The Ealing Interpretation

[Age]

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.

So, this one believes that different people can have and use different definitions, and they can all have and be so-called 'valid definitions'.

It is this kind of attempts at 'justifying' why they were, still, 'looking for' answers, back when this was being written.

the distance from Africa to South America is constantly changing

is the space thereof therefore expanding?

That's motion through space, not space expanding.

So, explain what 'space' is, exactly, and then explain how 'that' can and does expand, exactly, and, cannot and does not expand, exactly?

Just making claims, only, is not helping you getting others here accepting of and agreeing with your 'current' beliefs and/or 'current' presumptions

Also, absolutely confusing and contradicting things is not helping you neither.

There's reasons why all the distant galaxies receding cannot be described as motion.

So, how far 'distant' does a galaxy have to be to be 'receding'?

Are you at all able to explain why, supposedly, only the so-called 'distant galaxies' are all receding?

you really do have a very narrowed view and perspective of things here.

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.

LOL What a load of absolute 'hogwash' here, as some would say.

Watching you trying to provide the evidence, let alone the actual proof, for your belief and claim here would be absolutely hilarious to watch.

Space expansion is accelerating and there's no evidence of it ever turning around.

The only so-called 'evidence' of so-called 'space expansion' is the same 'evidence' that people claimed about how the sun revolves around the earth.

And, do not forget people just like you too claimed, till their death also, that there is NO evidence of things being the other way around as well.

How Wrong you and they were.

This was an open question for a long time until careful measurement were taken that showed the acceleration.

LOL
LOL
LOL

The very reason WHY you people, back in the 'olden days' when this is being written, are MISSING the very thing, which has caused you people to conclude, and believe, the Truly Inaccurate and Incorrect things here is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS. Yet, here you all are continuing in and with your MISGUIDED BELIEFS

you completely CLOSED view of things here is not letting you see and understand what is actually, and irrefutably, Accurate and Correct, here.

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

Again, Will may suggest otherwise,

LOL This is written as though "will" ALREADY KNOWS the answer/s.

"will bouwman" is, still, STUCK in, and with, it's ow 'current' BELIEFS and PRESUMPTIONS, here.

but the surface of a planet is finite but not bounded.

If you were to OPEN UP, then how it is bounded can be more clearly seen, and understood.

Yes, such a surface can expand (balloon analog), resulting in more area.

Once again, 'we' have here another example of one 'trying to' 'justify' an IMPOSSIBILITY.

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.

HOW TO CLEAR UP the MESS that these ones have CAUSED and CREATED was SO OBVIOUSLY, but SADLY they were just NOT INTERESTED in LEARNING HOW TO.

[Will Bouwman]

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.

I'm not really bothered by definitions. I don't think you can define words in such a way that will fit every context. The space between me and the window is however many units of distance you happen to choose. For the purposes of the book, space is conceived as a rarified field of big bang stuff. I don't know whether that is actually what space is, but to my mind, it's a useful tool for explaining how matter, energy and force work.

[Age]

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.

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.

LOL These human beings, back then, could not reach agreement on what 'space' is nor on what 'time' is, however, they thought that if 'we' combine those two words together, then others will think, or hopefully believe, that 'we' know what 'we' are talking about.

Which was a Truly funny thing to watch unfold, and to play out.

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]

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.

I'm not really bothered by definitions.

This is very obvious, you choosing not to define the words that you use when you are asked to shows that you are not really bothered by definitions.

Which explains more clearly why you believe some of the things that you do here.

I don't think you can define words in such a way that will fit every context.

What are you basing this on, other than your own past experiences of course?

The space between me and the window is however many units of distance you happen to choose. For the purposes of the book, space is conceived as a rarified field of big bang stuff.

LOL It is this kind of 'hogwash', as some call it, why these people were never really taken serious.

I don't know whether that is actually what space is, but to my mind, it's a useful tool for explaining how matter, energy and force work.

