The ISU, QWC, and EI updates for Pseudoscience fans

[quantum_wave]

Gravity thoughts

The quantum level of order is where particles form and are maintained by standing wave patterns in the foundational medium, and where gravity results from the net directional imbalance in the inflowing wave component vs. the spherical out flowing wave component. The mechanics at the quantum level are referred to as quantum action.

The arena level of order is where big bang arenas fill themselves with galaxies that have separation momentum that carries galaxies out to intersect and overlap with adjacent arenas, resulting in new big crunches continually forming from the galactic remnants of previous arenas across the landscape of the greater universe. The mechanics at the arena level are referred to as arena action.

Needless to say, there are limits to the detail that we can observe and the data we can collect from our finest technologies that scan the universe at the upper and lower limits, including Hubble and colliders like the LHC. The levels of order that I invoke are outside of our ability to observe, and therefore can't easily be tested and falsified or supported by repeatable results. But everyone suspects there is action going on above and below our ability to observe and out of that widespread conviction come the two levels of order that I invoke in my model.

That brings me to the point of explaining how I developed the as yet unseen mechanisms of both quantum action and arena action that are the center pieces of my model. I have compared the mechanics of the two levels of order, saying they are strikingly similar aside from the vast difference in scale, and both levels include spherical waves carrying gravitational energy across the foundational medium.

It is easy to imagine a big bang arena as being a spherical expansion out of a big crunch, but it is difficult to imaging a quantum wave as being a spherical expansion out of a high density spot in a standing wave pattern at the quantum level. The reason for the difficulty at the quantum level is that we don't have a day to day familiarity with the components of the action like we have with the components that go into a big crunch. We can look out at night and see our Milky Way galaxy and can visually pick out other observable galaxies. We know from the redshift data that most of the galaxies outside of our galaxy group are moving away from us and from each other due to separation momentum from the perspective of my model. We can visualize our Hubble view and extend that image to a big bang arena, and from there we can easily image multiple arenas in a landscape where they intersect and overlap, causing new big crunches and new big bangs.

But what visuals and first hand familiarity do we have with the components that go into quantum action; not much. As laymen, we know a little of the science of quantum mechanics, and are familiar with the Copenhagen accords, and the uncertainty principle, the wave function, and particle-wave duality, etc., but those are not really used and dealt with by laymen. They are more or less vague concepts unless you work with them as a professional in the scientific community.

I developed the basic ideas of arena action in my model to describe the common preconditions to big bangs, and developed the arena landscape model of the greater universe. Then I was faced with developing the mechanics of a big bang. Using gravity to accumulate a big crunch form parent arenas did not present a problem with general relativity and space-time, but I knew that I was going to need a means of propagation of gravity at the quantum level that did not invoke general relativity because I had a layman understanding of the incompatibility or at least that inapplicability of a macro theory within the micro realm.

What I needed was a quantum explanation for the big bang event because galaxies are made of particles and a big crunch full of particles must employ "as yet" unknown physics in order to "bang". Those new physics started to develop in my model slowly, starting with brainstorming ways a big crunch could produce a big bang. Of course I had the picture of novas and supernovas collapsing as the gravitational result of the accumulated density of stars, but known particles were produced and the black holes that remained were neutron stars composed of known particles. The mechanics of a big bang had to be different.

The big crunch had to produce an environment that could inflate before particles formed so that the observed separation of galaxies could be accomplished, meaning the separation had to be equalized across the arena instead of from a center point that would be produced by an explosion. What I needed was a connection between the two levels of order where particles could form from wave energy, and one that accommodated the wave propagation of gravity.

The foundational medium was born as a perfect aether fluid that had to exist because there was an unmistakable role that only such a medium could fulfill. That role was that particles could be composed of wave energy, and gravity could traverse the medium as wave energy, thus connecting particles. The foundational medium lets my model invoke a level of order below the fundamental level of quantum mechanics and the standard particle model. In my model, without such a lower level of order, crunches can't bang, particles can't form that have separation momentum imparted to them in an inflating arena, and gravity cannot traverse the inner space of particle composition.

