What Lies at the Center of the Universe?

[Brad_Ad23]

You claim these come from the equations...yet you fail to actually know the Einstein Equation...interesting.

Now how is it that this model and our interpretation of the equations (which I might add those equations that dictate this and that have to be interpreted :) can be wrong then when they give us the right answer?


Now then, I do have to say to an extent I must agree that GR is not THE final answer. It is merely a model, like anything else in physics. It is not the last word. And for the very large part, physicists are aware of this. BUT, it is the most accurate and best model we have to date, and there are certain characteristics (essentially GR has to be an approximation of what would replace it and the best mechanism the theoretcial physics community has up is what will someday be quantum gravity. A pre-requisite is that GR appears out of quantum gravity, and in fact in some of the bigger theories, general relativity just emerges without us trying to make it emerge, in other words, it is forced on us, and yes there are other characteristics, but since I am not yet a professional, I am not entirely privvy to what they are) that must be met in order for it to be accepted and to replace GR as the model.

 

[subtillioN]

You claim these come from the equations...yet you fail to actually know the Einstein Equation...interesting.

I know much about the equations at a more global level, but I have never needed to know the level of the actual equations themselves. I am a physics student so I will have to learn them, however.

Now how is it that this model and our interpretation of the equations (which I might add those equations that dictate this and that have to be interpreted :) can be wrong then when they give us the right answer?

The equations were modeled in experimental contact with reality and the interpretations followed to make sense of the equations. (( this is not always the case but such an exception is quite rare))

 

[subtillioN]

Now then, I do have to say to an extent I must agree that GR is not THE final answer. It is merely a model, like anything else in physics. It is not the last word. And for the very large part, physicists are aware of this. BUT, it is the most accurate and best model we have to date, and there are certain characteristics (essentially GR has to be an approximation of what would replace it and the best mechanism the theoretcial physics community has up is what will someday be quantum gravity.

The trick is to replace the "quantum vacuum" with the "zero-energy superfluid" that the equations actually model. This "quantum fluid" needs some additional fluid-dynamics properties, such as continuity and compressibility. The GR equations naturally emerge from these premises along with bodes law of the planetary orbits and the electronic structure of the atom which both follow the same basic pattern and both stem from the same fluid-dynamic wave-resonance mechanisms. Thus the continuous field is quantized into the electronic shell structure of the atom and the graviational fields (with their intrinsic complexity not explained by GR) by fluid-dynamics and wave-resonance mechanisms. When the quantized electron shell is disrupted and emitted the continuous fluid is released in quantized bits. Thus we have the union of the classical GR and Quantum Mechanics.

[[[ of course the actual theory (Sorce Theory) is MUCH more complex and very detailed as to the causal mechanisms of all the forces, etc. ]]]

 

[r637h]

This is mainly for subtillioN:

1] I wrote that I would give examples of Newtonion complexity and Relativistic simplicity:
Newtonian complexity: Nothing could be more agonizingly complex (without a computer) than the laborious Newton(-Rapheson) numerical method of calculus that was used to confirm that the path of Halley's Comet was an ellipse and had a definite period (in 16-something) Newton told Halley how to do it; Mrs. Halley did most of the calculating, poor thing.
Relativitistic simplicity: Not to mention E=mc^2. Einstein's Field Equations are "relatively" simple. The derivation of Planck's Contant may have been the first "relativistic" equation ever written, and it is very simple.

2] Center of the Universe? I commend to you the modest dissertation: "Relativity: Special and General Theory," written by one A. Einstein 83 years ago. No one has ever disproven his macrocosmic assertions.

He deals with Newtonian difficulties in classical mechanics applied to cosmic phenomena in Part Three, Chapter XXX. i.e., There ain't no center to the Universe.

Q.E.D.


Thanks, Rudi

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by r637h
1] I wrote that I would give examples of Newtonion complexity and Relativistic simplicity:
Newtonian complexity: Nothing could be more agonizingly complex (without a computer) than the laborious Newton(-Rapheson) numerical method of calculus that was used to confirm that the path of Halley's Comet was an ellipse and had a definite period (in 16-something) Newton told Halley how to do it; Mrs. Halley did most of the calculating, poor thing.
Relativitistic simplicity: Not to mention E=mc^2. Einstein's Field Equations are "relatively" simple.

Excellent. Thank you very much. The equations of Relativity do match the data much better. That is the reason they were formulated, but Einstein formulated his interpretations of his equations after the fact and he was dealing with the unreconcilable (at that time) evidence of the M&M experiment. There are realistic interpretations of his equations, however, that give actual physical mechanisms for all of the phenomena described by his equations.

