in front of your face.

Let's call that 1 AU.

Have someone hold their finger up 1,031, 313,411.0311 feet from your face (let's call it a million feet, or about 189 miles).

Let's assume the distant figure is attached to a very powerful light source, and we do this at night.

Now move your finger up and down a non-trivial amount; say, 23.5 degrees.

Let's assume the distant figure moves up and down the same amount.

Question: Will we observe a trivial motion of the distant finger, compared to the one a foot in front of our face?

No.

We won't observe the distant one to move at all.

But it moved.

CB: "This issue of course goes away completely if you assume instead that the earth is orbiting the sun."

>> This issue goes away if you assume that the stars are much more distant than the sun.

CB: Then it’s not the ecliptic that moves, but the earth’s position in orbit thus trivially creating a changing position of the ecliptic relative to the equator."

>> Observations would be exactly the same under either scenario, since the distances to the stars are so much greater than the distance to the sun.

CB: You’re accidentally letting the heliocentric model of the solar system inform your ideas of what constitutes the ecliptic"

>> No, it is the Axis of Evil that does that for us. The ecliptic and the Axis are aligned. The ecliptic is a local plane, the Axis a cosmological plane.

Since they are aligned, In fact they both are the same plane.

Which one and precisely one cosmology predicts.

Hint: It ain't heliocentrism, and it ain't consensus cosmology.

"Now move your finger up and down a non-trivial amount; say, 23.5 degrees. Let’s assume the distant figure moves up and down the same amount Question: Will we observe a trivial motion of the distant finger, compared to the one a foot in front of our face?."

Oh LOL. Yeah, if you moved the distant object the same LINEAR displacement, then you would not observe the same ANGULAR displacement, and thus as a direct consequence any previously assumed alignment between the two objects and our world would cease to exist.

It's only by having the distant object move the same ANGULAR distance that it would retain the same alignment -- as is the case with the planets and sun despite all being at vastly different distances where the difference between linear and angular displacement would be quite apparent, and not the case with the rest of the firmament.

So yeah, when you've gone so far down the rabbit hole that you (deliberately? who cares?) confuse angular and linear displacements just to avoid the terminal problem of the changing ecliptic with respect to a fixed earth, I think I've no reason to continue following.

CB: You are of course correct, an elementary blunder on my part.

I will have to take this one upstairs, I am in your debt.

Whether you continue following or not.

Upstairs?

"Upstairs" could refer to the brain, or it could refer to heaven. If he means the former, and actually plans on thinking about this and the implications, it's a miracle (nyuk nyuk nyuk).

"Upstairs", means to the PhD's.

And I most certainly do plan on thinking about this and the implications.

That's what it's all about, isn;t it?

Translation = let me go ask people smarter than me to look up some obscure paper which we will not fully understand and most likely take out of context to fulfill our warped reality while ignoring all evidence to the contrary

That's what it's all about, isn't it?

CB:
You said "During the course of a year, the position of the stars with respect to the equator changes only minutely."

>> But this is not correct, is it?

"But the stars' positions in the sky do not repeat themselves exactly from one night to the next. Each night, the whole celestial sphere appears to be shifted a little relative to the horizon, compared with the night before. The easiest way to confirm this difference is by noticing the stars that are visible just after sunset or just before dawn. You will find that they are in slightly different locations from those of the previous night. Because of this shift, a day measured by the stars—called a sidereal day after the Latin word sidus, meaning "star —differs in length from a solar day. Evidently, there is more to the apparent motion of the heavens than simple rotation."

http://lifeng.lamost.org/courses/astrotoday/CHAISSON/AT301/HTML/AT30103…

So there appear to be two distinct motions visible to us from Earth under the geocentric (or the heliocentric- they are perfectly co-variant) hypothesis.

First, the Sun, which rotates around the Earth every twenty four hours.

Second, the stars, which rotate around the Earth every twenty three hours and fifty six minutes.

So it seems the difference is not "trivial", but in fact over the course of a year will actually bring entirely different constellations into view.

CB: "The position of the sun with respect to the equator, and thus in the geocentric model the plane defined by the orbit of the sun around the earth (approx. if you also include other planets) changes on a daily basis. While the orbit of the stars do not."

>> But this is wrong, CB.

"Each night, the whole celestial sphere appears to be shifted a little relative to the horizon, compared with the night before. The easiest way to confirm this difference is by noticing the stars that are visible just after sunset or just before dawn. You will find that they are in slightly different locations from those of the previous night. "

Hmmm. I wonder what would happen if we assumed a daily rotation of the stars along the equator, but an annual precession along the ecliptic?

I do believe this would answer all observations. wouldn't it, CB?

Thanks for raising a very old objection in a very new way.

Your objection is answered.

The objection is answered, but the answer is actually merely a response.

You have problems with the movement of the stars. The pole star used to be in Draco.

Barnards star has one of the largest proper motions across the sky. Deneb has almost no proper motion. Double stars change their separation and direction of apparent alignment.

How, precisely, do these occur when they are stuck in a firmament you claim has them orbiting them the earth? Are these stars falling off the curtains?

I´m bored.
*bis*
*bis*
etc

Whatever you say, Rick will go upstairs (and I´m afraid he litteraly does that) to seek advice for retoric answers with "irrefutable proof" and comes back. That´s Rick´s assignement this week/month/whatever.
Rick is is a simple trainee.
And he´ll show up soon at a door next you to unlease his new found retorics to sell whatever book they sell.

So, any response to him is only helping him getting better to sell whatever book they sell to the old lady next door.

He wears black well pressed pants, a super white shirt wih a black tie and cleanly polished shoes.
[/no shit Sherlock]

When I come across guys like Rick, I always think of the late dreat Dave Allen.

Still priceless

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgbkdrOl3sw

I love him.

and btw it is Dred Dave Allen

with double d
grmbl

@Wow:

W: "The objection is answered"

>> Yes.

W: "but the answer is actually merely a response"

>> Is there a distinction you can specify?

W: You have problems with the movement of the stars."

>> Not so far.

W: The pole star used to be in Draco.

>> Let us stipulate to this. Why does this pose a problem for the geocentric model? We have already established that there are precessions/nutations in the model, just as in yours.

W: "Barnards star has one of the largest proper motions across the sky. Deneb has almost no proper motion."

>> Since stars have a proper motion in the model, why would this be a problem for us and not for you?

Let's face it, Wow. You guys have already decided that you can sprinkle in 96% of the missing mass wherever and whenever you need it.

I do think that sort of undermines resort to arguments from personal incredulity.

So far not a single objection raised on observational or physics grounds has proven to be sustainable.

But maybe there is one.

If there is, I hope one of the posters here can advance it.

W: Double stars change their separation and direction of apparent alignment.

>> Really? Fascinating. I suppose, since they do that according to the laws of physics, they must do that in either a geocentric or heliocentric frame, indifferently, yes?

W: How, precisely, do these occur when they are stuck in a firmament you claim has them orbiting them the earth? Are these stars falling off the curtains?

>> One question, one answer.

First the question:

How, precisely, do these occur when they are supposedly only able to move according to the force of gravity, in a universe which lacks 96 per cent of the mass to account for these motions?

Now, the answer:

What you call upon dark matter, dark energy, the inflaton, and the multiverse to do for you, we call upon spherically propagating force of gravity, and a substance of space ("firmament") to do for us.

So it seems to boil down to whether space is a substance, capable of generating gravitationally observable effects.

Ta-da!

We both agree that it is.

It's just that you guys insist this substance is a nothing, which contains something, which is really nothing, except it bends and curves and involves 96 per cent of its mass in forms invented so as to fit the FLRW solutions to Einstein's equations.

Ehm... one thing.
Nobody agrees with you.

That´s another twisting little lie you like to include in your posts.
Worst part is that Rick is now well in the google search comming up here, giving him some sort of a legit sauce.
And he will use that when selling whatever book he wants to sel to some old lady.
"Look here at this real science site..." pointing to his backward math. So the old lady is properly impressed thinking "oh well he is publising on a real science site"
And he sells his whatever book.
Rick is evil. Pure and simple.

@David @David 4:04am Sep 26

"Rick’s universe appears to be identical to a Ethan’s with a displaced co-ordinate system and lots of angular momentum."

>> Yes.

D: "and no theory on the source of the force generating the required centripetal acceleration"

>> Oh, there are theories, just as Ethan's universe involves theories of inflation, dark matter, dark energy, spacetime curvature, and ultimately (inescapably, as a consequence of its metaphysical foundation, the Copernican Principle)......the multiverse.

Of course it all comes down to the question of space.

What is it?

Is it a nothing which bends and curves, and contains something which, while nothing, produces observable gravitational effects on cosmological scales?

Or is it i substance of Planck-scale particles, capable of propagating gravitational and electromagnetic forces, and generating centripetal and centrifugal forces by rotation, which would explain redshifts and resolve other anomalies?

D: "Further up the thread I asked :

: “Rick, the impression I get from your posts is that there is no experimental observation that can distinguish between the current Big Bang model and a geocentric one, or am I wrong?.”

On September 24, at 8:58 am he replied:

>> You are exactly right.

Unless, it seems, when he thinks experimental observations can be interpreted to confirm his model!"

>> Point well taken. I will simply say this:

If Relativity is true then geocentrism is, scientifically, a viable option, a permissible frame amongst an infinity of others..

However, "strong geocentrism" would have to have support on metaphysical grounds; that is, it would have to present us with a better overall picture of reality than polycentrism.

I believe it does, but this is probably not the forum to discuss the metaphysical aspects of the question.

But we have reached the stage where metaphysical questions are now the important ones.

Physics has gone as far as it can go down the road of its metaphysical foundation, the Copernican Principle.

Next stop down that line is the never never land of the multiverse.

I think our metaphysics are greatly superior, and ultimately science will recognize this.

It will really have no choice.

@Michel:

As I read over your post, I could smell the kindling burning.

History may not repeat itself (then again, it might).....but as Mark Twain says, it certainly rhymes.

Purged of its ominous undertone of hate, your post proposes that I have a different world view and intend to defend it.

That much is true.

@CB September 27, 12:39 pm

Thank you for the proof, I will consider it carefully and respond.

I don´t hate you. I simply don´t like the way you twist words in your favor and your hidden agenda. And what I don´t like is your unwillingness to really learn something because you´re stuck within your dogma.
Also you pretend to be willing to explore but are unwilling to accept things you don´t like. And what I DO hate about you is your "maryr-like" behaviour. Because that exposes you for what you are.
Any way. I can´t be really bothered, because YOU believe in some hereafter. And that´s makes you scared. And rightly so. Because when there is an afterlife you have enough to be scared about. I on the other hand have lived my life in goodness. Helping people. Saving lives. Or simply paying their debt because they couldn´t etc.
And that´s why I don´t like people like you. You blabber and do nothing. No go upstairs and don´t come back.

maryr=martyr

You are simply here to hone and train your abillities to sell some books later to gullable people.
And you know it.

You, sir, are a fraud.

Oh and btw I think (but that´s just a hunch) multiverse(s) are very possible. Simply because we first discovered that planets are what they are in our own solar system. Then we discovered that our Milky Way is just one of many. Then we discovered a lot of planets orbiting other stars etc etc
So why wouldn´t their be other universes, Specially now we are starting to see dimples and bumbs in our own universe. Who is pushing against us?
Anyway. That´s much more fun than your backwards retorics with some dumbass math play.

Ow, and I don´t like your tone.

@ Michel:

"I don´t hate you. I simply don´t like the way you twist words in your favor and your hidden agenda."

>> I am glad you don't hate me. For a minute there I thought you might.

I honestly don't see how you could accuse me of hiding my agenda.

It has never been hidden in the slightest way at all, as I think a glance at the comment threads will affirm.

If I have "twisted words" (what does that mean, exactly? Does it boil down to "defended my position"?) then I would ask you to point to a specific instance.

M: "And what I don´t like is your unwillingness to really learn something because you´re stuck within your dogma."

>> I have already learned several important things here, and I am faced with one objection (CB's proffered proof of a consistency of Sagnac with SR) that will require a serious response.

M: Also you pretend to be willing to explore but are unwilling to accept things you don´t like.

>> I am unwilling to accept things that can be demonstrated not to be true, or can be demonstrated to be susceptible of explanation under the geocentric hypothesis at least equally as well as under an heliocentric or polycentric hypothesis.

M: And what I DO hate about you

>> Uh oh. I thought that one had been defused.......

M: is your “maryr-like” behaviour. Because that exposes you for what you are."

>> Hmmm....there's that smell again.............

M: Any way. I can´t be really bothered, because YOU believe in some hereafter. And that´s makes you scared. And rightly so. Because when there is an afterlife you have enough to be scared about. I on the other hand have lived my life in goodness. Helping people. Saving lives. Or simply paying their debt because they couldn´t etc.
And that´s why I don´t like people like you. You blabber and do nothing. No go upstairs and don´t come back.

>> "I thank God that I am not like this other sinner.........."

Well, Michel, Christ came for the sinners, not the noble, honest, charitable and good folks, so that probably is the real root of your distaste for me.

And Him.

QED

Good to see you see yourself as a sinner.
I would say: pick up from there. Let it go and be good and do something. And stop blabbering here. Get out there and get your hands dirty.

And thank you for pointing out to me more clearly why I get a bad taste about you.
It´s you.

But rest assured, if you ever have a heart attack in front of me I will reanimate you. Because I really don´t give a damn who or what you are. You are after all another human being.

@Michel 10:23 am

"Oh and btw I think (but that´s just a hunch) multiverse(s) are very possible."

>> Certainly they are possible. After all, essentially the multiverse is the infinity of all potential realities, a metaphysical concept dressed up as if it were a scientific one.

If one attempts to construct a metaphysics without God, or a universe with a Copernican Principle, the multiverse is a necessary proposition in either case.

M: "Simply because we first discovered that planets are what they are in our own solar system. Then we discovered that our Milky Way is just one of many. Then we discovered a lot of planets orbiting other stars etc etc
So why wouldn´t their be other universes"

>> Because this does not follow, logically, from the premise. It also leads one to conflate multiverses with "universes" (there can be only one universe, the word is not susceptible of application to more than one).

M: Specially now we are starting to see dimples and bumbs in our own universe.

>> Just starting to? I do nopt understand what you mean here. Can you be more specific?

M: Who is pushing against us?

>> On what basis do you conclude that someone is pushing against us?

"giving him some sort of a legit sauce."

Since he's probably the other half of the chelle/Chelle double act (you did notice that they used capitals and uncapitalised, right?) and they've tried this tired old aether/firmament ('cos it's in the bible and scientists are all evil nazis) for YEARS, all they've managed to do is bore the arse off everyone and demonstrate how unimaginative they are.

To a google gallileo like these two, mere existence is, for them, proof of their superior intellect. That the rest of the world disagrees they see as proof they are persecuted for their greatness.

"But rest assured, if you ever have a heart attack in front of me I will reanimate you. Because I really don´t give a damn who or what you are. You are after all another human being."

>> On this basis we at last find common ground.

Sheesh, Wow, you are really getting worked up all out of proportion to the circumstances here.

We have different world views, and we are examining them critically.

Why don;t you just come right out and ask me if I am "chelle", or have ever used "chelle" as my identity in any internet post?

Unlike you, Wow, I post under my own name, precisely because I take responsibility for what I say.

>> On what basis do you conclude that someone is pushing against us?

Oh, euh, I don´t know. Maybe articles like this. Like trying to keep up with were we are NOW and not so much were we were then. And sorry, but your view you keep defending is, let me say it kindly, kinda YAAAWWNNNN.

http://phys.org/news/2010-12-scientists-evidence-universes.html

Anyway. A little advice. Let it rest and do something really usefull with your life and keep this as a hobby. Not your fulltime dayjob like it looks it is now.
Maybe you´ll better yourself.

Oh and comming out. I´m good at comming out. I still see the face of my parents when I said was straight.

So here comes:

Are you Chelle?

+ I somerwere

@Michel:

http://phys.org/news/2010-12-scientists-evidence-universes.html

Ah, I see what you are referring to now. Yes, it certainly seems that a lot of people are waiting for Planck to report.

I certainly am.

@Michel:

"So here comes:

Are you Chelle?"

>> Nope. Have no idea who Chelle might be. I am Rick DeLano, just like it says on every one of my posts.

"a lot of people are waiting for Planck to report."

There must be a knock knock joke in there.

Anyhow. That´s what´s really interresting. Just like it is great to see Curiousity "racing" around on Mars. Finding all kind of new stuff.

Yes, Curiosity is fantastic, just the video of its final descent was the best movie I've seen all year.

"just like it says on every one of my posts."

And you want us to believe Chelle is a real full name?

Interesting.

For someone who wishes people to think outside the box, you're rather inclosed.

You know what it is whith boxes, don´t you?
Take these two for exapmle. They have the box, but do know yet if it is alive or dead.

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/forums/viewthread/15015/

grrr + not

"For someone who wishes people to think outside the box, you’re rather inclosed."

II think you mean he wants us to think in his box.

Rick, the HORIZON is not the same as the EQUATOR. That website is talking about where stars appear at the same time of day as determined by the sun, as in different parts of the sky are visible at night during the year, is in an apparent east-west motion relative to the sun, as in why the solar and sidereal days are different. The DECLINATION, as in the angle relative to the equator, of the stars changes only minutely. The declination of the sun, however, changes +/- 23 degrees.

And now I'm really, trully, done. You don't even understand the apparent motion of the heavens that your model is trying to explain, such that you have to google it and then still misinterpret the results, quoting but not understanding why it says "The easiest way to confirm this difference is by noticing the stars that are visible just after sunset". Or you're just pretending that you actually are this unstudied about the issue you're pretending to be so right about. I really, truly, no longer care.

Thanks for considering my proof, though. I hope you'll decide to read further and realize the results are also consistent with a fixed aether which does not predict v+c for the Sagnac apparatus, and maybe even figure out how this differs from the results for Michaelson-Morely (and the later experiments of far greater precision) and aether theories necessary to explain them.

But let's be honest. Not going to happen.

Well, I don;t know whether it's going to happen on Sagnac, because that is not as important as the question of whether motions can be accounted for under a geocentric hypothesis of an annual precession of the stars/sun along the ecliptic.

That one's important and you just blew it into tiny little smithereens.

Thanks, this was quite painful, and hence very good for me.

I will still be back to you on Sagnac but I have bigger problems just now.

Rick, for what it is worth, I don't think you are even remotely like Chelle.You have listened to arguments and grasped their implication on several occasions.

I don't know if you are familiar with the concept of Morton's Demon, ( http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb02.html ). Chelle's is in total control and will let nothing shake her delusions. Yours I think has left his apprentice in charge, and if I might mix my metaphors, the apprentice is only plugging the leaks in the dyke with his fingers. How many does he have left? There may be hope for you!

He's not budged an inch.

When asked a question he can't answer "Interesting question" isn't really an improvement.

Answering it or conceding that there are problems with this firmament would be.

DavidL,

"Chelle’s (demon) is in total control …"

Spot on.

"When I go down the street
The people watch me shiver and shake
I'm a prisoner of a demon
I think my head's about to break
it stays with me wherever I go
I can't break away from its hold
This must be punishment
For selling my soul"
http://youtu.be/dk7weY4zwJY

I'm Holy Ricky's evil twin; I drink, do drugs, have multiple partners, curse on thy lord, and oh yeah I don't follow the Big Bang-theory like them catholic sheep boys. I am a true diabolic pagan :mrgreen:

Bad luck wind always blowin' on my back ...

High Guys, Long time reader first time poster...
I followed the Rick DeLano trail of crumbs here.

http://www.acceptingabundance.com/ten-points-to-geocentrism/

Scary stuff in the comments section that outlines 'his' MO.
As if it wasn't obvious. Give him a home crowd to play to and 'he' sounds like a Bond Villain. Makes an interesting tone comparison to his comments here.

Bond Villains usually tend to get the short end.

They're also entertaining, unlike the troll collective.

And darn, that link that Hesaurus posted is unnerving.
Simply discusting to see how shotsighted people want to be. And how they use scare tactics to propagte their beliefs. And doing so, going against everything they are propagating.
Anyway, this morning I woke up early.
Stepped outside. Nice early chill. Moon 374 down to setting and right above me a stunning super bright Jupiter and next to Orion in all it´s glory. Mind you, moon, early sunrise. East just a bit of reddish and some turqoise.
And yet Orion bright and beautiful with Jupiter at it´s side.
Some hens doing their cries. Some birds making first calls.
And one of my cats biting my calf, moving me on to the kitchen.
It was a good start.

374 = 3/4

When you start with a conclusion and spend your life trying to skew the data to fit you are doomed live in a less beautiful universe. You already know everything you are ever going accept as true. Who knows where the data will lead the inquiring and open mind that is willing to follow. Not to the dogmas of the ignorant past. I'd take that bet.

Went and read Rick's posts on that blog as well as some from his own. How sad and scary it must be for them. If your whole spiritual belief system rests on weather or not Earth is stationary, then something is seriously wrong with your belief system. I wonder if they also charge the biologists and doctors, for it clearly says in the "holy scriptures" (don't really understand what makes them holy since they've been written by ppl like you and me .. but anyways) that women came forth from ribs, and that Adam and Eve shagged so much that if she was really a human she must have got blisters down there... Are these the fundamentals of your beliefs? That those things must be true or everything else is wrong also. Really? Are you serious? To quote a wise man: "oh yea of little faith". How appropriate this sentence is for all the Rick's out there. Spirituality never was about science. Spiritual realm is not the physical realm even if you believe it's real. You take words of Jewish priests some 2500 years ago as absolute truth about everything around us? Are you mad? Are you that dumb? Just because some guy wrote something on a piece of paper while he was sitting in a mud house in Babylon doesn't make that truth. Do you even know what you are worshiping? Do you even know what holy trinity is, I mean really know and understand, or are you just repeating lines from a book like a parrot? If you really even glimpsed a speck of enlightenment, you wouldn't need the church or priest or your one precious book. God (if you choose to believe in something like that) is in you, not above you. He's not "up" in heavens... heaven doesn't exist. There's no pearly gates and st. Peter. Spirituality and "belief" come from within, not from outside. And it absolutely matters not what is written in one book. The really important truths are revealed to those who seek, regardless of religion or creed and can hardly be even expressed in words. Hence the need for metaphores. It matters not if Earth rotates or stops, if there are two suns or sky is green. If there is a spiritual realm, all of these physical things matter not. The fact that you, Rick, can't understand that, can't fathom that, is sad. Your faith is so weak and fragile that you want, need, physical anchor for spiritual world. You need every word of the Bible to be true to every letter, because if you accept that even one is wrong, then your whole pyramid of cards falls down. But the problem is not in physics, the problem is in you. You can't reconcile your ancient belief system, with modern world. Oh, it was so easy 2000 years ago. You could just say that God was behind a cloud, and it was fine. Can't really do that today, can you? Were did Jesus actually ascend to? What's up? Where up? Up to clouds, up to Earth's orbit? Up to Moon? Mars? Saturn maybe? Where exactly is this "heaven" in the order of things? If it's indeed "beyond" the physical, then why do you dwell so much on physical. It's not in the material that spiritual truths are placed.
I'm honestly sad that I, as an atheist as far as christianity/muslim and such goes, seem to be able to reconcile spirituality and physical world, yet you can't. The sadder part is that you seem to how no knowledge of the history of your belief system. It didn't start 2012 years ago.. it started much much longer ago. And no, they don't teach that in Sunday schools. You close your mind on purpose. Can't see worse hell than that.

That sums it pretty well Sinisa.
As I said earlier more or less: just try to be a good person in life. Learn, help, go for it and you´ll find wonderous and beautiful things all around you. And you don´t need some priest/imam/rabi of sorts to accomplish that. I even would say that those "guides" are more of a hinder than help. They all seem to be in it to excercise some sort of power over people. And that is simply pure evil.
And if you listen to them you shut your self down. Nothing worse than a non-thinker. Those people don´t think, explore or find answers themselfs. Laziness is maybe a factor. It is easier just to listen to someone instead of reading and looking things up. On a smaller scale I notice that with clients of mine. "I can´t send my mail, there is something wrong with YOUR computer". So I go over and see a clear message saying something about why it couldn´t send it. So I ask "Have you read what it says here?"
Client:"I don´t understand that"
I: "Have you read it?"
I point to the message
They simply stare.
SO I then will read it out loud "your message can´t be send because the email adress isn´t valid" (or whatever it says)
They simply stare. You can actually see in their [....] face that they are not even trying.
So they blurt "no it is right"
I allready saw even before I bagan to get some sense into them that they used a , instead of a . or dat they used a space between the first and the last name of the receipient instead of a _ or -
People don´t want to think, they want to have spoonfed to them. And after 12 years running my internetcafe I simpluy hate them. Not as a human, but because of their willingly selfinflicted stupidity.
Reading two sentences is too much for them.
ANd don´t think these people are dumb or uneducated. I get people of all wlaks of life. Like that professor from the University of Barcelona. He is just the same. If IE or Mozilla starts up the home page is google. He opens IE sees google and closes IE. Opens it again sees google and closes it again. Then he sighs and comes to me that the computer isn´t working ricght. I ask what it is and he says that this google comes up every time instead of his email.
$"/·&$%**!!! How f´ing stupid cab you be. And btw he is doing this for the last six years in a row. And it takes almost a whole week to learn that he simply has to type in www.gmail.com
ANd than I have to teach him every f´ing holiday all over again WERE to type it in.
He is a f´ng paleontholgist who teaches at a university!! for crying out loud.
I always say: "the moment a person sits in front (you don´t sit behind) a "strange" computer people loose at least 25 IQ points".

dumbasses.

sorry for the typos but I can´t be bothered to take the time to correct them. And if you really read, you´ll correct it automatically. Because if you use your brain even for a fraction it will correct it.

And the same goes for ethics, the meaning of life questions, right/wrong etc. People don´t want to think.
"If I have to think about that it scares me" or (more truthfull) "I don´t want to think about that".
That is any "big" thing that´s need some reflection, empathy, working something out for yourself.
People are just plain lazy. So they rather follow some guy in a robe who will TELL them what to do.

Sometimes when I feel like it and the sky is nice I simply plonk my telescope on the pavement in front of my shop and everybody can have a look if they want.
And you´ll be surprised how many people decline. And most of them use blabber things like "You shouldn´t" or "That´s not for us"
And ok, Spain is still a very catholic country. But what surprises me most is that a lot of those people who decline think of themselfs as "free".
Still they are under the dogma surpressing force.
Some will let their kids have a look, but don´t wnat to look for themselfs.
It´s truelly amazing.
And btw, never ever in the bible/quran/talmut it is said you shouldn´t think for yourself. Instead it says you have to learn and become better (whatever that may be). No, it´s the people (priests/imams/rabi´s) that want to keep people down and dumb. And so going directly against their own faith.
So showing that they are only into it for power over others.
Anyway, they are also the people who are most afraid to meet their "maker".
I´m not.
Bring it on dude.

Hesaurus

"When you start with a conclusion and spend your life trying to skew the data to fit you are doomed live in a less beautiful universe."

Sigh. Big bangers have been doing nothing but skewing their theory to fit the data: http://youtu.be/IcxptIJS7kQ

Complaining about splinters in the eyes of the mainstream science whilst ignoring the entire arborial forest in their own dogma...

lol, I'm not led by any dogma's.

I'm pointing out that Big Bang theory has been a patch work because it follows a single conceptual Big Bang idea from the start as well explained in the video. Science has always been 'doomed' to adjust the models; like a geocentric model that relatively worked back in the days and was defended by mainstream scientists of that time, it was flawed and the heliocentric model was adopted thanks to fresh new scientists such as Kepler and Galileo; similar to how Newton's gravity had a flaw and was adjusted by Einstein's GR.

I have no religious motivations; I like to consider the fact that a Static model might still do the job, if you look at us influencing the light that moves towards us, causing the RedShift that makes it look like everything is expanding away from us. There is no need to be neurotic about what my motivations are.

lol, yes you are.

"Science has always been ‘doomed’ to adjust the models;"

Which is one way we know you and dick aren't doing science. You're insistent on not adjusting your "models".

Chelle wouldn´t recognise a duck.
(And I´m not even talking about Prize Winning Mallards)

And Chelle totally misses the point, AGAIN, about science. The Big Bang is the best what we´ve got so far. But scientist are looking for more. That´s not the same as saying, as you do, that scientists are looking for things to "make it work". If scientists find out, after looking into everything (and in the mean time finding more stuff) that there is something else instead of the Big Bang, they´ll drop it and go after what is behind were we came from. That´s not "making things fit", that´s finding out. And you Chelle are just a pathetic little thing that can´t get your little brain around that. By studying and learning you´ll find out more.
Bur whatever. I don´t give a shit about you and your pathetic ideas. You will meet your maker. And I don´t give a shit.
You are the one that is stying stuck, while science moves on. Finding things you have never dreamt about or contemplatde. Simply because you WON´T. That´s your hangup.
Libraries full of books, but you simply stay with the one you have IGNORING the rest. Yet you have the audacity to say: science simply sticks to their ideas. While science will and can adapt when new evidence is presented if necessary.
And thus, you, in my eyes, are a waste and you go against whatever scripture you believe in.
I pitty you deeply, but I will not pray for you (as religious always say to me... "I´ll pray for you"). You simply have to face your self. Because YOU are your GREATEST enemy.
Now go to look at yourself in a mirror and REALLY look yourself in your eyes.
But you won´t. You´ll simply come back with a witty comment, showing that you never ever have really touched your soul, or even confronted yourself. And tha´s because you are one of those who like to be told what to think by some person in a robe. Something that you will deny with a lot of energy. But you do that because you never searched within, or by yourself and because you are afraid of what "the neighbours/parents"or whatever circle you are in" will say if you do.
Anyway, your life is yours to live. Enjoy it while you can.
You are an example...

The difference between a scientist and a religious person (who will state over and over again that are not), is that scientists don´t give a rat´s ass about what they find, while religious people will stick with what they have and won´t budge. And what is really evil is that religious people will happily burn/shoot/blow up everyone who dooesn´t see things like they do.
I still have to meet the first scientist who has burned anyone at the stake for their believes.

@WoW
"Which is one way we know you and dick ..."

Let´s keep it nice hey It´s Rick.

Dick is correct too.

Michel,

Why don't you just first read what I write, before making a fool of yourself.

Michel, agree with you completely. In fact some of the things you point to are the very reasons for there being mass religions in the first place. From the dawn of time there have been individuals or very small groups who through hard labor and a lot of sacrifice reached certain "realizations" or truths or insights... call them what you will, it matters not. The point being that they realized something which the rest didn't or couldn't. In the old days they were termed "arcanum" or "secrets". Spiritual secrets. Weather or not these are true or just manifestations of sub-concious is irrelevant for this topic. The problem was and still is, that to reach that "enlightened" state, takes a lot of self sacrifice. Your whole being needs to change in order to accomodate such a lifestyle. But then there was a problem. The majority of people, while on one hand wanted to "be part" of that, had no desire or force of will to change themselves. Thus organized religion was born. Instant ritual for the masses. You don't have to change yourself, you don't have to do anything. Just come to us couple of times a week, we'll tell you what to do and ensure you that what you do for us has lasting effects "out there", oh and by the way, leave some money just so we can "carry on" our good work. Because we can't share with you the insights we gained through i.e. deep meditation. We know it doesn't work that way, but you don't know that. But we can tell you that we'll meditate for you, and thus you'll be just as good as we are. One doesn't need to go in ancient history to see this. Enough is to look i.e. into early Christianity (1st and 2nd century a.d.). That christianity is very different from today's teachings of the church. Just research Gnostics and their fate. I would go so far as to claim that easrly christianity was what later became mysticism. And as such prosecuted by the very bannerman of it. Ironic in a way. But that's the truth of organized religion. If one wanted a modern world parallel, politics and information are a very good comparation. On one hand you have high ranking goverment official talking behind closed doors (inner sanctum, arcanum), and on the other hand you have the media and PR "distiling" (organized religion) all of it and making it "easy" enough for general populace to comprehend. Because deep down, and average Joe, can't and even doesn't want to know what goes on behind closed doors. It would scare him if he knew. He doesn't want to be held accountable for his actions. He wants to "know" but he doesn't want to carry the responsibility.
Same can be said for any walk of life. Be it science ( I want to know, but I don't want to study for years on... it's so boooring, can't I just read one book and know everything there is to know), be it spirituality (I want to be enlightened like Jesus or Budha, but I really don't want to be a monk, I still want to drink, whore, gamble etc...Can't you make up something for me?) etc...
And I share your sentiment in the end... screw them. They are weak. It's them living in the darkness, not me. The bigger the zealot, the weaker he is in person. It's themselves they are running from.

Dear Chelle,

whatever.

Hi Sisana,

You know. I and my wife live our lifes. We try to do good things, within our grasp. Then religious people start blabbering that we "have the lord (or whatever) in us. That we are soooooo gooooood. However they don´t do shit when it counts. So we say: "ehm... we don´t, we just do" and then they say "Seee it´s clear you have it, but you don´t know it yet"
*sigh*
And then they start rambling hoe we good we are and not wanting to know about it etc. and they will pray for us.
Why would they pray for us when they say we are already that good.
Makes me sick. Instead of praying they could actually do something.
But when you say that a kinda "follow the sandal" kinda scen evolves (yes that´s from Life of Brian).
So we say so.
Then they start that we are even better.
You can´t argue with them. The more you reject them the more they want you.
Makes me sick. Hypocrites.
And when I say that they can do it themself, they start with things like "yes easy said but done and you have it in you"
FUCK THEM!!!
Just do it dumbass.
And don´t be fooled into things like recognition.
I don´t give a damn about anybody.
However when I see someone in need and I can halp a bit I do it.
That DOES NOT MAKE ME A SAINT!
So piss off and fuck yourself.
Shut up and do.
But when I say that, they say "see how good you are"
Please be my witness: if anybobody want to sactify me, shoot hem instead.
Those kinda people makes me want to not help anymore.
Just step over someone who is down.
And then those kinda people have the audacity to tell me how the universe works...
pffffffff
As (a very misunderstood*) queen once said: let them eat cake.
So I see those reli-people as the real blasfemers. They talk to much and don´t do anything.

* She said that (more or less), because that was the law in those days. To protect people against greedy bakers. Bakers who tended to bake not enough bread so they could more expensive cake instead. So the law went: if you run out of bread, you have to sell your cake for the price of bread.

So in the end they make me hate people.
And I love science, because it´s facts that count and not what you think.
You can and may and please do think whatever you will.

Michel,

The problem is that you keep on ranting about religion while I have got nothing to do with religion. The same goes for Sinisa and Wow, the whole time its about religion. When I say that the Universe we live in might be Static, and we are influencing the incoming light, I need to hear each time that I'm a religious person, it is totally irrelevant, but oh so easy to push someone in that corner, to form a front against me. Well if you don't read what I write, and simply accept Wow's insinuations just like that, than you are his bitch.

Oh and btw.
Just to make it clear, I do like to "fornicate" and have my smoke at the end of the day and have my beer/wine.
If that doesn´t make me a sinner I don´t know what will.
People should educate themselfs. And a good teachre may help. But choose your teachers wisely. And always keep asking questions. Ponder whatever problem you have/encounter. Seek advice. Ask. Whatever. But at the end it is YOU who has to make the "right" dessision. It´s not up to anyone else. Not even me.
Now all of you have a nice day, enjoy yoursels in this life. Go were you want to go. Seek whatever you want to seek. And be nice. Help if you can. Don´t do harm.
Or else I´ll get pissed.
Good luck.

@Chelle
Good for you.
And since this section of "Starts with a Bang" is kinda of speaking corner. I finally open up and say what I think and feel. If you feel offended. Sorry.

"it is totally irrelevant"

You're talking about your little brown "nuggets" of wisdom, right?

You take your position of there being an aether because you want scientists to be wrong and you want that because you're a faithiest.

You've given the game away, since you claimed categorically that all scientists were Mengele whilst Christianity was only ever good.

I´ll do any position (if agile enough).

Ok, one photo, just to show what I don´t like.

http://www.maxpam.nl/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/Kinderen%20die%20gelove…

The woman is the former dutch (christian) secretary of education.
She is reading a book for the kids at an christian school, because it was "Kinderboekenweek" (week of the childrens book).
Behind her is a banner that says:

"Kinderen die geloven zijn beter dan kinderen die niet geloven"

which means:

"Children who believe are better than children who don´t believe"

The audacity. And selrightiousness is simply disgusting.
Now, if you want to compare. How about Goebbels?

Correction:
She was the secretary of state of the justice departement. And she was giving a lecture about tolerance.
It is even worse than I remembered.
For those who speak dutch or want to try their google translation skills:
http://www.maxpam.nl/2008/11/

Michel,

"Now, if you want to compare. How about Goebbels?"

Check out this older post of Ethan:
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/08/07/with-all-the-sufferi…

... and my comment on August 8, 12:16 am

If this makes you draw the conclusion that I'm a religious fanatic, and keep on waving with it than there is something wrong with you; which is the case for 'Wow', he is a paranoid *watchdog* of science, one could even say an embarrassment for science.

Regarding that dutch picture, I would say; Duvel Lovers Are Better Lovers ; )

Why do you take everything so personal. Those last post weren´t directed at you, but were in general.
And Duvel is Belgian, not a dutch beer.

And trust me, belgians are not much fun.

"Why do you take everything so personal."

Persecution complex.

If she weren't being persecuted, she might have to consider people are saying she's wrong because she's wrong, rather than everyone else is conspiring against her.

And on a side note. Duvel is high alcohol beer, so the loving part might be dissapointing.

Chelle,

my corespondance with Michel about religion and "some" of it's fanatics stems from what certain Rick (or Dick as Wow calls him :D) posted. So, you just dropped in uninvited and started shouting "me me me"... and since Ethan was good enough to allow "almost" anything in this particular topic, let me frankly say... Piss off! It's not about you and we don't give a rats ass about your views. We started talking about religion not your daydreams. Bye bye.

Nah she can has her say. As long as it is "on topic" whatever that was.
:)
BTW just as yesterday I was greeted this morning just before sunrise with wonderfull views. Clear skies. Moon, Orion and Jupiter. And behind a slight greenish hue of the sun still behind the horizon.
With luck I shall my morning coffee again like that. And as soon as sun rises and washes everything away I´m of to the loo.
But that´s the coffee talking.

And on a lighter note. Soon it´s Halloween. What will you be waring?

This seems to be going to be hot this year:
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18111j0uichd9jpg/original.jpg

Michele,

I hear what you're saying, and sadly things like that are very widespread in the western world. I remember meeting Mormon missionaries while I visited Madrid years ago. Now Mormons are one screwed up bunch. And the missionaries were two really nice American girls. We just met in Retiro park and started chatting. And they were really cool girls with great sense of humor and quite educated, a part from being members of a crazy sect. And since I really enjoy discussing religion with religious psychos (yeah.. i have a dark side, and particulary like playing mind games with brainwashed followers of this and that). So after I carefully listened (well, not really.. I was watching the wonderful park) to their "sermon" about how Mormons are the only true followers of Christ.. bla bla... I asked them a simple question. And it was this... "how can you two ladies believe in Mormon philosophy when in it, women are not deemed "worthy" enough to occupy any serious position in the Mormon hierarchy." And it was like a I took a sledgehammer and ruined their wonderful crystal palace. Their faces went from red, to white, to red, then to some pale green in about 5 seconds. So much for equality and peace on earth. I'm pretty sure they got drilled and brainwashed to reconcile in themselves all those "nasty" discrepencies. But it's both hilarious and sad at the same time how one simple truth in a form of a question can have such a powerful effect. What they don't realize is that I read the Bible and Koran and Torah but also Tao Tze Ching and Bhavad Gita and Nag Hamaddi, also Sumerian myths as well as Ancient Egyptian religious system, ancient Greece and Rome too. I wanted to know, and I wasn't tied down by dogma or scared away by some "divine punishment". And anyone can do that. In fact, I would encourage everyone to do it. Some wonderful pearls of human wisdom are found all across the globe. And civilizations came to very similar conclusions all over the place and time. It was such a rush to me to find almost identical sentences in Torah and Tao.. yet they are divided by thousand years and many miles. And the best part is that I didn't have to bleed or sweat or dig trenches to get all that. Just sit down and read and keep an open mind. Yet questioning everything is the last thing any organized religion wants or needs. That's why I find them repulsive. Dostoyevski in his Grand Inqusitor described it so perfectly that I can only advise to read it. It's only 10-20 pages long, but it gives such profound insight into the inner workings of the church fathers.

"This seems to be going to be hot this year:
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18111j0uichd9jpg/original.jpg"

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHA.... so coooool!!! :D ahahah.. have to get me one of those!!!! :D

I don´t even bother. I come from a strong Calvinistic family. I simply follow my own heart and my own values.
And I don´t engage normally with people. It´s their believe.
Only don´t push me. I´ll push back. And if I do push back they start to sanctify me and start praying for me. pffffff
What I spitted out here is something not many people have seen/read. Mostly I just walk away. They are not worth my energy. And I certainly won´t purposefully throw in their windows.
As I always say: walk your talk. If you don´t with all your talk, you´re not worth my attention for long.
Don´t blabber about some old thing, do something now.
That said, when I talk to "them" their windows shatter in the sense that they feel woefully inadequate. But that´s more because I´m honest and open about things, life etc. So I don´t do that often.
I find myself most of the time so down to earth that I think I´m kinda boring.
But that´s a feeling I have with most in life... "what´s the fuzz about"
That´s what I like about the sky. That is really mindbending thing. And something that´s gets bigger every day.
With every few feet the Rovers do on Mars. Or the ever deeper ever picture of the universe. Or Cassini with another snapshot you won´t believe wasn´t photoshopped (well it is actually, but you get the idea). Or like last week when two independent observers watched "live" through their scopes that something slammed into Jupiter.
Now that´s fun!
And that´s why Iook up. And sometimes you get beauties. Like our first fireball my wife and I saw. Slow fromeast to west, just keeping on and on... and while it passed we both heard a flutering sound. We looked at each other saying "did I just hear that thing?"
Or a few weeks ago, another fireball on a nice heading towards Barcelona that was so slow I could yell at my wife and she still had time to come out and see it for the last quarter of the sky going down breaking up et all. Sea is deep though over there.
Anyway. That´s what´s fun is about.

Ow and I´m kinda airplane nut, so I never see UFO´s, only recognisable planes.
I simply always look up when I get outside. Or whenever I get a chance.

Remember, the "restorer" might sue you because she is claiming copyright for it.
See more here:
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/forums/viewthread/15047/

No prices for guessing my nick. That´s too easy.

Michel,

"Why do you take everything so personal. Those last post weren´t directed at you, but were in general."

Why don't you reread your post at 7:08 am.

Anyway it's all good, Wow and Sinisa have found a new friend, I am happy for you guys, have fun! :mrgreen:

That was the only post directed at you. Because you missed the point. AGain.
Anyway, I don´t (again) give a damn. What you say, Wow or anyone else. 99.9% is blabber. As I said over and over again: DO SOMETHING USEFULL!
Another point you seem to miss.
In my view people are not much to be proud of.
I love humanity, but can´t stand people.
Get it?

One more thing:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/550727_430405503…

And the rest were I adressed you were responses. So don´t come back with a list of other posts.

Michel,

You have clearly shown by now that you are an imbecile, I won't bother you again, have fun!

Thanks.

After a good night´s rest I´ve decided never ever help anybody again.
You really openend my eyes. No more mouth to mouth. HORRAH! (some were really disgusting). No more waiting in agony because you had to kneel for whatever time it took for the ambulance to arrive. No more listening to agonysing stories.
You were a good help to show me I was on the wrong track.
Thanks again.
You have set me free.

@DavidL October 1, 11:46 am

>> David, I am interested in one thing, which is, the truth.

I had proceeded upon a demonstrably false assumption; that is, the stars precess along the ecliptic.

This is false.

It is knowably false.

My benefactor CB has shown this to be false.

I am in his debt.

Because of the correct argument of CB, an incorrect assumption in my view of reality has been exposed (painful) and corrected (how very much I am in his debt).

Now.

You and I view reality in entirely different ways.

I know that the universe is geocentric.

This I know not because of science, but because of theology.

You do not consider theology to be superior to science, and I do.

Let us be entirely honest with one another- such is the basis of truthful debate.

A given model might or might not be defensible.

CB has established that the stars do not orbit the ecliptic plane.

CB has not established that the universe is not geocentric upon its largest observable scales.

I have a question for you, because I would like to assess whether you, also, are interested only in the truth about reality.

Do you believe that the fact that the stars do not precess annually along the ecliptic plane, falsifies the geocentric system?

Do you believe that there exists any scientific (experimentally reproducible) evidence that the universe is not geocentric?

Thanks in advance.

"This I know not because of science, but because of theology."

I.e. made up because it sounds right to you.

"Do you believe that there exists any scientific (experimentally reproducible) evidence that the universe is not geocentric?"

Yes, the parallax of the stars.

"Do you believe that there exists any scientific (experimentally reproducible) evidence that the universe is not geocentric?”

Yes, the parallax of the stars."

and also because the ptolomeic geocentric model doesn't work (phases of venus). And Tycho's is just ridiculus.. some planets do orbit around the sun and not earth, but then to make church happy.. they rotate around earth. Even kids can realize something is amiss there. Plus once you leave earth.. i.e. space probes.. it's clearly visible that earth rotates around Sun.

p.s.

But the greatest evidence comes from gravity. You see back when all the models you quote were made, noone understood gravity. The models dealt with movement not the cause. But for 400+ plus years now we know and understand the cause. Doesn't matter if you use Newton or Relativity, gravity works and exists. All the probes and space missions are scientific (experimentally reproducible) evidence that gravity works as our models predict. And if gravity works, then earth revolves around Sun for the very simple reason of mass. End of story.

p.p.s. Heck.. even church accepts it for hundreds of years now. Some popes were even very science savy, and many man of cloth are great astronomers and physicists. So don't use the argument of theology in your defense, since it's not true.

So Rick, now you have half a dozen different scientific proofs which falsify geocentric model to the core. What I don't see from you is any scientific proof of the contrary. If your ONLY argument is that "it looks that way when I look up" ... you better try harder.

David:

Can you grasp the difference between myself, and persons like Wow and Sinista?

These persons are incredibly dishonest, or else impossibly stupid; hat is, even when their objections are *shown* to be false, they cling to them.

I have no interest in them.

I would be ashamed to be like them.

I will await your answer, otherwise, it appears we have reached the logical conclusion of this thread.

hahahaah... oooo.. ahahaaha... very good Rick. But you're fooling noone. I demonstrated why your model doesn't work, and asked you to demonstrate how it could work, except for using the argument of "it looks that way". And you have the audacity to call me dishonest and stupid?! Nice. You have "shown" to be false?! Really? Hehehe... poor little old Rick. Why don't you be honest for once in your life? Eh? Why not admit that you can't offer scientific proof since you have none.

But you are correct, we have reached the logical conclusion. You being anything but an honest scientist. You have proved that here very well. And in your posts on other sites. It's all there in writing :) So bye bye dude.

"Can you grasp the difference between myself, and persons like Wow and Sinista?"

Quite easily. You're full of crap, we aren't.

Tell us, Dick, when you go on the roundabouts at the playground, do you consider that the entire playground must be spinning around you?

My head spins.

I've just finished reading this whole thread, possibly to find out if Mr. DeLano had anything at all to say. Colour me disappointed. Frankly, I think the Internet encourages people with narcissistic personality disorder. And here I am adding to the problem; I'm probably going to hell.

Wow continues to amaze me - I don't recall ever encountering anyone with that much patience when dealing with an utter fool.

Chelle, if you read the link I posted on Morton's Demon, it clearly went right over your head.

Rick, I have been away, and have just had I had a quick look at your page that Hesaurus linked to, where you ask :
“It has always troubled me that MMX has never been done on the Moon, or in space. It could easily have been done. Why hasn’t it?”

Well it could be that every Scientist in the world is turning down Nobel glory and scientific immortality to join a massive conspiracy to protect their worldview. Or simply that a similar experiment is implicitly being done by every deep-space mission and GPS receiver, and no anomalous behaviour has been observed.

You have previous accepted that your model is experimentally indistinguishable from Ethan’s but yet you seem to need to continuously propose “scientific” was to do just that. Perhaps your knowledge of the "truth" needs some reinforcement. If you need science to prop up your theology have you not failed your god? Follow the science for things scientific and try to use your theology to explain why a god has made a geocentric universe that behaves like a heliocentric one, or a 6000 year old universe with 13.5 billion years of history. Because whilst you may claim that the mathematics of your model is no more complex than that of Ethan’s (which I would strongly challenge), the underlying laws of physics and the nature of fundamental forces it requires have to get more and more bizarre to match the observed universe. Your model raises more questions than it answers. For example, do you really think that 13 billion years ago one of those faint galaxies in the Hubble deep field image modified its motion in anticipation of the change of the earth’s moment of inertia in the recent Japanese earthquake? And thus the complete seismic history of planet earth until its demise has already been transmitted to us from this and every single light source more than a couple of billion light years from us? And there are problems closer to home too. How does a geo-stationary satellite stay up? Why does it take so much more energy to put a satellite into what I would call a retrograde orbit than a standard one? Why does a long range artillery shell fired along a parallel impact on that parallel, but one fired along a meridian curves away from it? And why by an amount which corresponds to the difference in distance traveled by the launch and impact points whilst the projectile is in the air (assuming an earth rotating at 2pi rads/day).?

We can never be sure of the nature of the underlying reality. The entire physical universe and everybody in itmight even be no more than a product of my imagination. How would I know. To me the simplest explanation of what my senses tell me is that I am a consequence of countless chemical accidents over billions of years. A tiny and insignificant fraction of the life on an otherwise unremarkable planet orbiting an unremarkable sun in an unremarkable galaxy lost in a vast universe. And I find that truly wondrous.
Other than a few worries that a sizeable proportion of the supposedly intelligent life on this planet believes that such thoughts justify killing me because for some reason it upsets their all-powerful God, I have no problem with this as an explanation. I will stick with it as long as the science still works, and will regard anything else as a bonus if evidence appears to the contrary.

Hello,

Here we're all free to argue about what I had to say on the From Hell topic (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/10/05/why-i-am-a-liar-stra…). If any of you wish to continue to do so, please do feel free to join me. This was the last point that I was allowed to express over there:

“… something with mass but which does not interact with electromagnetic radiation?”

That is what Einstein’s New Aether in GR is about, that gravity (mass) interacts with light by bending Space or in other word the medium through which the ‘electromagnetic radiation’ moves.

(A response to a comment in the From Hell - topic, http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/10/05/why-i-am-a-liar-stra…)

-------------

@Bjoern,

What has adapting a theory to include new data to do with a “patchwork theory”?

It means that it has been modified plenty of times to fit the term 'Big Bang' it is well enough explained in de video I added.

---

Electromagnetic waves “live” in space, they are “carried” by space (both words are not really the right description – the only right description is in the language of math, I’m sorry). So if space expands, electromagnetic waves expand with it by necessity.

haha, of course it expands by necessity if you adjust the math, just like I can make you ten meters tall and run 500 km/h if I adjust the math on my paper, but does physically make any sense, I guess not.

---

"It doesn’t says so in the book, but Einstein himself saw it as a ‘New’ Aether"

And in the very same quote you provide, he points out that this is not an Aether in the sense in which the word was used before the theories of relavitiy! (“…though in a more sublimated form.”) So for you simply saying Aether, as if you meant the original concept, is equivocation.

