Re: A Letter to George Hammond, and all Christians for that matter.

From: Jim Jastrzebski (nospam_at_nospam.com)
Date: 06/04/04 

Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 01:52:15 -0500

"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:w2Evc.3873$rz4.981@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Jim Jastrzebski" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:c9mlcj$cs2$1@nemesis.news.tpi.pl...
> >
> > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:U9uvc.3150$rz4.2823@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
[...]

[Jim]
Bill, Let's try to organize this discussion a little bit
because otherwise we don't get anywhere and then
you may end up with wasting a lot of time and not
learning anything. So let's limit ourselves to relevant
issues and let's quote only what we consider relevant.

The main relevant issue here seems to be whether
the uiverse is expanding or not, and a lot of other
stuff follows from this one.

You seem to assume that the universe is expanding
and most cosmologists (I don't know anyone who
doesn't), including Wald, share your assumption.
Since I know everythign what follows from this
assumption you don't need to convince me about
anything. I know all the arguments. But I think that
the assumption of expansion is wrong and it is not
because I'm a crank (I might be, but it is irrelevant)
but because I think that I can prove that this
assumption is wrong. I may be wrong about this
that "I can prove" but for the time being, uless
someone shows me where I erred I have no way
of finding the error myself. I tried for a few years
and I gave up trying.

Nothing what I know about physics contradicts my
alleged "proof". Certain things that I know about
physics contradict the assumption that the universe
is expanding. So unless I were an idiot I can't believe
that the universe is expanding. It would be irrational.

Do you see this point?

If yes then I continue with our paricular differences:

[Bill]
> > > Get your ideas published in a journal.
> > > Could it be they will not accept them?

[Jim]
Of course they will not accept them. And typically
the paper gets rejected becuse it contradicts the
opinions of referees that the universe is expanding.
No referee so far pointed to a factual error in my
paper (otherwise I'd know what it is and the whole
issue would be over).

Some tried to point to something (Phys. Rev. Lett.
has the most intelligent referees) but in all cases they
withdrew heir objections after my counterarguments
and then rejected the paper on grounds of
insuffiicient interest to their readers (e.g. Phys. Rev.
Lett.). In all cases the referees didn't know
sufficiently well the general relativity to be able
seriously discuss the paper. So no help from
referees in finding an error.

No reader in any newsgroup has been of any help
in finding the error neither. Some presented their
strong belief that there are some facts known to
some scientists that prove that the universe is
expanding, and apparently I don't want to accept
those "facts" so I must be a crank.

I'm doing it for over 19 years now so I gathered
some sociological observations which might be
interesting but irrelevant so lets not speculate
why referees behave that way. Let's concentrate
on the expansion of the universe and the evidence
for and against.

[Bill]
> But that does not address my question.

[Jim]
Now your has been addressed, so we can
close this part.

[Bill]
> > > So? The fact GR predicts the universe started out in a
> > > singularity implies it is expanding which is the feature your
> > > questioning.

[Jim]
> > GR does not predict that.

[Bill]
> I have given you the page number of a standard reference that says
> otherwise.
> > > Specifically see page 241:
> > > 'Theorem 9.5.4 gives us strong reason to believe the universe
> > > is singular
> Did you actually read the page I gave you reference to? What it shows is
> that observable features of the universe combined with a theorem implies
it
> is. Semantic quibbling about the word 'believe' notwithstanding. 'Thus it
> appear we must confront the breakdown of classical general relativity
> expected to occur near singularities if we are to understand the structure
> of our universe' makes it plain as day what is going on. If you wish to
> doubt the conclusion concentrate on addressing the argument not the intent
> of the word 'believe'.

[Jim]
Bill, I read the page and about 20 other books.
I've been listening to a cosmology seminars the
whole last semester so I know about most
problems and solutions in cosmology. The point is
that physical issues can't be solved by invoking
authority. Unless you show me some valid physics
we won't get anywhere because it is only Wald's
opinion against mine. And the issue is the principle
of conservation of energy, which I consider valid.
If you consider it valid too, we have common
ground for discussion. If you don't then you stay
with Wald, and I go home to do other stuff.

> > It can be proven that if energy is conserved the
>> geometry of spacetime can't be exactly Riemannian

[Bill]
> Reference please.

[Jim]
My paper.

[Bill]
> The situation is, as John Baez says 'One way to get round this is to pick
> one coordinate system, and transport vectors so their components stay
> constant. Partial derivatives replace covariant derivatives, and Gauss's
> theorem is restored. The energy pseudo-tensors take this approach (at
least
> some of them do). If you can mangle Equation 3 (covariant_div(T) = 0)
into
> the form coord_div(Theta) = 0 then you can get an "energy conservation
law"
> in integral form. Einstein was the first to do this; Dirac, Landau and
> Lifshitz, and Weinberg all came up with variations on this theme.' Now I
> happen to have Landau - Classical Theory of Fields and have studied the
> relevant pages (page 280 - 285). Exactly what is wrong with this
> approach? - why can not the energy be a psuedo-tensor and not a tensor?
> Sure the issue is not clear cut - but that does not mean it is a show
> stopper. So exactly what is wrong with defining energy as a psedo tensor
in
> which case energy is conserved?

[Jim]
What is wrong is that energy is a scalar.
E = mc2, both m and c^2 are scalars.
Show me how multiplying m by c^2
makes a pseudotensor then I learn
something and maybe discover an
error in my reasoning. Serious.

> > however approximately [the Riemannian geometry is]
> > good enough to "explain" all gravitational phenomena except
> > Hubble's redshift, which happens to be one relativistic effect that
> > needs Finsler geometry to get described with some degree of
> > accuracy.

