Register to reply

The universe is not expanding

by wolram
Tags: expanding, universe
Share this thread:
wolram
#1
Jul7-03, 01:22 PM
PF Gold
wolram's Avatar
P: 3,685
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/faq/flat-universe.html
this may be old news to some of you but it does show a
differant side of the coin
Phys.Org News Partner Astronomy news on Phys.org
What lit up the universe?
Eta Carinae: Our Neighboring Superstars
Best view yet of merging galaxies in distant universe
Brad_Ad23
#2
Jul7-03, 01:25 PM
P: 499
Well I guess according to that all of Quantum physics is wrong too, since it defies OUR common sense.
wolram
#3
Jul7-03, 01:46 PM
PF Gold
wolram's Avatar
P: 3,685
i accept what he is saying is different, but can anyone disprove it?

Mentat
#4
Jul8-03, 12:56 PM
P: 3,715
The universe is not expanding

LOL!! Hahahahahahahahahahaha. This is just like the "Evolution is a Lie" website.

Seriously, wimms, they are asking us to deny Relativity, BB theory, and - as Brad mentioned - they might as well ask us to deny QM, too. And they are doing this on the premise that they don't agree with common sense. Well, if every "correct" explanation of the Universe was obvious to common sense, why would we need Science or Philosophy in the first place?

Also, their little example of "space=time" as a mathematical truth is completely flawed. If everything that could be written as an equation were a mathematical truth, than math would have no rules - and would be utterly useless - but obviously this is not the case.

They might as well have said "5/0" is mathematical even though it defies a rule of math (that you never divide by zero).

In short, they are wrong, and for probably many more reasons than I could think of.
russ_watters
#5
Jul9-03, 12:16 PM
Mentor
P: 22,294
Originally posted by wolram
i accept what he is saying is different, but can anyone disprove it?
Certainly.
Phobos
#6
Jul9-03, 04:54 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,021
I think we'll need a cue on which of his many statements you would like disproved. As Mentat said, his fundamental philosophy may be the root of the problem.
subtillioN
#7
Jul9-03, 04:58 PM
P: n/a
Originally posted by Mentat
LOL!! Hahahahahahahahahahaha. This is just like the "Evolution is a Lie" website.

Seriously, wimms, they are asking us to deny Relativity, BB theory, and - as Brad mentioned - they might as well ask us to deny QM, too. And they are doing this on the premise that they don't agree with common sense. Well, if every "correct" explanation of the Universe was obvious to common sense, why would we need Science or Philosophy in the first place?

Also, their little example of "space=time" as a mathematical truth is completely flawed. If everything that could be written as an equation were a mathematical truth, than math would have no rules - and would be utterly useless - but obviously this is not the case.

They might as well have said "5/0" is mathematical even though it defies a rule of math (that you never divide by zero).

In short, they are wrong, and for probably many more reasons than I could think of.

"He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice."
-Albert Einstein

Let's apply it where it is applicable...
Brad_Ad23
#8
Jul9-03, 10:31 PM
P: 499
But what if we are not merely marching rank in file, but have studied it and actually understand it and why it works?
russ_watters
#9
Jul9-03, 11:01 PM
Mentor
P: 22,294
Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
But what if we are not merely marching rank in file, but have studied it and actually understand it and why it works?
If you read the first few sentences and understand them, you will know enough to know that the they are utterly rediculous. Pick any that give you pause and we'll tell you why its wrong.

Not that I've read much of the site, but his paper on "GPS and the Constant Velocity of Light" is particularly entertaining. In the first sentence of the abstract he demonstrates a lack of understanding of the way GPS works. In the first two sentences of the introduction he demonstrates a lack of understanding of the Michelson-Morely experiment and the nature of light. And thats as far as I got.

The problem here is that the guy just stopped learning after high school physics.

edit: oops, I may have misunderstood your intent, Brad (sorry). Though maybe not applicable to you, I'll leave the point up.
Brad_Ad23
#10
Jul9-03, 11:50 PM
P: 499
lol, no problem.

I think you misunderstood me too (I believe we are both arguing the same side here).
subtillioN
#11
Jul10-03, 12:17 AM
P: n/a
Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
But what if we are not merely marching rank in file, but have studied it and actually understand it and why it works?
Ok tell me the mechanism of gravity? Tell me how all the forces can be physically and causally described by a single force. Tell me what "charm" or "strangeness" actually physically are. Describe to me HOW they work. Tell me how a W particle can transfer a charge of "weakness". And what exactly is "weakness" anyway. Don't just tell me how you balance your books and accounting tables, but tell me how it actually PHYSICALLY works.

