Age of Universe Edges Closer to Officer Bert's Prediction!

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:

In article ,
"Painius" wrote:

Phineas you ignorant slut...

Sound waves and EM waves are certainly NOT the
same thing. That's the whole point! They are not
the same kind of energy, and yet they can both
vibrate in the same freq. ranges on the spectrum.


And so what about it?

Apparently he believes there is significance in the magnitudes of the
frequencies of two diverse kinds of oscillations. His flawed thinking
has apparently led him to believe that "the spectrum" is a distinct
entity all by itself that encompasses anything he chooses to toss in.

So there is no reason to believe that it's all EM
anywhere on the spectrum. There can be other
forms of energy that occupy the same vibrational
ranges as EM all the way from 0 hz on up to the
Planck wavelength.

That is sheer unadulterated nonsense. Waves formed from the oscillation of E
and B fields are EM WAVES!!!

So in PainWorld, a 10 KHz sound tone is somehow intimately connected to
a 10 KHz RF carrier wave.

It is the same thought process that brought him to attempting
comparisons of the densities of mass, energy, and EM field strengths.


As for the sub-Planck wavelengths... who knows?

Not you


All of this is kind of like the space between your
ears, Phineas. I keep telling people that there's
really something there in that space, but all they
can sense is... a void.


Poor lames. Physics knowledge running low?

Yeah, plus referencing the royal "they".

--
"To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:

In article ,
"Painius" wrote:

Phineas you ignorant slut...


*DING*


Sound waves and EM waves are certainly NOT the
same thing. That's the whole point! They are not
the same kind of energy, and yet they can both
vibrate in the same freq. ranges on the spectrum.


Are you saying that a radio wave of around 18Khz is EXACTLY the same as a
sound
wave of the same frequency???

I wonder if Wolter the Wonder Physicist also taught this principle.

Wow, you truly are clueless. Quick Painius, bust out a new lame to cover up
your ignorance...

Without a doubt it will involve geese and IKYABWAIs.

--
"To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:

In article .com,
wrote:

Yo Paine


The recent dialog er, imbroglio with the Duck was *very* revealing and
eye-opening to the intensity and zeal of the VS-ers' worldview. Such
an up-close and personal encounter with it really drives it home. They
do believe avowedly in the "geometry-as-cause, gravity is a pseudo-
force" explanation of gravity. And apparently they see no conundrum in
declaring space to be pure void on the one hand, and on the other hand
claiming, by virture of its geometry/distortion, it accomplishes the
herculean tasks of gravity. Seeing the stark contrast between the VS
worldview and the true mechanism of gravity gives even greater
appreciation for the latter. And the Sun and stars shine even brighter
in the firmament.

Post a single defining equation.


The Duck has been hollering that Wolter is a fictitious character,
which he assuredly was not. Insofar as his FS-gravity model, which was
a mere 'sidebar' of the larger CBB model, one can forget Wolter..
because others, working independantly and without collaboration, have
deduced _exactly_ that same mechanism. I.e., a monopolar,
omnidirectional, "reverse starburst" flow of a *literal* medium,
pressure-driven and accelerating into mass, with mass synonymous with
flow sink.

Ah now you cannot prove this guy exists, you give up the pretense.

Can you point me to one defining paper which gives the properties of the fluid
and their derivations? So far, its all faith....



Over the years, links to the webpages of Lindner, Shifman, Paxton and
Warren have been posted here (and recently, H.G. Ellis, a 'mainstream'
scientist). Warren has periodically updated his site, as seen here,
replete with the attendant math as usual -

http://www.olypen.com/hcwarren/

Ellis' work is from 1974, and his later stuff doesn't gel so well. Ether
theories are pretty dead in the water.

Linder's stuff is worthless. This is slightly better in that he does the math
for the GR case, but the flowing space stuff is all "suppose" and I see no
defining equations for the property of the fluid. Still more nonsense. Still
no
more discussion of singularities... More poor physics

For example, this predicts that mass moving in empty space will feel a drag
that slows it down! Nowhere does it mention what happens to this fluid in the
centre of a mass. I guess this is just another tired light theory

He says "It was noted in the introduction that the math associated with this
model produces the Schwarzschild solution" not understanding that correlation
!= causation.

