The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

Discussions on astrology, homeopathy and superstition etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Is Universe expansion in Euclidean space or not expansion in hyperbolic space?

Universe is expansion in Euclidean space
4
67%
Universe is not expansion in hyperbolic space
2
33%
 
Total votes : 6

Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#101  Postby Regina » Oct 26, 2011 9:56 pm

Evolving wrote:You can't be, or you would have laughed at my joke about spin.

I have a good mind to flounce off and only post in Physics.

Ha, I make jokes people don't laugh at all the time.
Besides, my representation of the piece twistor posted was correct: it's all in there: twistor, Feynman, TGD, wormholes. So there.
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15618
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#102  Postby Brain man » Oct 27, 2011 5:46 am

ah interesting. This is why i stay in the pseudoscience section. If i want to find where science i going next i just wait for darkchilde to over-react at somebody who displays fringe (genius) behaviour... and put it here. Its a form of prejiduce as she is attacking behavior rather than ideas, but hey, im not really that annoyed, as she makes life a lot easier for me.

we now have a more respectable scientist by her standards who presented what has been proposed here more formally. That there is no dark matter, no need for these universe expansion models, big bangs etc.. what is proposed here is not that different from Mattis TGD model for a spectrum of variations around the planck constant. Darkchilde is just re-enforcing that she cannot review an idea with prejiduce towards somebody exhibiting "fringe" behaviour, which she states many times is her reason for this. I will post links to her statements if this is in doubt. If something does not fit with her physics knowledge which it seems is about graduate level, there is a snap judgement and its relegated here. I kind of get where she is at, because i take some of my refresher science modules at the same university at her. Mostly the science courses are run by women who say they hope the students will be creative.

But in reality what happens is that none of these staff actually stretch themselves and enjoy the regular job of marking everything precisely, and not engaging on topics with students so they can have time to read some "alpha" male scientists opinions. Usually just these are elbow patch scientists fighting to attain status in academic offices rather than produce deep or groundbreaking results. Go of the course material by even one phrase and you get marked down for not using that word economically to re-iterate the text (jeez am i actually paying for this :doh: ). You are given a higher grade for reaching a consensus in online groups. Most of the students end up uncreative copy/robot consensus junkies after a while. I regularly tackle those tutor groups head on and get marked down for doing so. What happens is if you badger them enough eventually they write to the few male scientists they have on retainer as consultants and finally you actually get a semi-challenging interaction on any given topic. Well i dont mind, Better than getting pulled into stupid sheepledom to earn distinction grades but i sure am not doing my PHD there.

Although this is great piece of work, I have decided to now post this here first. After all darkchilde did declare questioning of the nobel prize and dark matter psuedoscience, so i am in my rights to claim that i am being consistent with moderators wishes for this topic.

this is
Arto Annila, Dr. , Prof.
E-mail:
Department of Physics
POB 64 (Gustaf Hällströmin katu 2)
FI-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland
Phone:

Education
Doctor of Technology, Tech. Phys.,
Helsinki Univ. of Technology, 1991
Civil Engineer, Tech. Phys.,
Helsinki Univ. of Technology, 1988
M.Sc. Biochemistry,
University of Helsinki, 1996

http://www.helsinki.fi/~aannila/arto/

and this is his criticsm of the nobel prize and how to get rid of dark matter, big bangs and basically sort out most of astrophysics by simple substitution a rejected equation for the least action principle into the matter to energy conversion calculations of Einstein.

A second look at supernovae light: Universe's expansion may be understood without dark energy
October 24, 2011 by Lisa Zyga

Image

(PhysOrg.com) -- The 2011 Nobel Prize in physics, awarded just a few weeks ago, went to research on the light from Type 1a supernovae, which shows that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. The well-known problem resulting from these observations is that this expansion seems to be occurring even faster than all known forms of energy could allow. While there is no shortage of proposed explanations – from dark energy to modified theories of gravity – it’s less common that someone questions the interpretation of the supernovae data itself.


n a new study, that’s what Arto Annila, Physics Professor at the University of Helsinki, is doing. The basis of his argument, which is published in a recent issue of the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, lies in the ever-changing way that light travels through an ever-evolving universe.

“The standard model of big bang cosmology (the Lambda-CMD model) is a mathematical model, but not a physical portrayal of the evolving universe,” Annila told PhysOrg.com. “Thus the Lambda-CMD model yields the luminosity distance at a given redshift as a function of the model parameters, such as the cosmological constant, but not as a function of the physical process where quanta released from a supernova explosion disperse into the expanding universe.

