What Lies at the Center of the Universe?

[Eh]

Originally posted by subtillioN
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.

Most people here don't believe in cartoon theories of GR either. Asking questions is what forums like these are all about, but to proclaim you've studied the theory after asking the said questions (which clearly show you have not) is rather dishonest.

So it will take a little more intellectual honesty to get anything out of these forums. Simply screaming that current theories are wrong and quoting plasma cosmologists is not going to help anyone.

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.

Like I said, you have to learn what a certain theory actually says before proclaiming it to suffer from logical inconsistencies.

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.

Yeah yeah, I've heard it all before. Legit science continues to make enormous progress, while cranks continue to accomplish absolutely nothing. Coincidence?

 

[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

I can guarantee that Warren (an inherently zeno-phobic individual) can not give a mechanism for gravity.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by subtillioN
I can guarantee that Warren (an inherently zeno-phobic individual) can not give a mechanism for gravity.

Actually, I thought Zeno served up some pretty good food for thought.

Or perhaps you meant 'xenophobic,' but in reality, some of my best friends are foreigners.

Oh well, you still can't tell me what the Einstein equation is.

- Warren

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
Most people here don't believe in cartoon theories of GR either. Asking questions is what forums like these are all about, but to proclaim you've studied the theory after asking the said questions (which clearly show you have not) is rather dishonest.

The fact is that I have studied Relativity. It is not dishonest whatsoever.

So it will take a little more intellectual honesty to get anything out of these forums. Simply screaming that current theories are wrong and quoting plasma cosmologists is not going to help anyone.

So let us debate the alternatives. That is my point.

Like I said, you have to learn what a certain theory actually says before proclaiming it to suffer from logical inconsistencies.

I know what it actually says. What makes you think that I don't? and be specific.

Yeah yeah, I've heard it all before. Legit science continues to make enormous progress, while cranks continue to accomplish absolutely nothing. Coincidence?

So I guess you would have called the Copernican model of the solar system a "crank" theory just because it was not established at some point in time.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
Actually, I thought Zeno served up some pretty good food for thought.

Or perhaps you meant 'xenophobic,' but in reality, some of my best friends are foreigners.

Oh well, you still can't tell me what the Einstein equation is.

- Warren

Zeno was wrong too.

So you don't know something that I do and vice versa. Big deal.

Enough with this banal ad hominem nonsense. Let's discuss the alternatives.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by subtillioN
I know what it actually says. What makes you think that I don't? and be specific.

You don't know what the Einstein equation is. How much more specific do I need to be?

- Warren

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by subtillioN
So you don't know something that I do and vice versa. Big deal.

What don't I know? A mechanism for gravity? GR is a mechanism for gravity. A precient one, too.

- Warren

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
You don't know what the Einstein equation is. How much more specific do I need to be?

- Warren

Are you claiming that one can not understand relativity without knowing the mathematical formalisms?

That is not what my professor said.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
What don't I know? A mechanism for gravity? GR is a mechanism for gravity. A precient one, too.

- Warren

That is a description of the effect of an unknown mechanism.

Please tell me HOW mass creates a gravitational field. And then proceed to tell me how this field ACTUALLY changes the motion of an object.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by subtillioN
Are you claiming that one can not understand relativity without knowing the mathematical formalisms?

That is not what my professor said.

Sounds like you need a new professor.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by subtillioN
That is a description of the effect of an unknown mechanism.

Please tell me HOW mass creates a gravitational field. And then proceed to tell me how this field ACTUALLY changes the motion of an object.

Please tell me HOW 1 + 1 = 2. And then proceed to tell me how this equation ACTUALLY predicts the structure of the integers.

(Psst.. there are axioms in any system -- even yours!)

- Warren

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
Please tell me HOW 1 + 1 = 2. And then proceed to tell me how this equation ACTUALLY predicts the structure of the integers.

(Psst.. there are axioms in any system -- even yours!)

- Warren

get real. I am talking about the physical mechanism of gravity which you can only think of abstractly several levels removed from the level of causality.


Of course there are axioms in any quantitative system. But the point is to distinguish between mathematical formalisms and reality. They are not the same thing, BTW.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
Most people here don't believe in cartoon theories of GR either. Asking questions is what forums like these are all about, but to proclaim you've studied the theory after asking the said questions (which clearly show you have not) is rather dishonest.

So it will take a little more intellectual honesty to get anything out of these forums. Simply screaming that current theories are wrong and quoting plasma cosmologists is not going to help anyone.

I simply understand it from a different point of view which can only exist if you don't believe in the theory. So to say that because I talk about it differently than the flock does not prove that I don't understand it at all or that I have never studied it.

