User talk:JimJast/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 21 July 2011. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Blimey

Am I correct in my understanding that you are attempting a PhD in disproving the Big Bang? Also, what on earth do mean when you say that creationism "is a philosophical base of the Big Bang Hypothesis"? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 15:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_interpretations_of_the_Big_Bang_theory *sigh* --ZooGuard (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi DeltaStar,

ad 1 ("Am I correct in my understanding that you are attempting a PhD in disproving the Big Bang?"). You're correct however I think that I disproved the Big Bang already, if it is not only my illusion for the reason of my brain not working any more as it used to. But if this is the case (it's only my brain's problem) then please let me know. It should be easy to notice through illogical reasoning in my derivations of various astronomical effects. I'M NOT KIDDING. The thing is too important to leave it for a crazy guy to work on. But if I'm still sane (as is my hope) then the latest version of one page paper about it is waiting to be reviewed for over 25 years (since the time when I'm sure no Altzheimer affected my brain yet, just there seemed to be already in effect a ban on Einstein's ideas contradicting the faith in creation). Which you may consider "ad 2" ("Also, what on earth do mean when you say that creationism "is a philosophical base of the Big Bang Hypothesis"?").

Up till now the only referee who wanted to discuss it with me for a few months in 1966, saying finally that it has "no formal errors", but he/she doesn't believe it anyway (believing that the universe is expanding) and so he/she is going to recomend to "Physical Review Letters" editor (where it was sent to, after being already rejected without a review by Nature) to reject it as not interesting enough to its readers.

Since then I kept sending it once in a while to various editors of scientific journals hoping for finding one knowing enough physics or astronomy to see the value of my paper since never any error in my paper has been specified (see errors suspected by critics). It was always rejected because of belief of editors in the expansion of universe", which BTW contradicts even standard physics as believed in e.g. by Richard P. Feynman (see his rant against gravity physicists).

The Big Bang is a hypothesis and so it is formally something that is not known for sure. Yet "scientists" maintain that it is known for sure (that's why I take word "scientists" in quotes) that the universe has been created 14 billions years ago in the Big Bang event. Most of them don't say who has created the universe but not all, and that's how I know what they think and why I maintain that they are creationists. I don't believe that since I don't believe in ghosts (even holy). So for me it is not even an option to believe in creation. Luckily I can prove that the universe is not even expanding since there are many observations that contradict that belief. They can't be published though for various reasons. I call it politics of gravitation and wrote a popular article about it for poets and science teachers (published only on the internet though). JimJast (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The universe wasn't created. It appeared. By the way, I was quite amused by the way your page defines "mysticism" as "the opposite of Objectivism."

I think I've been just writing about what Ayn Rand had in mind. What you think it should be opposed to? JimJast (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want to put your ideas to the test, I suggest trying to defend them in this forum. The people there are more knowledgeable about physics than most of the users on RationalWiki.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to but nobody there wanted to discuss anytning with me and they just banned me for life from their forum for being a crank as they label people who believe in principle of conservation of energy (or more exactly in conservation of 4-momentum). And unfortunately I believe in it since my physics course was by Feynman who believed it either and apparently I inherited his beliefs (besides I couldn't not believe them working as electronic engineer and seing them working in real life. I just proved that if energy can't be created then there is no evidence that the universe expands. The all visible expansion can be explained with "general time dilation" (or Hubble tensor, depending on taste) which produces Hubble parameter Ho=c/R where R is "Einstein radius" (derivation, rather boring, on demand). JimJast (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

One more remark: when I was a young guy believing in possibility of creation of energy from nothing was a sign of severe mental retardation, now it is not believing. Now every "smart guy" and his sister believes that energy can be created from nothing (through a divine intervention?) and it is taught in physics courses (at least in my u.) since they believe it is easy in a universe that "appeared" through the Big Bang (through a divine intervantion?) in which spacetime is curved rather than as I have shown with the principle of conservation of 4-momentum it is flat. Apparntly the atheists are the dying out species and the mystics are going to take over. However I wonder how they manage, while ignoring the eternal laws of physics. Existing in (unfortunately) eternal (Einstein's) universe. JimJast (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

From the first part of Jim's politics of gravitation article: "For American students, who might read this article but who because of peculiarities of our educational system might have never heard about Albert Einstein, I should mention that he was the most prominent American scientist ever. He was known and appreciated around the world almost as much as Leonardo da Vinci who happened to be the most prominent not only scientist but also painter, sculptor, architect, and engineer. I might also add for the students who have never heard about Leonardo either that he was not an American but an Italian. He never even visited the US and if he liked to he wouldn't probably get the visa for fear that he might work here illegally in one of his various professions. He couldn't be employed legally because he would be overqualified for any position in the US as even much less gifted people often are and then have to live at the expense of the US taxpayers. But let's not deviate into peculiarities of American culture, which is also an interesting subject but not of this article." Hilarious, very well done. The stats you pulled out of your ass about the omnipotence paradox were also amusing. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for appriciating my stuff. JimJast (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Answer to DeltaStar part 2

Interrelation of time and space

I know that after a few generations of scientists maintaining that the universe is expanding, without anybody presenting any valid counter hypohtesis against it, it is difficult to believe that the universe finally turned out to be eternal "Einstein's universe". But the simplicity of Einstein's physics with the unavoidable coupling between space and time gives us no other choice, so that even a guy like me, with practically no training in math and physics beyond Newton's gravitation, could comprehend it, and explain with it not only "Hubble redshift", explained as an illusion of expansion, explain its acceleration as another illusion, explain quasars, Pioneer 'anomaly', and even the average size of pieces of non luminous matter. Most of the effects exactly (up to about one standard deviation) as seen in the sky.

Einstein's theory of gravitation solves so many problems in such a simple way that even an athiest can believe that it is true since the explanation does not involve creation of anything. Einstein's theory of gravitation provides the solution that I found accidentally in 1985, not knowing then that it is a solution to a problem that the cosmologists couldn't believe for over 80 years despite the general relativity being already present.

It happened as Einstein predicted: "when all the experts decide that something can't be calculated (as Hubble redshift, it has to be observed), comes an ignorant who doesn't know that and calculates it".

The effect has been what Galileo've seen after the telescope has been invented: anyplace he turned it to, he discovered new things.

Of course I know that my credibility is zero since I'm just a sculptor and the biggest brains of our time (with slight correction from Richard Feynman though) have their own hypothesis about what's going on. The important diff was though that my math worked and theirs didn't. Even more: their "math" proposed creation of energy from nothing. Which might be the reason for Feyman's rant against them that I quote in the first part of the response to DeltaStar above, to make my story a little bit more credible.

My math that I use to invalidate the Big Bang hypothesis is almost purely the Newtonian math, which luckily is the same es Einsteinian math in all the relavant places. The most relavant, that made it invisible to the Big Bang theorists, is simple feature of Einstein's relativity the interrelation of time and space. I took it from Richard Feynman's textbook (to tell where the idea came from, so if I'm a crank I am in a good company). Feynman said "As you know from special theory of relativity, measurements of space and measurements of time are interrelated. And it would be kind of crazy to have something happening to space, without the time being involved in the same thing" [Feynman lectures on Physics, p. 42-7].

This interrelation of time and space is the key feature on which the whole invalidation of the Big Bang hypothesis hangs. It requires a small bit of "faith" that time is coupled to space but since any other solution is physically impossible since it would require a miracle of creation of energy it would reqiure someone who doesn't believe in miracles to discover it.

The best thing in my invalidation of the Big Bang is that I can rationally explain all the Einsteinian predictions about nature. Einstein's theory fell into an empty space in explanation of the universe in our necessarily rational world. It is visible in my one page quoted above paper about "Hubble Redshift in Einstein's universe". If you just read its conclusions you should see it clearly. JimJast (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Answer to DaltaStar part 3

Absence of absolute time

I'd like to clarify some points that might obscure the 1985 discovery as I call it for short. I consider it a discovery of what relation there is between time and space and I attribute it to Einstein only since it follows directly from his general relativity. That's why I don't appreciate calling it "my theory" as some people do, speaking about e.g. "testing my theory" since the theory of time and space is clearly Einstein's. He discovered it. I just use it to show the interrelation between time and space or more precisely between time dilation and the curvature of space that disproves the Big Bang hypothesis. As with every scientific discovery in astronomy it better to be seen in the sky if it is true.

What is seen in the sky follows Einstein's theory of relativity. It follows especially well Einstein's absence of absolute time, which is the main difference between Einstein's theory of general relativity and the Big Bang hypothesis (sometimes called quite improperly, being copied from Einstein's "theory" with some John Archibald Wheeler's additions as expansion of space added to it as an axiom and the curvature of spacetime added as another axiom. Therefore the Big Bang "theory" assumes the existence of absolute (cosmic) time and the possibility of creation of matter from nothing showing this way its creationist side following from curvature of spacetime.

Absence of curved spacetime

In Einstein's general realativity there is neither absolute time nor the curved spacetime. In Einstein's general realativity spacetime must be Minkowski (which means "flat", since curvature of spacetime means that 4-vectors, as energy momentum 4-vector after its parallel transport to the future may show certain change which then implies lack of conservation of energy or momentum, or both while it has been considered impossible by all who don't believe in miracles (in possibility of perpetual motion machine or in lifting himself by his hair; It might be the reason for Richard Feynman rant against cosmologists, quoted earlier).

Wheeler by adding two axioms to Einstein's general realativity that is a physical theory made out of it a phenomenological (mathematical) theory with (non physical) expansion of space and the (non physical) possibility of cration of mater from nothing. He published it in 1973 as "Gravitation" adding to it two more authors (who might now feel awfull, at least I would if one used me to such a project). Since many people don't know nor care what is seen in the sky I'll try to describe it shortly:

Sky from POV of a physicsist

The main thing that made scientists wondering about things like the Big Bang is the "cosmological redshift". It is that light from most galaxies comes to the Earth with its wavelength longer (sometimes several times longer) than light from identical light source near the observer. When astronomers noticed this effect there were known only two possible causes of such effect. It was the movement of galaxy that could cause making light wave longer or shorter depending on direction of movement of the galaxy. Moving away from the observer would lengthen the light wave. So the universe looked as if it were expanding since galaxies looked as if moving away from the earth. LeMaitre proposed that if they move away then they must have been closerto each other before that and before that even closer. A simple calculation showed that if it was the case they must have been at the same place about 14 billion years ago and a sudden explosion might have started their movement away from each other. This event has been named jokingly "Big Bang" by Fred Hoyle who never dreamed that anybody may take such story seriosly.

Yet some mathematicians took it seriously and started convincing the astronomers that it had to be so since (allegedly) no other explanation is possible Which turned out not to be that easy either. Neither Fred Hoyle himself nor Fritz Zwycky who couldn't believe in such silly story as the Big Bang, couldn't come up with a competing story that could explain what's going on in the universe. Einstein who discovered the theory of relativity a few year earlier, and the only guy who was at the position of explaining what's going on, was discouraged by mathematicians who rather wanted to believe in the miracle of creation than in some natural, but unknown yet fenomenon. Then Einstein said that he stopped understanding his theory when mathematicians started explaining it to him. And being rather an old guy already he gave up working on general relativity that was a key to this mystery. By the end of 20 century creationists gained majority in scientific publications and then nobody was let to write a different story.

To be continued in Answer to DeltaStar part 4 JimJast (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Answer to DeltaStar part 4

False tired light effect

The only possible competing story with the Big Bang hypothesis seemed to be a story in which light might have lost its energy through some kind of interaction with the universe. It was called tired light effect hypothesis. It has been quickly pointed out that tired light can't be true reason for cosmological redshift since the effects connected with this redshift, in the real universe, don't happen like in tired light hypothesis (which was supposed to preserve their time rate). In the real universe they were to run the same as without the tired light but they really went slower. As if it was predicted by the Big Bang hypohtesis (the twice that far galaxy seem to move twice as slowly, which was consistent with the hypothesis that the universe is expanding) but not with tired light. So the Big Bang theorists declared that the Big Bang must be a true hypothesis.

So in 1985 I already knew that the cosmological redshift can't be the tired light but I wanted to know anyway how much of the cosmological redshift is due to the expansion of space (in which I believed then not seeing any good reason why the universe couldn't expand and being conditioned from my childhood into believing in it, though not in miracles) and how much is due to the tired light effect, which I knew that some must exist at least to cartain degree because of dynamical friction, a Newtonian effect called also gravitational drag with which any moving object in the universe disperses its energy to encountered on its way masses (it is efect opposite to slingshot effect that is used to accelerate cosmic probes that jump from planet to planet gaining energy from each planet ancoutered on their way).

I kept asking physicists and astronomers about the numbers but nobody seemed to know. Then I decided to calculate it myself. When I did the numbers came the same as what was observed in the universe as cosmological redshift (about 70km/s/Mpc). Wich meant that there was no expansion of the universe! Expansion of universe was an illusion caused by the "dynamical friction of photons"! Farthermore during calculations I obtained also, quite unexpectigly a simple relation between the curvature of space and the cosmological redshift. It pointed to some mysterious relation between curvature od space and the redshift. Even more mysterious that the calculations were purely Newtonian and in Newtonian physics there is no curvature of space. It is a feature of Einsteinan physics only.

To be continued in Answer to DeltaStar part 5. JimJast (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Answer to DeltaStar part 5

Everything falls into place including cosmological constant Λ

So I had something that already looked like a solution of the old puzzle of the cosmological redshft and the only thing that needed to be done was to fit it into Einstein's physics. So I enrolled in general relativity course and started learning general realativity. The first thing that I noticed was that the value of Hubble constant that I calculated came out as Ho=c/R where c is speed of light and R is Einstein's radius (radius of Einstein's stationary universe or the radius of curvature of space). It told me that I might be on right track. Not necessarily going in right direction so I had to investigate everything very carefully.

First of all I had to find the physical meaning of all this. The bast thing that came to my mind was that apparently there is no absolute time. This was OK since it agreed with Einstein's physics. Then the proper time at each galaxy seemed to run with speed roughly proportional to the exponent of the distance from the observer. This had to be necessarily true for any observer in the universe not to make any of them special. It would have created a paradox that for any two obervers in the universe looking at each other from different galaxies the time rate at each would have to be faster than that of the other. I called it the "general twin paradox" to distinguish it from "twin paradox" from special realativity. Luckily it didn't produce any real paradox since logically such situation was possible e.g. in universe in which some "cosmic time" run faster and faster. So since there was no logical contradiction in such relativity of time I decided this solution might be the solution to the puzzle of cosmological redshift and the only problem was to present this solution to the public. I did it in February 1985 sending the solution to Nature feeling it is a proper place to send it.

As with other unconventional solutions to problems with long history of dificulties of solving them no one treated it seriously. Then for a while I kept sending it every year to Nature to find out when they employ someone who understands Einstein's relativity. As of March 2011 I'm still waiting.

In the meantime I discovered that Einstein's relativity is able to predict other phenomena in the sky beside the Hubble redshift, redshifts of quasars, and average size of non luminous matter in the universe (as 2m) deduced from 2.7K temperature of CMBR (Cosmic microwave background radiation). Since equation for Hubble redshift comes out as dT/dt=exp(-r/R) where T is proper time in deep space, t is coordinate time of the observer, r is coordinate distance from observer to observed point in deep space, and R is radius of curvature of space then after splitting this equation into Taylor series around t=0 one gets dH/dt=-Ho^2/2 which was observed with accuracy of one σ (which in science means max available) by the Supernova Cosmology Project team in 1998. It might be then considered the year of final collapse of the Big Bang hypothesis. Despite that the 1985 discovery hasn't been officially accepted yet.

The latest thing was the elimination of Einstein's cosmological constant Λ which Einstein considered "the biggest blunder of his life" (me too :) from Einstein's field equation. But to make it well I need a cooperation of a matematician fluent in tensor calculus since most mathematicians don't want to touch this problem with a 10' pole. The last that I contacted simulated dying from cancer just to avoid the assignement (I am a Pole but only 5'5" so we need at least two like myself). JimJast (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

essay

If you write an actual essay it can be protected from deletion. But promises to write something in the future won't float. So time to put up. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

If you want an audience that is more interested in examining and assessing your ideas, I recommend you go here. Most of the commenters on that site are technically-minded and interested in science, and they'll probably give you a more thorough response than you got here. You may eventually be dismissed and ignored, but I'm willing to bet that they'll give you a fair trial. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tetronian, "My ideas" are not my at all but only Einstein's (how many times I have to repeat the same thing?) Einstein discovered relativity before I was born, not me. I'm not that smart. I'm just not that stupid that I think that energy can be made out of nothing. Neither was Einstein, but he didn't want to fight for it with all the mathematicians around the world because they assume (in math one assumes and then one looks where it leads) that it can be created (and "there is no way to convince an idiot" as Feynman says).

So Feynman didn't fight with idiots neither, just never showed up at gravity conferences. Both Einstein and Feynman trusted human reason, apparently not for a good reason though since the creation of energy got hold in pseudoscience already for 3/4 of a century. To the degree that when I finally showed with simple high school math that Einstein was right no one wanted to publish it. I had to open my PhD project to help Einstein anihilate the Big Bang (as this new craze is called officially). "relativists" suspected an error. None could find any. That's why I don't need to do anything beyond propagatind Einstein's physics.

Until creationism gets slowly eliminated from science. It just needs more accurate messurments of energy that some physicists are able (allegedly) to created in their labs (through devine intervention). Of course they maintain that they are able to create a lot (especially if they are in state of grace) but measurements are going to verify their claims until people start laughind at every new claim of making energy through devine intervention. And finally the Opus Dei would have to stop this craze being afraid of the bad publicity hurtning increase of number of faithful. However they shouldn't since as Einstein said "human stupidity is infinite". JimJast (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

If you don't want to take my suggestion, a simple "no thanks" would have sufficed. No need to get your beard tangled. Unfortunately I'm not currently knowledgeable enough in physics to give your (or, if you prefer, Einstein's) material a fair shake, so I don't really have anything to say about the rest of your comments. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tet, no need to feel offended. I took your suggestion, went there, and then responded with a longer text than apparently you care to read. So please don't rush, take your time, read it again, and I check again in a few days to see what you retained from my text. JimJast (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I got the main point: I don't need to do anything beyond propagatin[g] Einstein's physics. As I said, I'm not qualified to comment on the content of Einstein's/ your work. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 16:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

So we can stay friends. I'm doing PhD project in physics and if I don't know what I'm doing they let mi know soon enough. JimJast (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Is LessWrong really willing spend time on stuff like this? There must be some mechanism to prevent the site from turning into a crank magnet that will give anything a careful read; how will those guys save us from a robot apocalypse if they're too busy addressing any time-wasting proposal that comes their way? I think it's pretty clear that P( person has something worth saying | person claims Opus Dei is leading a cover-up in gravitational physics ) is precisely nil. --Benod (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ben, "what's robot apocalypse"? JimJast (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What they'll do is this: one or two people will spot the flaw (assuming there is one) in Jim's post, after which it will get downvoted to oblivion. I've seen them deal with cranks before and that's pretty much how they behaved. (And I agree, if you signal poorly over there you're going to get shunned pretty quickly.) Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

One other thing, Jim, don't go back and amend comments on a talk page after they've been responded to. It can make respondents look stoopid. 21:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Terry, This is what I'm just learning about RW. Thank you for taking pains of teaching me. I didn't know that and I thought I have all the time I need to respond. Actually, I even asked for more time with the next item (so you can use it to say more to me). I'm rather surprised that you don't want learn anything since I don't see any questions why I consider Einstein's gravitation supperior to Wheeler's. JimJast (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Guys, please be patient

I'm still trying to find out how this wiki works. Especially its mathematical expressions. It might take some time before I may post anything other than plain text. Besides I have only a notebook with a tiny screen which dos not improve the matters neither. JimJast (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Mathematical expressions on RW can be done using the <math> tags - just insert TeX code between them and you should be good to go. (Helpful website) Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Tet. JimJast (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Tet, finally the first version is ready. Now it is the time to read it and criticize. Nobody seems to be interested in it now though, despite its deep wisdom. You might be the first guy noticing it as the first scientific paper on cosmology ever. JimJast (talk) 06:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Critical mind

Has been moved to essay space (Essay:Critical mind). Mei III (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

"DR"

I would support your name changing to Dr JimJast. You should request it of a bureaucrat. Though I cannot make head nor tail of your thesis, I am confident that it is magnificent. --Damo^Hi 20:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Editing and deleting comments from talk pages

Do not edit and delete comments from talk pages as you did . This is completely forbidden. Trying to fix what you did is going to take some time.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

See here. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, Bob, I won't do it any more. I'm still learning. I was told that it is only improper when the person already answered. Since you didn't I thought I still have time to make my stuff clearer without need for you to wait for my expansions of my points.

There is also an issue of handling "edit conflicts". I see RW does not have an automagical way of handling them (which is a job for your software engineers, not you, of course, I just mention them so maybe someone taks it to his/her heart since they are a real nuisance). JimJast (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflicts are a problem for all wikis I'm afraid. When you made your edit I think you also inadvertently removed comments from another editor. If you want to edit your comments to remove a spelling error or quickly change something when you see the edit in front of you for the first time that's OK. But substantially re-editing your comments in the light of other responses is not on. You can, of course edit your essay as much as you like in response to comments on the talk page. The essay is yours - the talk page is not.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflicts should be handled automagically since it is easy to do once we decide on the rules of conduct and enforce them automagically as well. Then people learn the rules by experience. They will have to ask more questions of "why it does not work when do this ..." type. But all who learned the ruls can work without silly "edit conflifts". JimJast (talk) 10:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The edit conflict system is built into MediaWiki, which is used by many many wikis. I don't think there's much our "software engineers" can do about it. If they're a big deal for you, try this stuff instead. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Essay talk:Einsteinian gravitation for poets

What are you doing there? It looks like you working on some personal theory. Why is it on a talk page? Totnesmartin (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

How to keep track of things on a wiki

1. Use Recent Changes. Keep track of what's happening.
2. Make a WatchList. Keep track of specific pages.
3. Look in peoples' contribs. Here is a link to yours. Keep track of what specific people have done.

You kind of need at least two of these things. People won't always hang around to explain what's been happening for you. Mei III (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

2 things

1. Your description of the big bang theory as 'creationist' is absurd. It doesn't matter who created it, or whether it seems to defy logic -- if it is the best model for describing the universe as we see it, we keep it. That's how science works.
2. You keep bringing up the preferences of revered scientists to back you up. This is an argument from authority. IIt doesn't matter what they thought. Their thoughts had value because, and only because, they could show you why they were right. That's how science works.

Mei III (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Mei,

1. It is not an absurd for the following reasons: (i) It was proved that it never happened since the universe is not even expanding (it is an apparent expansion following from Einstein's general realtivity), (ii) since we don't know anything about its (alleged) creation its (alleged) creation can't defy logic, (iii) it is not the best model for describing the universe since Einstein's eternal universe model is better as better descibing the following observations: (a) it predicts the observation of (apparent) expansion as it is observed, within one standard deviation, (b) it predicts acceleration of this (apparent) expansion as it is observed within one standard deviation, (c) it predicts acceleration of space probes Pioneer 10 and 11 within about one standard deviation, (d) it predicts quasars, which Halton Arp claimes can't be predicted by the big bang hypothesis, (e) it does not contradict the law of conservation of energy as the big bang hypothesis does, and a few other things which the big Bang hypohtesis doesn't predict (e.g. non symmetric metric tensor and flat geometry of the sapcetime. So there is no reason to keep the big bang hypothesis, but a lot of reasons to dump it in favor of stationary "Einstein's universe".
2. Revered scientist has much bigger credibility than I have since he is a Nobel Prise winner in physics while I'm only a sculptor with no formal training in physics. Just be honest: would it convince you if a sculptor maintained that 126 members of worldwide conference on gravitation including many physics professors are "dopes" who can't tell scientific theory from gsrbage, as this revered scientist could?

I'm relatively sure of my results since they were tested by a few guys teaching general realtivity at Harvard and no one proposed any place which might contain an error. And besides the results are seen in the sky, which makes me even more sure of their correctness. And all I want is to give astronomers a chance to verify them (by publishing them) since they never head a chance to know the results of Einstein's theory of gravitation since they are taught only the big bang hypohtesis. They were considered for last 25 years not important enough to be printed in any scientific journal despite being observed in the sky, which to me seems kind of strange even if true since cost of printing six pages (on electronic media) and lately even shortened to one page is nothing comparing it to loss of billions of dollars spend on all those observations that even didn't confirm the big bang hypothesis just create more puzzles as the origin of "dark energy" that is now needed to produce "repulsive gravitation" acting as an Einsteinian "spooky action at a distance" to accelerat the expansion that in Einstein's theory is just an illusion. JimJast (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Your writing style isn't helping you

If you want people to read your stuff, write something that people want to read. Huge wodges of text aren't that popular, and arcane philosophical ramblings aren't either. You have to sharpen up your style a bit. use shorter sentences. Have paragraph beaks and even (gasp) a picture or two! It might just help. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm just responding if they ask me about something. I hope they want to read responses to their questions or my corrections of their positions regardless of my style. I'd rather sculpt than write but I hate to see them having wrong ideas on the matters where there are simple answers. I can help a lot with gravitation which contemporary science left not explained properly since till now no one seemed to work on it except Einstein but he obviously can't provide any answers so I feel it's being my duty after learnig from him.

I went through his physics and explained it prectically till the end. That I can't write beautifully I regret myself. But what to do if people still believe that the Earth attracts them or the universe is expanding while I know for sure that neither is true. But more often than not when one deviates from the truth it may lead to more deviation and more illusion and might end in belief in supernatural. So I just support Einstein who wanted people to be wiser. I feel he would be happy knowing that someone continues what he started and enjoys it too. He might be happy that it all turned out to be even simpler than he thought. Whole gravitation turned out to be due to two things only: relativity of space and coupled with it relativity of time. No "cosmological constant", this "biggest blunder of his life". It is all part of forgetting the supernatural for good. JimJast (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"I'd rather sculpt than write." Don't let us stop you. Really. P-Foster (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Please keep your comments on talk pages relevant to the topic at hand

Edits such as this [1] , [2] and [3] are unacceptable because they are not relevant to the discussions being held. I have assumed your good faith and defended you several times, but this is becoming harder to do. If you wish to contribute to the site, please do, but stop attempting to involve your theories on physics into pages that have nothing to do with them. Thank you. --Damo^Hi 09:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

About your contributions.

Dear Jim,

It's come to the point where, instead of just being flamed, somebody needs to put this unequivocally to you. RationalWiki, as you likely know, writes with 'SPOV' which means, equally, snarky and scientific point of view. The Community Standards defines this scientific point of view as meaning that we will take the side of the scientific consensus on an issue, and that we respect the scientific method. This is very important to us. Taking significant notice of your theories, which I believe form the basis of a PhD thesis which has not been completed, accepted or peer-reviewed, would go against this, and would diminish the site. It's not about you or your work. If your work seemed to be an incredible panacea which unified every theory of physics, bringing forward a new understanding of the world, we would not and could not accept it without a rigourous application of the scientific method, an judicious application of the peer-review process, and at least something of an acceptance among scientists.

These issues, about your theories being outside the mainstream, may seem to be about a small wiki. In fact, they are far more representative of our scientific understanding of the whole world. If we accepted and entertained your theories, simply because they sound interesting or cool, then we'd be no better than every other pseudoscientist out there. If you theories are ever accepted widely, come back. Tell us you told us so, and that we rejected you. But we still would have been right to.

I hope you understand this. And I hope you know that you're just wasting your time with us. Sure, you can reply to me, about how good your theory is. But it will not change anything. Please actually consider what I have said here. ^EXTERMINATE 09:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks ^EXTERMINATE, this is what I expected writing it and I already said good-bye to others. You are making a few errors though:

1. It is not my theory, only a very small part of it is mine, namely noticing that Einstein didn't commit any "blunder", inventing "cosmological constant". It was the best available solution at the time) it just tells very wel about Einstein's abilities as a physicists: he gave up the "elagance" of his theory for avoidning the creationism. It didn't work anyway but he was honest as a physicists. Unlike John Archibald Wheeler who sneaked in the crationism into science without regard for elementary honesty also in regard to Einstein. Feynman turned our attention to this fact with his rant against gravity physicists, despite Wheeler being his teacher, by which Feynman had his hands tied in certain sence,
2. you don't use scientific method, don't even know what it means. What you use is what "little Jonny imagines it is". Scientific method doesn't include creationism even if all pysicists of the world and their peer reviewers argued that "creationism is OK",
3. my lack if peers is only because no one could afford risking losing their livelihood suporting Einstein's POV while there is so many physics professors supporting "Opus Dei's POV", since they are only scientists with a single source of support while me, besides being a sculptor, am also an electornic engineer and a software engineer and so I don't lose my livelihood being fired from the university. I can go anyplace an make any invention I like (which I'm going to concentrate on right now) while for them it is the only thing they can keep doing. So they can't give me an official support but they never said that Einstein's ideas that I popularize are silly for which I thank them even if some of them think that "ID is so beautifull that it must be true".

Of course I don't think so even as a sculptor deal with beauty every day, but I don't have anything against such thinking since I'm for free expression of any, even only "apparently", reasonable, opinion even one contradicting physics. But to maintain that you are for scientific mathod, you should understand what is involved in it, at least on the level of average science teacher which my essay "for poets and science teachers" might have helped you (and it was meant to). JimJast (talk) 12:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

JimJast, I stumbled upon your wikipedia talk page [4] while I was trying to understand your essays. I note that everything that Dalek said above has been repeated many times by wikipedians. I think it is sad that you seem incapable of taking advice from well meaning people. Damo^Hi 12:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Damo, could you point to specific parts of what Delek said. I don't object to a thought that I might be saying something wrong, I just would like to know what it is that you think too that is wrong. It is easy to say "You'r wrong" but pointing to what is wrong very often shows that it might be not that wrong and often actually right. To tell which case it is here you just point to my opinions, I think about them and came to you with my reasons why I said them. Otherwise we don't move anywhere. JimJast (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

There is absolutely no merit at all in using my time to reply to you, Jim. Sorry. And I suppose you're right, anybody who hasn't read a guide for 'poets and science teachers' is simply incapable of grasping what science is about. ^EXTERMINATE 20:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The basic point is that you keep referring to your great theory on physics but it seems that you have not been able to get any professor to agree with you let alone a journal to publish it. The reality is that nobody cares that you think your theory is wonderful because you have failed to get anyone to support it. If you want us to care, submit your theory, get it peer reviewed and published in a notable scientific journal. Damo^Hi 23:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Damo, it doesn't work this way in real science. It might in fairy tales though. So I understand your point and I'm not disapointed. Just curious why you don't want to share your knowledge about my alleged blunders from wikipedia. It is just a few words and my curiosty would be satisfied. Or you made them up? JimJast (talk) 00:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what? Peer review and publication aren't how it works in "real science"? Pray tell, then, how does "real science" work? P-Foster (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

P-Foster, assuming that the University of Warsaw, Poland (a Central European country of ca. 40 million, member of European Union) with all its professors of physics and many more of other specialities, is engaged in "real science" then I can tell you how it works on my example of a PhD student, former winner of 2 science "olympics", one in physics and another in math, later an electronic engineer, graduated with MS degree in cybernetics (theory of automatic control), even later a sculptor and an astronomy student, trying presently to do his PhD project in "Einsteinian gravitation". It might be such a long story though that we better make it another essay and if you promiss that you won't delete it this time, as you did with my "Einsteinian gravitation for poets", I'll try to describe it under a header RW Essay:"Real science" for more people to learn how the real science works. Also for Damo whom I thank for finding my desription by someone from WP about existence of which I was not even aware. So, do you promiss not to delete it this time, and I may start the essay? JimJast (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't be an ass. I know what Poland is. " I'll try to describe it under a header RW Essay:"Real science". P{lease don't. P-Foster (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

:D OK JimJast (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to quote from the Wikipedia:Administrative noticeboard [5]. I couldn't put the problem any clearer myself

"JimJast (talk · contribs) is a long time editor, with an unusual fringe perspective on physics. Jim claims to be simply following the theories of Einstein, and considers that his ideas have failed to be published because of a collective psychological block in the whole modern physics community, and that modern cosmology is riddled with pseudoscience. Other physicists on Wikipedia believe that Jim's work is fatally flawed, and in complete conflict with relativity, Einstein, and all evidence.

