At Rest with our Hubble view

[Aqueous Id]

. . . aether . . .

Not exactly

Yes exactly, which is why you wanted to go to Fringe. It's the same reason you're dogging the mainstream. Same reason you're dodging gravitational waves and GR, calling my arguments straw men, as if those aren't central topics (gravity) since the first replies to the OP. Same reason you don't want to try to describe the difference between a field and a wave. And so on.

 

[quantum_wave]

Note, I was editing when you grabbed that.

As you see I have requested that you discuss GR in the common parlance, and to apply the relevant math. Again, it's not a straw man, only a response to factual predicates you opened.

You are devisive when you blame me for the disparagement and off topic rants. Start a thread and make those your guidelines.

 

[Cheezle]

Not exactly. I started the thread to learn about the CMB rest frame, the interpretations of the redshift data, and related discussions. After getting a lot of good input, the trolls took over and expressed their disdain for my interest in topics that they think I shouldn't broach. The antagonistic fervor kicked in, as it always does when the so called experts decide it is time.

After the thread became a frenzy of contempt and disparagement, I decided to turn it into what you say, sort of. It is now just a vehicle for me to toss out what interests me, ask questions that can be respond to on-topic, and seek discussion of the related things that interest others. The rest is just noise to me, and I'm sure that the thread will fade away or be closed in due time.

As I mentioned, I watched the Susskind class on cosmology. I actually formed the question in my head about the creation of kinetic energy before it was asked in the class. Quite proud of that. Susskind explained that dark energy is like a wound spring and that as it relaxes the universe expands. I don't think anybody understands it. That the distant galaxies are actually not speeding away from us but the space between is expanding. Evidently kinetic energy has no direction so that the distance objects can gain KE and not have an acceleration. Very strange stuff.

But I still think you were looking for justification for aether. The argument against is that the universe in this region is not at rest but instead is co-moving. That answer enforces the relativity viewpoint. I get the impression that you have adopted the idea that there is a background rest state for the universe. From what I understand, that is not a widely held opinion.

 

[Aqueous Id]

You are devisive when you blame me for the disparagement and off topic rants. Start a thread and make those your guidelines.

I will as soon as the mods change the title of this one to "QW's covert aether pipedream coded as 'Hubble' etc with the express intent of ridiculing science."

Neither GR, gravitational waves, fields, waves, propagation, technical language , math or physical interpretation are off-topic. there is almost nothing else in this thread that doe not relate to the preceding, except the divisive stuff you now pretend to be opposed to, after posting it yourself.

Nothing I have posted can be properly called a strawman without calling your posts straw men since you opened I responded directly to your openings.

 

[Undefined]

Good morning, q_w!

I Think that some of your thoughts regarding infinite overall universal extent, with different/interacting "observable universe BB regions" within it, are no more outrageous than the Brane/String theory hypotheses involving an infinite "Bulk" within which their 'Branes collide to give the "observable BB universal phenomena set (as interpreted so far from the CMB data).

Valid scientific discussion points in both cases. The devil is in the detail, of course; which is why both the 'Brane Theory hypotheses and any interacting BB regions hypotheses will be difficult to 'do science with', since there is no possibility of empirical "falsification" directly. The only thing that will tell us what's what will be a truly complete theory where "the nature and origins" of all physics per se is explained consistent from the get-go, and lead smoothly and logically to the actual observed physics even in the absence of observers. In other words, the complete theory will involve removing all subjective ad hoc factors such as "beginnings" and "endings", by providing the actual understanding how an infinite universal phenomena set in an infinite energy-space 'arena' can naturally result in all that we see "evolve" from simple "amorphous" system to complex "patterned" system (read up on chaos theory and the spontaneous evolution of patterned complexity from amorphous simplicity).

Anyhow, good luck with your own 'backtracking' search for prior simplicity from current complexity, q_w, everyone!

Edit:// q_w, don't get into a slanging match with trolls, it is what they want so you can be "framed for banning", as has often happened before. Leave trolls to stew in their own malice and irrelevance. Good luck.

