Dark energy - rabbit hole or what?
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/science-blog/universe-expanding-accelerating-rate-–-or-it
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/science-blog/universe-expanding-accelerating-rate-–-or-it
To send a clock somewhere belongs to the procedures which do not allow any scientific statement concerning e.g. "time dilation", "idea bending". One would have to send two clocks, and two send not. These then in the change. Then also still with the different "carriers" exchanged. Only then we would come into an area, which permitted first data and first statements and hypothesis, which led then to further attempts.
In this case, the cause of the deviation is unclear.
In this case, the cause of the deviation is unclear.
Last edited:
I have finished my Sean Carroll book about Space, Time and Motion! As you can imagine, I am feeling pretty chuffed! 
I feel I have a grasp on Mr. Einstein's 1915 ideas on Gravity:
This is it really:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations
I don't know what people find hard about that.
General Relativity is not really a Theory, it is a framework in which solutions can be explored and tested as to relating to reality. Out of the window goes the Ether, in comes the Equivalence Principle and curved Spacetime.
In Einstein's day, there was little that could be done for confirmation of the consequences. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury, and bending of starlight visible in Eclipses.
These days we continually discover he was totally right! Black holes, atomic clocks, the expanding Universe, well it goes on and on. Latest is there might be a 100 Million Black Holes in our Galaxy alone!
Alas, the Cranks continue to think they are cleverer than him. Here's one, called Ron Hatch, self proclaimed expert on GPS, and relativity which he thinks is junk:
No don't watch it. It is about the worst thing I have ever seen. It will fry your brain. Am I missing something @cumbb?
I feel I have a grasp on Mr. Einstein's 1915 ideas on Gravity:
This is it really:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations
I don't know what people find hard about that.
General Relativity is not really a Theory, it is a framework in which solutions can be explored and tested as to relating to reality. Out of the window goes the Ether, in comes the Equivalence Principle and curved Spacetime.
In Einstein's day, there was little that could be done for confirmation of the consequences. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury, and bending of starlight visible in Eclipses.
These days we continually discover he was totally right! Black holes, atomic clocks, the expanding Universe, well it goes on and on. Latest is there might be a 100 Million Black Holes in our Galaxy alone!
Alas, the Cranks continue to think they are cleverer than him. Here's one, called Ron Hatch, self proclaimed expert on GPS, and relativity which he thinks is junk:
No don't watch it. It is about the worst thing I have ever seen. It will fry your brain. Am I missing something @cumbb?
Last edited:
I agree with you. To refute this "equivalence principle" makes no sense at all, because it does already not meet any scientific requirements. A reference to the nonsense to use considerations within two quasi "closed boxes" as a basis for an "all-embracing" "physical" "theory" would have been sufficient;-)
See also #1048;-)
Critics about A. Eddington 1919:
G. B. Brown. 1956 (S. 630): „But worse … is the tendency to ignore contrary instances. Extraordinary examples of finding what was expected are the early attempts to prove the formula for the ‚bending of light‘ by the Sun. When the eclipse photographs were examined, some of the star images had moved t o w a r d s the Sun, the exact opposite of what was predicted, and others had moved sideways. Hardly any star Image had moved radially, but only the radial components were considered; the tangential components, although of similar magnitude, were regarded as accidental errors and ignored. The mean deflections measured changed markedly during the passage of the Moon’s shadow, as did the mean directions as well. Moreover, Einstein’s formula for the variation of the deflection with distance from the Sun was a s s u m e d in determining the ’scale contents‘ of the photographic plates, from which the deflections were derived which were supposed to prove it. With the help of this procedure … results were obtained which were held to be ‚in exact accord with the requirements of Einstein’s theory‘. … Nowadays it is fairly generally admitted that this prediction has not been proved.“
Collins / Pinch 1998 (Golem, 2.ed.): „As we shall see, they were very inexact and some of them conflicted with others. When he Chose which observations to count as data, and which to count as ’noise‘, that is, when he Chose which to keep and which to discard, Eddington had Einstein’s prediction very much in mind. Therefore Eddington could only claim to have confirmed Einstein because he used Einstein’s derivation in deciding what his observations really were, while Einstein’s derivations only became accepted because Eddington’s observation seemed to confirm them. […] Observation and prediction were linked in a circle of mutual confirmation …“ (S.45).
