At Rest with our Hubble view

[Farsight]

So why do you think that the standard interpretation of GR is different from yours?

I'd say it's because the authors of MTW got some things wrong. Wheeler came out with things like "matter tells space how to curve, space tells matter how to move", which is wrong on a lot of counts. Kip Thorne is into time travel, which is woo. MTW is effectively the "bible" for general relativity.

Is it a conspiracy?

No. It's more like an idiocracy comprised of people who want to make out that they're the experts when in truth their physics knowledge is scant. They cannot bear it when somebody challenges them in a discussion forum.

Everybody is reading the same documents. It seems to be a you against the world type argument which is never something to bet on.

It's more like Einstein against people who say "Einstein said x" when actually he didn't.

Is it because you are smarter than everybody else?

No. You don't have to be smart to read the original material or look at View attachment 6381 to work out that when Einstein said the speed of light varies with gravitational potential, that's what he meant.

So? Depending on context, "space" could mean anything from three-dimensional space to four-dimensional spacetime

Come off it przyk, you were caught out. Space is space, spacetime isn't. Spacetime is a static mathematical model in which there is no motion. Light moves through space. It doesn't move through spacetime. You are still confused about the distinction between space and spacetime.

 

[Farsight]

Who, precisely, thinks the photon is some "billiard-ball thing"?

David Deutsche for one. There are others.

 

[Farsight]

If Farsight has truly been acting like this for several years, why on earth hasn't he simply learnt GR by now?

I have. That's why I wiped the floor with Markus.

Farsight, you must realise that your approach is totally unscientific. All your arguments are muted if you're not allowed to simply say "it's true because Einstein said" or link to websites. You've been honest enough to admit as such. If you've been doing this for a prolonged period of time, while not bothering to learn even the most rudimentary parts of GR, then your behaviour is reprehensible.

Garbage. I point out the hard scientific evidence. Like optical clocks run slower when they're lower. Your approach is unscientific because you dismiss it. Would you care to enter the discussion instead of slinging mud from a safe distance? How about you address the gif:

Come on Guest, demonstrate your integrity. Give it a shot.

 

[Farsight]

I've read my share of the popular media, including Isaacson's "Einstein - His Life and Universe". And from that perspective you are right. Without a Cosmological Constant it seems that the universe must either expand or collapse, since any dynamics at all would upset the balance; the pencil can't stand on its point unless everything around it remains static.

Exactly.

That was the point I am making by highlighting the raw redshift data, Einstein was a genius. I guess he did portray the CC as a blunder, but wasn't the timing of that declaration after Hubble? If so, declaring it a blunder really pointed out that he was accommodating the consensus by putting in a factor to account for their belief that the universe was static.

Sounds fair enough. But from my reading it was his own belief that the universe was static. It's as if he believed in that more than in his own theory. Which was unusual for Einstein.

The accommodation of the consensus is a practical tactic that will always be an influence in the scientific community.

Apologies for all the abuse on this your thread.

GR readily accommodates expansion or contraction

It doesn't accommodate contraction actually. A gravitational field alters the motion of light and matter, but it doesn't "suck space in".

and when the CMB came along Inflationary Theory was added to the consensus cosmology because it had to be. And someone will have predicted them and will be applauded for the foresight. At the same time, many predictions will be falsified, and forgotten.

Inflation fits neatly with GR. Imagine you’re a gedanken observer in the very early universe. The universe starts expanding at some sedate pace. But you’re subject to something akin to huge gravitational time dilation, so to you it happens very very quickly. You would call it inflation.

As the visible horizon expands, new discoveries will be made and the consensus cosmology will accommodate them because it must.

Agreed. But there will be diehards. I don't know if you know, but special relativity didn't become mainstream until the late twenties, and general relativity only entered the mainstream in the sixties.

