User talk:JimJast/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Explanation of removing edits

Hi Jim. I apologise if I insulted you by removing your edits.

Hi Mpatel, You didn't insult me :) Jim

I'll try and explain here my reasons for removal of the edits. Regarding the controversial aspect, I think it is clear that many cosmological issues are controversial, as they do not have enough experimental justification. However, I am not saying that you cannot write the things you did, just don't do so on the main general relativity page - REASON: there are other gr pages on wikipedia where you can write your stuff. The point of the GR article is that it presents an overview (but not too detailed) of the thing that we call 'general relativity'. There are plenty of links from the gr page that branch off to articles on the maths of gr, the history of gr, cosmology pages etc..., which provide more depth on these particular topics. I'm saying that you should write more detailed stuff on these other pages. I hope that clears up any misunderstandings.

It does. You'r right. I could put a link to another page, I just didn't think about it. Jim

Also, it is not really good practice to delete stuff from talk pages - 2 REASONS: (1) it shows a newcomer what people are talking about and how the page has evolved (2) many people can learn a lot about the topic from the discussions. Therefore, all discussions should be kept, no matter how irrelevant, silly or even rude they may be. This may sound a little strange, but that's how we do things at wikipedia. Again, apologies for the drastic removals and potential insult. ---Mpatel (talk) 10:31, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

OK. I'll try to keep the old stuff too. Jim

Re:General time dilation, why is was removed?

It was removed because it was seen to violate the No original research guideline. If you feel it was wrongly deleted, please gather some external sources that discuss the topic, and that prove it was not original research. You can then consider listing it on Votes for undeletion. - SimonP 00:41, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

It was not original research since it comes straight from Einstein's general relativity of 1915. Yet for some reason nobody noticed that fact and as far as I know it is nowhere described except in my article The general time dilation (relativistic redshift in stationary clouds of dust). I didn't do any original research there and just describe what I found in Einstein's gravitation of 1915. It is rather promoting Einstein's gravitation since the conservation of energy in it (simple high school math) takes care of Hubble redshift simulating accelerating expansion of space. It does it in the way similar to one proposed already by Fritz Zwicky, called dynamical friction of photons in astrophysics. It is connected to Einsteinian gravitation through the disputed effect of general time dilation. It gives exactly the observed results for the density of space $6\times 10^{-27}kg/m^{3}$, which may be considered the Einsteinian prediction of density of space.

Does reading about something from someone else's theory makes this reading an original research, only because other people neglected understanding this theory? Jim 19:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

GR with conservation of energy

Jim -

This one is obscure enough that I need to see references for it. Otherwise I will remove it from the GR pages. (Note that someone else may choose to remove it, but it you can justify it I will defend it.) --EMS | Talk 02:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Clarification

What I mean by references are citations of articles in peer reviewed scientific journals and/or conference proceedings documenting this theory/speculation. I need more than your say-so to determine if this really is a theory and more to the point just what it is that Einstein was talking about. (Note for instance that the manifolds in general relativity have never been Riemannian, but instead Lorentzian). All that I know it that this idea did not fly for some reason. That you like the idea is irrelevant. What is encyclopedic is the idea as Einstein proposed it, and what became of it. If I cannot verify/document that, I will remove the references to it from Wikipedia. --EMS | Talk 17:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

As now I understand you require some kind of proof in a form of citations of articles in peer reviewed scientific journals and/or conference proceedings documenting this theory/speculation that Einstein meant general relativity as a theory with conservation of energy. I might be able to prove that Einstein believed in conservation of energy but it wouldn't prove that his general relativity was meant as a GR with conservation of energy. So I agree that if you don't believe that Einstein created GR with conservation of energy this page should be removed since it might refer to a nonexistent theory.

Of course you're right that my belief that this was Einstein's original theory isn't sufficient. So we have no other choice but to remove the page and leave the public with an impression that Einstein must have been confused on the issue of conservation of energy which is one of the most important principles of physics (as stated in Wikipedia) (how he could manage as a patent office clerk with all those perpetual motion machine patent applications has to remain a mystery). Jim 22:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I'm sorry that I failed to save the previous version of this response.

Because of your response is totally in inadequate, I am removing your references to this topic (including that article that you created). I am now quite convinced that this is original research and not documentation of somthing that Einstein actually worked on in 1950. I noticed that you do name a 1950 article of Einstein's in the page you created on this idea. That unfortunately is not a reference. What I want is a full citation: Article name, journal name, journal volume, page, and year of publication. If I can have that info, I can locate the article and rule better on what you are doing.

Do be advised that GR does have conservation of energy/momentum. It's just local instead of global. So I think that the confusion is yours, not Einstein's. --EMS | Talk 14:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that you have mixed a few different things. By GR with conservation of energy I understand Einstein's 1915 general relativity (without the expansion of space). Nothing of it was my research. My reasearch applied only to (i) explantion of the reason for Hubble redshift in a stationary space that as it turned out was understood correctly by Fritz Zwicky as dynamical friction of photons and (ii) to locating the potential energy in space. I found that strict ("global" of course, since word "local" can't be even sensibly applied to things like conservation laws) conservation of energy is sufficient for both: explanation of Hubble redshift in stationary space and to locate the potential energy. The conservation of energy requires in turn non symmetric metric tensor of spacetime. Then I found that Einstein proposed such a metric tensor (for a different purpose though) in his article "On the Generalized Theory of Gravitation" published in April 1950 issue of Scientific American. That's basically the whole story that may tell you that there are three separate issues: (1) Einstein's original 1915 GR with conservation of energy, (2) following from it a prediction of Hubble redshift in stationary space simulating accelerating expansion of space, prediction not necessarily realized by Einstein himself, but anyway predicted by his original theory of 1915, and (3) non symmetric metric tensor of spacetime suggested by Einstein in 1950. In my opinion, none of the above justifies removal of my text about GR with conservation of energy as an alternative to the present version of general relativity without conservation of energy. Jim 16:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Original research all right

You are digging yourself in deeper and deeper with your protests.

Let's see -- You worte:

By GR with conservation of energy I understand Einstein's 1915 general relativity (without the expansion of space).

The general theory or relativity as published in 1915 calls for the universe to be non-static. Admitedly Einstein himself did on expect this and even did not approve of it. None the less that is a known consequence of his work. So you cannot create a GR without the expansion of space without its being either a new theory of a novel interpretation of the existing one. Either counts as original research.

Nothing of it was my research.

It was Einstein's job at the time to decide if his work was being misrepresented. He did not do so, but instead sought out a modification to make the universe static. What he ended up with was the cosmological constant. In addition, I know of noone else who claims that global conservation of energy is part of general relativity. So your saying that general relativity is compatible with global conservation of energy is novel and therefore your own original research, even if if is true.

Overall, you need to realize that you cannot introduce something that is novel in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not here for you to promote your own personal ideas and views. If this is truly of value, you should be able to publish it in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Until you have done so, and your work has been commented on by others, this is not suitable for Wikipedia. --EMS | Talk 20:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

How is it novel? Einstein noticed in 1950 what he overlooked in 1915 that the metric of spacetime has to be non symmetric (because of conservation of energy) and it eliminated all the reasons for the expansion of space and the silly "instbility" claims of Eddington's. I noticed it only in 1985 so which part of the theory I could claim as my original research? I'm afraid Einstein did it all and people just don't understand his theory since he was not into popularization. But if you find something more real than non conservation of energy (which every physicist knows is a fiction) in Einstein's theory that might be claimed as wrong then it will prove that you are right and my stuff is original research. One can't ridicule oneself by maintaining that guy like Einstein could believe that energy can be created from nothng. Could you believe that he could? 83.31.220.211 21:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I will look over that 1950 Scientific American article when I get a chance. In the meantime I do not like this business that everyone has been misinterpreting general relativity for the last 90 years. That kind of thing simply does not happen. (I myself though that I saw a flaw in the interpretation of GR 10 years ago. I ended up what a theory that was inconsistent with observation.) Also, this business of non-symmetric metrics is very reminiscent of Einstein-Cartan theory. However, I know nothing of the cosmological predications of that theory.

As for why this is original research: You wrote-

... there are three separate issues: (1) Einstein's original 1915 GR with [global] conservation of energy,

Your article would be a primary source for this interpretation of GR. That is prohibited by the "No orignal resarch" policy.

(2) following from it a prediction of Hubble redshift in stationary space simulating accelerating expansion of space, prediction not necessarily realized by Einstein himself, but anyway predicted by his original theory of 1915, and

Since this has not been previously realized, once again your work would be the primary source for this observation. Once again, that would violate the "No original research" policy.

(3) non symmetric metric tensor of spacetime suggested by Einstein in 1950.

This metric is being commented on by you. That makes your article a secondary source. That is also prohibited by the "No original research" policy. Note however that presenting the metric itself with any commentary from other acceptable sources would be quite acceptable here.

Finally, I refer you to Original_research#Disputes_over_how_established_a_view_is. Yours is a view held by "an extremely limited minority" (namely yourself). Under that part of the No original research policy, your views are also prohibited from Wikipedia.

I assure you that I will find that 4/1950 Scientific American soon. If necessary, I will gladly eat crow over this. However, nothing about this gives me any good reason to expect that I will do so. --EMS | Talk 02:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I surrender! Don't Shoot!

EMS, you convinced me with: "Since this has not been previously realized, once again your work would be the primary source for this observation. Once again, that would violate the "No original research" policy."

If realizing something that no one else, including its author, has realized in an old theory is "original research" then you're right.

Pity that this revelation about Einstein's gravitation is unfit for publication in Wikipedia until some other physicists than Jim start writing papers on how Einstein's theory had been able to predict phenomena like Hubble redshift in stationary space, quasars, anomalous acceleration of space probes, illusion of accelerating expansion of space. But it won't be soon since physicists think that gravitation is a subject fit only for dopes (see Feynman's remarks on gravity physicists). And those gravity physicists that Feynman mentioned say when referring Jim's paper (e.g. one from Physical Review Letters) "This paper is seriously unsound and must not be published. The main result of the paper is apparently that the universe is static or stationary, i.e. not expanding [...]. The only imaginable way to account for both the microwave background and the cosmological redshift is to assume that the universe began as a hot dense fireball (details may differ) and has been expanding up to the present time." Nothing bad about the paper except that it (apparently) shows that the universe is stationary and this is not imaginable. Whether this is true is (apparently) not an issue. So we have to wait until number of unobserved phenomena needed to support the big bang hypothesis starts growing faster than the number of physicists that are able to handle them.