With such a foundational medium, my model can invoke all of those characteristics, and the big thing is that gravity becomes as simple as an imbalance between the inflowing and out flowing components of standing waves in the medium. Gravity waves come from the direction of surrounding objects and goes away from objects spherically as a result of quantum action.

The aspect that differentiates quantum action from arena action, aside for the huge difference in scale, is that big crunches form from particles accumulated by gravitational attraction at the arena level, and the high density spots within standing wave patterns form from the converging crests of wave energy of which particles are composed at the quantum level.

Particles at the arena level play the role that wave energy density of converging wave crests play at the quantum level. It is energy-to matter-to energy at the quantum level, and it is matter-to energy-to matter at the arena level. Energy to matter to energy produces contraction under the force of gravity, and matter to energy to matter produces expansion under the force of wave energy density equalization, i.e. expansion and contraction are the two major opposing forces of the ISU.

 

[quantum_wave]

Thought for the day: Why am I'm holding back on the really deluded stuff ...

Like the CMBR; what is it really and how did it get here? Given the fact that my model invokes changes to all of the preconditions of the standard cosmology and the particle model, what could I possibly say about the CMBR that would comply with current theory? Not much really, except for its observed characteristics.

We have no observations to go by that would tell us what a supposed big crunch would produce in a collapse/bang event as proposed by my model. Mainstream views are that the photon energy released at the instant of the Big Bang event was contained in the inflating universe through a period of faster-than-light inflation until the opacity of the universe declined enough for it to be released. That release didn't occur until the distant reaches of the universe were so great that the CMBR we observe has been coming from all directions out of those far reaches for 14 billion years and we have no reason to suspect it will stop coming any time soon.

By way of disclaimer, that view of the mainstream explanation for the CMB is my deluded layman understanding of one of the scenarios, and not definite science at all. I only mention it to set the stage for the explanation of the CMB from the perspective of my model.

The background we observe is not coming from the contained radiation of our collapse/bang event, and has not cooled as a result of inflation of the "soup" that made up our universe in the first moment, but instead has been out there all the time and we are intruding into space that already contained it.

It can be said that our collapse/bang event accelerated it toward us from outside or in my terms, our expanding arena intruded on the space that already contained cosmic microwave background wave energy from a potentially infinite history of arena action.

Our big crunch, which might have been billions of light years across at the moment of collapse, would have inwardly stretched the wave energy in the background surrounding the big crunch and thereby supercooled it for the brief duration of the collapse. It was at the instant of collapse/bang that our ball of dense state wave energy was born. The collapse of the big crunch resulted in a what I call a "bounce" or pass through as the collapse turned into expansion. When the collapse passed through itself, the in-rushing background wave energy encountered the whip lash of the "bounce" of our dense state energy as it emerged out of the collapse.

The stretched and cooled low energy density of the surrounding/inflowing background wave energy began merging with the dense state wave energy that emerged from our arena's initial event. In my model that inflow is a major contributing source of our observed background and it is what our dense state wave energy ball was inflated with.

Addendum: I guess that if the source of the CMB is the corridors of the greater universe then it will keep coming from all directions for much more that 14 billion years; forever is more like it.

Also, if the source is external and independent of our "Big Bang" event, then some of the uncomfortable complications of Big Bang Theory and Inflationary Theory can be removed. The whole opacity and photon release wouldn't have to be invoked. All those initial photons from the big event could be allowed therefore to speed freely away out into space like the light from a big flash would be expected to do. In my model we can account for the CMBRs isotropy and homogeneity because those would be characteristics of a cosmic background that had always been "thermalized" to ~2.7K across infinite space. My model supposes that as big crunches form they pull in a huge amount of background radiation, and as the big collapse/bang occurs, a corresponding huge amount of hot photon energy would be released into the background.

And another delusion related to the existing background composition: Can QWC resolve the Lithium problem? If you mean in a quantified manner, no, but if you mean is there any logic that would explain the lithium abundance in QWC? Yes.

