What Lies at the Center of the Universe?

[subtillioN]

Anywyas, I shall take a step and debunk PC better than you have BBT. May I presume that this website:

http://www.matter-antimatter.com/plasma_cosmology.htm

is a valid descrption of the predictions of plasma cosmology?

No this one is the one I am discussing and ONLY the science stuff..

www.electric-cosmos.org

 

[meteor]

I find the hypothesis of Arp rather absurd. He is suggesting that quasars are been expulsed from galaxies!
What are then quasars for him? The dynamics of galaxies is reasonably understood, and I can find a mechanism for permit that a quasar can be expulsed
He says that the quasars show such high redshift because that is a "inherent" redshift of the quasar. Wait. Why has to have a quasar inherent redshift and not, for example, my book or my wardrobe? If objects would have inherent redshifts then it would have been discovered in laboratories here in Earth
His theory is full of nonsenses: How he explain that tre vast majority of the observed quasars are NOT near any galaxies?

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by subtillioN
No the point is not to confuse our metrical tools with reality. There is no causal explanation of how space could be finite but unbounded and there is no evidence to support the notion. [/B]

No confusion needed. If the universe has a volume, the volume will follow the rules of Euclidean geometry or it won't. In other words, if I travel in a straight line, what will happen? Euclidean geometry says I will keep traveling forever without returning to my starting point. If the universe is flat and infinite, then Euclidean geometry can be said to be an accurate description of space.

Now while there is no evidence for a finite and unbounded universe, there is an explanation for it. Once you accept curved spacetime as the cause of gravity, it doesn't take much to get to a hyper spherical universe. Taking a measurement of the overall geometry in a given region of space and applying the cosmological principle to the universe as a whole gives you a shape. With enough curvature on average, the universe would be unbounded and finite. Of course, the whole idea fails if the cosmological principle is inaccurate on large scales.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
No confusion needed. If the universe has a volume, the volume will follow the rules of Euclidean geometry or it won't.

Ok explain to me how a volume can follow mathematical rules?

In other words, if I travel in a straight line, what will happen? Euclidean geometry says I will keep traveling forever without returning to my starting point. If the universe is flat and infinite, then Euclidean geometry can be said to be an accurate description of space.

Ok a description I will grant, but geometry is no causative agent.

Now while there is no evidence for a finite and unbounded universe, there is an explanation for it. Once you accept curved spacetime as the cause of gravity, it doesn't take much to get to a hyper spherical universe.

That is the clincher isn't it? The rubber-sheet tautology of "curved space" which uses gravity as its own mechanism, simply does not explain ANY mechanism for gravity whatsoever, nor does it explain the mechanism of the formation of a gravitational field.

Tell me HOW "space" (nothingness) can get curved by matter. How can nothingness be curved?

Taking a measurement of the overall geometry in a given region of space and applying the cosmological principle to the universe as a whole gives you a shape. With enough curvature on average, the universe would be unbounded and finite. Of course, the whole idea fails if the cosmological principle is inaccurate on large scales.

The fact is that the observed value of omega is far from being a positive value. So even according to your pure mathematical abstraction space simply cannot be positively curved.

 

[Brad_Ad23]

I thought Omega couldn't be negative? Less than 1 was an open universe, 1 was flat and greater than 1 was closed.


As for how a volume can follow mathematical laws, you need to be more specific.

Otherwise, V = 4πr³/3 or s³ etc.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by meteor
I find the hypothesis of Arp rather absurd. He is suggesting that quasars are been expulsed from galaxies!

His interpretations of the red-shift anomalies are certainly questionable, but the fact is that the anomalies do exist. This casts a serious doubt on the validity of the Doppler interpretation of Hubble redshift.

Since this doppler interpretation is the only "proof" of an expanding Universe, the whole BBT is thrown into question... once again. I have no doubts that they will find a cure for this little problem too as a testament of the ingenuity of the mind to create a complex solution to an otherwise simple problem.

Halton Arp is not a Plasma Cosmology theorist so I am not arguing in favor of his theories. See http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm to jump right into the real meat of the theory.

I suggest we discuss the solar model found here and the HR diagram interpretation as well.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by subtillioN
Ok explain to me how a volume can follow mathematical rules?

Those mathematical rules are just descriptive. In other words, they can just describe how space is, as opposed to proscriptive laws that tell space what to do.

That is the clincher isn't it? The rubber-sheet tautology of "curved space" which uses gravity as its own mechanism, simply does not explain ANY mechanism for gravity whatsoever, nor does it explain the mechanism of the formation of a gravitational field.

The analogy is crude and shouldn't be taken too literally. With curvature as an instrinsic property of spacetime (a geometric explanation of Newtons law of gravitation)gravity goes from being a mysterious unexplained force to a well defined pheneomena.

Tell me HOW "space" (nothingness) can get curved by matter. How can nothingness be curved?

Space is just the structural quality of the gravitational field. However that name is misleading, because if you were to empty the universe of all matter and energy, you could still have a flat spacetime defined by the same field. Regardless, it's best not to think of matter as producing some mysterious field, but instead to consider that spacetime curvature is an associated property of matter itself.

The fact is that the observed value of omega is far from being a positive value. So even according to your pure mathematical abstraction space simply cannot be positively curved.

