The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

Doubtdispelled · **#61** by **Doubtdispelled** » Oct 19, 2011 3:56 pm

The_Metatron wrote:Apparently, Allen hasn't met Goldenmane or Hackenslash yet.

Regina · **#62** by **Regina** » Oct 19, 2011 4:37 pm

allenliou wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:Of course, Allen is free to invent something or other as useful as dynamite, get ridiculousy wealthy, and award his own prize to whoever the fuck he wants...

Don't fuck me; I fuck you a thousand times.

We are discussing serious mater. If you want to fight, come to me in person. Don't forget to bring a gun.

I've always found physics to be terribly exciting, but now it turns out that physicists are even more so!

lobawad · **#63** by **lobawad** » Oct 23, 2011 9:05 am

Regina wrote:
allenliou wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:Of course, Allen is free to invent something or other as useful as dynamite, get ridiculousy wealthy, and award his own prize to whoever the fuck he wants...

Don't fuck me; I fuck you a thousand times.

We are discussing serious mater. If you want to fight, come to me in person. Don't forget to bring a gun.

I've always found physics to be terribly exciting, but now it turns out that physicists are even more so!

My friends and acquaintances who are physicists are indeed hoopy froods, but here it is clear, my dear, that we have a
physimacist, or scientarific brainified kinda guy.

(edited (ed. twice!) for spelling and legibility, I blame the beer!)

zaybu · **#64** by **zaybu** » Oct 23, 2011 2:18 pm

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

Sorry if I didn't read the rest of this thread except the OP. And if this has been pointed out, I apologize. However, you need to consider that spacetime is curved, but space is flat. I believe you might have missed that point.

allenliou · **#65** by **allenliou** » Oct 24, 2011 12:37 am

zaybu wrote:
allenliou wrote:The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

Sorry if I didn't read the rest of this thread except the OP. And if this has been pointed out, I apologize. However, you need to consider that spacetime is curved, but space is flat. I believe you might have missed that point.

I have three posts to come.
One is "What is cosmological constant?" to clear the concept of cosmological constant.
One is "Einstein and Emperor’s new cloths，it’s time to wake up"
The other is "Lorentz transformations is a fiction, not real"

We may talk about the space-time by then.

campermon · **#66** by **campermon** » Oct 24, 2011 8:20 am

Before you do that, you might want to look up the user 'farsight'.

The_Metatron · **#67** by **The_Metatron** » Oct 24, 2011 10:38 am

allenliou wrote:
zaybu wrote:
allenliou wrote:The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake.
Sorry if I didn't read the rest of this thread except the OP. And if this has been pointed out, I apologize. However, you need to consider that spacetime is curved, but space is flat. I believe you might have missed that point.

I have three posts to come.
One is "What is cosmological constant?" to clear the concept of cosmological constant.
One is "Einstein and Emperor’s new cloths，it’s time to wake up"
The other is "Lorentz transformations is a fiction, not real"

We may talk about the space-time by then.

Good luck with that.

Pulsar · **#68** by **Pulsar** » Oct 24, 2011 4:00 pm

allenliou wrote:
I have three posts to come.
One is "What is cosmological constant?" to clear the concept of cosmological constant.
One is "Einstein and Emperor’s new cloths，it’s time to wake up"
The other is "Lorentz transformations is a fiction, not real"

We may talk about the space-time by then.

This is going to be fun :popcorn:

orpheus · **#69** by **orpheus** » Oct 24, 2011 11:15 pm

Oh boy.

Regina · **#70** by **Regina** » Oct 24, 2011 11:31 pm

allenliou wrote:
One is "Einstein and Emperor’s new cloths，it’s time to wake up"

Now that sounds interesting. Even though I believe the whole point of that story was that the clothes were not made of cloth...... :hide:

Jumbo · **#71** by **Jumbo** » Oct 25, 2011 12:47 am

I will be particularly interested to see just why 'fictional things' like the Lorentz transformation just happen to give a result that is observed by experiment after experiment over decades whilst also being totally wrong. (Including experiments not dreamed of when the theory was devised).