Interestingly, Marcus and I indirectly discussed the time delay of gravity a few months ago on a distant thread. The topic had to do with gravitational time delay, which I portrayed as a universal effect. He pointed out that the consensus was that gravity in normal motion has nothing to do with time delay. It is the curvature of space-time that determines the motion of bodies.

Markus is wrong. Spacetime is an abstract mathematical space, and it is static. Light clocks don't go slower when they're lower because your plot of equatorial-plane light clocks exhibits curvature.

I pointed out that there is a time delay in the consensus theory when changes to the determined motion occur, as in when bodies collide. He acknowledged that particular invocation of time delay, and I later associated it with Shapiro delay. I remain uncertain why the time delay doesn't apply to normal motion, but I guess then we wouldn't need curved space-time, we would need some mechanism for action at a distance.

You keep the curved spacetime, but you remember it's your abstract model rather than something physical, and you pay attention to what Einstein said was the cause: a curvature of light can only occur when the speed of light varies with position, because a concentration of energy conditions the surrounding space. There is no need for any action at a distance.

True, but going straight in space can still be under the influence of curved space-time, if you are a GR advocate. A straight line is a condition within the scope of all possible paths in space-time, I would think.

I'm an advocate of GR, but Einstein's GR rather than something that contradicts Einstein. Curved spacetime is the model, not something physical that influences things. Nothing moves in spacetime, because it's a static model that presents all times at once. When light goes slower through space, it goes slower because space is different.

Personally, photons having mass would be a good explanation for why light can't escape a black hole. Gravity would just have to be strong enough to attract photons when the mass of the attractor reaches some threshold, as it would around a black hole.

I'm sorry, but they don't have mass. Remember me saying the coordinate speed of light varies in a gravitational field? The vertical light beam doesn't slow down as it climbs, it speeds up.

It is not necessarily that they believe what they are taught, or that they can't think for themselves. They just want to be sure that those with alternative ideas understand the consensus before they go off the grid. The problem is that there is no scientific criteria to allow permission to go off the grid, lol.

I don't have the alternative ideas. I'm with Einstein. They aren't.

I see space-time/GR as theory that is internally consistent and not inconsistent with observational evidence. I don't see it as perfect and it does not precisely correspond to "reality" though obviously I haven't been granted "permission" to say that, ha ha.

GR is a good theory, but it's been traduced by people who don't understand it.

Admittedly I haven't learned your particular perspective as evidenced by the fact that I surmised that you see a mechanism other than the geometry of space-time that causes gravity.

Einstein never ever said that the geometry of spacetime causes gravity. He used geometry but he was quite clear that a concentration of energy causes gravity because it conditioned the surrounding space. As a result motion through that space over time was no longer Euclidean, ergo curved spacetime. But to then say that curved spacetime causes curved motion is cargo-cult science.

It is my fault or at least my inclination to try to draw a clear line of distinction between two main perspectives, the geometry of GR and the mechanism of action at a distance.

Again, there is no action at a distance. Light effectively "veers" when the space it's moving through is not uniform.

No, I think I am beginning to see your perspective. Einstein's EFEs are not the sum total of GR, and the greater body of understanding that is GR is not as cut and dried as the equations themselves. Someone just pointed out that there are differing views, but you don't seem to have "permission" to go there :shrug:

The problem isn't with GR so much as with misinterpretation of GR which ends up with people peddling abject nonsense and then being outraged when they're challenged by hard scientific evidence and references to Einstein. They cannot deal with it, and attempt to deflect attention with abuse.

Nice talking to you, quantum_wave.

 

[Farsight]

...Of course that doesn't mean that a very different interpretation might not be possible, but that would require a level of justification far beyond anything Farsight has been able to provide in the years he's been posting here and elsewhere. Physics just isn't advanced based on GIF images and a collage of selected quotes from celebrities in the field. It simply doesn't work that way.

Pryzk, you are being less than sincere here. I explained the situation clearly in the legendary post #158 which you spectacularly failed to address.

