User talk:Duae Quartunciae/W. Kehler/Issues

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the User:Duae Quartunciae/W. Kehler/Issues page.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming

Sectioning

Section and subsection headings should be used with restraint. They should be used to indicate major topic divisions in an article.

• Do not use section headings simply as a way of giving special emphasis to a strong claim. Use bold face for emphasis.
• Do not use section headings when just making a list of points. Consider using bullet points for lists.

—Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to make all texts in the main article to fit the width of the screen. Apparently, now some boxes have fixed sizes (unfortunately wider than my screen) and so I have to read all the texts on the main page moving the horizontal slide all the time. Which is doable but awfully tiresome. I hope that the owner of the page is going to fix this problem. Jim 10:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I will give it a try. The problem shows up when test is entered with a leading space. This prevents any justification of the text, and wraps up everything in a box with a dashed outline. This happens quite a lot in text from DeepBlueDiamond. I've fixed most of it in the main part of the text, though I missed one case. I have tended not to worry about text in the long section towards the end of the page. But it should be fixed, and I'll go through and try to add some consistent formatting. Actual formatted boxes should be fine.

DeepBlueDiamond, if you are reading this, do note that starting a new line of text with a space is a bad idea. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 10:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I have gone through the whole page, and tried to put in a bit of appropriate formatting where-ever there was a line entered with a leading space. Be warned that the result is still extremely hard to follow. DeepBlueDiamond tends to break up my paragraphs with many many insertions into the middle of my text, and in the process the formatting often gets a bit mangled.

I would appreciate also that you be a little bit cautious about presuming that he actually represents my views correctly. For example, I used the term "crank physics" of some papers by Lyndon Ashmore, and ever since then DeepBlueDiamond has repeatedly implied that I applied the word to anyone I disagree with, or to all of the scientists and dissidents from Big Bang cosmology.

This is quite simply not true. I generally try to be careful about using the word "crank" of a person; and I do not automatically label Big Bang dissidents as "cranks". There are some individuals that may deserve the term, but the blanket label is not helpful. On the other hand, when it some to specific instances of physics that has many errors, I do feel free to be blunt. There's a difference, I think, between labeling a person a crank and labeling a paper as crank physics.

I will be adding some material on Lyndon Ashmore's physics sometime soon. It is not something that has much circulation at all amongst Big Bang dissidents. It really does stand apart as trivially erroneous in the most elementary details; whereas some of the dissidents bring a fair degree of sophistication to their writing. There's a difference between someone who can't balance energy momentum in a simple particle interaction, and the kinds of ideas brought out by real scientists like Hoyle or Assis or Arp.

Cheers —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 11:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The boxes improved a lot but there are still instances where I have to use the horizontal slide to read the text. When I know now that the reason is the leading spaces I'll try to help you by looking for such lines and fixing them (if their authors can't) :-) Jim 14:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have sent a message to DeepBlueDiamond's own talk pages to try and explain better ways to do it. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 16:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Handling English issues

One issue here is going to be contributions by people for whom English is a second language. Such contributions are welcome and can be very helpful. In the main pages, I'd like to see people indicate in the talk page when they have made edits that could stand some review for their grammar.

Here, there is a difficulty, because there is important input being made in dispute with other editors. I am going to insist that this page, being on the English wikipedia, should aim for good readable English for anyone who drops in to see what all the fuss is about. That is going to mean some significant editing is required.

W. Kehler, this page is mainly here for communication with you. Your input is therefore essential, and you should edit with total freedom. Please be patient with me if I try to rephrase your material. I am trying to help.

One technique I propose is to place unclear text into a box, and have it followed by attempts to rephrase. When W. Kehler is content that his intent is properly expressed by material outside the box, then he may delete the box entirely from the page, or make it collapsible. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

JimJast might help

I was very happy to see JimJast comment on the page. I gather Jim is in contact with Mr Kehler outside of Wikipedia as well; Mr Kehler has spoken of him by name in some older discussions.

I'd be very happy for Jim to help in clarifying matters where I just don't understand what is said, or possibly even to help resolve one or two minor points completely. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Duae, I gladly help if I'm asked a question, since I know most answers related to gravitation and surely many related to BB. Being an MSEE I learned physics of Einstein's gravitation, added one missing tensor to it (BTW required by observations of light bending in vicinity of the Sun, to explicitely keep the energy conserved: just a little 3D tensor of "generalized" time dilation equal minus 3D tensor of curvature of space, no big deal and yet is solves all the problems), and so now I know how Einstein's theory handles the "accelerating expansion of space" (and what it predicts as a result: $0.50H_{0}^{2}$ while observations are $0.45H_{0}^{2}$), tired light (or rather dynamical friction of photons, I bothered to calculate it too, showing that it is almost the same as deceleraion of space probes Pioneer 10 and 11, $7\times 10^{-10}m/s^{2}$), near quasars, CMBR, etc. and I see that the observations provide the same result that Einstein could predict theoretically just on the basis of his theory and that's why I believe Einstein's theory and not BB folks.

Otherwise I'm tired of writing texts that nobody reads, even the editors and referees who say that "I might be right but they favor a different theory". There are so sure that the expansion of the universe is a fact (like before they were sure that it is the Sun that runs around the Earth, they'd seen it, didn't they) that they think that they don't need to bother with reading papers that shows that the expension of the universe is an illusion and suports this suggestion with math that they check and admit "that it might be right but contradicts the prevailing opinions and as such it's not interesting to readers". Even if it follows straight from Einstein's theory. Einstein's theory, since it is not BB, doesn't interest the readers of their journals anymore (as editors of Phys. Rev. Lett. suggested to me lately: waste of space in their journal, and that's why they hadn't even read my paper beyond abstract and conclusions, as they said :-). Funny thing is that in this dispute I'm a defender of the principle of conservation of energy while almost the whole world is against it and for the expansion of space.

That's why I started studying the psychology and I see that humns are not (as I thought before) rational creatures. If they were a lot of stuff could be deduced logically from what they already know and yet progress takes centuries. Jim 11:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

W.Kehler shortly answered

See [[1]] DeepBlueDiamond 19:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Fragmenting other people's text

DeepBlueDiamond has a bad habit of inserting his own comments into the middle of paragraphs written by other people. Don't do that.

I have just now stripped out a massive aside that had blown up right within the middle of what I had originally given as a list. The whole thing will return shortly as a new section. It was on whether it was a GOD-LIKE quality to dare to give a critical reading to published papers.

I will now clean up what is left; and then restore the material on critical readings at the end. Eventually, I will clean up the whole section to give it some kind of coherence. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 13:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Remark on other people interested in editing here

DeepBlueDiamond originally wrote this in the main page. It is really a peripheral point that belongs here in discussion.

I don't mind if other people want to join in here; but I will continue to maintain a tight control on the page. It is not intended to be a talk page. The idea is to have separate statements from different contrasting points of view, presented side by side, for a range of issues where there is dispute. So the main page is a bit like a collaborative article; not a sequential point by point discussion as you find on talk pages.

I've read the invitation already, thanks. If other people want to add a comment in the main page here, they may. If they cannot, so be it. The page is here for setting out the differences between Wikipedia editors, as a kind of experiment in managing editorial conflicts.

Cheers —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 14:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

On the freedom to read and evaluate scientific papers

All of us here are involved in reading and evaluating material published by working scientists. All of us here make critical judgments, recognizing that some writings may be beyond our present capacity to evaluate reliably, and in other cases feeling free to reach definite conclusions that a paper is presenting useful information, or on the other hand that the paper incorporates certain errors.

It is highly destructive, and indeed hypocritical, for any of us to to make judgments on the relative merits of certain scientific ideas, but then to turn around and deny that others might do the same thing. We can certainly disagree on the conclusions we reach, and even reach a few conclusions about the abilities of each other. But we cannot consistently deny others the right to read for themselves and make up their own mind, as best they can.

The following exchange was written in response to what I felt was an impertinent attempt to suggest that it is playing God to make considered judgments of this kind. It was, unfortunately, inserted right in the middle of what was originally a piece of continuous text of my own, so I have stripped it all out as distraction. I am now putting it here in the talk page, in a collapsed form so it does not take up to much space, so that it is on record.

On who is permitted to evaluate a scientific paper. Click 'show' to view.

FEEL YOU YOURSELF GOD-LIKE TO DECIDE THAT LINKED UNIV.-PAPERS, ESA, PROFESSOR'S PAPERS ARE INVALID???

Sorry but mean you that we have to become your blind believers like followers of a Jesus? DeepBlueDiamond 23:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Kehler is being totally hypocritical here. He has been insisting that the whole of modern physics is riddled with errors and that Einstein made this or that mistake and that Big Bang cosmology is all a pile of nonsense and now he turns right around and suggests that there's something odd about my daring to evaluate the papers he has been citing.

Wow. You must really get a bad wrench of the neck twisting around so suddenly. :-)

• I cited, linked to prove - as always! EN.WIKI citation: how ambiguous Einstein was himself to photon's mass and even violating basic principles like ENERGY CONSERVATION, see:
• Prof. Paul Marmets Newton Physics against Einstein, proves what User:Jimbo Wales told you:

"energy can't be conserved globally in a curved spacetime".

you'll find also there Einstein as big plagiarizer: even "his" E=mc² was a much older stuff.