It's not 'equivocation' you say yourself that light lives in space and that they are carried by space than this is almost the same as saying that there is an Aether that carries the light, and that causes the effect of gravity, it all means that there IS something, and that the vacuum is not empty, etc. etc. The real problem is that we are all have been taught that there is no Aether, because of Special Relativity, but this is not through, it doesn't carry light in the classic form like a water wave, there is an Aether.

---

Why wouldn’t electromagnetic radiation have an effect on the incoming light, …

Err, because electromagnetic waves don’t interact with each other…? Ever heard of the superposition principle…? (only in _very_ special circumstances, they do)

That's fair to say, but I've mentioned plenty of times that light and matter would have an effect on the Aether that carries it. Imagine an ocean with one fish in the middle, versus a thousand fish at that same spot, I believe that the water will no longer have the same temperature in that same spot and it surrounding area, and the longer the are in that particular spot, the further the energy that they produce in the water will spread out from that particular spot.

---

Make up your mind. Do you suggest an interaction of the heat (i. e. electromagnetic radiation) of the galaxiy with incoming light? That would contradiction electromagnetism. Or do you suggest an interaction of the “New Aether” (Einstein essentially meant space or spacetime itself) with the light?

I think the interaction of elementary particles with the Aether in which they move, might cause the intensity level of the Aether in that Area. So particles coming from further away would lose energy when they near our area. See space as an ocean, and fish would have a certain speed depending on the temperature of the water, the moment they near a large flock of other fish they would slow down because the temperature of the water around the group is warmer.

That’s essentially General Relativity, leading to the usual Big Bang theory, with the usual explanation of redshift due to the expansion of space.

General Relativity didn't lead to the usual Big Bang theory, Einstein first thought that Space was Static, and so do I.

---

Since the amount of Dark Matter in our galaxy isn’t that much greater than the amount of normal matter (only around a factor of five), including that Dark Matter doesn’t change a negligible quantity into a relevant one. … It is essentially constant.

ok, thanks.

---

Yes, those “absolutely pristine galaxies”, that’s like finding a clear diamond ...

You really haven’t understands Ethan’s argument there at all, apparently… try reading it again. (and if this article is not enough, try reading up on “primordial nucleosynthesis” a bit more!)

You want to attribute it as something special that is created during a time only moments after the Big Bang, don't you think that we could create a similar gas right here down on earth. How many other types of gas clouds have we already come across, and couldn't a super nova or pulsar change the composition of one cloud into an other type of cloud, that's how chemistry works.

-----------
-----------

"That people “buy” Ethan’s story because Ethan actually works on this topic and knows what he is talking about has not ever occured to you…?"

One part of a business is creating a good product, the other part is selling it. Making an other product ridiculous (with reason this time) is one of the easiest ways to sell your own. It is one of the oldest the trick in the book. I can't blame Ethan for doing so, and certainly not when a fool like Paul Broun offers it to you on a platter.

---

"Yes on paper it is pure Space that’s curved, but in reality there is something filling up that Space, and giving it its properties."

And you know this how…? And your evidence for this assertion is where…?

I like to consider Einstein his thoughts when he says that there is a New Aether, besides that a Photon has a Particle-Wave duality so there has to be a medium.

---

"So you claim that Einstein secretly thought that the Big Bang theory is wrong, but never stated this actually, due to political reasons…? Wow. You really have a strange view of science."

I'm insinuating it, I know it is bad for me to do so. And no, I don't have a strange view of science, it is run and done by people so you'll come across the same human behavior as you see else where, I might not have the same illusions about science as you have.

---

"The Nobel Prize was _not_ given “for measuring the fact that Red Shift is accelerating”, and the measurements were not attributed “to the Expansion of the Universe”. ”

Ok, I'm wrong here. The prize was given for 'proof' that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating. Isn't or shouldn't this be entwined with the Red Shift we measure?

---

you are totally full of yourself.

Why, because I like to trace down the idea that there is an Aether, and it is our Expansion into Space that causes Red Shift. I don't see what's the big deal is about proposing such a thought, it just a mere guess.

hm
Chell.
You caled me an " imbecile"

What ever gave you the right to do that.?

Just asking.
Explain please.

And, don´t explain it to me. But to your maker.

I mean. I never called anything bad.

I mean, did I ever called you studoid? Or backward? Or a moron? Or whatever. No. So at the end I still had some respect. You clearly have no respect whatsoever.
Still I won't throw "names" at you.
Anyway, have fun when you confront your maker.
He´ll see right through you...
And that´s what really scares you.

studoid = stupid

Michel,

You sound depressed, taking so much about hate, meeting your maker etc. If I called you an imbecile its because your talking about hating people, while you are hanging around people, us, the people that are reading Ethan's posts, and commenting on them, either you are appreciative of us, or you stay away. Anyway, I'm hoping that you are getting enough sleep. Take care.

Chris
Chelle has earned his refutation.

Read Chelle's 89 comments to Ethan’s Sept 10 2012 post and all of the reaction comments to Chelle comments. http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/09/10/if-it-comes-back-to-…

It is hard to come to any conclusion other than that Chelle is an antiscience internet troll whose purpose is to disrupt and highjack discussion on Ethan's blog.

And by the way, neither Ethan or anybody can give another person the responsibility of freedom. Freedom comes with the responsibility to respect the freedom of others.

And respect for others right to free expression is exactly what
Chelle does not do. Chelle is the heckler in a classroom who continually disrespects others right to learn, right to inquire, right to express themselves.

His 89 comments on Ethan’s Sept 10 2012 post other posts amply demonstrate Chelle's commitment to disrespect of the freedom of others; and Chelle's commitment to dishonest and disingenuous communication on this blog.

Science is a remarkable achievement; but far from secure.
It is like the one eyed king, in the land of the blind.
Many of the blind disparage and try to overthrow the achievement of science.

OKThen,

Everybody likes to talk about 'new' physics or some fresh theory for the future, but when I mention a 'new' Aether you get all hysterical, it seems that you just can't stand a little heat. It's unlikely that I will be the one changing physics, but perhaps tomorrow someone else with an actual good ides for an Aether may pass by, and he or she will get the same BS from you because you are so eager to defend the current kingdom, and so they get to be discouraged, than what. Why don't you quit complaining, and move on, just like Chris suggested.

"but when I mention a ‘new’ Aether"

You mentioned it for months and months (heck, could be years now). And that's no longer new.

You refuse to condone any possibility that you are wrong and pretend butthurt to get white knights to back you up whilst you play victim.

The accepted word for that which is expanding, causing redshift and allowing the promotion of photons, production of virtual particles and all that quantum stuff is "Empty Space".

Use it.

Aether is not the word to use.

"and move on, just like Chris suggested."

ROFLMAO.

Really.

YOU telling others to "move on"???

Great, Wow our articulate German Shepherd is rolling over the floor out of joy, I can also imagine you shaking your tail, what a beautiful this is. :)

Sorry, you don't own people.

Fail.

Of course you are not my little puppy, but science's greatest *watchdog*. :)

OK, so you knew you were lying.

And you wonder why everyone knows you're a troll.

Wow,

"OK, so you knew you were lying.

Who cares if you are a German Shepherd or an English Bulldog, I don't.

I just thought it was a nice synonym for *watchdog* ... and a Shepherd for Science is what you pretend to be ... anyway are you German perhaps, lol.

@chelle: I'll try again, but only one time, and I'll concentrate on one argument - answering all your stuff would take way too much time!

So, let's talk about the abundance of elements in the universe. I'll repeat some basic stuff, since I suspect that you simply don't know that stuff... (and I'll simplify a bit along a way)
1) Stars can produce all elements heavier than hydrogen by nuclear fusion.
2) All that we know about this process tells us quite clearly that the produced amounts of certain elements (e. g. oxygen and helium) should be proportional to each other (I hope you know what "proportional" means...?). That especially implies that if one looks at gas clouds with (almost) no oxygen in them, then they also should contain (almost) no helium.
3) In contrast, what is found when one looks at gas clouds which contain (almost) no oxygen, is that these clouds still contain lots of helium (I don't have the exact number at hand, but IIRC it's around 24%).

So, the abundance of helium one finds in the universe can _not_ be explained by nucleosynthesis in stars alone - one has to find another explanation. The Big Bang theory has such an explanation (which is even quantitatively correct - the value of 24% is predicted by the BBT!) - what's your explanation...?

@Bjoern,

"... what’s your explanation…?"

I'd say they could evolve just like that out of the Aether, when there is enough wide open zero gravity space, and there are perhaps to friction fields within the Aether bumping into each other. Just like the diamonds, that I referred to, can be formed under pressure; yesterday, today and tomorrow.

@Bjoern:

I’d say they could evolve just like that out of the Aether,...

What is "they" referring to here? The elements???

If yes: how could they "evolve out of the Aether"? What is that supposed to mean?

And: please show how that hypothesis leads to a helium abundance of 24%!

when there is enough wide open zero gravity space,

What is "wide open zero gravity space" supposed to mean, and what has that to do with the creation of the elements?

And: please show how that hypothesis leads to a helium abundance of 24%!

...and there are perhaps to friction fields within the Aether bumping into each other.

What are "friction fields", and how could those lead to the creation of the elements?

And: please show how that hypothesis leads to a helium abundance of 24%!

Just like the diamonds, that I referred to, can be formed under pressure; ...

Err - you _do_ understand the difference between chemical reactions and nuclear reactions - don't you???

(from the other thread) "Well, I doubt that there are good blogs on cosmology in many languages…"

And I find this a shame.

However, there are substantial universities in EVERY country. It isn't that only the English speakers do science. Harder to find? Yup, and that's what I find a shame. Nonexistent? Hell no.

But he hasn't said what his native language is.

He's not willing to take the time and effort to consider his questions.

And that is as much his disservice to the educational potential of this site as if Ethan had decided to use the entire postgrad-level mathematical constructions to explain to all us lesser mortals what cosmology says is going on, rather than finding the appropriate level language and understandable terms to impart the same knowledge.

Chelle, you are doing nothing more here than spouting wild guesses, without any supporting evidence that the mechanisms you claim are even possible, let alone that they happen anywhere. And let alone providing any calculations that these mechanisms would actually lead to the observed abundances of elements!

In other words: you are merely doing armchair speculations - whereas the Big Bang theory has lots of _quantitative_ predictions, which match the observations!

Tell us again why anyone should take your musings seriously...?

@Wow:

He’s not willing to take the time and effort to consider his questions.

I think you refer to Pronoein here, not to chelle? If yes, then I apparently simply have a bit more patience than you... -)

Wow

Frankly, I have never noticed Bjoern's incorrect use of the English language; because I have always focused upon his correct and precise understanding of physics, astronomy and sceince in general. When Bjoern speaks science; it is well to listen.

Wow, you may not be aware that long before you joined this blog; Bjoern was already here. He was watchdogging against antiscience nonsense and he was also teaching.

There is not a finer teacher on this blog. Bjoern knocked a good bit of nonsense out of me. Ouch but thank you Bjoern, (signed Thomas).

Wow, you are at your best when you are explaining science. I had nothing to add but I listen and learned from your discussion on The Light that's Right for Night.

So Wow, please work on your manners. Bjoern is not the first PhD in physics that you've insulted in the last month. Wow, your own PhD in astronomy is no excuse. And PhD or no-PhD is not the issue; I have no-PhD (only a MS in physics).

I follow my own learning hypothesis as I learn about physics; and am willing to question anyone or any theory. However, as Bjoern once observed, I am not a quack because when faced with evidence; I will learn and change my position.

Bjoern
Forget about Wow insults.
I proud to know you.
Regarding language, my embarrassment is that as an American; I am monolingual. One day I will learn to speak and several, yes several additional languages.

"I have never noticed Bjoern’s incorrect use of the English language"

I have, but that wasn't what I said.

Bjoern pointed out that the other bloke had used "omnidirectional" and "centrifugal" and conflated them as the same thing when they are not.

Either deliberate trolling and conflation or, giving the now absent chellealike the benefit of the doubt, a problem with their understanding of the meaning of those two words in the english language.

Since the conflation of those two words led them to complain that everything should be spinning and looking like a galaxy, his supposed poor grasp of the english language is the CAUSE of his confusion.

Therefore NOT talking in english would not CAUSE the confusion.

Which would require finding a site in that language.

" "He’s not willing to take the time and effort to consider his questions."

I think you refer to Pronoein here, not to chelle? "

Yes, since Pronoein had conflated two words: omnidirectional and centrifugal and this caused his complaint that the universe should look like a bigger galaxy.

A problem that would be absent if he talked to a compatriot in their own language.

But absent finding one, he needs to consider very VERY carefully the words he uses to ensure they are being used correctly, else not only is there error introduced by his misinterpretation, the attempt to find an interpretation that works adds yet another vector of randomness to the process.

Carefully worded questions will ensure that if he has a question, the QUESTION HE MEANT TO SAY gets answered, not the question others think he must have meant because the one he asked was nonsense.

@OKThen: Thanks for all the nice words - but as Wow already pointed out, he didn't critize my English (although I also at first thought so), but Pronoein's.

@Wow: It would be helpful if you said whom you are addressing in your comments - that would save some misunderstandings...

"I proud to know you."

Followed by:

"my embarrassment is that as an American; I am monolingual."

I think you counted slightly too high there.

But go on, as a sub-monolingual USian, where was I insulting Bjoern?

You DO know that false allegations are worse than an insult, right?

Ohgod.

chelle's lapsed into cloudcuckoolander bafflegab mode.

diamonds are not friction fields, what are friction fields doing in an aether, why do they exist there, what makes them create helium, and what does diamond formation under extreme pressure have to do with a hard vacuum?

@Bjoern,

My guess is that elementary particles emerge out of twirling vortex tubes that close loop within an Aether gas. For this to happen you need to have the right excitement level (pressure within the gas). Once the most basic types of knots (protons 3D & electrons 2D) are equally formed within this gas, they can start to hook up creating Helium which is the most basic noble gas, and because of the lack of gravity within this cloud formation it is the most logic evolutionary step to predict. As of then the have as a cloud some mass to attract other type of particles that fly around in space. I don't know how the exact 24% prediction came about.

Bjoern, no worries. There was a necessary break there to jump over to a different thread, but it was just a continuation of the conversation about pronein, since the quote was yours, the convention is that your attributes would be labelled "you" and "he" would be someone else.

BTW, chelle is likely a woman, though they may be a husband and wife team who have form on this (the hubby is despertately selling a book on aether) on other forums for well over three years now.

Remember: complete idiocy is an equal-opportunities malady.

See what I mean about chelle the cloudcuckoolander?

chelle, more likely those vorticies don't exist, no aether exists and big bang synthesis is what happened to create the He.

@chelle:

My guess is...

That's _precisely_ the problem. All you have is some wild guesses - totally speculative, having nothing to do with known physics. Compare that to the Big Bang theory, which is based on well-known physics and has lots of quantitative predictions, all of which agree with observations.

Again: tell us why anyone should take your musings seriously, please!

I don’t know how the exact 24% prediction came about.

In other words: you don't even know some of the most basic facts about the Big Bang theory, but nevertheless you are sure that it is wrong, and your wild guesses are right. Ouch.

As long as you don't bother to educate yourself, but are even proud of your ignorance, any further discussion with you makes no sense. When you show that you actually bother to learn some basic things about physics, and if you show that you are actually able to make some _quantitative_ predictions with your ideas (agreeing with observations!) - then we can continue. I won't be holding my breath.

@Bjoern,

"... nevertheless you are sure that it is wrong, and your wild guesses are right."

No, I'm not sure, and these 'wild guesses' are only an hypothesis that should be tested. Also keep in mind that this kind of Knot/Aether theory is not something new, it was mainstream Science about 100 years ago, but Special Relativity made the Aether mathematically irrelevant. But interesting enough Einstein's reintroduced the concept within General Relativity, and expressed some interesting thoughts about his New Aether. It is also a misconception that Einstein was against an Aether, the conflict was with a type of Aether from Herz that couldn't work. btw also Maxwell used the concept of an Aether to make is field equations, after it was abolished after Newtons laws. Aether is definitely hot.

"No, I’m not sure"

Of course you're not sure, that's why you keep patching up the aether with diamonds, spinning princesses and votigaunts making helium candy...

Of course you ARE CERTAIN the Big Bang is wrong and your whacko ideas right.

"and these ‘wild guesses’ are only an hypothesis that should be tested"

There is a hypothesis that there is a teapot orbiting Jupiter. Pink. With little peonies in glaze on the side.

And that should be tested too?

No.

And your wagging shouldn't be tested because they're untestable.

@chelle:

...and these ‘wild guesses’ are only an hypothesis that should be tested.

How on Earth should one test these hypotheses as long as you don't come up with _quantitative_ predictions?

And: why should one test _your_ predictions, and not the ones of the thousands of other people on the internet with "alternative theories"? Do you have a good argument why your proposals are better than theirs? Or do you propose that one should test _all_ of those?

@Bjoern,

"How on Earth should one test these hypotheses ...

You make computer models with different types of gasses and fluids, and you play around just Michael Faraday and his contemporaries did with electricity, and see what pop's up, after you get some interesting results you can start to compare etc. etc. If you don't get any interesting result you have reached a death end, and that's it, what is there to lose, sooner or later someone will try these things out.

--

"why should one test _your_ predictions, and not the ones of the thousands of other people on the internet with “alternative theories”?

Setting up different types of Mediums is pretty straight forward, what you see is what you get.

There are only two types of theories, the one we have now, with Particle - Wave incorporated in the particles and which explains everything mathematically perfect (I'm talking here about QM); and an Aether setting wherein everything should evolve naturally from within an Aether gas, more organically. It's a matter of looking what elementary particles could be.

Of course it are all 'wild guesses', but it has a history; and if you could time-travel 150 years back into time with the CFD technology we have now than Maxwell & Co. would go nuts from enthusiasm and curiousity, they where very much into this kind of stuff.

@chelle: You still have not explained why we should _your_ theories, and not the ones of all the other people... (hint: other people also say that testing their theories should be "straight forward" [sic], and they also often say things like that their ideas have "a history"...)

You make computer models with different types of gasses and fluids, and you play around just Michael Faraday and his contemporaries did with electricity, and see what pop’s up, after you get some interesting results you can start to compare etc. etc.

So, go on - do these things. It's your idea - so you do the work. No one else is obligated to do the work for you.

@Bjoern,

"So, go on – do these things. It’s your idea – so you do the work. No one else is obligated to do the work for you."

ok, thanks.

"You make computer models with different types of gasses and fluids"

The vacuum of space is noted for its absence of any type of gas of fluid.

You need to explain what the model is. Go on. Show us a computer model that you describe that will test your aether theory.

Wow,

ok, this could get me my third and final strike, I hope this is not a trick of yours. Anyway here is a first it's only in 2D with 60k SPH particles, but the switch to 3D can be immediate but is a matter of computing power, this one took 12 hours on the laptop: http://youtu.be/JGEg_loOwWU

There is so much more fun stuff still in the pipeline. :)

Chelle,

You will not be banned from my blog for talking about your own alternative theories in the place I have designated for them.

You will be banned from my blog if you post about those alternative theories on other threads, as doing so hijacks those threads, and that is one thing that my comment policy is specifically designed to stop.

I don't want to have to ban you, and I want you to be clear about both the letter and the spirit of the law on my blog, so I am being explicit here. (For the record, I had initially tried to send you this message over a private email, but discovered that you are using a fake email address.)

Hope this clarifies anything you did not understand.

Best,
Ethan

What is that supposed to be evidence for?

Aether? But those flows of something that is a medium for transmission of light would cause us to be able to see the refraction and scintillation caused by our movement through it.

Since we see no such effect, that is not the aether you're looking for.

Its a pity you are entertained by something so very far from what you think it shows.

And shit, if you're whining on about "oh this could be the fatal third time, I may get banned" this is about your five hundredth and eightieth attempt to talk a load of old bollocs on your mystical and nonexistent aether.

Hi Ethan,

That's not really a fake email, its an old one and I ended that account a few months ago because of a change of ISP. Here is my gmail adress I posted it also yesterday, it was the one you had to moderate, perhaps now it is needed again.

Anyway thanks for filling me in.

Wow,

"Since we see no such effect, that is not the aether you’re looking for."

Oh no that's no Aether yet, there are still lots of adjustments that need to be made, this is only the fluid phase of what has to become a gas. Here is just a very wild 2D preview of such a gas: http://youtu.be/6Cwsdx_1ucE

"there are still lots of adjustments that need to be made"

Like what? You are still waving hands. That isn't the aether and there's no such difference as "fluid phase of a gas". Fluid is a motion interior to a bulk. You don't get a gas that isn't fluid.

Nonsense. Do you know what that word means? No sense. And your words there have no sense to them. Not make no sense, they HAVE NO SENSE TO THEM.

This attempt to show something is still nothing that is aether like. The movement YET AGAIN in a medium supposedly allowing the transmission of light within it would cause insane refractions and distortions that would render all sight useless.

Since this is not the case, that too is not your aether.

... it's because you don't get what the particle - wave dragon looks like that moves through the medium:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vF4uK5uvxcg/UElK-VvGOwI/AAAAAAAAAnU/yxrYI-Drz…

haha, goodnight!

What? You're on about DRAGONS now??? What's next? Fairy princesses? And I already know the orobouros. Common pagan symbolism, also shown in the Egyptian symbol of the healing staff.

And yet again, you present something that isn't your aether.

So far three tests, none show aether.

Is there any point at which your "theory" needs to be dropped in persuit of more fruitful lines of inquiry?

Chelle
I too am offended by Wow's impolite remarks.
I particularly didn't like his recent remarks which could be interpreted as bias against non English speakers.
But let us move on or keep that discussion on this page.

In my opinion Chelle, Wow has a style issue. It's not my style or personality to call people idiot, moron, etc.. Wow does. I can deal with Wow's personality.

I can deal with your personality.

What none of us can deal with is anyone regardless of their credentials disrupting this blog.

If Fred Hoyle or Einstein were alive today and choose to fill this blog with 100's of comments on why the big bang was wrong; they would be asked to stop highjacking this blog's posts and keep on topic. They would be asked to keep their speculative theories on this comment policy page. And of course, Fred or Albert would publish an occasional arXiv paper which would gain traction or not. And be read by many.

Ethan's rules are a classroom teachers rules, a courtroom judges rules. Keep on topic or you will be thrown out of the classroom; or if the defendant gagged in the courtroom. The rules apply to Hoyle, Einstein, Chelle, OKThen, Wow.

Everyone on this blog who values this blog needs to put their personal agenda aside. The agenda of this blog is a physics astronomy learning place that for the most part discusses CURRENT best scientific theories.

I do ask disagreeing and pointed questions. And if no one answers; I don't ask again and again. For example, recently:

"Is there a similar story for the life cyle (the life and death) of spiral galaxies. I have look but not found it.

So I can find the life cycles of:
- planet earth,
-the sun
- the universe

But not of a spiral galaxy.
A pointer to a book, web site or article will be appreciated.
Thanks." on The Lives and Deaths of Sun Like Stars

I am looking for an answer and pointing out a problem.
When no one answered., I didn't ask the same question 100 times in a post or even a 2nd time in a post. I didn't bait and annoy the other commenters to force the discussion.

I simply assume that no one knows yet. But I also assume that such an answer may be a problem for the big bang. Maybe it takes 30 billion years to build a spiral galaxy from a bunch of globular cluster things or a massive cloud or whatever.

But I don't know. And when no one answers me, I respect their silence. Science, even the best science, can't answer every question.

For sure I don't have an answer. I have a question. I don't even know if it is a good science question.

In my mind a good science question is one that can be answered in 1 year or 10 years. A bad science question is one that can't be answered for 100 years. It's not a good idea to focus on too many 100 year questions.

Oh well.

Everyone
Let's help keep off topic discussions (like this) on this page and keep on topic on Ethan's regular posts.
We regulars on Ethan's blog set the standard of behavior.

Ethan sets a high standard worth emulating in our own way.

All the best.

"I particularly didn’t like his recent remarks which could be interpreted as bias against non English speakers."

Bollocks.

Are you saying that non English speakers can speak English?

Because if not, then mentioning the results of that is not being biased against non English speakers, it's recognising they damn well exist.

Are you saying that everyone should be fluent in English? (NOTE: you aren't, even though that's your primary language) Because if not, then fluency is an issue in understanding explanations in another language and in conveying your questions in another language.

Just because you have latched onto an idea doesn't mean you must retain it in the face of all evidence.

OKThen,

I will address 'Wow' anywhere he insults and intimidates someone. I'm tired of bullies insulting other people and everybody else acting as if it is normal, well it is not. It are the people like him, that should go see a therapist, and not the people getting shit thrown at them by a bully like him.

No, you'll pretend offence and bullying because that's what passive aggressives do when they bully.

You also seem to run away from any actual evidence of your aether with a hahahaha :-)

Irony:

Someone who says stuff like "you don’t get what the particle – wave dragon looks like that moves through the medium" says of someone else "people like him, that should go see a therapist".

:-D

Sure go run and hide behind my Aether, play your game. It takes nothing away from the fact that you have some obsessive need for bullying others.

I can't hide behind something that doesn't exist! :-D

Wow

"Are you saying that non English speakers can speak English?"

That depends on what you mean by a "non English speaker", "can speak", and "English".

"The knowledge of the words deriving from the 2000 most frequent English words provides a comprehension of 95% of word use... The knowledge of 3000 English words provides a comprehension of most of the English language, enough to render one literate." wikipedia

So by wikipedia's criteria, I think everyone on Ethan;'s post(Why I am a liar straight from the pit of hell.) is English speaking and literate. Since there were no "non English speakers" on that post; I took your words as insult! (Your pedantic knowledge of grammer and word definition hair splitting notwithstanding.)

Wow, you are confused. "Non english speaker" is not the same as "English as a second language speaker". An " "English as a second language speaker" is an "English speaker". This definitional distinction is easier to understand than the difference between “omnidirectional” and “centrifugal”. So I am confident that you can understand this distinction in the future!