 

[rr6]

Unolding and infolding Universe

there are 2 models that make reasonable sense:
1. the universe has always existed.2. the universe along with time "unfolded" into existence.in my opinion the universe did not "explode" into existence.

Hi Leopold, we have an eternally existent Universe--- i.e. energy cannot be created nor destroyed ---that infolds and unfolds.

Think of this as cycles of cosmic infoldings and out-foldings and one of the best models for seeing this is Fullers jitterbug.

Fullers Vector Equilibrium(VE)/cubo-octahedron, in his toy-like jitterbug model, creates more exotic space shapes--- ex EM sine-waves, negative space, positive space, flat, seemingly 2D space, rippled-space etc ----then any other toy-like model known to humans albeit I'm only familiar with his Euclidean( straight lined ) version ergo we are left to translate or guess-timate what this model would configure in a curved model.

Micho Kaku mentions that the #24 keeps appearing in string theory in all kinds of places and not always for any apparrent reason. The VE--- aka cosmic operating system of Universe, has at minimum 5 differrent ways that it expresses #24.

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s04/figs/f5511.html

1) 24 chordal lines-of-relationship--circumerential

2) 24 radial lines-of-relationship ---via 4 Great Circle-like, subdivided hexagonal bow-tie construction of VE---

3) 24 nodal-vertexial events ---via Great Circle-like Polygonal bow-tie construction

4) 24 vectorial/nodal values-- i.e. three lines meet equal a vectorial/nodal value of three(3) and any one, subidivided hexagon has 6 sets of three( 3 ) lines meeting and one set of six( 6 ) lines meeting ergo;

L1} .3…………….…....3…..= 6 circumferential/outer

L2} ..…3……………..3…....= 6 circumferential/outer

L3}.......…3………3…......= 6 circumferential/outer

L4}.............6……........= 6 circumferential/INNER
.................total------= 24 vector/nodal values for one, equlibrius, subdivided hexagonal plane.


http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s04/figs/f5511.html

Via bow-tie planar construction, the circumferential vectorial values would be 48.

And the ffith way the VE express #24 is that The central focal point vector/nodal values would be 24

Ergo a 5th way to find numerical 24 within the Vector Equilibrium.

If were subdivide the 8 triangles of the VE we would arrive at 24 identical right-triangles.

If were to subdivide the 6 squares of the VE we would arrive at 24 identical squares.

r6

 

[Tach]

I don't have the alternative ideas. I'm with Einstein. They aren't.

You are droll, Duffield.

GR is a good theory, but it's been traduced by people who don't understand it.

Luckily, there is Duffield to set them straight, the defender of the truth and science.

The problem isn't with GR so much as with misinterpretation of GR which ends up with people peddling abject nonsense and then being outraged when they're challenged by hard scientific evidence and references to Einstein. They cannot deal with it, and attempt to deflect attention with abuse.

LOL.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Luckily, there is Duffield to set them straight, the defender of the truth and science.

:bravo:

 

[PhysBang]

I'd say it's because the authors of MTW got some things wrong. Wheeler came out with things like "matter tells space how to curve, space tells matter how to move", which is wrong on a lot of counts. Kip Thorne is into time travel, which is woo. MTW is effectively the "bible" for general relativity.

Can you show us one place in the equations that the produce that conflicts with GR?

Or are you again casting aspersions on practicing scientists and authors when you do not understand their work? Given the lies you have posted here and your failure to answer any questions about the galaxy rotation curves you also assault, I'm guessing that you are speaking without understanding.

No. It's more like an idiocracy comprised of people who want to make out that they're the experts when in truth their physics knowledge is scant. They cannot bear it when somebody challenges them in a discussion forum.

You mean like how you never bother to actually show us how galaxy rotation curves work, despite saying that every scientist out there gets it wrong?

It's more like Einstein against people who say "Einstein said x" when actually he didn't.

You mean like when you say that Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler get it wrong when you cannot show where or how they did?

