Jump to content
Science Forums

Pmb

Members
  • Posts

    109
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Pmb last won the day on September 1 2015

Pmb had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Pmb

  • Birthday 10/25/1960

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Boston
  • Interests
    Physics, Math, tutoring, discussing math and physics, enjoying the sites and night life of Boston and Cambridge

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Pmb's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

30

Reputation

  1. I'm not flaming you. I'm warning members of this forum to beware of the fact that most of the posts you create are nonsense, such as this one. You started this thread by posting numerous symbols whose meaning cannot be deduced from what you wrote, although you'll insist otherwise probably claiming that those who can't figure it out are dumb.
  2. With this nonsense of a post and the fact that the same exact post was posted in The Naked Scientists forum I finally know who you are. Note to my fellow members: this member will rarely, if ever, make any sense whatsoever. He quite often ignores simple facts in physics and declares himself right on too numerous occasions regardless of the fact that 100% of the physics community holds otherwise. Never expect anything logical from him and expect insults. E.g. he flamed me when I explained that space and expand and contract meaning that space can be created and destroyed. He knows absolutely nothing about relativistic cosmology whereas I do and he claims that all such cosmologists are idiots for holding that to be true.
  3. Is it possible that RbM and Ryndanangnysen are the same people?
  4. Why? Why is believing that we went to the moon so fantastic to you? Do you know nothing about science and engineering and for that reason can't grasp how it can e done? Where's your evidence? Where's your argument demonstrating that what you said is reasonably correct?
  5. Ryndanangnysen wrote - Are you sure?? It turned out some where just fake! which is a lie. People who make such claims do so without providing evidence because it's wrong and as such there is no evidence of the claim Ryndanangnysen wrote - In orbit around the earth, mate! You've once again provided no basis for this accusation. Merely saying something is not evidence that what you said it's true. In this case ham radio operators listened in on astronauts in the Apollo-11 capsules as they went to the Moon. It's easy to determine that the transmissions were not from Apollo-11 as it circled the Earth because there was never a drop out of signal as the capsule sunk below the horizon in its orbit. The transmissions coming from the moon has no drop out. http://www.arrl.org/eavesdropping-on-apollo-11 The Russians would have loved it if they were transmitting from a capsule in orbit because they'd be able to detect exactly where the capsule is by triangulating the signal and showing it's not from the moon but from Earth's orbit.
  6. Just because I explained in detail why your reasoning process is far from being reasonable is no basis whatsoever to assert that I'm brainwashed. In fact I've posted nothing here that could be taken as evidence of being brainwashed. I fact your response here indicates that you don't know what it means to be brainwashed. By definition, brainwashing is to affect a person's mind by using extreme mental pressure or any other mind-affecting process. There has never been anything close to this in my life. You certainly can't make that claim based only on the fact that I used sound reasoning to show you the nature of your errors. You're simply confusing higher education with brainwashing.Another term for it is Mind Control. Readthe webpage that I cited and provide a solid argument that I've been brainwashed. Otherwise please don't make rude accusations which you can't back up.
  7. If that's true then provide evidence that she and I were the one's who were lied to and not you. I haven't seen any attempt by you to do that as of yet.
  8. When someone makes an assertion so challenging to widely accepted beliefs as done here claiming that we never went to the moon it requires a great deal of evidence to back it up. Nobody in their right mind and who knows how to reason properly would never accept such an assertion as "We never went to the Moon." But nowhere in this thread have I seen any such evidence supporting such a claim. In fact all we've been given so far as the claim "We never went to the moon!" and simply making a claim in no way justify believing it. In fact when I gave evidence what we did in deed go to the moon all we got back from Ryndanangnysen was just another illogical assertion Clearly Ryndanangnysen neither understands physics and/or knows how to reason properly he'd know the fact which is well known by all scientists that science is not about "proving" anything. In fact science has been defined in the article What is science? Am. J. Phys. 67(8), August 1999 as the systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories. The success and credibility of science is anchored in the willingness of scientists