S
server
Guest
message unavailable
The bubbling universe: A previously unknown phase transition in the early universe, 2 different Hubble constants united?...
M
Martin Brown
Guest
On 03/02/2023 05:41, Jan Panteltje wrote:
A definite maybe. I\'ve never been happy with dark energy as an
explanation but the experimental evidence is now pretty clear that the
expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating rather than slowing
down so something must be driving that.
I\'d prefer to believe that there is something odd about first generation
stars myself but my friends still in the game say that isn\'t workable.
If your \"standard candles\" of known brightness are not as reproducible
as you think they are then there is scope for systematic error. The very
first generation of low metallicity stars made from primordial material
might just behave differently at the end of their life.
--
Martin Brown
A definite maybe. I\'ve never been happy with dark energy as an
explanation but the experimental evidence is now pretty clear that the
expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating rather than slowing
down so something must be driving that.
I\'d prefer to believe that there is something odd about first generation
stars myself but my friends still in the game say that isn\'t workable.
If your \"standard candles\" of known brightness are not as reproducible
as you think they are then there is scope for systematic error. The very
first generation of low metallicity stars made from primordial material
might just behave differently at the end of their life.
--
Martin Brown
P
Phil Hobbs
Guest
On 2023-03-06 08:49, Martin Brown wrote:
Cosomologists seem to have caught the string theorists\' disease.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com
Cosomologists seem to have caught the string theorists\' disease.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com
F
Fred Bloggs
Guest
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 8:49:57â¯AM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:
Gravity obviously flips its sign at some point. It\'s not as cut and dry as they think. There\'s a dependency there of immeasurably negligible effect under circumstances with which we have familiarity, and then catches up with things in extraordinary circumstances. Have they even explained why gravity even exists?
Gravity obviously flips its sign at some point. It\'s not as cut and dry as they think. There\'s a dependency there of immeasurably negligible effect under circumstances with which we have familiarity, and then catches up with things in extraordinary circumstances. Have they even explained why gravity even exists?
M
Martin Brown
Guest
On 06/03/2023 16:04, Phil Hobbs wrote:
theorist. I don\'t find it a convincing solution because of too many free
parameters and not enough observable predictions but he could be right.
It is quite likely that the next big breakthrough in cosmology will come
from some new cutting edge mathematics that allows the tricky merger of
general relativity, QCD and gravitation into one overarching theory.
I suspect that we will know it when we see it presented although like
with relativity I expect there will be a rearguard action of older
cosmologists who never quite accepted the new fangled Big Bang theory.
Fred Hoyle for instance who should really have got a Nobel prize for his
work and insights on stellar nucleosynthesis but was too much a a bluff
Yorkshireman to garner enough support from his peers.
https://www.joh.cam.ac.uk/library/special_collections/hoyle/exhibition/nucleosynthesis
--
Martin Brown
One of my contemporaries at university is now a world leading string
theorist. I don\'t find it a convincing solution because of too many free
parameters and not enough observable predictions but he could be right.
It is quite likely that the next big breakthrough in cosmology will come
from some new cutting edge mathematics that allows the tricky merger of
general relativity, QCD and gravitation into one overarching theory.
I suspect that we will know it when we see it presented although like
with relativity I expect there will be a rearguard action of older
cosmologists who never quite accepted the new fangled Big Bang theory.
Fred Hoyle for instance who should really have got a Nobel prize for his
work and insights on stellar nucleosynthesis but was too much a a bluff
Yorkshireman to garner enough support from his peers.
https://www.joh.cam.ac.uk/library/special_collections/hoyle/exhibition/nucleosynthesis
--
Martin Brown
N
Nikola Tesla
Guest
On 3/7/23 04:05, Martin Brown wrote:
\"Today\'s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and
they wander off through equation after equation and eventually build a
structure which has no relation to reality.\"
-- Nikola Tesla (real scientist who actually discovered and invented
real things and ideas, unlike popular celebrity scientist frauds)
\"Today\'s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and
they wander off through equation after equation and eventually build a
structure which has no relation to reality.\"
-- Nikola Tesla (real scientist who actually discovered and invented
real things and ideas, unlike popular celebrity scientist frauds)
A
Anthony William Sloman
Guest
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 11:51:03â¯PM UTC+11, Nikola Tesla wrote:
Nikola Tesla was real engineer who did use sophisticated math to build real things.
He got less productive as he got older and sillier. He doesn\'t seem to have published stuff in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, so he doesn\'t count as a scientist.
He was definitely an inventor, and I\'ve known enough of both to know that there isn\'t a lot of overlap between the two categories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Nikola Tesla was real engineer who did use sophisticated math to build real things.
He got less productive as he got older and sillier. He doesn\'t seem to have published stuff in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, so he doesn\'t count as a scientist.