On average, the universe is flat, with an omega value of 1. That doesn't mean local spacetime curvature isn't real though. As well, a multiply connected universe could still be flat on average, and be finite and unbounded. A simply connected universe can only be spherical or infinite, given the cosmological principle. But I'm not sure exactly how a multiply connected spacetime would work.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
I thought Omega couldn't be negative? Less than 1 was an open universe, 1 was flat and greater than 1 was closed.

Right, sorry I meant it necessitates, according to the abstraction of "curved space", a Universe of negative curvature.

As for how a volume can follow mathematical laws, you need to be more specific.

That is exactly my point.

These concepts are devoid of causality thus they can take virtually any fantastical shape whatsoever

 

[Brad_Ad23]

However, that is the difference between mathematics and physics. Math is abstract and physics is the concrete application of such. Your point is still not made.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
Those mathematical rules are just descriptive. In other words, they can just describe how space is, as opposed to proscriptive laws that tell space what to do.

Exactly. I completely agree, but I think that this assertion has more far reaching conclusions.

But geometry really only describes space, the structural quality of the gravitational field. If curvature of this space effects the geodesics of matter, then it can certainly be a causative agent, in this case being the mechanism of gravity.

It doesn't explain the causation whatsoever. It just describes the shape of the field and the geodesic trajectories of massive objects etc.

It is at least one level removed from causation.

The analogy is crude and shouldn't be taken literally. With curvature of an instrinsic property of spacetime (a geometric explanation of Newtons law of gravitation)gravity goes from being a mysterious force to an explained pheneomena.

Gravity is simply more accurately quantified and given a more complex explanation. The causative mechanism, however, is not actually explained by relativity nor is it at all understood by the Standard Model.

I don't know why matter has an associated spacetime curvature as it does, but that doesn't mean Einstein's theory isn't useful.

Ok, it is useful for the Standard Model to explain the null-results of the M&M experiment, but it is rapidly becoming superfluous. ((I don't really expect you to understand or agree with this last statement))

Space is just the geometric structure of the gravitational field.

Do you not see the circularity in this "explanation"?

However that name is misleading, because if you were to empty the universe of all matter and energy, you could still have a flat spacetime defined by the same field.

So you are claiming that nothingness has properties? This points to the core error of Physics.

Regardless, it's best not to think of matter as producing some mysterious field, but instead to consider that spacetime curvature is an associated property of matter itself.

Best to maintain the circular mystery perhaps. I prefer a hierarchy to a tautology so I will stick with the Sorce Theory mechanisms.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
However, that is the difference between mathematics and physics. Math is abstract and physics is the concrete application of such. Your point is still not made.

The point is that at the core of physics resides only mathematics and ZERO causation.

The causative level if understood correctly as a fluid-dynamic medium can unify all of physics and explain every single force as a complex consequence of fluid-dynamic pressure.

And all this, if you can believe it, without invoking the physical existence of a single dimension!

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by subtillioN

It doesn't explain the causation whatsoever. It just describes the shape of the field and the geodesic trajectories of massive objects etc.

It is at least one level removed from causation.

So, it still has it's use as an explanation for gravity. And if we know that there is an associated curvature with matter, we can see that it's reasonable for a finite and boundless universe.

Ok, it is useful for the Standard Model to explain the null-results of the M&M experiment, but it is rapidly becoming superfluous. ((I don't really expect you to understand or agree with this last statement))

It has nothing to do with the M&M experiment. I'm talking about predictions about astronomical phenomena.

Do you not see the circularity in this "explanation"?

No I don't. What is circular about a field that has geometric structure as one of it's properties?

So you are claiming that nothingness has properties? This points to the core error of Physics.

No, spacetime is a classic field along the lines of the EM field. As I said, the term gravitational field is a bad choice of words, since you can have a field empty of matter (flat) and hence no gravity. But it's just a name we're stuck with, and obviously will lead to confusion. At any rate, I don't know why you would call this field nothingness.

Best to maintain the circular mystery perhaps. I prefer a hierarchy to a tautology so I will stick with the Sorce Theory mechanisms.

Great, but I'd guess that physicists will stick with theories that actually get results.

 

[Hurkyl]

Since this doppler interpretation is the only "proof" of an expanding Universe, the whole BBT is thrown into question... once again.

No it's not.

It doesn't explain the causation whatsoever. It just describes the shape of the field and the geodesic trajectories of massive objects etc.

It is at least one level removed from causation.

Causation is described by Einstein's field equations, G=T.

So you are claiming that nothingness has properties? This points to the core error of Physics.

(a) He did not say nothingness; he said a universe devoid of matter and energy.

(b) Of course nothingness has properties. Why wouldn't it?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
It has nothing to do with the M&M experiment. I'm talking about predictions about astronomical phenomena.

Such as...

No I don't. What is circular about a field that has geometric structure as one of it's properties?

Space is the geometric structure of the g-field and the g-field is the geometric structure of space?

Tautology.

Great, but I'd guess that physicists will stick with theories that actually get results.

You get exactly the SAME results with Sorce Theory as it uses the same equations. Only you can actually understand the mechanisms of all the forces as explained by a single force.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
No it's not.

You continue to say this but you cannot give an example to prove your assertion.

Here is the my original statement for which your denial stands unsupported by any argument or evidence.

"His [Halton Arp] interpretations of the red-shift anomalies are certainly questionable, but the fact is that the anomalies do exist. This casts a serious doubt on the validity of the Doppler interpretation of Hubble redshift.

"Since this doppler interpretation is the only "proof" of an expanding Universe, the whole BBT is thrown into question... once again."

Can you back up your empty denial of my statement?

Causation is described by Einstein's field equations, G=T.

The large-scale effect of causation is described but the mechanism is absent. This causal mechanism exists within each and every atom in response to a g-field yet Relativity theory has no clue what it is.

(a) He did not say nothingness; he said a universe devoid of matter and energy.

How is that different from nothingness?

(b) Of course nothingness has properties. Why wouldn't it?

Sure why the hell not? But can you tell me HOW it actually could?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
On average, the universe is flat, with an omega value of 1. That doesn't mean local spacetime curvature isn't real though. As well, a multiply connected universe could still be flat on average, and be finite and unbounded. A simply connected universe can only be spherical or infinite, given the cosmological principle. But I'm not sure exactly how a multiply connected spacetime would work.

Flat? Omega at one? By whose measurements? Unless you are counting the hypothetical Dark Matter/Energy kludge-particles created to fix the anomalies in the standard model of galaxies, there is FAR from enough detectable mass-containing matter to place the value of omega at one. You should understand that if you are counting hypothetical particles of hypothetical mass then we can place this value WHEREVER we want, hypothetically, with no recourse to reality whatsoever. Of what scientific good is this value if it is generated entirely by the human mind by its assumption of hypothetical WIMP's and MACHO's to fix its problematic theories?

It is true that we observe no curvature, but would we really observe one if the light is curved by it? I personally think the whole concept of "physically curved space" is nonsense as it contains no causal mechanism by which space could actually be curved. "Curved space" is merely a mapping scheme for the structure of a g-field whose deeper mechanisms are entirely unknown by the Standard Model. To assume that the entire universe could be described by a single g-field mapping is absurd. We still have yet to see any clue that it is not infinite in extent. It appears to just go on forever as far as we can tell.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by meteor
The dynamics of galaxies is reasonably understood...

Is that why they can't understand the mechanism for the gravitational rotation curve of the matter in the galaxy without inventing a whole host of hypothetical entities (MACHO's and WIMP's etc.)? The Plasma Cosmology model needs no hypothetical entities to explain the rotation curve. It simply uses the observed galactic magnetic fields and intergalactic electric currents to explain it.

He says that the quasars show such high redshift because that is a "inherent" redshift of the quasar. Wait. Why has to have a quasar inherent redshift and not, for example, my book or my wardrobe? If objects would have inherent redshifts then it would have been discovered in laboratories here in Earth
His theory is full of nonsenses: How he explain that tre vast majority of the observed quasars are NOT near any galaxies?

The fact is that many quasars are physically associated with host galaxies of much different red-shift. The problem is how can you explain the association if you assume the doppler interpretation of red-shift which puts the quasars in very different regions of space from their observed host galaxies? The phenomenon is far too common to explain it as a simple coincidence. Thus we must admit that the quasar is getting red-shifted by some other mechanism or that it is traveling at strangely high speeds wrt the host galaxy which would require a mechanism such as the ejection from the host galaxy.

Here is a quote from http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm
"Arp discovered, by taking photographs through the big telescopes, that many pairs of quasars ("quasi-stellar objects") which have extremely high redshift z values (and are therefore thought to be receding from us very rapidly - and thus must be located at a great distance from us) are physically associated with galaxies that have low redshift and are known to be relatively close by. Arp has photographs of many pairs of high redshift quasars that are symmetrically located on either side of what he suggests are their parent, low redshift galaxies. These pairings occur much more often than the probabilities of random placement would allow. Mainstream astrophysicists try to explain away Arp's observations of connected galaxies and quasars as being "illusions" or "coincidences of apparent location". But, the large number of physically associated quasars and low red shift galaxies that he has photographed and cataloged defies that evasion. It simply happens too often

Because of Arp's photos, the assumption that high red shift objects have to be very far away - on which the "Big Bang" theory and all of "accepted cosmology" is based - is proven to be wrong! The Big Bang theory is therefore falsified."


Can yet another falsification make a difference in the belief structure of science? I doubt it. There is surely some inventable mechanism to fix yet another problem with the core assumptions of the BBT (another hypothetical kludge-particle which is conveniently only emitted in the vicinity of a quasar, perhaps?)

Like the Earth-centric Model of the solar system, the BBT gets reinvented again and again with hypothetical entities such as inflation, WIMP's, MACHO's, etc. (the modern-day form of Ptolemy's equally hypothetical "epicycles"), until finally, at this point in time around %99 of the entire known Universe must now be made of hypothetical Dark Matter/Energy particles to account for the BB interpretation of its observable properties.

15 billion years old? Give me a break, there are known structures in the Universe (such as the Great Wall of galaxies) that would have taken HUNDREDS of billions of years to form under the assumptions of the BBT and its observed "flatness".

see this link for example http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf067/sf067a08.htm


see also the "Fingers of God" section from http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm. Here is a quote.

"The "Fingers of God"


The diagram above is an attempt to plot the positions of the galaxies we can see from Earth that are located in a ninety degree field of view centered on the Virgo Galaxy Cluster. The distance of each galaxy that was used to make this plot is computed by presuming that its actual distance is proportional to its redshift value - as modern astronomers do. As a result, the Virgo cluster itself takes on the shape of two long fingers pointed directly at Earth. These have become known as "The Fingers of God". (Shown here in red.)