I have no objection to your being critical of Einstein. I may not share your view, but you've got every right to make your own judgment; Einstein is as open to criticism as anyone.

What I find very objectionable, on the other hand, is the flagrant hypocrisy. You feel free to be critical of Einstein or other scientists, and then turn around to get all huffy when anyone else dartes to be critical of scientists you apparently think should be beyond any critical consideration. That is totally inconsistent of you.

The issues of energy conservation and plagiarism are both red herrings to our actual discussion; though they do serve to show that if you have a shred of consistency you would recognize that it's okay to be critical of a well published scientist. But try actually reading your cite to Straumann. He does not actually say "energy can't be conserved". He says "a general conservation law does not exist". There's a subtle difference between what Staumann says and your paraphrase. The problem is not that energy fails to be conserved. It is that the mathematical definitions for energy and conservation don't scale up to well to curved spacetime. It's mathematically ugly, requiring pseudotensors. But this is all a red herring to our discussion here. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 16:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In answer to the question, no, there is nothing God-like at all about learning a subject like physics and getting to a position where you can make some evaluations of what is written, even by professional scientists. I take papers on their individual merits. Some of the papers you are citing are arrant nonsense, which even a superficial level of physics should be enough to identify some of the defects. Some are interesting and challenging and I am not in a position to give a confident evaluation in detail. I will not hesitate to comment on bits I understand and can check for myself.

OhOh: you are the (or one) judge to decide who is a professional sientist and who not??? DeepBlueDiamond 17:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

HUBRIS-DEFINITION: Judging arrogantly about others instead of trying to understand dissidents with all their different meanings and even a few faults to make it better and to prevent "war". DeepBlueDiamond 17:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No; hubris is trying to put yourself above all critical examination. Hubris is being judgemental of others, but then refusing to admit that others might make considered judgments of their own. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 16:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Too many people are DEFAITISTS (French) meaning they like to destroy mentally by no minimal respect instead of at least trying to understand others more clearly even with (their) faults...

Sorry, but as System admin and programmer I had at first seach the basic puzzles for a whole project and put them consecutively in a logic order - or a program not functions at all!

Multiply I wanted in discussions that e.g. Surgeons should soon and at first learn PRECISION WORK and e.g. jurists and lawyers should priory learn to make Computerprograms to learn basic logic.

I am 100% certain that Kehler's own capacity to read and evaluate basic physics is fairly superficial. There's nothing wrong with that. The real trick is to be aware of where your knowledge is still lacking. It takes time and a lot of study to build up a capacity to give critical examination of published papers. But by the time you are doing physics at Uni, even undergraduate level, you should be able to give a critical examination of published works. Not with total expertise and reliability, but certainly enough that you can't get snowed by someone who waves a PhD in your face and insists that means only God could judge their work.

Thanks, I at least studied the matter myself, even calculated not only e.g. photons masses but also how atoms could react (e.g. influenced by hard photons) learnt bare mathematical logics. DeepBlueDiamond 17:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You know nothing but suggest only: We had a religion teacher who was a rather famous philosoper

There is something extremely weird about proposing that it takes some sort of God like ability to give a critical reading of a physics paper. I don't believe in God, or in divine knowledge, or that anyone be they priest king or scientist, can just pass of their literature and expect people like me to with hold all judgment. I don't care a scrap who writes a paper; I will read it, and evaluate it on its merits. If I see errors, I'll point them out.

To see an error you have to read something, THEN understand the basis of the writer at first!

AND: That teacher knew Einstein, saying: if God exist he can play a 3D-show as your reality. DeepBlueDiamond 13:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's an anecdote, of which I am quite proud and which gives you an idea of what real science is like. Last year I was reading a fascinating paper doing a complex mathematical analysis of a family of asteroids. The paper (in Nature) was too short to give all the details, and a full analysis would have been beyond me in any case. But after reading it carefully, I did notice one asteroid in their data that seemed to present a big problem for their model, which was that all the asteroids came from a collision some 5.8 million years earlier. I wrote to the author, who responded quickly and kindly to recognize that this was indeed an error. I had not been the first to point it out, in fact; and he had already acknowledged and corrected the problem in print. The asteroid was an interloper, and not a part of the collision. The point is that the best scientists welcome critical review, based on the substance of the review itself. If someone objects that only God can judge their work, they are almost certainly a fraud. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 12:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

One answer only

In my work I had multiply to convince by practice what Univ.Professors meant "is impossible". I mean: God should be named by atheists (like you, equivalently) the IMMENSE ENERGY AND ITS INTELLIGENCE inside (rules, laws). Name Energy and its most intelligent inside given physics GOD and you have no problem anymore with God. I object: You mainly object with your bare OPINIONS what higher skilled scientists wrote DeepBlueDiamond 13:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Object all you like. I don't think anyone will take this incredible notion seriously.