Talks of changing velocities for light in a gravitational field. His QM comes
from very dubious sources. The best bit is

"Kip Thorne(22) in his book Black Holes & Time Warps devotes a number of pages
in chapter 11 to the concept that if clocks and rulers are ³rubbery², that is
they really do slow and change lengths as proposed in this model, then flat
space ³appears curved² and the same experimental results are predicted. That
the universe presently appears to be flat(23) is a point in favor of the
proposed model."

Which is hysterical. He doesn't understand the difference between local and
global geometry. KT was using an analogy... This is the point, we talk of the
underlying geometry being Euclidean or non-Euclidean. Its hardly a point in
favour.

WHAT A WHOPPER OF A BLOOPER "The reason that the energy remaining in the
vacuum
at 0oC is not detectable is that the fabric or medium of space is non
electromagnetic in nature."

I think he meant K not c! Such a whopper is pretty fatal if thats the level of
checks went into this paper!

He also says "The author would like to reiterate here his preference for the
terminology ³medium in or of space² when referencing spatial flow in this
model, because he is uncertain whether it is the stuff of space itself which
is
flowing and varying in density or ³gravitons² or something else to which we
are
electromagnetically blind.: So even he is aware there is no proof here!

More nonsense" Further, the dictum of special relativity that forces cannot
propagate faster than the speed of light, leads to the conclusion that as the
speed of light is approached electrons peel off, nuclei fall apart, and
material matter disintegrates into photons, which is consistent with both
Einstein's belief that particles such as electrons are held together by
gravity
and his equivalence of energy and mass. This is contrary to what conventional
wisdom understands SR predicts. It is consistent with a velocity redshift"

Matter CANNOT reach c. Matter doesn't "disintegrate" as you reach c. Its
absolute nonsense with no mathematical backing. He keeps the maths for the
normal physics, and at best brings out some algebra for his other stuff....

He also says (answering his nine points here)

1. A consequence of this theory is that as the universe varied in spatial
density through time, the speed of light also varied. Light is posited to have
been much faster shortly after the Big Bang and to have decreased with
expansion. That the permittivity of the vacuum ?0 is believed to be dependent
on spacetime geometry is consistent with this model¹s assertion that the
velocity of light varies with the state of expansion of the universe.(18)(26)*
Indeed, recent tests and analysis suggest that the speed of light may have
slowed over time.(33)

* There is no evidence for this (VSL), and this breaks several known things
such as Supernovae...


2. The flatness problem i.e. the issue of whether or not the universe is open
or closed, which is really a rate of expansion problem and not a shape of the
universe problem, is said to be resolved by a variable speed of light(25).

* Variable speed of light theories are pretty dead in the water.

3. The horizon problem clearly is solved by the variable speed of light as
proposed in this model as communication in any early big bang universe would
have occurred at a near infinite speed.

* As above and as Wiki says:

"The varying speed of light cosmology
A variable speed of light cosmology has been proposed independently by John
Moffat and the two-man team of Andreas Albrecht and João Magueijo to explain
the horizon problem of cosmology.[20][21][22] [23] [24] [25] [26] The idea is
that light propagated as much as sixty times faster in the distant past, and
thus distant regions of the expanding universe have had time to interact since
the beginning of the universe. As such, it was proposed as an alternative to
cosmic inflation, although it is less clear how it reproduces the other
successes of inflationary cosmology such as the monopole and flatness problems
and how it reproduces the observed homogeneity and isotropy of the universe,
and the scale invariance of the spectrum of initial perturbations.

