"No Dark Energy" tells logic and observation

[exchemist]

Dang....and I thought I was slow.

Haha, yeah.

But my policy is not to let people have a totally free pass to state things about science that are nonsense. Just a bit of "hygiene" really, for the sake of any other readers.

 

[Revoltingest]

Haha, yeah.

But my policy is not to let people have a totally free pass to state things about science that are nonsense. Just a bit of "hygiene" really, for the sake of any other readers.

There's always the question of how far to pursue elucidating one's perspective.

 

[exchemist]

There's always the question of how far to pursue elucidating one's perspective.

Yup that's why I have stopped, having made my point and perhaps reassured any potentially unsure readers a bit that Einstein did actually know what he was talking about.

 

[Polymath257]

That is not true. Ask "any" university calculus teacher.

Feel free to ask me. I have been a research mathematician and have passed the PhD qualifying exams in physics.

All I have to do is use prior proven mathmatics (they may have been proven through your nature) to disprove a mathmaticle eqution like Einstein's or any other. Its basic mathmatics.

Sorry, a mathematical result cannot prove which theory of physics is correct.

Seriously. Go ask a university calculus professor.
You can use proven mathmatics alone yo disprove a given equation.

Sure, any internal contradiction can show that the theory is false. But that isn't the case for Einstein's equations, which are mathematically consistent *and* agree with observations.

Im sorry but in all instances "a" must equal "b" if written so or the limits on the equation must be specified. Einstein is almost always due to laziness written by the top physicists and mathematicians as an incorrect equation.
Granted it does work at the speed of light. . if you dont mind the limit. But you can not use the equation to explain anything outside of the speed of light. The equation becomes worthless by its very nature. It only works at the speed of light or by methods that use the speed of light. At other speeds beyond light it is abosolutly worthless and easily disproven.

Simply false. It works. Period. But is shows that you cannot have relative speeds more than the speed of light at the same event.

- Since "a" must be equal to "b"
- Let "a" be infinite (that simple)
- Since the "b" side of the equation contains a constant "c" (the speed of light)
- For all possible energy "a" , "a" does not equal "b"
- The equation is proven wrong.

What you have written has no relevance to the physics.

It should always be referenced as being a function of or within the limits of "c" the speed of light. Thats when it works.

Try to go faster than the speed of light with that equation. I bet mass no longer makes sense to you. Nor distances. Nor time. Nor space. . . You get confused with your mathematics. the equation begins possibilities of being incorrect the minute you leave the speed of light. You have limited yourself and not admitted it in your equation.
F(c) E=MC'2. Is better
Sorry i dont have a mathematical keyboard on this phone. But Einstein's equation is wrong the way he and other people write it is incorrect and wrong.
Its a limited equation

No, it is not. It is mathematically consistent *and* it agrees with observations. And, unless you understand differential geometry, you can't handle the math that is required for Einstein's equations of general relativity. For special relativity (like, E^2 =m^2 c^4 +p^2 c^2), you can get away with some basic algebra.

There is no known observation that is in disagreement with Einstein's equations and we know of mathematical structures that satisfy them, so they are self-consistent. Complaining about impossible hypotheticals doesn't change those facts.

 

[Polymath257]

Einstein's equation has been used incorrectly because it is badly written. This creates a lot of the problems in physics where questions conflict and others do not have answers.
Personally I believe in an infinate universe that expands at infinite speed. And that our phisical universe we see is not all of it.

What, precisely, does that mean? For example, if we look at a galaxy that is 300 million light years away, it is NOT moving away at infinite speed.

If one believes in an infinite universe then Einstein's equation is very simply disproven. You must only exist at the speed of light.

Which Einstein equation?

If a=b then if "a" is infinite "b" must be infinite or "a" does not equal "b" and the equation is worthless.

In Einstein's equation In an "infinite expanding universe". Energy would be infinite. If energy is held infinite the "a" must equal "b" lets consider "a" to be energy. We find on the other side of his equation "b" is mass times a "numbered constant" (the speed of light squared). Since mass can be infinite then to hold all "b" infinite it can not be multiplied by a constant. Therefore infinite "a" does not equal "b" or
Energy DOES NOT equal mass times the speed of light squared.

There is so much wrong with what you said here, I don't really know where to start.

First, E=mc^2 is the energy equivalent of a mass *at rest*. To deal with motion, you have to use the formula E^2 =m^2 c^4 +p^2 c^2.

In particular, it would not apply to the universe as a whole, which does not have a single rest frame.

Next, if energy is infinite and mass is infinite, then the equation E=mc^2 would work perfectly well mathematically. There is nothing wrong with multiplying an infinite quantity by a constant. You get infinity out from this calculation.

His equation in many instances is taken by physicists incorrectly. Yet it is still used today as if it answers everything. That is why the confusion.

Nobody says it answers everything. It just shows that mass and energy are two sides of the same thing.

So if you are trying to explore the possibilities of an infinite universe, dark matter, or anything that is outside the realm of light functions.

That sentence fragment makes no sense.

Einstein is a wagon going off a cliff. Jump on. Everyone else in physics and mathmatics is. For me I have a better answer and it expands to the infinite. I can explore all possibilities.

Those who claim that Einstein made some fundamental mistake usually ignore that many people since Einstein have looked at his work critically. They have improved it, extended it, applied it in many more situations than Einstein did, and tested it via observations.

The actual math of special relativity is quite elementary, only involving basic algebra. To do general relativity, you need a lot more: at least multi-linear algebra, but it is better to have differential geometry.

 

[Brent Mcnealy]

What, precisely, does that mean? For example, if we look at a galaxy that is 300 million light years away, it is NOT moving away at infinite speed.



Which Einstein equation?


There is so much wrong with what you said here, I don't really know where to start.

First, E=mc^2 is the energy equivalent of a mass *at rest*. To deal with motion, you have to use the formula E^2 =m^2 c^4 +p^2 c^2.

In particular, it would not apply to the universe as a whole, which does not have a single rest frame.

Next, if energy is infinite and mass is infinite, then the equation E=mc^2 would work perfectly well mathematically. There is nothing wrong with multiplying an infinite quantity by a constant. You get infinity out from this calculation.



Nobody says it answers everything. It just shows that mass and energy are two sides of the same thing.


That sentence fragment makes no sense.



Those who claim that Einstein made some fundamental mistake usually ignore that many people since Einstein have looked at his work critically. They have improved it, extended it, applied it in many more situations than Einstein did, and tested it via observations.

The actual math of special relativity is quite elementary, only involving basic algebra. To do general relativity, you need a lot more: at least multi-linear algebra, but it is better to have differential geometry.

I understand you dont understand it. Not going to argue with you. If you cant see or measure it it must not exist. If its outside the realm.of light it must not be real.

 

[Polymath257]

I understand you dont understand it. Not going to argue with you. If you cant see or measure it it must not exist. If its outside the realm.of light it must not be real.

Once again, I have been a university math professor for almost 35 years. I have also passed the PhD qualifying exams in physics.

Might I suggest it is you that doesn't understand?

 

[Brent Mcnealy]

Once again, I have been a university math professor for almost 35 years. I have also passed the PhD qualifying exams in physics.

Might I suggest it is you that doesn't understand?

You may suggest anything you want

 

[Polymath257]

You may suggest anything you want

Just ask any university calculus professor.

 

[Brent Mcnealy]

Just ask any university calculus professor.

OK i will ask Tom Van Flandern and Professor João Magueijo from Imperial College London, and Dr Niayesh Afshordi from the University of Waterloo in Canada for starters

 

[Heyo]

OK i will ask Tom Van Flandern and Professor João Magueijo from Imperial College London, and Dr Niayesh Afshordi from the University of Waterloo in Canada for starters

It would be very informative if one of them would come to RF and debate @Polymath257 on Special Relativity - less informative if you'd relay (and misrepresent) their ideas. But anyway, I'd read it.

 

[exchemist]

OK i will ask Tom Van Flandern and Professor João Magueijo from Imperial College London, and Dr Niayesh Afshordi from the University of Waterloo in Canada for starters

Good luck with that.

 

[Polymath257]

OK i will ask Tom Van Flandern and Professor João Magueijo from Imperial College London, and Dr Niayesh Afshordi from the University of Waterloo in Canada for starters

Van Flandern is simply a crank. Among other things he advocates the ideas of exploding planets and that the face on Mars was manufactured (since disproven).

Afshordi seems to be a fairly typical theoretical physicist looking at edge phenomena and seeing if there is new physics there.

Maqueijo looks into varying speed of light at the Planck scale. Again, theoretical, but at least a reasonable thing to consider.

Which of them claims that E=mc^2 is incorrect?

 

[exchemist]

Van Flandern is simply a crank. Among other things he advocates the ideas of exploding planets and that the face on Mars was manufactured (since disproven).

Afshordi seems to be a fairly typical theoretical physicist looking at edge phenomena and seeing if there is new physics there.

Maqueijo looks into varying speed of light at the Planck scale. Again, theoretical, but at least a reasonable thing to consider.

Which of them claims that E=mc^2 is incorrect?

I had never heard of these people. I looked up Van Flandern, only to find he has been dead for over a decade! So our friend won't have much luck there.

 

[questfortruth]

Once again, I have been a university math professor for almost 35 years. I have also passed the PhD qualifying exams in physics.

Might I suggest it is you that doesn't understand?

Please read my math results:

Acknowledgment of Non-linearity or How to Solve Several Conjectures, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2011.0199

Exceptions from Robin's Inequality, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2011.0198

And physics:

Hawking Radiation by Neutron Stars, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2011.0197