Jim confidently asserts that no-one has ever found an error in his work; others might say that Jim has never recognized the errors in his work.

Jim is repeatedly disruptive of the physics pages, with attempts to insert his ideas; apparently thinking they need no other citation than his own claims to be applying Einstein, or relativity. The annoyance is low-level, but ongoing. Jim himself is mostly pretty genial, but completely beyond any attempts at reason, as far as I can see." Damo^Hi 01:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Damo, as you may see my attempt to tell you what the real science is failed miserably due to the combined actions of Listener and P-Foster (who might had thought that I was going to write about Poland though). Regadless of reasons, you were prevented from learning the true story obout contemporary cosmology and it was not due to my unwilingness to tell you but to the wilingness of our friends not let to publish the truth. Maybe you'll be able to learn the truth some other way. As always I recommend Feynman as a source of knowledge. He knows better the situation in cosmology since he attended their confereces and I didn't, I just know their actions from my own experience. And while you may doubt my credibility (as you justifiably do) you can't doubt his. JimJast (talk) 09:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyright

Have you read the section about copyright over at the essay forum or otherwise thought about this issue already? Regardless of how you try to popularize of your essays, I'm pretty sure you did not mean to cede the copyright to them. I don't think anyone at the RW foundation has an interest in claiming it, but you should keep in mind that the place where you want to hand your Ph.D. thesis in may demand that it's unpublished and the author is still in full possession of the relevant copyright. Since Essay:Gravitation demystified seems to be the main body of your planned thesis, I strongly suggest that you place a statement on top that says you explicitly do not cede the associated copyright to RW. Röstigraben (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You do not cede copyright to anyone by posting on RW. You retain the copyright, but you agree to license your work under CC-BY-SA-3.0 or any later version. Ponder Stibbons (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hm, OK. I don't know if he's fine with what that license does allow for, but then, he did put all of his material on a public website without mentioning copyright there either. Röstigraben (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The regulations of most universities insist that PhD students retain all intellectual property rights for their thesis and that they must include a statement that "The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent of the author". That's going to be a problem of you've already released it for general use under a creative commons licence. I suggest discussing this issue with your supervisor. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Weasel, I'll do this. JimJast (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

namespace

How about you put your essays in your namespace? I have a few duds in mine. You won't get so much crap that way--Brxbrx (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You mean something like your faith? I'll try it with real life science. JimJast (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It didn't last even 5 minutes when an only real scientist here objected to reveling our secrets to the lay people. That's life: what's good for a goose (expanding her knowledge) isn't always good for a gander (diminishing his abilities to screw'er). JimJast (talk) 08:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Helpful hint

Stop intruding in discussions of site policy with your stupid illiterate lame physics crap. Actually, stop intruding anywhere on the internet with it, none of it makes any sense. That is all. ħuman 08:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

To whom helpful? JimJast (talk) 10:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ma'm, I imagine you are beautiful, highly educated and literate, so why are you so angry? Just show me one example of my lame physics and we both are happy (you because you prove your point, and me, since I can't get such an example from anybody despite that I'm asking for it for so many years that I started thinking that it is all hot air; if it were real why nobody ever was able to point something and say: "look Jimmy, this isn't true"). JimJast (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your hopeful appreciation of my physical form. I'm not angry. The examples of your lame physics are what you have posted on this site, and intruded on discussions of site policy over. No one bothers to refute your so-called "physics" because it is too far from being useful, new, or enlightening to be worth any professional physicist's trouble. Now rub my beard. Gently. ħuman 04:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Late response to Damo

A few messages ago you sent me several advices, numbered <1>, <2>, <3>, about things that I should not do but stick to some imaginary subject instead. Since I don't know what subject you meant, please specify it now so we may see what are we arguing about.

Since you are accusing me of some improprer conduct please formulate your accusations precisly so I see clearly what I'm guilty of and can present my POV. JimJast (talk) 06:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it is perfectly clear what I said. The links are equally clear. Don't post stuff on talkpages that is totally irrelevant to the subject at hand. So if we are talking about the guidelines on deleting articles, don't talk about your pet theory on physiscs. In fact the only place you should talk about your theory on physics (or any other theory) is on the talkpage on that subject. Clear enough? We are getting sick and tired of you going on about your stupid theory. --Damo^Hi 05:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I think his theory is thin on one end, big in the middle, and thin again at the other end. And it is his theory, and his alone. ħuman 05:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I still don't know what theory you guys are talking about. I don't have any, which I said so many times that it becomes booooring. I'm a sculptor, remember. I know Einstein's theory of curvatures of spacetime according to which the Big Bang is a silly hypohtesis of idiots and Feynman confirmed it. Einstein didn't want to deal with idiots. Since I understand Einstein's theory I can explain those things but unfortunately a certen minimum of effort is required to understand them and some guys don't like to strain their brains. It is easier to believe than to understand.

The Big Bang. in which you believe, is not even a theory in scientific sense of the word. No physicists I know considers it a theory. It predicts nothing (check the definition of "theory"), while Einstein's theory predicts several things visible clearly in the sky. E.g. "accelerating expansion" which those idiots think is "dark energy". Possibly of divine origin. Just your kind of "theory". A high school kid is able to prdict them with elementary high school calculus, which I showed too. Too bad you din't learn calculus. Now it is you problem that because of this you believe in miracles and any idiot with a scientific title can convince you that they exist. You should pay more attention in yor math classes so now you wouldn't believe in supernatural. JimJast (talk) 06:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Just get the message. We don't care. If you bring it up again on a page that is not related to it, you will be deemed a troll and blocked for longer. Damo^Hi 07:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I understand it this is my personal page, isn't it?. So how come it is not related to it? JimJast (talk) 07:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Its not your personal page - that would be your user page. If you cannot see why your behaviour is aggravating then you need help. I am through discussing it with you, I have wasted enough time on you. Why don't you go somewhere else to spam your nonsense? Damo^Hi 08:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Damo, Your right. I need help. Luckily a lot of friendly folks, including you, provide it here. It wouldn't be needed if this wiki were designed by professionals, but I don't complain anyway. I even enjoy this charming little pussy showing up from time to time to remind me that I should be logged (completely unnecessarily since it could be done easily automagically). This was only a reminder that not only you waste time due to other people problems. Millions does. In which you also have your share. But cheer up. To compensate you for your loss I'm going to explain why you shouldn't believe everything what people tell you (Oh no, I imagine Damo sighing, not again, God, please). That's why they say that there are no atheists in trenches. But it is not true neither. There were many of them at the time of Spanish War of 1936 (the one described by Hemingway). Now I see the difference between a personal page, user page, and user talk page (thank's to you, wasn't it too tough, was it?). JimJast (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hint

Custom here is if someone asks you a question on your talk page, you answer on your own talk page. It's fine to leave a note about it on the asker's talk page, if you think they might have overlooked the response. But it makes the discussion easier to read if we keep it all on the one page. Hence I moved your response from my Talk page to here. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint. It just occured to me when we had the EDIT CONFLICT. Besides they are less probable when we type after wating for a while for the other guy's answer :) JimJast (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Big Bang

So, to summarise your viewpoint, you argue the Big Bang theory is based on a misunderstanding of Einstein, and hence is wrong. What other theory would you suggest instead? Steady state theory? --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Not misunderstanding of Einstein but of Einstein's theory (Einstein didn't understand it neither, which he said). I had to explain it and add to it about 5%. So now it is a theory with stationary universe (as his original one) whith slight modification replacing "Einstein's cosmological constant" (the "biggest blunder of his life" as he said with antisymmetric part of Ricci tensor. The latter takes care of Pioneer 'anomaly', illusion of expansion, and illusion of acceleration of expansion, exactly as it is observed. Original paper is here. Five times shorter paper is here. Einstein said that his theory will be properly evaluated in 1986 when he is long dead, but I did it a year earlier so he was off only by a year, though creationists don't know it till today Unless they read my "Gravitation demystified" essay in RW. JimJast (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to ad that it is the only known to me theory that does not violate any physics (it is the only known to me theory that works in the real world). E.g. The Big Bang hypothesis, and steady state theory both violate the principle of conservation of energy and so to work they require a world in which making energy out of nothing is possible as in "creationist science" where needed energy is supplied by divine intervention. The Big Bang can't work in absence of God and that's why it is so popular among religious folks and that's why it is beyond me why RW endorses it as science. They might not know though. JimJast (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, so Big Bang theory says universe is about 13 billion years old. How old is the universe according to your theory - older? younger? infinitely old? --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Response to your question about the age of universe

According to Einstein (and Jim, since they share the common theory) the time is relative and so this question has no physical sense. The best answer to this question is that "the universe was there always. For any observer. As long as they may observe it".

Now you know why asking about the age of universe has no sense in science (or physics, which is the same). Unless in creationst "science", invented long before the invention of the Big Bang. JimJast (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

But surely it makes sense to ask what is the global topology of spacetime? Is its volume finite or infinite?

I take it, from your answer, you believe it is infinite in volume. Do you think it is infinite in every direction?

In other words, is it both spatially and temporally infinite? (Accepting that from an Einsteinian viewpoint, 'spatial' and 'temporal' are somewhat arbitrary labels.) --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The answer to your next question is that it depends how we define volume which depends on the metric of your spacetime. It is not arbitrary since we consider (volume of spacetime) = (length of time) X (size of space) X (determinant of the metric tensor of spacetime). In my metric it is zero since my metric tensor is degenerate:

(1) $d\tau ^{2}=exp(-2r/R)dt^{2}+2sinh(2r/R)dtdr/c-exp(2r/R)dr^{2}/c^{2}$

where $\tau$ is proper time, $r$ is spatial radial coordinate, $R$ is radius of curvature of space, accidentally equal to "Einstein's radius", $t$ is temporal coordinate, $c$ is spead of light, which reduces nicely,

for $r<<R$, to Minkowskian:

(2) $d\tau ^{2}=dt^{2}-dr^{2}/c^{2}$

Degenerate means that any spacetime volumes come out as zero since determinant of metric tensor of spacetime is zero. I got a lot of name calling (mostly "idiot") from mathematicians at various scientific fora, but I can't help it since this is the only metric tensor I could come up with, and no mathematician ever wanted to help me with solving the problem of zero determinant, if it is a problem at all. So I finally decided it is no problem but the advantage of this tensor, and keep it this way.

Some RW users call me rather "troll" and delete my stuff a lot, without understanding any of it and asking no questions. Which is even worse than in other fora where they keep my stuff, just blocked my access to them for life, not wanting to consider seriously that Einstein might have been right about the stationary universe. Of which I'm sure since the competing hypotheses contradict conservation of energy which I consider more important then zero determinant. Zero determinant is no big deal mathematically while creation of something from nothing is a creationist tune impossible in the real world. And that's why I don't like the policy of RW that consideres the Big Bang the only possibility while it implies creation of something from nothing (which Einstein didn't like either) while there is available Einsteinian theory not contradicting science. But I don't blame them since creationists kept my stuff not published (already for 26+ years without even showing it to the astronomers for them to ask questions and use it where it undoubtly works fine). So RW users had no way of learning that Einstein might have been right. At least RW lets me publish my essay about it (after deleting it several times too though :) allowing by this access to scientific version and to examining it by people who understand astrophysics without accepting creationism.

So the conclusion is zero spacetime volume, but the universe is limited spatially since Einstein's space has definite radius (ca. 4 Gpc if Hubble "constant" is ca. 70km/s/Mpc) as I calculated from Einstein's theory and the Hubble "constant", only that its time seem to be infinite (as it is in cylindrical Einstein's universe, being unfortunately finite for each of us, and even for our civilization, and only hopefully infinite for the universe as a whole. JimJast (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

If you define volume in such a way that it turns out being zero... maybe you need to search for a different definition of volume? Part of mathematics is trying to match up our formal definitions with our intuitive understandings. Sometimes, when the formal definition produces a wildly non-intuitive answer - well, the answer isn't wrong, but maybe we need to search for another definition which agrees with our intuitions better?

If you believe in a temporally infinite, but spatially finite universe, then won't the history of the universe eventually repeat? e.g., from a classical viewpoint, due to Poincaré recurrence? Or in quantum terms - well, at every moment of time, the Bekenstein bound indicates the universe will have finite information, and hence only a finite number of possible states the whole universe could be in at any one time - therefore, only a finite number of years can pass before the universe returns to a state it has previously been in?

If the universe is an infinitely long cylinder, but its history repeats, isn't that equivalent to the universe being a finite torus instead? --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

If it were a finite torus it's history could repeat, but then the spacetime had to be curved (as torus is). Yet the spacetime of Einstein's model is flat, as a cylinder, so its history can't repeat itself (as progressive folks say: "siempre adelante!"). Therefore the problem is purely academic one, not related to more practical problems of our universe, like its global cylindlical geometry. JimJast (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You say "the spacetime of Einstein's model is flat, as a cylinder" - a cylinder isn't flat. It is flat along one axis and curved along the others. I assume by a "cylinder" you mean a 4-dimensional hypercylinder - which would be flat along one axis (temporal) and curved along the other three (spatial). --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

"Civilian's cylinder" is "rounded" but in math any cylinder (with any amount of dimensions) is flat sice it can be "straighened" by unrolling it to a flat surface without any distortion (of whatever is painted on it: all angles and distances on cylindrical surface stay the same) unlike in a torus for which such unrolling is impossible. The picture painted on its surface will be changed. That's the difference between cylinder and torus in math.

Another such "mathematicaly flat" surface is a cone. All other are curved, positively like a sphere or negatively like a saddle. E.g. the spacetime is flat but space alone is positively curved. It has important consequences since to 3D space (x,y,z) one may add the time coordinate (t) to make the spacetime flat. If it were not flat energy could be created from nothing since shifting an enery-momentum 4-vector from "now" to "future" along a curved line would change its direction and produce difference between "now" and "future" (more or less energy, or momentum), which would mean creation of something from nathing just by mathematical manipulation. That's why creationists insist that spacetime is curved to have possibility of magical creation of something from nothing.

That's why Einsteinian spacetime, which doesn't have magical properties has to be flat (and luckily it is, producing illusion of expansion discovered by Hubble about 1929 and explained only in 1985 by Einsteinian theory of gravitatio a.k.a. general relativity) and luckily amount of this expansion is consistent with observations of the amount of energy in the universe (which curves the space) making the so called Hubble constant equal c/R where c is speed of light and R is Einstein's radius of the universe (radius of curvature of space, which thanks to Einstein's theory can be established as about 16 billion light years). Funny thing about it though is that creationists through their lobby oppose those calculations (don't allow to print them in any scientific journals) and maintain that those calculations can't be done :). So now I'm teaching high school students through my essay in RW "Gravitation demystified" how to make those calculations and how gravitation works through Einstein's equation $E=mc^{2}$. JimJast (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, but lets consider the following argument:

1. Start with the universe as an infinitely long 4-d hypercyliner, i.e. infintely extended in both directions upon one temporal axis, but finite along 3 spatial axises
2. Now, based on considerations like Poincaire recurrence, or the Bekenstein bound, as discussed, we can conclude the universe must repeat its history after a finite amount of time
3. Next, cut the infinite cylinder down to a finite cylinder, with the recurrence time as its length
4. Bend the cylinder into a torus, gluing the ends together
5. Now, isn't this universe equivalent to our universe?
6. Yes, you may well be right, that the distances or angles have changed. (My maths is not good enough to say for sure if you are right or wrong, so let's just assume you are right.)
7. So, the equations which describe our infinite-cylinder universe will not work for this finite-torus universe.
8. But will there not exist equivalent equations, which apply to the finite-torus universe, albeit they may not be as elegant as the infinite cylinder one?
9. So, following the above, is there anything wrong with the finite-torus model? Yes, maybe Einstein's equations no longer hold, but then there will be other equations (some transformation of his equations) which hold instead. These other equations may not be as simple or elegant, but surely they exist.
10. And if Einstein's infinite cylinder equations are more elegant than the finite torus equations, it is open for one to claim: "The universe really is a finite torus not an infinite cylinder; but let us pretend its a repeating infinite cylinder because that makes the maths easier". Is there anything wrong with that claim?

What say you to the above?

