Center of the Univers [Archive]

marcus

Jul5-03, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by CrystalStudios
Good question.

The big bang has been proven. As the big bang expanded, it continueed to expand the size of the universe - as far as the matter and light of the big bang stretched, that was the size of the universe at that moment.

So right this second, the universe is exactly the radius in light years, the years of which is the exact age of the universe, since the big bang.

Simple as that.

In other words, you cannot have the big bang and have an infinite universe. Because the universe is defined by how far light has traveled since the big bang.

The big bang created space - space did not exist before it.

The accepted picture of the big bang, at least to the best of my knowledge, is that it is infinite in spatial extent.

At least this is what is assumed in every recent article I've seen.

So talking about the big bang would seem to confirm that the universe is infinite.

A good recent (May 2003) overview of cosmology is in

Lineweaver "Inflation and the Cosmic Microwave Background"

arxiv: astro-ph/0305179

a good spacetime diagram suggesting the infinite extent of space is Lineweaver's figure 5, in which figure 1 (showing our finite horizon) is a small insert.

Lineweaver was one of those in charge of COBE which mapped the CMB and has a firsthand knowledge of the new dataset on which cosmology is based, IMO it's well worth checking out what he has to say about the universe---its infinite extent is only one of several interesting features

subtillioN

Jul5-03, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by marcus
The accepted picture of the big bang, at least to the best of my knowledge, is that it is infinite in spatial extent.

The oxymoronic mantra is "finite but unbounded". This nonsense notion is stolen directly from abstract mathematics (curved space) as is the nonsense notion of a "singularity". Neither of those terms have any causally definable meaning wrt physical reality.

jcsd

Jul5-03, 12:30 PM

ermmm, yes the conventional model of the universe is finite and unbounded, but curved space has been observed at our own sun and the large scale curvature of the universe has supporting physical evidence in the shape of the reshift magnitude test (i.e. the lensing of the furthest redshifted sources which increases their apparent magnitude).

That said, I believe no sugnificant curvature was found by COBE.

Jul5-03, 12:31 PM

It's a common misconception that the big bang implies the universe is finite. In actual, the theory says nothing about the overall size of the universe, only that it began to expand from a much denser, hotter state.

Jul5-03, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by subtillioN
The oxymoronic mantra is "finite but unbounded". This nonsense notion is stolen directly from abstract mathematics (curved space) as is the nonsense notion of a "singularity". Neither of those terms have any causally definable meaning wrt physical reality.

Why is the notion of curved spaces nonsense while flat Euclidean space is acceptable?

Awaiting your well reasoned and logical response.

subtillioN

Jul5-03, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by Eh
Why is the notion of curved spaces nonsense while flat Euclidean space is acceptable?

Awaiting your well reasoned and logical response.

Space is a metrical abstraction. In reality the Universe is neither flat not curved.

Jul5-03, 12:41 PM

So the universe has no structure or size at all? If it does, what is the geometry of it?

subtillioN

Jul5-03, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by jcsd
ermmm, yes the conventional model of the universe is finite and unbounded, but curved space has been observed at our own sun

The "spatial curvature" found was much more complex than the model of relativity could explain. And the notion of curvature is simply a method of quantifying the increased density of the field surrounding the sun.

subtillioN

Jul5-03, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by Eh
So the universe has no structure or size at all? If it does, what is the geometry of it?

I did not say the Universe has no structure. I said that our mappings of its structure are not the same thing as its actual structure.

Jul5-03, 12:49 PM

Ok, so what is the actual geometric structure of the universe if not Euclidean or curved?

CrystalStudios

Jul5-03, 12:53 PM

The universe has absolutely been found to have curbature.

Meaning that one of the ten dimensions proven to exist by string theory is on a very large scale.

This is the evidence of the surface sphere state of our universe.

SO I see that the big bang would have thrown everything outwards, but i disagree that their is no center.

Every path taken by matter or waves from the BB created space. Thus there is a line of space from earth to the exact center of the BB is there not?

Tell you why not

subtillioN

Jul5-03, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by Eh
Ok, so what is the actual geometric structure of the universe if not Euclidean or curved?

It doesn't have a geometric structure. Geometry is a method of measurement (metry).

Jul5-03, 01:05 PM

You can't have size without geometric structure, by definition since volume is also a geometric term. So taking away the geometry is the same as claiming the universe has no size.

subtillioN

Jul5-03, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by CrystalStudios
The universe has absolutely been found to have curbature.

Meaning that one of the ten dimensions proven to exist by string theory is on a very large scale.

This is the evidence of the surface sphere state of our universe.

SO I see that the big bang would have thrown everything outwards, but i disagree that their is no center.

Every path taken by matter or waves from the BB created space. Thus there is a line of space from earth to the exact center of the BB is there not?

Tell you why not

String theory is a desperate kludge of a dying theory. Dimensions are a metrical abstraction as well. No one has ever seen a dimension.

There was no big bang so there is no center of the universe either.

subtillioN

Jul5-03, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by Eh
You can't have size without geometric structure, by definition since volume is also a geometric term. So taking away the geometry is the same as claiming the universe has no size.

No the point is not to confuse our metrical tools with reality. There is no causal explanation of how space could be finite but unbounded and there is no evidence to support the notion.

Jul5-03, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by CrystalStudios
The universe has absolutely been found to have curbature.

The WMAP findings deal with the overall curvature on average. In that sense, space is flat.

Meaning that one of the ten dimensions proven to exist by string theory is on a very large scale.

This is the evidence of the surface sphere state of our universe.

There is absolutely no evidence to support either string theory or any extra dimensions. None, zero, ziltch, nadda etc.

SO I see that the big bang would have thrown everything outwards, but i disagree that their is no center.

Every path taken by matter or waves from the BB created space. Thus there is a line of space from earth to the exact center of the BB is there not?

Tell you why not

Where is the center of the surface of a balloon?

subtillioN

Jul5-03, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Eh
The WMAP findings deal with the overall curvature on average. In that sense, space is flat.

There is absolutely no evidence to support either string theory or any extra dimensions. None, zero, ziltch, nadda etc.

Where is the center of the surface of a balloon?

Yes in that metrical sense "space" is flat. The Universe is no balloon!!![g)]

I think we are agreeing with each other on many accounts. [:)]

subtillioN

Jul5-03, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by CrystalStudios

SO I see that the big bang would have thrown everything outwards, but i disagree that their is no center.

Your logical mind says that in any finite explosion there must be a point definable as a "center" yet this is forbidden by the abstract non-sensical notion of the universe as "finite but unbounded". The problem is that The Big Bungle is not a logical theory. So to believe in it is to compromise your logic center in your brain. I say "GIVE IT UP!" There are better models that don't require such a debilitating compromise!

see www.electric-cosmos.org and www.anpheon.org

CrystalStudios

Jul5-03, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by subtillioN
Your logical mind says that in any finite explosion there must be a point definable as a "center" yet this is forbidden by the abstract non-sensical notion of the universe as "finite but unbounded". The problem is that The Big Bungle is not a logical theory. So to believe in it is to compromise your logic center in your brain. I say "GIVE IT UP!" There are better models that don't require such a debilitating compromise!

Haha this guy thinks the BB is a myth. Everyone laugh at him.

I suppose you think logic proves the unicorns and elves made the universe?> gagaa man oh man, you make ME look good!

subtillioN

Jul5-03, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by CrystalStudios
Haha this guy thinks the BB is a myth. Everyone laugh at him.

I suppose you think logic proves the unicorns and elves made the universe?> gagaa man oh man, you make ME look good!

Heckling? Lol look what you have resorted to!!! [g)]

You suppose wrong and a desperate appeal to the mob mentality that you subscribe to is the weakest form of argument.

Check the link below and make your arguments against it... if you can open your blinders that far.

http://nowscape.com/big-ban2.htm

jcsd

Jul5-03, 01:34 PM

non- big bang cosmology (or more strictly steady state theories) in general have theses problems:

1) cannot explain the CBR and it's istropy and uniformity

2) cannot explain the redshifting of distant sources

3) cannot explain the redshift magnitude test and the predicted curvature of the universe.

subtillion, I recommend you find out more about cosmology and the problems facing non-big bang cosmologys.

subtillioN

Jul5-03, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by jcsd
non- big bang cosmology (or more strictly steady state theories) in general have theses problems:

1) cannot explain the CBR and it's istropy and uniformity

2) cannot explain the redshifting of distant sources

3) cannot explain the redshift magnitude test and the predicted curvature of the universe.

subtillion, I recommend you find out more about cosmology and the problems facing non-big bang cosmologys.

Thanks but I recommend the inverse for you, because your assumptions are absolutely not true. I have researched both sides and it appears that the same cannot be said for you.

see www.electric-cosmos.org

and see also http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/index.html

and http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/COSMIC/Cosmic.html

and... http://nowscape.com/big-ban2.htm

jcsd

Jul5-03, 01:41 PM

When you go to university to do an astrophysics related course like I did, you study the other models too so I am perfectly aware of the various other models. The problem is that they all have some fatal flaw in that predictions they make fail or that they fail to predict some observations.

CrystalStudios

Jul5-03, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by jcsd
When you go to university to do an astrophysics related course like I did, you study the other models too so I am perfectly aware of the various other models. The problem is that they all have some fatal flaw in that predictions they make fail or that they fail to predict some observations.

Exactly my man.

Other theories often seem to show some small part of the BB isn't right. But it could be human error in perception of one little idea.

However the BB has been proven from hundreds of independant angles and theories, as well as experimentation - and so it can't be a result in error because it has so many strengths to it.

Right on my man!

subtillioN

Jul5-03, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by jcsd
When you go to university to do an astrophysics related course like I did, you study the other models too so I am perfectly aware of the various other models. The problem is that they all have some fatal flaw in that predictions they make fail or that they fail to predict some observations.

That is absolute bull****. I have gone to a university and they do NOT deal with the alternatives. When they do mention them they mis represent them drastically.

If you can deal with the alternatives then prove it and debate the links I posted.

Brad_Ad23

Jul5-03, 01:47 PM

Unfortunately a lot of references in those sites are well over 15 years old. The progress made in the development of the big bang theory has been rather well documented. I would suggest getting some more reliable sources as well.

Indeed, the BB theory has passed countless tests as has been stated.

jcsd

Jul5-03, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by subtillioN
That is absolute bull****. I have gone to a university and they do NOT deal with the alternatives. When they do mention them they mis represent them drastically.

If you can deal with the alternatives then prove it and debate the links I posted.

Well can you explain to me the uniformity and istropy of the CPR? Cos, that's one thing I've never seen an alternative theory explain.

subtillioN

Jul5-03, 01:50 PM

cop out

drag

Jul5-03, 01:54 PM

Greetings !

These are purely speculative ideas that have no known means of experimental verification.
This is what the scientist that wrote that Physics Essays
article in ST's link says about what is theorized to have
happened in the BB. I wonder, when he says "experimental
verification" what precisely does he mean ? Has he ever
seen a virtual pair of particles, or directly interacted
with them or touched them ? Did he ever set his feet on
Mars ? Did he taste the Sun to check it's flavour and
make sure it's "real" ? [;)]

Live long and prosper.

subtillioN

Jul5-03, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by jcsd
Well can you explain to be the uniformity and istropy of the CPR? Cos, that's one thing I've never seen an alternative theory explain.

Yes the MBR is due to the planck radiation from the ubiquitous interstellar molecular medium.

see http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/COSMIC/Cosmic.html

jcsd

Jul5-03, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by subtillioN
Yes the MBR is due to the planck radiation from the ubiquitous interstellar molecular medium.

see http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/COSMIC/Cosmic.html

I have to say that explantion is laughable, why don't we observe more CPR in the region of the sun or stellar sources then?

CrystalStudios

Jul5-03, 02:08 PM

I get the feeling sub is just a troll........

Brad_Ad23

Jul5-03, 02:13 PM

Analyzed. It makes several faulty connections.

1) The average density of the inteseller hydrogen is quite low, meaning that it should not interact. True some was formed in the past, but not nearly enough. Remember, the hydrogen atoms would have to get close enough to each other through mutual gravitation, which needless to say is extremely feeble.

2) As I stated, the references are old, so it is of no surprise it does not deal at all with the modern Big Ban (also called Inflationary big bang). In this version of it the problems of anisotropy are no longer present.

3 The claim that the universe must have been a black hole. While it is generally claimed the universe had some initial singularity, as I had mentioned in some other thread, the BB signularity is a fundamentally different singularity than that in your typical black hole. Also to boot, the properties of physics themselves as well as the strengths of the 4 forces were very different in the early universe (and yes not all of that is theoretical. Particle accelerators have verified that as we get to higher energy levels the behaviors of forces do change, for example, the weak nuclear force and the electromagnetic force couple into the electro-weak force. At even higher temperatures [which we haven't reached yet so this is not yet verified directly] the strong force joins in, and then eventually at the instants of creation so does gravity). Again also it does not take into account the inflationary Big Bang in which quantum fluctuations essentially turn the gravitational field from what is classified as a tensor field into a scalar field and cause immediate exponential expansion until freezing out and returning to normal.

As I said, all this is well documented and a bit of research from credible sources will show it.

Hurkyl

Jul5-03, 03:08 PM

Your logical mind says that in any finite explosion there must be a point definable as a "center" yet this is forbidden by the abstract non-sensical notion of the universe as "finite but unbounded".

This is the point where you cease working with the analogy of an explosion and you seek what the math actually says.

The big bang theory says that there was a time when the universe had an extremely small volume (but no boundary) and extremely high temperature. From that time onward the universe has been expanding.

With an ordinary explosion, you can point at a region of the universe and say "Yah, all of the material was there, inside a bomb, then it exploded". (Of course, you still can't find a point that is the exact center of the explosion, but you can say something fuzzy like the bomb was the center of the explosion)

With the big bang, there is no "outside" to the universe from where you can say "Yah, it was all inside that little region at first"; the energy was spread through the entire universe.

But if you really like to cling to analogies, then this will do. After your bomb explodes, can you tell me which atom of the bomb was at the center of the explosion?

The oxymoronic mantra is "finite but unbounded". This nonsense notion is stolen directly from abstract mathematics (curved space)

The correct phrase is "finite but without boundary". Care to explain why it is nonsense? (I make this correction because "unbounded" and "without boundary" really do have totally different meanings)

subtillioN

Jul5-03, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by jcsd
I have to say that explantion is laughable, why don't we observe more CPR in the region of the sun or stellar sources then?

The matter in the region near the sun is much hotter obviously. Why would you expect it to stay at 3K. The ambient temperature is very weak and cumulative.

subtillioN

Jul5-03, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Analyzed. It makes several faulty connections.

1) The average density of the inteseller hydrogen is quite low, meaning that it should not interact. True some was formed in the past, but not nearly enough. Remember, the hydrogen atoms would have to get close enough to each other through mutual gravitation, which needless to say is extremely feeble.

There are measurements of vast H clouds in interstellar space. It is not as tenuous as you believe. The mere presence of the Hydrogen in interaction with the ambient radiation from stars and other astrophysical objects is enough to account for the MBR.

2) As I stated, the references are old, so it is of no surprise it does not deal at all with the modern Big Ban (also called Inflationary big bang). In this version of it the problems of anisotropy are no longer present.

Inflation is a kludge to fix the huge problem of isotropy of the MBR and a valid argument is a valid argument regardless of its age.

3 The claim that the universe must have been a black hole. While it is generally claimed the universe had some initial singularity, as I had mentioned in some other thread, the BB signularity is a fundamentally different singularity than that in your typical black hole. Also to boot, the properties of physics themselves as well as the strengths of the 4 forces were very different in the early universe (and yes not all of that is theoretical. Particle accelerators have verified that as we get to higher energy levels the behaviors of forces do change, for example, the weak nuclear force and the electromagnetic force couple into the electro-weak force. At even higher temperatures [which we haven't reached yet so this is not yet verified directly] the strong force joins in, and then eventually at the instants of creation so does gravity). Again also it does not take into account the inflationary Big Bang in which quantum fluctuations essentially turn the gravitational field from what is classified as a tensor field into a scalar field and cause immediate exponential expansion until freezing out and returning to normal.

As I said, all this is well documented and a bit of research from credible sources will show it.

There are simpler cosmologies which fit the data much better without the constant readjustments of inflation etc. required by the big bungle.

Brad_Ad23

Jul5-03, 03:31 PM

there may be clouds, but the nebulae are not isotropic.

And the argument is not valid in the new big bang. As for simpler cosmologies, I must disagree. All the other possible versions I have read about lead to serious problems. And inflation does not make constant adjustments mind you-it happened once for an extremely short amount of time and is a sound theory.

r637h

Jul5-03, 03:36 PM

This may sound picayune, but: The CBR is not isotropic.Recent measurements have demonstrated this (although the means of measurement are taxed to the limit, signal-to-noise-wise).

Incidentally, the spectrum of CBR should tell us the same thing (or the fact that CBR has a spectrum).

The concepts of uniformity and isotropy are related, but different:
CBR may be "uniform" everywhere we look, but not necessarily isotropic (A bit like comparing precision with accuracy).

We can't "see" the future, but we can predict it (A bit like predicting the weather, though).

For example: Assuming the same dimensions, if we could reasonably compare the manifold(s?)) of the CBR with the manifold(s?) of what the Universe looks like today, perhaps we could derive an end-point of some sort.

It may be simplistic to say so, but the fact that CBR is the same everywhere we look may mean the the Universe has no center.

Thanks, Rudi

Brad_Ad23

Jul5-03, 04:11 PM

Right on, I was just about to say, the CBR is slightly anisotropic..but this is extremely small, which is good. If it were perfectly isotropic, structure would not have emerged in the universe.

Anywho, cases for the Big Bang:

The universe is expanding. This indicates that sometime in the past it was denser.

The CBR. Not only does the thermal spectrum match extraordinarly well with what the BB predicts. Not only that, but we can measure it at cosmic distances as well and show it was hotter in the past (Researchers at the Paranal Observatory showed it was by studing intersteller dust clouds).

Not only that, but the evolution of stars and galaxies and clusters is indicated by the big bang and observed. As are the production of light elements from primordial nucleosythesis.

jcsd

Jul5-03, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by subtillioN
The matter in the region near the sun is much hotter obviously. Why would you expect it to stay at 3K. The ambient temperature is very weak and cumulative.

But why don't we see more radiation of the CBR wavelength from the sun? The point is though if it had a stellar origin it would be less isotropic.

The correct phrase is "finite but without boundary". Care to explain why it is nonsense? (I make this correction because "unbounded" and "without boundary" really do have totally different meanings)

Actually Hurkyl, your incorrect, unbounded is the right term here. In cosmological models it means 'without boundaries'.

jcsd

Jul5-03, 04:20 PM

Yes, as brad points out it is slightly anisotropic, but only 1 part in 10,000 a degree of isotropy which means that the source must be very far away.

Hurkyl

Jul5-03, 04:44 PM

Actually Hurkyl, your incorrect, unbounded is the right term here. In cosmological models it means 'without boundaries'.

Sigh, so much for the myth of standardized terminology!

subtillioN

Jul5-03, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by jcsd
[B]But why don't we see more radiation of the CBR wavelength from the sun? The point is though if it had a stellar origin it would be less isotropic.

The CBR is only measured at ~3K and the matter near the sun is HOTTER than 3K. Therefore it is NOT seen in the 3K CBR surveys.

subtillioN

Jul5-03, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
there may be clouds, but the nebulae are not isotropic.

And the argument is not valid in the new big bang. As for simpler cosmologies, I must disagree. All the other possible versions I have read about lead to serious problems. And inflation does not make constant adjustments mind you-it happened once for an extremely short amount of time and is a sound theory.

You are severely lacking in your understanding of the alternatives. Do you know Plasma Cosmology models?

see www.electric-cosmos.org

Learn it and then come back to debate it, otherwise you are just blowing smoke.

subtillioN

Jul5-03, 07:14 PM

Anywho, cases for the Big Bang:

The universe is expanding. This indicates that sometime in the past it was denser.

The universe is only expanding according to the doppler interpretation of redshift, but Halton Arp showed this interpretation to be flawed.

The CBR. Not only does the thermal spectrum match extraordinarly well with what the BB predicts.

Actually the steady state model was much more accurate with its prediction.

Not only that, but we can measure it at cosmic distances as well and show it was hotter in the past (Researchers at the Paranal Observatory showed it was by studing intersteller dust clouds).

Obviously if the radiation gets red-shifted it cools down. That is no argument for the BB.

Not only that, but the evolution of stars and galaxies and clusters is indicated by the big bang and observed.

That is completely false. The galaxies at the very edges of the visible universe look EXACTLY the same as those in the very center. The problem is that in a Universe of a mere 15 billion years (only three times as old as the minimum age of the infinitesimal earth) those furthest seen galaxies would have only rotated about two times!! That is simply not enough time to create the spiral structure that they exhibit.

As are the production of light elements from primordial nucleosythesis.

Plasma Cosmology can deal with that as well through fusion and fission processes in stars. See www.electric-cosmos.org if you care to understand the alternatives which you are dismissing off-hand.

CrystalStudios

Jul5-03, 07:36 PM

Sub-troll said: The universe is only expanding according to the doppler interpretation of redshift, but Halton Arp showed this interpretation to be flawed.

I say: No - doppler is one of the hundreds of various INDEPENDANTLY DISCOVERED AND MASSIVELY TESTED ways that the big bang has been proven. Disproving one of them does NOTHING to the theory at all whatsoever.

subtillioN

Jul5-03, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by CrystalStudios
Sub-troll said: The universe is only expanding according to the doppler interpretation of redshift, but Halton Arp showed this interpretation to be flawed.

I say: No - doppler is one of the hundreds of various INDEPENDANTLY DISCOVERED AND MASSIVELY TESTED ways that the big bang has been proven. Disproving one of them does NOTHING to the theory at all whatsoever.

So is that how you deal with any alternate interpretation? By calling its proponents trolls?

You continually just repeat your mantra that the BBT is beyond reproach continuing to ignore any arguments to the contrary.

This is a sign that your mind has ossified. You can no longer participate in civilized debate.

You say there are HUNDREDS of tests. List them one by one and I will carve them up for you with Occams Razor. I am certainly willing to debate the alternatives.

Hurkyl

Jul5-03, 08:07 PM

You continually just repeat your mantra that the BBT is beyond reproach continuing to ignore any arguments to the contrary.

That's because the arguments to the contrary are directed at a convenient strawman and not BBT itself.

You say there are HUNDREDS of tests. List them one by one and I will carve them up for you with Occams Razor. I am certainly willing to debate the alternatives.

Well, big bang theory is based upon general relativity... and you appear to be a newton type of guy, so I imagine the discussion would be most productive if we started with the tests of general relativity.

Test 1: Precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit.

Classical theories were off by 43 arcseconds per century in the calculation of the precession of Mercury's orbit.

General Relativity, however, is dead on.

subtillioN

Jul5-03, 08:17 PM

Originally posted by Hurkyl
[B]That's because the arguments to the contrary are directed at a convenient strawman and not BBT itself.

Care to back up this or any other statement? I am attacking the BBT head on. If you think otherwise then prove it.

Well, big bang theory is based upon general relativity... and you appear to be a newton type of guy, so I imagine the discussion would be most productive if we started with the tests of general relativity.

Test 1: Precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit.

Classical theories were off by 43 arcseconds per century in the calculation of the precession of Mercury's orbit.

Besides the fact that proving Relativity Theory does not prove BBT the perihelion had been calculated by classical science previously to Einstein and when Einstein calculated it he used Newtonian time not relativistic time to do so. See this classical explanation of the Mercury perihelion.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/MERCURY/Mercury.html

"Using Einstein's general relativity, it is generally believed that space and time distortions are absolutely required to explain the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. This is untrue. The advance of the perihelion of Mercury was first calculatd by P. Gerber in 1898 by Paul Gerber (1A). We show here that this phenomenon can be fully explained using Newton's physics and mass-energy conservation, without any relativity principle. Without having to introduce any new physics, we arrive to the same equation as predicted by Einstein. Therefore, the relativity principles are useless. "

General Relativity, however, is dead on.

Well you are half right. [t)]

Brad_Ad23

Jul5-03, 08:23 PM

The Steady state model did not predict a CBR, nor does it have any reason to include a CBR.

And I did some research on this Arp fellow.

Quoted from a site containing his theories

Mainstream astronomy is presently trying to explain away a large set of high redshift quasars that are closely associated with low redshift galaxies as being optical illusions caused by "gravitational lensing". Here, below, are ten examples of such groupings. The only way such an optical illusion could occur is if Earth, a nearby galaxy, and a distant quasar (all three) precisely fall on a single straight line. Could this happen once? Surely. But dozens of times?! Not likely. In fact the probability is vanishingly small.