LOL How does 'matter', itself, work, exactly?

[Noax]

You can't put force on light, and it always moves at c (relative to any inertial frame, in a vacuum).

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

Well I put that bit in there because my statement wouldn't be true if either were not the case. Sure, both are mathematical ideals that doesn't exist anywhere.

For example: Visible distant galaxies are receding at say 2.5c, which doesn't violate relativity since it isn't a velocity being expressed relative to any inertial frame. There IS an approximate inertial frame that contains that galaxy, and relative to it, said distant thing is receding at only about .98c
Almost nobody uses such frames to describe cosmological distances since it has so little utility. It also alters the 'light travel time' of the light we see, which is frequently used to compute a completely useless distance to the observed thing.

And then there's stuff we don't know about like dark matter and dark energy.

Pretty sure dark energy is not 'stuff' that would have a refractive index. Dark matter does contribute to gravitational potential and thus, like any nearby mass, it affects non-local light speed, but since it does not interact with light, I'm pretty sure it also does not contribute to any refractive index.

I think it is a bit misleading that physics describes longer wavelengths of light as being less energetic.

But it is. Energy of light can be computed directly from its wavelength. That makes it totally frame dependent, sure. Any photon has as much or little energy as you want depending on your choice of local inertial frame used to measure it.

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.

This can't be right. A given beam spread out has half the energy per photon, but not more photons. The light is not only less energetic, it is also dimmer. To say otherwise is equivalent to saying the energy of the light is not frame dependent.

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.

Relative to an inertial frame, sure, but not relative to the cosmological frame where velocity is absolute (called peculiar velocity, a frame invariant value). All objects, in the absence of external force, slow down.

For instance, I shoot a rock at 0.8c towards a galaxy receding at 0.8c. It will never get there (and in fact it will get further away), but assuming no acceleration of expansion, its comoving distance from that galaxy will get arbitrarily small, meaning it's peculiar velocity will be arbitrarily small.

The universe cannot have an edge.

Why not?

Then it really would be 'moving into empty space', and the universe would be a huge finite mass all in one place. That's an instant black hole, and a quick end.

I try and make my case that time is nothing more than change, which we measure by counting cyclical events

You can count cyclic events in any valid frame, so this definition works. Light does not constitute a valid frame of reference, so it is meaningless to speak of cycles in a meaningless frame. So 'time stops' is not true in a different sort of frame where time is not defined at all.

therefore no change. Hence no change = no time.

Agree with that, but 'no time' and 'time stops' are very different things.

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.[/quote]
That's time dilation in a nutshell. I don't think the bolded quote attributed to Einstein conveys anything like that, which is why I ask if he actually said that somewhere.

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 did miss that page. SR describes acceleration just fine, and GR used the equivalence principle to apply the mathematics of acceleration from SR to local gravitational field, which is locally inertial.
Again, my comment wasn't about any of that, but rather of the physics definition of acceleration, which is a 'vector change in velocity', and not 'scalar change in speed' which is how I see it being used.

Incidentally, we asked several chatbots if GR is required to describe an accelerated frame, and they all got the answer wrong.

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.

Fair enough. It is indeed not intended to be a textbook about various topics. I'm just trying to render a bit of peer review. Don't ask me to do tensor calculus. I don't need to know how to do that for the purposes for which I learned it.

[Noax]

technically it is space that is expanding over time.

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

Both are interpretation and context dependent, but the words refer to the metric in this case.

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.

You've provided no alternative, so your words are empty. You seem not at all 'willing to have a discussion'.

And, I have already proved what 'it' is that is expanding.

8 pages of posts. No, I did not read them all. I seriously doubt there is any 'proof' of anything submitted in it all.

Which, again, is NOT the Universe, Itself, and which I am willing to discuss.

I agree that despite that common A-series wording, it is not the universe that is expanding (my opinion), but given an A-interpretation of time, it very much is the universe that is expanding.

