Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The New Cosmology of Mr. Mayer
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 61 of 90 (615087)
05-10-2011 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by NoNukes
05-09-2011 11:30 PM


Re: When does the discussion start?
NoNukes writes:
Alfred Maddenstein writes:
Your claim that cosmologists disagree with me that there is no expansion is a poor inductive reasoning.
That was my point. Trading assertions is not a worthwhile way to discuss things.
But listen what somebody told Mayer: they have got their consensus; they are very happy with that and if they cannot refute your theory and its predictions, they simply won't do anything and they won't discuss anything at all; they will just bury your work for fifteen years.
I reckon that was a fair assessment of what is likely to happen.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Blank line.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by NoNukes, posted 05-09-2011 11:30 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 62 of 90 (615090)
05-10-2011 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by fearandloathing
05-09-2011 10:55 PM


Re: When does the discussion start?
fearandloathing writes:
alf writes:
Your claim that cosmologists disagree with me that there is no expansion is a poor inductive reasoning. Some do disagree and some do not
Which cosmologist support a constant state universe??
But that is a very recent distinction,- steady and unsteady, you know. Not before long that was not even an issue. It was clear that something moves around something while something else is at rest either relative or absolute and which was which was awfully hard to grasp. And it still not easy, by the way. What is constant or steady anyway?
But then something very puzzling was observed by Hubble to which nobody had any sensible explanation and a novel type of universal motion called expansion was introduced as a possible cause of the effect seen since the signs of what was seen universally when observed locally certainly meant a recessional motion of a relative body. Otherwise, cosmology is a long story. Einstein when he first heard the suggestion found it very silly. The trouble was, however great, he still had no reasonable explanation at all.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Blank line.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by fearandloathing, posted 05-09-2011 10:55 PM fearandloathing has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 63 of 90 (615113)
05-10-2011 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Alfred Maddenstein
05-09-2011 6:50 PM


Mayer writes:
"...As concerns the passage of time according to a local clock we can speak meaningfully about various components of the Solar System, the Milky Way, the Local Group and the more local clusters of galaxies. On a larger scale than that, the collective concept of a shared time scale starts to lose its meaning. According to our new understanding distant ideal clocks at relative rest tick more slowly as compared to similar local clock; the farther away the galaxy is from us the slower it ages from our point of view independent of any contribution to time dilation due to relativistic motion. When we are looking at redshift z=1, then for ten billion years of local time for our galaxy only five billion years have passed for those remote galaxies. At redshift z=9 the same ten billion years of local time correspond only to one billion there. Conversely from the point of view of distant observers, it is our region of the Universe that is growing older more slowly than theirs. This may seem paradoxical, yet it is a natural consequence of temporal relativity in which the primitive concept of absolute time is abandoned."
Is Mayer really so stupid as to not realise that this exactly what happens in the Standard Model of cosmology???
His (and consequently your) whole hang-up on this supposed "absolute time" of standard comsology is a complete brain failure on his part - there is no "absolute time", all the time vectors do point in different directions, and time-dilation is very much observed in the distant galaxies and quasars. All of this very much implies expansion - it does not negate it

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 05-09-2011 6:50 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 05-10-2011 2:10 PM cavediver has replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 64 of 90 (615126)
05-10-2011 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by cavediver
05-10-2011 12:54 PM


