|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
illogic of 2011 Physics Nobel prize; preface Atom Totality theorybook, 5th ed
I was asked for my opinion on this year's prize and so I saw the PBS
capsule of it-- I got a transcript and to see how many assumptions goes into a bad conclusion of a accelerated-expansion cosmos. Now in mathematics, of course Saul is not a mathematician and probably poor at it if ever tried it. But if Saul had ever tried sticking out in mathematics, would quickly find out that if you put any assumptions, just a single assumption to arrive at a conclusion that the conclusion is not warranted mathematically. Now in science, adding assumptions is alright so long as the assumptions are not so outlandish. So what I want to do is show how terribly feeble the Nobel physics prizes have become in the past several decades by noting how many horrible assumptions went into the 2011 Nobel prize. Mind you, in mathematics you cannot get away with one single assumption that is unwarranted. But in the below transcript, Saul uses 4 horrible assumptions, so that his conclusion of a accelerating-expansion is just poppycock wind in the breeze. With this year's physics Nobel and a large percentage of the last three decades, that the Nobel physics award is increasingly become a "science fiction award". And the day is soon to come when very notable physicists who achieved a lot, will refuse the Physics Nobel prize simply for the fact that they do not want to appear on the same list as these fake achievers of physics. So let me list below in the snipped version of the transcript the horrible assumptions, of at least 4 horrible assumptions. SAUL PERLMUTTER, First, you have to understand the universe is infinite, not an easy concept to grasp. AP: this is the 1st horrible assumption, and even contradicts what other French physicists have found as a dodecahedral Space as the Universe. SAUL PERLMUTTER: Look, you're not going to be able to picture this very well, but just imagine that you are living here on a galaxy and there's galaxies forever going that way, and there are galaxies forever going that way, and there are galaxies forever going that way, in all directions. Nothing but galaxies, no end. You can go as far as you want, and you'll find more and more galaxies. And just imagine that there's sort of a typical distance between those galaxies. And the only thing I mean when I'm saying that the universe is expanding is that we're sort of pumping extra space between the galaxies. And when we say it's accelerating, we just mean that that extra pumping is happening faster and faster, and the distances are growing bigger and bigger, more and more quickly. SAUL PERLMUTTER: The Type 1a supernovae explode in a very similar way every time. And so they brighten like fireworks and then fade away, but they reach the same peak brightness. AP: Here is Saul's 2nd horrible assumption in that he imagines a class of supernova to all be the very same. It would be the same sort of lousy assumption in biology to think that there are thousands of people amoung us, who were borne of different genetic fathers and mothers and to think that a thousand people share the same personality, facial features, and even the same fingerprints and then call these one thousand people a "standard candle". ANDREA KISSACK: Their predictability makes these exploding stars what researchers call standard candles. Their initial brightness is constant, and it grows fainter with distance. And since researchers know light always travels at 186,000 miles per second, they're able to calculate how long ago these supernovae exploded. snipped SAUL PERLMUTTER: While the light is traveling to us through the universe, the universe is expanding. And everything in the universe that's not nailed down expands with the universe. And that includes the very wavelengths of the photons of light that are traveling to us from the supernova. AP: another horrible assumption, 3rd horrible assumption that Saul says light itself is expanding due to the Cosmic expansion. Physics by the last three decades has become a shop in which people say such and such but not experimental proof that what they are saying is in fact true. So Saul is imagining that a light wave incorporates the Cosmic expansion into its travel, but Saul has not proven that. WOMAN: If the object is moving away from the observer, it will appear red. In astronomy, this phenomenon is known as "red shift." One way to visualize these stretching wavelengths is to look at how waves of sound, which are similar to waves of light, change. Can you hear how the pitch of the honk changed as the sound source moved away from you? This is because its wavelength is stretching. The same happens with supernovae's light. AP: Okay, well, now the interview has come to the Cosmic Doppler redshift of galaxies and apparently Saul accepts Doppler redshift without question. But Doppler shifting is proven in physics for sound waves, but physicists have never actually proven that light waves can be Doppler shifted, and in fact recently in experiments where light is slowed down to 1/3 the speed of light that the white light going in was the same white light coming out. So Doppler redshift of light from galaxies is Saul's 4th horrible assumption. AP: and in another experiment of mine, using fiberglass and viewing car headlights coming towards me, the light is