Science > Physics > Supernova and the Hubble Expansion - Older Universe and End of Dark Energy
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Surfer" |
| Date: |
23 May 2007 07:38:34 PM |
| Object: |
Supernova and the Hubble Expansion - Older Universe and End of Dark Energy |
Dynamical 3-Space: Supernova and the Hubble Expansion - Older Universe
and End of Dark Energy
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.1569
Abstract:
We apply the new dynamics of 3-space to cosmology by deriving a Hubble
expansion solution. This dynamics involves two constants G and alpha -
the fine structure constant. This solution gives an excellent
parameter free fit to the recent supernova data without the need for
`dark energy' or `dark matter'. The data and theory together imply an
older age for the universe of some 18Gyrs. Various problems such as
fine tuning, the event horizon problem etc are now resolved. A brief
review discusses the origin of the 3-space dynamics and how that
dynamics explained the bore anomaly, spiral galaxy flat rotation
speeds, the masses of black holes in spherical galaxies, gravitational
light bending and lensing, all without invoking `dark matter' or `dark
energy'. These developments imply that a new understanding of the
universe is now available.
.
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Supernova and the Hubble Expansion - Older Universe and End of Dark Energy |
23 May 2007 07:42:17 PM |
|
|
In article <8hn9535dndef6bh0hdf37us2l268jj4tmg@4ax.com>,
Surfer <surfer@no.spam.net> wrote:
Dynamical 3-Space: Supernova and the Hubble Expansion - Older Universe
and End of Dark Energy
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.1569
Interesting ratio on self referencing in the bibliography Reg.
--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Surfer" |
|
| Title: Re: Supernova and the Hubble Expansion - Older Universe and End of Dark Energy |
23 May 2007 08:55:45 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 May 2007 01:42:17 +0100, Phineas T Puddleduck
<phineaspuddleduck@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <8hn9535dndef6bh0hdf37us2l268jj4tmg@4ax.com>,
Surfer <surfer@no.spam.net> wrote:
Dynamical 3-Space: Supernova and the Hubble Expansion - Older Universe
and End of Dark Energy
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.1569
Interesting ratio on self referencing in the bibliography Reg.
I am not "Reg". But if you would like to write to him his contact
details are here:
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/processphysics.html
-- Surfer
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Supernova and the Hubble Expansion - Older Universe and End of Dark Energy |
23 May 2007 08:59:40 PM |
|
|
In article <qrr953duhvf19tvfgekhjue6ohh0p3bvi1@4ax.com>,
Surfer <surfer@no.spam.net> wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2007 01:42:17 +0100, Phineas T Puddleduck
<phineaspuddleduck@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <8hn9535dndef6bh0hdf37us2l268jj4tmg@4ax.com>,
Surfer <surfer@no.spam.net> wrote:
Dynamical 3-Space: Supernova and the Hubble Expansion - Older Universe
and End of Dark Energy
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.1569
Interesting ratio on self referencing in the bibliography Reg.
I am not "Reg". But if you would like to write to him his contact
details are here:
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/processphysics.html
Sure Reg
Where's the error bars?
--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Surfer" |
|
| Title: Re: Supernova and the Hubble Expansion - Older Universe and End of Dark Energy |
24 May 2007 02:04:54 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 May 2007 02:59:40 +0100, Phineas T Puddleduck
<phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com> wrote:
Where's the error bars?
In Fig. 5, Fig. 7 & Fig 8.
Dynamical 3-Space: Supernova and the Hubble Expansion - Older Universe
and End of Dark Energy
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.1569
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Supernova and the Hubble Expansion - Older Universe and End of Dark Energy |
23 May 2007 09:29:49 PM |
|
|
On May 23, 5:38 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
[...]
Are you going to explain why you continually promote Reg Cahill's work
on this newsgroup despite having a flimsy-at-best grasp of physics?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Surfer" |
|
| Title: Re: Supernova and the Hubble Expansion - Older Universe and End of Dark Energy |
24 May 2007 01:50:23 AM |
|
|
On 23 May 2007 19:29:49 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 23, 5:38 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
[...]
Are you going to explain why you continually promote Reg Cahill's work
on this newsgroup despite having a flimsy-at-best grasp of physics?
Do you expect an answer to a loaded question?
http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/loaded.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Supernova and the Hubble Expansion - Older Universe and End of Dark Energy |
24 May 2007 02:09:12 AM |
|
|
On May 23, 11:50 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
On 23 May 2007 19:29:49 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 23, 5:38 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
[...]
