4 ms·

To be novel the blog need only show one thing that isn't currently known. Generally accepted physics doesn't recognize that an unpowered projectile launched upw

To be novel the blog need only show one thing that isn't currently known. Generally accepted physics doesn't recognize that an unpowered projectile launched upward can accelerate away, let alone shown with generally accepted equations. The blog is novel for that alone. The blog explains the acceleration away of supernovae that is currently a mystery, so the blog is novel again for that reason. If we don't accept an advance of physics until it explains a complete set of mysteries (an acceleration profile over the universe's history, in your case), we could be waiting a long time. The "deceleration, then acceleration" is an implication based on assumptions, not something observed. We haven't actually witnessed any deceleration or acceleration when looking through a telescope. Instead, when we look at various distances from the Earth we see various redshifts (not changes in redshifts), and then, because looking further away is looking back further in the history of the universe (a safe assumption), and based on the assumption that space itself is expanding to cause those redshifts and any changes in those redshifts, we conclude that space itself expanded in a decelerating manner and then, later in the universe's history, in an accelerating manner. The blog implies that we should rethink those assumptions. It shows that the expanding space paradigm is superfluous. When that paradigm is removed, generally accepted equations can be applied to show that objects sufficiently far away from us (which we can now assume are receding at close to the speed of light, given their high redshifts) accelerate away from us. So when we look close to us we'll see evidence of deceleration, and when we look further from us we'll see evidence of acceleration, but that has nothing to do per se with the history of the universe. Thus the blog does explain the observations that form the acceleration profile you note.

pdonis 13y ago
Generally accepted physics doesn't recognize that an unpowered projectile launched upward can accelerate away Really? What is your source for this extraordinary claim? You yourself said that the equations you used are generally accepted. That means people already understand their consequences. The fact that people don't agree with you about how to apply the equations in a particular scenario doesn't mean people don't believe the equations. The blog explains the acceleration away of supernovae No, it doesn't, because its prediction is not the same as what we actually observe. The "deceleration, then acceleration" is an implication based on assumptions, not something observed No, the apparent deceleration, then acceleration is what we actually observe. The question is how to interpret these observations. The standard interpretation is that the deceleration, then acceleration are real, not just apparent. Your interpretation is that they are only apparent; but your model can't even reproduce the apparent profile we observe, so your interpretation is not supported by its own model. So when we look close to us we'll see evidence of deceleration, and when we look further from us we'll see evidence of acceleration No, you have it backwards. When we look close to us, we see evidence of acceleration (because we're looking at what happened more recently in the universe's history), and when we look farther away, we see evidence of deceleration (because we're looking at what happened earlier in the universe's history). Your model does not reproduce that observation, so it's not a valid explanation.
- fargolime 13y ago
  > Really? What is your source for this extraordinary claim? You yourself said that the equations you used are generally accepted. That means people already understand their consequences. I'll respond only to this, as I've found here and before that you don't discuss fairly; that's unfortunately common in discussions about physics. It's logically impossible to provide a source to show that something isn't recognized elsewhere. (This should be obvious to a smart person such as yourself, which is in part why I say you don't discuss fairly.) But you can search all you want to see that the claim cannot be found elsewhere. That equations are generally accepted doesn't necessarily mean that people already understand their consequences. Understanding their consequences requires also experimenting with the equations in sufficiently various ways. Apparently that wasn't done until the blog author did it, or else I'd likely be able to do a Google search to find elsewhere that acceleration away can be shown by those equations. I'm confident that millions of science students would find "an unpowered projectile launched upward can accelerate away" highly interesting (maybe as well the physicist quoted in the blog post, who is mystified as to how his keys thrown upward could accelerate toward the ceiling). It should be an easy search if it was previously known.
  - pdonis 13y ago
    I've found here and before that you don't discuss fairly You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm also entitled to mine, and since we're being open and honest I'll give it. My opinion is that you are not interested in actually understanding the mainstream theories of physics that you are criticizing (and neither is the author of the blog post you linked to); you are only interested in criticizing them. But you can't honestly criticize a theory that you don't understand; that means that before you criticize a theory, you must be able to explain what it says (even if you think that what it says is wrong) in a way that its own proponents agree to. I haven't yet seen you do this (and the author of the blog post you linked to doesn't either). See further comments below. Understanding their consequences requires also experimenting with the equations in sufficiently various ways. I agree with this in principle, but there aren't enough people or enough time to check all the consequences. So it's not a huge achievement just to calculate a new consequence; you need to show that it's significant. See below. And for the record, I also agree that the model in the blog post correctly applies the equations (although as you and it are using the term "acceleration", it should more properly be "coordinate acceleration"). I just don't agree that this model can explain our observations of redshifts and apparent brightness of distant objects, since its predictions don't match our actual observations of the universe. Apparently that wasn't done until the blog author did it, or else I'd likely be able to do a Google search to find elsewhere that acceleration away can be shown by those equations. Okay, let's assume you're right that nobody has ever done the precise calculations that the blog post's author did, before he did them. If you had said just that--that mainstream physics has never considered the calculation the blog post author did before--I might still have been a bit skeptical, but I probably would have let it pass. Your claim came across as a stronger claim than that; you appeared to be claiming that, if you showed the blog post's calculation to a mainstream physicist, they would say it was wrong--not wrong as in not applicable to the expansion of the universe, but wrong as in incorrectly calculating the consequences of the relativistic rocket equation. I strongly doubt that is the case, since, as I said above, I agree that the blog post author has calculated the correct numbers using the relativistic rocket equation (even though I don't agree with his application of those numbers to a different scenario). I strongly suspect that if you showed the blog post calculations to a physicist familiar with relativity (such as the author of the relativistic rocket equation page in the Usenet Physics FAQ, which the blog post links to), they would react the way I did: yes, this is a correct calculation using the relativistic rocket equation, but it's not relevant to the expansion of the universe. So saying that "generally accepted physics doesn't recognize that an unpowered projectile launched upward can accelerate away" does not, I think, describe what mainstream physics says in a way that a mainstream physicist would agree to.
pdonis 13y ago
when we look at various distances from the Earth we see various redshifts The redshifts are not the only evidence we look at; we also look at the relationship between apparent brightness of objects and their redshifts. See Ned Wright's cosmology FAQ for a good brief overview: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#CC http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#CC

