At Rest with our Hubble view

[Layman]

It is a shame you don't notice that a theory is not proof of anything, and yet theories say specific things about a theoretical model. I am attempting to pin down and understand the Big Bang model, right or wrong as it may be, and I don't suspect it perfectly corresponds to nature. Proof that theory corresponds precisely to nature, as AlexG pointed out, is not what physics is about.

I didn't know there was an organization that determines if names of ideas are actually theories or laws. Look at the law of conservation of energy, quantum mechanics claims that it is violated in some cases. Did they ever take away the name "law" from this theory? No they didn't. The names just get picked up. What about the Theory of Relativity? It has been proven, so why not call the it the Law of Relativity? Because it just doesn't sound good and people will call it a theory regardless if it is actually just a theory or a law most likely for the rest of time. Or what about Newtons Law's of motion? Einstein developed a more accurate "theory", so did they then call them Newtons' Theories of Motion? The word theory has become meaningless in science, Law's are no longer even really laws. How would you even have a more accurate theory than a law?

If you want to understand the Big Bang Theory, it is really simple. Everything exploded and then expanded away from everything else. There are about fifty different theories that can explain why this happened. The problem is that none of them can be ruled out because they don't make any predictions that will tell us if it has to be this theory or that theory. All they know for certain is that everything just exploded, but then it couldn't be just a normal explosion because a normal explosion wouldn't be even enough in all directions.

I just didn't like that he has already ruled out half of the possibilities and then lies about this being accepted as main stream science. Especially when more current findings are leaning more to the possibility of a bound universe with negative curvature that would not fit into the possible states of the universe given by Grumpy. (that I mentioned could be responsible for the Hubble View that is the title of this thread) How could we ever find the right answer if the correct answer has already been ruled out by some lie?

Your links to Einstein's papers are fine, but your analysis of them was not inspiring. That is why I wrote post #131, and if you want to participate on topic, why not read and reply to that, without the supposed air of some high credentials that imply you know it all.

Einstein gave a very general proof, that if there is lines of force coming from an infinite amount of space, then the amount of force on any given sphere would be infinite. I would say that from this proof, if there is something like the graviton, and it was a force carrier by means of lines of force, then the only way it could exist would be if the universe is not infinite. But, the force of gravity isn't even close to being that even though it is larger than we can tell, I think it would be a safe bet to say that they do not exist. They are not really a part of the Standard Model. They have not been detected directly or indirectly. They simply have no influence on our findings in particle accelerators. They might as well not even exist. I think it would be a waste of time trying to prove that they do. According to Einstein it could very well be impossible to even develop such a theory where gravity could even become close to being described accurately in this type of fashion (lines of force). I think he was on the right track in discovering a more accurate description of gravity. The graviton being shown from lines of force would inevitably be the wrong track according to that proof. Einstein even knew a lot about science and used the word proof, go figure.

 

[EinsteinHimself]

More nonsense. You simply have no idea what your talking about. Young's double slit experiment dates back to the early 1800s. And light is not omnidirectional. A photon travels in a straight line following the geodesic, in one direction at a time.

Maybe 99.9% of its energy goes in a straight line, but I can assure you the rest goes in all directions. Otherwise you would have to be directly in the line of a laser in order to see the beam.

Entanglement was a term coined by Erwin Schrödinger, and it was a concept which Einstein could never bring himself to accept.

I could venture to say it was only a poor choice of metaphor.

On the cosmological level, energy does not have to be conserved. See Noether's theorem.

Are you insinuating that when symmetry breaks, energy has the ability to both be "created" and "destroyed"? That's preposterous!

An infinite well of untapped energy outside the universe quickly dispatches that notion of ill conceived conservation.

Compound interest was known back when the bible was written, where it was known as usury and condemned as a sin. It was also strictly against Roman law.

Well he made it un-sinful then.

Your level of ignorance and arrogance can only come from an unschooled adolescent kid.

I would much rather be a child who understands metaphor than physicist content with his knowledge.

 

[EinsteinHimself]

There is no reply to the thread I can think of because it makes no sense, just as I am at a loss to reply to your comments directly above. I just clicked on the link to see if I could figure out what you are talking about, and noticed the errors. It was referenced as proof of confusion, which seemed doubly ironic.

The point you should make aside from pointing out my errors, which I am thankful for, Is the first two equations are in fact equivalent.

 

[AlexG]

Maybe 99.9% of its energy goes in a straight line, but I can assure you the rest goes in all directions.

Kid, you can't assure anyone of anything.

Otherwise you would have to be directly in the line of a laser in order to see the beam.

If there's no gas or dust to scatter the beam, you DO have to be directly in line to see it.

I could venture to say it was only a poor choice of metaphor.

It's not a metaphor, it's a label.

Are you insinuating that when symmetry breaks, energy has the ability to both be "created" and "destroyed"? That's preposterous!

