On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 at 4:01:16 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 2:05 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected] > <javascript:>> 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 alread*y k*nown. >
*Is your confusion accidental or deliberate? The Twin Paradox represents an asymmetric situation, whereas the issue I raised is a symmetric situation where the apparent paradox is allegedly resolved by an appeal to the breakdown of simultaneity. AG* > > *> 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. > *It could just mean there's a probability of being in one of two states, and nothing more. But you've ducked the question again, namely the claim that everything that CAN happen, MUST happen, which is a key claim of Everett's interpretation. I have to suppose you keep ducking this issue because you have no justification for it. AG* > > * > 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"* > *There's nothing extraordinary in my claim. And it's not really a big deal. You found the papers but didn't recognize that I was one of the authors, and I explained why. There were two articles, one on hyper- sensitizing infra-red photographic plates, and a second on the Martian wave of darkening. That was 54 years ago. I deeply apologize for not having an exact memory of the number of articles. AG* > > 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/88ef8714-2c61-453f-9972-1fd4e5522c37%40googlegroups.com.