Also note that E=mc^2 can quite easily be derived by classical methods and is not even part of Relativity Theory.

2] Center of the Universe? I commend to you the modest dissertation: "Relativity: Special and General Theory," written by one A. Einstein 83 years ago. No one has ever disproven his macrocosmic assertions.

He deals with Newtonian difficulties in classical mechanics applied to cosmic phenomena in Part Three, Chapter XXX. i.e., There ain't no center to the Universe.

Thank you for those excellent examples of the superiority of Einsteins equations to Newtons.

In this dissertation does Einstein speculate a Universe of finite or infinite extent? How does he demonstrate that the Universe has no center? Through the use of Reimann mathematics? Ahhh, so...

His problem is his assumption that it makes any sense whatsoever to treat the Universe as a 2d plane. On what observational grounds can he make such an assumption? None whatsoever... more pi in the sky!



Thanks Rudi for this information,
subtillioN

 

[r637h]

" Once more, into the Breach..."

1] For all I know there may be classical solutions for the derivation of e=mc^2, but it is a "relative" equation and Einstein used "relative methods" to derive it.

I didn't say that e=mc^2 dealt with Relativity Theory, merely that the equation was arrived at by relative means.

2] The only experimental evidence that Einstein cites in "Relativity:..." is the Mercury perihelion thing, and that is very convincing. (Appendix D?)

3] Einstein believed that the Universe was possibly "finite but unbounded" (Chapter XXXI), but he also asserted that it was non-Euclidian.

4] I guess there's an insoluble disagreement here:
Would it be fair to summarize? If the Universe is Euclidian, then it can have a center; if it is non-Euclidian, then it cannot.

Thanks, Rudi

 

[ray b]

OK I see there is no X-marks the spot of the BIG BANG

but our univerce should be shaped like a big ball with a radius of less than 15 billion lightyears and so having both a center and a edge

the fact that we currently have no clue as to the location of eathor just shows that we are limited in our knowlage not that there is no center or edge or any way to get a placement of our milkyway relaitive to both, IE, a universal coridanate system

what canbe said currently is we appear to be more centrial, than, more near a edge as galixcys appear to be somewhat equaly distant even as we get near max distance that we can now see in all directions

all this proves we have a lot to learn about our place in the grand scheam of the univerce, not that it is unknowable, just we don't yet know much

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by r637h
" Once more, into the Breach..."

1] For all I know there may be classical solutions for the derivation of e=mc^2, but it is a "relative" equation and Einstein used "relative methods" to derive it.

Well I don't know how Einstein derived it, but if it is an exclusively relativistic equation then how could it be derived by classical means?

BTW, what do you mean when you say it is a relative equation? What is it about the equation that leads to this categorization?

2] The only experimental evidence that Einstein cites in "Relativity:..." is the Mercury perihelion thing, and that is very convincing. (Appendix D?)

But this derivation was arrived at previous to Einstein by classical methods which were ignorant of the true mass of Mercury and Einsteins derivation used Newtonian time instead of Relativistic time. Also when the perihelion was recalculated it was found that Einsteins derivation was off by a significant amount. (I could look up all the numbers and give references if you wish).

4] I guess there's an insoluble disagreement here:
Would it be fair to summarize? If the Universe is Euclidian, then it can have a center; if it is non-Euclidian, then it cannot.

I think this ignores the possibility that it could be infinite in extent in which case it would not have a center. Also it assumes that the Universe actually has a geometry i.e. that such abstract 2d-to-3d mapping schemes really do apply to a Universe of possibly infinite extent.

Thanks,
subtillio... N

 

[r637h]

King's X. I give up. I'd sooner try herding cats.

Thanks, Rudi

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by r637h
King's X. I give up. I'd sooner try herding cats.

Thanks, Rudi

lol, ok, thanks for playing.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by r637h
King's X. I give up. I'd sooner try herding cats.

Thanks, Rudi

Rudi,

Thanks for all your very helpful answers to my questions. My quest is not to simply argue with you and frustrate you, but to press these issues further back to see the roots more clearly. The questions I ask are very serious questions to me and I feel them to be legitimate. If you don't know the answers to them, that is ok, but why should this lead to exasperation? I would think it would deepen your sense of wonder and maybe pique your interest in their answers. If on the other hand, you know the answers and are simply tired of explaining them to me, then that is understandable and I thank you again for your help.

subtillioN

 

[Phobos]

Interesting 15-page argument.
Well, I'll just thank y'all for dropping the mud slinging and getting back to a decent discussion.
Please continue...(the debate that is, not the mudslinging)

 

[meteor]

Which is the mechanism of the Marklund convection, that is, why non-ionized material is compressed between two Birkeland currents?