Anyway, you shouldn't expect too much from Einstein's article in Scientific American. It's about other things than gravitation and I'm using it only to demonstrate that I'm not crazy thinking that metric tensor must be non symmetric in the real world. Before I found Einstein's article my opponets kept telling me that there is no such thing as non symmetric metric tensor and so I must be an uneducated idiot. So now I can demonstrate that if I am I'm in a good company. That's all. That conservation of energy implies a non symmetric metric tensor comes out from a purely logical reasoning: running a photon around a closed loop in stationary space with symmetric metric tensor of spacetime can't change its frequency => there is no Hubble redshift in such space => there is no dynamical friction for photons in such space => such space violates conservation of energy => our physical space is space with non symmetric metric.

The conservation of energy had to be dropped from GR to keep the expansion. Otherwise conservation of energy would remove expansion of space since numerically it results (as my paper shows with just a few lines of high school math) in the observed Hubble redshift in stationary space (nothing left for expansion). So contemporary GR (one with without conservation of energy) is based on arbitrary selection of assumptions about the real world (lack of conservation of energy rather than stationary space) to keep the expansion of space without which the big bang hypothesis wouldn't be possible and many bright scientists who made their PhD's on the expansion of the universe might have had to change their careers. If you think I'm wrong in my reasoning than tell me which step in this reasoning is wrong. Jim 15:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

---

You wrote:

If realizing something that no one else, including its author, has realized in an old theory is "original research" then you're right.

Thank you very much. That is the point.

As for your paper, it waves this Finsler geometry around, and then without a field equation hatches a metric a goes from there. In the end, it assumes that the universe is static instead of demonstating it as a consequence of the use of the alternate geometry. So it is little wonder that it gets rejected.

To be honest with you, I have done (and am still doing) my own original research. One thing that I have learned is that you have to treat a project like yours as a chance to learn about things like general relativity and cosmology. You have to "know thy enemy" in order to address the field. You do not, and the style of your paper shows it. I strongly advise taking a course in general relativity at the graduate school level. You will learn all sorts of things, and gain the ability to better work on and validate your ideas.

Good luck, --EMS | Talk 20:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, consider submitting to http://wikinfo.org/ . Original research is allowed. Also , you can write a signed article that can't be messed up by ranbom editors. GangofOne 22:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy? Frank J. Tipler. see also Peer review and external links there . GangofOne 04:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks GangofOne. Jim 21:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Greetings

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors. You may also be interested in reading The five pillars of Wikipedia, our Help pages, the Tutorial, the policy on citing sources, and our Manual of Style.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

I'd also like to remind you of Wikipedia's policy against WP:OR. Thank you. Xiner (talk, email) 20:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism allegations

Jim -

I am warning you against claiming "vadnalism" for the reversions of your edit that you are getting. Returning an article to being a redirect is not vandalism, as requesting the article is still brings something relevant up. In the case of Newtonian physics, it brings up much more than your writeup even about the issue that concerns you. Similarly for the other pages, what we have is called a "content dispute": There is no vandalism here.

EMS - you deleted my stuff without any dispute. I wouldn't even notice it if not for my accidental impulse for reading "gravitational attraction" and "Newtonian physics" pages. According to Wikipedia's policy (I quote):

Wikipedia vandalism may fall into one or more of the following categorizations:

Blanking

Removing all or significant parts of pages or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus both constitute vandalism.

Jim 16:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Your version hardly counts as being "established", and in case you have not noticed, there is a consensus amongst the concerned editors against your version. If anything, you are the one doing the replacement of the content of that article without first gaining consensus (as you are replacing a valid redirect). I am loathe to accuse you of vandalism because you are acting in good faith. However, that does not excuse your being disruptive (which is another reason people get blocked). --EMS | Talk 02:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

As you have noticed, the gravitational attraction AfD is proceeding as I expected, with you being the only supporter of your own writeup. As things now stand, it will go through and it will then become vandalism for you to touch that redirect again, as you will be going against a community consensus. IMO, it is time for to wake up to the fact that you do not know what you are doing here. I assure you the Wikipedia welcomes productive and constructive contributions, but yours are not of that ilk at all. --EMS | Talk 16:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear EMS, Too bad that you didn't familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policy about consensus which says:

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments. [...] The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."

Newton's physics was once a reliable published source but it was over a century ago. Even if you are able to organize a consensus in support of it, it won't help since physics have changed during the last century. Even the classical mechanics is aleady different then the Newtonian physics. So your edit war that you've intiated has little chance to succeed however I wish you all the luck. I think that it might be kind of funny if Wikipedia's editors prevail in supporting Newton's POV against the general relativity's POV. I'm just a spectator here since neither POV is mine. I just report Landau's description of Einstein's theory only because of popularity of Landau's textbook among physicists. I'm also bemused by the level of ignorance about elementary physics among Wikipedia's editors. Jim 08:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

In other words you have no idea of what you are doing and couldn't care less about that. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. In talking about gravitation in general, you always start with the faimiliarity of Newton's view. Once you have that in place, then you can proceed to a discussion of general relativity, how it compares to Newton's view, and that it is the accepted theory for almost all physicists. As for Landau's exercise, it is only one of several that show that GR corresponds to Newton's gravity in the limiting cases of low speed and gravitational potential, and I don't see that it fits the needs of an encyclopedia read by both physicists and non-physicists.

Proceed as if you are God's gift to Wikipedia if you like, but I will warn you right now that Wikipedia regularly rejects such "gifts". --EMS | Talk 14:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Jim - You are in violation of WP:3RR on Newtonian physics. You can be blocked at any time because of that. --EMS | Talk 16:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Teaching gravitation

On the gravitational attraction AfD page you wrote:

I just concentrate on the most important issue in my opinion, which is the faith in gravitational attraction. This faith has persisted already for over 300 years, and it is outdated for almost 100 years, but despite that it is taught to high school students around the world, as good enough for them. Which then it has all the features of a state religion (in this case even a world religion). It is tauht with a hope that when those students are interested in the truth then they may study physics and learn in due time what the truth is. Apparently they never do as it is shown by this consensus of educated people, most likely graduated from many high schools, and some even graduate students in physics at Harvard University.

This is not a matter of "truth", but instead a matter of either you do or you don't. There is no need to teach GR to produce a good engineer (for example), since it makes no difference to an engineer whether gravity is a real force or a fictitious force. In our everyday accelerated frame of reference, a mis-designed bridge will fall down the same in either case. if you are going to teach GR, you need to introduce curvature, tensors, and the mind-blowing wierdness of relativity (and I have seen it blow plenty of people's minds). If they are not going to use it, what is the purpose? IMO, the way that this is approached is the best: Let it be known that there is something out there beyond Newton's laws but leave it to those who are interested enough to deal with it learn it. Otherwise you are going to lose a lot of people who would make good engieneers and materials scientists, etc. due to their not being able to handle something irrelevant to their future work.

Kindly be advised that I have never seen to true religion that lets it be known that there is something better than itself around. Also be advised that this is a POV which is making your work useless. --EMS | Talk 16:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It is an interesting POV. As I understand you are advising to divide people into Class A, those who have enough time and money to learn how the real world works, and Class B, those who have to work as good engieneers and materials scientists so they don't need to know the truth since it may blow their minds and then good people may become useless. It is enough for Class B people to have enough knowledge to build bridges, buildings, and airplanes that won't fall down.

I recon that in this new brave world Class A people will decide what should be placed in encyclopedias available for Class B people to allow them to perform their jobs well without blowing their minds. So let's propose this way of writing encyclopedia to administrators and if they like it we are all set.

However I doubt whether they like it since they might be for unlimited access to kowledge published by reliable sources. It might ruin your plan to limit the access to true information about gravitation only to Class A people. Consequently I doubt whether you succeed for long in redirecting to Newtonian physics all pages that aim in explaining Einstein's gravitation to Class B people (four so far) even if I stop writing them. Luckily we don't need to be concerned about Class C people who don't need even to know how to read since they can learn from TV everything what they need to know. Jim 20:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Warning

You are being disruptive by recreating articles that were deleted without first appealing to WP:DRV. If you do not cease such actions, you may find yourself blocked or banned from editting Wikipedia. --ScienceApologist

In response to your post on my talkpage: please read WP:OR, WP:VANITY, and WP:COI for why you shouldn't write articles on unpublished, unverifiable ideas of your own invention. You have a whole world-wide-web on which to publish whatever ideas you like: Wikipedia is not designed to be a platform for you to write about whatsoever you please. It is an encyclopedia. --ScienceApologist 06:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Your cryptic post on my talk page

(copied from my talk page) Hi Iridescenti, It's nice to talk at least to one real person and not to goasts from before over 2 years. Why are you taking part in something that you don't have any idea what it is (judging from your description of yourself)? Not that I don't like it but it interest me as a psychology student (to which I switched from astronomy after learning already how astronomers function). Jim 17:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, and this isn't meant to sound stupid, but I have no idea what you're talking about... - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Reading the warning above from ScienceApologist makes me think this about my delete !vote on the AfD for General Time Dilation. In which case, I don't know where you get "you don't have any idea what it is" from - while I may not be an astronomer, I do have a background in particle physics and am perfectly familiar with Feynmann's theories. In this case, I consider the article both a distortion of Feynmann's (almost certainly wrong) view, and too badly written to be salvageable (see the comment on the AfD discussion by EMS re the misuse of the words time dilation and tensor in this article) and it's complete lack of sources. I also think your recreation of this page within a day of its deletion with no discussion & ignoring WP:DRV (a process you're clearly aware of, as you took part in one last week) shows clear bad faith. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This page was deleted over 2 years ago. Long enough to forget that I once created the same page already and since it was not there I was not aware of it until I saw the votes:). I created it now only to inform EMS what "general time deletion" is instead of describing it in a letter to him because it take the same amount of effort. Sorry if you had to vote twice on the same issue.

While we are at this already, and it turned out that you are a kind of expert in the matter, would it be too much to ask you what you don't like about Feynman's quotes? I think that they indicate great intuition since they go completely against present thinking about the gravitation in which the relation between curvature of space and time dilation has to be found observationally rather than deducing it from GR. Not to mention that presently assumed relation does not go well with observations (note the necessity of assuming "dark energy" to save the BB hypothesis), and Feynman's goes along perfectly well with them (less then one sigma deviation of the theoretical results from observations). Thanks. Jim 15:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Advice

Two pieces:

1) You need to take a genuine general relativity course as soon as possible. In all of your writings on "general time dilation", you are making very elementary mistakes that show a lack of understanding of this theory amd its mathematical foundation. For example, in your article you give a "g_ik" tensor which is not symmetric, making the line item you give a joke. [When torsion exists (meaning that $g_{21}\neq g_{21}$ in this case), you must treat the off-diagonal terms sepreately.]