There is a predicted lithium content that would be expected after fourteen billion years addressed by the consensus cosmology, BBT. There are differing scientific theories all along the way, the observational evidence is still being uncovered, and the data is being sorted out, but the real lithium exceeds predictions by an uncomfortable and unpredicted order of magnitude.

Mainstream science is finding that the more data and the better the data, the more the problem is growing, i.e. there is a still greater abundance than would be predicted.

Consider the main difference between the age of our causally connected big bang universe and the potentially infinite age the arena landscape of my model. The comparison is fourteen billion years vs. an eternal matter-to energy-to matter churning of the ancient corridors that wind their way around the arena landscape, changing with the collapses and bangs, but never being fully refreshed by current crunch/bangs. If the amount of lithium would be predicted to increase as our big bang connected universe ages, then the extraordinary difference between the age of consensus BBT universe and the QWC universe would provide ample time for the production of the abundance. The lithium abundance would be pre-existing in the vast reaches of space and would be incorporated into our arena from outside right along with the CMBR.

How deluded is that?

 

[Prof.Layman]

How deluded is that?

IDK, you completely lost me. There seems to be a total lack of layman's terms in this. It seems like you just took physics principles and replaced them with a quantum wave. I don't see how you could apply logic to this line of reasoning.

 

[quantum_wave]

IDK, you completely lost me. There seems to be a total lack of layman's terms in this. It seems like you just took physics principles and replaced them with a quantum wave. I don't see how you could apply logic to this line of reasoning.

Like I told Origin, it is what it is. You will see in it what you see.

 

[Prof.Layman]

The foundational medium was born as a perfect aether fluid that had to exist because there was an unmistakable role that only such a medium could fulfill. That role was that particles could be composed of wave energy, and gravity could traverse the medium as wave energy, thus connecting particles. The foundational medium lets my model invoke a level of order below the fundamental level of quantum mechanics and the standard particle model. In my model, without such a lower level of order, crunches can't bang, particles can't form that have separation momentum imparted to them in an inflating arena, and gravity cannot traverse the inner space of particle composition.

You replied previously that your model doesn't have spacetime, but then you say here that there is a foundational medium that is made of some aether fluid. I have thought that the spacetime of GR is a type of aether in itself. It did replace the aether theory, but only as a more accurate description of what the "aether" is and how it behaves. In a way it is still a "substance" that fills the universe in GR. It warps and bends so that objects in the universe are affected differently. It did get me thinking, that like I said when a photon is intensified it can create an electron, so in a way does the wave density slow it down to form this heavier particle? Or, is the electron a higher density of these waves? Then how is the "aether" affected by this wave density, to produce gravity? It seemed to follow that in your model that a high wave density acts the same way as mass.

 

[quantum_wave]

Prof. Layman and space-time

I will give you credit for taking the time to put your finger on one of the most important aspects of my delusions.

You replied previously that your model doesn't have space-time, but then you say here that there is a foundational medium that is made of some aether fluid. I have thought that the space-time of GR is a type of aether in itself. It did replace the aether theory, but only as a more accurate description of what the "aether" is and how it behaves. In a way it is still a "substance" that fills the universe in GR. It warps and bends so that objects in the universe are affected differently.

We have reached different conclusions about what Einstein meant by space-time. No aether was found in careful experiments and yet gravity was obvious. The construction of SR based on simple postulates worked perfectly and received great acclaim but had many restrictions that kept it from applying to realistic scenarios, i.e. where gravity, energy density, and non-linear motion was involved. The math works perfectly, and so all the wannabees who attack the math are wrong. However, to my limited understanding SR works for linear motion, it does not consider gravity, the the math involves reducing all the equations to a common denominator, the speed of light, so obviously the math will always work perfectly. Time dilation in SR is not gravitational time dilation which is a real, observable fact and is invoked in my model. In SR it is mathematical time dilation which I don't accept. But I am grossly uninformed compared to those who defend SR and I am not qualified to defend my statement at a professional level or to debunk SR in any way.