Long cosmic sized fingers pointed directly at Earth! This result is false on its face. It is independent proof that the "redshift equals distance" assumption is nonsense. Again - Copernicus discovered many years ago that the Earth was not the center of anything! A galaxy cluster should have a more symmetrical shape than this. Arp demonstrates that the Virgo cluster is much more compact than it appears in this diagram. The high redshift galaxies in the upper regions of the diagram are not far away - they are just very young! And much closer to us than this diagram would indicate.

How astrophysicists can continue to look at this diagram and not see that something is very wrong with their theory is evidence of how disconnected from reality they have become.

It is ironic to remember that Galileo got into trouble with the Church by defending the work of Copernicus. Copernicus' voice is coming down to us today through the ages - "If you think that all the galaxies in the Virgo Cluster are in a couple of straight lines that point directly at Earth, you are wrong!" Arp is, indeed, today's Galileo.

So, Arp is correct in his contention that redshift is caused mainly by an object's being young, and only secondarily because of its velocity. Therefore, quasars are not the brightest, most distant and rapidly moving things in the observed universe - but they are among the youngest. And the Virgo galaxy cluster most certainly does not take the shape of long "Fingers of God" pointed directly at Earth. The Big Bang Theory is false.

"

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by subtillioN
Such as...

The curvature of light when it passes the sun, gravitational lensing, gravitational waves, the expanding universe, black holes, the evolution of stars, etc. Very useful for cosmology.

Space is the geometric structure of the g-field and the g-field is the geometric structure of space?

Tautology.

No, that would be circular. But I'm not claiming the field is the structure of space, since the stucture of the field is what we call space. In other words, the field is what defines spacetime and space in the traditional sense, has absolutely no existence independent of it.

You get exactly the SAME results with Sorce Theory as it uses the same equations. Only you can actually understand the mechanisms of all the forces as explained by a single force.

Right. I'm sure the physics community would be dying to see how you are able to unify all the forces, but I'm guessing they'll have to look here on the internet instead of a physics journal. Take it to the appropriate forum.

 

[meteor]

One thing is true, and is that the photos of Arp seem very convincing when you see them the first time. See here:
www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm
Time ago, I was convinced too that the photos were a prove that redshift couldn't be an indicator of distances. Then I realized that can exist other alternatives. Have you ever think that the apparent bridge between the two objects can be a jet expulsed by the galaxy?
For example, in M87, a galaxy, there's a jet going away from the galaxy.Here's the photo:
www.seds.org/messier/m/m087.html[/URL]
And there are a great number of galaxies that shows that kind of jet,
for example the Seyfert Galaxy NGC 4151

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by subtillioN
Flat? Omega at one? By whose measurements? Unless you are counting the hypothetical Dark Matter/Energy kludge-particles created to fix the anomalies in the standard model of galaxies, there is FAR from enough detectable mass-containing matter to place the value of omega at one.

Findings from things like WMAP suggest the universe indeed is flat, but the trouble is cosmologists don't have enough known matter to explain why that is so.

It is true that we observe no curvature, but would we really observe one if the light is curved by it? I personally think the whole concept of "physically curved space" is nonsense as it contains no causal mechanism by which space could actually be curved. "Curved space" is merely a mapping scheme for the structure of a g-field whose deeper mechanisms are entirely unknown by the Standard Model.

Like I said, curved is no less real than flat. In other words, the geometry of spacetime can ether be described by the rules of Euclid or it can't. Yes, light acts as if there is real curvature.

To assume that the entire universe could be described by a single g-field mapping is absurd. We still have yet to see any clue that it is not infinite in extent. It appears to just go on forever as far as we can tell.

It is based on the assumption that the cosmological principle is valid throughout the universe. It seems to hold true wherever we look, but it's possible it doesn't on large scales.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
The curvature of light when it passes the sun, gravitational lensing, gravitational waves, the expanding universe, black holes, the evolution of stars, etc. Very useful for cosmology.

First of all the curvature of light near the limb of the sun was far to complex to be explained by Relativity theory without cooking out the complexity (Sorce Theory, however actually PRE-dicted the complexity of the data and it requires no "cooking" to achieve a correspondence.) Secondly the Newtonian model also pre-dicted such an effect and other models can easily deal with gravitational lensing.

There have been no observations of the rest of the items that you mention. They are mere interpretations of the data which are more consistently explained by the Plasma model.

Right. I'm sure the physics community would be dying to see how you are able to unify all the forces, but I'm guessing they'll have to look here on the internet instead of a physics journal. Take it to the appropriate forum.

Do you know anything about the peer review process? It effectively filters any theory of sufficient novelty.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
Findings from things like WMAP suggest the universe indeed is flat, but the trouble is cosmologists don't have enough known matter to explain why that is so.

Trouble indeed! That was my point. The observations do not coincide with their models.

No, that would be circular. But I'm not claiming the field is the structure of space, since the stucture of the field is what we call space. In other words, the field is what defines spacetime and space in the traditional sense, has absolutely no existence independent of it.

The point was that the original statement was circular. You have simply re-stated it in a non-circular way, but the fact remains that Relativity theory only deals at the level of a self-consistent abstraction. It does not explain the causality of the force of gravity.

Like I said, curved is no less real than flat. In other words, the geometry of spacetime can ether be described by the rules of Euclid or it can't. Yes, light acts as if there is real curvature.

agreed.

