Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The universe is not expanding

  1. Jul 7, 2003 #1


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/faq/flat-universe.html [Broken]
    this may be old news to some of you but it does show a
    differant side of the coin
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 7, 2003 #2
    Well I guess according to that all of Quantum physics is wrong too, since it defies OUR common sense.
  4. Jul 7, 2003 #3


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    i accept what he is saying is different, but can anyone disprove it?
  5. Jul 8, 2003 #4
    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.
  6. Jul 9, 2003 #5


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

  7. Jul 9, 2003 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
  8. Jul 9, 2003 #7

    "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...
  9. Jul 9, 2003 #8
    But what if we are not merely marching rank in file, but have studied it and actually understand it and why it works?
  10. Jul 9, 2003 #9


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
  11. Jul 9, 2003 #10
    lol, no problem.

    I think you misunderstood me too (I believe we are both arguing the same side here).
  12. Jul 10, 2003 #11
    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.
  13. Jul 10, 2003 #12
    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.
  14. Jul 10, 2003 #13

    nope. not a mechanism. a quantitative description.

    Right merely labels applied to phenomena that the model does not have a causal understanding of.

    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?

    The weak force (whatever that means) is transfered by the W boson which is supposedly, what a hundred times the mass of a proton?

    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?

    An elaborate accounting scheme to quantify the results of the atom smashing experiments.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 10, 2003
  15. Jul 10, 2003 #14
    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.
  16. Jul 10, 2003 #15

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

    you have simply accepted abstraction for mechanism.

    Mathematics can be very powerful even when there is no understanding of what the math means.

    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.


    The highest mountain of all to overcome is ones own preconceptions
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 10, 2003
  17. Jul 10, 2003 #16
    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.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 10, 2003
  18. Jul 10, 2003 #17
    Umm...kinda embarassing for your site there but:

    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.

    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.
  19. Jul 10, 2003 #18
    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!!

    Those results are interpretations of the data and the Plasma Model does not rely on those hypothetical neutrino changes whatsoever.

    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.

    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.

    I don't get what you are trying to say here. The EM force is too weak for what exactly?

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

    Obviously NOT the sun. What is your point?

    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.

    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.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 10, 2003
  20. Jul 10, 2003 #19
    Why Doesn't the Sun Collapse of Its Own Weight?
    How can we account for the fact that the Sun has been around for a long time with something like the same luminosity, yet has not collapsed in upon itself? 3 In orthodox theory, a main-sequence star like the sun behaves like a ball of gas, its temperature and pressure both increasing monotonically from the outer surface toward the center. The temperature is needed to sustain the pressure, and the pressure is needed to fend off gravitational forces which, in the absence of sufficient pressure, would lead to collapse. It is hard to understand how in Juergens' theory, with no fusion going on in the core, such a "reverse" temperature gradient can be maintained.
    The answer is best stated by physicist Wal Thornhill:
    "The electric star model makes the simplest assumption - that nothing is going on inside the Sun. ..... So for most of the volume of a star where the gravity is strongest, atoms and molecules will predominate. (In the electric model that applies to the entire star). The nucleus of each atom, which is thousands of times heavier than the electrons, will be gravitationally offset from the centre of the atom. The result is that each atom becomes a small electric dipole. These dipoles align to form a radial electric field that causes electrons to diffuse outwards in enormously greater numbers than simple gravitational sorting allows. That leaves positively charged ions behind which repel one another. That electrical repulsion balances the compressive force of gravity without the need for a central heat source in the star. An electric star will be roughly the same density throughout, or isodense."

    We should remember, considering a pair of such protons, that the strength of the electrostatic repulsion force between them is something like 35 orders of magnitude greater than the strength of gravitational attraction! (Not 35 TIMES, but 35 Orders Of Magnitude). So the offset of the electron from the nucleus can be truly minuscule and yet produce an extremely strong electrical force to counteract gravitational collapse.

    The Sun does not require internally generated heat in order to avoid collapse.

    3. The same question ("Why doesn't it collapse due to gravity?") should be asked about globular clusters of stars. The real answer in this case is also electrical in nature. And no "missing matter" or "dark energy" is required.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 10, 2003
  21. Jul 10, 2003 #20


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    hi, i find this all very disturbing, what would happen if you were tutored by the author of this link, would everyone be trying to disprove what is curently accepted, or would you go out of your way to find a new theory that is testable?
    it takes a clever person to formulate a new theory
    it takes a clever person to prove it mathmaticaly
    it takes a genius to disprove both.
    thats my view stupid as it may sound
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook