The Ealing Interpretation

[Will Bouwman]

Asterix and Tintin?!?

Obelix throws a look of astonishment in your direction...

-Imp

Well, ya see, the idea was to write the book I wish could have explained relativity and quantum mechanics to me when I was 15.

[Will Bouwman]

I used to always keep a bottle of Sarsons malt vinegar in my glovebox. It's a must for me to have salt & vinegar with my chips - Oz only use white vinegar even at chip shops.

Ugh! That's why we threw them out 200 years ago.

[attofishpi]

I used to always keep a bottle of Sarsons malt vinegar in my glovebox. It's a must for me to have salt & vinegar with my chips - Oz only use white vinegar even at chip shops.

Ugh! That's why we threw them out 200 years ago.

Mate, London is a foreign land to most Englishmen.

I bet you'd have to search high and low to find a decent fish n chip shop in London -- prolly french fries to the horizons.

Well, I must add Will that originally I thought you were against my choice of malt vinegar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarson's but now am considering you are talking about the original reason for convicts!

Brian finds life extremely confusing extremely more often than Brian wants life to be..

[Will Bouwman]

Mate, London is a foreign land to most Englishmen.

I live here, no it isn't. You should watch fewer Tommy Robinson videos.

[attofishpi]

Mate, London is a foreign land to most Englishmen.

I live here, no it isn't. You should watch fewer Tommy Robinson videos.

Maybe you should comprehend the reality that most Englishmen consider London a foreign land...virtue of the fact that Englishmen are a minority in the capital of England.

That isn't RACIST...that is a FACT.

[Will Bouwman]

Anyway, back to thread:

Here's the latest version of something I've been working on for years. The beginning will be familiar to some of you, but the bulk is brand spanking new. It's my latest attempt to make big bang cosmology, field theory, quantum mechanics, chemistry, relativity and how motorbikes work accessible to those without a degree in physics - all in a cartoon book.

https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html

[Age]

Anyway, back to thread:

Here's the latest version of something I've been working on for years. The beginning will be familiar to some of you,

But, the beginning is still False and Wrong.

And, once more, for the reason that I have already expressed and shown.

but the bulk is brand spanking new. It's my latest attempt to make big bang cosmology, field theory, quantum mechanics, chemistry, relativity and how motorbikes work accessible to those without a degree in physics - all in a cartoon book.

Which might all be well and good, but if you really want to keep the parts that are Wrong and False, then they just distract from what you are actually attempting to do here.

[Noax]

Some notes that might help with the accuracy of the contents of the blog.
Excellent visuals on stuff like the absorbtion lines showing red shift.

question: when does light burn itself out?

As per Newton's first law of motion, photons carry on moving until some force stops them.

You can't put force on light, and it always moves at c (relative to any inertial frame, in a vacuum). Thing is, the universe is not described by inertial frames except locally. In an expanding frame, light still always moves at c, but its energy fades away as its wavelength increases over time. Likewise, moving objects with mass tend to come to rest, unlike how they behave relative to an inertial frame.

Another take on it is that the expansion of the universe, which has stretched the photons from the first flash of light into microwaves

Yes, that's how its described relative to the cosmic (expanding) frame.

when the idea that a universe at least 90 billion light years in diameter was once smaller than an atom is a sensible idea, yer up against a pretty high bar.

I found a similar quote in the blog, and it is contradictory. No amount of expansion of a finite size thing will result in an infinite size expansion. Plus, the idea of a universe being the size of a dot carries an implication that it has an edge which defies mathematical description. The universe cannot have an edge.

There is absolutely no proof at all that the Universe expands, yet this one believes, absolutely, that It does, and so just keeps claiming that the Universe, Itself, expands.

There's no proof of pretty much anything, but there is a heck of a lot of evidence of the universe expanding and no coherent model where it isn't.


After that quote, the topic sort of devolved into 8 pages of troll posts which is unfortunate Will. Maybe you shouldn't engage with Age, who's only successfully pushing your buttons.