pdonis 13y ago

Generally accepted physics doesn't recognize that an unpowered projectile launched upward can accelerate away Really? What is your source for this extraordinary claim? You yourself said that the equations you used are generally accepted. That means people already understand their consequences. The fact that people don't agree with you about how to apply the equations in a particular scenario doesn't mean people don't believe the equations. The blog explains the acceleration away of supernovae No, it doesn't, because its prediction is not the same as what we actually observe. The "deceleration, then acceleration" is an implication based on assumptions, not something observed No, the apparent deceleration, then acceleration is what we actually observe. The question is how to interpret these observations. The standard interpretation is that the deceleration, then acceleration are real, not just apparent. Your interpretation is that they are only apparent; but your model can't even reproduce the apparent profile we observe, so your interpretation is not supported by its own model. So when we look close to us we'll see evidence of deceleration, and when we look further from us we'll see evidence of acceleration No, you have it backwards. When we look close to us, we see evidence of acceleration (because we're looking at what happened more recently in the universe's history), and when we look farther away, we see evidence of deceleration (because we're looking at what happened earlier in the universe's history). Your model does not reproduce that observation, so it's not a valid explanation.

fargolime 13y ago
> Really? What is your source for this extraordinary claim? You yourself said that the equations you used are generally accepted. That means people already understand their consequences. I'll respond only to this, as I've found here and before that you don't discuss fairly; that's unfortunately common in discussions about physics. It's logically impossible to provide a source to show that something isn't recognized elsewhere. (This should be obvious to a smart person such as yourself, which is in part why I say you don't discuss fairly.) But you can search all you want to see that the claim cannot be found elsewhere. That equations are generally accepted doesn't necessarily mean that people already understand their consequences. Understanding their consequences requires also experimenting with the equations in sufficiently various ways. Apparently that wasn't done until the blog author did it, or else I'd likely be able to do a Google search to find elsewhere that acceleration away can be shown by those equations. I'm confident that millions of science students would find "an unpowered projectile launched upward can accelerate away" highly interesting (maybe as well the physicist quoted in the blog post, who is mystified as to how his keys thrown upward could accelerate toward the ceiling). It should be an easy search if it was previously known.
- pdonis 13y ago
  I've found here and before that you don't discuss fairly You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm also entitled to mine, and since we're being open and honest I'll give it. My opinion is that you are not interested in actually understanding the mainstream theories of physics that you are criticizing (and neither is the author of the blog post you linked to); you are only interested in criticizing them. But you can't honestly criticize a theory that you don't understand; that means that before you criticize a theory, you must be able to explain what it says (even if you think that what it says is wrong) in a way that its own proponents agree to. I haven't yet seen you do this (and the author of the blog post you linked to doesn't either). See further comments below. Understanding their consequences requires also experimenting with the equations in sufficiently various ways. I agree with this in principle, but there aren't enough people or enough time to check all the consequences. So it's not a huge achievement just to calculate a new consequence; you need to show that it's significant. See below. And for the record, I also agree that the model in the blog post correctly applies the equations (although as you and it are using the term "acceleration", it should more properly be "coordinate acceleration"). I just don't agree that this model can explain our observations of redshifts and apparent brightness of distant objects, since its predictions don't match our actual observations of the universe. Apparently that wasn't done until the blog author did it, or else I'd likely be able to do a Google search to find elsewhere that acceleration away can be shown by those equations. Okay, let's assume you're right that nobody has ever done the precise calculations that the blog post's author did, before he did them. If you had said just that--that mainstream physics has never considered the calculation the blog post author did before--I might still have been a bit skeptical, but I probably would have let it pass. Your claim came across as a stronger claim than that; you appeared to be claiming that, if you showed the blog post's calculation to a mainstream physicist, they would say it was wrong--not wrong as in not applicable to the expansion of the universe, but wrong as in incorrectly calculating the consequences of the relativistic rocket equation. I strongly doubt that is the case, since, as I said above, I agree that the blog post author has calculated the correct numbers using the relativistic rocket equation (even though I don't agree with his application of those numbers to a different scenario). I strongly suspect that if you showed the blog post calculations to a physicist familiar with relativity (such as the author of the relativistic rocket equation page in the Usenet Physics FAQ, which the blog post links to), they would react the way I did: yes, this is a correct calculation using the relativistic rocket equation, but it's not relevant to the expansion of the universe. So saying that "generally accepted physics doesn't recognize that an unpowered projectile launched upward can accelerate away" does not, I think, describe what mainstream physics says in a way that a mainstream physicist would agree to.

pdonis 13y ago

when we look at various distances from the Earth we see various redshifts The redshifts are not the only evidence we look at; we also look at the relationship between apparent brightness of objects and their redshifts. See Ned Wright's cosmology FAQ for a good brief overview: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#CC http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#CC