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

#81  Postby Evolving » Oct 26, 2011 10:42 am

Thanks, Jumbo, very interesting.

Do you know whether (and if so, where) Kashlinsky has responded to Keisler? Keisler's paper is devastating for the whole theory, if correct.

EDIT I see this thread has ended up in Pseudoscience. Which I suppose means I have derailed it, by introducing Tsagas and Kashlinsky into it!
How extremely stupid not to have thought of that - T.H. Huxley
User avatar
Evolving
 
Name: Serafina Pekkala
Posts: 11906
Female

Country: Luxembourg
Luxembourg (lu)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


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

#82  Postby Jumbo » Oct 26, 2011 11:07 am

I'm not sure that Kashlinsky has directly responded to Kiesler.

While looking for such a response i stumbled over the paper: "Measuring the cosmological bulk flow using the peculiar velocities of supernovae" by Dai et al (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.0800v1.pdf) Claims to have found evidence for a dark flow but one that is rather smaller than Kashlinskys and is more local. Apparently it fits better in the conventional Lambda Cold Dark Matter model.

Cosmologists certainly got the fortune cookie labeled "May you live in interesting times"

EDIT I see this thread has ended up in Pseudoscience. Which I suppose means I have derailed it, by introducing Tsagas and Kashlinsky into it!

Hmm its science once again but i wonder if it could be labeled pseudo-pseudo science!

:grin:
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: 41
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

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

#83  Postby Evolving » Oct 26, 2011 11:11 am

Jumbo wrote:
Hmm its science once again but i wonder if it could be labeled pseudo-pseudo science!

:grin:


Only if it has integer spin

[/geek humour]
How extremely stupid not to have thought of that - T.H. Huxley
User avatar
Evolving
 
Name: Serafina Pekkala
Posts: 11906
Female

Country: Luxembourg
Luxembourg (lu)
Print view this post

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

#84  Postby allenliou » Oct 26, 2011 3:10 pm

I just learn a usefull ternimology "dark flow". If we cannot explain. All we need is add a "dark" and hide under Einstein’s umbrella. Everything will be fine.
allenliou
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Allen Liou
Posts: 32

Country: US
Print view this post

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

#85  Postby Evolving » Oct 26, 2011 3:30 pm

Einstein is the Dark Lord.
No, I don't like the label "dark flow", I don't think it is in any way explanatory, and I think it sounds stupid. But I don't think Tsagas is using it to hide: I suspect he thinks it is a catchy title which will attract people's attention to his conjecture when reports appear in something like http://www.space.com or msnbc.
"Dark matter" is a perfectly sensible term for matter that is not luminous and therefore cannot be directly detected by any kind of telescope, but for whose existence there is a lot of evidence from its gravitational effects.
"Dark energy" is much less compelling, and even somewhat misleading, in that it suggests that there is some kind of similarity between it and dark matter.
"Dark flow" is just jumping on a bandwagon, and should be rejected as a term, in my opinion.
How extremely stupid not to have thought of that - T.H. Huxley
User avatar
Evolving
 
Name: Serafina Pekkala
Posts: 11906
Female

Country: Luxembourg
Luxembourg (lu)
Print view this post

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

#86  Postby Jumbo » Oct 26, 2011 3:35 pm

"Dark matter" is a perfectly sensible term for matter that is not luminous and therefore cannot be directly detected by any kind of telescope, but for whose existence there is a lot of evidence from its gravitational effects.

It is a sensible term. Though it may be directly detected by some telescopes depending upon what it is. If some portion of it is simply stuff like brown dwarfs, planets and the like then for instruments near them they are perfectly visible (Not that i think such objects make up most of the dark matter). From the point of view of much of the universe planet earth and everything on it is 'dark matter' as it won't appear on their optical surveys.

It does seem that virtually anything gets dark attached to it. As you say dark flow is a bandwagon type term. Bulk motion doesn't sound as cool. Dark seems to be short hand for "we are seeing something but don't yet know the full mechanism"
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: 41
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

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

#87  Postby Evolving » Oct 26, 2011 3:41 pm

I'm going to write a thesis about Dark Light.
How extremely stupid not to have thought of that - T.H. Huxley
User avatar
Evolving
 
Name: Serafina Pekkala
Posts: 11906
Female

Country: Luxembourg
Luxembourg (lu)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


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

#88  Postby chairman bill » Oct 26, 2011 7:18 pm

We could set up the whole thing with asymmetric snoods. I know this applies a significant helical stress to the entire map, but we can use the snoods to gauge the net line velocity. This can be shown as the equation, LV = PS x (S + D), where PS is a player's speed (and direction) on a particular line, S is the prevailing strength and D is the direction of flow on a line. If we add the LV across all lines (Total LV), we need to obviously state the direction of travel. It's also worth noting that LV can be gained by moving away from higher stations towards lower ones, and is lost in any converse move. LV may be gained or lost during loop procedures due to the natural gravitational effect of stations and token stacks (which of course add to the weight of the station.)

I know this is complicated stuff, but I think it might have something to teach astronomical physics, not least because though God doesn't play dice, he does love a good game of Mornington Crescent.
“There is a rumour going around that I have found God. I think this is unlikely because I have enough difficulty finding my keys, and there is empirical evidence that they exist.” Terry Pratchett
User avatar
chairman bill
RS Donator
 
Posts: 28197
Male

Country: UK: fucked since 2010
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

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

#89  Postby twistor59 » Oct 26, 2011 7:27 pm

chairman bill wrote:We could set up the whole thing with asymmetric snoods. I know this applies a significant helical stress to the entire map, but we can use the snoods to gauge the net line velocity. This can be shown as the equation, LV = PS x (S + D), where PS is a player's speed (and direction) on a particular line, S is the prevailing strength and D is the direction of flow on a line. If we add the LV across all lines (Total LV), we need to obviously state the direction of travel. It's also worth noting that LV can be gained by moving away from higher stations towards lower ones, and is lost in any converse move. LV may be gained or lost during loop procedures due to the natural gravitational effect of stations and token stacks (which of course add to the weight of the station.)