Given your complete ignorance on the subject, you can't say anything.

An infinite well of untapped energy outside the universe quickly dispatches that notion of ill conceived conservation.

If it's outside the universe, there's no possibility of interaction with the universe.

I would much rather be a child who understands metaphor than physicist content with his knowledge.

You are a child who doesn't appear to understand anything, particularly anything having to do with the history of science, the physics of the universe, or the uses of metaphor. I'd be hard put remember when I've met someone so ignorant on so many levels, and proud of being so.

 

[EinsteinHimself]

Kid, you can't assure anyone of anything.

Can anyone really be sure of anything today? I can assure you the proof I registered shows to equivalent equations verifying equivalence. And the third equation always comes out to equal two.

If there's no gas or dust to scatter the beam, you DO have to be directly in line to see it.

In what universe did someone do that experiment? Maybe one where black holes receive this beam directly from an omnidirectional source? Therefore you would have to completely encircle a black hole in order to see this beam? Or when the light from this beam encircles a black hole it registers a quasar possibly.

It's not a metaphor, it's a label.

A cat representing the universe is hardly as profound as a couple of unicorns flapping their wings and killing the cat in one box and giving the other cancer.

Given your complete ignorance on the subject, you can't say anything.

Please enlighten me. I need some lessons from someone who seeks to prove their own agenda by discounting others. This is not a joke. Put out what great information your obviously hiding as it is incomplete.

If it's outside the universe, there's no possibility of interaction with the universe.

Again that is illogical. If wind from a unicorns wings flaps on your house, does the force ever touch the house?

You are a child who doesn't appear to understand anything, particularly anything having to do with the history of science, the physics of the universe, or the uses of metaphor. I'd be hard put remember when I've met someone so ignorant on so many levels, and proud of being so.

The question I often ask myself is did I do that on purpose or by accident? Then I suppose it doesn't really matter.

 

[AlexG]

At this point, I've become convinced that you're simply a troll. You're another on the ignore list.

 

[EinsteinHimself]

Do what you want. Here is an equation for the universe that allows you to find the Higgs boson, which lies outside the universe. Or track any subatomic particle in an atom referenced to two others.

$$(Dx)^2 + (Dy)^2 = {(D^{2}z)}^2 $$

 

[eram]

Do what you want. Here is an equation for the universe that allows you to find the Higgs boson, which lies outside the universe. Or track any subatomic particle in an atom referenced to two others.

$$(Dx)^2 + (Dy)^2 = {(D^{2}z)}^2 $$

Why is this forum plagued with so many raving nutcases?

 

[eram]

Hello quantum_wave, I was away for a while and this thread has grown a lot.

Could you provide a gist and reply to my question in #36?

 

[quantum_wave]

Hello quantum_wave, I was away for a while and this thread has grown a lot.

Could you provide a gist and reply to my question in #36?

In how many words, lol.

To answer your question, "So what are you trying to get at?", I am working on my so called model, and my future posts in the Alternative Theory, and Pseudoscience forums will refer to some of what this thread has covered.

 

[EinsteinHimself]

On the cosmological level, energy does not have to be conserved. See Noether's theorem.

Sorry for being a little nutty, someone told me energy doesn't have to be conserved. That just doesn't make any sense.

 

[Farsight]

My comment on the "finite and unbounded" discussion as it pertains to General Relativity, at least the Wiki version on Physical Cosmology. Einstein's model, with the Cosmological Constant, was meant to define a static universe. Even his static model with the CC was unstable due to small perturbations, and would eventually either expand or contract.

Agreed. It was balanced on a pencil point.

But that aside, his model described gravity as a geometric property of space and time

Not quite. He gave equations of motion using geometry. Motion through space can be curved, but space isn't. You can still shine a light beam straight up, and it goes straight. Have a read of Pete Brown's essay at http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204044 .

and described space as finite but unbounded, using an analogy of the surface of a sphere.

Agreed. He described a hypersphere. Like I've said previously, when it comes to cosmology, Einstein seems to have lacked confidence in his own theory. He knew that a gravitational field doesn't suck space in.

There are various shapes that the surface of a sphere can take on

There aren't. A sphere is spherical. Technically a sphere is the surface of a ball. It's two-dimensional. The universe is three-dimensional. It's like a ball rather than a sphere. The balloon analogy is only an analogy, a better analogy is the raisins in the cake.

and the actual "shape", the topography of the universe so to speak, is a function of the true value of the cosmological constant. For simplicity's sake, if we invoke a slightly open curved shape, it would correspond with what scientists now think.

Not so. Scientists think the universe is flat. That's what the evidence from WMAP and Planck is pointing to.

I've seen a graphic of this shape, sort of like a saddle, and the idea is that if you take a big enough portion of the universe in three dimensions, all of the paths from one point to any other point in that patch of space follow the curve of the saddle. That means if you compare the actual distance between any two points to a straight line, the actual distance is greater. The fact of the curved topology is that going straight isn't an option because you have to follow the saddle shape when you move. You can only take a path between two points that falls on the saddle's surface.

The saddle shape is one of three options. Two of them are wrong. It looks like the saddle shape is wrong.

I have to keep reminding myself, and this is a characteristic of general relativity if I understand the curved surface as it relates to any three dimensional patch of space, no matter how big or how small, natural motion occurs along the general curved topography applicable to that patch of space, and not in straight lines.

This is a characteristic of GR, but not for homogeneous space. A gravitational field is inhomogeneous space. When it's homogeneous, light goes straight.

So the debate about finite and unbounded refers to the general relativity concept of "shape", and the saddle is the current view of the overall shape of the universe. It is finite because it has dimensions based on a beginning and on subsequent inflation/expansion over ~13.7 billion years, and it is unbounded as if it was a surface of a sphere that has no edges.

I think you've gone astray here. So have those people who insist that a flat universe is an infinite universe. When you press them, all you'll get is huff and puff. Imagine the universe now. If space is flat, how can it possibly be unbounded like the surface of sphere? It can't be. The real debate is coming. And it will concern whether the universe is a ball.

 

[brucep]

Why is this forum plagued with so many raving nutcases?

It's the nature of the beast. The Internet is a safe place to show your ass with complete anonymity. There's no consequence for intellectual dishonesty which appeals to the sociopathy of cranks.

 

[EinsteinHimself]

It's the nature of the beast. The Internet is a safe place to show your ass with complete anonymity. There's no consequence for intellectual dishonesty which appeals to the sociopathy of cranks.

AlexG presented a logical fallacy. He was under the assumption of:

"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.
Albert Einstein "

The fallacy occurs on conservation of energy compared to symmetry break and expansion of the universe. He believe symmetry break and expansion both are acceptable violation of conservation. This is just not true. Conservation of limitless space can be applied to both these concepts in order to improve our understanding of conservation. What he failed to realize is math is "more than Fact". The fallacy originates from the fact equivalence is the foundation upon which the universe was created, and it is quite hard to abuse an idea which rests upon its own evidence. If two or more opposing forces which lie outside the physical universe counterbalance each other the result would be a static conserved form of materials. Hence "you can not solve a problem based on the same logic used to create it."-Albert Einstein

He is shinning a red and a blue laser directly at each-other and obtaining the color brown. Basically an old Aunt Sally that had no avail.

Math is undeniable, words have the ability to cast doubt upon any idea without.

 

[AlexG]

It's the nature of the beast. The Internet is a safe place to show your ass with complete anonymity. There's no consequence for intellectual dishonesty which appeals to the sociopathy of cranks.

And 13 year olds.

 

[PhysBang]

Not quite. He gave equations of motion using geometry. Motion through space can be curved, but space isn't. You can still shine a light beam straight up, and it goes straight. Have a read of Pete Brown's essay at http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204044 .

Discovering the bending of space, and light in it, is one of the classical tests of GR. There are many, many, many different observations of this, from 1919 onward. One has to willingly ignorant or just plain lying to claim a both a knowledge of the relevant physics and that there is no curvature of space in GR.

Agreed. He described a hypersphere. Like I've said previously, when it comes to cosmology, Einstein seems to have lacked confidence in his own theory. He knew that a gravitational field doesn't suck space in.

Everything that he wrote indicates otherwise. If you have a better understanding of the details, please provide them.

Not so. Scientists think the universe is flat. That's what the evidence from WMAP and Planck is pointing to.

It is true that it the universe is very close to flat. But very close is not exact. One should not derive metaphysical principles regarding the flatness of the universe.

This is a characteristic of GR, but not for homogeneous space. A gravitational field is inhomogeneous space. When it's homogeneous, light goes straight.

Every textbook on the subject and all of Einstein's own work say that this claim is false.

I think you've gone astray here. So have those people who insist that a flat universe is an infinite universe. When you press them, all you'll get is huff and puff.

No, you get the physics and the relevant mathematical details, something you seem to never offer.

 

[Grumpy]

Farsight

Not quite. He gave equations of motion using geometry. Motion through space can be curved, but space isn't. You can still shine a light beam straight up, and it goes straight. Have a read of Pete Brown's essay at http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204044 .

Not only is spacetime curved, light beams don't cross spacetime in straight lines(except from their own perspective). Gravitational lensing, look into it. As light has no mass(thus is unaffected by gravity)and we know that mass bends light(through observation)the only possibility is that the spacetime light is travelling straight lines through(as seen from it's own frame)is bent by the mass(as seen by all other frames). By the way, arxiv is a PREPUBLICATION repository, the things posted there may or may not be peer reviewed or correct(or even close, some is just woo).

