Photon?

[quantum_wave]

When one denies God he takes away the beauty from him or herself that God has created to be reflected into the lower realms of sine and the physical planes of existence.

I wonder if you might be one who would pick the "God did it" side of the triangle:

Nothing wrong with that, though the discussion here is based on the belief that invoking the Supernatural is not scientific. I like to say that anything that seems Supernatural has natural causes that we don't yet understand, but would you be of the belief that if God "did it", then science would simply backtrack to a miracle?

 

[Jason.Marshall]

I wonder if you might be one who would pick the "God did it" side of the triangle:

Nothing wrong with that, though the discussion here is based on the belief that invoking the Supernatural is not scientific. I like to say that anything that seems Supernatural has natural causes that we don't yet understand, but would you be of the belief that if God "did it", then science would simply backtrack to a miracle?

Well I think its obvious you know what answer I will pick because I am very outspoken with my opinions but you should know God created science they are not separate and supernatural just means cannot be perceived with the basic 5 senses look up "bio-photons" yes science is just the machine of God Albeitly undefined.

 

[quantum_wave]

Well I think its obvious you know what answer I will pick because I am very outspoken with my opinions but you should know God created science they are not separate and supernatural just means cannot be perceived with the basic 5 senses look up "bio-photons" yes science is just the machine of God Albeitly undefined.

I don't follow very many of the sub-forums, and I don't know who is who outside of the science forums. Would it be fair to emphasize that what you said is your opinion, and you are not saying that there is evidence that God created science, or do you want to say what you consider the evidence?

 

[Jason.Marshall]

I don't follow very many of the sub-forums, and I don't know who is who outside of the science forums. Would it be fair to emphasize that what you said is your opinion, and you are not saying that there is evidence that God created science, or do you want to say what you consider the evidence?

Its my opinion of course, the evidence is as fleeting as your wave particle theory it cannot be defined in any finite set, thus always creating new and different realities you cannot quantify an opinion by definition it has no real define position in space its just assumed to be some place guided by higher intuition of a unified realm.

 

[quantum_wave]

Its my opinion of course, the evidence is as fleeting as your wave particle theory it cannot be defined in any finite set, thus always creating new and different realities you cannot quantify an opinion by definition it has no real define position in space its just assumed to be some place guided by higher intuition of a unified realm.

I respect that, but in terms of cause and effect, intuition is something that leads its user to the wrong conclusion, as often as not.

 

[Jason.Marshall]

God does blackmail?

lol

 

[Jason.Marshall]

I respect that, but in terms of cause and effect, intuition is something that leads its user to the wrong conclusion, as often as not.

That is why man-kinds next major conquest should be the domination of the ego this will allow the human antena to isolate the pristine message of truth among the noise created by the many false premises created by the ego .

 

[quantum_wave]

That is why man-kinds next major conquest should be the domination of the ego this will allow the human antena to isolate the pristine message of truth among the noise created by the many false premise of the ego .

The ego is often an impediment to clear thinking and good discussion. To me, less ego and a clear mind are great advantages to truth seekers, if the goal is understanding the nature of the universe.

 

[PhysBang]

General relativity "subsumes" special relativity. It allegedly incorporates it, and I tend to use the label relativity for brevity.

For those interested in the textual analysis of Farsight, this is an interesting passage. Note that Farsight writes, "It allegedly incorporates it," about GR incorporating SR. This is because Farsight literally denies the incorporation of SR into GR in his writings. GR incorporates SR by demanding that SR hold at every point and for every infinitesimal region; this means that the speed of light is constant at every point and at every infinitesimal region. Farsight explicitly denies this position, so he must deny GR. To save face, Farsight might claim that those people who say GR incorporates SR are merely lying or mistaken.

I'm interested, but there has to be some kind of supporting evidence or logic to keep me interested.

This is clearly a lie, since the last thing that Farsight wishes to discuss is the evidence for his theories.

 

[Farsight]

Just to be clear, when I said that there is a difference between relativity and General Relativity, I wasn't referring to a difference between SR and GR. I meant that the relativity I invoke is governed by gravity as orchestrated by the energy density gradient of the medium of space.

That's what general relativity is all about. The stress-energy-momentum tensor "describes the density and flux of energy and momentum in spacetime".

I agree that the CMB reference frame is a useful concept, and in cases of relativistic motion, is one way of determining the velocity of objects relative to it, and therefore relative to each other to say which is being accelerated and by how much.

Good stuff.

The dipole temperature is actual physical evidence. What do you accept as the explanation for it?

We're moving at circa 627 km/s relative to the universe as a whole. See wikipedia.

My hypothetical explanation for the cause of the dipole in the CMB is that it indicates preconditions to the Big Bang, and my scenario of two similar parent Big Bang arenas expanding until they overlap would be consistent with that explanation for the dipole temperature variance. I'll leave it at this: The dipole temperature of the CMB is evidence of something, and one hypothetical scenario that could explain it also has a phase that might correspond to your referenced frozen-star black hole, while at the same time supporting my concept of a greater universe where there might be a potentially infinte number of similar Big Bang arenas playing out across the landscape of the greater universe.

I think it merely supports the idea that we're moving at circa 627 km/s relative to the universe as a whole. Sorry q.

 

[Farsight]

For those interested in the textual analysis of Farsight, this is an interesting passage. Note that Farsight writes, "It allegedly incorporates it," about GR incorporating SR. This is because Farsight literally denies the incorporation of SR into GR in his writings. GR incorporates SR by demanding that SR hold at every point and for every infinitesimal region; this means that the speed of light is constant at every point and at every infinitesimal region. Farsight explicitly denies this position, so he must deny GR. To save face, Farsight might claim that those people who say GR incorporates SR are merely lying or mistaken.

You do talk some nonsense PhysBang. The issue I was hinting at is that SR is built on two postulates, one of which is the speed of light is constant. But Einstein retracted that when he was doing GR, see this for example. The speed of light is NOT constant. If it was, light wouldn't curve and your pencil wouldn't fall down.

All: now PhysBang will squawk "cherry picking" and "out of context" and try and get you to dismiss and ignore what Einstein said. Bizarre.

 

[quantum_wave]

...
We're moving at circa 627 km/s relative to the universe as a whole. See wikipedia.

I think it merely supports the idea that we're moving at circa 627 km/s relative to the universe as a whole. Sorry q.

Ok, maybe so.

 

[Farsight]

I've looked this up. The CMBR looks a little bluer in one direction because we're headed in that direction, and a little redder in the opposite direction. What are you thinking about? Please say some more about the dipole variance is after the 627 km/s motion.

 

[quantum_wave]

I've looked this up. The CMBR looks a little bluer in one direction because we're headed in that direction, and a little redder in the opposite direction. What are you thinking about? Please say some more about the dipole variance is after the 627 km/s motion.

When I looked up a link for you, it turns out that the dipole wasn't adjusted for our motion relative to it. Now it is up to me to find out what the evidence is for the 627 km/s motion relative to it. If I see the evidence then I might have to drop that idea from my model. Thanks.

 

[quantum_wave]

I've looked this up. The CMBR looks a little bluer in one direction because we're headed in that direction, and a little redder in the opposite direction. What are you thinking about? Please say some more about the dipole variance is after the 627 km/s motion.

According to Ethan Siegel in this post:
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/06/28/our-great-cosmic-motion/
the great attractor has been eliminated as the cause for the peculiar velocity of our local group of galaxies. He also says that our velocity has been removed from the WMAP images as well, which he says is a shame, and that "This is a little frustrating, because there actually is a primordial dipole (l = 1) component to the cosmic microwave background’s fluctuations, but we are unable to measure it because of our own peculiar motion".

Note comments #12, #15, and #26 and several other comments related FYI. Not to get off in that direction, but to point out you have seen the Siegel post. Can you comment on how science has come up with the 627 km/s motion, if there are other possible causes of the dipole, like a primordial dipole, as he says?

Maybe this is a good topic for discussion, before I remove the dipole evidence from my model :shrug:

 

[QuarkHead]

GR incorporates SR by demanding that SR hold at every point and for every infinitesimal region; this means that the speed of light is constant at every point and at every infinitesimal region. Farsight explicitly denies this position, so he must deny GR.

Yes, agreed. His "confusion" stems from either (or both) of the following......

Farsight disagrees that GR is modeled as a $$C^{\infty}$$ 4-manifold, or

Farsight does not understand that any n-maniold is locally indistinguishable from a subset of the n-plane $$R^n$$ by definition and, where a Riemann metric is available for our 4-manifold, it is locally indistinguishable from the Euclidean plane $$E^4$$ with the Euclidean metric. And where a semi-Riemann metric is preferred, it is locally indistinguishable from Minkowski space, which is, of course the playground for SR

I suggest you "concede defeat"

 

[Farsight]

When I looked up a link for you, it turns out that the dipole wasn't adjusted for our motion relative to it. Now it is up to me to find out what the evidence is for the 627 km/s motion relative to it. If I see the evidence then I might have to drop that idea from my model. Thanks.

My pleasure, or maybe that should be sorry mate.

 

[quantum_wave]

My pleasure, or maybe that should be sorry mate.

Pending your response to post #315. Maybe there is a primordial dipole as Siegel says, which combined with our relative motion to the CMB, calculates out to the 627 km/s that would eliminate the dipole in total. How do you determine which is motion and which is primordial? Hold off on the "sorry mate" for a bit.

 

[Farsight]

...and where a semi-Riemann metric is preferred, it is locally indistinguishable from Minkowski space...

See section 20 of Relativity: the special and general theory where you can read this:

"We might also think that, regardless of the kind of gravitational field which may be present, we could always choose another reference-body such that no gravitational field exists with reference to it. This is by no means true for all gravitational fields, but only for those of quite special form. It is, for instance, impossible to choose a body of reference such that, as judged from it, the gravitational field of the earth (in its entirety) vanishes".

Accelerating through homogeneous space might be "locally indistinguishable" from being stationary in inhomogeneous space, but it isn't actually the same. In the former situation you can make the apparent gravitational field go away by changing your state of motion. You simply stop accelerating. In the latter situation you can't make the real gravitational field go away. Even in free fall the tidal force is still there. You might not be able to detect it, but it's there. If it wasn't, the force of gravity wouldn't diminish with distance.

 

[Farsight]

Pending your response to post #315. Maybe there is a primordial dipole as Siegel says, which combined with our relative motion to the CMB, calculates out to the 627 km/s that would eliminate the dipole in total. How do you determine which is motion and which is primordial?

I wasn't going to respond to post #315. But since you asked: what primordial dipole?