If you are not seriously questioning the validity of each and every interpretation of every single piece of data that comes in, and if you are not actively trying to find holes in your own favorite model of physical reality then you ARE merely marching rank and file. If you are not entirely open and actively searching alternative explanations for a theory that is KNOWN to be problematic, then you are playing the part of the stabilization and fossilization of a "Standard Model" which EVERY new theory must fight to overcome.

The "revolution" of Modern Physics was FAR from being revolutionary enough. It merely kludged the "point-particles" with the "wave nature" to give us the schizophrenic paradoxical "wave-particle duality". They should have stripped the theory down to the core and deleted the point particles when they found that they were producing infinities. Instead "renormalizability" is now seen as a pre-requisite for ANY new theory!!! What a total and complete joke. They are so used to the core errors that they expect that they must be present in any new theory.
Brad_Ad23
#12
Jul10-03, 01:06 AM
P: 499
Well to give you an adequate enough education on many of those subjects would require years, however I will summarize it quickly.


Gravity is the curvature of spacetime. And yes, that is a mechanism, and it is physically relevant and observed.

Charm, strangeness, and weakness are (as I stated in a thread about pentaquarks) merely labels we apply to physical phenomena. They first two refer to quantum states of quarks, in essence there are certain fundamental quantities that, much like charge, are used to describe them. Weakness, again being just a label is not actually transferred. What the weak force does in very short terms, is increase the probability of a particle to decay radioactivly, or for the case of the W bosons (the Z being the first one described), mediates interactions between particles that do not interact via gluons. I.E. by exchanging W bosons, particles can transmute into different particles, or wind up travelling in different directions.


I do agree (as do most physicists) that the process of renormalization is ad hoc and not good. However, until we perfect the ability of describing interactions that involve non-pointlike particles, we have to do with that model. And as much as I wish the so called "spooky wave-particle duality" was not true, it is, so many experiments verify this unfortuante result.

And I make a note of interest, that most of these websites about Plasma Cosmology all are hostile to the big bang and basically say that b/c it doesn't follow our common sense it is not right. Take some more formal education in the subjects, then come back and evaluate plasma cosmology. If you find it still works, good. Go on to advance it. Due to the nature of science, sooner or later it will take hold. If not, then at least you'll have a better idea why the community accepts the ideas they do.
subtillioN
#13
Jul10-03, 01:26 AM
P: n/a
Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
[B]Well to give you an adequate enough education on many of those subjects would require years, however I will summarize it quickly.


Gravity is the curvature of spacetime. And yes, that is a mechanism, and it is physically relevant and observed.
nope. not a mechanism. a quantitative description.

Charm, strangeness, and weakness are (as I stated in a thread about pentaquarks) merely labels we apply to physical phenomena.
Right merely labels applied to phenomena that the model does not have a causal understanding of.

They first two refer to quantum states of quarks, in essence there are certain fundamental quantities that, much like charge, are used to describe them.
And so we have an elaborate scheme of interacting lables with various values (called "force") being exchanged by "force" carriers. The actual "force" exchange process is completely unknown and many of the important numbers have to be plugged in based on experimental data instead of being computable by the model itself from fundamental principles. These values should in principal be computable if the theory has a correct foundation. This accounting scheme is used to make quantitative "predictions" of the static states of the very simplest of systems. Once the systems get very complex and begin to move, the accounting scheme is useless.

Do you call that an understanding?

Weakness, again being just a label is not actually transferred.
The weak force (whatever that means) is transfered by the W boson which is supposedly, what a hundred times the mass of a proton?

What the weak force does in very short terms, is increase the probability of a particle to decay radioactivly,
Don't tell me that you think that an increas in the probability of an event constitutes an understanding of the causal mechanisms of that event?

or for the case of the W bosons (the Z being the first one described), mediates interactions between particles that do not interact via gluons. I.E. by exchanging W bosons, particles can transmute into different particles, or wind up travelling in different directions.
An elaborate accounting scheme to quantify the results of the atom smashing experiments.