And so on)-;
Start of the observation- and validation-scam)-;
See also #1048;-)
Critics about A. Eddington 1919:
G. B. Brown. 1956 (S. 630): „But worse … is the tendency to ignore contrary instances. Extraordinary examples of finding what was expected are the early attempts to prove the formula for the ‚bending of light‘ by the Sun. When the eclipse photographs were examined, some of the star images had moved t o w a r d s the Sun, the exact opposite of what was predicted, and others had moved sideways. Hardly any star Image had moved radially, but only the radial components were considered; the tangential components, although of similar magnitude, were regarded as accidental errors and ignored. The mean deflections measured changed markedly during the passage of the Moon’s shadow, as did the mean directions as well. Moreover, Einstein’s formula for the variation of the deflection with distance from the Sun was a s s u m e d in determining the ’scale contents‘ of the photographic plates, from which the deflections were derived which were supposed to prove it. With the help of this procedure … results were obtained which were held to be ‚in exact accord with the requirements of Einstein’s theory‘. … Nowadays it is fairly generally admitted that this prediction has not been proved.“
Collins / Pinch 1998 (Golem, 2.ed.): „As we shall see, they were very inexact and some of them conflicted with others. When he Chose which observations to count as data, and which to count as ’noise‘, that is, when he Chose which to keep and which to discard, Eddington had Einstein’s prediction very much in mind. Therefore Eddington could only claim to have confirmed Einstein because he used Einstein’s derivation in deciding what his observations really were, while Einstein’s derivations only became accepted because Eddington’s observation seemed to confirm them. […] Observation and prediction were linked in a circle of mutual confirmation …“ (S.45).
And so on)-;
Start of the observation- and validation-scam)-;
I attempted to summarise the Einstein equation back in post #718.
Here it is in its simplifed form:
The character on the left-hand side of the equation is the Einstein tensor which represents how much spacetime is warped or curved by matter and energy.
The character on the extreme right is the stress-energy tensor which is a measure of the stress matter and energy places upon spacetime.
The divisor of c^4 requires that a huge amount of stress is required to warp spacetime, something which the 6 trillion trillion kilogram mass of planet Earth manages to do with style!
My descriptions of the terms may be grossly over-simplifed, but they furnish all I really need to know about the Einstein equation!
It's interesting to note that Einstein, when it came to gravitational waves, misunderstood the mathematics of his own theory!
When Einstein and his collaborator Rosen tried to write a formula for gravitational plane waves they encountered a singularity - a place where quantities become infinitely large. That nonsensical result led them to infer that such waves could not exist!
Einstein wrote a letter to his colleague Max Born, stating, “Together with a young collaborator, I arrived at the interesting result that gravitational waves do not exist, though they had been assumed a certainty to the first approximation. This shows us that the non-linear general relativistic field equations can tell us more or, rather, limit us more than we have believed up to now.”
Copy pasting 10^12 comes out as 1012 and the paper is about various factors that influence clock rates, They can make Einstien's time agree but haven't been included in how GPS works. It uses some simplifications.
equivalence principle, fundamental law of physics that states that gravitational and inertial forces are of a similar nature and often indistinguishable.
I’ve put this up elsewhere before. It is a fascinating presentation on Einstein and how he got to GR with a lot of anecdotes and some technical stuff as well.
https://hifisonix.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Einsteins-path-to-Relativity.pdf
https://hifisonix.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Einsteins-path-to-Relativity.pdf
That can be down to the sums being incorrect;y formed in the first place. There is also Einstein's "blunder"
https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200507/history.cfm
While unlikely in his case science has advanced via theories that are incorrect. Nothing new about that however astrophysics makes extreme use of them and has reached a point where things don't stack up.
M31 shows similar star age distribution to this one
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/messier-51-the-whirlpool-galaxy
LOL Makes me wonder if the arms came out or are being pulled in. There are not that many that can actually be viewed.
Einstein realised his error before publishing his paper On Gravitational Waves.
By using a different coordinate system - one appropriate for cylindrical rather than planar gravitational waves - no singularities appeared.
His really big blunder was, of course, his inability to recognise general relativity's inconsistency with a static universe was a prediction - Einstein could have predicted cosmic expansion instead of having to grudgingly accept it later.
It is good that you mention this again, it should be useful for the majority:
This indistinguishability of forces is based
a) on the arbitrary reduction of circumstances, of observation and
b) implies, or should imply, the indistinguishability of causes.
Both, a and b, are at least unscientific. Everything that follows is unscientific.
Here something was raised to principle, even to law, to make it undiscussable! This is ANTI-scientific practice. The theories of relativity are anti-scientific and in the hands of anti-scientists - since 100 years!
From the link I posted
Prevailing scientific opinion held that the universe was static, so Einstein introduced a mathematical "fudge factor" into his equations, known as the cosmological constant, or lambda. It implied the existence of a repulsive force pervading space that counteracts the gravitational attraction holding matter together. This balanced out the "push" and "pull" so that the universe would indeed be static.
Perhaps Einstein should have trusted his instincts. Twelve years later, Edwin Hubble was studying distant galaxies and noticed an intriguing effect in the light they emitted: it had a pronounced "shift" toward the red end of the electromagnetic spectrum. Hubble reasoned that this could only be happening if the light were traveling across space that is expanding. Einstein’s original equations had been correct, and there was no need for a cosmological constant.
