Some questions for better understanding of Main Stream Cosmology

[paddoboy]

Paddoboy,

I would love to have a friend like you. You are fairly intelligent, but more important, you are extremely loyal.

You can continue to manufacture and promote all the fairy tails you like Rajesh.
And you can continue to ignore all pertinent points as long as you like...points like getting other opinions as I suggested if you are not happy with what you have been told.

But our standard cosmology model stands as is despite your hidden insideous claims hinting otherwise.
origin has far more to offer then I, and I recognise that fact, and I also recognise the fact that l the others on this forum, observing your carryings on, are your peers as well as mine.

While you continue with your little campaign, our mainstream cosmology picture also improves, in areas where it needs to, and none of those happen to be the pseudo problems that you pretend exist.

I'm not beholding or loyal to anyone here. I don't need to be. I come here to learn, and I can manage to sort the wheat from the chaff, and the heaps of flimsy ridiculious allegations that you are making here, simply because your cover has been exposed.

 

[OnlyMe]

I was not referring to Nope by OnlyMe, I was referring to origin's fiat that Gravity Causes Spacetime distortion

Origin writes in his post # 232

"The meaning is that a galaxies gravity can distort space. The significance is also that the galaxies gravity distorts space, I guess. What do you thing the significance is?"

This statement is fundamentally incorrect.

When I drew his attention to this aspect by stating the factually correct statement that is:

"The Galaxy Gravity does not cause distortion of space, it is the distortion of space which causes Gravity."

He responds with 'Nope' in his post # 244.

This is called completely disowning the statement made, to escape exposure.

The cite not being fully up yet it is hard to follow the discussion backwards....

Still, I don't think you are reading what Origin was saying accurately. Origin can correct me if I am mistaken.

I did have some issues with the way Origin's post sounded, but I also read what he posts with some historical understanding and interpreted the issue as one of interpretaion rather than intended substance.

So what I will say is that, Gravity can be described as a curvature of spacetime and at the same time from a slightly different perspective, it could be said that gravity causes the curvature of spacetime. And while there is a modern interpretation of GR that attributes the origin of gravity to the curvature of spacetime, that remains entirely theoretical.

My personal view is that your statement,

"The Galaxy Gravity does not cause distortion of space, it is the distortion of space which causes Gravity."

Is inaccurate.

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

I have no cover..... I am shield-less.

A mainstream astro-physicist has recently come up with some model, questioning the very existence of Black Hole. I am sure you understand the significance of her work. She could not have come up with her work, fearing derision by others.

Ok, answer this question...

The effect of gravity is observed to be without delay, almost instantaneous with infinite range...Now if the space time distortion is expressed as gravity, then the changing distortion in spacetime by a spinning and moving mass, will certainly have a time aspect, thus against the basic theme of Gravity ? The Point is distortion by a moving mass has to be time dependent, but Gravity is not.

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

Statement #1 : Galaxy gravity causes distortion of space.

Statement # 2: It is the distortion of space by Galaxy which causes Gravity."

I do not know which one is the right statement but both cannot be true together. GR description is leaning more towards statement # 2.

As far as I am concerned I cannot visualize any space curve distortion or time curve distortion or even spacetime distortion qualitatively. I can understand the space time distortion at the end boundary (if existing) of universe, but as far as any object is concerned (say Earth), then it is space all around it, how it can distort ? To me it appears to be a completely abstract concept, beyond my limited intelligence.

 

[paddoboy]

I have no cover..... I am shield-less.

A mainstream astro-physicist has recently come up with some model, questioning the very existence of Black Hole. I am sure you understand the significance of her work. She could not have come up with her work, fearing derision by others.

Bullshit! This just shows your anxiety to jump on any and everything that may be seen to refute present day cosmology.
The theoretical physicist concerned was not in anyway derided by anyone at all.
Again, this seems to align with your operation methodology of telling fairy tails and just plain lies.
Now go back again, and read the thread properly. If there was any derision, it was only of the initiator of the thread, a like mind like yourself, who would be prepared to publish anything and claim something which in fact it does not.

