At Rest with our Hubble view

[Grumpy]

Aqueous Id

OMG we are at dead center

That is because we are equidistant from the beginning of time in all directions. What we observe is the dimension of time, not the real position in the dimensions of space that what we are seeing occupies today, the beginning is the CMB, the now is where we are. Everything we see is at a different point in time, the further away the further back in time. Every point in spacetime sees exactly the same thing, it occupies the exact center of the Universe, in the dimension of time.

Imagine that every point in spacetime had it's own clock and all clocks registered the same time, call that time the now. Right now every point in space sees itself at the same point in time as every other point sees themselves(at the now), but it sees every other point in spacetime at some time in the other point's past(before the now). We can not see the Universe as it is now(IE as it is in space at the now moment in time on all clocks), we only see the Universe as it was in the past(IE all clocks but your own register a time before the now when you observe them from your own frame of reference), so what we are observing is the Universe at a distance in the dimension of time, not a distance in a dimension of space(though a distance in the dimension of space at the now also exists, we can't see it). And all clocks register the same distance to the beginning of time(generally, movement and gravity alter individual clocks somewhat(always slower), in the extreme all clocks of all photons still read the now for whenever they were created(and always will)). We are at the exact center of the entire Universe, at least in the dimension(distance)of time. We all did occupy the exact center of the Big Bang(plus or minus a Planck length, maybe), we still do. As does every other point in spacetime. And every point in spacetime IS at the center of the Universe, at least in time, and time is all we can actually see of the Universe. Strange, but true.

Grumpy

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Thank you for those posts r6. You do grasp the important aspects of my so called model and your comments are useful. We certainly will be talking more about your way of using "texicons" to convey the concepts.

Wow!

These "texicons" seem pretty intellectual. Did they make r6's post more useful?

 

[quantum_wave]

Wow!

These "texicons" seem pretty intellectual. Did they make r6's post more useful?

Finally, you weigh in on the intellectual content.

 

[quantum_wave]

Aqueous Id



That is because we are equidistant from the beginning of time in all directions. What we observe is the dimension of time, not the real position in the dimensions of space that what we are seeing occupies today, the beginning is the CMB, the now is where we are. Everything we see is at a different point in time, the further away the further back in time. Every point in spacetime sees exactly the same thing, it occupies the exact center of the Universe, in the dimension of time.

Imagine that every point in spacetime had it's own clock and all clocks registered the same time, call that time the now. Right now every point in space sees itself at the same point in time as every other point sees themselves(at the now), but it sees every other point in spacetime at some time in the other point's past(before the now). We can not see the Universe as it is now(IE as it is in space at the now moment in time on all clocks), we only see the Universe as it was in the past(IE all clocks but your own register a time before the now when you observe them from your own frame of reference), so what we are observing is the Universe at a distance in the dimension of time, not a distance in a dimension of space(though a distance in the dimension of space at the now also exists, we can't see it). And all clocks register the same distance to the beginning of time(generally, movement and gravity alter individual clocks somewhat(always slower), in the extreme all clocks of all photons still read the now for whenever they were created(and always will)). We are at the exact center of the entire Universe, at least in the dimension(distance)of time. We all did occupy the exact center of the Big Bang(plus or minus a Planck length, maybe), we still do. As does every other point in spacetime. And every point in spacetime IS at the center of the Universe, at least in time, and time is all we can actually see of the Universe. Strange, but true.

Grumpy

I agree with the universal "now" concept and as such, for every point in space, there is a history of nows on the continuum of time. I'll let Aqueous Id respond since it is directed at his facetious comment.

 

[Grumpy]

quantum_wave

I'll let Aqueous Id respond since it is directed at his facetious comment.

His comment might have been ironic(given the trollish behavior of some)but it was not facetious. We are at the center of the Universe...but so is every other point in spacetime. It's a consequence of the geometry of a Universe that is it's own container(finite but unbounded).

Grumpy

 

[quantum_wave]

quantum_wave



His comment might have been ironic(given the trollish behavior of some)but it was not facetious. We are at the center of the Universe...but so is every other point in spacetime. It's a consequence of the geometry of a Universe that is it's own container(finite but unbounded).

Grumpy

Yes, given the theoretical model that you invoke you are right. I'm invoking a finite arena connected to the big bang, within a greater universe that is potentially infinite spatially. So I agree with the now and time aspects of your posts as defined by the model, and my so called model associates the finite arena with that start point, but the greater universe has no such obvious start point in time.

