Register to reply

Center of the Univers

by The Grimmus
Tags: univers
Share this thread:
subtillioN
#253
Jul10-03, 11:23 PM
P: n/a
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
#254
Jul10-03, 11:26 PM
P: n/a
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
#255
Jul10-03, 11:41 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Hurkyl's Avatar
P: 16,099
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
#256
Jul10-03, 11:42 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Hurkyl's Avatar
P: 16,099
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
#257
Jul10-03, 11:58 PM
P: n/a
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
#258
Jul11-03, 12:09 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Hurkyl's Avatar
P: 16,099
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
#259
Jul11-03, 12:28 AM
P: n/a
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
#260
Jul11-03, 12:51 AM
P: 499
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
#261
Jul11-03, 01:11 AM
P: n/a
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
#262
Jul11-03, 02:05 AM
P: n/a
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
#263
Jul11-03, 04:31 AM
P: n/a
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
#264
Jul11-03, 10:14 AM
Astronomy
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
marcus's Avatar
P: 23,084
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
#265
Jul11-03, 10:31 AM
P: n/a
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
#266
Jul11-03, 11:21 AM
Astronomy
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
marcus's Avatar
P: 23,084
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
#267
Jul11-03, 11:53 AM
Mentor
P: 22,234
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.
Eh
#268
Jul11-03, 12:17 PM
P: 683
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
#269
Jul11-03, 12:50 PM
P: 915
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
#270
Jul11-03, 12:57 PM
Astronomy
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
marcus's Avatar
P: 23,084
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



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