Another way to say this - Einstein's equations will be invariant for some transformations of co-ordinates, but not others. But, faced with a co-ordinate transformation with respect to which Einstein's equations are not invariant, we can derive new (possibly more complicated) equations from Einstein's which apply post-transformation. Transforming from an infinite repeating cylinder to a finite torus could be such a transformation of co-ordinates. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

What are you guys talking about? Maratrean, I'm assuming you want to regard the universe as a Hamiltonian system and apply Poincare recurrence? Boundedness hypotheses aside, it doesn't tell you that it repeats -- it tells you that your trajectory will get arbitrarily close (in phase space, with the usual topology) to your original conditions, which is a rather different thing. After that, the trajectories can diverge again. So it doesn't make any sense to argue that the whole thing boils down to a torus. But even if it did, I'm not sure what Jim is talking about with his curvature babble. The torus admits a flat metric (and not just Ricci-flat -- the whole curvature tensor is 0). This is obvious since it's a discrete quotient of R^n. Of course the flat 2-torus doesn't embed (isometrically) in R^3, but what's that have to do with anything? --MarkGall (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

To elaborate on the torus bit though, you do make one neat observation. If you had a system that repeated periodically, it would make sense to think about it as having the "time" dimension only vary on a circle (gluing the ends together, as you suggest). Think about a simple example: take a pool table with a bunch of billiard balls bouncing around on it (no friction, blah blah blah). At any time t, you get some configuration P(t) of the table. You can think about the "spacetime" of this thing as being an infinite filled-in cylinder, where each circular slice corresponds to some fixed time. It could certainly happen that this system repeats (maybe it's just one ball bouncing back and forth), and in that case, there's nothing lost in thinking of the spacetime as bending around to a torus instead. The neat thing is that nothing will change in the laws of physics describing the billiards, at any given time the laws of motion look exactly the same, whether we're thinking of the time parameter being periodic or not.

The Einstein field equations have the same property: they're "local", and so changing the global geometry of spacetime isn't going to effect the equations governing the motion around some point. But there are a couple problems with doing this. It's not really clear what "periodic" would mean in a relativistic context, since the notion of time there isn't so simple -- one can't just think about the universe as an infinite cylinder, with one direction being time, as one could in a more classical setting. There's also the problem that Poincare recurrence doesn't actually let you claim the whole thing is exactly periodic, which would be required to make this argument.

Anyway, what I'm trying to get at is that it's perfectly sensible to roughly go from a cylinder to a torus, as you seem to understand already, and the angles aren't going to change, so the laws of physics won't either: abstractly, the new space you'll get is just a torus, and it still looks at each point exactly like the space you started with. Jim points out that you can't realize this torus inside three-dimensional space without stretching it a bit (i.e. a torus in R^3 necessarily has positive curvature somewhere), but that's irrelevant. There's no reason you would want the "spacetime" of your system to be sitting inside some other space in this way. --MarkGall (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

tl;dr version: 1: doesn't really make sense for relativity, because there's not a "temporal axis". But a nice enough idea in other setups. 2. Poincare doesn't say that, but one could imagine other systems where it holds. 3-5. Right. 6. Jim is wrong. 7-10. Don't matter anymore. --MarkGall (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Mark, I understand you are right about Poincare recurrence - it doesn't say the universe will return to exactly the same state, just an arbitrarily close state.

But, in a discretized universe, such as a quantum universe, you can't return to an arbitrarily close state - you get close enough, it becomes not just close enough, but the exact same thing.

Which was part of my reference to the Bekenstein bound - if there is some maximum volume finite V which the universe never exceeds, and some maximum finite energy E such that the universe never contains more than this, then the Bekenstein bound says there is some maximum information I which the universe can ever contain - since information is the logarithm of the number of states, there are only a finite number of states the universe can ever be in. Then, over infinite time, eventually the universe must return to the same state - which I see as imply that, if the universe contains bounded spatial volume and energy, and is discretized (e.g. quantum), then it can't really be temporally infinite after all.

As to the whole torus-cylinder argument, I agree with you - I thought JimJast's position was wrong, but since I don't know maths enough to prove him wrong, I thought I could get away with just accepting his point of view for the sake of the argument - I don't think it would really make a difference to my argument were he right.

As to your viewpoint that a "temporal axis" doesn't really make sense for relativity - well, you are right that there is no one unique temporal axis, but surely there are a set of reasonably time-like axises, and we could pick any one arbitrarily, and then divide the universe into temporal slices perpendicular to it, and then apply my argument to it?

In summary, my argument is: If the universe is discrete(e.g. quantum), spatially finite in any such temporal slice, and has finite maximum energy level in any such temporal slice, then it is equivalent to a universe with finite duration circular time. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, you probably could take a random slice that looked like time. But it wouldn't be a very natural thing, and I doubt anything close to Poincare recurrence would hold on it, because the flow of the system in your random time direction isn't going to preserve volume. I'm nothing resembling a physicist, so I can't give you an informed opinion about the Bekenstein bound stuff. I tend to be skeptical of various theories of "discrete physics" basically for the reasons outlined by Lubos Motl [here http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/11/discrete-physics.html] (summary: "I am among those who are convinced that every single proposal based on the idea that 'the fundamental entities must be discrete' has so far transparently been a crackpot fantasy. What's wrong with all of them?") But even if you do believe this, the torus trick isn't really anything profound. It doesn't tell you anything new about physics or anything else, it's just a slightly different way to write down exactly the same equations. It's the same thing as considering sin(x) as a periodic function of all real numbers, vs something defined for angles between 0 and 2pi -- absolutely no difference. --MarkGall (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It is profound for me, because I believe in circular time (for philosophical/religious reasons), as in Nietzsche's theory of eternal recurrence, and am interested in ways that physics might demonstrate the same.

In terms of what I think of Motl's blog, I do think the universe is likely discrete, in the sense that time and space itself is quantized - since the other three fundamental forces are quantized, we'd expect gravity to be too. But we don't know for sure if gravity is quantum, nor which theory of the various theories of quantum gravity is right. But, he seems to be more talking about discrete vs continuous mathematics, and I don't really have an opinion on that. The universe may well be discrete, yet it may well be that continuous formalisms (with some layer of discretization applied on top) work better in practice than purely discrete formulations.

Interestingly, apparently GR can be derived from the Bekenstein bound + the laws of thermodynamics, and GR + thermodynamics implies some form of the bound. Although, personally I think thermodynamics is not a fundamental law of nature - being part of statistical mechanics, it is an average law about the movement of random particles, but given a long enough time-frame the particles will come to not obey it on equations - Poincaire recurrence is one way this could happen, another is simply the principle of in an infinite random universe, anything possible eventually will (whether that randomness be classical or quantum). --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Since it looks like a serious discussion let's make it a new section

--(((Zack Martin)))^™: The problems with your reasoning, are that you assume things that aren't possible in a universe in which energy and momentum are conserved (one with flat spacetime) which according to observations is most likely our universe. So no, your universe isn't equivalent to ours. In particular:

1. The universe is not infinite along spatial axises that are curved into 3-sphere of radius R that can be determined from the Hubble redshift (according to Einsteinian theory).
2. R is ca. 16 Gly (easily calculable number that is difficult to reject since it comes from Newton's theory, supported by Einsteinian reasoning, both rather well tested by astronomers.
3. A cylinder along t axis can't be bent into torus and go backwards against "flow of the time" as tested by mathematicians.
4. Even if "infinite" phase space were repeating itself for some reason we would have never known it, which makes it irrelavant as would physicists and philosophers say. Religious Maratreans might support you but they have to be very patient and even if they see the same picture around them again how they may be sure it is exactly the same?

MarkGall: Why do you think that there is no time axis? JimJast (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Basically, I think to make sense of Maratrean's idea you probably would want some notion of "absolute time". But absolute time turns out to not be a very good notion. Maybe there is some way to at least make this repeating universe idea meaningful, but I don't know what it is. Even if there is, I think you're right that only religious Maratreans would believe in it. --MarkGall (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

As to your points, #1 and #2 are aspects of JimJastian theory that I don't understand. I have no idea what #3 is supposed to mean. Certainly you could do something like this for a periodic system with a time-independent Hamiltonian, because time derivatives still make sense. Probably not useful in physics, as I guess you mean. #4 I agree. --MarkGall (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

JimJastian theory is Einsteinian theory given up by Einstein for unknown reason (probably not to argue with creationists who believe that creation of energy is possible). I showed that Einsteinian lack of creation of energy is actually a good thing and that it leads to interesting results like flat spacetime which the "Gang of three" (as I call for short authors of 1973 doorstop size book "Gravitation" which proposes an idea of curved spacetime, and expanding symmetric metric tensor of spacetime). Luckily both mathematically impossible for various reasons. If you want to know the reasons I tried to write about them in my essay "Gravitation demystified" in the essay space, and so we could move this discussion to its talk page to keep all relevant stuff in one area. JimJast (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Meiandering

People who disagree with you are still creationists, eh? Mei III (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

No, since they believe in creation of energy from nothing. How would you call them? I can adopt your terminology. JimJast (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, creationism is a specific belief system referring the the beginning of the universe as the act of a sentient being. I don't think there's a word for believing energy is created. Mei III (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It's unclear to me what difference you see between the two? JimJast (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Creationism describes creation as a supernatural event. God did it and there's no point analyzing it. Energy being created is not like that. It's natural - it just seems supernatural because we don't know enough about nature. Mei III (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You think that creation of energy is natural? Where have you seen such an event? It would be a news to physicists. That's why they say that that perpetual motion machine is impossible and stopped giving patents for it still in 19th century. The whole science doesn't know about a single instant in which energy has been created without some equal amount of other energy (except in "creationist cosmology"). JimJast (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I meant the theory describes the creation of energy as natural. You asked what the difference between two theories was, and that was the answer. Mei III (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

But it was not a scientific "theory". Since science doesn't recognize creation of energy, unless in theories taught by religious teachers for whom "creation of energy" is a natural phenomenon. That's the difference between creationsm and science and why "expansion of universe" is "creationst science". Feynman's rant item (4) is about it. JimJast (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's put that part to the side just for now. Do you understand that creationism explicitly posits that the universe is partly supernatural, while "creating-energy-ism" explicitly doesn't? Mei III (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I may inderstand that but by telling people that creation of energy might be a natural phenomenon is only making them not seeing the erosion of scientific POV and admitting that the Big Bang is a atheist plot, while it is a legitimate Einsteinian science explaining the reason for the universe. JimJast (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You've got this science thing all wrong, you know. If we observe something happening, it isn't against 'scientific POV'. Observing the universe and accounting for it is more important than having rigid preconceptions about what's possible or impossible. Mei III (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This I know. Only an explanation of what we observe is against scientific POV if there is explanation not calling for miracles, as there is in "creation of the universe from nothing". Our standard hypothesis is that it was "created" (presumably through divine intervention) since we think it is expanding, while scientific POV is that it was not created. It was there always. And so we have to explain only how it is possible that it was always there. How its alleged expansion is an illusion. Einstein's theory does it. So one more prejudice goes down the drain. JimJast (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow what you're saying. Would you consider rephrasing yourself? It would be very kind. Thank you. Mei III (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Mei III, In times of Einstein people saw the universe expanding, since it was a standard interpretation of what they saw in the universe. Einstein didn't know about those observations and solved equation for the universe assuming that it was stationary (not changing its size). It turned out that to achieve that he had to add one constant called later "cosmological constant". When he lerned that observations indicate that the universe might have been expanding he called his "cosmological constant" "the biggest blunder of his life" and stopped working on the universe. One John Archibald Wheeler maintain that yes, Einstein was wrong, and the "cosmological constant" should be zero. It gave a different solution for the expansion of the universe in which it should expand but slower and slower and then should start shrinking. Steven Hawking proposed observations checking whether it is a true theory. In 1998 it turned out that is was a false theory: the universe looked as if it was going to expand faster and faster. Now comes a nobody and explains all those observations by calculating using them, and Einstein's theory, to show what really happens. It turna out that Einstein's theory is able to explain all those events, and that Einstein was right the first time around. That observations of expansion were an illusion. And everything may be calculated from Einstein's theory using just one neglected part of it: the relativity of time. The little nobody calculates how the expansion should look according ro Einstein's theory, and it comes out that expanding faster and faster, just as it was observed in 1998 with high accuracy. The Wheeler's theory of Big Bnag turns out to be shit. Now everything can be calculated at the high school level of knowledge of math (as it was done by this nobody). The universe turns out to be eternal, as Carl Sagan assumed (if you know the guy). And sometime before that, Einstein speaking to a journalist told him: "how to make a discovery? Simple, when all the wise men decide that somethng can't be calculated comes an ignorant who does not know that, and calculates it". It was just as Einstein said. But Einstein was already dead and Wheeler still alive and mighty angry that he missed such simple solution in his 2.5 kg monograph "Gravitation". JimJast (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

...This is going to take me a while to make sense of. Mei III (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Take your time. JimJast (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

To make the above story even funnier, both Wheeler and Einstein knew what has to be calculated but Einstein thought that Wheeler already did it since it was a simple calculation telling how much redshift there is in "Einstein's (non expanding) universe". Had sombody did it there wouldn't be any Big Bang hypothesis since it would be known how much redshift there is just from existence of masses in the universe. There is an effect in astronomy known as "dynamical friction" (something opposite "slingshot effect") and had this (relativistic) "friction" of photons were calculated it would be known that it is somethnig that already exists there in stationary universe in the amount that was observed by astronomers, and then there wouldn't be any talk about the expansion of universe. Even Newton could calculate it had he known about the nature of photons and Einsteinian physics. So the first time it was calculated by an ignorant who did't know that nobody before him tried to do it, and was mighty surprised when he learned. But then nobody wanted to publish it since the universe was already declared by believers to be created from nothng in a Big Bang event and physics PhD students started to be taught this great news with Wheeler's "Gravitation". The same one adonrned with an angel blowing a horn to the glory of Creator on page 1218. Now those PhD students are astronomers and professors of physics themselves and keep spreading the news even farther, as I can see from this wiki. While I hoped to meet real atheists here who happen already to know that the Big Bang is just lame church propaganda. You may also want to read my essay "Gravitation demystified" that treats about these matters.JimJast (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

it seems big bang theory allows for a zero-sum universe from something sometimes referred to as nothing but actually being a very specific case of something. Hamster (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I give up. Not only did I fail to convince you that the big bang isn't a conspiracy perpetrated by actual religious creationists, I couldn't even keep you on the same subject for two comments in a row. Sorry, but I'm bowing out now. Mei III (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Cargo cult science (BB = CC)

Mei III, don't bail out too early, just convince me that you are rational and that you don't support cargo cult science.

I happen to be a physicist who believes in conservation of 4-momentum tensor (as Feynman did) and the Big Bangers don't. They believe in creation (of energy from nothing) that they use to support their Big Bang hypothesis (which makes a nice cyclical reasoning). As Feynman said: "(4) claim based on the stupidity of the author that some obvious and correct fact, accepted and checked for years, is, in fact, false (these are the worst: no argument will convince the idiot)". JimJast (talk) 10:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Hamster, "it seems big bang theory allows for a zero-sum universe..."

