CATEGORY:
Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015)
[back]
TOPIC:
Tricks or Truth: Mathematics' inappropriate domination of cosmology by lutz kayser
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author lutz kayser wrote on Feb. 25, 2015 @ 21:24 GMT
Essay AbstractThis essay undertakes to explain the sometimes positive and negative connection between Physics and Mathematics. From antique Greece through the Middle Ages and the Renaissance to the 20th century a parabola is drawn, describing the often controversial relationship between the two disciplines. As crown witness for the harmful influence of math without empirical feedback, the development of Einstein cosmology is presented in some detail. It shows an 800 pound gorilla (mathematics) can easily suppress a small bird (physics) if nobody cares for a fair equilibrium. The mainstream Standard Cosmological Model, or Big Bang, with inflation and accelerating expansion is the result. It has no realistic physical background and based on a false redshift explanation. An alternative redshift mechanism is conjectured.
Author BioAuthor Bio: Physics and Aerospace Engineering at the University of Stuttgart, rocket science consultant to the German Government, CTO OTRAG Rocket Science and Launch Vehicle Development, Physics University Professor emeritus
Download Essay PDF File
Colin Walker wrote on Feb. 26, 2015 @ 00:07 GMT
Dear Lutz,
As I also find an expanding universe doubtful, I read your essay with great interest. I was tantalized until the last paragraph waiting for you to divulge your redshift mechanism.
The trouble with radiation being absorbed by hydrogen is that the energy would eventually lead to heat death of the universe. You will see this point made in my
essay with regard to the cosmological work of Walther Nernst. I think you will agree that the thermodynamic issue of heat death cannot be overcome by ordinary transfer of radiation.
It is also shown that the situation is not one of insufficient data, but of interpretation. Supernova luminosity-redshift data are consistent with a quantum version of tired light. If the redshift is due to tired light, there must be complementarity between received photon energy and distant supernova time dilation.
Best regards,
Colin
report post as inappropriate
Author lutz kayser replied on Feb. 27, 2015 @ 06:13 GMT
Colin,
your splendid essay I read with interest and I shall think further about it.
Finding a physically sound mechanism for the cosmological redshift is an important goal for the next years. Let's work on it. Edwin Hubble was convinced that expansion is unrealistic.
H2, H1, protons,electrons, and fine dust can absorb small amounts of radiation energy and get rid of it by collisions between them. No quantum effects required.
But lab tests are difficult in view of the large distances involves. But refraction and diffraction in gases is well established.
I wish you well with your work. Write me if you have more ideas.
Best
Lutz
Colin Walker replied on Feb. 27, 2015 @ 22:09 GMT
Dear Lutz,
There is at least a chance that general relativity will fail a second order test like the proposed LATOR mission which would measure deflection of laser light passing by the Sun. As a consequence, the expansion hypothesis would likely be unsupportable.
I will say the refraction mechanism is more physically realistic, but it seems to me the universe would eventually just run down. The idea propelling Nernst's thinking was that recycling between matter and energy could go on indefinitely.
That is a stark choice. I prefer Nernst's cosmology over the alternatives even if the theory is undeveloped.
Best to you,
Colin
report post as inappropriate
Author lutz kayser replied on Feb. 28, 2015 @ 23:03 GMT
Dear Colin
you are completely right emphasizing the Nernst ideas. Hubble approved it too. The farther he looked in the 1930ies into space the more convinced he was that expansion is an impossible explanation for the vast redshifts he measured. With no expansion BB is out.
The logically following question of the Clausius law of ever-increasing entropy has to be solved additionally. Are we sure that it is applicable to an infinite cosmos?
The dispersion measurement (DM) by millisecond pulsars give a chance of determining the redshift mechanism.
Once we have found an experimentally proven cosmological redshift law (Refraction, Diffraction, Dispersion, etc) we can think about what happens after another trillion years.
Best to you
Lutz
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 26, 2015 @ 02:57 GMT
Dear Lutz Kayser,
You make a good case that cosmology was not founded on experiments but on mathematical solutions in a framework that simply excited the mathematical physicists. To some extent quantum mechanics carried on in the same fashion, leading to "dozens of adjustable constants and parameters to make the experiments "fit"." [See "fit an elephant" in my 2013 essay:
Gravity and the Nature of Information.] As you note:
"
The question of truth does not count as long as the math fits."