cavediver writes:
Mayer writes:
"...As concerns the passage of time according to a local clock we can speak meaningfully about various components of the Solar System, the Milky Way, the Local Group and the more local clusters of galaxies. On a larger scale than that, the collective concept of a shared time scale starts to lose its meaning. According to our new understanding distant ideal clocks at relative rest tick more slowly as compared to similar local clock; the farther away the galaxy is from us the slower it ages from our point of view independent of any contribution to time dilation due to relativistic motion. When we are looking at redshift z=1, then for ten billion years of local time for our galaxy only five billion years have passed for those remote galaxies. At redshift z=9 the same ten billion years of local time correspond only to one billion there. Conversely from the point of view of distant observers, it is our region of the Universe that is growing older more slowly than theirs. This may seem paradoxical, yet it is a natural consequence of temporal relativity in which the primitive concept of absolute time is abandoned."
Is Mayer really so stupid as to not realise that this exactly what happens in the Standard Model of cosmology???
His (and consequently your) whole hang-up on this supposed "absolute time" of standard comsology is a complete brain failure on his part - there is no "absolute time", all the time vectors do point in different directions, and time-dilation is very much observed in the distant galaxies and quasars. All of this very much implies expansion - it does not negate it
Not at all. The two models are distinctly different so even my cat has tumbles to your deflating tricks, Cavediver.
That is a surprising news to me that the Big Bang model agrees with Mayer and says as you claim above that the universe has no proper age. The last time I checked the model was insisting on the figure of 13,7 billion years and so on. Does it imply or does it not that time and space had a beginning for the whole universe? If it does, there is no hang-up of mine as you insinuate, but the absolute time is the intrinsic feature of the model.
His model does not imply any expansion either, the only motion remaining is the peculiar motion of the galaxies proper nicely disposing of the tail-chase for the non-existent dark energy and matter while explaining the phenomena through natural, observable causes only. The effect is purely geometrical in nature with no space in proper motion at all.
The intrinsic age of Milky Way is calculated to be a couple of orders of magnitude more than the purported age of the whole shebang and so on. The map of cosmos is redrawn and the distances and galaxies' luminosities presumed by the canonical model are all corrected and so on.
So no, he is not stupid at all. He seems to be a thorough and meticulous investigator. The dissertation references more than two hundred papers in cosmology and other disciplines so your claims do make but little sense.
The brain-failure is entirely yours so far, thank you.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Blank lines.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by cavediver, posted 05-10-2011 12:54 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by cavediver, posted 05-10-2011 2:27 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied
 Message 66 by NoNukes, posted 05-10-2011 3:31 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 65 of 90 (615132)
05-10-2011 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Alfred Maddenstein
05-10-2011 2:10 PM


So please explain why Mayer is presenting his time dilated observation of the Universe as something new

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 05-10-2011 2:10 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 05-10-2011 3:38 PM cavediver has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 90 (615138)
05-10-2011 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Alfred Maddenstein
05-10-2011 2:10 PM


Alfred Maddenstein writes:
the only motion remaining is the peculiar motion of the galaxies proper nicely disposing of the tail-chase for the non-existent dark energy and matter
How is the need for dark matter eliminated? Isn't dark matter used to explain rotational speeds within galaxies? I don't see how that use is eliminated by time dilation effects.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 05-10-2011 2:10 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 67 of 90 (615139)
05-10-2011 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by cavediver
05-10-2011 2:27 PM


cavediver writes:
So please explain why Mayer is presenting his time dilated observation of the Universe as something new
There may be nothing entirely new under the sun just like Ecclesiastes rightly noted, but certainly that concept of many directions of time is not exactly what you currently are teaching your students. With the rates of all the processes in the universe being a function of the distance to the observer and vectors of time being orthogonal to the surface of the spacetime hypersphere, there is no implied possibility for the entropy to be shared by the universe as a whole.
The very geometry implies there could be no such thing as a single arrow of time for the whole cosmos. Time vectors that are in the second invisible hemisphere beyond the cosmological horizon are understood to point in the reverse direction just like the gravity vectors are pointing at the antipodes of the terrestrial globe. That may not mean that time would be experienced differently by those inhabiting the regions beyond the cosmic equator. Not any more than gravity that is experienced in Saint-Petersburg would differ from that in Sydney.
Of course, since it is space-time sphere there is that physical distinction that the poles and the equator are all arbitrary locations relative to each other. On the map the Milky Way is located right on the pole simply because we happen to inhabit that galaxy and not any other.
Age or expansion are not understood to be proper attributes of the universe. The Universe is taken to be synonymous with the existence itself that just is. In a sense in this view any finite process, be it a virtual particle or a galaxy is older than the whole universe as all the relative times in it cancel each other out.
In any case, I am not attracted by any novelty for its own sake. For me, the fact that the geometry in the theory reminds me of the geometry of Nicholas of Cusa fully honouring Minkowski just as well is good enough already.
The model is called MdR and that stands for Minkowski, de Sitter and Riemann.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by cavediver, posted 05-10-2011 2:27 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by cavediver, posted 05-10-2011 4:02 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 68 of 90 (615141)
05-10-2011 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Alfred Maddenstein
05-10-2011 3:38 PM


