Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

lutz kayser: on 4/22/15 at 22:29pm UTC, wrote Dear Peter, I watched your video and read your essay. Your thoughts about...

lutz kayser: on 4/22/15 at 22:24pm UTC, wrote Dear Joe, I read your interesting essay and rated it well. Best Lutz

Peter Jackson: on 4/21/15 at 14:43pm UTC, wrote Lutz, Great essay, which I'm very glad I got to. No time now for long...

Joe Fisher: on 4/6/15 at 14:54pm UTC, wrote Dear Lutz, I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was...

Anonymous: on 3/24/15 at 0:32am UTC, wrote Lutz, That is a clear and coherent essay for those of us just observing...

lutz kayser: on 3/20/15 at 21:13pm UTC, wrote Dear Nick, you hit the nail on the head! One could go on and on with...

Nick Percival: on 3/20/15 at 17:53pm UTC, wrote You wrote, "It shows an 800 pound gorilla (mathematics) can easily suppress...

lutz kayser: on 3/17/15 at 5:49am UTC, wrote Dear James, thanks for your kind message, I am aware of your thoughts on...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Steve Dufourny: "I must explain what is the real meaning of Spherisation in my theory.It is..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Robert, thank you. I now understand the difference between decisions and..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Robert McEachern: "Making a decision, means selecting between discrete, a priori established..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Eckard,you seems persuaded by your Words and thoughts.I don t understand..." in First Things First: The...

Eckard Blumschein: "In Darwinism/Weismannism there is no first cause, just a causal chain...." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "lol no indeed it is not a lot,like I said I liked your general ideas.I have..." in The Demon in the Machine...

Steve Agnew: "There are three assumptions...is that a lot? The aether particle mass, the..." in The Demon in the Machine...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
October 15, 2019

CATEGORY: Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015) [back]
TOPIC: Tricks or Truth: Mathematics' inappropriate domination of cosmology by lutz kayser [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author lutz kayser wrote on Feb. 25, 2015 @ 21:24 GMT
Essay Abstract

This 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 Bio

Author 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

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share


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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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?

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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


Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share


Pentcho Valev replied on Mar. 1, 2015 @ 09:35 GMT
Dear Lutz,

"The moment the photon is travelling, it does so with absolute constant c."

This is not true and has been refuted recently:

"A team of Scottish scientists has made light rays travel slower than the speed of light."

"Spatially structured photons that travel in free space slower than the speed of light"

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share


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

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share


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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share


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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share


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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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


Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.