GR is an entirely different matter from SR. The equations also work better than any theory that preceded them in the realm of relativistic motion. At less than relativistic velocities the differences are so tiny that they fall within the tolerances of the measurement. My supposition is that wave energy density causes the relativistic problems that we observe in real life, and my view is that either there is space-time or there is a foundational medium, not both. But I am not at all well informed on GR to talk at a professional level about it, and am not debunking it because I am far from being educated in the details. I'm sure the EFEs are very good at predicting the motion of objects in space but they are not something that a lazy layman could apply, and I am too lazy to learn all the math, the science theory, history, etc. to play with professionals. All of my knowledge is at a layman level from the Internet and popular science media, etc.

Since I can't defend it or debunk it, I don't invoke GR and therefore I don't use space-time, and I don't employ the action at a distance that is the result of matter/energy curving and stretching space-time. What I have done within my own personal, deluded, so call model, is start from known observations and data and build my ideas from the bottom up, over many years and with many restarts and back tracks. But no one has ever pointed out an error that has gone uncorrected, and my frequent disclaimers are my only defense to being called an idiot, bat shit, and deluded. I admit to those characteristics if anyone wants to use them, and my discalimers are a result of that broad brush criticism. That level of attack has resulted in me framing my model to fit within the perceptions of those who critique it with such disparagement. I just admit that, hell, I'm deluded and happy to be so.

It did get me thinking, that like I said when a photon is intensified it can create an electron, so in a way does the wave density slow it down to form this heavier particle? *Or, is the electron a higher density of these waves? Then how is the "aether" affected by this wave density, to produce gravity? It seemed to follow that in your model that a high wave density acts the same way as mass.

First, I don't agree that space-time invokes an aether so we have that difference between us before I get into explaining how wave energy density in a foundational medium could produce the effects that are attributed to space-time. We should resolve that before we try to come to any understanding.

I'll gladly give you some bullet points on wave energy density and my bottom up conclusions, and if you want I will convey my delusions about each point that you don't fully grasp yet. I am not saying that to grasp my model you have to condone or accept it. I am saying that it is internally consistent and not inconsistent with known observation and data. Note that I did not say it was consistent with known theory; it is completely inconsistent with current theory. My point is that science has limits as to what it can observe or extract data from, and the known science goes up to those limits, but beyond the limits of our ability to observe, test, and falsify, science is not "known" science, it is theory, hypothesis, speculation, and of course my favorite, delusion.

I owe you some bullet points and detail on how wave energy density in a foundational medium could mechanically do what the math of space-time does but it is a lot of typing and you may already have read enough to make that typing a waste of your time to read it. If that is the case you will save me doing it, lol.

 

[Prof.Layman]

You should read this thread where I derive tau or the proper time as though the lengths and times have actually contracted relative to each other, in a Newtonian sense.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?114534-Are-Delta-s-Valid-Necessarry-in-Physics

I would have to disagree, because I think SR has more deep relation to reality than most people would think. I think it can apply to everything in modern physics, and yet it does, because it is the equation that started modern physics. You cannot really disagree with SR and accept anything in modern physics. I just don't see how this could be done. If you would like to discuss SR in further detail, I could help further explain it to you in this thread.

 

[quantum_wave]

You should read this thread where I derive tau or the proper time as though the lengths and times have actually contracted relative to each other, in a Newtonian sense.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?114534-Are-Delta-s-Valid-Necessarry-in-Physics

I would have to disagree, because I think SR has more deep relation to reality than most people would think.

Disagree with what statement, I made several regarding SR.

I think it can apply to everything in modern physics, and yet it does, because it is the equation that started modern physics.

Please re-read that sentence and see if you meant to say it that way. You say "can apply", and then "yet it does". They don't seem to both be consistent the way I read them.

You cannot really disagree with SR and accept anything in modern physics. I just don't see how this could be done.

Quote for me the part of what I said that says I disagree with SR so I can respond knowing exactly the words I wrote that you take to mean I disagree with SR.

If you would like to discuss SR in further detail, I could help further explain it to you in this thread.

I'll take a look, but here is what I said. What do I have wrong?