1. First of all the BB is not a theory but just a hypothesis. Look up the diffs.
2. Cleraing up this point, one is allowed to hypothesize about everything, even about the creation of energy from nothing, or divine intervention. Problems start when it comes to proving one's hypothesis. And the BB hypohtesis didn't even prove the expansion as it was falsified in 1985. Though kept as a secret for an assumption that public is not interested in such matters and printing them uses space in scientific journals which might have a more important applications (as was given me as a reason for not printing this 1985 falsification of the BB event by editors). Besides the editors believed that the universe is expanding (which they said too on other occasions). So it was just a faith, not science (look up the difference). JimJast (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought you were a sculpter ? now you claim to be a physicist working on a Phd with a topic you say can't be published in conventional science journals ? good luck with that. What do you have now as qualifications , BSc, Masters ? 67.72.98.45 (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm primarily a sculptor but I have also BS in Mechanical Endineering and Masters in Electronics, which allows me to do my PhD as a physicist, so for all the practical purposes of this discussion I'm a physicist. If we start talking about art I'll back a sculptor (but before that please read my article on art so you know my opinion on art. If you prefer to talk about internal combustion engines, I can do it too, but only on BSc level. I worked in physics for over 26 years since I proved that the universe is not expanding and only a few years ago I decided to do my PhD to be able to publish those things easier. JimJast (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Quantum gravity

JimJast, you seem very attached to Einstein's theories, yet there is a consensus that GR and SR, while they were great advances, are still woefully incomplete as physical theories. In particular, there is the particular difficulty of connecting GR and quantum theory into a single consistent picture; there is likewise the problem of connecting gravitation to the other three fundamental forces (electromagnetism and the nuclear forces). Einstein himself saw these problems, and worked valiantly to try to resolve them, but a breakthrough eluded him. Since GR is likely waiting to be replaced by a theory of quantum gravity, or a TOE, why should we pay too much attention to what the implications of GR are? Shouldn't we wait until we develop a more definitive theory of gravitation before drawing any conclusions? For while GR contains a significant degree of truth, it almost certainly contains some inaccuracies which a theory of quantum gravity or TOE will cure, so shouldn't we wait for such a theory? Because, whatever the inaccuracies which GR contains are, they may well be fatal to any cosmology we seek to derive from it. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Maratrean, that's just not true. The Einstein's gravitation is already a quantum theory (which is shown in my essay) just Einstiein didn't know about it since he was not looking at right palces. He said that "when mathematicians started to explain to him his theory he stpped to understand it". Which is one reason. The other is that gravitational force is not one of "the other three fundamental forces (electromagnetism and the nuclear forces)" which Einstein knew and that's why he was looking in wrong places if he did. Knowing that it is not one of the 3 others fundamental forces he might not even bother. For him all the gravitation was already explained except for smal details that he hoped the mathematicians take care of. At least its quantum character is the same as the electromagnetism since it is controlled by behavior of photons (though not only: you see, I'm just writing my PhD work on it, and I just came here to tell you guys what I found already since it can't be published in a regular scientific journal for the reasons I explained too: a powerful loby with tons of money all from creationists (The Templeton Foundation), giving an astronomer, mathematician, physicist, and Catholic priest, Michał Heller (also a nice guy whom I know personally) $1.6 million for his birthday, but you don't believe in this, since I can't even talk proper English. But if I'm right about the "powerful lobby" I won't last too long and if you don't ask me for what I know already and why, it will be lost to science, which allegedly you care so much about). JimJast (talk) 12:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem is that, while GR describes gravity acting on matter, and other theories (Maxwell's equations, QM, QFTs) describe the strong nuclear and electroweak forces, no one has found the right way to unify these different theories into a single set of equations. But assumably, if someone does so, there is a fair chance that will produce some change in the theory of gravitation compared to GR, although it may well be not a lot of change under normal circumstances. My understanding is that Einstein was interested in attempts to unify gravity and electromagnetism similar in approach to Kaluza-Klein theory. What do you think of KK? Of the contemporary proposed TOEs, superstring theory or M-theory seems to be the most like KK from what I know. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 21:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Einstein knew that the general realtivity is a right theoy of gravitation since it didn't contradict any observations in any test. So he had no reason to do anything else. And of course he knew that space is only 3 dimansional so he didn't need to treat multidimensional theories seriously. The time was a natural 4th dimention and 4 dimensional spacetime made a neat 4 dimensional theory. There was no need for more dimensions if everything could be explained with 4 only (the Occam razor). So Einstein expolred only the possibility of unification od electromagnetism with gravitation but he overlooked that his "gravitational force" depends on mass via his own equation $E=mc^{2}$ and that this energy $E$ is the same energy that lives happily in another equation for "gravitational force", namely $F=-dE/dx$, where $dx$ is the displacement. Being preoccupied with geometry and tensors he overlooked this small relation between energy and force which turned out to be the same gravitational force causing the conservation of energy in gravitation. The simple mechanism is that curvatures of spacetime causes tiny change of energy $dE=c^{2}dm+2cdc$ (high school calculus) and so "gravitational force" shows up in direction of slowing down time as $F=-dE/dx$. So when a body loses a photon, the gravitational force gets diminished by a quantum of enegy contained in that photon. It can't be any smaller than the energy of a particle that it exchange with something else. It is the quanum gravitation that Einstein missed. JimJast (talk) 23:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

So, can you show me then how to combine GR with Maxwell's electromagnetism (or with quantum electrodynamics)? I mean, can you provide a single set of equations, which describe both the effects of gravitation and electromagnetism on the same particles? --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

No, and the reason is that I worked mostly on reasons for gravitational phenomena discovering them for myself, not understanding them before. I just noticed by accident that Einstein missed their quantum nature which is seen in his theory through his $E=mc^{2}$, which he missed too. I don't have a full theory yet (which might be even something like $E=mc^{2}$ + curvatures of Ricci tensor). I can point to several quantum features of some possibly future theory that might (though not necessarily) include not only curvatures of spacetime (simple stuff) but also Maxwell's stuff that in QED's form might be even simpler. It is just the beginning which should be worked on rather by young physicists than old sculptors, who only discovered that the universe is not expanding (not much but seems to be enough for one life). JimJast (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a waste of time

Why everyone trying to argue with this cretin? he's convinced he's right, and everyone who disagrees is a kool-aid guzzling creationist who is concealing TEH TRUE. Just delete his shit until he fucks pff to annoy some other website. 81.158.167.106 (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Now now, anon IP, I think a sign of rationality is to be willing to argue with anyone, not matter how crazy their ideas may seem. To refuse to debate with someone because their ideas seem crazy, is to put certain ideas beyond debate, and that is ultimately not rational. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

True, but arguing with someone who is beyond reason is paramount to arguing with a brick wall. And that is far from rational. Quaru^{cephalopod - You can't explain that!} 22:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree JimJast is beyond reason. Maybe he is beyond your endurance or available time, which is fair enough. But we can't conclude from that, that he is beyond reason. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Quaru^{cephalopod - You can't explain that!} How long have you been doing physics? Are you a specialist in GR? I'm looking for a GR spesialist since I'm doing my PhD in it. Do you know GR well enough to help me with some of my questions or can you at least recommend someone whom you trust as a GR specialist?

BTW Quaru^{cephalopod - You can't explain that!} I might be able to explain any part of Volvo (I studied "Internal Combustion Engines" for 4 years and I have BS in it) if you are able to pose a good question about it. I have also a friend who worked for Volvo, so go ahead and spit what you don't understand about it (no one who understands zebras or cats though, but you should consult a vet about this).

I assume we have an ID specialist among us. JimJast (talk) 07:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

See what I mean? same old shite, i don't think he even knows what this thread is about, he just plugs away looking for the one other person in existence who might agree with him. 81.158.167.106 (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

See what I mean? The specialist doesn't even know how to spell "shit". Not even mention signing his shit. JimJast (talk) 09:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Quaru^{cephalopod - You can't explain that!}! For a while I thought the same as you (that it is a waste of time) but reading my stuff I suddenlly discovered a subtle approximation that might have some influence on the result, that I should fix before going on with even more accurate calculations. So it was not a waste. Thanks for initiating the discussion. It improved my understanding of gravitation. JimJast (talk) 10:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

If by "improved my understanding of gravitation" you mean "you're drawn to this site and nothing will drive you away" you're spot on. What you didn't explain was how it benefits us to have you wanking all over the place with your crap. 81.158.167.106 (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Quaru^{cephalopod - You can't explain that!}, No. I'm here only since there are people who want to learn how gravitation works and ask. Since I know I want to share that knowledge with them. Long time ago I didn't know how it works, the same as even many physicists since they conclude that Einsteinian gravitation is too difficult to learn. Typical physics professor (e.g. Roy Glauber, Nobe Prize in physics) said that feels that he would need 15 years to learn Einstein's gravitation. I can explain Einsteinain mechanism of "attraction" in 15 minuts, which I test on physics professors in my university. Many don't want to believe it is so simple and say "if it were so simple I knew it by now". Only one of them said so far, he knew it all the time. If you don't want to learn it since it is against your religious convictions (knwledge reserved to God only) I'm not going to force you to come here and read why it is that you don't fly away from this Earh and it is not only that you don't have a shuttle ticket, there are deeper reasons that are derived from $E=mc^{2}$. You have to know physics ona at least at a high school level though. JimJast (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

the last explanation of gravity I heard was the old "the universe is a rubber sheet" and objects bend the sheet and make a indentation in it. Anything travelling in the universe must stay on the rubber sheet and so on. Since rubber sheets used to be easy to get it was simple to make a project with a sheet of plywood, some 2 x 4's and a rubber sheet and some flathead nails. You also needed a bowling ball, basketball , tennis ball and any other stuff you wanted to use. I was never fully convinced becuase it took gravity to deform the sheet, and wasn't that what it was explaining ? anyway, gravity can be demonstrated easily, but not easy to explain why it works. Hamster (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hamster It was not an "explanation" of anything, just a lame model that looked like "explaining" something. Such "models" are called "false analogy". It was false because it used gravitation to "explain" gravitation. Pretending it is "explayning". You should ask the author of model model how it is "explaining" things if you still don't understand them?

And not let the author of the model off the hook intil he explains what you don't understand. Einstein said that someone does not understand sumething unless he is able to explain it to one's grandma. Physics is that easy. I'll try to explain you where the gravitational force is coming from and let us see if you understand it. But ask me about everything that you don't understand. And if you still don't, ask again. It may take some time, but if you start understanding Einsteinian way of explaining gravitation, you may spread it on and then more people start anderstanding it. I'll start a new section titled "Gravitation lesson 1" and I tell the beginning, and you ask me questions. If you want to see my other articles about gravitation the best one to start with is the one rejectd from RW Einsteinian gravitation for poets, just start reading this article and sking questions since there is everything that has to be known to undestand Einsteinian gravitation. In the meantime I go on with my "Gravitation lesson 1". JimJast (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Gravitation lesson 1

The basic things in learning gravitation is Einstein's equation $E=mc^{2}$ which says that energy is mass multiplied by speed of light squared. The key to this equation is that contrary to many people ideas the speed of light for any observer is not the same everywhere but in the vicinity of a big mass (how big?) it is smaller than farther from this mass.

Why is it so? Because the time runs slower in vicinity of this mass and if time runs slower everything runs slower, also the light. So from this fact alone, in vicinity of mass, energy of any particle is smaller by $dE=2cmdc$ where $dE$ is by how much this energy is smaller and it is twice since there is a square of c (minor detail not important now). Nobody knows why the time runs slower in the vicinity of a mass but it is an experimental fact that was measured with precise enough clocks. So it is beyond a discussion (as facts usually are, unless they are not facts but illusions). This slowing down of time close to big masses is called in physics the "gravitational time dilation" and is one of Einstein's predictions that were tested and turned out to be true. JimJast (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

What's "dc" supposed to mean here? Isn't c just some parameter (ie a constant)? For example it shows up in the EFE. --Benod (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Very good question but the answer requires more explanations so I move it to section "Gravitation lesson 3". JimJast (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Gravitation lesson 2

The most important key fact here to remember is that in the vicinity of a mass "time slows down" and so energies of everything are smaller. Now comes into the play anothe feature of matter: that every object is pushed in direction of smallerst energy around, so if energy happens to be smaller in direction of some mass M, a force shows up in direction of this mass M equal $F_{g}=-dE/dx$ where $dE$ is the same as before and $dx$ is the distance along which this energy changes by $dE$. Minus sign comes from the fact that $dE$ is negative since it is "diminishing energy" and $F_{g}$ is positive thus change of sign between $dE$ and $F_{g}$. Our force $F_{g}$ is called the "gravitational force". That's why many physics professors when are shown the above don't want to believe it and say "if it were so simple I'd know this". But they couldn't know because before Einstein nobody knew that it is so simple so they couldn't be taught it in their high schools.

The Newtonian physics was taught then with $F_{g}=GMm/r^{2}$. Only Einstein discovered "gravitational time dilation" and explained the "gravitational force" in such a simple way: as diminishing energy in vicinity of a mass. To be continued. JimJast (talk) 06:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

So, now you're spamming your shit onto your talk page like on WP? -- Nx / talk 06:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, please learn to use the show preview button. -- Nx / Nx 06:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it interesting why some people don't want to learn how Einstein explained the gravitational force (nor want others to learn calling it "shit")? JimJast (talk) 07:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hamster, I hope you don't mind my teaching you Einsteinian gravitation, do you? If you don't then I just jump over the "shit" left there by our dear retired friend Nx and continue with lesson 3. JimJast (talk) 11:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

While Hamster is deciding whether s/he wants to learn Einsteinian gravitation we might consider in the meantime "what Nx sees dangerous for him in folks learning the Einsteinian gravitation?". It might be the same thing that creationists see dangerous in it. After folks learn how gravitation works they might stop believing in creation. And then, even in the Big Bang hypothesis itself. They may start believing, as Carl Sagan, and possibly Newton before him did, in the idea that there was no creation and the universe was always there. Could we imagine such a disaster? Eternal universe agreeing with the Einsteinian gravitation, proven with simple Newtonian math? Maybe that's also why creationist don't want high schools teaching the Einsteinian gravitation?. JimJast (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If I understood you (which seems unlikely) then gravity is a force caused by matter moving from a high energy state to a lower energy state. (yes ?) why then is the force weaker as you get farther away from the mass , shouldn't it get greater ? Hamster (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes Hamster, the force moves the matter from higher energy to lower. The force gets weaker with distnace since it depends on the shape of slowing of time (on the "gravitational time dilation"). This is the same as in the Newtonian math and where time dilation bahaves as the so called Newtonian gravitational potential (ratio of "gravitational energy" to mass that feels this force: $Q(r)=E/m=F_{g}r/m=GM/r$ (Newtonian math is Einsteinian math without the curvature of space, about which later). So the father our m is from M the weaker the force pushes our m in direction of M. Is it now clearer? JimJast (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Gravitation lesson 3

Benod, speed of light in relation to observer is a costant only for a center of a particle. Let's call this constant, nomally denoted by $c$ e.g. $c_{o}$ to see where we may use invariant $c_{o}$. Outside of the center it is a function of displacement in relation to the center and therefore it depends on the curvatures of spacetime around the particle. In general those curvatures are such that the "gravitational speed of light" drops by tiny amount in direction of mass $M$ (called here the sorce of "gravitational field"). This $dc$ is just the drop of speed of light along the displacement $dx$ in relation to the center of particle. It comes from $dE/dx=(d/dx)(mc^{2})=(c_{o}^{2}dm/dx+2c_{o}mdc/dx)$, which may be replaced by $dE/c_{o}^{2}=2mdc/c_{o}$ since $dm=0$. Is everything clear so far? Because if it is we may proceede to determining the value of this $dc/c_{o}$ to show that it is producing exatly the "gravitational force" with the help of not only gravitational time dilation which common Newtonian math does, but also with indispensable curvature of space that supplies the missing part of gravitation, distinguishing between Newton's and Einstein's theories. JimJast (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Main space

JJ, you've been warned multiple times before about promoting your theory in mainspace. If you persist, you will be declared a vandal. We've been generous enough in letting you spew shit in Essay space, don't abuse that good will by running into mainspace. This is your final warning. Thunderkatz^Ho! 18:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You must be new here if you still don't know that I don't have any theory of mine and I'm just explaining Einstein's theory since most folks don't know how Einstien explains gravitation while there is no force of "gravitational attraction" that Einstein got rid of. You may know but they don't and if you don't explain them, someone should. I just like to explain Einstein's stuff since I like it. JimJast (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy"

Hi, Jim. There's a blog you may like, "Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy".--ZooGuard (talk) 07:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

ZooGuard, thanks. I has't found there anything about dealing with creationism in astronomy though. Creationism is supposed to be about the Big Bang (creation of the universe from nothing) which according to the math (flat spacetime and non symmetric metric tensor according to Einstein's 1950 paper) and physics (conservation of 4-stress-energy tensor according to Feynman) and the common sense was never created (according to Carl Sagan's confession on TV): was there always) isn't it? JimJast (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite

Thanks for your invite re: Discussion of the big bang theory. I know you have raised the heckles of some of the RW crowd (I believe there was an argument about essays or some such) but I have never been interested enough to participate in such discussions or have any cause to speak to you personally. Exactly what are you doing a PhD in because "A PhD in The Big Bang theory" doesn't sound very academic. By the way I am no expert, merely a well learned and well read amateur. Ace ^{of Spades} 22:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Ace, It does not need to sound academic to be true. If you want to know the story of Big Bang, in my opinion, it is the best to start with reading Feynman's opinion of gravity physicists and assume it is true. It is true according to my experience. Next you might want to read a few starting sections of my "Gravitation demystified", Abstract, Preamble, and Introduction. until you understand how it works in real world. Then you might ask me about what you still don't understand (which might be very little then). I hope you follow my advice, and then I may explain you the rest about the Big Bang, which might be completely different than you imagine. JimJast (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Feynman died in 1988 so his opinion of current Big Bang hypothesis should be taken with a grain of salt. Secondly, are you able to please sum up what you think is wrong with the Big Bang theory/what you think the happened. Ace ^{of Spades} 21:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

If it were only Feynman who were against creation of energy from nothing, and we were civilians (lay people) we could think that Feynman actually didn't know better. But we, even as civilians know that physicists in general didn't allow creation of energy from nothing so Feynman was representing the majority of (old) physicists, as much as presently the majority of cosmologists, astronomers, astrophysicists, and gravity physicists, think that energy can be created. It happens just because of the big bang bypothesis (more precisly, its expanding universe part) that necessarily requires the creation of energy from nothing.