The fact is that Relativity theory is incorrect and superfluous to the understanding of physical reality.

See this article for some Sorce Theory about Relativity.
http://home.comcast.net/~anpheon/html/Articles/4LP.htm

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
Simply screaming that current theories are wrong and quoting plasma cosmologists is not going to help anyone.

You are correct, no one seems willing to entertain any alternative to the prevailing theory. There doesn't even seem to be any curiosity even with all the problems of the standard model that Plasma Cosmology claims to fix. I would be intensly curious as to any alternative to any obviously problematic model... but that is just me.

 

[chroot]

Why do you continue to tell everyone that you've studied relativity, despite the fact that you are incapable of telling us what the Einstein equation is?

Someone certainly does need to get real, but it ain't me.

- Warren

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
Why do you continue to tell everyone that you've studied relativity, despite the fact that you are incapable of telling us what the Einstein equation is?

Someone certainly does need to get real, but it ain't me.

- Warren

I have studied it qualitatively and I have not memorized the equations. Not so difficult to understand really.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by subtillioN
I have studied it qualitatively and I have not memorized the equations. Not so difficult to understand really.

Listen, kiddo. It means nothing to study a scientific theory "qualitatively."

- Warren

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
Listen, kiddo. It means nothing to study a scientific theory "qualitatively."

- Warren

Ok pappa, but you are absolutely wrong on that count.

I am not a physicist so I don't yet need the math. You are only correct in the fact that the modern theory is devoid of causality and simply contains mathematics, but that is because of its core errors.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by subtillioN
I am not a physicist

So let me get this straight... you're not a physicist, you don't know the math, and don't even know qualitatively what the Einstein equation is...

What makes you think you're qualified to even DISCUSS relativity?

This thread is like watching a room full of second-graders arguing about neurosurgery.

- Warren

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
So let me get this straight... you're not a physicist, you don't know the math, and don't even know qualitatively what the Einstein equation is...

What makes you think you're qualified to even DISCUSS relativity?

This thread is like watching a room full of second-graders arguing about neurosurgery.

- Warren

Qualified to even DISCUSS? What? Oh do I need to get a certificate in order to discuss it?

I don't care about "qualifications". I care about understanding. I am interested in discussing the mechanism of gravity which relativity does not touch upon.

This thread is like watching a room full of second-graders arguing about neurosurgery

Yes, second graders who call each other idiots.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
This thread is like watching a room full of second-graders arguing about neurosurgery.

Claiming that I am not "qualified" is an elitist method of saying that you cannot answer the original question I posed to you. It is an attempt to justify your ignorance by "disqualifying" my question.

Can you, with all your quantitative knowledge of Relativity Theory, even come close to giving me an explanation of the MECHANISM of gravity that exists beneath the equations?

Relativity Theory is an incorrect interpretation of the equations that quantify the structure of "space" and "time". It is completely unnecessary to actually UNDERSTAND the structure of a g-field and the "gravitational" response to this field by each and every atom of a molar body.

Can you give me a description of the mechanism of Time dilation? Or are you forbidden to ask whether there actually is a mechanism?

 

[Hurkyl]

Claiming that I am not "qualified" is an elitist method of saying that you cannot answer the original question I posed to you. It is an attempt to justify your ignorance by "disqualifying" my question.

He didn't only claim it, he proved it by demonstrating you have no idea what the most important equation of General Relativity is. I don't even have a physics degree (mine are in Math and Computer Science) and have only taught myself the very basics of differential geometry, and I know what the Einstein equation is. I think Chroot has given a fairly convincing demonstration that you are not qualified to talk about it.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
He didn't only claim it, he proved it by demonstrating you have no idea what the most important equation of General Relativity is. I don't even have a physics degree (mine are in Math and Computer Science) and have only taught myself the very basics of differential geometry, and I know what the Einstein equation is. I think Chroot has given a fairly convincing demonstration that you are not qualified to talk about it.

The fact is that relativity itself is not qualified to talk about the mechanism of a gravitational field nor is it qualified to discuss the mechanism of the gravity force itself. It's sole purpose is to define the shape of the field and not the mechanism. Such a purpose is relatively banal (no pun intended) IMHO. I am interested in discussing the actual mechanisms of all the forces, however, but if your elitest qualification scheme excludes me from being worthy of your company then oh well. You can't force someone to want to understand the mechanisms of physical reality.

Can you explain the mechanisms of all the forces as manifestations of a single fluid-dynamic pressure? I think not. Do you care what the mechanism actually is? I think not. Do you feel comfort in your self-prescribed elitism? I think so.

