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

From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 06/04/04 

Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 11:04:33 GMT

"Jim Jastrzebski" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:c9p8ld$ki3$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl...
>
> "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> news:5iSvc.4961$rz4.4802@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > "Jim Jastrzebski" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:c9oe1t$88f$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl...
> [etc.]
>
> [Bill]
> > It would be reasonable for you to detail the error that Wald made in the
> > reference I gave. As I said it is a theorem which, like all theorems,
has
> > certain assumtipions. Now Wald provides evidence that all of those
> > assumptions are satisfied in our universe. Thus to doubt the conclusion
> the
> > universe is expanding you need to detail the assumption of the theorem
> that
> > our universe violates. Would it be possible for you to do that? It
seems
> a
> > reasonable request to me.
>
> [Jim]
> It would be a resonable request if the story were as you told it.
> But it is slightly different and the difference despite being subtle
> is very important.
>
> The difference is that when the Hubble redshift has been
> observed, it has been interpreted as the result of expansion,
> and by logical extension BB cosmology has been proposed.
> So historically, the BB cosmology is built on an assumption
> that the observed Hubble redshift (physical fact) is the result
> of (assumed) expansion. It is a basic assumption of the BB
> theory.
>
> When Friedmann's solutions of Einstein's equation were
> discovered it has been declared that the Riemannina
> geometry (a frame for those solutions) through Friedmann's
> solutions "predicts" the expansion. It was also predicted that
> this expansion is to decelerate, because the "Einstein's greatest
> blunder" has been rectified (Einstein's cosmological constant
> has been assumed non existent) and it left only one possible
> solution out of infinite set of Friedmann's solutions, which
> "predicted" that the universe will be expanding with certain
> deceleration, until the expansion stops, and then the universe
> will collapse back into singularity. MTW's "Gravitation"
> is the basic document of this type BB cosmology.
>
> So it was a math (called officially "GR"), matched to
> observation (to Hubble redshift) to explain those observations.
> Of course, after one has such a phenomenological theory,
> which of course does not explain anything since it isn't possible
> for a phenomenological theory to explain, it can only *describe*,
> one may handle this math any possible way and come up with
> theorems that say that physics that we observe (Hubble redshift)
> is simply the result of this math (theorems), while historically and
> logically it is just oposite (chicken and egg problem).
>
> To see that it is so it's enough to assume that suddenly
> astronomers are able to prove that all the distances in the
> universe stay the same for the last 100,000,000,000 years.
> The Hubble redshift will stay, but BB theory will go. We
> just pick up from Friedman's solutions one that is consistent
> with this new fact (so called "Einstein's solution"). Since the
> present selection of the particular Friedman solution is made
> only on a basis of matching it to observations.
>
> Then a team of BB enthusiasts (not unlike Ms. Armstrong that
> I mentioned in the previous message) set up a project that was
> supposed to "confirm" the theory, and to measure the unknown
> yet deceleration of the expansion, to demonstrate the predictive
> power of BB cosmology. Hawking in January 1999 was still
> writing that fixing the speed of deceleration might change the
> cosmology from pseudoscience that many scientists take it for,
> into science that is able to predict finally something as any other
> science is.
>
> Unfrotunately the project ended with a discovery of "accelerating
> expansion" which has thrown a monkey wrench into BB
> cosmology since there are no Friedmann's solutions that would
> allow it easily and so now cosmologists are trying to invent a
> theory that would bypass this problem. Some simply hope that
> the results are wrong (I heard such questions at seminars this
> year) but astronomers assure that theresults have been checked
> and rechecked and yes, the "expansion is accelerating", with
> certainty better than something like 3 standard deviations. So you
> may safely forget all the GR books and theorems created in the
> last century. The BB cosmology does not have yet a theory about
> what's really going on in the universe and all the hope is that "GR"
> (as they call BB cosmology for some reason) will be repalced by
> "quantum gravity" (no need IMHO).
>
> Since according to "my theory" (which is actiually original
> Einstein's GR from 1915) the "expansion" is "accelerating" (both
> apparent) alredy for over 19 years (figuratively speaking, and
> because of this, no cosmologist wanted to take my paper
> seriously, not even read the stuff that predict acceleration why
> everybody knew it supposed to decelerate), I don't worry about
> "acceleration of expansion". Nor I need to examine the old
> theorems that went out of commision with the discovery that
> BB predicted the future wrongly. It makes my life simpler.
> Also it simplifies our discussion since we don't need to look
> into the old stuff, just to consentrate on mor fundamental
> problems of energy and expansion.

The Hubble expansion hypothesis is not one of the assumptions of the theorem
(although assumption c is related to it). Again I implore you to have a
look at the theorem and detail the assumption you disagree with. Is it
assumption c or maybe GR itself? You seem to favor Finsler geometry. My
understanding is that this geometry rejects the strong equivalence
principle. It is also my understanding that strong experimental bound shave
been put on such a rejection.

>
> > > [Jim]
> > > Of course they will not accept them. [...]
>
> [Bill]
> > Then surely you must face the possibility you are incorrect. It would
be
> a
> > simple matter to cast doubt on the assertion the universe is expanding
if
> > you can find the error in the theorems that show it must be. So again
can
> > you provide that detail here? If you can not then it is quite
reasonable
> to
> > reject your objection.
>
> [Jim]
> Of course I may be incorrect (it goes without the
> necessity of mentioning it). But my predictions are
> confirmed by observations, theirs are contradicted
> by them. So it wouldn't be reaonable to reject my
> objections, would it? It seems more reasonable to
> dump all their "GR" and look at original Einstein's
> GR (which I'm using to get my results).
>
> [Bill]
> > It is my observation from discussing such things with others when they
say
> > 'insufficient interest' in means your paper has problems.
>
> [Jim]
> OK, but an expert in those matters should be able to
> tell what problems, instead "insufficient interest among
> our readers to publish your paper."
>
> [Bill]
> > Look it is simple. If you want to challenge the expansion of the
universe
> > simply find which assumption in the theorem that predicts it does not
> > apply to our universe.
>
> [Jim]
> I thought that I did it many times: the assumption that
> Hubble redshift is an indicaton of expansion while for
> me it is an indication of what I call (Einsteinian) "general
> time dilation" that has to be there if energy is conserved
> because otherwise one can make energy from nothing
> and I can show how (make a tidal power plant in
> which photons replace the moon).

I have said before that is not one of the assumptions of the theorem. You
have Walds book - it is a simple matter to look at the theorem and tell me
which assumption you disagree with. What is so hard about that? I suspect
it is assumption c that you reject but you have not said so. When you
actually do not answer specific questions but push them in the direction you
want to go it makes discussion very difficult.

>
> [Bill]
> > And I can find a copy of you paper where?
>
> [Jim]
> At the address that I showed many times (the paper
> exists already over 19 years, remember?). Try:
> http://www.geocities.com/wlodekj/sci/3263.htm
> because it is the version, with the simple flat light wave
> changed to original spherical one, at the request of an
> astronomer who thought that spherical light waves are
> more natural and therefore easier to visualize.

Thank you very much Jim. I do recall you giving this link before - I did
not realize it was the paper you were talking about. I will need to read it
and have a think.

>
> [Bill]
> > I found a good paper yesterday that examined these issues. See
> > http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9701028. So let us agree to accept this as a
> > basis for further discussion.
>
> [Jim]
> Let me read it first and I come back to you
> on this subject and I respond to the rest of
> your comments since there are serious issues
> there to solev and I don't have the time now.
> Read my stuff in the meantime, so I might not
> need to explain certain things any more (or
> have to explain even more :-)

Very understandable Jim - I can ask for no more. It would be further
appreciated if you could confirm just for the record exactly which
assumption of the theorem you disagree with. I suspect it is assumption c
which is related to expansion but would seem a lot weaker. Please confirm.

Also Jim it would be appreciated when you are ready to reply if you could
start a separate thread? I will be discontinuing contributions to this
thread as I believe it is going nowhere. I will be on the lookout for your
new thread to continue the discussion. This will also have the benefit of
involving some of the more knowledgeable posters here in the discussion. Of
course I know GR but can hardly be called an expert. That however does not
apply to others who post around here. I think their input will be very
useful.

Thanks
Bill

Relevant Pages