2) You must distinguish between your personal views and the views of the scientific community in this forum. I do well here becuase I constantly make that distinction, and see to it that the important views of the field itself are described instead of my own viewpoint. The general relativity article is very much my work (admitedly with significant editing done by others). For the most part it has held up well. Most pleasing is that the "Status" section, which is less than totally supportive of GR, has stayed intact in spite of a few efforts to amend it because of the support of other editors. (I refuse to revert an edit to that section because I know that it partially reflects my own discomfort with GR, and have found that I do not need to.) --EMS | Talk 01:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ed, thanks for the advice. I agree with (1) since the last time I had GR course it was like 20 years ago and I didn't know then neither that Einstein proposed the non symmetry of g_ik tensor nor its fundamental impotrance in gravitation (Einstein didn't know the latter neither). That's why I didn't pay much attention to the symmetry and I just accepted it on faith as everybody else:). I have to take a new GR course also for the reason that I need it for my PhD and obviously I don't want everybody and his brother jump on me and prove that I'm an GR illiterate and shouldn't be alowed to do this PhD in the first place (I'm doing it outside gravitation community, since the only professor who agreed to take my PhD on his conscience was a nuclear physicist, and so he insists on my later habiltation in QCD:))). I thought though that I have still enough time and tried to brush up my QM and QED, not to mention QCD, first. So I didn't think that I need it a.s.a.p. but you might have a valid point.

As for (2) I don't think it matters a lot if I distinguish those POVs. I have to prove that my POV is right anyway since otherwise my PhD thesis wouldn't make any sense. And of course I don't want to prove it here but only at my school. What I do here is discussing gravitation in a hope that somebody finds out what I'm doing wrong and then I have a chance to correct myself before the "gravity physicists" (who hate guys from outside doing PhD's in gravitation) jump on me and prove that I'm an idiot. So far nobody pointed to an error in what I'm saying so I'm disappointed in this but happy otherwise:). There is a list of my (alleged) errors that I've made, found by various referees, editors, and private citizens. If you could add to it I'd apreciate it very much. Jim 13:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, item 5 (that you need to show that all existing observations are accounted for by your theory before the article can be accepted) is not an "alledged error". Instead it is a very real constraint that you must work under. It is easy to wave your hands and say "this is the answer", but exhaustively proving it is another issue. Secondly, item 11 is also a real concern, but there are plenty to toy static universes in general relativity such that only a minority of researchers (of which I admit I am one) will object to your model on that basis. (Your universe must have a preferred rest frame to resolve the paradox, however.)

As for my objections:

• You claim that your view is a consequence of GR, but you have failed to produce a full four-dimensional metric tensor, nor have you shown that your metric is a sub-manifold of a cosmological solution of the Einstein field equations.
• Redshifting due to interaction with dust is known in astronomy. (This is a result of scattering.) This is a seperate effect from cosmological redshifting and is not accounted for through the use of a metric tensor.
• Your equation (7) does not follow from your equation (6). (6) only accounts for one component of a metric tensor.
• Your equation (8) does not follow from your equation (7). (8) is the line item for the symmetric part of the metric given as (7). There is an anti-symmetric part that you are ignoring and do not account for.

You can dismiss these if you like, but my experience (including with myself) is that the "anti-" has to prove it to him/herself when they are wrong. If you are only interested in dismissing the complaints instead of trying to learm from then, then you are only going to keep your incorrect theory in statis and go nowhere with it. I assure you that there is usable information in all of those remarks, even if it is on the editorial policy of a journal (as is the case with item 1), or in how your work can be misunderstood.

FWIW - I just took what at first looked to me as a flippant comment from a reviewer, took it is a sign that I needed to figure out a special case for my own theory, and ended up with a significantly modified theory on my hands. My view is that my work will be published when it is right, and that review make a major difference in making my work right. So you have a small gold mine in front of you in the form of those reviews, but you are refusing to grab your pick and shovel and work that mine. --EMS | Talk 14:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Your remark about item 5 provides a good point. Of course I'm aware of all those epistemological trivialities (that a theory has to be consistent with all observations and that it can't be proved right but only wrong) and that to provide an explanation for all those observations that a competing theory explains differently is a lot of work. But I didn't want to make a theory but only to show that a theory is alredy there and it is Einstein's plus some minor improvements like this "general time dilation". So basically all the worry is Einstein's :). I wanted to remain a sculptor. Then, after twenty years of hoping that someone takes my arguments seriously I saw that I have to do it myself. So I started this PhD just last year and finally started talking to serious physics professors.

Item 11 is a little bit tricky. The transfer of "gravitational energy" from a photon to the galaxy must take place even if the galaxy does not move at all (and so theoretically does not gain any kinetic energy) since the important energy of the galaxy is "potential energy". This is BTW an error in "traditional calculations" that astrophysicists make to "prove" that photons lose only "negligible amount of energy" while interacting gravitationally with a galaxy. And where they contradict BB folks who maintain that this energy is not "negligible" but exactly zero since if they admited that there is some exchange of energy between photon and the galaxy then the BB would collapse (this energy would have to be calculated and now this inconsistency is hidden by assuming that it it is zero). This is one of inconsistencies of BB where it produces energy from nothing becausse of defective math and astrophysicists believe mathematicians that they don't make errors. I talked to BB experts and they said "apparently there are some quantum effects that prevents photons form losing energy". "Apparently!!!". Suddenly Newton's theory becomes QM when it is needed to save BB :))).

About the rest of concerns:

• I think that in isotropic situation and in radial coordinates nothing changes with angles so 2D seems to me quite enough. And splitting it into 4D won't tell us anything new.