I know this is complicated stuff, but I think it might have something to teach astronomical physics, not least because though God doesn't play dice, he does love a good game of Mornington Crescent.
k

Are you Matti Pitkanen ?
A soul in tension that's learning to fly
Condition grounded but determined to try
Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies
Tongue-tied and twisted just an earthbound misfit, I
User avatar
twistor59
RS Donator
 
Posts: 4966
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

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

#90  Postby chairman bill » Oct 26, 2011 7:30 pm

The theoretical physicist, or the cross-country skier?
“There is a rumour going around that I have found God. I think this is unlikely because I have enough difficulty finding my keys, and there is empirical evidence that they exist.” Terry Pratchett
User avatar
chairman bill
RS Donator
 
Posts: 28197
Male

Country: UK: fucked since 2010
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

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

#91  Postby Regina » Oct 26, 2011 7:35 pm

chairman bill wrote:We could set up the whole thing with asymmetric snoods. I know this applies a significant helical stress to the entire map, but we can use the snoods to gauge the net line velocity. This can be shown as the equation, LV = PS x (S + D), where PS is a player's speed (and direction) on a particular line, S is the prevailing strength and D is the direction of flow on a line. If we add the LV across all lines (Total LV), we need to obviously state the direction of travel. It's also worth noting that LV can be gained by moving away from higher stations towards lower ones, and is lost in any converse move. LV may be gained or lost during loop procedures due to the natural gravitational effect of stations and token stacks (which of course add to the weight of the station.)

I know this is complicated stuff, but I think it might have something to teach astronomical physics, not least because though God doesn't play dice, he does love a good game of Mornington Crescent.

You can't use snoods in this set-up. This has been proven without a shadow of a doubt by Barishnikov & Wurzler in their groundbreaking analysis of snood velocity in spactime tangents. Cf. Barishnikov, V., Wurzler, G.: Dark Snoods and how to avoid them, Bejing 2001
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

#92  Postby chairman bill » Oct 26, 2011 7:52 pm

OK, but a trans-lateral reverse negative shunt, avoiding the Dollis Hill Loop, should provide plenty of magenta token opportunities.
“There is a rumour going around that I have found God. I think this is unlikely because I have enough difficulty finding my keys, and there is empirical evidence that they exist.” Terry Pratchett
User avatar
chairman bill
RS Donator
 
Posts: 28197
Male

Country: UK: fucked since 2010
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

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

#93  Postby Regina » Oct 26, 2011 7:59 pm

Hm, there's a thought.I have to run this past my colleagues here, see what they think. We'd have to set up our ancient Loop Collider for a test run and see how it goes.
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

#94  Postby twistor59 » Oct 26, 2011 8:08 pm

chairman bill wrote:The theoretical physicist, or the cross-country skier?


The one that wrote:

Zero energy ontology combined with the TGD analog of large Nc expansion inspires an educated guess about the coefficient of the minimal surface terms and a beautiful connection with p-adic physics and with the notion of finite measurement resolution emerges. The t'Thooft coupling λ should be proportional to p-adic prime p characterizing particle. This means extremely fast convergence of the counterpart of large Nc expansion in TGD since it becomes completely analogous to the pinary expansion of the partition function in p-adic thermodynamics. Also the twistor description and its dual have a nice interpretation in terms of zero energy ontology. This duality permutes massive wormhole contacts which can have off mass shell with wormhole throats which are always massive (also for the internal lines of the generalized Feynman graphs).
A soul in tension that's learning to fly
Condition grounded but determined to try
Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies
Tongue-tied and twisted just an earthbound misfit, I
User avatar
twistor59
RS Donator
 
Posts: 4966
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

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

#95  Postby Regina » Oct 26, 2011 8:15 pm

This translates into:
Twistor59 and Feynman wrote The God Delusion and the original paper manuscript was partly eaten by worms, hence the wormholes.
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

#96  Postby Evolving » Oct 26, 2011 9:31 pm

I think some people are not taking this seriously.
How extremely stupid not to have thought of that - T.H. Huxley
User avatar
Evolving
 
Name: Serafina Pekkala
Posts: 11906
Female

Country: Luxembourg
Luxembourg (lu)
Print view this post

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

#97  Postby chairman bill » Oct 26, 2011 9:32 pm

Really?
“There is a rumour going around that I have found God. I think this is unlikely because I have enough difficulty finding my keys, and there is empirical evidence that they exist.” Terry Pratchett
User avatar
chairman bill
RS Donator
 
Posts: 28197
Male

Country: UK: fucked since 2010
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

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

#98  Postby Evolving » Oct 26, 2011 9:34 pm

I hate to say it, but I can't escape this impression.
How extremely stupid not to have thought of that - T.H. Huxley
User avatar
Evolving
 
Name: Serafina Pekkala
Posts: 11906
Female

Country: Luxembourg
Luxembourg (lu)
Print view this post

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

#99  Postby Regina » Oct 26, 2011 9:50 pm

But...but, we are scientists.
:mrgreen:
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

#100  Postby Evolving » Oct 26, 2011 9:53 pm

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.
How extremely stupid not to have thought of that - T.H. Huxley
User avatar
Evolving
 
Name: Serafina Pekkala
Posts: 11906
Female

Country: Luxembourg
Luxembourg (lu)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Pseudoscience

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest