Merged Relativity+ / Farsight

[Reality Check]

That's wrong. ...

That totally wrong, Farsight.
If the universe is measured to be flat then it is probably infinite. You can go in any direction from a point and never return to that point. That is basically the definition of an infinite universe!

But we cannot know that it is flat through a measurement that includes zero curvature because that allows the universe to be curved but on an enormous scale. Thus the conclusion is correct:
"This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent; however, since the Universe has a finite age, we can only observe a finite volume of the Universe. All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe.
(my emphasis added)

You are exposing yourself as quite ignorant about cosmology, Farsight, with that statement. The definition of a universe is everything that there is. There cannot be an "edge" for the simple reason that everything outside of the "edge" is still in the universe! That "edge" is not an edge!

The term you are looking for is a closed universe where any path you travel from a point returns to that point.

Nowadays, people have no convincing evidence that the Universe is not "round". There were speculations that it was shaped like a soccer ball.
This has nothing to do with the measurement that the universe has been measured as expanding for "only" 13.8 billion years (13.798±0.037 billion years).

 

[Reality Check]

The 2D surface is curved "in a higher dimension", and then we have a sphere.

No, Farsight: That is extrinsic curvature.
This is basic mathematics: Curvature describes extrinsic curvature.

A 2-sphere has extrinsic curvature that only exists when it is embedded in a higher space.

A 2-sphere has intrinsic curvature that does not refer to any space that it is embedded in. One way to visualize it is to look at straight lines (I would say geodesics but given the ignorance about curvature in GR you probably have no idea what that means, Farsight !). If all of the straight lines from a point return to that point then the surface of the 2-spehere is curved. The longer the lines the less the curvature.
Alternately: Draw a triangle on the surface. The deviation of the sum of the interior angles from 180 degrees tells you the local intrinsic curvature of the surface.

Our 4D universe is not embedded in a higher space in GR. The only curvatures in GR are intrinsic.

P.S. Farsight: If you really want to be flabbergasted about intrinsic curvature then consider the case of a cone. Its intrinsic curvature is all in the point. If I remember correctly, any path that encloses the point is curved but any part that does not include the point is not curved (is flat). This becomes obvious when you fallen the cone to the topologically equivalent of an infinite plane with a triangle cut out of it - I will leave that to your great intellect and knowledge of the mathematics of GR to understand .

 

[Reality Check]

Farsight's issues from the just last couple of months!

Farsight issues with aether:

1. Farsight: (24 July 2014) Isaac Newton held that space is absolute and there is no luminiferous aether ([URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpuscular_theory_of_light#Sir_Isaac_Newton"]Corpuscular theory of light).[/URL]
2. Farsight: (25 July 2014) Can you understand the stupidity of that arXiv search that returns no citations of Einstein's ether speech?
3. Farsight: (25 July 2014) Can you understand that many of the results for that arXiv search are for [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_aether_theory"]Einstein aether theory?[/URL]
4. Farsight: (25 July 2014) Einstein's aether is "space endowed with physical properties". This is a field as in a gravitational field.
5. Farsight: (25 July 2014) Einstein never said that "space is not homogeneous". It was "empty space", i.e. in the real universe, matter and energy need not be homogeneous or isotropic thus the 10 equations in the EFE.
6. Farsight: (30th July 2014) Different aether from different authors!
   with Minkowski's ether being one 1908 paper with the word "Æther" in it (Lorentz's aether which is the Luminiferous aether for which there no evidence.

Farsight issues with dark matter seems to be just ignorance: Farsight: (1st August 2014) Information about dark matter that you seem to be ignorant about

 

[Roboramma]

The 2D surface is curved "in a higher dimension", and then we have a sphere. Only the universe isn't a 2D surface. It's a 3D bulk. There is no evidential support for any "higher dimension" in which it can be curved.

Nor is one required. You can also take a 2D surface that isn't curved in 3-dimensional space, but which exhibits intrinsic curvature (Feynman had a nice example of this in one of his lectures which he called "bugs on a hot plate"). This intrinsic curvature can be measured without having to go to some higher dimension (in this example, without having to get up off the surface of our "sphere"), and no 3rd dimension is required.

Yes, it was ctamblyn. It has uniform curvature. But in homogeneous space, light goes straight. It doesn't curve in some uniform fashion.

A test of curvature is to measure the internal angles of triangles. In a universe that has the geometry of a hypersphere, those angles will not add up to 180^o, but light will still appear to travel in straight lines.

If light goes straight, light goes straight. Your abstract object with its mathematically definable intrinsic curvature doesn't make a blind bit of difference.