...well except that both "spacetime" and "geometry" are inventions of the mind to deal with matter in motion as such they don't exist in physical reality.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by meteor
One thing is true, and is that the photos of Arp seem very convincing when you see them the first time. See here:
www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm
Time ago, I was convinced too that the photos were a prove that redshift couldn't be an indicator of distances. Then I realized that can exist other alternatives. Have you ever think that the apparent bridge between the two objects can be a jet expulsed by the galaxy?
For example, in M87, a galaxy, there's a jet going away from the galaxy.Here's the photo:
www.seds.org/messier/m/m087.html[/URL]
And there are a great number of galaxies that shows that kind of jet,
for example the Seyfert Galaxy NGC 4151 [/B][/QUOTE]

That is still too convenient an explanation. If the bridges are a mere random coincidence then why would there be so many illusory bridges connecting directly to quasars and none just connecting to nothing at all?

What about the "fingers of God"? This shows direct evidence of anomalous mapping of redshift to distance as such resultant massive structures point directly at the earth! Is that also a coincidence? Do we happen to be some focal point of many large-scale cosmological structures or is the red-shift distance-mapping procedure perhaps a bit intrinsically faulty?

If it is faulty then there must be some other mechanism to explain the red-shift anomalies. If there is another mechanism for red-shift then the fantastical Doppler interpretation of Hubble red-shift is superfluous and occams razor would slice it clean off and we would have no evidence whatsoever for an expanding universe. The problem is that the razor has become blunted through neglect.

 

[Brad_Ad23]

Do you know anything about the peer review process? It effectively filters any theory of sufficient novelty.

I hate it when people use this same tired excuse. If that was the case, how do new theories actually become accepted by the community then? Why surely they can't according to you! And as a result science must never progress. Or perhaps they just don't accept theories that make little sense physically?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
I hate it when people use this same tired excuse. If that was the case, how do new theories actually become accepted by the community then? Why surely they can't according to you!

The same old core errors will remain.

And as a result science must never progress. Or perhaps they just don't accept theories that make little sense physically?

Well do you know the theory I am talking about? So you really have no idea whether or not it makes sense.

 

[Hurkyl]

You continue to say this but you cannot give an example to prove your assertion. Here is the my original statement for which your denial stands unsupported by any argument or evidence. "His [Halton Arp] interpretations of the red-shift anomalies are certainly questionable, but the fact is that the anomalies do exist. This casts a serious doubt on the validity of the Doppler interpretation of Hubble redshift. "Since this doppler interpretation is the only "proof" of an expanding Universe, the whole BBT is thrown into question... once again." Can you back up your empty denial of my statement?

Can you back up your empty statement?

I have backed up my denial; I have informed you of the interpretation of the redshift actually used in BBT. (expansion of space, remember?)

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Can you back up your empty statement?

I have backed up my denial; I have informed you of the interpretation of the redshift actually used in BBT. (expansion of space, remember?)

So you are claiming that this interpretation is "self-proving" in spite of the evidence that shows that it is problematic and cannot be correct?

Is that the best you got?

Did you even read the "Fingers of God" segment that I posted from www.electric-cosmos.org ?

Come on let's debate this like scientists and not like theologists. Can you can deal with the actual arguments and evidence against the doppler interpretation of red-shift? If not then simply state so.

 

[Hurkyl]

So you are claiming that this interpretation is "self-proving" in spite of the evidence that shows that it is problematic and cannot be correct?

What evidence? You keep talking about evidence that the "doppler shift" interpretation is incorrect; you have not addressed the expansion of space interpretation.

Did you even read the "Fingers of God" segment that I posted from www.electric-cosmos.org ?

Yes. I can't figure out what you (or the website) can possibly think the problem is. How is coloring two radial lines and calling them "Fingers of God" a disproof of anything?

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by subtillioN
First of all the curvature of light near the limb of the sun was far to complex to be explained by Relativity theory without cooking out the complexity (Sorce Theory, however actually PRE-dicted the complexity of the data and it requires no "cooking" to achieve a correspondence.) Secondly the Newtonian model also pre-dicted such an effect and other models can easily deal with gravitational lensing.

How can you say that with so much confidence, when you've never studied GR?

Do you know anything about the peer review process? It effectively filters any theory of sufficient novelty.

Yes, I know. Creationists and other cranks have already pointed that out for me. Damn those scientists, with their vast conspiracies.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by subtillioN
Trouble indeed! That was my point. The observations do not coincide with their models.

Actually, a flat universe is one predicted model when GR is applied to cosmology. It's just a case of missing mass.

The point was that the original statement was circular. You have simply re-stated it in a non-circular way, but the fact remains that Relativity theory only deals at the level of a self-consistent abstraction. It does not explain the causality of the force of gravity.

What statement was circular? I don't see why you think spaces and volumes are mere abstractions.

...well except that both "spacetime" and "geometry" are inventions of the mind to deal with matter in motion as such they don't exist in physical reality.

Neither spacetime nor it's geometry depend on matter (quarks) for their existence. In fact, matter has no existence without the field of spacetime.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
Actually, a flat universe is one predicted model when GR is applied to cosmology. It's just a case of missing mass.

I am with you on the flat universe thing, but the missing mass is quite a big problem indeed.

I don't see why you think spaces and volumes are mere abstractions.

Well it is because they represent portions of physical reality without dealing with the physical reality as such. They are metrical abstractions for the quantification of nature. The fact that they neglect the physicality of reality is what gives rise to the break-down of space-time into a mathematical singularity. It is a direct consequence of the physically empty mathematical abstraction itself. [The physical regions of the universe that they represent are real however and they have real neglected properties which prohibit the mathematical singularities from actually applying to physical reality itself.]