certainly that concept of many directions of time is not exactly what you currently are teaching your students.
I have taught this repeatedly as this exactly the situation in General Relativity and more specifically in cosmology.
With the rates of all the processes in the universe being a function of the distance to the observer
I think you mean "observed rates", but yes this is correct.
and vectors of time being orthogonal to the surface of the spacetime hypersphere
This is also true.
there is no implied possibility for the entropy to be shared by the universe as a whole.
Are you refering to the Horizon problem here?
The very geometry implies there could be no such thing as a single arrow of time for the whole cosmos.
There isn't. But there is a special set of frames of reference within which the elapsed time since the Big Bang is maximised, and this maximum value is consistent across these frames of reference.
Time vectors that are in the second invisible hemisphere beyond the cosmological horizon are understood to point in the reverse direction just like the gravity vectors are pointing at the antipodes of the terrestrial globe.
Yes, but only in that "reverse direction" is just an artefact of the 3d embedding of your picture of a 4d Universe. A stake in the ground in the UK points up. A similar stake in the ground in New Zealand also points up, although the two stakes are pointing in close to opposite directions.
Age or expansion are not understood to be proper attributes of the universe.
And here you simply fail. Your inability to do as Minkowski instructed and to view the Universe from its true 4d perspective is what is blinding you. The Universe is static, the Universe just is, and is all existence as a constant. BUT ONLY WHEN VIEWED IN 4D. The expansion of the Universe is equivalent to the expansion of the Earth as one travels down from the North Pole to the equator. If you cannot view time as just another dimension, you will never undestand this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 05-10-2011 3:38 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 05-10-2011 9:44 PM cavediver has replied

  
Oli
Junior Member (Idle past 4394 days)
Posts: 16
From: United Kingdom
Joined: 04-03-2011


Message 69 of 90 (615151)
05-10-2011 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Alfred Maddenstein
05-10-2011 7:56 AM


Alfred Maddenstein writes:
Do you believe the process that is the Universe behaves physically like a Hilbert hotel?
That's an interesting analogy. Yes, since every galaxy is moving away from every other galaxy. Although the universe might not be infinite in extent, and the number of points in space between each galaxy is uncountably infinite...
Why do you believe that Hilbert's reasoning is valid in spatial terms and not temporal?
It depends who is looking at the universe. In the frame of reference of observers stationary with respect to the galaxies, space is expanding.
But for observers in another frame of reference, some of the time appears to become space and some of the expanding space becomes time, so that I guess they observe some time expansion as well as the spatial expansion.
That makes your point about the elements that should need a certain time to be formed redundant and meaningless.
The point was that there is a lot of Hydrogen and Helium in the universe, but stars are constantly burning these elements into heavier ones. If the universe had been around forever, wouldn't most of the Hydrogen and Helium already have been burnt up?
Would be very nice though if Hilbert's reasoning applied to orgasms.
Oh dear
Oli

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 05-10-2011 7:56 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by fearandloathing, posted 05-10-2011 9:47 PM Oli has not replied
 Message 77 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 05-12-2011 11:39 AM Oli has not replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 70 of 90 (615161)
05-10-2011 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by cavediver
05-10-2011 4:02 PM