Nice assertion, but we're talking about the properties of space, not simply an "abstract object", if space has the property that triangles don't add up to 180^o, then it's curved. Mathematics is just a way of talking about what's actually happening.

One of the problems with JREF is that people who don't know much physics reject everything I say and dismiss all the references and evidence I provide. It's a bit like trying to talk to creationists. I need to make you do your own research and think for yourself, otherwise I'll never get through to you. Experiments have found that the universe looks flat. As in not curved. Like I said, do your own research.

It's so nice to have a discussion with someone who, when asked to explain his viewpoint, posts a link to an article containing facts that I'm already aware of that have nothing to do with what he's saying, then, when I point out that he hasn't explained his viewpoint he implies that I "don't know much about physics" and "reject every [he says] and dismiss all the references and evidence [he provides]".

I haven't rejected what you've said, I've tried to engage you in conversation about it and actually see what you're saying. I haven't dismissed your references, but the article you posted wasn't relevant to the question I asked.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

Only I didn't.

No, because space has its vacuum energy, and this energy has a mass equivalence. The energy of the gravitational field acts gravitatively in the same way as any other kind of energy. It's spatial energy. There's no particles there. The energy density isn't zero.

Now do excuse me, it's time for tea.

When you get back from "tea", show us the specific predictions.

 

[Reality Check]

No, because space has its vacuum energy, and this energy has a mass equivalence.

No, Farsight - you have not come up with a magical theory combining QM and GR !
Space has a vacuum energy in QM.
Space has a cosmological constant in GR

In cosmology, the cosmological constant (usually denoted by the Greek capital letter lambda: Λ) is the value of the energy density of the vacuum of space.

Quantum vacuum energy has no gravitational effects in GR because it does not exist in GR !
The cosmological constant (a "vacuum energy") does have gravitational effects - it pushes things apart. The "lie to children" as in Wikipedia is E=m^c which has the annoying features that E has to be negative and we have to assume that negative mass pushes rather then pulls.
The usual reason given is that GR predicts that a positive cosmological constant exerts a "negative pressure". This is a much smaller "lie to children": Why Does Dark Energy Make the Universe Accelerate?

The energy of the gravitational field acts gravitatively in the same way as any other kind of energy.

is a basic part of GR - why do you think that it is a deep dark secret, Farsight !

 

[Farsight]

Your argument here, if you can call it that, is mere gainsaying and ad hominem.

No, I've given bona-fide physics.

On the other hand, we've provided actual evidence that gravitational effects can exist in homogeneous space

No you haven't. You've made an assertion, that's all. One that doesn't fare too well when compared with Einstein's description of a gravitational field as inhomogeneous space.

and evidence that homogeneity does not imply flatness (see: anisotropic homogeneous cosmologies, and the non-flat FLRW models).

LOL. They're hypotheses, not evidence. WMAP provided evidence. You have confused hypothesis with evidence. Quel faux pas.

Once again, here is the very post where you did exactly that, being careful to distinguish your claim from that of the Wikipedia contributor (my highlighting and bolding, your italics):

See what I said to Russ on the other thread. See the picture of the light wave in the Wikipedia photon article. Start from the right and trace your finger along the red sinusoidal line. It goes up, then it goes down. The first half-wavelength is above the horizontal zero line. That's a positive "electric" field variation. The second half-wavelength is below the horizontal zero line. That's a negative "electric" field variation. So the first half-wavelength is a bit like a partial positron, and the second half-wavelength is a bit like a partial electron. But the photon does not consist of positive charge followed by negative charge. And there is no such thing as an anti-photon. The reason why it starts with a positive field variation is because field is the derivative of potential, and the photon is a "pulse" of potential. Have a look at photon images and read http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.2596.

Continuing the topic of people not being able to get their story straight, let's address this:

"Einstein's greatest blunder concerned cosmology."

Now let's see what Farsight says about people who claim that Einstein was wrong:

"The crackpots are the guys who say Einstein was wrong."

Not that I personally place any weight on your various appeals to misinterpreted authorities, Farsight, but it seems that you are hoist by your own petard.

No I'm not, because everybody agrees about Einstein getting the cosmology wrong.

 

[Farsight]

No you have not

Yes I have answered your questions.

Farsight, unless you count the idiotic statement "space is space" and thus "field is field", "time is time", "electron is electron" and science can stop there !

Huh? I said you can't define space in terms of anything else, because everything else is made of waves in it. I said a field is a state of space. I said time is like heat, it exists, but it's an emergent property of motion. I said the electron was a self-trapped 511keV photon in a Dirac's belt configuration. Don't pretend I've been tautological. I'm the guy who tells you the constant speed of light is a tautology.