The construction of SR based on simple postulates worked perfectly and received great acclaim but had many restrictions that kept it from applying to realistic scenarios, i.e. where gravity, energy density, and non-linear motion was involved. The math works perfectly, and so all the wannabees who attack the math are wrong. However, SR works for linear motion, it does not consider gravity, the the math involves reducing all the equations to a common denominator, the speed of light, so obviously the math will always work perfectly, and the time dilation is not gravitation time dilation, it is mathematical time dilation. But I am grossly uninformed compared to those who defend SR and I am not qualified to defend my statement at a professional level or to debunk SR in any way.

 

[Prof.Layman]

In SR it is mathematical time dilation which I don't accept.

I was responding to this statement. That is why I offered to further explain where the time dilation comes from in SR. I don't see why anyone should not have a clear grasp of it, and I assure you that I do. It comes from the constant speed of light. No matter what speed you move you will always measure it to travel at the same constant speed. So then it is simply the relation to how much distance/time we measure in order to be able to measure something to travel the same speed no matter what speed something is traveling. Speed or velocity is distance over time, so then how we measure distance and time has to change in order for us to measure it to travel the same speed. So then c=d/t for a photon, just like in Newtonian Physics, but then placing that relation for the photon that travels at the same speed at all times makes other values in Newtonian Physics vary, just so we could all measure the same speed of light. This is the equation that is given at the beginning of Einsteins, 1905 paper on relativity.

 

[quantum_wave]

I was responding to this statement. That is why I offered to further explain where the time dilation comes from in SR. I don't see why anyone should not have a clear grasp of it, and I assure you that I do. It comes from the constant speed of light. No matter what speed you move you will always measure it to travel at the same constant speed. So then it is simply the relation to how much distance/time we measure in order to be able to measure something to travel the same speed no matter what speed something is traveling. Speed or velocity is distance over time, so then how we measure distance and time has to change in order for us to measure it to travel the same speed. So then c=d/t for a photon, just like in Newtonian Physics, but then placing that relation for the photon that travels at the same speed at all times makes other values in Newtonian Physics vary, just so we could all measure the same speed of light. This is the equation that is given at the beginning of Einsteins, 1905 paper on relativity.

I see. When I say I don't accept mathematical time dilation, I mean that the physical time dilation and the mathematical time dilation are two different things. SR doesn't apply to the environment that includes gravity and SR only applies to linear motion. I don't see how that corresponds to reality. I said the math works perfectly and why it works perfectly. Some would say it works because SR is reality, and I say the math works because dividing everything by a common denominator makes all of the equations work.

 

[Prof.Layman]

I see. When I say I don't accept mathematical time dilation, I mean that the physcial time dilation and the mathematical time dilation are two different things. SR doesn't apply to the environment that includes gravity and SR only applies to linear motion. I don't see how that corresponds to reality.

Say you turned on a flashlight, then tried to determine how far it traveled to a fellow camper. The distance the light traveled would then be its velocity times time. You could then point out that it traveled in a perfectly straight line. Then an UFO flies by these weary campers. It is crossing back and forth at break neck speeds, and then notices the two campers flashing a light. The UFO then measures the beam to travel at the same speed, but because of its velocity, it sees the light travel at a longer angle. At this longer angle, it would then travel a greater distance than the campers saw it move a shorter distance. So then how did the UFO and the campers measure the light to be the same speed? Well, since the campers saw it travel a shorter distance, then they would have to measure time to run more slowly. d=vt. There would need to be a smaller value for t in order for d to have a smaller value if v remained the same. The UFO would then have to measure time to have a greater value to measure the same velocity of light. As t increases d would also increase as v remained the same. That explaination is a little backwards, since the object traveling is normally seen as measuring time more slowely, but I think looking at it this way can give a better grasp of it. After all relativity says that the UFO could say that it is at rest while in constant motion, if it did this then the scenario would play out the way I have described. The values of distance and time are directly related to each other when it comes to the speed of light. It corresponds to reality because no matter what speed you travel, you will in fact measure the same speed of light that is d/t.