cavediver writes:
certainly that concept of many directions of time is not exactly what you currently are teaching your students.
I have taught this repeatedly as this exactly the situation in General Relativity and more specifically in cosmology.
With the rates of all the processes in the universe being a function of the distance to the observer
I think you mean "observed rates", but yes this is correct.
and vectors of time being orthogonal to the surface of the spacetime hypersphere
This is also true.
there is no implied possibility for the entropy to be shared by the universe as a whole.
Are you refering to the Horizon problem here?
The very geometry implies there could be no such thing as a single arrow of time for the whole cosmos.
There isn't. But there is a special set of frames of reference within which the elapsed time since the Big Bang is maximised, and this maximum value is consistent across these frames of reference.
Time vectors that are in the second invisible hemisphere beyond the cosmological horizon are understood to point in the reverse direction just like the gravity vectors are pointing at the antipodes of the terrestrial globe.
Yes, but only in that "reverse direction" is just an artefact of the 3d embedding of your picture of a 4d Universe. A stake in the ground in the UK points up. A similar stake in the ground in New Zealand also points up, although the two stakes are pointing in close to opposite directions.
Age or expansion are not understood to be proper attributes of the universe.
And here you simply fail. Your inability to do as Minkowski instructed and to view the Universe from its true 4d perspective is what is blinding you. The Universe is static, the Universe just is, and is all existence as a constant. BUT ONLY WHEN VIEWED IN 4D. The expansion of the Universe is equivalent to the expansion of the Earth as one travels down from the North Pole to the equator. If you cannot view time as just another dimension, you will never undestand this.
Well, we are starting to see more eye to eye so I reckon your transition to the new model will eventually prove to be painless.
It is the arbitrary equator that is synonymous in the model with the cosmological redshift horizon. That is the line beyond which no exchange of information is possible so would be somewhat similar to the more familiar concept of event horizon. That, by the way, solves Olber's paradox that was troubling Einstein.
If you are so used to the term expansion, you can retain it for the time being, yet it has no physical significance at all. So the space in the universe in order to expand in your view may need something like dark energy only in the same sense that any vista before your eyes needs a mysterious force in order to open.
You must keep in mind that since any arbitrary point could be assumed to be the pole, all the expanding may just as arbitrarily be assumed to have started at any point whatsoever in both spatial and temporal terms. That North Pole you are talking about is anywhere all the time, never and nowhere all at once. The universe is big enough so it can't be ruled out that the Big Bang theory have been adopted to be later refuted by sentient beings quadrillions of times in billions of galaxies already. They all may have been confronted with the same observations leading to the same conceptual difficulties.
So no hot and dense singularity giving birth to the whole universe is possible at all, thus the idea of any certain age to the universe, may have to be dropped, I am afraid. 13.7 billion years makes no better sense than 6.000 given in the Bible. Both measurements are equally naive, I am sorry. The modern human ape's pretence at possessing any greater precision than was given to those who went before and the simian condescension with which the ape is treating its ancestors' earlier assessments will be repaid in kind by a similar smugness of the future generations. There is no age to the universe possible while locally everything is much, much older than it is assumed by the pretentious and ludicrous in its ever expanding pride silly ape.
The suggested by you distinction between 3 and 4D perspectives may not exist or rather be not what you are taking it to be.
Everyday human experience includes a mixture of both already. Both static and dynamic aspects are present. You change direction in space while in your travel in space-time you do not possess that luxury as is abundantly clear from the simple fact that whenever and wherever your travel, the same old here and now takes you along for a ride.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Many more blank lines.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by cavediver, posted 05-10-2011 4:02 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by cavediver, posted 05-11-2011 5:55 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 71 of 90 (615162)
05-10-2011 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Oli
05-10-2011 6:00 PM


Oli writes:
The point was that there is a lot of Hydrogen and Helium in the universe, but stars are constantly burning these elements into heavier ones. If the universe had been around forever, wouldn't most of the Hydrogen and Helium already have been burnt up?
That is where this falls into play
Black holes, says Mayer, are actually the "in" end of a tunnel through spacetime (ie a wormhole) which leads to the opposite side of the universe. And at that end one finds a "white hole" spewing forth raw energy and fundamental particles. Dead star goes in, elemental ingredients come out. That means 100% recycling of material and energy, occurring everywhere in the universe, for all eternity. Can't get much more sustainable than that.
I just don't see evidence of this happening on a scale that would allow Mayer's to be correct

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson
Ad astra per aspera

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Oli, posted 05-10-2011 6:00 PM Oli has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 72 of 90 (615174)
05-11-2011 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Alfred Maddenstein
05-10-2011 9:44 PM


Well, we are starting to see more eye to eye so I reckon your transition to the new model will eventually prove to be painless.
No, you have missed the whole point. Almost everything that Mayer claims is revolutionary is just basic relativity. Why would he do this unless he is either a liar or just completely confused by relativity. I strongly suspect the latter, but then you never know. And you are simply following the blind, liking what you hear but having far too little knowledge and experience to discern its credibility.
If you are so used to the term expansion, you can retain it for the time being, yet it has no physical significance at all.
Yes, Alfred, I will follow your guidance despite you having read a few books, where as I have devoted much of my life to this subject. I'm sure that will work out just fine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 05-10-2011 9:44 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 05-11-2011 3:38 PM cavediver has replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 73 of 90 (615231)
05-11-2011 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by cavediver
05-11-2011 5:55 AM