to adhere to two steadfast rules: 1) expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by other scientists; this requires the complete and open exchange of data, procedures and materials; 2) abandon or modify accepted conclusions when confronted with more complete or reliable experimental evidence. Adherence to these principles provides a mechanism for self-correction that is the foundation of the credibility of science. This definition was originally drafted by the Panel on Public Affairs ~POPA! of the American Physical Society, in an attempt to meet the perceived need for a very short statement that would differentiate science from pseudoscience. This statement has been endorsed as a proposal to other scientific societies by the Council of the American Physical Society, and was endorsed by the Executive Board of the American Association of Physics Teachers at its meeting in Atlanta, 20 March 1999. Ryndanangnysen's responses have been clearly in contradiction to this definition. Then there was the other extremely poorly thought out rhetorical question Ever considered the fact that what the Russian where doing was also a hoax? The purpose of the space race to the get to the moon first. As such America and Russia would never help each other. In fact they'd be doing everything they could to demonstrate that America was faking it or that it was a hoax. However the Russians were clearly not as illogical as Ryndanangnysen is.
  9. Actually you're quite wrong. It does prove that people were on the moon. That's what makes it a valid argument. While lasers can be bounced off the moon without those mirrors the mirrors allow us to get much greater precision measurements with the mirror. Ryndanangnysen's fault here is that all he did is make claims. That's not science. To be science one has to back it up with evidence.
  10. The Bible is not a physics textbook. It was written long before people knew that the sun was a star. However, if you feel the need to think of the Bible as a source of scientific knowledge (which it surely isn't) then all that says is that God created the star near the Earth first and called it "Sun" and then created all the other stars but didn't name them. That's quite wrong. If that were true then every place on Earth would have day light since the light from anyplace inside a sphere lands on the entire surface area inside the sphere. It also follows that the sun wouldn't rise and set below the horizon and it's easy to see that it does. If we were on the inside of a sphere then we'd see then entire inside surface. The land would rise above us in the distance and we'd see all of it. However that's not what we see. We can't see over the horizon. Not to mention that the geometry of the people on the inside of the sphere and the rays of light would be different than they really are. I'll create a diagram which proves that you're wrong. I'll post it later today, hopefully. Nonsense, all of it. That means that all you did was post things but put no logical analysis behind it. Anybody that can imagine what it'd be like inside a sphere would know that its not where we live. If we did then there would be places on that inside surface (if not the whole surface) that due to the gravitational pull of the sun we'd all fall of the inside surface of the sphere and into the sun. Astronomy would be quite different than it is now. We wouldn't be able to place satellites in orbit around the earth and the moon wouldn't be able to orbit the earth. When astronauts take pictures of the Earth they wouldn't show the earth to be a sphere as they do.
  11. Pyrotex - You're right in that length contraction and time dilation are very different. Not only do they have very different physical meanings but their relationship between two frames S and S' are T' = T/sqrt[1- v^2/c^2] L' = L*sqrt[1- v^2/c^2] Where T = proper time and L = proper length. So as anybody can readily see, they're very different. As I've said many times, A-wal's grasp of this subject is very weak. This is just another example of it.
  12. xyz - All galaxies moving away from each other is not space expanding is it now, is science trying to say that they observe bigger gaps between masses? I'll say this again; it's not that its irrational to say that space is expanding. The problem lies in your ignorance of general relativity and cosmology. E.g. you don't know what it means for space to expand. You keep looking for something physical like a rubber sheet to stretch. That's the error in your reasoning. Frankly its irritating discussing this with you since you make claims that all of we physicists are wrong and wrong in the exact same way and you make that assertion with no understanding of the theories from which they came. You keep making the mistake that space does not have a physical presence based on the fact that there is nothing there for you to interact with. That's wrong. We can interact with empty space by placing things in the space and then take measurements on the geometry of the arrangements of the objects in that space. For example; if you wanted to determine whether space was curved or not then first you have to know what