Actually, the claimed superluminal expansion is a coordinate artifact. Convert to a different set of coordinates and the expansion is understood as lightspeed at a maximum.
Actually, because of the principle of general covariance, it is necessary for academics to show that their cosmological calculations work in different coordinates. Thinking that is bound to special coordinates such as the Freidmann coordinates will only be confused by the fictitious forces exhibited therein. The standard mathematical precautions taken against this sort of problem have failed in this case.
Relativity itself disallows the necessity of thinking that space inherently expands or contracts. The principle of relativity instead allows anyone to think that space is stationary, and that matter and radiation are flying apart in it.
Yes you can use the Schwarzschild argument. Expanding space is only a handwaving rationalization, a coordinate-dependent way of thinking that is not compatible with the principle of general covariance.
If the gravitational source density was ever more than zero, then it follows that the contents of the universe were less massive in the past. In an inertial set of coordinates, not the screwy Freidmann coordinates, it can be understood that the shards of the Big Bang, flying apart at next to lightspeed, still add mass to the universe today, but at a diluted density.
Add together a hypothesis generator with a motivation calculator and a theorem prover. This has been shown long since to have the ability to regenerate number theory without further supervision by humans.
Actuallly, stationary gravitational fields do not curve space at all; all of the curvature is then in the direction of time. There are standard assertions to the contrary, but these are all out of confusion over coordinate artifacts.
Actually, wormholes break the Bianchi identities that are inherent in geometry. Wormholes are also mathematically equivalent to the existence of exotic matter - which would violate conservation laws.
Seriously everyone, the use of a special coordinate system does not actually allow for or make real any apparent superluminal expansion. The numbers that indicate speed faster than light are nothing more than artifacts from a non inertial and non homogenous coordinate system. It is a dirty secret that cosmological phenomenologists wave away with vague rhetoric. They ought to be required to validate their work with a different coordinate system, preferably an a priori Cartesian system.
When I look at the evidence for acceleration in terms of simple kinetics, I can only deduce either evolution of the supernovae in question (which is almost certainly so), or else deceleration of the universe. Phenomenologists may wave their hands (again) over the compilication of spacial curvature, but actually this is always dominated by the effect of simple gravity.
It is easy to think of a way to make free angular momentum from an actual magnetic monopole. Who can do this without searching the internet? Why do academics not do basic plausibility checks on their work?
And no, quantum mechanics is not exempt from conservation laws in ways that are macroscopically measurable. The Bianchi identities prohibit this where the metric exists. There was a failure to detect any slowing of gamma rays across the universe by vacuum effects.
I can see beat interference from the sampling wave - whether point impulse or square - as, by itself, sufficient reason for wanting to double the sample rate.
"21.9999kHz will be..." No, it will not be properly encoded. The beat interference from the sample frequency will be very prominent close to the Nyquist frequency.
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps the corporation should be required to declare a taxable value for the options. This might discourage such compensation, and this discouragement might serve the public purpose. While the options or stock are not redeemed, they could be taxed to the recipient one time at a business rate with a business sized exemption. If the options become worthless, then a business loss can be declared.
A tax on compensation is not a tax on wealth. As pointed out already, there is a loophole here in the present code. No tax is ever collected on the money loaned against the stock, nor is capital gains tax collected on on the estate passed on to heirs.
The firing of a cannon is not accidental. An engineer would be liable, I think off hand, if she had been asked to evaluate the failure modes and had not spotted this eventuality. Causality rules in this domain of physics. And a cannon ball in flight carries an indivisible and large amount of kinetic energy, the producers should have rated the precautions in proportion.
This is not correct. In order to distribute software which once possessed a GPL license, distributors must continue to provide source code for the modified product. The GPL license is not the Berkeley license.
The problem with the experiment is worse than than you think. AZSquib has audited the report and discovered that standard uncalibrated Ethernet timers were effectively used to timestamp the neutrino events. An impressive master clock was present but used to no effect, only to hide the long term drift.
The Einstein tensor is taken to be second rank for no other reason but convention.
Careful consideration makes it out to be fourth rank covariant, so that it is a "geometric object" with no artificial entanglement with the metric added in after the natural derivation. The requirement that a tensor be drawable, and that problems can be worked correctly on this drawing independent of changes in scale and sparseness, is one of the many corollary forms of general covariance. Artificial entanglement with the metric - by arbitrarily changing the tensor rank from fourth to second - breaks this requirement of general covariance. Breaking general covariance implies a favored set of units of measurement, where second rank and fourth rank tensors can have identical implications.
And consider that the Einstein tensor has units of measurement of L^-4; this is inherently fourth rank covariant. To derive the Einstein tensor from the metric, two exterior derivatives are taken (with a dual taken in between); these transform the result from the original second rank covariant to fourth rank covariant.