shifted red, but to Saul's physics it should be shifted blue. So this experiment suggests that the Cosmic Doppler redshift is actually caused by the curvature of space rather than galaxies speeding away from us. So that it matters not whether a galaxy is speeding towards us or away or how fast the galaxy is moving and that the only parameter is the curvature of space wherein that galaxy lies. SAUL PERLMUTTER: Now with these two ingredients, the brightness of the supernova and how much the light has been shifted towards the red in its appearance, you now can just read off the history of the expansion of the universe because the brightness tells you how far back in time any given supernova event occurred. The red shift, as we call it, tells us how much the universe has expanded since that time. snip ANDREA KISSACK: But even though astronomers have become the historians of the universe, they can only speculate about what's causing this stretching. SAUL PERLMUTTER: One example of a slightly more exotic explanation could be that there's extra dimensions in the universe beyond the three dimensions that we're aware of space and the one dimension of time. It's possible that there are other dimensions that we just don't usually experience. Perhaps in some way, we're limited to the dimensions that we experience, but that other things, like perhaps gravity, could not be limited, and maybe it can seep into one of these extra dimensions. And that would make it look to us as if it was becoming diluted, that you're having less effective gravity. And perhaps that's one of the reasons the universe could be accelerating. AP: Well Saul certainly has a imagination, but that imagination is causing him to make mistakes in physics, and not making him a better physicist. ANDREA KISSACK: Or the accelerated expansion could actually be caused by a new form of energy. This dark energy might be the missing force that sheds light on how gravity, the force that works on a large scale, fits in with the forces that bind atomic particles together. Could this undiscovered form of energy be the key to a unified theory of everything? SAUL PERLMUTTER: You can try out, you know, almost any crazy idea, and that doesn't mean that any crazy idea will be the right one but it allows you to play a little bit. And then we're hoping that we'll get actual measurements that will pin down the theorists to some set of answers that could be possible. AP: the above gives Saul's 5th horrible assumption in that he accepts full face the Big Bang theory which he mentions in the interview. AP: However, now, if Saul had gone into this project with the Atom Totality theory, let me show how simple and easy is the explanation. First, we doubt that there are any standard candles, and even if there were, we use them only sparingly. And we see that some patches of the Cosmos has what appears to be "accelerated expansion" and the reason for it is that it is "localized accelerated expansion" in that we can observe some other patch of the Cosmos that has "localized decelerated expansion". And the reason for this is because the Cosmos is the lobes of the 5f6 of a Plutonium Atom Totality, so that when you look at a patch that is in the curved space, you seem to see accelerated expansion but when you look at a patch in a flat part of space, you have a decelerated or constant expansion. AP: So if Saul were a mathematician and using five huge horrible assumptions, his conclusions have utterly no scientific credibility. AP: If Saul were to reexamine all his data in the light of the Atom Totality theory instead of the Big Bang theory, he may see that the question of accelerated expansion rests all on the idea of curvature of space, so that the redshift rests on curvature and so should the question of expansion rest on curvature. Whenever the Nobel prize committee gets away from hands on engineering physics like the superconductivity prizes, then they run the huge risk of giving the award to science-fiction, and flights of imagination and fancy, rather than true physics. By now, the Nobel Physics prize is about 1/2 real physics, and the other half is, as time will show, is science fiction. Now I think I should include this post in my 5th edition Atom Totality in the preface, along with the mistaken neutrino superluminal speeds report. Only there is a huge difference between a mistake in neutrino speeds versus the mistake of thinking there is a accelerated - expansion of the Cosmos. For it is a common fallacy in much of Astronomy overall. The fallacy is the use of "horrible assumptions". And the more used, the more awful is the conclusions. Here, down on Earth when we do neutrino experiments, we cannot fill that experiment with 5 horrible assumptions and get away with it as did Saul in astronomy, because since we are here on Earth, someone can hands on repeat the experiment. But we cannot "repeat horrible assumptions" and get a better conclusion. So astronomy is a bit different from most of physics in that astronomy is just chock full of those with myriad horrible assumptions. And they act as though they are facts and not assumptions. If anyone tries to compare Saul's shoddy conclusions of an accelerating expansion with that of the blackbody Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), is like comparing psychiatry to physics, because the blackbody CMBR is indubitable physics, is physics that one can be proud of, whereas Saul's accelerating expansion with its 5 horrible assumptions is physics to be hiding your face in shame. So I am quite confident that by 2011, the number of Nobel Physics awards is at least 50% science fiction by now. They have too many philosophers and perhaps rascists doing the judging in Sweden. Archimedes Plutonium http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