If all energy and its sophistical rules inside would be named GOD by all physicists and religions, nobody could really object it seriously!-??? But I'll stop well-known(!) physolophy (Kant!?). DeepBlueDiamond 17:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Any scientist worthy of the name publishes their work in the expectation that it will be critically examined, and anyone is free to read and evaluate it. I note again that DeepBlueDiamond is being grossly hypocritical here. Heck, he's been rabbiting on about Einstein making errors, and the whole scientific community being riddled with errors. He feels perfect freedom to be intensely critical of very highly qualified scientists indeed. But suddenly, when someone else disputes the writings that he is citing, DeepBlueDiamond does a total about face, and gets all huffy that anyone would dare to be critical of them! Make up your mind!

"Every theory is killed sooner or later... But if the theory has good in it, that good is embodied and continued in the next theory.

— Albert Einstein

Do you feel yourself also wiser than a wise Einstein's word? Brans-Dicke is wider! DeepBlueDiamond 17:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Einstein is exactly correct here. I anticipate just such a development for relativity with the combination with quantum mechanics. I don't think Brans Dicke, or anything like it, will be the replacement. Brans-Dicke theory does not actually address the real issues that are going to lead to the eventual replacement of relativity by an improved theory, in my view. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

For my part, I think conventional mainstream scientists and advocates of Big Bang cosmology are not on any kind of special pedestal. Despite the hilarious hypocrisy of you complaining about people being critical of skilled scientists; I don't actually mind in the least you being as critical as you like of conventional cosmology. The trick is to avoid making mistakes of your own as you do so.

Reminder: 120 decades correction of Einstein's constant? Know you the solution to what John Dobson said?: If time stops in a super-massive black hole, how can it begin in a super-super-super-massive Big bang? And how can you declare (your) "mystery" Black energy to be proved anywhere and also here where you are?

I suspect that Dobson does not have a particularly strong grasp of relativistic physics. His particular objection here seems to be a common error for a novice trying to get to grips with Big Bang cosmology, confusing the Big Bang singularity with a black hole.

I have not ever declared the mystery of dark energy to be proved. On the contrary; I think it is a genuine mystery. The evidence at present indicates that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. This acceleration corresponds to a cosmological term in the dynamic equations for scale factor; which corresponds to a certain energy density of the vacuum. You can also represent it using quintessence, which is a more general notion than a cosmological constant, since the equation of state varies. All of that is just putting names on the phenomena for the sake of talking about it. There's no "solution" here; but rather a puzzle. We have a long way to go in actually modeling the effects (that is, obtaining the best possible function matching scale factor to proper time) and we have pretty much no solid basis at all for identifying the causes.

I do not know where the solution to the puzzle will come; if it comes at all. But I've got a pretty solid guess that the advances won't come from people who can't manage to understand the basics of the existing physics that will they would like to replace.

—Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, DeepBlueDiamond is also somewhat inclined to inflate the standing of the scientists he likes. Most of them are comparatively minor players in the whole scheme of things. Assis, for example, is a perfectly legitimate scientist but nothing to stand out from the crowd. Some are total nonentities: Kießlinger, for example. I think your "Prof" Jastrzebski is a keen student and amateur; and not any kind of academic at all. Hoyle, on the other hand, was one of the great scientists of the twentieth century; a towering figure in the world of science. Yet flawed, as well. None of them, from the greatest to the least, should be just accepted blindly. Any of their papers can be read by anyone who cares to make the effort. It does not require exceptional genius to be able to make considered judgments of their work. It does a bit of knowledge however. I have no idea why you think I've never studied physics. I studied physics in my first degree, and did outstandingly well at it. I've continued to study it ever since. I'm not a scientist and I make no pretense at being able to make original contributions of my own in physics. But I have studied it, and I can read the literature with a basic level of understanding. Not at the level of a professional peer review; but enough to make some critical judgments on my own behalf.

Cheers —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 14:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do you depreciate again all serious theories and thereby themselves as quasi science-underdogs DeepBlueDiamond 17:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't be absurd. You've been inflating the standing of these good folks; I am just setting the matter straight. For example, it is not "depreciating" to say that Jim Jastrzebski is a student rather than a professor. It's correcting an error in your descriptions. There's nothing wrong with being a student. None of my comments above are unfair or improper. Don't misrepresent their standing, and then I won't have to correct you on the matter. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 16:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Keeping size under control

This page is getting too big, and I will be making some deletions.