• This is not "redshifting" but "reddening" due to red light going through and blue light getting scattered.

• (6) only accounts for one component of a metric tensor. But it is what we observe as the Hubble redshift. The other components are chosen so that the whole tensor approximates to Minkowski and it is degenerate, to work the same in any frame.

• (8) was supposed to be the line element of the symmetric part of the "metric" since this is a definittion of "metric" (antisymmetric part always falls out in "metric" defined this way). I don't understand what should I keep the anti-symmetric part for?

I don't want to dismiss these. I want to understand them and if you see that I don't please try to be more specific or use simpler language. I'm surely not interested in dismissing the complaints and I want to try to learm from them. There is no problem with that.

I'm now in a university and there is about 50 physics professors so I talk to a lot of them and none of them can make a resonable argument for the expansion of the universe despite that all believe in it. And the Einstein's theory predicts observation of accelerating expansion as it is observed (within one standard deviation) and if it didn't, then the theory would be immediately falsified since it does not have any adjustable params. Yet it predicts all the things as observed. This is not a proof of anything yet just a nice thing. BB does not have such success however it has a lot of adjustable params so it can survive a lot. Even the invention of "dark energy". Jim 19:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Jim - Gravitational potential cannot account for the cosmological redshifting of photons. I do admit that as the photon moves away from a galaxy it will lose energy, but OTOH it gains energy as it moves towards other galaxies. In an isotropic, homogeneous universe, you are always moving towards as many galaxies as you are moving away from. So your only looking at the loss of energy due to gravitational potential is IMO Enron style accounting.

As for needing four dimensions: You need those to solve the Einstein field equations. Only at the very end of the process can you set two aside. Doing a 2-D analysis that is not built on a set of field equations (be they Einstein's or someone else's) proves nothing. --EMS | Talk 20:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Question: You do know what a blue shift is, don't you? --EMS | Talk 05:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ed - I took a look at my prose and I noticed that it was my fault that you didn't understand the nature of "general time dilation". It is not explained well enough for a busy person who reads only every second sentence and forms his judgement on it assuming that most people are idiots anyway (unfortunately true). For the people who are interested in the issue and have the time I wrote though someplace:

To encourage the reader to read the rest of the story rather than think that Jim is nuts who imagines that he noticed something in Einstein's theory of gravity that all the physicists (except Einstein) couldn't see, and to save time of many people who think that Jim needs lecturing on physic, mathematics, Newtonian gravity, tired light effect, and many other subjects that many people feel proper to lecture Jim on, a backround and history of the results is provided to suggest that Jim is rather a rational guy who studied the subject thoroughly for many years and yet he still thinks that he might be right.

In case that you don't have the time to read long stories (even if they are funny) I might tell you where you're making an error: It is that you assume that "gravitational field" is conservative. The error is not that obvious since in Newtonian theory it is conserative since energy of photons is assumed non existent (or at least negligible). In relativistic gravitation it isn't conservative even in principle: A photon running around in circles in space containing matter, has to have on average a redshift regardless which way it goes (astronomers call it dynamical friction) and of course this redshift is not because of forces acting on the photon since there are no gravitational forces acting at the distance in GR. In other words this is the place where GR is qualitatively different than Newtonian physics. Which no astrophysicist realizes despite that some studied GR, however with the expansion of space and with the symmetic matric tensor built into it. And the astrophysicists don't dare to challenge BB experts not understanding fully the GR and not knowing that BB experts don't understand it neither -- which I've seen at many cosmology seminars -- a typical situation of "Emperor's clothes" and the little Jim who don't know nothing can't play a role of a little boy from the story unless he wants all of them to have good time laughing at him. Luckily, some professors can already see my side of the story and argue with others about it as I was told by my promotor (who doesn't care either way, just wants me to convince others that this PhD makes sense:). So there is already some progress.

As for 4D you are right, but explaining math before explaining physics of the model makes no sense anyway. So I just produce 2D results, since nobody is interested in math before one understands the physics. And as you've seen yourself is not a trivial thing despite that it's very simple. Jim 09:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. When you write about the equations try to use Observational evidence ... as a ref since it is the latest version (presently 3270-3.htm) with new numbers of equations. Jim 10:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Jim - It is your job to communicate, not my job to understand this for you. You are waving your hands say "dynamical friction, dynamical friction" now. You need to give me a mechanism for this supposed loss of energy by photons as they traverse a static universe. It seems that I am supposed to take it on faith that a photon going through spacetime will lose energy of its own accord. I would sooner believe in the tooth fairy. As for the equation numbers, I took those from the article you presented on your user page. If that is not the correct one, then feel free to update it, but you may want to amend my post to note which version I was using in that case.

Your remark about "explaining math before explaining physics" is a total non-starter for me. In this business, you set up a paradigm, and then set up the supporting math. Then you work the math and see what physics you get. You are making a claim about time dilation which includes an assertion that it is a part of Einstein's theory. There is a very specific formalism that is used to demonstrate such a thing, but you are not using it. It is as if you are putting up a building without first laying a foundation.

You remark about be treated as someone who has noticed something about Einstein's theory that noone else has. I played that game early on myself, and ended up with a solidly refuted theory on my hands. Finding that refutation is one of the best things that has happenned to me: It freed me to start over again and create a model that undergoing some good development.

