Pmb

I'm not flaming you. I'm warning members of this forum to beware of the fact that most of the posts you create are nonsense, such as this one. You started this thread by posting numerous symbols whose meaning cannot be deduced from what you wrote, although you'll insist otherwise probably claiming that those who can't figure it out are dumb.

With this nonsense of a post and the fact that the same exact post was posted in The Naked Scientists forum I finally know who you are. Note to my fellow members: this member will rarely, if ever, make any sense whatsoever. He quite often ignores simple facts in physics and declares himself right on too numerous occasions regardless of the fact that 100% of the physics community holds otherwise. Never expect anything logical from him and expect insults. E.g. he flamed me when I explained that space and expand and contract meaning that space can be created and destroyed. He knows absolutely nothing about relativistic cosmology whereas I do and he claims that all such cosmologists are idiots for holding that to be true.

Is it possible that RbM and Ryndanangnysen are the same people?

Why? Why is believing that we went to the moon so fantastic to you? Do you know nothing about science and engineering and for that reason can't grasp how it can e done? Where's your evidence? Where's your argument demonstrating that what you said is reasonably correct?

Ryndanangnysen wrote - Are you sure?? It turned out some where just fake! which is a lie. People who make such claims do so without providing evidence because it's wrong and as such there is no evidence of the claim Ryndanangnysen wrote - In orbit around the earth, mate! You've once again provided no basis for this accusation. Merely saying something is not evidence that what you said it's true. In this case ham radio operators listened in on astronauts in the Apollo-11 capsules as they went to the Moon. It's easy to determine that the transmissions were not from Apollo-11 as it circled the Earth because there was never a drop out of signal as the capsule sunk below the horizon in its orbit. The transmissions coming from the moon has no drop out. http://www.arrl.org/eavesdropping-on-apollo-11 The Russians would have loved it if they were transmitting from a capsule in orbit because they'd be able to detect exactly where the capsule is by triangulating the signal and showing it's not from the moon but from Earth's orbit.

Just because I explained in detail why your reasoning process is far from being reasonable is no basis whatsoever to assert that I'm brainwashed. In fact I've posted nothing here that could be taken as evidence of being brainwashed. I fact your response here indicates that you don't know what it means to be brainwashed. By definition, brainwashing is to affect a person's mind by using extreme mental pressure or any other mind-affecting process. There has never been anything close to this in my life. You certainly can't make that claim based only on the fact that I used sound reasoning to show you the nature of your errors. You're simply confusing higher education with brainwashing.Another term for it is Mind Control. Readthe webpage that I cited and provide a solid argument that I've been brainwashed. Otherwise please don't make rude accusations which you can't back up.

If that's true then provide evidence that she and I were the one's who were lied to and not you. I haven't seen any attempt by you to do that as of yet.

When someone makes an assertion so challenging to widely accepted beliefs as done here claiming that we never went to the moon it requires a great deal of evidence to back it up. Nobody in their right mind and who knows how to reason properly would never accept such an assertion as "We never went to the Moon." But nowhere in this thread have I seen any such evidence supporting such a claim. In fact all we've been given so far as the claim "We never went to the moon!" and simply making a claim in no way justify believing it. In fact when I gave evidence what we did in deed go to the moon all we got back from Ryndanangnysen was just another illogical assertion Clearly Ryndanangnysen neither understands physics and/or knows how to reason properly he'd know the fact which is well known by all scientists that science is not about "proving" anything. In fact science has been defined in the article What is science? Am. J. Phys. 67(8), August 1999 as the systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories. The success and credibility of science is anchored in the willingness of scientists to adhere to two steadfast rules: 1) expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by other scientists; this requires the complete and open exchange of data, procedures and materials; 2) abandon or modify accepted conclusions when confronted with more complete or reliable experimental evidence. Adherence to these principles provides a mechanism for self-correction that is the foundation of the credibility of science. This definition was originally drafted by the Panel on Public Affairs ~POPA! of the American Physical Society, in an attempt to meet the perceived need for a very short statement that would differentiate science from pseudoscience. This statement has been endorsed as a proposal to other scientific societies by the Council of the American Physical Society, and was endorsed by the Executive Board of the American Association of Physics Teachers at its meeting in Atlanta, 20 March 1999. Ryndanangnysen's responses have been clearly in contradiction to this definition. Then there was the other extremely poorly thought out rhetorical question Ever considered the fact that what the Russian where doing was also a hoax? The purpose of the space race to the get to the moon first. As such America and Russia would never help each other. In fact they'd be doing everything they could to demonstrate that America was faking it or that it was a hoax. However the Russians were clearly not as illogical as Ryndanangnysen is.

Actually you're quite wrong. It does prove that people were on the moon. That's what makes it a valid argument. While lasers can be bounced off the moon without those mirrors the mirrors allow us to get much greater precision measurements with the mirror. Ryndanangnysen's fault here is that all he did is make claims. That's not science. To be science one has to back it up with evidence.

The Bible is not a physics textbook. It was written long before people knew that the sun was a star. However, if you feel the need to think of the Bible as a source of scientific knowledge (which it surely isn't) then all that says is that God created the star near the Earth first and called it "Sun" and then created all the other stars but didn't name them. That's quite wrong. If that were true then every place on Earth would have day light since the light from anyplace inside a sphere lands on the entire surface area inside the sphere. It also follows that the sun wouldn't rise and set below the horizon and it's easy to see that it does. If we were on the inside of a sphere then we'd see then entire inside surface. The land would rise above us in the distance and we'd see all of it. However that's not what we see. We can't see over the horizon. Not to mention that the geometry of the people on the inside of the sphere and the rays of light would be different than they really are. I'll create a diagram which proves that you're wrong. I'll post it later today, hopefully. Nonsense, all of it. That means that all you did was post things but put no logical analysis behind it. Anybody that can imagine what it'd be like inside a sphere would know that its not where we live. If we did then there would be places on that inside surface (if not the whole surface) that due to the gravitational pull of the sun we'd all fall of the inside surface of the sphere and into the sun. Astronomy would be quite different than it is now. We wouldn't be able to place satellites in orbit around the earth and the moon wouldn't be able to orbit the earth. When astronauts take pictures of the Earth they wouldn't show the earth to be a sphere as they do.

Pyrotex - You're right in that length contraction and time dilation are very different. Not only do they have very different physical meanings but their relationship between two frames S and S' are T' = T/sqrt[1- v^2/c^2] L' = L*sqrt[1- v^2/c^2] Where T = proper time and L = proper length. So as anybody can readily see, they're very different. As I've said many times, A-wal's grasp of this subject is very weak. This is just another example of it.

xyz - All galaxies moving away from each other is not space expanding is it now, is science trying to say that they observe bigger gaps between masses? I'll say this again; it's not that its irrational to say that space is expanding. The problem lies in your ignorance of general relativity and cosmology. E.g. you don't know what it means for space to expand. You keep looking for something physical like a rubber sheet to stretch. That's the error in your reasoning. Frankly its irritating discussing this with you since you make claims that all of we physicists are wrong and wrong in the exact same way and you make that assertion with no understanding of the theories from which they came. You keep making the mistake that space does not have a physical presence based on the fact that there is nothing there for you to interact with. That's wrong. We can interact with empty space by placing things in the space and then take measurements on the geometry of the arrangements of the objects in that space. For example; if you wanted to determine whether space was curved or not then first you have to know what that means. The example I'll use is the sphere since its easy to imagine. If you were a 2D being living on the surface of a 3D sphere then nothing outside the surface exists to you. Now have two 2D beings stand next to each other facing in the same direction. The each starts to side step for a very a certain distance. How far depends on the radius of the 3-sphere. E.g. If the radius of the 3-sphere is 1 unit then the person side stepping would have to side step a total distance of pi/2 ~ 1.5 units. Now that 2D being walks forward the same distance. The other 2D being would only move forward a distance of 1.5 units. In flat space these two beings would never meet. If the geometry is sphere-like then they meet. This is because the geometry of the two spaces are different. Walking those distances is a way of taking physical measurements of the space. A similar experiment would have two 2D beings standing next to each other and each of them start off walking in a straight line. In a general curved surface their paths will intersect, i.e. the surfaces would not be Euclidean anymore. In the example of the expanding universe there will be more and more space being created, i.e. the volume of the universe keeps increasing. Regarding redshift: I hope you didn't think that I gave that as some sort of "proof" that the universe is expanding. I gave it as evidence of that fact. Evidence and proof are not the same thing. Note also that there's no place for proof in physics. See Alan Guth explain why at: http://www.newenglandphysics.org/common_misconceptions/DSC_0002.MOV So in short; You can’t experimentally tell the difference between an expanding universe with galaxies moving as it expands or a universe in which galaxies move apart . See Am. J. Phys. 75, 151 (2007); http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.2360990 Am. J. Phys. 77, 59 (2009); http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.2987790 for some discussion of the issues. I think that this basically a semantic and/or reference frame problem, and that the “space is expanding” perspective has some pedagogical and conceptual advantages. But as far as I know, one cannot distinguish the perspectives experimentally. I.e. merely seeing redshift won't tell you that space is expanding. You need a model of the universe to work with and a theory to describe it. Would you like to read those articles? The reason that it's say that the universe is expanding is that the theory says so and the theory is correct in that it's been tested thoroughly.

xyz - There is a lot that goes into observations than just the fact that there is a cosmological redshift. What's important is the exact nature of the redshift as a function of the distance between galaxies. That's where Hubble's law comes in. If you really want to get into it then read this page: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/astro801/content/l10_p4.html

Craig - There are other types of geometric objects defined on Minkowski space, not simply 4-vectors. The following are examples: the metric tensor, the Faraday tensor (aka EM tensor), the stress-energy-momentum tensor and the angular momentum density tensor readily come to mind.

xyz - I never avoided the explanation. I simply choose not to repeat myself. I already described what it means for space to expand, i.e. all galaxies moving away from each other. There's more to it than that of course but I'm unable to cut and paste URLs making it very difficult for me to reference pages. I said that we know that space is expanding because we observe all galaxies moving away from each other and there are galaxies whose cosmological redshift is so high that it can only mean that the galaxy is moving away from us at speeds greater than the speed of light. That can only happen if its space itself that is expanding. There are observations which imply all if this. You never looked them up so that's why you don't know about it. You assumed it was all wrong so you never looked for observational evidence that it is right. That evidence is listed here: http://en.wikipedia/wiki/Metric_expansion Do a search on that page for the term "evidence." Later this week I'm going to MIT to talk to a friend of mine, Alan Guth. He's one of the worlds leading cosmologists. He's helping me develop my companies website by giving talks in videos about common misconceptions in physics. I'll have him do one on this subject so that you'll have a solid answer from one of the leading scientists on the Big Bang theory. It'll be good for the physics community to have this because there's a large number of people who get it all wrong like you do. Observation is nothing without theory. We have theory from general relativity and a great deal of experimental data which implies that GR is correct. GR when applied to the universe gives us a metric which implies that its space itself that is expanding. When the administrators tell me how to do a cut and paste in this forum (since it's not working) I'll show you what evidence exists. Or you could do a search for it yourself. I don't see why you can't do a search for yourself though.

The problem is that what you think is illogical is actually valid but beyond your comprehension. People are not raised with such notions in mind or in their experience. That's why on some occasions when physicists make advances in science the layman is unable to grasp it and thus claim it's not true or illogical just as you have done here. The fact is that what I described corresponds to reality, i.e. what is actually measured in nature. Re - flat earth etc/ That's a misconception. In most of history it was known that the earth was round.,

xyz - I know the other version, and it suggests walls of space by suggesting by suggesting a balloons surface which is simply not true. If that's what you think then you do not understand the analogy. A 2D occupant in the surface of balloon can walk all over the surface and never hit anything which could be thought of as a "wall." That's the whole point of that analogy. Every time you claim you know the analogy you say something which tells us that you really don't understand it like you did in that comment.

xyz - You're quite correct that I didn't use your balloon analogy since the analogy that you used is quite wrong in that it's not an analogy that reflects expanding space. What you wrote was which is not the balloon analogy that cosmologists use to describe expanding space. The balloon analogy that I used is the correct one.

xyz - Within the context of general relativity, space most certainly can expand and can be destroyed. Regarding the balloon analogy; most people misuse the analogy by thinking that its like a real balloon that, when expanded, occupies more space since they picture it as expanding into space. That's quite wrong and a misuse of the analogy. The analogy, correctly utilized, is that the surface of the balloon is what's expanding. But if you imagine that its expanding into something then you don't understand the analogy correctly. The analogy is one in two dimensions, not three dimensions. When you claim that the balloon is expanding into 3-space then all you're doing is misusing the analogy. The correct view of the analogy is to imagine that it's occupied only by two dimensional beings. As the surface of the balloon increases 2D beings, even thought they're at rest on the surface, move apart from each other. When they measure the amount of space that exists in their 2D world they find that as time goes on there is more and more of it. Define one point on the surface of the balloon as point N. Find the point which is the furthest away from it and call that point S. Now draw the straightest possible line possible that passes through N and you'll find that it passes through S. Place markers at equal intervals along that line. As time increases you'll find that there is more and more space between adjacent markers which means that the total length of the longest line is increasing. So while you might imagine space as being "nothing" it actually has properties which can be measured and they have been measured and what was found is consistent with general relativity. One way to make measurements is to measure the shortest distances between two points in space. The nature of the measurements will describe the space itself. The results of those measurements will depend on the surrounding matter. So all your beliefs about space are wrong and have been proven to be wrong by observation.

That is incorrect. First off the E in that expression only pertains to the sum of rest energy and kinetic energy. I myself refer to this as Inertial Energy. I say this so that nobody makes the mistake of thinking that E includes potential energy of position. The only potential energy that it pertains to is the internal potential energy of the interaction of particles that make up the rest energy of the body whose mass is m. What E = mc2 does mean is that it a body having mass m then there is an internal energy E associated with it. For example; if you have a body at rest having an initial mass M in the inertial frame S and it emits two pulses of radiation of equal amounts in opposite directions where the total amount of energy is E then the mass of the body will decrease by the amount E/c2. There's no such thing as "pure energy." I recommend reading a webpage I wrote on what energy is. It's on my personal website at: http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/mech/what_is_energy.htm Then watch the video that I took of Alan Guth (creator of the theory of inflation) explaining why there's no such thing as "pure energy." It's on my companies' website at: http://newenglandphysics.org/common_misconceptions/DSC_0004.MOV I also recommend reading The Meaning of E = mc2 by Mendel Sachs, Int. Theo. Physics, 8 (1973). It too is online at my companies' website at: http://www.newenglandphysics.org/science _literature/Journal_articles/International_Journal_of_Theoretical_Physics/Sachs_M_Int_Theor_Phys_8_5_1973_.pdf I worked out an example of how to apply E = mc2 to nuclear fusion at http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/nuclear _fission.htm There's also Einstein's derivation where he showed that radiation has an equivalent amount of mass associated with it's energy. See: http://home.comecast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/einsteins/_box.htm There's an article in the American Journal of Physics called Does nature convert mass into energy? by Ralph Raierlein, Am. J. Phys, 75(4), Apr. (2007). It too is on my personal website at : http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ref/baierlein.pdf I have the following articles on my computer. If anybody wants to read one or more of them then please let me know and I'll make them available to read. They are: Energy Transformations and Conservation of Energy by E.F. Barker, Am. J. Phys., 14(5), Sep. (1946). Example of mass-energy-relation: Classical hydrogen atom accelerated or supported in a gravitational field by Timothy Boyer, Am. J. Phys., 66(10), Oct. (1998). Photons and Doppler shifts in Einstein's derivation of mass energy by Thomas F. Jordan, Am. J. Phys., 50(4), Apr. (1990). Einstein's first derivation of mass-energy of mass-energy equivalence by John Stachel and Roberto Torretti, Am. J., Phys., 50(8), Aug. (1982). An elementary development of mass-energy equivalence by Daniel J. Steck and Frank Rioux, Am. J. Phys., 51(5), May. (1983). On the Inertia of Energy Required by the Relativity Principle by A. Einstein, Ann. der Phys., 23 (1907). The mystery of mass-energy by J.W. Warren, Phys. Educ. 11(7), Jan. (1976) I don't understand what you mean here. Why don't you think that the universe is divided into matter and "pure energy." First of all, as I explained above, there's no such thing as "pure energy." What do you mean by that term? I'm going to assume that you're talking about particles that have zero rest mass or they don't where those that don't have rest mass is what you refer to as "pure energy." Is that what you mean? That isn't part of the definition of what a fermion is. E.g. the Weyl fermion has zero proper mass. See: http://www.livescience.com/51584-weyl-fermions-created-lab.html Not all force carriers are bosons. There are several types of fermions which are force carriers. For example; fermionic field is a quantum field whose quanta are fermions. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermionic _field If I understand you correctly then this is an error. But first let me ask you a few questions. Do you mean the following? Suppose an electron is at rest in the inertial frame S. The electron is the struck by a photon whereupon it's absorbed and the rest mass of the electron increases. Then by "absorbed" do you mean that this results in an increase in its rest mass? If so then this is an error because an electron cannot increase its rest mass. At least not in the way you describe it. Griffiths text on particle physics explains why. It's quite easy to understand. I can scan it in and post a link to it if you'd like to read it? One last comment: You wrote the definition of relativistic mass incorrectly. I.e. m(v) = m_0/sqrt[1 - v2/c2] is an equality, not an identity. That means that it's the value you obtain for the mass as a function of speed when you derive an expression of the relativistic mass for a tardyon (i.e. particles which move at speeds less than c). However if the particle is a luxon (v = c) then all you can do is express m in other terms such as m = hf/c2 or E/c2. The correct definition of the relativistic mass of a particle is the m in p = mv. That is an identity, not an equality. By this I mean that m = p/v is the definition of mass. Another way to put it is to say that mass is defined so that mv is conserved. This was defined in 1907 by Richard C. Tolman.

The truth of the matter is that nobody knows what was before the big bang. There's a theory called the Pre-Big Bang scenario which is based on string theory. Try looking it up using Google.

CraigD - The gap between A-wal and I is that I thoroughly understand SR and he has a very poor grasp of it, close to that of a layman. And when I point out his mistakes his understanding is so poor he can't understand the correction to it. Not to mention that his personality is not of the type that allows one to admit their mistakes. And he kept it up in this thread posting rude responses when I corrected him. Why do you allow him to use that kind of tone with people? If you'd like to see a nice application of spacetime see my page at http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/invariant_mass.htm

re - the way that time dilates and length contracts are physically identical ! Far from it. There were too many errors in your claims for me to want to bother correcting so I'll just correct this one to make a point, i.e. you don't know what you're talking about in relativity, In what follows let there be an inertial frame S and let S' be an inertial frame in standard configuration with S. Let the time interval between two events A and B which occur at the same location in S be dt (dt = proper time). Then it's value in S' will be dt' = dt/sqrt[1 - v^2/c^2]. I.e. dt' > dt - Time dilation. Let there be a rod of proper length L be at rest in S. Then the rod's length in S' will be L' = L*sqrt[1 - v^2/c^2]. I.e. L' < L - Length contraction. This clearly demonstrates that you claim is wrong, as usual.

I think I misread that. Let me try again. In post #23 you said that energy has to increase with frame velocity and that consumption of energy is equal to work done in that frame. Then you claim that W = Wo/y and hence work done decreases as v increases. Then you make a completely unintelligible statement "This proves that consume energy in doing work changes as E = E0/y. None of that makes sense. For example; you talk about work done but you never mention what's doing the work. If you do an about of work W0 in frame S and in S' the work is W then the increase in energy in S is E0 = W0 so that whatever the energy increase in S it has to increase by the amount of work done in S'. But you're expression for the work is not a general transformation of work. The amount of work done in an inertial frame S might be zero but it doesn't mean that it has to be zero in the frame S' which is in standard configuration with S. So that W = W0/y is not generally true. Right now I don't even know if that's correct to begin with. In your comment about you claim that SR says that there can be acceleration without force but I know SR cold and know that it doesn't say that whatsoever. Someday when I'm bored I'll read your paper like I said I would. I've been having a bad time with pain though and can't concentrate that well. Sorry.

A-wal claims that - ...special relativity shows that time is no different by treating coordinate time as simply another spatial dimension. In relativity there's no distinction and you don't need to specify which dimension is undergoing length contraction and which is undergoing time dilation because they're physically identical. Clearly wrong. E.g. time dilates whereas space contracts. By merely looking at the metric one can see which coordinate is the temporal one and which are the spatial ones. And while particles travel in any direction in space they never travel backwards in time. By looking at the Lorentz transformation which relates coordinates between inertial frames its obvious that the temporal and spatial coordinates transform differently. No relativist/physicist worth his salt would make such a clearly wrong statement. pgrmdave - A-wal has all of this quite wrong. His grasp of relativity and physics in general is quite poor since he makes a lot of mistakes like this. Your response is quite correct. I've provide other opinions from Einstein and his colleagues on the subject of the difference between time and space in spacetime in what follows. As Einstein himself said, this is wrong. From Nature, Feb. 17, 1921, page 783 Of course this point of view is universal for those who have a correct understanding of relativity, which A-wal does not. This means that all of Einstein's followers agree with what Einstein said here. For example; from Relativity; Thermodynamics and Cosmology by Richard C. Tolman, Dover Pub, page 29. In the section 14 entitled The three plus one dimensions of space-time From a much more modern text Introduction to Special Relativity by Wolfgang Rindler, page 51 Note: It's important to note that one of the major differences between Euclidean space and spacetime is that they have very different metrics.