.
.
It’s a testament to Einstein’s genius that even his blunders prove to be significant. Lambda implied the existence of a repulsive form of gravity, and such a thing appears to be the driving force behind cosmic acceleration: it’s called dark energy.
Fudge factors crop up. Plank's constant. Theory didn't fit in with observation so use a constant to make it fit.Planck empirically derived a formula for the observed spectrum.
Yes, Einstein introduced a fudge factor that would prevent the Universe collapsing under its own gravity.
Little did he realise at the time that said fudge factor not only provided a Universe that balanced out gravity in order to remain static, but also predicted one which could overcome gravity and expand.
Little did he realise at the time that said fudge factor not only provided a Universe that balanced out gravity in order to remain static, but also predicted one which could overcome gravity and expand.
I came across a question about the universe at some point expanding "at and above speed of light"
Answer not a problem as Einstein factors do not apply to space.
Looked for some numbers and found this
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept14/Dunlop/Dunlop2.html
Which gives root 2/0 if it reaches the speed of light but Z=5 means 0.946C. Universe 1/6 of it's size and and ~9% of cosmic time. It adds a rider
Finally, at the risk of stating the obvious, it must always be remembered that different redshifts correspond not only to different times, but also to different places. Thus, when we presume to connect observations of galaxies at different redshifts to derive an overall picture of cosmic evolution, we are implicitly assuming homogeneity; i.e. that "back-then, over there" is basically the same as "back-then, over here".
Quasar red shifts range form 0.56 to 7.64, the highest found recently. Carbon lines have been found in some but the measurements are usually indirect. One galaxy came out at 16.4 done photographically but a recheck made it ~5. Euclid seems to be aimed at accurate red shift measurements. Smaller mirror but the exposure time can help with that.
More telescopes - the EU 39meter one is thought to be half built. The 30m USA one abandoned / no signs of a build date. Then this space one in the wings UVIOR
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-ba...its-of-the-hubble-space-telescope-95077743484
Looks like it will use glass type mirrors so may do visible as well. The name suggest UV only.,
Answer not a problem as Einstein factors do not apply to space.
Looked for some numbers and found this
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept14/Dunlop/Dunlop2.html
Which gives root 2/0 if it reaches the speed of light but Z=5 means 0.946C. Universe 1/6 of it's size and and ~9% of cosmic time. It adds a rider
Finally, at the risk of stating the obvious, it must always be remembered that different redshifts correspond not only to different times, but also to different places. Thus, when we presume to connect observations of galaxies at different redshifts to derive an overall picture of cosmic evolution, we are implicitly assuming homogeneity; i.e. that "back-then, over there" is basically the same as "back-then, over here".
Quasar red shifts range form 0.56 to 7.64, the highest found recently. Carbon lines have been found in some but the measurements are usually indirect. One galaxy came out at 16.4 done photographically but a recheck made it ~5. Euclid seems to be aimed at accurate red shift measurements. Smaller mirror but the exposure time can help with that.
More telescopes - the EU 39meter one is thought to be half built. The 30m USA one abandoned / no signs of a build date. Then this space one in the wings UVIORhttps://medium.com/starts-with-a-ba...its-of-the-hubble-space-telescope-95077743484
Looks like it will use glass type mirrors so may do visible as well. The name suggest UV only.,
;-)
Well, a beginning?
Most observations do not confirm Einstein's space-time curvatures. Whether directly at the sun, or the enormous width of the gravitation of the sun, the whole night sky would have to be a gibberish, gravitational waves are also not scientifically proven, the rotation speeds of the galaxies do not confirm the equations, quasars can also be bound to galaxies with highly different redshifts, WMAP is probably only the plasma noise of the Milky Way and so on. Then the obvious cheating at the "detections" - I trust meanwhile that also the few lensing effects in the deep field are produced intentionally - who wants to control that at present;-?
Well, a beginning?
Most observations do not confirm Einstein's space-time curvatures. Whether directly at the sun, or the enormous width of the gravitation of the sun, the whole night sky would have to be a gibberish, gravitational waves are also not scientifically proven, the rotation speeds of the galaxies do not confirm the equations, quasars can also be bound to galaxies with highly different redshifts, WMAP is probably only the plasma noise of the Milky Way and so on. Then the obvious cheating at the "detections" - I trust meanwhile that also the few lensing effects in the deep field are produced intentionally - who wants to control that at present;-?
It looks "energetic" and also feels like it here on earth - still so little hits us.... how big is the circle radius one 1 kilometer away from the surface that contains the energy that will in the end hit earth ?
//
Interesting fact if I got my math right, 1 square meter on the suns surface outputs 62 million watts. 15 m^2 gives 1 GW. Been doing it for billions of yrs, and will do it for a few more. Energy density in the Sun’s core, paradoxically only about 275 W/m^3 or about 1/3 that of a human.