Ok, answer this question...

The effect of gravity is observed to be without delay, almost instantaneous with infinite range...Now if the space time distortion is expressed as gravity, then the changing distortion in spacetime by a spinning and moving mass, will certainly have a time aspect, thus against the basic theme of Gravity ? The Point is distortion by a moving mass has to be time dependent, but Gravity is not.

The effect of gravity, is processed at "c"
Once agin, what you perceive to be a problem is just an obnoxious manufactured fairy tail and simple gobbldydook..

 

[paddoboy]

I can understand the space time distortion at the end boundary (if existing) of universe, but as far as any object is concerned (say Earth), then it is space all around it, how it can distort ? To me it appears to be a completely abstract concept, beyond my limited intelligence.

Yet that distortion, plus the effect we call "LenseThirring" has been observed and measured by GP-B as well as other Satellites.
Yes, I suppose we must now agree, that it is beyond your intelligence to accept that.

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

Paddoboy,

Don't jump around. Derision in a sense, thinking and starting work against the mainstream. BH is mainstream, she had the guts and open mindedness to think beyond that. You are stuck inside so called "mainstream well" and this way you will never come out.

With more than 5000 posts under your belt, and you are still scurrying around with silly mistakes with no creative contribution. Just moving around sticking to few people in the forum with pure sycophancy. You have no idea beyond the literal meaning of few technical word like space-time etc. You are completely dumb founded by the entire main stream theory and showing your childlike incredulous acceptance.

I do not have any shame to admit, that this Space Time distortion looks quite funny to me. Either it is beyond my intelligence or it is simply not there. It is just pure mathematical jugglery with no physical qualitative assessment. And please, you do not act as an expert on GP-B observation, only yesterday you got a severe knuckle. Tell you what...You and Origin are pure pain in the ----, attempting to monopolize this sub forum with your not even half cooked understanding of the subject. You asked why other guys are not responding....because they are enjoying the parody being enacted out by you and origin, I have just become the central dumb character in that stupid drama of yours. The only difference is I am just role playing, but you are portraying your real self.

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

Physical Qualitative assessment...before you jump the gun...

Like what... If we leave aside the math still we can visualize BH, BB and even Inflation. But we cannot visualize singularity, we cannot visualize space time distortion (we cannot even visualize real space time leave aside the distortion or curvature). I know for sure that you and origin are equally clueless on this matter. It is like this X^10 = 1 has 10 roots, but we can visualize only one, thats what is real life, other roots are pure mathematics, even harder try visualizing roots of X^2 = -1. Thats your space time, baby boy !!

 

[OnlyMe]

The effect of gravity is observed to be without delay, almost instantaneous with infinite range...Now if the space time distortion is expressed as gravity, then the changing distortion in spacetime by a spinning and moving mass, will certainly have a time aspect, thus against the basic theme of Gravity ? The Point is distortion by a moving mass has to be time dependent, but Gravity is not.

This is an old conundrum. Try to think of it like this. Gravity propagates at the speed of light or so nearly so. But a gravitational field once established is there all of the time.

As far as a planet orbiting the sun is concerned it is always in a relatively uniform gravitational field. The only changes it experiences are relative to its distance from the sun at any point in its orbit, any gravitational affect associated with another planet or moon.., and any changes in the total mass or mass distribution of the system. Our solar system has been around long enough that it can be thought of as an inertial system, as a whole. Any changes in how the different planets gravity affect one another do not happen all at once. There is a speed of light delay in how their gravitational fields interact, as the distances between them changes, but that happens smoothly and since the sun is the dominant gravitational source, they are mostly small by comparrison.

If you were to have a large gravitationally significant object moving quickly through or near our solar system, the speed of light delays, would then become gravitationally significant. So the affect of a moving gravitationally significant mass that is not already part of a balanced inertial system will have a time delayed gravitational impact on the sytem.., but even this will be dependent on how fast the object is moving relative to the system and how large a gravitational mass it is.