 

[Dave]

Sorry.. what's this thread about?

Maybe I should start one up called: Centre of the universe and we could talk about that!

 

[Eh]

It's called thread hijacking, Dave.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Dave
Sorry.. what's this thread about?

change vs. stagnation

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
It's called thread hijacking, Dave.

It is called the natural flow of conversation. I wasn't the one who decided to discuss relativity. Because obviously I think it is irrelevant to the understanding of physical reality.

 

[meteor]

The filamentary structure of the superclusters is "bubblelike", and mostly circular in structure. Not like the "fingers of god"

The structure of the universe is bubblelike. But the superclusters are located in the tangent points of the bubbles, and indeed have a filamentary structure.One very famous filamentary structure is the Great Wall
Subtillion, give up. You are one against a hundred. A hundred people can't be wrong

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by meteor
A hundred people can't be wrong

Now THAT is a laugh!

 

[Hydr0matic]

Originally posted by meteor
The structure of the universe is bubblelike. But the superclusters are located in the tangent points of the bubbles, and indeed have a filamentary structure.One very famous filamentary structure is the Great Wall
Subtillion, give up. You are one against a hundred. A hundred people can't be wrong

Yes, the superclusters have a filamentary structure, but in a circular/spherical pattern, not as straight lines. Your argument fails anyway, since the Virgo cluster does not look like two fingers pointing at earth. It is spherically distributed like all the other clusters. See this map .. http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/virgo.html

This is subtillioN's point - the redshift mapping gives incorrect results.

A hundred people can't be wrong ? .. please ...

 

[Hurkyl]

You can't force someone to want to understand the mechanisms of physical reality.

A very astute, if ironic, observation.

 

[Hurkyl]

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

Not so. With the doppler effect, all of the redshifting occurs at the source. With expansion of space, the redshifting occurs as the light travels through space.

(not to mention the trivial fact that the Doppler interpretation makes no sense in general relativity since different coordinate charts would yield different relative velocities)

 

[Sting]

Others mentioned it before, but the to ask where the center of the Universe it is almost similar to the question "Where did the Big Bang happen at?"

The issue about that question is the Big Bang did not happen in space. It happened to space.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
A very astute, if ironic, observation.

Yes, ironic indeed.

 

[Brad_Ad23]

I most agree with Warren on this one as Hurkyl pointed out. The Einstein equation is the basis of general relativity. A lack of actually knowing what it is, or having studied it and what it does, you cannot talk about the theory. All you can talk about is what you have read about the theory from sources. An actual understanding of the equation and you can reach the same conclusions and have a much much better understanding of General Relativity.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Not so. With the doppler effect, all of the redshifting occurs at the source. With expansion of space, the redshifting occurs as the light travels through space.

(not to mention the trivial fact that the Doppler interpretation makes no sense in general relativity since different coordinate charts would yield different relative velocities)

Excellent point. The nomenclature of the Big Bang Theory is quite confused. It claims that it is space itself that is expanding yet if space itself were expanding there would be no relative changes in distance whatsoever because EVERYTHING would be expanding at the same rate. Thus we would see no so-called (and mis-labeled) Doppler Shift because the light waves would be expanding with our prisms and everything else in the same ratio-- end result? no perceptible change whatsoever.

Does that make sense to you?

BTW it is more accurately called the "velocity to distance" interpretation of red-shift. It means essentially the same thing as the doppler interpretation (in the confused language of BBT) as they are used interchangeably.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hydr0matic This is subtillioN's point - the redshift mapping gives incorrect results.

And so if the Doppler (or Velocity to Distance) interpretation of red-shift is incorrect then there MUST be some other mechanism of red-shift and thus there is zero evidence for the expansion of the universe. All we are left with is a relatively isotropic background radiation and the production of the elements both of which are easily explained through less dramatic and fantastical mechanisms than a cosmic explosion of the entire universe from a single sub-microscopic point.

The audacity of the BB claim is mind-blowing considering that it claims to understand the "origin" of the Universe down to the first nanosecond--a Universe whose extent is entirely unknown and seems to just go on infinitely and whose composition is supposedly formed from %99 dark matter of unknown properties. If %99 percent of the universe is unknown, doesn't this put a %99 improbability rate on any extrapolation of the ultimate nature of this universe?

A hundred people can't be wrong ? .. please ...

That is the mantra of the herd mentality.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
I most agree with Warren on this one as Hurkyl pointed out. The Einstein equation is the basis of general relativity. A lack of actually knowing what it is, or having studied it and what it does, you cannot talk about the theory. All you can talk about is what you have read about the theory from sources. An actual understanding of the equation and you can reach the same conclusions and have a much much better understanding of General Relativity.