 

[Cheezle]

Yes exactly, which is why you wanted to go to Fringe. It's the same reason you're dogging the mainstream. Same reason you're dodging gravitational waves and GR, calling my arguments straw men, as if those aren't central topics (gravity) since the first replies to the OP. Same reason you don't want to try to describe the difference between a field and a wave. And so on.

Yup, my opinion too. He posted in P&M to attract knowledgable opinion that he would never get in Alt Theories. Alt Theories is a wasteland. I don;t think he originally planned to have it moved but he was interested in getting any viewpoint that was anyway pro-aether. There would be no reason I can see for him to look for reasons con.

 

[Cheezle]

Wow we're on the same wavelength. Without going into detail what's going on in our congress is intellectual dishonesty to it's most annoying level since it screws all of us over rather than just them. It's an embarrassment to the human race. You're going to have a lot of fun over the journey which never ends.
Peace and Prosperity.

Since I brought up the human race and embarrassment I should bring up pride also. The human race should take great pride in the scientific literature it's accumulated. Since I'm a big NFL fan, a real hobby, I really like this

It's not pass attempts/interception it's touchdown completions/interceptions. We set the bar higher for important stuff. LOL.

The acceleration of knowledge over the last few centuries is amazing. Not sure if I believe in the singularity but we are going somewhere amazing. Hope I live to see it all. Football knowledge duly noted. In many endeavors it is the goal that is most important. In other areas, not some much.

 

[Undefined]

Tach, while you are mulling over your response to my post #785 (and thinking especially carefully about your proposed answer to that "...curvature is energy!" comment by Markus Hanke), you might also think about this next question which is logically indicated by your claim that the lower light clock ticks slower because the light supposedly traverses a longer spiral path distance"...

If we turn the clock so that the parallel mirror faces are horizontal and the light bounces up and down not horizontally, such that there is no "spiral path" involved, how does your "claim" stand up?

If no "spiral path" is involved, and the clock still ticks slower, then it must be the local energy density that remains the common effective factor for tick rate variation between the same clock at differing GR altitude 'local frames', yes?

Thanks for your responses to date, Tach.

 

[quantum_wave]

Good morning, q_w!

I Think that some of your thoughts regarding infinite overall universal extent with different/interacting "observable universe BB regions" within it are no more outrageous than the Brane/String theory hypotheses involving an infinite "Bulk" within which their 'Branes collide to give the "observable BB universal phenomena set (as interpreted so far from the CMB data).
Valid scientific discussion points in both cases. The devil is in the detail, of course; which is why both the 'Brane Theory hypotheses and any interacting BB regions hypotheses will be difficult to 'do science with', since there is no possibility of empirical "falsification" directly. The only thing that will tell us what's what will be a truly complete theory where "the nature and origins" of all physics per se is explained consistent from the get-go, and lead smoothly and logically to the actual observed physics even in the absence of observers. In other words, the complete theory will involve removing all subjective ad hoc factors such as "beginnings" and "endings", by providing the actual understanding how an infinite universal phenomena set in an infinite energy-space 'arena' can naturally result in all that we see "evolve" from simple "amorphous" system to complex "patterned" system (read up on chaos theory and the spontaneous evolution of patterned complexity from amorphous simplicity).

Anyhow, good luck with your own 'backtracking' search for prior simplicity from current complexity, q_w, everyone!

Edit:// q_w, don't get into a slanging match with trolls, it is what they want so you can be "frame for banning", as has often happened before. Leave trolls to stew in their own malice and irrelevance. Good luck.

You are, as usual, considered in your response and wise in your advice.

Now help me understand why the trolls will not acknowledge that the clocks run at different rates and will show different elapsed time when brought back together after running in different energy density environments?

True there are discrepancies introduced by separating and bringing the clocks back together, but if the duration of running separately is sufficienct, the difference in elapsed time will also be significant enough to confirm the different rates.

 

[brucep]

You are devisive when you blame me for the disparagement and off topic rants. Start a thread and make those your guidelines.

He was referring to your non arguments. You want to make it about trolling. Typical crank analysis. If you are a good husband and father I would respect you very much. Since all I know about you is your love for bullshit ideas, you came up with, and want to call for scientific investigation just because you 'thunk' it up leaves me with complete disrespect for you. Not your dumb ideas, you.

 

[Tach]

Tach, while you are mulling over your response to my post #785

I am not mulling over any of your fringe statements. You think that if you repeat the same crackpottery it makes it right. It doesn't.

you might also think about this next question which is logically indicated by your claim that the lower light clock ticks slower because the light supposedly traverses a longer [/b]spiral path[/b] distance".

That's a fact, I gave you a precise reference (the Rindler textbook), deal with it.

If we turn the clock so that the parallel mirror faces are horizontal and the light bounces up and down not horizontally, such that there is no "spiral path" involved, how does your "claim" stand up?

Easy, I already answered that in my post to Cheezle, I used the equivalence principle in conjunction with the fact that the "lower" clock is accelerated more than the "upper" clock, singe the gravitational acceleration is inversely proportional to $$r^2$$. The more you accelerate the clock, the slower it gets because the photon path is longer.

If no "spiral path" is involved, and the clock still ticks slower, then it must be the local energy density that remains the common effective factor for variation between GR altitudes, yes?

Nope, repeating the same crackpottery over and over doesn't make it right.

Thanks for your responses to date, Tach.

You are welcome. Hope that you are learning from them.

 

[brucep]

The acceleration of knowledge over the last few centuries is amazing. Not sure if I believe in the singularity but we are going somewhere amazing. Hope I live to see it all. Football knowledge duly noted. In many endeavors it is the goal that is most important. In other areas, not some much.

I'm pretty sure [easy for me to say] that real natural phenomena exists at r=0. When you solve the equations of GR the solution says nothing about 'the singularity' other than we can't know using GR since it's outside the domain of GR's applicability. Regardless that will be untestable. When you learn GR you will be made familiar with metric that allows you to map the objects path after it falls past the point of no return. Some real physics fun. The physics is really trippy. For instance you can build a huge black hole where g outside the EV is <g_Earth. A black hole that would take decades local proper frame time to fall from the EV to r=0. You can even figure out when you'll be turned into whatever resides at r=0. Whether you actually can feel any pain before it's over. What average proper speed for the entire journey. Is the local coordinate speed of light still invariant. The path of light emitted from both ends of your vessel. Etc. Lot's of fun if you like that kind of stuff.

 

[quantum_wave]

I think that the door has been opened for me to post at will about my so called model, lol.

It starts with the question that you cannot answer, what caused the initial expansion that we observe via the redshift data. The point in asking is not to disparge you or science, but to find what people who have thought about it think about the beginning, and/or preconditions, as a discussion starter.

If the topic doesn't appeal to you, you can obviously make a fuss, and since I want that to be the topic, I'll have to accept the fuss.

When someone replies on topic we will talk, and if there is no active on-topic discussion I will offer my so called model.

There are a few posts already that I have noted and will be addressing, and maybe some of us can find a common aspect of interest.

Still, the matter of aether or no aether, the "medium" of space, the energy of curvature, and related discussion don't have to be expressed in the language of GR and math on this thread. They can be if you like to do that yourself but please explain in layman terms when you do. My interests are in the cosmological implications of various sets of perconditions, in layman terms with other science enthusiasts. The rest of you, have at me for violating your sensibilities, but I am not violating the forum rules, and if moderation decides otherwise, they will let me know.

 

[Undefined]

I am not mulling over any of your fringe statements. You think that if you repeat the same crackpottery it makes it righ. It doesn't.


That's a fact, I gave you a precise reference (the Rindler textbook), deal with it.



Easy, I already answered that in my post to Cheezle, I used the equivalence principle and I remember that the "lower" clock is accelerated more than the "upper" clock, singe the gravitational acceleration is inversely proportional to $$r^2$$. The more you accelerate the clock, the slower it gets because the photon path is longer.




Nope, repeating the same crackpottery over and over doesn't make it right.



You are welcome. Hope that you are learning from them.

Without the usual bluster and insults, can you elaborate on how a light clock (now with horizontal mirror faces, where the light bounces up and down the same GR radial over the very short radial distance within the clock's parallel mirror assembly), can still run slower despite there being effectively no "longer, spiral path" which you said "explained" the slowing?

You also still haven't said whether you agree or disagree with Markus Hanke's comment: "...curvature is energy!"