That alone tells me that we are dealing with a crackpot fringe movement here. It is appealing more to the layperson who does not have a firm grasp of just how immense the cosmos is. It is indeed so immense that such an 'improbable' allignment is actually rather probable. Indeed, such sights that rely on imagination and the massive scientific conspiracy are just plain silly.

And you misunderstood my point about the gas and all. They showed the CBR was hotter, not merely the gas clouds.

That is completely false. The galaxies at the very edges of the visible universe look EXACTLY the same as those in the very center. The problem is that in a Universe of a mere 15 billion years (only three times as old as the minimum age of the infinitesimal earth) those furthest seen galaxies would have only rotated about four times!! That is simply not enough time to create the spiral structure that they exhibit.

Not sure what you mean there...in the picture of galaxies ones at the edge look like the center? Or ones further away look like ones closer up? You are mistaken there. They do indeed look different. Generally they are more blob like than spiral shaped.

And unfortuantely for your position, plasma techniques and fusion in stars (indeed fission cannot occur past iron, just as fusion can't occur past iron) create the universal 23-24% helium concentration that is present.

That and it is generally not good when sites you link to deal with such things as "Were the ancients really visited by aliens? We think so!"

D'oh!

subtillioN

Jul5-03, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
[B]The Steady state model did not predict a CBR, nor does it have any reason to include a CBR.

You are wrong on that one. You are simply repeating a BBT mantra. Look up the ACTUAL history... I don't have the time to do it for you.

Planck radiation from interstellar gasses is BASIC physics. That is why none of you can argue against it. It was known to the SST physicists who made CBR predictions much closer than the BBT theory did.

NOTE: I am not arguing for SST either, but for the Plasma Cosmology model.

Not sure what you mean there...in the picture of galaxies ones at the edge look like the center? Or ones further away look like ones closer up? You are mistaken there. They do indeed look different. Generally they are more blob like than spiral shaped.

That is not true at all. I have seen the pictures and they look just the same. There are massive spiral galaxies and eliptical galaxies just like everywhere else. The spiral galaxies at the very limits of perception have had a mere two revolutions since the BB. That is not even close to enough revolutions to generate their spiral structure.

And unfortuantely for your position, plasma techniques and fusion in stars (indeed fission cannot occur past iron, just as fusion can't occur past iron) create the universal 23-24% helium concentration that is present.

You clearly have not studied Plasma Cosmology. The Plasma Cosmology model does indeed account for the production of ALL the elements. Learn it and then debate it.

Brad_Ad23

Jul5-03, 08:39 PM

That site you linked to has some serious issues.

Namely how it treats mass as something that can vary. It cannot and does not, and indeed this has been verified by objects (probes) we send out to space. Their paths behave exactly like they should. And meters are suddenly longer on mecury now? Interesting.

Again I say D'oh!

Hurkyl, I think we have a lost cause here.

subtillioN

Jul5-03, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
That site you linked to has some serious issues.

Namely how it treats mass as something that can vary. It cannot and does not, and indeed this has been verified by objects (probes) we send out to space. Their paths behave exactly like they should. And meters are suddenly longer on mecury now? Interesting.

What are you talking about. Please quote the article and we will see it in context.

Brad_Ad23

Jul5-03, 08:44 PM

The only physical mechanism responsible for the advance of the perihelion of Mercury results from the change of mass due to the gravitational and kinetic energy.

Following the change of the Bohr radius, quantum mechanics predicts a change of quantum levels, due to the change of electron mass, giving also a change of rate of atomic clocks [1]. It is also demonstrated that all matter, including organic matter and even human bodies, function at a different rate when electrons forming them have acquired or released some potential or kinetic energies.
Since Mercury in its orbit has a different gravitational energy and possesses a different kinetic energy, matter on Mercury (i.e. due to its Mercury distance from the Sun) has a different mass. In addition, clocks on Mercury are functioning at a different rate. We consider that Newton's laws are perfectly valid on Mercury (as everywhere else) using the masses and the clock rates that are existing on Mercury. This is the universality of the physical laws. This requires using all proper values on Mercury, taking into account that the standard kilogram and the clock rate on Mercury clocks are slightly different from the standard kilogram and the clock rate on Earth. Furthermore, since the principle of mass-energy conservation has modified the mass of the particles on Mercury, it would not make sense to use the mass of the particles on Earth to calculate the interaction of the particles on Mercury immerged in the solar gravitational field. Consequently, one must always use everywhere (here Mercury) the units of mass, of lengths and the clock rate existing at the location where the interaction takes place. The relationships transforming the units between locations at different gravitational potentials and different velocities have already been calculated [1]. We have seen that the number of units representing the physical length of an object in different frames, can be expressed with respect to any standard reference in any given reference location. This gives us the possibility to calculate the same absolute physical length, either using Mercury or Earth meters. Physical lengths can be expressed either in Earth meters [meterE] or in Mercury meters [meterm]. The physical length of the radius of the orbit of Mercury is a real physical quantity, therefore absolute. It is equal to the number of Mercury-meters times the length of the local standard Mercury-meter. The same orbit of Mercury can also be measured using the shorter standard Earth-meter. Then, the number of Earth-meters to measure the same physical orbit of Mercury is larger when it is measured using the shorter Earth-meter.
We must notice that Newton's laws of physics deals with the numbers that are fed into the equations. Since the number of meters to measure the same physical length (using the longer Mercury meters) is smaller than the number of Earth meters, we must not be surprised to find different physical results when Newton's laws uses the correct local (proper) number.
In physics, there exist several systems of units using meters, feet, kilograms, pounds, coulombs, statcoulombs, abcoulombs etc. that have been devised in a coherent way so that the coherent use of any set of units leads to answers which are compatible, independently of any system of units. In fact, one has a complete choice of systems of units that leads to the same physical answer, although represented by different numbers and using units having different names. However, contrarily to the above, when we apply the principle of mass-energy conservation, the relationship between the units of mass, energy, lengths and clock rates do not vary in the same proportion which previously led to the same physical result, when we switch to locations having different energies. Most importantly, the principle of mass-energy conservation must be satisfied. Consequently, the application of the same Newton's laws at Mercury location (with Mercury units) will give a different physical prediction than using Earth units. Of course, the correct calculation is the one existing at the place where the phenomenon takes place. Doing otherwise would be absurd. Physics does not depend on observer's location. We show here below, that this logical correction explains perfectly the advance of the perihelion of Mercury without any relativity principle.

there ya go.

subtillioN

Jul5-03, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Again I say D'oh!

Homer,

Einstein used Newtonian time to to explain the perihelion of mercury, not relativistic time. This calculation had already been done previous to Einstein through classical methods.

You are attempting to shift the focus onto Relativity theory which does not prove BBT. You claim that BBT is proven yet you cannot list any argument that does not have a better explanation in a nonBB theory.

subtillioN

Jul5-03, 08:53 PM

“To Einstein’s law of gravitation Newton’s law is an extremely close approximation so that these laws give results in our own solar system which are indistinguishable from those of Newton except in one place, namely, the motion of the perihelion of Mercury. The law which is usually used was first given by Schwarzschild and it indicates an advance in the perihelion of Mercury of 43 seconds of arc per century greater than that indicated by Newton’s Law. Now it happens that there were two small discrepancies between the implications of the Newtonian theory and the observations. One of these is a slight irregularity in the motion of the moon, and the other is that the perihelion of Mercury is advancing 43 seconds per century faster than the theory indicated. Einstein’s theory would explain one of these, but not the other.
“That Einstein’s law of gravitation should fit one of these discrepancy so perfectly and ignore the others altogether is a bit puzzling. But naturally the relativists seize upon this one agreement as a striking confirmation of their procedure.
“The electromagnetic theory was based upon the concept of an ether, and it is the relativists themselves who put the ether into the discard. This is one of the defects of the doctrine of relativity for it does not say anything about how light is propagated. Both the emission theory and the wave theory give clear notions on this point. They may not be adequate, but the doctrine of relativity gives nothing at all.
“We of the present generation are too impatient to wait for anything. Within thirty years of Michelson’s failure to detect the expected motion of the earth with respect to the ether we have wiped out the slate, made a postulate that by no means whatever can the thing be done, and constructed a non-Newtonian mechanics to fit the postulate. The success which has been attained is a marvelous tribute to our intellectual activity and our ingenuity, but I am not so sure with respect to our judgement.
“It is not our normal mode of procedure to assume, after two or three failures, that by no means whatever can the thing be done. It is particularly distasteful to do so when such an assumption involves the conclusion that our experience can no longer be interpreted in terms of the time and space of our intuitions, and that we have accordingly reached the limits of what is intelligible .
“It will be observed that in the preceding discussion I have granted all of the claims of the relativists, and still I have denied their conclusion that the relativists are the sole dispensers of the truth and that we must all become relativists. The situation is something like that of a boy and his bed clothes. The boy grew but discovered that his little toes were sticking out from under the covers and he was decidedly uncomfortable. Try as he would the bed clothes could not be stretched far enough to cover them up.
Suddenly he had a bright idea. All he had to do was to slip the entire bed covers down six inches. His feet went under beautifully and he was so happy about it that it took him some time to discover that now his neck was uncovered and that he had merely shifted the seat of difficulty for the bedclothes were no longer than they were before. The relativists have succeeded in covering up the little terms of order two, but in doing so they have robbed us of all ideas as to how light is propagated in space, and that problem is even more important than the little difficulties at the other extremity.
“Let us turn attention now to another of the so-called proofs of Einstein theory. This is the advancement of the perihelion of the planet Mercury. It is well known that the orbits of the planets are ellipses. It has been observed that the orbit of Mercury slowly rotates about the sun. Leverrier computed the path of Mercury, taking account of the attractions of Earth, Venus, Jupiter, and three other bodies. He found that the actual and calculated motions failed to agree by an amount which would be nearly 38 seconds of arc per century. Leverrier could not understand this discrepancy and suggested that there might be unknown masses of matter near the sun. Since that time some matter has been found and exactly where Leverrier predicted that it should be. In 1895, Newcomb repeated the calculation and by slightly reducing the eccentricity of the orbit he slightly increased the rotation and obtained 41 seconds per century.
“Now Einstein by the use of the equations of relativity has calculated that the perihelion of Mercury should rotate 43 seconds per century due to the supposed change in space and time in the neighborhood of the mass of the sun. It has been pointed out by Professor Poor that, in making these calculations, Einstein failed to use his relativity unit of time, but used instead our constant Newtonian unit of time. The agreement between the calculated values of Leverrier and Newcomb on the one hand, and of Einstein on the other has been considered definite proof of relativity. But it must be remembered that Newcomb was forced to guess the density of Mercury and the other planets. Hence, Figure 9-7 may be far in error. Since the so-called verification by the calculations of Einstein, the rotation of the perihelion of Mercury has been recalculated and values 33 and 29 have been announced. We have here a variation of 27 percent.

----------------

Max Born, “Einstein’s Relativity,” pp 132-133.

Abstracts from “A Debate on the Theory of Relativity.” M. E. Hufford, “Is the Experimental Evidence of Relativity Conclusive?” and W. D. MacMillan, “Postulates of Normal Intuition,” pp 56-86, noninclusive. The Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago, Illinois, 1927.

Hurkyl

Jul5-03, 08:54 PM

according to your link

The only physical mechanism responsible for the advance of the perihelion of Mercury results from the change of mass due to the gravitational and kinetic energy.

according to other sources

As seen from Earth the precession of Mercury's orbit is measured to be 5600 seconds of arc per century (one second of arc=1/3600 degrees). Newton's equations, taking into account all the effects from the other planets (as well as a very slight deformation of the sun due to its rotation) and the fact that the Earth is not an inertial frame of reference, predicts a precession of 5557 seconds of arc per century. There is a discrepancy of 43 seconds of arc per century.

Hrm.....

subtillioN

Jul5-03, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Hrm.....

"Now Einstein by the use of the equations of relativity has calculated that the perihelion of Mercury should rotate 43 seconds per century due to the supposed change in space and time in the neighborhood of the mass of the sun. It has been pointed out by Professor Poor that, in making these calculations, Einstein failed to use his relativity unit of time, but used instead our constant Newtonian unit of time. The agreement between the calculated values of Leverrier and Newcomb on the one hand, and of Einstein on the other has been considered definite proof of relativity. But it must be remembered that Newcomb was forced to guess the density of Mercury and the other planets. Hence, Figure 9-7 may be far in error. Since the so-called verification by the calculations of Einstein, the rotation of the perihelion of Mercury has been recalculated and values 33 and 29 have been announced. We have here a variation of 27 percent.
"

Read my latest post before this one.

I will be back later to continue this discussion....

Anyway enough of this diversion from the Big Bang Theory... Can you successfully defend it? We'll see...
[:))]

Brad_Ad23

Jul5-03, 09:04 PM

I have yet to see ANY account of a SS model that incorperates A)The CBR and B)A reason why such a thing exists, and C)A mechanism for how matter is continuously created to keep the universe steady if one assumes it expands.

2. The Big Bang flows naturally out of GR. It calls for an expanding universe. Hence I think that is why Hurkyl went that avenue.

3. Relativistic time is time under extreme gravitational or near light speed time. What he used was curved spacetime.

4. Plasma cosmology asserts that the universe is governed primarily by the electromagnetic force, not gravity. In other words, it claims such things as black holes, or neutron stars are not necessary. However, we know neutron stars exist. Indeed black holes are almost certainly for real. However other problems I see with it are the flat out denial that the standard model is at all useful (it is not the ultimate word, but very useful), the prediction of faster than light processes, and the claim that the work done by Alan Aspect shows light is not the fastest thing. Quantum tunnelling and delayed choice experiements such as that, do not send useful information. That is the often ignored consequence of relativity--no information may travel faster than c. Also, how would the electrical force be dominant over the universe when it is oddly enough, mroe or less neutral? If it did play a big part, we would be moving much faster towards other galaxies (such as Andromeda) and a lot of observations would be very much off.

subtillioN

Jul5-03, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
I have yet to see ANY account of a SS model that incorperates A)The CBR and B)A reason why such a thing exists, and C)A mechanism for how matter is continuously created to keep the universe steady if one assumes it expands.

The SS model predicted CBR more accurately than BBT. If you don't know about it that is because it is not taught in your Standard Model classes. would you expect them to want to upset their status quo? It is part of history. nonetheless.

"In fact, some physicists (including Sir Arthur Eddington in 1926 and Andrew McKeller in 1942)(28) had estimated temperatures in the range of 2 to 3 K; closer to that of the MBR than has been estimated by BB cosmologists."

I am not arguing for SS so your other points do not apply to my argument.

2. The Big Bang flows naturally out of GR. It calls for an expanding universe. Hence I think that is why Hurkyl went that avenue.

BBT is entirely dependent on the doppler interpretation of the Hubble red-shift. This interpretation has been falsified by Halton Arp and the redshift is much better inter[reted by Plasma Cosmology.

4. Plasma cosmology asserts that the universe is governed primarily by the electromagnetic force, not gravity.

Electromagnetism is evident in every region of space. It is orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. The Plasma Cosmology model only makes sense and it does not require the existence of hypothetical dark matter/energy entities such as WIMPS MACHO's and the like.

In other words, it claims such things as black holes, or neutron stars are not necessary. However, we know neutron stars exist.

Neutron stars are an interpretation. They have not been observed.

The entire HR diagram is much more consistently explained in the Plasma Model.

Indeed black holes are almost certainly for real.

another interpretation from the Standard model.

However other problems I see with it are the flat out denial that the standard model is at all useful (it is not the ultimate word, but very useful)

It has obvious limits that Plasma Cosmo goes beyond.

Also, how would the electrical force be dominant over the universe when it is oddly enough, mroe or less neutral? If it did play a big part, we would be moving much faster towards other galaxies (such as Andromeda) and a lot of observations would be very much off.

Non Sequiter.

EM is orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. You do the math.

It is also visible in the heart of our galaxy and strongly at the surface of the sun.

Hurkyl

Jul5-03, 09:31 PM

2. The Big Bang flows naturally out of GR. It calls for an expanding universe. Hence I think that is why Hurkyl went that avenue.

That was half of my reasoning. The other half is that the experimental evidence for the BB presumes GR in its interpretation, so there's no point in discussing BB unless we can agree on GR.

Anyways, back to your explanation of Mercury's orbit. Your link keeps harping on properly mass-energy conservation... but mass-energy conservation is always applied in Newtonian mechanics; mass is conserved and energy is conserved. Orbits work by trading gravitational potential energy for kinetic energy... no change in mass is required.

And there is a fundamental problem in doing things in "mercury units". The article states that mercury meters and mercury seconds are different because of the gravitational potential well at mercury is different than that of earth...

But the primary source of gravitational potential energy at mercury's surface is... *drumroll* Mercury! Mercury units would be different for an observer on the top of a mountain or in the bottom of a valley. The rationale in the article would then imply that these two observers would compute different answers, which would be a contradiction.

subtillioN

Jul5-03, 09:35 PM

Forget about that article. Consider this instead.

"Now Einstein by the use of the equations of relativity has calculated that the perihelion of Mercury should rotate 43 seconds per century due to the supposed change in space and time in the neighborhood of the mass of the sun. It has been pointed out by Professor Poor that, in making these calculations, Einstein failed to use his relativity unit of time, but used instead our constant Newtonian unit of time. The agreement between the calculated values of Leverrier and Newcomb on the one hand, and of Einstein on the other has been considered definite proof of relativity. But it must be remembered that Newcomb was forced to guess the density of Mercury and the other planets. Hence, Figure 9-7 may be far in error. Since the so-called verification by the calculations of Einstein, the rotation of the perihelion of Mercury has been recalculated and values 33 and 29 have been announced. We have here a variation of 27 percent.
"

Can you deal with it?[6)]

Brad_Ad23

Jul5-03, 09:43 PM

Of course. Silly me. How could I forget all the scientists are concerned with is their status quo.

I remember I went through a phase where I thought every new idea was a good explination against the scientific community. You are going through that as well.

And my point about observations being off which are based off of gravity is very important.

At any rate, I have yet to find any explination anywhere about how the SS model explains the CBR. Perhaps you can do so for us quickly, and then we can turn more strictly to an analysis of Plasma Cosmology.

CrystalStudios

Jul5-03, 09:51 PM

Hurkyl et al - Just forget this sub-troll guy. He's spouting off with random crap and trying to disprove the proven.

Like I said there is 100+ reasonings behind the BB. Just drop it and move on to some much more promising threads!

Hurkyl

Jul5-03, 09:51 PM

BBT is entirely dependent on the doppler interpretation of the Hubble red-shift.

Can you back up this claim?

Anyways, Einstein probably did use what could be called the "Newtonian unit of time". Why? He was trying to make predictions about what we measure, so amongst all the reference frames he could have chosen to perform the calculation, he opted to perform the calculations in a reference frame where the general relativistic meaning of position and time coincided as best as possible with the classical meaning.

subtillioN

Jul6-03, 01:43 AM

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Can you back up this claim?

In the absense of the 'evidence' of an expanding Universe there is no Big Bang Theory. Isn't that obvious?

Anyways, Einstein probably did use what could be called the "Newtonian unit of time". Why? He was trying to make predictions about what we measure, so amongst all the reference frames he could have chosen to perform the calculation, he opted to perform the calculations in a reference frame where the general relativistic meaning of position and time coincided as best as possible with the classical meaning.

And so classical mechanics can deal just fine with the perihelion of Mercury, but so what? What does that have to do with BBT?

subtillioN

Jul6-03, 01:48 AM

I remember I went through a phase where I thought every new idea was a good explination against the scientific community. You are going through that as well.

What are you my shrink?

I thought we were actually trying to debate cosmology?

Basically we have evidence and we have interpretation.
BBT is one interpretation of the evidence and Plasma Cosmology is another. I happen to know both of them quite well and it seems that none of you BBT proponents have any clue about Plasma Cosmology. Let us debate both of them in the open, and on fair ground.

Can you debunk Plasma Cosmology?

At any rate, I have yet to find any explination anywhere about how the SS model explains the CBR. Perhaps you can do so for us quickly, and then we can turn more strictly to an analysis of Plasma Cosmology. [/B]

from: http://nowscape.com/big-ban2.htm

"In addition to the previous comment that one would expect the observed gigantic galactic formations to cause irregularities in the isotropy of MBR reception, the observed spectrum of the MBR, corresponding to a near perfect black body temperature of 2.7 K, doesn't agree very well with temperatures predicted by various BB theorists. Those predictions had varied over a range of 5 to 50 K.(26) History also shows that some BB cosmologists' "predictions" of MBR temperature have been "adjusted" after-the-fact to agree with observed temperatures.
The prediction of 5 K (by Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman in 1948),(27) which has been selected as a basis for agreement with the observed temperature, was made by those who had accepted a BB scenario that included concepts that were incorrect. Those included the idea that all of the elements of the universe were produced in the BB, which was later determined to be erroneous.
If the temperature of the universe was at absolute zero, all matter would collapse. The temperature of radiation from space might reasonably be expected to be some small number of degrees above that temperature. In fact, some physicists (including Sir Arthur Eddington in 1926 and Andrew McKeller in 1942)(28) had estimated temperatures in the range of 2 to 3 K; closer to that of the MBR than has been estimated by BB cosmologists."

Your knowledge is limited. And who is arguing for the SST? Not me.

Do you know Plasma Cosmology? Can you debunk it as well as I can debunk BBT?

We'll see....

CrystalStudios

Jul6-03, 01:52 AM

Originally posted by subtillioN
In the absense of the 'evidence' of an expanding Universe there is no Big Bang Theory. Isn't that obvious?

You're a troll and so I'm going to treat you as one:

1. First off the BBT does NOT, I repeat does NOT need the doppler evidence to support it. This is but one of the many ways the BBT has been proven.

2. Secondly. the BBT can be proven with or without the universe expanding. It's that simple.

3. BBT can give rise to:

A. An expand-contract universe in which we are currently expanding.

B. An expand-contract universe in which we are currently contracting

C. An expand contract universe in which we are currently at bay - and the detection of the slight expansion or contraction is currently undetectable to us.

D. Any number of other possibilities which still do not rule out the BBT.

To conclude troll - an expanding universe is NOT required for the BBT to be (as it is) the truth.

Isn't that obvious?

CrystalStudios

Jul6-03, 01:54 AM

Subtrolls arrogance has failed him.

He says that plasma cosmology needs to be debunked.

Wrong again.

Evidence proves BBT. Unless a challenging theory can completely and totally encompass or surpass all the knowledge of the BBT it is 100% false.

BBT has, among other things, proven the universe came from, well, a BB! Thus unless plasma cosmology is nearly identical to the BB - in which case it is not unique, it is completely false.

I don't even have to know a dammed thing about plasma cosmology to debunk it, you see? It's pure logic - the terms are useless!

subtillioN

Jul6-03, 01:57 AM

Originally posted by CrystalStudios
You're a troll and so I'm going to treat you as one:

Ad hominem is the weakest form of argument.

1. First off the BBT does NOT, I repeat does NOT need the doppler evidence to support it. This is but one of the many ways the BBT has been proven.

2. Secondly. the BBT can be proven with or without the universe expanding. It's that simple.

3. BBT can give rise to:

A. An expand-contract universe in which we are currently expanding.

B. An expand-contract universe in which we are currently contracting

C. An expand contract universe in which we are currently at bay - and the detection of the slight expansion or contraction is currently undetectable to us.

D. Any number of other possibilities which still do not rule out the BBT.

To conclude troll - an expanding universe is NOT required for the BBT to be (as it is) the truth.

Isn't that obvious?

In the absense of evidence it is PURE speculation. Go ahead speculate all you want. You have ZERO evidence to back up your outlandish claims.

subtillioN

Jul6-03, 02:00 AM

Originally posted by CrystalStudios
I don't even have to know a dammed thing about plasma cosmology to debunk it, you see? It's pure logic - the terms are useless! [/B]

So you have admitted your Dogmatism....

You don't know a damned thing about the alternative that you are dismissing on logic that you have never shown.

If you have any logic against a theory which you know nothing about please bless us with with your wisdom.

CrystalStudios

Jul6-03, 02:03 AM

Ad Hominem? Ha! You're a troll plain and simple - I could care less if I committ an Ad Hominem towards you!

I have no evidence to back up my BBT claims?

What a cracker!

The Plasma Cosmology Hypothesis is a very weak one. First off, it doesn't even coincide with String Theory, and it states that Black Holes don't exist (and yet we know them too) and also states that dark matter doesn't exist!!

Now that's outlandish!

CrystalStudios

Jul6-03, 02:05 AM

Originally posted by subtillioN
So you have admitted your Dogmatism....

You don't know a damned thing about the alternative that you are dismissing on logic that you have never shown.