No. You don't have to be smart to read the original material or look at View attachment 6381 to work out that when Einstein said the speed of light varies with gravitational potential, that's what he meant.

The original material meaning the equations he gave?

I have. That's why I wiped the floor with Markus.

Until you can show us any details, we have to assume that you are lying. You have never been able to demonstrate any understanding of GR. It's pathological.

Inflation fits neatly with GR. Imagine you’re a gedanken observer in the very early universe. The universe starts expanding at some sedate pace. But you’re subject to something akin to huge gravitational time dilation, so to you it happens very very quickly. You would call it inflation.

This is a very, very basic mistake that shows that you do not understand GR at all. Time dilation is already taken into account in standard cosmology and inflation is something in addition to standard dilation. Yet again you show that you lie about your knowledge of GR.

The problem isn't with GR so much as with misinterpretation of GR which ends up with people peddling abject nonsense and then being outraged when they're challenged by hard scientific evidence and references to Einstein. They cannot deal with it, and attempt to deflect attention with abuse.

Like how you insult anyone who asks you real questions? As we can see in an internet search, you have never, ever answered a question with actual details from GR, only with textual analysis from a very limited set of sources.

 

[quantum_wave]

A comment on this:



The mathematics of general relativity summarises everything it predicts and everything that is testable about the theory, so it follows that anything you might try to add to that is untestable and would not normally be regarded to have scientific merit.

On the subject of views and interpretations, the mathematics of general relativity is obviously, to anyone who has had much exposure to it, the Riemannian geometry of curved spacetime that you've already heard about. There seems to be little room for differing views in this.

Of course that doesn't mean that a very different interpretation might not be possible, but that would require a level of justification far beyond anything Farsight has been able to provide in the years he's been posting here and elsewhere. Physics just isn't advanced based on GIF images and a collage of selected quotes from celebrities in the field. It simply doesn't work that way.

So, you're saying that GR is not "squishy".

And you are saying that Farsight attempts to advance science by GIFs and quotes. Is that all there is to his perspective or is that as far as you have ventured into it. Seems he is being given a lot of bandwidth by those who protest to his presence if that is all there is. But I'm not trying to defend him or disparage you, just responding to your post quoting me.

 

[przyk]

Come off it przyk, you were caught out. Space is space, spacetime isn't. Spacetime is a static mathematical model in which there is no motion.

Farsight, that is how you use the word "space". You have no way of proving Albert Einstein always used the word "space" consistently and in the same way as you are describing. Unless, that is, you've invented some way of reading the thoughts of a man who died decades ago that you're not telling us about.

You are still confused about the distinction between space and spacetime.

You have no grounds for that conclusion.

 

[przyk]

David Deutsche for one. There are others.

David Deutsch is a well known proponent of the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum physics.

 

[przyk]

Pryzk, you are being less than sincere here. I explained the situation clearly in the legendary post #158 which you spectacularly failed to address.

Your post #158 was thoroughly rebutted even before you wrote it. It's just you who, somehow, managed to never notice. That's how spectacularly you fail at rational and scientific debate.

 

[quantum_wave]

Exactly.

Sounds fair enough. But from my reading it was his own belief that the universe was static. It's as if he believed in that more than in his own theory. Which was unusual for Einstein.

Your are probably right. I'm just saying, GR has three "shapes" that the universe could have, and the "flat" shape is the pencil standing on end. He realized that. He also realized that in any small patch of the universe, something I would call a finite volume of space, motion of objects in that finite volume of space follows the curvature of space-time as quantified by the EFEs.

Apologies for all the abuse on this your thread.

Lol, what would we have to talk about if no one abused anybody.

It doesn't accommodate contraction actually. A gravitational field alters the motion of light and matter, but it doesn't "suck space in".

No, but this business of space being created with the big bang, and time starting at the same time is part of the theory that requires us to leave our sensibilities and venture into the mathematical universe. Anyone want to disparage me for saying that, have a ball.

