On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 2:05 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> If 1) the universe is expanding and 2) the measured speed of light is >> constant for all observers then there is no choice, you MUST introduce >> hyperbolic geometry. If you deny hyperbolic geometry you must also deny at >> least one of those two. >> > > *> Complete BS! Physicists accept 1 & 2, and claim the universe is flat, > not hyperbolic! * > No they do not, they accept that space is flat, or nearly so, but as soon as you introduce the word "expanding" as in "expanding space" then you're no longer just talking about 3D space, you're talking about 4D spacetime because space is expanding with respect to TIME. > *> I see you ducked the issue of simultaneity as it effects time dilation > when comparing clock rates in two frames.* > I'm not going to give an entire lecture on the Twin Paradox complete with diagrams, but fortunately Dr. Don Lincoln did, in fact he gave 2, one without math and one with, take your pick: Twin paradox: the real explanation (no math) <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noaGNuQCW8A> Twin paradox: the real explanation (with math ) <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgvajuvSpF4> And if you want a more detailed explanation of time dilation in general Dr.Lincoln provided that too: Relativity: how people get time dilation wrong <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svwWKi9sSAA> I want to emphasise the nothing in any of these videos is the least bit controversial in the scientific community and has been well understood by physicists for 115 years; it seems to me that before you move onto the bleeding edge of current physical understanding you should have at least a passing familiarity with what is already known. *> It's easy to give a "proof" with fine words, but the actual proof is far > from easy.* > Special Relativity and a proof that the Twin Paradox is not really a paradox but just an odd effect is one hell of a lot easier to understand than General Relativity is! >>I see. So Hugh Everett's Many Worlds Theory is foolish but flying saucer >> men in Roswell New Mexico and your claim to have once written a scientific >> paper with Carl Sagan is not. >> > > *> I've asked you several times to support your claim that everything that > CAN happen, MUST happen, which is the core of Everett's interpretation.* > Right, and Everett's claim is as foolish as a claim that a electron must be entirely at point A or entirely at point B it can't be in a superposition of both... oh wait...it can. * > I worked with Sagan for 18 months in Cambridge MA, starting in March > 1966, and with him and others wrote three papers. I use an alias here, > which is why you couldn't confirm it. AG * > Oh now it's 3 papers, before you said "*At least one, maybe two. It was in 1966, so I don't have an exact recollection. AG*". I asked you to tell me about "Thermodynamic equilibria in planetary atmospheres" but apparently you've forgotten everything about that too even though you wrote a paper about it. I'll end with a quote from the great Carl Sagan, your coauthor : *"**Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"* John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2PxfBsVtuB4QafAPO0_qGvRDjW2Dn5pMZK3UP1s_Xygw%40mail.gmail.com.