And yes be a little more polite. Give people just a little more courtesy.

No, it doesn't.

Beause someone who makes such glaring mistakes as confusing onmidirectional and centrifugal has a very poor grasp of the english language.

But anyhoo, your earlier statement could be considered actionable libel.

And why should I be polite to someone who accuses me wrongly? No, ARSEHOLES I say to them. Arseholes to you, sir.

Wow,

You can try to talk your way out of it but it won't help; 'omnidirectional' and 'centrifugal' sound in many languages (French, Castellano, Italian, …) the same as in English. You started accusing that person once for no reason, and after objections were made you started to do it explicitly again. The same thing is happening now in the topic with the safety helmet, it is always the same story with you, insult after insult, plus insinuations and false accusations. I don't mind someone who's language isn't very polished, but you have way of getting at someone in an abusive tone, you are a bully, cut it out.

p.s. I often get the impression that you are drunk, if so go find some help, or just don't comment when you are not sober.

Wow
1) "Libel requires the publication of a FACT about a person not an OPINION."
Sorry you misinterpreted my opinion as a FACT about you; let me emphasize: I am stating my opinion.

2) " Libel per se involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed"
Sorry, that you interpreted my words as "so vicious that malice is assumed." I tried to be gentle because, in my opinion, you are sensitive.

3) "it is possible to sue for defamation of a pen name, but not for defamation of an internet pseudonym."
Of course all lawyers, courts, states and countries may disagree.

But Wow, as a literate native English speaker you already know the meaning of the word "libel".
Hence, you know your allegation that my "earlier statement could be considered actionable libel" is false.

But you Wow believe "that false allegations are worse than an insult" above Oct 10, 11:33 a.m. So I assume your intention was to do more than just insult me.

And my only rhetorical question is, "Why?"

Let me give you my opinion.
Despite your fine astronomy Ph.D.; you are emotionally immature.
You do not understand common courtesy.

But my only rhetorical question, "Why?" nags.

And the deeper answer to my "Why" about you Wow is that as a child you were laughed at, mocked by the other kids who didn't get your braininess. (in my opinion)

So in my opinion, Wow you need to grow up a little bit, be a little bit more polite, give people a little break; because whether you realize it or not the people on this blog give you a big break all the time, in ignoring all of your proud faults. Only a child or someone very immature is proud of his faults (such as ability to be insulting and other self destructiveness.) This is all just my opinion again.

In my opinion again, if you talk to people in person the insulting way that you talk to people on the internet (my opinion); then you will be a miserable lonely person regardless of how brainy you are (my opinion).

So be a big boy, put on your long pants by yourself. See how it feels not to insult anyone for a month. You might like it. It is your decision (not your mommy's) whether you grow up or not. But (and this is all just my opinion because I really don't know a fact about you pseudonym Wow) I don't think you can put on your long pants and not insult anyone for a month.

Now I'm done with this conversation.

OKThen

Nope, libel is not proposition of fact rather than opinion.

Indeed it is quite the opposite.

In the USA fact is a conditional defense to the charge of libel.

However, the scoundrel always wishes to hide their crimes.

" ‘omnidirectional’ and ‘centrifugal’ sound in many languages (French, Castellano, Italian, …) the same as in English"

But they mean different things.

You still find yourself unable to create any single cogent thought, merely throwing error after error in the hope that someone gets confused and things you may have a point.

To get the meanings wrong under YOUR assertion that they are the same in other languages would have the poster deliberately lying to create confusion.

YOU are SPECIFICALLY calling him a liar.

If OKThen were not on a warpath to try and salvage some of his wounded pride to stick some sort of blame on me, he'd be all over you for libellous and offensive language against someone.

Wow,

Recently Lance Armstrong was in the news for the same type of behavior as yours, keeping on denying, analysts are describing it a form of psychopathy, you are seemingly falling into the same category. I would have hesitated using such a word if it wasn't for all the paranoid remarks you made about other people being sock-puppets, and how you bullied and insulted them; and how you are now trying to blame me for calling the person you insulted a liar; also your latest responses to the person on the Bike-helmet topic; or how you now start to rascal about OKThen's 'wounded pride'. You are manipulator with a twisted mind, it's just sad.

"Defamation—also called... libel—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be FACTUAL... Another important aspect of defamation is the difference between fact and opinion. Statements made as "facts" are frequently actionable defamation. Statements of opinion or pure opinion are not actionable... Opinion is a defence recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

No wounded pride here. Sometimes you are very funny.

OKThen, still utter fail.

This isn't opinion, it's stated as fact:

"his recent remarks which could be interpreted as bias against non English speakers.”

If you'd said you thought this, then that would be opinion.

But the coward wanting to get back rarely has the courage to say they are alone, but pretend to the "moral majority" as proxies.

The Rightwingnutcase shock jocks do the same thing.

Still bullying that passive aggressive stunt, chelle?

You failed utterly with your attempts to sockpuppet ("Oh, I had to change my email address, here's the real one" how transparent), failed utterly to pretend that there was ever anything about your assertions to aether ("the wave-particle dragon"!).

Now, having failed all that, you're going back to your passive aggressive roots to pretend that somehow YOUR problems are off the table because I'm so very very mean.

Tell me, what does your current side-quest with the able help of someone who is calling themselves OKThen display to your benefit?

NOTHING.

Just as before, you're still parading around with thousands of words signifying the emtpiness of your life and arguments.

"an opinion is a subjective belief, and is the result of emotion or INTERPRETATION of facts." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion

I clearly said, "remarks" (i.e. referring to facts)
"could be INTERPRETED..." (i.e. indicating opinion)

I admit definition of English words is difficult even for a literate person whose first language is English.

If you have any reputable sources for your personal definitions of "opinion" or "libel"; please provide a link

Nope, you're making a statement as of fact.

You really do have a thinking problem, don't you.

Wow,

"You failed utterly with your attempts to sockpuppet ...

Whatever, you're just sad, ... you didn't understand what the issue was, as with most things you don't understand what is going on, so you need to bring up some more insinuations and insults, that's what you thrive on. You are just too paranoid to have a normal conversation with; and now you are even bringing 'Rightwingnutcase' tactics into the debate as if everyone is after you. Sure, there is not a thing wrong with you.

Still can't find that aether, huh? :-)

Bob

You are dishonest.

You start credibly, " I wonder if it might be correct?"

Then you show your true purpose, "Unbelievable, did anyone actually read the paper?" Yes I read it.

Then insult, "Its funny how readers here just blindly accept Ethan’s summary, even though he admitted he doesn’t understand it, and he quit physics several years ago. This is really the blind leading the blind here on this blog."

"Have you actually looked at the ATLAS and CMS papers?" Yes I have.

Insult, "Okthen, your ignorance is breathtaking." I admit my ignorance. But I am here to learn.

You do not admit your ignorance, you are not here to learn, you are here to disparage and misrepresent.

"Really, this is the only place that cares about this old paper." Not so.

"This is absolutely the blind leading the blind on this blog."

You have refused to partake in discussion. Please speak and educate us? But no your purpose is simply to sound well intentioned, to throw out a few soundbytes and to disrupt honest discussion and learning.

"And then Okthen goes on a nonsensical, illogical rampage. This blog sure does attract some crazies." Yes when your deception is exposed you act indignant.

But you still have not answered any of my questions.

I do recall that you Bob and Chelle were a tag team of disruption on a post, not too long ago. Your interest in pointing to science is only to disparage it.

So please try a little honesty. Tells us your credentials. educate us on the quantum theory of gravity that " top institutions that care about".

No comment?
I thought so,

Its very funny how at the end of Okthen's comment, he write "No comment? I thought so," Apparently he thinks that I could have interjected in the middle of his typing a message in his house. wow, he is just having some massive conversation with himself...and then decides that no-one responded. this is crazy.

When OKthen was informed of data, facts, and evidence his response was, and I quote: "This changes nothing!"

This is utterly disgusting ignorance...i've never met anyone with such disdain for data, facts, and evidence...shocking...very sad

Bob, error bars.

You are no scientist if you ignore error bars.

Which you've done.

Which has pissed off OKThen quite a bit. Maybe what you intended.

But you forget error bars and, being rather unintelligent, jump straight to "IT'S ALL WRONG AND ONLY I HAVE THE TRUTH!!!" bollocks.

“No comment? I thought so,”

Bob, are you seriously saying you think OKThen was expecting an interjection whilst he was typing? He was clearly postulating about your likely response, and your reaction was exactly as he predicted.

It seems to me that he is prepared to expose his ignorance in order to improve his understanding. You have the opportunity to respond, to point out where he is wrong, and to try to teach him something. Telling him he must be wrong simply because you are right achieves nothing other than demonstrating that you are well aware of the problems exposing your ignorance will cause.

DavidL, in fact I did respond, twice!

Good try though...

Furthermore, I pointed out OKThen's errors, by sending him the latest top mass measurements, by showing him where to insert it into the Shaposhnikov paper (eq (12)) and the consequences for the Higgs mass. I described all this in great detail multiple times. OKthen's response was that the data "it changes nothing!"....disgusting ignorance.

Zoran

Please read the entire above post describing Starts With a Bangs COMMENT POLICY.

Understand it; and abide by it. Keep your personal speculations to this page. Thank you.

It looks like you've spent a lot of time thinking about your 22 page paper.
It looks like you do understand some physics.

But your paper, "Electro-Magneto-Mechanics of Existence or Fundamental Electro-Magneto-Mechanics (FEMME) is in my opinion psuedoscience.

You claims that
- "The results obtained are unprecedented, in each and every respect."
- Your paper provides "the clear template of the primary principles of existence, the essential blueprint of existence, the fundamental essence of Universe."

Those are big claims. If you think that your work is science, then publish it in appropriate scientific journals, arviv.org, etc. To do so, in my opinion Zoran; you will need to set a much higher standard for your work. You need to understand the best scientific thinking at least at the graduate/current research level and to be able to credibly frame you thinking in that context.

Ethan's Starts With A Bang! blog is not the place to promote your personal speculative work. Ethan's blog is a place to learn and discuss current best physics/astronomy theories and thinking; and other topics of Ethan's choice.

Please respect Ethan's blog and the readers/commenters of Starts with a Bang! blog by not posting and promoting your personal speculative ideas.

In my opinion, your work is psuedoscience unsuitable for scientific publication. You of course are entitled to your beliefs and entitled to promote them. BUT DO NOT PROMOTE THEM HERE! That is not the purpose of this blog; RESPECT IT!

Regrettably, for refusal to comply with our comments policy, our frequent commenter chelle has now been banned from commenting on Starts With A Bang.

I have done my best, with the current technology at my disposal, to make this ban effective without disrupting anyone else's ability to post. Feel free to contact me privately if you encounter any difficulties.

Be aware she's sockpuppeted before (Ben someone IIRC).

You know what the downer for sockpuppeting is IMO? You can't trust someone else turning up with a similar misapprehension, even if they only just read it from the history of the missing poster.

It's a very similar problem when it comes to "I'm just asking a question". Too many times used in the same way as Glen Beck uses "I'm just asking". A shoe in to refute everything with a shield of "Oooh, you big meanie being so mean to me wot is only asking questions (that have been debunked a billion times before and I'm not reading any of the links to it now)". Stops being able to see someone who REALLY IS just so new they're clueless.

Funny thing about the "truths" in the bible.

The only ones there are ones that you could assert based on what a stone-age society could assert.

It's like they weren't told what was going on, but wrote down what they saw...

"But if God DOES exist"

Yes, what if Vishnu exists?

Eternal torment for YOU, idiot, boy.

Or Bhaal? Same deal: torture.

In the end, you will be in hell.

However, far more likely is that there is no afterlife and you've spent the only life you will ever have pissing it away pretending in a sky fairy as if that somehow means you're special and will never die.

Your god doesn't exist, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and there IS NO SOUL.

Just moronic idiots who can't string two thoughts together unless they both involve skydaddy.

"At the moment you’ve got “thought” and very badly defined."

- what I mean by "thought" is what Forms and Ideas are in Platonic Idealism or his theory of Forms. A very similar view held by both Kepler and Newton. As opposed to an Aristotelian views held by church.

"Keplers laws came out of him DISCARDING GOD in the processes involved."

- like I said... this I can't accept since all sources I saw speak to contrary. i.e Kepler's last major work, Harmonices Mundi, from where 3rd law comes from is filled with praises to god and asserts his views that geometry stems from divine. some quotes... , "Geometry, coeternal with God and shining in the divine Mind, gave God the pattern... by which he laid out the world so that it might be best and most beautiful and finally most like the Creator.". But I will argue that Kepler envisoned his Creator much differently than Church does.

Again, am not a christian or any other group "believer", but I do understand the human need to "believe" in something bigger than themselves.

On a different topic, agree that the key to all of it figuring out what "awareness" and all that is. If it's an emergent effect caused by purely "mechanical" processes, probably at deep quantum levels. Then one could do a mind leap and ask weather or not such a property could emerge in fields and energy states. Could vacuum energy posses "awareness" as an emergent property? If it did, could we ever "understand" it? Maybe it's so differently "wired" that we wouldn't even recognize it. Sounds an awfull like some form of deity all over again.

"what I mean by “thought” is what Forms and Ideas are in Platonic Idealism or his theory of Forms."

You DO know that these ideas ruined science for 2000 years, right, because they were a bloody hindrance, yes?

Now, taking from Wiki:

"Plato's theory of Forms or theory of Ideas[1][2][3] asserts that non-material abstract (but substantial) forms (or ideas), and not the material world of change known to us through sensation, possess the highest and most fundamental kind of reality.[4]"

Instant fail.

You're ASSUMING your conclusion here in your premise.

I.e. it's a bollocks start.

"- like I said… this I can’t accept since all sources I saw speak to contrary."

No, several issues

1) they're written for a western american christian-led audience. First rule of marketing: DO NOT CONTRADICT THE MARK^WCUSTOMER.

2) They only talk about how he wanted to see god in mathematics. And how he thought he could understand god by understanding his creation.

3) They still do not contradict the absolute fact that he had to drop the perfect forms that would be of god before he could get an answer. He only progressed when he ignored his faith. God slowed him down.

And Barry McGuigan always ended his victorious matches with "I'd like to thank my manager".

His faith screwed him up and it is only when he dropped it he got an answer.

God and his faith had nothing to do with getting an answer and retarded the answer for years maybe even decades.

"but I do understand the human need to “believe” in something bigger than themselves. "

Except the point is they don't.

They elevate themselves by imaginging this "thing bigger than themselves" has no other care in their lives than that person.

Because you'll notice that every "believer"'s god believes in things just like the believer does.

And it's ALWAYS about how THEY are special.

At least the gaia-hypothesis crystal healer woomancers have more honesty in their assertion of something mystical to life. At least they accord that since this doesn't have to be tied to anything physical, it can be tied to ANYTHING, living or not.

Most who propose this for anything other than mental masturbation or willy-waving will only allow that THEY have this mystical supernatural "life" that goes on.

Hence not animals (they aren't human, see!), and hence they don't have to worry about "Are bacteria destined for an afterlife too?". Or any reductio ad absurdium.

Problem is, this is entirely how religion becomes the monster it is.

Once you've decided that humans are the only things with this special "thing", you now don't have to empathise with anything non human.

Then you define some human-forms as "sub human".

And they obviously have no souls, else they would be human (i.e. "exactly like me!").

So now you can put those sub-humans in the animal pens and slaughter houses.

Then you decide that it doesn't really reside with those infidels.

And eventually, the ONLY person who is ACTUALLY a "true human" is down to one person.

Scientology: L Ron.
RCC: The Pope.
Davidians: David Koresh
Nazi Germany: Der Fuhrer.

and so on.

"If it’s an emergent effect caused by purely “mechanical” processes, probably at deep quantum levels"

Actually, have a look at Langton's Ant.

Emergence doesn't have to be anything to do with quantum.

And I try to avoid going "probably quantum" because that's the new-ager's "applied phlebotnium" that allows them to abandon science and retain religion even when they have been unable to put up with the ridiculous parade of it.

Just leave it with "emergent".

Just to be clear, I do not deny any possibility of ESP. I'm not saying anything other than "we've found f* all so far". But it still has to be based in reality.

Telepathy? Not IMpossible. May be like a radio reciever. But the transmitter and reciever (and the propogation) will be at least in theory scientifically possible to spot. Even if we'd never manage to understand how it works well enough to make people see predetermined illusions by manipulating it.

Telekenesis? Not possible. The energy required to move anything macro scale would melt your head. Which would make it easy to spot. But not an evolutionary winner.

And if something is found that is not possible to recreate by artificial methods with normal physical items, that may be something "super natural".

However, if someone were to say "that's the soul" I'd hear it no different from someone saying "That's the dilithium crystals" or "that's the result of a quasi-periodic excitation of the quantum substrate underpinning the space-time contiuum".

Or "That's the snood".

Indeed the last one would be better because we'd not be carrying around the baggage of the loaded words.

Look up "ontic dumping".

Conversation wouldn't work without it.

But it is absolutely crap at passing on reliable information.

Just some Richard Feynman, "The old problems, such as the relation of science and religion, are still with us, and I believe present as difficult dilemmas as ever, but they are not often publicly discussed because of the limitations of specialization... Western civilization, it seems to me, stands by two great heritages. One is the scientific spirit of adventure... The other great heritage is Christian ethics — the basis of action on love, the brotherhood of all men, the value of the individual — the humility of the spirit... So far, have we not drawn strength and comfort to maintain the one or the other of these consistent heritages in a way which attacks the values of the other? Is this unavoidable? How can we draw inspiration to support these two pillars of western civilization so that they may stand together in full vigor, mutually unafraid? Is this not the central problem of our time?.. The electron is a theory we use; it is so useful in understanding the way nature works that we can almost call it real... Some people say, "How can you live without knowing?" I do not know what they mean. I always live without knowing. That is easy. How you get to know is what I want to know... I don’t feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn’t frighten me... Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool... Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers in the preceding generation... I don’t go for this philosophical interpretation of our deeper understanding of what we’re doing. We haven’t any deep understanding of what we’re doing. If we tried to understand what we’re doing, we’d go nutty."

I contend that the second pillar is not religion. All those things attributed there to religion are attributed to PEOPLE.

The ethics love. brotherhood, and all that jazz are not the result of religion, but of the people.

Religion channels them and restricts them to further its purposes. Your brother is not your fellow man, but the fellow Islamist or the fellow Wahabist, Catholic, Calvinist, .... Hominid.

Not your fellow, but the fellow in your clique.

Yes, people are capable of ethics, love, brotherhood, curiousity not organizations.

And when there is tyranny and horror in some organization (e.g. political, religious, scientific or economic) there is a person behind that nightmare.

Bishop Cyril (later Saint Cyril) was behind the horrible death of the Hypatia.

Sir Arthur Eddington was behind the black hole wars (that delayed the acknowledgement of the possibility of black holes for 40 years) and forced Chandrasakar to give up the study of black holes and emigrate to the US in order to have an astronomy career.

"From 1946 to 1948, American public health doctors deliberately infected nearly 700 Guatemalans — prison inmates, mental patients and soldiers — with venereal diseases in what was meant as an effort to test the effectiveness of penicillin. National Institutes of Health, even paid for syphilis-infected prostitutes to sleep with prisoners, since Guatemalan prisons allowed such visits. "

So yes people are ethical, not organizations: religious, scientific, political, economic or otherwise.

If science has not been nearly as horrific as religious and political organizations; it is for lack of power rather some fundamental ethics of science versus religion.

In the name of any science, is not fundamentally more ethical than in the name of any religion.

No, science has been less horrific because it's about the ideas of men, not gods.

Telling some human they're wrong may be considered rude.

Telling some god they are wrong is blasphemy.

See the difference?

Of course, it all about the ideas of men.

But yes blasphemy is the ultimate sin of religions (i.e. against a god of men).
But then treason is the ultimate sin against the state (i.e. against a state of men).

In my mind, the tyrant god of religion has mostly been replaced by the tyrant leader of politics. And organized religion was always about politics and power.

But the scientists who are willing to work for and do experiments for whoever pays for the research do not get an ethical clean bill of health.

In the name of democracy, self defense and science, the United States tested 1,054 nuclear devices (331 atmospheric) without much regard for human safety (civilian or military). A good movie to watch about this science is Atomic Cafe.

It is disingenuous to pretend that religion is horrible and scientists are just innocent pawns (e.g. from Nazi genetics experiments to US bomb testing or dropping a bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

It is scientist fiction to believe that scientists "Hears no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" and only seek truth and beauty.

"But then treason is the ultimate sin against the state "

Actually, against the sovereign, who was the link between the mortal realm and heaven.

But then again, treason has fuck all to do with science, so why say it?

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Politics and religion have similar sacred cows.

Scientists who serve the state must be careful that their curiosity and openness does not get them accused of treason.
http://www.conservativeactionalerts.com/2011/11/obama-ignores-science-c…

It is much safer for a scientist to do top secret research that is never published in the name of national security http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121123-secrets-of-us-military-spacepl…

So yes their is another Space Shuttle doing military research; it’s top secret.
Uncle Sam wants your scientific mind; but if you publish, it’s treason!!

One has to be careful and distinguish between state/religion and scientific thought/let's call it idealistic thought.

Be it state or organized religion of any kind, both are institutions and mostly committed to power gathering and it's own ends by whatever means necessary.

As opposed to just thinking and pondering by individuals.

"The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.

"How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.

"We thus arrive at a conception of the relation of science to religion very different from the usual one...

"It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees.On the other hand, I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. Only those who realize the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion without which pioneer work in theoretical science cannot be achieved are able to grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue. What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this world, Kepler and Newton must have had to enable them to spend years of solitary labor in disentangling the principles of celestial mechanics! Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and through the centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength. A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people."

Who said this?

http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

nice :)

what did einstein say sinisa? something about imagination being more important than knowledge? believe me, i would never discount your belief that the nuts and bolts of the universe are important, because step by step it is good to understand the mechanics of our environment, whether it is the place we all reside within our minds, or what we all experience with our senses, (which of course may be the same), when we stand outside under an open cloudless night sky. I understand how it must feel to you to be sidetracked by those of us who don't reside on the same physical mathematical plane as you. The only thing that separates me from you is my understanding of those symbols that make up your concepts of dimensional time and dimensional space and the way you arrange them to paint your picture of how things were, how they work now, or how they will or should be. hopefully our concepts will not dissipate into a fanatical dead end somewhere in a lunatics mind living in a make believe castle in some magical land where you get gobs and gobs of pie and cake, burgers and fries. I'm sure that wouldn't be your intention. you, like i are in search of the truth. i believe that. otherwise you wouldn't have come to a place like this where ideas are shared freely and nothing is discounted or relegated to the impossible, but integrated into a seamless fabric woven by beautiful golden strands of thread, much like physics. i believe the true master of his or her world can take what seems as a threat and turn it into something that is helpful. for that i can thank people like Dr. How. For being on this sight, i thank you. Your right, i haven't followed the twisting, turning path of finite points and infinite lines that are guided by a closed structure. Believe me, this is only because the universe has placed me in an environment that sees things in a different light. i'm not saying this is the way you view your universe, but, this is how, it seems, that i do. Here again we have to put everything in context. I like you, really see everything both open and closed. a place where there is no separation between magic and logic. I also understand that rules are necessary. Rules help us to distinguish between the paths of right and wrong, keeps us on track, both in the mathematical social and so called enlightened context. I can go on and on. you and dr. how are two different kinds of teachers, to me none the better, none the worse, who approach the universe 99.999........... percent the same. i have a question for okthen. do you mean to use the word religious or spiritual as one and the same?

@ liloldman

I am glad you didn't take the wrong way me pointing you to post under this thread.

You and me are not that different as you might think. The fact that you think of me " how it must feel to you to be sidetracked by those of us who don’t reside on the same physical mathematical plane as you" I will take as a compliment since I'm not a physicist nor a mathematician. But I do consider myself an amateur scientist and I enjoy physics immensely, especially astronomy and cosmology.

But.... I also enjoy the study of history, religion, mysticism and philosophy just as much. And I do understand what you are saying, more than you think. The point here is that general topics on Ethan's blog are not the place to mix metaphysics with physics.

You are talking about the infinite, the world of prima forma from which this universe emanated. The Sepher of jews or Akasha of Hindu. Many names.. many things... many people. You probably have your own notion of what it might be. And that is perfectly fine. But this is physics blog. It's only about nuts and bolts.

I do agree with Einstein's view on imagination. But knowledge and wisdom must go hand in hand. Imagination without knowledge in physics is just as useless as knowledge without imagination. You will agree that you need to know how aerodynamics work if you want to invent an airplane. Notice I said "invent" and not "build". You can't successfully ponder new things if you don't know how "old" things work. And Einstein had a degree in physics and mathematics.

And all of this holds true for search in that other scape. There are laws, laws that need to be understood in order to see the truth. Isn't that right? Mysticism is as much bound by laws as any other field. So let's stick to observational and experimentaly sound ways. You can't just put up a claim without backing it by something. Even metaphysical reasoning needs to abide by universal laws. So if you put up the notion of infinity and all that it entails, you need to define all terms and how you came to know them.

there are a lot of play on words here. no, i didn't take you, in my mind, the wrong way. yes it is a compliment. a line of thought to be allowed to run its' course. i do have a few thoughts on past, present and future. the starting point i would like to discuss are: at what point can you measure where the beginning becomes the past? at what point can you measure where the past becomes the present? at what point can you measure where the present becomes the future? at what point can you measure where the future ends? i'm not looking for metaphysical explanations. i'm looking for mathematical explanations. is this original or has it been tried before? this is what i meant by seamless. however in mathematics i don't know whether infinite seamlessness has been proven. i know there is an argument as to whether the universe is infiinit, finite or somewhere between. if you have run across the calculations maybe you could tell me where. no, i'm not being smart or joking.

there are a lot of play on words here. no, i didn't take you, in my mind, the wrong way. yes it is a compliment. a line of thought to be allowed to run its' course. i do have a few thoughts on past, present and future. the starting point i would like to discuss are: at what point can you measure where the beginning becomes the past? at what point can you measure where the past becomes the present? at what point can you measure where the present becomes the future? at what point can you measure where the future ends? i'm not looking for metaphysical explanations. i'm looking for mathematical explanations. is this original or has it been tried before? this is what i meant by seamless. however in mathematics i don't know whether infinite seamlessness has been proven. i know there is an argument as to whether the universe is infiinit, finite or somewhere between. if you have run across the calculations maybe you could tell me where. no, i'm not being smart or joking

maybe i meant ...........999.999........... percent of the time?