My point is that in GR, the collapse of all matter into a final big crunch is one of the possible outcomes accommodated by the theory. I'm not sure that means that any space will be collapsed; but then I have to deal with my own sensibilities.

Inflation fits neatly with GR. Imagine you’re a gedanken observer in the very early universe. The universe starts expanding at some sedate pace. But you’re subject to something akin to huge gravitational time dilation, so to you it happens very very quickly. You would call it inflation.

That is certainly an interesting thought; time dilation to the max. That is also what would occur in a gravitational collapse of all matter into a big crunch. But as the matter collapses the curvature of my so called finite patch of space would increase due the accumulating matter/energy influencing the motion of objects through that space. I would view it as matter leaving the space in place and accumulating around the center of gravity. That center translates to the point of net highest energy density in the local space, and objects move toward it through space.

Agreed. But there will be diehards. I don't know if you know, but special relativity didn't become mainstream until the late twenties, and general relativity only entered the mainstream in the sixties.

Yes, but SR and GR started like a small snow ball rolling down hill and so the consensus was already changing in 1919 when Eddington observed the eclipse. Wasn't it within ten years after that Hubble redshift hit the popular media and Einstein was front page?

Markus is wrong. Spacetime is an abstract mathematical space, and it is static. Light clocks don't go slower when they're lower because your plot of equatorial-plane light clocks exhibits curvature.

Let me test my understanding of the light clocks on the equatorial-plane. A light clock in any given location will give a reading based on the altitude. There are high and low altitudes across the equatorial surface. The light will go faster as the altitude increases. A light clock at a lower location will display slower light, hence the GIF that you have posted showing the two light clocks?

Forgive me for not being able to make the distinction between the speed of light and the rate at which particles function; particles have to be composed of energy, why not wave energy? To me the gravitational time dilation which is observable corresponds to the difference in energy density between the mountain top and the river valley, for example.

You keep the curved spacetime, but you remember it's your abstract model rather than something physical, and you pay attention to what Einstein said was the cause: a curvature of light can only occur when the speed of light varies with position, because a concentration of energy conditions the surrounding space. There is no need for any action at a distance.

Are you sure? What about the time delay of the effect of an asteroid colliding with a planet? The distant objects don't "feel" the change in planetary motion instantaneously, do they. There is the matter of a gravitational wave isn't there, maybe gravitons? That is action at a distance isn't it?

I'm an advocate of GR,

Nobody is perfect ...

but Einstein's GR rather than something that contradicts Einstein. Curved spacetime is the model, not something physical that influences things. Nothing moves in spacetime, because it's a static model that presents all times at once. When light goes slower through space, it goes slower because space is different.

OK, we agree that the space through which light travels can differ. I say it differs because of and depending on the energy density of that space as determined by the presence of matter/energy in the sense that Einstein meant it, right?

I'm sorry, but they don't have mass. Remember me saying the coordinate speed of light varies in a gravitational field? The vertical light beam doesn't slow down as it climbs, it speeds up.

We agree the the speed of light increases as the altitude increases. Why is that different from the reason that light slows down in glass (a dense medium) and speeds up as it emerges from the glass to a less dense medium like space?

...

Again, there is no action at a distance. Light effectively "veers" when the space it's moving through is not uniform.

I have to agree with the description, but not with what makes the space "not uniform". It seems to make sense that the energy density of the medium of space varies relative to the presence of matter/energy.

Nice talking to you, quantum_wave.

Same here.

 

[brucep]

I was referring to Einstein-Cartan gravity. It can be shown that if torsion is allowed to be non-vanishing in the context of this model, gravitational singularities ( both at the BB, and "inside" black holes ) cannot form. Furthermore it provides a natural mechanism for gravitational spin-orbit coupling, and implies that fermions must be spatially extended, eliminating the QFT problem of ultraviolet divergences. There are also cosmological implications in that the Big Bang is replaced by a "Big Bounce".