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

Again, interpretation and context dependent. In the context of a comment saying "time isn't something that 'goes'.", it presumes an interpretation of time, one for which there isn't a proof.

So, this one believes that different people can have and use different definitions, and they can all have and be so-called 'valid definitions'.

Right. As I said, the usage of the word is interpretation and context dependent. Three times I've said that now.

So, explain what 'space' is, exactly, and then explain how 'that' can and does expand, exactly, and, cannot and does not expand, exactly?

In the context of continental drift, space is referring to a coordinate change in the distance between continents. I'm sorry if you are incapable of realizing a word usage through context.

There's reasons why all the distant galaxies receding cannot be described as motion.

So, how far 'distant' does a galaxy have to be to be 'receding'?

The word 'receding' in that context usually applies to objects not gravitationally bound to our local group. For instance, the primary nearby mass is the Virgo supercluster, which is largely responsible for our galaxy's peculiar velocity of about 600 km/sec. Despite that, we are recessing from Virgo and will never reach it.

you really do have a very narrowed view and perspective of things here.

You seem to have no view at all, except that we're all wrong. I am having a discussion, just not with you since you don't contribute anything productive.

LOL What a load of absolute 'hogwash' here, as some would say.

As apparently you would say, the guy with no alternative. I would actually question my posts if you actually agreed with it, so thank you for the assessment.

letting you see and understand what is actually, and irrefutably, Accurate and Correct, here.

But no refutation of what I've said has been provided, and no alternative irrefutable claim has been made. OK, you claim it is buried in a post lost somewhere in a sea of hate, but perhaps a link to this self-assessed brilliance would be nice.

[seeds]

LOL What a load of absolute 'hogwash' here, as some would say.

As apparently you would say, the guy with no alternative. I would actually question my posts if you actually agreed with it, so thank you for the assessment.

letting you see and understand what is actually, and irrefutably, Accurate and Correct, here.

But no refutation of what I've said has been provided, and no alternative irrefutable claim has been made. OK, you claim it is buried in a post lost somewhere in a sea of hate, but perhaps a link to this self-assessed brilliance would be nice.

Here's the link you need, Noax...

viewtopic.php?p=736109#p736109

...You're welcome!
_______

[Age]

technically it is space that is expanding over time.

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

Both are interpretation and context dependent, but the words refer to the metric in this case.

So, once more, 'we' have here another one who makes out it knows what it is talking about, yet when questioned over what it is actually meaning it fails, absolutely, to clarify.

As 'we' will soon see, again.

What does the word 'metric' here mean, or 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.

You've provided no alternative, so your words are empty.

Has ANY one shown ANY interest in finding out what the 'alternative', to you, is, exactly?

If no, then WHY would I bother writing out what actually happens and occurs here?

you people seem to be quite happy and content with your varying 'current' beliefs, and I am quite happy leaving you all in those very different unverified and unsubstantiated reliefs that you all have.

You seem not at all 'willing to have a discussion'.[/quote]

LOL Talk about another example of one being absolutely CLOSED.

AGAIN, if ANY one would like to have a discussion about ANY thing here, then I am more than willing, wanting, and ready to. Now, it is an absolute impossibility for the Universe, Itself, to expand, and if ANY one would like to find out what actually happens and occurs, then I am very willing to share this.

And, I have already proved what 'it' is that is expanding.

8 pages of posts. No, I did not read them all. I seriously doubt there is any 'proof' of anything submitted in it all.

LOL Could this one prove anymore just how ABSOLUTELY CLOSED it really is?

From this one's perspective, 'I am not going to read what you write nor listen to what you have to say because I doubt there will be any 'proof' 'there'.'

And this my friends is, exactly, WHY these people took so very, very long to also come to find out and learn what the actual Truth is.

Which, again, is NOT the Universe, Itself, and which I am willing to discuss.

I agree that despite that common A-series wording, it is not the universe that is expanding (my opinion), but given an A-interpretation of time, it very much is the universe that is expanding.