But, to answer your question, I don't think it will take
that long to break out of this prison.
Your most damning statement: "whoever wrote something contrary, daring to discuss different cosmologies saw himself banned from Academia."
Apparently that is still the case today, as the silence from the academics (with one mixed exception) surrounding my essay is rather surprising. I show that Bell oversimplified his model, and academics appear unwilling to touch this with a 10 foot pole. Your comment about Dingell and "Einstein's leg" certainly seems to apply in spades to Bell! The recent '
50 Years of Bell's Theorem' has been described as hagiography.
I've recently seen an article about your suggestion that dark matter is the H2 molecule and it seems to make quite a bit of sense. There are number of essays here that agree with you about putting physics back in the driver's seat and using math as a tool, not as inspiration.
I hope you will read and comment on my essay.
My best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Member Tim Maudlin replied on Feb. 26, 2015 @ 17:35 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,
The reason that people stop responding to your incorrect claims about Bell is that you do not pay any attention to what they say. I explained that Bell's discussion is of experiments described in terms of a binary outcome space, which (in the case of spin and a Stern-Gerlach apparatus) can be characterized as the outcome space {particle detected above the midline, particle detected below the midline}. That is a perfectly good outcome space, and Bell's theorem applies. The prediction of quantum theory is that experiments of this kind will violate his inequalities for that outcome space, and hence cannot be reproduced (as his theorem shows) by any local physics. Your "model" in no way shows anything wrong with either Bell's framing of the question, or his proof, or the actual experiments. Your attention to spreads of the results is simply irrelevant, since the theorem is about correlations between outcomes described using the binary outcome space. The very picture in your own essay of the original Stern-Gerlach results shows the particles cleanly and clearly divided into detection above the midline and detection below the midline. It is the results, described in this way, that the theorem is about.
The fact that Bell codes the one sort of result mathematically as "+1" and the other as "-1" is completely insignificant to the theorem. In photon experiments, the results would be sorted into "detected in output channel 1" and "detected in output channel 2", also a binary outcome space. In fact, since the actual experiments done originally were on photons, your focus on Stern-Gerlach magnets does not even make contact with the empirical results.
No discussion is banned. But a productive discussion requires paying attention to what is being said.
Tim Maudlin
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 26, 2015 @ 21:51 GMT
Dear Tim Maudlin,
There is quite a difference between "not paying attention" to what you say, and "agreeing with what you say." For example, on my thread, you said approximately 15 times that the Stern-Gerlach-type experiments describe:
"Binary outcome space" , or
are "coded as +1 or -1", or
are "outcome1 and outcome2", or
are "spin up and spin down", or...
view entire post
Dear Tim Maudlin,
There is quite a difference between "not paying attention" to what you say, and "agreeing with what you say." For example, on my thread, you said approximately 15 times that the Stern-Gerlach-type experiments describe:
"Binary outcome space" , or
are "coded as +1 or -1", or
are "outcome1 and outcome2", or
are "spin up and spin down", or
"red light went on" versus "green light went on", or
are "above the midline" or "below the midline".
It's pretty hard to miss that you believe the experiment is based on binary outcomes.
What
you have missed, and missed a number of times, is that this suppresses the physics of the situation.
As an example, when particles are collided at LHC, some of the collision products come out 'above the midline' and some of them come out 'below the midline'.
Nobody cares -- there is no physics in analyzing LHC scattering experiments in such a simple matter.
I've tried to tell you, in a number of different ways, that
Bell ignores the physics going on in the Stern-Gerlach apparatus. And by constraining the outcomes to be simple binary outcomes he throws away the information that can be derived from the physics of the experiment. Physicists care (or should care) about this information. The fact that when this information is thrown away the physical model cannot match reality, is significant. Applying correct math to incorrect physics makes no sense, but that is exactly what Bell has done.
As John Cox remarked, as an academic philosopher,
you find it easy to take the physics out of math while leaving the math in physics. As a physicist I don't find it that simple. You have twice stated that I pay no attention to what you say. I have reviewed our comments and find it is difficult to discover any response from you to my valid points. And when I supplied data that contradicted your statement about neutron results, and asked you for any data that would support your position, you said you couldn't imagine why anymore time should be spent on the argument.
