Some questions for better understanding of Main Stream Cosmology

[paddoboy]

We have GP-B experiment which one gentleman is advocating very hard to give a notion of certainty and realism to space time curvature. Even though his own understanding about this experiment stands corrected just yesterday in this forum.

Space exists....Time exists.....GP-B showed that the Earth bends spacetime by an amount predicted by GR....It also showed that the Lense Thirring effect as predisted by GR, also matched observations.
No amount of agenda laden twisting and squirming will change that data
http://einstein.stanford.edu/MISSION/mission1.html
http://einstein.stanford.edu/MISSION/mission6.html
http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html

[No disrespect to the guys who conducted this experiment]. But does the experiment and subsequent analysis prove the reality or certainty of spacetime curvature ? This is an open question even today.

Any student of science knows full well, that science does not "prove"...This was the same boring silly method our old friend chinglu used.
Science creates models, that match observations, which should appear as close to reality as possible.
Space exists, time exists, spacetime exists and match what we observe, and feel.
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/10/18/is-time-real/


Another [Sten Odenwald] expressed it this way:

Can space exist by itself without matter or energy around?
No. Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation.
http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""


Cosmology and Astronomy, in my very humble opinion, are the two most awesome disciplines of science one can imagine.....the scale and potential, both approach infinity.
It should not be strange, or thought of as illogical to realise that this Universe/spacetime we inhabity, is a weird and wonderful place, and will probably in time get even weirder and more wonderful.
I, as the forum's number one science cheer-leader [sorry origin, brucep, AId and others ] see science and the associated disciplines, in progressivly making sense more and more sense of that wierdness and wonder.

 

[paddoboy]

Damn!!! where's the edit button!

 

[paddoboy]

Any student of science knows full well, that science does not "prove"...This was the same boring silly method our old friend chinglu used.
Science creates models, that match observations, which should appear as close to reality as possible.
.

Let me elaborate some for you Rajesh......
Let's do an experiment.
Stand up and jump up in the air....What will happen? You'll come back down to Earth? Are you sure? Remember, it's only a theory...Newton's theory in fact, and the same reason why you come back to Earth, as what keeps the Moon in orbit about the Earth.
Yes, its only a theory, but one that has stood the test of time, and one we are all near certain will always follow as predicted.
It's a theory we are near certain of, just as we are near certain of Evolution, Abiogenesis, SR, GR, and the BB.

 

[paddoboy]

Let me elaborate some for you Rajesh......
Let's do an experiment.
Stand up and jump up in the air....What will happen? You'll come back down to Earth? Are you sure? Remember, it's only a theory...Newton's theory in fact, and the same reason why you come back to Earth, as what keeps the Moon in orbit about the Earth.
Yes, its only a theory, but one that has stood the test of time, and one we are all near certain will always follow as predicted.
It's a theory we are near certain of, just as we are near certain of Evolution, Abiogenesis, SR, GR, and the BB.

And while its only a theory and accurately describes what happens to high precision, GR describes the same effect by spacetime curvature which has even a higher degree of accuracy and precision.
:AND THIS CURVATURE HAS BEEN MEASURED:

http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

Paddoboy, I admire your enthusiasm and faultless advocacy for mainstream cosmology... Great !! Keep it up..

This is I am telling sincerely, not out of some sarcasm...

 

[paddoboy]

Paddoboy, I admire your enthusiasm and faultless advocacy for mainstream cosmology... Great !! Keep it up..

This is I am telling sincerely, not out of some sarcasm...

That's nice....But as you have also noted in the past from my posts, I do recognise that there is still plenty that remains a mystery....faultless advocacy??? ...Not at all. If you presented to me convincing observational evidence of any contradictory of mainstream cosmology, I would embrace it with both arms. Show me convincing observational evidence of a creator, and I would be down on my knees begging forgiveness.
And I havn't been on my knees, since I was an Altar boy at school!

 

[FOLZONI]

Sympathizing with paddoboy is something novel for me...

Damn!!! where's the edit button!

...but this time I have to agree 100% as I too have not & never found an edit button on the new layout. All of us make stupid & misleading comments & we need to edit them.

I hope all the moderators have the originals & changes so that you can readily weed out nefarious falsifying activity by a member in a post soon quoted but tampered with subsequently by a nefarious member.

FOLZONI

 

[paddoboy]

Paddoboy, I admire your enthusiasm and faultless advocacy for mainstream cosmology... Great !! Keep it up..

This is I am telling sincerely, not out of some sarcasm...