So don't bother discussing Relativity theory with me. I won't mind, because it is useless for an understanding of physical reality.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by meteor
One very famous filamentary structure is the Great Wall

Good that you should mention that. The estimates of the time taken to form such a MASSIVE structure are about 150 billion years, based on the smoothness of the CBR (interpreted as an echo of a BB) and based also on the maximum observed relative motions of interstellar matter.

 

[Brad_Ad23]

Again you fail to realize that it is indeed relevant. But you kinda sort of need to understand the equations and the mechanisms first.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Again you fail to realize that it is indeed relevant. But you kinda sort of need to understand the equations and the mechanisms first.

Relevant to what? Give details please.

[[[ relevant to relativity perhaps ]]]

 

[Brad_Ad23]

Relevant to physical reality.

example: GR predicts orbiting bodies (such as pulsars for example) will radiate away energy and slow down. This has been observed and is true.

Or that time is affected by one's location in a gravitational field, also proven true.

Or that gravity redshifts light trying to escape, also shown to be true.

All this is predicted from GR (and yes, on low energy scales by Newtonian physics), and is very much physically relevant.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Relevant to physical reality.

example: GR predicts orbiting bodies (such as pulsars for example) will radiate away energy and slow down. This has been observed and is true.

Or that time is affected by one's location in a gravitational field, also proven true.

Or that gravity redshifts light trying to escape, also shown to be true.

All this is predicted from GR (and yes, on low energy scales by Newtonian physics), and is very much physically relevant.

The GR equations succesfully map the gravitational field and its effects on the trajectories and rates of objects and processes, but the interpretation of what those equations actually mean is entirely incorrect.

See this article:
http://home.comcast.net/~anpheon/html/Articles/4LP.htm


"There are four Light Postulates in Einstein's paper. Each has a different meaning than the others. Together, they impose an entirely different basic physical theory than that set forth by the Theory of Relativity. They require that moving systems physically deform in the ways Lorentz described in 1904. This will be mathematically demonstrated herein; thereby proving that Minkowski's thesis, that the deformations are exclusively due to geometrical reasons, is mathematically and physically false."

 

[Brad_Ad23]

Yes of course, they must be. I guess that is why based on these interpretations of it we have been able to conduct sucessful experiments that we know what is going on with. Because all our interpretations are wrong.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Yes of course, they must be. I guess that is why based on these interpretations of it we have been able to conduct sucessful experiments that we know what is going on with. Because all our interpretations are wrong.

It is not the interpretations that are successful it is simply the mathematics.

The interpretations simply justify the abandonment of the erroneous classical solid ether.

Einstein himself (who I would argue was an expert in the theory of Relativity) said that the MM experiments simply proved that the ether was dynamic and that his notion of curved space was entirely meaningless without this dynamic ether.

In an address titled “Ether and the Theory of Relativity” delivered on May 5th, 1920 at the University of Leyden, 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…”.

The new "quantum vacuum" fits this description rather well as it is essentially a "zero-energy superfluid". All one needs is to ascribe physical reality to the substance that the equations model and then add a few basic fluid-dynamic properties to the mix and...presto! A unified Field Theory!

[[[It's a bit more complex than that of course!]]]

 

[Brad_Ad23]

Listen closely.

Just having math and number does not tell us what sort of experiments to do or what happens. We MUST interpret what these equations actually are talking about to perform experiments and collect meaningful data.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Listen closely.

Just having math and number does not tell us what sort of experiments to do or what happens. We MUST interpret what these equations actually are talking about to perform experiments and collect meaningful data.

I completely agree with that, and that is a crucial point. Can you point out any instance in which the Relativity interpretations were the only possible interpretations which could have led to a successful experiment?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by subtillioN
I completely agree with that. Can you point out any instance in which the Relativity interpretations were the only possible interpretations which could have led to a successful experiment?

Actually I can point out a few myself, such as the time dilation experiments, but the equations were created before the interpretations and the equations themselves led directly to those conclusions about the changes of the rates of processes which have more realistic explanations than the ones given by Einstein.

 

[Brad_Ad23]

The case of gravitational redshifting, the rate of pulsar slowdown, gravity fields affecting the rate of time passage, etc.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
The case of gravitational redshifting, the rate of pulsar slowdown, gravity fields affecting the rate of time passage, etc.

Right, but these stem directly from his equations which show directly that the rates of processes must be effected by g-fields and motions relative to an absolute yet dynamic medium.