DeepBlueDiamond; please don't just add piles and piles and piles of the same old stuff over and over again. Have a look at the structure of the page. It identifies areas where we have disagreements. We are not going to resolve all of those. But we can try to clarify where we disagree on things. So we pick out the issues, and each make a statement.

Don't edit other people's statement. Don't try to make this into a talk page, with a long sequence of point/response/counter-response arguments. Try to make a clear statement for your own position and put it in your own section, above or below mine. If you add a lot of commentary into the middle of my statements, it will probably be removed. All it does is break up the clarity of statement I am aiming for. Just give your own contrasting statement, separately; and feel free to edit your statements as needed.

You just added a whole pile of stuff into the middle of my IP hunting statement; and I have removed it. Most of it was not about IP hunting at all. You continue to ask why I removed stuff from the biography, for example. I did that as an ordinary editor. ANYONE can do the same. You can remove my stuff as well, and you did. My response was to talk about it on the discussion page, and solicit input from more editors. Administrators only need to get involved when editors start being merely disruptive and unable to follow consensus. So far, that has not happened, and so administrators have had no involvement in any of this.

The reasons for removing stuff were given in the discussion page of the Zwicky biography. They were given by several editors. If you like, I can tell you the reasons again why your version of the tired light section was quite properly deleted. I've put that in as a new section, and you can make a statement there if you like. Look for the section The Fritz Zwicky biography. Go ahead and put what you like in there, but try to keep the quantity under control.

At this stage, I would be happy to delete the whole IP hunting section entirely. I don't think it is an important issue for us any more. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 14:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Jim Jastrzebski and doctoral studies

In the main page, DeepBlueDiamond referred to an email from Jim, as follows:

I have transferred subsequent discussion from the main page to here, to help keep size under control. It is a rather fascinating exchange...

I think you should let Jim speak for himself. And I think you should probably stop calling him "Professor". —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 06:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That's right :-). I'm here reading this stuff so I may as well answer any question.

I'm not a "Professor" neither. I don't even have my PhD yet (since I made a mistake of thinking that such a smart guy as me ain't need no PhD) that's why I'm trying right now to get one to be able to publish at least in arXiv.org and to let the interested folks to know that the BB problem is solved since 1985 by a tiny discovery within Einstein's gravitation that Einstein left for other physicists to come upon (as he has written).

For some reason not many people (perhaps except Arp and Narlikar) are looking for the solution of the illusion of accelerating expansion of space problem to Einstein's gravitation so the solution is quietly waiting there to be rediscovered by some future historian of science in some future century, more rational than ours. A century where the principle of conservation of energy is respected even by gods if they are still present there. In the meantime the BB continues to be a very good business paying off a lot of loans so I don't even have the heart to stop it and so I don't insist on spreading the news and I just wait for my PhD to let the BB folks to know where they goofed. I hope nobody is harmed by my approach since anybody who wants to know the solution may read it on the internet. However I doubt that anybody would believe my story enough to click on the provided links and to learn the data behind it since unfortunately it is not how the human brains are structured :-). As already discovered by Dr Zimbardo. Jim 13:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. I think your gentle approach is to be commended; at least it helps avoid the problems of high blood pressure. :-) I think attributing the failure of your work to get any recognition to psychological problems in everyone else is a bit implausible; but hey. Stranger things have happened. Or not.

Good luck with the PhD. The bad news is that a PhD does not give you automatic credibility either. There are already plenty of papers by PhDs that make all kinds of errors in working with relativity. There's a veritable cottage industry of them. Your paper might just be the jewel in the pigsty to fix up all the errors made by everyone else; but getting a PhD won't bring any closer to having its validity recognized. Your paper has not been persuasive to various reviewers who have commented upon it so far; and that is either due to their psychological problems or to your errors in the content. Whichever it is, that won't change when you get your PhD.

By all means get the PhD; but don't mistake it for a ticket to credibility for your writings. There's something else involved in the lack of acclaim they have received. Cheers —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 13:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so naive as to think that my paper is going to be read by more than one person or that even this one person will read beyond the first and last few lines (nor that I gain any credibility by the title). One astronomy professor, whom I asked to be my promoter, told me already "you just change your status from a nobody whom nobody reads to a PhD whom nobody reads" :-) and he refused to become my promoter since he himself has no time to read my stuff being a BB guy himself.

But my reason for doing PhD is that I can discuss the stuff with cosmologists in this university and all of them are BB folks (my promotor is a particle physicist who doesn't care neither way and says "Jim, if you get Nobel I'll be only glad"). So the cosmologists here are preparing themselves to destroy me. I'm curious how they do it, since all the math and the observational data are on my side. And they have a lame math (which pure mathematicians don't even want to discuss, it's so bad according to them) and no explanation for the observational data. They just say "it just happens this way apparently because of dark energy". I say "But Einstein could explain all those observations adding just one hypohtesis that the spacetime is flat" (which is also what Narlikar and Arp think because it is rather obvious). So now those BB folks have to explain why they don't allow a flat spacetime (which is also necessary for conservation of energy to hold).