There is no known way to solve the horizon problem with variation of the
fine-structure constant, because its variation does not change the causal
structure of spacetime. To do so would require modifying gravity by varying
Newton's constant or redefining special relativity. (See equivalence principle
for further details.) Varying speed of light cosmologies propose to circumvent
this by varying the dimensionful quantity c by breaking the Lorentz invariance
of Einstein's theories of general and special relativity in a particular
way.[27] However, it has been pointed out by Ellis and Uzan[28] that the VSL
cosmology is an ad hoc modification of various equations of physics without a
consistent underlying scheme, such as a Lagrangian from which the equations of
motion can be derived. It has been suggested out[29] that a modification of
the
Einstein-Maxwell action can cause light to propagate at a speed faster than
the
speed of light defined by the metric, but this necessarily causes problems
with
causality and quantum mechanics.[30]"

4. Experimental evidence indicates that the universe is presently flat(23). It
may be that the universe at one time had a curved geometry and was flattened
by
inflation. But a variable speed of light provides a possible mechanism for the
universe having always been flat.

* As above Varying the fine structure constant leads to bad mojo....

5. Since all velocities and physical processes are referenced to Co in this
model and to c in both special and general relativity, an ultimate reference
frame, which has varied over time, is implied. That ultimate reference frame
is
the universe, itself, possibly with the cosmic background radiation standing
in
as proxy for that reference frame. Local variations in density would occur
depending on the distribution of gravitational entities and other factors and
all entities would respond to local conditions, but on the grand scale the
universe and the background reference it provides can be considered
homogenous.*

It cannot absorb GR and proclaim a global reference frame.

6. Changes in clock rates and rod lengths are real. A distinction is made
between measurements such as clock rates and the flow of time per se, which is
referenced to the history of the universe as a whole. If people at different
locations in the universe measure different times for the age of the universe,
that is a measurement problem and does not impact the history of the universe
anymore than an unlucky person suffering a premature aging disease affects the
lifespan of the earth.

* Huh? Again under the illusion there is a global reference frame.

7. The depletion of the spatial fabric between gravitational bodies should
interact with the Casimir effect.*
*
No proof

8. The ramifications of the preceding paragraphs for the calculations of the
size and age of the universe could be profound.

* Not really - VSL as above

9. This model posits that where gravitational fields overlap the depletion of
the spatial fabric will be the result of the combined effects of both fields
at
all locations in where they overlap. Thus, at the nodes where two massive
bodies offset each other there will be no gravitational flow, but the combined
depletion of the spatial fabric will result in the velocity of light and
propagation of forces through such a node being appropriately retarded.


* No proof whatsoever Under *A PROPOSED TEST OF THE THEORY he talks of a
spacecraft with the relevant equipment - already exists as there are FTS
spectrometers in space and any variation in c as predicted would break space
based spectroscopy as the effect would not be isotropic.

On the whole 3/10. Needs some real checks.

Under *A PROPOSED TEST OF THE THEORY he talks of a spacecraft with the
relevant
equipment - already exists as there are FTS spectrometers in space and any
variation in c as predicted would break space based spectroscopy.




As a 'sidebar', he also goes into discussion of the Casimir effect and
is saying essentially the same thing we've been saying here- that it
demonstrates the unification of gravity and the subnuclear forces.

No proof.

And note, no response from any of the profound pseudoscience lamers.

--
"To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert

In article ,
Art Deco wrote:

(Painius rant in double )

The fact that you believe that i consider this issue
trivial is just another indication of your abject
ignorance of what issues i do and do not consider
trivial.

Um, hello, Mr. PeeWee, during one of your flowing space rants, you were
the one who tried to consider the three quantities "denser" than mass,
not I. The fact that you tried to imagine such a condition indicates
that you don't understand dimensional analysis.

Arkg hc: "Wrf' gebyyva', T'hi!"

Vgf cerggl zhpu uvf zbqhf bcrenaqv.



--
Saucerheads - denying the blatantly obvious since 2000.

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:

In article . com,
wrote:

From Painius, quoting the duck:

Why should oscillating electric and magnetic fields
suddenly change over to some new "form of energy" simply because of
frequency?

The EM fields do not "change over to" anything. The sub-Planck
wavelength domain is _preexisant to_ and is the _carrier medium of_ EM
radiation. Why do you suppose the existance of a supporting
"superfluid" medium was a no-brainer to Maxwell? He certainly didn't
believe in a supporting "void".


Nonsense. As has been proven more times over the years then you will ever
understand, EM Waves do NOT NEED an aether to propagate over. Maxwell's
equations invariance through Lorentz (and not Galilean) show that.


