Neveos' Optical Theory Discussion

[Sayonara]

Oh really?

Yeah.

 

Exasperated explanations of dimensionality aside, I am just being irritatingly pedantic.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What happens if we, say, put one person on each end of a football field and move a lightbulb from one person to the other? What happens to the lightbulb as it is moved?

 

I ask because I'm still a little confused about Neveos's hypothesis here and would like some clarification.

[D H]

Why do you think focusing the light (which requires a distribution of light of certain ratios in the first place) to magically explain this phenomenon?

No magic at all. Read up on the science of optics. Classical and quantum physics explain this quite well.

 

 

Ready, scientists who put me in speculation forums:

 

Why:

I too wonder why this thread was put into speculations. You have a nonsensical explanation of a well-understood phenomenon. It should have been put in the Trashbin.

 

 

Yeah, thanks for not adding anything while vaguely disagreeing with me.

swansont was apparently answering the side disagreement between Sayonora and JillSwift. His answer had nothing to do with your particular nonsense.

[swansont]

Yeah, thanks for not adding anything while vaguely disagreeing with me. By the way, thanks for scaring off the only other person who knew what was going on. Welcome to what happens to the intelligence level of online forums.

 

Yeah, right. I "scared off" a hit-and-run crackpot by pointing out the rules.

 

For your thesis to be correct you first have to disprove basic geometry. Good luck with that. I'm not surprised you think pointing out basic math and/or physics that contradicts your proposal is adding nothing; I'm of the opinion that a contention that comes pre-disproved is adding nothing.

 

Field-of-view and perspective are elements of basic geometry. Optical illusions are not evidence to the contrary.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Does no one see that obviously every instance of observation entails a condition whereby we have a relationship between distance, and the amount of time light takes to impress your eye from the object?

 

Look at an object. Now look at the same object, at the same distance, through a piece of plate glass. Does it change size? No? Why not? The time of travel of the light is greater.

 

You can magnify or reduce, based on the geometry of the glass, if it is not plate glass. In either case, the light takes longer to get to you. So your hypothesis is falsified.

[Neveos]

So, is there any evidence we can show you that would convince you of the geometry involved?

This is why I recommend a philosophy over any science. You have to know what on Earth your talking about, and hearing.

 

You cannot answer a question with the same question.

 

Hopefully that makes sense, and if you believe that continue:

 

If someone asks why do things appear smaller when they are further away.

 

And then that person receives an answer:

 

The angle is smaller in comparison to the field of view, therefore they impression your retina less.

 

It is all very true, and uses some different terminology, but it does not answer the question, literally, at all... and, this is so funny, it is the question. big round of applause.

 

Ok, so now I have reduced everyone to claiming it is "lensing" phenomena and "geometry". Which is, yeah, the exact same thing we are talking about.

 

Well, look, if you want a hint: Do not re-state the object in question. If you want, provide an answer which gets at it's base, explain why/how light diverges, don't continually repeat that it just does. If you can't do that, then don't explain anything at all. Explain why a light source will exhibit greater beam divergence the further away it gets. Explain why there is the inverse square law for the many things which radiate from distances. In so doing, you'll understand the concept of "distance" itself, because you have to understand that divergence along a distance, is the same as divergence over time. A tree which is "100 yards" from me, is a tree which is many milliseconds older than me. And the person "50 yards" from me, is a person which is only a quarter as old as the tree "100 yards" from me. Continue to do this, and viola, you understand that there is a huge neon sign going, -wow objects themselves were smaller in the past-. You are being shown representations of objects as they were. If I held up a small identical-looking tree in my hand next to the other tree, well even though they appear the same size, the difference is that the toy tree is closer, but just saying that means it is a younger representation.

 

Light remains constant from its source, but the universe is expanding, so the source of the light will continually have less and less impressionability.

[JillSwift]

This is why I recommend a philosophy over any science.

Unfortunate for you, then, that this is a science forum.

 

Can you offer the slightest evidence that matter is expanding? Especially at the rate necessary to produce the effects you are claiming. How is the matter remaining bound as it expands? That requires energy - where's the new energy coming from?

[Neveos]

Unfortunate for you, then, that this is a science forum.

 

Can you offer the slightest evidence that matter is expanding? Especially at the rate necessary to produce the effects you are claiming. How is the matter remaining bound as it expands? That requires energy - where's the new energy coming from?

I'm handling all this on another thread here:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=44726

[JillSwift]

I'm handling all this on another thread here:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=44726

You offer no evidence in that post. You don't address the question of where the energy is coming from to keep all this rapidly expanding matter bound to itself. That is: Why aren't electrons peeling away from their protons? If the smaller particles are expanding too, what's keeping them bound? If everything from the quantum to the cosmological is all expanding, how could we detect it?

 

More importantly, you've not answered the question: "Is there any evidence we could produce for you that would convince you that it's all just geometry?"

[Neveos]

You offer no evidence in that post. You don't address the question of where the energy is coming from to keep all this rapidly expanding matter bound to itself. That is: Why aren't electrons peeling away from their protons? If the smaller particles are expanding too, what's keeping them bound? If everything from the quantum to the cosmological is all expanding, how could we detect it?

We can't detect it because it is all expanding in flux. Phenomena result such as gravitation and smallness of distant objects. The values we use in all other models are probably going to have to be changed as a result, but since everything is in flux, there won't be much need to compensate for ordinary phenomena. It simply explains curvature, gravitation, and beam divergence. That would be the evidence your crying for. And the fact that the law of thermodynamics points in the direction of the future... the theory would explain even that. Please tell me how it doesn't work.

 

More importantly, you've not answered the question: "Is there any evidence we could produce for you that would convince you that it's all just geometry?"

I actually don't even understand that question when I am asking why light diverges. You can't go "divergence is a bunch of lines spreading apart from a central location"... that is so not an answer it isn't funny. Why does light do it? That's not geometry, now, is it?

[D H]

This is why I recommend a philosophy over any science.

This is a science forum, not a forum for naval gazers who have no idea how things work.

 

You have to know what on Earth your talking about, and hearing.

And you do?

 

 

Light remains constant from its source, but the universe is expanding, so the source of the light will continually have less and less impressionability.

The expansion of space is immeasurably small at distances observable by our eyes. The expansion of the universe has nothing to do with why distant objects appear smaller. On human scales, the universe is locally cartesian and flat.

 

Neveos, this is a science forum, not a naval gazer's forum. The burden is upon you to provide justify your claims. With mathematics.

 

 

Moderators:

I strongly recommend that this thread be put into put up or shut up mode.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

You can't go "divergence is a bunch of lines spreading apart from a central location"... that is so not an answer it isn't funny. Why does light do it? That's not geometry, now, is it?

Yes, it is. Space is locally cartesian.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Neveos, could you please answer my question in post #27 above?

 

D H is right, by the way. If you want to act like you're right and the accepted ideas are wrong, you will need to put up evidence that shows it.

[Neveos]

For everyone who wants to inch into matter-expansion, please refer to this thread:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=44726

 

And read the entire thing, and we will discuss it from there. Barrage of anti-thesis is boring when you could just take something into consideration. And, no, it isn't just on me to apply mathematics to the theory, its on all of humanity to do so. And yes, philosophy is pretty much the reason I know that a bunch of idiots on this forum are failing to answer how things appear to converge in the distance by answering that they appear to converge in the distance. No, it is because light diverges, and no one is explaining that. And no it isn't geometry, it is theoretical physics. Glad everyone thinks its a bunch of pseudo-science.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

What happens if we, say, put one person on each end of a football field and move a lightbulb from one person to the other? What happens to the lightbulb as it is moved?

You probably need to be a little more specific, and basically don't ask me this question when you have a point to make, just make the point. This isn't a game where you think you beat me, or you get a prize for winning, just put across an argument. Welcome to philosophy idiots, we draw conclusions, not conclusions that give us self-esteem.

[JillSwift]

For everyone who wants to inch into matter-expansion, please refer to this thread:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=44726

 

And read the entire thing, and we will discuss it from there. Barrage of anti-thesis is boring when you could just take something into consideration. And, no, it isn't just on me to apply mathematics to the theory, its on all of humanity to do so. And yes, philosophy is pretty much the reason I know that a bunch of idiots on this forum are failing to answer how things appear to converge in the distance by answering that they appear to converge in the distance. No, it is because light diverges, and no one is explaining that. And no it isn't geometry, it is theoretical physics. Glad everyone thinks its a bunch of pseudo-science.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

You probably need to be a little more specific, and basically don't ask me this question when you have a point to make, just make the point. This isn't a game where you think you beat me, or you get a prize for winning, just put across an argument. Welcome to philosophy idiots, we draw conclusions, not conclusions that give us self-esteem.

I think this is the "argument from snottiness' fallacy.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You probably need to be a little more specific, and basically don't ask me this question when you have a point to make, just make the point. This isn't a game where you think you beat me, or you get a prize for winning, just put across an argument. Welcome to philosophy idiots, we draw conclusions, not conclusions that give us self-esteem.

 

I am just curious how something can be changing size as it moves away from one person when it is simultaneously moving closer to another person at the opposite end of the field and growing larger. How would you describe what is happening in that situation?

[Neveos]

I am just curious how something can be changing size as it moves away from one person when it is simultaneously moving closer to another person at the opposite end of the field and growing larger. How would you describe what is happening in that situation?

Both the observational devices on either end of the field are growing as much as the object. At the 50 yard line it'll appear the same to both people. And change accordingly depending on who it moves towards.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

But what happens to the size of the object as it moves down the field? One person sees it as getting bigger and the other sees it as getting smaller.

[Klaynos]

Locally the universe is not expanding, the gravitational, and more locally other fundamental forces are significantly greater than the expansion force. Ignoring your obvious need to disprove basic geometry to be taken seriously you also need to over come that.

 

I'd suggest you look up some basic, fundamental optics, things like Fermat's principle, you don't seem to understand these things, which is a MUST if you want to argue against them.

 

Welcome to philosophy idiots, we draw conclusions, not conclusions that give us self-esteem.

 

Don't insult people

 

Welcome to science, we require explanations of the universe to actually match what the universe is doing, not just sound nice.

[Sayonara]

I am just curious how something can be changing size as it moves away from one person when it is simultaneously moving closer to another person at the opposite end of the field and growing larger. How would you describe what is happening in that situation?

The object appears to get larger because the light reaching the person's eyes comes from the future, where the object reflecting it is much bigger. The light knows which person to aim at because, coming from the future, it is much more intelligent than present-day light.

[Neveos]

But what happens to the size of the object as it moves down the field? One person sees it as getting bigger and the other sees it as getting smaller.

The object is growing, and so are the people. This means the very expansion of matter is undetectable by us, except by measuring the amount of time has that has passed since the light was reflected by the object. This means if it is moving away, the light is taking longer and longer to get to you, and thus the object is more and more representative of the past. The further in the past the represented object, the smaller it will appear. Vice versa for its approach.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Locally the universe is not expanding, the gravitational, and more locally other fundamental forces are significantly greater than the expansion force. Ignoring your obvious need to disprove basic geometry to be taken seriously you also need to over come that.

By universe expansion, you think I'm talking about space expansion. But I am referring to an (apparently) brand new form of expansion, which is the expansion of matter.

 

I'd suggest you look up some basic, fundamental optics, things like Fermat's principle, you don't seem to understand these things, which is a MUST if you want to argue against them.

don't insult people

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The object appears to get larger because the light reaching the person's eyes comes from the future, where the object reflecting it is much bigger. The light knows which person to aim at because, coming from the future, it is much more intelligent than present-day light.

don't insult people

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

So, is there any evidence we can show you that would convince you of the geometry involved?

don't insult people

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

No magic at all. Read up on the science of optics. Classical and quantum physics explain this quite well.

 

 

 

I too wonder why this thread was put into speculations. You have a nonsensical explanation of a well-understood phenomenon. It should have been put in the Trashbin.

don't insult poeple

[iNow]

Is there anyone who remains uncertain whether or not this guy is just a stupid troll worthy of a smack from the ban hammer?

[Neveos]

yeah, thats just wrong on all levels.

don't insult people

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

Some reference material for you:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

wow, big time don't insult people

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Is there anyone who remains uncertain whether or not this guy is just a stupid troll worthy of a smack from the ban hammer?

don't insult people

[StringJunky]

Neveos: I think people's patience has reached 'critcal mass'......... you are talking out of your backside. Shut up.

 

I don't think there is any substance left in this thread.

[Klaynos]

Repition does not make your position firmer, the current understanding of the phenomena you are trying to talk about is understood perfectly well, with excellent experimental evidence matching the predictions made by theory. Show this is incorrect or surpassed by your theory, which WILL require mathematical predictions in your next post or I will just close the thread. And replying "don't insult people" will not help people take you seriously.

 

On a side note if it is just "stuff" expanding, not space, why have we not collided with the moon yet, if this was the case happening on a time scale as you predict we should have done a LONG time ago.

[Neveos]

Repition does not make your position firmer, the current understanding of the phenomena you are trying to talk about is understood perfectly well, with excellent experimental evidence matching the predictions made by theory. Show this is incorrect or surpassed by your theory, which WILL require mathematical predictions in your next post or I will just close the thread. And replying "don't insult people" will not help people take you seriously.

Just wanted to point out the hypocrisy. And censorship never gets anyone anywhere. I seriously don't understand forums these days, banning and closing threads when their best buddies aren't feeling the way they want. No, I'm not going to post anything more than this very plain and well thought out argument for taking matter-expansion into consideration, and I didn't expect forum junkies to take it very well. Let me just point out that none of you have explained the what the OP has originally asked, and yet you claim to have done so. So I am very happy for calling you all idiots, and would be honored to have been banned by one of you... a feat which is very clearly the height of ignorance on whoever does so... just pushing the truth away.

 

On a side note if it is just "stuff" expanding, not space, why have we not collided with the moon yet, if this was the case happening on a time scale as you predict we should have done a LONG time ago.

It is moving away from us in a diagonal direction at a rate which is sufficiently fast enough for it to both not allow the Earth to expand into it, and for it not to expand into the Earth. The fact that it goes around the Earth is something I'm still thinking about, but seems to have to do with how denser materials are larger than they actually are capable of appearing, which is why light bends around super dense objects since it is actually travelling by more matter than we witness as being there. Likewise, I'm sure this has to do with why satellites orbit in ways that appear circular. They are simply making a very very long straight route either into or away from another mass.

[mooeypoo]

Neveos, this isn't censorship. Censorship would've been closing this thread outright, which wasn't done. We are giving you all the available tools and patience we can bear so you have the opportunity to actually give us some substance,rather than tangential rants and mythos.

 

Science works by evidence, Neveos, not be what seems to make sense to you. The current theories, as was pointed out to you many times in the thread, are not only "making sense" but they also have the power of having evidence on their side and the power of prediction. That is, using the ucrrent theory we can successfully predict how things will behave.

 

For us to accept your theory, you must show us this step. For three pages and 50 posts,you haven't.

 

Don't insult us by claiming censorship when this thread is clearly letting you continue ranting for 50 posts without a shred of actual valid science.

 

You're in a science forum, not in your personal rant blog. It's time you provide some evidence and actual science. Remember, we didn't invite you to lecture, you chose to come to us, and by choosing that, you agreed to follow our rules. Maybe you should go over them.

 

 

 

~moo