Please do not again resume your "evasion/irrelevant references and insults" gameplaying, Tach. Address the points/questions directly and answer starightforwardly with proper supporting logics/evidences for your claims in this matter, thanks.

 

[Tach]

Without the usual bluster and insults, can you elaborate on how a light clock (now with horizontal mirror faces, where the light bounces up and down the same GR radial over the very short radial distance within the clock's parallel mirror assembly) can still run slower despite there being effectively no "longer, spiral path" which you said "explained" the slowing?

Very easy, if you make the effort to get the Rindler textbook, it explains the difference between radial trajectories (in your naive parlay, the "light bounces up and down"), vs. in-spiraling orbits (in your naive parlay "the vertical mirror faces"). I can produce the math but I very much doubt it that you can follow it.

You also still haven't said whether you agree or disagree with Markus Hanke's comment: "...curvature is energy!"

I disagree with your crackpot misinterpretation that "spacetime energy density" (whatever that may be) is the reason for clock slowdown. I answered this repeatedly.

 

[Cheezle]

I'm pretty sure [easy for me to say] that real natural phenomena exists at r=0. When you solve the equations of GR the solution says nothing about 'the singularity' other than we can't know using GR since it's outside the domain of GR's applicability. Regardless that will be untestable. When you learn GR you will be made familiar with metric that allows you to map the objects path after it falls past the point of no return. Some real physics fun.

My bad. By singularity I was referring to the acceleration of technology to the point where humans have no control of it any more. A technological singularity. It is an analogy to the point where light can no longer escape a gravitational object. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

As far as a gravitational singularity goes, not sure there either. But that might change. As far as the other goes, only time will tell.

 

[Undefined]

Very easy, if you make the effort to get the Rindler textbook, it explains the difference between radial trajectories (in your naive parlay, the "light bounces up and down"), vs. in-spiraling orbits (in your naive parlay "the vertical mirror faces"). I can produce the math but I very much doubt it that you can follow it.




I disagree with your crackpot misinterpretation that "spacetime energy density" (whatever that may be) is the reason for clock slowdown. I answered this repeatedly.

You profess to have and understand the "answer" according to "Rindler". Please elaborate (by assuming a non-rotating planet to simplify matters) on how the empirically very short on-radial oscillation/separation path/distance between horizontal face parallel mirrors in a light clock can "lengthen" according to actual (not abstract theoretically "constructed") path traversed along that short radial distance like you keep asserting.

And we cannot yet proceed to conclude anything about the energy density aspect until you have actually answered straightforwardly whether you agree or disagree with Markus Hanke's statement: "curvature is energy!"

So far you have avoided actually answering the Markus Hanke question straightforwardly. And you continue to make allusions to "Rindler" etc references/explanations without any clarification as to how exactly they apply/support your claims in the up/down path between the mirrors where no longer 'spiral path distance' as for the side/side case which you used earlier. Can you just address the points/questions as asked and not default to insults and references whose relevance you have not explained clearly? Thanks.

 

[brucep]

My bad. By singularity I was referring to the acceleration of technology to the point where humans have no control of it any more. A technological singularity. It is an analogy to the point where light can no longer escape a gravitational object. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

As far as a gravitational singularity goes, not sure there either. But that might change. As far as the other goes, only time will tell.

That's interesting. Doesn't look like we have control now.

 

[Cheezle]

deleted

 

[Undefined]

You are, as usual, considered in your response and wise in your advice.

Now help me understand why the trolls will not acknowledge that the clocks run at different rates and will show different elapsed time when brought back together after running in different energy density environments?

True there are discrepancies introduced by separating and bringing the clocks back together, but if the duration of running separately is sufficienct, the difference in elapsed time will also be significant enough to confirm the different rates.

Hi q_w.

Actually, since Tach is still trying to explain that very fact of emprically observed variations to tick rates of same clock up/down a GR radial, you already have (from him at least) tacit acknowledgement of that first (my bolding) part.

As for the latter bolded part, before we can discuss further and conclude one way or the other, I must await Tach's answer as to whether he agrees or disagrees with Markus Hanke's statement: "...curvature is energy!" Once we have that answer from him the discussion can proceed accordingly.

Time to go! Bye for now, q_w, everyone.