[Merged] Why the James Webb Telescope rewrites/doesn't the laws of Physics/Redshifts - Page 36

Mike Helland · 29th March 2023, 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

Helland physics has given us an entirely new way to misunderstand the universe.

I'm ok with that.

If it's perfectly reasonable to adjust the space coefficients based on the time coordinate:

$g_{\mu\nu}=\begin{pmatrix} -1&0&0&0\\ 0&\frac{a^2}{1-kr^2}&0&0\\ 0&0&a^2r^2&0\\ 0&0&0&a^2r^2\sin^2\theta \end{pmatrix}$

Then it should be acceptable to make the time coefficient based on the space coordinates.

W.D.Clinger · 29th March 2023, 06:56 PM

Details matter.

Tom Knight was one of the lead designers of the MIT Lisp Machines. This story says a lot about the previous post.

A novice was trying to fix a broken Lisp machine by turning the power off and on.

Knight, seeing what the student was doing, spoke sternly: “You cannot fix a machine by just power-cycling it with no understanding of what is going wrong.”

Knight turned the machine off and on.

The machine worked.

Mashuna · Yesterday, 06:19 AM

Originally Posted by hecd2

You replied to me in three minutes. You're not stopping to think. No-one apart from you believes that the paradox is anything other than irresolvable. The only thing you have to measure time on is your clock at A, and the round trips of two pulses are different according to that clock. There is no way round that. I'm not starting this again. You can carry on thinking you've resolved it and everyone who knows what they're talking about, including the referee when you submit the embarassing "paper" that you will no doubt write, will tell you the same thing, and you still won't believe them, like you didn't believe the referee on your last "paper". It's a waste of everyone's time.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Sure. And in my model, photon 2 arrives late and photon 1 takes off early.

Changing where you start to count does not fix the paradox. It's like adding an extra flywheel to your perpetual motion machine.

Ziggurat · Yesterday, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

You said "you" thirteen times in seven sentences.

To paraphrase from here:
https://despair.com/products/dysfunction
The only consistent feature in all your failed theories is you. That's why I'm emphasizing you. The details of an individual failure are pretty secondary, far more significant is the consistent cause of those failures, and that's you. So you deserve attention, because that's the only possible source for a fix to any of this. Not tweaking your theory with yet another revision, but a fundamental change in how you approach everything. You need to start by learning, and not in this half-assed way you're currently doing it.

Quote:

I've always done calculus problems with a computer program and a lot of trial and error. I know that's severely limiting. (No pun intended.) But it usually gets the right enough answers.

I just don't understand why it won't fly.

Quote:

And based on your feedback over the last couple years, I have revisited calculus, to try to express it in the calculus way, but obviously not well enough. I went over linear algebra too, and a couple other things.

Indeed, it's not enough. Not close to enough. There's a reason people spend year and years just learning this stuff, before they even try to do something new.

Quote:

You were also the one that said photons can't lose frequency without clocks desynchronizing, which is why we're talking about dynamic time in the first place.

I did indeed say that, and it is indeed true. But you seem to think that desynchronizing clocks is some trivial thing. It's not. It is no small feat to develop a new theory of desynchronization in a manner that is self-consistent, let alone in a manner that is consistent with observations. The parts need to connect to make a self-consistent whole, and you're not doing that. It is beyond you. Hell, it's beyond me too. The difference is that I know I'm not up to the task, despite knowing far more math and physics than you. For some reason, and despite all evidence to the contrary, you think you are. You are not.

Quote:

Regarding the first, one example was the flight time paradox, I think that's resolved:

No, it isn't resolved. You've got hand waving nonsense about dynamic time that doesn't actually make any sense. You have no coherent picture of what your dynamic time actually is, or what it actually does.

Quote:

As far as expressing it in the framework of relativity, I don't think I'm that far off in thinking that could be in the form of a metric tensor that reduces to the Minkowski metric at less than cosmological scales. And that it makes a "v" look like a "u".

You seem to think that means something. It doesn't.

hecd2 · Yesterday, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

I'm ok with that.

If it's perfectly reasonable to adjust the space coefficients based on the time coordinate:

https://math-demo.abitti.fi/math.svg...d%7Bpmatrix%7D

Then it should be acceptable to make the time coefficient based on the space coordinates.

The Robertson-Walker metric is for an isotropic homogeneous Universe. In such a Universe, time passes at the same rate at all locations. You can write a 3 dimensional spatial metric for a given time which describes the intrinsic curvature and other properties, such as distances between points and angles between lines which are invariant under coordinate transformations.

If the rate of time is a function of location then the Universe is no longer homogeneous. But the Universe appears to us to be the same in all directions. The only way that can be is if the non-homogeneous Universe is spherically symmetric with us at its centre. That would make you a geocentrist. Is that what you arguing for?

Mike Helland · Yesterday, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by Mashuna

Changing where you start to count does not fix the paradox.

That's not quite what I'm suggesting.

Time dilation makes durations longer. Whether that duration extends to the future, or the past, shouldn't make a difference.

