User talk:JimJast/Archive 2

Dyskusja pl
Dyskusja Wikipedysty:JimJast

Cultural prejudice
That first paragraph alone is definitely POV. Terms like "Seems to be", "possible", "might be an analogy of a dangerous virus", "a dengerous (sic) virus", "funny deviation", "whether it is possible", -- those are all very slanted statements. I'm not going to highlight every slanted passage for you, but the page would need a total rewrite to conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view. By the way, feel free to sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes ~. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 20:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Hammer, I removed the "slanted statements". Jim 12:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's an empty idea if you don't know any references to to back things up. This has been pointed out in the discussion. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 11:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Empty idea
Please don't create articles such as Empty idea simply to complain about some problem you're having on Wikipedia. What you've created isn't an encyclopedia article. Thanks. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 14:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Elkman, the article was meant to fill the void. Only later it occured to me that it might be supported by an example from real life, so I added the example.


 * Just deleting the part you don't like would do. Why did you deleted the whole article? Don't you think that Wikipedia needs one on such an important subject? Unfotunately I didn't expect that someone might delete it without a due process and so I don't have a copy. Would you mind sending me one (or sending me a link if a copy still exists somewhere) so I don't need to recreate it from scratch? Jim 11:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Cultural prejudice
Please do not recreate this page anymore. It was deleted according to community's consensus, and all attempts to override it should go through deletion review. Max S em 16:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not a recreation of this page. Only the name is tha same, the text is different. Jim 16:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Cultural prejudice
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Talk:Cultural prejudice, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Talk:Cultural prejudice fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason: '''Orphaned talk page. Article already deleted per Articles for deletion/Cultural prejudice and speedied upon recreation''' To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Talk:Cultural prejudice, please affix the template   to the page, and put a note on its talk page. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Talk:Cultural prejudice itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 18:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussions with W. Kehler
Hi Jim. Thanks for joining in with my discussions with W. Kehler. I do not know if it was a good idea to attempt communications here with him or with you, for that matter. :-) No offense intended! But having made a start, I am continuing a bit longer. You are very welcome to continue to contribute. I have made your three points into a subsection of the new page at User:Duae Quartunciae/W. Kehler/Issues. I have given a brief response; most of my time has just been organizing the new page. If you prefer not to be involved, you may delete your text from the page. If you want to say more, there is scope for you to edit the page.

Thanks &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  05:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

General questions and comments about the seminar
Wikipedia user pages are meant to facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is pretty easy going about what you put on user pages; and with a bit of common sense there's not going to be any problem. The relevant guidelines can be checked at WP:UP. It would not be appropriate to have a long set of articles on a personal theory. That includes a personal perspective on Einstein's theories. Note that if you cannot describe what you are wanting to say simply by giving an uninterpreted transcript of Einstein's own writings, then you are indeed talking about a personal perspective.

I don't see any problem with giving a single user page that spells out some aspects of your ideas on relativity. I still think the best idea, however, is to continue to build up your own personal pages at http://www.oocities.com/wlodekj/ and then linking to it from your user pages here. Perhaps you could start out with a small page here, and roll it over to your other web site if it gets to be large.

In any case, my own position is that I would probably read your seminar, but do not anticipate being an active participant. I might give a comment or three on my own behalf; but I will not be drawn into a long debate. Any comments you can take or leave as you please! &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  12:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you Duae, don't worry. My seminar won't take much space since Einstein's theory can be explained on one A4 page with 10 points print. Expecting some questions, maybe 2 pages. Besides I was trained in physics, and specifically in relativity, doing now my PhD in general relativity, not to mention being a laureat of two national high school olimpics, one in physics and one in math that not even many physics professors here managed to pass in their time so my brain isn't that bad that I'm going to propagate some crank physics. I'm glad you will read the stuff so I can start having at least you as a listener and as someone who can ask an intelligent question. I don't promiss any great lexical skills though since my first language was Polish and I still have a lot of lexical customs carried over to my Einglish. If you see my accent I'll be glad when you tell me also what you think could be improved in my speech. Jim 16:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions about gravitational force
Not a question; but a comment. In general relativity, the geometry of spacetime does not follow simply from inertial mass. You need the whole stress-energy tensor. That's why physicists tend not to speak of inertial mass any more. They usually deal with energy and with momentum directly; or you can call it 4-momentum, which has energy as a part of it. The terminology of "inertial mass" or "relativistic mass" came about pretty much because mass was used in Newtonian gravity, and energy is the closest corresponding quantity in GR. The inertial mass is just the total energy, expressed in mass units. But more generally still, you really do need the momentum as well. Without that one is inclined to make common errors, like thinking that moving a particle up to relativistic speeds can give it enough energy (and hence enough "inertial mass") to make a black hole. It doesn't work like that in GR. You really do need energy and momentum together.

