Open-mindedness vs being too skeptical

[Dancing David]

Not personally, but I've studied it relentlessness and impartially, with no preconceived bias that alternative explanations are woo or anti science, and nothing I've seen to date proves the Big Bang theory, all have alternative local explanations that are not as popular but much more plausible.

This thread could have gone so much better. Now I've started wrestling with the chimney sweeps here I've started to get as dirty as them

Uh huh, and as usual as you did 4 years ago, when asked for data and evidence, you spin, you avoid, you change the topic and you won't answer the questions....

Just like when I asked you for three months to support the idea that galaxy rotation curves could be caused by magnetic fields that you would not give a strength for because you knew they were too small by ten orders of magnitude.

Now I am asking you about your assertions here in this thread, which you could answer.

Now back up your assertions...


You know the STATEMENTS YOU MADE!

So who in modern BBt says that you need a creator?

What exactly is your issue with the calibration of the Hubble constant?

Where are these object older than 13.7 billion years?

 

[Jamie B]

I've read about measurements (data/evidence) taken of light losing energy to a medium with a consequential decrease in frequency.

I believe we are all aware of a medium warming up when light is passing through it. Space is not a total vacuum with gaseous particles spread throughout.

These experiments are pretty interesting and I'd love to hear your thoughts about the specific measurements that have been taken.

santilli-foundation(dot)org/docs/Santilli-isoredshift.pdf

Also, where would the CMBR obtain the energy for it's consistent measurement? Wouldn't this radiation be absorbed over billions and billions of years?

 

[Dancing David]

Welcome!

The CMB is composed of photons from the period after the BBe where the universe became transparent to them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe#Photon_epoch although I believe the transparency came 300,000 years after the BBe

Is santillini another tired light model?

 

[Jamie B]

Welcome!

The CMB is composed of photons from the period after the BBe where the universe became transparent to them:
although I believe the transparency came 300,000 years after the BBe

Is santillini another tired light model?

Thanks, glad to try things out here finally.

From what I can tell, Santilli has expanded upon Zwicky tired light calling it isoredshift which involves new mathematics.

Here is a page that may help explain.

santilli-foundation(dot)org/no-universe-expansion.php

CTRL+F search zwicky to see how he expands upon it.

 

[Dancing David]

Thanks, glad to try things out here finally.

From what I can tell, Santilli has expanded upon Zwicky tired light calling it isoredshift which involves new mathematics.

Here is a page that may help explain.

santilli-foundation(dot)org/no-universe-expansion.php

CTRL+F search zwicky to see how he expands upon it.

Well, I am just a layman, but there are reasons that tired light models don't work so well.

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

From what I can tell, Santilli has expanded upon Zwicky tired light calling it isoredshift which involves new mathematics.

Here is a page that may help explain.

santilli-foundation(dot)org/no-universe-expansion.php

Hello, Jamie -

Welcome to the funhouse.

Santilli's paper became ludicrous at the end of p. 129. Having first agreed that the daylight sky is blue due to scattering, he then claims that twilight/dawn skies are red due to isoredshift. How he can reconcile the two is beyond me. Every red twilit sky is somebody else's noon sky, and appears red because the blue has been scattered away.

Once he made that claim, I gave up.

Sorry.

 

[dlorde]

I am interested in your actual mind... I'd like to understand what's really going on with you.

My current hypothesis is that that is just the kind of attention and validation he is seeking. Sadly, the evidence is subjective and the hypothesis unfalsifiable.

 

[Jamie B]

Hello, Jamie -

Welcome to the funhouse.

Santilli's paper became ludicrous at the end of p. 129. Having first agreed that the daylight sky is blue due to scattering, he then claims that twilight/dawn skies are red due to isoredshift. How he can reconcile the two is beyond me. Every red twilit sky is somebody else's noon sky, and appears red because the blue has been scattered away.

Once he made that claim, I gave up.

Sorry.

Thanks, I've heard about this place a number of times.

Santilli's measurement are of direct sunlight, not the surrounding atmosphere.

Note that we are referring here and in the above pictures to the redness of the ``direct`` Sun light at the horizon and not to the redness of the surrounding atmosphere. Of course, Santilli is fully aware of the 20th century interpretation of the redness at Sunset consisting of a claimed dominance at the horizon of the scattering of red light over other frequencies. However, the sky is blue when the Sun is at the Zenith because, according to relativistic quantum mechanics, red light is quickly absorbed by our atmosphere, thus leaving blue light as the only penetrating one, as it is the case also in water. Consequently, if red light cannot reach us in the relatively short vertical trajectory in air, there is no scientific possibility for red light to reach us in the much longer trajectory in the horizon estimated of about 10,000 km.