And they don't have such answer, and they know it, since they say "we have to assume that energy is not conserved in general relativity". Which does not work well with physicists and some astronomers in this university most of whom still consider that the principle of conservation of energy as valid. So BB folks rather avoid such statements and only slowly try to "explain" that "in general relativity the conservation of energy does not hold since the universe is expanding". And no regular physicist or astronomer understands the general relativity well enough to argue with "experts". Neither Einstein did. He said "when mathematicians started to explain my theory I stopped understanding it".

So I have behind myself the math (which nobody reads, so it is irrelevant) and results of observations that many people know and would like them to be explained. The BB folks on the other hand have only a conviction that the universe is expanding, but no hard data to demonstrate it and a vague statement that "energy is not conserved in general relativity because the universe couldn't expand otherwise" which now they already understand. So my position, despite all difficulties seems to be better then positin of Copernicus when Tycho Brache argued for the Sun running around the earth because of lack of observed paralax (unless the stars were at such enormous distances that wouldn't be feasible for God to apply). Apparently now God needs non conservation of energy to be able to create the universe. But besides, they don't use to burn people at stakes nowadays so I'm beter off then it was 300 years ago. Even if they still believe that the supernatural is controlling all the matters in the universe.

Jim 16:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read

I think there are two policies/guidelines we should keep in mind when considering whether to include verifiable and reliable criticism of pseudoscience: WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT. Tell me what you think of these. Nondistinguished 13:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think comprehension of them would avoid the whole problem. I suspect that DeepBlueDiamond is not going to accept that his ideas are "fringe", however. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 20:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

JimJast questions on photon mass

Jim, I have taken the liberty of pruning your remarks on photon mass, and removing my one line followup. Previously I had thought you were asking the questions of me; and so I gave your name in my response. You then clarified that the questions were actually for W. Kehler, and so I apologized and removed reference to you in my photon mass comments.

Since all is now clear, I have taken the liberty of pruning your remarks a little. Here is the edit I applied: [3]. I trust that is still okay with you. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

DeepBlueDiamond's response to Duae Quartunciae on tired light models and Einstein effect

DeepBlueDiamond earlier added a point by point answer to my statement on tired light and Einstein effect. I removed it, and requested that he please leave my statement alone, and keep his responses in his own statement. DeepBlueDiamond has now restored his point by point answer, but as a new subsection. Thanks; I appreciate having my own statement clear and self contained.

However, there is still a problem. After I deleted all the insertions, I went on to make a few changes to my statement. I tried to remove some sentences that were unnecessarily agressive to DeepBlueDiamond, and I tried to clarify a few points where there was possibly confusion.

But when DeepBlueDiamond added the new section, he simply cut and pasted responses to the older text. Indeed, even when he made the original responses, his copy of point number 5 was already well out of date. This means there is a mismatch between my statement, and the text to which DeepBlueDiamond is giving "answers". I don't think it is all that important, but I am pointing it out, in case DeepBlueDiamond missed the changes.

• My current statement is Duae Quartunciae statement on tired light and Einstein effect theories. The version I read now was established on 03:33, 13 Aug [4] and that can stand as my position on the matter, for the time being. I don't see any value in debating it further; the page is intended to give contrasting viewpoints; not carry on a long and probably futile argument as to which is correct.
• DeepBlueDiamond's response is Objected Duae Quartunciae statement on tired light... - Answers to each sentence. The response was added on 13:13, 13 Aug [5] with a minor revision at 13:49, 13 Aug [6]. He refers to a version of my statement that was established on 00:43, 12 Aug [7].