cavediver writes:
Well, we are starting to see more eye to eye so I reckon your transition to the new model will eventually prove to be painless.
No, you have missed the whole point. Almost everything that Mayer claims is revolutionary is just basic relativity. Why would he do this unless he is either a liar or just completely confused by relativity. I strongly suspect the latter, but then you never know. And you are simply following the blind, liking what you hear but having far too little knowledge and experience to discern its credibility.
If you are so used to the term expansion, you can retain it for the time being, yet it has no physical significance at all.
Yes, Alfred, I will follow your guidance despite you having read a few books, where as I have devoted much of my life to this subject. I'm sure that will work out just fine
Well, I would agree to the extent that, yes, indeed the Big Bang theory is in a blatant contradiction with the most elementary relativity and Mayer is doing nothing more than pointing out all which is under every one's nose.
Yet, as someone remarked to see what's under your nose is a constant struggle.
Otherwise, the man is making certain predictions explaining phenomena you have been unable and even never attempted to explain all the while making sense where you do not. So until the predictions are conclusively shown to be wrong, the jury is very much out on your assessment of your own expertise as compared to that of the author in question.
I mean tested thoroughly which is only fair play. For instance, the man claims that dark matter is fairie dust translated as fabricated ad hoc inventions repeatedly invoked in efforts to defend untenable scientific theories.
How many years you have been testing the very existence of that kind of colour to the matter? Still, after all the dismally failed attempts you go on repeating...hold on, give us another five billion for research let us all try again for another few years for it must be certainly there since the theory to be correct needs it to be present.
Is that fair play? Not in my book.
Whereas the fellow offers a detailed alternative explanation to the galaxy spinning not involving any need to spend billions of pounds to test it. Sooner or later the book will be out and its conclusions may not so easily go away.
Unlike Lerner's book which has a perfectly valid generally critical part only, Mayer analyses all what he is out to refute with deadly precision. Every claim of the canonical cosmology is taken apart while a detailed alternative explanation is presented. CMBR gets a few chapters of detailed treatment with a very plausible alternative hypothesis outlined and so on. So far all may stand unless refuted by the nature itself.
I may have indeed read less books than you have in your particular area of expertise, yet the cosmology deals with the nature of existence itself. I exist as much as you do and I ponder as much as you do on the implications of being alive in the universe. The universe is my home just as it is yours so you may not have any priestly monopoly on my understanding of where I am.
Also if you call the man crank and moron that again is not any claim set in hard stone. Scientists and thinkers call each other that all the time.
You should only consider the kind of esteem, Cantor, Kronecker and Wittgenstein held one another in to get my drift fully.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Blank lines.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by cavediver, posted 05-11-2011 5:55 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by NoNukes, posted 05-11-2011 8:34 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied
 Message 75 by cavediver, posted 05-12-2011 5:11 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 90 (615269)
05-11-2011 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Alfred Maddenstein
05-11-2011 3:38 PM


Evidence please.
Alfred Maddenstein writes:
Otherwise, the man is making certain predictions explaining phenomena you have been unable and even never attempted to explain all the while making sense where you do not.
When are you going to get around to presenting this evidence.
Alfred M writes:
I mean tested thoroughly which is only fair play. For instance, the man claims that dark matter is fairie dust translated as fabricated ad hoc inventions repeatedly invoked in efforts to defend untenable scientific theories.
So how does Mayer explain how the orbital velocity in galaxies varies with radius from the center of galaxies without invoking dark matter?
Alfred writes:
How many years you have been testing the very existence of that kind of colour to the matter?
What in the world are you asking?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 05-11-2011 3:38 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 75 of 90 (615292)
05-12-2011 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Alfred Maddenstein
05-11-2011 3:38 PM


Well, I would agree to the extent that, yes, indeed the Big Bang theory is in a blatant contradiction with the most elementary relativity and Mayer is doing nothing more than pointing out all which is under every one's nose.
No, you have missed the whole point. Almost everything that Mayer is claiming as revolutionary and his own discovery is just basic relativity. Why would he do this unless he is either a liar or just completely confused by relativity. I strongly suspect the latter, but then you never know. And you are simply following the blind, liking what you hear but having far too little knowledge and experience to discern its credibility.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 05-11-2011 3:38 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 05-12-2011 10:20 AM cavediver has replied
 Message 79 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 05-13-2011 5:00 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024