Some physicists still think there is a benefit for using the term "inertial mass" as a help for teaching students that the intrinsic mass alone is not what curves space, or produces gravitation. The total energy has that role; so it may help for some students to take the total energy and express it in mass units. But most texts now prefer to go straight to acknowledging the central importance of energy, directly; and reserve "mass" for the intrinsic or invariant quality of a particle that is independent of any observer, and contributes to a part of the total energy, along with the momentum "p", with the famous equation E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2

Just a comment from the sidelines... &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  05:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Duae, Welcome at my seminar :-). In your comment you overlooked two facts: (i) that I'm doing PhD in general relativity (ii) that this seminar is at a high school level.


 * Because of (i) it might be waste of time to explain GR to me since you might not be able to tell me anything that I wouldn't already know. However whatever are your thoughts they are welcome. They give me an insight into ways the civilians and gravity physicists think about GR. Because of (ii) I'm trying to make it as simple as possible but not any simpler (as Einstein advised). Of course also, as Landau said, it is difficult to explain something that one does not understand himself, which is the case of gravity physicists (as Feynman suggested and I've seen it many times in the real life -- why do I have to repeat myself?).


 * That's why I'm presenting stuff that a high school kid can understand (in my opinion) but it is also a stuff consistent with GR. So I employ just calculus not to lose neither you nor high school kids. If you can find any formal errors in this seminar I'll be happy to dicuss them with you since they might nulify the validity of my PhD work.


 * Of course using word "energy" instead "mass" which would be more formally appropriate. I even wrote the first draft this way but I changed "energy" to "inertial mass" not to confuse people who think about gravitation in terms of "masses" rather than "energies", not to mention even the stress-energy tensor. Feynman, whose texts are from before present terminology would do the same and I hope you don't claim that Faynman was not as good a physicists as you are despite that his "mass" is always "inertial mass", and whenever he used "rest mass" he was careful not to mix it with "inertial". You're wrong thinking that it makes important differnce which term one uses if one is as aware of what one is doing as Faynman was. I wouldn't rather discuss mathematical sobtlieties since otherwise we never get to physics.


 * I'd rather answer your questions about physics in my text than being taught mathematical formalism :-). Nor that I would object to most of it since you are right on most points only that your comments don't bring us anywhere nearer to understanding of the problem. You should realize that I'm not inventing any new physics. I'm just explaining the existing one by simplifying it "as much as possible" so that high school kid can see the problems here.


 * You and everybody else has to ask questions, for me to find out what you don't understand. There must be something like that if you (and many others) think that the BB was a fact and I don't. I also share Hawking's thought that the BB is not science yet, which you might oppose. Why would you (if)? What would make you think that it is "science"? I hope it's not only the amount of PR the gravity physicist dedicate to it, to keep their positions in various universities? Jim 10:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions about gravitational energy
This is it? No MYSTERY? Surely You're Joking, Mr. Jastrzebski.


 * Sorry I made the above joke :-). It was supposed to start the discussion. I thought that you would treat more seriously what I said and you don't get caught :-) Jim 10:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, no problem. I found the joke amusing (and I get the allusion). I was being a bit jocular in return.


 * For what it is worth, I am now sufficiently persuaded that you don't have anything here of the slightest value; but I'm not inclined to debate the matter.


 * Along with your friend at the Uni, I'd be delighted for you to win a Nobel, or to establish a new better understanding of relativity to replace what now appears in hundreds of text books used to teach the subject. Good luck. I don't think you will; but that is just an estimate of likelihood; not a wish for your failure. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  20:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, apparently that is all there is. To Jim's proposal that is. There is a lot more to relativity and energy, of course.


 * No, there isn't. What I presented here is straight from Landau so you should rather discuss it with him, unfortunately as most GR scientists, he's already dead. That's why we have so many gravity physicists since no one is left to object their pseudo science (that Hawking wants to turn it into science by forcing it to produce at least one right prediction, so far with no luck). And regular physicists are not interested in the BB a bit (at lest I didn't see any). Feynman explained already why it is so so we don't need to guess, just rely on Feynman's opinion.


 * There are no original Jim's thoughts in gravitational energy and gravitational force sections. I just learned it from Landau and presented here the rsults of what Landau wrote in his Theory of Fields. My original stuff is only in the last section and it's no big deal neither. The problem here is that gravity physicists don't know basics of Einstein's relativity. They don't know how energy is conserved there. They know only their own "theory" as they call it despite that so far it resists fitting the real world. Jim 10:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This seems to be a fairly unremarkable local approximation, which does nothing to address the problem (if you see it as a problem; not everyone does) that there is no global energy conservation law in general relativity. You can certainly &mdash; as Jim does here &mdash; take some simple approximations. But they don't scale up to a global energy conservation law.


 * I'm not the right guy to point out the problems, and much better physicists than I have pointed out problems for Jim, which he does not accept. I have no illusions about actually persuading Jim of anything much; so don't mistake this as an attempt to debate. But if it is any use to you, here are a couple of poorly developed reasons I have, as an amateur, for preferring to get my physics from John Baez or Steve Carlip or Sean Carroll or other experts who have helped explain some basics at different times; and also of course from GR texts, like Missner, Thorne and Wheeler. You are welcome to use or discard my remarks as you will. I am no expert.


 * If you learned from John Baez or Steve Carlip or Sean Carroll than I know why you don't appreciate regular Einstein's or Feynman's or Landau's physics and prefer non conservation of energy. So we have to switch on a different level and discuss the ideas of John Baez or Steve Carlip or Sean Carroll instead. Which I'll do soon. Jim 10:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In a curved spacetime, the results of an integration will depend on the path; and not only on the end-point. So I don't think Jim's integral can be a strong foundation for energy conservation, except as a convenient local approximation that works well in local or not too extreme circumstance; such as when everything can be kept within a Lorentzian frame. More useful approaches, taken by conventional physicists, involve defining closed regions of space time and integrating the flow of 4-momentum over the 3D surface. Another issue is that as masses move along geodesics in spacetime, they will radiate gravitational energy. The amounts involved will be tiny for something like a falling brick, or a satellite around the Earth. But for rapidly rotating neutron stars it becomes quite significant. Until Jim actually has a representation of energy that takes account of observations such as the changing period of binary pulsars, which is attributed to gravitational radiation carrying energy away from the system, I don't think he's got anything except an approximation.


 * Confident declarations by Jim that this is all there is to the matter, and that all he is really doing is explaining what ought to be obvious and implicit in Einstein's relativity, don't seem to have a strong basis. It's an original remark by Jim; not quoted from Einstein at all; and I'm pretty dashed sure Jim is wrong. Not about being able to do an integration; but on his particular views of its significance and his confidence that this refutes all the people who say that there is no global energy conservation law for general relativity.


 * I used to hang around Usenet a lot, and sometimes in the relativity discussion areas. You get some very weird people there, but sometimes you also get some genuine experts. You may be interested in a possibly relevant discussion that took place on sci.physics.research in May 2002, on Energy in an Expanding Universe. Jim doesn't like the idea of expanding space, which is another matter entirely; but don't worry. Much of the discussion is given in general terms, and looks at the general problem of representing energy in relativity, whatever kind of space is involved. And for a general conservation law, that's what you need to be able to do. There are some pretty heavy hitters in the discussion. Here is the Google Groups copy:


 * Cheers &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  03:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me quote from your link with my comments:


 * >> There's no such thing as gravitational potential energy in general relativity. Honest.


 * Jim: That's right. It's just internal energy of a particle (as I pointed out in section gravitational energy).


 * >Then why do Einstein and the textbooks talk about the gravitational redshift in terms of photons losing energy as they climb out of a potential well--and why it gives the right answer?


 * Jim: Since it is an easy translation into Newtonian physics where things work accidentally the same as in relativity since for the gavitational redshift the curvature of space, the thing that Nevtonian physics ignores, is negligible. Not so for Hubble redshift where not only the curvature of space has basic meaning but this redshift can't do without it (remember, Hubble parameter is c/R so in flat space it is zero).


 * Baez: "In general relativity, you can describe the motion of a test particle in a *static* spacetime metric using the concept of a gravitational potential - at least if you know what you're doing, which includes throwing in some ideas from special relativity.


 * However, this does not apply to cosmology, where the metric is not static"


 * Jim: Of course it is not "static". I it just non expanding (stationary) and flat (as Narlikar writes and I found as well). So what then seems to be an obstacle against energy being conserved globally if the results of an integration won't depend on the path? Jim 13:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Shrug. I know of Landau; he is known amongst many other things for an important pseudo-tensor that can be used to represent energy conservation results in GR; though the fact it is a pseudotensor is the basis for saying that energy conservation is not a law of nature invariant under co-ordinate transforms. As for the rest; suit yourself. Narlikar's work on quasi-steady-state models is highly dynamic, involving plenty of expanding spaces, and also involving considerable changes to Einstein's field equations with a new "creation" tensor that is added to the stress energy tensor. He also has interesting proposals for a varying G. He's legitimately a good scientist worth seriously considering. At least he is capable of recognizing where he is extending Einstein's results, and capable of making a case for new ideas while frankly recognizing them as new ideas.


 * Comments about your ideas being just a plain exposition of Landau and Einstein and so on are merely silly. The dynamic nature of space under Einstein's relativity with a spatially homogeneous universe has the status of a mathematical theorem; static solutions are unstable. But hey. I was interested to see what you had. Thanks for taking the trouble to explain it. Good luck with it, sincerely. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  20:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Chris, you say "though the fact it is a pseudotensor is the basis for saying that energy conservation is not a law of nature invariant under co-ordinate transforms". Really? Landau shows that total energy of each particle is invariant under co-ordinate transformations. It can change only through collisions with other partcles and in every collision the energy is conserved (which physicists know but mathematicians may not so I have to say it). So now strain a litlle bit your logician's mind and explain how energy may not be conserved globally since my plain physicist's mind can't comprehend it. Do you think that energy isn't strictly conserved in every collision and we are just kidding ourselves and it is a way of constructing a perpetual motion machine?


 * I didn't say that I agree with Narlikar. I just said that his spacetime is flat the same as mine since it is what they've written to me when I proposed them to use my results. His other things are non physical though so their theory (Arp's and Narkikar's) isn't physical, just mathematical (phenomenological theory) as BB is. None of them is a physicist (the same as gravity physicists who are just application mathematicians with rudimentary formal training in physics) and it might have an influence on their way of thinking. It's not to put them down. I'm just trying to apply my recently gained knowledge of psychology to understand why scientists (non physicists though for whom the principle of conservation of energy is sacrosanct) let themselves to be persuaded that the principle of conservation of energy is violated "in general relativity" as they say, without even seeing a proof of it or understanding it &mdash; it's surely a good case for studying by psychologists &mdash; which is going to be a subject of my next PhD, in a different school though: The School of Social Psychology which hopefully I'm going to attend starting this October.


 * It brings us to the point: why physicists don't believe in BB but mathematicians and astronomers do (result of my many hours of investigation of the problem). However it reqiures a separate section which I'm going to add to the seminar since it might have a decisive influence of your understanding of physics, which as a logician you might not appreciate as much as physicists do.


 * Your statement "The dynamic nature of space under Einstein's relativity with a spatially homogeneous universe has the status of a mathematical theorem; static solutions are unstable." is so awfully uniformed that I just skip it not to argue about trivial matters. I might explain it to you if you ask me specifically about it. Jim 12:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions about stationary universe
No questions

Questions about why astronomers do and physicists don't
No questions

Other questions, not necessarily related to the universe
Hi Jim; Would you mind looking at "Talk:Black hole electron"? The electron mass is found to be quantized, with a mass value that relates in a specific way to the Planck mass. If you have an interest in this, would you let me know with a reply on my "User Talk" page. -- DonJStevens 17:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Don, I just looked at it and I'm going to look at it again when I have more time. I'll let you know if I reach a conclusion worth talking about. Jim 14:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Jim; If you reach a conclusion I am sure it will be worth talking about. Thank you for looking. --DonJStevens 13:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Jim; derivation sequence follows:

2pi(3Gm/c squared) = (L1/L2)squared times (L2)

since L1/L2 = L2/L3 ,substitute

2pi(3Gm/c squared) = (L2/L3)squared times (L2)

solve for L2

(L2)cubed = 3Gm (2pi)exp 5

L2 = (3Gm)exp 1/3 times (2pi)exp 5/3

Le/2 = (3Gm)exp 1/3 times (2pi)exp 5/3

since Le/2 = h/2mc ,substitute

h/2mc = (3Gm)exp 1/3 times (2pi)exp 5/3

h = 2mc (3Gm)exp 1/3 times (2pi)exp 5/3

Note that Le/2 is the L2 value and (2pi)squared times one light second is the L3 value. If I have not stated the relationships clearly, please let me know.--- DonJStevens 14:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Jim, You are right, it doesn't make life easier and we don't know how the relations may be used. I hope they will lead to a tighter definition of electrons. I like your (easier to read) expression. Thank you for spending time with this.--DonJStevens 12:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

On irrelevant personal material in article talk pages + on Einstein's Tired Light.
Jim, please stick to discussion of the articles in article talk pages. Additional irrelevant commentary about me personally is unwelcome, and disruptive.

For your own information: I don't think matter is made out of nothing. A fundamental fact about Big Bang cosmology is that current physics does not have any kind of adequate theory for the very origins of the universe. Existing physics only takes us back to within a finite time of conditions under which classical relativity is driven to singularity; and before that is unknown. You are also wrong about who I appreciate as friends. You are wrong about my own beliefs. More importantly, personal beliefs are irrelevant and it is corrosive of the atmosphere in this community to start making them an issue in article pages, whether it be me or anyone else you want to start speculating about. Don't do it. Finally, I have no problem recognizing you as a colleague working on building this encyclopedia, whatever other differences we may have. I bear you no ill-will at all. Being a friend is more than this, however. You are unlikely ever to be in that category, based on what little I can see of you on-line. In other circumstances, who knows. Stranger things have happened.

I'm not offended by the irrelevant and ridiculous personal remarks in Talk:Tired light. It's actually quite funny. But it is also pretty damned pathetic. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  10:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Chris, I understand that BB "does not have any kind of adequate theory for the very origins of the universe" but the gravity physicists do more than that. They assume that the universe is expanding, but don't tell that it is an assumption. They tell that it is a fact. This way they block any attempt to come up with better theory than BB (one that could predict something) by making any opponent looking like "contradicting the facts".


 * That's why referees don't need even to read papers that contradict BB if they find out that they might. E.g. my papers don't actually "contradict" BB just make it unnecessary to explain anything and for referees it is enough to reject them: "formally OK, but 'contradicts BB', mustn't be printed".


 * Einstein's theory allows to predict the results of observation in cosmology and no scientist knows about it. Which means science is losing millons of dollars that could be spend on more important projects than discovering thing already discovered. E.g. Einstein's theory could predict the speed of "accelerating expansion" in 1985. But then everybody was sure that expansion is decelerating (as one astrophysicists wrote to me: "your theory predicts that we should observe an accelerating expansion but we think that it is just opposite so it is a wrong theory"). Only in 1999 because of supernova project the astrophysicists started having doubts and in 2000 they were sure that the universe looks like having an accelerating expansion and spend a lot of money to measure it. I could tell just with a pen and a piece of paper that it has to be $$H_0^2/2$$ and they came to the same result after many men-hours of hard work. And even today astronomers don't know that their observations could be predicted easily by Einstein and not so easily by Newton since he had to know that $$E=mc^2$$ and that space is curved.


 * Do you think it's a right way of doing science? To discard conclusions from Einstein's theory because they contradict Wheeler's &mdash; and Wheeler is alive and Einstein is dead &mdash; or Wheeler is theist and Einstein was an atheist &mdash; which shows that we don't really know why it is done but whatever the reason it can't be right to spend millions on discovering things that has been already discovered. Jim 11:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * PS. Why did you delete Einstein's model and didn't delete all the others? After all Einstein's was the only one using metric redshift as the reason for Tired Light. Jim 12:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Your addition was the only one with  I don't have the faintest comprehension of Wikipedia core policies  written all over it in big flashing red letters. This phrase was easily visible to any passing editor quite independently of how much they did or did not know about Einstein, Tired light, the Big Bang, theism, or psychology. By the way; if flashing red letters are not your thing, please feel free to alter the formatting of this comment or even delete it entirely. Cheers &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  12:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This time I agree with you :). I wrote even that it is against Wikipedia policy and wondered only who will be the first guy to delete it. I thought it will be SA since he is a great fan of Newtonian physics, tring to revert all relativistic pieces he doesn't like (especially mine). Often illegally. See the first sentence of Gravitation for which he faught like a lion despite that even experts he brought into the dispute told him he's wrong. But he didn't mind so he keeps his gravitational attraction intact. And BB fits Newtonian physics and not relativity (it proposes absolute (cosmic) time which doesn't exists in relativity).


 * BTW it's also why BB is for such long time around. My friends astropysicists don't like to mess with relativity and they feel much more comfortable with plain Newtonian physics. So I guess BB is going to stay around for a while, probably as long as Wheeler is alive and he'll be 100 in 2011 but may live to 150 (the same as me) which I wish us both but not  BB psudo science  (also according to Hawking) "written all over it in big flashing red letters". Jim 13:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In other words; you were not asking an honest question, but just trolling. Blech. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  14:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It was an honest question since I was surprised that it was you. I wouldn't expect you blocking people from gaining a little more knowledge (in my mind it is knowledge) even if it is against Wikipedia's policy while knowing that it won't last long anyway. On the other hand you may think that it is not knowledge but my fantasy. So I wanted to know your motive.


 * You may not accept the notion that BB is a piece of pseudo science, the same as the Newtonian physics, supported by 19th century mentality that can't imagine the time over there running slower than here, in a space containig matter, which causes the space to curve. And that's why the effect of Hubble redshift is proportional to the curvature of space and nothing else:


 * (Hubble constant) = (speed of light) x (curvature of space). And in Newtonian physics and in minds of most astronomers who were not trained extensively in relativity the curvature of space is still a strange concept. Jim 15:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Discussion
Jim, I have opened discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, with a section called  JimJast. I have raised the matter of disruption and personal remarks at the tired light talk page, and an on-going pattern similar issues into the distant past. You are welcome to comment at the discussion as well. All I really want is for you to leave the main discussion pages for their intended purpose, and to try following guidelines. I don't know any other way to manage this, but to refer it so a third party. This is how I have done it. Cheers &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  15:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Posts on User:SCZenz
I think you meant to post on SCZenz's talk page, so I moved your comments there. Thanks. Shell babelfish 17:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What comments? Jim 11:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You added your questions to "User:SCZenz". Shell simply moved them over to "User talk:SCZenz", which was the more appropriate page.


 * I also have a request. I prefer to be known by my chosen pseudonym "Duae Quartunciae" on Wikipedia. Some folks seem to shorten it to Duae, which is fine. My real name is not a secret, and this is not a complaint. Just a request. Thanks &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  22:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Duae, You're welcome and thanks :-) Jim 17:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Fringe theories/Noticeboard
Your use of Talk:Tired light is being discussed at Fringe theories/Noticeboard. You are of course free to participate in that discussion. Fram 08:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)