On the relatvity section:
"at the speed of light, time stops". Time never stops. Light is not a valid frame, and in any valid frame light moves at c and time passes same as in any other inertial frame. I think it is a mistake to put this statement in the book.

Likewise, the comments like "If you travel in space and time, then it takes longer to reach the same 'time'". Did Einstein really say such ill defined (if not just wrong) things?

In the bits about the equivalence principle, you equate acceleration with 'speeding up' which it isn't. That's the dictionary definition, not the physics one, h which is 'change in velocity over time' which might just be a change in drection or slowing of speed. All are examples of acceleration.


I've seen the light-clock frames before. You might want to show one reflecting in the direction of motion in addition to the up/down example, but that example is indeed the root of the mathematics of the Lorentz transform and of dilation and contraction and stuff.

[Age]

Some notes that might help with the accuracy of the contents of the blog.
Excellent visuals on stuff like the absorbtion lines showing red shift.

question: when does light burn itself out?

As per Newton's first law of motion, photons carry on moving until some force stops them.

You can't put force on light, and it always moves at c (relative to any inertial frame, in a vacuum). Thing is, the universe is not described by inertial frames except locally. In an expanding frame, light still always moves at c, but its energy fades away as its wavelength increases over time. Likewise, moving objects with mass tend to come to rest, unlike how they behave relative to an inertial frame.

Another take on it is that the expansion of the universe, which has stretched the photons from the first flash of light into microwaves

Yes, that's how its described relative to the cosmic (expanding) frame.

when the idea that a universe at least 90 billion light years in diameter was once smaller than an atom is a sensible idea, yer up against a pretty high bar.

I found a similar quote in the blog, and it is contradictory. No amount of expansion of a finite size thing will result in an infinite size expansion. Plus, the idea of a universe being the size of a dot carries an implication that it has an edge which defies mathematical description. The universe cannot have an edge.

There is absolutely no proof at all that the Universe expands, yet this one believes, absolutely, that It does, and so just keeps claiming that the Universe, Itself, expands.

There's no proof of pretty much anything, but there is a heck of a lot of evidence of the universe expanding and no coherent model where it isn't.

LOL Talk about the BLIND and the DEAF leading, and following, the BLIND, and the DEAF.

ONCE AGAIN, it is NOT the Universe, Itself, that is expanding.

And, ONCE MORE, for those who are Truly interested in discovering what 'it' is, exactly, which appears to be expanding, then I am more than willing and ready to have a discussion. Until then the rest of you are absolutely free to continue on believing whatever you like.

After that quote, the topic sort of devolved into 8 pages of troll posts which is unfortunate Will. Maybe you shouldn't engage with Age, who's only successfully pushing your buttons.

Here 'we' can clearly see another one who, instead of seeking out any actual clarity at all, just assumes things from the outset, and then carries on as though its own assumptions are actually true and right.

Once more I will suggest that if, and when, you human beings START seeking out and obtaining actual clarification FIRST, then you will not be as Wrong as often as you are.

On the relatvity section:
"at the speed of light, time stops". Time never stops.

I have pointed out and mentioned this exact same thing, previously. Or, what you call 'trolling' and/or 'pushing buttons', before. But, when you say more or less the exact same thing/s, then it is not called 'trolling' nor 'pushing buttons', right?

Light is not a valid frame, and in any valid frame light moves at c and time passes same as in any other inertial frame. I think it is a mistake to put this statement in the book.

Saying, 'the Universe, Itself, is expanding' is also a mistake, but that does not stop you two from believing, and claiming, that It does.

Likewise, the comments like "If you travel in space and time, then it takes longer to reach the same 'time'". Did Einstein really say such ill defined (if not just wrong) things?

In the bits about the equivalence principle, you equate acceleration with 'speeding up' which it isn't. That's the dictionary definition, not the physics one, h which is 'change in velocity over time' which might just be a change in drection or slowing of speed. All are examples of acceleration.


I've seen the light-clock frames before. You might want to show one reflecting in the direction of motion in addition to the up/down example, but that example is indeed the root of the mathematics of the Lorentz transform and of dilation and contraction and stuff.