In 1985 it turned out that the universe is not expanding. That it is an illusion caused by Einsteinian coupling between time and space (more exaxtly curvature of space, that causes time dilation that "neutralizes" the expansion and its redshift that was supposed to be caused by the expansion of the universe. The equation binding one with the other (time with space) turned out to be $d\tau /dt=exp(-r/R)$, where $\tau$ is so called "proper time of distant galaxy" (time measured by our clocks when placed at distant galaxy), t is our time, (our proper time measured here from the Earth), r is the distance from the Earth to the distant galaxy, R is the radius of curvature of space (called Einstein's radius, ca. 13 billion light years). The above forbids the creation of energy from nothing and produces several predictions all of which may be observed in the sky, while the big bang hypothesis doesn't predict anything yet with any degree of certeinty.

Things predicted by the lack of cretion of enery from nothing include prediction that the space should be not only seen as expanding with such value of expansion but also expanding with acceleration of the value which is just observed in the universe. Why it would be just this amount of acceleration of expansion if this 1985 discovery were wrong?

Another thing is acceleration od cosmic probes Pioneer 10 1nd 11 ("Pioneer efect") not explained either, equal ebout $7\times 10^{-10}m/s^{2}$). Why would it be not explained yet if astrophysicists are looking for their explanation for so many years? Wouldn't it be that they are looking in wrong places insted looking into Einstein's solution with Hubble time dilation (HTD) and equal to it curvature of space? There are other issues but the most important right now seems to be why no scientific journal till today didn't published the description of the mentioned 1985 discovery of the Hubble time dilation and its dependence on the curvature of space which takes only fraction of a pages of any scientific journal? JimJast (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait, a you saying the universe isn't expanding? Ace ^{of Spades} 21:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, it is not expanding. But there are so many people involved in this business that probably editors of scientific journals have no heart to tell those old professors that they goofed. What Feynman told them already might be enough. There was his professor between them too. Who already died, but 10 years before Feynman.

So while the old professor of his still lived feynman was was gentle and didn't use names. Hoping that it will be corrected one day. The day came in February 1985 when being not aware of Feynman's problems with his old professor I proved that the universe is not expanding. Many professors (especially mathematicians) didn't agree saying that only if energy can't be created then the universe is not expanding. To which I said "precisly!" :) Then they said "but we believe that energy can be created since we believe in creation of energy from nothing". And it was the end of discussion with creationists.

Since they never alowed this news be printed in any scientific journal I'm trying to make PhD paper out of this so far with no luck since my professor believes in creation because it is "so beautifull that it must be true" (truth is beautifull, isnt it?). So I started to look for different kind of believers (in brains that don't need fo be create rather than souls that have to) and that's why I ended here. JimJast (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

But the universe is expanding. Ace ^{of Spades} 21:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

There is such a hypothsis relatively easy to falsify with observations. Observations are very tough customer and they say NO! even if najority say YES! as loud as they can. One can't win with nature via voting. Nature has an awfully undemocratic nature. JimJast (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

So you are suggesting Hubble was incorrect, the universe isn't expanding (despite the observation of greatly red-shifted galaxies and the latest data from WMAP/Chandra telescopes) and the universe isn't geometrically flat? Ace ^{of Spades} 22:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Hubble was right but the universe is not expending since Einstein's relativity creates an illusion (one may call "optical") that there is redshift in the universe depending on distance betweei observer and observed object such that this redshift is equal to $exp(r/R)-1$ where $r$ is distance to the point in deep space and $R$ is "Einstein's radius" (ca. 13,000,000,000 ly).

Universe (or rather spacetime) is flat as a table (though much bigger). Something that Arp and Narlikar already noticed before me. But since Narlikar is one of the gratest mathematicians in India he is published, but "flat universe" makes creation of energy impossible (since big bang needs nonzero spacetime curvature) and so Narlikar doesn't have much more luck with cosmologists than me. His physics though is poor which I can't tell the same thing about mine (which I borrowed from Einstein and add to it a little bit. JimJast (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

As I said I am only an amateur (though well read) so this discussion is probably outside my ability. Ace ^{of Spades} 22:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Energy created from nothing? When?

When do you your critics posit this "creation of energy" happened? T_universe = 1 plank time? Or before that? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 22:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}}, They don't spacify that. They only maintain that they believe that the universe is expanding and if I maintain that I proved that it is not expanding then I must be wrong. Some say that they read this paper and it contradicts the expansion and so it can't be published in their journal. JimJast (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

NO no no no no no... you don't get to divert away from the question. You made the claim that they believe that energy was produced from nothing. Unless you're arguing a strawman, you need to understand their position, right? So when are they arguing that energy was created? It's obviously "during the Big Bang" because you already made that claim... so, indulge me and clarify... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 23:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Officially I don't know. My professor told me privatly that he believes it was it was sometime whan the universe was created. What else you need to know? JimJast (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

How can you argue that the claim that energy was created from nothing when you don't even know what they're arguing. When is your understanding of their argument? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 00:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Good morning Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}}, To answer without shortcuts I need more time that I have right now. I'll respond in much more detail but I don't have enough time for it now so please be patient. JimJast (talk) 07:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I would rather you be late and valid, than early and totally fucking wrong. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 21:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}}, that's good. me too. Now I have time to answer all your question according to my best knowledge. At the beginning I should tell you what I know about gravitation so you might have some idea what questions you may ask me.

I started learnin gravitation from zero (being first of all a sculptor and then also an electronic engineer not necessarily in that order)(sulptors have to have a "real profession" to survive, at least in Boston, Massachusetts where there used to be only one visual artist living off his art and he is a painter painting taditional landscapes. My specialty happens to be figurative sculpture which is not too good stuff to make a living. So I knew about everything about electricity and about nothing about gravitation. As every physicists I considered gravitation being so simple and already described by Newton and Einstein. I didn't think that I need to learn anything about it.

It lasted until 1985 when I calculated just for fun what would be the cosmological redshift in so called "Einstein's universe". It turned out to be about the same as one that was observed in our universe. The problem with it was that our universe was supposed to have much more redshift than Einstein's since our universe was supposed to be expanding (which should add some redshift on top of the one caused by expansion). So there was contradiction between the cosmological redshift in our universe and the notion that our universe was expanding. The resolution of this contradiction might be (except my possible errors) that observations are right but the theory is wrong (namely, that our universe is Einstein's and the hypothesis that the cosmological redshift is coming from the expansion is wrong. It might be clearly coming from a different source since Einstein's universe is not expanding by definition (it is a name of model universe that is not expanding).

Living in Boston I went to Harvard and took a course in general relativity to find out what is really going on. And I found that there is no reason to believe that the universe is expanding and consequently that energy may be created from nothing. And the only folks who didn't buy the creationist tale were atheists like Carl Sagan whom I've seen on TV saying that the univese must have been eternal, without any beginning. I turned slowly to the opinion that Carl Sagan has been right which I hold till now. After working since then in gravitation I found out finally the reason for cosmological redshift: Einstein's gravitation making the spacetime "flat". Contrary to assumptions of the big bang proponents maitaining that spacetime is curved. Which requires necessarily the creation of energy from nothing on basis of Noether's theorem. So the creation of energy from nothing is contained in creationist (big bang) cosmology in a form of curved spacetime via Noether theorem. In short why to assume expansion of space while there is a simpler solution of a stacionary universe?

Please ask me if you think that I don't explain it clearly enough. JimJast (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that turd of text... you didn't even address my question. Since you don't know (or can't be buggered to ask) when your professors think energy was created from nothing, I am asking when is YOUR best understanding of when YOUR PROFESSORS claim that energy was created from nothing. I don't give a shit what kind of sculptor you are/were, or what you understand about gravitation. My question doesn't require any understanding about gravitation at all. It asks a simple question: you asserted that other people believe that energy was created from nothing. When do they feel that the energy was created from nothing. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 22:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I ate a big red candle. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 22:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

2011 (UTC)

You think it is a simple question? So give mi some choice. E.g. December 12, 3,750,334,543 B.C. Never. What answer you expect if the real answer is never but each professor has his/her pet date? JimJast (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I did give you a choice: T_universe = 1 plankt time. If you can't figure out what that means then you don't even have a simple understanding of the basics of physics and relativity, and you ought go learn some shit before you open your mouth about how all the physicists are wrong. And I'm not asking what your opinion on it is (you've already said "never") but what your understanding of that the professors are saying. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 23:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} I don't intend to engage myself into another shouting match with another fucking creationist. I hope you read at least once how it is to debate with a creationists. If you didn't then click on it and read. You will see why it is not a very rewarding experience.

I can very well figure out what is the 1 planck time since I was trained in physics for long enough time to know it without the necessity of figuring it out. The same goes for relativity, which can't be said about your fellow creationists if they never figured out that the universe was never created, as even Carl Sagan could figure it out on his own, without even knowing what I knew, which I personally consider a kind of a miracle though quite different than the kind your fellow creationists believe in. It was necessarily a thinking of an intelligent guy which is surely not available to you with all your prejudicies from before four and a half centuries.

Not all physicists are wrong, just read Feynman. So good-bye Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} and and your great professors, and plesant dreams about creation, and whatever you please. I'm fed up with your kind. JimJast (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

You're making an assumption that I am a "creationist" because I believe that energy was created from nothing. If you made such an assumption, you're wrong. I do not believe that energy was created from nothing. Meanwhile, you're still avoiding my question of when you think these "creationists" believe that energy was created from nothing. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 16:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Puella Nivis, In the meantime I've read part of your page and I've seen a different story :) So you know what? The next time I'll be at school (the Institute of Theoretical Physics of University of Warsaw, Poland) which might sound like a Polish joke, I'll go to those professors and I ask each of them "when you think the energy was created from nothing". As far as I remember I never asked when but always how and the answers were like in Feynma's opinion about gravity physicists, so me, being in agreement with Feynman, didn't look any further. So now you will have it "straight from the horse's mouth". I'm kind of curious about their responses myself though they may insist that it is not a "scientific question" (it can't be tested with any observation) but let see what they come up with. Some of them being Catholics must have a clear opinion at least about their personal beliefs so I try to get this (unscientific) opinion. Just be patient :). JimJast (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}}, So far I managed to ask "when?" 2 university physics professors who believe that energy can be created from nothing and the both answers were "I don't know when". There is also a third one who teaches physics this way on whom I counted the most since he disqualified my paper for the reason of being based on conservation of energy. I called him on his celphone but he's at the meeting in CERN right now and he told me to call him in 2 days. Wating 2 days is not a problem, but I doubt that his answer will be any different than the others. So I think that we may start facing the reality right now.

It seems obvious that some physics professors seem to want to keep the legend of the big bang (that necessarily needs the creation of energy from nothing) alive. To make things worse I've seen a video in which Dawkins supported this legend himself. And a few astronomers as well. While I know for a fact that energy doesn't need to be made from nothing, since Einstein's relativity explains very nicely the universe as eternal (just as Carl Sagan guessed as well). As it turned out Einstein's updated theory doesn't need even cosmological constant since Einstein's theory turned out to be self sustainable though unpublishable any more for the reason of this lack of creation of energy from nothing (being now against beliefs of contemporary editors of scientific journals).

So I propose to stop asking physicists questions they can't or don't want answer and concentrate on saving rational thinking deteriorating so badly, that even Dawkins believes in creation of energy (since he might not understand the physics of the big bang, or that it might have been set specifically to fool the atheists: just see 1973 "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, page 1218). We might start convincing those who are basically on our side that energy really can't be created. So far they believe that it can, as the example of astronmers, who always believed that it can in some dark palces of the universe, and Dawkins. Otherwise, I'm afraid we may kiss any meaningful civilization good-bye, for a long time, still in this century. What do you think? JimJast (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You have made an assertion in your argument that the Big Bang theory necessitates a belief that energy is created from nothing. This argument is invalid. Nothing in the Big Bang theory necessitates that energy is created from nothing. Perhaps the complication here, (and why you keep getting shot down by all the people who know better) is because you do not understand how the Big Bang actually works. So, I will ask you for a better understanding of why you think the Big Bang necessitates creation of energy from nothing, and I will then be able to approach you from a point of understand in order to correct your misinterpretations of the Big Bang. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 10:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}}, it is an easier question than the previous one to which physics professors respond "we don't know" since there are a few errors in the Big Bang hypothesis that make creation of energy necessary. The most important one is an assumption that there wouldn't be any cosmological redshift if the universe weren't expanding. However very simple calculation (available to a high school student) reveals that with present density of matter of the universe (ca. $6\times 10^{-27}kg/m^{3}$) there would be just the observed apparent redshift of ca. 70km/s/Mpc, and the same as observed acceleration of this apparent expansion $dH/dt=-H_{o}^{2}/2$, where $dH/dt$ is change of Hubble "constant" with time, and $H_{o}$ is Hubble "constant" seen from the Earth. Which means that this "cosmological" readshift is not observed and is all the illusion. What is observed though is the apparent redshift caused by slowing of time rate in the curved space. Which shows the another false assumption of the Big Bang hypohtesis that the time runs in the whole universe with the same speed. This is the ignoring of Einstein's relativity of time as well as the reason for this realstivity of time that is caused by another ignored effect called by astronomers "dynamical friction of photons" which the Big Bang aficionados maintain that it does not exist (despite that high school student can calculate it if she knows enough elementary Newtonian physics to know how). For those who maintain that this energy used for "dynamical friction" comes from nowhere it has to be created from nothing. And this is what they say not explaining how and when (as you have seen yourself straight from the horse's mouth: they just don't know when this energy gets created, but they know that it is lost to dynamical friction since astronomers calculate energy of object that move in the yniverse and lost to dynamical friction). So this is the energy not accountef for and "created from nothing". But public is mostly not aware of this small defect of the Big Bang hypothesis and therefore feels everything is nice and dandy. You too? Then repeat those calculations to which I added in Appendix the full Newtonian derivation of the effect of dynamical friction of photons, to see the Big Bang hoax. JimJast (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You cannot argue that the '"cosmological" red shift' is not observed, because it is observed. You can argue that it is an illusion, however it remains observed. (Perhaps you're not the best with English, but the falsity of a presumed explanation behind an observation does not falsify the observation itself.) As such you can argue that the expansion of the universe is not actually observed, because we're relying upon the assumption that the red shift is a result of the Doppler effect, which is actually an observation artifact. However, the cosmological red shift still exists even if you purpose an alternate explanation for its origins. The Big Bang hypothesis does not posit at all that all time in the universe runs at the same speed. Such an assertion is entirely unrelated to the Big Bang. Your poor English is apparently interfering with my understanding of your argument about dynamic friction of photons. You assert that "Big Bang aficionados" maintain it doesn't exist, but then assert that such dynamic friction holds that energy would have to be created from nothing, but that implies that you are in fact the person asserting a creation of energy from nothing. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 12:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You right about the terminology. Sorry. I'll try to explain what I meant by the expressions I used and how it relates to the Big Bang (why "Einstein's interpretation" is right and the "Big Bang interpretation" is wrong). I number them for easier refs.

