Center of the Univers

subtillioN

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

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

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

Sorry.. what's this thread about?

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

Eh

It's called thread hijacking, Dave.

subtillioN

change vs. stagnation

subtillioN

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

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

Now THAT is a laugh!!

Hydr0matic

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

A very astute, if ironic, observation.

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)

Sting

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

Yes, ironic indeed.

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.

subtillioN

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

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?

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