In fact, having reviewed your comments, I do have more responses. But this thread is meant to be for Lutz Kayser's essay, I don't think we should continue this conversation here. My next comment will be on my thread. I hope you find reason to respond.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author lutz kayser replied on Feb. 27, 2015 @ 06:29 GMT
Edwin,
thanks for your kind words. You are certainly a brave man to ... on Bell's leg which I did not yet dare. However, I shall study your essay further.
Generally it can be said that positive criticism is not well received by Akademia because professors do not like to change their curricula every year. Even if they know it's wrong they insist on the mold stuff in the textbooks.(continuity, concordance, etc). The "successful" researchers in terms of funding are the incrementalists, unfortunately.
Please continue to work on the improvement of "physical" physics!
Best
Lutz
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 27, 2015 @ 08:13 GMT
Lutz,
Thank you, for your essay and for your response. The problem is every bit as severe as you say it is in the strongholds of physics, but I would remind you of MacArthur's campaign on New Guinea, which was to "bypass the strongholds", to "hit them where they ain't", and to let them "die on the vine". The rules of the game are changing and it may no longer be possible to bottle up embarrassing or unpleasant truths. FQXi and the Net change the rules of the game. There is still an incredible noise factor in order to be heard outside the "
Halls of Learning", but it's not nearly as bad as it used to be.
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Hasmukh K. Tank wrote on Feb. 26, 2015 @ 14:11 GMT
Dear Lutz Kayser,
You will be delighted to read the following paper, suggesting that:
It is not the universe which is expanding, and whose expansion is getting accelerated at the rate H0 c. Rather, it is the photon, which is decelerating at the same rate H0 c. And, since there is no accelerated-expansion of the universe, there is no need for any dark-energy, with a strange property of repulsive gravity. Of course, there seem to be huge amount of un-manifest energy, due to which not only photons, but at least four space-probes also are measured to decelerate at the same rate H0 c.
Your valuable comments are most welcome. The paper is posted at:
http://vixra.org/abs/1502.0218
I too have attempted to express my views in the essay titled:
On the connection between physics and mathematics.
Your valuable comments are most welcome.
Yours sincerely,
Hasmukh K. Tank
report post as inappropriate
Author lutz kayser replied on Feb. 27, 2015 @ 06:36 GMT
Dear Mr. Tank,
thanks for your kind words. I already knew your paper on vixra and find it interesting. We need empirical proof.
Keep working on it!
Best
Lutz
PS: I knew a famous aircraft designer who went to India after WWII. Are you related?
Al Schneider wrote on Feb. 26, 2015 @ 15:27 GMT
This is a great paper. I share, I think, similar thoughts in my essay, "Modeling Reality with Mathematics". However, you bring more reality to the situation. I have put two videos on Youtube in an attempt to explain some problems in physics. They purport that Einstein and others did their work before QED by Feynman was produced. I also purport that if present day science would consider QED while examining the big bang and general relativity, opinions would change.
"Space is not Warped" http://youtu.be/p0E5AWnYjys
"Is the Big Bang a Hoax" http://youtu.be/w6NsfzNEOmo
If I had read papers like yours and others, I would probably not have written mine.
Thanks
report post as inappropriate
Author lutz kayser replied on Feb. 27, 2015 @ 06:49 GMT
Al,
thanks for your encouragement. I watched your Youtu presentation and understood what you want to tell. Can you imagine a lab experiment to prove it?
Keep working on it
Best
Lutz
Sujatha Jagannathan wrote on Feb. 26, 2015 @ 16:23 GMT
Your essay is very refreshing so much so that I gained a lot from you.
Smiles!
Great work!!!!
Sincerely,
Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan
report post as inappropriate
Author lutz kayser replied on Feb. 27, 2015 @ 06:53 GMT
Sujatha,
thanks for your smiles; they certainly look nice.
I am glad that my story gave you something.
Best for India
Lutz
Pentcho Valev wrote on Feb. 28, 2015 @ 10:23 GMT
"Einstein was the cleverest in riding that wave. He took Minkovski's four-dimensional time-space symmetry, mixed it with Poincare's "Lorentz transformations" and relativity, added some self-invented new vector addition law and published this in 1905 as his special Relativity Theory. Being a physicist it did not bother him that no positive experiments were available as a...
view entire post
"Einstein was the cleverest in riding that wave. He took Minkovski's four-dimensional time-space symmetry, mixed it with Poincare's "Lorentz transformations" and relativity, added some self-invented new vector addition law and published this in 1905 as his special Relativity Theory. Being a physicist it did not bother him that no positive experiments were available as a foundation."
Correct, but the everything-derived-from-two-simple-postulates trick should be emphasized. Initially Einstein derived the constancy of the speed of light from the Lorentz transforms, then called it "postulate" and finally derived the Lorentz transforms from the postulate (the gullible world was stunned):
Albert Einstein, What Is The Theory Of Relativity? (November 28, 1919): "The second principle, on which the special theory of relativity rests, is the "principle of the constant velocity of light in vacuo." This principle asserts that light in vacuo always has a definite velocity of propagation (independent of the state of motion of the observer or of the source of the light). The confidence which physicists place in this principle springs from the successes achieved by the electrodynamics of Maxwell and Lorentz."
Introduction to Special Relativity, James H. Smith, p. 42: "We must emphasize that at the time Einstein proposed it [his second postulate], there was no direct experimental evidence whatever for the speed of light being independent of the speed of its source. He postulated it out of logical necessity."
The truth is that, in 1887 (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis), the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally confirmed the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and refuted the constant (independent of the speed of the source) speed of light predicted by the immobile ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his special relativity's second postulate:
Alberto Martinez: "In sum, Einstein rejected the emission hypothesis prior to 1905 not because of any direct empirical evidence against it, but because it seemed to involve too many theoretical and mathematical complications. By contrast, Ritz was impressed by the lack of empirical evidence against the emission hypothesis, and he was not deterred by the mathematical difficulties it involved. It seemed to Ritz far more reasonable to assume, in the interest of the "economy" of scientific concepts, that the speed of light depends on the speed of its source, like any other projectile, rather than to assume or believe, with Einstein, that its speed is independent of the motion of its source even though it is not a wave in a medium; that nothing can go faster than light; that the length and mass of any body varies with its velocity; that there exist no rigid bodies; that duration and simultaneity are relative concepts; that the basic parallelogram law for the addition of velocities is not exactly valid; and so forth. Ritz commented that "it is a curious thing, worthy of remark, that only a few years ago one would have thought it sufficient to refute a theory to show that it entails even one or another of these consequences...."
John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation, has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late 19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised the greatest theoretician of the day."
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous."
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author lutz kayser replied on Feb. 28, 2015 @ 23:22 GMT
Dear Pentcho
you citations are instructive. Poincare introduced relativity because he doubted that we can ever measure the absolute velocity reference frame. We have it now with CMB. Insofar Einstein was right to repeat that c is constant in vacuo. But he failed to specify "in reference to CMB Zero" which he could not know at the time. Einstein's main mistake was his intentional mix up of absolute velocity and relative velocity. He postulated both are equal and this is false.
Concerning the Ritz opinion please understand that an EM wavelet (photon) speed does not care about its source speed. The moment the photon is travelling, it does so with absolute constant c. Therefore, the Ritz cannon ball analogy is false.
Please read my paper on relativity
https://www.academia.edu/10256811/Falsification_of_Einstein_
Theories_of_Relativity
Best
Lutz
Pentcho Valev replied on Mar. 1, 2015 @ 09:35 GMT
susanne kayser-schillegger replied on Mar. 1, 2015 @ 23:35 GMT
Dear Pentcho,
you are right. Lightspeed can be manipulated by lasers and also lateral confinement which is detrimental for relativity, SR and GR.
Only plane waves travel isotropically in space.
Best
Lutz
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 2, 2015 @ 09:31 GMT
Dear Lutz,
"So, what is the truth in this cosmological enigma? (...) The question is answerable by solving the riddle of cosmological redshift."
Recently it has been shown that light in vacuum can be slowed, which gives strong support to both Halton Arp's "intrinsic redshift" hypothesis and "tired light" ideas:
"The work demonstrates that, after passing the light beam through a mask, photons move more slowly through space."
If something (the mask) can decrease the speed of photons, it is reasonable to assume that something else (quantum vacuum) can also do so:
NewScientist: "Vacuum has friction after all"
Paul Davies: "As pointed out by DeWitt, the quantum vacuum is in some respects reminiscent of the aether, and in what follows it may be helpful to think of space-time as filled with a type of invisible fluid medium, representing a seething background of vacuum fluctuations. Although the mechanical properties of this medium can be strange, and the image should not be pushed too far, it is sometimes helpful to envisage this "quantum aether" as possessing a type of viscosity."
Nature | Scientific American: "As waves travel through a medium, they lose energy over time. This dampening effect would also happen to photons traveling through spacetime, the researchers found."
In my view, loss of energy/speed is the only reasonable cause for the Hubble redshift (in a static universe). Slowly but surely the Big Bang money-spinner is approaching its collapse.
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Author lutz kayser replied on Mar. 3, 2015 @ 02:56 GMT
Pentcho,
these are very interesting citations. I cannot find your essay to rate.
Your ideas are deep and we should stay in contact for further development towards a physically satisfying cosmological redshift explanation as Hubble wished it.
Best
Lutz
Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 5, 2015 @ 07:36 GMT
Dear Lutz Kayser,
Pentcho Valev has been posting arguments against Einstein theory for years. He argues that the second postulate (constant velocity of light) must be wrong just for two experiments (Michelson and Pound/Rebka).
Pentcho follows instead Newton who imagined light emitted as particles. He didn't find support, and will perhaps not again submit an essay.
I disagree with Pentcho concerning the interpretation of Michelson's experiments 1881 in Potsdam and 1887 in Cleveland. Thomas Phipps Jr. and others who shed some light into the matter were ignored. My own rather slow progress of understanding has been scattered over several essays of mine.
I will read your essay carefully. Immediately I got aware of a few details I don't understand. They concern important questions like the history of mathematics as well as trifles like the question whether Copernikus (1473-1543) was Silesian. Weren't Thorn and Fromborg located in Pommern? Bruno was burned in 1600. On p. 2 of your essay, you gave a translation from Latin: "gravity force is proportional to the square of the distance between ... ". Shouldn't Kepler have written reciprocal instead?
Is there any necessity for calling just Gauss and Riemann "intelligent mathematicians" after writing "poor Maxwell"?
Was Schrödinger best characterized as a mathematician?
In all, I looked in vain for a more precise analysis including valuable hints to references.
Sincerely,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Author lutz kayser wrote on Mar. 6, 2015 @ 02:41 GMT
Dear Mr. Blumschein
You have attentively read my essay and even found an error: Mea culpa; in the Kepler citation must read: “the reciprocal of distance squared”. Thanks.
Kopernik was indeed born in Schlesien but was later Domherr in Ost-Preussen. I wanted to stress the apprehension of natural philosophers in the Middle Ages to publish to avoid the wrath of the mainstream...
view entire post
Dear Mr. Blumschein
You have attentively read my essay and even found an error: Mea culpa; in the Kepler citation must read: “the reciprocal of distance squared”. Thanks.
Kopernik was indeed born in Schlesien but was later Domherr in Ost-Preussen. I wanted to stress the apprehension of natural philosophers in the Middle Ages to publish to avoid the wrath of the mainstream authorities. Maybe Patcho does not write essays anymore for that reason.
I read with interest your essay and like a few remarks such as “Moreover, they use Heaviside’s trick which tempts to unwarrantedly interpret results of complex calculations”. This is right. He, not Maxwell coined the “Maxwell Equations” with a wrong Ampere’s law and a nonexistent “displacement current”
Another good part is “Leibniz and Newton merely agreed on that acceleration is an absolute quality. Let’s show Newton’s mistake with the metaphor of an unlimited to both sides box [14]. Only if there is a preferred point of reference, it is possible to attribute a position to it. In space, such point is usually missing.” However, I think you are helping the relativists defending their ideology. Newton was perfect in insisting on absolute velocities with reference to space. All astronomers are measuring peculiar motions of stars and galaxies. And we know that we are travelling through space with an absolute velocity of 371000 m/s towards the Virgo cluster. With the CMB zero this discussion is finally closed and relativity is dead.
You also warn about the mindless use of singularities in math. But you fail to mention that these singularities created by illegal divide by zero operations in Levy-Civita’s tensor math have finally led to monstrosities like the big bang and black holes. These are purely mathematical constructs and misled physicists and a wide public to believe in such singular objects. They even claim to be able to imagine such singularities in space and time. Here you mathematicians have strong duty to warn urgently. Nature hates singularities; beware of them!
All the best for your future work
Lutz
view post as summary
Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 6, 2015 @ 18:08 GMT
Dear Professor Kayser,
Please find my comments to the more topical part of your reply
here. I just skimmed through your essay rather than attentively reading it, and I am largely agreeing with you. Because you maintain that Copernicus was born in Silesia I looked into http://polskiinternet.com/english/nicolascopernicus.html and found confirmed that he was born in Thorn (Torun) as Mikolaj, son of Koppernigk and Watzenrode.
Interestingly, "In 1514, the Lateran Council sought Copernicus's opinion on calendar reform."
While I cannot yet exclude that Thorn did belong to Silesia at that time, other sources attribute it to the kingdom of Prussia: "In 1466, with the Teutonic Order's defeat, Pomerelia became again subject to the Polish Crown as a part of Royal Prussia."
I just wondered because I imagine Thorn alias Torun located in what was Pommern, Westpreussen, or Posen for centuries but always far from Silesia. At school I learned to distinguish between Urstromtälern Glogau-Baruth und Thorn-Eberswalde. A grandfather of mine was born in Langenbielau/Silesia, A grandmother of mine was born near Bromberg. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomerania#High_Middle_Ages_to_E
arly_Modern_Age
Wishing me all the best for my future work and calling me Mr. Blumschein does not hurt me much although I am already pretty old and my accordingly limited means and my sober style of reasoning seem to be different from yours. I would never say nature hates something. Nonetheless, I hope we will respect and support each other rather than quibbling.
Best,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Author lutz kayser wrote on Mar. 7, 2015 @ 02:38 GMT
Dear Eckhard,
Kopernikus indeed was a countryman of your ancestors! His father's family came from a village in Silesia near Nysa, called Kopernik.
Wikipedia: "The father's family can be traced to a village in Silesia near Nysa (Neiße). The village's name has been variously spelled Kopernik,[8] Copernik, Copernic, Kopernic, Coprirnik, and today Koperniki."
So we are both right and happy. I am turning 76 and still active like you. By the way my ancestors were Teutonic Knights from the Koenigsberg area. (Fischhausen)
Since you are so deeply knowledgeable in science history, I have a question:
Who has invented symmetrical relativity the first time? Was it Poincare?
Best
Lutz
Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 7, 2015 @ 18:03 GMT
Dear Lutz,
My essay was downgraded immediately after I too frankly responded to your request concerning Poincaré. I should have added that Henry Poincaré at least vehemently tried to be critical towards Cantor's set theory.
Can you please explain what you meant with symmetrical relativity? I understand Poincaré/Einstein synchronization ABA as asymmetrical.
Best,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Author lutz kayser wrote on Mar. 8, 2015 @ 02:09 GMT
Dear Eckard,
I graded your essay well long before I commented it. The more I read from your the better I comprehend your deep knowledge, and I admire it.
The Newton-Maxwell-Lorentz-Lamor relativity is always asymmetrical to an absolute rest frame (they called it aether, but it need not be ponderable). I.e. all other frames are to be considered secondary and velocities asymmetric to absolute space.
Poincare was frustrated that nobody was able to measure the absolute zero velocity frame. Therefore he postulated that all bodies move relatively and symmetrically to each other. A moves relative to B and B moves symmetrical relative to A. Einstein read this and declared it as his invention without understanding the problem. The problem is that it is false.
Correct is: A moves relative to 0 (Cosmic Velocity Zero) VA
B moves relative to 0 VB
A moves relative to B VAB = VA - VB
Best
Lutz
Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 11, 2015 @ 16:59 GMT
Dear Lutz,
Newton relativity sounds strange to me. I thought, in contrast to Leibniz, Newton imagined space as a substance, a scenario of God, something absolute. As Pentcho persistently tells us, the velocity of an emitted bullet refers to the emitter and not to the medium in which it moves.
Maxwell had reason to relate the velocity of light to a hypothetical medium because he understood light a wave like acoustic waves that relate to air.
Air is like a block; it has a point of reference, space has no reference point.