Are you going to explain why you continually promote Reg Cahill's work
on this newsgroup despite having a flimsy-at-best grasp of physics?
Do you expect an answer to a loaded question?http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/loaded.html
Does that mean you can't answer the question without shooting yourself
in the foot?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Supernova and the Hubble Expansion - Older Universe and End ofDark Energy |
24 May 2007 01:57:13 AM |
|
|
Surfer wrote:
On 23 May 2007 19:29:49 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 23, 5:38 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
[...]
Are you going to explain why you continually promote Reg Cahill's work
on this newsgroup despite having a flimsy-at-best grasp of physics?
Do you expect an answer to a loaded question?
http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/loaded.html
So why do you post [apparently in support of]Reg Cahill's work, when
he has been shown to be wrong again and again? That's a valid question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Surfer" |
|
| Title: Re: Supernova and the Hubble Expansion - Older Universe and End of Dark Energy |
24 May 2007 09:14:46 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 May 2007 06:57:13 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote:
Surfer wrote:
On 23 May 2007 19:29:49 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 23, 5:38 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
[...]
Are you going to explain why you continually promote Reg Cahill's work
on this newsgroup despite having a flimsy-at-best grasp of physics?
Do you expect an answer to a loaded question?
http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/loaded.html
So why do you post [apparently in support of]Reg Cahill's work, when
he has been shown to be wrong again and again? That's a valid question.
So far as I am aware he has not been shown to be wrong.
Eg. Back in December, Dawkins and Luiten from the University of
Western Australia wrote about an experiment they intended to do:
"We note also that this experiment provides a rigorous test of the
controversial claims of Cahill [5]. At this time we have constructed
the experimental apparatus and will soon take long-term data to search
for such effects. Our results will be reported at the time of the
congress." (Australian Institute of Physics 17th Congress in Brisbane,
Australia, in December 2006)
http://www.aipc2006.com/abstract/470.htm
But when they appeared at the congress, they reported that beat
frequency shifts, the analogue of fringe shifts, were detected as the
earth rotated, which seemed to support Cahill's claims rather than
refute them.
Following a discussion of Tom Roberts paper:
An Explanation of Dayton Miller's Anomalous "Ether Drift" Result
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608238
Tom Roberts wrote:
===========================
For Miller's data using my new analysis, the errorbars are large
enough to include the predictions of ALL of the following theories:
1) SR
2) Miller's model, with any direction and speed up to 6 km/s
(90% confidence)
3) Cahill's theory, with any direction and speed up to at least
1,000 km/s (perhaps too small)
The other experiments that I have looked at (e.g. the MMX) are
similar, and in particular do NOT exclude SR.
========================
That implies that neither Cahill nor SR have been proven wrong yet.
Concerning the Gravity Probe B geodetic result, Cahill's theory of
gravity made the same predictions as GR, so both were confirmed.
For frame dragging, Cahill predicted different results to GR, but we
are still waiting for that result.
So I believe his theories are still in the running.
It is also good I think for people to know of the existence of a
gravity theory that can account for spiral galaxy rotation curves and
Hubble expansion without the need for dark matter or dark energy.
-- Surfer
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dono" |
|
| Title: Re: Supernova and the Hubble Expansion - Older Universe and End of Dark Energy |
24 May 2007 09:34:06 AM |
|
|
On May 24, 7:14 am, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2007 06:57:13 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com>
wrote:
Surfer wrote:
On 23 May 2007 19:29:49 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 23, 5:38 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
[...]
Are you going to explain why you continually promote Reg Cahill's work
on this newsgroup despite having a flimsy-at-best grasp of physics?
Do you expect an answer to a loaded question?
http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/loaded.html
So why do you post [apparently in support of]Reg Cahill's work, when
he has been shown to be wrong again and again? That's a valid question.
So far as I am aware he has not been shown to be wrong.
Sure he has been proven wrong, in this forum, several times. It was
explained to you that Cahill has no clue in calculating the
relativistic speed of light in a moving medium. He bases his paper on
some elementary calculation errors. Combined with the huge error bars
on the Dayton Miller experiment you get the explanation of Cahill's
"predictions".