mistakes of neutrino speed is funding motivated; mistakes of 2011Nobel Physics prize is a Jewish religion motivated; preface Atom Totalitytheory book, 5th ed
On Oct 5, 4:16 am, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote: I was asked for my opinion on this year's prize and so I saw the PBS capsule of it-- I got a transcript and to see how many assumptions goes into a bad conclusion of a accelerated-expansion cosmos. (snipped) The mistakes made in the OPERA neutrino speed is a mistake made intentionally, because of the growing pressure in Europe over finances and the sovereign debt crisis in Greece and Ireland and now threatening Italy and Spain and bringing down the Euro. We only have to read this Wikipedia snippet: --- quoting Wikipedia --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPERA_experiment Previous experiments have not detected statistically significant faster-than-light motion; for instance, in 2007 Fermilab's MINOS collaboration reported results measuring the flight-time of 3-GeV neutrinos yielding a speed exceeding that of light by 1.8 sigma.[13] Those measurements were considered statistically consistent with neutrinos traveling at lightspeed.[14] In a much lower energy range, a limit of |v - c|/c 2×10-9 was set by the observation of 10-MeV anti-neutrinos detected in connection with the SN 1987A supernova.[9] Had neutrinos emitted by SN 1987A been travelling with a speed corresponding to the speed reported by the OPERA experiment, the particles would have arrived at Earth almost four years before light from the event, while light from the supernova was in fact detected at roughly the same time as the neutrinos, consistent with the neutrinos travelling at the same speed as light. [15] The measurement from SN 1987A cannot immediately be seen as contradicting the measurement from the OPERA experiment, as it is not currently known how neutrino velocity may depend on particle energy, distance traveled, or other factors.[16][4] --- end quoting Wikipedia --- We only have to read that snippet to realize that neutrino superluminal speed is motivated by keeping the research in funding and that it is a publicity bluff. It is asking for more research to verify that the neutrino is not traveling faster than light. If there had been no debt crisis in Europe in 2011, there would not have been a neutrino superluminal speed publicity stunt. But the 2011 Nobel prize in physics is a different mistake. If we go back in history to the 1600 and 1700s in the time of Kepler and Galileo and Newton we realize that science was in competition with religion, namely the Catholic church that could have any scientist put to death if their science, although correct and true, but if that science countered any Catholic church beliefs. So in the history of science since Democritus, the majority of that time was an antagonism between science and religion. However by the centuries of 1900 and 2000s we have the opposite relationship but equally as dangerous as a antagonistic relationship. By 1900 to 2011 we have the Jewish religion loving science to death that they want to hog-out every science award and accomplishment, even if what they report as science is science fiction. In the case of the 2011 Physics Nobel, a accelerating-expansion is as science fiction as the neutrino faster than light speed report. During the time of Galileo and Newton, religion was adversarial to science, but by the time of 1900 onward we have the awful opposite affect of a religion-- Jewish religion falling in love with science and destroying true science whilst they smother true science in their love and appreciation. Science by the 1900s and 2000s has become mostly a billboard advertisement arm of the Jewish religion and we easily see this in the 2011 Nobel physics award where 2 of the 3 awardees are Jewish. The Nobel prizes in science have ceased to be a record of science truth or science achievement and have now faded into a list of Jews in science in order to make advertisement billboard displays that the Jewish religion is a good religion. When in fact, what these religion love affair of science is actually smothering science and filling it with obnoxious errors and mistakes that later generations of true scientists have to clean and clear out. It is easy to correct the mistake of OPERA neutrino speeds for it was just a funding ploy. But it is difficult to correct the horrible errors of when a religion is in love with science and proceeding to smother science with its error filled garbage. When religion has infiltrated science to the extent of the Nobel in Economics and now the Nobel in physics, that we get science such that it is no longer recognizable as science. If I have time in life, I should write a book on the Olympic champions in sports where the muscle system of the body is just as much a "genius system" as what we consider the brain and mind and the prizes awarded to genius scientists. If we look at the Olympics, the proportion of Jewish Olympians compared to