No.	Old text used by DeepBlueDiamond	My actual text
1.	None of the tired light models mentioned use Einstein effects. The Einstein effect refers to gravitational lensing; and to the gravitational redshift in light emerging from a gravitational well. Zwicky in 1929 noted explicitly that the Einstein effect does not depend on distance, and so cannot address cosmological redshift. Zwicky was correct. None of the other papers DeepBlueDiamond cites use the Einstein effect either. This seems to be another case where DeepBlueDiamond simply lacks the background in physics to understand what any of these proposals are saying.	None of the tired light models mentioned use Einstein effects. The Einstein effect refers to gravitational lensing; and to the gravitational redshift in light emerging from a gravitational well. Zwicky in 1929 noted explicitly that the Einstein effect does not depend on distance, and so cannot address cosmological redshift. Zwicky was correct. None of the other papers DeepBlueDiamond cites use the Einstein effect to explain cosmological redshift either.
2.	The Zwicky 1929 paper has never been removed from his biography. If DeepBlueDiamond understood this paper better, he might avoid trying to associate cosmological redshift with scattering processes from electrons or with the Einstein effect. Zwicky's paper explains, correctly, why both those approaches must fail.	The Zwicky's 1929 paper has never been removed from his biography. The paper explicitly considers well known processes such as the Einstein effect, and photon electron interactions. Zwicky explains, correctly, why these processes cannot possibly give rise to the cosmological redshift. Zwicky proposes a gravitational drag effect instead.
3.	DeepBlueDiamond's slurs about falsified history with respect to Edwin Hubble are without foundation. Hubble's skepticism of the expanding space explanation for redshift is well known and plainly stated in his Wikipedia biography.
4.	Professor Assis does support the idea of tired light, but the cited paper gives no model for how it might occur. The Tired light article quite properly focuses on other papers which do suggest models.
5.	DeepBlueDiamond cites the classic pioneer anomaly paper, by Anderson et. al. [8]. It is totally irrelevant here, because that paper makes no mention of tired light. The paper surveys a number of ways that people have tried to explain the anomaly, but the authors propose that the most likely cause is probably a systematic effect from the spacecraft, with a small force produced either by out gassing or by asymmetry in the dump of waste heat.	DeepBlueDiamond cites a paper by Erhard Scholz: Another look at the pioneer anomaly. This is an interesting case. At present Scholz has only uploaded it to arxiv. It is not a published paper and so not a reliable source. The work is interesting; not immediately obvious as an error in basic physics. Scholz gives a mathematical model; but no mechanism to justify the effect. By Scholz' own account, it is speculative; not proved at all. But that's fine; good science can begin with speculations.
6.	Jim Jastrzebski is a student, not a professor. His ideas have no acceptance, and have yet to be published in the scientific literature. Jim is supremely confident of his insight, and thinks that there must be some form of psychological block with everyone else that prevents his ideas from being recognized. Be that as it may, his ideas are not notable by the Wikipedia guidelines on verifiability and neutrality.
7.	The ideas of "private researcher" Lyndon Ashmore are also not notable by Wikipedia guidelines. This was the model that received most prominence in old versions of the Zwicky biography, despite it being an example of the scattering process that Zwicky himself correctly described as hopeless, and despite it having no associated reliable sources. I have given a brief summary of the many trivial errors in Ashmore's physics in #Duae Quartunciae statement on Ashmore's model.
8.	Paul Marmet does have a tired light model, but DeepBlueDiamond does not cite it correctly. DeepBlueDiamond cites a self-published book, which does not appear to address cosmological redshift at all. The book is an error filled criticism of Einstein's theory of relativity. Marmet's tired light proposals are similarly confused; and uninfluential even amongst the small number of scientists actively considering tired light mechanisms. Marmet proposes a kind of scattering process with regular matter of the very kind that Zwicky identifed as "hopeless" in 1929. The right place to mention Marmet's model would be the Tired light page; but Marmet's model is less notable than other more rational speculations already present in that page.	Paul Marmet does have a tired light model; but what DeepBlueDiamond cites here is a self-published book, which does not appear to address cosmological redshift at all. The book is an error filled criticism of Einstein's theory of relativity. Marmet's tired light proposals are similarly confused; and uninfluential even amongst the small number of scientists actively considering tired light mechanisms. Marmet proposes a kind of scattering process with regular matter of the very kind that Zwicky identifed as "hopeless" in 1929. The right place to mention Marmet's model would be the Tired light page; but Marmet's model is less notable than other more rational speculations already present in that page.
9.	DeepBlueDiamond fails to understand Halton Arp's proposals. He cites Arp's paper on "intrinsic redshift", which is not a model for tired light at all, nor is it a way of explaining cosmological redshift. Arp basically rejects the simple redshift distance relation, and proposes that some of the redshift apparent in high-z objects is localized at the objects themselves.	DeepBlueDiamond cites Arp's paper on "intrinsic redshift", which is not about tired light or gravitational redshifts. Arp proposes that some of the redshift apparent in high-z objects is localized at the objects themselves. This is already described in pages on Halton Arp, and Intrinsic redshift.
10.	DeepBlueDiamond cites an important book by Hoyle, Burbidge and Narlikar. This is already cited at the page where it belongs, on Steady state cosmology; but more importantly, it does not use a tired light model at all. DeepBlueDiamond again cites stuff without even the most superficial comprehension of what they are actually saying.	DeepBlueDiamond cites an important book by Hoyle, Burbidge and Narlikar. This is already cited at the page where it belongs, on Steady state cosmology. It does not use a tired light model, and it has nothing to do with Einstein effects.