Now combine the above with the fact that Cahill publishes his works
only in fringe journals.....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Surfer" |
|
| Title: Re: Supernova and the Hubble Expansion - Older Universe and End of Dark Energy |
24 May 2007 10:45:05 AM |
|
|
On 24 May 2007 07:34:06 -0700, Dono <sa_ge@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 24, 7:14 am, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2007 06:57:13 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com>
wrote:
Surfer wrote:
On 23 May 2007 19:29:49 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 23, 5:38 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
[...]
Are you going to explain why you continually promote Reg Cahill's work
on this newsgroup despite having a flimsy-at-best grasp of physics?
Do you expect an answer to a loaded question?
http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/loaded.html
So why do you post [apparently in support of]Reg Cahill's work, when
he has been shown to be wrong again and again? That's a valid question.
So far as I am aware he has not been shown to be wrong.
Sure he has been proven wrong, in this forum, several times.
He was not proven wrong. When proof was asked for it wasn't provided.
-- Surfer
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dono" |
|
| Title: Re: Supernova and the Hubble Expansion - Older Universe and End of Dark Energy |
24 May 2007 10:53:34 AM |
|
|
On May 24, 8:45 am, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
On 24 May 2007 07:34:06 -0700, Dono <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 24, 7:14 am, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2007 06:57:13 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com>
wrote:
Surfer wrote:
On 23 May 2007 19:29:49 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 23, 5:38 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
[...]
Are you going to explain why you continually promote Reg Cahill's work
on this newsgroup despite having a flimsy-at-best grasp of physics?
Do you expect an answer to a loaded question?
http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/loaded.html
So why do you post [apparently in support of]Reg Cahill's work, when
he has been shown to be wrong again and again? That's a valid question.
So far as I am aware he has not been shown to be wrong.
Sure he has been proven wrong, in this forum, several times.
He was not proven wrong. When proof was asked for it wasn't provided.
-- Surfer
You mean you don't understand it? This is quite clear.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Supernova and the Hubble Expansion - Older Universe and End of Dark Energy |
24 May 2007 03:24:35 PM |
|
|
On May 24, 7:14 am, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
[...]
It is also good I think for people to know of the existence of a
gravity theory that can account for spiral galaxy rotation curves and
Hubble expansion without the need for dark matter or dark energy.
Can your theories account for the well documented behavior of dark
matter in weak lensing results?
Oh wait, you don't know about those...
-- Surfer
.
|
|
|
| User: "Surfer" |
|
| Title: Re: Supernova and the Hubble Expansion - Older Universe and End of Dark Energy |
24 May 2007 07:37:04 PM |
|
|
On 24 May 2007 13:24:35 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 24, 7:14 am, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
[...]
It is also good I think for people to know of the existence of a
gravity theory that can account for spiral galaxy rotation curves and
Hubble expansion without the need for dark matter or dark energy.
Can your theories account for the well documented behavior of dark
matter in weak lensing results?
They are Cahill's theories, but I look at arxiv regularly so usually
spot when he posts a new paper.
There is a recent find on Dark Matter here:
Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter 05.15.07
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_feature.html
"Astronomers using NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view
of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two
galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark matter, which is
somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the
water.
The ring's discovery is among the strongest evidence yet that dark
matter exists. Astronomers have long suspected the existence of the
invisible substance as the source of additional gravity that holds
together galaxy clusters. Such clusters would fly apart if they relied
only on the gravity from their visible stars. Although astronomers
don't know what dark matter is made of, they hypothesize that it is a
type of elementary particle that pervades the universe."
====
There is an explanation based on GR here.
Discovery of a Ringlike Dark Matter Structure in the Core of the
Galaxy Cluster Cl 0024+17
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2171
(Submitted on 15 May 2007)
"We present a comprehensive mass reconstruction of the rich galaxy
cluster Cl 0024+17 at z~0.4 from ACS data, unifying both strong and
weak-lensing constraints. The weak-lensing signal from a dense
distribution of background galaxies (~120 per square arcmin) across
the cluster enables the derivation of a high-resolution parameter-free
mass map...."
There is an alternative explanation by Cahill here.
Dynamical 3-Space: Alternative Explanation of the `Dark Matter Ring'
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2846
(Submitted on 20 May 2007)
"NASA has claimed the discovery of a `Ring of Dark Matter' in the
galaxy cluster CL 0024+17, see Jee M.J. et al. arXiv:0705.2171, based
upon gravitational lensing data. Here we show that the lensing can be
given an alternative explanation that does not involve `dark matter'.