He described a hypersphere. Like I've said previously, when it comes to cosmology, Einstein seems to have lacked confidence in his own theory. He knew that a gravitational field doesn't suck space in.

No, it just bends it into circles at the horizons of BHs(another example of bent spacetime), that geometry gives no vector for escape. Spacetime is not a substance to be sucked in, it is a framework where events occur. Mass bends that framework, the famous rubber sheet extended into four dimensions. Time itself is affected by that curvature, so that at the point of infinite curvature(the event horizon)time stops as experienced in this Universe. Mass, lightspeed, time. They are all just aspects of the same thing, change one and you change the others. And spacetime is just the framework within which events happen and what we measure them by.

And at no time in the past has spacetime expanded at infinite velocity, so no matter it's shape it is finite in size. The unbounded part is really hard to conceptualize, but the fact is EVERY point in space was in the middle of whatever the Big Bang was, and sees itself at the center of the Universe today. No point in the Universe is on an edge of any dimension but time(now is the edge of time, the past does not exist and the future has yet to occur). Now is the only edge in our Universe, whatever shape you think it is. Topology is a 2D representation of a 3D+time(4D)reality, the Universe is not saddle shaped, it is a representation of the flatness of flatland that tells us something about whether the Universe will expand forever(open) or collapse into a big crunch(closed). Currently it appears to be perfectly flat.

Grumpy

 

[EinsteinHimself]

And 13 year olds.

Judgmental language – insulting or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgment..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

On top of your attempted strawman.

ad hominem

appeal from authority

must I go on?

 

[Farsight]

Not only is spacetime curved, light beams don't cross spacetime in straight lines (except from their own perspective).

Light beams don't cross spacetime, Grumpy. It's a mathematical space, and it's static. You can draw worldlines in it to represent the motion of light through space over time, but because it depicts all times at once, there's no motion in it. Nothing moves in spacetime.

Gravitational lensing, look into it.

I know about it. It's called gravitational lensing because space acts like a lens.

As light has no mass (thus is unaffected by gravity) and we know that mass bends light (through observation) the only possibility is that the spacetime light is travelling straight lines through (as seen from it's own frame) is bent by the mass (as seen by all other frames).

Grumpy, it's a concentration of energy that causes gravity, not just mass. A concentration of matter causes gravity because of the energy content. A photon has no mass in the usual sense, we say it's massless. But it does have "active gravitational mass" which is the same as its "inertial mass". If you trap a massless photon in a mirror-box it adds mass to that system, and increases its gravitational field. Then when you open the box it's a radiating body that loses mass. And again, nothing moves through spacetime.

By the way, arxiv is a PREPUBLICATION repository, the things posted there may or may not be peer reviewed or correct (or even close, some is just woo).

I know this. Sadly some things that have been peer reviewed are woo too.

No, it just bends it into circles at the horizons of BHs (another example of bent spacetime), that geometry gives no vector for escape.

I'm sorry but that's a myth. When you aim a light beam straight up, it doesn't curve. It doesn't matter how much you increase the gravitational field, it never starts curving.

Spacetime is not a substance to be sucked in, it is a framework where events occur. Mass bends that framework, the famous rubber sheet extended into four dimensions. Time itself is affected by that curvature, so that at the point of infinite curvature (the event horizon) time stops as experienced in this Universe.

And that's why your vertical light beam never gets out.

Mass, lightspeed, time. They are all just aspects of the same thing, change one and you change the others. And spacetime is just the framework within which events happen and what we measure them by.

It's a "framework", no problem with that.

And at no time in the past has spacetime expanded at infinite velocity, so no matter it's shape it is finite in size.

Good stuff Grumpy.

The unbounded part is really hard to conceptualize

Because it's an unsupported myth.

but the fact is EVERY point in space was in the middle of whatever the Big Bang was, and sees itself at the center of the Universe today.

It's not a fact Grumpy. It's an assertion.

No point in the Universe is on an edge of any dimension but time (now is the edge of time, the past does not exist and the future has yet to occur). Now is the only edge in our Universe, whatever shape you think it is. Topology is a 2D representation of a 3D+time(4D)reality, the Universe is not saddle shaped, it is a representation of the flatness of flatland that tells us something about whether the Universe will expand forever(open) or collapse into a big crunch(closed). Currently it appears to be perfectly flat.

So it's flat, and it's finite. Good. Now keep thinking about it. Examine those assertions.

 

[Farsight]

Discovering the bending of space, and light in it, is one of the classical tests of GR. There are many, many, many different observations of this, from 1919 onward. One has to willingly ignorant or just plain lying to claim a both a knowledge of the relevant physics and that there is no curvature of space in GR.

It's curved spacetime, Physbang, not curved space. Which demonstrates just how little you know.