“When the supernova exploded, its energy as photons began to disperse in the universe, which has, by the time we observe the flash, become larger and hence also more dilute,” he said. “Accordingly, the observed intensity of light has fallen inversely proportional to the squared luminosity distance and directly proportional to the redshifted frequency. Due to these two factors, brightness vs. redshift is not one straight line on a log-log plot, but a curve.”

As a result, Annila argues that the supernovae data does not imply that the universe is undergoing an accelerating expansion.
The principle of least time

As Annila explains, when a ray of light travels from a distant star to an observer’s telescope, it travels along the path that takes the least amount of time. This well-known physics principle is called Fermat’s principle or the principle of least time. Importantly, the quickest path is not always the straight path. Deviations from a straight path occur when light propagates through media of varying energy densities, such as when light bends due to refraction as it travels through a glass prism.

The principle of least time is a specific form of the more generally stated principle of least action. According to this principle, light, like all forms of energy in motion, always travels on the path that maximizes its dispersal of energy. We see this concept when the light from a light bulb (or star) emanates outward in all available directions.

Image

Mathematically, the principle of least action has two different forms. Physicists almost always use the form that involves the so-called Lagrangian integrand, but Annila explains that this form can only determine paths within stationary surroundings. Since the expanding universe is an evolving system, he suggests that the original but less popular form, which was produced by the French mathematician Maupertuis, can more accurately determine the path of light from the distant supernovae.
Using Maupertuis’ form of the principle of least action, Annila has calculated that the brightness of light from Type 1a supernovae after traveling many millions of light-years to Earth agrees well with observations of the known amount of energy in the universe, and doesn’t require dark energy or any other additional driving force.

Enlarge
In the relationship between the distance and redshift of Type 1a supernovae, the data (points) agree with the equation in which light propagates through the expanding universe on the least-time path (solid line). Image credit: Annila. ©2011 Royal Astronomical Society

“It is natural for us humans to yearn for predictions since anticipations contribute to our survival,” he said. “However, natural processes, as Maupertuis correctly formulated them, are intrinsically non-computable. Therefore, there is no real reason, but it has been only our desire to make precise predictions which has led us to shun the Maupertuis’ form, even though the least-time imperative is an accurate account of path-dependent processes. The unifying principle serves to rationalize various fine-tuning problems such as the large-scale homogeneity and flatness of the universe.”
Light’s least-time path

How exactly does the light travel on its least-time path? While the light is traveling, the expanding universe is decreasing in density. When light crosses from a higher energy density region to a lower energy density region, Maupertuis’ principle of least action says that the light will adapt by decreasing its momentum. Therefore, due to the conservation of quanta, the photon’s wavelength will increase and its frequency will decrease. Thus, the radiant intensity of light will decrease on its way from the supernova explosion during the high-density distant past to its present-day low-density universal surroundings. Also when light passes by a local energy-dense area, such as a star, the speed of light will change and its direction of propagation will change. All these changes in light ultimately stem from changes in the surrounding energy density.

If this is the way that light from supernovae travels, then it tells us something important about why the universe is expanding, Annila explains. When a star explodes and its mass is combusted into radiation, conservation requires that the number of quanta stays the same, whether in the form of matter or radiation. To maintain the overall balance between energy bound in matter and energy free in photons, the supernovae are, on average, moving away from each other with increasing average velocity approaching the speed of light. If dark energy or any other additional form of energy were involved, it would violate the conservation of energy.

The analysis applies not just to supernovae, but to other “bound forms” of energy as well. When the bound forms of energy in stars, pulsars, black holes, and other objects transform into electromagnetic radiation – the lowest form of energy – through combustion, these irrevocable transformations from high energy densities to low energy densities are what cause the universe to expand.

Enlarge
If the universe’s expansion is due to mechanisms that “break matter to light,” then the universe’s expansion is expected to follow a sigmoid curve. Image credit: Qef, Wikimedia Commons
“On-going expansion of the universe is not a remnant of some furious bang at a distant past, but the universe is expanding because energy that is bound in matter is being combusted to freely propagating photons, most notably in stars and other powerful celestial mechanisms of energy transformation,” Annila said. “Thus, today’s rate of expansion depends on the energy density that is still confined in matter as well as on the efficacy of those present-day mechanisms that break matter to light. Likewise, the past rate of expansion depended on those mechanisms that existed then, just as the future rate will depend also on those mechanisms may emerge in the future. Since all natural processes tend to follow sigmoid curves when consuming free energy in the least time, also the universe is expected to expand in a sigmoid manner.”

Not a one-trick pony

While the concept of light’s least-time path seems to be capable of explaining the supernovae data in agreement with the rest of our observations of the universe, Annila notes that it would be even more appealing if this one theoretical concept could solve a few problems at the same time. And it may – Annila shows that, when gravitational lensing is analyzed with this concept, it does not require dark matter to explain the results.

Einstein’s general theory of relativity predicts that massive objects, such as galaxies, cause light to bend due to the way their gravity distorts spacetime, and scientists have observed that this is exactly what happens. The problem is that the deflection seems to be larger than what all of the known (luminous) matter can account for, prompting researchers to investigate the possibility of dark (nonluminous) matter.
However, when Annila used Maupertuis’ principle of least action to analyze how much a galaxy of a certain mass should deflect passing light, he calculated the total deflection to be about five times larger than the value given by general relativity. In other words, the observed deflections require less mass than previously thought, and it can be entirely accounted for by the known matter in galaxies.

“General relativity in terms of Einstein’s field equations is a mathematical model of the universe, whereas we need the physical account of the evolving universe provided by Maupertuis’ principle of least action,” he said. “Progress by patching may appear appealing, but it will easily become inconsistent by resorting to ad hoc accretions. Bertrand Russell is completely to the point about the contemporary tenet when saying that ‘all exact science is dominated by the idea of approximation,’ but fundamentally, any sophisticated modeling is secondary to comprehending the simple principle of how nature works.”
Annila added that these concepts can be tested to see whether they are the correct way to analyze supernovae and interpret the universe's expansion.

“The principle of least-time free energy consumption claims by its nature to be the universal and inviolable law,” he said. “Therefore, not only the supernovae explosions but basically any data will serve to test its validity. Consistency and universality of the principle can be tested, for example, by perihelion precession and galactic rotation data. Also the final results of Gravity Probe B for the geodetic effect appear to me certainly good enough to test the natural principle, whereas recordings of the tiny frame-dragging effect are compromised by large uncertainties as well as by unforeseeable but illuminating experimental tribulations.”

More information: Arto Annila. “Least-time paths of light.” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 416, 2944-2948 (2011) DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19242.x
Copyright 2011 PhysOrg.com.
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or part without the express written permission of PhysOrg.com.
Inherently Dishonest Clueless Researcher
User avatar
Brain man
Banned Troll
 
Name: Aznali Exidore
Posts: 1351
Age: 52
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#103  Postby Jumbo » Oct 27, 2011 12:06 pm

I'm not all that convinced by Arto Annilas work there.

It has the ring of tired light to it and also the data points don't seem to brilliantly fit the line struck through them. The change in the speed of light bit sets off alarm bells as well IMO. It may change direction close to a region of curvature but IIRC the speed remains the same.

Its worth noting that even if it is correct it only alters dark energy/matter. It does not rule out the big bang. In fact it requires a metric expansion of space to work.
The Feynman Problem-Solving Algorithm

1. Write down the problem.
2. Think very hard.
3. Write down the answer.
User avatar
Jumbo
 
Posts: 3599
Age: 40
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#104  Postby Brain man » Oct 27, 2011 2:32 pm

Jumbo wrote:I'm not all that convinced by Arto Annilas work there.

It has the ring of tired light to it and also the data points don't seem to brilliantly fit the line struck through them. The change in the speed of light bit sets off alarm bells as well IMO. It may change direction close to a region of curvature but IIRC the speed remains the same.

Its worth noting that even if it is correct it only alters dark energy/matter. It does not rule out the big bang. In fact it requires a metric expansion of space to work.


it looks like a best fit for this kind of data. The scales and error margins are within limits. Its also a misrepresentation to say it requires expansion to work. What it does is help us understand the movement of energy (without inventing dark matter) which we have to agree exists or everything in the universe would just be completely static.
Inherently Dishonest Clueless Researcher
User avatar
Brain man
Banned Troll
 
Name: Aznali Exidore
Posts: 1351
Age: 52
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#105  Postby Brain man » Oct 27, 2011 2:49 pm

also let it be noted that darkchilde will not reverse her decision that this is pseudoscience. I will PM her to tell her there is more articles. So far she has put many articles into this section, and branded them pseudoscience. Now if i search for these authors i find the word psuedoscience branded to their names and theories at the top of google.

This is damaging, not only a form of libel but without good thought and reason. I shall be fighting this for as long as it takes,and have been collecting, documents, legal info for a while and this might be amalgamated into a website SEO for the term pseudoscience. It could get pretty messy and she including anybody else that is turning a blind eye to this activity could find themselves at the center of something one day regretting these moments.

Its nothing more than a power trip which requires words steeped in psychology i cannot say here to relegate this discussion into pseudoscience. However at the same time by the fact this is happening, the word pseudoscience itself will eventually lose its meaning completely to its intended use. Who is going to take it seriously when its eventually realized that a great number of contemporary and genuine science works that are nothing more than in a stage of development are branded as if they were astrology or creationism ?