If you have any logic against a theory which you know nothing about please bless us with with your wisdom.

Like I said - BBT has been proven. Unless another theory encompasses all the proof of the BBT, then it is obviously contradictory to the BBT (which is contradictory to the truth) and is thus false.

subtillioN

Jul6-03, 02:05 AM

Originally posted by CrystalStudios
Ad Hominem? Ha! You're a troll plain and simple - I could care less if I committ an Ad Hominem towards you!

I have no evidence to back up my BBT claims?

What a cracker!

The Plasma Cosmology Hypothesis is a very weak one. First off, it doesn't even coincide with String Theory, and it states that Black Holes don't exist (and yet we know them too) and also states that dark matter doesn't exist!!

Now that's outlandish!

You don't know the difference between data and theory. And you still cannot debate my points.

Why are you so emotional about a theory anyway.... That to me is a warning sign of a non-scientific (in the true sense of the term) religious dogmatism.

CrystalStudios

Jul6-03, 02:07 AM

We have a rule here at PF. We don't debate trolls.

subtillioN

Jul6-03, 02:08 AM

Originally posted by CrystalStudios
We have a rule here at PF. We don't debate trolls.

Let me translate that for you:
"We have a rule not to accept any challenge to our favorite theories."

All I have done is show an alternative. You have a rule not to look at alternatives? How scientific is that?

Give me a break.
[g)]

Is that supposed to compensate for your inability to debate my points?

subtillioN

Jul6-03, 02:14 AM

Originally posted by CrystalStudios
Like I said - BBT has been proven. Unless another theory encompasses all the proof of the BBT, then it is obviously contradictory to the BBT (which is contradictory to the truth) and is thus false.

That is the most dogmatic statement I think I have ever read.

Basically you are saying that your precious BBT is beyond reproach. Are you that attached to it? That is a serious warning sign that you are being unscientific.

CrystalStudios

Jul6-03, 02:21 AM

You love to call things dogmatic. I bet you don't know what that really means.

Look troll - plasma cosmology is a strange idea that is less than one year old. It has 100% no experimental evidence while BBT has tons.

Theoretical evidence isn't much of any evidence at all. Your theory doesn't take into account dark matter, black holes, superstrings, Higgs fields, and many other things.

It also disregards the fact that everything in the universe is moving away from the same point........

.....it's a weak theory.

Shoot man - string theory has now taken over physics, and plasma cosmology doesn't even agree with string theory!!!!!!

What the hell do you expect?

subtillioN

Jul6-03, 02:33 AM

Originally posted by CrystalStudios
[B]You love to call things dogmatic. I bet you don't know what that really means.

Is it some complex idea? No it is obvious when someone refuses to admit that his favored interpretation is not a proven fact.

Look troll - plasma cosmology is a strange idea that is less than one year old. It has 100% no experimental evidence while BBT has tons.

Do you realize how childish your name-calling is? What is this... Kinder-garten?

Either way the very same evidence that the BBT has claimed for its own 'proof' actually is more coherent when interpreted via Plasma Cosmology. If you don't know a damn thing about it how can you sit there and claim that it is wrong?

Theoretical evidence isn't much of any evidence at all. Your theory doesn't take into account dark matter, black holes, superstrings, Higgs fields, and many other things.

The BBT is FAR more theoretical than Plasma Cosmology. If only you knew the difference.

It also disregards the fact that everything in the universe is moving away from the same point........

.....it's a weak theory.

You don't even know what you are talking about. Try debating the actual theory... oh yeah... that means actually LEARNING it.

Shoot man - string theory has now taken over physics, and plasma cosmology doesn't even agree with string theory!!!!!!

What the hell do you expect?

I expect serious debate which you are incapable of.. Instead all I get is a barage of name calling for even challenging your pet theory.

String Theory is a joke and so is the state of physics... So what if Physics is taken over by a faulty theory, it certainly isn't the first time.

Rogue

Jul6-03, 03:18 AM

Originally posted by subtillioN
String Theory is a joke and so is the state of physics.

I hate to take this thread (judging by the main heading - I didn't read it all) in the wrong direction, but string theory a joke? String theory has united all of physics, solved all the problems of the differences in the forces - and you think it is a joke? So you're arguing an irrational theory which goes against all the structures of physics, and indeed you also deny the exist of string theory as the proven structure behind physics - and expect someone to listen to that? You're basically saying that everything in physics down to it's very existance is completely incorrect.

subtillioN

Jul6-03, 03:23 AM

You people are incredibly dogmatic. String Theory is FAR from proven and it only "unites" physics by way of a kludge connection between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. It is way too abstract to be realistic and there ARE better models.

subtillioN

Jul6-03, 03:25 AM

Originally posted by Rogue
You're basically saying that everything in physics down to it's very existance is completely incorrect. [/B]

The equations are quite correct, but the interpretations are incorrect at the core and all across the board!!!

That is why they continually fail to understand the core causality which they claim does not exist.

Rogue

Jul6-03, 03:32 AM

Well, you propose some bizarre ideas. I surely hope that you have at least one PhD in physics. There is no level of non-graduate level education that could prepare you for properly proposing any such claims other than that, and I should know.

So, why not enlighten us with your level of education in physics?

subtillioN

Jul6-03, 03:36 AM

Originally posted by Rogue
So, why not enlighten us with your level of education in physics?

Is "status" what you consider enlightening? If so then an attempt to truly enlighten you is hopeless.

If you want a small clue then read the intro at this site. www.anpheon.org

Rogue

Jul6-03, 04:22 AM

Originally posted by subtillioN
Is "status" what you consider enlightening? If so then an attempt to truly enlighten you is hopeless.

If you want a small clue then read the intro at this site. www.anpheon.org

Apparently you are dodging the fact that you perhaps have no physics education?

It's OK to admit - but understand, from someone who does, that no amount of independant reading will make up for not having a structural education. And the propositions you make of string theory being absurd and the Big Bang being wrong are well, wrong and absurd!

What do you have an education in? Perhaps you can tell us so we can ask questions you might be able to answer.

And to the website you linked - no amount of fancy flash and animated diagrams can combat a theory (that is string theory) which serves to unite every single fragment that has ever been discovered in physics.

subtillioN

Jul6-03, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by Rogue
[B]Apparently you are dodging the fact that you perhaps have no physics education?

I am an eternal student and how could I discuss physics with no physics education? My educational status has nothing to do with the theories that I am discussing because I am not the author. That ad hominem route will get you nowhere.

It's OK to admit - but understand, from someone who does, that no amount of independant reading will make up for not having a structural education. And the propositions you make of string theory being absurd and the Big Bang being wrong are well, wrong and absurd!

There is your dogmatism speaking. I am making serious criticisms of your pet theories and you people cannot debate the alternatives I am talking about because you don't know the theories. Science evolves through diversity in spite of dogmatism.

And to the website you linked - no amount of fancy flash and animated diagrams can combat a theory (that is string theory) which serves to unite every single fragment that has ever been discovered in physics.

The theory is entirely visualizable at the root causal level unlike string theory or quantum mechanics. The theory stands alone independent of any marketing or artwork.

r637h

Jul6-03, 10:45 AM

This is an excellent thread and this is a "Forum": I believe that just about anyone can properly participate.

I agree with very little of what -tillion has put forth, but there's absolutely no harm in reading what he has to say. Further, his assertion that he is propounding a theory I believe is perhaps a bit over-stated. But why don't we listen with courtesy and decorum (Robert's Rules)?

Back to an earlier post in this thread: Mercury"s precession in perihelion: It is explained by the math of both Newtonian and GR physics. GR is the more precise:
This is because GR utilizes Riemannian Geometry (and Lorentzian transformations); but Riemannian Geometry is, in effect, only a distortion of Euclidian geometry, albeit with the same rigid discipline/proofs as Euclidian.

I would not, but some would question the validity of Lorentzian tranformations in general.

Let's remember that Einstein was in the main self-tutored. Newton, Maxwell and Faraday were all in a similar vein, and Einstein admired them.

Back to the main topic: BB is a given, period. An inflationary Universe was very, very probable. Is there a 'center' to the universe? Nope.

Thanks, Rudi

Hurkyl

Jul6-03, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Can you back up this claim?

Originally posted by subtillion
In the absense of the 'evidence' of an expanding Universe there is no Big Bang Theory. Isn't that obvious?

But what does the doppler effect have to do with anything? In fact, it's the observation that the doppler effect cannot adequately describe redshifting that is used as evidence for the expansion of space.

Do you know Plasma Cosmology? Can you debunk it as well as I can debunk BBT?

Seeing how I don't know what Plasma Cosmology is, and I haven't made any arguments against what Plasma Cosmology really is... I already have. [:D]

Seriously, if you're still talking about the center of the big bang, and think the doppler effect has anything to do with the expansion of the universe as predicted than BBT, then you have no clue about what you're talking.

Anywyas, I shall take a step and debunk PC better than you have BBT. May I presume that this website:

http://www.matter-antimatter.com/plasma_cosmology.htm

is a valid descrption of the predictions of plasma cosmology?

Well, the first and most problem is that black holes can't eject matter. Secondly, it predicts arms of a spiral galaxy to be made of antimatter but we don't see any variation in the properties of the arms, and we don't see any matter/antimatter annihilations around the core. Finally, it predicts that comets are actually antimatter, but that is patently absurd because we have watched comets come in contact with ordinary matter, and annihilation doesn't occur! For example, jupiter still exists. [:)]

r637h

Jul6-03, 11:25 AM

"While I'm at it" Dept.

Out of curiosity, I visited the Plasma Cosmology website:

I have a question: What?

In fairness, I don't think the world of M-Theory, either; It very likely does have validity, but it needs Occam's Razor, judiciously applied. It is so loaded with jargon that it defies rational analysis.

Thanks, Rudi

Phobos

Jul6-03, 01:13 PM

There is a good discussion here to be salvaged among the cracker crumbs, trolling, and flame-war-lite. Consider this the 2-minute warning.

subtillioN

Jul6-03, 01:17 PM

Anywyas, I shall take a step and debunk PC better than you have BBT. May I presume that this website:

http://www.matter-antimatter.com/plasma_cosmology.htm

is a valid descrption of the predictions of plasma cosmology?

No this one is the one I am discussing and ONLY the science stuff..

www.electric-cosmos.org

meteor

Jul6-03, 01:49 PM

Sincerely, I find the hypothesis of Arp rather absurd. He is suggesting that quasars are been expulsed from galaxies!! [8)]
What are then quasars for him? The dynamics of galaxies is reasonably understood, and I can find a mechanism for permit that a quasar can be expulsed
He says that the quasars show such high redshift because that is a "inherent" redshift of the quasar. Wait. Why has to have a quasar inherent redshift and not, for example, my book or my wardrobe? If objects would have inherent redshifts then it would have been discovered in laboratories here in Earth
His theory is full of nonsenses: How he explain that tre vast majority of the observed quasars are NOT near any galaxies?

Jul6-03, 09:25 PM

Originally posted by subtillioN
No the point is not to confuse our metrical tools with reality. There is no causal explanation of how space could be finite but unbounded and there is no evidence to support the notion. [/B]

No confusion needed. If the universe has a volume, the volume will follow the rules of Euclidean geometry or it won't. In other words, if I travel in a straight line, what will happen? Euclidean geometry says I will keep traveling forever without returning to my starting point. If the universe is flat and infinite, then Euclidean geometry can be said to be an accurate description of space.

Now while there is no evidence for a finite and unbounded universe, there is an explanation for it. Once you accept curved spacetime as the cause of gravity, it doesn't take much to get to a hyper spherical universe. Taking a measurement of the overall geometry in a given region of space and applying the cosmological principle to the universe as a whole gives you a shape. With enough curvature on average, the universe would be unbounded and finite. Of course, the whole idea fails if the cosmological principle is inaccurate on large scales.

subtillioN

Jul6-03, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by Eh
No confusion needed. If the universe has a volume, the volume will follow the rules of Euclidean geometry or it won't.

Ok explain to me how a volume can follow mathematical rules?

In other words, if I travel in a straight line, what will happen? Euclidean geometry says I will keep traveling forever without returning to my starting point. If the universe is flat and infinite, then Euclidean geometry can be said to be an accurate description of space.

Ok a description I will grant, but geometry is no causative agent.

Now while there is no evidence for a finite and unbounded universe, there is an explanation for it. Once you accept curved spacetime as the cause of gravity, it doesn't take much to get to a hyper spherical universe.

That is the clincher isn't it? The rubber-sheet tautology of "curved space" which uses gravity as its own mechanism, simply does not explain ANY mechanism for gravity whatsoever, nor does it explain the mechanism of the formation of a gravitational field.

Tell me HOW "space" (nothingness) can get curved by matter. How can nothingness be curved?

Taking a measurement of the overall geometry in a given region of space and applying the cosmological principle to the universe as a whole gives you a shape. With enough curvature on average, the universe would be unbounded and finite. Of course, the whole idea fails if the cosmological principle is inaccurate on large scales.

The fact is that the observed value of omega is far from being a positive value. So even according to your pure mathematical abstraction space simply cannot be positively curved.

Brad_Ad23

Jul6-03, 10:04 PM

I thought Omega couldn't be negative? Less than 1 was an open universe, 1 was flat and greater than 1 was closed.

As for how a volume can follow mathematical laws, you need to be more specific.

Otherwise, V = 4πr3/3 or s3 etc.

subtillioN

Jul6-03, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by meteor
[B]Sincerely, I find the hypothesis of Arp rather absurd. He is suggesting that quasars are been expulsed from galaxies!! [8)]

His interpretations of the red-shift anomalies are certainly questionable, but the fact is that the anomalies do exist. This casts a serious doubt on the validity of the Doppler interpretation of Hubble redshift.

Since this doppler interpretation is the only "proof" of an expanding Universe, the whole BBT is thrown into question... once again. I have no doubts that they will find a cure for this little problem too as a testament of the ingenuity of the mind to create a complex solution to an otherwise simple problem.

Halton Arp is not a Plasma Cosmology theorist so I am not arguing in favor of his theories. See http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm to jump right into the real meat of the theory.

I suggest we discuss the solar model found here and the HR diagram interpretation as well.

Jul6-03, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by subtillioN
Ok explain to me how a volume can follow mathematical rules?

Those mathematical rules are just descriptive. In other words, they can just describe how space is, as opposed to proscriptive laws that tell space what to do.

That is the clincher isn't it? The rubber-sheet tautology of "curved space" which uses gravity as its own mechanism, simply does not explain ANY mechanism for gravity whatsoever, nor does it explain the mechanism of the formation of a gravitational field.

The analogy is crude and shouldn't be taken too literally. With curvature as an instrinsic property of spacetime (a geometric explanation of Newtons law of gravitation)gravity goes from being a mysterious unexplained force to a well defined pheneomena.

Tell me HOW "space" (nothingness) can get curved by matter. How can nothingness be curved?

Space is just the structural quality of the gravitational field. However that name is misleading, because if you were to empty the universe of all matter and energy, you could still have a flat spacetime defined by the same field. Regardless, it's best not to think of matter as producing some mysterious field, but instead to consider that spacetime curvature is an associated property of matter itself.

The fact is that the observed value of omega is far from being a positive value. So even according to your pure mathematical abstraction space simply cannot be positively curved.

On average, the universe is flat, with an omega value of 1. That doesn't mean local spacetime curvature isn't real though. As well, a multiply connected universe could still be flat on average, and be finite and unbounded. A simply connected universe can only be spherical or infinite, given the cosmological principle. But I'm not sure exactly how a multiply connected spacetime would work.

subtillioN

Jul6-03, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
[B]I thought Omega couldn't be negative? Less than 1 was an open universe, 1 was flat and greater than 1 was closed.

Right, sorry I meant it necessitates, according to the abstraction of "curved space", a Universe of negative curvature.

As for how a volume can follow mathematical laws, you need to be more specific.

That is exactly my point.

These concepts are devoid of causality thus they can take virtually any fantastical shape whatsoever

Brad_Ad23

Jul6-03, 10:14 PM

However, that is the difference between mathematics and physics. Math is abstract and physics is the concrete application of such. Your point is still not made.

subtillioN

Jul6-03, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by Eh
[B]Those mathematical rules are just descriptive. In other words, they can just describe how space is, as opposed to proscriptive laws that tell space what to do.

Exactly. I completely agree, but I think that this assertion has more far reaching conclusions.

But geometry really only describes space, the structural quality of the gravitational field. If curvature of this space effects the geodesics of matter, then it can certainly be a causative agent, in this case being the mechanism of gravity.

It doesn't explain the causation whatsoever. It just describes the shape of the field and the geodesic trajectories of massive objects etc.

It is at least one level removed from causation.

The analogy is crude and shouldn't be taken literally. With curvature of an instrinsic property of spacetime (a geometric explanation of Newtons law of gravitation)gravity goes from being a mysterious force to an explained pheneomena.

Gravity is simply more accurately quantified and given a more complex explanation. The causative mechanism, however, is not actually explained by relativity nor is it at all understood by the Standard Model.

I don't know why matter has an associated spacetime curvature as it does, but that doesn't mean Einstein's theory isn't useful.

Ok, it is useful for the Standard Model to explain the null-results of the M&M experiment, but it is rapidly becoming superfluous. ((I don't really expect you to understand or agree with this last statement))

Space is just the geometric structure of the gravitational field.

Do you not see the circularity in this "explanation"?

However that name is misleading, because if you were to empty the universe of all matter and energy, you could still have a flat spacetime defined by the same field.

So you are claiming that nothingness has properties? This points to the core error of Physics.

Regardless, it's best not to think of matter as producing some mysterious field, but instead to consider that spacetime curvature is an associated property of matter itself.

Best to maintain the circular mystery perhaps. I prefer a hierarchy to a tautology so I will stick with the Sorce Theory mechanisms.

subtillioN

Jul6-03, 10:31 PM

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
However, that is the difference between mathematics and physics. Math is abstract and physics is the concrete application of such. Your point is still not made.

The point is that at the core of physics resides only mathematics and ZERO causation.

The causative level if understood correctly as a fluid-dynamic medium can unify all of physics and explain every single force as a complex consequence of fluid-dynamic pressure.

And all this, if you can believe it, without invoking the physical existence of a single dimension!!! [6)]

Jul6-03, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by subtillioN

It doesn't explain the causation whatsoever. It just describes the shape of the field and the geodesic trajectories of massive objects etc.

It is at least one level removed from causation.

So, it still has it's use as an explanation for gravity. And if we know that there is an associated curvature with matter, we can see that it's reasonable for a finite and boundless universe.

Ok, it is useful for the Standard Model to explain the null-results of the M&M experiment, but it is rapidly becoming superfluous. ((I don't really expect you to understand or agree with this last statement))

It has nothing to do with the M&M experiment. I'm talking about predictions about astronomical phenomena.

Do you not see the circularity in this "explanation"?

No I don't. What is circular about a field that has geometric structure as one of it's properties?

So you are claiming that nothingness has properties? This points to the core error of Physics.

No, spacetime is a classic field along the lines of the EM field. As I said, the term gravitational field is a bad choice of words, since you can have a field empty of matter (flat) and hence no gravity. But it's just a name we're stuck with, and obviously will lead to confusion. At any rate, I don't know why you would call this field nothingness.

Best to maintain the circular mystery perhaps. I prefer a hierarchy to a tautology so I will stick with the Sorce Theory mechanisms.

Great, but I'd guess that physicists will stick with theories that actually get results.

Hurkyl

Jul6-03, 10:47 PM

Since this doppler interpretation is the only "proof" of an expanding Universe, the whole BBT is thrown into question... once again.

No it's not.

It doesn't explain the causation whatsoever. It just describes the shape of the field and the geodesic trajectories of massive objects etc.

It is at least one level removed from causation.

Causation is described by Einstein's field equations, G=T.

So you are claiming that nothingness has properties? This points to the core error of Physics.

(a) He did not say nothingness; he said a universe devoid of matter and energy.

(b) Of course nothingness has properties. Why wouldn't it?

subtillioN

Jul6-03, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by Eh
It has nothing to do with the M&M experiment. I'm talking about predictions about astronomical phenomena.

Such as...

No I don't. What is circular about a field that has geometric structure as one of it's properties?

Space is the geometric structure of the g-field and the g-field is the geometric structure of space?

Tautology.

Great, but I'd guess that physicists will stick with theories that actually get results.

You get exactly the SAME results with Sorce Theory as it uses the same equations. Only you can actually understand the mechanisms of all the forces as explained by a single force.

subtillioN

Jul6-03, 11:02 PM

Originally posted by Hurkyl
No it's not.

You continue to say this but you cannot give an example to prove your assertion.

Here is the my original statement for which your denial stands unsupported by any argument or evidence.

"His [Halton Arp] interpretations of the red-shift anomalies are certainly questionable, but the fact is that the anomalies do exist. This casts a serious doubt on the validity of the Doppler interpretation of Hubble redshift.

"Since this doppler interpretation is the only "proof" of an expanding Universe, the whole BBT is thrown into question... once again."

Can you back up your empty denial of my statement?

Causation is described by Einstein's field equations, G=T.

The large-scale effect of causation is described but the mechanism is absent. This causal mechanism exists within each and every atom in response to a g-field yet Relativity theory has no clue what it is.

(a) He did not say nothingness; he said a universe devoid of matter and energy.

How is that different from nothingness?

(b) Of course nothingness has properties. Why wouldn't it?

Sure why the hell not? But can you tell me HOW it actually could?

subtillioN

Jul7-03, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by Eh
On average, the universe is flat, with an omega value of 1. That doesn't mean local spacetime curvature isn't real though. As well, a multiply connected universe could still be flat on average, and be finite and unbounded. A simply connected universe can only be spherical or infinite, given the cosmological principle. But I'm not sure exactly how a multiply connected spacetime would work.

Flat? Omega at one? By whose measurements? Unless you are counting the hypothetical Dark Matter/Energy kludge-particles created to fix the anomalies in the standard model of galaxies, there is FAR from enough detectable mass-containing matter to place the value of omega at one. You should understand that if you are counting hypothetical particles of hypothetical mass then we can place this value WHEREVER we want, hypothetically, with no recourse to reality whatsoever. Of what scientific good is this value if it is generated entirely by the human mind by its assumption of hypothetical WIMP's and MACHO's to fix its problematic theories?

It is true that we observe no curvature, but would we really observe one if the light is curved by it? I personally think the whole concept of "physically curved space" is nonsense as it contains no causal mechanism by which space could actually be curved. "Curved space" is merely a mapping scheme for the structure of a g-field whose deeper mechanisms are entirely unknown by the Standard Model. To assume that the entire universe could be described by a single g-field mapping is absurd. We still have yet to see any clue that it is not infinite in extent. It appears to just go on forever as far as we can tell.

subtillioN

Jul7-03, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by meteor
The dynamics of galaxies is reasonably understood...

Is that why they can't understand the mechanism for the gravitational rotation curve of the matter in the galaxy without inventing a whole host of hypothetical entities (MACHO's and WIMP's etc.)? The Plasma Cosmology model needs no hypothetical entities to explain the rotation curve. It simply uses the observed galactic magnetic fields and intergalactic electric currents to explain it.

He says that the quasars show such high redshift because that is a "inherent" redshift of the quasar. Wait. Why has to have a quasar inherent redshift and not, for example, my book or my wardrobe? If objects would have inherent redshifts then it would have been discovered in laboratories here in Earth
His theory is full of nonsenses: How he explain that tre vast majority of the observed quasars are NOT near any galaxies?

The fact is that many quasars are physically associated with host galaxies of much different red-shift. The problem is how can you explain the association if you assume the doppler interpretation of red-shift which puts the quasars in very different regions of space from their observed host galaxies? The phenomenon is far too common to explain it as a simple coincidence. Thus we must admit that the quasar is getting red-shifted by some other mechanism or that it is traveling at strangely high speeds wrt the host galaxy which would require a mechanism such as the ejection from the host galaxy.

Here is a quote from http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm
"Arp discovered, by taking photographs through the big telescopes, that many pairs of quasars ("quasi-stellar objects") which have extremely high redshift z values (and are therefore thought to be receding from us very rapidly - and thus must be located at a great distance from us) are physically associated with galaxies that have low redshift and are known to be relatively close by. Arp has photographs of many pairs of high redshift quasars that are symmetrically located on either side of what he suggests are their parent, low redshift galaxies. These pairings occur much more often than the probabilities of random placement would allow. Mainstream astrophysicists try to explain away Arp's observations of connected galaxies and quasars as being "illusions" or "coincidences of apparent location". But, the large number of physically associated quasars and low red shift galaxies that he has photographed and cataloged defies that evasion. It simply happens too often

Because of Arp's photos, the assumption that high red shift objects have to be very far away - on which the "Big Bang" theory and all of "accepted cosmology" is based - is proven to be wrong! The Big Bang theory is therefore falsified."

Can yet another falsification make a difference in the belief structure of science? I doubt it. There is surely some inventable mechanism to fix yet another problem with the core assumptions of the BBT (another hypothetical kludge-particle which is conveniently only emitted in the vicinity of a quasar, perhaps?)

Like the Earth-centric Model of the solar system, the BBT gets reinvented again and again with hypothetical entities such as inflation, WIMP's, MACHO's, etc. (the modern-day form of Ptolemy's equally hypothetical "epicycles"), until finally, at this point in time around %99 of the entire known Universe must now be made of hypothetical Dark Matter/Energy particles to account for the BB interpretation of its observable properties.

15 billion years old? Give me a break, there are known structures in the Universe (such as the Great Wall of galaxies) that would have taken HUNDREDS of billions of years to form under the assumptions of the BBT and its observed "flatness".

see this link for example http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf067/sf067a08.htm

see also the "Fingers of God" section from http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm. Here is a quote.

"The "Fingers of God"

The diagram above is an attempt to plot the positions of the galaxies we can see from Earth that are located in a ninety degree field of view centered on the Virgo Galaxy Cluster. The distance of each galaxy that was used to make this plot is computed by presuming that its actual distance is proportional to its redshift value - as modern astronomers do. As a result, the Virgo cluster itself takes on the shape of two long fingers pointed directly at Earth. These have become known as "The Fingers of God". (Shown here in red.)

Long cosmic sized fingers pointed directly at Earth! This result is false on its face. It is independent proof that the "redshift equals distance" assumption is nonsense. Again - Copernicus discovered many years ago that the Earth was not the center of anything! A galaxy cluster should have a more symmetrical shape than this. Arp demonstrates that the Virgo cluster is much more compact than it appears in this diagram. The high redshift galaxies in the upper regions of the diagram are not far away - they are just very young! And much closer to us than this diagram would indicate.

How astrophysicists can continue to look at this diagram and not see that something is very wrong with their theory is evidence of how disconnected from reality they have become.

It is ironic to remember that Galileo got into trouble with the Church by defending the work of Copernicus. Copernicus' voice is coming down to us today through the ages - "If you think that all the galaxies in the Virgo Cluster are in a couple of straight lines that point directly at Earth, you are wrong!" Arp is, indeed, today's Galileo.

So, Arp is correct in his contention that redshift is caused mainly by an object's being young, and only secondarily because of its velocity. Therefore, quasars are not the brightest, most distant and rapidly moving things in the observed universe - but they are among the youngest. And the Virgo galaxy cluster most certainly does not take the shape of long "Fingers of God" pointed directly at Earth. The Big Bang Theory is false.

"

Jul7-03, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by subtillioN
Such as...

The curvature of light when it passes the sun, gravitational lensing, gravitational waves, the expanding universe, black holes, the evolution of stars, etc. Very useful for cosmology.

Space is the geometric structure of the g-field and the g-field is the geometric structure of space?

Tautology.

No, that would be circular. But I'm not claiming the field is the structure of space, since the stucture of the field is what we call space. In other words, the field is what defines spacetime and space in the traditional sense, has absolutely no existence independent of it.

You get exactly the SAME results with Sorce Theory as it uses the same equations. Only you can actually understand the mechanisms of all the forces as explained by a single force.

Right. I'm sure the physics community would be dying to see how you are able to unify all the forces, but I'm guessing they'll have to look here on the internet instead of a physics journal. Take it to the appropriate forum.

meteor

Jul7-03, 11:46 AM

One thing is true, and is that the photos of Arp seem very convincing when you see them the first time. See here:
www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm
Time ago, I was convinced too that the photos were a prove that redshift couldn't be an indicator of distances. Then I realized that can exist other alternatives. Have you ever think that the apparent bridge between the two objects can be a jet expulsed by the galaxy?
For example, in M87, a galaxy, there's a jet going away from the galaxy.Here's the photo:
www.seds.org/messier/m/m087.html
And there are a great number of galaxies that shows that kind of jet,
for example the Seyfert Galaxy NGC 4151

Jul7-03, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by subtillioN
Flat? Omega at one? By whose measurements? Unless you are counting the hypothetical Dark Matter/Energy kludge-particles created to fix the anomalies in the standard model of galaxies, there is FAR from enough detectable mass-containing matter to place the value of omega at one.

Findings from things like WMAP suggest the universe indeed is flat, but the trouble is cosmologists don't have enough known matter to explain why that is so.

It is true that we observe no curvature, but would we really observe one if the light is curved by it? I personally think the whole concept of "physically curved space" is nonsense as it contains no causal mechanism by which space could actually be curved. "Curved space" is merely a mapping scheme for the structure of a g-field whose deeper mechanisms are entirely unknown by the Standard Model.

Like I said, curved is no less real than flat. In other words, the geometry of spacetime can ether be described by the rules of Euclid or it can't. Yes, light acts as if there is real curvature.

To assume that the entire universe could be described by a single g-field mapping is absurd. We still have yet to see any clue that it is not infinite in extent. It appears to just go on forever as far as we can tell.

It is based on the assumption that the cosmological principle is valid throughout the universe. It seems to hold true wherever we look, but it's possible it doesn't on large scales.

subtillioN

Jul7-03, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by Eh
[B]The curvature of light when it passes the sun, gravitational lensing, gravitational waves, the expanding universe, black holes, the evolution of stars, etc. Very useful for cosmology.

First of all the curvature of light near the limb of the sun was far to complex to be explained by Relativity theory without cooking out the complexity (Sorce Theory, however actually PRE-dicted the complexity of the data and it requires no "cooking" to achieve a correspondence.) Secondly the Newtonian model also pre-dicted such an effect and other models can easily deal with gravitational lensing.

There have been no observations of the rest of the items that you mention. They are mere interpretations of the data which are more consistently explained by the Plasma model.

Right. I'm sure the physics community would be dying to see how you are able to unify all the forces, but I'm guessing they'll have to look here on the internet instead of a physics journal. Take it to the appropriate forum.

Do you know anything about the peer review process? It effectively filters any theory of sufficient novelty.

subtillioN

Jul7-03, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by Eh
[B]Findings from things like WMAP suggest the universe indeed is flat, but the trouble is cosmologists don't have enough known matter to explain why that is so.

Trouble indeed! That was my point. The observations do not coincide with their models.

No, that would be circular. But I'm not claiming the field is the structure of space, since the stucture of the field is what we call space. In other words, the field is what defines spacetime and space in the traditional sense, has absolutely no existence independent of it.

The point was that the original statement was circular. You have simply re-stated it in a non-circular way, but the fact remains that Relativity theory only deals at the level of a self-consistent abstraction. It does not explain the causality of the force of gravity.

Like I said, curved is no less real than flat. In other words, the geometry of spacetime can ether be described by the rules of Euclid or it can't. Yes, light acts as if there is real curvature.

agreed.

...well except that both "spacetime" and "geometry" are inventions of the mind to deal with matter in motion as such they don't exist in physical reality.

subtillioN

Jul7-03, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by meteor
One thing is true, and is that the photos of Arp seem very convincing when you see them the first time. See here:
www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm
Time ago, I was convinced too that the photos were a prove that redshift couldn't be an indicator of distances. Then I realized that can exist other alternatives. Have you ever think that the apparent bridge between the two objects can be a jet expulsed by the galaxy?
For example, in M87, a galaxy, there's a jet going away from the galaxy.Here's the photo:
www.seds.org/messier/m/m087.html
And there are a great number of galaxies that shows that kind of jet,
for example the Seyfert Galaxy NGC 4151

That is still too convenient an explanation. If the bridges are a mere random coincidence then why would there be so many illusory bridges connecting directly to quasars and none just connecting to nothing at all?

What about the "fingers of God"? This shows direct evidence of anomalous mapping of redshift to distance as such resultant massive structures point directly at the earth! Is that also a coincidence? Do we happen to be some focal point of many large-scale cosmological structures or is the red-shift distance-mapping procedure perhaps a bit intrinsically faulty?

If it is faulty then there must be some other mechanism to explain the red-shift anomalies. If there is another mechanism for red-shift then the fantastical Doppler interpretation of Hubble red-shift is superfluous and occams razor would slice it clean off and we would have no evidence whatsoever for an expanding universe. The problem is that the razor has become blunted through neglect.

Brad_Ad23

Jul7-03, 01:22 PM

Do you know anything about the peer review process? It effectively filters any theory of sufficient novelty.

I hate it when people use this same tired excuse. If that was the case, how do new theories actually become accepted by the community then? Why surely they can't according to you! And as a result science must never progress. Or perhaps they just don't accept theories that make little sense physically?

subtillioN

Jul7-03, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
I hate it when people use this same tired excuse. If that was the case, how do new theories actually become accepted by the community then? Why surely they can't according to you!

The same old core errors will remain.

And as a result science must never progress. Or perhaps they just don't accept theories that make little sense physically?

Well do you know the theory I am talking about? So you really have no idea whether or not it makes sense.

Hurkyl

Jul7-03, 01:58 PM

You continue to say this but you cannot give an example to prove your assertion. Here is the my original statement for which your denial stands unsupported by any argument or evidence. "His [Halton Arp] interpretations of the red-shift anomalies are certainly questionable, but the fact is that the anomalies do exist. This casts a serious doubt on the validity of the Doppler interpretation of Hubble redshift. "Since this doppler interpretation is the only "proof" of an expanding Universe, the whole BBT is thrown into question... once again." Can you back up your empty denial of my statement?

Can you back up your empty statement?

I have backed up my denial; I have informed you of the interpretation of the redshift actually used in BBT. (expansion of space, remember?)

subtillioN

Jul7-03, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Can you back up your empty statement?

I have backed up my denial; I have informed you of the interpretation of the redshift actually used in BBT. (expansion of space, remember?)

So you are claiming that this interpretation is "self-proving" in spite of the evidence that shows that it is problematic and cannot be correct?

Is that the best you got?

Did you even read the "Fingers of God" segment that I posted from www.electric-cosmos.org ?

Come on lets debate this like scientists and not like theologists. Can you can deal with the actual arguments and evidence against the doppler interpretation of red-shift? If not then simply state so.

Hurkyl

Jul7-03, 07:03 PM

So you are claiming that this interpretation is "self-proving" in spite of the evidence that shows that it is problematic and cannot be correct?

What evidence? You keep talking about evidence that the "doppler shift" interpretation is incorrect; you have not addressed the expansion of space interpretation.

Did you even read the "Fingers of God" segment that I posted from www.electric-cosmos.org ?

Yes. I can't figure out what you (or the website) can possibly think the problem is. How is coloring two radial lines and calling them "Fingers of God" a disproof of anything?

Jul7-03, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by subtillioN
First of all the curvature of light near the limb of the sun was far to complex to be explained by Relativity theory without cooking out the complexity (Sorce Theory, however actually PRE-dicted the complexity of the data and it requires no "cooking" to achieve a correspondence.) Secondly the Newtonian model also pre-dicted such an effect and other models can easily deal with gravitational lensing.

How can you say that with so much confidence, when you've never studied GR?

Do you know anything about the peer review process? It effectively filters any theory of sufficient novelty.

Yes, I know. Creationists and other cranks have already pointed that out for me. Damn those scientists, with their vast conspiracies.

Jul7-03, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by subtillioN
Trouble indeed! That was my point. The observations do not coincide with their models.

Actually, a flat universe is one predicted model when GR is applied to cosmology. It's just a case of missing mass.

The point was that the original statement was circular. You have simply re-stated it in a non-circular way, but the fact remains that Relativity theory only deals at the level of a self-consistent abstraction. It does not explain the causality of the force of gravity.

What statement was circular? I don't see why you think spaces and volumes are mere abstractions.

...well except that both "spacetime" and "geometry" are inventions of the mind to deal with matter in motion as such they don't exist in physical reality.

Neither spacetime nor it's geometry depend on matter (quarks) for their existence. In fact, matter has no existence without the field of spacetime.

subtillioN

Jul7-03, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by Eh
[B]Actually, a flat universe is one predicted model when GR is applied to cosmology. It's just a case of missing mass.

I am with you on the flat universe thing, but the missing mass is quite a big problem indeed.

I don't see why you think spaces and volumes are mere abstractions.

Well it is because they represent portions of physical reality without dealing with the physical reality as such. They are metrical abstractions for the quantification of nature. The fact that they neglect the physicality of reality is what gives rise to the break-down of space-time into a mathematical singularity. It is a direct consequence of the physically empty mathematical abstraction itself. [The physical regions of the universe that they represent are real however and they have real neglected properties which prohibit the mathematical singularities from actually applying to physical reality itself.]

Neither spacetime nor it's geometry depend on matter (quarks) for their existence. In fact, matter has no existence without the field of spacetime.

That is the core error right there.

subtillioN

Jul7-03, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by Hurkyl
[B]What evidence? You keep talking about evidence that the "doppler shift" interpretation is incorrect; you have not addressed the expansion of space interpretation.

Do you not understand that the "expansion of space interpretation" IS the "Doppler interpretation of the Hubble Red-shift"? They are the same thing.

The whole reason for the initial assumption that the universe is expanding is the doppler interpretation of the hubble red-shift (hint: doppler red-shift = motion away of the source of radiation). Expansion is what Doppler interpretation directly implies. Since both Halton Arp and the "fingers of god" falsify the interpretation then we are left with a non-expanding universe since the doppler interpretation has been falsified.

[[[BTW, what good is falsifiability if it cannot falsify?]]]

Yes. I can't figure out what you (or the website) can possibly think the problem is. How is coloring two radial lines and calling them "Fingers of God" a disproof of anything?

Ok let me try and explain this in simpler terms.

The mapping scheme based on the doppler interpretation of red-shift generates a map that includes massive radiating structures directly centered on the earth. Such radiating structures are EXACTLY what we would expect to find if there were another simpler physical explanation of the red-shift.

Imagine that the redshift is due to the interaction of the star-light with intersteller matter in such a way that it loses energy (perhaps to the thermalization of the intersteller matter itself at 3k) and this energy is manifested as a decrease in frequency of light. When this radiation encounters denser regions of interstellar matter it gets red-shifted even further. Such dense regions would red-shift all the radiation behind it along the line of sight of the earth. This would exactly cause the earth-centered radiating structures found in the mapping.

Or we could conclude (as we have done in the past) that the earth occupies a special region is space which just happens to be a focal point for the radiating large-scale structures of the universe.

Which seems more realistic to you? ((( let me guess... you have decided that indeed we ARE sitting right in the center of a cosmic focal point!!!))) [g)]

...or maybe history has taught you not to fall into that provincial trap?

subtillioN

Jul7-03, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by Eh
[B]How can you say that with so much confidence, when you've never studied GR?

I have studied GR, and I have studied Sorce Theory which gives the causation beneath the entire structure of the standard model. It is easy to be confident when you have this inside AND outside perspective.

Yes, I know. Creationists and other cranks have already pointed that out for me. Damn those scientists, with their vast conspiracies.

I am not claiming a conspiracy, just an unconscious social tendency to self-stabilize around a "Standard" meme-structure. I also simply recognize the unconscious mechanisms of this self-stabilization as I encounter it on a daily basis.

chroot

Jul7-03, 11:55 PM

subtillioN,

You are an incompetent retard.

That is all.

- Warren

subtillioN

Jul8-03, 12:02 AM

Originally posted by chroot
subtillioN,

You are an incompetent retard.

That is all.

- Warren

Thank you warren for your kind and intelligent remarks.

[6)]

meteor

Jul8-03, 03:31 AM

You're hard, sure you're not Anthony Peratt?
About your "fingers of God", you claim that the Virgo cluster can't have the shape of a pair of fingers, but several astronomers, Margaret Geller and John Huchra to mention some, have discovered that the superclusters tend to have a filamentary structure, and knowing that the Virgo Cluster is the principal component of the Virgo supercluster, there's nothing strange in it
It's like to say that the Hoag object can't exist because it has the shape of a doughnut!

r637h

Jul8-03, 05:56 AM

This thread/discussion is fascinating and I can't resist throwing in my "two cents."

I believe that Newtonian models can explain relativistic phenomena (with exceptions), but in doing so, they become so elaborate that they are quasi-relativistic. Occam's Razor dictates that we must take the simpler path, however, and even though it make not look it at first glance, relativistic models are simpler.

Back in my academic days of yore, I found many of my teachers to be intolerant/inflexible concerning other points of view. However, quickly, I learned that if one doesn't "buy" a given idea, one is unlikely to make an "A" in the course (a very powerful incentive, but also extremely instructional).

I'm very sorry, subtillioN, but I believe you're "flunking the course." Good Luck, anyway.

Thanks, Rudi.

PS: By far the most illuminating item I have run across in this thread has been the reference to the Lineweaver lecture. I forget who submitted that reference, but Bless You.

Hydr0matic

Jul8-03, 07:42 AM

Originally posted by meteor
You're hard, sure you're not Anthony Peratt?
About your "fingers of God", you claim that the Virgo cluster can't have the shape of a pair of fingers, but several astronomers, Margaret Geller and John Huchra to mention some, have discovered that the superclusters tend to have a filamentary structure, and knowing that the Virgo Cluster is the principal component of the Virgo supercluster, there's nothing strange in it
It's like to say that the Hoag object can't exist because it has the shape of a doughnut! The filamentary structure of the superclusters is "bubblelike", and mostly circular in structure. Not like the "fingers of god". And the Hubble Law is not the only way to determine distance. Other methods can be used, and the distance to the Virgo galaxies are well known. The cluster does not have the shape of two fingers pointing at earth. If it did, it would not be concidered a cluster.

If the mapping of the redshifts in the Virgo cluster is correct, then I'd have to agree with subtillioN. It is definately not a coincidence that the redshifts of the galaxies are proportional to the distance from the center of the cluster.

Although I don't believe this has anything to do with how young a galaxy is.

subtillioN

Jul8-03, 09:51 AM

subtillioN

Jul8-03, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by r637h
[B]This thread/discussion is fascinating and I can't resist throwing in my "two cents."

I believe that Newtonian models can explain relativistic phenomena (with exceptions), but in doing so, they become so elaborate that they are quasi-relativistic. Occam's Razor dictates that we must take the simpler path, however, and even though it make not look it at first glance, relativistic models are simpler.

First of all, I am not arguing for a Newtonian model, but I don't believe that they do produce overly complex models. I think it is the relativistic model that is confused. Please explain how the newtonian models get overly complex.

Classical Physics was deeply flawed in its kinetic-atomic quest for the ultimate fundamental atom-in-the-void. Modern Physics simply kludged the old core error with the new wave-equations to give us the wave-particle duality. The point-particles simply do not exist. This should have been obvious when the infinities started popping up.

Back in my academic days of yore, I found many of my teachers to be intolerant/inflexible concerning other points of view. However, quickly, I learned that if one doesn't "buy" a given idea, one is unlikely to make an "A" in the course (a very powerful incentive, but also extremely instructional).

I'm very sorry, subtillioN, but I believe you're "flunking the course." Good Luck, anyway.

Thank you, and I am not taking "the course".

Jul8-03, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by subtillioN

Well it is because they represent portions of physical reality without dealing with the physical reality as such. They are metrical abstractions for the quantification of nature.

We already had this discussion. There is nothing purely abstract about geometry, otherwise the volume of everything would disappear. And, as flat volumes can be described by the rules of Euclidean geometry, curved volumes must be described by different rules. It hardly makes space a non real phenomena.

The fact that they neglect the physicality of reality is what gives rise to the break-down of space-time into a mathematical singularity.It is a direct consequence of the physically empty mathematical abstraction itself. [The physical regions of the universe that they represent are real however and they have real neglected properties which prohibit the mathematical singularities from actually applying to physical reality itself.

No, an assumption of continuous space and the application of GR where the theory is no longer valid (quantum physics) is what gives us the singularity.

Jul8-03, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by subtillioN
I have studied GR, and I have studied Sorce Theory which gives the causation beneath the entire structure of the standard model. It is easy to be confident when you have this inside AND outside perspective.

If you studied GR, you wouldn't be asking questions like "how can nothingness be curved?" or such. It's good to think outside the box, but you should at least know what the box actually is first.

I am not claiming a conspiracy, just an unconscious social tendency to self-stabilize around a "Standard" meme-structure. I also simply recognize the unconscious mechanisms of this self-stabilization as I encounter it on a daily basis.

It's just an excuse that cranks use. Take it to the theory development forum before someone locks this thread.

subtillioN

Jul8-03, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by Eh
If you studied GR, you wouldn't be asking questions like "how can nothingness be curved?" or such. It's good to think outside the box, but you should at least know what the box actually is first.

The simple fact is that I do not believe in relativity theory. That gives me license to ask ANY question I like. Such a license is quite usefull really, when trying to get to the truth.

There are many questions that one is not "supposed" to ask when dealing with relativity theory. That is because the theory is far removed from experience-based logic and must maintain the hermetic seal of its alternative logic chamber in order to function. When one asks questions based on the logic of experience, one breaks this seal and contaminates the structure of the logic with experience of reality. When this happens the whole self-consistent, self-referential logic structure grinds to a halt.

It is my belief and experience that any theory that forces us to adopt an alternate non-experience-based logic and then enforces laws about which questions are "proper" or not, is falling into the same trap that the religions have fallen into. To seal ones' logic off from contact with reality is to fossilize the growth of the theory.

Such an artificial logic-policing scheme is entirely unnecessary when one is dealing with a correct theory. With such a theory ANY question is as valid and constructive as ANY other. Isn't that the scientific method after-all?

[[ BTW, I am speaking with experience of such a theory. I am not just entering into wishfull thinking. I have seen the difference first-hand and it casts quite a different light on the whole structure of modern physics. ]]

It's just an excuse that cranks use.

That pidgeon-hole technique is just a mechanism that believers use to justify the continuation of their ignorance of an alternate i.e. "dissident" pov.

Are you a believer or an explorer?

r637h

Jul8-03, 10:44 AM

To subtillioN:

"Flunking the course": (metaphorically, of course)

If I wrote anything that offends, I humbly retract it.

I'll attemt to give you some examples of Newtonian complexity vs. Relitivistic simplicity, as time permits.

Beg pardon about any offense.

Thanks, Rudi

subtillioN

Jul8-03, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by Eh
[B]We already had this discussion. There is nothing purely abstract about geometry, otherwise the volume of everything would disappear. And, as flat volumes can be described by the rules of Euclidean geometry, curved volumes must be described by different rules. It hardly makes space a non real phenomena.

Geometry is the measure of physical extension and physical relation.

No, an assumption of continuous space and the application of GR where the theory is no longer valid (quantum physics) is what gives us the singularity.

Ok so you are saying essentially that the micro structure of "space" itself is not incorporated in Relativity theory. That is basically what I said. But you are also saying that quantum mechanics is needed to fix this problem, but QM doesn't even have a clue of the deeper causality either. That is the whole impetus behind the unification theories such as String Theory.

subtillioN

Jul8-03, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by r637h
To subtillioN:

"Flunking the course": (metaphorically, of course)

If I wrote anything that offends, I humbly retract it.

I'll attemt to give you some examples of Newtonian complexity vs. Relitivistic simplicity, as time permits.

Beg pardon about any offense.

Thanks, Rudi

Oh, none taken (I was continuing the metaphor), and thanks for being open minded.

[:))]

chroot

Jul8-03, 12:40 PM

I can guarantee that subtillioN (a self-proclaimed explorer, thinker, plasma cosmologist and anti-relativity zealot) cannot explain to us what the Einstein equation is.

- Warren

subtillioN

Jul8-03, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by chroot
I can guarantee that subtillioN (a self-proclaimed explorer, thinker, plasma cosmologist and anti-relativity zealot) cannot explain to us what the Einstein equation is.

- Warren

It is the fudging of the classical concept of time to mathematically retro-fit the null-results of the M&M experiment. The fact is that the classical notion of a solid ether with the shear modulus of elasticity no less than that of steel was simply incorrect. The whole reasoning behind this faulty classical notion is now defunct because it is now known that a superfluid can transmit transverse waves so there was no reason to assume that the ether was a solid in the first place.

Take for instance this quote from G.E. Volovik in “The Universe in a Helium Droplet” .

“According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons, neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium called the quantum vacuum. This is the new ether of the 21st century. The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum."

Why do you suppose that the "quantum vacuum" is identical to a zero-energy superfluid? Do you suppose that is a pure coincidence and that the "quantum vacuum" is a purely mathematical substrate?