 

[Hurkyl]

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.

Incorrect. Probably the easiest way to see you are incorrect is that we can still measure distances with clocks and light beams... a measuring system that is unaffected by the expansion of space. (Rulers and many other means would also be unaffected, but I think that would require going beyond pure gravitation to explain)

And... *drumroll* measuring the redshift of distant light is a measurement using clocks and light beams.

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

Why are you allowed to casually dismiss GR, but we're not allowed to casually dismiss plasma cosmology?

Well I don't know how Einstein derived [E = mc^2], but if it is an exclusively relativistic equation then how could it be derived by classical means?

I was curious about that myself, and I have been meaning to press you for an explanation... especially since classical mechanics includes the law of conservation of mass and the law of conservation of energy as seperate, independant laws. In classical mechanics, mass is simply not allowed to change into energy and back.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Why are you allowed to casually dismiss GR, but we're not allowed to casually dismiss plasma cosmology?

Who is denying you the right to dismiss anything? If you don't want to understand the competition (since you are fighting a religious war here instead of trying to understand physical reality from as many angles as possible) then be my guest. All you have to do is ignore my challenges and simply move on.


BTW, I am not dismissing the equations of GR just the interpretations of what those equations mean.

I was curious about that myself, and I have been meaning to press you for an explanation... especially since classical mechanics includes the law of conservation of mass and the law of conservation of energy as seperate, independant laws. In classical mechanics, mass is simply not allowed to change into energy and back. [/B]

"This is a fine example of how to derive the famous e = mc2 with no need for Relativity! We have already seen how the Theory of Relativity was false in all its logical details, as well as wrong in its tested conclusions about eclipseal effects. Now we find that it wasn't even required to find that energy and mass are related. The [below] “proof” comes strictly from Euclidean geometry and classical physics."

“Einstein’s equation e=mc2, which states the proportionality of energy and inertial mass, is perhaps the most important result of the theory of relativity. We shall give another simple proof of it, due to Einstein himself, a proof which does not make use of the mathematical formalism of the theory of relativity. ( ) It is based on the fact that radiation exerts a pressure. From Maxwell’s field equations, supplemented by a theorem first deduced by Poynting (1884), it follows that a light wave which falls on an absorbing body exerts a pressure on it. It is found that the momentum transferred to an absorbing surface by a short flash of light is equal to e/c, where e is the energy of the light flash. This fact, which we will prove in the following section, was confirmed experimentally by Lebedew (1890) and again later with greater accuracy by Nichols and Hull (1901) and others. Exactly the same pressure is experienced by a body which first emits light, just as a gun experiences a recoil when a shot is fired."


[[[ Followed by a series of manipulations of equations and diagrams that I could email to you if you wish. ]]]

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by meteor
Which is the mechanism of the Marklund convection, that is, why non-ionized material is compressed between two Birkeland currents?

"The ability of Birkeland currents to accrete and compress even non-ionized material is called "Marklund convection". "

It is simply a name for an observed effect of the compression of non-ionized material by Birkeland currents. I do not know the details of the mechanisms of this observed effect as I am not a Plasma Physicist.

This is all based in Plasma Physics which is entirely centered on observations in the laboratory. This is why every bit of knowledge used to explain the Plasma Cosmology is both observed and well documented. There are no hypothetical particles and no unconfirmed science principals involved, period. It is completely solid "laboratory science".
Just as we can't effectively argue about the relative masses of the atoms of the periodic table so we can't argue about the laboratory observations and measurements of Plasma Physics. We can try of course, and I am not suggesting that we take it on complete faith because even laboratory experiments can be botched or fudged. But these effects and mechanisms are as proven as any other laboratory science is.

 

[r637h]

Mainly for subtillioN, but I don't want to "argue" (in the adverse sense) with him or anyone else here:

1] The Universe does not have a center.

2] The universe cannot be infinite and expanding at the same time. I believe it is expanding.

3] I don't know about the reality, but I believe the concept of Omega has merit, and it has a value of "1". But it is not a constant: It varies on the either side of 1 by a value of Planck's Constant (whatever that is). That's how Omega "keeps its (precarious) balance" and that's why the Universe is the way it is. Essentially the same with Lambda.

4] The Universe oscillates, and there was a previous Universe, and there will be a next one.

5] There may be a T.O.E., but its formulation is way in the future. Neither is it as complex as M-Theory would have us believe.

6] The "form/character" of the Universe is beyond our current comprehension and may always be so. Also, it is of course independant of the observer.