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

Santilli's measurement are of direct sunlight, not the surrounding atmosphere.

Note that we are referring here and in the above pictures to the redness of the ``direct`` Sun light at the horizon and not to the redness of the surrounding atmosphere. Of course, Santilli is fully aware of the 20th century interpretation of the redness at Sunset consisting of a claimed dominance at the horizon of the scattering of red light over other frequencies. However, the sky is blue when the Sun is at the Zenith because, according to relativistic quantum mechanics, red light is quickly absorbed by our atmosphere, thus leaving blue light as the only penetrating one, as it is the case also in water. Consequently, if red light cannot reach us in the relatively short vertical trajectory in air, there is no scientific possibility for red light to reach us in the much longer trajectory in the horizon estimated of about 10,000 km.

This just substitutes more absurdities.

"redness at Sunset consisting of a claimed dominance at the horizon of the scattering of red light over other frequencies."

No. It is the blue which is scattered.

"the sky is blue when the Sun is at the Zenith "

Well, why does this (valid) claim refer to "the sky" rather than the color of the sun, which is not blue?

"because, according to relativistic quantum mechanics, red light is quickly absorbed by our atmosphere, thus leaving blue light as the only penetrating one,"

Except that this is simply not true. If the red in sunlight were caused by redshifted light, the various absorption lines in red would actually be those in blue, but redshifted, and they would be entirely wrong.

"Consequently, if red light cannot reach us in the relatively short vertical trajectory in air, there is no scientific possibility for red light to reach us in the much longer trajectory in the horizon estimated of about 10,000 km."

Well, the if...then proposition is logically valid. However, "if red light cannot reach us " is astoundingly wrong, so the conclusion is just as wrong.

 

[Jamie B]

There are two redshifts noted.

Page 132 and 133 should help since you stopped at page 129.

santilli-foundation(dot)org/docs/Santilli-isoredshift.pdf

Please study the entire paper.

Additionally, Ref. [36] introduced the notion of Doppler-Santilli isoshift, referred to the superposition of the conventional Doppler shift, plus Santilli isoshift, an occurrence evidently expected when there is a relative motion between the source, the medium, and the observer.

Therefore, when a transparent medium of low density moves away from the source, isorelativity predicts the superposition of two redshifts, one due to the Doppler's shift and one due to Santilli's isoshift; when the same medium moves toward the source, we have a superposition of the Doppler's blueshift plus Santilli isoredshift. Note that depending on the conditions, the two shifts can annul each other, namely. have no shift at all despite the existence of relative motion.

 

[Jamie B]

You should also look at specifically section 5 of this paper:

santilli-foundation(dot)org/docs/Confirmation-IRS-IBS.pdf

5.1. Problem 1 [5]: “Redness” of the atmosphere at sunset
Santilli evidently confirms that the redness of the atmosphere at Sunset is due indeed to scattering, since, scattering is the origin of the very colors of our atmosphere. More specifically, Santilli points out that, since our atmosphere is gaseous, its color is evidence that scattering is characterizing light continuously bounding off one and another air molecule, resulting in the typical “zig-zag” trajectory which is inherent in the very definition of scatter. Consequently, in the absence of scattering, or in the event scattering would occur along a straight line, our sky would be black both during the day and night.

The separate issue of the origin of the red light scattering at sunset is addressed in Problem 3 below, and the popular belief that scattering itself causes redshift of light is dismissed theoretically and experimentally in the next section,

Fig. 9. A picture from Ref. [5] depicting the same beach at the horizon, the left picture depicting a blue atmosphere during the day, and the right picture depicting the same atmosphere now red at Sunset. Santilli [5] has shown that this color shift can only be quantitatively represented via the IRS, since red is absorbed during the relatively short travel of light in our atmosphere during the day, as established by the picture on left. Consequently, redlight cannot possibly reach us following the much longer travel at the horizon. Hence, the red color at right can only be blue light IsoRedShifted to red.

 

[asydhouse]

My current hypothesis is that that is just the kind of attention and validation he is seeking. Sadly, the evidence is subjective and the hypothesis unfalsifiable.