29th March 2023, 06:56 PM	#1402
W.D.Clinger Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 4,830	Details matter. Tom Knight was one of the lead designers of the MIT Lisp Machines. This story says a lot about the previous post. A novice was trying to fix a broken Lisp machine by turning the power off and on. Knight, seeing what the student was doing, spoke sternly: “You cannot fix a machine by just power-cycling it with no understanding of what is going wrong.” Knight turned the machine off and on. The machine worked.
W.D.Clinger Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 4,830

Yesterday, 06:19 AM	#1403
Mashuna Ovis ex Machina Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Sir Ddinbych Posts: 6,910	Originally Posted by hecd2 You replied to me in three minutes. You're not stopping to think. No-one apart from you believes that the paradox is anything other than irresolvable. The only thing you have to measure time on is your clock at A, and the round trips of two pulses are different according to that clock. There is no way round that. I'm not starting this again. You can carry on thinking you've resolved it and everyone who knows what they're talking about, including the referee when you submit the embarassing "paper" that you will no doubt write, will tell you the same thing, and you still won't believe them, like you didn't believe the referee on your last "paper". It's a waste of everyone's time. Originally Posted by Mike Helland Sure. And in my model, photon 2 arrives late and photon 1 takes off early. Changing where you start to count does not fix the paradox. It's like adding an extra flywheel to your perpetual motion machine.
	__________________ I’d rather be a rising ape than a falling angel. - Sir Terry Pratchett

Yesterday, 08:57 AM	#1404
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 53,389	Originally Posted by Mike Helland You said "you" thirteen times in seven sentences. To paraphrase from here: https://despair.com/products/dysfunction The only consistent feature in all your failed theories is you. That's why I'm emphasizing you. The details of an individual failure are pretty secondary, far more significant is the consistent cause of those failures, and that's you. So you deserve attention, because that's the only possible source for a fix to any of this. Not tweaking your theory with yet another revision, but a fundamental change in how you approach everything. You need to start by learning, and not in this half-assed way you're currently doing it. Quote: I've always done calculus problems with a computer program and a lot of trial and error. I know that's severely limiting. (No pun intended.) But it usually gets the right enough answers. I just don't understand why it won't fly. Quote: And based on your feedback over the last couple years, I have revisited calculus, to try to express it in the calculus way, but obviously not well enough. I went over linear algebra too, and a couple other things. Indeed, it's not enough. Not close to enough. There's a reason people spend year and years just learning this stuff, before they even try to do something new. Quote: You were also the one that said photons can't lose frequency without clocks desynchronizing, which is why we're talking about dynamic time in the first place. I did indeed say that, and it is indeed true. But you seem to think that desynchronizing clocks is some trivial thing. It's not. It is no small feat to develop a new theory of desynchronization in a manner that is self-consistent, let alone in a manner that is consistent with observations. The parts need to connect to make a self-consistent whole, and you're not doing that. It is beyond you. Hell, it's beyond me too. The difference is that I know I'm not up to the task, despite knowing far more math and physics than you. For some reason, and despite all evidence to the contrary, you think you are. You are not. Quote: Regarding the first, one example was the flight time paradox, I think that's resolved: No, it isn't resolved. You've got hand waving nonsense about dynamic time that doesn't actually make any sense. You have no coherent picture of what your dynamic time actually is, or what it actually does. Quote: As far as expressing it in the framework of relativity, I don't think I'm that far off in thinking that could be in the form of a metric tensor that reduces to the Minkowski metric at less than cosmological scales. And that it makes a "v" look like a "u". You seem to think that means something. It doesn't.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

Yesterday, 09:07 AM	#1405
hecd2 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 1,482	Originally Posted by Mike Helland I'm ok with that. If it's perfectly reasonable to adjust the space coefficients based on the time coordinate: https://math-demo.abitti.fi/math.svg...d%7Bpmatrix%7D Then it should be acceptable to make the time coefficient based on the space coordinates. The Robertson-Walker metric is for an isotropic homogeneous Universe. In such a Universe, time passes at the same rate at all locations. You can write a 3 dimensional spatial metric for a given time which describes the intrinsic curvature and other properties, such as distances between points and angles between lines which are invariant under coordinate transformations. If the rate of time is a function of location then the Universe is no longer homogeneous. But the Universe appears to us to be the same in all directions. The only way that can be is if the non-homogeneous Universe is spherically symmetric with us at its centre. That would make you a geocentrist. Is that what you arguing for?
hecd2 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 1,482	__________________ Gulielmus Princeps Haroldum Principem in catino canino impulit

29th March 2023, 06:19 PM	#1401
Mike Helland Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 3,318	Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger Helland physics has given us an entirely new way to misunderstand the universe. I'm ok with that. If it's perfectly reasonable to adjust the space coefficients based on the time coordinate: $g_{\mu\nu}=\begin{pmatrix} -1&0&0&0\\ 0&\frac{a^2}{1-kr^2}&0&0\\ 0&0&a^2r^2&0\\ 0&0&0&a^2r^2\sin^2\theta \end{pmatrix}$ Then it should be acceptable to make the time coefficient based on the space coordinates.

Yesterday, 09:54 AM	#1406
Mike Helland Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 3,318	Originally Posted by Mashuna Changing where you start to count does not fix the paradox. That's not quite what I'm suggesting. Time dilation makes durations longer. Whether that duration extends to the future, or the past, shouldn't make a difference.