That's nice....But as you have also noted in the past from my posts, I do recognise that there is still plenty that remains a mystery....faultless advocacy??? ...Not at all. If you presented to me convincing observational evidence of any contradictory of mainstream cosmology, I would embrace it with both arms. Show me convincing observational evidence of a creator, and I would be down on my knees begging forgiveness.
And I haven't been on my knees, since I was an Altar boy at school!

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

.....I do recognise that there is still plenty that remains a mystery....

Please give examples of these mysteries......as many as you recognize.

 

[wellwisher]

One extra variable that came to mind, when interpreting the size and age of the universe from energy emission, is connected to the twin paradox. In the paradox, one twin remains on earth and other travels in space. When the traveling twin returns, he is younger because time had slowed in his reference. However, once on earth its clock returns to that of his twin, aging the same. However, he retains that youth increment from his space flight; always 1 year younger.

One thing that is never mentioned is that although one twin ages slower by traveling on the rocket, is his size also permanently shrunken by the same percent. He may forever remain 1 year young than his brother, when they both live on earth, he does not also remain 2 inches shorter with higher mass density due to linger size change? I would guess distance reverts, but the age loss lingers. This may be due to time having one direction to the future and therefore can't change the past, but distance is reversible.

The question I have; what would be impact of lingering time lag on matter since matter is the main source of atomic emissions?

To help answer this question, say we have twin hour glasses full of sand. One twin hour glass moves near C and the other is stationary, so when the moving twin returns it has aged slower. The two hour glasses will not have the same amount of sand on the top to reflect one being younger. The time potential or lag is now connected to extra potential energy; extra sand has potential energy.

My guess is this would impact frequency of energy, which is the time aspect of energy. Since distance reverses, this it will not impact wavelength, directly. However, the wavelength would need to change to reflect the product of changing frequency and wavelength needing to be proportional to C. The analogy is the train moves and give off a Doppler shift in sound. The extra time potential adds a frequency tweak, similar to the conductor tweaking the pitch of the whistle, thereby making the Doppler shift, shift.

We have space clocks that loose time in orbit. Do they also shrink permanently, too, by the same proportion thereby increasing mass density? Or do time and distance show different lingering properties; time lag but no distance lag? How does astronomy take into account the extra time lag in space-time due to motion? I call it time potential because it has a potential to do work; extra sand.

 

[origin]

One extra variable that came to mind, when interpreting the size and age of the universe from energy emission, is connected to the twin paradox. In the paradox, one twin remains on earth and other travels in space. When the traveling twin returns, he is younger because time had slowed in his reference. However, once on earth its clock returns to that of his twin, aging the same. However, he retains that youth increment from his space flight; always 1 year younger.

One thing that is never mentioned is that although one twin ages slower by traveling on the rocket, is his size also permanently shrunken by the same percent. He may forever remain 1 year young than his brother, when they both live on earth, he does not also remain 2 inches shorter with higher mass density due to linger size change? I would guess distance reverts, but the age loss lingers. This may be due to time having one direction to the future and therefore can't change the past, but distance is reversible.

Ummm, wow...
Here is the deal wellwisher. When the twins are in the same reference frame there is no length contraction or time dilation between the two. When the one twin accelerates to a different inertial frame there will be length contraction and time dilation. As the one twin flys around the amount of time passing for the twins will be different. When the traveling twin returns to the same reference frame as the stationary twin there will no longer be any length contraction or time dilation between the two twins. So the time passes the same for them both, and they will both measure a 1 m as 1 m (ie no length contraction). It is not that distance is 'reversable'.

 

[paddoboy]

Please give examples of these mysteries......as many as you recognize.

Sure....
The true nature of non baryonic DM
The true nature of DE
Why gravity exhibits itself when mass/energy deform spacetime
The true nature of a BH Singularity
The true nature of the BB Singularity

We know all the above exist, or did exist, we don't know why.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

It's just that as matter passes through the spiral arms it is more densely packed together than it is outside the spiral arms. It is something like a slowdown on the highway, when cars reach it the traffic becomes denser and as it leaves its it thins out again. The point of the slow down doesn't move even though the cars in it are constantly entering and leaving.

Good analogy. I hit those traffic bottlenecks almost daily. Interesting statistics - traffic slows down, crawls, speeds up, and no sign of the original problem (accident that had been towed much earlier). But the traffic still stops/slows at the original bottleneck for a long time after the removal of the problem.

 

[paddoboy]

Ummm, wow...
Here is the deal wellwisher. .

My reaction was a lot stronger then Wow!

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

The true nature of non baryonic DM

So this will open up new frontiers for research at particle Physics level.

Why gravity exhibits itself when mass/energy deform spacetime

Let us dig a tunnel from the center of Earth and drop a shell of mass from one end, as per standard Physics this will be kind of a SHM, can this be explained with distortion in the space time ??

The true nature of a BH Singularity
The true nature of the BB Singularity

Forget it. Singularity has no true nature, to understand this we have to eliminate the singularity or leave in a mystery.

 

[paddoboy]

So this will open up new frontiers for research at particle Physics level.

Equipment like the LHC is making progress....

Let us dig a tunnel from the center of Earth and drop a shell of mass from one end, as per standard Physics this will be kind of a SHM, can this be explained with distortion in the space time ??

You are speaking of a CoM, not spacetime.

Forget it. Singularity has no true nature, to understand this we have to eliminate the singularity or leave in a mystery.

Ummmm, of course it has a nature. A BH and the BB Singularity are simply regions of spacetime at the quantum/Planck level, where our models break down, or are outside the descriptive parameters of them.
A validated QGT will either eliminate the Singularity, or push it back further.

Either way, our top scientists with the access to the myriads of state of the art equipment, are making progress everyday, in the fields mentioned and more.

 

[paddoboy]

Just a point that may help in some of the misunderstanding in this thread. Every massive object warps/curves spacetime. Me, sitting here at my keyboard, also contribute to this warping/curving of spacetime, but this effect and my small mass of 87kgs, sees that warpage drowned out with the warpage by the Earth.
The famous Galileo probe that was sent to Jupiter, along the way, happened to make the first flyby of Asteroid "Gaspra", while doing so, discovered it had a moon that was called "Ida".

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

Just a point that may help in some of the misunderstanding in this thread....... Me, sitting here at my keyboard, also contribute to this warping/curving of spacetime, but this effect and my small mass of 87kgs, sees that warpage drowned out with the warpage by the Earth.

You got carried away..... I would not have responded to this post if it was not clari-factory in nature.

I give you an example, you can correlate with whatever analogy you wish, but one thing is sure, this example cannot be refuted by bear belly peer group members...

The other day I was stretching on a rather big water bed (>24000 ltr), with not so small mass of mine at 123 Kgs, there was a substantial warp / distortion, and trust me it did not get drowned out with the warpage by the Earth. I thought of taking a selfie but my belly which was creating a warp in anti-direction was creating problems.

The point, Paddoboy, is that I have not seen any multi object warpage analysis, I brought this issue on this thread earlier about resultant warpage, but the issue got drowned out. Many mathematical papers talk of warpage by Galaxy with a few simple assumptions like Uniform Mass distribution of Galaxy, non spherical shape of Galaxy, disc nature of Galaxy, no bulge at the center of Galaxy, thin Galaxy, single piece Galaxy... all very simple but there is nothing on very complex system called Earth Moon. Why ?? Because we do not understand the resultant nature of warpage, without bringing Newton back in the forefront.

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

Another very simple question..

This warpage is with respect to what ?? What is the frame of reference ?

 

[paddoboy]

The point, Paddoboy, is that I have not seen any multi object warpage analysis, I brought this issue on this thread earlier about resultant warpage, but the issue got drowned out. Many mathematical papers talk of warpage by Galaxy with a few simple assumptions like Uniform Mass distribution of Galaxy, non spherical shape of Galaxy, disc nature of Galaxy, no bulge at the center of Galaxy, thin Galaxy, single piece Galaxy... all very simple but there is nothing on very complex system called Earth Moon. Why ?? Because we do not understand the resultant nature of warpage, without bringing Newton back in the forefront.

Back to where we started from.....
You are obviously trying your hardest to facilitate a problem, where none exists.
If you think I am wrong, or if you still want to ignore all the answers you have been given, then E-Mail some one with more expertise then me and others here.....
And you say you don't have an agenda?

This warpage is with respect to what ?? What is the frame of reference ?

Spacetime warpage occurs. It has been measured and it gives results predicted by GR.
With respect to what?...Not sure, maybe with respect to areas of flat spacetime.


Bye Rajesh...I'm really sorry I was fool enough to answer your agenda laden questions.
Your dishonesty in this thread was obvious from the beginning, in posting in a science thread instead of the fringe section.
That dishonesty has carried through.

Now again, E-Mail an expert, or write a paper invalidating GR, and get it peer reviewed.
Otherwise you have nothing and are pushing shit uphill.