Well I'm offering attention, if not validation.... only he can validate his mind, through learning to think clearly, (that's sidelining ego for technical matters like getting science right, and learning to play freely and with an open heart for everything else).

But he seems more intent on having an "out there" battle so that he doesn't have to look at what's "in here"....

I don't know, I'm talking myself into being an amateur psychologist or something... but I'm not qualified! I'm just a drop out poet with enough liveliness of mind to be interested in the doings of scientists and the knowledge being accrued. And having conversations with people!

I'm just curious about his apparently self-destructive exhibitionism, and offering a friendly hand to help him down off his ledge... if he'd only pause long enough to consider his situation.

 

[ben m]

I can comment on the Santilli paper. First, some structural comments. This journal---the open astronomy journal---came up in another thread. ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=231624 ) It was a sort of auto-pilot journal; Santilli's crackpot buddies volunteered for the editorial job; and used that position to publish crackpot science. I pointed this out to their one non-crackpot "honorary editor", who immediately quit; a few months later the other non-Santilliite editors vanished; and a few months later the published killed the journal. Santilli himself? Well, he's known for being litigious, so I can't tell you about his science reputation. The "Institute for Basic Research" is not Santilli's employer, but rather is a mailbox at Santilli's home.

OK, the paper itself.

The reduction of a classical opaque medium to a finite number of point-particles moving in vacuum, as necessary to apply special relativity, is prohibited by well known No Reduction Theorems [ loc. cit.]

Utter baloney. The theorem is not "well known", nor is it true. It's nonsense invented by Santilli in previous papers.

1) The impossibility for the entire reduction to photon of a light beam propagating in water is established by visual inspection and admission of physical evidence (Fig. (1)). In fact, such a reduction would imply that the great majority of photons must propagate through a very large number of nuclei without any scattering, as necessary to explain the propagation of the beam along a straight line. To the author's best knowledge, only the interpretation of light as a transverse electromagnetic wave propagating within the ether represents the visual evidence of Fig. (1) because, in this case, the propagation occurs in the universal substratum underlying nuclei, rather than having particle-type photons propagate through nuclei without scattering.

This is bizarre. Santilli looks at a photo of a light beam in water, can't imagine it being explained by photons-passing-by-nuclei-without-scattering, and discovers the ether. Utter lunacy. We've understood the quantum mechanics here---how light can move through transparent materials---for most of a century.

2) The reduction of light to photons does not admit a numerical representation of the (rather large) angle of refraction of light at the water surface.

Just because Santilli is ignorant of the explanation does not mean there isn't one. (There is.)

3) The reduction of light to photons scattered by the water molecules cannot provide a quantitative representation of the rather large decrease (by about 1 / 3 ) of the speed of light in vacuum c when propagating in water, because its numerical representation via photon scatterings would require a virtually complete dispersal of the beam against the visual evidence of Fig. (1).

Just because Santilli is ignorant of the explanation does not mean there isn't one. (There is.)

It takes a stretch of the imagination to suppose that someone so deeply confused about photons would stumble across a sensible theory about their redshifts. That said, let's look at Santilli's actual "isoredshift" theory. He supposes that light interacts with matter in a way that "adds energy" (blueshift, apparently in dense matter) or "removes energy" (redshift, apparently in thin matter) gradually.

The number of problems with Santilli's actual theory is, um, large. The obvious problem is coherence. Take a 1MHz radio emitter. Run it for 1 second. It emits a sine wave with 1,000,000 cycles---a million swings of your electric-field detector. Go to a detector 1km away, and listen for 1 second; you'll detect 1,000,000 cycles. Now, suppose Santilli's theory is true, and gas in between you and the detector can "redshift" the light, say to 900kHz. So the near detector sees 1,000,000 swings "emitted", but the far detector only detects 900,000. I challenge you to write an equation for the electric field---E(x,t)---along the path of such a beam, such that the emitter and the detector disagree about how many cycles occurred. It can't be done. You need either a flat-out discontinuous function, or you need to "hide" an arbitrary number of missing peaks somewhere along the path.

(Or, rather, it can be done by *special relativity*, which allows the observers to agree on the cycle count---"yeah, I saw 1,000,000 peaks go by ... "---while disagreeing on the frequency---"... and they took 1.11 seconds to do so on my clock")

The neat thing about *real*, observed (and GR/SR predicted) redshifts is that they're completely wavelength-independent. Wherever you see red-light (600nm) appearing as IR (say, 1200nm), you also see the same fractional shift in everything from radio (100 MHz shifts to 50MHz) to x-rays (6 keV shifts to 3 keV) and so on. It is utterly trivial to show that Santilli's theory disagrees with this. He thinks that light, passing through the Earth's atmosphere at sunset, shifts from yellow (let's say 580 nm) to red (630nm) due to a wavelength-independent, SR/GR-faking redshift? Great, then we can predict that radio waves---say, from a satellite broadcasting at 2 GHz---would have signals arriving at Earth somewhere between 2.0 and 1.8 GHz, depending on the angle through the atmosphere. This does not happen; it's wrong by five or six orders of magnitude. Real-life materials have different effects at different frequencies. The atmosphere attenuates radio waves, a little bit, but it emphatically does not redshift or blueshift them.

So: Santilli is not merely wrong in some subtle physics way, like "there's a subtle error in Equation 5". Nor is it wrong in the not-even-wrong way, like "you spouted nonsense for eight pages and didn't say anything testable". It's wrong in a D-student-writing-exam-essays-without-reading-the-chapter way. It's a pile of dozens of statements that nobody familiar with light, physics, and/or materials science would believe for a second. Which is pretty much what happened.

 

[dasmiller]

You should also look at specifically section 5 of this paper:

santilli-foundation(dot)org/docs/Confirmation-IRS-IBS.pdf

Frankly, it's a tough paper to read because it makes so little sense. Take:

As one can see, the strict application of special relativity to light requires that Sunset should be red but Sunrise should be blue.

This makes sense only if the Earth is rotating at a significant fraction of lightspeed, and it's not. A strict application of special relativity suggests that relativity should not cause the colors of sunrise and sunset to be visibly different, and the author acknowledges that.

And yet Santilli concludes from the sunrise/sunset similarity that

special relativity is inapplicable within physical media at large, whether gas or liquid . . .

Think about that: Relativity suggests that sunrise and sunset should have very similar colors. Sunrise and sunset do, in fact, have very similar colors. Therefore, Relativity must be wrong?

This sort of thing makes it difficult to seriously consider later parts of the paper that build on this sort of reasoning.
------------------------------
I was going to write more, but I see that Ben has chimed in with something far more authoritative than I'd be likely to produce, so I'll stop here.

 

[Jamie B]

You're giving him crap for starting his own organizations while the Nobel Peace Prize is given out to Obama? That should be a red flag for you when it comes to that organization or others.

His experience is pretty well documented, especially on why he started IBR while at Harvard, so I have been giving his science a thorough review while disregarding the personal insults.

thecrimson(dot)com/article/1985/3/20/the-politics-of-science-pbmbost-ameficans/

Thanks for the input but so far I see a lot of character assassination, guilt by association, etc but few tackling his measurements or work. The companies he has started appear to be fairly healthy as well (MagneGas) and the Intermediate Controlled Nuclear Fusion machines he is working on have the monetary interests of China.

I think there is more to this than some would like to allow us to think. I will keep researching and discussing.

 

[dasmiller]

I think there is more to this than some would like to allow us to think. I will keep researching and discussing.

Perhaps this should be split to its own thread, then.

 

[Dancing David]

You're giving him crap for starting his own organizations while the Nobel Peace Prize is given out to Obama? That should be a red flag for you when it comes to that organization or others.

Jamie B, chill dude, self published papers don't get much shrift around here. The peer review process is important for a reason. While not always correct, it is important.

talking about the Nobel Prize makes you look silly, the JREF is not a place for such obvious rhetoric.

His experience is pretty well documented, especially on why he started IBR while at Harvard, so I have been giving his science a thorough review while disregarding the personal insults.

then you should strive to understand the direct and specific critiques of the theory that Ben M. gives.

thecrimson(dot)com/article/1985/3/20/the-politics-of-science-pbmbost-ameficans/

Thanks for the input but so far I see a lot of character assassination, guilt by association, etc but few tackling his measurements or work. The companies he has started appear to be fairly healthy as well (MagneGas) and the Intermediate Controlled Nuclear Fusion machines he is working on have the monetary interests of China.

Then you are just ignoring the actual critiques, and talking about something else? okay.

I think there is more to this than some would like to allow us to think. I will keep researching and discussing.

Then try reading and discussing the critiques of the theory than Ben M gives, discuss them.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

You're giving him crap for starting his own organizations while the Nobel Peace Prize is given out to Obama? That should be a red flag for you when it comes to that organization or others.