I realize that currently there is no experimental evidence on the basis of which to choose Einstein-Cartan gravity over GR ( and I am not advocating such a course of action ), but I still think it is nonetheless a very interesting and viable alternative / extension to GR.

If it predicts a cosmological 'Big Bounce' then it's round filed. The experimental evidence is at WMAP.

 

[brucep]

I have. That's why I wiped the floor with Markus.

Garbage. I point out the hard scientific evidence. Like optical clocks run slower when they're lower. Your approach is unscientific because you dismiss it. Would you care to enter the discussion instead of slinging mud from a safe distance? How about you address the gif:

Come on Guest, demonstrate your integrity. Give it a shot.

You're a intellectually dishonest lying crank. Anybody who has invested the effort to learn GR knows you're a liar. Delusional lying is your specialty. Why moderation puts up with your nonsense is as big an issue as your spewing incessant nonsense in the physics and math section of this forum. Pariah.

 

[przyk]

Garbage. I point out the hard scientific evidence. Like optical clocks run slower when they're lower. Your approach is unscientific because you dismiss it.

There's a basic problem in your line of reasoning here that was pointed out considerable time ago by none other than yourself:

evidence does not distinguish between interpretations.

(Source: [POST]2709104[/POST].)

 

[Farsight]

Farsight, that is how you use the word "space". You have no way of proving Albert Einstein always used the word "space" consistently and in the same way as you are describing. Unless, that is, you've invented some way of reading the thoughts of a man who died decades ago that you're not telling us about.

Oh come off it przyk. Einstein said things like "We know that it determines the metrical relations in the space-time continuum". There's absolutely no way that space and spacetime are interchangeable. When Einstein said space, he said space. He didn't say something you want him to say because you think space and spacetime are the same thing. You can't move through the latter because it presents all times at once. It's static. It's an abstract mathematical space. Or do you think the same as Markus? Do you think motion is an illusion?

You have no grounds for that conclusion.

I do I'm afraid. Rather than conceding my point or saying sorry, slip of the tongue, you're defending your conflation of space and spacetime.

David Deutsch is a well known proponent of the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum physics.

I know. I remember watching a video of his where he depicted a photon as a blue dot. He was emphatic that the only way it could go through two slits is if there were Many Worlds. I was not impressed.

Your post #158 was thoroughly rebutted even before you wrote it. It's just you who, somehow, managed to never notice. That's how spectacularly you fail at rational and scientific debate.

Let me see now. You were unable to rebut my post #158. And there was no need to do so because it was "thoroughly rebutted" even before I wrote it? My oh my przyk, when it comes to rational and scientific debate, that's a new one on me!

LOL, you can't rebut my post #158. Nor can you address that gif. LOL, nor can bruce. Or Tach. Or Guest. Or Markus. Any more for any more? Funny that, don't you think? So puh-lease przyk, don't accuse me of failing spectacularly at rational and scientific debate.

 

[Farsight]

There's a basic problem in your line of reasoning here that was pointed out considerable time ago by none other than yourself: evidence does not distinguish between interpretations.

But it does distinguish fact from fiction, and between what Einstein said and pompous "illusion of motion" twaddle. Come on przyk, give it a shot:

Are the two light pulses moving at the same speed?

 

[przyk]

But it does distinguish fact from fiction

Evidence can only distinguish between theories that make different predictions. All the evidence you routinely cite is already perfectly consistent with general relativity at a quantitative level.

Are the two light pulses moving at the same speed?

You're asking a loaded question. No, the dots in your picture aren't moving at the same speed. But you posted that picture with no argument at all about why it should be an accurate or fully general depiction of the situation according to general relativity.

In this instance, your graphic is misleading because it depends on an arbitrary coordinate convention. The only thing it actually depicts is an example of a variable coordinate speed of light. That is something that is revealed if you analyse the situation in more detail based on how general relativity is actually mathematically defined. Of course, you routinely refuse to engage on that level because what you'd find would be detrimental to the position you are trying to push on everyone.