Recent posts

#1

General News and Discussion / Re: Trump Brings the Hammer

Last post by Bonaventure - Today at 12:50:40 PM

I wonder if some here are also upset that an alleged statutory rapist (Matt Getz) chose to step down as the nominee for Attorney General.

More upset with the revelation that the Israel embassy was running an entrapment operation to entrap Gaetz.

The rapist crap turned out to be false.  The jew that hired the hooker paid for her, not Gaetz, and she was 18.  Dude likes his women, and that would have come out.  Also, I think the dude is a legit coke head, and that would have come out in hearings.

Yes, clearly Matt is a sex fiend.

#2

General News and Discussion / Re: Trump Brings the Hammer

Last post by james03 - Today at 12:43:28 PM

What's wrong with you?

I'm a troll. 

#3

The Natural Sciences / Re: Quantum Level Collapse

Last post by james03 - Today at 12:42:08 PM

Missed this:

But General Relativity does predict effects we can observe that classical mechanics does not (e.g. the observed values of gravitational lensing, the observed orbit of Mercury, the effect of the Earth's rotation on satellites in its gravity, etc.).

The orbit of satellites and Mercury were solved by a math teacher before Einstein by assuming gravity travels at the speed of light.  Gravitational lensing is the result of a photon traveling at a relative speed < c, and its mass.

This shows the difference in ontology.

Case 1:  Assume the photon travels at c, and also is affected by gravity.  You'd probably get the wrong answer.

Case 2:  Assume the relative velocity of a photon is according to Galilean Relativity, and that it has mass and responds to gravity.  You get the right answer.

Case 3: Assume that "space" is expanding and curved.  You get the right answer.

You either have to reject the view that the photon travels at "c" for both frames of reference, or you have to monkey with "space".

And again, I can't emphasize enough how big of a problem this reification of the idea of "expanding space" is within physics.

You're more of the expert on this, so I take your word.  What about "curved" space?

Is you point that General Relativity is simply "shut up and do the math."?

#4

General News and Discussion / Re: Trump Brings the Hammer

Last post by Miriam_M - Today at 12:31:23 PM

You.

You have zero basis for suggesting that.  Nothing in my post suggests some kind of weird infatuation with Hegseth.  Thank you for assuming that no woman in the world is capable of operating on logic and without prejudice and instead substitutes looks for competency.  What's wrong with you?

#5

General News and Discussion / Re: Trump Brings the Hammer

Last post by james03 - Today at 12:26:26 PM

You.

#6

General News and Discussion / Re: Trump Brings the Hammer

Last post by james03 - Today at 12:25:21 PM

I wonder if some here are also upset that an alleged statutory rapist (Matt Getz) chose to step down as the nominee for Attorney General.

More upset with the revelation that the Israel embassy was running an entrapment operation to entrap Gaetz.

The rapist crap turned out to be false.  The jew that hired the hooker paid for her, not Gaetz, and she was 18.  Dude likes his women, and that would have come out.  Also, I think the dude is a legit coke head, and that would have come out in hearings.

#7

General News and Discussion / Re: Trump Brings the Hammer

Last post by Miriam_M - Today at 12:21:23 PM

Whatever tiny bit of respect I had remaining for the "Democratic" party vanished utterly during the Hegseth hearings.

Tell me she thinks Pete is cute without telling me she thinks Pete is cute.

Who is "she"?

#8

General News and Discussion / Re: Trump Brings the Hammer

Last post by james03 - Today at 12:19:57 PM

Whatever tiny bit of respect I had remaining for the "Democratic" party vanished utterly during the Hegseth hearings.

Tell me she thinks Pete is cute without telling me she thinks Pete is cute.

[it will not withdraw IDF troops from southern Lebanon.]

#9

General News and Discussion / Re: Trump Posts Jeffery Sachs

Last post by james03 - Today at 12:16:52 PM

Hezbollah's accusations that Israel was not honoring the ceasefire have now become validated as the Israeli government has officially announced that it will not withdraw IDF troops from southern Lebanon.

Trump's first big test.  We'll see how he responds to this act of war by the talmudists.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2025-01-24/israel-announces-it-will-not-withdraw-idf-southern-lebanon

#10

The Natural Sciences / Re: Quantum Level Collapse

Last post by cgraye - Today at 12:11:07 PM

Poor writing on my part.  LORENTZ's ontology is based on aether.  "My" ontology is based on Galilean relativity with regards to cosmology.  Einstein doesn't have an ontology.  He grabbed Lorentz's formula but ditched the aether.

Even if that holds, it doesn't hold at non-cosmological scales, which is why I brought up more local examples.  The symmetry present in standard cosmology allows for some convenient and intuitive things, such as a time coordinate that corresponds to proper time for all observers.  But we need to be careful not to read anything ontological into that, because it doesn't work in more normal, local systems where that symmetry is not present.

And if you don't have expanding "space", you are going to have a problem with explaining red shift, since the velocity of light with reference to the target/observer is required to be "c".  If you reject constant "C" in all reference frames, then red shift is easy to explain, as I showed in the formula.

Explaining the redshift without the expansion of space is not only not a problem, it's far more natural to both our ordinary intuition and within the framework of General Relativity - the explanation is the Doppler effect, just as it is for closer galaxies at non-cosmoslogical distances.  Things are moving away from us, so the light emitted from them is Doppler shifted.  Again, whether you want to classify redshift as kinematic, gravitational, or cosmological is entirely down to what coordinates you choose - these are not distinct physical phenomena.

The idea where everything is not moving but the space in between them is expanding is a useful mathematical model, but it doesn't really make any physical sense to us, so it doesn't make any sense to explain things to non-experts this way.  The explanation that makes sense is the one that matches how we think about the physical phenomena in play - the one where objects are moving away from each other.

And within the framework of General Relativity, the basic underlying idea is that each point in space can be considered locally flat, so it makes the most sense to think of a Doppler shift at each of those points.  Thinking about something like the wavelength of a photon expanding with space doesn't even make sense within the physics of light.  Maxwell's equations have no "expanding space" term or references to the size of the universe.  This is just not a good explanation.

And again, I can't emphasize enough how big of a problem this reification of the idea of "expanding space" is within physics.  It permeates all the popular media, of course, but this is present in undergraduate astronomy textbooks as well, and it leaves students who don't go on to specialize in General Relativity with a wrong idea that they carry with them from that point forward.  Everyone talks about it this way, but it makes no intuitive sense, and it's in tension with the fundamental ideas of General Relativity.