1. What is a so-called 'A-series' an 'A-interpretation', to you, exactly?

2. What is the 'A-interpretation' of 'time', exactly?

3. The Universe cannot and is NOT expanding. It is a physical and logical impossibility to do so.

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

Again, interpretation and context dependent. In the context of a comment saying "time isn't something that 'goes'.", it presumes an interpretation of time, one for which there isn't a proof.

Were you under some illusion that there was 'proof' for 'interpretations' or that 'interpretations' needed 'proof'?

By definition, 'an interpretation' is, literally, NOT some thing that necessarily comes with 'proof'. However, if your are presented 'interpretations', which there is not proof for, then WHY present 'such interpretations'?

you might as well present 'your interpretation' that 'the devil' created it all, while 'we' just presume 'your interpretation' as one for which there is not ANY 'proof'.

If you are going to present things here that you cannot even back up and support, then why even bother?

So, this one believes that different people can have and use different definitions, and they can all have and be so-called 'valid definitions'.

Right. As I said, the usage of the word is interpretation and context dependent. Three times I've said that now.

Yes, OF COURSE, you have said this three times already. But, just saying some thing is interpretation and context dependent does not, obviously, tell 'us' what the 'interpretation' and 'context' is, exactly. Nor does it inform 'us' of how the claim the the Universe is, or even could be, expanding, expanding.

So, until you come forth with the actual information your words here are just empty.

So, explain what 'space' is, exactly, and then explain how 'that' can and does expand, exactly, and, cannot and does not expand, exactly?

In the context of continental drift, space is referring to a coordinate change in the distance between continents. I'm sorry if you are incapable of realizing a word usage through context.

See how this one only explains what was already blatantly obvious, but does not even begin to explain anything else, here?

The very reason why the other poster chose to question this one here was to gain clarification, but once again none is given. This one has not cleared up nor clarified any thing at all, here.

This one's attempt at deflection, and accusation directed at me, in order to 'try to' deflect from its inabilities here also did not go unnoticed.

There's reasons why all the distant galaxies receding cannot be described as motion.

So, how far 'distant' does a galaxy have to be to be 'receding'?

The word 'receding' in that context usually applies to objects not gravitationally bound to our local group.

LOL So, in other words, what is not 'gravitationally bound' is not 'gravitationally bound'. Are you able to say what is NOT obvious, and answer the answer question that I asked instead of some other thing that I NEVER, asked nor spoke and wrote, about?

For instance, the primary nearby mass is the Virgo supercluster, which is largely responsible for our galaxy's peculiar velocity of about 600 km/sec.

Why do you say and claim 'peculiar velocity'?

What is the 'peculiar' word relative to, and in what context, exactly?

Despite that, we are recessing from Virgo and will never reach it.

So what?

This obviously had absolutely nothing at all to do with the actual clarify question that I posed, and asked you, here.

you really do have a very narrowed view and perspective of things here.

You seem to have no view at all, except that we're all wrong.

What you said and wrote here may be what you seems to you, alone, but it could not be more False nor more Wrong.

I am having a discussion, just not with you since you don't contribute anything productive.

If you say and believe so.

What have you contributed that is so-called 'productive'?

LOL What a load of absolute 'hogwash' here, as some would say.

As apparently you would say, the guy with no alternative.

LOL Again, you could not be more CLOSED, here.

This one, laughingly, actually believes, absolutely, that I have NO alternative, AT ALL.

I would actually question my posts if you actually agreed with it, so thank you for the assessment.

Again, just how CLOSED human beings could be, and actually were, can be very clearly seen by this one.

letting you see and understand what is actually, and irrefutably, Accurate and Correct, here.

But no refutation of what I've said has been provided, and no alternative irrefutable claim has been made.

But, I have already refuted your continued claim that the Universe is expanding. And, I did this by showing, through proof, what is actually True, and Right, instead

OK, you claim it is buried in a post lost somewhere in a sea of hate, but perhaps a link to this self-assessed brilliance would be nice.

What are you even on about, here?

There was, and is, absolutely NOTHING 'buried', NO 'hate', nor ANY 'self-assessed brilliance' AT ALL, here, Well NONE by 'me' anyway. But, if you want to continue believing and claiming there is, then I suggest you back up and support your belief and claim with some actual proof.

Until then what 'we' have here is just further proof of what happens when one is as CLOSED as this one obviously is, here.

[Age]

LOL What a load of absolute 'hogwash' here, as some would say.

As apparently you would say, the guy with no alternative. I would actually question my posts if you actually agreed with it, so thank you for the assessment.

letting you see and understand what is actually, and irrefutably, Accurate and Correct, here.

But no refutation of what I've said has been provided, and no alternative irrefutable claim has been made. OK, you claim it is buried in a post lost somewhere in a sea of hate, but perhaps a link to this self-assessed brilliance would be nice.

Here's the link you need, Noax...

viewtopic.php?p=736109#p736109

...You're welcome!
_______

So, the LIES and MISLEADING information continues.

And, as always, if absolutely ANY would like to have a discussion here to find out what the actual Truth is here, then let 'us' proceed.

[Noax]

Here's the link you need, Noax...

viewtopic.php?p=736109#p736109

Well, you got him pegged for sure. 'This one' followed your prediction perfectly with the opening line following your post:

Both are interpretation and context dependent, but the words refer to the metric in this case.

What does the word 'metric' here mean, or refer to, exactly?

Right on schedule, just as you predicted.

You forgot that like 'truth social', all the assertions are lies. I'll pick a few, which will no doubt be denied.

For one, right out of the troll handbook, is to continuously claim one has the better solution, but to never actually show said solution since it is nether better nor existent. So no, nobody wants to see it.

The big lie:

I am quite happy leaving you all in those very different unverified and unsubstantiated reliefs that you all have.

You can answer this one yourself:

LOL What a load of absolute 'hogwash' here, as some would say.

If you were quite happy to do leaving us all, you would do it, but you are not capable. The more truthful statement is that we'd all be happy if you left.

And this my friends.

I don't think you've made any friends here

I'll actually answer two questions.

Again, interpretation and context dependent. In the context of a comment saying "time isn't something that 'goes'.", it presumes an interpretation of time, one for which there isn't a proof.

Were you under some illusion that there was 'proof' for 'interpretations' or that 'interpretations' needed 'proof'?

Nothing in my comment you quoted suggested that an interpretation has or requires proof, so the answer is a simple 'no', which you would have seen if you utilized reading comprehension.

Why do you say and claim 'peculiar velocity'?

What is the 'peculiar' word relative to, and in what context, exactly?

More evidence of only grade school knowledge of physics. If you actually wanted to know, you could google it and troll the answers you get there. I don't owe an education to one that displays no interest in it.

[Age]

Here's the link you need, Noax...

viewtopic.php?p=736109#p736109

Well, you got him pegged for sure. 'This one' followed your prediction perfectly with the opening line following your post:

Both are interpretation and context dependent, but the words refer to the metric in this case.

What does the word 'metric' here mean, or refer to, exactly?

Right on schedule, just as you predicted.

And, right on schedule you were completely and utterly INCAPABLE of just saying what 'metric' means, to you

And, this is because you, laughingly, do not even know, and worse still you did not even recognize that you do not even know what it means.

What you are too STUPID to also realize is that what "seeds" predicted what I would do with "will bouwman" I NEVER did do. And, asking you to clarify what you meant was to SHOW and PROVE to the readers here that you COULD NOT CLARIFY. Which you have done successfully, for me.

And, you COULD NOT CLARIFY BECAUSE YOU WERE INCAPABLE TO.

You forgot that like 'truth social', all the assertions are lies. I'll pick a few, which will no doubt be denied.