But I may have missed you citing the scientific definitions of space and field so:
Farsight: (4 August 2014) Please give the links to your citations for the scientific definitions of space and field.

No. This forum is too slow. But see http://www.rain.org/~karpeles/einsteindis.html for Einstein saying this:

"The two types of field are causally linked in this theory, but still not fused to an identity. It can, however, scarcely be imagined that empty space has conditions or states of two essentially different kinds..."

When I say a field is a state of space, it isn't something I've made up. I took my cue from Einstein. As you know full well. Now buck your ideas up and get sincere.

 

[lpetrich]

See the picture of the light wave in the Wikipedia photon article. Start from the right and trace your finger along the red sinusoidal line. It goes up, then it goes down. The first half-wavelength is above the horizontal zero line. That's a positive "electric" field variation. The second half-wavelength is below the horizontal zero line. That's a negative "electric" field variation. So the first half-wavelength is a bit like a partial positron, and the second half-wavelength is a bit like a partial electron.

Crude literal-mindedness that would embarrass a fundie. That's a schematic diagram, and schematic diagrams are not literally true.

There are further problems. One usually does not get single oscillations, but multiple ones, and rotating 180 degrees around the direction of motion will reverse the direction of the electric and magnetic fields relative to one's coordinates.

 

[Farsight]

Nor is one required. You can also take a 2D surface that isn't curved in 3-dimensional space, but which exhibits intrinsic curvature (Feynman had a nice example of this in one of his lectures which he called "bugs on a hot plate").

Here it is: Curved space. I'm a bit of a Feynman fan as it happens, but I have to say this: he got this excrutiatingly wrong. Curved spacetime is nothing to do with curved space. Space is inhomogeneous in a gravitational field, not curved. I blame Wheeler, who was Feynman's supervisor.

A test of curvature is to measure the internal angles of triangles. In a universe that has the geometry of a hypersphere, those angles will not add up to 180^o, but light will still appear to travel in straight lines.

WMAP has tested for curvature, and it hasn't found any.

Nice assertion, but we're talking about the properties of space, not simply an "abstract object", if space has the property that triangles don't add up to 180^o, then it's curved. Mathematics is just a way of talking about what's actually happening.

So is hard scientific evidence. And there's no evidence for curvature. It's a fantasy, Robo. It's right up there with the fairies and the unicorns.

It's so nice to have a discussion with someone who, when asked to explain his viewpoint, posts a link to an article containing facts that I'm already aware of that have nothing to do with what he's saying, then, when I point out that he hasn't explained his viewpoint he implies that I "don't know much about physics" and "reject every [he says] and dismiss all the references and evidence [he provides]".

Shrug. I post plenty of links to facts and papers and quotes and evidence. Sometimes people who demand such information need a bit of encouragement to do their own research.

I haven't rejected what you've said, I've tried to engage you in conversation about it and actually see what you're saying. I haven't dismissed your references, but the article you posted wasn't relevant to the question I asked.

Fine. And to reiterate: when space is homogeneous, light goes straight. It doesn't curve, and we say spacetime is flat. And there is no evidence for any curvature in any higher dimension, which remains a science-fiction concept only.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

Farsight, you still have not offered any evidence for your theory: you still haven't shown us how your theory that space is homogeneous or that light speed varies at different positions can be used to predict the motion of a galaxy or of a pencil.

Until that time, you have nothing but insults and dogma. It is incorrect to say that you have answered any question with anything other than a dodge or a deception until you produce specifics.

 

[Farsight]

Farsight, you still have not offered any evidence for your theory: you still haven't shown us how your theory that space is homogeneous or that light speed varies at different positions can be used to predict the motion of a galaxy or of a pencil.

Until that time, you have nothing but insults and dogma. It is incorrect to say that you have answered any question with anything other than a dodge or a deception until you produce specifics.

As I said I've provided the evidence in the NIST optical clocks and the Shapiro delay etc. And here's the Einstein quotes again. This is from section 22 of the 1916 book Relativity: The Special and General Theory:

"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)...."

The 1920 English translation uses the word velocity, but in the original German the word is geschwindigkeit, which means speed. As per the Baez article Einstein meant speed. It's obvious anyway because he's talking about the SR postulate. Hence professor Ned Wright's deflection and delay article says this: "In a very real sense, the delay experienced by light passing a massive object is responsible for the deflection of the light" And here's the quote from Einstein's 1920 Leyden Address:

"According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory under consideration. This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that ‘empty space’ in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gμν), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty".