He was definitely an inventor, and I\'ve known enough of both to know that there isn\'t a lot of overlap between the two categories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
P
Phil Hobbs
Guest
On 2023-03-07 05:05, Martin Brown wrote:> On 06/03/2023 16:04, Phil
Hobbs wrote:
We\'re still waiting for a single testable prediction. The number of
smart people who have poured their life\'s work down that rathole is a
tragedy.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Hobbs wrote:
We\'re still waiting for a single testable prediction. The number of
smart people who have poured their life\'s work down that rathole is a
tragedy.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
J
Jan Panteltje
Guest
On a sunny day (Tue, 7 Mar 2023 10:15:24 -0500) it happened Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in
<fbcb674d-d24d-c6ff-180b-2da25303dd4d@electrooptical.net>:
I still want to see a mechanism.
Le Sage theory of gravity does it for me
If those particles originate in processes in stars then the \'universe\' will be expanding ever faster
(pushing itself apart).
It predicts clocks slowing down in a gravity well (less flux, mass less compressed, pendulum getting longer)
and if those particles are also the carrier of EM radiation (so EM a state of those for example)
that would explain why gravity moves at the speed of light (seems to have been tested).
All that string theory crap, adding enough \'dimensions\' can make you explain anything.. add a fairy too, same thing,
Mechanism is the solution, electronics without electrons would be really a dead end road.
Le Sage also predicts internal heating of planets... Not that jive about nuclear processes doing it (no evidence of that)..
But Albert E. devotees known as brainwashed \'scientists\' indoctrinate people.
Few hundred years ago epicycles, earth in the middle of everything, same mathematicians, VERY complicated system
only the best of them could work with..
What\'s new....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage\'s_theory_of_gravitation
If this is right flying faster then light would be no problem.
You then also see that time does not slow down like they think at high speed, but the pendulum gets squeezed in a different
way above light speed.
And if indeed light is a state of LS particles it is 1) quantisized but NOT at the photon level
and 2) it will slow down over greater distances due to interaction with other things it encounters including itself
so redshift.. maybe even doing away with the big bang..
So there is room for speculation.
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in
<fbcb674d-d24d-c6ff-180b-2da25303dd4d@electrooptical.net>:
I still want to see a mechanism.
Le Sage theory of gravity does it for me
If those particles originate in processes in stars then the \'universe\' will be expanding ever faster
(pushing itself apart).
It predicts clocks slowing down in a gravity well (less flux, mass less compressed, pendulum getting longer)
and if those particles are also the carrier of EM radiation (so EM a state of those for example)
that would explain why gravity moves at the speed of light (seems to have been tested).
All that string theory crap, adding enough \'dimensions\' can make you explain anything.. add a fairy too, same thing,
Mechanism is the solution, electronics without electrons would be really a dead end road.
Le Sage also predicts internal heating of planets... Not that jive about nuclear processes doing it (no evidence of that)..
But Albert E. devotees known as brainwashed \'scientists\' indoctrinate people.
Few hundred years ago epicycles, earth in the middle of everything, same mathematicians, VERY complicated system
only the best of them could work with..
What\'s new....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage\'s_theory_of_gravitation
If this is right flying faster then light would be no problem.
You then also see that time does not slow down like they think at high speed, but the pendulum gets squeezed in a different
way above light speed.
And if indeed light is a state of LS particles it is 1) quantisized but NOT at the photon level
and 2) it will slow down over greater distances due to interaction with other things it encounters including itself
so redshift.. maybe even doing away with the big bang..
So there is room for speculation.
J
Jan Panteltje
Guest
On a sunny day (Tue, 7 Mar 2023 12:14:00 -0800 (PST)) it happened Lou
<noelturntive@live.co.uk> wrote in
<350263be-98cd-418e-99ea-31b4583f647an@googlegroups.com>:
For gravity and the prediction Albert E.\'s math model makes.
Yes, a mechanism will explain things in an understandable way
just like we can talk about electrons in say a vacuum rectifier causing a current anyways
but in only one direction, little negative charged balls...
OK do not get me going on the meaning of \'negative and fields etc\'
Mamaticians should be kept in a special zoo..
I hardly use math, only for quantisizing things, math in itself
is just a construction of few neurons in the brain.
AI will outperform it soon, if not already has.
Albert E. knew it, he admitted on his deathbed he failed to unite the
forces of gravity with the other forces of nature I\'v read.
We need a new look, a simple mechanism that unites everything.
I am not stuck with Le Sage but so far it clicks every time.
We\'d better look into what such a particle should look like.
Any other mechanism that gives a better explanation: I will be open to that.
But I am but a neural net and many earthlings are so repeatedly stuck in maaaz
that they do not see the forest because of the trees, or was it the other way around
trees in the forest, whatever,
Well...
Would be interesting to have a look at our \'science\' a few thousand years from now,
For sure there must be alien civilizations that sort of went through the same sequence
and are a bit ahead of us.