This explanation comes from the new dynamics of 3-space. This dynamics
involves two constant G and alpha - the fine structure constant. This
dynamics has explained the bore hole anomaly, spiral galaxy flat
rotation speeds, the masses of black holes in spherical galaxies,
gravitational light bending and lensing, all without invoking `dark
matter', and also the supernova redshift data without the need for
`dark energy'.
I don't know which explanation will ultimately turn out to be true but
I find them both interesting.
If GR is correct, we have an interesting new form of matter--perhaps a
new type of elementary particle.
If Cahill's theory is correct we have an interesting new theory.
-- Surfer
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Supernova and the Hubble Expansion - Older Universe and End of Dark Energy |
24 May 2007 09:02:13 PM |
|
|
On May 24, 5:37 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
On 24 May 2007 13:24:35 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 24, 7:14 am, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
[...]
It is also good I think for people to know of the existence of a
gravity theory that can account for spiral galaxy rotation curves and
Hubble expansion without the need for dark matter or dark energy.
Can your theories account for the well documented behavior of dark
matter in weak lensing results?
They are Cahill's theories, but I look at arxiv regularly so usually
spot when he posts a new paper.
....and why are you always shilling for Cahill's theories when nobody
else will?
[...]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Supernova and the Hubble Expansion - Older Universe and End of Dark Energy |
24 May 2007 09:04:53 PM |
|
|
In article <1180058532.953272.81530@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Eric Gisse <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 24, 5:37 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
On 24 May 2007 13:24:35 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 24, 7:14 am, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
[...]
It is also good I think for people to know of the existence of a
gravity theory that can account for spiral galaxy rotation curves and
Hubble expansion without the need for dark matter or dark energy.
Can your theories account for the well documented behavior of dark
matter in weak lensing results?
They are Cahill's theories, but I look at arxiv regularly so usually
spot when he posts a new paper.
...and why are you always shilling for Cahill's theories when nobody
else will?
He'd make a fine saucerhead.
--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Surfer" |
|
| Title: Re: Supernova and the Hubble Expansion - Older Universe and End of Dark Energy |
24 May 2007 11:45:47 PM |
|
|
On 24 May 2007 19:02:13 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:
...and why are you always shilling for Cahill's theories when nobody
else will?
You just asked:
"Can your theories account for the well documented behavior of dark
matter in weak lensing results?"
By way of answer I provided three links:
Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter 05.15.07
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_feature.html
Discovery of a Ringlike Dark Matter Structure in the Core of the
Galaxy Cluster Cl 0024+17
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2171
Dynamical 3-Space: Alternative Explanation of the `Dark Matter Ring'
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2846
So yes indeed, Cahill's theories can account for dark matter in weak
lensing results.
Why don't you enlighten yourself instead of carping?
-- Surfer
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Supernova and the Hubble Expansion - Older Universe and End of Dark Energy |
25 May 2007 02:43:44 AM |
|
|
On May 24, 9:45 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
[...]
Why don't you enlighten yourself instead of carping?
....about the theories from a man who still thinks there is an ether
despite having his mistakes continually pointed out for him?
Why do you continue to shill for Cahill, Surfer? If you aren't Cahill,
who are you?
-- Surfer
.
|
|
|
| User: "Surfer" |
|
| Title: Re: Supernova and the Hubble Expansion - Older Universe and End of Dark Energy |
25 May 2007 07:17:22 PM |
|
|
On 25 May 2007 00:43:44 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 24, 9:45 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
[...]
Why don't you enlighten yourself instead of carping?
...about the theories from a man who still thinks there is an ether
despite having his mistakes continually pointed out for him?
That is something of a distortion. His concept of dynamical 3-space is
not the same as a classical ether.
Why do you continue to shill for Cahill, Surfer?
All I am doing is letting people know of what appears to me to be
cutting edge research.
Eg. What other theory can provide an alternative explanation of the
`Dark Matter Ring'?
-- Surfer
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc" |
|
| Title: Re: Supernova and the Hubble Expansion - Older Universe and End of Dark Energy |
25 May 2007 08:49:08 PM |
|
|
Dear Surfer:
"Surfer" <surfer@no.spam.net> wrote in message
news:8sue5314vm2bfetqiep3gled617n4jhd3u@4ax.com...
....