Neither spacetime nor it's geometry depend on matter (quarks) for their existence. In fact, matter has no existence without the field of spacetime.

That is the core error right there.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
What evidence? You keep talking about evidence that the "doppler shift" interpretation is incorrect; you have not addressed the expansion of space interpretation.

Do you not understand that the "expansion of space interpretation" IS the "Doppler interpretation of the Hubble Red-shift"? They are the same thing.

The whole reason for the initial assumption that the universe is expanding is the doppler interpretation of the Hubble red-shift (hint: doppler red-shift = motion away of the source of radiation). Expansion is what Doppler interpretation directly implies. Since both Halton Arp and the "fingers of god" falsify the interpretation then we are left with a non-expanding universe since the doppler interpretation has been falsified.

[[[BTW, what good is falsifiability if it cannot falsify?]]]

Yes. I can't figure out what you (or the website) can possibly think the problem is. How is coloring two radial lines and calling them "Fingers of God" a disproof of anything?

Ok let me try and explain this in simpler terms.

The mapping scheme based on the doppler interpretation of red-shift generates a map that includes massive radiating structures directly centered on the earth. Such radiating structures are EXACTLY what we would expect to find if there were another simpler physical explanation of the red-shift.

Imagine that the redshift is due to the interaction of the star-light with intersteller matter in such a way that it loses energy (perhaps to the thermalization of the intersteller matter itself at 3k) and this energy is manifested as a decrease in frequency of light. When this radiation encounters denser regions of interstellar matter it gets red-shifted even further. Such dense regions would red-shift all the radiation behind it along the line of sight of the earth. This would exactly cause the earth-centered radiating structures found in the mapping.

Or we could conclude (as we have done in the past) that the Earth occupies a special region is space which just happens to be a focal point for the radiating large-scale structures of the universe.

Which seems more realistic to you? ((( let me guess... you have decided that indeed we ARE sitting right in the center of a cosmic focal point!)))

...or maybe history has taught you not to fall into that provincial trap?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
How can you say that with so much confidence, when you've never studied GR?

I have studied GR, and I have studied Sorce Theory which gives the causation beneath the entire structure of the standard model. It is easy to be confident when you have this inside AND outside perspective.

Yes, I know. Creationists and other cranks have already pointed that out for me. Damn those scientists, with their vast conspiracies.

I am not claiming a conspiracy, just an unconscious social tendency to self-stabilize around a "Standard" meme-structure. I also simply recognize the unconscious mechanisms of this self-stabilization as I encounter it on a daily basis.

 

[chroot]

subtillioN,

You are an incompetent retard.





That is all.

- Warren

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
subtillioN,

You are an incompetent retard.





That is all.

- Warren

Thank you warren for your kind and intelligent remarks.

 

[meteor]

You're hard, sure you're not Anthony Peratt?
About your "fingers of God", you claim that the Virgo cluster can't have the shape of a pair of fingers, but several astronomers, Margaret Geller and John Huchra to mention some, have discovered that the superclusters tend to have a filamentary structure, and knowing that the Virgo Cluster is the principal component of the Virgo supercluster, there's nothing strange in it
It's like to say that the Hoag object can't exist because it has the shape of a doughnut!

 

[r637h]

This thread/discussion is fascinating and I can't resist throwing in my "two cents."

I believe that Newtonian models can explain relativistic phenomena (with exceptions), but in doing so, they become so elaborate that they are quasi-relativistic. Occam's Razor dictates that we must take the simpler path, however, and even though it make not look it at first glance, relativistic models are simpler.

Back in my academic days of yore, I found many of my teachers to be intolerant/inflexible concerning other points of view. However, quickly, I learned that if one doesn't "buy" a given idea, one is unlikely to make an "A" in the course (a very powerful incentive, but also extremely instructional).

I'm very sorry, subtillioN, but I believe you're "flunking the course." Good Luck, anyway.

Thanks, Rudi.

PS: By far the most illuminating item I have run across in this thread has been the reference to the Lineweaver lecture. I forget who submitted that reference, but Bless You.

 

[Hydr0matic]

Originally posted by meteor
You're hard, sure you're not Anthony Peratt?
About your "fingers of God", you claim that the Virgo cluster can't have the shape of a pair of fingers, but several astronomers, Margaret Geller and John Huchra to mention some, have discovered that the superclusters tend to have a filamentary structure, and knowing that the Virgo Cluster is the principal component of the Virgo supercluster, there's nothing strange in it
It's like to say that the Hoag object can't exist because it has the shape of a doughnut!

The filamentary structure of the superclusters is "bubblelike", and mostly circular in structure. Not like the "fingers of god". And the Hubble Law is not the only way to determine distance. Other methods can be used, and the distance to the Virgo galaxies are well known. The cluster does not have the shape of two fingers pointing at earth. If it did, it would not be concidered a cluster.

If the mapping of the redshifts in the Virgo cluster is correct, then I'd have to agree with subtillioN. It is definitely not a coincidence that the redshifts of the galaxies are proportional to the distance from the center of the cluster.

Although I don't believe this has anything to do with how young a galaxy is.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by meteor
You're hard, sure you're not Anthony Peratt?
About your "fingers of God", you claim that the Virgo cluster can't have the shape of a pair of fingers, but several astronomers, Margaret Geller and John Huchra to mention some, have discovered that the superclusters tend to have a filamentary structure, and knowing that the Virgo Cluster is the principal component of the Virgo supercluster, there's nothing strange in it
It's like to say that the Hoag object can't exist because it has the shape of a doughnut!

The point is that the doppler mapping produces erroneous artifacts--huge structures that point directly at the earth. Did you guys even look at the picture?

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by r637h
This thread/discussion is fascinating and I can't resist throwing in my "two cents."

I believe that Newtonian models can explain relativistic phenomena (with exceptions), but in doing so, they become so elaborate that they are quasi-relativistic. Occam's Razor dictates that we must take the simpler path, however, and even though it make not look it at first glance, relativistic models are simpler.

First of all, I am not arguing for a Newtonian model, but I don't believe that they do produce overly complex models. I think it is the relativistic model that is confused. Please explain how the Newtonian models get overly complex.

Classical Physics was deeply flawed in its kinetic-atomic quest for the ultimate fundamental atom-in-the-void. Modern Physics simply kludged the old core error with the new wave-equations to give us the wave-particle duality. The point-particles simply do not exist. This should have been obvious when the infinities started popping up.

Back in my academic days of yore, I found many of my teachers to be intolerant/inflexible concerning other points of view. However, quickly, I learned that if one doesn't "buy" a given idea, one is unlikely to make an "A" in the course (a very powerful incentive, but also extremely instructional).

I'm very sorry, subtillioN, but I believe you're "flunking the course." Good Luck, anyway.

Thank you, and I am not taking "the course".

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by subtillioN

Well it is because they represent portions of physical reality without dealing with the physical reality as such. They are metrical abstractions for the quantification of nature.

We already had this discussion. There is nothing purely abstract about geometry, otherwise the volume of everything would disappear. And, as flat volumes can be described by the rules of Euclidean geometry, curved volumes must be described by different rules. It hardly makes space a non real phenomena.

The fact that they neglect the physicality of reality is what gives rise to the break-down of space-time into a mathematical singularity.It is a direct consequence of the physically empty mathematical abstraction itself. [The physical regions of the universe that they represent are real however and they have real neglected properties which prohibit the mathematical singularities from actually applying to physical reality itself.

No, an assumption of continuous space and the application of GR where the theory is no longer valid (quantum physics) is what gives us the singularity.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by subtillioN
I have studied GR, and I have studied Sorce Theory which gives the causation beneath the entire structure of the standard model. It is easy to be confident when you have this inside AND outside perspective.

If you studied GR, you wouldn't be asking questions like "how can nothingness be curved?" or such. It's good to think outside the box, but you should at least know what the box actually is first.

I am not claiming a conspiracy, just an unconscious social tendency to self-stabilize around a "Standard" meme-structure. I also simply recognize the unconscious mechanisms of this self-stabilization as I encounter it on a daily basis.

It's just an excuse that cranks use. Take it to the theory development forum before someone locks this thread.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
If you studied GR, you wouldn't be asking questions like "how can nothingness be curved?" or such. It's good to think outside the box, but you should at least know what the box actually is first.

The simple fact is that I do not believe in relativity theory. That gives me license to ask ANY question I like. Such a license is quite usefull really, when trying to get to the truth.

There are many questions that one is not "supposed" to ask when dealing with relativity theory. That is because the theory is far removed from experience-based logic and must maintain the hermetic seal of its alternative logic chamber in order to function. When one asks questions based on the logic of experience, one breaks this seal and contaminates the structure of the logic with experience of reality. When this happens the whole self-consistent, self-referential logic structure grinds to a halt.

It is my belief and experience that any theory that forces us to adopt an alternate non-experience-based logic and then enforces laws about which questions are "proper" or not, is falling into the same trap that the religions have fallen into. To seal ones' logic off from contact with reality is to fossilize the growth of the theory.

Such an artificial logic-policing scheme is entirely unnecessary when one is dealing with a correct theory. With such a theory ANY question is as valid and constructive as ANY other. Isn't that the scientific method after-all?

[[ BTW, I am speaking with experience of such a theory. I am not just entering into wishfull thinking. I have seen the difference first-hand and it casts quite a different light on the whole structure of modern physics. ]]

It's just an excuse that cranks use.

That pidgeon-hole technique is just a mechanism that believers use to justify the continuation of their ignorance of an alternate i.e. "dissident" pov.

Are you a believer or an explorer?

 

[r637h]

To subtillioN:

"Flunking the course": (metaphorically, of course)

If I wrote anything that offends, I humbly retract it.

I'll attemt to give you some examples of Newtonian complexity vs. Relitivistic simplicity, as time permits.

Beg pardon about any offense.

Thanks, Rudi

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
We already had this discussion. There is nothing purely abstract about geometry, otherwise the volume of everything would disappear. And, as flat volumes can be described by the rules of Euclidean geometry, curved volumes must be described by different rules. It hardly makes space a non real phenomena.

Geometry is the measure of physical extension and physical relation.

No, an assumption of continuous space and the application of GR where the theory is no longer valid (quantum physics) is what gives us the singularity.

Ok so you are saying essentially that the micro structure of "space" itself is not incorporated in Relativity theory. That is basically what I said. But you are also saying that quantum mechanics is needed to fix this problem, but QM doesn't even have a clue of the deeper causality either. That is the whole impetus behind the unification theories such as String Theory.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by r637h
To subtillioN:

"Flunking the course": (metaphorically, of course)

If I wrote anything that offends, I humbly retract it.