For one, right out of the troll handbook, is to continuously claim one has the better solution, but to never actually show said solution since it is nether better nor existent. So no, nobody wants to see it.

LOL More proof of just how much of a Truly CLOSED person this one REALLY IS.

ONCE MORE for the VERY SLOW IF LEARNING and UNDERSTANDING, in only ELABORATE, EXPLAIN FURTHER, and CLARIFY when ASKED TO.

How much more SIMPLER could I make this?

The big lie:

I am quite happy leaving you all in those very different unverified and unsubstantiated reliefs that you all have.

You can answer this one yourself:

LOL What a load of absolute 'hogwash' here, as some would say.

If you were quite happy to do leaving us all, you would do it, but you are not capable. The more truthful statement is that we'd all be happy if you left.

And, just like those who BELIEVED that the sun revolves around the earth would have all been happy if they were left with their 'current' BELIEFS do to, as it can be clearly seen', these ones with their False BELIEFS would be much happier if, and when they are 'left alone'.

Contrary to POPULAR BELIEF when you human beings so-call 'die' you do NOT go 'back' and understand things, are NOT living in a beginning and expanding Universe, nor space, and do NOT have your own minds.

But, please feel absolutely FREE to keep on BELIEVING these things. As you ones doing so here are proving ABSOLUTELY what I have been and will be saying and claiming ABOUT who and what you human beings are, what your purpose is in Life, and how you actually work, exactly.

And this my friends.

I don't think you've made any friends here

LOL Another one who thinks it BELIEVES that this tiny little forum is the end it intended goal.

I'll actually answer two questions.

Again, interpretation and context dependent. In the context of a comment saying "time isn't something that 'goes'.", it presumes an interpretation of time, one for which there isn't a proof.

Were you under some illusion that there was 'proof' for 'interpretations' or that 'interpretations' needed 'proof'?

Nothing in my comment you quoted suggested that an interpretation has or requires proof, so the answer is a simple 'no', which you would have seen if you utilized reading comprehension.

If you UNDERSTOOD and COMPREHENDED what I was asking, ONLY, then you would NOT have PRESUMED what you CLEARLY HAVE, here.

you would have also NOT made the Truly CONTRADICTORY statement that you said and made here.

Why do you say and claim 'peculiar velocity'?

What is the 'peculiar' word relative to, and in what context, exactly?

More evidence of only grade school knowledge of physics. If you actually wanted to know, you could google it and troll the answers you get there. I don't owe an education to one that displays no interest in it.

Here 'we' can, AGAIN, see VERY CLEARLY proof of ANOTHER one who is ABSOLUTELY INCAPABLE of just CLARIFYING what it says and CLAIMS, here. And, AGAIN, this is BECAUSE it has ABSOLUTELY NO idea NOR clue as to what it is is talking about.

The PROOF that it does not can be found in the literature, which if it had ALREADY read would KNOW this, ALREADY.

LOL It is like this one BELIEVES that it is 'I' who has to educate 'it'.

CLEARLY, this one can NOT just inform the readers here what 'it' is, laughingly, so-called 'peculiar' in relation to, exactly, BECAUSE "noax" has ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA nor CLUE, AT ALL.

"noax", like others here, just repeat the same 'stuff' that they have heard and/or read but without EVER questioning what 'it' actually means nor is even referring to, exactly.

These ones, as can be CLEARLY SEEN, here, are exactly like those of the 'long gone'. They will just 're-repeat' what they have been told or have read, and which they just accept without questioning and which they BELIEVE, absolutely.

LOL 'peculiar velocity'.

Furthermore, and by the way, you NEVER actually ANSWERED the two questions I ASKED.

you, instead, just replied in some way, which you saw 'fit'.

[Age]

Look, for the IMBECILES, contrary to what is claimed in some 'ealing interpretation' the Universe was never once smaller, never began, and could never expand.

