Could probably report for posting pseudoscience in a science thread.
Big bang clarification?
- Thread starter theorist-constant12345
- Start date
Could probably report for posting pseudoscience in a science thread.
Farsight, at least a significant portion of your argument, is more alternate theory or pseudoscience than accepted science. You continue to reference public lecture and lay oriented content, as support for your interpretation(s), of what Einstein meant. Add some published and pier reviewed content and perhaps you would be on on solid ground rather than treading water...., and sinking.
There is some contemporary theoretical work, and even experimental research that may support the basic or general idea of space or spacetime as something other than empty. But you just keep reverting to reinterpretations of, 100 year old public lectures and and lay oriented documents. You cannot continue to constantly reinterpret Eistein's intent and expect anyone to take you views seriously.
Well, forgive my naivity, but I had always thought that, in the physical sciences, mathematics describes the universe in which we find ourselves.
Otherwise, one finds oneself, as you seem to do, ascribing to this universe a property called "reality" independent of its description
Perhaps, I don't know. But bear in mind that on sufficiently small scales (not quantum scales!) spacetime is "flat" - this is the definition of a manifold (more or less)
Well it does - although in the Newtonian view, the "gravitational field" is given by a scalar field $$\phi$$ with the property that it satisfies the Laplace equation $$\nabla^2 \phi = 0$$ in the presence of a gravitational field but in the absence of mass.
My earlier post was the GR version of this equality
Any authority (or lack thereof) Einstein may have in scientific matters derives from the success (or failure) of his physical theories to describe the behavior of phenomena, which are published in scientific journals. Without dispute, Einstein's highly mathematical theory of gravitation describes the geometry of space-time in the language of differential calculus in a way that makes coordinates physically meaningless -- mere conveniences for comparing observation to theory. One of his early successes was explaining the orbit of Mercury.
On November 25, 1915, Albert Einstein's article Die Feldgleichungen der Gravitation [The field-equations of gravitation] was submitted to a German-langugage scientific journal. This paper had his final field equations relating matter density, momentum and stress and a differential tensor quantity based on the space-time metric which formally relates to curvature and began with:
In the final paragraph, it is again explained, as was obvious throughout the mathematics, that this is a geometric theory of curved space-time that does away with coordinates:A. Einstein said:
On November 20, David Hilbert, also submitted an article based on conversations with Einstein and came to the same conclusions. This is what we mean by General Relativity a very successful theory where not distorted by misrepresentation.
Any authority (or lack thereof) Farsight may have in scientific matters derives from the success (or failure) of his (original or adopted -- not adapted) physical theories to describe the behavior of phenomena. In saying Einstein's theory is one of space alone, Farsight ignores Einstein's own General Relativity papers and thus loses authority.
Last edited:
You are right. Math does describe the physical universe we live in. It can also describe things that are not entirely consistent with observation and experience.
When I used the word reality, I was using it in a lay sense and its association with observation, experiment and experience.
The Swartzschild solution is an example of where the math describes, not a flat spacetime but a vacuum spacetime, devoid of any mass, outside the singularity. While it is very useful in understanding some aspects of gravity and spacetime, I don't know of many who believe that Swartzschild black holes and the singularities as describe in that solution exist.
I've looked at your stuff for years. I've wondered 'why is this guy allowed to post? After so much pseudo-gobbledy-gibberish, why would anyone allow him to post?'.
I know why the vanity publisher allowed it (they wanted your money), but I do not grasp why you're still given that privilege anywhere else.
The biggest evidence that this is all a load of crap is that Farsight, despite being asked for about a decade, cannot turn any of the (only) two quotations he always used into a description of any physical system, even the ones that he brings up.
He is a fraud who perpetuates his fraud through threats of libel. If he hadn't explicitly claimed to be someone else, I would imagine that he's George Galloway.
Not really....They are inter-changeable and you have been told that many times.
Let me show you again.......
"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality."
Hermann Minkowski
"Einstein himself at first viewed Minkowski's treatment as a mere mathematical trick, before eventually realizing that a geometrical view of space–time would be necessary in order to complete his own later work in general relativity"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Minkowski
And that's from the first paragraph of your post. It just gets worse from that point.
My questions were never answered.
To add - In Physics is an expansion of anything shown that a needed space needs to exist to expand into?
When something material which exists inside of space expands, one needs additional space to support the concept of the thing expanding.
When space expands, because general relativity doesn't require as part of the model that our space-time is embedded in a superspace of any description, there is no a priori reason to suspect that space expands in some sort of super-space. There has never been a hint in gravity theory or cosmological observation that there is anything physical described as "outside" the universe. Lacking such empirical or evidentiary support, the proposition that cosmological expansion must be into a larger or higher-dimensional space is completely unsupported and thus an extraordinary claim.
I am sorry but all expansion of matter and expansion of Gas is observed, evidential to humanity, how can science define space has not expanding into something when all scientific observations show expansion needs space to expand into?
Science is saying that if I travelled through space to has far as we can see, I could travel no further and bump into an imaginary wall?
No it isn't. I'm referring to what Einstein said. He described a gravitational field as inhomogeneous space.
I'm not sinking when I point to the stress-energy-momentum tensor and correct Quarkhead's hazy understanding with pointed references to bona-fide material. Would you like more? How about Nobel prizewinner Robert B Laughlin's take on it?
"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum..."
Note he said space, not spacetime. Do not confuse the two. And do not dismiss what Einstein said and accuse me of reinterpretation when giving you references to his papers. You can't quote Einstein saying something that supports your understanding of general relativity, can you? No. Why not? Because your understanding is wrong.
Einstein took pains to say space when he meant space, and spacetime when he meant spacetime. You confuse the two. You think of spacetime as space. Einstein didn't. And by the way, your Einstein quotes say nothing of importance. Unlike mine. Here's another one:rpenner said:
"As a simple geometric consideration shows, the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable."
Doubtless you will seek some novel way to dismiss what Einstein said and portray yourself as the authority when you aren't.
Allow me to offer something here. Remember pair production and the wave nature of matter. You are made out of electrons etc, we can make electrons etc out of light, and light comes in waves. These are waves in space. Light waves aren't the same as gravitational waves, but take a look at LIGO and note this:
"If the two arms have identical lengths, then interference between the light beams returning to the beam splitter will direct all of the light back toward the laser. But if there is any difference between the lengths of the two arms, some light will travel to where it can be recorded by a photodetector. The space-time ripples cause the distance measured by a light beam to change as the gravitational wave passes by..."
Also look at displacement current where Maxwell said light consists of transverse undulations in the same medium that is the cause of electric and magnetic phenomena. Now, the important thing to understand is this: when a seismic wave moves through the ground, the ground waves. When an ocean wave moves through the sea, the sea waves. And when an electromagnetic wave moves through space, space waves. Space isn't nothing. It's a thing. A gravitational field is a place where space is stressed/pressurized in an inhomogeneous fashion. It's like this gin-clear ghostly elastic "stuff" that isn't stuff, because stuff is made of waves in it. And because it has this pressure to it, it expands. It doesn't expand into anything, it just expands.
Science doesn't say that, but I do. The big bang occurred some 13.8 billion years ago, when space is said to be pointlike or small. IMHO it cannot be infinite, and there's no evidence of any curvature. So setting the expansion aside, if you could travel to a place in space far far away, you might find that there is indeed some kind of edge to space. For example you shine a light and it undergoes total internal reflection. If you jump at it you find yourself coming back the other way. Or maybe you get totally annihilated. But you cannot get beyond the edge of space, because there is no beyond it.
That would be Physical impossible, it is on par to saying if I am in a box , there is no outside of the box, and Physics proves this to be untrue, defining the universe in a closed space with no outer space is logically insane and evidentially a Physical impossibility.
I can not and will never accept there is nothing outside of the space we observe, the Physics proves otherwise, so to say this is unreal to reality and Physics and makes absolutely no logical sense .