 

[quantum_wave]

Say you turned on a flashlight, then tried to determine how far it traveled to a fellow camper. The distance the light traveled would then be its velocity times time. You could then point out that it traveled in a perfectly straight line. Then an UFO flies by these weary campers. It is crossing back and forth at break neck speeds, and then notices the two campers flashing a light. The UFO then measures the beam to travel at the same speed, but because of its velocity, it sees the light travel at a longer angle. At this longer angle, it would then travel a greater distance than the campers saw it move a shorter distance. So then how did the UFO and the campers measure the light to be the same speed? Well, since the campers saw it travel a shorter distance, then they would have to measure time to run more slowly. d=vt. There would need to be a smaller value for t in order for d to have a smaller value if v remained the same. The UFO would then have to measure time to have a greater value to measure the same velocity of light. As t increases d would also increase as v remained the same. That explaination is a little backwards, since the object traveling is normally seen as measuring time more slowely, but I think looking at it this way can give a better grasp of it. After all relativity says that the UFO could say that it is at rest while in constant motion, if it did this then the scenario would play out the way I have described. The values of distance and time are directly related to each other when it comes to the speed of light. It corresponds to reality because no matter what speed you travel, you will in fact measure the same speed of light that is d/t.

To me, you base that example on the UFO being able to say it is at rest. And because it can say it is at rest, you say that your example corresponds to reality. My deluded argument is that the UFO cannot say it is at rest in reality because motion in reality causes the observered temperature of the background radiation to change, getting hotter in the direction of motion. You can't measure a constant background radiation in all directions while in motion relative to the background, and so the UFO actually is in the moving frame and not the rest frame in reality.

 

[Prof.Layman]

To me, you base that example on the UFO being able to say it is at rest. And because it can say it is at rest, you say that your example corresponds to reality. My deluded argument is that the UFO cannot say it is at rest in reality because motion in reality causes the observered temperature of the background radiation to change, getting hotter in the direction of motion. You can't measure a constant background radiation in all directions while in motion relative to the background, and so the UFO actually is in the moving frame and not the rest frame in reality.

I was just thinking that I may need to make sure the one that is slowing down is actually the one holding the light in my examples. This makes all the difference into what time is perceived to be slowing down. Sorry, the light should have been on the UFO, but the point is that both the UFO and the campers can carry the torch, so to speak. I would have to disagree with this statement. If it was true then we could observe the CMB to different values in other directions. On the contrary, I think homogenuity of the CMB proves that there is no absolute frame of reference, because it is measured by a device in orbit that can see around all sides of the Earth. Otherwise, it would be a different color at different times of the year, this hasn't shown to be the case.

 

[quantum_wave]

I was just thinking that I may need to make sure the one that is slowing down is actually the one holding the light in my examples. This makes all the difference into what time is perceived to be slowing down. Sorry, the light should have been on the UFO, but the point is that both the UFO and the campers can carry the torch, so to speak. I would have to disagree with this statement. If it was true then we could observe the CMB to different values in other directions. On the contrary, I think homogenuity of the CMB proves that there is no absolute frame of reference, because it is measured by a device in orbit that can see around all sides of the Earth. Otherwise, it would be a different color at different times of the year, this hasn't shown to be the case.

Are you saying that motion relative to the background does not change the observed frequency in the direction of motion relative to the rest frame? Explain how the CMB can be traveling at the speed of light from all directions, and yet motion will not change the observed temperature in the direction of motion. Motion does not change the speed of light, it changes the observed temperature in that direction. I can find a scholarly reference to support that I think.


http://www.cv.nrao.edu/course/astr534/CMB.html

"The CMB is nearly isotropic. This COBE all-sky image in galactic coordinates spans only the temperature range 27250004 K. The dipole anisotropy is caused by the Earth's 600 km s−1 motion, and some foreground emission in the galactic plane is visible."