 

[Grumpy]

quantum_wave

and my so called model associates the finite arena with that start point, but the greater universe has no such obvious start point in time.

It's pretty damned obvious to those who look, the Universe CANNOT be infinite in time or space, it had a beginning in both and we can see all the way back to just 300,000 years after that beginning(again, in the dimension of time). The current size of our Universe means we will never see many of the points we do see in time today as they actually exist in space today. We see them as they were then, but they are actually(in the now)over our light horizon(ie so far away that the expansion of the Universe gives them an apparent(not actual)speed faster than light). Yet we can still observe the entire Universe as it was in the dimension of time and a sampling of every stage of our Universe's evolution from that beginning to the now. In that sense we can currently see every point in spacetime, we just see each point at a different point in time as well as space. That includes the Big Bang. The main problem you have is that your conception of space and time does not match the reality we see(and we see it ALL in time). If by greater universe you mean the metaverse which contains our Universe and others, that's highly speculative, at best. There is only one Universe for which we have evidence, and that's likely to always be true.

Grumpy

 

[Cheezle]

What he says has no basis in reality. Regardless what he contrives, for argument, it's the mainstream theoretical models that bridge the gap between theory and experiment. Doing this stuff is not a hobby. Studying it can be a very rewarding intellectual hobby. He thinks he gets to be taken seriously just because he is alive. Appealing to 'some make believe' authority as a standard of good behavior. The chance he'll get a clue is close to nil. Ignorance is a choice.

Oh I know about QW and his theory and how it lacks any link with reality. It seems that alternative theorists come in two types. There are the types like Farsight that take the standard theory and just changes a few things. Big changes but not a complete rewrite. And then there are the types like QW that started from scratch and made up everything. QW evidently started with the idea that there is this in-flow and an out-flow. Then he added a bunch more stuff, like sweet spots and aether and something he thinks is quantum gravity. Now he is trying to find if he can fit his theory to match some observations of science. This CMB thread is one of those attempts. He asked if there was a rest frame because it is obvious that his so called model has an absolute frame. He is looking for justification. And from what he has said in this thread, he thinks that he has found it. He thinks that everybody here has agreed that there is a rest frame defined by the CMB. So he has his aether. This sweet spot talk is just him starting in on the next justification.

But don't point out problems with his theory because he will just say he is not doing science. He is working on his hobby with is a so called model. He will take his hobby discussion to Physics and Math but then he will claim it is not science. It is a defense mechanism. Question him and he will throw up his shields. But after a while he will lower them and start talking about his theory as science. He has it both ways. I think that is what I dislike the most about his ideas. The way he defends them through denial.

 

[quantum_wave]

quantum_wave



It's pretty damned obvious to those who look, the Universe CANNOT be infinite in time or space, it had a beginning in both and we can see all the way back to just 300,000 years after that beginning(again, in the dimension of time).

That seems to end the discussion or at least close it to my alternative views. Do I interpret that right?

*The current size of our Universe means we will never see many of the points we do see in time today as they actually exist in space today. We see them as they were then, but they are actually(in the now)over our light horizon(ie so far away that the expansion of the Universe gives them an apparent(not actual)speed faster than light).

I understand.

Yet we can still observe the entire Universe ...

I know what you mean. You consider the Big Bang to be the beginning of the universe, and we can see the light from stars and galaxies that formed early on ...,

... as it was in the dimension of time and a sampling of every stage of our Universe's evolution from that beginning to the now. In that sense we can currently see every point in spacetime, we just see each point at a different point in time as well as space. That includes the Big Bang.

... but since they are moving away as the expansion proceeds, they will move out of our observable horizon because they have been receding from us for over 13 billion years.

The main problem you have is that your conception of space and time does not match the reality we see(and we see it ALL in time).

You mean the main problem you have with my view is that I don't agree with your view. We all see the same observations, and the raw redshift data is the best evidence of expansion. Your problem with me is that I think there had to be preconditions to the big bang event.

If by greater universe you mean the metaverse which contains our Universe and others, that's highly speculative, at best.

No, I don't mean "the metaverse" which is a term I have never used to describe what I do mean. There is only one universe, so I refer the to greater universe as the big bang arena landscape of the bigger universe; if there was one big bang, why only one? My so called model includes preconditions to our particular big bang instead of "something from nothing". That is the difference.

There is only one Universe for which we have evidence, and that's likely to always be true.

There is only one universe, and we have evidence of a big bang that occurred in it. If there were no preconditions to the big bang then I am wrong, and if there were, then you are wrong.

 

[Farsight]

Oh I know about QW and his theory and how it lacks any link with reality. It seems that alternative theorists come in two types. There are the types like Farsight that take the standard theory and just changes a few things. Big changes but not a complete rewrite.

I'm not an an "alternate theorist", Cheezle. All the stuff I talk about relates back to what Einstein said and is backed up by hard scientific evidence. The alternate theorists are the guys who tell you to ignore what Einstein said along with the hard scientific evidence. The trouble is, they've been peddling their stuff and thumping their MTW bibles for so long that you don't realise that they're the alternate theorists instead of me and my Uncle Albert.

And then there are the types like QW that started from scratch and made up everything. QW evidently started with the idea that there is this in-flow and an out-flow. Then he added a bunch more stuff, like sweet spots and aether and something he thinks is quantum gravity.

Things aren't as black and white as you think. The in-flow and out-flow is not in line with Einstein, but the aether is.

Now he is trying to find if he can fit his theory to match some observations of science. This CMB thread is one of those attempts. He asked if there was a rest frame because it is obvious that his so called model has an absolute frame. He is looking for justification. And from what he has said in this thread, he thinks that he has found it. He thinks that everybody here has agreed that there is a rest frame defined by the CMB. So he has his aether. This sweet spot talk is just him starting in on the next justification.

It's Einstein's aether. The CMB reference frame is the reference frame of the universe. That's as absolute as it gets.

But don't point out problems with his theory because he will just say he is not doing science. He is working on his hobby with is a so called model. He will take his hobby discussion to Physics and Math but then he will claim it is not science. It is a defense mechanism. Question him and he will throw up his shields. But after a while he will lower them and start talking about his theory as science. He has it both ways. I think that is what I dislike the most about his ideas. The way he defends them through denial.

Point out the problems with his theory. I do. You should too. It's a discussion forum.

 

[quantum_wave]

I'm not an an "alternate theorist", Cheezle. All the stuff I talk about relates back to what Einstein said and is backed up by hard scientific evidence. The alternate theorists are the guys who tell you to ignore what Einstein said along with the hard scientific evidence. The trouble is, they've been peddling their stuff and thumping their MTW bibles for so long that you don't realise that they're the alternate theorists instead of me and my Uncle Albert.

Things aren't as black and white as you think. The in-flow and out-flow is not in line with Einstein, but the aether is.

It's Einstein's aether. The CMB reference frame is the reference frame of the universe. That's as absolute as it gets.

Point out the problems with his theory. I do. You should too. It's a discussion forum.

Someone predicted this but I don't know who ...

This post is for you, Farsight. Not that you will like it because it is as far out as I have yet gone, but as a result we can expect the Cheezles of the forum to get their britches in a swivet.

The prediction is that our sweet spot is dependent on various aspects of the sweet spots of our "parent" arenas.

To explain, following on from my post to Grumpy, my version of events is that two big bang arenas, filled with galaxies that were moving away from each other just like what we observe today in our arena, expanded until they converged.

The convergence began at the point in space where the two expanding galaxy filled big bang arenas first touched. That point marks the intersection between two spheres, and as the spheres continue to expand, that point is engulfed within a lens shaped overlap space that contains galaxies from both parent arenas.

Within the lens shaped space there is a new center of gravity that forms, i.e. the center of the big crunch that preceded our big bang. The location of that center of gravity is not expected to be in the center of the lens unless by coincidence the two parent arenas are dimensionally the same and are expanding at the same rate. Some details of that event are something we have a chance to detect. The prediction is that the center of gravity around which the new big crunch accumulated is off center in the lens, which has ramifications that might be observable.

Both parent arenas would have their own centers of gravity, and their own sweet spots. The expansion motion of their respective galaxies would help define the location of each, but alas we will never see those remnant galaxies drifting off, as Grumpy points out. But the differences in the size and rate of expansion of the two arenas that lead to our big crunch, and subsequent big bang, would determine just how off-center our center of gravity would have been in the lens.

The new sweet spot, the center of our big bang arena, will be determined by the location of the parent arenas sweet spots, the parent arenas ages and maturity, i.e. relative density, and the parent arenas rates of expansion. It would be off center by an amount that could be generally calculated if we knew those values, but we don't.

The remnants of the two parent arenas are still out there and aside from the effect of having perhaps half of there combined galactic material collapsed into our own big crunch, the geography of other half of their respective galaxies would show them speeding out into the greater universe away from us, completely undetectable by us as far as their light emissions.

But though we will not see their light as such, the gravitational profile of the parent arenas has overlapped and been imprinted into our arena. The prediction is, those overlapping gravitational profiles will cause an anomaly at large angular scales in our reading of the cosmic microwave background of our visible arena.

(21968 tot. views)

 

[Cheezle]

I'm not an an "alternate theorist", Cheezle. All the stuff I talk about relates back to what Einstein said and is backed up by hard scientific evidence. The alternate theorists are the guys who tell you to ignore what Einstein said along with the hard scientific evidence. The trouble is, they've been peddling their stuff and thumping their MTW bibles for so long that you don't realise that they're the alternate theorists instead of me and my Uncle Albert.

All that I know is that standard physics is not taught using aether. So that makes your ideas alternative. I have read all that you have written here about Einstein and his aether quotes. But I have not studied the situation. It does seem at least possible that early on he was just using the physics jargon of the times. He certainly was not referring to the 19th century version of aether. I think that there is a good chance that he was just talking about space. The same space that physics talks about today.

Things aren't as black and white as you think. The in-flow and out-flow is not in line with Einstein, but the aether is.

It's Einstein's aether. The CMB reference frame is the reference frame of the universe. That's as absolute as it gets.

But if you go a good portion of the diameter of our (as QW calls it) arena away from our neighborhood, you would find that region's "absolute frame" to be different than ours. So what ever it is, it is not very absolute. Those two frames are in motion with respect to each other. How reference frames many arenas away compares is anybodies guess. We will never know. ignoring the expansion, it all seems to be about whether the early universe had any turbulence. All the matter in our arena all came from the same patch of universe. I guess many physicists prefer to call it comoving. To me that seems a reasonable attitude.

Point out the problems with his theory. I do. You should too. It's a discussion forum.

As I said, I don't put your ideas and his in the same category. And I find it telling that you have rejected his theory, while he seems to be amenable to to yours. QW is pretty open to anybody that bucks the system. Which means it isn't the alternative theories he likes, it is the status quo that he hates. If current theory was exactly what he has proposed, he would disagree with it and come up with something else. If everybody today thought there was an aether, then QW would be against it. It is just who he is.

 

[Tach]

I'm not an an "alternate theorist", Cheezle.

You are just a garden variety crank, masquerading as a "scientist".

don't realise that they're the alternate theorists instead of me and my Uncle Albert.

You are getting more delusional by the day, Duffield.

It's Einstein's aether. The CMB reference frame is the reference frame of the universe.

CMB is not a frame of reference, you are peddling the same crackpottery as quantum-wave.

That's as absolute as it gets.

There is no such thing as an absolute reference frame. Have you studied under Motor Daddy?

 

[Grumpy]

quantum_wave

It's pretty damned obvious to those who look, the Universe CANNOT be infinite in time or space, it had a beginning in both and we can see all the way back to just 300,000 years after that beginning(again, in the dimension of time).

That seems to end the discussion or at least close it to my alternative views. Do I interpret that right?

Well, yeah. There is no sign of conflicting domains and the CMB puts many constraints on what is possible, it represents a hot, dense plasma not conducive to the existence of matter in any form prior to that point.

they will move out of our observable horizon because they have been receding from us for over 13 billion years.

We live in a unique era of the existence of the Universe. We can still see all points in space(each at it's own time relative to us)and the furthest visible thing(the CMB)has yet to cross our light horizon, though it is going to in just a few billion more years. That's the view we have of the Universe in TIME. So we can see all of the Universe in time today. If you want to discuss the actual positions(as of now)of all those points, many of them are already too far away for us to ever see them as they are today(expansion gives them superluminal apparent speed). The visible Universe is in the area of 30 billion light years across, the actual Universe today has a size of about 100 billion light years(though we can't see it), a lot of that due to inflation.

You mean the main problem you have with my view is that I don't agree with your view.

No, it is that your view does not match what we see.

There is only one universe, so I refer the to greater universe as the big bang arena landscape of the bigger universe

You are positing an unseen Universe outside of the Big Bang? Based on what? Nothing you can see or measure, that's certain.

My so called model includes preconditions to our particular big bang instead of "something from nothing". That is the difference.

OF COURSE THERE WERE PRECONDITIONS. The Big Bang did not come from nothing. But what it did come from , the conditions that pertained that caused the Big Bang, did not occur within our Universe, the Big Bang created our Universe, we are still dead center to the expansion and we see NOTHING outside of that expansion, not even time. The most we can say about the conditions that caused the Big Bang is "We don't know", but that is not saying the BB came from nothing, that is a distortion of what science says about it. The current BB theory assumes(that's all we can do)that the BB had a cause, it's just we will probably never know anything about that cause.

There is only one universe, and we have evidence of a big bang that occurred in it.

The Big Bang did not occur within the Universe, it created the Universe(in a very real way, it IS the Universe, we are still in the middle of the explosion/expansion), that is what we have evidence of. There was no Universe for it to occur within until the spacetime for things to exist in formed(in the BB). No time, no up/down, no left /right, no near/far, nor any of the other 7 dimensions the standard model tell us exist.

If there were no preconditions to the big bang then I am wrong, and if there were, then you are wrong

Another false dichotomy informed by a lack of understanding of what the BB was. Again, the BB did not occur within an already extant Universe, it is the Universe that erupted out of whatever conditions existed prior/outside of the BB, the BB is not a separate event, it is simply the beginning of time/space and everything in it.

Grumpy

 

[quantum_wave]

quantum_wave



Well, yeah. There is no sign of conflicting domains and the CMB puts many constraints on what is possible, it represents a hot, dense plasma not conducive to the existence of matter in any form prior to that point.



We live in a unique era of the existence of the Universe. We can still see all points in space(each at it's own time relative to us)and the furthest visible thing(the CMB)has yet to cross our light horizon, though it is going to in just a few billion more years. That's the view we have of the Universe in TIME. So we can see all of the Universe in time today. If you want to discuss the actual positions(as of now)of all those points, many of them are already too far away for us to ever see them as they are today(expansion gives them superluminal apparent speed). The visible Universe is in the area of 30 billion light years across, the actual Universe today has a size of about 100 billion light years(though we can't see it), a lot of that due to inflation.



No, it is that your view does not match what we see.



You are positing an unseen Universe outside of the Big Bang? Based on what? Nothing you can see or measure, that's certain.



OF COURSE THERE WERE PRECONDITIONS. The Big Bang did not come from nothing. But what it did come from , the conditions that pertained that caused the Big Bang, did not occur within our Universe, the Big Bang created our Universe, we are still dead center to the expansion and we see NOTHING outside of that expansion, not even time. The most we can say about the conditions that caused the Big Bang is "We don't know", but that is not saying the BB came from nothing, that is a distortion of what science says about it. The current BB theory assumes(that's all we can do)that the BB had a cause, it's just we will probably never know anything about that cause.



The Big Bang did not occur within the Universe, it created the Universe(in a very real way, it IS the Universe, we are still in the middle of the explosion/expansion), that is what we have evidence of. There was no Universe for it to occur within until the spacetime for things to exist in formed(in the BB). No time, no up/down, no left /right, no near/far, nor any of the other 7 dimensions the standard model tell us exist.



Another false dichotomy informed by a lack of understanding of what the BB was. Again, the BB did not occur within an already extant Universe, it is the Universe that erupted out of whatever conditions existed prior/outside of the BB, the BB is not a separate event, it is simply the beginning of time/space and everything in it.

Grumpy

Thanks for the response Grumpy. For a follow on from our discussion, please see my response to Farsight which states some things that you and I might not agree on, but which bring my so called model to a milestone.

I've tied together the quantum realm and the big bang arena realm in my so called model. Quantum action and arena action are now developed more to my satisfaction, at least for today. Tomorrow may see my hobbyist interests over take my momentary enthusiasm about the reconciliation of the micro and macro realms, but I think I can now spend some time putting together a series of posts that take it form start to finish (what, maybe a hundred posts, lol). You'll love to hate it.

Thanks for stating your views and reading mine.

 

[Aqueous Id]

All that I know is that standard physics is not taught using aether.

That's because there is no medium in electromagnetics (Maxwell’s equations) other than real media - IOW, aether is not only impossible but utterly useless. You probably know this, but I'm referring to the numbskulls at large anyway. Of course they are determined to discredit an equation just as much as the law it describes, so they're perfectly content with the idea of pretending Maxwell's equations are dismissible as "constructs" - a consequence of never learning math and science in the first place and of course lacking the skills to even understand what they are saying and why it's so profoundly stupid. Compounding their naive distortions of the skills required to process matters of science is their narcissism, which leaves them profoundly deaf to the feedback they're getting, which repeatedly identifies their errors. Of course you know all of this.

I have read all that [is] written here about Einstein and his aether quotes. But I have not studied the situation. It does seem at least possible that early on he was just using the physics jargon of the times. He certainly was not referring to the 19th century version of aether. I think that there is a good chance that he was just talking about space. The same space that physics talks about today.

You're right! Einstein specifically said this, but the cranks just aren't hearing it. Here it is, from the horse's mouth:

When we speak here of aether, we are, of course, not referring to the corporeal aether of mechanical wave-theory that underlies Newtonian mechanics, whose individual points each have a velocity assigned to them. This theoretical construct has, in my opinion, been superseded by the special theory of relativity. Rather the discussion concerns, much more generally, those things thought of as physically real which, besides ponderable matter consisting of electrical elementary particles, play a role in the causal nexus of physics. Instead of ‘aether’, one could equally well speak of ‘the physical qualities of space’.

Notice how Einstein applies the term "theoretical construct", a term the cranks have usurped and turned against him, esp. through their refusal to acknowledge the laws of electromagnetism which he is upholding. No matter how many times we go over this with them they will never understand what it means, choosing to interpret it the way a child might, except with a pretentious malice, as if speaking for Einstein, who would laugh them back to the 17th century where they would be laughed back to the Dark Ages. They are hugely handicapped by their deliberate ignorance and incapable of being rehabilitated. You already know this - I'm just corroborating it.

 

[Cheezle]

Someone predicted this but I don't know who ...

This post is for you, Farsight. Not that you will like it because it is as far out as I have yet gone, but as a result we can expect the Cheezles of the forum to get their britches in a swivet.

The prediction is that our sweet spot is dependent on various aspects of the sweet spots of our "parent" arenas.

To explain, following on from my post to Grumpy, my version of events is that two big bang arenas, filled with galaxies that were moving away from each other just like what we observe today in our arena, expanded until they converged.

The convergence began at the point in space where the two expanding galaxy filled big bang arenas first touched. That point marks the intersection between two spheres, and as the spheres continue to expand, that point is engulfed within a lens shaped overlap space that contains galaxies from both parent arenas.

Within the lens shaped space there is a new center of gravity that forms, i.e. the center of the big crunch that preceded our big bang. The location of that center of gravity is not expected to be in the center of the lens unless by coincidence the two parent arenas are dimensionally the same and are expanding at the same rate. Some details of that event are something we have a chance to detect. The prediction is that the center of gravity around which the new big crunch accumulated is off center in the lens, which has ramifications that might be observable.

Both parent arenas would have their own centers of gravity, and their own sweet spots. The expansion motion of their respective galaxies would help define the location of each, but alas we will never see those remnant galaxies drifting off, as Grumpy points out. But the differences in the size and rate of expansion of the two arenas that lead to our big crunch, and subsequent big bang, would determine just how off-center our center of gravity would have been in the lens.

The new sweet spot, the center of our big bang arena, will be determined by the location of the parent arenas sweet spots, the parent arenas ages and maturity, i.e. relative density, and the parent arenas rates of expansion. It would be off center by an amount that could be generally calculated if we knew those values, but we don't.

The remnants of the two parent arenas are still out there and aside from the effect of having perhaps half of there combined galactic material collapsed into our own big crunch, the geography of other half of their respective galaxies would show them speeding out into the greater universe away from us, completely undetectable by us as far as their light emissions.

But though we will not see their light as such, the gravitational profile of the parent arenas has overlapped and been imprinted into our arena. The prediction is, those overlapping gravitational profiles will cause an anomaly at large angular scales in our reading of the cosmic microwave background of our visible arena.

(21968 tot. views)

Well, there you go quantum_wave. That is all I was asking for. To tell us all just what this sweet spot was about. Why it was important to you. It was obvious that you had something more in mind. Now it is out there. And no, my britches are not in a swivit. I am quite pleased. Everything I said about your agenda turned out to be true, not that there was ever a question about that. This was all behind this whole thread. And best of all, this being Physics and Math, I don't even have to comment on the specifics of you so called model. It speaks for itself.