Eg. What other theory can provide an alternative
explanation of the `Dark Matter Ring'?
Unlit Normal Matter. There is a paucity of aged galactic objects
where they allocated the presence of "Dark Matter". Take a look
at the unmodified image to see what I mean. Dark Matter cannot
occlude light... only normal matter can do this.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Surfer" |
|
| Title: Re: Supernova and the Hubble Expansion - Older Universe and End of Dark Energy |
25 May 2007 11:34:44 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:49:08 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
<dlzc@aol.com> wrote:
Dear Surfer:
"Surfer" <surfer@no.spam.net> wrote in message
news:8sue5314vm2bfetqiep3gled617n4jhd3u@4ax.com...
...
Eg. What other theory can provide an alternative
explanation of the `Dark Matter Ring'?
Unlit Normal Matter. There is a paucity of aged galactic objects
where they allocated the presence of "Dark Matter". Take a look
at the unmodified image to see what I mean. Dark Matter cannot
occlude light... only normal matter can do this.
Yes, I can see what you mean.
Its an amazing photo.
-- Surfer
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc" |
|
| Title: Re: Supernova and the Hubble Expansion - Older Universe and End of Dark Energy |
25 May 2007 11:46:02 PM |
|
|
Dear Surfer:
"Surfer" <surfer@no.spam.net> wrote in message
news:iqdf53ds7t6q6360jjl1k9dn5gj9icolvo@4ax.com...
On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:49:08 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com
\(dlzc\)"
<dlzc@aol.com> wrote:
Dear Surfer:
"Surfer" <surfer@no.spam.net> wrote in message
news:8sue5314vm2bfetqiep3gled617n4jhd3u@4ax.com...
...
Eg. What other theory can provide an alternative
explanation of the `Dark Matter Ring'?
Unlit Normal Matter. There is a paucity of aged
galactic objects where they allocated the presence
of "Dark Matter". Take a look at the unmodified
image to see what I mean. Dark Matter cannot
occlude light... only normal matter can do this.
Yes, I can see what you mean.
Its an amazing photo.
Yes, it is. I thank all the folks that brought us Hubble, and I
hope the James Webb 'scope brings as much fascination...
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Supernova and the Hubble Expansion - Older Universe and End of Dark Energy |
25 May 2007 08:03:57 PM |
|
|
On May 25, 5:17 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
On 25 May 2007 00:43:44 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 24, 9:45 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
[...]
Why don't you enlighten yourself instead of carping?
...about the theories from a man who still thinks there is an ether
despite having his mistakes continually pointed out for him?
That is something of a distortion. His concept of dynamical 3-space is
not the same as a classical ether.
Oh, you aren't familiar with his gas interferometer experiments that
"detected" ether?
Why do you continue to shill for Cahill, Surfer?
All I am doing is letting people know of what appears to me to be
cutting edge research.
Yet nobody else seems to think so. Why is that?
Eg. What other theory can provide an alternative explanation of the
`Dark Matter Ring'?
....dark matter?
-- Surfer
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Supernova and the Hubble Expansion - Older Universe and End of Dark Energy |
25 May 2007 08:07:51 PM |
|
|
In article <1180141437.687838.280440@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Eric Gisse <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:
Eg. What other theory can provide an alternative explanation of the
`Dark Matter Ring'?
...dark matter?
The Homer Theory. It is in fact a giant cosmic dark matter donut.
What? Its as believable as his theory...
--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).
Official maintainer of the supra-cosmic space fluid pump (Mon and Tues only).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Surfer" |
|
| Title: Re: Supernova and the Hubble Expansion - Older Universe and End of Dark Energy |
25 May 2007 10:41:49 PM |
|
|
On 25 May 2007 18:03:57 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 25, 5:17 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
On 25 May 2007 00:43:44 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 24, 9:45 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
[...]
Why don't you enlighten yourself instead of carping?
...about the theories from a man who still thinks there is an ether
despite having his mistakes continually pointed out for him?
That is something of a distortion. His concept of dynamical 3-space is
not the same as a classical ether.
Oh, you aren't familiar with his gas interferometer experiments that
"detected" ether?
His experiments don't have anything to do with ether.
The following are extracts from:
"A New Light-Speed Anisotropy Experiment: Absolute Motion and
Gravitational Waves Detected"
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0610076
"In Michelson’s era the idea was that v was the speed of light
relative to an ether, which itself filled space.This dualism has
proven to be wrong."
"A common misunderstanding is that the anisotropy of the speed of
light is necessarily in conflict with Special Relativity and Lorentz
symmetry - this is explained. All eight experiments and theory show
that we have both anisotropy of the speed of light and relativistic
effects, and that a dynamical 3-space exists - that absolute motion
through that space has been repeatedly observed since 1887. These
developments completely change fundamental physics and our
understanding of reality."
-- Surfer
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dono" |
|
| Title: Re: Supernova and the Hubble Expansion - Older Universe and End of Dark Energy |
26 May 2007 12:59:04 AM |
|
|
On May 25, 8:41 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
On 25 May 2007 18:03:57 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 25, 5:17 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
On 25 May 2007 00:43:44 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 24, 9:45 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
[...]
Why don't you enlighten yourself instead of carping?
...about the theories from a man who still thinks there is an ether
despite having his mistakes continually pointed out for him?
That is something of a distortion. His concept of dynamical 3-space is
not the same as a classical ether.
Oh, you aren't familiar with his gas interferometer experiments that
"detected" ether?
His experiments don't have anything to do with ether.
The following are extracts from:
"A New Light-Speed Anisotropy Experiment: Absolute Motion and
Gravitational Waves Detected"http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0610076
"In Michelson's era the idea was that v was the speed of light
relative to an ether, which itself filled space.This dualism has
proven to be wrong."
"A common misunderstanding is that the anisotropy of the speed of
light is necessarily in conflict with Special Relativity and Lorentz
symmetry - this is explained.
Of course it is in disagreement with SR. This is easy to prove, if you
assume anisotropy , you don't get the standard Lorentz transforms.
Reciprocally, if you assume transforms different from Lorentz, you
obtain anisotropical light speed.
All eight experiments and theory show
that we have both anisotropy of the speed of light and relativistic
effects, and that a dynamical 3-space exists - that absolute motion
through that space has been repeatedly observed since 1887.
Of course this is false, Tom has explained that to you repeatedly but
you refuse to accept that Cahill is misinterpreting the experiment.
These
developments completely change fundamental physics and our
understanding of reality."
-- Surfer
Not really. Not if Cahill doesn't even know how to calculate the light
speed in a moving medium. He certainly doesn't and neither do you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Surfer" |
|
| Title: Re: Supernova and the Hubble Expansion - Older Universe and End of Dark Energy |
26 May 2007 06:11:42 PM |
|
|
On 25 May 2007 22:59:04 -0700, Dono <sa_ge@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 25, 8:41 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
The following are extracts from:
"A New Light-Speed Anisotropy Experiment: Absolute Motion and
Gravitational Waves Detected"http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0610076
"In Michelson's era the idea was that v was the speed of light
relative to an ether, which itself filled space.This dualism has
proven to be wrong."
"A common misunderstanding is that the anisotropy of the speed of
light is necessarily in conflict with Special Relativity and Lorentz
symmetry - this is explained.
Of course it is in disagreement with SR. This is easy to prove, if you
assume anisotropy , you don't get the standard Lorentz transforms.
Reciprocally, if you assume transforms different from Lorentz, you
obtain anisotropical light speed.
I think its a matter of degree. The anisotropy in the measured speed
of light is very slight. Furthermore we are talking about the measured
speed of light in media, not in vacuum. It seems to me its sufficient
to allow Cahill to draw interesting conclusions, but not sufficient to
make SR less useful.
All eight experiments and theory show
that we have both anisotropy of the speed of light and relativistic
effects, and that a dynamical 3-space exists - that absolute motion
through that space has been repeatedly observed since 1887.
Of course this is false, Tom has explained that to you repeatedly but
you refuse to accept that Cahill is misinterpreting the experiment.
Tom is a voice of caution. But it seems to me this is still a grey
area, so Cahill and his opponents can both make their cases.
These
developments completely change fundamental physics and our
understanding of reality."
Not really. Not if Cahill doesn't even know how to calculate the light
speed in a moving medium. He certainly doesn't and neither do you.
He has demonstrated that he knows the standard methods. But if
physicists always stuck to the standard methods, how could they ever
develop new physics?
