# The universe is not expanding

Gold Member

## Main Question or Discussion Point

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:

Related Astronomy and Astrophysics News on Phys.org
Well I guess according to that all of Quantum physics is wrong too, since it defies OUR common sense.

Gold Member
i accept what he is saying is different, but can anyone disprove it?

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
Mentor
Originally posted by wolram
i accept what he is saying is different, but can anyone disprove it?
Certainly.

Phobos
Staff Emeritus
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.

subtillioN
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...

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
Mentor
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.

lol, no problem.

I think you misunderstood me too (I believe we are both arguing the same side here).

subtillioN
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.

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
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.

Last edited by a moderator:
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
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

Last edited by a moderator:
subtillioN
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.

Last edited by a moderator:
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
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.

Last edited by a moderator:
subtillioN
How does the sun keep from collapsing under its immense mass?
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:
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

subtillioN
Originally posted by wolram
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?

Isn't that the same thing? Doesn't science evolve by generation and falsification of hypothesis'? It does in theory, but in reality people hold tight to their theories long after they have been falsified. BBT is a case in point. The Doppler interpretations of the Hubble Red-shift have long since been falsified, thus removing any evidence whatsoever for an expanding universe. Does this knowledge make its way into the tight circle of the established cosmologists? Not even close. They refuse to believe it even when they are forced to see it. They have long since closed their eyes to observational falsification and now rely exclusively on abstract mathematics as proof of their theories.

Last edited by a moderator:
Long since been falsified by one individual while the rest of the community uses it and makes accurate predictions. I suspect it is not the community who is wrong here.

subtillioN
Long since been falsified by one individual while the rest of the community uses it and makes accurate predictions. I suspect it is not the community who is wrong here.
Accurate predictions such as what? Remember that these predictions must be exclusive to the theory in question in order to give any extra validity to that theory. You have to compare the predictive power of the theories side-by-side to make any judgements and this means learning BOTH theories.

The maps based on the Doppler interpretation of red-shift are known to be flawed. Is that an accurate prediction or is that a falsification?

Gold Member
2001 Edition
MARMET, Paul, O.C.,D.Sc.; physicien, éducateur, né Lévis, Qué, 20 mai 1932; f. Albert et Corinne (Filteau) M. (décédés); e. Univ. Laval B. Sc. 1956, D. Sc. 1960: CSIRO Melbourne, Australia Postdoctoral 1960-61; ép. Jacqueline f. Albert Côté (dé.) 6 Juin 1959; enfants: Louis, Marie, Nicolas, Frédéric; Prof Adjoint, Dept. Physique Université d'Ottawa 1991-99; enseignement en physique, Coll. Univ. Laval 1958-60; Asst. de recherche CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia 1960-61; prof. auxiliaire, Univ. Laval 1961, prof. agrégé 1966, prof. chercheur 1974-77, prof. titulaire 1970-84; Agent de recherche senior, Institut Herzberg d'astrophysique, Conseil National de recherches 1984-91; Dir. du Lab. de Physique Atomique et Moléculaire 1967-82; année sabbatique au service de Chimie, Université de Liège, Belgique 1967; mem. co-fondateur du Centre de recherche sur les atomes et les Molécules (CRAM), bureau de direction 1967-69; mem. du Comité de subventions du Gouvernement du Qué. 1975; Comité des subventions du C. N. R. C. 1971-74, représentant Canadien, Union Internationale de Physique pure et appliquée 1976-79; Comité d'Organisation des IPEAC Paris 1977 et Tokyo 1979 (Organisateur du IV Congrès International de la Physique des Collisions Atomiques et Ioniques, Qué. 1965); Officier de l'Ordre du Canada, 1981; Médaille Herzberg de l'Assn. Canadienne des Physiciens 1971; Prix Rutherford de la Société Royale du Can. 1960; Médaille Pariseau (ACFAS) 1976; Service Award Soc. Royale d'Astronomiedu Can.; Prix Concours Scientifique de la Prov. de Qué. 1962; Bourse Post-doctorale du CNRC Melbourne 1960, 3 bourses graduées 1957-59; co-auteur High Resolution Electron Beams and their Applications1969; AuteurA New Non-Doppler Redshift 1981; Absurdities in Modern Physics: A Solution 1993; Einsteins Theory of Relativity versus Classical Mechanics 1997; articles nombreux; mem, Conseil de Dir., Comm. de Contrôle de l'Énergie Atomique du Can. 1979-84; mem. Société Royale du Canada; Assn. Canadienne des Physiciens Vice Prés. 1979-81, Prés. 1981-82;
10 St. Mary Street, Suite 700,
Toronto, Ontario,
2001 Edition
MARMET, Paul, O.C.,D.Sc.; physicien, éducateur, né Lévis, Qué, 20 mai 1932; f. Albert et Corinne (Filteau) M. (décédés); e. Univ. Laval B. Sc. 1956, D. Sc. 1960: CSIRO Melbourne, Australia Postdoctoral 1960-61; ép. Jacqueline f. Albert Côté (dé.) 6 Juin 1959; enfants: Louis, Marie, Nicolas, Frédéric; Prof Adjoint, Dept. Physique Université d'Ottawa 1991-99; enseignement en physique, Coll. Univ. Laval 1958-60; Asst. de recherche CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia 1960-61; prof. auxiliaire, Univ. Laval 1961, prof. agrégé 1966, prof. chercheur 1974-77, prof. titulaire 1970-84; Agent de recherche senior, Institut Herzberg d'astrophysique, Conseil National de recherches 1984-91; Dir. du Lab. de Physique Atomique et Moléculaire 1967-82; année sabbatique au service de Chimie, Université de Liège, Belgique 1967; mem. co-fondateur du Centre de recherche sur les atomes et les Molécules (CRAM), bureau de direction 1967-69; mem. du Comité de subventions du Gouvernement du Qué. 1975; Comité des subventions du C. N. R. C. 1971-74, représentant Canadien, Union Internationale de Physique pure et appliquée 1976-79; Comité d'Organisation des IPEAC Paris 1977 et Tokyo 1979 (Organisateur du IV Congrès International de la Physique des Collisions Atomiques et Ioniques, Qué. 1965); Officier de l'Ordre du Canada, 1981; Médaille Herzberg de l'Assn. Canadienne des Physiciens 1971; Prix Rutherford de la Société Royale du Can. 1960; Médaille Pariseau (ACFAS) 1976; Service Award Soc. Royale d'Astronomiedu Can.; Prix Concours Scientifique de la Prov. de Qué. 1962; Bourse Post-doctorale du CNRC Melbourne 1960, 3 bourses graduées 1957-59; co-auteur High Resolution Electron Beams and their Applications1969; AuteurA New Non-Doppler Redshift 1981; Absurdities in Modern Physics: A Solution 1993; Einsteins Theory of Relativity versus Classical Mechanics 1997; articles nombreux; mem, Conseil de Dir., Comm. de Contrôle de l'Énergie Atomique du Can. 1979-84; mem. Société Royale du Canada; Assn. Canadienne des Physiciens Vice Prés. 1979-81, Prés. 1981-82;
10 St. Mary Street, Suite 700,
Toronto, Ontario,