Therefore Michelson failed when he tried to measure how this point moves relative to earth.
Given you were right, and there was a preferred point or boundary in or of space relative to which A and B move. Did this matter for VAB? VAB is the relative velocity between A and B. We may arbitrarily decide counting it positive if the distance is getting shorter and negative else or vice versa. This is indeed a symmetrical relationship. Poincaré synchronization by Einstein ABA (or BAB) is an asymmetrical, lets say it friendly, convention.
Best,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Branko L Zivlak wrote on Mar. 11, 2015 @ 21:47 GMT
Dear Lutz Kayser,
you write:
„Since then millions of valuable mathematician ’s and theoretical physicists’ work-hours are spent calculating what happened during these first 1E-45 seconds and then with inflation and even accelerated expansion.“ So happely, as I am meteorologist, I am not wasting my time on that way.
I also agree with your attitudes that I intuitively applied in my work. I've also read some of your interesting comments to other participants. I'd like you to comment on my essay. As you know, predictions of meteorologists are easy to check. In predictions of my essay, there is no hiding behind the impossibility of the verification scientists` “clairvoyance”.
Best Regards,
Branko
report post as inappropriate
Author lutz kayser replied on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 05:46 GMT
Dear Branko,
thanks for your kind and intelligent words.
I shall read your essay and comment it.
Best
Lutz
James A Putnam wrote on Mar. 12, 2015 @ 18:33 GMT
Dear Lutz,
It is a pleasure to read your essay. Thank you for sharing your knowledge. Readers should seriously consider the importance of your historical presentation. My opinion is that there is substantial artificiality in theoretical physics. Good luck in the contest.
James
report post as inappropriate
Author lutz kayser replied on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 05:49 GMT
Dear James,
thanks for your kind message,
I am aware of your thoughts on Relativity from your published papers and share your concerns.
Let us break the chains of the relativity prison asap!
Best
Lutz
Nick Percival wrote on Mar. 20, 2015 @ 17:53 GMT
You wrote, "It shows an 800 pound gorilla (mathematics) can easily suppress a
small bird (physics) if nobody cares for a fair equilibrium. The mainstream Standard Cosmological Model, or Big Bang, with inflation and accelerating expansion is the result. It has no realistic physical background and based on a false redshift explanation." Well said!!! However, i don't think you went far enough. Dark matter is not just "transparent", but a fantasy or fudge factor of mathematical fiddling to bridge the gap between empirical data and currently accepted mathematical theory. Excellent paper!!!
Nick Percival
report post as inappropriate
Author lutz kayser replied on Mar. 20, 2015 @ 21:13 GMT
Dear Nick,
you hit the nail on the head!
One could go on and on with today's "fudge factor physics".
The dreadful cheating of the Nobel Committee using manipulated supernova data is remarkable. Nobel prizes are strewn over fraudulent physicists. The next case for the arctic "gravity waves" is pending.
Best
Lutz
Anonymous wrote on Mar. 24, 2015 @ 00:32 GMT
Lutz,
That is a clear and coherent essay for those of us just observing the fields of physics and cosmology.
Some decades ago it occurred to me that the Big Bang model was nonsense, when I read that the rate of expansion is inversely proportional to gravity. Even someone with very little education in the subject would realize that if this intergalactic expansion is balanced by...
view entire post
Lutz,
That is a clear and coherent essay for those of us just observing the fields of physics and cosmology.
Some decades ago it occurred to me that the Big Bang model was nonsense, when I read that the rate of expansion is inversely proportional to gravity. Even someone with very little education in the subject would realize that if this intergalactic expansion is balanced by intergalactic contraction, there would be no additional expansion of the universe as a whole. What seemed evident is this is a modeling of a convection cycle of expanding radiation and contracting mass.
We can accept that gravity is "equivalent" to acceleration and still know the surface of the planet doesn't rush outward to keep us attached to it, so why wouldn't there be an opposite effect, where redshift is "equivalent" to recession?
One point I keep raising is that when they discovered these galaxies are redshifted such that we appear at the center, it was argued this was an expansion of space, not just in space and every point appears as the center, based on the premise of expanding spacetime. Which is total nonsense, since the time component doesn't increase! The speed of light doesn't increase in order to remain Constant to this expanding space. Of course, the Doppler effect would only work if there were more lightyears, not stretched lightyears. So we are to believe that space is expanding, based on the redshift of this intergalactic light and we can measure this expansion against a stable yardstick, based on the speed of that very same light!