@ liloldman

Actually, as far as math, it's really simple. Math doesn't know "time". Time as you now portrait it is purely a human construct. In no pure math do you have any function of time. Only when you start dealing in physical calculations that "do something" over a time period, do you get time.
Math has no time. It deals with sort of "absolutes" if you will. Numbers don't exist in time. A+B=C.. there is no time here.

could we say the same for distance? that math doesn't know distance? only when you start dealing in physical calculations that, "do something" over a distance, do you get distance? i mean, from point a to z is an unknown until you attach a particular number to it. a could be anything. a= 1 mile, or a = 2 miles. 1 + 1=2. but 2+1=3.

I couldn't agree with that since whole of geometry deals with distances. But again on absolute level. Coordinate system doesn't care if it's 1 meter or 1 light year...

But all in all, I don't know what you are aiming at...

what happened to the child you were? i mean the image of the child you were? like if you put an object in front of you and move that object, where does the image of it go from where it was. we all know that everything around us is constantly changing at unknown speeds, or possibly the speed of light, so nothing we see before us is in the present tense. this image also is dependent on how much time it takes for our senses to acknowledge its' presence. so we are only using our senses to detect anything after the fact. even so what would be the process for measuring at what moment the present becomes the past. or the process for measuring at what moment the present becomes the future. our now is an electromagnetic projection of light which seems to be maybe like an electronic signal. do you think the infinity works this way? this is why i believe infinity is seamless. at least this part of infinity. because there isn't any way to measure any time or space that separates past, present and the future. the you you are now disappears into the past and the you you are now also disappears into the future. just a thought.

And this helps us how?

possibly a link. i had of lately read a piece about physics in the near future needing to change direction. especially theoretical physics. i thought the idea might relate to how the universe behaves. i don't have any idea how this information, if true would help. i've found if you can look at the basic structure of things, it helps to solve the most complex issues. it seems complexity can be broken into many pieces. i acknowledge i have not the expertise or the time to solve this mystery. but it seems something as important could be part of the puzzle. i thought, maybe someone somewhere has already thought of these things and might have information regarding the nuts and bolts that make it work. personally i see myself as energy. not just in a metaphysical sense, but a physical sense. i'm part of an explosion made up of something created infinitely long ago. except for my memories which seem to linger for a time before becoming distorted and dissipate i feel i am speeding thru time at a pace not even imagined by Einstein. i guess i may have picked the ideas up from an article i read somewhere. or pieced together different conversations from blogs like this or my early chat days. i don't believe in the word impossible, although infinity created it, to many people, i think, put it out of context. i think it belongs more in the category of the finite than the infinite. no less important. wow made a statement and asked a question at the same time, "if it took an infinitely long time how would you ever get here?" well, we never have gotten here. all the signs point to that fact. we are always experiencing with our senses, the past, not the now. i believe it can be proven through physics.

So in essence. You realized that there is no absolute time. You realized that everything we observe is the past. That there is no clearly defined present etc. etc. You are of course correct. And it's a very important insight. But that is nothing new. Every physics graduate knows the same thing. You aren't providing any new insight into anything.

so we are living in a probability? Nothing clearly defined? nothing absolute. Just a foggy haze of maybes and has beens. all we get is leftovers? scraps thrown from an infinity that comes nowhere to beyond or both the same? and we're trying to figure this out? maybe i should play pick up sticks instead. but then again it seems to point the way. i mean this deductive reasoning. wouldn't infinity be that way, before the big bang? nothing absolute or defined? just a massive chaotic structured interwoven and seamless chest of infinitely finite treasures locked away forever? i guess everything has a limiting function. an infinity that allows finiteness. this is where physics comes in, since everything with a limited power tends toward infinity. at least it allows for creativity. maybe we have to follow the path of Boltzman, Godel and the others. maybe they should have used a rope, so someone could have pulled them back? what is you/re expertise?

"so we are living in a probability? Nothing clearly defined?"

from our view of quantum mechanics, most definitely. But again it depends how you interpret QM. You can always wiki for more info. There's copenhagen interpretation, many worlds view etc. etc.

If behind all that is infinity is just a guess as any. Same as guessing that there isn't. You can't prove or disprove a statement like that. But it is a valid guess non the less.

In my personal view, there are no infinities or singularities in our own Universe. The beginning of our Universe in itself broke all infinities. But underlying it all, be it trough a multiverse or many world model, yes there could be infinity.

i stand outside and look at the night sky. me, the origin of my coordinate plane is zero. say the negative is QM going all directions. the stars and beyond are positive. switch them if you like. i can stand anywhere on the plane. if i come upon a wall, or an end, possibly to another universe, i can then see there is another, probably more. they would be infinite finite entities relegated to a number system of my own choice. i would invent my own reference points. i would create labels and charts, and then figure out, once i have amassed and gathered enough information i have invented, figure out what the information means. would you say, if there are other universes, would there be a gap between them or would it be a seamless transition? right now, to me, infinity is in everything, even the finite, because of QM, is the likely possibility. what lies beyond that, i mean the thing we call matter, if matter ends, it would have to be in the metaphysical realm, because not only are there no reference points there would be nothing to imagine, no coordinate system for which everything is based on. at least with that foundation we can build hot dog stands, ice cream cones and rockets to get there. if i went far enough out on this coordinate system, and looked back on these multiverses, i would see a tiny dot, no bigger than the head of a pin, whether it was 20 or billions, the farther out or away the smaller they would become, until they disappeared into what seemed to be no reference point. on the other hand, if the multiverses continued to infinity i would be right back where i started, looking up into the night sky. i'm sure you've heard the question, if the universe and everything in it expanded, would you know it? If the universe and everything in it shrunk, would you know? then how can we tell how big or how small we are?

I don't think you have enough knowledge about the subject and in the previous post you are tossing terms here and there without fully realizing the consequences. It's a bit amateurish and very pseudo-science.

i think the copenhagen and the world view versions of reality need to come together. it seems they complement each other very well. Throw in some social science, philosophy, some good old fashioned ghetto back spin and bingo! we'll figure it out. i am quite amateurish. pseudo-science? according to anyones ability to discern the nature of our environment seems to border on the event horizon and eternity. anyway, what you expressed in your latest observation isn't enough grounds to throw me off this site. ha, ha

It's not about who can imagine a more beautiful model, it's about what you can prove to be in line with reality. And not even prove to the society, but to yourself, first and foremost.
You have to be able to say: "ok, if this is like that, then that should be such and such". If it doesn't match what you perceive with your senses or sensors, it's not science, and you're probably wrong either in method or theory. Regardless if it's physical or metaphysical.

In other words... you are going from top to bottom.. first postulating infinity and then going to our universe. That line is wrong. I could postulate any given thing like that... a Huge Candle Stick i.e. and then ascribe certain properties to it that made big bang happen. And there would be no way for you to offer any proof that I'm wrong. Same goes for infinity, god, pink elephant.. or whatever. There is some of this in many theories out there. It's called "fine tuning". But you can't fine tune the whole theory. It just means you don't understand what is going on.

You need to start from bottom and go to top. If things happening here point to infinity out there, and you can offer concrete examples. Than it's great.

As for throwing you of the site.. why would anyone do that??

top or bottom are relative notions to me. however, if i am to begin somewhere it should be on a 1 dimensional scale at the point of origin. the proof that you seek is already here. it's a matter of explaining it and then someone understanding it. everything i understand can be explained from a coordinate system by adapting an idea to a point and defining that point with a numerical system, with logical explanations of course. on this plane there are two points of origin. you and me. these points of origin can be anywhere on this plane. even defining a point can be very difficult. they can be negative or positive. is this plane finite or go forever? does it prove one idea with limitations or an infinite number of ideas all inter-related and integrated in an infinite number of ways. i haven't postulated infinity. in fact, i don't know of anything that doesn't include infinity. nothing stands alone from the micro to the macro. as i said, at what point along a grid, when you can't distinguish where a point begins and ends on an infinite coordinate plane does the point begin or end? if you indicated the past present and future on this plane. at what point does any of these points originate or end. in quantum mechanics they say you can't really measure velocity of a particle because by trying to measure it, you interfere with the measurement. can't the same be said for the world we live in. when you meet someone, say, don't you also influence the way they think, possibly what they know, or what they were going to do next? so can you really know for sure what they were going to do next? are we really influencing these things, or are we a part of the original reaction. why should we separate ourselves from anything. i can give examples: a desk is made of wood; positive examples, it sits on the floor in a house, in a neighborhood.......a desk is made of wood: negative examples, wood from a tree that grows out of the earth on the planet........another example: i read a newspaper; positive example; that is in my hand while i'm sitting on a chair that is on the floor in a house. distance: positive: .......2ft, 3ft, 4ft.......; negative: ........-2ft, -3ft, -4ft....... why any of this can't go on forever would have to be proven to me. yes standing by themselves they are finite. but they can't stand by themselves. even your ideas are related to infinity because they have come from somewhere, (i'm sure you know) and because you communicate them to others, they will influence others and be passed on forever. if you aren't the originator of them you have been influenced by and will influence something. We are all transitory beings in every aspect, down to the quarks and atoms that make us. can i look out beyond the scope of my imagination? no. can i stand somewhere in space and time where there are no points of reference? no. i can only base my views of this environment on hard evidence, or, the best evidence. that the only thing where there is no real measurement, where nothing is clearly defined, everything is a probability and nothing is absolute, is infinity where nothing is separated, but seamless. in science one of the first things you do is form a hypothesis. i have done that. one of the second things you do is experiment to prove this hypothesis and this experiment that i observe everyday and in everything has been shown to give results. what would make me think something would show the results to be false. there are a number of reasons that people would want to throw others off a site. 1. because they agitate them. 2. they feel irritated by their presence. 3. a perception that the rules have been broken. 4.they don't understand what they are saying. 5. they perceive a threat. 6. they think the person doesn't know what they're talking about. 7. the person doesn't know what they are talking about. 8. it's a useless argument or discussion...................on and on. maybe it was close enough to the truth that i felt one of these assumptions or one i haven't mentioned might be correct. but not close enough to believe it. on the other site i saw your point. your right, i don't have enough knowledge about the subject, but then again i'm not here to give knowledge, to prove myself right or someone wrong, only to give my perspective and to gain knowledge. if nothing advances my line of thought, maybe it's for the better.

" in science one of the first things you do is form a hypothesis. i have done that."

Well, it is with this that I'm having difficulty. I don't understand what your hypothesis is. If you could put it up in a sentence or two max, that would help. What is your hypothesis that happened before big bang? In short, mind you.

my hypothesis from my view, is that we are still in the big bang, (or expansion). i agree that our perception of it has changed, like our perception that the world was flat. but we are trying to separate a continuous event that has no beginning or end. the same principles that went on at and before the big bang are still unfolding. what we see now is the process of change, that to us seems to have become infinitely larger from something infinitely smaller. we are energy. what we call energy. there has always been energy. a perception of size. we look at the environment and see what is around us, as much of it as we can, but it is all energy, no different than before the big bang. there are fluctuations in part of the universe we can view today as there were then. but from our perspective, it looks different. perception. but it isn't

"my hypothesis from my view, is that we are still in the big bang, (or expansion)"

well, sorry but you can't put a claim on that since that's the view of BB cosmology. No one ever said when big bang ended, only when it started. of course it's still going on. And yes, we are all energy at a fundamental level. QM says that. Again, not your hypothesis. Been known for a century now.
The rest of what you wrote is just your own new-age sermon.

you didn't read my whole hypothesis. correction. my hypothesis from my view is that we are in the big bang that has no beginning and no end. "we" meaning energy which is all things have always been. infinity. there is no beginning of a big bang. no separation, only finite explanations. it didn't start, there was no before, only a continuum. and there will be no after. remember, a hypothesis.

even worse.. then observational evidence go against your hypothesis.

i have information from observational evidence that shows there isn't an end to matter or energy. and of course to QM there is no proven beginning. things seem to come in and out of existence, but from where no one knows. massless doesn't mean no energy. it is continually coming from somewhere. so i don't see how observational evidence goes against anything.

"i have information from observational evidence that shows there isn’t an end to matter or energy"

- no you don't, but irrelevant, no one is talking about the end

" to QM there is no proven beginning"
- this sentence makes no sense.

"massless doesn’t mean no energy"
- you need to state to what you are refering. in relativity yes it does.

" things seem to come in and out of existence, but from where no one knows"
- mmm.. maybe in your world. lol. are you on some mushrooms?

" it is continually coming from somewhere."
-what are you talking about???

ok, nevermind.... i really don't care anymore.

i understand about not caring anymore. i mean on the subject matter we've discussed. on a topic like this. where mass turns into energy, which isn't necessarily the same according to e=mc2. however, to me that's not the issue. in the quantum world, it has been observed that mass seems to come from nowhere. which i don't believe it comes from nowhere. since it is mass that appears, it must come from somewhere. in other words in QM there is no proof of where the tiny particles come from, but they do. use the composite of QM and compare it to the big bang,(or expansion) and you have a similarity. things come and go, whizzing through our universe, creating and destroying, changing into many finite forms that are transitory. matter is energy cooled, building blocks for what we observe. speed it up and it returns to energy, probably because it bangs and crashes into itself at increasing velocities until it dissipates into something else. i only threw my thoughts out there. like i said, i don't have any answers. i'm sure you've tried to set me straight, but since you aren't sure what i'm talking and i can't seem to make myself clear, i probably should sit back and become an observer for awhile. QM to the macro universe. before the big bang to the macro universe. see the similarity?

"it has been observed that mass seems to come from nowhere. which i don’t believe it comes from nowhere"

Why should you be so important and central to the universe that it should give a shit about what you believe?

And before you go whining on about your bollocks, please go and check to see if you have it right first hmmm?

vacuum fluctuations. have you heard of it? it's like massless energy. photons have no mass, however they have momentum. i don't recall where i indicated infinity thought i was important, central, or even acknowledged my existence or belief system. However there may be a possibility. i haven't researched it yet. anyway, infinity created me so i don't take any credit or blame for being right or wrong, so why should i whine? i thought we were talking about science here, not spirituality? so what do you have to offer?

Why is it that New Age gibberers always have absolutely no grasp of the English language?

I used to work with one - he could not employ any of the most basic rules of the written language: punctuation, capitalisation, spelling and grammar - it all eluded him.

I found out why - having attended a Rudolf Steiner school, he had been a victim of their educationless approach to education.

Like I said, make sure you understand the science before you proclaim on it.

And why the hell should the fact that you don't like (or understand) vacuum fluctuations make a jot of difference to what is happening?

It is extremely arrogant to think that the universe doesn't do something just because you don't understand it.

Try understanding it first.

i think what we have here is a failure to communicate. and hey, it doesn't matter whether i like it or not. what is is what is. have a happy new one.

So why all the song-and-dance about how you don't like it therefore it must be wrong?

Oh, I get it. You get your jollies from wasting people's time.

Got it.

'course it could be that you've been assigned the task of understanding it and you don't really care for that so drop it.

Here's why your proposition is ridiculous and needs heavy work before you present it to others, jules.

"What if the dark matter is caused by a type 3 civilisation's existence?"

Well, yes, what if it was?

T.S. Eliot: Four Quartets, "Little Gidding", which is a section of, "The Wasteland". Seems to me Eliot must have dabbled in math.

correction. "Little Gidding" which, to me complements 'The Wasteland" but is not a section of "The Wasteland". however i recommend reading "The Wasteland".

i recommend reading "The Wasteland" and "Little Gidding" from "the Four Quartets", since, it seems, they both complement each other.

in fact i believe it might be prudent if you were to read all of "The Four Quartets" as well.

The Michelson-Morley experiment looked for an absolutely stationary space the Earth moves through

No it didn't.

It would have seen an effect (lower) for an aether that moved with the earth too.

Put your hand in a bowl of water. Move the hand through that water. Can you see the water flowing along with the hand, causing ripples?

Guess what? No ripples in the aether either.

Therefore Michelson-Morely would have seen an effect of an aether.

Just because science is beyond YOUR grasp, chelle, stop pretending it's wrong.

The aether does not move with the Earth. The aether is displaced by the Earth.

Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is displaced by matter. Displaced aether pushes back and exerts inward pressure toward matter.

Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels a well defined trajectory which takes it through one slit while the associated wave in the aether passes through both.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable"

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ... disregarding the causes which condition its state."

The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the aether.

'The Third Book of Opticks (1718) by Isaac Newton'
http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/NATP00051

"Qu. 21. Is not this Medium much rarer within the dense Bodies of the Sun, Stars, Planets and Comets, than in the empty celestial Spaces between them? And in passing from them to great distances, doth it not grow denser and denser perpetually, and thereby cause the gravity of those great Bodies towards one another, and of their parts towards the Bodies; every Body endeavouring to go from the denser parts of the Medium towards the rarer? ..."

Newton is referring to the state of displacement of the aether. The aether does not have a variable density. However, Newton was correct; displaced aether is the cause of gravity.

'NASA's Voyager Hits New Region at Solar System Edge'
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/dec/HQ_11-402_AGU_Voyager.html

"Voyager is showing that what is outside is pushing back. ... Like cars piling up at a clogged freeway off-ramp, the increased intensity of the magnetic field shows that inward pressure from interstellar space is compacting it."

It is not the particles of matter which exist in quantities less than in any vacuum artifically created on Earth which are pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the solar system.

It is the aether, which the particles of matter exist in, which is the interstellar medium. It is the aether which is displaced by the matter the solar system consists of which is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the solar system.

'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory - Louis de BROGLIE'
http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf

“When in 1923-1924 I had my first ideas about Wave Mechanics I was looking for a truly concrete physical image, valid for all particles, of the wave and particle coexistence discovered by Albert Einstein in his "Theory of light quanta". I had no doubt whatsoever about the physical reality of waves and particles.”

“any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous “energetic contact” with a hidden medium”

The hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics is the aether. The “energetic contact” is the state of displacement of the aether.

"For me, the particle, precisely located in space at every instant, forms on the v wave a small region of high energy concentration, which may be likened in a first approximation, to a moving singularity."

A particle may be likened in a first approximation to a moving singularity which has an associated aether displacement wave.

"the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave"

In a double slit experiment the particle travels a well defined path which takes it through one slit. The associated wave in the aether passes through both. As the aether wave exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave piloting the particle of pilot-wave theory. Detecting the particle strongly exiting a single slit turns the associated aether wave into chop. The aether waves exiting the slits interact with the detectors and become many short waves with irregular motion. The waves are disorganized. There is no wave interference. The particle pitches and rolls through the chop. The particle gets knocked around by the chop and it no longer creates an interference pattern.

'Surprise! IBEX Finds No Bow ‘Shock’ Outside our Solar System'
http://www.universetoday.com/95094/surprise-ibex-finds-no-bow-shock-out…

'“While bow shocks certainly exist ahead of many other stars, we’re finding that our Sun’s interaction doesn’t reach the critical threshold to form a shock,” said Dr. David McComas, principal investigator of the IBEX mission, “so a wave is a more accurate depiction of what’s happening ahead of our heliosphere — much like the wave made by the bow of a boat as it glides through the water.”'

The wave ahead of our heliosphere is an aether displacement wave. This is evidence of a moving 'particle', the solar system, having an associated aether wave.

'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter'
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_feature…

"Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark mater, which is somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the water."

The 'pond' consists of aether. The moving 'particles' are the galaxy clusters. The ripple is an aether displacement wave. The ripple is a gravitational wave. This is also evidence of a moving 'particle', the galaxy clusters, having an associated aether wave.

'Giant black hole kicked out of home galaxy'
http://www.astronomy.com/en/News-Observing/News/2012/06/Giant%20black%2…

"But these new data support the idea that gravitational waves — ripples in the fabric of space first predicted by Albert Einstein but never detected directly — can exert an extremely powerful force."

The fabric of space is the aether.

Gravitational waves are ripples in the aether.

What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment; the aether.

Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's pilot-wave.

They are both aether displacement waves.

'Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter: evidence from a sample of 38 lensing clusters of galaxies'
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1004/1004.1475v1.pdf

"Our data strongly support the idea that the gravitational potential in clusters is mainly due to a non-baryonic fluid, and any exotic field in gravitational theory must resemble that of CDM fields very closely."

The offset is due to the galaxy clusters moving through the aether. The analogy is a submarine moving through the water. You are under water. Two miles away from you are many lights. Moving between you and the lights one mile away is a submarine. The submarine displaces the water. The state of displacement of the water causes the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water to be offset from the center of the submarine itself. The offset between the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water displaced by the submarine and the center of the submarine itself is going to remain the same as the submarine moves through the water. The submarine continually displaces different regions of the water. The state of the water connected to and neighboring the submarine remains the same as the submarine moves through the water even though it is not the same water the submarine continually displaces. This is what is occurring physically in nature as the galaxy clusters move through and displace the aether.

'Milky Way's halo more squished than spherical'
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34735679/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/…

The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether. The matter which would form the Milky Way was moving as it displaced the aether. The aether displaced perpendicular to the major direction of motion became the majority force of the displaced aether and forced the matter into the disk. This resulted in the angular momentum of the matter. It is the aether which is displaced outward relative to the plane of the angular momentum which exerts force toward the center of the Milky Way. This force, along with the state of displacement of the aether as determined by the angular momentum of the Milky Way, forced the matter closer together which resulted in the displaced aether looking like a squished beach ball. Aether displacement explains how the Milky Way was created, how the disk and halo formed and why the rotational speed can not be accounted for by the mass of the matter of the Milky Way itself.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

"Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field"

The electromagnetic field is a state of the aether. Particles of matter are condensations of aether.

'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A. EINSTEIN
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf

"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2."

The mass of the body does diminish. However, the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished; it still exists, as aether. Matter evaporates into aether. As matter evaporates into aether it expands into neighboring places; which is energy. Mass is conserved.

When a nuclear bomb explodes matter evaporates into aether. The evaporation is energy. Mass is conserved.

The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the state of the aether in which it exists. In terms of general relativity, the greater the mass per volume of the matter the greater the displacement of the aether, the greater the force exerted toward and throughout the atomic clock by the displaced aether the slower the atomic clock ticks. In terms of special relativity, the faster a clock moves through the aether the more aether the clock displaces the more force the displaced aether exerts toward and throughout the atomic clock the slower the clock ticks.

Curved spacetime is the state of displacement of the aether.

'Was the universe born spinning?'
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46688

"The universe was born spinning and continues to do so around a preferred axis"

The Universe spins around a preferred axis because the Universe is, or the local Universe we exist in is in, a jet; a larger version of a black hole polar jet.

'Mysterious Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Tracked Deeper into Universe'
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/releases/2010/10-023.html

"The clusters appear to be moving along a line extending from our solar system toward Centaurus/Hydra, but the direction of this motion is less certain. Evidence indicates that the clusters are headed outward along this path, away from Earth, but the team cannot yet rule out the opposite flow. "We detect motion along this axis, but right now our data cannot state as strongly as we'd like whether the clusters are coming or going," Kashlinsky said."

The clusters are headed along this path because the Universe is, or the local Universe we exist in is in, a jet.

The following is an image analogous of the Universal jet.

http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html

The reason for the 'expansion' of the universe is the continual emission of aether into the Universal jet. Three dimensional space associated with the Universe itself is not expanding. What we see in our telescopes is the matter associated with the Universe moving outward and away from the Universal jet emission point. In the image above, '1st Stars' is where aether condenses into matter.

Dark energy is aether emitted into the Universal jet.

It's not the Big Bang; it's the Big Ongoing.

"The aether does not move with the Earth. The aether is displaced by the Earth."

The aether doesn't exist, so it isn't moved at all.

But anyhow, in your fantasy world, how the hell does that work?

If the substance you insist makes things move is moved out of the way, the stuff that moves in it will be moved with it.

But that would include the earth.

Therefore we'd see the earth move differently.

We'd see diffraction.

We'd see distortion.

We'd see the aether move out of the way on the "upstream" side.

You merely make shit up because you don't like science.

"The fabric of space is the aether."

Loon.

The incompressible fluid described in the following article is the gravitational aether.

'Empty Black Holes, Firewalls, and the Origin of Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.4176

"But why an incompressible fluid? The reason comes from an attempt to solve the (old) cosmological constant problem, which is arguably the most puzzling aspect of coupling gravity to relativistic quantum mechanics [13]. Given that the natural expectation value for the vacuum of the standard model of particle physics is ∼ 60 orders of magnitude heavier than the gravitational measurements of vacuum density, it is reasonable to entertain an alternative theory of gravity where the standard model vacuum decouples from gravity. Such a theory could be realized by coupling gravity to the traceless part of the quantum mechanical energy-momentum tensor. However, the consistency/covariance of gravitational field equations then requires introducing an auxiliary fluid, the so-called gravitational aether [14]. The simplest model for gravitational aether is an incompressible fluid (with vanishing energy density, but non-vanishing pressure), which is currently consistent with all cosmological, astrophysical, and precision tests of gravity [15, 16]:

__3__
32πGN Gμν = Tμν − Tα gμν + Tμν ,
Tμν = p (uμ uν + gμν ), T μν;ν = 0,

where GN is Newton’s constant, Tμν is the matter energy momentum tensor and Tμν is the incompressible gravitational aether fluid. In vacuum, the theory reduces to GR coupled to an incompressible fluid."