1. Of course the redshift is observed. Let's call it "Hubble redshift" (averaged over many galaxies). Now about interpretations of Hubble redshift.
2. There are basically one "Big Bang" interpretation: Doppler shift implying expansion of space but this interpretation doesn't explain neither the value of H(0) nor why H(t) is exponential nor why "dynamic friction of photons" doesn't add anything to "Hubble redshift".
3. There are 2 "Einstein's interpretations": first before the discovery of Hubble redshift, with no expansion of space, just with "cosmological constant" that "explained" why the universe is stable (since the equations were artificially made stable). It was abandoned when the Big Bang showed up and "explained" the "Hubble redshift". Einstein's cosmological constant was subsequently called by Einstein the "biggest blunder of his life". This interpretation was used by the Big Bang aficionados to make "cosmological constant" equal zero, which made the universe expanding with decelerating expansion. Ater this a Supernova Cosmology Project were lounched on advice of Hawking to check it and it was discovered that "cosmological constant" can't be zero since the expansion of universe looks like accelerating.
4. second "Einstein's interpretation" was discovered by me when I tried to calculate H(0) to check how much "Hubble redshift" there is from the expansion and how much from "dynamical friction of photons".
5. It turned out that there is no expansion, and there should be also illusion of accelerating expansion as observed, and "cosmological constant" does not exist at all since "Einstein's field equation" is doing quite well without it when redshift is interpreted as slowing of time exponantially in function od distance of galaxies from the observer. This way I explained several puzles of the universe (I calculated the radius of curvature of space, explained redshifts of quasars, the Pioneer effect, that spacetime is Minkowski, while the Big Bang ibterpretation is that it is curved with undiscovered yet curvature).
6. This las item implies that in the Big Bang interpretation energy is not concervedbecause of Noether theorem (it may show up from nowhere just through mathematical manipulation - maybe that's why creationist professors consider it legitimate). But "dynamical friction" is a simpler reason and easier to explain so I used it in my previous message. Noether theorem is used by professors since then few people undestands it and so don't bother them that much. Being only an amateur (sculptor by profession) I couldn't publish any of it in a scientific journal so I'm the only guy now who understand all this plus the Big Bang in which I believed myself once as well. Not any more though since I'm not a creationist as those Big Bang specialists applying Noether theorem but pretend that they don't. Luckily they admit it when asked directly. JimJast (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}}, you said "Nothing in the Big Bang theory necessitates that energy is created from nothing". While it is true for the Big Bang itself (while it lasts) it worries me that I failed to explain why for the expanding universe energy has to be created from nothing (after the assumed initial explosion: Big Bang). While I was thinking about failing my example with creation of energy used for compensating for the energy lost to the dynamical friction of photons the virial theorm came to my mind. It is about a system of gravitating objects like e.g. clusters of stars or galaxies or even a whole universe. In such a system kinetic energy plus potential energy energy is constant. For the system to expand its kinetic energy must increase, and since there is nothing outside the universe this additional energy has to be created from nothing for the universe to expand. It shows the principle for which creation of energy from nothing is a must in an expanding universe. A beliver in a stable expanding universe is automatically a creationist. Is it clearer than my previous example? JimJast (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

"For the system to expand its kinetic energy must increase". This statement is so blatantly false that I don't even know where to start explaining to you why you're wrong. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 02:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You may start any place just to give me a hint what you mean. You know that average kinetic energy is called "temperature", don't you? How do you square it with your statement? JimJast (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You know that objects in motion remain in motion until acted upon by another force, don't you? (I think some guy name Newton established this law.) You know that if I have an amount of gas, and I place that gas in an infinite volume of vacuum, that it will expand forever without any change in "average kinetic energy", don't you? (Application of Newton's First Law of Motion upon gas particles.) --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 12:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}}, since Newton there were others who corrected those laws, as you call them, adjusting them to so called "real world" and now these laws lost their meaning as real laws thought they are kept to simplify physics for those for whom such simplified physics is thought to sufice (as their teachers think, or don't even know themselves). I'm against such practice but also the professors in my university inssist on teaching the students this way saying "if they want to know the truth, they should become PhD students and then learn more". Apparently you are a victim of such approach to teaching, but don't feel offended if I'm against your ideas. I just studied it probably much longer then you which is not the reason to get upset. I'm willing to explain to you all tha funny facts (yes, it is fun to learn physics, almost as great as sculpting) since I like socialists who can think much better than creationist professors who can't (not only physics professors as I showed you with the example of Dawkins who supports the Big Bang not suspecting a hoax).

It turns out that in the real world, even if there is no force acting on an object in motion, this object most of the time (if no other forces are acting on it) moves in a (roughly) closed loop against Newton's "law". Just look at our Moon. Those who still explain the real world with Newtonian math maintain that the Moon is "attracted" to the Earth by something they call "gravitational force". Einstein showed that there is no such force in the universe. It may be interesting that also Newton didn't believe in such force, since he, the same as Einstein, didn't believe in "action at distance" (which all creationists believe in). And so far no one proved Einstein's wrong. My PhD is just on this subject so I better be with Einstein rather then you even if I like socialists better than libertarians (but we can get to it later, when we explain physics :). Newton assigned the illusion of such force to a mathematical trick that nature plays on us to fool us into beliving in reality of "gravitational force". He was right in it and the trick the nature played on us now is called the curvature of space which didn't existed in Newton's math. Which was kind of luck for Einstein, since if it were in Newton's math Einstiein couldn't show that his theory of gtavitation works better than Newtons since both would work the same well and creationist professors would never agree to atheist Einstein's physics (as now they don't accept my correction of cosmologogy which turns their's image of God as a creator upside down). But if you don't want to update your image of the real world you should tell me and I won't add funy stories which might be funny only for me.

Coming back to our stupid sheep (as they say in this country) the same as with the Moon happens with those particles of gas placed in an infinite volume of vacuum. They won't expand forever. The particles start slowing down and then with a few additional conditions might form a star. But in a simper case they start just flying around, hitting each ohter, keeping roughly a shape of a ball with well defined average kinetic energy per particle called "temperature" of the system. And if no God won't add no energy to the systm (do you accept triple negative like, I think, Mencken did?) this system stays roughly the same size for eternity as asured by virial theorem. JimJast (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

What is the gravitational force between two helium atoms at 1mm? Now, assuming that the helium atoms are traveling in inverse vectors at 1 meter per second, how much gravitation force will be exerted upon those two atoms to slow them down from the 1mm until the 1m mark? How much "gravitation force" (since you want to insist it isn't a force) will be exerted as they travel away from each other. Considering that gravitational force drops of at the reciprocal of the quadratic of the distance, while the distance increases linearly, the gravitational force will not always eventually bring two things together. There has to be a sufficient amount of mass relative to the average kinetic energy of the system, otherwise it will expand forever, because the mathematical integration of the gravitation force goes has a limit towards a finite value as the distance approaches infinity, while the distance increases unbounded. This isn't simple math, and it isn't simple physics, but if you're doing a Ph.D. you ought to know this shit.

We teach physics with the Newtonian laws because they're a simplification of the rules. They're not "wrong" they're just not the most accurate answer. However, Newtonian physics is sufficiently accurate to get a satellite to Mars. And even sufficiently accurate enough to get a probe to fly by Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 01:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}}, yes, I know that shit and I'm impressed that you understand "escape velocity". I'm disapointed (not much though) that you think that "it will expand forever". It would in Newton's universe but the universe isn't Newton's but Einstein's (even in a realistic Big Bang hypothesis). I'd like you to tell me why it wouldn't expand forever in Einstein's universe, what's different there? (I hope you like tought questions as much as I do, and I'm really curious about your answer). JimJast (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did they discover a new formula for universal gravitation? Because unless there is a new formula for universal gravitation the infinite limit summation of the gravitational force on an object will be finite. And I know you seem to have trouble understanding some concepts, because you're too lost in your own beliefs, but infinity is significantly greater than any finite value. They would continue expanding forever, because the gravitation force between the two objects will never be sufficient to overcome their initial velocities. Just because they will eternally exert force on each other does not mean that the infinite limit summation will be infinite.

Mathematically, take a ball and place it 1 meter high. When it falls, it is given that on each bounce it will rise to one half of the height that it was at before. The ball will perform an infinite number of bounces, but will only travel a finite distance, and in a finite time frame. If you don't understand this, please take a new calculus course. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 22:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

In 1915 they did discover a new formula for universal gravitation. The old one is simple enough though, and acurate enough even for astrophysicists, so they don't teach them the new one, except at PhD courses. But those PhD courses are taught by professors who don't understand it themselves (if you recall our recent poll with 2 professors saying "don't know" to your "simple" question). Luckily you have a friend who can expalane to you all the mysteries of the new gravitation in his "Gravitation demystified" and can respond to your questions since he studied the subject for over quater a century and discovered himself how to present it to high school students so they would understand it (especially girls whom their physiology makes brainer than boys; see Hypatia, Zofia Kowalewska, Mileva Einstein without whom we might not have this new gravitation).

I'll try to archivize the old stuff now so we may discuss physics easier. I hope I'll succede with all this help I got from you and Damo. So see you later with explanation why you don't see a ball jumping forever despite its mathematical feasibility. JimJast (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

You cannot expect me to wade through all that nonsense just to get to your purported formula of universal gravitation. I'm not an idiot, and I can build up necessary information that I am confused about. Simply post your alternative formula of universal gravitation here and don't send me through a poorly written rambling document to find it. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 23:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

OK Snow Girl, no wading. The formula for component of gravitational force in direction i (x, y, z) is:

$F_{i}=-dE_{g}/dx^{i}$.

$E_{g}=mc^{2}g_{00}^{1/2}$ is the famous Einstein's relation for internal energy of a particle (gravitational energy) adjusted by the time-time component of the metric of spacetime $g_{00}^{1/2}$ by L. D. Landau. The diff between $g_{00}^{1/2}$ and 1 makes the whole diff between Newton's and Einstein's theories of gravitation. That's why Newton's gravitation is so close to the real life gravitation expressed by Einstein's theory and his $Eg=mc^{2}g_{00}^{1/2}$ while in Newton's physics it is only $Eg=mc^{2}$ (no curvature of space). JimJast (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Ok, let's say for a moment I take it that your formula is more accurate than Newtonian gravitation. Your formula would still have to be well approximated by Newtonian gravitation at low speeds and low mass, right? Should this be true, how can $\int _{r_{0}}^{\infty }F_{i}\,dx^{i}$ be infinite, when $\int _{r_{0}}^{\infty }G{\frac {m_{1}m_{2}}{r^{2}}}\,dr$ is finite? Especially, when the former is well approximated by the later for the case in debate. You're banging your head against math right now. In order to say that for all particles in a closed system, gravity will always bring them back together, you have to show how the infinite integration of the gravitational "force" exerted upon the objects is infinite. If the infinite limit summation of all gravitation force on the objects does not diverge, then the total sum of all gravitation would be finite, and then there would exist at some point a speed at which the force required to reverse the rate of travel for the objects would exceed the total sum of all gravitation that the system will ever exert. You are arguing what I seriously believe to be the most idiotic position I have ever seen a Ph.D. physics candidate argue, and if you are actually arguing it, then you need to not only be kicked out of your doctorate program, but have any prior academic qualifications withdrawn. This is basic fucking calculus. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 10:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Please for to obtain a browser that haz it a spele checker

Like maybe Firefox 4? Of course it's not going to help with grammar, (buy/bye), but it'll keep you from having to go back OCD style and make every single change you need to make so you don't come off as a perfecktionist know-it-all. Just FYI. 18:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Hi Cracker, I have FF4 but I don't know how to install its speller. I'd appreciate it very much if you've told me. Thanks. JimJast (talk) 06:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Archive1

Let me google that for you... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 07:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks in advance. I could also use info on how to archivize some of my stuff. JimJast (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I will do that for you if you like. --Damo^Hi 21:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What I do - and it may not be the most efficient method - is to open a new tab and type in the search box a subpage to your user talk page ie "User talk:JimJast/archive1". You will see a link that says 'create this page'. Click on it. Then push 'edit' on your existing talk page and select all the text you want to archive. "Cut" that text and paste it into your archive page and save both pages. Then don't forget to leave a link to the archive on your existing talk page ie Archive1 or similar. No doubt there are better ways but this will work. Damo^Hi 22:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I tend to open the talk page for edit, put in an Archive link, then click "Preview", open up the Archive page (automatically for edit, since it's new) cut-paste from the talk page to the archive, then save the archive, then save the talk page. It's a little less URL manipulation, etc... just pure wiki work. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 22:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Both methods help me to figure out how it works. I think Eira's is a bit simpler but Damo's better in helping to figure out the mechanism (which the "Polish mind" needs to understand anything; in Polish it is called "łopatology" with "ł" pronounced as "w" in Einglish, and "łopata" means "shovel").

New Polish joke (just brought yesterday from the US by a friend): "How many Poles is needed to cut a tree: 96 and an airplane". JimJast (talk) 09:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Autoarchiving your talk page with Pibot

Hi Jim! Did you know, you can have Pibot autoarchive your talk page for you? That way you don't have to do it yourself. Just enter the following at the top of this page:

{{Template:Talkpage/Pibot
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = User talk:JimJast/Archive%(counter)d
}}

7d means archive threads older than 7 days. You can make that bigger or smaller if you wish, up to you. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 21:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

You had it right the first time. You just need to wait a few days. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Einsteinian formula for gravitational force

As I said also in my "Gravitation demystified" essay it is $F_{i}=-dE_{g}/dx^{i}$, which to me looks much simpler though it is the same Newtonian formula for gravitational force. The only difference is that while Newton had to guess what $F_{i}$ is, in Einstein's formula it is derived from the properties of time and space by Lew Davidivich Landau and I just adopted his formula without being aware that he aldready did the job (except for the final differentiation which was easy enough to guess so he didn't have to do it). That's why I was accused by the illiterate Big Bang aficionados that I invented the formula and I was banned from wikipedia on the "principle of no original research" until I found RW.

Thanks RW for allowing me to publish my "Gravitation demystify" essay here to show folks how simple Einstein's gravitation is and that, contrary to popular opinion, the universe isn't expanding a bit. JimJast (talk) 06:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

THIS is what I was afraid of for letting cranks post Essays like they had credibility, or such. We are explicitly against crank science, yet JimJast shits in his hand, smears it all over one of our private walls, and then acts like he's accomplished something. We've let a crank post his bullshit without response, without critical snarkiness, without all the things that our very mission purports to assert. We are become a purveyor of bullshit and pseudo-science. Congratulations RationalWiki, you're officially dead to me. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 11:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}}. Science is about discoveries and discussions. So what makes you so upset. What makes you think that you should kick out from the RW people who are different than you and of a different approach. If RW is for people to exchange klnowledge, points of view, informations, cultural believes and good will then I should have right to do so. Einstein is still well recognized, appreciated, and often quoted by professors and people of science. My popullarizing his (and mostly Mileva Marić's, as I think) work? You are free to respond with your interpretation of physics even with your interpretation of infinity if you can think about some. Stay with RW and beat me at discussion. Please Eira. You are the bst informed partner so far. And what about discussing the other issues we didn't have time to discus so far? JimJast (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixing problems with infinity in Einstein's universe

Eira, you would be right if the universe weren't Einstein's. In Newton's universe in which space is flat (Euclidean, running happily to infinity wherever it is). But astronomical observations tell us that space of our universe isn't flat but it has positive curvature and we have to adjust our math to this feature of our universe. There is nothing wrong with your math except that it is made for a different universe (flat, Euclidean). It might fit the Big Bang universe. Not a realistic one for other reasons but we don't need to argue about those other reasons yet. First we need to imagine what happens in our universe with a particle flying away to "infinity". If you ask any mathematician what happens in positively curved space, she will tell you that after a while, going always forward, it finds itself at the starting position. Where it might even meet their friends or bounce against them. Since you don't like too many words I leave you with this to think it over.

I just wanted to add that when I lobbied for introducing Einstein's physics in high schools the head of our "Gravitation and Cosmology" dept told me that high school students are too stupid to understand curvature of space. Your latest rant makes me think that he might be right since even such a patient guy like me might not be patient enough for your resistance to learn contemporary physics. JimJast (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Eira, stop being a litlle girl (possibly just playing with your pussy, though it might be nicer activity than straining you brain over science) and start being a scientist who understands the simple truth that physics in curved space is different than in Euclidean space. And that "Newtonian force" is a pure math (as Newton himself have had recognized already): it is not a "real force" as the $-dE_{g}/dr$ is (I hope you recognize that). So the Einsteinian force can't be be exactly the same what we consider "Netonian force". To support the idea of the big bang you have to recognise this. Or you are as the rest of them creationists, with no answer to Einsteinian gravitation, and explaining everything by "puzzling creation" in flat space.