[RickLewis]

darn, I was hoping for the craziest title...

-Imp

The world is sick. It needs 'Ealing.

[Noax]

ONCE AGAIN, it is NOT the Universe, Itself, that is expanding.

Well, technically it is space that is expanding over time. The universe doesn't exist in time, so it doesn't syntactically make sense to say it is what is expanding, but that's what people often say when they refer to the expansion of space.

And, ONCE MORE, for those who are Truly interested in discovering what 'it' is, exactly, which appears to be expanding, then I am more than willing and ready to have a discussion. Until then the rest of you are absolutely free to continue on believing whatever you like.


You didn't actually say much else in the post, except a bunch of off-topic ad-homs.

On the relatvity section:
"at the speed of light, time stops". Time never stops.

As a matter of fact, time isn't something that 'goes' in the first place, at least per the view that the universe isn't contained by time. By the latter view (where it IS contained by time), the universe is indeed expanding.

[Impenitent]

another general question:

space is usually measured between two points (or is that strictly distance?) ...

how are we defining space?

the distance from Africa to South America is constantly changing (continental shift) whereas they were at one time Pangaea...

is the space thereof therefore expanding?

eventually, the continents may reunite (collapsing on itself) on the other side of the planet causing another big bang and subsequent expansion...

are we considering a bounded universe as the surface of the planet? or something more?

the more that I think about it, it appears that distance is usually measured in fewer dimensions than space (although it doesn't have to be)

-Imp

[Noax]

another general question:

space is usually measured between two points (or is that strictly distance?) ...

Space is all the points, but a measurement of it is yes, usually taken between a pair of points.

Will Bouwman may choose different definitions, so what I say isn't exactly the only valid definitions.

the distance from Africa to South America is constantly changing

is the space thereof therefore expanding?

That's motion through space, not space expanding.
There's reasons why all the distant galaxies receding cannot be described as motion. Were it not for dark energy, it probably could be thus described as simple motion through space, such as you get with the zero-energy Milne solution of flat spacetime.

Space expansion is accelerating and there's no evidence of it ever turning around. This was an open question for a long time until careful measurement were taken that showed the acceleration.

are we considering a bounded universe as the surface of the planet? or something more?

Again, Will may suggest otherwise, but the surface of a planet is finite but not bounded. Yes, such a surface can expand (balloon analog), resulting in more area.

the more that I think about it, it appears that distance is usually measured in fewer dimensions than space (although it doesn't have to be)

If one chooses a spatial axis orientation to align with both points between which the distance is being measured, then one dimension is enough, regardless of how many spatial dimensions there actually are.

[Will Bouwman]

Some notes that might help with the accuracy of the contents of the blog.

Thank you.

Excellent visuals on stuff like the absorbtion lines showing red shift.

Thank you for that too.

question: when does light burn itself out?

As per Newton's first law of motion, photons carry on moving until some force stops them.

You can't put force on light, and it always moves at c (relative to any inertial frame, in a vacuum). Thing is, the universe is not described by inertial frames except locally. In an expanding frame, light still always moves at c, but its energy fades away as its wavelength increases over time. Likewise, moving objects with mass tend to come to rest, unlike how they behave relative to an inertial frame.

Well, light does what light does, it moves through any given medium at the velocity the refractive index of that medium sets. A vacuum is a mathematical ideal that doesn't exist anywhere in the observable universe; more or less by definition. If anything is observable, then space isn't truly empty; there are at least photons and anything visible will, however weakly, exert some gravitational influence. And then there's stuff we don't know about like dark matter and dark energy.
I think it is a bit misleading that physics describes longer wavelengths of light as being less energetic. It is true that a beam of blue light will transmit more energy than an equal beam of red light, but if a blue beam is stretched into red by the expansion of space, it doesn't lose energy, its energy is just spread over a greater length.
That moving objects come to rest is news to me. I'm still under the impression that everything maintains its velocity until acted on by some force. Gravity, as per Einstein, can be described as the effect of warped spacetime rather than a force. Either way, light is deflected.

when the idea that a universe at least 90 billion light years in diameter was once smaller than an atom is a sensible idea, yer up against a pretty high bar.

I found a similar quote in the blog, and it is contradictory. No amount of expansion of a finite size thing will result in an infinite size expansion. Plus, the idea of a universe being the size of a dot carries an implication that it has an edge which defies mathematical description. The universe cannot have an edge.

Why not?

On the relatvity section:
"at the speed of light, time stops". Time never stops. Light is not a valid frame, and in any valid frame light moves at c and time passes same as in any other inertial frame. I think it is a mistake to put this statement in the book.

In the section that deals with time, I try and make my case that time is nothing more than change, which we measure by counting cyclical events: the Earth going round the sun, Earth rotating on its axis, pendulums swinging and so on. The speed of light being the absolute limit, there can be no interactions between particles, therefore no change. Hence no change = no time.

Likewise, the comments like "If you travel in space and time, then it takes longer to reach the same 'time'". Did Einstein really say such ill defined (if not just wrong) things?

Well that needs to be read in the context of relativity. If, relative to you, someone is moving through space, then an equivalent event, such as the pulse of a light clock, will happen in your inertial frame before it happens in the frame you are observing.

In the bits about the equivalence principle, you equate acceleration with 'speeding up' which it isn't. That's the dictionary definition, not the physics one, h which is 'change in velocity over time' which might just be a change in drection or slowing of speed. All are examples of acceleration.

I can only assume you missed the page that concludes: "So while Special Relativity shows how moving smoothly affects time, General Relativity shows the effect of acceleration, whether that is speeding up, gravity or changing direction."

I've seen the light-clock frames before. You might want to show one reflecting in the direction of motion in addition to the up/down example, but that example is indeed the root of the mathematics of the Lorentz transform and of dilation and contraction and stuff.

Relativity is much richer than my book suggests, but the aim of the book is to give people with little understanding of mathematics an idea of what actually happens at speed and under acceleration, as well as how technology such as steam engines and clocks work..

[Age]

ONCE AGAIN, it is NOT the Universe, Itself, that is expanding.

Well, technically it is space that is expanding over time.

LOL

And, what do the words 'space' and 'time' refer to, exactly?

When, and if, you come to work out, or learn, and understand what those things are , exactly, then you will see, and understand, just how Wrong, and Inaccurate, your claim is here.

The universe doesn't exist in time, so it doesn't syntactically make sense to say it is what is expanding, [/quote]

Yet here you were saying this very exact thing.

but that's what people often say when they refer to the expansion of space.

And, this is WHY it took these human beings, back in the 'olden days' when this was being written, so long to 'catch up'. People also often said that the sun revolves around the earth as well. But, as some of 'us' know anyway, what people 'often say' is not necessarily even remotely close to what is actually True.

For example some people might say, 'space expands', but until those people who say and claim this inform the rest of 'us' what a 'peer reviewed' agreement of what the 'space' word is referring to, exactly, then the 'rest of us' have NO idea what those people are actually meaning and/or are referring to, exactly.

And, ONCE MORE, for those who are Truly interested in discovering what 'it' is, exactly, which appears to be expanding, then I am more than willing and ready to have a discussion. Until then the rest of you are absolutely free to continue on believing whatever you like.

You didn't actually say much else in the post, except a bunch of off-topic ad-homs.

Really?

Would you like to provide any actual examples?

Also, what are 'ad-homs', to you, exactly?

And, I have already proved what 'it' is that is expanding. Which, again, is NOT the Universe, Itself, and which I am willing to discuss.

Are you willing to have a discussion, here?

By the way, did you even get around to explaining what 'space' and 'time' are, exactly, to you?

On the relatvity section:
"at the speed of light, time stops". Time never stops.

As a matter of fact, time isn't something that 'goes' in the first place, at least per the view that the universe isn't contained by time. By the latter view (where it IS contained by time), the universe is indeed expanding.

And, it is these kinds of contradictions WHY human beings were, still, so LOST and CONFUSED, in those days when this was being written.

I suggest you define the word 'time' before you go making these Truly ABSURD and WILD claims that you are, here.