You need to take a course on GR. You need to learn how to work tensors and to solve the Einstein field equations. You need to learn how to read a metric tensor. You need to learn what gravitation can and cannot do. You need to realize that you had a compatriot in Einstein himself in not liking a dynamic universe, but the weight of the evidence eventually brought Einstein around to the dynamical view. Most of all, you need to learn how to communicate and also analyze your own idea. You are not using GR itself at this time, but instead a very limited cross section of it. --EMS | Talk 14:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ed - I know that is my job to communicate but I have to learn how to do it since without any feedback I don't know whether I communicate or not. Now I have a feedback from you and I see that I don't communicate very well with you but don't know yet why.

The "dynamical friction" is the basic physical phenomenon from which it all has come. BB folks say it does not exist for photons (it is exactly zero). It can't be anything but zero if g_ik is symmetric. And that's why I started the whole business. From the question "what is the dynamical friction value for photons". It is nowhere in the literature. Astrophysicists say it is negligible since they see it and routinely calculate it for all other slow objects. They can't calculate it for photons. Seemingly neither Newton nor GR provide tools for that. So you already have two theories about "dynamical friction". BB folks, who ignore it as zero (because of metric) and astrophysicists who ignore it as "negligible" because even such a small energy as photon must have at least some non zero redshift. I inventd a trick and forced the Newtonian physics to provide an answer. I calculate it legally. All the conditions of using legally the Newtonian approximation are met so referee say that "formally" I'm right. They say that they belive that the universe is expanding so I must be wrong "somewhere". Stationary universe is just a conclusion as a byproduct. In my first paper I just wanted to adjust the Hubble constant for dynamical friction, it was even titled this way, but adjustment came too big and referees cosidered it a proposition that the universe is stationary and rejected the paper only for that reason. As they say every time they reject it.

I kept the same equation numbers in all papers but the last one, so your numbers are OK and I see what you mean. Just the last version might be a little bit more clear. So I think that you understand the problem of "dynamical friction" now, which is bascally that math of GR does not agree with physics observed for all ohter particles in the universe. My paper is meant to explain the special status of photons in GR, through providing a very simple physical "hypothesis of general time dilation" that says that tensoral sum (of 3-tensors) of time dilation and space curvature vanishes identically". Just one more identity that Einstein overlooked for some reason. You have to admit that this sum can't have an accidental value so why not zero? I think that Feynman, judging from his quotations, would like it. To state such a simple thing I don't need even to know the reason or even the metric. I have to have observational data that support this special physical principle. Luckily the observational data agree with the theory on a few counts. Even with Pioneer anomaly. So I just do what my teachers taught me to do in my physics course, especialy in QM course, where nothing is mathematically sound but everything agrees with experiments to many decimal places, for still unknown reasons. That's nature of physics. That's why I don't treat the math too seriously, since it can't explain physics. It can only desribe it and provide a model. Then we (or just computers) may deduce mechanically all the things that this mathematical model allows us to deduce but nothing more. It makes a false impression that one can do math instead of physics. But apparently to explain Hubble redshift we have to add something to this math. Like my little identity.

I may leave this stuff alone till astrophysicist admit that I can predict observations, for unknown reasons but correctly, with one additional hypothesis added to GR (of the general time dilation). BTW, one astronomer who listened to my seminar about it told me: "don't try to derive it just make it a hypothesis and let them to worry how to prove that you are wrong". So this is my approach now: To show observational data and let GR experts worry:). Observational data can't be refuted. That's why my last paper is presenting just observational evidence for the necessity of additional hypothesis of general time dilation to the math of GR. Jim 23:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) First of all, there is no such thing as a "3-tensor of time dilation". The time dilation factor is a scalar (or a rank zero tensor), and tensors in GR are all four-dimensional. You then claim that this is related to "space curvature", but in GR you have space-time curvature, not just space curvature. Also, which curvature tensor are you refering to anyway? The Riemann tensor, the Ricci tensor, the Einstein tensor, the Weyl tensor, or perhaps some other tensor? Can you translate your words into a tensor equation? If you cannot, then there is nothing here to disprove. --EMS | Talk 01:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ed, You are right about the contemporary (BB) GR (all pre-docs here are telling me the same thing as you do, not so the professors though). What you say is not true in Einstein's GR. Take a look at Landau and Lifshitz (The classical theory of Fields, which BTW includes GR since non classical is only QM, but we were already there when someone reverted my definition of "classical":). There is a lot of spatial tensors (3-tensors) there. What do you think the original Riemannian geometry was (the one with signature ++++ and that's why classical signature was -+++ as opposite to "modern" +---)? Am I wrong assuming that Riemman didn't work with spacetime but with space only, and that it can be curved (and in fact is) as well? So assuming the same thing as Landau I hypohtesize the existence of a "3-tensor of time dilation" (you didn't read my papers carefully enough, which might be due to my inability to express myself clearly, but I remember saying explicitly tensor of curvature of space). That's why I insist on necessity of returning one step back, to Einstein's GR with its stationary universe. And opponents of such an approach have to prove that it is a wrong approach since it is not confirmed by observations. It can't be rejected forever on a theoretical basis of faith in expanding universe only, as it is rejected now, since then it is a victory of faith over data. And for some strange coincidence all the observational data agree with Einstein's version of GR despite that there are no adjustable parameters there and all of it follows from the first principles. Even the Pioneer anomaly for some reason. Maybe only because nature likes Einstein more than BB folks. And in BB all prameters are adjustable, and yet they had to add to it dark magic to be able to explain observations. Ironically, it had to be done with the "biggest Einstein's blunder" the cosmological constant. The only thing they have to do is to admit that this cosmological constant has "Einstein's value" $4\pi G\rho /c^{2}$ and all the trouble disappear and Friedmann's solutions give Einstein's universe. As I know you, now you might tell me that Einstein's universe isn't stable :). Jim 07:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless you guessed already why it has to be stable (despite what Eddington thought). Not to take from you the fun that comes from guessing how the nature might have been working in this case I leave the question not answered for now. If you can't or don't like to guess, since e.g. you think that it isn't stationary in the first place, I might always tell you later why I think it has to be stable. Jim 14:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that there is no such thing as a 3-tensor. Instead I am sating that there is no such thing as a 3-tensor of time dilation. I read this as saying that you are using a vector or an array to hold a single value. That is a joke.