The issue is that you stick your head in the sand trying not to see the reality of the Newtonian force being a fiction, without any explanation, and the mystery of the big Bang lurking from some mysterious "infinity". Yet everything has to have realistic explanation even if you don't like it. If you don't, then show me better ones. I think mine is good enough and can be admitted at least temporarily on the principle of a better one missing from science (if you don't like mine) since yours is not good enough. Mine at least is observed in the real universe in form of its (apparent) "accelerating expansion". I hope that by now you though over all the options and you come back to discussion without insisting on existence of supernatural or infinite. JimJast (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't the RW be renamed CCW ("crypto creationist wiki") not to mislead the folks who trust that the word "rational" means "rational" and not what Eira imagines while she integrates to "infinity" (wherever it is)? JimJast (talk) 08:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC) (mumbling to himself in absence of anybody interested in science ...)

It is not my responsibiliy to explain cosmology to you, but when you claim to shake down the very foundations of cosmology, well... as has been quoted many times before: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The fact that you fail to grasp that apparent gravitational force falls off at the square of the recipricol is your failure, not mine, and I shouldn't have to be explaining how integration and infinite series work. These are all things that any Ph.D. cadidate should already know and understand, because it's basic calculus. BTW, many of your comments here are distastefully sexist.

When I speak of integrating graviational force towards $t\rightarrow \infty$ I'm talking about the limit. Which means "as time grows unbounded in the system", and integrating the infinte series of the square of the recipricol approaches a finite number, and does not grow without bound. Meaning, that no matter how long we would let the system operate, the gravitation force would never exceed a finite value, and if that finite value is less than the speed of light, then there exists a speed at which gravitation will not be able to overcome the speed of the two particles flying away on perfectly opposite vectors. (Quick: what's the radius of a circle passing through the three points (-1,0), (0,0) and (1,0)? Excepting a non-Euclidean plane, it's infinite/doesn't exist. Assuming a non-Euclidean plane, then eventually we could travel and wrap around in the universe and appear on what was the other side. Which would also mean that the two particles would again mean at the same point... but not by gravitational force, but rather because spacetime is wrapped around on itself. A single particle alone in such a system would eventually return to the origin, even though there lacks any and all gravitational force upon it.)

And this is what I'm talking about.. you seem to want to reject the very math that makes your own equations work. It doesn't matter what physics you invent to explain gravitation, it has to obey mathematical rules. If it's not (like you're purposing with the Law of Squares to be a divergent infinite series) then it is in fact you who are evoking supernatural bullshit to explain your beliefs. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 21:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}}, let's clear my "distastefully sexist" coments first: I don't treat sexes the same since I know for a fact that on average the girls are way smarter than the boys. I've seen this during my military service (which was mandatory in Poland when I lived there so I didn't have much of a choice in dealing with a male brain). If you prefer treating both sexes the same, than I appologise (though "vive la differance", sorry for another sexist remark, I just couldn't resist :). BTW, there are sculptors who prefer to sculpt men and ones who prefer sculpt women. I've seen both during my 15 years of studying the subject and I beolong to the second class of sculptors, also as far as the talent goes.

About the universe and infinity, I may assure you that I understand your arguments. Even being a sculptor I'm not that dubm as you think :) I just wanted to turn your attention to the fact that angular diameters of galaxies should have a minimum between values of redshift somewhere between 1 and 2 if the universe is 3-sphere. And some astronomers insist that they do have this minimum. If they really do it would confirm Einsteins assumption about the universe being a 3-sphere. Why? (Wouldn'i it be an interesting feature of the universe?)JimJast (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to answer your "quick question". Of course it will be the radius of curvature of space which according to my calculations is ca. 13 billion of light years (4.3 Gpc) since it is speed of light divided by Hubble "constant", which is not a constant but depends on distance and that's why the universe looks as if it were expanding faster and faster which bafled cosmologists and that's why they had to invent "dark energy" to save face. As you may see I did'n respond not because I didn't know but since I forgot not thinkng that it is rally important to you. I though that 3-sphere is much more interesting stuff.

And BTW Eira, wouldn't you like to write a book on "Gravitation demystified" with me? Splitting profits 50/50 after they show up? Human resigned since there was no payment coming up front. I can't write a book alone since both my English and Polish are lousy and you seem to be just a right person (though we may argue a lot in the meantime about physics :) Another thought: What about creation of a non profit foundation named "Hermoine Granger Foundation" for that purpose with main purpose to oppose the creationism of "John Templeton Foundation" (and avoiding the tax on our future profits that might go into billions of $$)? JimJast (talk) 17:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Journal suggestion

Hi Jim. I know you've had trouble find a journal to publish your work in the past. Here's one that might: The General Science Journal. They've previously printed theories about cosmology that were resisted by mainstream journals, and maybe they would in your case too. --MarkGall (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Mark. I'll try to send them my paper and let's see what happens. JimJast (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately it didn't work for a funny reason: The billing address on my "Master Card" is in other country (Poland) than the country of my permanent address (USA) and the "PayPal", which is the only company through which the payment can be made to "The General Science Journal" (not even through the regular Master Card), doesn't accept such extravagance. Banks do but the "PayPal" doesn't. So I can't send my article to "The General Science Journal" since there is a mandatory yearly subscription of their journal of $35 (another obstacle to free flow of ideas in science which Carl Sagan objected so much saying "A central lesson of science is that to understand complex issues (or even simple ones), we must try to free our minds of dogma and to guarantee the freedom to publish, to contradict, and to experiment." :). Sorry Mark. But thanks anyway. JimJast (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The irony of the situation is that the theory of relativity solved over hundred years ago the problem that Carl Sagan considered so difficult to solve (the lack of creation of the universe) and despite that people still spend billions on solving it, the guy who knows the solution can't publish it, even willing to pay the required $35, because of botched program which doesn't accept money from willing to spend that money author :) A snapshot of our civilization. JimJast (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey Mark, on another thought, why don't you just copy the paper from here and send it to "The General Science Journal". I'll buy you a subscription to this journal and we split the possible Nobel Prize in half when they print the paper and we get the Prize (which I doubt). You may add your name as an author's name, since the autors are Einsteins anyway, and we would be only telling the people what they should already know for a century: "the universe is eternal, there was no creation!" (just what Carl Sagan said only that we would have a proof: $H_{o}$ calculated for "Einstein's universe").

If you happen not to understand something from this paper I explain everything to you so you'll be able honestly consider yourslef a co-author. Also the math over there is surprizingly simple. But won't be surprised if the astronomers reject it. It might require some discussion with peers before discovering by everybody that Einsteins already did it since it still dosn't accur to many. What would you say? JimJast (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jim. I'm not really interested in being involved in the publication, just thought the link might be useful to you. Have you searched for other journals that carry non-mainstream cosmology? I'm sure there are some. You could also post your stuff on Vixra. All of these are probably a better fit than putting your stuff on RW and you might find more interested readers. --MarkGall (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mark. It was iseful in the sense that one more journal turned out to be intereted only in making money in the easiest way possible and they just consider the best way is to stick to "PayPall" with ignoring other possibilities, direct transfer of money through credit card companies including. We just hit accidentally such a case. It has nothing to do with science and all with making money the most efficient way.

As for non-mainstream cosmology, all the contemporary cosmology is non-maistream since it is based on making energy from nothing which is impossible in the main-stream (at least it was in Einsteins and Feynman times).

Today the promiss of making something from nothing (with magic, or religion) is so attractive to "scientists" (I have several such in my university, with titles of professors of physics) and admitting that it never can be done is an awfull drawback to "new science" which prefers to avoid publication of such terrifying news, especially in media supporting creationism such as unfortunately also RW turned out to be (though they don't know enough physics to realise it). So, as you may see there is no hope anywhere. People just don't think any more. "Darkness Gathers ..." (Carl Sagan) and we insist on making it funny. But thanks for wanting to help anyway. JimJast (talk) 09:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Some comments of yours

Hello Jim. I would advise you refrain from remarks such as "Eira, stop being a litlle girl (possibly just playing with your pussy, though it might be nicer activity than straining you brain over science)". Some will read what you say as condescending and sexist, and take offence — as indeed the person whom you directed those remarks toward (Eira) has done. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, don't call her "girl". Maybe you don't quite understand due to being a non-native English speaker, but you need to be careful about using that word to refer to women in English. Often, it will cause offence, and I think the particular way you are using it is especially likely to. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, User:Maratrean. I think that Eira understands those things better than you think, since she uses them as well :) Eg. "JJ, you are an idiot" or somethnig equivalent. The meaning of speech is relative and so it means many things to many people aspecially depending on who is speaking and to whom (see Japanese, where it is built into the language and that's why they have at least 5 kinds of language including one for forignrs who don't understand those subtleties). Eira is not that silly that she would be offended by me considering her playing with her pussy a more plesant than straining her brain over science (since it really is, so it is the truth, and all that counts: always say truth). We can ask her. But we have more importan things to discuss than wasting time on such stuff. We are actually trying to save the civilization from itself and it must be done or we won't have much to argue about anyway. And I'm aware about diffs betweein "girl" and "woman" and I think that Eira is a woman enough not to care about it. And I hope that she knows that I know since I keep telling everybody who cares to listen, that I consider the women intellectually supperior to the men becauso of their evolutionary history. Just most women don't know it so this truth should be populrized as much as possible to bring finally some cultural change to the society. JimJast (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Stop putting other people's signatures in your comments. They're called signatures for a reason, & people don't tend to appreciate it when somebody else signs their name. Thanks. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, Weasel, I just did. Though I don't understand the reason since they look much better this way. Eg. your own. Maybe they should be designed better so they can be used both ways? & BTW, wouldn't you like to comment on your intuition? Did you get it from your mom or pop. Methink rather mom since women are way smarter than us (assuming from the things you consider funny you are not one of them). JimJast (talk) 11:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Eira, I just got another refusal (guess from whom, yes from Blue: "Jesus is coming! Look busy.") so I guess you are bound by the fate with "JJ the Crank" if you want to rehabilitate all those crypto creationists and bring them back to the family of thinking brains (though in many cases it may require sex change since most of them are guys). JimJast (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Notice

I have filed a complaint against you at our abuse page in light of your recent fuckery here. The Symphony of Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 00:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Your "articles"

It's bad enough that you spam your rants on the talk pages of editors who have clearly indicated that they don't want to discuss your theories, but creating mainspace articles for the sole purpose of attention-whoring is definitely not cool. Stop this now. Röstigraben (talk) 11:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Roesti, I didn't discuss "my theories" since I don't have any. They are all Einstein's. But I can stop discussing them as soon as my opponents stop anwering. Otherwise I feel it is impolite not to answer to questions. Unless you have your own reasons for me to stop. Would I hurt your feelings with my answers? JimJast (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Debategraph

Hello JJ, have you seen DebateGraph. I think if you are looking for rational argument, it represents a structure much more likely to get it than this place is. I think Wikis are too linear, too unstructured; their nature doesn't encourage reason, and it requires discipline to get reason out of them; but this place is sorely lacking in intellectual self-discipline. What do you think? Actually, Lumenos, who is around here sometimes, has a similar idea of DebateMap, but is trying to do similar things sticking to a textual format, rather than a graphical one. (DebateGraph behind the scenes is less graphical, actually more like a tree-structure, the graph is just to make it easier for people to comprehend.) Would you be interested in joining a structured debating project with me? Your interpretation of Einstein could be one of the things to be debated.... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mar, I like it but how to start a debate on e.g. interpretation of Einstein? I think it should limit the amount of nonsense one reads while following any debate. As e.g. about the existence of God: RW crowd does not believe in its existance but almost all of them believe in the Big Bang not even suspecting that this belief was planted in their minds. In this case by creationists who trully believe in existence of God and are just smart enough to know how to influence human brain to accept it and of course it is not with the radio waves but with "logic" that a human mind would accept.

As I already wrote in "Einsteinian gravitation for Poets"

"Some kind of logical reasoning often supports such religious knowledge. The logical reasoning proved to be insufficient to rely on it exclusively and so, perhaps surprisingly to many, is not used in science to prove that something is true. It is not even used in religion, which relies on revelation rather than logic since theologians know that logic can't be used to support any religion. Religion can be supported only by faith. The reason that logic is insufficient is that it may be as easily applied to true assumptions as to false ones, and that we rarely know which is the case at the moment.

Logic is however used a lot in magical thinking and so by demagogues as a tool to convince people about the legitimacy of their opinions. It is because humans are easily convinced by logic, very trustful of charismatic figures, and very careless about the assumptions on which the seemingly logical reasoning is based."

Over 95% of Germans were convinced by Htler's "logic" and possibly as many Russians and other dumb humans with Stalin's "logic" though not Nazis bosses themselves, at least not Goebels who said that "when I hear the word 'culture' I keep my pistol ready". He knew himself very well how to fool people so he knew the technique.

About 95% of humans believe in any nonsense that those who know how to control their minds want them to believe, if it is done right, according to "laws of psychology". In case of RW it seems to be the reverence of science that keeps them believing in the Big Bang and opposing theists for whom they feel like being necessary to have a response to each question. The Big Bang was proven to be science fiction mathematically in 1985 and observationally in 1998 yet the news was not allowed to be published in any scientific journal for some reason. My gueass is that editors of scientific journals decided either to wait until old professors for whom it might be a shock, die out, or that they might be afraid that such blunder as neglecting to check first the amount of intrinsic redshift in the universe migh diminish the public trust in science together with diminishing amount of money for it and consequently for them and other "scientists". And since cosmology is of very litle consequence to the hard sciences, only the beliefs of RW folks, now false, are the results of this policy, and I didn't know it even, until I saw the RW. Personally I "believe" it is a wrong policy for many reasons. Between others, because, as prof. Aldus Dumbledore said: "on average it is better to say the truth than to lie" :-)

Now there is no way of convincing the RW folks about it since they refuse to learn physics from Feynman whom they consider naive (do you believe that?) and they consider themselves knowing the truth about the Big Bang better than any physicist (surely better than JJ even never learning any). Which says something, and also positive :) about human nature. So I actually like the situation. It teaches me a lot (as my sculpture teacher said: "I learn from you guys a lot, though only what not to do, but then it makes me a better teacher").

I think the technology you propose may be called something like CCT (crap cutting technique|technology) and then instead invoking PRATT we may use in its place let's invoke CCT or just making it a verb: let CCT it. Which might resamble another neologism, CC (crypto creationism) which represents pretending that we don't believe in supernatural while we do support the supernatural by believing in the Big Bang, which was made false by Einsteins' relativity a quater of a century ago, and lets the RW folks to understand their true nature. And now some CC, who managed not to fall asleep yet, reading this stuff is bound to write "Hey, JJ, why don't you CCT it yourself?) JimJast (talk) 09:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Crypto creationist

Please stop dropping crap into mainspace which doesn't meet basic mainspace criteria & isn't wanted by anyone else in the community but you, & stop reposting it when deleted. Consider this a warning. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Weaseloid. Your brothers in faith burned Gordano Bruno in 1600 for maintaining that Creator is an illusion not being reflected in the real life (ie. there is no such an object in the universe). Since then there was some progress and it became illegal to burn people at stake for their beliefs. Though removing their legitimate opinions from RW apparently wasn't. My opinion about Crypto creationism was already removed so what is actually that you are warning me of? JimJast (talk) 09:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If you really want to help then stop trolling and write articles that ordinary folk who are not post graduate physicists can understand? I'm not Jesus (talk) 09:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Brian. I haven't known what "trolling" means. I just heard "stop trolling stop trolling" (I'm new here). So now I found out and saw a caveat under troll(5.1), which you should read too. So I have a news for you: I'm no troll. I just didn't expect that you guys don't know that the Big Bang is a creationist hypothesis since it assumes creation of energy from nothing in a miraculous way, which does not agree with your supposedly "Rational thinking" (neither with mine, that's why I called you crypro creationists :-). So it was a misunderstanding on both ends and so now I can gladly stop "trolling". But if you want to know how this problem of supposed mirculous creation is solved in real physics I may explain it to you since I'm doing my PhD in it and I should test my explanation on some opponent with common sense arguments, and so far nobody asked me any question. Just kept deleting my stuff mumbling "stop trolling stop trolling".

And Brian, I'm not Jesus neither so I can't know what you don't undesrtand without you asking specific questions. If you never ask anything I assume you are a smart guy who understands everything and I don't explain what I think you already understand or know. JimJast (talk) 22:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)