6a] We cannot alter the Universe, but we can alter our "local environment" and have done so. The process is probably a peculiar mix of determinism and probability. Borrow from entropy? You betcha! The Bank is open.

I would prefer not to defend these views, but... That's my story and I'm stickin' with it.

Thanks, Rudi

 

[meteor]

2] The universe cannot be infinite and expanding at the same time. I believe it is expanding.

Yes it can.
If you look at set theory you will see that there are different classes of infinities. For example, the cardinality of the set of natural numbers is inferior to the cardinality of the set of real numbers

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by r637h
Mainly for subtillioN, but I don't want to "argue" (in the adverse sense) with him or anyone else here:

Right. Let us just discuss these things and leave all attachments in the worship houses.

1] The Universe does not have a center.

I agree.

2] The universe cannot be infinite and expanding at the same time. I believe it is expanding.

I agree with sentence 1 but (not to offend or anything) the evidence for your belief is seriously lacking.

3] I don't know about the reality, but I believe the concept of Omega has merit, and it has a value of "1".

How does it have a value of one? I thought it was a measure of the known matter in the Universe? Are they now including the hypothetical "Dark Matter"? If so I am shocked and omega could have any value that they want. Is that science?

4] The Universe oscillates, and there was a previous Universe, and there will be a next one.

hmmm, no evidence for that either. Why don't we discuss science instead of cosmogonic mythology?

5] There may be a T.O.E., but its formulation is way in the future. Neither is it as complex as M-Theory would have us believe.

Now, how can you be so sure that there has yet to be a TOE formulated? Do you know Sorce Theory? I am telling you right now that it is just such a TOE and its foundation was created in 1965. It has been confirmed and solidified all along the way and the new data about condensed matter physics only confirms it even more.

The scientific thing to do would be to keep an open mind here and admit that you simply do not know the TOE nor when it will arise.

6] The "form/character" of the Universe is beyond our current comprehension and may always be so. Also, it is of course independant of the observer.

I heartily agree! Let us discuss those things that we can observe.

6a] We cannot alter the Universe, but we can alter our "local environment" and have done so. The process is probably a peculiar mix of determinism and probability. Borrow from entropy? You betcha! The Bank is open.

Lol. Probability is a consequence of uncertainty which is simply the lack of knowledge of the fine-scale mechanisms involved in a phenomenon.

I would prefer not to defend these views, but... That's my story and I'm stickin' with it.

Of course you don't have to do anything you don't want to and "stickin' with it" can get you into trouble when the evidence mounts on the other side.

Regards,
subtillio...N

 

[r637h]

Mainly for Meteor:

I believe you're right: Set Theory does allow for "infinite and expanding." However, I believe this is mainly intended for Number Theory, and even more so, Logic.

Nevertheless, my "can't be infinite and expanding at the same time" statement was ill-guarded.

Thanks, Rudi

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Incorrect. Probably the easiest way to see you are incorrect is that we can still measure distances with clocks and light beams... a measuring system that is unaffected by the expansion of space.

Isn't that exactly what I said? That these things would be entirely unaffected by the expansion of space?

Any mathematics buff could tell you that ANY and ALL geometry (which means all physical phenomena in our extrapolation between mathematics of space and the universe itself) in a uniformly expanding space will not deform whatsoever and this expansion is simply equivalent to a change in the metric of the space itself. A simple change in the numbers of the coordinates does not change the relationships of the physical patterns and geometries within that space. Thus it would be entirely indetectable.

Unless you think that light exists separate from expanding space itself then there should be no discernable effect on light either.

 

[Arc_Central]

This may be a bit off topic, but I can't help myself. I am new to this message board, but there is one thing that ticks me off to the exclusion of all others.
I'm speeking of that character by the name of Chroot. I've seen maybe a dozen of his post so far, and have yet to see anything off substance. Essentially he (and that's a guess) pulls out his manhood behind your backs of course - Puts it back in and leaves while saying mines bigger than yours.. I say - Let's see how big you are. I want to see a steady stream coming out to proove that yours is in working order. Don't show us your degrees - Show us your degree of intellect. Whip it out! Put up or shut up! Enough of this perverted display.

I've seen this pitiful brandishing of a tool before. It's not only pitiful but sad. Sad that in many cases my tax dollars paid for that?

Chroot - You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
I can only say either bring it up to the plate and show us a swinging #@%&, or leave the playing field altogether, because you are of no use to anybody trying to get home. That right Chroot...someones on base, and I have never seen you at the plate. Perhaps it's because if you did it enough times.. you'd have an average somewhere around the Mendosa line, and God forbid that wouldn't cut it for a man with degrees that so far amounted to zero for zero.

At least as far as this message board is concerned.

 

[Hurkyl]

Isn't that exactly what I said? That these things would be entirely unaffected by the expansion of space?

Nope, it's different than what you said. You are saying the measurements are unaffected, I'm saying the measuring system is unaffected.


This is all slightly misleading anyways, though. "Expanding space" is essentially defined to be when the geometry of space-time is such that (nearly) co-moving free falling particles tend to separate from each other.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl

This is all slightly misleading anyways, though. "Expanding space" is essentially defined to be when the geometry of space-time is such that (nearly) co-moving free falling particles tend to separate from each other.

Oh, how convenient that this expansion of "space" doesn't effect the sizes of objects themselves and only effects light-waves. How very convenient that this is essentially the same thing as the motion of particles away from each other WITHIN space. ((Is there not space within each and every atom? If so then why doesn't every atom expand with space?))

 

[Hurkyl]

Oh, how convenient that this expansion of "space" doesn't effect the sizes of objects themselves and only effects light-waves.

Incorrect. It affects the size of any object in freefall... a common example (as used frequently at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/gr.html ) is that an ideal cloud of dust would increase in volume as time progresses while in a region of expanding space.

How very convenient that this is essentially the same thing as the motion of particles away from each other WITHIN space.

Which is why physicists use the image provoking phrase "expansion of space".

((Is there not space within each and every atom? If so then why doesn't every atom expand with space?))

Because the structure of atoms comes from nongravitational forces which overwhelm the tiny "force" of expansion.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Incorrect. It affects the size of any object in freefall... a common example (as used frequently at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/gr.html ) is that an ideal cloud of dust would increase in volume as time progresses while in a region of expanding space.

How does it affect the sizes of some objects and not others?

Which is why physicists use the image provoking phrase "expansion of space".

It is a confusion. They are using the expansion of space to selectively explain the effect on "photons" yet they exclude it from acting on everything else.

Because the structure of atoms comes from nongravitational forces which overwhelm the tiny "force" of expansion.

That is nonsense. This assumes that space is merely gravitational, but what about all the other fields and objects etc? Do they not exist as part of space?

 

[Hurkyl]

How does it affect the sizes of some objects and not others?

It is a confusion. They are using the expansion of space to selectively explain the effect on "photons" yet they exclude it from acting on everything else.

As I mentioned, objects whose size is governed by, say, the electromagnetic force will remain (roughly) the same size when in an expanding region of space because the electromagnetic force is still regulating its size.

That is nonsense. This assumes that space is merely gravitational, but what about all the other fields and objects etc? Do they not exist as part of space?

Those other fields are in space, they aren't space itself.

However, one of the driving motivations behind the study of String Theory is to devise a theory where those other fields are space itself. (incidentally, Kaluza-Klein succeeded in uniting Maxwellian electromagnetism with gravity in this way)

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Those other fields are in space, they aren't space itself.

and so they would expand with space.

However, one of the driving motivations behind the study of String Theory is to devise a theory where those other fields are space itself. (incidentally, Kaluza-Klein succeeded in uniting Maxwellian electromagnetism with gravity in this way)

string theory is total nonsense... and we can get into that if you wish.

 

[Hydr0matic]

Originally posted by Arc_Central
This may be a bit off topic, but I can't help myself. I am new to this message board, but there is one thing that ticks me off to the exclusion of all others.
I'm speeking of that character by the name of Chroot. I've seen maybe a dozen of his post so far, and have yet to see anything off substance. Essentially he (and that's a guess) pulls out his manhood behind your backs of course - Puts it back in and leaves while saying mines bigger than yours.. I say - Let's see how big you are. I want to see a steady stream coming out to proove that yours is in working order. Don't show us your degrees - Show us your degree of intellect. Whip it out! Put up or shut up! Enough of this perverted display.

I've seen this pitiful brandishing of a tool before. It's not only pitiful but sad. Sad that in many cases my tax dollars paid for that?

Chroot - You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
I can only say either bring it up to the plate and show us a swinging #@%&, or leave the playing field altogether, because you are of no use to anybody trying to get home. That right Chroot...someones on base, and I have never seen you at the plate. Perhaps it's because if you did it enough times.. you'd have an average somewhere around the Mendosa line, and God forbid that wouldn't cut it for a man with degrees that so far amounted to zero for zero.

At least as far as this message board is concerned.

I totally and utterly agree.

 

[Hydr0matic]

Hat's off to you Hurkyl for knowing your **** and not being arrogant.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hydr0matic
Hat's off to you Hurkyl for knowing your **** and not beeing arrogant.

a true defender of the faith if there ever was one...

 

[Hydr0matic]

Originally posted by subtillioN
a true defender of the faith if there ever was one...

I disagree. I find his arguments concrete and accurate. It is you, subtillioN, that strikes me as the fanatic one defending your faith. More than anything else, you just seem interested in convincing others you're right.

 

[Hurkyl]

and so they would expand with space.

It's nonobvious what the expansion of a field would mean, can you elaborate?

string theory is total nonsense... and we can get into that if you wish.

If by that you mean that string theory has not presented an empirically consistent model of the universe, then I would agree with you.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
It's nonobvious what the expansion of a field would mean, can you elaborate?

What is a field if it is not defined in terms of space? Therefore if space is expanding then so is the field.

If by that you mean that string theory has not presented an empirically consistent model of the universe, then I would agree with you.

It is a mathematical abstraction that mathematically patches two inconsistent models together. This abstraction has zero evidence for it's assumptions.

 

[Hurkyl]

What is a field if it is not defined in terms of space? Therefore if space is expanding then so is the field.

Fields don't have length, area, or volume. There is no distance between fields. What expands?

(in the above I mean those words and phrases simply don't have a meaning, not that those things have zero value)

It is a mathematical abstraction that mathematically patches two inconsistent models together. This abstraction has zero evidence for it's assumptions.

Which is why GR and the Standard Model are actually used to describe the universe, and string theory is still a research project.

(by the Standard Model, I mean the quantum theory with that name, not whatever you call the standard model)

 

[Brad_Ad23]

Good job Hurkyl.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Fields don't have length, area, or volume. There is no distance between fields. What expands?

Fields have no extension? Says who?

(in the above I mean those words and phrases simply don't have a meaning, not that those things have zero value)

Again, says who? If they exist in space then they have extension in all three dimensions.

Which is why GR and the Standard Model are actually used to describe the universe, and string theory is still a research project.

(by the Standard Model, I mean the quantum theory with that name, not whatever you call the standard model)

The whole commonly used model is the standard model.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hydr0matic
I disagree. I find his arguments concrete and accurate. It is you, subtillioN, that strikes me as the fanatic one defending your faith. More than anything else, you just seem interested in convincing others you're right.

A belief in spite of evidence is faith. I find it fun to see if you people can stretch your minds far enough to see a better theory.


But as Planck said it is quite difficult indeed.
"new scientific theories supplant previous ones not because people change their minds, but simply because old people die" - Max Planck



You people only respect the revolutions after they have happened. You have no clue of the ones currently under way and you don't want to know.

 

[Hurkyl]

Fields have no extension? Says who?

I've never seen anyone suggest defining area or volume for a field... nor define length in a way that has anything to do with lengths in space.

Let's consider a simple example of fields f and g on the differentiable manifold R:

f: x -> 1 / (1 + x²)
g: x -> (sin x) / x

So what is the length of f? What is the distance between f and g? And if you can give me meanings for these, please explain how they have any relation to lengths in R.

A belief in spite of evidence is faith.

Which seems to me precisely how hydr0matic used the word.

I find it fun to see if you people can stretch your minds far enough to see a better theory.

Show me a success of a theory and I'll consider it. Until then, I'll continue my path towards learning what I need to be able to study LQG.

 

[Hydr0matic]

Originally posted by subtillioN
A belief in spite of evidence is faith. I find it fun to see if you people can stretch your minds far enough to see a better theory.

"you people" ? .. So you presume that I'm narrow-minded just because I don't believe plasma-"theory" is correct ? Be honest, do you consider yourself open to the possibility that plasma-"theory" might be incorrect ?

Originally posted by subtillioN
But as Planck said it is quite difficult indeed.
"new scientific theories supplant previous ones not because people change their minds, but simply because old people die" - Max Planck

Yes, old people are very set in their ways. I'm 21 on the other hand and very open to new good ideas. I haven't read a lot of plasma-"theory", but at first glance, it doesn't qualify as such.

Originally posted by subtillioN
You people only respect the revolutions after they have happened. You have no clue of the ones currently under way and you don't want to know.

I don't understand how you can be so confident in your beliefs. You seem deluded .

Anyway, I think I'll try and jump in now... First question:

Since plasma-theory dismisses the expansion of space, how does it explain the redshift-distance relation ? I didn't seem to find that answer on the site...

Since there's only an inherent and a velocity component, then objects further away from Earth must be younger ? .. right ? .. but that doesn't make sense, because if the objects furthest away were very young, we wouldn't be able to see them.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
I've never seen anyone suggest defining area or volume for a field... nor define length in a way that has anything to do with lengths in space.

lol! oh so you simply assume that they have no extension since you have never seen anyone plot it mathematically? Think for yourself man! Obviously if it exists in space and is not a point then it must have extension.

Show me a success of a theory and I'll consider it. Until then, I'll continue my path towards learning what I need to be able to study LQG.

I am tired of showing it to you and you just ignoring it.

Go your own way and don't bother with this Plasma Cosmology nonsense. I don't need to waste any more time.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hydr0matic
"you people" ? .. So you presume that I'm narrow-minded just because I don't believe plasma-"theory" is correct ?

No. It's because you seem believe that it is incorrect without studying it.

Be honest, do you consider yourself open to the possibility that plasma-"theory" might be incorrect ?

Yes I certainly do and I believe that ALL theories are incorrect to a degree. Some more than others.

One of my motivations is to see if the people on this site can find holes in it, but I can't get anyone to even find it to find the holes. All we seem to do is argue banalities that don't even relate to the model. Oh well. I thought it was an easy read but apparently it is quite difficult for some people to get through.

Yes, old people are very set in their ways. I'm 21 on the other hand and very open to new good ideas. I haven't read a lot of plasma-"theory", but at first glance, it doesn't qualify as such.

on first glance? you proved my point...

I don't understand how you can be so confident in your beliefs. You seem deluded .

This is because you don't know what my beliefs are. They are quite different from yours I can assure you that.

Anyway, I think I'll try and jump in now... First question:

Since plasma-theory dismisses the expansion of space, how does it explain the redshift-distance relation ? I didn't seem to find that answer on the site...

The velocity to distance maping is proven to give incorrect results. See: http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

As for the source of the red-shift see this:
http://www.Newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/index.html

and the 3k CBR:
http://www.Newtonphysics.on.ca/COSMIC/Cosmic.html

Since there's only an inherent and a velocity component, then objects further away from Earth must be younger ? .. right ? ..

Well that is what BBT says, but the fact is that the galaxies at the very limits of perception are exactly the same statistically as those in our immediate vicinity. This gives those "edge" galaxies time for a mere 2 or 3 rotations since the big bang.

for but that doesn't make sense, because if the objects furthest away were very young, we wouldn't be able to see them.

Well I don't get your point here except maybe that there should be "embryonic" galaxies (if any at all) at the "edges" of the known Universe instead of fully mature ones containing the older second generation blue stars.

 

[Hurkyl]

lol! oh so you simply assume that they have no extension since you have never seen anyone plot it mathematically? Think for yourself man! Obviously if it exists in space and is not a point then it must have extension.

Open your mind to the alternatives.

How would you ascribe an "extension" to:

f(x) = 1 / (1 + x²)

?

Fields are not points, curves, surfaces, or solids. Fields are an assignment of one or more quantities to every point in space. There is no reason to presume "extent" makes any sense when talking about fields.

Sometimes those quantities will come equipped with their own metric, but that metric is internal to the range of quantities and has absolutely no relationship to the metric on space. Measurement of "distance" between quantities has no bearing whatsoever on distances in space... and besides, the metric on the quantities is usually taken to be fixed and unchanging.

I am tired of showing it to you and you just ignoring it. Go your own way and don't bother with this Plasma Cosmology nonsense. I don't need to waste any more time.

I'm tired of you thinking you've showed successes when you've showed only speculation. Go away and don't bother us with your Plasma Cosmology nonsense. You don't need to waste any more time!

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Open your mind to the alternatives.

How would you ascribe an "extension" to:

f(x) = 1 / (1 + x²)

?

Why would I ascribe extension to an equation?

Fields are not points, curves, surfaces, or solids. Fields are an assignment of one or more quantities to every point in space. There is no reason to presume "extent" makes any sense when talking about fields.

You are confusing mathematics with reality.

I'm tired of you thinking you've showed successes when you've showed only speculation. Go away and don't bother us with your Plasma Cosmology nonsense. You don't need to waste any more time!

[zz)]

 

[Hurkyl]

One of my motivations is to see if the people on this site can find holes in it, but I can't get anyone to even find it to find the holes. All we seem to do is argue banalities that don't even relate to the model. Oh well. I thought it was an easy read but apparently it is quite difficult for some people to get through.

As I stated before, there is little in which to punch a hole.

Crackpots seem to miss the fact that in order to have a testable theory, they have to do more than say "this is how things work"; they have to be able to say "this is how things work and here is the mathematical derivation of quantities you have and will observe".

Crackpot theories also tend to be paired with an insatiable drive to show that mainstream physics is incorrect (and their attempts are often laughably poor). The reason is usually clear; their theories are totally inconsistent with the way mainstream physics says things should work, often both in the qualitative aspect and at the fundamental level. Since crackpot physics are often so strongly at odds with the way physics is believed to work, one should argue the "banalities" because it is quite frequently a very quick way to find out that a crackpot theory is internally inconsistent.

Crackpots that take up that attempt at proving modern physics incorrect overlook yet another thing; the only way to replace a theory of how the universe works is to produce a model that can make more and better predictions than the old model. This is why there is the demand for precise numerical computations of everything; mainstream physics HAS a model that can compute a great many things, with great accuracy. If your trying to replace an aspect of mainstream physics, but your model can't compute what the current model can compute, then your model is of little use to mainstream physics. This is why revolutions occur so infrequently; it is extraordinarily difficult to come up with a model that has everything and a bag of chips; instead tweaks are made to the existing model.


So, basically, there are only two ways to get a model seriously considered by mainstream physics:

(a) Have a theory that supplements the existing model.
(b) Have a theory that (precisely and numerically) predicts (nearly) everything the existing model can predict.




Incidentally, I do have another hole to poke into the electric sun model. Even if we suppose that the sun had a net positive charged and that is what allows it to resist gravitational collapse... that would not reduce the tremendous pressures in the depths of the sun; pressures strong enough to ignite and sustain fusion in just the same way it happens in the fusion model. (which would subsequently blow the star to smithereens because the combination of electrostatic repulsion and radiation pressure, both strong enough to resist gravity on their own, would completely overwhelm gravity's ability to keep the star together)

 

[Hurkyl]

Why would I ascribe extension to an equation?

Because that equation is an example of a field. You said fields have extent, didn't you?

You are confusing mathematics with reality.

How so?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Because that equation is an example of a field. You said fields have extent, didn't you?




How so?

"Because that equation is an example of a field."

 

[Hurkyl]

A field is mathematics. It appears that you are the one confusing mathematics with reality! (whatever that's supposed to mean)

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
As I stated before, there is little in which to punch a hole.

Crackpots seem to miss the fact that in order to have a testable theory, they have to do more than say "this is how things work"; they have to be able to say "this is how things work and here is the mathematical derivation of quantities you have and will observe".

Ok so this does not apply to plasma physics because you failed to show that the mathematics is incorrect. Well and to be fair, you failed to find the mathematics... well and you failed to even find the explanations... and you failed to understand the theory that you continue to dismiss.

Crackpot theories also tend to be paired with an insatiable drive to show that mainstream physics is incorrect (and their attempts are often laughably poor). The reason is usually clear; their theories are totally inconsistent with the way mainstream physics says things should work,

Just as the copernican model was inconsistent with the way physics thought things work... and not to mention relativity theory and quantum mechanics...

often both in the qualitative aspect and at the fundamental level. Since crackpot physics are often so strongly at odds with the way physics is believed to work, one should argue the "banalities" because it is quite frequently a very quick way to find out that a crackpot theory is internally inconsistent.

You never debated the theory at all. You got lost in pointless details that were about the STANDARD model. you never discussed the internal properties of the Plasma model whatsoever.

Crackpots that take up that attempt at proving modern physics incorrect overlook yet another thing; the only way to replace a theory of how the universe works is to produce a model that can make more and better predictions than the old model.

such as Plasma cosmology which can explain many things that the standard model can't.

So, basically, there are only two ways to get a model seriously considered by mainstream physics:

(a) Have a theory that supplements the existing model.

so nothing revolutionary please... we like it just the way it is...

(b) Have a theory that (precisely and numerically) predicts (nearly) everything the existing model can predict.

How about one that predicts and explains much more?

Incidentally, I do have another hole to poke into the electric sun model. Even if we suppose that the sun had a net positive charged and that is what allows it to resist gravitational collapse... that would not reduce the tremendous pressures in the depths of the sun; pressures strong enough to ignite and sustain fusion in just the same way it happens in the fusion model. (which would subsequently blow the star to smithereens because the combination of electrostatic repulsion and radiation pressure, both strong enough to resist gravity on their own, would completely overwhelm gravity's ability to keep the star together)

That is a joke right? How can you prove mathematically that this would happen. Give me a break. PURE erroneous speculation.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
A field is mathematics. It appears that you are the one confusing mathematics with reality! (whatever that's supposed to mean)

I am talking about a REAL field in REAL space such as a magnetic or electric field. Do you really think that a REAL field is made out of numbers and equations?