 

[Cheezle]

That's because there is no medium in electromagnetics (Maxwell’s equations) other than real media - IOW, aether is not only impossible but utterly useless. You probably know this, but I'm referring to the numbskulls at large anyway. Of course they are determined to discredit an equation just as much as the law it describes, so they're perfectly content with the idea of pretending Maxwell's equations are dismissible as "constructs" - a consequence of never learning math and science in the first place and of course lacking the skills to even understand what they are saying and why it's so profoundly stupid. Compounding their naive distortions of the skills required to process matters of science is their narcissism, which leaves them profoundly deaf to the feedback they're getting, which repeatedly identifies their errors. Of course you know all of this.


You're right! Einstein specifically said this, but the cranks just aren't hearing it. Here it is, from the horse's mouth:

When we speak here of aether, we are, of course, not referring to the corporeal aether of mechanical wave-theory that underlies Newtonian mechanics, whose individual points each have a velocity assigned to them. This theoretical construct has, in my opinion, been superseded by the special theory of relativity. Rather the discussion concerns, much more generally, those things thought of as physically real which, besides ponderable matter consisting of electrical elementary particles, play a role in the causal nexus of physics. Instead of ‘aether’, one could equally well speak of ‘the physical qualities of space’.

Notice how Einstein applies the term "theoretical construct", a term the cranks have usurped and turned against him, esp. through their refusal to acknowledge the laws of electromagnetism which he is upholding. No matter how many times we go over this with them they will never understand what it means, choosing to interpret it the way a child might, except with a pretentious malice, as if speaking for Einstein, who would laugh them back to the 17th century where they would be laughed back to the Dark Ages. They are hugely handicapped by their deliberate ignorance and incapable of being rehabilitated. You already know this - I'm just corroborating it.

I think what gave me the impression that Einstein was really talking about space was this quote:

We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.​

While the first couple lines seem to be in support of an aether, the last couple lines remove all doubt for me that he was talking about space. It is a very interesting statement. And I like the way they used to write. I have been reading Maxwell's book, An Elementary Treatise on Electricity. Very interesting subject with very interesting language.

"With respect to the other analogy -- that between potential and fluid pressure--we must remember that the only respect in which electricity resembles a fluid is that it is capable of flowing along conductors as a fluid flows in a pipe. And here we may introduce once and for all the common phrase The Electric Fluid for the purpose of warning our readers against it. It is one of those phrases, which, having been at one time used to denote an observed fact, was immediately taken up by the public to connote a whole system of imaginary knowledge. As long as we do not know whether positive electricity, or negative, or both, should be called a substance or the absence of a substance, and as long as we do not know whether the velocity of an electric current is to be measured by hundreds of thousands of miles in a second or by hundredths of an inch in an hour, or even whether the current flows from positive to negative or in the reverse direction, we must avoid speaking of the electric fluid."​

 

[Aqueous Id]

I think what gave me the impression that Einstein was really talking about space was this quote:

We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.​

While the first couple lines seem to be in support of an aether, the last couple lines remove all doubt for me that he was talking about space. It is a very interesting statement.

Yes the first two sentences open the door in cranks' minds to what they need to impose on nature to overcome their own ignorance of field and wave propagation in a vacuum. And the last two sentences slam that door shut.

And I like the way they used to write.

The language is perfect. Einstein has clearly restricted aether from any ponderable media which means the cranks are committing intellectual suicide when using his or any other physicist's use of the word to argue in favor of it. To "ponder" means to "to deliberate; to consider before deciding". "Ponderable" means "worthy of consideration". And this is why we do not give the crank theories any merit. Another of his terms of art which needs mention is "physical space" which the cranks have decided means "ponderable media". This is another abortion of intellect. "Physical space" simply means--in the language of children, for the benefit of cranks--"outer space", which we adults understand includes "inner space". It is a necessary term to distinguish from topology. Einstein specifically needs to say "physical space" because he is frequently moving back and forth between Euclidean space and non-Euclidean space in order to establish the salient physical interpretations of Newtonian mechanics vs. GR. Restated, Euclidean and non-Euclidean space are not the same thing as physical space; but I guess it's pointless to try to drive that home since they have already "pondered" this to the point of deciding that "math is merely a construct" and therefore the use of math in science proves to them that science is broken.

I have been reading Maxwell's book, An Elementary Treatise on Electricity. Very interesting subject with very interesting language.