The energy density of the medium surpasses nuclear on the scale that
nuclear surpasses chemical. And this is not an article of "faith". It
is demonstrated by the FACT that there is no perceptible upper limit
to the amplitude of EM radiation, transmitted at the high, fixed
velocity c.


Your knowledge of physics is utterly abysmal. You don't understand how c is
set
by the permitivity and permeability of free space do you?



The energy density (aka 'pressure/
density/'Temp' {PDT} value) of the medium is what determines and
_fixes_ the 'permeability/permittivity' values of the medium. No
"faith", just fact.

So simply point me to ONE proof of the matter. You refuse to. You blather on
about "fact" yet not one of you saucerheads can give me any defining equations
that govern the behaviour of this alleged fluid or explain exactly how it
works.

You're even more clueless then Painius about modern astronomy, and that is an
achievement.

And not one of them will tackle the problem of what happens when this
flowing density whatever-they-call-it arrives at a center of mass.

--
"To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert

In article ,
Art Deco wrote:

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:

In article ,
"Painius" wrote:

Phineas you ignorant slut...

Sound waves and EM waves are certainly NOT the
same thing. That's the whole point! They are not
the same kind of energy, and yet they can both
vibrate in the same freq. ranges on the spectrum.


And so what about it?

Apparently he believes there is significance in the magnitudes of the
frequencies of two diverse kinds of oscillations. His flawed thinking
has apparently led him to believe that "the spectrum" is a distinct
entity all by itself that encompasses anything he chooses to toss in.


Its a pretty crazy world in his head.....



So there is no reason to believe that it's all EM
anywhere on the spectrum. There can be other
forms of energy that occupy the same vibrational
ranges as EM all the way from 0 hz on up to the
Planck wavelength.

That is sheer unadulterated nonsense. Waves formed from the oscillation of E
and B fields are EM WAVES!!!

So in PainWorld, a 10 KHz sound tone is somehow intimately connected to
a 10 KHz RF carrier wave.

How many posts till the backpedal?




--
Saucerheads - denying the blatantly obvious since 2000.

In article ,
Art Deco wrote:

Are you saying that a radio wave of around 18Khz is EXACTLY the same as a
sound
wave of the same frequency???

I wonder if Wolter the Wonder Physicist also taught this principle.

I doubt he even understood oscillation .....

Wow, you truly are clueless. Quick Painius, bust out a new lame to cover up
your ignorance...

Without a doubt it will involve geese and IKYABWAIs.

That lame database is absolutely captivating reading into the thought processes
of the mad...



--
Saucerheads - denying the blatantly obvious since 2000.

In article ,
Art Deco wrote:


As a 'sidebar', he also goes into discussion of the Casimir effect and
is saying essentially the same thing we've been saying here- that it
demonstrates the unification of gravity and the subnuclear forces.

No proof.

And note, no response from any of the profound pseudoscience lamers.

Considering Painius' calls himself an astronomer and yet doesn't understand
basic fusion, I am SO looking forward to Bill's spirited defense of a variable
fine structure constant.


--
Saucerheads - denying the blatantly obvious since 2000.

In article ,
Art Deco wrote:

You're even more clueless then Painius about modern astronomy, and that is
an
achievement.

And not one of them will tackle the problem of what happens when this
flowing density whatever-they-call-it arrives at a center of mass.


I don't think bill even understand what I meant by 4 \pi r^2 dr as r tends to
zero either ;-)

--
Saucerheads - denying the blatantly obvious since 2000.

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:

In article ,
Art Deco wrote:

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:

In article ,
Art Deco wrote:

Nope, sorry, you're still a sto0pid ho, Mother Goose.

The fact that you consider this issue trivial is just another
indication of your abject ignorance of basic science.


Real scientists don't need no steenkin units ;-)

You misspelled "reel". HTH.



Painius has really outdone himself in the illucidity stakes recently. It seems
one comes back and argues a bit, gets kicked about and goes illucid - then
disappears to leave the other to come back for some...

And with the temerity of calling other people "ignorant".

Well these lot wouldn't even make the b ark...

--
"To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert