On Jul 5, 2:22 am, " wrote:
On Jul 4, 10:14 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Jul 4, 5:16 pm, " wrote:
The argument is the same in July as it was in April.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/8ec41d88e75...

I'm still laughing inside out. Ever since the broken magnets
thereafter you just kept insulting, like a dog who stopped looking and
for some reason that only you know why, the only time the dog started
sniffing around and actually reading was about the temperature /
tensor posting.

Speaker magnets are worthless. Get over yourself.

On Jul 4, 6:41 am, " wrote:
It is confusing and error prone

What is? Did you mean to have a link in your post?

- Randy

On Jul 5, 4:43 pm, Randy Poe wrote:
On Jul 4, 6:41 am, " wrote:

It is confusing and error prone

What is? Did you mean to have a link in your post?

- Randy

The very same link that you gave about redshift versus distance. I was
wondering if that chart was modified in the following way below what
it would mean:



(linear means a chart with a linear straight slope increasing
gradually as it is plotted from present to past distances)


If that original chart was modified:


1. What would a decelerating chart of the expansion rate look like?


2. What if the past distance is curved above the linear and the
present distance is curved below the linear?


3. What if both past and present are curved above the linear?


4. What if past is curved below and present curved above?

On Jul 5, 4:23 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jul 5, 2:09 am, " wrote:





On Jul 4, 10:14 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Jul 4, 5:16 pm, " wrote:

On Jul 4, 8:54 pm, " wrote:

On Jul 4, 8:07 am, wrote:

On Jul 4, 2:41 am, " wrote:

It is confusing and error prone therefore knowing that a linear chart
of redshfit observation vs distance(hubble) represents a fixed
expansion rate of space.

And knowing that instead if both curved ends (past & present ends) are
below the linear then it represents an accelerating expansion rate.

(linear means a chart with a linear straight slope increasing
gradually as it is plotted from present to past distances)

As above but instead:

1. What would a decelerating chart of the expansion rate look like?

2. What if the past distance is curved above the linear and the
present distance is curved below the linear?

3. What if both past and present are curved above the linear?

4. What if past is curved below and present curved above?

How much physics is there left for you to deliberately not understand?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I guess you can only throw insults since the only time you opend your
beak was about tempurature and tensors which me, others and Wikipedia
told you that you were incorrect.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

By the way, you promised you would justify your incorrect belief on
temperature in July.

The argument is the same in July as it was in April.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/8ec41d88e75...

snip

Let me conclude the reply to all the blind answers you will concure,
THERE IS BOTH AN INVARIANT AND RELATIVISTIC TEMPERATURE YOUR ERROR IS
YOU ARE TRYING TO INPUT YOUR DEDUCTION ON THE WRONG ONE OF THE TWO.

Temperature is not an invariant, as the reference I gave you in April
explicitly explains and whose proof is derived from first principles.

Your words at the link you gave:
"Equating dS and dS' gives T' = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) T. A tensor is
invariant under a coordinate transformation - T does not qualify."

Likewise:

"Equating E and E' gives M' = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) M. Does this mean M
is not an invariant scalar under coordinate transformation? You're
taking drugs.

Why are you trying to make a statement about the invariance of an
object by comparing two frame dependent quantities?



You will never admit to being wrong, you already lied that you never
said that Wikipedia was wrong. You're not arguing just with me, you
are arguing with Wikipedia which says Temperature (and Mass) is a rank
0 tensor.

So what?

You have no education in physics.



THE VERY SUBJECT ON TENSORS (THEREFORE NOT JUST AN OFF TOPIC COMMENT)
SAYS:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor
Copied and Pasted Quote: "For example, mass, temperature, and other
scalar quantities are tensors of rank 0"

Wikipedia is wrong. It really isn't complicated.

I have edited it to be more clear on the subject.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are DRUGGED. You say temperature cannot be a Lorentz scalar and
then you write,

Quote: "T' = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) T."

On Jul 5, 11:17 pm, " wrote:

[...]


You are DRUGGED. You say temperature cannot be a Lorentz scalar and
then you write,

Quote: "T' = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) T."

Look up what it means to be a Lorentz scalar.

On Jul 6, 3:13 am, " wrote:
On Jul 5, 4:43 pm, Randy Poe wrote:

On Jul 4, 6:41 am, " wrote:

It is confusing and error prone

What is? Did you mean to have a link in your post?

- Randy

The very same link that you gave about redshift versus distance.

I guess you mean this one:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/sne_cosmology.html

It was irritating to make me dig for it. So I don't start
this post in a good mood.

I was
wondering if that chart was modified in the following way below what
it would mean:

(linear means a chart with a linear straight slope increasing
gradually as it is plotted from present to past distances)

No, "linear" does not mean slope is "increasing gradually".
"Linear" means slope is constant.

If that original chart was modified:

1. What would a decelerating chart of the expansion rate look like?

Do you mean what would the curve look like if expansion
rate (slope) were higher for older, more distant
observations? It would curve upward, having higher
slope at the larger distances.

2. What if the past distance is curved above the linear and the
present distance is curved below the linear?

Depends on the shape you mean. Easier to describe in
terms of slope. I could imagine a curve matching your
description in which slope smallest in the middle,
and larger at both ends.

3. What if both past and present are curved above the linear?

4. What if past is curved below and present curved above?

All your questions are better asked in terms of slope.
As it is, I don't know exactly what you have in
mind. But the answers will all be based on this:
Large slope = large expansion rate, small slope =
small expansion rate.

- Randy

On Jul 6, 4:31 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jul 5, 11:17 pm, " wrote:

[...]



You are DRUGGED. You say temperature cannot be a Lorentz scalar and
then you write,

Quote: "T' = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) T."

Look up what it means to be a Lorentz scalar.

Now you're getting pathetic, the equation above is a Lorentz
transformation drug lord. O.M.G.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_scalar
In physics a Lorentz scalar is a scalar which is invariant under a
Lorentz transformation.

READ SLOWLY:

***EVEN THOUGH*** THERE IS RELATIVISTIC MASS, Invariant Mass is a
Lorentz scalar,
***EVEN THOUGH*** THERE IS RELATIVSITIC TEMPERATURE, Invariant
Temperature is a Lorentz scalar.


You never heard of invariant Mass or REST MASS, REST MASS is a LORENTZ
SCALAR. Invariant Temperature is a LORENTZ SCALAR.

Stop sniffing drugs.

On Jul 6, 11:15 am, Randy Poe wrote:
On Jul 6, 3:13 am, " wrote:

On Jul 5, 4:43 pm, Randy Poe wrote:

On Jul 4, 6:41 am, " wrote:

It is confusing and error prone

What is? Did you mean to have a link in your post?

- Randy

The very same link that you gave about redshift versus distance.

I guess you mean this one:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/sne_cosmology.html


yes
It was irritating to make me dig for it. So I don't start
this post in a good mood.


Sorry, thought you knew it off hand cause it's the only one you gave
me about redshift I think?

I was
wondering if that chart was modified in the following way below what
it would mean:

(linear means a chart with a linear straight slope increasing
gradually as it is plotted from present to past distances)

No, "linear" does not mean slope is "increasing gradually".
"Linear" means slope is constant.


Correct....what I ment was as opposed to a straight horizontal line on
the chart.

If that original chart was modified:

1. What would a decelerating chart of the expansion rate look like?

Do you mean what would the curve look like if expansion
rate (slope) were higher for older, more distant
observations? It would curve upward, having higher
slope at the larger distances.

ok

2. What if the past distance is curved above the linear and the
present distance is curved below the linear?

Depends on the shape you mean. Easier to describe in
terms of slope. I could imagine a curve matching your
description in which slope smallest in the middle,
and larger at both ends.

3. What if both past and present are curved above the linear?

4. What if past is curved below and present curved above?

All your questions are better asked in terms of slope.
As it is, I don't know exactly what you have in
mind. But the answers will all be based on this:
Large slope = large expansion rate, small slope =
small expansion rate.

ok but if both large and small slope represent an expansionso then
what kind of slope would reprent a contraction instead of expansion?

- Randy

wrote:
It is confusing and error prone therefore knowing that a linear chart
of redshfit observation vs distance(hubble) represents a fixed
expansion rate of space.

Apparently referring to this chart:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/DL-vs-z-21Nov06.gif

Note that the model whose line is straight (red) is the "closed matter only
model", which does not have a fixed expansion rate -- in fact this model
eventually recollapses (that's what closed means). The model with the fixed
expansion rate is the empty model, drawn in green.

Hubble's law relates comoving distance to comoving velocity, not to
redshift, and it applies regardless of the details of the model. *All* of
the models plotted on this chart have a linear comoving distance-velocity
relationship. What's being plotted here is a different kind of distance
(luminosity distance instead of comoving) against a different kind of speed
(cz instead of comoving speed).

-- Ben

On Jul 7, 12:38 pm, Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
wrote:
It is confusing and error prone therefore knowing that a linear chart
of redshfit observation vs distance(hubble) represents a fixed
expansion rate of space.

Apparently referring to this chart:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/DL-vs-z-21Nov06.gif

Note that the model whose line is straight (red) is the "closed matter only
model", which does not have a fixed expansion rate -- in fact this model
eventually recollapses (that's what closed means). The model with the fixed
expansion rate is the empty model, drawn in green.

Hubble's law relates comoving distance to comoving velocity, not to
redshift, and it applies regardless of the details of the model. *All* of
the models plotted on this chart have a linear comoving distance-velocity
relationship. What's being plotted here is a different kind of distance
(luminosity distance instead of comoving) against a different kind of speed
(cz instead of comoving speed).

-- Ben

Ok but luminosity distance is the correct distance from an observer
and therefore how come the straight (red) line is not a fixed
expansion rate???

(luminosity distance simply means Hubble simply measured distance
based on the amount of light observed = incorrect distance instead of
the amount of light a peculiar star can emit with distance = correct
distance).