The following article describes a 'back reaction' associated with the "fluidic" nature of space itself. This is the displaced aether 'displacing back'.

'An Extended Dynamical Equation of Motion, Phase Dependency and Inertial Backreaction'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.3458

"We hypothesize that space itself resists such surges according to a kind of induction law (related to inertia); additionally, we provide further evidence of the “fluidic” nature of space itself."

The aether is, or behaves similar to, a superfluid with properties of a solid, a supersolid, which is described in the article as the 'fluidic' nature of space itself. The 'back-reaction' described in the article is the displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the matter.

The following article describes the aether as that which produces resistance to acceleration and is responsible for the increase in mass of an object with velocity.

'Fluidic Electrodynamics: On parallels between electromagnetic and fluidic inertia'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.4611

"It is shown that the force exerted on a particle by an ideal fluid produces two effects: i) resistance to acceleration and, ii) an increase of mass with velocity. ... The interaction between the particle and the entrained space flow gives rise to the observed properties of inertia and the relativistic increase of mass. ... Accordingly, in this framework the non resistance of a particle in uniform motion through an ideal fluid (D’Alembert’s paradox) corresponds to Newton’s first law. The law of inertia suggests that the physical vacuum can be modeled as an ideal fluid, agreeing with the space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity."

The relativistic mass of an object is the mass of the object and the mass of the aether connected to and neighboring the object which is displaced by the object. The faster an object moves with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists the greater the displacement of the aether by the object the greater the relativistic mass of the object.

Off topic opinions in response to Sascha Vongehr comment on Ethan's post at:
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/01/25/quantum-reality/

Sascha Vongehr
You come to this blog periodically.
Each time you seem to snap at Ethan.
Why, you may wonder, so many people read and comment on Ethan's blog and so few comment on yours?

I will tell you why it is a waste of time for me, in my opinion, to write on your blog.

You see, Ethan is open, he welcomes discussion. He is civil, he doesn't mock, he isn't rude. He is a good teacher, who writes well, explains well, and let's everyone participate to the extent that they are able in the discussions.

Whereas you, Sascha, well just go back and read how insulting you are to Ethan.

Now reader, imagine that you say something negative on Sascha blog. What do you think Sascha will say or do to you? Will he be polite and copurteous OR will he be rude and disrespectful to you or will he just ignore you? Do you think that Sasch behaves differently on his blog than on Ethan's?

In my opinion, Sascha pontificates wherever he is. He is always right and always knows more than anybody else?

Let me tell you how open Ethan is. If you say something nasty to Ethan; Ethan will leave that nasty rude comment posted. Ethan has enough confidence to know that he can take the insult of a angry or confused person. That angry rude comment will remain forever posted as a testament to your righteous anger.

Ethan has even invented a comment page (right here), where he will allows off topic discussion such as this. And some of that off topic discussion is actually quite good and reasonable. Worthy to read.

Now in my opinion, how does Sascha Vongehr blog compare?
Is it a place where I feel welcome? No.
Why not? Well the last 3 comments, Sascha deleted.
Why did he do that? Only Sascha can tell, but other comments have been deleted as well.
So in your opinion, does Sascha encourage open discussion? Not at all, his comment pages are filled with remarks praise and agreement with Sascha and easy questions, etc. But if anyone like me asks a really pointed question or challenges Sascha in any serious way. Well as I said, my comments are taken down. Sascha ends the discussion.

In all fairness, Sascha even takes down his own comments and posts that he doesn't like. He just keeps rewriting the discussion until he likes it or deletes it. Just my opinion. Yes in my opinion he jerry rigs the evidence of the discussion.

So yes, in my opinion, Sascha is very good at ending discussion. In fact, he doesn't appear to really ever want a discussion, he seems never to wants to educate, he seems not to understand the word participate.

Of course that's just my opinion. What do you think?
-- Did Sascha Vongehr come to Ethan's blog to mock?
-- Did Sascha Vongehr come to Ethan's blog to participate in the discussion?
-- Did Sascha Vongehr come to Ethan's blog to share and educate about quantum reality or any reality which he thinks he understands so well?
-- Did Sascha Vongehr come to Ethan's blog to advertise his blog and encourage click on his web site which he so carefully pasted into his Location?

Well I would go and put this comment on Sascha's blog but; in my opinion and in my experience, he doesn't have the self confidence to let a negative comment stand. As I mentioned he deleted my last 3 comments. He just doesn't have what it takes, in my opinion of course, to have an open discussion. If you don't agree with him, he just erases your comment.

Sascha Vongehr closes discussion (my opinion of course); but I always thought that science was an open process. That science was about having the confidence to discuss ideas, reason about the evidence, to listened to considered opinions of the novice as well as the authority. How else is a novice to learn to hypothesize and to reason; except by being encouraged to hypothesize and reason as best as possible?

So how does Sascha Vongehr with his closed/ end the discussion approach(just my opinion) expect to convince us feeble minded persons that he really is an open minded scientist/philosopher?

In my opinion, Sascha has delusions of being a great philosopher/scientist.

In my opinion, he doesn't convince?

Sascha seems to only wants to convince us inferior thinkers that he is right, based on his authority, education, intelligence; but not upon his reasoning. His reasoning is illustrated in his comment on Ethan's blog; it is the hit and run reasoning of an adolescent mind that knows he is right?

Well that's my opinion but go for yourself and reread Sascha Vongehr comment and see if you can see any reason in his remark or NOT? I don't hear reason; just anger, arrogance, and absolute childish emotions.

Enough of my opinion.

"We’d see the aether move out of the way on the “upstream” side"

We do see the aether moved out of the way on the "upstream" side.

It's referred to as beng analogous to the bow wave of a boat in the following article.

'Surprise! IBEX Finds No Bow ‘Shock’ Outside our Solar System'
http://www.universetoday.com/95094/surprise-ibex-finds-no-bow-shock-out…

'“While bow shocks certainly exist ahead of many other stars, we’re finding that our Sun’s interaction doesn’t reach the critical threshold to form a shock,” said Dr. David McComas, principal investigator of the IBEX mission, “so a wave is a more accurate depiction of what’s happening ahead of our heliosphere — much like the wave made by the bow of a boat as it glides through the water.”'

The wave ahead of our heliosphere is an aether displacement wave. This is evidence of a moving 'particle', the solar system, having an associated aether wave.

We see the effects of the aether being pushed out of the way on the "upstream' side every time a double slit experiment is performed. It's what waves.

The following image shows the affect the "upstream" aether has on the particles of matter which exist in and move through the aether.

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/619251main_D2-Astrospheres.jpg

It’s referred to as beng analogous to the bow wave of a boat in the following article.

Therefore the M-M experiment would have found a difference.

They didn't.

The aether doesn't exist.

And no, the aether isn't the solar wind, idiot.

"Therefore the M-M experiment would have found a difference."

The Michelson-Morley experiment looked for an absolutely stationary space the Earth moves through. The aether is not an absolutely stationary space. Aether is displaced by particles of matter. The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is a physical process determined by the state of the aether in which it exists. You have an atomic clock at sea level. You take it to the top of a mountain. The atomic clock ticks at a different rate at the top of the mountain because the state of the aether in which it exists has change.

Watch the following video starting at 0:45 to see a visual representation of the state of the aether. What is referred to as a twist in spacetime is the state of displacement of the aether. What is referred to as frame-dragging is the state of displacement of the aether.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ITt44-EHE

The analogy is putting a mesh bag full of marbles into a supersolid and spinning the bag of marbles. If you were unable to determine if the superfluid consists of particles you would still be able to detect the state of displacement of the supersolid.

The supersolid connected to and neighboring the mesh bag of marbles is in the same state throughout the rotation of the bag in the supersolid.

The aether connected to and neighboring the Earth is in the same state, or almost the same state, throughout the Earth's rotation about its axis and orbit of the Sun.

The state of which as determined by its connections with the Earth and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the aether.

The Michelson-Morley experiment looked for an absolutely stationary space the Earth moves through.

Look, just because YOU don't know what the hell you're talking about, no need to abuse others by telling a repeated complete porkie-pie.

M-M looked for anisotropy in the speed of light in the longitudinal and transverse motion of the earth.

Only if it moved with the earth (in which case astronomers would have spotted it a century earlier and is in any case completely ridiculous) or it didn't exist.

M-M wasn't looking for absolutely stationary space in any shape or form WHATSOEVER.

But your ignorance and blind faith is such you won't read a damn word of that, nor believe any of it even if they themselves rose from the grave and shouted it in your ear.

This is for anyone who has a thought that maybe your claptrap, being repeated twice, may have a grain of truth to it.

It doesn't.

And linking to a completely different video from the one you claim in the description of what that link offers is yet another chelle-ism, tired and completely predictable bullshit.

The aether of the time of the MMX was considered to be an absolutely statoinary space. The MMX looked for the 'aether wind' The MMX looked for the difference in the Earth moving with the Solar System through the stationary aether and the Earth moving against the direction the Solar System was supposed to move through an absolutely stationary space.

The near-null result of the MMX experiment is due to the state of the aether where the MMX experiment was performed being mostly determiend by its connections with the Earth which is the state of displacement of the aether.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable"

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places."

The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the aether.

The video visually represents the state of displacement of the aether. The video shows the state of displacement of the aether to be the same throughout the Earth's rotation which will also be the same throughout the Earth's orbit of the Sun.

de.Broglie.pilot.wave

Yes, your nonsense is very Chelle like.

Repeating the same word "aether" over and over (in different sentences and with a variety of quotes thrown in for good measure) makes a good mantra and nonsense; but is NOT science or evidence of scientific thinking.

Repeat after me "waste of time... waste of time."
Say it slow with a low voice until you feel the pain of your nonsense.

Einstein's 'First Paper'
http://www.efiko.org/material/Albert%20Einstein%5c%27s%20First%20Paper%…

"The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the elastic forces which cause [its] propagation, and inversely proportional to the mass of the aether moved by these forces."

The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the elastic forces which cause its propagation, and inversely proportional to the mass of the aether displaced by these forces.

Yes, chelle used that too.

And a decade later, after trying EVERYTHING to find an aether, he admits it doesn't exist and he'd wasted his time.

For those wondering, just go back up to where chelle uses this very same stupid argument (as if science stays still or someone intelligent can't change their mind or be wrong).

Einstein even says never to use aether in place of vacuo since it carries so much baggage that only serves to fool people into blind alleys from ancient semi-science.

"In several parts of this treatise an attempt has been made to explain electromagnetic phenomena by means of mechanical action transmitted from one body to another by means of a medium occupying the space between them. The undulatory theory of light also assumes the existence of a medium. We have now to shew that the properties of the electromagnetic medium are identical with those of the luminiferous medium." - Maxwell

Maxwell's displacement current is a physical displacement of the aether.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places"

The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the aether.

'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory - Louis de BROGLIE'
http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf

“When in 1923-1924 I had my first ideas about Wave Mechanics I was looking for a truly concrete physical image, valid for all particles, of the wave and particle coexistence discovered by Albert Einstein in his "Theory of light quanta". I had no doubt whatsoever about the physical reality of waves and particles.”

“any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous “energetic contact” with a hidden medium”

The hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics is the aether. The “energetic contact” is the state of displacement of the aether.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated aether wave through both.

"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense." - Albert Einstein

The relativistic ether referred to by Laughlin is the ether which propagates light referred to by Einstein.

hahah.. reading this chelle incarnation guy and can't help but be reminded of this song :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzLT6_TQmq8

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

"Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance - we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium."

if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that aether consists of movable particles. But all the same we could charaterise it as a medium having mass which is displaced by matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect#Vacuum_energy

"a "field" in physics may be envisioned as if space were filled with interconnected vibrating balls and springs, and the strength of the field can be visualized as the displacement of a ball from its rest position"

A 'field' in physics is space filled with aether and the strength of the field is the displacement of the aether from its rest position.

Each of the plates in the Casimir effect displace the aether. The displaced aether which exists between the plates is pushing back toward each of the plates which causes the aether displaced by each of the plates which exists between the plates to offset. This aether is more at rest than the aether which is displaced by the plates which encompasses the plates. The reduced force associated with the aether which exists between the plates along with the displaced aether which encompasses the plates which is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the plates causes the plates to be forced together.

What occurs physically in nature in the Casimir effect is the same phenomenon as gravity.

There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter. Aether has mass and physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by matter.

Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.

Those fields aren't aether.

The aether displaced by the plates in the Casimir which encompasses the plates pushes back and exerts inward pressure toward the plates which forces the plates together.

This is the same phenomenon as gravity.

"Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity."

ahahahah... except it doesn't work that way, and if it did, what we observe would be inconsistent. Since it's not, your theory is wrong. Sorry...

experiment above theory.. always

'NASA's Voyager Hits New Region at Solar System Edge'
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/dec/HQ_11-402_AGU_Voyager.html

"Voyager is showing that what is outside is pushing back. ... Like cars piling up at a clogged freeway off-ramp, the increased intensity of the magnetic field shows that inward pressure from interstellar space is compacting it."

It is not the particles of matter which exist in quantities less than in any vacuum artifically created on Earth which are pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the solar system.

It is the aether, which the particles of matter exist in, which is the interstellar medium. It is the aether which is displaced by the matter the solar system consists of which is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the solar system.

This is the same phenomenon as what occurs physically in nature in the Casimir effect.

the fact that you know nothing of particle physics doesn't really help you. there is no mystery in nasa's paper. all they write is already known stuff.

so, two strikes now... 1. your model doesn't abide by physical laws (you don't know how gravity works, hence you don't understand what your model would predict)... 2. all the properties you ascribe to it are already fine without aether.... in other words you don't even understand why you are wrong. shame really. if you want to be useful, take something that is unanswered till now, and ponder that. cause your current pink rabbit doesn't do anything really.

The Milky Way's halo is what is referred to as the curvature of spacetime.

The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.

What is geometrically referred to as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.

Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.

You are educated stupid. Aether is one-ism evil denying harmonic simultaneous 4-day.

'Galactic Pile-Up May Point to Mysterious New Dark Force in the Universe'
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/01/musket-ball-dark-force/

"The reason this is strange is that dark matter is thought to barely interact with itself. The dark matter should just coast through itself and move at the same speed as the hardly interacting galaxies. Instead, it looks like the dark matter is crashing into something — perhaps itself – and slowing down faster than the galaxies are. But this would require the dark matter to be able to interact with itself in a completely new an unexpected way, a “dark force” that affects only dark matter."

It's not a new force. It's the aether displaced by each of the galaxy clusters interacting with each other analogous to the bow wave of two boats which pass by each other.

You might as well call it Slood Dynamics.

'Quantum mechanics rule 'bent' in classic experiment'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13626587

'For his part, Professor Steinberg believes that the result reduces a limitation not on quantum physics but on physicists themselves. "I feel like we're starting to pull back a veil on what nature really is," he said. "The trouble with quantum mechanics is that while we've learned to calculate the outcomes of all sorts of experiments, we've lost much of our ability to describe what is really happening in any natural language. I think that this has really hampered our ability to make progress, to come up with new ideas and see intuitively how new systems ought to behave."'

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-double-slit-experi…

"Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through both slits."

A particle physically displaces the aether. A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both. As the aether wave exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave piloting the particle of pilot-wave theory. Strongly detecting the particle turns the associated aether wave into chop. The particle gets knocked around by the chop and continues on the path it is traveling.

What waves in a double slit experiment is the aether.

‘Quantum mechanics rule ‘bent’ in classic experiment’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13626587

‘For his part, Professor Steinberg believes that the result reduces a limitation not on quantum physics but on physicists themselves. “I feel like we’re starting to pull back a veil on what nature really is,” he said. “The trouble with quantum mechanics is that while we’ve learned to calculate the outcomes of all sorts of experiments, we’ve lost much of our ability to describe what is really happening in any natural language. I think that this has really hampered our ability to make progress, to come up with new ideas and see intuitively how new systems ought to behave.”‘

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-double-slit-experi…

“Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through both slits.”

A particle physically displaces the aether. A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both. As the aether wave exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave piloting the particle of pilot-wave theory. Strongly detecting the particle turns the associated aether wave into chop. The particle gets knocked around by the chop and continues on the path it is traveling.

What waves in a double slit experiment is the aether.

The image at the top here:

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/02/01/from-nothing-to-you-…

correctly represents the Universal jet we exist in.

This is hilarious. I just read this entire thread start to finish. Replete with the single personality jumping in and out with enough stylistic differences in communication artifically manifested to make it seem viable that it was actually multiple different believers in the same ludicruous pseudoscience silliness. It made for an amusing read. What tenacity, such as one only sees in ardent religitards. The rest of it - the science - was fascinating. Thank you all.

it's called the "infinity principal."

I take it, Andy, that your "ironic" is that you admit that this:

Consider the possibility of a handkerchief talking to a sheep whilst an elephant plays the Occarina. Doesn’t this mean that playing cards are portals to a new dimension?

is a waste of everyone's time.

However, you don't consider the exact level of contentless irrational rubbish you've said, such as:

Now imagine they are both contracting inward at a rate at/near C. Would that change their physical position, even though both were traveling inward at/near C?

therefore this cannot be the case.

So where is the irony?

Andy
Thanks you for coming to this page!

Of course there are liars, damn liars and mathematicians;
AND THEN THERE ARE META-MATHEMATICIANS!!!

And herein lies the problem. Physicists must be mathematicians AND THEN they may even strive to attain competence as meta-mathematicians.

But mathematics, we must learn even as laymen (such as I); if we wish to begin to comprehend nature.

Now regarding your idea specifically.
First, we need to know the meaning of "in the first place" (in a strict mathematical/logical sense) as in the sentence "how did the Universe come to be in the first place?" And as well, we need to understand "Universe" (in a strict mathematical/logical sense).

Neither the strict mathematical/logical meaning of "first" or "Universe" are quite clear or even necessarily provable mathematical ideas. Are we even using the right number system and or arithmetic system to describe the observed physical "Universe". Have we yet decided whether the "Universe" is strictly mathematically speaking closed or open, infinite or finite or even transfinite set, and so on.

Please the big bang is but very pragmatic idea casually mathematical idea of sometimes great precision and sometimes of absolutely no help at all. But it's the best we got!

I do not jest; rather I suggest that in order to understand IF there is meaning in such a question ("how did the Universe come to be in the first place?" ); that we must consult with the meta-mathematicians and metaphysicists who "understand" Godel's incompleteness theorems.

Your very question assumes a mathematical/logical physical "first place".

My point is that the casual colloquial idea "first place" is not a mathematically/logically grounded idea.

You see "first place" (in a strict mathematical sense) may be
-- provably true
-- unprovably true
-- provably false
-- or unprovably false
within the strict number/mathematical/logical system of current astrophysics/cosmology.

Of course physicist may be using the wrong number/mathematical/logical system. When did physics start using
- noncommutative algebra
- Riemannian geometry
- Calabi–Yau manifold
- complex numbers
- transfinite numbers
- and so on

So may I suggest that questions "in the first place" (in a strict mathematical/logical sense) are completely unintelligible,unprovable, unimportant "in the first place" (in the casual colloquial sense) and completely unprovable in a Godel's incompleteness theorems sense.

And by the way all of science (and that includes physics and astrophysics and cosmology) is mathematical only in the casual colloquial sense practical mathematical sense. Scientists want to understand some observable aspect of nature in a practical, descriptive, observable way.

If it's unobservable there better be an important hypothetical observable point or it isn't science.

e.g. when physicist use transfinite numbers; they trying to explain some observable like hadrons:
Hadron Physics and Transfinite Set Theory by Bruno Wilhelm Augenstein, 1984.
Well maybe this is metaphysics; hard to tell.

Mostly physicist avoid mathematical/logical musings that aren't practical. They leave fundamental mathematics/logics of the ultimate questions to the meta-mathematicians, meta-physicists and string theorists (no disparagement meant; they push upon the mathematical/logical limit).

So Andy. No need to push the limits of everyday logic. Everyday logic has long been broken.

So come to Ethan's blog if you want to learn and participate on topic.

But if you want to rant off-topic nonsense, psuedoscience and such. Then this is your only page on this blog.

@ Andy

ok.. let's go step by step.

" Current theory states it began from a single point, which inflated or expanded outwards into an undefined region of space."
No. That's not true. I recommend reading on wiki many extensive articles on big bang, spacetime, inflation, qm etc. Or even scroll up here in comments, and you will find detailed summaries. It didn't expand outwards into an undefinded region of space. You really need to understand what current cosmology is saying before you can propose something different.

" That single point was the totality of the universe though, and it never grew beyond its original size physically. In other words, that single point of energy defined the entire scope of the universe. And instead of expanding outward, it’s been contracting inward, and losing energy."
Your universe of a single point from "outside" is our universe from "inside".. is that what you're saying? And this helps understanding thing inside how? It can't be proven or disproven. I can say there is a pink elephant outside our universe. Or god for that matter. You can't disprove it. The rest of what you write is just incorrect in terms of observation.

"Size is not a relevant concept in a dynamic universe."
What ever do you mean by this....

"From the inside, everything appears static, because it is scaling down towards an infinitely small point in space."
except that it's not static... and that we only care what's on inside. There's a thing called causality. And if it can't be in any way in any causal relation to something, it might as well not exist. Whatever is happening outside our causal bubble dictated by laws of physics of this Universe is completely irrelevant and subject of physics. This is physics blog.

"How did it begin? No idea. Then again, nothing earth shattering in that response. No one has any idea. Quantum fluctuation? Don’t know."
quantum fluctuation? but you just said size is irrelevant? quantum what? if it's just as big as this universe at t=0? I understand now that you don't understand half of what you're saying.

"That may seem fairly apparent, but what is up or down in reality? What is left or right?"
lol.. indeed.. what is inwards and outwards.. why did you spend dozens of sentences speaking about it... if you now say what is all that... hahahaha... my my

"Isn’t this what I’m saying?"
no.. you are speaking about what you imagine is outside of our universe. Physics is concerned with what is inside. Because as I have shown you with train... what is outside doesn't matter. So to burst your bubble... all that is happening inside has to have cause in the inside. All your talk is about outside.. and all you write about inside is 100% wrong from observational data. Buy a telescope dude.. look.

" If we could step outside the universe, what would we see?"
We can't! And it doesn't matter! Again... My last suggestion to you.. learn. Learn first what works and what doesn't work. You need to base yourself in science before postulating, not pseudo-science.

@Sinisa

It's a very simple concept Sinisa, and I am somewhat surprised that you're having a difficult time comprehending what I suggest.

As I have repeatedly said, current views have us expanding outward, like a balloon more or less. And yes, I do understand what science is saying. Reverse it, but consider the possibility that we have an infinite amount of room to deflate, as we have an infinite amount of room to inflate currently. Now imagine that everything within that balloon deflates or scales at pretty much the exact same rate, but with a slight offset between space and matter.

There is very little physical difference between an explosion, and implosion, if you were immersed in either with an infinite amount of room to expand or contract. I know, the BB is not either, but it's much easier to use these as reference points. Don't get hung up on semantics.

Both would have the ancient remnants of the CMB, and both would behave pretty much the same.

The primary difference between these two possibilities becomes a question of energy loss. To support the current view, we needed to add a theoretical repulsive dark energy to explain acceleration. While I'm not saying it isn't true, I looked at the alternative. What if the beginning was more like an implosion?

If you considered we were possibly headed the inverse direction from which we perceive, then the need for dark energy goes away. We are simply falling into an abyss, becoming ever smaller in our journey as we steadily lose energy, cool, and condense. We don't notice a thing though, because the process is driven by a constant. Our perspective remains constant.

As I've said, size is not a relevant concept in a dynamic universe. What I clearly mean by dynamic, is that nothing is truly fixed in size, except our perspective. A parsec, meter, gram, or C, is only meaningful to our sense of perspective. That's good enough for us to make sense of the world, but it may not be good enough for us to make assumptions about the entire universe. Our eyes can deceive, and our measurements could skew, because those may be merely perspectives at any given moment in time.

If there's one thing I've learned in life, people are much more eager to blurt out what they think they know, than risk thinking on their own for a moment. It's safer in most cases.

It’s a very simple concept Sinisa, and I am somewhat surprised that you’re having a difficult time comprehending what I suggest.

Maybe this is because your concept is incomprehensible.

Consider the possiblity.

As I’ve said, size is not a relevant concept in a dynamic universe.

Only because you've said it is. You have no explanation of why this must be.

"There is very little physical difference between an explosion, and implosion,"

- well, that's the problem for you. Because they are very different. And Universe and BB are neither.

First base your idea on real observations and facts, and then we can talk details.

@Sinisa...

You are taking the full statement out of context...

"There is very little physical difference between an explosion, and implosion, if you were immersed in either with an infinite amount of room to expand or contract. I know, the BB is not either, but it’s much easier to use these as reference points. Don’t get hung up on semantics."

When you leave out the main part of the condition with which I am trying to explain, of course it's a problem. That's a typical political tactic. Extract what you want to make a useless point about nothing.

This idea is based on all the current observations, and does not question the math. What it does question is the interpretation, or perspective, of those observations. Are we 100% absolutely certain we are expanding? Are we 100% certain that matter is static in specific conditions? Are we absolutely 100% certain C is static in certain conditions? Are we absolutely 100% certain time is fully understood?

You are telling me that you conclusively know all these answers personally? You want me to base my idea on facts, but i have to ask, what facts can you claim? We know much about the physical properties of many things through experimentation, but we know very little of the how's and why's. In a world where mainstream topics include, 12-dimensions, strings, multiverses, time travel, warp drives, etc, etc, etc, you want me to only consider the facts? The fact is, everything we know for the big picture is pretty much all theory.

And I am not questioning any of it. What I question is the direction we are headed, and like it or not, it could be exactly as I stated, without impacting anything we currently understand. But, if you can't understand it, than so be it. It's possible, and not nearly as difficult to understand as you're making it out to be. Raisin understood perfectly what i was suggesting. It can't be ruled out, whether you agree with it or not.