[Bill]
> Reference please.

[Jim]
My paper.

> > And only this single fact shoots down most what
> > Wald and most (all?) other cosmologists are saying.

[Bill]
> People reading this will be in a better position to judge when you have
> produced a reference.

[Jim]
I did.

> >That's why
> > cosmologists don't believe energy is conserved "in general
> > realativity". It just doesn't fit their (Rimannian) math.

[Bill]
> Where do you get this idea they do not believe in energy conservation
from?

[Jim]
>From Dr Baez with whom I discussed this issue
for some time and he told me explicitly:
"Jim, it is not conserved." (exact words of
Dr Baez) and cut me off sci.physics.research
for insisting that the principle of conservation
of energy might be valid. He also said that he
(as the moderator in sci.physics.research)
does not want this issue to be discussed
there anymore because it already has been
and everybody agree except me. So I'm out.

[Bill]
> What they believe is the issue is not clear cut - there is a difference.

[Jim]
Let's leave it for later, let's finish the old
business first:
> >And they
> > are good enough mathematicians to notice that, what all
> > astronomers before them missed, starting the "expanding
> > universe" legend. The mathematicians now just follows the
> > legend believing that astronomers noticed correctly what's
> > going on in the universe. It just requires to dump conservation
> > of energy to be rigorous (as mathematicians have to be), so
> > they did. No mystery about what happened. Please notice
> > that Dr Baez is an applied mathematician, not astronomer.

[Bill]
> So am I. Such is the typical rant of the crackpot - they are just
> mathematicians and do not understand the physics or some such rubbish that
> does not address the issue. Both mathematicians and physicists will be in
a
> better position to judge your claims when you have given the references.

[Jim]
Bill, you misunderstood me. Read again what
I said. I meant that mathematicians (like Dr
Baez) think more rigorously than astronomers.
Because they think rigorously, and they believe
that astronomers are right about the expansion,
the only right conclusion for them is that the
energy is not conserved. It would be the only
right conclusion for me if I believed that the
universe is expanding. This is the only right
conclusion possible. The difference between
me and Dr Baez is that the real contradiction
between conservation of energy and expansion
(which you may not see yet so please for the
time being belive either me or Dr Baez since
we both see the contradiction) he decides in
favor of expansion and I decide in favor of
conservation of energy.

Now which one you believe in? Because they
can't exist silmultaneously. If you don't know
why I can show you.

Presently no gravity physicist believes that
energy is conserved, becuase all of them
believe that the universe is expanding, and
they are no idiots to believe in mutually
exclusive things. That's why Dr Baez cut me
off sci.physics.research. They don't want
even to discuss it any more. It is setled for
them: "energy is not conserved in GR".
I'm a crank who does not want to agree.

[Bill]
> Let us get this straight What Wald did was give theorems that showed
under
> what conditions the unversed must have been a singularity sometime in the
> past. The assumptions of the theorem are fully stated and it only assumed
> GR to be true. He then gives evidence that the conditions of theorem are
> satisfied for our universe and so it must have been a singularity sometime
> in the past. And you call it 'irrelevant'? In fact when addressing the
> issue above the best you could do is semantically quibble about the word
> 'believe' rather than address the issue. And that is to count as an
> argument? Yea right.

[Jim]
You are right under a conditon that all the
necessary assumptions are right. But some
are wrong (at lease in my opinion) and since
there is no way to prove them right but there
is a way of proving them wrong (if energy is
conserved) then (at least in my opinion, of
someone who believes that energy is
conserved) I'm in a better position. Do you
understand this issue? We come back to it
shortly. Lets finish other stuff first.

[Bill]
> > > Hammond position is not just controversial - it makes
> > > assumptions about God beyond scientific investigation.
> >
> > Not IMHO. And BTW, what Hammond says agrees very
> > well with Dr Armstrong's (an ex Catholic nun) theses on the
> > same subject, proposed in her "The History of God" where
> > she analizes history of all Judeo-Christian religions from
> > their beginnings thousands years ago. When you read her
> > book you might start appreciating Hammond's work. And
> > after getting acquainted with Dr Armstrong huge knowlege
> > of the subject that she accumulated through all her life,
> > being as a nun particularly interested in truth about God,
> > you can't dismiss her as "just another crank".
>
> And Dr Armstrong's (an ex Catholic nun) would not be biased
> would she? She would have a total an impartilly objective view
> on the existance of God?

Yes, it is objective, but apparently you don't know
her book so you don't know the whole story.

During her work on the history of her religion, which
she started with great enthusiasm as a Catholic nun
wanting to dedicate it to her beloved God, after
reading all those documents, she started strongly
doubting that any of this stuff that was taught about
God was genuine. When she finifhed the work her
attitude toward God was as what Hammond
propagates. She didn't discover the curvature of
psychometric space but the whole part about the
brain development deficiency as a reason for God
was there in her new attitude towards God. That's
why she couldn't be a nun anymore. Her new
attitude towards God became too scientific. Maybe
not as scientifically rigorous as Hammond's but
surely not proper for a Catholic nun.

Naw let's find out where and why the conservation
of energy gets divorced from the contemporary
gravity physics. To start this process, please answer
the same question that I asked Dr Baez: Where the
kinetic energy of a falling brick comes from when
the brick is in free fall? (Or equvalently, where it
goes when the brick is thrown up?) After you try
to answer this interesting queston you may start
appreciating why gravity physicists don't believe
that energy is conserved in gravity. Besides it is a
lot of fun.

So I'll wait for your answer how you imagine what
happens to kinetic energy of free falling objects.
And you might discover things that you have never
expected.

-- Jim

Quantcast