You have not answered my questions above about the type of curvature tensor that you are using, and now you are saying "3-tensor" to me. Then tell me: What is the rank of this "3-tensor"? Is it contravariant, covariant, or mixed? How do you relate it to a 4-tensor? I await your answers. --EMS | Talk 14:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Tantatively, until I understand the differential geometry well enough, hopefully in less than 5 years, which is how much time I have to understand it and describe my stuff in its language, the time dilation 3-tensor is of rank 4, mixed (one contravariant, 3 covariant), relation to 4-tensor is spatial part of 4-tensor of spacetime curvature. I.e. it looks like ${A^{i}}_{jkl}$. The obvious reason is of course that if the sum of it and the 3-tensor of the curvature of space is to vanish identically then ${A^{i}}_{jkl}=-{B^{i}}_{jkl}$, where ${B^{i}}_{jkl}$ is 3-tensor of the curvature of space.

You should understand that I'm not a very good source to unswer these questions now since I'm a sculptor not a physicists. I started a university physics only 2 years ago, when I started astronomy, which gave me so far only 5 semestes of physics courses and besides I'm not interested in a cosmology a bit. I don't care whether the universe is expanding, shrinking or stationary. I just once wanted to know why the scientists think that it is expanding and afer many years of asking them and getting no answers I found that most likely the expansion is an illusion caused by inability of nature to make energy from nothing. Then it has to be fit into GR and this "general time dilation 3-tensor" is the best thing that came to my mind. But I care about art only and I hoped that someone would take over this thing since it is not my cup of tea. I thought that scientists should be interested in such things more than sculptors. Unfortunately I din't find any scientist who would like to earn his Nobel Prise proving that the universe isn't expanding. So I'm forced by a kind of feeling of duty to humanity to waste my time I could use in much better way than on learning the differential geometry. And that's why I don't do it enthusiastically.

It is at the cost of my sculpting and my models complain that I don't give them enough work to make the ends meet. I'm engaged in silly cosmological problems rather than caring that "so much beauty won't be wasted", as one of the girls put it, insisting on having her sculptur for that reason. Her 21-st birthday is due at the end of this month and I kind of promissed her sculpture finished by this date. So you see that I'm rather a busy guy now. But if you are interested in this tensor than this is the best thing I can tell you. And BTW, you could figure it out yourself from the hypothesis of general time dilation and a proper equation from which it followed. Jim 13:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ed - It also occured to me that we shouldn't waste Wikipedia's disk space on discussing our private problems and should rather move this discussion to e-mail. I hope you know how to get my e-mail address. Jim 13:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Jim - You wrote:

you could figure it out yourself from the hypothesis of general time dilation and a proper equation from which it followed.

First of all, it is not my job to figure out that math. Instead it is yours. Secondly, you have only given me so much gobbledygook: It sounds like general relativity but once you take a closer look at it, it has nothing to do with it. Thirdly, I have just been through a hellascious period of change and effort in my own theory, and am exhausted from it. Even without that, I would not be interested in figuring out another theory. (Two, Einstein's and mine, are more than enough.) Feel free to e-mail me if you like, but IMO you don't have a theory here. --EMS | Talk 15:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ed - I know I don't have a theory since it is all Einstein's plus my little hypothesis about Einstein's theory. I assume that you think this little hypothesis is wrong and not GR like since there is no general time dilation or at least it isn't desribed as I think it is. But from my Newtonian approximation it follows that it must be something like that because in an isotropic universe

$\partial ^{2}{\tau }/\partial {t}\partial {r}=-1/R$

that in a general case has to be valid in any spatial direction because of conservation of energy and so there must be something corresponding to it in 4D as well to keep it invariant. Since curvature of space has a tensoral character so the time dilation should be the same. And the relation as an identity seems to be the simplest. I hope in a few more years I'll learn enough GR to be able to write it as it is, not only as I think it might be. Jim 13:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Circumnavigation

Let's see: You are proposing that the universe is static and finite, and that time dilation occurs as a function of distance from the observer. So I could in this theory see my self at some previous time due to photons circumnavigating the universe. I would also see myself as being time dilated in this view.

If the time in my coordinate system that it takes a photon to cicumnavigate the universe is constant, then I should see one second of my past time elapse for every second of current time (due to that constant travel time). In that case, my being time dilated with respect to myself is self-contradictory. --EMS | Talk 16:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This time is not constant since you see the past always in dilated time. The same effect as in an expanding universe that didn't cross yet the particle horizon. However unlike in an expanding universe there is no cosmic time. The time the same as the space can't be absolute. Jim 23:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2