Note that the revised version of point number 1 is an exception. I added it just now, after noticing that it had an irrelevant personal comment that only degrades discussion. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 01:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Feynman and light

This was added by DeepBlueDiamond in the main page. I've put it here for discussion.

YOU HAVE TO READ BEFORE YOU WRITE

ANSWER: Why did you erase here again unfairly what Feynman wrote? I'm tired about falsifications by you, even citations we answered, erased here again! We correctly objected bare PRETENDERS like you saying falsely: TIRED LIGHT must blur! We cited FEYNMAN to support this and ZWICKY and ASHMORE and us, saying: In transparent media like good glass photons neither blur nor scatter, as objected by all bare PRETENDERS - like you explicitely - against TIRED LIGHT to depreciate thereby implicitly Feynman, Zwicky, Ashmore and us, saying the same. Quite obviously you even not want to understand also this topic at all - even by erasing it again. FEYNMAN CITED BY US TO WHAT PHOTONS DO, EXPLICITLY IN GLASS: “photons do nothing but go from one electron to another, and reflection and transmission are really the result of an electron (remark: in molecules) picking up a photon, ”scratching its head”, so to speak, and emitting a new photon.”..."What I’m going to tell you is what we teach our physics students in the third or year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don’t understand it…. You see my physics students don’t understand it that is because I don’t understand it. Nobody does." By erasing this citations continuously you as Admin yourself violate by bare opinion WP:NOR DeepBlueDiamond 01:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

—Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 01:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have read what you wrote, and I have read Feynman's books. I repeat this request: do not modify my statements.

Your hysterical and insulting remarks to me personally are disgraceful. I regret ever having tried to set up this page to try and communicate with you.

Your quotes from Feynman remain there in the page for anyone to read. I have not erased them; and it is ridiculous to place additional copies of them inside my comments which describe how you have applied them incorrectly. Which you most emphatically have. Those quotes say nothing about tired light, and they are fully consistent with the simple physics that means any redshift by interactions with matter particles in plasma will lead to blurring. Feynman is not describing a redshift process. Light does not blur as it passes through a refractive medium, because it does not have any change in energy or in momentum. It merely travels a bit more slowly.

This is very elementary physics involving the conservation of energy and momentum. If you introduce a redshift, you are removing a little bit of energy from the photon. This means you also also removing a little bit of momentum. You have to transfer that somewhere. If you transfer it to some other more massive particle, like an electron, or an ion, or a molecule, or even a whole crystal lattice, you will find that there has to be a change in angle of the photon to keep conservation. This is basic, and Zwicky points this out in his 1929 paper on the subject. Zwicky is one of the people who explains why any redshift with these interactions is always associated with blurring.

The extracts you have given from Feynman are about refraction of light, which is related to a change in speed. You can explain the change in speed with a mathematical treatment, as in his lectures; or with an informal comment about a pause of the photon to scratch its head. If you look into it, a part of Feynman's treatment is to show that the speed of light is actually still invariant; the same speed as in a vacuum; but that the "slowness" of light in some materials can be seen as a kind of "pause". This applies in any refractive medium, be it glass or plasma. But there is NO redshift. And hence no blurring.

You also speak of Feynman's comments on quantum physics being hard to understand. This is a widely repeated remark, which Feynman made in several of his books. You appear to be using it to avoid having to explain the details of the process; and just claim that it is "weird" and "hard to understand". If you read Feynman's comments in their entirety, then you will see his perspective is totally different. He calculates answers, in detail and with great precision. Nothing is hidden; nothing is left as a simple appeal to "weirdness". What Feynman describes as being hard to understand is the results that you get. QED (quantum electrodynamics) is a mathematical description of behaviour that many people find hard to accept as real. THAT'S where it becomes hard to understand. Not because it is beyond description, but because the precise descriptions available in the mathematical theory are so counter-intuitive.

Here is a more complete quote from his book.

What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school-and you think I'm going to explain it to you so you can understand it? No, you're not going to be able to understand it. Why, then, am I going to bother you with all this? Why are you going to sit here all this time, when you won't be able to understand what I am going to say? It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see, my physics students don't understand it either. That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does.

I'd like to talk a little bit about understanding. (... snip two paragraphs...)

The next reason that you might think you do not understand what I am telling you is, while I am describing to you how Nature works, you won't understand why Nature works that way. But you see, nobody understands that. I can't explain why Nature behaves in this peculiar way.

Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is-and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that physicists have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment.

QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. (Alix G. Mautner Memorial Lectures), by Richard Phillips Feynman. Extract is from the end of chapter 1.

—Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)