-- Surfer
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dono" |
|
| Title: Re: Supernova and the Hubble Expansion - Older Universe and End of Dark Energy |
26 May 2007 07:48:16 PM |
|
|
On May 26, 4:11 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
On 25 May 2007 22:59:04 -0700, Dono <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 25, 8:41 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
The following are extracts from:
"A New Light-Speed Anisotropy Experiment: Absolute Motion and
Gravitational Waves Detected"http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0610076
"In Michelson's era the idea was that v was the speed of light
relative to an ether, which itself filled space.This dualism has
proven to be wrong."
"A common misunderstanding is that the anisotropy of the speed of
light is necessarily in conflict with Special Relativity and Lorentz
symmetry - this is explained.
Of course it is in disagreement with SR. This is easy to prove, if you
assume anisotropy , you don't get the standard Lorentz transforms.
Reciprocally, if you assume transforms different from Lorentz, you
obtain anisotropical light speed.
I think its a matter of degree.
No, it isn't. Your persistence in lying, cheating and claiming
nonsense is astounding.
The anisotropy in the measured speed
of light is very slight. Furthermore we are talking about the measured
speed of light in media, not in vacuum.
Yes, I know. This is why I pointed out that Cahill doesn't know how to
use some elementary formulas of speed addition. Thus, I can dismiss
him (and you) as inept.
It seems to me its sufficient
to allow Cahill to draw interesting conclusions, but not sufficient > to make SR less useful.
Cahill's conclusions are based on elementary errors (see above), so
both of you are irrelevant.
All eight experiments and theory show
that we have both anisotropy of the speed of light and relativistic
effects, and that a dynamical 3-space exists - that absolute motion
through that space has been repeatedly observed since 1887.
Of course this is false, Tom has explained that to you repeatedly but
you refuse to accept that Cahill is misinterpreting the experiment.
Tom is a voice of caution. But it seems to me this is still a grey
area, so Cahill and his opponents can both make their cases.
Cahill has no case. He can't calculate elementary stuff.
These
developments completely change fundamental physics and our
understanding of reality."
Not really. Not if Cahill doesn't even know how to calculate the light
speed in a moving medium. He certainly doesn't and neither do you.
He has demonstrated that he knows the standard methods. But if
physicists always stuck to the standard methods, how could they ever
develop new physics?
-- Surfer
By not cheating and by not making gross mistakes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Surfer" |
|
| Title: Re: Supernova and the Hubble Expansion - Older Universe and End of Dark Energy |
27 May 2007 03:48:49 AM |
|
|
On 26 May 2007 17:48:16 -0700, Dono <sa_ge@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 26, 4:11 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
The anisotropy in the measured speed
of light is very slight. Furthermore we are talking about the measured
speed of light in media, not in vacuum.
Yes, I know. This is why I pointed out that Cahill doesn't know how to
use some elementary formulas of speed addition.
I expect Cahill is fully aware of the formulas for speed addition.
But if you have formulas that can't account for certain anomalies,
then you have two choices.
1) Assume the formulas are perfect and ignore the anomalies, or,
2) Tweak the formulas and see if the tweaked versions can account for
the anomalies in a consistent way. If that proves the case then the
tweaking is justified.
I think Cahill's analysis of the MMX can be compared to policy 2).
-- Surfer
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dono" |
|
| Title: Re: Supernova and the Hubble Expansion - Older Universe and End of Dark Energy |
27 May 2007 09:46:38 AM |
|
|
On May 27, 1:48 am, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
On 26 May 2007 17:48:16 -0700, Dono <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
On May 26, 4:11 pm, Surfer <sur...@no.spam.net> wrote:
The anisotropy in the measured speed
of light is very slight. Furthermore we are talking about the measured
speed of light in media, not in vacuum.
Yes, I know. This is why I pointed out that Cahill doesn't know how to
use some elementary formulas of speed addition.
I expect Cahill is fully aware of the formulas for speed addition.
No, he's not. It was pointed out many times in this forum. He doesn't
know how to do it for moving refractive medium.
But if you have formulas that can't account for certain anomalies,
then you have two choices.
1) Assume the formulas are perfect and ignore the anomalies, or,
Cahill doesn't know the formulas and he also botched the measurements.
2) Tweak the formulas and see if the tweaked versions can account for
the anomalies in a consistent way. If that proves the case then the
tweaking is justified.
Cahill doesn't know the formulas and he also botched the measurements.
I think Cahill's analysis of the MMX can be compared to policy 2).
-- Surfer
As you can see, Cahill messed up either way.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