Listening to their radio and watching their TV could maybe make us look at our future.
Seti.
One thing Le Sage predicts is that on earth there must be spectral spreading of
say a rubidium cloud atom\'s frequency as both atoms in it are hit from a less dense Le Sage particles
field due to those particles passing through earth and more from the sides and top.
Longer and shorter pendulums in that cloud of atoms so to speak...
Should the spectral spreading be less out in space away from masses, gravitational fields?
experiment, as someone else already pointed out, is the essence how we learn.
For us neural nets even throwing a ball needs some tries, learning.
Kids do not use math to learn to throw a ball.
Ask a mamatician to calculate, game will be long over before he even makes an equation with all parameters, forces, wind, weight,
air pressure, gravitational constant, what not...
OK, ;-)
<noelturntive@live.co.uk> wrote in
<350263be-98cd-418e-99ea-31b4583f647an@googlegroups.com>:
For gravity and the prediction Albert E.\'s math model makes.
Yes, a mechanism will explain things in an understandable way
just like we can talk about electrons in say a vacuum rectifier causing a current anyways
but in only one direction, little negative charged balls...
OK do not get me going on the meaning of \'negative and fields etc\'
Mamaticians should be kept in a special zoo..
I hardly use math, only for quantisizing things, math in itself
is just a construction of few neurons in the brain.
AI will outperform it soon, if not already has.
Albert E. knew it, he admitted on his deathbed he failed to unite the
forces of gravity with the other forces of nature I\'v read.
We need a new look, a simple mechanism that unites everything.
I am not stuck with Le Sage but so far it clicks every time.
We\'d better look into what such a particle should look like.
Any other mechanism that gives a better explanation: I will be open to that.
But I am but a neural net and many earthlings are so repeatedly stuck in maaaz
that they do not see the forest because of the trees, or was it the other way around
trees in the forest, whatever,
Well...
Would be interesting to have a look at our \'science\' a few thousand years from now,
For sure there must be alien civilizations that sort of went through the same sequence
and are a bit ahead of us.
Listening to their radio and watching their TV could maybe make us look at our future.
Seti.
One thing Le Sage predicts is that on earth there must be spectral spreading of
say a rubidium cloud atom\'s frequency as both atoms in it are hit from a less dense Le Sage particles
field due to those particles passing through earth and more from the sides and top.
Longer and shorter pendulums in that cloud of atoms so to speak...
Should the spectral spreading be less out in space away from masses, gravitational fields?
experiment, as someone else already pointed out, is the essence how we learn.
For us neural nets even throwing a ball needs some tries, learning.
Kids do not use math to learn to throw a ball.
Ask a mamatician to calculate, game will be long over before he even makes an equation with all parameters, forces, wind, weight,
air pressure, gravitational constant, what not...
OK, ;-)
R
RichD
Guest
On March 7, Phil Hobbs wrote:
The entire math academic math community has poured their
life\'s work into non-testable predictions (loosely speaking).
Is it all a rathole?
The string theorists are mathematicians. They fill a legitimate
niche. Presumably you\'re familiar with the origins of the university -
Oxford and Cambridge - as the ivory tower, where scholars can
escape the real world, and think deep thoughts. The string theorists
fit that tradition.
--
Rich
The entire math academic math community has poured their
life\'s work into non-testable predictions (loosely speaking).
Is it all a rathole?
The string theorists are mathematicians. They fill a legitimate
niche. Presumably you\'re familiar with the origins of the university -
Oxford and Cambridge - as the ivory tower, where scholars can
escape the real world, and think deep thoughts. The string theorists
fit that tradition.
--
Rich
A
Anthony William Sloman
Guest
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 8:11:45â¯AM UTC+11, RichD wrote:
Phil Hobbs is an experimentalist. His sole interest in theories is limited to devising experiments that can test them. String theory has been slow to deliver any kind of experimental test he could run, so he is unhappy with it. There are fallow periods in theoretical development, and experimentalist do get testy when they haven\'t got anything to test.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Oxford
Twaddle. They primarily taught students who were going to go out and become parish priests. That isn\'t \"escaping the real world\".
String theory has a lot in common with theology, and somebody like Phil Hobbs who fancies the ritual-heavy Orthodox tradition should be more tolerant of the Pythagorean string theory worshipers.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Phil Hobbs is an experimentalist. His sole interest in theories is limited to devising experiments that can test them. String theory has been slow to deliver any kind of experimental test he could run, so he is unhappy with it. There are fallow periods in theoretical development, and experimentalist do get testy when they haven\'t got anything to test.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Oxford
Twaddle. They primarily taught students who were going to go out and become parish priests. That isn\'t \"escaping the real world\".
String theory has a lot in common with theology, and somebody like Phil Hobbs who fancies the ritual-heavy Orthodox tradition should be more tolerant of the Pythagorean string theory worshipers.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney