User talk:JimJast

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, JimJast, and welcome to Conservapedia!

We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!

Thanks for reading, JimJast!


Hi Jim Jast, welcome to Conservapedia. Knowing your interests, I would suggest a good article for you to work on would be Big Bang theory. But I'd suggest you edit the Talk page first, to check if other editors are happy with your edits, before making them to the proper article (at least until you get the feel for the site.) If you want to check on anything, good people to talk to would be Conservative or RobSmith, since they are both admins and have been around much longer than me. Maratrean 20:48, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

Hi Maratrean, The Big Bang theory is not a theory in scientific sense since it is not verifyable, which is required from all "scientific" theories. It is only a (lame) hypothesis that the universe came about in such way. In my opinion it is just a creationist fairy tale proposing how it could happen if the universse were not eternal (as it most likely is), and if there was a way of creating energy out of nothing. The later thing is necessary for such a "BB universe" to exist, and for several reasons. (i) If there was no universe in its place and it got created "somehow" the energy had to be supplied. (ii) If it already started function as we see it now, it needs constant supply of energy to compensate for constant loss of energy of photons for "dynamical friction" which is a problem for any moving objects in the universe with which it interacts gravitationally. Even photons need this energy delievered, as I described it here. Besides the above paper explains all the observations so that the Big Bang hypothesis is not needed any more. JimJast 15:39, 16 July 2011 (EDT)
Hi JJ. I hope you fit in here. I suspect your ideas will be welcomed here more than at certain other places. --DamianJohn 14:45, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

Contents

Your gravitation theory

Hi JimJast, I've just commented on your theory here. --MM87 17:13, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

Problems

Mr. Jast:

I note with some concern the things that you have been writing, about yourself, and about relativity and such. They lead me to suspect that you are a "crackpot". Your statements that things your have written have been rejected by the scientific establishment only reinforce this. Now I'm not going to recommand that your writings be deleted or reverted, though I will raise some questions below. People should have a forum from which they can argue for what they believe, and Conservapedia may be just the place for you. It certainly hosts other seriously unorthodox ideas. I like to think that the scientific and mathematical articles at Conservapedia do not go off into seriously and demonstrably wrong things, but it's not for me to say. This may be just the right forum for you.

I have similar suspicions. Most items on the crackpottery checklist (grandiose claims of new discoveries, complaints of censorship by the establishment, use of non-standard definitions etc) are ticked off. --SamCoulter 14:45, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
Hi Sam, I'd have the same suspicions if not for the results of very elementry calculations and the "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler that I bought myself and it confirmed my suspicions about relativists described also by Richard Feynman. So I believe Feynman whom I know from his books rather than relativists who made at least 7 serious errors in their book. I didn't expect the book is still around. Yet it still is despite those errors. Most likely no one ever read it (except me). JimJast 15:18, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
Feynman was an atheist, an evolutionist and very much what you call a "relativist." --SamCoulter 15:37, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
Crackpot index by John Baez:
1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
- "that the universe is not expanding"
2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
- "It suggests the existence of overlooked by cosmologists the antisymmetric part of Ricci tensor in time domain,"
5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".
-Einstein and Feynman get mentioned a lot, especially Einstein.
10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
-"electronic engineering in which I have MS degree from Warsaw Politechnic"
10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)
- "I'm a sculptor who by a strange twist of fate consisting of proving mathematically in February 1985 that the universe is not expanding"
10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.
"Hubble tensor" or taking it as the 'anti-symmetric part of the Ricci tensor' than that's just zero and that's still a fail.
10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".
- "Einstein was not able to manage "his blunder", while I could, and in rather straight forward manner, practically not knowing any tensor calculus being a sculptor rather than a cosmologist"
10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
See above quote. Even worse than "favorable comparison".
30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
Yep.
40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
http://conservapedia.com/Relativists
50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.
--MatthewQ 16:16, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
MatthewQ, You may sbtract this last 50 points since this "revolutionary theory" as you call it has "concrete testable predictions". They were observed in 1998 by Supernova Cosmology Project astronomers, in a form of accelerating expansion of space. They were predicted already in 1985 with accuracy of one sigma, and don't have till now any other explanation beyond possibility of being caused by some not yet identified "dark energy".
No, he won't be subtracting 50 points because the "theory" that lacks concrete predictions is YOURS, not the inflationary model. --SamCoulter 14:24, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
And I can add: 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.) --SamCoulter 14:26, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
I suggested this? That's even funnier then point 32 of Baez's index. And BTW, what's "inflationary model"? JimJast 14:58, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
Yes, you have suggested repeatedly that Feynman didn't accept relativity, which of course he did. Also, if you don't know what the inflationary model is I'd suggest that you're probably not qualified to be arguing about the Big Bang theory. --SamCoulter 17:51, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
Sam, Feynman believed that all true theories in physics must be quantum theories (even atheists belive in something) and he didn't see why Einstein's theory is quantum. I found it too late to tell him (besides, I couldn't get through secretary), but you can read it in my Essay:Demystified gravitation, which I'm still working on. I know what inflationary model is, just wantetd you to tell it in your own words since I also know that it is a fairy tale so it may have a few versions (all wrong) since the universe is surely stationary and therefore eternal. I'll write it in my essay as well so if you are interested in physics of the universe you are welcome to read it and ask questions on the talk page. See you there then. JimJast 18:23, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
Feynman believed no such thing; he fully accepted LOTS of scientific theories that aren't quantum, mainly because to do otherwise would be utterly insane. --SamCoulter 20:06, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
When I find Feynman's text where he insists on true theories being necessarily quantum theories I'll send you the quatation with a source. I don't remember where I have read it.
There is also the matter of interpretation of "true" and "scientific" (theory). E.g. Newtonian gravitation was for a long time a "true" and scientific theory and people accepted "gravitational attraction" since there was nothing better. Newton didn't accept it since he didn't believe that action at a distance is possible. When Einstein showed that Newton theory is not a true theory it stopped being true though whether it is still "scientific" becomes a matter of opinion. I classify theories that are not true as "pseudo scientific" but it might be considered to be "scientific" for historical reasons. Feynman treated Einstein's theory the same way: as "true" until its quantum version will be found and replace the "linear" Einstein's version Feynman thought.
BTW how do you like attempt on Einsteinian gravitation (EGR)? If you respond please do it in talk page of my essay:Demystified gravitation. JimJast 15:02, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

First, I note that some of your citations lead to broken internet links.

Now, in your user page, you make a few claims about your achievements. One the particularly interested me was the claim of singlehandedly being one of the first to invent a computer display that does not print on paper. Presumably this was one of the first "electronic" computer displays of text. Can you tell us just what it was that you invented? Matrix fonts? Stroke fonts? Point-plotting CRT displays? Stroke CRT displays? LED displays? LCD displays? TFT displays? Gas-discharge ("nixie") displays? This happens to be an area that I am interested in, and my knowledge of its early history is incomplete.

Now, on some of your other pages, you make some rather unfathomable claims. I haven't gone through them in detail, being an impatient person, but there are a few points I noticed:

In Einsteinian gravitation:

step 8 -- the "antisymmetric part of Ricci tensor". What? The Ricci tensor is symmetric.

step 11 -- you discovered this in 1986, but couldn't show it to Einstein because he was dead? That's a lot of Hubris! Where did you publish it?

In [1], you say that the original equation was R mu nu = 8 pi K T mu nu? Nonsense. That would violate conservation of mass/energy. Conservation says that the 4-divergence of T mu nu is zero. Ricci's tensor does not have that property. Einstein's tensor does, due to having the trace removed, and the Bianchi identities. Einstein's tensor, and the fact that the equation involves it and not Ricci's tensor, was not introduced in 1973. It's been there all along, since 1915 or so.

Hi, Let me address your concerns one by one:
First, I note that some of your citations lead to broken internet links.
This is because my account on the university physics server has been blocked for the reason not known yet but I hope to learn when the guy who ordered bloking my account returns from his vacations.
Now, in your user page, you make a few claims about your achievements. One the particularly interested me was the claim of singlehandedly being one of the first to invent a computer display that does not print on paper. Presumably this was one of the first "electronic" computer displays of text. Can you tell us just what it was that you invented? Matrix fonts? Stroke fonts? Point-plotting CRT displays? Stroke CRT displays? LED displays? LCD displays? TFT displays? Gas-discharge ("nixie") displays? This happens to be an area that I am interested in, and my knowledge of its early history is incomplete.
The part I invented was "stroke fonts" that worked together with a "Point-plotting CRT display". The "character generator" as I called it then, worked this way that there was a number of rows of magnetic cores aranged in a rectangular matrix into which a character was written with a wire dedicated to this particular character (about 100 wires) and then a xy coordinates were read from the matrix one by one with one wire per one word (about 30 wires) so each character was displayed in about 30 strokes. We (me and my staff of 4) completed building this display around 1965 and since that time it was operational and able to plot grapths with descriptions with about 1024x1024 resolution.
Now, on some of your other pages, you make some rather unfathomable claims. I haven't gone through them in detail, being an impatient person, but there are a few points I noticed:
In Einsteinian gravitation:
step 8 -- the "antisymmetric part of Ricci tensor". What? The Ricci tensor is symmetric.
This requires longer answer but short answer is that it does not have to be called "Ricci" since it is just a tensor that sits there representing spacetime geometry. It may be called differently since I'm not paricularly attached to this name. I already call the temporal part of it the "Hubble tensor" and this part has to be antisymmetric. If Ricci can't have antisymmetric part then we dump it since the spacetime has to have "Hubble tensor" (anti symmetric) desribing trmporal features of spacetime and symmetric part describing it spatial features since the spacetime has to be flat. I asked the guys around here and they say that they don't really know what type of a tensor Ricci is.
step 11 -- you discovered this in 1986, but couldn't show it to Einstein because he was dead? That's a lot of Hubris! Where did you publish it?
Einstein died in 1955 so how could I show it to him in 1986? Are you serious?
I never published anything since the only referee who has seen my paper didn't believe that the universe isn't expanding so this referee recommanded the rejection of my paper dispite my proof that in our universe the Hubble constant must be about 70km/s/Mpc without yet any expansion. The referee said that my math is OK but he thinks that the universe expands. The CP is practically the first place where I may say that the universe isn't expanding and show how I know it. And wnybody who knows high school calculus can check it.
Do you belive that universe is expanding? If yes then with what you support your claim (against all Einsteinian stuff that I present that even predicted the illusion of accelerating expansion observed within 1 standard deviation)?
In [2], you say that the original equation was R mu nu = 8 pi K T mu nu? Nonsense. That would violate conservation of mass/energy. Conservation says that the 4-divergence of T mu nu is zero. Ricci's tensor does not have that property. Einstein's tensor does, due to having the trace removed, and the Bianchi identities. Einstein's tensor, and the fact that the equation involves it and not Ricci's tensor, was not introduced in 1973. It's been there all along, since 1915 or so.
You see: I say R but you say it is not Ricci, so I believe you and call it H (from Hubble). The name is not important just its functions. And H has its symmetric and anti symmetric parts. Now let's check if its divergence can be zero. Why not?
Actually it was the name I proposed already to the same referee in 1986 but he didn't like it for the reason that then the Einstein field equation must be different. I didn't mind but he did without explaining me why. Maybe you will? JimJast 12:35, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
First, as far as the computer displays, I'm convinced.
But you seem to be explaining the Ricci problem by saying that you are using the term "Ricci's tensor" to mean something other than what the rest of the world calls it. I strongly recommend not doing this. Use normal conventions. People will be more inclined to read your articles, and to believe you when you say that your articles are understandable to high school students, if you write in a way that makes that clear. Your nonstandard ways of approaching the subject may be working against you. For example, you claim that the "invariant mass" is not a fundamental property of something, whereas the "relativistic mass" (0 component of the 4-momentum) is, and that the fact that different observers measure different values of this isn't a problem. Just divide by gamma and you get a number that all observers agree on. Most scientists find it more intellectually satisfying to take the invariant quantity as fundamental. In fact, the term "relativistic mass" has been obsolete since the mid 20th century.
To take another example, your claim that the curvature of spacetime causes time dilation, and that time dilation in turn causes gravity (that is, causes geodesics not to appear "straight"), fails to explain the second step. In fact, under general relativity, the curvature of spacetime (that is, Riemann's tensor) can be shown by direct application of mathematics to cause both time dilation and gravity.
You also mentioned, somewhere on the "counterexamples to relativity" talk page, something about the metric tensor being unsymmetrical. You shouldn't use the term "metric tensor" to mean something other than what the rest of the world takes it to be. Or, if you actually believe that it isn't symmetric, you must have reformulated linear algebra and Riemannian geometry, in which case you should indicate where we can find your new textbooks.
SamHB 23:02, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
Hi Sam, Again shifted your message to the right to make it better readible (and hope you don't mind). Since you didn't sign your message I thought it is from MM87, but it's OK, except that you probably didn't know what I'm talking about when I talked about "Ricci".
I don't like using established terms in different sense but I didn't know that Ricci is considered to be symmetric. That's why I told MM87 (as I thought I'm talking to him) that for me the name means nothing and changed the name to "Hubble" which I used already before. So in our communication we may use "H" which we may assume non symmetric. I know from our mathematicians that 4-dimensional metric tensor can be non symmetric (symmetry goes only up to 3-D) and I know from a "relativist" that he actually doesn't know anything about the symmetry of Ricci.
JimJast 14:52, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
Metric tensors are by definition symmetric, regardless of the number of dimensions. --MatthewQ 19:12, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
Hi MatthewQ, Are you sure about non Riemannian as well (degenerate, meaning vanishing determinant)? How do you diagonalize it then? Mine is degenerate just to avoid possibility of diagonalization, according to Einstein's demand of non symmetric metric that Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler forgot to put into their bibliography and also to discuss it while talking about Einstein's ideas [1]. JimJast 19:59, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
Metrics on psudeo-Riemannian manifolds are symmetric. Just think about the Minkowski metric: diag(-1,+1,+1,+1). These metrics satisfy all the usual axioms of a metrics except for positive definite. That is, it can be negative or zero for non-identical points. They also have to be non-degenerate, so whatever it is you're defining isn't a metric or even a pseudo-metric.
I don't have access to the article you mentioned, but I really doubt Einstein demanded a non symmetric metric. Can you provide a quote? Regardless, do you know what a metric is? Roughly speaking, it's something to measure distance between points A and B. So when you say your "metric" is not symmetric you're saying that the distance from A to B is not the same as the distance from B to A. --MatthewQ 22:04, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

References

  1. Einstein, A., "On the Generalized Theory of Gravitation", "Scientific American", April 1950.

Your articles

You shouldn't be creating articles with statements like "according to my calculations" etc. That is what essays are for. MaxFletcher 17:34, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

Hi Max, how do I create an essay? JimJast 17:51, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
By creating a page with "Essay:" as the prefix. Like Essay:Example. MaxFletcher 17:59, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

Duplicate articles

Please stop creating duplicate articles. Add anything new to redshift instead of creating new articles explaining the same thing with a slightly different name. thanks, MaxFletcher 17:06, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

Hi Max, It is not a slightly different name, and it is not a name invented by me. It is used as such (cosmological redshift) in cosmology. The name "cosmological" makes it different from any other redshift that is not "cosmological". E.g. "recessional redshift" may be also "cosmological" but not necessarily. Opinions of cosmologists are divided in this since cosmology is not a finished science in which there are no doubts what is what. I'd like to explain every shade of meaninf to the readres who are interested in the details, and not just shrtchange them as other people may do not caring too much about what readers understand.
If you think that I explained it already and just invent another name for the same thing (which I never do since I feel there are too many names for the same thing) let me know and if this is relly the case I gladly follow your suggestions. If your suggestion is improper for some reason I'll explain what are the differences in meaning. Do we have an agreement?
In cosmology there are really two main theories: the Big Bang and Einsteinian gravitation (as I call it) since it is built on Einstein's understanding of physics. I don't call it "Einstein's" since Einstein didn't know many things that got discovered later but are predicted by his theory and not by the Big Bang. E.g. "dark energy" which is pure invention of the Big Bang proponents who don't understand the universe. Have you read my relativists article?
Einsteinian gravitation predicts observations leading the Big Bang proponents to assuming dark energy but those predictions are not published since the Big Bang proponents hope that Einsteinian explanation will get not noticed.
I write in conservapedia for the sole purpose to explain all cosmology to people who don't understand it and might think that the Big Bang is a theory of the universe, while it is Einsteinian gravitation that I propagate since Einstein is already dead and can't speak. E.g. contemporary students don't even know that Einstein said that spacetime metric must be non symmetric while the Big Bang metric is assumed as symmetric and Einstein's paper not mentioned in bibliografy from which those students learn creationism instead of physics as they should.
I'd appreciate your answering this message. JimJast 19:33, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
I don't pretend to understand cosmology but please add things to the redshift article we already have. Also if you're creating articles on things that are your personal opinion or ideas then an Essay is more appropriate. MaxFletcher 18:38, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
OK Max, if you think it is better for understanding the redshifts then I put it there.
I thought that a short explanations, when a new idea is encountered are better for understanding the subject since a big articles might discourage people from trying to understand real simple things as cosmology, or astronomy (the tough part is astrophysics), but then we would have two styles of explaining things which might be even worse. So let's keep related things together. JimJast 19:33, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
Thank you for your understanding. MaxFletcher 19:36, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
Max, how do I remove cosmological redshift which aproximate contents I merged with redshift? JimJast 21:06, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
i have advised Andy who can delete the page when the info has been moved. MaxFletcher 21:25, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

Articles

I hope you don't mind, but I ran some of them through a spellchecker.--JamesWilson 09:41, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

Blanking

Why are you deleting your own work? Karajou 10:34, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

Just so you know

Complaints about you have been raised incase you'd like to defend yourself.--SeanS 18:04, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

What is the nature of these complaints? Against what am I to defend myself? JimJast 18:28, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
More or less, that you are a parodist was the feel i got from the statement about you.--SeanS 18:34, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

Articles nominated for deletion

Hi JimJast - I have nominated these three articles for deletion: Einsteinian gravitation‎, Einstein's universe‎, and Problems in Cosmology‎. If you have reason for keeping them, I suggest speaking up now before they are deleted. I understand some of these articles were moved to Essay's, so in the future if you need to do this please request such articles be deleted before blanking the page and moving on. Thanks! DerekE 18:25, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

All those articles were moved/merged with essays on advice of MaxFletcher and I asked Andy Schlafly to delete them after which he asked me to blank them to be sure that he won't delete the wrong article. I blanked some before being blocked by Karajou for a day.
Does your message mean that if I tell you about balanking them I can safely blank them myself or just telling you would be enough and then I don't need to worry about deleting them myself since you take care about the delition? JimJast 18:50, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
Thats fine if you asked Andy to delete the pages after blanking them, just make sure it actually gets done before walking away. Andy likely has a lot to take care of on this site, so you can imagine it's easy for minor things to get lost in the shuffle from time to time. One suggestion could be, if instead of blanking the page and leaving it empty, you can blank the page and add a redirect to the page where you moved the content. Although that might work only if the Essay title cannot be confused with an encyclopedic title. Or, before you begin to write an article and create a new page, just keep in mind whether you are writing an "Essay:" or on a topic that deserves an encyclopedic title wihout the word Essay in it.
Regarding safely blanking pages: I noticed whenever you blanked a page, you wouldnt summarize why you are doing so. Perhaps if you did that it would let others know that you are not simply vandalizing the page by removing its content. DerekE 14:31, 2 September 2011 (EDT)

Spelling error

Hi Jim. I was reading your essay and noticed a spelling mistake in the most recent revision here (ptojects instead of projects). I didn't want to correct it since it's your personal work, but I wanted to let you know. Thanks! KevinDavis Talk 11:13, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

Hi Kevin, thanks for turning my attention to this error.
Is this essay understandable enough or should I explain certain things more? JimJast 13:36, 5 September 2011 (EDT)
I see numerous grammatical and structural changes that I would make in order to make the essay more readable and similar to an article (and less a personal work), but since it is an essay, I don't think it's a problem. As for the content, I'm absolutely no physicist, so I can't analyze that portion of the content, unfortunately. KevinDavis Talk 16:06, 5 September 2011 (EDT)
It is OK if you want to improve grammar and make an article of it (I'm surely no grammarian, rather a physicist, though my speciality is electronics but I studied 2 years of astronomy as well. I'm involved in gravitation only since I understand the GTR (General Theory of Relativity) and saw that the universe is not expanding and I see that astronomers can't handle their own stuff. So I wanted to help, showing them how to prove the lack of expansion but their editors don't want to print my papers believing in expansion of the universe against math and common sense. So we may wait until they come to their senses, probably in several years, and discuss the universe in the meantime. Probably the best at talk page of Essay:Problems in Cosmology. JimJast 16:49, 5 September 2011 (EDT)
My apologies that it's taken me so long to write you back; I don't have a significant amount of time to devote to proofreading your essays at the moment, but if I do happen to notice any egregious errors, I will happily point them out to you and we'll work out the best way to correct them. Kevin Davis Talk 21:27, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

Would you mind

Trying to do those edits in bigger bursts? It's sorta spammy on the recent changes--SeanS 18:13, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

I never know when the access to editing is terminated (for maintenance I suppose) so I'm trying not to be left with a big piece that I can't add any more. Which happened several times. JimJast 18:28, 12 September 2011 (EDT)
Rare is it when that happens, unless its late at night.--SeanS 18:31, 12 September 2011 (EDT)
Yes, it happened a few times late at night. JimJast 18:36, 12 September 2011 (EDT)
Thats because of night edit mode. --SeanS 18:39, 12 September 2011 (EDT)
Can it be avoided somehow? What time I shouldn't work? JimJast 18:43, 12 September 2011 (EDT)
Get edit rights, Which are not the easiest things to get. The fact im more trusted to block people then edit at night says a lot. --SeanS 18:55, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

Superscript

Would you be pls. able to help me to get proper superscripts for powers in this expression:
  • Λ = 1.934 × 10-35 s-2
? Thanx--AK 15:21, 7 October 2012 (EDT)
Personal tools