The number of mods who were on power trips at RDF now eating humble pie in forums and meetups where they are shunned or considered badly is a testament to the fact that in science people remember these activities. Its not like business or other fields where you can just get away with this kind of thing, then move on into the crowd to your next project and its all forgotten. Science has a very long term memory.
Inherently Dishonest Clueless Researcher
User avatar
Brain man
Banned Troll
 
Name: Aznali Exidore
Posts: 1351
Age: 52
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#106  Postby Jumbo » Oct 27, 2011 2:52 pm

Brain man wrote:
Jumbo wrote:I'm not all that convinced by Arto Annilas work there.

It has the ring of tired light to it and also the data points don't seem to brilliantly fit the line struck through them. The change in the speed of light bit sets off alarm bells as well IMO. It may change direction close to a region of curvature but IIRC the speed remains the same.

Its worth noting that even if it is correct it only alters dark energy/matter. It does not rule out the big bang. In fact it requires a metric expansion of space to work.


it looks like a best fit for this kind of data. The scales and error margins are within limits. Its also a misrepresentation to say it requires expansion to work. What it does is help us understand the movement of energy (without inventing dark matter) which we have to agree exists or everything in the universe would just be completely static.

Without expansion you do not get the changed energy densities that the hypothesis requires (or at least not to the scales that it requires)

How exactly does the light travel on its least-time path? While the light is traveling, the expanding universe is decreasing in density. When light crosses from a higher energy density region to a lower energy density region, Maupertuis’ principle of least action says that the light will adapt by decreasing its momentum.


If there were no expansion then any density changes would be as often from high to low as they were low to high which would result in a rather different effect to the one described.
The Feynman Problem-Solving Algorithm

1. Write down the problem.
2. Think very hard.
3. Write down the answer.
User avatar
Jumbo
 
Posts: 3599
Age: 40
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#107  Postby Jumbo » Oct 27, 2011 2:57 pm

it looks like a best fit for this kind of data. The scales and error margins are within limits.

Where are the error bars on the redshift vs distance modulus graph?
The Feynman Problem-Solving Algorithm

1. Write down the problem.
2. Think very hard.
3. Write down the answer.
User avatar
Jumbo
 
Posts: 3599
Age: 40
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#108  Postby Brain man » Oct 27, 2011 3:06 pm

Jumbo wrote:
Brain man wrote:
Jumbo wrote:I'm not all that convinced by Arto Annilas work there.

It has the ring of tired light to it and also the data points don't seem to brilliantly fit the line struck through them. The change in the speed of light bit sets off alarm bells as well IMO. It may change direction close to a region of curvature but IIRC the speed remains the same.

Its worth noting that even if it is correct it only alters dark energy/matter. It does not rule out the big bang. In fact it requires a metric expansion of space to work.


it looks like a best fit for this kind of data. The scales and error margins are within limits. Its also a misrepresentation to say it requires expansion to work. What it does is help us understand the movement of energy (without inventing dark matter) which we have to agree exists or everything in the universe would just be completely static.

Without expansion you do not get the changed energy densities that the hypothesis requires (or at least not to the scales that it requires)

How exactly does the light travel on its least-time path? While the light is traveling, the expanding universe is decreasing in density. When light crosses from a higher energy density region to a lower energy density region, Maupertuis’ principle of least action says that the light will adapt by decreasing its momentum.


If there were no expansion then any density changes would be as often from high to low as they were low to high which would result in a rather different effect to the one described.


You need to read the paper. I had problems with some of the maths. In principle this does not have to be so macroscopic. It applies to any situation where light travels through relative differences in density.
Inherently Dishonest Clueless Researcher
User avatar
Brain man
Banned Troll
 
Name: Aznali Exidore
Posts: 1351
Age: 52
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#109  Postby Jumbo » Oct 27, 2011 3:22 pm

Yes it applies to any change in density but the issue is that a change in one way will not be the same as a change in another. In order to produce a uniform effect you need the density to be changing generally in one direction not the other. That in this case requires an energy density drop and the mechanism given here by what you posted is an expansion.

Also the final two sentences of his paper make it clear that not only does he think there was a big bang but that its expansion is ongoing (That is something inline with the mainstream). His cosmology not only has a big bang but it has an expansion.

It is the combustion of bound forms of
energy to the free form of energy by stars, pulsars, black
holes etc. that powers the expansion. This is to say, the Big
Bang did not happen – it is still going on.


