Another theory that must be rejected by conservatives

[Gipper]

Why is it that you only attack "Conservatives" with this type of ire and never the Liberal/Progressives? That is the most likely reason some view you as a Liberal/Progressive, because we only ever hear you bashing Conservatives and you never give the same treatment to the Liberal/Progressives.

Hey Gen, I think its cause he has a thing for me.

Sorry THC, I am not a switch hitter.

 

[numinus]

You are assuming, apparently, that in the beginning the universe was a body, with solidity, and unmoving before something acted upon it. On the contrary, there is no evidence that matter even existed at the beginning. Rather, the big bang says that the universe began as an infintesimally small point of energy with infinite density and temperature. Energy is always in motion and has no mass, so in what way does the law of inertia apply?

Please stop asserting nonsense in the public domain and ascribing them to me.

1. I never assumed a spacetime singularity is made up of matter. That is simply absurd since matter cannot exist within a dimensionless point. Neither did I imply motion within a singularity since motion implies spatial displacement over time -- displacement and time being irrational quantities in singularities.

2. A spacetime singularity is not an 'infinitessimally small point of energy' since you already said that matter couldn't exist and einstein said that matter IS energy -- E=mc^2, remember? If it ain't matter, then it most certainly ain't energy.

3. The law of inertia applies since ENERGY IS REQUIRED TO ALTER INERTIAL STATES -- whether you are talking about the motion of matter/energy (newtonian and quantum mechanics) or the expansion/contraction of spacetime (general relativity).

Einstein's field equation describes the dynamics of two opposing energy densities -- gravitational energy density that tends to contract spacetime and lambda (that would be the cosmological constant multiplied to the metric tensor), a negative energy density that expands it.

Clearly, if spacetime is expanding at an accelerating rate, there is a net energy density that is causing it to do so. And when you are talking about a non-zero net energy density, then you have the law of inertia (and conservation of matter and energy) to contend with. Do you follow?

All these happens in 4-D spacetime so you might have problems visualizing it. I know I have.

 

[numinus]

The speed of light in a vacuum has been shown both in experimental observatons and in direct observations in the real world to agree to a very high degree with Einstein's equation. It has been measured for over 150 years, and has never varied more than the statistical error of the measurements. It's not like he made this stuff up out of thin air. It is so acccurate, in fact, that we know the distance from the Earth to the moon at any point in it's orbit to a very high degree of accuracy by bouncing lasers off reflectors left there by the Apollo astronauts.

I have provided evidences to suggest that it might not be constant elsewhere in the universe. I even posted the relevant, peer-reviewed scientific papers that say it. The evidences are:

1. Observation anomalies of very rare ultra high energy cosmic rays (uhecr's) with energy levels well above relativistic predictions;

2. Possible red-shift dependence of the atomic fine-structure constant;

3. Spacetime expansion at an accelerating rate suggest non-conservation of energy for the entire universe;

4. And, most importantly, standard inflation solution for the horizon and homogeniety problems in cosmology -- which suggests that the nascent universe expanded a couple of thousand times the speed of light.

 

[numinus]

Well, the problem there is that over 100 years of experimentation and direct observaton has upheld the fact that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. It isn't for the physicists to prove you wrong. It is for you to prove 100 years of research wrong. That's why they seem a bit arrogant when it is brought up by those who don't have the data to back up their claims to the contrary.

Sigh. You don't understand any physics, do you?

You see a black hole as an empty spot in the sky, do you not? Light is trapped within the event horizon of the black hole such that it cannot radiate outwards, no?

Right there you have speed of light = 0 as opposed to the speed of light near earth at 300,000+ km/sec -- both situations being a vacuum. Of course, these are all relativistic predictions that assume c is constant -- more precisely, a constant speed of light travelling through a warped spacetime.

It seems to me to be an exercise in circular logic, that the speed is constant simply because you can tinker with the scale factor of length and time such that the speed becomes constant -- whatever the hell you observe.

 

[numinus]

Only if it is traveling through a mdeium that impedes its movement. Snell's law is well known. The notion that the speed of light is constant has to do with the speed of light in a vacuum, not its speed traveling through a medium, like a lense or an Einstein-bose condensate.