His experience is pretty well documented, especially on why he started IBR while at Harvard, so I have been giving his science a thorough review while disregarding the personal insults.

thecrimson(dot)com/article/1985/3/20/the-politics-of-science-pbmbost-ameficans/

Thanks for the input but so far I see a lot of character assassination, guilt by association, etc but few tackling his measurements or work. The companies he has started appear to be fairly healthy as well (MagneGas) and the Intermediate Controlled Nuclear Fusion machines he is working on have the monetary interests of China.

I think there is more to this than some would like to allow us to think. I will keep researching and discussing.

You just completly ignored the total demolition of Santilli and this is not an insult, it's a fact. Nevertheless you stick to his "theories" and argue with investor money. You seem to be clueless how often investors fall for charlatans. Good job, from start to ignore in less than ten postings.

 

[Jamie B]

I think the thread title is rather pertinent, but I see your point dasmiller.

Will work up a reply for ben shortly. The insults are too much imo to not be countered immediately.

 

[Zeuzzz]

I'm waiting for the dubious quotes superimposed on pictures of well known people to start appearing again.

Well I wouldn't want to disappoint.

No person this time, though.

 

[Perpetual Student]

How about another YouTube video? Most people here consider YouTube videos to be an infallible source of scientific evidence.

 

[Zeuzzz]

How about another YouTube video? Most people here consider YouTube videos to be an infallible source of scientific evidence.

Evidence I have ever used a youtube video to support an argument needed.

The only one I can remember was posting a simulation about chaos and how it relates to evolution in the consciousness thread, which actually needed a video.

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

Jamie -

While you are working up a reply to ben, you ought to consider that the theory has been conclusively disproved, and was done so inadvertently about 40 years ago. Please read http://www.physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/doc/Bender.pdf. Laser rangefinding of the moon's surface commenced in 1969, using a retroreflector installed by Apollo 11. The laser involved was a ruby laser, so the experiment used red light. The receiver used a narrow-band spectral filter. If red light cannot penetrate the atmosphere, there would have been no return pulse detected, especially since the laser light involved made 2 passes, one outgoing and one returning. Since this was a laser, there was no blue light transmitted which could have been red-shifted. The received amplitudes are, as one might expect, very low. Thery are so low that any unaccounted-for attentuation would have made detection impossible, so the sort of attenuation Santilli claims is just preposterous.

And speaking of preposterous, from the quote which I addressed before,

Consequently, if red light cannot reach us in the relatively short vertical trajectory in air, there is no scientific possibility for red light to reach us in the much longer trajectory in the horizon estimated of about 10,000 km.

Have you given any thought to how you get a 10,000 km optical path at the horizon? It implies an effective atmospheric depth of over 5,000 km.

 

[ben m]

Um!

You're giving him crap for starting his own organizations while the Nobel Peace Prize is given out to Obama? That should be a red flag for you when it comes to that organization or others.

Let me put it this way: it is extremely rare for a real scientist to create a fancily-named "foundation" to promote their own work. It's extremely common among crackpots. Google for: the "Society for the Advancement of Autodynamics", for one example; "Orion Foundation"; "Origin Foundation"; I used to have a list of half-a-dozen examples. Santilli has has three or four IIRC.

His experience is pretty well documented, especially on why he started IBR while at Harvard, so I have been giving his science a thorough review while disregarding the personal insults.

I can't think of anything more insulting to Ruggero Santilli than "giving his science a thorough review". His science looks impressive and shiny if you look at the surface---fancy title! An institute! A prestigious-sounding award! Spinoff companies! That makes him look good. Cracking open the papers and reading them is where the trouble starts.

Thanks for the input but so far I see a lot of character assassination, guilt by association, etc but few tackling his measurements or work.

So, um, you didn't get to the last three paragraphs of my post?

The companies he has started appear to be fairly healthy as well (MagneGas) and the Intermediate Controlled Nuclear Fusion machines he is working on have the monetary interests of China.

You're impressed by magnegas? I have no idea what actual technology is at work, if any, in MagneGas, but did you notice that Santilli claims that Magnegas is not made of molecules or atoms---or, not of any object found in the Periodic Table, but of "magnecules" discovered by him and never observed by anyone else?

The magic ingredient in Magnegas is the proprietary bond between carbon and oxygen.

Do you realize how bizarre a statement that is? "Hey, I just overturned 100 years of chemistry and quantum mechanics by myself, but I can't give you any evidence for that. Instead, buy my waste-oil reduction plant, which I promise is NOT a simple arc pyrolysis plant, because it uses the magnechemistry I invented that I can't provide evidence for!"

Intermediate Controlled Nuclear Fusion is even worse. Crappy theory, no evidence, bizarre claims, from a guy with a long history of wacky nonsense, and now in a field with a long history of wacky nonsense. I read one of Santilli's self-published papers on this topic, and it's godawful---it sounds like a sci-fi work written in a fictional world where Pons and Fleischmann's experiment is a standard, easily-reproducible experiment that everyone believes in. Apparently, in this world, there's also both a well-known and useful Magnecule Theory (developed by Ruggero Santilli) and a well-known and useful Hadronic Mechanics (developed by Ruggero Santilli), AND a well-known and useful "isomechanics", all of which explains something even better than Pons and Fleischmann.

This last is a question for you, Jamie, rather than a criticism of Santilli. Doesn't it strike you as odd that Santilli should have to overturn all fields of physics simultaneously? Isn't it surprising that mechanics, quanta, molecules, nuclei, and cosmology are all so complex that Newton, Einstein, Schrodinger, Pauli, Meitner, and Hubble each made unrelated mistakes that put them on the wrong paths? But simple enough that this one guy Santilli should have fixed all of those mistakes, all by himself?

Wouldn't you expect someone smart enough to do that---well, not to be so dumb as to think that the reddening of sunsets is a redshift?

Have you ever heard of, or do you admit the existence of, self-promoting but delusional crackpots who claim to have "solved everything"? Or do you take all such claims seriously?

 

[Dancing David]

Well I wouldn't want to disappoint.

No person this time, though.

[qimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/dm5074bf32.jpg[/qimg]

So who in modern BBt says that you need a creator?

What exactly is your issue with the calibration of the Hubble constant?

Where are these object older than 13.7 billion years?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

And speaking of preposterous, from the quote which I addressed before,
Have you given any thought to how you get a 10,000 km optical path at the horizon? It implies an effective atmospheric depth of over 5,000 km.

It would be a mistake to assume these people inhabit the same planet we do.

 

[Reality Check]

From what I can tell, Santilli has expanded upon Zwicky tired light calling it isoredshift which involves new mathematics.

If it is a tired light model then it is wrong regardless of the mathematics: Errors in Tired Light Cosmology

Posting a link to a PDF on a web site suggests that this Santilli is yet another Internet crank. You should be citing a link to his paper in a scientific journal.

 

[Reality Check]

Will work up a reply for ben shortly. The insults are too much imo to not be countered immediately.

There were no insults in ben m's reply. You cited Santilli. He read what Santilli wrote. There were obvious flaws in what he wrote so ben m said there were flaws.

• The "well known No Reduction Theorems" are not well known - they were just in previous papes by Santilli.
• He states that science cannot explain how photons transmit through transparent media. But science has known the QM explanation for almost a century. AFAIK there has been a classical explanation for centuries.
• He states his ignorance about the explanation for the refraction of light.
• He states his ignorance about the explanation for the slower speed of light in a medium.

ben m then states the practical problems with Santilli's "isoredshift" theory For example: We receive signals from spacecraft in radio dishes here on Earth. These spaceraft move. Their signals thus pass through different paths through the atmosphere. Isoredshift predicts large enough reshifts (e.g. the redshifts of light from the Sun) that we would lose the signals. There are no reports of this signal lose.

 

[Zeuzzz]

There were no insults in ben m's reply.

crackpots.

Crappy theory

wacky nonsense

so dumb

delusional crackpots

Is it fair game to call you these things then Reality Check, since they are 'not insults'?

 

[Reality Check]

You did not understand what Jamie B wrote:

Will work up a reply for ben shortly. The insults are too much imo to not be countered immediately.

and what ben m wrote about Santilli was

I can comment on the Santilli paper. First, some structural comments....
Santilli himself? Well, he's known for being litigious, so I can't tell you about his science reputation...

(my emphahsis added)
ben m explicitly avioded calling Santilli a crank or crackpot in the post.

No insults in the post - just the observation that Santilli has stated his ignorance of the theory of how light propagates through medium like water or air.

Is it fair game to call you these things then Reality Check, since they are 'not insults'?

If I come up with a theory that is a crank or crackpot theory than you can call me a crank or crackpot. That is not insulting.