It's the clarity of their speech which I think reveals how close they are to the world they are describing. In the study of math and science, when the principles unfold a dozen at a time, and we need to name them by their authors for convenient labeling, there isn't time for the student to go off and study all of the details the author was "pondering" at the time. That all flips when it's time to write a thesis, and now we get to the literature--but the modern parlance is dry. What the cranks have missed out on is that when we remind them of an axiom which restricts their knuckleheaded claims, they will call it arm waving, without even beginning to understand what an axiom is, and how to apply it using valid logic in order to arrive at a conclusion which is true and correct. And since they can't understand even the primitive parlance of ancient writers (Gawd forbid they would try to read the classics--or to read anything for understanding, for that matter--there is no hope of rehabilitating their ignorance.

"With respect to the other analogy -- that between potential and fluid pressure--we must remember that the only respect in which electricity resembles a fluid is that it is capable of flowing along conductors as a fluid flows in a pipe. And here we may introduce once and for all the common phrase The Electric Fluid for the purpose of warning our readers against it. It is one of those phrases, which, having been at one time used to denote an observed fact, was immediately taken up by the public to connote a whole system of imaginary knowledge. As long as we do not know whether positive electricity, or negative, or both, should be called a substance or the absence of a substance, and as long as we do not know whether the velocity of an electric current is to be measured by hundreds of thousands of miles in a second or by hundredths of an inch in an hour, or even whether the current flows from positive to negative or in the reverse direction, we must avoid speaking of the electric fluid."​

Indeed electricity is bulk charge, not to be confused with mass, which our birdbrained cranks are incapable of understanding. It's easy to read this in hindsight and chuckle about the level of crankdom he was obviously surrounded by. It's clever of him to force his cranks to consider a mass going from positive to negative substance versus the rapid high velocity change of direction of a fluid in a pipe. That just nails it. It's perfectly applicable to the crank aether theories, which are evidently all wave-based (and of course utterly impossible to support static fields). We need only remind them that their "magic media" has to support the positive and negative sense of oscillating fields, and they derail, for the exact reasons Maxwell is explaining here. Way to go with this. Great stuff to chew on. I'll ponder as I wander.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Aqueous Id
That is because we are equidistant from the beginning of time in all directions. . . etc.
Grumpy

Good 'splainin, Grumps. Let's see if q_w catches on. Ah, no:

I agree with the universal "now" concept and as such, for every point in space, there is a history of nows on the continuum of time. I'll let Aqueous Id respond since it is directed at his facetious comment.

The simplest point can't be driven into a hard head. COBE/WMAP or any other probe conceived of for the purpose of finding an absolute reference frame, is as stupid as it gets. Just by looking at the WMAP sky map it should be abundantly clear that, on average, the CMB is receding at an equal speed in all directions which simply means it locates us dead nuts in the center of the universe which is a triviality that is not even remotely connected to the purpose of the mission.

Yes, given the theoretical model that you invoke you are right.

Typical crank bullshit, pretending to know better than something he never bothered to learn in the first place.

I'm invoking a finite arena connected to the big bang,

Invoke=invent. You can tell a crank by his need to write fairy tales. He's really just telling it to himself, in the manner that parents read a fairy tale to their kid before going to sleep. Here, he's lulling himself into complacency about physics so he can put his mind to sleep instead of bothering to learn any of it.

within a greater universe that is potentially infinite spatially.

Space is created in the Big Bang. Deal with it.

So I agree with the now and time aspects of your posts as defined by the model,

More pretentious drivel.

and my so called model

He can't even call it a model because he has none. He has nothing. Just hot air.

associates the finite arena with that start point,

This almost sounds like he's trying to be mathematical, while at the same time trying to avoid math like the plague, while at the same time admitting he's completely ignorant of math.

but the greater universe has no such obvious start point in time.

Time begins with the Big Bang. Deal with it.

You consider the Big Bang to be the beginning of the universe

No, you simply admit to your ignorance of what Big Bang theory states.

You mean the main problem you have with my view is that I don't agree with your view.

The main problem anyone with a modicum of knowledge has with your view is that it is empty and irrelevant.

if there was one big bang, why only one?

That would require you to understand Big Band theory, which you reveal ignorance of.

The prediction is that our sweet spot is dependent of various aspects of the sweet spots of our "parent" arenas.

More fairy tales to lull himself to sleep.