No. What a constant c means is light travelling through a uniform metric (meaning no relative curvatures of spacetime). That is like saying that it is travelling in eucledean space -- something that exists only within the human mind.

Capice?

 

[numinus]

Does it matter? The problem could well be solved by the experiment that will be taken to the ISS by the last space shuttle. It may well revolutionize our thinking on this matter. Or it may well show that we have been right all along. Stay tuned.

Exactly.

Therefore, the constancy of the speed of light is a matter for experimental verification -- not the politics of the observer. If one says right now, that the speed of light isn't really constant, in the absence of hard evidence either way, then he might have a point.

 

[numinus]

"Couldn't one just as easily choose another reference frame that would yield an entirely different result? After all, length and time are...well....relative."

Other have tried difference reference frames with invariably the same result. And that's the point. The speed of light is the same regard less of the reference frame. It only varies with the medium it is traveling through.

See the observational anomalies posted, please.

 

[numinus]

Fundamental physics constants stay put

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6057-fundamental-physics-constants-stay-put.html

Controversy over whether the fundamental constants of nature change with time has reignited. A new study is casting doubt on an earlier claim that a key constant varied as the Universe evolved.

The study looks at alpha, the fine-structure constant. Alpha is crucial to the debate because it dictates the strength of the interaction between an electron and a photon, and governs a host of physical processes, from how the Sun burns to the "inflation" of the Universe immediately after the big bang. A changing alpha has implications for the constancy of the speed of light, and would revolutionise traditional physics.

So it was headline news in 2001 when astronomer John Webb of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, reported that alpha's value - based on observations of how gas clouds absorbed light from quasars - was different 12 billion years ago from what it is today (New Scientist, print edition, 18 August 2001). If Webb is correct, alpha may still be changing by as much as 1 part in 1014 per year, assuming a linear rate of change.

Now Theodor Hänsch at the Max Planck Institute for Quantum Optics in Garching, Germany, and his colleagues have ruled out any such change to within 1 part in 1015.

Energy level
From 1999 to 2003, they compared the effect of alpha on the emission of photons from caesium and hydrogen atoms. The photons are emitted when electrons in these atoms move from one energy level to another. Any variation in alpha over time should show up in such a comparison. "We found no evidence of any change," Hänsch says (Physical Review Letters, vol 92, p 230802).

This result negates at least one theory that assumes a linear rate of change in alpha over 12 billion years. Most theorists believe a linear change is unlikely. Joao Magueijo of Imperial College London says that any variation in alpha would have been dramatic when the Universe was expanding rapidly, but its rate of change would now have slowed to only 1 part in 1018.

Hänsch admits that changes smaller than they can measure may be occurring, and the precision required to measure this kind of change will be available within the next few years.

Meanwhile, Webb's original observations have also been questioned by French and Indian astronomers who have been unable to see any change in alpha in their survey of quasars (Physical Review Letters, vol 92, p 121302).

"That is much more worrying," Magueijo says. Webb is now analysing a new set of quasar data and hopes to settle the question later in 2004.

Its 2010. You are showing an article at the time magueijo tried to publish his vsl theory and the entire physics community ganged up on his research team. Given the proliferation of vsl theories currently, I wonder how that turned out?

 

[PLC1]

Why is it that you only attack "Conservatives" with this type of ire and never the Liberal/Progressives? That is the most likely reason some view you as a Liberal/Progressive, because we only ever hear you bashing Conservatives and you never give the same treatment to the Liberal/Progressives.

This thread is about how yo have to deny basic scientific theories in order to be a conservative.

In order to be a good liberal, yo have to believe in the power of the government to cure the ills of the world.

No, make that the country. The ills of the world are cured by military power, of course, and liberals don't buy in to that as a rule.

You do have a good point. It is as easy to poke fun at liberals as it is conservatives. Both hold absurdly untenable beliefs.

And both terms are so loosely defined as to make a case about practically any observation about either one.

 

[numinus]

This thread is about how yo have to deny basic scientific theories in order to be a conservative.

Eh? There are observational evidences that could perhaps, be the first experimental mishap of einstein's general theory of relativity.

How in heaven's name do you suppose is that a question of politics?????

 

[GenSeneca]

This thread is about how yo have to deny basic scientific theories in order to be a conservative.

So far I've only seen where it is you that claims such things. As I pointed out before, your thread title states that all persons who consider themselves Conservatives must reject GTR but you have offered ZERO proof to back that statement.

In fact, after reading the information you made available, they said nothing of requirements for Conservatism, they did not demand that anyone calling themselves a Conservative reject GTR... What they did do was offer counter examples to GTR, some of which are scientifically valid, and point out that refusing to question the accuracy of the status quo could be hampering the quest for the truth.

So if you would like to continue in this vein, the burden of proof is on you. Support your claims that the people who have a problem with GTR are demanding that all who consider themselves Conservatives also "reject" GTR or face being shunned by the Conservative community.

 

[PLC1]

So far I've only seen where it is you that claims such things. As I pointed out before, your thread title states that all persons who consider themselves Conservatives must reject GTR but you have offered ZERO proof to back that statement.

In fact, after reading the information you made available, they said nothing of requirements for Conservatism, they did not demand that anyone calling themselves a Conservative reject GTR... What they did do was offer counter examples to GTR, some of which are scientifically valid, and point out that refusing to question the accuracy of the status quo could be hampering the quest for the truth.

So if you would like to continue in this vein, the burden of proof is on you. Support your claims that the people who have a problem with GTR are demanding that all who consider themselves Conservatives also "reject" GTR or face being shunned by the Conservative community.

I can't say that people who reject climate change, evolution, and relativity are actually conservatives, just that a quick review of the people who are attempting to argue against these theories call themselves conservatives.

A quick review of this thread shows Gipper, Palerider, and Numinous arguing against the scientific theories listed. I think I'm pretty safe in saying that all of them consider themselves to be conservatives.

Any time I've ever been in a discussion of evolution or global climate change, it has always been the self described 'conservatives" arguing that these are just "theories", sometimes trying to assert that they are "atheistic", or even a "conspiracy". That, of course, doesn't prove that all self described conservatives feel that way, but, then, no one is totally conservative or liberal either.



Can you find posts by anyone identifying themselves as moderate, liberal, libertarian, or something besides conservative has attempted to reject any of the above theories?

 

[Gipper]

I can't say that people who reject climate change, evolution, and relativity are actually conservatives, just that a quick review of the people who are attempting to argue against these theories call themselves conservatives.

A quick review of this thread shows Gipper, Palerider, and Numinous arguing against the scientific theories listed. I think I'm pretty safe in saying that all of them consider themselves to be conservatives.

Any time I've ever been in a discussion of evolution or global climate change, it has always been the self described 'conservatives" arguing that these are just "theories", sometimes trying to assert that they are "atheistic", or even a "conspiracy". That, of course, doesn't prove that all self described conservatives feel that way, but, then, no one is totally conservative or liberal either.



Can you find posts by anyone identifying themselves as moderate, liberal, libertarian, or something besides conservative has attempted to reject any of the above theories?

What we conservatives reject is liberals like you who claim global warming is a fact. It is an unproven theory drenched in left wing politics and suspicious left wing behavior, but most libs accept it as factual. When conservatives argue it is not a fact and ask you libs to prove it, you resort to name calling...which is a typical response common of libs.

 

[PLC1]

What we conservatives reject is liberals like you who claim global warming is a fact. It is an unproven theory drenched in left wing politics and suspicious left wing behavior, but most libs accept it as factual. When conservatives argue it is not a fact and ask you libs to prove it, you resort to name calling...which is a typical response common of libs.

Thank you for supporting my argument.

How do you feel about relativity and evolution? Am I right about those two theories being rejected by self described "conservatives" as well?

 

[Gipper]

Thank you for supporting my argument.

I think not.

Facts are facts. Theories are theories. Do you know the difference?

Why do libs think theories are facts? Why do libs condemn those who tell them theories are not facts?

I could care less about evolution and relativity...but libs are politicizing them too. Every thing is political with libs.