I do agree (as do most physicists) that the process of renormalization is ad hoc and not good. However, until we perfect the ability of describing interactions that involve non-pointlike particles, we have to do with that model. And as much as I wish the so called "spooky wave-particle duality" was not true, it is, so many experiments verify this unfortuante result.
You pointed to the problem right there that actually causes the wave-particle stupidity. It is the point-particles themselves. They do not exist in reality. Thus there is no wave-particle duality. There are very complicated quantum reactions between light-waves and atoms that appear particulate because they react in a quantized event, like a lightning flash, but the energy of a light wave is not particulate in itself. The photon is an artifact of the measuring apparatus.

And I make a note of interest, that most of these websites about Plasma Cosmology all are hostile to the big bang and basically say that b/c it doesn't follow our common sense it is not right.
That is not quite correct. The point is that the BBT is full of holes and there is not one bit of evidence to support it. The Plasma Cosmologists simply don't have blind faith in the modern creation myth of science.

Take some more formal education in the subjects, then come back and evaluate plasma cosmology.
I have and I am, thanks.

I would recommend that you take a look behind the curtain and explore the serious alternatives. I have seen both sides.

If you find it still works, good. Go on to advance it. Due to the nature of science, sooner or later it will take hold. If not, then at least you'll have a better idea why the community accepts the ideas they do.
I already know why they accept the ideas. They simply like them. They feel comfortable "knowing" how the first nanosecond of the universe took place. This is the province of religion.
Brad_Ad23
#14
Jul10-03, 01:33 AM
P: 499
And those statements are the traditional anti-science statments. Oh the big bad scientists and their conspiracies!.


GR is a mechanism. The curvature of spacetime affects the paths of particles. Learn more about it.

Still looking for what a "casual understanding" is.
And I will point out a lot of the weak force theory was worked out and made predictions that were verified by the atom smashing.

As I said, until you gain more of an understanding of what you are actually going against, the debate is futile. And I would try to gather more understanding of your pet theory, but I can't seem to find anything but "Plasma cosmology SAYS this and the BB is evil" more or less. In other words, I ahven't encountered any sound math and physical reasoning.
subtillioN
#15
Jul10-03, 01:40 AM
P: n/a
Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
And those statements are the traditional anti-science statments. Oh the big bad scientists and their conspiracies!.


I am not claiming that there is a conspiracy, just that there is a willfull ignorance.


GR is a mechanism. The curvature of spacetime affects the paths of particles. Learn more about it.
you have simply accepted abstraction for mechanism.

Still looking for what a "casual understanding" is.
And I will point out a lot of the weak force theory was worked out and made predictions that were verified by the atom smashing.
Mathematics can be very powerful even when there is no understanding of what the math means.

As I said, until you gain more of an understanding of what you are actually going against, the debate is futile.
I know plenty about both sides of the debate. Just because i am not a quantum accountant does not mean I don't understand the theory.

And I would try to gather more understanding of your pet theory, but I can't seem to find anything but "Plasma cosmology SAYS this and the BB is evil" more or less. In other words, I ahven't encountered any sound math and physical reasoning.
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

The highest mountain of all to overcome is ones own preconceptions
subtillioN
#16
Jul10-03, 01:44 AM
P: n/a
Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
As I said, until you gain more of an understanding of what you are actually going against, the debate is futile.
You can't truly know a theory unless you know a comparable alternative. Until then there is simply no reason to question your own beliefs. ... but until you question your own beliefs there is no reason to learn any alternative.

You have to break the ranks to even know that you are in a single file line going nowhere.
Brad_Ad23
#17
Jul10-03, 01:52 AM
P: 499
Umm...kinda embarassing for your site there but:

Problems with the Thermonuclear (Fusion) Model
1. Missing Neutrinos
A thermonuclear reaction of the type assumed to be powering the Sun must emit a flood of neutrinos. Nowhere near the requisite number of neutrinos have been found after thirty years of searching for them. A series of grandly expensive experiments have failed to find the necessary neutrino flux.
Some solar neutrinos have indeed been observed - but less than half the number required if the fusion reaction really is the main source of the Sun's energy production. But, the negative results from the neutrino experiments have resulted not in any re-examination of solar models. Rather, an intense theoretical effort to discover new properties that solar neutrinos "must have" has occurred. As a result of this effort, it has just (June 2001) been announced by the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) in Canada that neutrinos have mass and can change "flavor". This supposedly accounts for why they have not been fully observed previously. However, several important questions remain to be answered about the method that was used by the SNO researchers in arriving at their conclusions. Of course, whether neutrinos actually do change "flavor" or not has no bearing whatever on the validity of the Electric Sun model. The neutrino problem is a hurdle only for the standard fusion model. In the Electric Sun model there is no energy produced in the core - radiant energy is released at the surface and not by nuclear fusion, but by electric arc discharge. So, there is no "missing neutrino" problem for the electric Sun model. The low neutrino flux that is observed is perfectly consistent with the ES model. (See the section on Temperature Minimum and Fusion in the Electric Sun hypothesis description below). There is a detailed analysis of the Sudbury announcement on the next page.
That problem was resolved awhile ago. It was found that neutrinos do indeed have mass by several accelerators, and it was indeed detected that neutrinos can change. In fact, ones were discovered in the process of changing.