Note, the distiction between an object which is already part of the stable inertial system and one that is not. For the first you will see little or no time delayed effects and for the second there will be noticeable time delayed effects that are dependent on both how large the mass is and its velocity relative to the system. Comets could be thought of as an example of the second case, but they are not large enough to have any significant noticeable gravitational affect.

 

[OnlyMe]

Statement #1 : Galaxy gravity causes distortion of space.

Statement # 2: It is the distortion of space by Galaxy which causes Gravity."

I do not know which one is the right statement but both cannot be true together. GR description is leaning more towards statement # 2.

First, I believe you are confusing the concepts of "space" and "spacetime". To be honest I have seen times where even those who know the difference use the words in a confusing manner, but generally they are speaking to others who understand...

Though there could be a relativistic argument on the issue, space should most often not be thought of as curved and/or distorted by the presence of mass. Spacetime is a different animal and is a construct composed of more than one part, including, but perhaps not limited to, "space", "time" and even "energy". The balance of how those components of spacetime interact dynamically, both with each other and any local mass, generates what is referenced as spacetime curvature. That curvature describes the gravitational field...

So the first statement is accurate, "Galaxy gravity causes distortion of space.".., but unclear the way it is phrased. Distortion is a muddy word here. The mass of a galaxy generates a graviationnal field, that can be described as a curvature of spacetime. (Qualification, modern attempts to develope a model of quantum gravity, approch the generation of a gravitational field as an interaction between mass and spacetime, though spacetime is not the way that process is initially described.., and there is a modern interpretation of GR that does define the curvature of spacetime as the cause of gravitation. Both are theoretical, as in unproven.)

Your second statement, "It is the distortion of space by Galaxy which causes Gravity.".., could be thought of as consistent with the second part of the qualifying statement above, but remember it is theoretical and depends on accepting the underlying conceptual and theoretical model.

It is difficult to separate descriptions of spacetime curvature from gravitation, but that does not really mean that either one causes the other. You can think of the two as the same thing, in different words.., and still not know the fundamental why of, or how gravitation emerges from the presence of mass.

As far as I am concerned I cannot visualize any space curve distortion or time curve distortion or even spacetime distortion qualitatively. I can understand the space time distortion at the end boundary (if existing) of universe, but as far as any object is concerned (say Earth), then it is space all around it, how it can distort ? To me it appears to be a completely abstract concept, beyond my limited intelligence.

They are both abstract concepts, relative to everyday experience. It has really only been since the developement of high precision clocks and things like the GPS system that we have any practical examples of time dilation, what I believe you are referring to as time distortion... And we still have no direct evidence of length contraction. These two together play a large role in what is usually meant by curvature of spacetime, though spacetime cuvature gets even more complicated and involved than just time dilation and length contraction.

 

[OnlyMe]

I do not have any shame to admit, that this Space Time distortion looks quite funny to me. Either it is beyond my intelligence or it is simply not there. It is just pure mathematical jugglery with no physical qualitative assessment. And please, you do not act as an expert on GP-B observation, only yesterday you got a severe knuckle.

Like what... If we leave aside the math still we can visualize BH, BB and even Inflation. But we cannot visualize singularity, we cannot visualize space time distortion (we cannot even visualize real space time leave aside the distortion or curvature).

Part of the problem is that to really understand spacetime and spacetime curvature you have some understanding of the mathematics.., or put in a great deal of work digging out good lay oriented descriptions, without getting caught up in the mountains of fringe ideas out there.

People who work with these concepts can and do see them as real as the air they breathe, but it sounds to me that you would be better off thinking of them as descriptions of how things interact, rather than real, in and of theirselves. At least until you begin to become familiar with the concepts. Almost everything in this sub forum is theoretical, though it is based on a great deal of experimental and observational data. And because it is theoretical and sometimes cutting edge theoretical, you will find many differing interpretations.

 

[origin]

Origin writes in his post # 232

"The meaning is that a galaxies gravity can distort space. The significance is also that the galaxies gravity distorts space, I guess. What do you thing the significance is?"

I agree that was poorly worded. The accurate statement as I have said before is that mass distorts space and that distortion we call gravity.

 

[origin]

When I drew his attention to this aspect by stating the factually correct statement that is:

"The Galaxy Gravity does not cause distortion of space, it is the distortion of space which causes Gravity."

He responds with 'Nope' in his post # 244.

This is called completely disowning the statement made, to escape exposure.

No your statement is not correct because the distortion of space is gravity, it does not cause gravity.

 

[origin]

I have investigated the mainstream concepts in physics and I have done experimentation to confirm these concepts, I have not blindly accepted them.

This is a very poor bluff even by amateur poker standard...

[

No bluff. I have taken physics, mass transfer, fluid dynamics, thermodynamics and other physics based courses and when in a university you do the labs and experiements to confirm what you are learning. You have the opportunity prove to your self the truth in what you are learning.

I am sorry Origin, at least Paddoboy has the humility and courage to correct himself. You are just bluffing around, completely devoid of grace, humility and courage..

I am sorry that you are an utter idiot. You have shown that you do not have the brain power to understand what people are telling you. Asking questions is fine. Not understanding the answers is sad, but actively fighting against the logical answers to the questions you asked reveals that you are an idiot.

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

No bluff. I have taken physics, mass transfer, fluid dynamics, thermodynamics and other physics based courses and when in a university you do the labs and experiements to confirm what you are learning. You have the opportunity prove to your self the truth in what you are learning.

Oh ! Come on !! Around 25 years ago you did some experiments in Physics or ThermoD or Fluid Dynamics Lab and those experiments proved to you present day cosmology !! Keep bluffing. I am not betting on you.

You sing lullaby to your kids [or grand kids] about cosmological investigations and experiments you did 25 years ago, thats much better, instead of bluffing here.

Its my friendly advise, if you are responding to a question, be dignified, learn something from the response of OnlyMe, He has stated two things with aplomb. I may disagree with his views but not with his persona....

 

[origin]

Its my friendly advise, if you are responding to a question, be dignified, learn something from the response of OnlyMe, He has stated two things with aplomb. I may disagree with his views but not with his persona....

My advice to you is that you should have at least a whisp of knowldge about a subject before you blunder around like a fool proclaiming that the subject is wrong.

 

[paddoboy]

My advice to you is that you should have at least a whisp of knowldge about a subject before you blunder around like a fool proclaiming that the subject is wrong.

orign, arguing with this bloke and his continuous lies, inuendos and utter bullshit, is akin to arguing with chinglu.
And obviously like chinglu, it is a Creationist agenda that drives his nonsensical posts.

To quote a line from my favourite movie.....
"Dave"/Rajesh, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.

 

[origin]

orign, arguing with this bloke and his continuous lies, inuendos and utter bullshit, is akin to arguing with chinglu.
And obviously like chinglu, it is a Creationist agenda that drives his nonsensical posts.

To quote a line from my favourite movie.....
"Dave"/Rajesh, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.

He clearly has an agenda. But whether it is just trolling, a creationist, or a pseudoscience crank I cannot tell. He is certainly hidding his agenda whatever it is.

 

[OnlyMe]

Its my friendly advise, if you are responding to a question, be dignified, learn something from the response of OnlyMe, He has stated two things with aplomb. I may disagree with his views but not with his persona....

I try to ignore the personalization of comments, mud slinging and outright name calling as long as I can and address what substance might be found underneath, with an almost certain understanding and realization that there will most times come a point where it can no longer be ignored. You choose what discussion you will engage in and thus far it does not seem to me you have chosen wisely in comment or content.

If you want to discuss some science strict to the science or even the theoretical foundation it is built on. If not this is not the sub forum you should be posting in.

 

[paddoboy]

If not this is not the sub forum you should be posting in.

That was pointed out to him when he started this nonsensical questioning, and he pleaded feigned ignorance.
These anti mainstream proponents crave for credibility.