It isn't my theory, and it isn't me throwing insults or suffering from dogma. Yep, the last time somebody said you still have not offered any evidence I'd just told them about the fossils and the strata and the carbon dating.

 

[ctamblyn]

No, I've given bona-fide physics

Ah, you mean like the "bona-fide physics" you just cited in the other thread in support of your polarised photon model? Here's what you just posted there as an argument in favour of that picture of yours:

LOL, he's made no argument at all. There's various internet sites where people refer to the positive and negative field variation. Here's one picked at random. It says this: "The magnetic field around a photon fluctuates from its maximum-positive to its maximum-negative strength as the photon travels..."

This is a cherry-picked excerpt from "Light - Science and Magic: An Introduction to Photographic Lighting" by Fil Hunter, Steven Biver, Paul Fuqua. Not a physics reference, mind you, but a digital photography one. Perhaps you shouldn't pick things "at random", and should actually read your sources before citing them. Perhaps you should have taken their advice when they said this:

A complete definition of the nature of light is complex. In fact, several Nobel Prizes have been awarded for various contributions to the working definition we use today. We will simplify our discussion by using a definition adequate for applied photography. If you are still curious after reading this, see any basic physics text.

So, can you now get round to answering my two questions from above? Here there are again:

1. Since you brought up Einstein, where exactly did he support your recent claim that the photon looks like a little partial positron being chased by a little partial electron?

2. To repeat a question someone asked earlier: why is your photon never the other way round (a partial electron followed by a partial positron)?

 

[ctamblyn]

No you haven't. You've made an assertion, that's all. One that doesn't fare too well when compared with Einstein's description of a gravitational field as inhomogeneous space.

I would be remarkably surprised if anyone reading this thread agrees with your assessment of the situation, given that we have given explicit counterexamples to your claims many, many times. Perhaps you should conduct a poll.

LOL. They're hypotheses, not evidence. WMAP provided evidence. You have confused hypothesis with evidence. Quel faux pas.

You are either using "evidence" in some Relativity+-specific idiosyncratic sense, or you don't understand the logical structure of your own argument. Your claim was that homogeneity implies flatness within the context of GR cosmology, or in symbols "H => F" where H and F are predicates whose interpretation should be obvious. The existence of non-flat homogeneous cosmological solutions to the EFE is conclusive evidence against that claimed implication, i.e. conclusive evidence that "NOT(H => F)". I am not saying that there is evidence for or against H, nor am I saying there is evidence for or against F. I am specifically saying there is conclusive evidence against your claim that "H => F".

See what I said to Russ on the other thread. See the picture of the light wave in the Wikipedia photon article. Start from the right and trace your finger along the red sinusoidal line. It goes up, then it goes down. The first half-wavelength is above the horizontal zero line. That's a positive "electric" field variation. The second half-wavelength is below the horizontal zero line. That's a negative "electric" field variation. So the first half-wavelength is a bit like a partial positron, and the second half-wavelength is a bit like a partial electron.

Yes, I saw that. Honestly, your description of the photon is some of the worst drivel I have ever read on the topic of electromagnetism. As ben m said, your argument is based on a very grave confusion about how vectors work, and an almost equal confusion about the nature of positrons and electrons.

No I'm not, because everybody agrees about Einstein getting the cosmology wrong.

So it's OK to say that Einstein is wrong as long as everyone agrees? Glad we could settle that.

 

[Perpetual Student]

2. To repeat a question someone asked earlier: why is your photon never the other way round (a partial electron followed by a partial positron)?

As was pointed out on the other thread, just stand upside-down and -- behold -- the partial electron is in first place.

 

[ctamblyn]

It is incorrect to say that you have answered any question with anything other than a dodge or a deception until you produce specifics.

John Duffield did, in fairness, made a prediction in his self-published pop-pseudoscience book "Relativity+: The Theory of Everything". Namely, that the LHC will fail to produce any interesting results. It would be a "damp squib," he said. Also, according to Farsight, the LHC will not produce a Higgs discovery: "I don't believe the God particle will be found" he says, and "we don't need the Higgs boson, because the photon is boson enough." I love that line, it cracks me up every time. Quel faux pas as he might say.

Another was made earlier in this thread, but was so vague as to preclude experimental testing: according to Farsight's loopy photon model, if you fire neutrinos at electrons you will see "unexpected positrons".

 

[ctamblyn]

As was pointed out on the other thread, just stand upside-down and -- behold -- the partial electron is in first place.

That sort of clear argument is just not permitted in Relativity+. You need more balloons with elastic bands stretched over them before I will believe you.

 

[Reality Check]

See the picture of the light wave in the Wikipedia photon article.

See how idiotic it is to confuse an electric field with an electric charge, Farsight !
The reliance on cartoons as science is not good, Farsight. A photon is not one wavelength of an electromagnetic wave . A photon is a particle when it acts like a particle and the entire wave when it acts like a wave (wave/particle duality).

The electric field points up in one point and down at another point because the magnetic field varies. The magnetic field does the same because the electric field varies. Labeling these direction as "negative" or "positive" does not magically transform an electric field into an electric charge.

Gibberish followed by the extra idiocy of a Google search for photon images (more cartoons!).
The inanity of the How Long Is a Photon? citation is obvious. A photon is a particle when it acts like a particle and the entire wave when it acts like a wave (wave/particle duality). The preprint is not published. It is so wrong that no one has cited it since 2008.

 

[Reality Check]

Yes I have answered your questions.

Wrong, Farsight: You stated your own personal fantasies about space being waves in reply to my questions. Your personal fantasies are not scientific definitions
Farsight: (29 July 2014) What is the scientific definition of space?

Farsight: (29 July 2014) What is the scientific definition of a field in physics? And the follow-on: How does this make What a field in physics really is by W.D.Clinger wrong?

But see http://www.rain.org/~karpeles/einsteindis.html for Einstein saying this:

No scientific definition of space or field in that quote from Einstein so:
Farsight: (4 August 2014) Please give the links to your citations for the scientific definitions of space and field.

In fact what you lie about what you quote. This is Einstein stating that electromagnetic fields and gravitational fields should be able to be unified, speculating that it can be done basically in GR (the Riemannian metric stuff) and getting it wrong !

Farsight: (4 August 2014): What is the scientific definition of "inhomogeneous space" in physics?
There is the homogenous/inhomogeneous distribution of mass in the universe. This causes different curvature of spacetime. But that does not sound like your "inhomogeneous space".

Farsight: (4 August 2014): What does this "inhomogeneous space" have to do with galaxy halos (specifically the Milky Way halo which is a collection of stars and globular clusters)?
Halos are basically as inhomogeneous as any other part of a galaxy.

FYI: Farsight: (1 August 2014) Information about dark matter that you seem to be ignorant about !

 

[Reality Check]

Here it is: Curved space. I'm a bit of a Feynman fan as it happens, but I have to say this: he got this excrutiatingly wrong. Curved spacetime is nothing to do with curved space. Space is inhomogeneous in a gravitational field, not curved. I blame Wheeler, who was Feynman's supervisor.

You are definitely not a science fan, Farsight, or you would not have got this so excruciatingly wrong !
Feynman got curved spacetime and curved space from Einstein and all of the other people who worked on GR in the decades between 1915 and The Feynman Lectures on Physics (1961-1963).
So be properly ignorant, Farsight, and blame every scientist since and including Einstein.

Curved spacetime is curved space + curved time .
Chapter 42 starts with Feynman stating that he is describing curved spacetime by starting off with curved space (ignoring time) and further restricting the discussion to curved space in 2D. This is standard practice in teaching physics. Start with simple cases and introduce complexity gradually.
Thus "42-1 Curved space in two dimensions". Followed by
* "42-2 Curvature in three dimensional space"
* "42-3 Our space is curved"
* "42-4 Geometry in space-time"

The WMAP and Planck results are that the cosmological curvature is small and includes zero. Of course (as you must know, Farsight) thinking that this means that curvature of spacetime in general does not exist such is ludicrous. But then you go on with:

And there's no evidence for curvature.

There is evidence for curvature. The WMAP and Planck results do not mean that there is no cosmological curvature. The WMAP and Planck results are that the cosmological curvature is small and includes zero.

But the real evidence is that Mercury (and the Earth!) orbits the Sun exactly as predicted by the curvature of spacetime in GR ! Ditto for tall of the evidence for GR. Thus curvature of spacetime exists.

GR does not use your so far imaginary "inhomogeneous space", Farsight.

The simple fact is that GR uses curved spacetime and explains gravity. The curvature of spacetime can be tested by drawing a triangle and measuring its internal angles. Adding up to 180 = flat spacetime, less than 180 = negative curvature, more than 180 = positive curvature.
This is basically what the analysis of the WMAP and Planck results is: "draw" a triangle using the fluctuations in the CMB as a baseline and us as a point and use trigonometry to calculate the internal angles.