Register to reply

Center of the Univers

by The Grimmus
Tags: univers
Share this thread:
Hurkyl
#181
Jul8-03, 07:17 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Hurkyl's Avatar
P: 16,099
You can't force someone to want to understand the mechanisms of physical reality.
A very astute, if ironic, observation.
Hurkyl
#182
Jul8-03, 07:36 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Hurkyl's Avatar
P: 16,099
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
#183
Jul8-03, 08:58 PM
P: 228
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
#184
Jul8-03, 10:39 PM
P: n/a
Originally posted by Hurkyl
A very astute, if ironic, observation.
Yes, ironic indeed.
Brad_Ad23
#185
Jul8-03, 10:52 PM
P: 499
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
#186
Jul8-03, 10:52 PM
P: n/a
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
#187
Jul8-03, 10:57 PM
P: n/a
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.
subtillioN
#188
Jul8-03, 11:16 PM
P: n/a
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
#189
Jul8-03, 11:22 PM
P: n/a
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
#190
Jul8-03, 11:23 PM
P: 499
Again you fail to realize that it is indeed relevant. But you kinda sorta need to understand the equations and the mechanisms first.
subtillioN
#191
Jul8-03, 11:25 PM
P: n/a
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
#192
Jul8-03, 11:30 PM
P: 499
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
#193
Jul8-03, 11:32 PM
P: n/a
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
#194
Jul8-03, 11:34 PM
P: 499
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
#195
Jul8-03, 11:36 PM
P: n/a
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!!!

[[[It's a bit more complex than that of course!!]]]
Brad_Ad23
#196
Jul8-03, 11:39 PM
P: 499
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
#197
Jul8-03, 11:43 PM
P: n/a
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
#198
Jul8-03, 11:46 PM
P: n/a
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.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Center of gravity (it's not center of mass ) General Physics 28
The geometric center of the Earth and the center of mass Classical Physics 9
U think that the univers is realy expanding? think again Cosmology 10
Can two objects with the same center of mass oscillate about that center? Introductory Physics Homework 0
The center of Mass perfectly match the center of Force-> General Physics 9