Are you willing to call Eric Lerner a crank since he came up with a crank idea (the force-free magnetic filaments stuff)?
Luckily he has come to his senses and abandoned the idea (no publications on it since 1990 !)

ETA: Zeuzzz: Back up your BBT claims with citations to the scientific literature
First asked 10 October 2012.
N.B. "I was wrong" or "the claim is wrong" are valid answers!

What are your "much more plausible" explanations than the BBT explanations?
First asked 10 October 2012.

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

Is it fair game to call you these things then Reality Check, since they are 'not insults'?

Since the post by ben_m which Jamie objected to was #213, quoting from post #224 is very much beside the point. Unless you believe in time travel, I guess.

And you ought to be more careful about your selective quoting. What you quoted as "crackpot" read, in full:

Let me put it this way: it is extremely rare for a real scientist to create a fancily-named "foundation" to promote their own work. It's extremely common among crackpots.

Likewise, "dumb",

Wouldn't you expect someone smart enough to do that---well, not to be so dumb as to think that the reddening of sunsets is a redshift?

Or do you hold that reddening of sunsets is a redshift?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I thank new JREF Forum member Jamie B for providing so much entertainment this evening that I missed a train.

As a counter to some of the things Zeuzzz wrote earlier in this thread, consider Santilli's first paragraph in section 10 of the paper cited by Jamie B:

There is no doubt that the expansion of the universe, and the “Bag Bang” theory on the origin of the universe, constitute quite plausible cosmological models based on the knowledge on the cosmological redshift available at the time of their formulation, for which reason they have justly received a rather vast consensus.

I don't know whether “Bag Bang” was deliberate or a typo.

Santilli, of course, is arguing against expansion of the universe. The following remarks are extracted from his comments on The Current Historical Moment in Gravitation.

Another historical objection...is the impossibility of representing with curvature the free fall along a straight radial line.

Actually, Einstein himself provided that representation in §9 of Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie. If you compare Einstein's equation (22) with Misner/Thorne/Wheeler's equation (20.41), which is written using more modern notation, you'll see that MTW equation (20.41) reduces to Einstein's equation (22) for free fall (when the force components are zero).

Yet Santilli says, in capitalized italics,

THESE HISTORICAL OBJECTIONS HAVE REMAINED UNRESOLVED IN REFEREED JOURNALS TO THIS DAY because of known manipulation by Einstein's "followers."

As I noted just above, Santilli is wrong about that.

To be fair, both the Einstein and MTW equations involve Christoffel symbols, which Einstein took to be the components of the gravitational field. Those Christoffel symbols are not tensors, so they aren't quite the same as curvature (which is a tensor). Nevertheless: the curvature tensors are closely related to (and can be represented using) those Christoffel symbols, so there's a very close connection (if you'll pardon the pun) between those symbols and the curvature. If Santilli understands that connection at all, he's doing a very good job of leading his readers astray.

Here's another example of Santilli's style:

Then, there are serious geometric and structural problems on the very essence of the Riemannian treatment of gravity. In fact, a sad episode is the suppression of the Freud identity of the Riemannian geometry for about one century to protect the followers view of gravitation, rather than that by Einstein.

Freud discovered that identity in 1939. I'm writing this in the year 2012. How could the identity have been suppressed "for about one century"?

I rediscovered this identity in the 1980s...

Following my rediscovery of the Freud identify, unpublished papers have appeared claiming that the identity is verified in the general field equations....These political "disproofs" essentially illustrate the very reason the Freud identify was suppressed in the literature of the field for about one century.

One of those "unpublished" papers was published in a refereed journal:

Eduardo A. Notte-Cuello and Waldyr A. Rodrigues Jr. Freud's identity of differential geometry, the Einstein-Hilbert equations and the vexatious problem of the energy-momentum conservation in GR. Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras, volume 19, 2009, pages 113-145. Published online August 13, 2008. DOI 10.1007/s00006-008-0122-7​

The main purposes of that paper were (1) to refute Santilli's bogus claims about the Freud identity and (2) to explain a genuine problem with attempts to formulate energy-momentum conservation laws in general relativity.

Santilli's dismissal of this and other "unpublished" papers was made on 11 March 2010, over a year after the paper had been published. I guess he doesn't keep up with the relevant research literature.

I could go on and on, but I do not want to abuse of your time.

 

[ben m]

Thanks WD. A funny contrast: in Santilli's writing, it seems, every attempt at making a physics statement is attached to the denunciation of the dogmatism, associates, publication habits, etc., of the people he disagrees with.