that means. The example I'll use is the sphere since its easy to imagine. If you were a 2D being living on the surface of a 3D sphere then nothing outside the surface exists to you. Now have two 2D beings stand next to each other facing in the same direction. The each starts to side step for a very a certain distance. How far depends on the radius of the 3-sphere. E.g. If the radius of the 3-sphere is 1 unit then the person side stepping would have to side step a total distance of pi/2 ~ 1.5 units. Now that 2D being walks forward the same distance. The other 2D being would only move forward a distance of 1.5 units. In flat space these two beings would never meet. If the geometry is sphere-like then they meet. This is because the geometry of the two spaces are different. Walking those distances is a way of taking physical measurements of the space. A similar experiment would have two 2D beings standing next to each other and each of them start off walking in a straight line. In a general curved surface their paths will intersect, i.e. the surfaces would not be Euclidean anymore. In the example of the expanding universe there will be more and more space being created, i.e. the volume of the universe keeps increasing. Regarding redshift: I hope you didn't think that I gave that as some sort of "proof" that the universe is expanding. I gave it as evidence of that fact. Evidence and proof are not the same thing. Note also that there's no place for proof in physics. See Alan Guth explain why at: http://www.newenglandphysics.org/common_misconceptions/DSC_0002.MOV So in short; You can’t experimentally tell the difference between an expanding universe with galaxies moving as it expands or a universe in which galaxies move apart . See Am. J. Phys. 75, 151 (2007); http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.2360990 Am. J. Phys. 77, 59 (2009); http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.2987790 for some discussion of the issues. I think that this basically a semantic and/or reference frame problem, and that the “space is expanding” perspective has some pedagogical and conceptual advantages. But as far as I know, one cannot distinguish the perspectives experimentally. I.e. merely seeing redshift won't tell you that space is expanding. You need a model of the universe to work with and a theory to describe it. Would you like to read those articles? The reason that it's say that the universe is expanding is that the theory says so and the theory is correct in that it's been tested thoroughly.
  13. xyz - There is a lot that goes into observations than just the fact that there is a cosmological redshift. What's important is the exact nature of the redshift as a function of the distance between galaxies. That's where Hubble's law comes in. If you really want to get into it then read this page: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/astro801/content/l10_p4.html
  14. Craig - There are other types of geometric objects defined on Minkowski space, not simply 4-vectors. The following are examples: the metric tensor, the Faraday tensor (aka EM tensor), the stress-energy-momentum tensor and the angular momentum density tensor readily come to mind.
  15. xyz - I never avoided the explanation. I simply choose not to repeat myself. I already described what it means for space to expand, i.e. all galaxies moving away from each other. There's more to it than that of course but I'm unable to cut and paste URLs making it very difficult for me to reference pages. I said that we know that space is expanding because we observe all galaxies moving away from each other and there are galaxies whose cosmological redshift is so high that it can only mean that the galaxy is moving away from us at speeds greater than the speed of light. That can only happen if its space itself that is expanding. There are observations which imply all if this. You never looked them up so that's why you don't know about it. You assumed it was all wrong so you never looked for observational evidence that it is right. That evidence is listed here: http://en.wikipedia/wiki/Metric_expansion Do a search on that page for the term "evidence." Later this week I'm going to MIT to talk to a friend of mine, Alan Guth. He's one of the worlds leading cosmologists. He's helping me develop my companies website by giving talks in videos about common misconceptions in physics. I'll have him do one on this subject so that you'll have a solid answer from one of the leading scientists on the Big Bang theory. It'll be good for the physics community to have this because there's a large number of people who get it all wrong like you do. Observation is nothing without theory. We have theory from general relativity and a great deal of experimental data which implies that GR is correct. GR when applied to the universe gives us a metric which implies that its space itself that is expanding. When the administrators tell me how to do a cut and paste in this forum (since it's not working) I'll show you what evidence exists. Or you could do a search for it yourself. I don't see why you can't do a search for yourself though.
×
×
  • Create New...