Edit: To clarify he is using the term big bang to refer to an ongoing metric expansion of space-time. Thats what conventional cosmologists think is happening too. When they refer to big bang they tend to be referring to such an effect in the early universe but are not saying there is no ongoing expansion.

http://www.helsinki.fi/~aannila/arto/light.pdf

One other issue i have though is not only is there a supposed variable speed of light but the deflections etc all seem to be calculated using non General Relativistic methods. He acknowledges results may differ from those obtained via GR but then he will have to account for the myriad effects that are accounted for by GR.
The Feynman Problem-Solving Algorithm

1. Write down the problem.
2. Think very hard.
3. Write down the answer.
User avatar
Jumbo
 
Posts: 3599
Age: 40
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#110  Postby Paul » Oct 27, 2011 3:45 pm

Brain man wrote:The number of mods who were on power trips at RDF now eating humble pie in forums and meetups where they are shunned or considered badly is a testament to the fact that in science people remember these activities.


Really? Come on dish the dirt. Who? Where? When? :popcorn:
"Peter, I can see your house from here!"
User avatar
Paul
 
Posts: 4550
Age: 62
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#111  Postby Regina » Oct 27, 2011 3:48 pm

Paul wrote:
Brain man wrote:The number of mods who were on power trips at RDF now eating humble pie in forums and meetups where they are shunned or considered badly is a testament to the fact that in science people remember these activities.


Really? Come on dish the dirt. Who? Where? When? :popcorn:


You get pie at meet-ups?? :hungry: Where? When?
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15618
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#112  Postby Evolving » Oct 27, 2011 4:22 pm

How extremely stupid not to have thought of that - T.H. Huxley
User avatar
Evolving
 
Name: Serafina Pekkala
Posts: 11822
Female

Country: Luxembourg
Luxembourg (lu)
Print view this post

Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#113  Postby Pulsar » Oct 27, 2011 5:06 pm

Annila wrote:It is the combustion of bound forms of
energy to the free form of energy by stars, pulsars, black
holes etc. that powers the expansion. This is to say, the Big
Bang did not happen – it is still going on.

What a giant pile of crap. "The combustion of bound forms of energy to the free form of energy"? What does that even mean? Is he saying that the universe is expanding due to some radiation pressure? If stars are somehow powering the expansion, then why aren't galaxies flying apart? After all, the "energy outburst" would be greatest close to the stars and decrease with the square of the distance, right? Annila not only denies GR, which makes his calculations worthless, he even seems to ignore SR. After all, as the relative velocities of the galaxies increase, it would take more energy to accelerate them further. So why doesn't the expansion of the universe slow down? In addition, how does Annila explain the time dilation of type Ia Supernova lightcurves, which is in complete agreement with GR (http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/DavisLineweaver04.pdf, §4.1)?

This whole paper is a complete mess. How on earth this slipped through peer review, I've no idea. The referee should be tarred and feathered :nono:

btw, Annila has produced more 'gems'. Look at this: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0910.2629v1. On page 12, in Theorem 7.2, he claims to have proved the Riemann Hypothesis!!! :crazy: Luckily, this bullshit hasn't passed peer review.
"The longer I live the more I see that I am never wrong about anything, and that all the pains that I have so humbly taken to verify my notions have only wasted my time." - George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Pulsar
 
Posts: 4618
Age: 43
Male

Country: Belgium
Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#114  Postby Regina » Oct 27, 2011 6:55 pm

Evolving wrote:Humble Pie

Hm, food and lalla! Great! :thumbup:
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15618
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#115  Postby Brain man » Oct 28, 2011 1:20 am

Pulsar wrote:
Annila wrote:It is the combustion of bound forms of
energy to the free form of energy by stars, pulsars, black
holes etc. that powers the expansion. This is to say, the Big
Bang did not happen – it is still going on.

What a giant pile of crap. "The combustion of bound forms of energy to the free form of energy"? What does that even mean? Is he saying that the universe is expanding due to some radiation pressure? If stars are somehow powering the expansion, then why aren't galaxies flying apart? After all, the "energy outburst" would be greatest close to the stars and decrease with the square of the distance, right? Annila not only denies GR, which makes his calculations worthless, he even seems to ignore SR. After all, as the relative velocities of the galaxies increase, it would take more energy to accelerate them further. So why doesn't the expansion of the universe slow down? In addition, how does Annila explain the time dilation of type Ia Supernova lightcurves, which is in complete agreement with GR (http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/DavisLineweaver04.pdf, §4.1)?

This whole paper is a complete mess. How on earth this slipped through peer review, I've no idea. The referee should be tarred and feathered :nono:

btw, Annila has produced more 'gems'. Look at this: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0910.2629v1. On page 12, in Theorem 7.2, he claims to have proved the Riemann Hypothesis!!! :crazy: Luckily, this bullshit hasn't passed peer review.


Annila published the incomplete conjecture on reimman because at that time there were about 4 new attempts being published so everybody was forcing each other to put their maths on the table in whatever state it was, OK. how about you show us your body of creative work before you ridicule others.

Image

Do you know what this is ?

http://www.lyndonashmore.com/

No this is not tired light. Unlike the wikipedia article there has been work an improvements on it published since 2001 that improve the calculations.

Do you know what this is ?

Image


If I had one of those for every minute of my life wasted on explaining somebody elses work to somebody who does not really want to understand it I would be well..you know. So I wont, because I don’t have time to read these papers and hand it all on a plate for you to say that’s rubbish. Write to the author, and write to the author politely if you want this cleared up.

Why are there problems ? Well why are there grants, and you will find why there are less problems with a ridiculous cocktails of non operational standard models, big bangs, dark matter and string theories hobbled together by an industry that has to pay people to do and build something, anything just keep producing, and keep it consistent with itself and of a serious standard to provide jobs, grants, paricle accelerators and make it appear to the public like we are not clueless idiots even though none of it really makes any sense and will give our descendents a chuckle or twos.

What does this say ?

Fringe science
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Description

Fringe science is used to describe unusual theories and models of discovery. Those who develop such fringe science ideas may work within the scientific method, but their results are not accepted by the mainstream community. Usually the evidence provided by supporters of a fringe science is believed only by a minority and rejected by the most experts. Fringe science may be advocated by a scientist who has a degree of recognition by the larger scientific community (typically due to the publication of peer reviewed studies by the scientist), but this is not always the case. While most fringe science views are ignored or rejected, through careful use of the scientific method, including falsificationism, the scientific community has come to accept some ideas from fringe sciences.[12] One example of such is plate tectonics, an idea that had its origin as a fringe science, and was held in a negative opinion for decades.[13] It is noted that:
The confusion between science and pseudoscience, between honest scientific error and genuine scientific discovery, is not new, and it is a permanent feature of the scientific landscape [...] Acceptance of new science can come slowly.[14]

The phrase fringe science can be considered pejorative. For example, Lyell D. Henry, Jr. wrote that "'fringe science' [is] a term also suggesting kookiness."[15] Such characterization is perhaps inspired by the eccentric behavior of many researchers on the fringe of science (colloquially and with considerable historical precedent known as mad scientists).[16] The categorical boundary between fringe science and pseudoscience can be disputed. The connotations of fringe science are that the enterprise is still rational, but an unlikely avenue for future results. Fringe science may not be a part of the scientific consensus for a variety of reasons, including incomplete or contradictory evidence.[17]
[edit]
Examples
[edit]
Historical

Some historical ideas that were refuted include:
Wilhelm Reich's work with orgone, a physical energy he claimed to have discovered, contributed to his alienation from the psychiatric community and eventually to his jailing. At the time and continuing today, other scientists and skeptics disputed Reich's claims that he had scientific evidence for the existence of orgone. Nevertheless, dedicated amateurs and a few fringe researchers continue to believe that Reich was correct.
Focal infection theory as a primary cause of systemic disease rapidly became accepted by mainstream dentistry and medicine after World War I, largely on the basis of what later turned out to be fundamentally flawed studies providing evidence to support the theory. As a result millions of people were subjected to needless dental extractions and surgeries.[18] This particular aspect of FIT started falling out of favor in the 1930s and was relegated to the fringe of oral medicine by the late 1950s.
Clovis First theory: The idea that the Clovis was the first culture in North America was long regarded as mainstream until mounting evidence of pre-Clovis occupation of the Americas discredited it. [19][20][21]
[edit]
Contemporary

Relatively recent fringe sciences include:
Aubrey de Grey, featured in a 2006 60 Minutes special report, is working on advanced studies in human longevity,[22] dubbed "Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence" (SENS). Many mainstream scientists[who?] believe that his research, especially de Grey's view on the importance of nuclear (epi)mutations and his purported timeline for antiaging therapeutics, constitutes "fringe science".
De Grey Technology Review controversy: In an article released in a 2006 issue of the magazine Technology Review (part of a larger series), it was written that "SENS De Grey's hypothesis is highly speculative. Many of its proposals have not been reproduced, nor could they be reproduced with today's scientific knowledge and technology. Echoing Myhrvold, we might charitably say that de Grey's proposals exist in a kind of antechamber of science, where they wait (possibly in vain) for independent verification. SENS does not compel the assent of many knowledgeable scientists; but neither is it demonstrably wrong".[23]
A nuclear fusion reaction called cold fusion occurring near room temperature and pressure was reported by chemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons in March 1989. Numerous research efforts at the time were unable to replicate these results.[24] Subsequently, a number of scientists with a variety of credentials have worked on the problem or participated in international conferences on cold fusion. In 2004, the United States Department of Energy decided to take another look at cold fusion to determine if their policies towards the subject should be altered due to new experimental evidence, and commissioned a panel on cold fusion.
The theory of abiogenic petroleum origin holds that natural petroleum was formed from deep carbon deposits, perhaps dating to the formation of the Earth. The ubiquity of hydrocarbons in the solar system is taken as evidence that there may be a great deal more petroleum on Earth than commonly thought, and that petroleum may originate from carbon-bearing fluids which migrate upward from the mantle. Abiogenic hypotheses saw a revival in the last half of the twentieth century by Russian and Ukrainian scientists, and more interest has been generated in the West[citation needed] after the publication by Thomas Gold in 1999 of The Deep Hot Biosphere. Gold's version of the hypothesis is partly based on the existence of a biosphere composed of thermophile bacteria in the Earth's crust, which may explain the existence of certain biomarkers in extracted petroleum.
[edit]
Responding to fringe science

Michael W. Friedlander suggests some guidelines for responding to fringe science, which he argues is a more difficult problem to handle, "at least procedurally,"[25] than scientific misconduct. His suggested methods include impeccable accuracy, checking cited sources, not overstating orthodox science, thorough understanding of the Wegener continental drift example, examples of orthodox science investigating radical proposals, and prepared examples of errors from fringe scientists.[26]

Though there are examples of mainstream scientists supporting maverick ideas within their own discipline of expertise, fringe science theories and ideas are often advanced by individuals either without a traditional academic science background, or by researchers outside the mainstream discipline,[27] although the history of science shows that scientific progress is often marked by interdisciplinary and multicultural interaction.[28] Friedlander suggests that fringe science is necessary for mainstream science "not to atrophy", as scientists must evaluate the plausibility of each new fringe claim and certain fringe discoveries "will later graduate into the ranks of accepted" while others "will never receive confirmation".[29] The general public has difficulty distinguishing between "science and its imitators",[29] and in some cases a "yearning to believe or a generalized suspicion of experts is a very potent incentive to accepting pseudoscientific claims".[30]
[edit]
Controversies

Towards the end of the 20th century, religiously-inspired critics cited fringe science theories with limited support, or else junk science. The goal was frequently to classify as "controversial" entire fields of scientific inquiry (notably paleo-anthropology, human sexuality, evolution, geology, and paleontology) that contradicted literal or fundamentalist interpretation of various sacred texts. Describing ongoing debate and research within these fields as evidence of fundamental weaknesses or flaws, these critics argued that "controversies" left open a window for the plausibility of divine intervention and intelligent design.[31][32][33] As Donald E. Simanek asserts, "Too often speculative and tentative hypotheses of cutting edge science are treated as if they were scientific truths, and so accepted by a public eager for answers," ignorant of the fact that "As science progresses from ignorance to understanding it must pass through a transitionary phase of confusion and uncertainty."[34] The media also play a role in the creation and propagation of the view that certain fields of science are "controversial". In "Optimising public understanding of science: A comparative perspective" by Jan Nolin et al., the authors claim that "From a media perspective it is evident that controversial science sells, not only because of its dramatic value but also since it is often connected to high-stake societal issues."[35]




Whats unbelievable is that this discussion of fringe work is taking place “Again” in pseudoscience. This is a disgrace. If I google these authors names in a few weeks, most of their peer reviewed works will be supplanted in google by this forum branded as pseudoscience , even though it is clearly fringe. Due to the huge backlinking from the regressive political activism going through here. There is a healthy back and forward interplay between fringe and mainstream advancement as we all know, so whats going on here is damaging and regressive to that processs.

There is action being taken about this, all of those responsible will be named and shamed online, with a permanent site SEOd so it stays under the listings for this forum. Just like this site, there can be no libel, because it can be hosted anywhere.

There will be no appeal to this forum to make a separate section for fringe and pseudoscience, because steps have already been tried and met with ridicule. Those statements will be put online. Its clear to everybody they the staff here aren’t even going to think about this till there is website underneath ratskep in google pointing out the litany of shameful misrepresentation against hard working theorists.
Inherently Dishonest Clueless Researcher
User avatar
Brain man
Banned Troll
 
Name: Aznali Exidore
Posts: 1351
Age: 52
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#116  Postby Jumbo » Oct 28, 2011 1:56 am

Do you know what this is ?

http://www.lyndonashmore.com/

No this is not tired light. Unlike the wikipedia article there has been work an improvements on it published since 2001 that improve the calculations.