Any new hypothesis will have a lot to account for and would likely mean the writer would be in for one of the next nobel prizes.

allenliou · **#72** by **allenliou** » Oct 25, 2011 4:35 am

I will like to make a friend with somebody who good in English and interested in Physics.
If anybody who also like to make a friend. Please give me a message.

I like to discuss my article before I post

!	GENERAL MODNOTE E-mail address removed as it is personal data. Under our FUA, members should not post personal info such as e-mail addresses publicly, or risk being spammed or worse. Thank you, Darkchilde.

Regina · **#73** by **Regina** » Oct 25, 2011 10:44 am

allenliou wrote:I will like to make a friend with somebody who good in English and interested in Physics.
If anybody who also like to make a friend. Please give me a message.

I like to discuss my article before I post

Sorry for my flippant remark above. Couldn't resist the temptation.
But you've addressed the problem: You are dealing with pretty demanding stuff, but you don't have the English to convey it adequately.

allenliou · **#74** by **allenliou** » Oct 25, 2011 11:01 am

Yes, also, I think I better have a friend to discuss the issue before I post

Evolving · **#75** by **Evolving** » Oct 26, 2011 9:45 am

There is, by the way, an alternative theory being propounded which suggests that the accelerated expansion of the universe is an illusion and that there is therefore no need to postulate dark energy. Here are two links to the same popular account:

http://www.space.com/13094-accelerating ... usion.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44690771/ns ... -illusion/

In a nutshell, this cosmologist suggests that we inhabit a "bubble" of space-time about 2.5 bn years across which is moving relative to the rest of the universe - not just the galaxies inside that bubble, but the bubble itself. This movement, which he calls "dark flow" (unfortunately, if you ask me), he says "would cause the space-time within our moving bubble to expand faster than the space-time outside of it (which is not accelerating). Without considering the dark flow, but just knowing that light we observe from nearby galaxies left its source more recently than light from galaxies farther away, we get the false impression that the whole of space-time recently entered an accelerating phase."

Maybe.

Darkchilde · **#76** by **Darkchilde** » Oct 26, 2011 9:56 am

I remember this being shot down, because we can see more than 2.5 billion year across. In fact, since the Universe is about 13 billion years old, we can see up to 13 billion light years across in every direction.

If we were in a bubble 2.5 billion years across, then there would be visible effects in objects that are farther away from us than 2.5 billion years. Objects that we have discovered and can measure accurately.

Evolving · **#77** by **Evolving** » Oct 26, 2011 10:02 am

Well, that's his point (not that I am defending the theory!): he says the visible effects on the objects outside the bubble create the illusion of accelerating expansion.

campermon · **#78** by **campermon** » Oct 26, 2011 10:04 am

Darkchilde wrote:I remember this being shot down, because we can see more than 2.5 billion year across. In fact, since the Universe is about 13 billion years old, we can see up to 13 billion light years across in every direction.

We can see further than that; over 40 billion ly because of the expansion.

:cheers:

Darkchilde · **#79** by **Darkchilde** » Oct 26, 2011 10:23 am

campermon wrote:
Darkchilde wrote:I remember this being shot down, because we can see more than 2.5 billion year across. In fact, since the Universe is about 13 billion years old, we can see up to 13 billion light years across in every direction.

We can see further than that; over 40 billion ly because of the expansion.

Yes, you are right on that.

However, the most distant objects we have ever observed up to now is about 13 billion years away:

http://science.psu.edu/news-and-events/2011-news/Fox5-2011
http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1041/

Jumbo · **#80** by **Jumbo** » Oct 26, 2011 10:24 am

There is some controversy as to whether any Dark Flow exists at all. This paper by Kiesler: The Statistical Significance of the "Dark Flow" http://arxiv.org/pdf/0910.4233v1 is one which disputes the original findings by Kashlinsky.

Ned Wright of the cosmology tutorial fame also disputes it:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/dark-flow-errors.html
(Though it must be said the original authors of the Dark Flow papers disagree with his corrections/interpretations)

The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who is online