Take another exterior derivative on the Einstein tensor to arrive at the Bianchi identity. The terms of this identity correspond to conservation laws in mechanics.
"... the effect of dust on light propagation... simply doesn't explain the observations." But no term at all for this is included in the analysis. Long nano fibers would have an unfocused influence on the measurements.
"... why [do] you think the mathematical model is an "embarrassment" or are you simply trolling?" The cosmological constant and many other representations of dark energy are ruled out by the Bianchi identities that apply. This becomes plain when when the proper tensor rank is used for the spacetime entities invoked. The cosmological constant is an artifact of using a second rank tensor to represent the Einstein tensor, and a simple divergence operation to show conservation, instead of using the fourth rank tensor and exterior derivative operation that satisfy the criterion of general covariance. The Bianchi identities translate to the conservation laws in the context of mechanics, but in geometry they are theorems which follow when the metric exists.
"... phenomenology... " General relativity is not a mere metaphor, as epicycles were.
"... negative mass in Newton's formulae give antigravity... " Newton's formula for gravity does agree with this possibility that inheres in the Einstein tensor. It is also interesting that a simple acceleration of expansion gives supernovae that are closer and brighter at a given redshift.
"Yeah, yeah, tachyons with negative mass." I should have written negative momentum, which is a better translation into mechanics of the possibilities allowed by the Einstein tensor. There is no principle in geometry which disallows this feature of the Einstein tensor. The Bianchi identities conserve superluminal momentum in that same superluminal direction. The identities even allow superluminal dilation horizons.
Spacial dilation causes divergent spacial curvature, which progressively weakens the intensity of light as it travels. This agrees with the phenomenon.
But a non conserved version of dark energy is contrary to the Bianchi identities.
Dark energy represents an empirical set of evidence as well as a mathematical model. The empirical evidence could yet be interpreted in the context of the existence of accumulating carbon dust, and the evolution over history of the supernovae concerned - their increasing content of metals and their increasing spin as time progresses.
The mathematical model rates as an embarrassment from the perspective of my criticism of fundamental physics. What withstands criticism is a possible background of conserved negative mass, together with a possible background of negative tachyonic mass, which is conserved in its direction of propagation.
I have a tutorial topic list (Hacking Physics Tutorial) entailing about about 24 sessions that includes six sessions on solving general relativity by referencing scaled and sparse diagrams. High school graduates with a mastery of precalculus are not deterred by the pace of this, even when it is three am at "the bitter end". When academic physics is thoroughly reformed, this will not seem so radical.
You are substantially correct. Antimatter attracts light, and it also follows the same geodesic curve as matter would - there is evidence of this last from study of antineutrons. General relativity does have within itself room for the concept of regions of negative mass (but this is not what antimatter is made of). These regions would repel light, matter and other regions, but they would follow the same geodesic curve as matter would.
Dark matter is some kind of matter in motion. This is so because some properties of the phenomenon are inferred from the gravitational effect and then from the rate of condensation or equilibrium size and mass. The inferences are founded on theory or principle - those of general relativity and thermodynamics.
But all inferences are founded on some set of principles or theories. And, contrary to the trend of anti-intellectual rebellion in physics departments and elsewhere, general relativity is actually founded on theorems with an extremely economical premise - the existence of the metric. (The theorems are applications of the Bianchi identity.)
These considerations are sufficient to mark the existence of dark matter as a very elegant empirical result.
Your impulse to pronounce with the long sound is entirely legitimate; it would be especially so in west Michigan or Wisconsin. Remember that Linus himself when speaking his native language emits "LEENUKES" (the long sounds).
The relativity argument by Max Planck does fix the value of five constants of nature as determined by arbitrary human choice. Namely, physicists must decide on the magnitude of five units of measurement before they can do any measurements concerning those five constants. And it is even possible to chose units of measurement by specifying values for the five constants. (The relativistic invariant here is the physical magnitude of the constants.)
It only remains to argue then, that the speed of light is a constant for all qualified observers in their local vacuum. This argument depends on considering the contradictions in the definition of the electromagnetic potential that can arise when a central charge is reversed in its direction of travel. The full range of these contradictions are only resolved when changes in potential are required to propagate at a particular local speed that exceeds any possible speed of the central charge. (Academic literature not withstanding, superluminal charges make no sense.)
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the claimed superluminal expansion is a coordinate artifact. Convert to a different set of coordinates and the expansion is understood as lightspeed at a maximum.
Actually, because of the principle of general covariance, it is necessary for academics to show that their cosmological calculations work in different coordinates. Thinking that is bound to special coordinates such as the Freidmann coordinates will only be confused by the fictitious forces exhibited therein. The standard mathematical precautions taken against this sort of problem have failed in this case.