worldwide population is mathematically right. But what if in the next upcoming Olympics that 60% of the medals went to Jews under the science notion that muscle genius is evenly distributed in the population? Everyone in science would want to look as to how the Jews are cheating in order that 60% went to Jewish athletes. The same thing goes for science in that organ of genius is not the muscle system but the brain system, that we should under science, expect Jewish Nobel prizes in physics to be proportional to the overall Jewish population. So that the Nobel in physics to Jews should have been about 2 or 3 Jews in all during 1900 to 2000. Now many in the Jewish community are going to respond to this by saying that Jewish families stress to their youngsters to be good in physics and to study extra hard. But my retort to that is that the Nobel prize in physics awards "genius achievement" and not achievement of those that spend extra hours or are driven by a Jewish family insistent on achievement. What has happened in science is that it is invaded by a religion-- the Jewish religion that loves science and this is almost as dangerous to science itself as was the Catholic approach to science by being adversial. Science does not thrive in either environment of the Catholic approach in 1600s or the Jewish love smothering approach in 2000s. Science has to be free of a religion using science as a billboard advertisement. So the future of physics will have to take extra time off, just to clear out and clean up the science fiction of the 20th and 21st centuries that the Jewish religion left as a mess in the heart of science. To clean up and clear out the crap such as the accelerating- expansion of the Big Bang. It is easy to clear up and clean out the neutrino mistake because it was never really asserted, but just a funding ploy. But to clean up and clear out accelerating-expansion is a far larger waste of time and energy that could have been spent on doing true actual physics. Archimedes Plutonium http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
mistakes of neutrino speed is funding motivated; mistakes of 2011Nobel Physics prize is a Jewish religion motivated; preface Atom Totalitytheory book, 5th ed
On Oct 5, 2:06*pm, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote: On Oct 5, 4:16 am, Archimedes wrote: I was asked for my opinion on this year's prize and so I saw the PBS capsule of it-- I got a transcript and to see how many assumptions goes into a bad conclusion of a accelerated-expansion cosmos. (snipped) The mistakes made in the OPERA neutrino speed is a mistake made intentionally, because of the growing pressure in Europe over finances and the sovereign debt crisis in Greece and Ireland and now threatening Italy and Spain and bringing down the Euro. We only have to read this Wikipedia snippet: --- quoting Wikipedia --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPERA_experiment Previous experiments have not detected statistically significant faster-than-light motion; for instance, in 2007 Fermilab's MINOS collaboration reported results measuring the flight-time of 3-GeV neutrinos yielding a speed exceeding that of light by 1.8 sigma.[13] Those measurements were considered statistically consistent with neutrinos traveling at lightspeed.[14] In a much lower energy range, a limit of |v - c|/c 2×10-9 was set by the observation of 10-MeV anti-neutrinos detected in connection with the SN 1987A supernova.[9] Had neutrinos emitted by SN 1987A been travelling with a speed corresponding to the speed reported by the OPERA experiment, the particles would have arrived at Earth almost four years before light from the event, while light from the supernova was in fact detected at roughly the same time as the neutrinos, consistent with the neutrinos travelling at the same speed as light. [15] The measurement from SN 1987A cannot immediately be seen as contradicting the measurement from the OPERA experiment, as it is not currently known how neutrino velocity may depend on particle energy, distance traveled, or other factors.[16][4] --- end quoting Wikipedia --- We only have to read that snippet to realize that neutrino superluminal speed is motivated by keeping the research in funding and that it is a publicity bluff. It is asking for more research to verify that the neutrino is not traveling faster than light. If there had been no debt crisis in Europe in 2011, there would not have been a neutrino superluminal speed publicity stunt. But the 2011 Nobel prize in physics is a different mistake. If we go back in history to the 1600 and 1700s in the time of Kepler and Galileo and Newton we realize that science was in competition with religion, namely the Catholic church that could have any scientist put to death if their science, although correct and true, but if that science countered any Catholic church beliefs. So in the history of science since Democritus, the majority of that time was an antagonism between science and religion. However by the centuries of 1900 and 2000s we have the opposite relationship but equally as dangerous as a antagonistic relationship. By 1900 to 2011 we have the Jewish religion loving science to death that they want to hog-out every science award and accomplishment, even if what they report as science is science fiction. In the case of the 2011 Physics Nobel, a accelerating-expansion is as science fiction as