I'm not taking it out of context because the context is BB, inflation and expantion. But fair enought.. let's not dwell on semantics, and you leave implosions out of it and use real scientific terms for everything you're talking about. You don't need silly analogies. Use terms like particles, fields, and all the rest so we are not confused.

"You are telling me that you conclusively know all these answers personally?"
No, I'm telling you I conclusively know all of what you propose is wrong becuase of experimental physics. For your proposal to even be scientific, you either have to show that Maxwell was wrong or that Einstein was wrong. Because your light and forces of nature behave differently then what is accepted and tested. It's as simple as that.
I don't see any scientific reasoning in your idea. Please show it.

"When you leave out the main part of the condition with which I am trying to explain, of course it’s a problem. That’s a typical political tactic."

Except that condition is posited as a truth. Claiming a fact when it doesn't exist is a typical woomancer tactic.

"if you were immersed in either with an infinite amount of room to expand or contract."

Neither exist. You can only contract to the limit of zero size. You can only expand to the limit of available space.

" Are we 100% absolutely certain we are expanding?..."

Irrelevant.

Are you absolutely 100% certain that you aren't in the Matrix? No. But we don't seriously argue we are merely in a computer game.

"You are telling me that you conclusively know all these answers personally?"

That isn't necessary to show your attempts to make up science wrong.

"What I question is the direction we are headed"

Pointlessly.

Andy
First thank you for coming here.
This place for off-topic discussion, in my opinion, has some of the most interesting discussion.

It is a credit to Ethan that he created this place as his solution for off-topic discussions. To a great degree, Ethan welcomes diverse discussion; but he has set limits because off-topic discussion can ruin the learning. And his blog is a learning place.

I think some of your ideas are reasoned and worthy and crazy enough thoughts to have merit (as far as they go).

But the problem in physics and astrophysics is that a reasoned idea to be taken seriously has to be not only good enough and even crazy enough (e.g. in the crackpot sense of Dirac's infinite unobservable sea of negative energy particles) but it has to be an idea written in mathematical language and that gives specific predictions. And this is important. Very important.

I have my crackpot theories too. I generously call them learning theories. I don't just learn physics by reading what the experts say. I try my own idea. And then I try to do the research to break my idea (damn it, I predict this and look at that; something else has been observed or experimentally determined). Ouch; but only a only a fool argues with experimental results. e.g. if neutrinos have mass, then neutrinos have mass.

I got nothing if I disagree with observations and experiment.
I mean I could argue that neutrinos "apparently have mass''; if this is my contrary and sincere thought and if I have some crackpot idea, i.e learning hypothesis, as to why it must be so. But I've got to have some criteria, that if you could show me this; I would be convinced that I am wrong.

Recently Wow convinced me that there could be non-rotating black hole nearby in our Milky way galaxy. I didn't like it. But I argued that if he could show me thus or equivalent as possible; then I will accept the possibility of Schwarzchild black holes. (versus only Kerr black holes as physicall possibilities). Well he showed me. Ouch.

So what can I do. I accept his argument as sound; much sounder than mine. He gave me the reasoning that I asked for; that woudl convince me. Might I change my mind again if a worthy thought crosses my mind? Sure. But any learning hypothesis that I make; I try very hard to break based on observation, experiment or my own or someone elses thinking. Not authority; I must understand.

Here's an example of where I can disagree with current physics. Consider this research paper http://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.1234v2.pdf The paper begins, "The classic “Bell’s Theorem” of Clauser, Holt, Shimony and Horne tells us that we must give up at least one of: (1) objective reality (aka “hidden variables”); (2) locality; or (3) time-forwards macroscopic statistics (aka “causality”). The orthodox Copenhagen version of physics gives up the first. The many-worlds theory of Everett and Wheeler gives up the second. The backwards-time theory of physics (BTP) gives up the third."

So, assuming this author is correct or serious physicists think this author might be correct; then there is room for me to entertain learning theories outside the accepted theories interpretations within these constraints (i.e. alternatives).

Personally, I give up "(3) time-forwards macroscopic statistics (aka “causality”) " and thus continue to think about various "backwards-time theory of physics (BTP)."

But even as a layman I must learn the mathematics. Because the ideas that I consider require me to be at least mathematically literate mind. So that means STUDY, not casual reading. I mean find the textbook and I have two on general relativity right now that I pick up everyday and will work my way through.

Even as a curious layman, especially as a very curious layman, I've got study. So I can at least raise the level of my questions (and by the way also my level of appreciation of professional scientists).

So in my mind, you need listen and discuss with Sinisa Lazarek; because he is trying to reason with you. But also need to listen to Wow; because he says your idea is nonsense. If you ask Wow a good honest question; he will answer if he knows. He will even speculate sometimes.

But you need to be tougher on yourself than Wow is on you!!

Now to your idea.
I agree current standard model cosmology has big problems.
But I also think (e.g. search arxiv.org) that current publish physicists and astrophysicists are exploring a very wide range of ideas. And I've bookmarked hundred of these articles that align with the direction of my learning hypotheses.

My scientific thinking is not confined to current best scientific theory!!!
BUTmy scientific theory is confined to current best scientific evidence!!!

And if I disagree with current theory then I need to either develop my own better theory or more likely look for someone who is developing such a possible theory.

For example http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.3872v5.pdf
Gravitational strings beyond quantum theory: Electron as a closed heterotic string. by Alexander Burinskii
This is a better crazy theory than I can think of.
So I try to understand it. And it is now part of my conceptual thinking.
It isn't part of any standard model yet. And I do not know what other professionals peers think of this theory.
But it helps my thinking. It helps elevate my thinking.

But I've also got to put in the effort; hence my STUDY and I don't mean on this blog or keeping up with the science news. I mean STUDY of math and physics text and increasing my ability to comprehend and to reason physically and mathematically.

I need to be able to conceptually discuss and think at the arxiv level of ideas. That's a high standard. And the professionals say there is a lot of nonsense out there. OK. So I read critically and I listen to the their critics.

I really like Fred I. Cooperstocks ideas. I've read his book and his papers. But his peers (and he's an emeritus professor of general relativity) do not like his theories. This is not a political contest; I don't get to vote for him. I can only watch the discussion that is going on about his ideas. Or learn enough general relativity to ably participate (I don't think so). but I like his ideas so I follow his work. But he and his colleagues have to increase their level of thinking; I can't do it.

So Andy consider one of your points.

"As I’ve said, size is not a relevant concept in a dynamic universe."

In string theory their is the concept of T-duality; that basically says a large string of radius R, is physically indistinquishable from a small string of radius 1/R. And hence that curled tiny dimensions (i.e. space) of 1/R can be physically equivalent to large spaces of radius R. (or something like that).

But now, what's my point. Hmm, I don't know your point.

A point that I personally would make is that the reason we can't observe the dimension time is that it is curled and tiny. Yes, I'm serious; this is one of my learning hypotheses. I mean everything we measure is right now; right here in this telescope on this mountain, on this piece of equipment. I mean time is an implicit concept. We certainly never had a platinum 1 hour bar of time. OK enough; I don't think anybody understands time nearly well enough.

So I like your questioning Andy; but you have to find a point that make sense to you and struggle to explain it better.

Ciao.

Thanks OKThen. Very nice response.

I always come back to one simple thought experiment. If there were only two objects in the universe, and we judged them to be moving away from one another based on the redshift, how many possibilities do we have?

Forgetting about tired light, or any other theory that might question the validity of the redshift, we have two distinct possibilities in my view.

The two objects could be physically moving away from one another on a linear path. Makes perfect sense, and it's supported by all of our observations. So, I agree, based on the redshift those two objects are more than likely moving away from each other. I would say that the level of confidence that this is a virtual fact is very near 100%.

But...

I also see a second possibility which as never been explored, or ruled out. Is it right? I don't know.

If those two objects were moving on an inward trajectory, losing energy, and the space they were embedded in was also moving inward at a slightly offset rate, would they also produce the same observed redshift? I don't think the question has ever been explored, or even asked, so I don't know the answer either, and I certainly don't have millions of dollars to produce an experiment to rule it out. All I have is my imagination. It's not really a matter of working out the math anyway, because it could be made to work mathematically. That doesn't prove a thing. All one would be doing is taking the entire universe as a single set, and scaling it down in size at a given rate. That does not change anything within the universe that we understand mathematically. We still have an upper and lower limit to contend with inside the universal set.

If the universe were scaling down in size as a result of energy loss, nothing in physics that we currently understand would change. We are wedged between two infinite possibilities, and everything we observe is simply a matter of perspective. That perspective is also clearly driven by a constant. I define infinity as the potential to be everything, or nothing, but we are neither, or possess a touch of both. Infinity would be the fundamental concept of + and -.

I don't see where this would violate any laws of physics, but it definitely changes our understanding of perspectives, and what that perspective means to us physically.

What I see in this idea is a potential explanation for acceleration. Through energy loss, or energy conservation, distance is becoming greater between unbound objects. Our locality is simply fading away from others and vice versa. The theory of a repulsive dark energy would be invalidated, or unnecessary. That itself doesn't even mean we won't find something physical in the idea of dark energy that we could make use of in a practical sense, as near as I can assess.

This idea also gives me a rough understanding of what substance may equate to. I've always been intrigued at the nothingness of substance on a quantum level. When you look at it up close, you find an awful lot of emptiness. From what I remember reading, matter is about 98% nothing, and 2% something, and we don't know what either represents to our sense of reality. We don't know what makes it tick, and probably never will on many levels. If they were potentially representative as collapsing points in space though, I can see where the illusion of substance may be supported or possible.

I do realize a lot of this concept becomes wrapped in the cringe worthy topic of infinity. Most people in the physics community will shut down when the topic is even mentioned. That would be the Cantor effect. Personally, I see merit in contemplating such things, and consider infinity as something that runs through us in 2-dimensional manner. We realize this property in the potential to be infinitely large, or infinitely small, but never achieving either, making our existence entirely finite and comprehensible. There are no infinities within our universe.

@ Andy

"If those two objects were moving on an inward trajectory, losing energy,"

Loosing energy why? And how? Don't you see that this is very different from your first example. You didn't have loss of energy when bodies were moving away from each other, why do you have loss of energy when they move towards each other?
You need to be consistent in your proposal and consistent with laws of physics.

In other words, if everything was the same, and they were moving towards one another, then you would have blue shift. And in fact that is what is observed with some celestial bodies. Some are moving towards us, some are blueshifted. But the majority is moving away (redshift).

Also one important thing... cosmological blue and red shift of celestial objects (the one that is discussed) is not caused by the movement of the source object! That;s why doppler shift is a very good analogue, but is not accurate.
I hope this helps you understand.

To go back to your idea... You need to explain (to yourself first), why would an object loose energy on it's own just by moving in one direction instead of another. We don't observe that in real life. You exert the same amount of energy driving a bike left as you do driving right.

@Sinisa

"Loosing energy why? And how? Don’t you see that this is very different from your first example. You didn’t have loss of energy when bodies were moving away from each other, why do you have loss of energy when they move towards each other?"

I would think energy loss would be a logical assumption, considering I was suggesting we were a scaling down in size. Sorry.

As for why we are losing energy, it's really simple. Perpetual motion machines have been pretty much proven to be impossible. I think that would hold true with expansion and acceleration of the universe, yet here we are, expanding and accelerating. It's a little bit of a contradiction to what we understand, don't you think? Current theory suggest we are moving towards C, being pushed apart by a growing repulsive dark energy, and could eventually fly apart. So the death of the universe is going to end in a higher energy state?

Something seems off in that explanation to me.

The energy loss has absolutely nothing to do with motion in any direction. The energy loss is inherent in all elements within the universe, and the universe itself. It's actually the energy loss which drives the universe inward at a constant rate according to my VERY loosely bound concept. It is the loss of energy which makes the universe possible, like an automobile needs fuel, or we need food to sustain our existence as long as possible. Without the burning of energy, we're only building potential to be something.

"In other words, if everything was the same, and they were moving towards one another, then you would have blue shift. And in fact that is what is observed with some celestial bodies. Some are moving towards us, some are blueshifted. But the majority is moving away (redshift)."

I struggle to explain the concept correctly. What I see as a blatantly obvious concept, I suppose can be misinterpreted very easily. There is a distinct difference between scaling downward in size, and moving towards one another. I am not disputing any color shift, or doppler effect, created in movement. My father was a prominent microwave/radar engineer, and I understand all of these effects fairly well (from a layman perspective). Really, I do.

"As for why we are losing energy, it’s really simple. Perpetual motion machines have been pretty much proven to be impossible."

Non sequitur.

The impossibility of perpetual motion machines do not mean you must lose energy.

" Current theory suggest we are moving towards C, being pushed apart by a growing repulsive dark energy, and could eventually fly apart. So the death of the universe is going to end in a higher energy state?
Something seems off in that explanation to me."
- Andy, don't get this the wrong way, but you don't seem to understand what current theory says. This is the 3rd time I say your interpertation of modern cosmology is incorrect. Go to wiki and read all you can about the metric of general relativity and accelerated expansion. After reading that, I'm sure you'll realize where your issues arise.

The rest what you write is simply incorrect, and am sure your father would correct you if he read the above. Ask him to explain it in more detail.

Here's the bottom line. Spacetime metric of GR can expand or contract. It can't do both at the same time. If it's expanding, we observe redshift, if it's contracting we observe blueshift. From what I understand of your theory... it would have to show effects of redshift, but instead actually contracting. Well, the GR metric can't do that. That's why I said, that in order for your view to work, Einstein has to be wrong.
Physicists are trying to get gravity 2.0.. but so far as I know, none have spacetime metric behaving like what you need.
You might find it very simple concept, but in reality it equates to trying to get water to freeze by heating it. You want the metric to scale down while exhibiting properties that it's scaling up.

Andy
In my mind, you are ending discussion before even starting it.
Because, you are grabbing the biggest topic possible and not framing it carefully.
A discussion requires clear concepts.

"If there were only two objects in the universe" This is already a contradiction and gigantic ambiguity. All terms need to be carefully defined because this is not our visible universe.

"two objects"??
--- classical complex objects: e.g. stars, refrigerators
-- quantum objects: e.g. black holes, elementary particles
-- other hypothetical objects:
"universe"
-- which toy model universe are you considering because it already is not the observed universe
- which of the 4 known forces are you including; hence which elementary particles, hence...

"If there were only two objects in the universe" implies hundreds of assumptions, maybe thousands. It would be presumptuous of me to assume what you mean.

Or perhaps your two objects are large galaxies as in the hypothetical universe described in Ethan's post
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/08/23/where-will-we-all-be…
and the Milky way galaxy and 1 other galaxy are the only two large scale objects in the universe.

You must clarify your assumptions.

G
Thank you for following me here.
My intention is not to insult you or anyone.

But some of what you say verges on nonsense. But it is hard to tell the difference between deliberate obstructionist nonsense and honest curious thinking out loud kind of nonsense.

The honest kind of nonsense, I call learning hypothesis. I have them, you have them; without the courage to have and express a foolish idea, we wouldn't learn a thing. I don't mind honest nonsense, trying to learn nonsense.

But deliberate obstructionist nonsense drives me and ever honest person crazy. Because it's only purpose seems to be to deliberately devalue and confuse. Often this is on politically/religiously charged issues as climate change or human evolution.

The reason Ethan made this comment page on his blog was because certain individuals were hijacking his blog with complete nonsense discussion. Yes they were using scientific words and phrases and links etc. But their purpose was not to learn or think together but just to confuse and bury honest discussion under a pile of deliberate word trash.

So if I have misjudged you (and at this point I assume that I have); then I give you my honest apology.

Please accept it. Thank you.

BTW, this character Wow is a great person and well appreciated by me and others on this blog. Scientifically, he is almost always correct, as well his nose for nonsense is almost infallible and indefatiguable. And finally in my opinion (e.g. Wow's comment #39 to you), Wow is fair minded and balanced in opinion. But yes his slap across the face does hurt. But ouch, ouch I appreciate it when Wow or anyone talks some sense into me.

This blog of Ethan's is a welcome place for laymen (such as you and I). And we are fortunate to have astronomers (such as Wow) and other scientists and science minded people who have chosen Ethan's blog as an excellent blog to discuss and learn science.

But Ethan's blog is not a place to argue personal science theories and hypotheses. So mostly I don't share my own learning hypotheses out here. I try to stay on topic and try to minimize my pet peeves.

Re. OKThen at #468:

Apologies accepted; troubleshooting underway.

What I think happened there was, along came Duffield from out of the aether, and that set the tone, and then I dropped in and got swatted along with him. You'll notice I didn't reply to him even though he replied to me: because it was clear from the get-go that whatever he had to say was suspect.

Eric at #41 over there pinned it: "oscillatory universe" scratches a materialist philosophical itch. At root I tend toward Newtonian mechanism and materialist reductionism wherever possible, something that drives some of my new-agey friends batty, for example whenever I use neurobiological explanations of human behavior. There's a running joke with one friend in particular, the punch line of which is "biology vs. history." (I'm also a pretty hard core empiricist, which is why I also argue for agnosticism rather than atheism.)

I don't have a lot of formal education in the hard physical sciences: I'm dyslexic, which short-circuited my math education and the rest fell from there. However I'm decently good at getting this stuff at a conceptual level (with the aid of much visualization and allied skills), which is how I acclimatized to the quantum theory and how I'll acclimatize to the multiverse. (How I ended up in telecoms engineering is another story for another day, but chances are that something I designed is in the infrastructure you use.)

A friend of mine who has a triple BS from Yale in physics, math, and computer science, explained to me that Everett can be construed such that the universe at-large (macro) doesn't split at every wave function collapse, only the (micro) subset of the universe at which each wave function collapse occurs. An exchange of micro-level events with other universes isn't a problem: in the end it seems that it would appear as random noise at both ends of the proverbial circuit, which is reasonable. Now in retrospect I feel like a dunce for not having figured that out on my own, but such is the case for most "obvious" insights about the nature of things.

Thinking about it further, I think I've figured out where my bias against the multiverse theory came from:

In summary it was _also_ guilt-by-association, in reaction against certain new-age and postmodernist nonsense I've encountered over the years, to the effect that subjectivity determines objective reality (as distinct from the proposition that subjectivity merely produces selective perception of objective reality). OK, bias noted, and I can insert an "offset" in my thinking, to compensate for the bias by paying closer attention to the data.

In the end I think this was a useful exercise, because it helps sharpen the distinction between crackpots and mere dunces.

But also, honey really does work better at attracting bees, than vinegar; and a closely-targeted flyswatter is better for keeping flies away from the honey, than spraying insecticide that might also kill some bumbling bumblebees.

We, by which I mean all of us: working scientists, engineers who are laypeople in the sciences as such, technology professionals, and also philosophers and others who specialize in meticulous reasoning: we all have an interest in combating sloppy thinking, and more to the point, combating the kind of aggressive obscurantism that has been unleashed by religious extremists upon the public policy agenda. Nowhere is that more important than in education (creationism, postmodernism) public health (anti-vaccination conspiracy theory), and ecology (climate). But underneath it all are cosmology and physics, which define our view of the universe and our place in it. And we all have an interest in educating others who have no direct contact with science, engineering, technology, philosophy, and so on.

That's why it's important that people like me come to places like this, to post our speculations & misconceptions, try to explain where we got them from, and get them corrected. That's also why it's important that people like yourself do the correcting in a manner that encourages real and freely-willed agreement rather than grudging submission to authority. (The time for obeying authority is in natural disasters and civil emergencies such as what Boston just went through.)

When people are able to find a sense of "alrightness with the universe" in a universe described by the best of modern science, they lose the need for finding it in some kind of crackpot nonsense or conspiracy theory or religious fundamentalism, or even in the kind of mindless consumerism that can play to obscurantism (e.g. "I want my toys therefore I don't care about climate change."). The votes of obscurantists and crackpots, and the misinformed and uninformed, carry as much weight in the ballot box as the votes of scientists and educated people generally. The obligation to educate translates to a very real civic duty, and in the era of climate change, how we carry out that duty will have much to do with the future our next generations will inherit.

" There’s a running joke with one friend in particular, the punch line of which is “biology vs. history.” "

After a LOOOONG discussion with a philosopher friend at university, we boiled down to morality: nurture vs nature into one proposition that would clear things up.

Are wolves pack animals therefore moral or did they become pack animals because of their morality.

"That’s also why it’s important that people like yourself do the correcting in a manner that encourages real and freely-willed agreement rather than grudging submission to authority."

However, as you already noted, there is a huge vasty majority of loose thinkers who ARE NOT here to get corrected. See Dick Delano.

And these types can be seen, after being shown a correction or why their idea doesn't fly but sinks, repeating their idea and presenting "new" evidence in support.

And THAT is what you've been doing.

OKThen does that too with a few things.

And even though in that case it is seemingly a GENUINE disagreement with the science as-is, a blog post is not somewhere to discuss the proofs because they are often maths-heavy and still post-grad level info that will STILL have to be "taken on faith" if you are not or cannot manage post-grad science work in the affected area.

But the point is that they aren't, they're being REFUSED as a matter of faith.

Polite or impolite makes no difference: NOTHING that will be said will change it, so trying is pointless.

Mostly OKThen puts out a though and lets it sit or die. Sometimes they've been useful insights (different ways of explaining or looking at it) and sometimes useless insights, but in the latter case just let go with a "Well, it seemed like a good idea until you pointed out X".

That's how do ask questions.

Read here for more on the subject:

http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

What you said in #470 is really interesting but a bit too terse for clarity. If I understand it correctly, it's approximately this:

You and a friend discussed philosophy, ended up discussing morality, from there went to "nature v. nurture" and then distilled the latter into a single proposition: the statement about wolves.

Though I would differ as to whether one can make the inference that being pack animals correlates with having morals in any sense: pack behaviors can be governed by simple rules & emotional feedbacks that don't entail the necessity of having morals. I would argue that most of what passes for "morality" in humans is much the same: simple rules + emotional feedbacks, followed by explanations that seek to resolve inconsistencies. Emotions are the subjective sensation of certain chemicals acting on neurons, thus locally deterministic. One doesn't need higher cognition to "behave morally" in that sense.

To my mind, morality requires cognition ahead of emotion, to reason out the premises and conclusions and arrive at a set of rules or a moral code. One might start with an emotion, such as a reaction to observing violence, but one might also start out with an emotion such as a socially-conditioned prejudice: thus one has to step back from emotional reactions to compose the rules in a rational manner. Doing so might entail legitimating certain types of emotional reactions, e.g. horror about violence, but reason still has to lead.

For example, "in my guts I feel that so-and-so should get the death penalty for such-and-such crime. But on the basis of certain strong rational principles, we should instead seek a sentence of life in prison without parole."

---

Yes, I've seen the swarms of various proponents of nonsense who are here to attempt to convince others of their nonsense. Those occur everywhere, and some of them are quite thoroughly cracked.

What this also tells me is that there is a real yearning among the general public, for coherent explanations of "the nature of things," that address the emotional need for "the sense of alrightness-with-the-universe" that was formerly provided by theistic religion. (OTOH, merely telling people that they have to get used to living with a permanent sense of alienation or meaninglessness, is worse than useless: it's an aversive stimulus, and it drives them right into the arms of quacks and nonsense-peddlers.) The other day I ran across a brief video clip from one of Carl Sagan's programs: it's clear he was a genius at explaining things to the general public. We need more of that.

How to tell the difference between a troll and a dunce, I don't know. I thought I was pretty good at detecting the difference in certain forums.

---

Re. "smart questions," I deal with trouble cases and bug reports often enough at work. Though, the culture in telecoms is different to that in the coder world, so the methods differ. Trouble cases typically come in from end-users who are technically clueless. Rather than us insisting on them presenting their trouble cases to us in a particular manner "or else" we'll ignore or dismiss them, it's _our_ responsibility to ask them questions that will elicit sufficient details to enable us to go to work on whatever-it-is.

When we present tough trouble cases to fellow experts, we also follow certain conventions: usually by starting with a distillation of the user's report, followed by the steps we took to ascertain the cause and a solution, followed by the results that occurred and why they falsified our hypotheses as to the cause.

But in any case, the culture in telecoms is that the obligation is on the expert to elicit the needed information from the end-user, not upon the end-user to submit a complete report about something they don't understand.

What I probably should have done with the "universes" question was something like this:

"Understood that the present understanding is that we're in a flat expanding universe that will continue expanding indefinitely. But if given the choice between oscillation and multiverse, the former seems more parsimonious to me than the latter."

At that point Eric might have replied along the lines of "the reasoning and admittedly scant empirical evidence thus far have tended to favor the multiverse, and in fact the multiverse solves certain theoretical problems that an expanding flat universe doesn't, and it does so without breaking the fundamentals." To which I would have replied (as I did when he posted his comment) along the lines of "that's surprising and very interesting, so I have some reading to do." Problem solved, case closed, no drama.

---

I'm surprised to see you say that OKThen "does that too" with a few things. On the other hand, I'm not surprised, because emotional biases and reactions have similar mechanisms in all humans.

---

A few more questions, now that this stuff isn't at risk of derailing another forum:

Assuming a flat indefinitely expanding universe, doesn't that also imply that it asymptotically approaches absolute zero? And in that case, won't it cross a threshold where motion above the level of Brownian motion effectively ceases or nearly so? If that's the case, how do you measure time beyond that point?, and what are the consequences if the measurement of time becomes meaningless?

Though I would differ as to whether one can make the inference that being pack animals correlates with having morals in any sense: pack behaviors can be governed by simple rules & emotional feedbacks that don’t entail the necessity of having morals

THAT'S WHAT MORALS ARE!

If we could see whether they became pack animals because they acted morally AS WE UNDERSTAND MORALITY, or whether these morals arose from activities that are necessary to a pack species, we'd understand the level to which nurture and nature are involved in morality.