Along comes Jamie B.:

so far I see a lot of character assassination, guilt by association, etc but few tackling his measurements or work.

I guess complaining about the associates, publication habits, etc., of people one disagrees with is, um, unscientific and reprehensible.

 

[Dancing David]

Is it fair game to call you these things then Reality Check, since they are 'not insults'?

It is also fair game to ask you to support your statements---

So who in modern BBt says that you need a creator?

What exactly is your issue with the calibration of the Hubble constant?

Where are these object older than 13.7 billion years?

 

[Jamie B]

I can comment on the Santilli paper. First, some structural comments. This journal---the open astronomy journal---came up in another thread. It was a sort of auto-pilot journal; Santilli's crackpot buddies volunteered for the editorial job; and used that position to publish crackpot science. I pointed this out to their one non-crackpot "honorary editor", who immediately quit; a few months later the other non-Santilliite editors vanished; and a few months later the published killed the journal. Santilli himself? Well, he's known for being litigious, so I can't tell you about his science reputation. The "Institute for Basic Research" is not Santilli's employer, but rather is a mailbox at Santilli's home.

Edited by LashL: 

Edited for civility.

I will make sure the editorial board of the Open Astronomy Journal is aware of your insults.

It is evident that you dismiss the Open Astronomy Journal because it publishes refereed articles against the orgnanized interests of your group while you clearly want the suppression of Scientific democracy to maintain power.

 

[Jamie B]

Utter baloney. The theorem is not "well known", nor is it true. It's nonsense invented by Santilli in previous papers.

Edited by LashL: 

Edited for civility.

... you dismiss a rigorously proved theorem without any reference to a published disproval.

 

[Jamie B]

This is bizarre. Santilli looks at a photo of a light beam in water, can't imagine it being explained by photons-passing-by-nuclei-without-scattering, and discovers the ether. Utter lunacy. We've understood the quantum mechanics here---how light can move through transparent materials---for most of a century.

You are <SNIP> hoping that the audience is ignorant.

Quantum mechanics has never explained a beam of photons passing through nuclei along a straight line without scattering.

Edited by LashL: 

Edited for civility.

The QED studies that you hint at (propagation of light in a transparent medium) has no connection whatsoever with Santilli's point.

This proves your manipulation of evidence for a power structure to maintain beliefs already disproved by evidence.

Edited by Locknar: 

SNIPed, breach of rule 0/rule 12.

 

[Jamie B]

2) The reduction of light to photons does not admit a numerical representation of the (rather large) angle of refraction of light at the water surface.

Just because Santilli is ignorant of the explanation does not mean there isn't one. (There is.)

Again,

Edited by LashL: 

Edited for civility.

... you claim the existence of the proof but you provide none.

On the contrary, I can provide many papers proving that the reduction of a light beam to photons can not represent the angle of refraction for the evident reasons stated by Santilli, namely, photons will be scattered in all directions when hitting the surface of the water.

Again, if you identify a paper published in a refereed journal proving the representation of the angle of refraction by a beam of photons, then I will eat my hat.

Since this proof is impossible you clearly maintain a posture of power without scientific backing.

3) The reduction of light to photons scattered by the water molecules cannot provide a quantitative representation of the rather large decrease (by about 1 / 3 ) of the speed of light in vacuum c when propagating in water, because its numerical representation via photon scatterings would require a virtually complete dispersal of the beam against the visual evidence of Fig. (1).

Just because Santilli is ignorant of the explanation does not mean there isn't one. (There is.)

My preceding comment applies here as well. The political posturing in your dismissal of the possibility of Santilli's view is clear as day.

Show me how you reduce infrared and radio waves to photons that also have an angle of refraction and I will eat crow.

Since this is well known to be impossible, you are serving organized interests in maintaining the power structures that are in place.

 

[Jamie B]

Thanks WD. A funny contrast: in Santilli's writing, it seems, every attempt at making a physics statement is attached to the denunciation of the dogmatism, associates, publication habits, etc., of the people he disagrees with.

Along comes Jamie B.:



I guess complaining about the associates, publication habits, etc., of people one disagrees with is, um, unscientific and reprehensible.

You are the one who started off with the "Utter lunacy." "Crackpot" remarks.

Don't try and dance around your unwarranted ridicule.

 

[Dancing David]

The above statement confirms that you are a crackpot because you dismiss a rigorously proved theorem without any reference to a published disproval.

And where exactly was this theorem proved?