Relativity itself disallows the necessity of thinking that space inherently expands or contracts. The principle of relativity instead allows anyone to think that space is stationary, and that matter and radiation are flying apart in it.
Yes you can use the Schwarzschild argument. Expanding space is only a handwaving rationalization, a coordinate-dependent way of thinking that is not compatible with the principle of general covariance.
If the gravitational source density was ever more than zero, then it follows that the contents of the universe were less massive in the past. In an inertial set of coordinates, not the screwy Freidmann coordinates, it can be understood that the shards of the Big Bang, flying apart at next to lightspeed, still add mass to the universe today, but at a diluted density.
Add together a hypothesis generator with a motivation calculator and a theorem prover. This has been shown long since to have the ability to regenerate number theory without further supervision by humans.
Actuallly, stationary gravitational fields do not curve space at all; all of the curvature is then in the direction of time. There are standard assertions to the contrary, but these are all out of confusion over coordinate artifacts.
Actually, wormholes break the Bianchi identities that are inherent in geometry. Wormholes are also mathematically equivalent to the existence of exotic matter - which would violate conservation laws.
Seriously everyone, the use of a special coordinate system does not actually allow for or make real any apparent superluminal expansion. The numbers that indicate speed faster than light are nothing more than artifacts from a non inertial and non homogenous coordinate system. It is a dirty secret that cosmological phenomenologists wave away with vague rhetoric. They ought to be required to validate their work with a different coordinate system, preferably an a priori Cartesian system.
When I look at the evidence for acceleration in terms of simple kinetics, I can only deduce either evolution of the supernovae in question (which is almost certainly so), or else deceleration of the universe. Phenomenologists may wave their hands (again) over the compilication of spacial curvature, but actually this is always dominated by the effect of simple gravity.
It is easy to think of a way to make free angular momentum from an actual magnetic monopole. Who can do this without searching the internet? Why do academics not do basic plausibility checks on their work?
And no, quantum mechanics is not exempt from conservation laws in ways that are macroscopically measurable. The Bianchi identities prohibit this where the metric exists. There was a failure to detect any slowing of gamma rays across the universe by vacuum effects.
I can see beat interference from the sampling wave - whether point impulse or square - as, by itself, sufficient reason for wanting to double the sample rate.
Lety me add phase shift, frequency shift, stereo image blurring and oscillation, and beat interference to your list.
"21.9999kHz will be ..." No, it will not be properly encoded. The beat interference from the sample frequency will be very prominent close to the Nyquist frequency.
Perhaps the corporation should be required to declare a taxable value for the options. This might discourage such compensation, and this discouragement might serve the public purpose. While the options or stock are not redeemed, they could be taxed to the recipient one time at a business rate with a business sized exemption. If the options become worthless, then a business loss can be declared.
A tax on compensation is not a tax on wealth. As pointed out already, there is a loophole here in the present code. No tax is ever collected on the money loaned against the stock, nor is capital gains tax collected on on the estate passed on to heirs.
The firing of a cannon is not accidental. An engineer would be liable, I think off hand, if she had been asked to evaluate the failure modes and had not spotted this eventuality. Causality rules in this domain of physics. And a cannon ball in flight carries an indivisible and large amount of kinetic energy, the producers should have rated the precautions in proportion.
This is not correct. In order to distribute software which once possessed a GPL license, distributors must continue to provide source code for the modified product. The GPL license is not the Berkeley license.
AZSquib found the problem - uncalibrated 100MHz timers. The master clock only served to obscure the drift of these ordinary Ethernet timers.
AZSquib discovered in the paper that the cesium standard was not actually used for timing, but only to periodically reset the 100 MHz Ethernet timers to cover the drift of those crystals. http://blog.vixra.org/2011/09/19/can-neutrinos-be-superluminal/#comment-11088
The problem with the experiment is worse than than you think. AZSquib has audited the report and discovered that standard uncalibrated Ethernet timers were effectively used to timestamp the neutrino events. An impressive master clock was present but used to no effect, only to hide the long term drift.
http://blog.vixra.org/2011/09/19/can-neutrinos-be-superluminal/#comment-11088
The Einstein tensor is taken to be second rank for no other reason but convention.
Careful consideration makes it out to be fourth rank covariant, so that it is a "geometric object" with no artificial entanglement with the metric added in after the natural derivation. The requirement that a tensor be drawable, and that problems can be worked correctly on this drawing independent of changes in scale and sparseness, is one of the many corollary forms of general covariance. Artificial entanglement with the metric - by arbitrarily changing the tensor rank from fourth to second - breaks this requirement of general covariance. Breaking general covariance implies a favored set of units of measurement, where second rank and fourth rank tensors can have identical implications.
And consider that the Einstein tensor has units of measurement of L^-4; this is inherently fourth rank covariant. To derive the Einstein tensor from the metric, two exterior derivatives are taken (with a dual taken in between); these transform the result from the original second rank covariant to fourth rank covariant.
Take another exterior derivative on the Einstein tensor to arrive at the Bianchi identity. The terms of this identity correspond to conservation laws in mechanics.
--
Michael J. Burns
"... the effect of dust on light propagation ... simply doesn't explain the observations."
But no term at all for this is included in the analysis. Long nano fibers would have an unfocused influence on the measurements.
"... why [do] you think the mathematical model is an "embarrassment" or are you simply trolling?"
The cosmological constant and many other representations of dark energy are ruled out by the Bianchi identities that apply. This becomes plain when when the proper tensor rank is used for the spacetime entities invoked. The cosmological constant is an artifact of using a second rank tensor to represent the Einstein tensor, and a simple divergence operation to show conservation, instead of using the fourth rank tensor and exterior derivative operation that satisfy the criterion of general covariance. The Bianchi identities translate to the conservation laws in the context of mechanics, but in geometry they are theorems which follow when the metric exists.
"... phenomenology ... "
General relativity is not a mere metaphor, as epicycles were.
" ... negative mass in Newton's formulae give antigravity ... "
Newton's formula for gravity does agree with this possibility that inheres in the Einstein tensor. It is also interesting that a simple acceleration of expansion gives supernovae that are closer and brighter at a given redshift.
"Yeah, yeah, tachyons with negative mass."
I should have written negative momentum, which is a better translation into mechanics of the possibilities allowed by the Einstein tensor. There is no principle in geometry which disallows this feature of the Einstein tensor. The Bianchi identities conserve superluminal momentum in that same superluminal direction. The identities even allow superluminal dilation horizons.
Spacial dilation causes divergent spacial curvature, which progressively weakens the intensity of light as it travels. This agrees with the phenomenon.
But a non conserved version of dark energy is contrary to the Bianchi identities.
Dark energy represents an empirical set of evidence as well as a mathematical model. The empirical evidence could yet be interpreted in the context of the existence of accumulating carbon dust, and the evolution over history of the supernovae concerned - their increasing content of metals and their increasing spin as time progresses.
The mathematical model rates as an embarrassment from the perspective of my criticism of fundamental physics. What withstands criticism is a possible background of conserved negative mass, together with a possible background of negative tachyonic mass, which is conserved in its direction of propagation.
I have a tutorial topic list (Hacking Physics Tutorial) entailing about about 24 sessions that includes six sessions on solving general relativity by referencing scaled and sparse diagrams. High school graduates with a mastery of precalculus are not deterred by the pace of this, even when it is three am at "the bitter end". When academic physics is thoroughly reformed, this will not seem so radical.
--
Michael J. Burns
You are substantially correct. Antimatter attracts light, and it also follows the same geodesic curve as matter would - there is evidence of this last from study of antineutrons. General relativity does have within itself room for the concept of regions of negative mass (but this is not what antimatter is made of). These regions would repel light, matter and other regions, but they would follow the same geodesic curve as matter would.
Dark matter is some kind of matter in motion. This is so because some properties of the phenomenon are inferred from the gravitational effect and then from the rate of condensation or equilibrium size and mass. The inferences are founded on theory or principle - those of general relativity and thermodynamics.
But all inferences are founded on some set of principles or theories. And, contrary to the trend of anti-intellectual rebellion in physics departments and elsewhere, general relativity is actually founded on theorems with an extremely economical premise - the existence of the metric. (The theorems are applications of the Bianchi identity.)
These considerations are sufficient to mark the existence of dark matter as a very elegant empirical result.
Your impulse to pronounce with the long sound is entirely legitimate; it would be especially so in west Michigan or Wisconsin. Remember that Linus himself when speaking his native language emits "LEENUKES" (the long sounds).
The relativity argument by Max Planck does fix the value of five constants of nature as determined by arbitrary human choice. Namely, physicists must decide on the magnitude of five units of measurement before they can do any measurements concerning those five constants. And it is even possible to chose units of measurement by specifying values for the five constants. (The relativistic invariant here is the physical magnitude of the constants.)
It only remains to argue then, that the speed of light is a constant for all qualified observers in their local vacuum. This argument depends on considering the contradictions in the definition of the electromagnetic potential that can arise when a central charge is reversed in its direction of travel. The full range of these contradictions are only resolved when changes in potential are required to propagate at a particular local speed that exceeds any possible speed of the central charge. (Academic literature not withstanding, superluminal charges make no sense.)