Our morality is basically what's needed to get "our pack" working.

Rich DeLano, in @76 of this thread:

Correct. Dark matter, as I said, has the ontological status of mathematical fudge factor. Glad you agree.

I was clearly talking about your assertions about God. If you misunderstood, I'm sorry. If you were just being snide, stop being snide.

I have said how. Here it is again for you:

” The cosmos cannot have brought itself into existence.

The contrary view is a logical absurdity”.

I don't care about absurdity; many things that are apparantly true are absurd. QM is absurd - it also appears to be true. AFAIK there is no proven law of metaphysics that says the universe cannot or must not be absurd.

Now, I do care about logical non-contradiction. Any assertion or set of premises should not lead to contradiction. But you have yet to show how the statement 'a thing bringing itself into existence' is, on its own, logically self-contradictory.

So no, you have not shown the existence of the universe is evidence for any flavor of God because "its absurd to think otherwise" is not a logical argument.

<blockquoteThe case as it stands is evidence for the God of the Philosophers; that is, the necessary and sufficient Cause for the cosmos...The logically necessary attributes of the God of the Philosophers include:

1. Eternity
2. Simplicity (in the sense of non-composite)
3. Omnipotence

I fail to see why any of those are necessary in a creator of this universe. If you assume ours is the only one and there is no multiverse, I suppose the first two properties make some sense. But they have no basis if one allows for a multiverse, and the third one has no basis regardless.

So see this, for sake of argument let's assume we all know beyond a doubt that entity A created the universe. As long as I know nothing else about A's capabilities, then the only capability I am warranted in concluding A has is the ability to create the universe. I have no logical basis on which to conclude A can do something as simple as swing a baseball bat, let alone a basis for concluding A can do everything it is logically possible to do.

to the poor philosophical illiterates who talk about a “universe from nothing”, which “nothing” actually contains at least two “somethings”; energy, and a law of gravity.

If you're referring to Krauss, he talks about the state before energy and the law of gravity. Nice to see you're so willing to call other people illiterate when you haven't read their books.

Some folks seem to wish to assert that the scientific method extends to the realms of metaphysics and theology.

This assertion is ridiculous.

That depends on what you mean by "extend." Science can certainly point out that there is no empirical evidence for some theological claim. Science can even, in some cases, say "hey, your theological claim should logically result in empirical evidence X, Y, and Z. We don't see X. We don't see Y. We don't see Z. So as far as we can tell your claim is not 'outside the realm of science,' its just plain wrong."

But if you want to restrict theology and metaphysics to empirically untestable claims, then yes, almost by definition, science cannot be extended to those. To the theologians and metaphysically minded philosophers who choose to restrict their subjects in that way, I say: I applaud you for your well organized and coordinated retreat.

More response to Rick, in case he actually decides to follow Ethan's policy:

The subject matter has been introduced by Wow,

"He did it first" is not a good reason to keep doing something the blog owner has asked his posters not to do.

...and is logically connected to the discussion under way here.

Deontological arguments for the existence of God have bubkis to do with the question of whether the inflationary period wiped out any information about what came before the inflationary period. You should know this. You should admit this and come here to this thread.

But if you think it does, please explain how. How do deontological arguments for the existence of God bear on the claim that the inflationary period must have wiped out all access to information about the pre-inflationary period?

Some folks think science has any possible thing to say about what brought the objects of scientific investigation into existence (metaphysics/theology).

That some object created the world that science evaluates is completely irrelevant to the question of whether science can evaluate it. Science is a methodology; you can apply it to 'creative' objects just as well as 'created' ones.

Here's the distinction that actually matters: if theologians make an empirically testable claim about said (creative) objects, or if a philosopher makes a metaphyscial claim that logically entails some observable effect, then science can legitimately say something about it. If theologians and philosophers stick to empirically untestable claims and theories that don't predict anything about the world, then science doesn't have much to say about them...but in that case, scientists are perfectly justified in pointing out that such claims are empirically untestable.

The self-contradicting claim that the universe self-assembled from a “nothing” that contains at least two “somethings” (energy and a law of gravity) is a museum-quality specimen of the woeful consequences of such an assertion.

This description does not match anything I've ever heard a physicist say. I have no idea who you heard say that the 'nothing' out of which the universe arose contains energy and the law of gravity. Do you have a cite?

AFAIK, in fact, the current leading physics claim is that the reason we are justified in believing that the universe could arise out of nothing is because we have measured the universes' net energy, and it's is zero. If it were non-zero, the universe would've had to arise out of a something.

So as far as I can tell, you are fundamentally mistaken in what you think physicists are claiming.

If theologians and philosophers stick to empirically untestable claims and theories that don’t predict anything about the world, then science doesn’t have much to say about them…but in that case, scientists are perfectly justified in pointing out that such claims are empirically untestable.

The rational people are also perfectly justified in asking what the hell is supposed to be done about such a god, too.

It can't have created us, since we're empirically testably here.

It can't have send an embodyment here, since that is empirically testable, at least in theory.

It can't converse or pass on its intents or needs, since that would be an empirically observable event, interacting with an object in this reality.

The theologian always regresses back to the deist god, who started it all up and had nothing whatsoever to do with reality after that.

My questions:

a) is it any different from "there was a non-God Big Bang event that did that? And if not, then why make the difference? If there is, then you're making a testable claim again.

b) It doesn't want adulation: it did what it does: create. It had no intent other than that, no needs other than that and no obligation lies on anyone to do things for it. So why should it be worshiped?

The deist god is never what the theologian is intending when they assert "god", even though they eventually back into the deist-god corner when every avenue of observation precludes the actioning god they REALLY mean to assert is shown them.

They continue to use the word "God" because it's a dog-whistle.

It means to Christians "The Christian God YOU worship", even when they retreat to no such creature as the "god I mean, really, honestly, I wouldn't fib, would I?".

The subject matter has been introduced by Wow,

“He did it first” is not a good reason to keep doing something the blog owner has asked his posters not to do.

Actually, it was Roy in post 12, so, yet again, Dick is making shit up again. Roy says (my emphasis):

I don’t particularly doubt dark energy’s existence. I know it’s supported by our models and our mathematics. I just think it’s funny that one explanation of dark energy depends entirely on our belief in it, rather than our observation of it. You know, like religion.

So "He did it first" doesn't even apply.

@eric #474:

Since this discussion emerged from the comments on the "Limits of Knowledge" post, my answer to your #474 is available there.

Rick

The *apparent* absurdity of QM is a consequence of a logical error; that since we cannot determine then position and velocity of a particle simultaneously, that it therefore cannot be determined.

You do not understand QM then. The HUP derives from a mathematical relationship between x and p when objects are described as wavefunctions. It has nothing to do with some error in mistaking 'can't measure' for 'can't be measured,' it has to do with understanding the math. Its possible that the math used to describe wavefunctions might not reflect real fundamental particles accurately. But if it does, then these two properties are linked and the HUP is real.

A stochastic metaphysics is an absurdity, since reality clearly is not stochastic at all levels

The former does not follow from the latter. A consideration of any collective property should make that obvious. The existence of exact pressures does not render the idea of a distribution of excitation energies absurd.

Let me do so. A thing can not precede its own existence.

You give your God-concept the property of eternity. That means either the property of eternity could be had by the cosmos, or you're special pleading. Or perhaps you're arguing circularly - assuming the special status of God that you're trying to prove. Either way, moving from the above statement to 'God created it' is merely a result of a very questionable premise set.

OK. The Creator must be eternal, since It itself cannot be caused.

See above.

The Creator must be Simple (non-composite) since were the Creator composite, Its components must themselves have been brought together in a subsequent composite, thus contradicting (1).

No, maybe the composite has always been and always will be; maybe there is some composite that has this 'eternal' property. Once you've opened the door to eternal things, you can't just arbitrarily decide that simple things can have this property but complex things must be preceded by simple things. That is (again) special pleading or arguing in a circle.

The Creator must be Omnipotent, since a cosmos which exists potentially cannot actualize itself; only a Cause which is itself omni-potent can actualize the potentiality of the cosmos.

This is not an argument, you're just re-asserting your claim. You still haven't said why creating this cosmos requires omnipotence. I could substitute "baseball bat" for "cosmos" in your statement and reach the conclusion that the Louisville Slugger corporation must be omnipotent.

>> Another catastrophic logical error. The word is *uni*verse. It can only refer to one.

You're hiding behind syntax? Okay, call it a 'cosmos' then. Or Bob for all I care. The point is, the thing arising from the inflationary event could very easily have arisen from a non-omnipotent cause, if the inflationary event occurred in some earlier non-nothing state. Yes or no?

The key ability involved is the ability to bring into existence that which does not exist. Once that is acknowledged, the God of the Philosophers is affirmed.

Still don't see it. Humans bring into existence lots of things that did not exist prior to their creation by humans. It doesn't require omnipotence to do that, so "created the universe" does not logically entail "omnipotence."

>> To the contrary. If it has been shown that Entity A can bring into existence a cosmos which, operating strictly on the laws and principles embedded into its creation by Entity A, brings forth baseball bats which can be swung, then both baseball bats, and the swinging of them, is subsumed under the act of creation ascribed to Entity A.

I fail to see why. The rule "roll two dice" can produce the number 8, but the number 8 is not 'subsumed under the act of creation ascribe to the rule "roll two dice."' 8 cannot even be said to be a necessary outcome of the rule.

Needless to say, the proposition “no material thing can be its own cause” is not a matter subject to experimental test

I am not sure any physicist is claiming a material thing is its own cause. I think what folks like Krauss are getting at is that the rules of QM is the cause. Rules are not particles.

The necessary existence of God- certainly knowable on the basis of the truth that the cosmos cannot have brought itself into existence- is not a proposition accessible to, or refutable by, any conceivable experimental application of the scientific method.

No, its refutable by pointing out that your premise set requires special pleading/circularity. You must first premise that only eternal objects could cause the universe. That's already somewhat circular since what you are trying to determine are the properties of a hypothetical cause, but you've just assumed one of them. Then you must presume that only God can be eternal. After you do that, you suddenly arrive at the conclusion that only God could have created the universe. Well, yeah.

All honor to the attempt, but there is a false metaphysical assumption embedded in the system.

Well, that's great! Then your job is easy. Use your superior knowledge of the underlying nature of the universe to build a machine that breaks this some law or principle that mainstream science thinks cannot be broken, but which you predict can be broken because it is based on this false metaphysical assumption embedded in the system. Until you do that, however, I doubt' many scientists will pay attention to a 'you're all wrong' claim.

I have pointed it out, and my prediction of the matter is resoundingly affirmed by the Planck data.

Was that on another thread? I didn't see any prediction given here, and even if you made one, if it was about the Planck data, that would make it a postdiction.

Rick:

Since this discussion emerged from the comments on the “Limits of Knowledge” post, my answer to your #474 is available there

I will continue to post on this subject here, as I think Ethan's blog policy takes precedence over 'where the discussion emerged.'

Since this discussion emerged from the comments on the “Limits of Knowledge” post, my answer to your #474 is available there.

Since that is irrelevant, your posts there are irrelevant.

Re. Wow at #473:

If I understand correctly what you said there, it's:

There are two hypotheses re. the origin of morality and pack behavior in wolves.

H1 is that wolves have innate traits that provide emotional feedbacks and simple rules for interaction. These traits were conducive to, and in part causal of, their forming into packs.

H2 is that wolves formed into packs as a result of blind natural selection pressures. Once formed into packs, there was further selection of individuals for their capacity to operate successfully in the context of the pack. The traits that were selected for successful pack behavior include certain types of emotional feedbacks and behavioral rules that, taken together, coincide with what we consider as "morality" in humans.

I'm inclined to believe that the process was somewhat reciprocal and mutually reinforcing between the mechanisms in H1 and H2.

----

What the vast majority of humans consider as "morality," consists of certain rule-sets handed down either from a deity or from the authority structures in their societies. When asked, they will usually attribute their emotional reactions to moral code violations, to be based upon, i.e. largely caused by, responses based in those rule-sets.

What humans usually aren't aware of is the degree to which emotional responses are formative of societal rule sets, and are also operative in the individuals who claim to have received their moral codes directly from higher sources (e.g. a deity as in the Abrahamic prophets, a philosophical analysis as with Marxism, etc.).

I'm also inclined to believe that certain types of emotional responses are innate, and that they vary in ways that are statistically lawful (e.g. normal curves, power law curves, etc., frequentist and Bayesian approaches considered;-). These emotional responses sum to various cultural and subcultural beliefs that become embedded as traditions. They can be modified somewhat by inputs of strong emotions, such as the conviction that one has had the experience of receiving a rule-set directly from a higher source (deity, philosophy, history, etc.), or that one belongs to a tradition that traces its origins to someone who claimed that they received a rule-set from a higher source.

There are also instances where societal moral codes change over time as a result of more subtle emotional shifts across a larger segment of society. Examples include civil rights and marriage equality, where individual attitudes changed as a result of personal contact with others of different races or sexualities.

Something that interests me as a philosophical matter, is how one can derive "oughts" from "isses", and I specifically disagree with those who hold that one can't derive an ought from an is. Empirical facts of existence also include the observables (including via self-report) of subjective states and experiences.

For example torture isn't evil because of the unpleasant appearance of photographs of torture victims or because we don't like the sound of screaming coming from torture cells: it's evil because of what we infer to be the subjective experience of torture victims, and what we infer to be the mentality of persons who can inflict torture upon others. We don't pause to ask ourselves if a torture victim might be putting on an act to gain our sympathy.

It seems fairly self-evident that there are certain innate characteristics of living organisms, and further characteristics of sapient organisms, from which one can derive a set of basic moral rules, and from those rules, their further ramifications as additional moral rules. More about this if you're interested.

"I’m inclined to believe that the process was somewhat reciprocal and mutually reinforcing between the mechanisms in H1 and H2"

Which was the progenitor.

Reptile brains don't have this societal nature. Cats have a nearly nonexistent one. Bats flock and have reciprocity (esp. vampire bats).

It ought to be possible to look at the pack forming tendencies against "last common ancestor" to see if there is an ancestor who started with this "empathy" thing going on, and how strongly correlated they are.

If there's little correlation between morphology through time and pack behaviour, then it puts more on the society making morals.

It is my opinion that pack society creates the morality, it was my (philosopher) friends' opinion that pack formation comes from the morality.

Under my test, it looks like my theory is more supported, but there could be other ways of discerning which came first: pack society or what we'd notice as "morality".

"What the vast majority of humans consider as “morality,” consists of certain rule-sets handed down either from a deity or from the authority structures in their societies"

Those "divine" rule sets will not have come from a deity. Indeed they serve as societal enforcements and frequently have nothing to do with anything other than increasing the set of "believers", and where they seem to be more "agnostic" about whether the good of the people or the good of the faith is concerned, they regularly are breeched when it comes to the choice between faith and welfare.

See for example Mother Theresa's well documented abhorrence of birth control, despite it being the single most effective poverty palliative because the religion was more concerned with getting more adherents than their well-being.

Re. Eric at 474:

Any entity (specifically such as a deity) that can create a universe is, by definition, above or outside of nature (technical definition of "supernatural," and I use the word with that specific definition in mind).

Science as such, only claims to address objects and events that are within nature, and specifically makes no claim to address objects and events that are above or outside of nature.

It has become conventional for many or most scientists and allied laypeople to claim that nothing whatsoever exists outside of nature, specifically that deities do not exist. However that claim is not testable from within scientific method! It is basically an assertion of a belief, backed up by a set of reasoning that, none the less, is not empirically testable.

I assert that science can be agnostic ("deities are not testable") or mildly atheistic ("deities are not proven to exist"), but that hard atheism ("deities definitively do not exist") is a subjective belief to the same degree as hard theism ("this or that specific deity definitively does exist").

Realistically there is no point arguing in scientific forums about the existence or nonexistence of deities. Those arguements always get exactly nowhere: the respective beliefs on both sides are not going to change as a result, so any arguement that happens from that point forward is digressive.

What I would do if I was running one of these blogs, is to simply say "statements about deities are not testable, therefore science can't address them, therefore this is not the forum for such things." And I would further emphasize that untestable propositions are matters of individual conscience, protected by freedom of conscience within the limits of the law (e.g. one can't claim a religious freedom right to set off bombs in crowds). I wouldn't have a problem with individuals stating their own beliefs, but I'd draw the line at attempts to proselytize or convince or argue with others, because that is no longer just stating one's own beliefs, but promoting a useless digression.

Re. Wow at #483:

I don't know which was the progenitor in some ultimate sense, and I don't claim to know or even have a strong opinion. I'm inclined to believe that there were preexisting or latent capabilities in the organism, that could be (and were) reinforced and further selected via social mechanisms.

There are probably ways to get at this empirically via direct experiments, some of which will depend on the capacity to monitor brain activity in the animals being studied.

Re. whether or not rules come from deities, see also my reply to Eric, that statements about the existence or nonexistence of deities are unfalsifiable. To the extent that science studies morality, it has to do so from within the scope of natural phenomena such as neurobiology and observable behaviors.

However one of the facts of observable behaviors is that a significant plurality of humans claim to get their morals from religious sources. That does not make those claims true or false, and arguing scientific truth or falsehood of claims about deities is pointless.

"Re. whether or not rules come from deities, see also my reply to Eric, that statements about the existence or nonexistence of deities are unfalsifiable."

Not really.

If they came from a god who was tri-omni, then the laws would not be avoided, changed or breeched, so they are inconsistent with their stated genesis if any of the three happen.

If they emerged from a deist god who just set things up, then the difference between "they didn't come from god" and "they came from us" is nonexistent.

Etc.

"It has become conventional for many or most scientists and allied laypeople to claim that nothing whatsoever exists outside of nature"

Strawman, G.

Nobody says that.

However, it is not possible for us to experience something outside nature because we ourselves exist in nature. Any experience would have to impact on the natural world to affect us.

Therefore the deist god who acts not at all in the universe or the pantheistic one which is identical to the entirety of nature, neither of which act outside nature are concordant with science and rational naturalism (but with no distinct difference to allow the attribution of their existence as an alternative, and hence of being zero explicit utility, why make the distinction?), are acceptable.

However, those making claims for God are not making such claims, they lay claim to a god that is an active participant in nature.

Except wherever it's looked for his influence, it is never found.

An "existence" identical to nonexistence is nonexistence.

G - I think what you recommend we say is what scientists most often do say. Or at least do mean. Scientists don't typically classify claims as 'natural' or 'supernatural' and then say 'oh, well, we can't study the latter.' They classify claims as having an observable component or not, and are game for studying anything with an observable component.

What's happened (IMO), is that the term 'supernatural' has a very mushy definition. It includes unobservable things like deistic gods. But it also includes things like ghosts and telekinesis and bigfoot, all of which are empirically observable in theory, and can be studied by science. The result of 'supernatural' being a sort of mixed term is unnecessarily confusing conversations about whether science can study the supernatural.

I assert that science can be agnostic (“deities are not testable”) or mildly atheistic (“deities are not proven to exist”), but that hard atheism (“deities definitively do not exist”) is a subjective belief to the same degree as hard theism (“this or that specific deity definitively does exist”).

I submit to you that the terms "God" and "religion" have the same mushiness problem that 'supernatural' has. Depending on the speaker and the belief system you're talking about, these terms can include a bunch of claims that would be observable (if they were true), and/or a bunch of claims that are unobservable even in principle. As with the stuff in the category 'supernatural,' its perfectly legitimate for science to study (and judge as reasonable or unreasonable) any religious claims which would be expected to result in some observable.

Its also very reasonable to treat religious claims of the hypothetically-observable-but-unobservable-in-practice type the same way we would treat nonreligious claims of that type. If I tell you that tomorrow I will walk on water, do you give that claim any credence? Or do you reject it fairly strongly based on empirical induction? If you reject my claim - even though what I have said is theoretically possible, and certainly impossible to disprove at this time - shouldn't you reject other similar claims?

I would fairly strongly disagree with your characterization of atheism as being subjective to the same degree as hard religion because of this inductive argument. Few people would argue that "tomorrow I can walk on water" beliefs are just as subjective as "tomorrow I can't walk on water" beliefs. Most people would say those two beliefs are not equal, the former is far less rational. For the same reason "yesterday someone walked on water" and "yesterday someone didn't walk on water" should not be treated as equally subjective. The latter should generally be considered far more rational than the former.

Yes, what do we do?
When the scientist refuse to discuss our ideas.

And of course, I respect Ethan's blog and do not waste his pages or his reader's time with my learning hypotheses.

But I have written a book, that was before I found this blog.
And I've kept learning and studying.

And then all of a sudden a new unbreakable (by me anyway) hypothesis formed. And I couldn't find an endorser to even start the publication process on arXiv. Finally, I published on viXra http://www.vixra.org/abs/1307.0056

So if you are curious to understand my well reasoned disagreement with current cosmology; check it out.

It's very hard to love science; to put one's best ideas together; and not to find a single scientist willing to dive into your ideas and tell you where they are right and where wrong and why.

Well I must thank Bjorn as the only one who once took the time to tell me what was wrong with a core idea in my book.

And sometimes out here on this blog, some have offered a clarifying note. And that is helpful to it's extent.

I'm rambling now. I hesitate to even push the button. But Ethan has provided this space so I will.

Thank you Ethan.

Guys,

just came across this: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/jul/19/attractive-force-a…

a lot of sites have been running the story. Is there any merit to this? Didn't find a free version of the paper so don't know the details. Looking at the interview it seems that if it's confirmed could be pretty radical in terms of early universe and modeling. Does anyone know something more about this?

#491 Sinisa
The research paper is here http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.3031v2.pdf
Very nice research.

No, mikey, you merkins lost: pluto isn't a planet. The rest of the world didn't decide to put it on the list "Because a merkin found it!".

mikey, unlike Pluto, Neptune is still a planet because, again unlike Pluto, it is the dominant force it encounters in its orbit.

Pluto doesn't encounter Neptune in its orbit. In fact, it gets closer to Uranus than Neptune per Wikipedia, methane. You keep parroting the IAU def, but, as you know, there are other definitions of planets, such as the geophysical one, that do not have the "third rung" that even Earth wouldn't meet if it was as far away from the Sun as Pluto. Keep your anti-American vitroil to yourself. It is disturbing and ugly. Pluto is a planet, so are Charon, Ceres, Makemake, Haumea, and Eris. There should be a subclass for satellite planets, too, for that matter. Ganymede and Titan are larger than Mercury, for Pete's sake.

"Pluto doesn’t encounter Neptune in its orbit"

Not part of the definition you moron.

Ergo: irrelevant.

Pluto is tidally locked to Neptune and it hasn't cleared its orbit.

The IAU definition is the definition of a planet. Using it to define what is a planet is not parroting it.

But I see why you decided that you cannot and will not actually bother defining anything yourself: you think that defining it and sticking with the one definition rather than change it on a whim is "parroting".

It isn't.

It's called being accurate you retard.

Pluto: not a planet.

Neither is Charon, Ceres, Makemake, Haumea or Eris or any of the 45 other candidates that would otherwise make the definition, with maybe another 150 others that, on further investigation may turn out to be a dwarf planet.

They are no more planets than the asteroids are.

Bringing up the candidates only clouds the issue. There are only a few dwarf planets to date. They all have hydrostatic equilibrium. They all should be in a subclass of dwarf planets within the def of a planet, just like the Sun is a dwarf star and a star. Bringing up asteroids is again a red herring. You don't really want to argue. You just want to rant and rave and show your lackey-,like devotion to the current IAU def. You are like a German soldier who says, "I was only following orders." Think for yourself. Don't assume everyone who disagrees with you is a moron and/or a retard. It is very troll-like and obnoxious. I don't change definitions at will. Like I said, I didn't have it on the tip of my tongue. I am not a planetary scientist. I have followed this issue, however, enough to know that the current def sucks for both content reasons and due to the contemptible circumstances leading to the vote back on St. Bartholomew's Massacre Day in 2006.

Your behavior on this site is less than stellar. It is highly ironic that you accuse me of abusing the comment thread when you are the culprit. There is nothing that says non-scientists cannot post here. I am doing my best to stay on topic and respect science, but your continually abusive barbs at me do sometimes lead me a bit astray, but it is obvious, I am sure, that you are egging me on. Grow up, dude.

Pluto is tidally-locked with Charon in the only-known binary planetary system in our solar system. Pluto is not tidally-locked with Neptune. Pluto has nothing to do with Neptune.

"Pluto is tidally-locked with Charon"

Charon and Pluto are tidally locked together. Correct. This is also true of our Moon to us.

"in the only-known binary planetary system in our solar system."

Uniqueness has fuck all to do with the definition of planet, therefore this claim is irrelevant.

"Pluto is not tidally-locked with Neptune"

Pluto is tidally locked with Neptune.

The complete ignorance and denial of any facts contrary to the "message" is why the IAU definition from people who actually DO know what the fuck they are talking about voted overwhelmingly to make the definition as it currently is.

And under that definition, Pluto is not a planet.

Of course, I am not as knowledgeable as a person who is a professional astronomer. That is not a condition to post here or to have an opinion. I have read a lot about Pluto and never heard that it was tidally locked with Neptune; therefore, I am not going to take your word for it. A person named Wow who called me an idiot, a moron, and other juvenile things is not going to be my new source for information. I will listen to your ravings as a source of amusement, however, and run by anything you say by people who can confirm or deny your wild ravings.

Regarding the IAU vote, as you know, there are 300 distinguuished scientists who signed a petition objecting to the new def, so why do you keep acting like the IAU def is perfect. It is not. Pluto was a planet from 1930 to 08/24/2006. Why weren't you ranting and raving then? You tire me, methane. Your parroting of the IAU def is all you have. You are a one-trick pony. I am well aware that the IAU demoted Pluto. You don't need to repeat it incessantly. I liked you better when you were bashing Bush and calling Steve "numbnuts."

Oh, and the geophysical def would replanetize Pluto.