You mention the singular point, any singular point is surrounded by space because that is what we observe in Physics.
That's the gist of it. Space is something, and nothing doesn't exist. There is no void beyond the edge of space, there is no beyond it.
It doesn't. Physics doesn't address this issue, it ducks out with things like "space is flat so it must be infinite", which doesn't sit at all well with big bang cosmology. How can infinite space expand? Was it always infinite? Even at the time of the big bang? Ask difficult questions like this, and you tend to get fobbed off.
Why? Einstein proposed a hypersphere universe, people talk of a toroidal universe with intrinsic curvature.
I'm happy enough with big bang cosmology, because space is this pressurized elastic "stuff" that just has to expand. But I will never accept that the universe is infinite because an infinite universe cannot expand. And since space appears to be flat, there's not a lot of options left. It has to have some kind of edge.
No problem. We also observe that the universe is expanding, and we can observe the Hubble ultra deep field. Pick a prominent galaxy, then look to the right and down a bit. There's another galaxy, like the first. It looks a bit like a mirror image, doesn't it? I'm not saying it is, I'm just showing you an observation. Have a look at this article where cosmologist Neil Cornish referred to a hall-of-mirrors universe and said "it can be thought of as a spherical diameter is the usual sense". So if you're near the edge of the sphere, what do you see? Black? A reflection? I don't know, but IMHO it's really interesting.
Ok, this is where I am at, we do not witness the Universe expanding, we witness and observe matter expanding into an infinite Universe, space is see through and relative invisible, we do not observe space, we only observe things in space that reflect light or emit light.
If I re-wound the expansion only 10 billion years, and stopped at that, how much of the already ''left'' matter from our visual vanishing point of matter, would be re-wound back into observation range?
Physics shows us a vanishing point to perspective view, any matter beyond this point does not vanish, it is just not seen.
A simple test using a pin head confirms this by distance applied to observation.
I do not understand, because a static Universe of matter that was expanded by an invent would be the exact same observation if you consider we did not exist until later on in the time line of expansion,
how do we know what we now observe is not just left overs as such that have not already left the vanishing point of sight?
Last edited:
We do.
No we don't.
This is meaningless.
That would be geometry, not physics.
You don't, apparently, know what "vanishing point" means.
You've never said anything truer.
Gibberish.
What?
If I understand what you're attempting to say here (and I'm not entirely sure I do) this is exactly the case.
What we see is still in visible range (or at least its light is), by definition.
In one and only one quotation. And right after he said that, in the public lecture, he explained that what he meant was the Einstein field equation that links spacetime geometry (i.e., spacetime curvature) to the energy content at different locations in spacetime.
This inhomogeneous space nonsense is pathetic.
A dog can point to a picture of the Mona Lisa, but that does not mean that the dog is doing art history. You simply cut and paste, but whenever you talk in detail, you show that you do not understand.
You have corrected nothing. You merely show more ignorance.
In order to produce a proper understanding of relativity, one has to engage the mathematics. You refuse to do that, Farsight. You refuse to admit that when Einstein said, "inhomogeneous space," he meant, "the contents of spacetime."
You steadfastly refuse to try to learn the relevant mathematics, I suspect because you know that you discover your gross errors.
So you claim. Yet the one quotation you use links "inhomogeneous space" to spacetime and nothing else. BUt you like to cherry-pick that quotation and ignore the context, even though in this case it's the next sentence.
Sure, there is the only other quotation on which you base your entire scientific position. It's too bad that you can't understand how that quotation works in the full mathematical theory that Einstein developed.
Farsight, this is all that you ever do.
dy said:
You keep agreeing me and do not realise it or see it.
Yes you observe observable matter, you observe a red shift of the matter and observe a visual range increase of the matter, you do not observe a red shift of the space, you do not observe space, you do not observe space expanding because you can not see space and only can see matter in that space.
If you removed all matter accept the earth and the sun, you would only observe the sun, all the rest of space would be observed as a blackness and distance would be a problem to observe.