the neutrino faster than light speed report. During the time of Galileo and Newton, religion was adversarial to science, but by the time of 1900 onward we have the awful opposite affect of a religion-- Jewish religion falling in love with science and destroying true science whilst they smother true science in their love and appreciation. Science by the 1900s and 2000s has become mostly a billboard advertisement arm of the Jewish religion and we easily see this in the 2011 Nobel physics award where 2 of the 3 awardees are Jewish. The Nobel prizes in science have ceased to be a record of science truth or science achievement and have now faded into a list of Jews in science in order to make advertisement billboard displays that the Jewish religion is a good religion. When in fact, what these religion love affair of science is actually smothering science and filling it with obnoxious errors and mistakes that later generations of true scientists have to clean and clear out. It is easy to correct the mistake of OPERA neutrino speeds for it was just a funding ploy. But it is difficult to correct the horrible errors of when a religion is in love with science and proceeding to smother science with its error filled garbage. When religion has infiltrated science to the extent of the Nobel in Economics and now the Nobel in physics, that we get science such that it is no longer recognizable as science. If I have time in life, I should write a book on the Olympic champions in sports where the muscle system of the body is just as much a "genius system" as what we consider the brain and mind and the prizes awarded to genius scientists. If we look at the Olympics, the proportion of Jewish Olympians compared to worldwide population is mathematically right. But what if in the next upcoming Olympics that 60% of the medals went to Jews under the science notion that muscle genius is evenly distributed in the population? Everyone in science would want to look as to how the Jews are cheating in order that 60% went to Jewish athletes. The same thing goes for science in that organ of genius is not the muscle system but the brain system, that we should under science, expect Jewish Nobel prizes in physics to be proportional to the overall Jewish population. So that the Nobel in physics to Jews should have been about 2 or 3 Jews in all during 1900 to 2000. Now many in the Jewish community are going to respond to this by saying that Jewish families stress to their youngsters to be good in physics and to study extra hard. But my retort to that is that the Nobel prize in physics awards "genius achievement" and not achievement of those that spend extra hours or are driven by a Jewish family insistent on achievement. What has happened in science is that it is invaded by a religion-- the Jewish religion that loves science and this is almost as dangerous to science itself as was the Catholic approach to science by being adversial. Science does not thrive in either environment of the Catholic approach in 1600s or the Jewish love smothering approach in 2000s. Science has to be free of a religion using science as a billboard advertisement. So the future of physics will have to take extra time off, just to clear out and clean up the science fiction of the 20th and 21st centuries that the Jewish religion left as a mess in the heart of science. To clean up and clear out the crap such as the accelerating- expansion of the Big Bang. It is easy to clear up and clean out the neutrino mistake because it was never really asserted, but just a funding ploy. But to clean up and clear out accelerating-expansion is a far larger waste of time and energy that could have been spent on doing true actual physics. Archimedes Plutoniumhttp://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies Sorry I should number these posts for the Atom Totality book, and the last two posts were #29 and #30 respectively. And I expect by the end of my writing sometime in November, hopefully that the OPERA experiment mistake will have been resolved. AP |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
mistakes of neutrino speed is funding motivated; mistakes of 2011Nobel Physics prize is a Jewish religion motivated; preface Atom Totalitytheory book, 5th ed
On Oct 5, 3:06*pm, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote: Yeah, Archie, those greedy Jews stole every one of your Nobel prices. But let me assure you: every one on sci.physics, sci.astro and sci.math is on your side! Feels better, doesn't it? PPJ. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Listen to the announcement of the 2011 Nobel Prize in physics, toSaul Perlmutter, Brian Schmidt and Adam Reiss | Sam Wormley[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 5 | October 4th 11 09:20 PM |
preface to 5th edition of Atom Totality Theory, rumor that AP causedCERN neutrino scientists to make a mistake #5 | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | September 24th 11 08:06 PM |
4th ed. book, preface #1; ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) theory;replaces Big Bang theory | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 176 | June 9th 10 05:43 AM |
#1 new book; ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANGTHEORY IN PHYSICS | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 13 | May 1st 09 06:25 AM |
The 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 5th 04 04:08 PM |