There is absolutely NO proof at all for any of these claims, and in fact there is NOT even ANY evidence for these things. And, as the actual 'data' SHOWS, and PROVES, the Universe IS ETERNA, and INFINITE.

Now, AGAIN, as things can, obviously, be interpreted Wrongly, then this is all that has happened and occurred here, in relation to how the 'data' is being misread and misinterpreted.

There is absolutely NO 'data', which is evidence that the Universe was smaller, began, nor is expanding. Just like there has NEVER been ANY 'data', which was 'evidence' that the sun revolved around the earth. And, just like the many who claimed that the observation of the sun moving across the sky, and the 'observation of the sun rising and setting' was 'evidence' for the claim, and belief, that the sun does revolve around the earth, there are many who claim that the 'observation of redshift' is 'evidence' for the Universe expanding, and thus once beginning, as well.

But, and AGAIN, they are, and were, both just Wrong interpretations of just what is being observed. They 'observations' are NOT 'evidence' AT ALL for what was interpreted, and which was then claimed, and BELIEVED, to be the case.

Which, again, if ANY one would like to discuss, then I would SHOW, completely.

But, as this forum as proved over and over again people just much prefer to fight and argue for, and over, their 'current' BELIEFS, instead.

[Will Bouwman]

You can't put force on light, and it always moves at c (relative to any inertial frame, in a vacuum).

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

Well I put that bit in there because my statement wouldn't be true if either were not the case. Sure, both are mathematical ideals that doesn't exist anywhere.

For example: Visible distant galaxies are receding at say 2.5c, which doesn't violate relativity since it isn't a velocity being expressed relative to any inertial frame. There IS an approximate inertial frame that contains that galaxy, and relative to it, said distant thing is receding at only about .98c
Almost nobody uses such frames to describe cosmological distances since it has so little utility. It also alters the 'light travel time' of the light we see, which is frequently used to compute a completely useless distance to the observed thing.

As you say, you're not here often so you might have missed me banging on about underdetermination; how philosophical models make no difference to the mathematics. For example, the mathematics of general relativity works whether or not matter warps spacetime, and of course there are rival theories that either do, or may in the future express gravity equally well.

And then there's stuff we don't know about like dark matter and dark energy.

Pretty sure dark energy is not 'stuff' that would have a refractive index. Dark matter does contribute to gravitational potential and thus, like any nearby mass, it affects non-local light speed, but since it does not interact with light, I'm pretty sure it also does not contribute to any refractive index.

The aim of the book is to provide a conceptual framework to describe how the big bang turned into atoms, then stars, then a wider range of atoms, molecules and eventually us and the technology we have developed as our understanding grew. As you point out, it is not intended as a textbook, it is essentially a story, which if it works for 1% of its intended audience, I will consider it a success. The story goes that, once upon a time, there was a incredibly compact field of big bang stuff. Again that's me being fast and loose with the word stuff. I'm a bit clearer on the page showing the cosmic microwave background radiation where I say:

...nobody knows what conditions were like before the big bang, so there are all sorts of theories about what actually went bang and why it did so. The more mainstream theories are based on the idea of one or more fields, a bit like electric or magnetic fields. However you think about it, it’s some sort of big bang stuff with a staggering capacity to spread itself out and become a universe filled with particles.

I then go on to show how, so conceptualised, big bang stuff turns into the observable universe. One strand of the story is that big bang stuff is still spreading according to an inverse square law, which is one of very few nods to mathematics. Big bang stuff if then both the stuff that particles are made of, and through which they travel. Since it is spreading, it is denser the closer to any aggregation, such as atoms, hence the closer atoms are to one another, the more they refract each other. The last page suggests how, in the same context, dark matter and dark energy might have refractive indices, but with the same casual use of language that is likely to irritate actual physicists.

I think it is a bit misleading that physics describes longer wavelengths of light as being less energetic.