I'll attemt to give you some examples of Newtonian complexity vs. Relitivistic simplicity, as time permits.

Beg pardon about any offense.

Thanks, Rudi

Oh, none taken (I was continuing the metaphor), and thanks for being open minded.

 

[chroot]

I can guarantee that subtillioN (a self-proclaimed explorer, thinker, plasma cosmologist and anti-relativity zealot) cannot explain to us what the Einstein equation is.

- Warren

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
I can guarantee that subtillioN (a self-proclaimed explorer, thinker, plasma cosmologist and anti-relativity zealot) cannot explain to us what the Einstein equation is.

- Warren

It is the fudging of the classical concept of time to mathematically retro-fit the null-results of the M&M experiment. The fact is that the classical notion of a solid ether with the shear modulus of elasticity no less than that of steel was simply incorrect. The whole reasoning behind this faulty classical notion is now defunct because it is now known that a superfluid can transmit transverse waves so there was no reason to assume that the ether was a solid in the first place.

Take for instance this quote from G.E. Volovik in “The Universe in a Helium Droplet” .

“According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons, neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium called the quantum vacuum. This is the new ether of the 21st century. The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum."


Why do you suppose that the "quantum vacuum" is identical to a zero-energy superfluid? Do you suppose that is a pure coincidence and that the "quantum vacuum" is a purely mathematical substrate?


Despite all of the various manifestations of the deep qualitative, interpretive, errors of Modern Physics, the equations which have been custom fit to model the results of our experimental contact with physical reality, actually tell a quite different story. The equations directly model the fundamental level as a frictionless fluid yet the Standard Model consistently denies that this fluid physically exists. The claim is that fundamental reality consists merely of probabilistic wave-equations defining the likely positions of its fundamental, extensionless “point-particles” which paradoxically exhibit a “wave-nature”. To admit that the fluid nature of the quantum level physically exists would be anathema to the dogma of the denial of the ether initiated by none other than the patron saint of Physics himself, Albert Einstein, who, unknown to most people, later said that the ether must exist and it must be dynamic. [see “Ether and the Theory of Relativity” by Albert Einstein, an address delivered on May 5th, 1920, University of Leyden where he said "Einstein said, “It may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility… What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, which are amenable to law in the form of differential equations…”.]

In “The Big Bang Never Happened” , Eric J. Lerner writes,

“... since the nineteenth century it’s been recognized that the equations of electromagnetism are almost identical with the equations of hydrodynamics, the equations governing fluid flow. Even more curious, Schrödinger’s equation, the basic equation of quantum mechanics, is also closely related to equations of fluid flow. Since 1954 many scientists have shown that a particle moving under the influence of random impacts from irregularities in a fluid will obey Schrödinger’s equation.
“More recently, in the late seventies, researchers found another curious correspondence while developing mathematical laws that govern the motion of line vortices—the hydrodynamic analogs of the plasma filaments ... The governing equation turns out to be a modified form of Schrödinger’s equation, called the nonlinear Schrödinger equation. [This equation is a central part of the study of ‘quantum liquids’ as well. The interesting coincidence is that it is a modified form of the equation describing the shell structure of an atom. How this fluid-dynamic shell gets quantized into the known electronic “orbits” is a key concept illustrated in The Orb and Sorce Theory.]
“Generally in science when two different phenomena obey the same or very similar mathematical laws, it means that in all probability they are somehow related. Thus it seems likely that both electromagnetism and quantum phenomena generally may be connected to some sort of hydrodynamics on a microscopic level. But this clue, vague as it is, leaves entirely open the key question of what the nuclear particles are. And what keeps them together? How can fluids generate particles? [This book will fill in these crucial gaps as well.]
“But the idea of particles formed from vortices in some fluid is certainly worth investigating. (This is a real return to Ionian ideas: the idea of reality being formed out of vortices was first raised by Anaxagoras 2,500 years ago!) …However, I think there are additional clues, some developed from my own work, which indicate that plasma processes and quantum mechanical processes are in some way related.
“First and foremost are Krisch’s experimental results on spin-aligned protons. Qualitatively, the results clearly imply that protons are actually some form of vortex, like a plasmoid. Such vortices interact far more strongly when they are spinning in the same direction-which is certainly the behavior Krisch observed in proton collisions. Because vortex behavior would become evident only in near-collisions, the effects should be more pronounced at higher energies and in more head-on interactions—again, in accordance with Krisch’s results.
“A second clue lies in particle asymmetry …. Particles act as if they have a “handedness,” and the simplest dynamic process or object that exhibits an inherent orientation is a vortex. Moreover, right-and left-handed vortices annihilate each other, just as particles and antiparticles do.”

 

[Eh]

Chroot wins a prize for guessing correctly.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
Chroot wins a prize for guessing correctly.

I never claimed to be a expert in relativistic mathematics, just that I understand the principles of relativity.

I am sure that there are equations that neither of you know, but so what? I am not discussing the mathematics which fairly accurately models the structure of the g-field without giving any mechanism for gravity.

Do either of you know Sorce Theory? I know both the standard model and the alternative model well enough to know the crucial difference which is unknown to either of you.

Sorce Theory can explain the causation which the Standard Model has claimed does not exist.