Despite all of the various manifestations of the deep qualitative, interpretive, errors of Modern Physics, the equations which have been custom fit to model the results of our experimental contact with physical reality, actually tell a quite different story. The equations directly model the fundamental level as a frictionless fluid yet the Standard Model consistently denies that this fluid physically exists. The claim is that fundamental reality consists merely of probabilistic wave-equations defining the likely positions of its fundamental, extensionless “point-particles” which paradoxically exhibit a “wave-nature”. To admit that the fluid nature of the quantum level physically exists would be anathema to the dogma of the denial of the ether initiated by none other than the patron saint of Physics himself, Albert Einstein, who, unknown to most people, later said that the ether must exist and it must be dynamic. [see “Ether and the Theory of Relativity” by Albert Einstein, an address delivered on May 5th, 1920, University of Leyden where he said "Einstein said, “It may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility… What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, which are amenable to law in the form of differential equations…”.]

In “The Big Bang Never Happened” , Eric J. Lerner writes,

“... since the nineteenth century it’s been recognized that the equations of electromagnetism are almost identical with the equations of hydrodynamics, the equations governing fluid flow. Even more curious, Schrödinger’s equation, the basic equation of quantum mechanics, is also closely related to equations of fluid flow. Since 1954 many scientists have shown that a particle moving under the influence of random impacts from irregularities in a fluid will obey Schrödinger’s equation.
“More recently, in the late seventies, researchers found another curious correspondence while developing mathematical laws that govern the motion of line vortices—the hydrodynamic analogs of the plasma filaments .... The governing equation turns out to be a modified form of Schrödinger’s equation, called the nonlinear Schrödinger equation. [This equation is a central part of the study of ‘quantum liquids’ as well. The interesting coincidence is that it is a modified form of the equation describing the shell structure of an atom. How this fluid-dynamic shell gets quantized into the known electronic “orbits” is a key concept illustrated in The Orb and Sorce Theory.]
“Generally in science when two different phenomena obey the same or very similar mathematical laws, it means that in all probability they are somehow related. Thus it seems likely that both electromagnetism and quantum phenomena generally may be connected to some sort of hydrodynamics on a microscopic level. But this clue, vague as it is, leaves entirely open the key question of what the nuclear particles are. And what keeps them together? How can fluids generate particles? [This book will fill in these crucial gaps as well.]
“But the idea of particles formed from vortices in some fluid is certainly worth investigating. (This is a real return to Ionian ideas: the idea of reality being formed out of vortices was first raised by Anaxagoras 2,500 years ago!) …However, I think there are additional clues, some developed from my own work, which indicate that plasma processes and quantum mechanical processes are in some way related.
“First and foremost are Krisch’s experimental results on spin-aligned protons. Qualitatively, the results clearly imply that protons are actually some form of vortex, like a plasmoid. Such vortices interact far more strongly when they are spinning in the same direction-which is certainly the behavior Krisch observed in proton collisions. Because vortex behavior would become evident only in near-collisions, the effects should be more pronounced at higher energies and in more head-on interactions—again, in accordance with Krisch’s results.
“A second clue lies in particle asymmetry …. Particles act as if they have a “handedness,” and the simplest dynamic process or object that exhibits an inherent orientation is a vortex. Moreover, right-and left-handed vortices annihilate each other, just as particles and antiparticles do.”

Jul8-03, 12:57 PM

Chroot wins a prize for guessing correctly.

subtillioN

Jul8-03, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by Eh
Chroot wins a prize for guessing correctly.

I never claimed to be a expert in relativistic mathematics, just that I understand the principles of relativity.

I am sure that there are equations that neither of you know, but so what? I am not discussing the mathematics which fairly accurately models the structure of the g-field without giving any mechanism for gravity.

Do either of you know Sorce Theory? I know both the standard model and the alternative model well enough to know the crucial difference which is unknown to either of you.

Sorce Theory can explain the causation which the Standard Model has claimed does not exist.

Jul8-03, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by subtillioN
The simple fact is that I do not believe in relativity theory. That gives me license to ask ANY question I like. Such a license is quite usefull really, when trying to get to the truth.

Most people here don't believe in cartoon theories of GR either. Asking questions is what forums like these are all about, but to proclaim you've studied the theory after asking the said questions (which clearly show you have not) is rather dishonest.

So it will take a little more intellectual honesty to get anything out of these forums. Simply screaming that current theories are wrong and quoting plasma cosmologists is not going to help anyone.

There are many questions that one is not "supposed" to ask when dealing with relativity theory. That is because the theory is far removed from experience-based logic and must maintain the hermetic seal of its alternative logic chamber in order to function. When one asks questions based on the logic of experience, one breaks this seal and contaminates the structure of the logic with experience of reality. When this happens the whole self-consistent, self-referential logic structure grinds to a halt.

Like I said, you have to learn what a certain theory actually says before proclaiming it to suffer from logical inconsistencies.

That pidgeon-hole technique is just a mechanism that believers use to justify the continuation of their ignorance of an alternate i.e. "dissident" pov.

Yeah yeah, I've heard it all before. Legit science continues to make enormous progress, while cranks continue to accomplish absolutely nothing. Coincidence?

subtillioN

Jul8-03, 01:09 PM

chroot

Jul8-03, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by subtillioN
I can guarantee that Warren (an inherently zeno-phobic individual) can not give a mechanism for gravity.
Actually, I thought Zeno served up some pretty good food for thought.

Or perhaps you meant 'xenophobic,' but in reality, some of my best friends are foreigners.

Oh well, you still can't tell me what the Einstein equation is.

- Warren

subtillioN

Jul8-03, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by Eh
Most people here don't believe in cartoon theories of GR either. Asking questions is what forums like these are all about, but to proclaim you've studied the theory after asking the said questions (which clearly show you have not) is rather dishonest.

The fact is that I have studied Relativity. It is not dishonest whatsoever.

So it will take a little more intellectual honesty to get anything out of these forums. Simply screaming that current theories are wrong and quoting plasma cosmologists is not going to help anyone.

So let us debate the alternatives. That is my point.

Like I said, you have to learn what a certain theory actually says before proclaiming it to suffer from logical inconsistencies.

I know what it actually says. What makes you think that I don't? and be specific.

Yeah yeah, I've heard it all before. Legit science continues to make enormous progress, while cranks continue to accomplish absolutely nothing. Coincidence?

So I guess you would have called the Copernican model of the solar system a "crank" theory just because it was not established at some point in time.

subtillioN

Jul8-03, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by chroot
Actually, I thought Zeno served up some pretty good food for thought.

Or perhaps you meant 'xenophobic,' but in reality, some of my best friends are foreigners.

Oh well, you still can't tell me what the Einstein equation is.

- Warren

Zeno was wrong too.

So you don't know something that I do and vice versa. Big deal.

Enough with this banal ad hominem nonsense. Let's discuss the alternatives.

chroot

Jul8-03, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by subtillioN
I know what it actually says. What makes you think that I don't? and be specific.
You don't know what the Einstein equation is. How much more specific do I need to be?

- Warren

chroot

Jul8-03, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by subtillioN
So you don't know something that I do and vice versa. Big deal.
What don't I know? A mechanism for gravity? GR is a mechanism for gravity. A precient one, too.

- Warren

subtillioN

Jul8-03, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by chroot
You don't know what the Einstein equation is. How much more specific do I need to be?

- Warren

Are you claiming that one can not understand relativity without knowing the mathematical formalisms?

That is not what my professor said.

subtillioN

Jul8-03, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by chroot
What don't I know? A mechanism for gravity? GR is a mechanism for gravity. A precient one, too.

- Warren

That is a description of the effect of an unknown mechanism.

Please tell me HOW mass creates a gravitational field. And then proceed to tell me how this field ACTUALLY changes the motion of an object.

chroot

Jul8-03, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by subtillioN
Are you claiming that one can not understand relativity without knowing the mathematical formalisms?

That is not what my professor said.
Sounds like you need a new professor.

- Warren

chroot

Jul8-03, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by subtillioN
That is a description of the effect of an unknown mechanism.

Please tell me HOW mass creates a gravitational field. And then proceed to tell me how this field ACTUALLY changes the motion of an object.
Please tell me HOW 1 + 1 = 2. And then proceed to tell me how this equation ACTUALLY predicts the structure of the integers.

(Psst.. there are axioms in any system -- even yours!)

- Warren

subtillioN

Jul8-03, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by chroot
Please tell me HOW 1 + 1 = 2. And then proceed to tell me how this equation ACTUALLY predicts the structure of the integers.

(Psst.. there are axioms in any system -- even yours!)

- Warren

get real. I am talking about the physical mechanism of gravity which you can only think of abstractly several levels removed from the level of causality.

Of course there are axioms in any quantitative system. But the point is to distinguish between mathematical formalisms and reality. They are not the same thing, BTW.

subtillioN

Jul8-03, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by Eh
[B]Most people here don't believe in cartoon theories of GR either. Asking questions is what forums like these are all about, but to proclaim you've studied the theory after asking the said questions (which clearly show you have not) is rather dishonest.

So it will take a little more intellectual honesty to get anything out of these forums. Simply screaming that current theories are wrong and quoting plasma cosmologists is not going to help anyone.

I simply understand it from a different point of view which can only exist if you don't believe in the theory. So to say that because I talk about it differently than the flock does not prove that I don't understand it at all or that I have never studied it.

The fact is that Relativity theory is incorrect and superfluous to the understanding of physical reality.

See this article for some Sorce Theory about Relativity.
http://home.comcast.net/~anpheon/html/Articles/4LP.htm

subtillioN

Jul8-03, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by Eh
[B]Simply screaming that current theories are wrong and quoting plasma cosmologists is not going to help anyone.

You are correct, no one seems willing to entertain any alternative to the prevailing theory. There doesn't even seem to be any curiosity even with all the problems of the standard model that Plasma Cosmology claims to fix. I would be intensly curious as to any alternative to any obviously problematic model... but that is just me.

chroot

Jul8-03, 01:58 PM

Why do you continue to tell everyone that you've studied relativity, despite the fact that you are incapable of telling us what the Einstein equation is?

Someone certainly does need to get real, but it ain't me.

- Warren

subtillioN

Jul8-03, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by chroot
Why do you continue to tell everyone that you've studied relativity, despite the fact that you are incapable of telling us what the Einstein equation is?

Someone certainly does need to get real, but it ain't me.

- Warren

I have studied it qualitatively and I have not memorized the equations. Not so difficult to understand really.

chroot

Jul8-03, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by subtillioN
I have studied it qualitatively and I have not memorized the equations. Not so difficult to understand really.
Listen, kiddo. It means nothing to study a scientific theory "qualitatively."

- Warren

subtillioN

Jul8-03, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by chroot
Listen, kiddo. It means nothing to study a scientific theory "qualitatively."

- Warren

Ok pappa, but you are absolutely wrong on that count.

I am not a physicist so I don't yet need the math. You are only correct in the fact that the modern theory is devoid of causality and simply contains mathematics, but that is because of its core errors.

chroot

Jul8-03, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by subtillioN
I am not a physicist
So let me get this straight... you're not a physicist, you don't know the math, and don't even know qualitatively what the Einstein equation is.....

What makes you think you're qualified to even DISCUSS relativity?

This thread is like watching a room full of second-graders arguing about neurosurgery.

- Warren

subtillioN

Jul8-03, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by chroot
So let me get this straight... you're not a physicist, you don't know the math, and don't even know qualitatively what the Einstein equation is.....

What makes you think you're qualified to even DISCUSS relativity?

This thread is like watching a room full of second-graders arguing about neurosurgery.

- Warren

Qualified to even DISCUSS? What? Oh do I need to get a certificate in order to discuss it?

I don't care about "qualifications". I care about understanding. I am interested in discussing the mechanism of gravity which relativity does not touch upon.

This thread is like watching a room full of second-graders arguing about neurosurgery

Yes, second graders who call each other idiots.

subtillioN

Jul8-03, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by chroot
This thread is like watching a room full of second-graders arguing about neurosurgery.

Claiming that I am not "qualified" is an elitist method of saying that you cannot answer the original question I posed to you. It is an attempt to justify your ignorance by "disqualifying" my question.

Can you, with all your quantitative knowledge of Relativity Theory, even come close to giving me an explanation of the MECHANISM of gravity that exists beneath the equations?

Relativity Theory is an incorrect interpretation of the equations that quantify the structure of "space" and "time". It is completely unnecessary to actually UNDERSTAND the structure of a g-field and the "gravitational" response to this field by each and every atom of a molar body.

Can you give me a description of the mechanism of Time dilation? Or are you forbidden to ask whether there actually is a mechanism?

Hurkyl

Jul8-03, 05:38 PM

Claiming that I am not "qualified" is an elitist method of saying that you cannot answer the original question I posed to you. It is an attempt to justify your ignorance by "disqualifying" my question.

He didn't only claim it, he proved it by demonstrating you have no idea what the most important equation of General Relativity is. I don't even have a physics degree (mine are in Math and Computer Science) and have only taught myself the very basics of differential geometry, and I know what the Einstein equation is. I think Chroot has given a fairly convincing demonstration that you are not qualified to talk about it.

subtillioN

Jul8-03, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by Hurkyl
He didn't only claim it, he proved it by demonstrating you have no idea what the most important equation of General Relativity is. I don't even have a physics degree (mine are in Math and Computer Science) and have only taught myself the very basics of differential geometry, and I know what the Einstein equation is. I think Chroot has given a fairly convincing demonstration that you are not qualified to talk about it.

The fact is that relativity itself is not qualified to talk about the mechanism of a gravitational field nor is it qualified to discuss the mechanism of the gravity force itself. It's sole purpose is to define the shape of the field and not the mechanism. Such a purpose is relatively banal (no pun intended) IMHO. I am interested in discussing the actual mechanisms of all the forces, however, but if your elitest qualification scheme excludes me from being worthy of your company then oh well. You can't force someone to want to understand the mechanisms of physical reality.

Can you explain the mechanisms of all the forces as manifestations of a single fluid-dynamic pressure? I think not. Do you care what the mechanism actually is? I think not. Do you feel comfort in your self-prescribed elitism? I think so.

Dave

Jul8-03, 05:50 PM

Sorry.. what's this thread about?

Maybe I should start one up called: Centre of the universe and we could talk about that!

Jul8-03, 05:57 PM

It's called thread hijacking, Dave.

subtillioN

Jul8-03, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by Dave
Sorry.. what's this thread about?

change vs. stagnation

subtillioN

Jul8-03, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by Eh
It's called thread hijacking, Dave.

It is called the natural flow of conversation. I wasn't the one who decided to discuss relativity. Because obviously I think it is irrelevant to the understanding of physical reality.

meteor

Jul8-03, 06:08 PM

The filamentary structure of the superclusters is "bubblelike", and mostly circular in structure. Not like the "fingers of god"

The structure of the universe is bubblelike. But the superclusters are located in the tangent points of the bubbles, and indeed have a filamentary structure.One very famous filamentary structure is the Great Wall
Subtillion, give up. You are one against a hundred. A hundred people can't be wrong

subtillioN

Jul8-03, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by meteor
A hundred people can't be wrong

Now THAT is a laugh!!

Hydr0matic

Jul8-03, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by meteor
The structure of the universe is bubblelike. But the superclusters are located in the tangent points of the bubbles, and indeed have a filamentary structure.One very famous filamentary structure is the Great Wall
Subtillion, give up. You are one against a hundred. A hundred people can't be wrong Yes, the superclusters have a filamentary structure, but in a circular/spherical pattern, not as straight lines. Your argument fails anyway, since the Virgo cluster does not look like two fingers pointing at earth. It is spherically distributed like all the other clusters. See this map .. http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/virgo.html

This is subtillioN's point - the redshift mapping gives incorrect results.

A hundred people can't be wrong ? .. please ....

Hurkyl

Jul8-03, 07:17 PM

You can't force someone to want to understand the mechanisms of physical reality.

A very astute, if ironic, observation.

Hurkyl

Jul8-03, 07:36 PM

Do you not understand that the "expansion of space interpretation" IS the "Doppler interpretation of the Hubble Red-shift"? They are the same thing.

Not so. With the doppler effect, all of the redshifting occurs at the source. With expansion of space, the redshifting occurs as the light travels through space.

(not to mention the trivial fact that the Doppler interpretation makes no sense in general relativity since different coordinate charts would yield different relative velocities)

Sting

Jul8-03, 08:58 PM

Others mentioned it before, but the to ask where the center of the Universe it is almost similar to the question "Where did the Big Bang happen at?"

The issue about that question is the Big Bang did not happen in space. It happened to space.

subtillioN

Jul8-03, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by Hurkyl
A very astute, if ironic, observation.

Yes, ironic indeed.

Brad_Ad23

Jul8-03, 10:52 PM

I most agree with Warren on this one as Hurkyl pointed out. The Einstein equation is the basis of general relativity. A lack of actually knowing what it is, or having studied it and what it does, you cannot talk about the theory. All you can talk about is what you have read about the theory from sources. An actual understanding of the equation and you can reach the same conclusions and have a much much better understanding of General Relativity.

subtillioN

Jul8-03, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Not so. With the doppler effect, all of the redshifting occurs at the source. With expansion of space, the redshifting occurs as the light travels through space.

(not to mention the trivial fact that the Doppler interpretation makes no sense in general relativity since different coordinate charts would yield different relative velocities)

Excellent point. The nomenclature of the Big Bang Theory is quite confused. It claims that it is space itself that is expanding yet if space itself were expanding there would be no relative changes in distance whatsoever because EVERYTHING would be expanding at the same rate. Thus we would see no so-called (and mis-labeled) Doppler Shift because the light waves would be expanding with our prisms and everything else in the same ratio-- end result? no perceptible change whatsoever.

Does that make sense to you?

BTW it is more accurately called the "velocity to distance" interpretation of red-shift. It means essentially the same thing as the doppler interpretation (in the confused language of BBT) as they are used interchangeably.

subtillioN

Jul8-03, 10:57 PM

Originally posted by Hydr0matic This is subtillioN's point - the redshift mapping gives incorrect results.

And so if the Doppler (or Velocity to Distance) interpretation of red-shift is incorrect then there MUST be some other mechanism of red-shift and thus there is zero evidence for the expansion of the universe. All we are left with is a relatively isotropic background radiation and the production of the elements both of which are easily explained through less dramatic and fantastical mechanisms than a cosmic explosion of the entire universe from a single sub-microscopic point.

The audacity of the BB claim is mind-blowing considering that it claims to understand the "origin" of the Universe down to the first nanosecond--a Universe whose extent is entirely unknown and seems to just go on infinitely and whose composition is supposedly formed from %99 dark matter of unknown properties. If %99 percent of the universe is unknown, doesn't this put a %99 improbability rate on any extrapolation of the ultimate nature of this universe?

A hundred people can't be wrong ? .. please ....

That is the mantra of the herd mentality. [g)]

subtillioN

Jul8-03, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
I most agree with Warren on this one as Hurkyl pointed out. The Einstein equation is the basis of general relativity. A lack of actually knowing what it is, or having studied it and what it does, you cannot talk about the theory. All you can talk about is what you have read about the theory from sources. An actual understanding of the equation and you can reach the same conclusions and have a much much better understanding of General Relativity.

So don't bother discussing Relativity theory with me. I won't mind, because it is useless for an understanding of physical reality.

subtillioN

Jul8-03, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by meteor
One very famous filamentary structure is the Great Wall

Good that you should mention that. The estimates of the time taken to form such a MASSIVE structure are about 150 billion years, based on the smoothness of the CBR (interpreted as an echo of a BB) and based also on the maximum observed relative motions of interstellar matter.

Brad_Ad23

Jul8-03, 11:23 PM

Again you fail to realize that it is indeed relevant. But you kinda sorta need to understand the equations and the mechanisms first.

subtillioN

Jul8-03, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Again you fail to realize that it is indeed relevant. But you kinda sorta need to understand the equations and the mechanisms first.

Relevant to what? Give details please.

[[[ relevant to relativity perhaps ]]]

Brad_Ad23

Jul8-03, 11:30 PM

Relevant to physical reality.

example: GR predicts orbiting bodies (such as pulsars for example) will radiate away energy and slow down. This has been observed and is true.

Or that time is affected by one's location in a gravitational field, also proven true.

Or that gravity redshifts light trying to escape, also shown to be true.

All this is predicted from GR (and yes, on low energy scales by newtonian physics), and is very much physically relevant.

subtillioN

Jul8-03, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Relevant to physical reality.

example: GR predicts orbiting bodies (such as pulsars for example) will radiate away energy and slow down. This has been observed and is true.

Or that time is affected by one's location in a gravitational field, also proven true.

Or that gravity redshifts light trying to escape, also shown to be true.

All this is predicted from GR (and yes, on low energy scales by newtonian physics), and is very much physically relevant.

The GR equations succesfully map the gravitational field and its effects on the trajectories and rates of objects and processes, but the interpretation of what those equations actually mean is entirely incorrect.

See this article:
http://home.comcast.net/~anpheon/html/Articles/4LP.htm

"There are four Light Postulates in Einstein's paper. Each has a different meaning than the others. Together, they impose an entirely different basic physical theory than that set forth by the Theory of Relativity. They require that moving systems physically deform in the ways Lorentz described in 1904. This will be mathematically demonstrated herein; thereby proving that Minkowski's thesis, that the deformations are exclusively due to geometrical reasons, is mathematically and physically false."

Brad_Ad23

Jul8-03, 11:34 PM

Yes of course, they must be. I guess that is why based on these interpretations of it we have been able to conduct sucessful experiments that we know what is going on with. Because all our interpretations are wrong.

subtillioN

Jul8-03, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Yes of course, they must be. I guess that is why based on these interpretations of it we have been able to conduct sucessful experiments that we know what is going on with. Because all our interpretations are wrong.

It is not the interpretations that are successful it is simply the mathematics.

The interpretations simply justify the abandonment of the erroneous classical solid ether.

Einstein himself (who I would argue was an expert in the theory of Relativity) said that the MM experiments simply proved that the ether was dynamic and that his notion of curved space was entirely meaningless without this dynamic ether.

In an address titled “Ether and the Theory of Relativity” delivered on May 5th, 1920 at the University of Leyden, Einstein said, “It may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility… What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, which are amenable to law in the form of differential equations…”.

The new "quantum vacuum" fits this description rather well as it is essentially a "zero-energy superfluid". All one needs is to ascribe physical reality to the substance that the equations model and then add a few basic fluid-dynamic properties to the mix and....presto!! A unified Field Theory!!! [:D]

[[[It's a bit more complex than that of course!!]]]

Brad_Ad23

Jul8-03, 11:39 PM

Listen closely.

Just having math and number does not tell us what sort of experiments to do or what happens. We MUST interpret what these equations actually are talking about to perform experiments and collect meaningful data.

subtillioN

Jul8-03, 11:43 PM

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Listen closely.

Just having math and number does not tell us what sort of experiments to do or what happens. We MUST interpret what these equations actually are talking about to perform experiments and collect meaningful data.

I completely agree with that, and that is a crucial point. Can you point out any instance in which the Relativity interpretations were the only possible interpretations which could have led to a successful experiment?

subtillioN

Jul8-03, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by subtillioN
I completely agree with that. Can you point out any instance in which the Relativity interpretations were the only possible interpretations which could have led to a successful experiment?

Actually I can point out a few myself, such as the time dilation experiments, but the equations were created before the interpretations and the equations themselves led directly to those conclusions about the changes of the rates of processes which have more realistic explanations than the ones given by Einstein.

Brad_Ad23

Jul8-03, 11:51 PM

The case of gravitational redshifting, the rate of pulsar slowdown, gravity fields affecting the rate of time passage, etc.

subtillioN

Jul8-03, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
The case of gravitational redshifting, the rate of pulsar slowdown, gravity fields affecting the rate of time passage, etc.

Right, but these stem directly from his equations which show directly that the rates of processes must be effected by g-fields and motions relative to an absolute yet dynamic medium.

Brad_Ad23

Jul9-03, 12:06 AM

You claim these come from the equations...yet you fail to actually know the Einstein Equation...interesting.

Now how is it that this model and our interpretation of the equations (which I might add those equations that dictate this and that have to be interpreted :) can be wrong then when they give us the right answer?

Now then, I do have to say to an extent I must agree that GR is not THE final answer. It is merely a model, like anything else in physics. It is not the last word. And for the very large part, physicists are aware of this. BUT, it is the most accurate and best model we have to date, and there are certain characteristics (essentially GR has to be an approximation of what would replace it and the best mechanism the theoretcial physics community has up is what will someday be quantum gravity. A pre-requisite is that GR appears out of quantum gravity, and in fact in some of the bigger theories, general relativity just emerges without us trying to make it emerge, in other words, it is forced on us, and yes there are other characteristics, but since I am not yet a professional, I am not entirely privvy to what they are) that must be met in order for it to be accepted and to replace GR as the model.

subtillioN

Jul9-03, 12:19 AM

You claim these come from the equations...yet you fail to actually know the Einstein Equation...interesting.

I know much about the equations at a more global level, but I have never needed to know the level of the actual equations themselves. I am a physics student so I will have to learn them, however.

Now how is it that this model and our interpretation of the equations (which I might add those equations that dictate this and that have to be interpreted :) can be wrong then when they give us the right answer?

The equations were modeled in experimental contact with reality and the interpretations followed to make sense of the equations. (( this is not always the case but such an exception is quite rare))

subtillioN

Jul9-03, 12:46 AM

Now then, I do have to say to an extent I must agree that GR is not THE final answer. It is merely a model, like anything else in physics. It is not the last word. And for the very large part, physicists are aware of this. BUT, it is the most accurate and best model we have to date, and there are certain characteristics (essentially GR has to be an approximation of what would replace it and the best mechanism the theoretcial physics community has up is what will someday be quantum gravity.

The trick is to replace the "quantum vacuum" with the "zero-energy superfluid" that the equations actually model. This "quantum fluid" needs some additional fluid-dynamics properties, such as continuity and compressibility. The GR equations naturally emerge from these premises along with bodes law of the planetary orbits and the electronic structure of the atom which both follow the same basic pattern and both stem from the same fluid-dynamic wave-resonance mechanisms. Thus the continuous field is quantized into the electronic shell structure of the atom and the graviational fields (with their intrinsic complexity not explained by GR) by fluid-dynamics and wave-resonance mechanisms. When the quantized electron shell is disrupted and emitted the continuous fluid is released in quantized bits. Thus we have the union of the classical GR and Quantum Mechanics.

[[[ of course the actual theory (Sorce Theory) is MUCH more complex and very detailed as to the causal mechanisms of all the forces, etc. ]]]

r637h

Jul9-03, 10:14 AM

This is mainly for subtillioN:

1] I wrote that I would give examples of Newtonion complexity and Relativistic simplicity:
Newtonian complexity: Nothing could be more agonizingly complex (without a computer) than the laborious Newton(-Rapheson) numerical method of calculus that was used to confirm that the path of Halley's Comet was an ellipse and had a definite period (in 16-something) Newton told Halley how to do it; Mrs. Halley did most of the calculating, poor thing.
Relativitistic simplicity: Not to mention E=mc^2. Einstein's Field Equations are "relatively" simple. The derivation of Planck's Contant may have been the first "relativistic" equation ever written, and it is very simple.

2] Center of the Universe? I commend to you the modest dissertation: "Relativity: Special and General Theory," written by one A. Einstein 83 years ago. No one has ever disproven his macrocosmic assertions.

He deals with Newtonian difficulties in classical mechanics applied to cosmic phenomena in Part Three, Chapter XXX. i.e., There ain't no center to the Universe.

Q.E.D.

Thanks, Rudi

subtillioN

Jul9-03, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by r637h
1] I wrote that I would give examples of Newtonion complexity and Relativistic simplicity:
Newtonian complexity: Nothing could be more agonizingly complex (without a computer) than the laborious Newton(-Rapheson) numerical method of calculus that was used to confirm that the path of Halley's Comet was an ellipse and had a definite period (in 16-something) Newton told Halley how to do it; Mrs. Halley did most of the calculating, poor thing.
Relativitistic simplicity: Not to mention E=mc^2. Einstein's Field Equations are "relatively" simple.

Excellent. Thank you very much. The equations of Relativity do match the data much better. That is the reason they were formulated, but Einstein formulated his interpretations of his equations after the fact and he was dealing with the unreconcilable (at that time) evidence of the M&M experiment. There are realistic interpretations of his equations, however, that give actual physical mechanisms for all of the phenomena described by his equations.

Also note that E=mc^2 can quite easily be derived by classical methods and is not even part of Relativity Theory.

2] Center of the Universe? I commend to you the modest dissertation: "Relativity: Special and General Theory," written by one A. Einstein 83 years ago. No one has ever disproven his macrocosmic assertions.

He deals with Newtonian difficulties in classical mechanics applied to cosmic phenomena in Part Three, Chapter XXX. i.e., There ain't no center to the Universe.

Thank you for those excellent examples of the superiority of Einsteins equations to Newtons.

In this dissertation does Einstein speculate a Universe of finite or infinite extent? How does he demonstrate that the Universe has no center? Through the use of Reimann mathematics? Ahhh, so...

His problem is his assumption that it makes any sense whatsoever to treat the Universe as a 2d plane. On what observational grounds can he make such an assumption? None whatsoever... more pi in the sky!!

[:D]

Thanks Rudi for this information,
subtillioN

r637h

Jul9-03, 12:45 PM

" Once more, into the Breach...."

1] For all I know there may be classical solutions for the derivation of e=mc^2, but it is a "relative" equation and Einstein used "relative methods" to derive it.

I didn't say that e=mc^2 dealt with Relativity Theory, merely that the equation was arrived at by relative means.

2] The only experimental evidence that Einstein cites in "Relativity:..." is the Mercury perihelion thing, and that is very convincing. (Appendix D?)

3] Einstein believed that the Universe was possibly "finite but unbounded" (Chapter XXXI), but he also asserted that it was non-Euclidian.

4] I guess there's an insoluble disagreement here:
Would it be fair to summarize? If the Universe is Euclidian, then it can have a center; if it is non-Euclidian, then it cannot.

Thanks, Rudi

ray b

Jul9-03, 12:54 PM

OK I see there is no X-marks the spot of the BIG BANG

but our univerce should be shaped like a big ball with a radius of less than 15 billion lightyears and so having both a center and a edge

the fact that we currently have no clue as to the location of eathor just shows that we are limited in our knowlage not that there is no center or edge or any way to get a placement of our milkyway relaitive to both, IE, a universal coridanate system

what canbe said currently is we appear to be more centrial, than, more near a edge as galixcys appear to be somewhat equaly distant even as we get near max distance that we can now see in all directions

all this proves we have a lot to learn about our place in the grand scheam of the univerce, not that it is unknowable, just we donot yet know much

subtillioN

Jul9-03, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by r637h
[B]" Once more, into the Breach...."

1] For all I know there may be classical solutions for the derivation of e=mc^2, but it is a "relative" equation and Einstein used "relative methods" to derive it.

Well I don't know how Einstein derived it, but if it is an exclusively relativistic equation then how could it be derived by classical means?

BTW, what do you mean when you say it is a relative equation? What is it about the equation that leads to this categorization?

2] The only experimental evidence that Einstein cites in "Relativity:..." is the Mercury perihelion thing, and that is very convincing. (Appendix D?)

But this derivation was arrived at previous to Einstein by classical methods which were ignorant of the true mass of Mercury and Einsteins derivation used Newtonian time instead of Relativistic time. Also when the perihelion was recalculated it was found that Einsteins derivation was off by a significant amount. (I could look up all the numbers and give references if you wish).

4] I guess there's an insoluble disagreement here:
Would it be fair to summarize? If the Universe is Euclidian, then it can have a center; if it is non-Euclidian, then it cannot.

I think this ignores the possibility that it could be infinite in extent in which case it would not have a center. Also it assumes that the Universe actually has a geometry i.e. that such abstract 2d-to-3d mapping schemes really do apply to a Universe of possibly infinite extent.

Thanks,
subtillio... N

r637h

Jul9-03, 01:41 PM

King's X. I give up. I'd sooner try herding cats.

Thanks, Rudi

subtillioN

Jul9-03, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by r637h
King's X. I give up. I'd sooner try herding cats.

Thanks, Rudi

lol, ok, thanks for playing.

[:D]

subtillioN

Jul9-03, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by r637h
King's X. I give up. I'd sooner try herding cats.

Thanks, Rudi

Rudi,

Thanks for all your very helpful answers to my questions. My quest is not to simply argue with you and frustrate you, but to press these issues further back to see the roots more clearly. The questions I ask are very serious questions to me and I feel them to be legitimate. If you don't know the answers to them, that is ok, but why should this lead to exasperation? I would think it would deepen your sense of wonder and maybe pique your interest in their answers. If on the other hand, you know the answers and are simply tired of explaining them to me, then that is understandable and I thank you again for your help.

subtillioN

Phobos

Jul9-03, 05:06 PM

Interesting 15-page argument. [g)]
Well, I'll just thank y'all for dropping the mud slinging and getting back to a decent discussion.
Please continue....(the debate that is, not the mudslinging)

meteor

Jul9-03, 05:33 PM

Which is the mechanism of the Marklund convection, that is, why non-ionized material is compressed between two Birkeland currents?

Hurkyl

Jul9-03, 08:38 PM

It claims that it is space itself that is expanding yet if space itself were expanding there would be no relative changes in distance whatsoever because EVERYTHING would be expanding at the same rate.

Incorrect. Probably the easiest way to see you are incorrect is that we can still measure distances with clocks and light beams... a measuring system that is unaffected by the expansion of space. (Rulers and many other means would also be unaffected, but I think that would require going beyond pure gravitation to explain)

And... *drumroll* measuring the redshift of distant light is a measurement using clocks and light beams. [:)]

So don't bother discussing Relativity theory with me. I won't mind, because it is useless for an understanding of physical reality.

Why are you allowed to casually dismiss GR, but we're not allowed to casually dismiss plasma cosmology?

Well I don't know how Einstein derived [E = mc^2], but if it is an exclusively relativistic equation then how could it be derived by classical means?

I was curious about that myself, and I have been meaning to press you for an explanation... especially since classical mechanics includes the law of conservation of mass and the law of conservation of energy as seperate, independant laws. In classical mechanics, mass is simply not allowed to change into energy and back.

subtillioN

Jul10-03, 12:53 AM

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Why are you allowed to casually dismiss GR, but we're not allowed to casually dismiss plasma cosmology?

Who is denying you the right to dismiss anything? If you don't want to understand the competition (since you are fighting a religious war here instead of trying to understand physical reality from as many angles as possible) then be my guest. All you have to do is ignore my challenges and simply move on.

BTW, I am not dismissing the equations of GR just the interpretations of what those equations mean.

I was curious about that myself, and I have been meaning to press you for an explanation... especially since classical mechanics includes the law of conservation of mass and the law of conservation of energy as seperate, independant laws. In classical mechanics, mass is simply not allowed to change into energy and back. [/B]

"This is a fine example of how to derive the famous e = mc2 with no need for Relativity!!! We have already seen how the Theory of Relativity was false in all its logical details, as well as wrong in its tested conclusions about eclipseal effects. Now we find that it wasn't even required to find that energy and mass are related. The [below] “proof” comes strictly from Euclidean geometry and classical physics."

“Einstein’s equation e=mc2, which states the proportionality of energy and inertial mass, is perhaps the most important result of the theory of relativity. We shall give another simple proof of it, due to Einstein himself, a proof which does not make use of the mathematical formalism of the theory of relativity. ( ) It is based on the fact that radiation exerts a pressure. From Maxwell’s field equations, supplemented by a theorem first deduced by Poynting (1884), it follows that a light wave which falls on an absorbing body exerts a pressure on it. It is found that the momentum transferred to an absorbing surface by a short flash of light is equal to e/c, where e is the energy of the light flash. This fact, which we will prove in the following section, was confirmed experimentally by Lebedew (1890) and again later with greater accuracy by Nichols and Hull (1901) and others. Exactly the same pressure is experienced by a body which first emits light, just as a gun experiences a recoil when a shot is fired."

[[[ Followed by a series of manipulations of equations and diagrams that I could email to you if you wish. ]]]

subtillioN

Jul10-03, 01:06 AM

Originally posted by meteor
Which is the mechanism of the Marklund convection, that is, why non-ionized material is compressed between two Birkeland currents?

"The ability of Birkeland currents to accrete and compress even non-ionized material is called "Marklund convection". "

It is simply a name for an observed effect of the compression of non-ionized material by Birkeland currents. I do not know the details of the mechanisms of this observed effect as I am not a Plasma Physicist.

This is all based in Plasma Physics which is entirely centered on observations in the laboratory. This is why every bit of knowledge used to explain the Plasma Cosmology is both observed and well documented. There are no hypothetical particles and no unconfirmed science principals involved, period. It is completely solid "laboratory science".
Just as we can't effectively argue about the relative masses of the atoms of the periodic table so we can't argue about the laboratory observations and measurements of Plasma Physics. We can try of course, and I am not suggesting that we take it on complete faith because even laboratory experiments can be botched or fudged. But these effects and mechanisms are as proven as any other laboratory science is.

r637h

Jul10-03, 05:23 AM

Mainly for subtillioN, but I don't want to "argue" (in the adverse sense) with him or anyone else here:

1] The Universe does not have a center.

2] The universe cannot be infinite and expanding at the same time. I believe it is expanding.

3] I don't know about the reality, but I believe the concept of Omega has merit, and it has a value of "1". But it is not a constant: It varies on the either side of 1 by a value of Planck's Constant (whatever that is). That's how Omega "keeps its (precarious) balance" and that's why the Universe is the way it is. Essentially the same with Lambda.

4] The Universe oscillates, and there was a previous Universe, and there will be a next one.

5] There may be a T.O.E., but its formulation is way in the future. Neither is it as complex as M-Theory would have us believe.

6] The "form/character" of the Universe is beyond our current comprehension and may always be so. Also, it is of course independant of the observer.

6a] We cannot alter the Universe, but we can alter our "local environment" and have done so. The process is probably a peculiar mix of determinism and probability. Borrow from entropy? You betcha! The Bank is open.

I would prefer not to defend these views, but... That's my story and I'm stickin' with it.

Thanks, Rudi

meteor

Jul10-03, 10:08 AM

2] The universe cannot be infinite and expanding at the same time. I believe it is expanding.

Yes it can.
If you look at set theory you will see that there are different classes of infinities. For example, the cardinality of the set of natural numbers is inferior to the cardinality of the set of real numbers

subtillioN

Jul10-03, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by r637h
[B]Mainly for subtillioN, but I don't want to "argue" (in the adverse sense) with him or anyone else here:

Right. Let us just discuss these things and leave all attachments in the worship houses.

1] The Universe does not have a center.

I agree.

2] The universe cannot be infinite and expanding at the same time. I believe it is expanding.

I agree with sentence 1 but (not to offend or anything) the evidence for your belief is seriously lacking.

3] I don't know about the reality, but I believe the concept of Omega has merit, and it has a value of "1".

How does it have a value of one? I thought it was a measure of the known matter in the Universe? Are they now including the hypothetical "Dark Matter"? If so I am shocked and omega could have any value that they want. Is that science?

4] The Universe oscillates, and there was a previous Universe, and there will be a next one.

hmmm, no evidence for that either. Why don't we discuss science instead of cosmogonic mythology?

5] There may be a T.O.E., but its formulation is way in the future. Neither is it as complex as M-Theory would have us believe.

Now, how can you be so sure that there has yet to be a TOE formulated? Do you know Sorce Theory? I am telling you right now that it is just such a TOE and its foundation was created in 1965. It has been confirmed and solidified all along the way and the new data about condensed matter physics only confirms it even more.

The scientific thing to do would be to keep an open mind here and admit that you simply do not know the TOE nor when it will arise.

6] The "form/character" of the Universe is beyond our current comprehension and may always be so. Also, it is of course independant of the observer.

I heartily agree!! Let us discuss those things that we can observe.

6a] We cannot alter the Universe, but we can alter our "local environment" and have done so. The process is probably a peculiar mix of determinism and probability. Borrow from entropy? You betcha! The Bank is open.

Lol. Probability is a consequence of uncertainty which is simply the lack of knowledge of the fine-scale mechanisms involved in a phenomenon.

I would prefer not to defend these views, but... That's my story and I'm stickin' with it.

Of course you don't have to do anything you don't want to and "stickin' with it" can get you into trouble when the evidence mounts on the other side.

Regards,
subtillio....N

r637h

Jul10-03, 01:46 PM

Mainly for Meteor:

I believe you're right: Set Theory does allow for "infinite and expanding." However, I believe this is mainly intended for Number Theory, and even more so, Logic.

Nevertheless, my "can't be infinite and expanding at the same time" statement was ill-guarded.

Thanks, Rudi

subtillioN

Jul10-03, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by Hurkyl
[B]Incorrect. Probably the easiest way to see you are incorrect is that we can still measure distances with clocks and light beams... a measuring system that is unaffected by the expansion of space.

Isn't that exactly what I said? That these things would be entirely unaffected by the expansion of space?

Any mathematics buff could tell you that ANY and ALL geometry (which means all physical phenomena in our extrapolation between mathematics of space and the universe itself) in a uniformly expanding space will not deform whatsoever and this expansion is simply equivalent to a change in the metric of the space itself. A simple change in the numbers of the coordinates does not change the relationships of the physical patterns and geometries within that space. Thus it would be entirely indetectable.

Unless you think that light exists seperate from expanding space itself then there should be no discernable effect on light either.

Arc_Central

Jul10-03, 02:22 PM

This may be a bit off topic, but I can't help myself. I am new to this message board, but there is one thing that ticks me off to the exclusion of all others.
I'm speeking of that character by the name of Chroot. I've seen maybe a dozen of his post so far, and have yet to see anything off substance. Essentially he (and that's a guess) pulls out his manhood behind your backs of course - Puts it back in and leaves while saying mines bigger than yours.. I say - Lets see how big you are. I want to see a steady stream coming out to proove that yours is in working order. Don't show us your degrees - Show us your degree of intellect. Whip it out! Put up or shut up! Enough of this perverted display.

I've seen this pitiful brandishing of a tool before. It's not only pitiful but sad. Sad that in many cases my tax dollars paid for that?

Chroot - You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
I can only say either bring it up to the plate and show us a swinging #@%&, or leave the playing field altogether, because you are of no use to anybody trying to get home. That right Chroot....someones on base, and I have never seen you at the plate. Perhaps it's because if you did it enough times.. you'd have an average somewhere around the Mendosa line, and God forbid that wouldn't cut it for a man with degrees that so far amounted to zero for zero.

At least as far as this message board is concerned.

Hurkyl

Jul10-03, 03:27 PM

Isn't that exactly what I said? That these things would be entirely unaffected by the expansion of space?

Nope, it's different than what you said. You are saying the measurements are unaffected, I'm saying the measuring system is unaffected.

This is all slightly misleading anyways, though. "Expanding space" is essentially defined to be when the geometry of space-time is such that (nearly) co-moving free falling particles tend to seperate from each other.

subtillioN

Jul10-03, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by Hurkyl

[quote]This is all slightly misleading anyways, though. "Expanding space" is essentially defined to be when the geometry of space-time is such that (nearly) co-moving free falling particles tend to seperate from each other.

Oh, how convenient that this expansion of "space" doesn't effect the sizes of objects themselves and only effects light-waves. How very convenient that this is essentially the same thing as the motion of particles away from each other WITHIN space. ((Is there not space within each and every atom? If so then why doesn't every atom expand with space?))

Hurkyl

Jul10-03, 04:07 PM

Oh, how convenient that this expansion of "space" doesn't effect the sizes of objects themselves and only effects light-waves.

Incorrect. It affects the size of any object in freefall... a common example (as used frequently at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/gr.html ) is that an ideal cloud of dust would increase in volume as time progresses while in a region of expanding space.

How very convenient that this is essentially the same thing as the motion of particles away from each other WITHIN space.

Which is why physicists use the image provoking phrase "expansion of space".

((Is there not space within each and every atom? If so then why doesn't every atom expand with space?))

Because the structure of atoms comes from nongravitational forces which overwhelm the tiny "force" of expansion.

subtillioN

Jul10-03, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Incorrect. It affects the size of any object in freefall... a common example (as used frequently at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/gr.html ) is that an ideal cloud of dust would increase in volume as time progresses while in a region of expanding space.

How does it affect the sizes of some objects and not others?

Which is why physicists use the image provoking phrase "expansion of space".

It is a confusion. They are using the expansion of space to selectively explain the effect on "photons" yet they exclude it from acting on everything else.

Because the structure of atoms comes from nongravitational forces which overwhelm the tiny "force" of expansion.

That is nonsense. This assumes that space is merely gravitational, but what about all the other fields and objects etc? Do they not exist as part of space?

Hurkyl

Jul10-03, 05:11 PM

How does it affect the sizes of some objects and not others?

It is a confusion. They are using the expansion of space to selectively explain the effect on "photons" yet they exclude it from acting on everything else.

As I mentioned, objects whose size is governed by, say, the electromagnetic force will remain (roughly) the same size when in an expanding region of space because the electromagnetic force is still regulating its size.

That is nonsense. This assumes that space is merely gravitational, but what about all the other fields and objects etc? Do they not exist as part of space?

Those other fields are in space, they aren't space itself.

However, one of the driving motivations behind the study of String Theory is to devise a theory where those other fields are space itself. (incidentally, Kaluza-Klein succeeded in uniting Maxwellian electromagnetism with gravity in this way)

subtillioN

Jul10-03, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Those other fields are in space, they aren't space itself.

and so they would expand with space.

However, one of the driving motivations behind the study of String Theory is to devise a theory where those other fields are space itself. (incidentally, Kaluza-Klein succeeded in uniting Maxwellian electromagnetism with gravity in this way)

string theory is total nonsense... and we can get into that if you wish.

Hydr0matic

Jul10-03, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by Arc_Central
This may be a bit off topic, but I can't help myself. I am new to this message board, but there is one thing that ticks me off to the exclusion of all others.
I'm speeking of that character by the name of Chroot. I've seen maybe a dozen of his post so far, and have yet to see anything off substance. Essentially he (and that's a guess) pulls out his manhood behind your backs of course - Puts it back in and leaves while saying mines bigger than yours.. I say - Lets see how big you are. I want to see a steady stream coming out to proove that yours is in working order. Don't show us your degrees - Show us your degree of intellect. Whip it out! Put up or shut up! Enough of this perverted display.

I've seen this pitiful brandishing of a tool before. It's not only pitiful but sad. Sad that in many cases my tax dollars paid for that?

Chroot - You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
I can only say either bring it up to the plate and show us a swinging #@%&, or leave the playing field altogether, because you are of no use to anybody trying to get home. That right Chroot....someones on base, and I have never seen you at the plate. Perhaps it's because if you did it enough times.. you'd have an average somewhere around the Mendosa line, and God forbid that wouldn't cut it for a man with degrees that so far amounted to zero for zero.

At least as far as this message board is concerned. I totally and utterly agree.

Hydr0matic

Jul10-03, 05:27 PM

Hat's off to you Hurkyl for knowing your **** and not being arrogant.

subtillioN

Jul10-03, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by Hydr0matic
Hat's off to you Hurkyl for knowing your **** and not beeing arrogant.

a true defender of the faith if there ever was one...

Hydr0matic

Jul10-03, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by subtillioN
a true defender of the faith if there ever was one... I disagree. I find his arguments concrete and accurate. It is you, subtillioN, that strikes me as the fanatic one defending your faith. More than anything else, you just seem interested in convincing others you're right.

Hurkyl

Jul10-03, 05:38 PM

and so they would expand with space.

It's nonobvious what the expansion of a field would mean, can you elaborate?

string theory is total nonsense... and we can get into that if you wish.

If by that you mean that string theory has not presented an empirically consistent model of the universe, then I would agree with you.

subtillioN

Jul10-03, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by Hurkyl
It's nonobvious what the expansion of a field would mean, can you elaborate?

What is a field if it is not defined in terms of space? Therefore if space is expanding then so is the field.

If by that you mean that string theory has not presented an empirically consistent model of the universe, then I would agree with you.

It is a mathematical abstraction that mathematically patches two inconsistent models together. This abstraction has zero evidence for it's assumptions.

Hurkyl

Jul10-03, 05:55 PM

What is a field if it is not defined in terms of space? Therefore if space is expanding then so is the field.

Fields don't have length, area, or volume. There is no distance between fields. What expands?

(in the above I mean those words and phrases simply don't have a meaning, not that those things have zero value)

It is a mathematical abstraction that mathematically patches two inconsistent models together. This abstraction has zero evidence for it's assumptions.

Which is why GR and the Standard Model are actually used to describe the universe, and string theory is still a research project.

(by the Standard Model, I mean the quantum theory with that name, not whatever you call the standard model)

Brad_Ad23

Jul10-03, 05:58 PM

Good job Hurkyl.

subtillioN

Jul10-03, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Fields don't have length, area, or volume. There is no distance between fields. What expands?

Fields have no extension? Says who?

(in the above I mean those words and phrases simply don't have a meaning, not that those things have zero value)

Again, says who? If they exist in space then they have extension in all three dimensions.

Which is why GR and the Standard Model are actually used to describe the universe, and string theory is still a research project.

(by the Standard Model, I mean the quantum theory with that name, not whatever you call the standard model)

The whole commonly used model is the standard model.

subtillioN

Jul10-03, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by Hydr0matic
I disagree. I find his arguments concrete and accurate. It is you, subtillioN, that strikes me as the fanatic one defending your faith. More than anything else, you just seem interested in convincing others you're right.

A belief in spite of evidence is faith. I find it fun to see if you people can stretch your minds far enough to see a better theory.

But as Planck said it is quite difficult indeed.
"new scientific theories supplant previous ones not because people change their minds, but simply because old people die" - Max Planck

[:D]

You people only respect the revolutions after they have happened. You have no clue of the ones currently under way and you don't want to know.

Hurkyl

Jul10-03, 07:15 PM

Fields have no extension? Says who?

I've never seen anyone suggest defining area or volume for a field... nor define length in a way that has anything to do with lengths in space.

Let's consider a simple example of fields f and g on the differentiable manifold R:

f: x -> 1 / (1 + x2)
g: x -> (sin x) / x

So what is the length of f? What is the distance between f and g? And if you can give me meanings for these, please explain how they have any relation to lengths in R.

A belief in spite of evidence is faith.

Which seems to me precisely how hydr0matic used the word. [;)]

I find it fun to see if you people can stretch your minds far enough to see a better theory.

Show me a success of a theory and I'll consider it. Until then, I'll continue my path towards learning what I need to be able to study LQG.

Hydr0matic

Jul10-03, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by subtillioN
A belief in spite of evidence is faith. I find it fun to see if you people can stretch your minds far enough to see a better theory. "you people" ? [s(] .. So you presume that I'm narrow-minded just because I don't believe plasma-"theory" is correct ? Be honest, do you consider yourself open to the possibility that plasma-"theory" might be incorrect ?

Originally posted by subtillioN
But as Planck said it is quite difficult indeed.
"new scientific theories supplant previous ones not because people change their minds, but simply because old people die" - Max Planck

[:D] Yes, old people are very set in their ways. I'm 21 on the other hand and very open to new good ideas. I haven't read a lot of plasma-"theory", but at first glance, it doesn't qualify as such.

Originally posted by subtillioN
You people only respect the revolutions after they have happened. You have no clue of the ones currently under way and you don't want to know. I don't understand how you can be so confident in your beliefs. You seem deluded [:D] [;)].

Anyway, I think I'll try and jump in now... First question:

Since plasma-theory dismisses the expansion of space, how does it explain the redshift-distance relation ? I didn't seem to find that answer on the site...

Since there's only an inherent and a velocity component, then objects further away from earth must be younger ? .. right ? [8)] .. but that doesn't make sense, because if the objects furthest away were very young, we wouldn't be able to see them.

subtillioN

Jul10-03, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by Hurkyl
I've never seen anyone suggest defining area or volume for a field... nor define length in a way that has anything to do with lengths in space.

lol! oh so you simply assume that they have no extension since you have never seen anyone plot it mathematically? Think for yourself man!! Obviously if it exists in space and is not a point then it must have extension.

Show me a success of a theory and I'll consider it. Until then, I'll continue my path towards learning what I need to be able to study LQG.

I am tired of showing it to you and you just ignoring it.

Go your own way and don't bother with this Plasma Cosmology nonsense. I don't need to waste any more time.

subtillioN

Jul10-03, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by Hydr0matic
"you people" ? [s(] .. So you presume that I'm narrow-minded just because I don't believe plasma-"theory" is correct ?

No. It's because you seem believe that it is incorrect without studying it.

Be honest, do you consider yourself open to the possibility that plasma-"theory" might be incorrect ?

Yes I certainly do and I believe that ALL theories are incorrect to a degree. Some more than others.

One of my motivations is to see if the people on this site can find holes in it, but I can't get any one to even find it to find the holes. All we seem to do is argue banalities that don't even relate to the model. Oh well. I thought it was an easy read but apparently it is quite difficult for some people to get through.

Yes, old people are very set in their ways. I'm 21 on the other hand and very open to new good ideas. I haven't read a lot of plasma-"theory", but at first glance, it doesn't qualify as such.

on first glance? you proved my point...

I don't understand how you can be so confident in your beliefs. You seem deluded [:D] [;)].

This is because you don't know what my beliefs are. They are quite different from yours I can assure you that.

Anyway, I think I'll try and jump in now... First question:

Since plasma-theory dismisses the expansion of space, how does it explain the redshift-distance relation ? I didn't seem to find that answer on the site...

The velocity to distance maping is proven to give incorrect results. See: http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

As for the source of the red-shift see this:
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/index.html

and the 3k CBR:
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/COSMIC/Cosmic.html

Since there's only an inherent and a velocity component, then objects further away from earth must be younger ? .. right ? [8)] ..

Well that is what BBT says, but the fact is that the galaxies at the very limits of perception are exactly the same statistically as those in our immediate vicinity. This gives those "edge" galaxies time for a mere 2 or 3 rotations since the big bang.

for but that doesn't make sense, because if the objects furthest away were very young, we wouldn't be able to see them.

Well I don't get your point here except maybe that there should be "embryonic" galaxies (if any at all) at the "edges" of the known Universe instead of fully mature ones containing the older second generation blue stars.

Hurkyl

Jul10-03, 09:56 PM

lol! oh so you simply assume that they have no extension since you have never seen anyone plot it mathematically? Think for yourself man!! Obviously if it exists in space and is not a point then it must have extension.

Open your mind to the alternatives. [:)]

How would you ascribe an "extension" to:

f(x) = 1 / (1 + x2)

?

Fields are not points, curves, surfaces, or solids. Fields are an assignment of one or more quantities to every point in space. There is no reason to presume "extent" makes any sense when talking about fields.

Sometimes those quantities will come equipped with their own metric, but that metric is internal to the range of quantities and has absolutely no relationship to the metric on space. Measurement of "distance" between quantities has no bearing whatsoever on distances in space... and besides, the metric on the quantities is usually taken to be fixed and unchanging.

I am tired of showing it to you and you just ignoring it. Go your own way and don't bother with this Plasma Cosmology nonsense. I don't need to waste any more time.

I'm tired of you thinking you've showed successes when you've showed only speculation. Go away and don't bother us with your Plasma Cosmology nonsense. You don't need to waste any more time! [;)]

subtillioN

Jul10-03, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Open your mind to the alternatives. [:)]

How would you ascribe an "extension" to:

f(x) = 1 / (1 + x2)

?

Why would I ascribe extension to an equation?

Fields are not points, curves, surfaces, or solids. Fields are an assignment of one or more quantities to every point in space. There is no reason to presume "extent" makes any sense when talking about fields.

You are confusing mathematics with reality.

I'm tired of you thinking you've showed successes when you've showed only speculation. Go away and don't bother us with your Plasma Cosmology nonsense. You don't need to waste any more time! [;)]

[zz)]

Hurkyl

Jul10-03, 10:35 PM

One of my motivations is to see if the people on this site can find holes in it, but I can't get any one to even find it to find the holes. All we seem to do is argue banalities that don't even relate to the model. Oh well. I thought it was an easy read but apparently it is quite difficult for some people to get through.

As I stated before, there is little in which to punch a hole.

Crackpots seem to miss the fact that in order to have a testable theory, they have to do more than say "this is how things work"; they have to be able to say "this is how things work and here is the mathematical derivation of quantities you have and will observe".

Crackpot theories also tend to be paired with an insatiable drive to show that mainstream physics is incorrect (and their attempts are often laughably poor). The reason is usually clear; their theories are totally inconsistent with the way mainstream physics says things should work, often both in the qualitative aspect and at the fundamental level. Since crackpot physics are often so strongly at odds with the way physics is believed to work, one should argue the "banalities" because it is quite frequently a very quick way to find out that a crackpot theory is internally inconsistent.

Crackpots that take up that attempt at proving modern physics incorrect overlook yet another thing; the only way to replace a theory of how the universe works is to produce a model that can make more and better predictions than the old model. This is why there is the demand for precise numerical computations of everything; mainstream physics HAS a model that can compute a great many things, with great accuracy. If your trying to replace an aspect of mainstream physics, but your model can't compute what the current model can compute, then your model is of little use to mainstream physics. This is why revolutions occur so infrequently; it is extraordinarily difficult to come up with a model that has everything and a bag of chips; instead tweaks are made to the existing model.

So, basically, there are only two ways to get a model seriously considered by mainstream physics:

(a) Have a theory that supplements the existing model.
(b) Have a theory that (precisely and numerically) predicts (nearly) everything the existing model can predict.

Incidentally, I do have another hole to poke into the electric sun model. Even if we suppose that the sun had a net positive charged and that is what allows it to resist gravitational collapse... that would not reduce the tremendous pressures in the depths of the sun; pressures strong enough to ignite and sustain fusion in just the same way it happens in the fusion model. (which would subsequently blow the star to smithereens because the combination of electrostatic repulsion and radiation pressure, both strong enough to resist gravity on their own, would completely overwhelm gravity's ability to keep the star together)

Hurkyl

Jul10-03, 10:36 PM

Why would I ascribe extension to an equation?

Because that equation is an example of a field. You said fields have extent, didn't you?

You are confusing mathematics with reality.

How so?

subtillioN

Jul10-03, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Because that equation is an example of a field. You said fields have extent, didn't you?

How so?

"Because that equation is an example of a field."

Hurkyl

Jul10-03, 10:47 PM

A field is mathematics. It appears that you are the one confusing mathematics with reality! (whatever that's supposed to mean) [:D]

subtillioN

Jul10-03, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by Hurkyl
As I stated before, there is little in which to punch a hole.

Crackpots seem to miss the fact that in order to have a testable theory, they have to do more than say "this is how things work"; they have to be able to say "this is how things work and here is the mathematical derivation of quantities you have and will observe".

Ok so this does not apply to plasma physics because you failed to show that the mathematics is incorrect. Well and to be fair, you failed to find the mathematics... well and you failed to even find the explanations... and you failed to understand the theory that you continue to dismiss.

Crackpot theories also tend to be paired with an insatiable drive to show that mainstream physics is incorrect (and their attempts are often laughably poor). The reason is usually clear; their theories are totally inconsistent with the way mainstream physics says things should work,

Just as the copernican model was inconsistent with the way physics thought things work... and not to mention relativity theory and quantum mechanics....

often both in the qualitative aspect and at the fundamental level. Since crackpot physics are often so strongly at odds with the way physics is believed to work, one should argue the "banalities" because it is quite frequently a very quick way to find out that a crackpot theory is internally inconsistent.

You never debated the theory at all. You got lost in pointless details that were about the STANDARD model. you never discussed the internal properties of the Plasma model whatsoever.

Crackpots that take up that attempt at proving modern physics incorrect overlook yet another thing; the only way to replace a theory of how the universe works is to produce a model that can make more and better predictions than the old model.

such as Plasma cosmology which can explain many things that the standard model can't.

So, basically, there are only two ways to get a model seriously considered by mainstream physics:

(a) Have a theory that supplements the existing model.

so nothing revolutionary please... we like it just the way it is...

(b) Have a theory that (precisely and numerically) predicts (nearly) everything the existing model can predict.

How about one that predicts and explains much more?

Incidentally, I do have another hole to poke into the electric sun model. Even if we suppose that the sun had a net positive charged and that is what allows it to resist gravitational collapse... that would not reduce the tremendous pressures in the depths of the sun; pressures strong enough to ignite and sustain fusion in just the same way it happens in the fusion model. (which would subsequently blow the star to smithereens because the combination of electrostatic repulsion and radiation pressure, both strong enough to resist gravity on their own, would completely overwhelm gravity's ability to keep the star together)

That is a joke right? How can you prove mathematically that this would happen. Give me a break. PURE erroneous speculation.

subtillioN

Jul10-03, 11:02 PM

Originally posted by Hurkyl
A field is mathematics. It appears that you are the one confusing mathematics with reality! (whatever that's supposed to mean) [:D]

I am talking about a REAL field in REAL space such as a magnetic or electric field. Do you really think that a REAL field is made out of numbers and equations?

Hurkyl

Jul10-03, 11:07 PM

Just as the copernican model was inconsistent with the way physics thought things work... and not to mention relativity theory and quantum mechanics....

But there are differences!

(a) The heliocentric model explains precisely why the geocentric model was thought to be correct, and makes identical observational predictions.

(b) Special relativity explains precisely why newtonian mechanics was thought to be correct, and makes predictions indistinguishable from those of Newtonian mechanics in the domain where Newton has been verified. Special relativity also presented numerous precise numerical predictions that could be tested by subsequent experimentation.

(c) General relativity explains precisely why special relativity and Newtonian gravitation were thought to be correct, and makes predictions indistinguishable from those of the aforementioned theories in the domain where they were verified... corrected a few flaws in the old theories, and has presented numberous precise numerical predictions that could be tested by subsequent experimentation.

(d) Quantum mechanics (relativistic QM) explains precisely why newtonian mechanics (special relativity) was thought to be correct. On the domains where newtonian mechanics (special relativity) have been tested, QM makes indistinguishable predictions. QM has made numerous precise numerical predictions that could be tested by subsequent experimentation.

Not one of these theories said "Pah, mainstream physics is wrong, here's how things really are!"; each and every one agrees indistinguishably from the theory it relpaced on the scales the replaced theory was tested.

That is a joke right?

One could ask the same thing about all of your posts.

Hurkyl

Jul10-03, 11:12 PM

I am talking about a REAL field in REAL space such as a magnetic or electric field. Do you really think that a REAL field is made out of numbers and equations?

A field one of many mathematical abstractions that describe our observations. What we call a "magnetic field" is most certainly something made out of numbers and equations.

Anyways, if there is some "real" entity that corresponds to the mathematical abstraction we call a "magnetic field"... and that "real" entity has an extent, then would we not ascribe that extent to the "magnetic field" corresponding to that entity?

subtillioN

Jul10-03, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by Hurkyl
[B]But there are differences!

(a) The heliocentric model explains precisely why the geocentric model was thought to be correct, and makes identical observational predictions.

So does the Plasma model, but you wouldn't know that.

We know why the Standard Model is thought to be correct even though it has so many errors that are fixed by the plasma model. It is Physicists are reluctant to throw their lifetime of training out the window.

Not one of these theories said "Pah, mainstream physics is wrong, here's how things really are!";

Are you crazy? QM degutted the whole of physics and Relativity said that experiential reality is useless to understand the nature of space and time.

Plasma Physics is built on laboratory physics NOT new unconfirmed physics. It does not say mainstream physics is incorrect.

I am saying that, yes, but Plasma Cosmology does not say that whatsoever. It is simply using a different branch of MAINSTREAM laboratory physics to explain cosmological phenomena.

Don't get my Sorce Theory unified field mixed up with plasma cosmology here. They are not even close to the same thing.

each and every one agrees indistinguishably from the theory it relpaced on the scales the replaced theory was tested.

Oh, so then the sun does sometimes revolve around the earth... what at particular scales??

subtillioN

Jul10-03, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by Hurkyl
A field one of many mathematical abstractions that describe our observations. What we call a "magnetic field" is most certainly something made out of numbers and equations.

Like I said you are confusing mathematics with reality, but then so is Quantum Mechanics and everything you have been taught... so who could blame you?

Anyways, if there is some "real" entity that corresponds to the mathematical abstraction we call a "magnetic field"... and that "real" entity has an extent, then would we not ascribe that extent to the "magnetic field" corresponding to that entity?

What is your point with this one? Of course if something is real then it has extension.

Hurkyl

Jul10-03, 11:41 PM

Are you crazy? QM degutted the whole of physics and Relativity said that experiential reality is useless to understand the nature of space and time.

Learn some history.

I am saying that, yes, but Plasma Cosmology does not say that whatsoever.

I am using the term "Plasma Cosmology" to refer to the theory you are postulating as the correct theory, because that is the name you have been using in juxtaposition with your theory. If that is a misnomer (and let me know), I will start refering to your theory as a "Sorce Theory". Incidentally, is there a website for your theory? I have noticed that your statements are at odds with the electric cosmos website on some points.

Like I said you are confusing mathematics with reality

I seem to remember you accusing others of this earlier in this very thread because they weren't clearly seperating mathematical entities from physical reality. [;)]

but then so is Quantum Mechanics and everything you have been taught... so who could blame you?

Actually, I'm a mathematician. I know precisely the logical status of mathematical entities. As you were so keen to point out earlier in this thread, mathematical entities (we were talking about curvature earlier, now we're talking about fields) are not physical objects; they are merely mathematical models intended to describe and predict observations.

What is your point with this one? Of course if something is real then it has extension.

My point is exactly what I asked. Why would something real have extension?

Hurkyl

Jul10-03, 11:42 PM

Incidentally

2. A magnetic field is a continuum. It is not a set of discrete "lines". Lines are drawn in the classroom to describe the magnetic field (its direction and magnitude). But the lines themselves do not actually exist. They are simply a pedagogical device. Proposing that these lines "break", "merge", and/or "recombine" is an error (violation of Maxwell's equations) compounded on another error (the lines do not really exist in the first place). Magnetic field lines are analogous to lines of latitude and longitude. They are not discrete entities with nothing in between them - you can draw as many of them as close together as you'd like. And they most certainly do not "break", "merge", or "recombine" any more than lines of latitude do. Lately the term "merge" has been used a great deal. Magnetic field lines do not merge or reconnect. Oppositely directed magnetic intensity H-fields simply cancel each other - no energy is stored or released in that event.

This was from the website, not from you. I retract my statement asserting that you said these things.

subtillioN

Jul10-03, 11:58 PM

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Learn some history.

ok i will continue to do so. Thanks for the tip!![;)]

I am using the term "Plasma Cosmology" to refer to the theory you are postulating as the correct theory, because that is the name you have been using in juxtaposition with your theory. If that is a misnomer (and let me know), I will start refering to your theory as a "Sorce Theory". Incidentally, is there a website for your theory? I have noticed that your statements are at odds with the electric cosmos website on some points.

Yes my website is www.anpheon.org and Sorce Theory (which is not my theory) is an explanation of the deeper causality beneath all of physics. It unifies all the forces etc... see the website for a tiny bit of detail.

Plasma Cosmology fits qualitatively with Sorce Theory but the basic Plasma Physics would acquire different root-level explanations.

Please tell me where my statements are at odds with Plasma Cosmology. I am quite curious.

I seem to remember you accusing others of this earlier in this very thread because they weren't clearly seperating mathematical entities from physical reality. [;)]

Right. The confusion of mathematics with reality is a HUGE problem with modern physics with its substitution of reality for probability densities, wave-functions and uncertainty relations all of which stem from an incorrect foundation that excludes a causal explanation.

Actually, I'm a mathematician. I know precisely the logical status of mathematical entities. As you were so keen to point out earlier in this thread, mathematical entities (we were talking about curvature earlier, now we're talking about fields) are not physical objects; they are merely mathematical models intended to describe and predict observations.

excellent! that is the first step to extracting yourself from the mess of modern physics!!! [;)]

My point is exactly what I asked. Why would something real have extension?

Because everything real that we have ever seen and that we can ever see has real physical extension.

Hurkyl

Jul11-03, 12:09 AM

Please tell me where my statements are at odds with Plasma Cosmology. I am quite curious.

[?]

You seemed to imply that the theory you had been postulating was not Plasma Cosmology, and that I had gotten confused in thanking that it was. I was attempting to clarify just what the case is.

Right. The confusion of mathematics with reality is a HUGE problem with modern physics with its substitution of reality for probability densities, wave-functions and uncertainty relations all of which stem from an incorrect foundation that excludes a causal explanation.

I'm curious what constitutes a "causal explanation". The way you have been using it the past few days leads me to suspect nothing is capable of being a causal explanation. (except for a restricted class of "obvious" things that will be immune from your objection, for obvious reasons of course)

The other aspect to being a mathematician is whie I realize that mathematical entities are abstractions used to describe and predict observations, I also realize that all possible theories are abstractions (whether mathematical or not) that are used to describe and predict theories. Of course, each theory comes with a class of things we're supposed to imagine as real (but are, of course, still just abstractions). A causal explanation is merely an explanation of a phenomenon in terms of things we're supposed to consider real.

Because everything real that we have ever seen and that we can ever see has real physical extension.

What about things that we don't perceive through sight, like heat or wind speed, or magnetic fields? (I'm using the common convention that I simply use the name of the mathematical abstraction as an abbreviation for "the physical reality described by this mathematical abstraction")

subtillioN

Jul11-03, 12:28 AM

Originally posted by Hurkyl
[?]

You seemed to imply that the theory you had been postulating was not Plasma Cosmology, and that I had gotten confused in thanking that it was. I was attempting to clarify just what the case is.

Well I have been stating that there are serious problems with Physics in general and that is not the position of Plasma Cosmology which only takes issue with cosmology.

I'm curious what constitutes a "causal explanation".

A "causal explanation" is one in which EVERY single aspect of the mechanism of the phenomenon in question is visualizable, such as in Sorce Theory which can explain all of the fundamental forces as a consequence of fluid-dynamics and wave-resonance mechanisms in a pressurized zero-energy superfluid continuum.

The way you have been using it the past few days leads me to suspect nothing is capable of being a causal explanation.
This is because nothing about "modern physics" has a causal explanation. Much of classical physics does however, but that explanation is fundamentally incorrect also.

The other aspect to being a mathematician is whie I realize that mathematical entities are abstractions used to describe and predict observations, I also realize that all possible theories are abstractions (whether mathematical or not) that are used to describe and predict theories.

Yes and that realization is critical as well.

Of course, each theory comes with a class of things we're supposed to imagine as real (but are, of course, still just abstractions). A causal explanation is merely an explanation of a phenomenon in terms of things we're supposed to consider real.

Yes like all theories but if they are causal then we can understand them at the root level. Despite the decry by the Copenhagen Interpretation that reality is completely understood (and non-understandable) in spite of all the uncertainties and probabilities at its core---reality CAN be understood at a deeper causal level and this level is key to the unified field theory.

What about things that we don't perceive through sight, like heat or wind speed, or magnetic fields?

Well do you suppose that they don't have physical extension? IMHO extension is a prerequisite for existence via causality.

Brad_Ad23

Jul11-03, 12:51 AM

pressurized zero-energy superfluid continuum.

A pressurized zero-energy superfluid continuum eh? So just why does this superfluid continuum happen to be pressurized? What is its pressure? How does it take into account such things as the Casmir effect? How would it effect anything if it has zero energy? More importantly, why is it zero energy? Would it not be that this fluid would absorp any and all energy that traversed through it as per thermodynamics?

subtillioN

Jul11-03, 01:11 AM

Good questions

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
[B]A pressurized zero-energy superfluid continuum eh? So just why does this superfluid continuum happen to be pressurized?

It simply must be so to explain the elastic compressible nature of the "quantum vacuum" and the waves traveling through it.

What is its pressure?

Pressure in a continuous fluid can be understood as a statistical effect of a fine-scale omni-directional turbulent motion.

How does it take into account such things as the Casmir effect?

Quite simple really. The fine-scale turbulent motion can flow more easily in the direction parallel to the surfaces of the neutral plates. As the fluid motion gets shunted away from the perpendicular direction into a parallel direction, this sets up a Venturi effect in the "quantum fluid" and consequently a decrease in pressure between the plates.

How would it effect anything if it has zero energy?

Good question. The fluid is only at zero energy when in its amorphous phase as the "quantum vacuum". The vacuum as we all know, is frictionless and does not really effect molar objects much at all (apart from its omni-directional, equilibrating pressure and at object-speeds approaching its maximum speed of equilibration or energy dispersal, i.e. the speed of light). When it forms into waves, particles and atoms, however, it creates a pressure differential which is a condition of energy. When it forms an atom it condenses greatly and creates a potential pressure Venturi-equilibrated and condensed by internal vortical motions and wave systems which can be disrupted and the pressure can be released as energy.

More importantly, why is it zero energy?

There are simply no mass-containing particles to give it energy. That is why it is frictionless, because it has no particulate inertia to damp its fluid flow.

Would it not be that this fluid would absorp any and all energy that traversed through it as per thermodynamics?

No. It is a highly pressurized and elastic fluid. The energy simply tries to equalize itself in its direction of motion which creates a traveling pressure wave at speed c.

BTW it is known that superfluids can transmit tansverse waves so polarization of light is not a problem. It is just that the transverse waves of polarized light are not shear waves, they are four-dimensional wave-patterns faithfully reproducing (in the non inertially-dissipative fluid) the "shape" of the source or filter. These patterns are such that if a suitable similar pattern is then encountered the wave-patterns cross-interfere and cancel out.

subtillioN

Jul11-03, 02:05 AM

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Incidentally
This was from the website, not from you. I retract my statement asserting that you said these things.

But I do agree with them somewhat. The standard model does not know what a magnetic field is. It does not know that it is a wave phenomena and thus posseses harmonic interferences and resonances. A magnetic field is a continuous field that forms quantized harmonic resonances which form stable orbits seen in bodes law and the "electron probability" shells of the atom.

subtillioN

Jul11-03, 04:31 AM

From: http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/universe.html

Max Born. Nobel prize for Physics...Together with scientists like Regner, Nernst (the father of the third law of thermodynamics), Finlay-Freundlich and Louis de Broglie, Born advocated a third model of the universe that helped lay the foundations of a cosmology that today forms the bulkwork of the Plasma Universe. Born, in a 1953 edition of Nachrichten, called brought forth the seriousness of Finlay--Freundlich's few--degree temperature prediction for interstellar space and suggested radio astronomy as an arbitrator between expanding and infinite cosmologies, noting that they differed orders of magnitude in energy density. It is noteworthy that Born's manuscript was printed 12 years before the Penzias–Wilson radioastronomy measurement. We quote from the opening of Born's paper:

[in german so I didn't bother posting it]

marcus

Jul11-03, 10:14 AM

Here is e.g. post #14 in this thread, 5 July:

Originally posted by Eh
It's a common misconception that the big bang implies the universe is finite. In actual, the theory says nothing about the overall size of the universe, only that it began to expand from a much denser, hotter state.

The original question at the start was about the Center of the Universe. The Grimmus posed it.

CrystalStudios presented the Common Misconception----arguing that because (according to the standard picture) the universe is expanding it must therefore be finite.

This is a fallacy. Space can be infinite (as ordinary Euclidean flat space is) and yet be expanding. All one needs is a timedependent scale factor a(t) in the metric. Indeed this is what the standard picture has.

Eh responded with, among other remarks, the post quoted above.

Several people invoked the bad analogy of an expanding balloon.

A better analogy is a rising loaf of bread---if it is an infinite loaf of raisin bread that is expanding then the raisins (galaxies) are getting farther apart

and being approximately uniform (as far as we can tell) and infinte, it has no center

because of large-scale homogeneity (which is observed) there is just no way to define a center

this is as close to the standard Big Bang model as I can get without writing the Friedmann equations and the formula for the metric

To return to topic, does anybody here think the U is finite?
Does anybody here think it has a definable center?

subtillioN

Jul11-03, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by marcus
Here is e.g. post #14 in this thread, 5 July:

CrystalStudios presented the Common Misconception----arguing that because (according to the standard picture) the universe is expanding it must therefore be finite.

And others (namely me) presented the falsification of the evidence that the universe is expanding at all... but enough of that observational falsification nonsense, lets see what the math says.

[;)]

This is a fallacy. Space can be infinite (as ordinary Euclidean flat space is) and yet be expanding. All one needs is a timedependent scale factor a(t) in the metric. Indeed this is what the standard picture has.

Indeed the math can say pretty much anything we want it to say...

A better analogy is a rising loaf of bread---if it is an infinite loaf of raisin bread that is expanding then the raisins (galaxies) are getting farther apart

The problem with that analogy is that there are known edges to the loaf and the expanding dough (space) is not permeating every single atom of every single raisin.

and being approximately uniform (as far as we can tell) and infinte, it has no center

The infinite is the simplest of all universes so Occam must agree with that.

because of large-scale homogeneity (which is observed) there is just no way to define a center

We can put one anywhere you want. Where would you like it?

[;)]

this is as close to the standard Big Bang model as I can get without writing the Friedmann equations and the formula for the metric

Heaven forbid!! We don't need to go there!

To return to topic, does anybody here think the U is finite?

Knot eye!!

Does anybody here think it has a definable center?

Well that depends on if you define it. Does it make sense in a universe of infinite extent? Nope.

marcus

Jul11-03, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by subtillioN
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To return to topic, does anybody here think the U is finite?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Knot eye!!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does anybody here think it has a definable center?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well that depends on if you define it. Does it make sense in a universe of infinite extent? Nope..

I think we should wait and give other people a chance to answer.
But anyway you, sub, have replied that you do not consider the U finite----or the idea of a Universe-center as making sense.

I believe I have seen a lot on this post about what you think and what I am wondering is what some of the OTHER people think about the main topic issues.

Is there anybody on this thread who thinks the mainstream model of cosmology makes the U finite?
does anybody think that cosmologist's prevailing picture is that it somehow resembles the finite expanding surface of a balloon?

russ_watters

Jul11-03, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by marcus
The original question at the start was about the Center of the Universe. The Grimmus posed it.

CrystalStudios presented the Common Misconception----arguing that because (according to the standard picture) the universe is expanding it must therefore be finite.

This is a fallacy. Space can be infinite (as ordinary Euclidean flat space is) and yet be expanding. All one needs is a timedependent scale factor a(t) in the metric. Indeed this is what the standard picture has.

Eh responded with, among other remarks, the post quoted above.

Several people invoked the bad analogy of an expanding balloon.

A better analogy is a rising loaf of bread---if it is an infinite loaf of raisin bread that is expanding then the raisins (galaxies) are getting farther apart

and being approximately uniform (as far as we can tell) and infinte, it has no center

because of large-scale homogeneity (which is observed) there is just no way to define a center

this is as close to the standard Big Bang model as I can get without writing the Friedmann equations and the formula for the metric

To return to topic, does anybody here think the U is finite?
Does anybody here think it has a definable center? Good luck getting it back to the original point - but I'll keep the ball rolling:

I am one of the people who initially fell into the trap of a finite universe. If I understand correctly now, you COULD say that SPACE is finite in one specific slice of time, but when you define the UNIVERSE it must include all time, therefore all space that will ever exist. Hence, infinite universe.

Marcus, I still prefer the balloon analogy though - your loaf of bread analogy isn't bad for looking at a small piece of the universe (small part of the bread), but when you look at the whole thing, it implies boundaries, whereas the balloon analogy does not.

Incidentally, maybe I'll go off topic again (though if 90% is spent off topic, is that topic really off topic?): The debate between mathematics and physical reality has always been around, but it got much more heated with the advent of QM. Many people are uncomforable with the implications of the math and as such reject the idea that the math represents physical reality. But as a scientist you can't reject something because its implications aren't what you would LIKE the universe to look like. subtillioN, you're falling into that trap. Like it or not, QM is al about wave functions and probability. And despite the discomfort of many of the scientists who discovered/invented/derived it, the math behind QM *WORKS*. Its an uncomfortable thought that you can't know exacly what an electron is going to do - or you can even observe that it must have been in two places at once. But it *IS* a physical reality.

Not even Einstein was immune to this - he was so uncomfortable with the implications of his own work that he tried to invent other implications that were not supported by his own theories and he tried to construct a new theory that fit his view of what he would have LIKED the unverse to be. But he eventually accepted that his equations did indeed fit with physical reality.

Generally the debate between math and physical reality starts with people being uncomfortable with the implications of their equations and ends when those implications are observed. You *HAVE* to accept it is a physical reality if you observe it. To not is self-delusion.

Jul11-03, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters
I am one of the people who initially fell into the trap of a finite universe. If I understand correctly now, you COULD say that SPACE is finite in one specific slice of time, but when you define the UNIVERSE it must include all time, therefore all space that will ever exist. Hence, infinite universe.

Each 3D slice is infinite.

meteor

Jul11-03, 12:50 PM

To return to topic, does anybody here think the U is finite?
Does anybody here think it has a definable center?

Me!!. I believe that the Universe is finite and has a center
I like this idea becuse I can provide an explanation for the appearance of the universe: a quantum fluctuation (or something akin).
The idea of an infinite universe appearing from nothing has no explanation-therefore I don't like the idea
I've noticed that here many people is scared of the idea of a boundary.Why?
I can't give any prove of that a finite universe is correct. It's only my hunch. I can be totally wrong

marcus

Jul11-03, 12:57 PM

Hi Russ,
I try always to remember to say INFINITE loaf of bread, so no boundaries. At any one moment the picture is just our old familiar Euclidean 3D space.

To me infinite 3D Euclidean space is as comfortable as an old pair of shoes. Europeans have been using it as a model for centuries without feeling the need to imagine boundaries. The old x,y,z coordinate system that generations of us have used.

It is really a relief that cosmologists have gotten back to picturing space (at any one instant of time) that way. It is deeply rooted in our culture and in common sense. So the accepted picture agrees with conservative common sense in that way.

The 1916 equation of GR, unfortunately, has no stable solution unless that space is either expanding or contracting. But to me this is only a small matter. The Einstein equation is relatively simple and beautiful and fits observations out to many decimal places to most people's (not sub's!) satisfaction. I would not like to have to throw it out. And it says we must assume at least some very gradual expansion in order to get stability. In this one little detail there is disagreement with traditional common sense---which causes a lot of noise and ruckus (from certain people!) But personally this does not bother me.

I do not know any better model of gravity that one could use in place of 1916 GR, although there are strenuous efforts going on to construct alternative models they are as yet unfinished and untested. So I am content to stick with old 1916 GR which explains observed effects so well----even tho to get stability one must assume at least a very gradual expansion. (Dynamic things have a hard time keeping still and space is dynamic.)

And hey, by a weird coincidence, astronomers observe redshifts
that FIT with the model that has a bit of expansion in it. So I feel pretty comfortable about this as if it is common-sensical and in line with age-old traditional infinite x,y,z space-----only with the slight adjustment of a gradually growing scalefactor a(t).

But I think everyone else should go ahead and believe anything they want, even Astrology or Hindu Cosmology or Plasma Syrup with Angels Swimming thru the Aetherial Medium. As you say about the popular rejection of mathematical models, it is "self-delusion", but that is OK.

I share your pragmatic approach: to provisionally accept equation-based models at long as they appear WORK---even if some unintuitive or untraditional details are involved.

Inserted are a couple of comments marked with ***

Originally posted by russ_watters
Good luck getting it back to the original point - but I'll keep the ball rolling:

I am one of the people who initially fell into the trap of a finite universe. If I understand correctly now, you COULD say that SPACE is finite in one specific slice of time, but when you define the UNIVERSE it must include all time, therefore all space that will ever exist. Hence, infinite universe.

***infinite in any one specific slice of time

Marcus, I still prefer the balloon analogy though - your loaf of bread analogy isn't bad for looking at a small piece of the universe (small part of the bread), but when you look at the whole thing, it implies boundaries, whereas the balloon analogy does not.

***infinite loaf of bread, no boundaries implied

subtillioN

Jul11-03, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters
[B]Many people are uncomforable with the implications of the math and as such reject the idea that the math represents physical reality. But as a scientist you can't reject something because its implications aren't what you would LIKE the universe to look like. subtillioN, you're falling into that trap. Like it or not, QM is al about wave functions and probability.

Well if I didn't know a model in which EVERY aspect of quantum mechanics is causally understandable then I might take your comments seriously, perhaps.... well probably not.

Since you don't know Sorce Theory, and thus you don't have any alternative theory to compare QM with then how do you know that it isn't you who has fallen for the trap of the premature solidification of an incomplete theory?

The standard model is a complete mess when seen in comparison to Sorce Theory. but don't take my word for it.

Jul11-03, 01:18 PM

Sigh, this thread reminds me of alt.sci.physics.

Brad_Ad23

Jul11-03, 01:19 PM

Just what is a Sorce anyways? It sounds like it should be called source. And incidently the only information (perhaps fittingly) that seems to come up overwhelmingly for it relates to the relationships between the gospels and/or hindu and/or mystic scripts.

Anyways, how can it fit every aspect of QM when you claim that QM is wrong anyways because it is based off of mathematics? Something that incorperates every aspect of something you claim to be wrong has to be wrong too. The reason for that is because QM does not follow our common sense at all in most every aspect, but rather, it follows our math very well. So well in fact, we can conduct numerous experiments with it, and even construct hardware, such as lasers, or scanning tunneling electron microscopes among other things.

subtillioN

Jul11-03, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by Eh
Sigh, this thread reminds me of alt.sci.physics.

just ignore the possibilities... there are too many of them...

Jul11-03, 01:23 PM

Yes, there are countless ether theories and general ideas from folks who never learned either quantum theory or GR, but are still sure that their new theory solves the problems of both.

Oh well, that's what one can expect from newgroups, though not necessarily physicsforums.

subtillioN

Jul11-03, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Just what is a Sorce anyways?

Sorce is a word for a pressure in a continuous compressible substance.

It sounds like it should be called source.
Think of it as single force.

And incidently the only information (perhaps fittingly) that seems to come up overwhelmingly for it relates to the relationships between the gospels and/or hindu and/or mystic scripts.

hmmm interesting...no relation...

Anyways, how can it fit every aspect of QM when you claim that QM is wrong anyways because it is based off of mathematics?

The mathematics is fairly correct so far but the interpretations are completely wrong. The mathematics says that quantum reality is a zero-energy superfluid and Sorce Theory takes this fluid to be real instead of mathematical.

Sorce Theory takes the mathematics at face value as a representation of physical reality not as a replacement for it.

marcus

Jul11-03, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by meteor
Me!!. I believe that the Universe is finite and has a center
I like this idea becuse I can provide an explanation for the appearance of the universe: a quantum fluctuation (or something akin).
The idea of an infinite universe appearing from nothing has no explanation-therefore I don't like the idea
I've noticed that here many people is scared of the idea of a boundary.Why?
I can't give any prove of that a finite universe is correct. It's only my hunch. I can be totally wrong

I for one am not SCARED of the idea of a boundary. It is just an unnecessary complication. It is "extra baggage".
I do not need a boudary to space in order for things to make sense.

To get away from my own personal views, as far as I can tell the mainstream picture of cosmology (what the experts say they tentatively take as working assumptions) also involves no boundary to space. The consensus assumption seems not to be spatial flatness---essentially regular Euclidean space---on large scale.

I dont think "appearing out of nothing" is a good picture. It does not fit what cosmologists are talking about.
the last paper I looked at had an extension to before the time-zero singularity. Space was infinite in extent before time-zero and at time-zero and after.
It was (actually several papers) concerned with using a quantum analysis to remove the singularity that occurs at time-zero in the 1916 GR model.
Quantum mechanics does not in any way depend on having space be finite!
So it seems that people can deal with time-zero, or at least are working on it and getting preliminary results
and there is no "nothing" before that moment
what is before is infinite but different and some kind of
radical change happens but the evolution of it is governed by equations and does not involve
divergences (divergent curvature was why the 1916 GR model broke at time zero). Here the parameters stay under control. It is not
conclusive but it is promising.

I did not see any mention of a "quantum fluctuation" in these recent papers. Am not sure how that would work to create space.
But anyway in the most recent stuff I've read (Bojowald, Ashtekar, Lewandowski and others) there is no "nothing" before the timezero transition and the U did not appear out of nothing
and there was no original "quantum fluctuation" in the model.

All this stuff is unknown----a total terra incog----so ultimately we may prefer to believe the Hindu model that it came out of a lotus that grew from Shiva's navel as he slept upon the 7 headed cobra that was in turn floating on the (infinite) ocean. Seriously. It aint so bad as a model either.

subtillioN

Jul11-03, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by Eh
[B]Yes, there are countless ether theories and general ideas from folks who never learned either quantum theory or GR, but are still sure that their new theory solves the problems of both.

Well I have seen my share of those simple models but there is simply no comparison with Sorce Theory which is extremely detailed qualitatively and quantitatively in around ten or so books some of which are thousands of pages each.

Hydr0matic

Jul11-03, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by subtillioN
The velocity to distance maping is proven to give incorrect results. See: http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

As for the source of the red-shift see this:
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/index.html

and the 3k CBR:
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/COSMIC/Cosmic.html Ok, how about this... http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw68.html. Can the Sorce model explain this ?

subtillioN

Jul11-03, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by Hydr0matic
Ok, how about this... http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw68.html. Can the Sorce model explain this ?

I have never heard of this before. Can you give me a bit more information with perhaps some images of the cosmic "stretch-marks"?

BTW it sounds like the "Fingers of God" phenomenon discussed earlier in this thread (or was it another one?) which shows the Velocity-to-distance mapping to be incorrect. I would bet that it is another artifact of the faulty doppler interpretation of red-shift.

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm
scroll down to near the bottom of the page...

"The diagram above is an attempt to plot the positions of the galaxies we can see from Earth that are located in a ninety degree field of view centered on the Virgo Galaxy Cluster. The distance of each galaxy that was used to make this plot is computed by presuming that its actual distance is proportional to its redshift value - as modern astronomers do. As a result, the Virgo cluster itself takes on the shape of two long fingers pointed directly at Earth. These have become known as "The Fingers of God". (Shown here in red.)

Long cosmic sized fingers pointed directly at Earth! This result is false on its face. It is independent proof that the "redshift equals distance" assumption is nonsense. Again - Copernicus discovered many years ago that the Earth was not the center of anything! A galaxy cluster should have a more symmetrical shape than this. Arp demonstrates that the Virgo cluster is much more compact than it appears in this diagram. The high redshift galaxies in the upper regions of the diagram are not far away - they are just very young! And much closer to us than this diagram would indicate.

How astrophysicists can continue to look at this diagram and not see that something is very wrong with their theory is evidence of how disconnected from reality they have become. "

subtillioN

Jul11-03, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by Hydr0matic
Ok, how about this... http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw68.html. Can the Sorce model explain this ?

BTW the article shows many historical inaccuracies, such as:

"The remarkable expansion of the universe was discovered in 1929 by CalTech astronomer Edwin Hubble, who showed that distant galaxies are systematically moving away from us and from each other."

Hubble simply found that there was a relationship between distance and red-shift. He did not believe that this meant that the galaxies were actually moving away from us. That assumption is pure speculation and interpretation which the "Fingers of God" and the "Cosmic Stretch marks" show is inaccurate.

meteor

Jul11-03, 02:58 PM

and there is no "nothing" before that moment
what is before is infinite but different and some kind of
radical change happens but the evolution of it is governed by equations and does not involve
divergences (divergent curvature was why the 1916 GR model broke at time zero). Here the parameters stay under control. It is not
conclusive but it is promising.

OK, this sounds interesting. So, essentially you're saying that before Big-Bang existed something that we can call "pre-space", that I must suppose that was not expanding. Then suddenly, at time zero, Big Bang and expansion. What kind of mechanism can afford this, some phase transition? I don't know.

Hydr0matic

Jul11-03, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by subtillioN
I have never heard of this before. Can you give me a bit more information with perhaps some images of the cosmic "stretch-marks"?

BTW it sounds like the "Fingers of God" phenomenon discussed earlier in this thread (or was it another one?) which shows the Velocity-to-distance mapping to be incorrect. I would bet that it is another artifact of the faulty doppler interpretation of red-shift. It's not like the "Fingers of God" no.. Here is another paper which includes graphic elements.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv16n2_CENTRE.pdf

Although this is not a reliable source, and the author interprets the quantization as evidence that earth is the center of the universe, it will perhaps enlighten you a bit more about the quantization. Sorry I couldn't find anything else. Please disregard the author's interpretations [:)]

subtillioN

Jul11-03, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by Hydr0matic
It's not like the "Fingers of God" no.. Here is another paper which includes graphic elements.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv16n2_CENTRE.pdf

Although this is not a reliable source, and the author interprets the quantization as evidence that earth is the center of the universe, it will perhaps enlighten you a bit more about the quantization. Sorry I couldn't find anything else. Please disregard the author's interpretations [:)]

Just a quick note before reading this article, energy of all forms is quantized at many levels. I see no particular reason why the mechanism of redshift wouldn't be quantized as well.

I will give this a thorough reading soon and come back with my feedback. It sounds fascinating, thanks.

subtillioN

Jul11-03, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by Hydr0matic
It's not like the "Fingers of God" no.. Here is another paper which includes graphic elements.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv16n2_CENTRE.pdf

Although this is not a reliable source, and the author interprets the quantization as evidence that earth is the center of the universe, it will perhaps enlighten you a bit more about the quantization. Sorry I couldn't find anything else. Please disregard the author's interpretations [:)]

The images suggest to me that it could very easily be a consequence of the inhomogeneity of the intersteller medium which causes the red-shift.

See this link I already provided as a possible mechanism for the red-shift:
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/index.html

Meanwhile, back to reading the article.

subtillioN

Jul11-03, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by Hydr0matic
It's not like the "Fingers of God" no.. Here is another paper which includes graphic elements.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv16n2_CENTRE.pdf

Although this is not a reliable source, and the author interprets the quantization as evidence that earth is the center of the universe, it will perhaps enlighten you a bit more about the quantization. Sorry I couldn't find anything else. Please disregard the author's interpretations [:)]

Ok here is my very simple answer.

Look closely with a critical eye. The data graphs do not match the illustrations of the concentric shells nor do they match the simulations. This leads me to assume that it is a simple inhomogeneity of the intersteller medium which causes the inhomogeneity (bunching) of the red-shifts.

"The heart of the big bang is atheism" [:D]

Is that the kind of thing you were warning me about?

[[[ seems inverted to me! ]]]

Hydr0matic

Jul11-03, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by subtillioN
Ok here is my very simple answer.

Look closely with a critical eye. The data graphs do not match the illustrations of the concentric shells nor do they match the simulations. This leads me to assume that it is a simple inhomogeneity of the intersteller medium which causes the inhomogeneity (bunching) of the red-shifts. So you're saying that it's the very specific distribution of the H2 that's causing the quantization ? Just so I'm clear on what your saying...

Originally posted by subtillioN
"The heart of the big bang is atheism" [:D]

Is that the kind of thing you were warning me about?

[[[ seems inverted to me! ]]] Among other things [;)] ..

Let's revisit the Hubble Law... You say that the "velocity to distance mapping is proven to give incorrect results", and yet you agree there's actually a redshift-distance relation (which you explain with intergalactic H2? Have I understood you correct?). But not only is intergalactic gas responsible for redshifts, there's also an inherent redshift signifying an objects age, correct ? Not to mention the doppler effect.

So how, in Sorce theory, does one know if an object is far away, young or fast moving, judging by it's redshift ?

subtillioN

Jul11-03, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by Hydr0matic
So you're saying that it's the very specific distribution of the H2 that's causing the quantization ? Just so I'm clear on what your saying...

Yes that is correct.

Let's revisit the Hubble Law... You say that the "velocity to distance mapping is proven to give incorrect results", and yet you agree there's actually a redshift-distance relation (which you explain with intergalactic H2? Have I understood you correct?).

Yes the red-shift to distance relationship is real but it is not a linear absolute projection. It is far from an exact relation.

But not only is intergalactic gas responsible for redshifts, there's also an inherent redshift signifying an objects age, correct?

There is some corelation with age it seems.

Not to mention the doppler effect.

Right, there is also a doppler effect from objects in motion.

So how, in Sorce theory, does one know if an object is far away, young or fast moving, judging by it's redshift ?

Sorce Theory is no different in respect to this phenomenon. It uses all the known techniques for determining distance. They simply must be used in conjunction with full awareness of the limitations of each.

Sorce Theory is a Unification Theory. It explains the nature of quantum scale phenomena and all the forces and unifies and explains these recurring matter/energy patterns appearing on many scales in the Universe.

Hydr0matic

Jul12-03, 06:08 AM

Originally posted by subtillioN
Yes that is correct. Ok. Wouldn't the H2 distribution have to be pretty non-random to give that kind of redshift distribution ? What do you suppose could have caused this non-random distribution ?

subtillioN

Jul12-03, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by Hydr0matic
Ok. Wouldn't the H2 distribution have to be pretty non-random to give that kind of redshift distribution ? What do you suppose could have caused this non-random distribution ?

It is well known that the H2 distribution is quite anisotropic. There have been observations of vast hydrogen clouds surrounding galaxies and existing in intergalactic space.

chroot

Jul14-03, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by Arc_Central
...there is one thing that ticks me off...that character by the name of Chroot. I've seen maybe a dozen of his post so far, and have yet to see anything off substance.
Hey, I go on vacation for a couple of days, and miss some good ol' chroot bashing! Well, I just have to retort. [:D]

First, you admit having only seen [maybe] a dozen of my posts. I've posted, thus far, 460 times. I've posted a dozen times in this thread alone, in response to this entertaining wacko subtillioN. You've seen [maybe] 2.5% of my posts on this site.

For your own edification, I suggest you learn to use the 'search' feature here on physicsforums before making a fool of yourself. Since your substance-o-meter seems to be broken, here are some of my recent posts that I personally feel are bursting at the seams with 'substance.'

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=44233#post44233
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=42236#post42236
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=41293#post41293
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=40527#post40527
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=40490#post40490
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=39929#post39929

and so on, and so on. Mmmmmmm, substance.
Whip it out! Put up or shut up! Enough of this perverted display.
Consider it whipped out.
I can only say either bring it up to the plate and show us a swinging #@%&
Wow, you're really fond of the penis references, aren't you? You might be interested to know that, in addition to my physical prowess, my cock is, in fact, also bigger than yours.

- Warren