Now we are the center of our view of the universe and so a compounding optical effect would explain this increasing redshift, why we appear at the center and why it goes parabolic, without needing dark energy to explain the curve in the rate.
I think one of the main problems for physics in general is that we perceive change as a sequence of events and so think of time as the point of the present moving from past to future. Which physics codifies by treating it as a measure of duration.
While the actual reality is a changing configuration of what exists, which turns future into past. To wit, the earth doesn't travel some dimension from yesterday to tomorrow, but tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth turns.
Duration is simply the state of the present, as events form and dissolve and not a vector external to the present.
This makes time an effect of action, not the basis for it and as such, is similar to temperature. Time is to temperature, what frequency is to amplitude. It is just that while amplitude en masse is temperature, frequency en masse is static and so isolated actions are measured. Yet the overall effect of change is cumulative, like temperature. A faster frequency/clock simply uses energy quicker and so recedes into the past faster. The tortoise is still plodding along, long after the hare has died.
This leaves space alone and space without physical properties to define or limit it has only the two non-physical properties of being absolute and infinite.
The state of this absolute equilibrium is implicit in the speed of light in a vacuum being constant. Since a clock would stop at the speed of light, if we were to place clocks around in space, the one which ran fastest would be closest to this equilibrium of the vacuum.
Meanwhile an infinite space wouldn't be subject to entropy, since energy radiated from one area would be replaced by energy radiated in from surrounding areas.
So then we have this infinite vacuum, filled with energy fluctuations and the two main features of this wave action are frequency and amplitude, i.e.. time and temperature.
Now any energy will express form, even if it is just frequency and amplitude. As such, energy presses outward and form is the definition pressing inward, since it is based on interactions of energy thus impeding.
This form then is both physical mass and sensory information. While the energy is dynamic and conserved, the form is static and transient. So the energy goes from prior form to succeeding form, as the form comes into being and dissolves. Thus the arrow of time for energy is past to future, while the arrow of time for form is future to past.
Think of a factory, where the product goes start to finish, while the production line is going the other way, consuming material and expelling product. Life is the same. Individuals go from being in the future to being in the past, birth to death, while the species goes onto the next generation, shedding the old.
So then tie this back to the galaxies, as mass forms on the perimeters and falls inward, getting ever more dense, yet radiating out much excess energy. Just as factories and people radiate much waste. Eventually what falls into the center gets shot out the poles as cosmic jets, or quasars.
All this energy to eventually solidify into new forms and start over.
So gravity is not just a property of mass, but the process of consolidation, by which energy coalesces into mass and so is not so much a particular force, as a cumulative effect of all that is pulling inward. A vacuum, just like energy released from mass creates pressure.
So the reason we can't find gravity waves is because we are not looking for the right thing. It is light.
Einsteins's Cosmological Constant is light. The balance to the attraction of gravity.
This is my somewhat accidental theory of everything.
I've entered in a few of these contests, but knew this one would really be banging my head on the wall, so didn't get motivated enough to try.
Good luck!
Regards,
John Merryman
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 6, 2015 @ 14:54 GMT
Dear Lutz,
I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.
All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.
Joe Fisher
report post as inappropriate
Author lutz kayser replied on Apr. 22, 2015 @ 22:24 GMT
Dear Joe,
I read your interesting essay and rated it well.
Best
Lutz
Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 21, 2015 @ 14:43 GMT
Lutz,
Great essay, which I'm very glad I got to. No time now for long discussions but well done. If you have to time I know you'll enjoy my own essay, and this video deriving a new cosmic redshift effect free of expanding acceleration.
9 min. VIDEO Time Dependent Redshift. A better score coming, well deserved for well tackling this important subject.
Best regards
peter
report post as inappropriate
Author lutz kayser wrote on Apr. 22, 2015 @ 22:29 GMT
Dear Peter,
I watched your video and read your essay. Your thoughts about cosmic redshift mechanisms are very interesting. We must find an alternative physics to the abominable "expansion"!
Please continue your quest.
Best
Lutz
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.