But it is. Energy of light can be computed directly from its wavelength. That makes it totally frame dependent, sure. Any photon has as much or little energy as you want depending on your choice of local inertial frame used to measure it.

Yeah, I didn't put that very precisely either.

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.

This can't be right.

It isn't. I'm mixing up work and energy. If you're on a boat, a long wavelength will lift you just as high as a shorter one; it just takes longer, but since energy equations include time, in velocity or frequency for example, then time is an element of energy, and I am talking bollocks.

A given beam spread out has half the energy per photon, but not more photons. The light is not only less energetic, it is also dimmer. To say otherwise is equivalent to saying the energy of the light is not frame dependent.

Well that's the thing, as I say in the first section, the Doppler effect works precisely because of the relative motion of the source and the observer, not because of the qualities of the light, at least on the small scale. As I understand it, the expansion of space literally stretches photons, but there's nothing to stop us running towards them to increase their energy.

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.

Relative to an inertial frame, sure...

That's good enough for my book.

I try and make my case that time is nothing more than change, which we measure by counting cyclical events

You can count cyclic events in any valid frame, so this definition works. Light does not constitute a valid frame of reference, so it is meaningless to speak of cycles in a meaningless frame. So 'time stops' is not true in a different sort of frame where time is not defined at all.

Ok. So did I not make my case and give the impression that light is a valid frame?

therefore no change. Hence no change = no time.

Agree with that, but 'no time' and 'time stops' are very different things.

Probably not to my intended audience.

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.

That's time dilation in a nutshell. I don't think the bolded quote attributed to Einstein conveys anything like that, which is why I ask if he actually said that somewhere.

It's not a quote, I'm just trying to convey the gist of relativity in language most non physicists will be comfortable with.

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 did miss that page. SR describes acceleration just fine, and GR used the equivalence principle to apply the mathematics of acceleration from SR to local gravitational field, which is locally inertial.
Again, my comment wasn't about any of that, but rather of the physics definition of acceleration, which is a 'vector change in velocity', and not 'scalar change in speed' which is how I see it being used.

It was a stylistic decision not to define words as physicists understand them, since it is not my intention to teach physics to physicists. I know that is fingernails on a chalkboard to some, but again, it's just a story to create a context that some might find helpful.

Incidentally, we asked several chatbots if GR is required to describe an accelerated frame, and they all got the answer wrong.

Probably because the algorithms don't adequately distinguish between people who do and don't know what they are talking about. Who is "we", by the way?

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.

Fair enough. It is indeed not intended to be a textbook about various topics. I'm just trying to render a bit of peer review.

I'm very grateful for your input, now and in the past.

Don't ask me to do tensor calculus. I don't need to know how to do that for the purposes for which I learned it.

I promise.

[Age]

The story goes that, once upon a time, there was a incredibly compact field of big bang stuff.

Are you able to elaborate at all, here? Or, are you literally not able to go any further nor deeper than just laughingly called 'big bang stuff'?

Again that's me being fast and loose with the word stuff. I'm a bit clearer on the page showing the cosmic microwave background radiation where I say:

...nobody knows what conditions were like before the big bang, so there are all sorts of theories about what actually went bang and why it did so.

Not that you will ever answer and clarify, but why do you believe, ABSOLUTELY, that 'nobody' knows what conditions were like before the so-called 'big bang'?

Presenting these faulty and Faulty beliefs in your book are not actually helping you.

By the way what went 'bang' is also known.

The more mainstream theories are based on the idea of one or more fields, a bit like electric or magnetic fields. However you think about it, it’s some sort of big bang stuff with a staggering capacity to spread itself out and become a universe filled with particles.

Again this one just cannot let go of its faulty and False belief here. And, this is when there is not even a shred of actual evidence, let alone any proof at all, for its Wrong belief, here

[Will Bouwman]

The story goes that, once upon a time, there was a incredibly compact field of big bang stuff.

Are you able to elaborate at all, here?

Did I mention that I've written a book? https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html