I know its not the first time i have come across Mr Ashmore. IIRC when i was on the Bad Astronomy forum his ideas got a mauling for the simple reason that they didn't work.

His Ashmores paradox for example only works if he cherry picks the value of the Hubble constant to be what he wants. It only works if he picks about the lowest possible value. Any other value found in data doesn't work. Almost all of the values for H0 in other surveys (see these for example http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/current/parameters.cfm) make his calculations meaningless. His own website lists a bunch of the values which shows his calculation to be anywhere upto 40% off and then he goes and averages the values found by experiment which means nothing and proclaims his model then fits. Actually its pretty much numerology.

He also requires a huge amount of electrons to pervade intergalactic space and thus for intergalactic space to have a large charge. Something that i don't think is observed.
The Feynman Problem-Solving Algorithm

1. Write down the problem.
2. Think very hard.
3. Write down the answer.
User avatar
Jumbo
 
Posts: 3599
Age: 40
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#117  Postby Brain man » Oct 28, 2011 2:27 am

Jumbo wrote:
Do you know what this is ?

http://www.lyndonashmore.com/

No this is not tired light. Unlike the wikipedia article there has been work an improvements on it published since 2001 that improve the calculations.

I know its not the first time i have come across Mr Ashmore. IIRC when i was on the Bad Astronomy forum his ideas got a mauling for the simple reason that they didn't work.

His Ashmores paradox for example only works if he cherry picks the value of the Hubble constant to be what he wants. It only works if he picks about the lowest possible value. Any other value found in data doesn't work. Almost all of the values for H0 in other surveys (see these for example http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/current/parameters.cfm) make his calculations meaningless. His own website lists a bunch of the values which shows his calculation to be anywhere upto 40% off and then he goes and averages the values found by experiment which means nothing and proclaims his model then fits. Actually its pretty much numerology.

He also requires a huge amount of electrons to pervade intergalactic space and thus for intergalactic space to have a large charge. Something that i don't think is observed.


well if he is being deceptive about his data thats a different matter, although having had to do some low grade uni work on astrophysics its so common to produce massive errors, that producing massive fixes is not as outlandish as in other sciences.

there are ideas out there that there may be some kind of massive dipole structure or that electrons rules needs rewritten. Beyond me to comment thought..

Fourth Property of Electrons? Electric Dipole Moment Would Explain Creation of Universe

ScienceDaily (July 20, 2010) — Electrons are negatively charged elementary particles. They form the shells around atoms and ions. This or something similar is what you will find in text books. Soon, however, this information may have to be supplemented.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 101349.htm



Universal Vortical Singularity enlightenment on the dipole anisotropy pattern of CMBR

http://uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20CMBR_dipole.htm
Inherently Dishonest Clueless Researcher
User avatar
Brain man
Banned Troll
 
Name: Aznali Exidore
Posts: 1351
Age: 52
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#118  Postby gleniedee » Oct 28, 2011 5:13 am

Is the universe expanding? I don't know,don't understand the physics and don't care. Why not? Well, I might,if somebody could explain what difference it's going to make to me.

The gloss went off the Nobel Prize for me when they gave one to Barrack Obama in 2009. :?
gleniedee
 
Name: glen dee
Posts: 575
Age: 72
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#119  Postby Jumbo » Oct 28, 2011 8:49 am

The gloss went off the Nobel Prize for me when they gave one to Barrack Obama in 2009.

Thats the peace prize though and is awarded by a different organisation to the others.
The Feynman Problem-Solving Algorithm

1. Write down the problem.
2. Think very hard.
3. Write down the answer.
User avatar
Jumbo
 
Posts: 3599
Age: 40
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#120  Postby Jumbo » Oct 28, 2011 9:00 am

Fourth Property of Electrons? Electric Dipole Moment Would Explain Creation of Universe

Interesting though this is it can't create the imbalance in charge required by Ashmore.

Universal Vortical Singularity enlightenment on the dipole anisotropy pattern of CMBR

This site though is just plain silly. The appearance of a 'vortex' in the CMBR is only there because of the chosen projection to fit it onto a 2 dimensional screen. It also at times misrepresents the big bang as an explosion. it chucks out GR and requires a completely new theory of gravity oh and it requires an all pervading aether comprised of some sort of plasma. Plasma cosmologies are hampered by the slight issue that none of them work and they don't match observation.
The Feynman Problem-Solving Algorithm

1. Write down the problem.
2. Think very hard.
3. Write down the answer.
User avatar
Jumbo
 
Posts: 3599
Age: 40
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Pseudoscience

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 0 guests