Also, the accelerationg of the solar wind? That's just good old F=ma. A force applied to any mass will cause an acceleration. nothing new there.

Why Does the Sun Rotate Faster at its Equator than at Higher Latitudes
This is because the sun has angular momentum. As the sun rotates, it bulges, and has more mass there. Since the sun is a plasma, not a solid like earth, it is like a fluid and hence will rotate a bit slower than at higher latitudes where there is less mass resisting motion.

And again, another big problem is the density of these plasmas. In order to not create any discernable effect on spacecraft, the density would have to be exceedingly low (as it is) and at such far distances, the EM force is simply too weak.

But hey, if the sun is a giant voltage drop, what is the earth? How does the sun keep from collapsing under its immense mass? And why doesn't the pressure such a mass creates cause fusion to occur? Oh wait, it does, because the solar model is indeed correct.
subtillioN
#18
Jul10-03, 02:13 AM
P: n/a
Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Umm...kinda embarassing for your site there but:
Ummm not really. You haven't even gotten into the model. You are stuck trying to explain where the standard model went wrong. If you can figure it out, by all means write it up and send it in to get published!!


That problem was resolved awhile ago. It was found that neutrinos do indeed have mass by several accelerators, and it was indeed detected that neutrinos can change. In fact, ones were discovered in the process of changing.
Those results are interpretations of the data and the Plasma Model does not rely on those hypothetical neutrino changes whatsoever.

Also, the accelerationg of the solar wind? That's just good old F=ma. A force applied to any mass will cause an acceleration. nothing new there.
Obviously but what force do you think is applied to the particles to make them accelerate? How do you think the solar wind could completely stop for a day when the sun continues to shine? The solar wind is supposed to be coming from the nuclear fusion processes which also generate the electro-magnetic energy. How can the fusion processes stop generating the solar wind and yet continue to emit em radiation?

The standard model is at a loss to explain this as well.

This is because the sun has angular momentum. As the sun rotates, it bulges, and has more mass there. Since the sun is a plasma, not a solid like earth, it is like a fluid and hence will rotate a bit slower than at higher latitudes where there is less mass resisting motion.
You said it right there. The sun is a plasma. Only a plasma model can account for the distribution of angular momentum.

If you figure this one out in quantitative detail then you are one step beyond the standard model.

And again, another big problem is the density of these plasmas. In order to not create any discernable effect on spacecraft, the density would have to be exceedingly low (as it is) and at such far distances, the EM force is simply too weak.
I don't get what you are trying to say here. The EM force is too weak for what exactly?

But hey, if the sun is a giant voltage drop,
You are quite confused on this one. Where does it say that the sun is a giant voltage drop?

what is the earth?
Obviously NOT the sun. What is your point?

How does the sun keep from collapsing under its immense mass?
According to the model it is electro-static repulsion of the internal structure of the atoms. The problem is how the standard model can claim that gravity (which is ~35 orders of magnitude weaker than electromagnetism) can overcome the electrostatic repulsion whatsoever.


And why doesn't the pressure such a mass creates cause fusion to occur? Oh wait, it does, because the solar model is indeed correct. [/B]
Why does the neutrino count vary inversly wrt the sun-spot count? Because the fusion is taking place in the surface plasma processes of which the sun-spots are empty.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
What is our universe expanding into? General Discussion 37
Expanding universe... expanding atoms Cosmology 19
Is the whole Universe expanding, or just the Observable Universe? Cosmology 4
Expanding people in an expanding universe? Special & General Relativity 36
Expanding people in an expanding universe? Astronomy & Astrophysics 7