http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_fluct.html

The orientation of the maps are such that the plane of the Milky Way runs horizontally across the center of each image. The top pair of figures show the temperature of the microwave sky in a scale in which blue is 0 Kelvin (absolute zero) and red is 4 Kelvin. Note that the temperature appears completely uniform on this scale. The actual temperature of the cosmic microwave background is 2.725 Kelvin. The middle image pair show the same map displayed in a scale such that blue corresponds to 2.721 Kelvin and red is 2.729 Kelvin. The "yin-yang" pattern is the dipole anisotropy that results from the motion of the Sun relative to the rest frame of the cosmic microwave background. The bottom figure pair shows the microwave sky after the dipole anisotropy has been subtracted from the map. This removal eliminates most of the fluctuations in the map: the ones that remain are thirty times smaller. On this map, the hot regions, shown in red, are 0.0002 Kelvin hotter than the cold regions, shown in blue.

 

[Prof.Layman]

The background radiation can be detected in a unhooked T.V. or antenna. I haven't detected that much of a change in it yet, idk, it does look pretty random. The T.V. fuzz does seem to keep a steady constant pitch. An object traveling along with the expansion of the universe can travel at any relative speed and not show any signs of relativistic effects. The is one of the most popularized ideas in current Big Bang Theory. There are parts of the expansion that can be seen as going faster than the speed of light. I think it could be possible to not see a big change in the CMB from relative motion, idk maybe I should hook my T.V. to a rig and find out, lol. I don't think there have been any reports of metal getting hotter by being in relative motion, that is a new one for me.

 

[Prof.Layman]

Are you saying that motion relative to the background does not change the observed frequency in the direction of motion relative to the rest frame? Explain how the CMB can be traveling at the speed of light from all directions, and yet motion will not change the observed temperature in the direction of motion. Motion does not change the speed of light, it changes the observed temperature in that direction. I can find a scholarly reference to support that I think.

http://www.cv.nrao.edu/course/astr534/CMB.html

I read in Brian Greenes, book that George Mamow and his students contributed to 2011 discovery of the new cosmological constant. There work was used to find that the universe had accelerated some 7 billion years ago, and it has recently increased in speed. I guess there are two types of doppler shift for light. One caused by expansion of space, and one caused by relative motion itself. It is hard to imagine a universe that can be seen to have many absolute frames, because after all everything in the universe is accelerating. Stranger even is the fact that we are accelerating very quickly now and hardly even realize it. I have wondered before if the acceleration itself could be what everything is actually traveling relative too, but then this frame seems to even be able to change. So, idk, it seems like even an object that is accelerating with the expansion of space can assume that it is at rest. You would think that if we were actually accelerating at these speeds that we should at least feel something from it, but we don't. It doesn't matter if the Klingons or the Vulcans are watching us through there telescopes accelerating at completely different speeds, we don't feel anything from it. You would think from all this acceleration that we would be able to say, yes, everything is accelerating out from the Big Bang, but maybe this. But, the fact of the matter is that even though everything in the universe is accelerating, we can't make heads or tails of it. Relativity says we should know and feel the force of acceleration, but I guess the force is not with this one today.

 

[quantum_wave]

I read in Brian Greenes, book that George Mamow and his students contributed to 2011 discovery of the new cosmological constant. There work was used to find that the universe had accelerated some 7 billion years ago, and it has recently increased in speed. I guess there are two types of doppler shift for light. One caused by expansion of space, and one caused by relative motion itself. It is hard to imagine a universe that can be seen to have many absolute frames, because after all everything in the universe is accelerating. Stranger even is the fact that we are accelerating very quickly now and hardly even realize it.

In short distances, the feel of gravity far exceeds the feel of separation momentum. We feel gravity instead of separation momentum. If you refer to the CMB as a universal reference frame, there is only one, not many. If you hold the view that there is only one arena in the universe then you would hold the view that there is one cosmological constant which is also referred to as "vacuum energy density". If you hold the view that there is a greater universe and space was not created by our big bang, then vacuum energy density and the cosmological constant are wrong. I'm saying that the physics of a cosmological constant would be wrong if there were preconditions to the Big Bang like other arenas that intersect and overlap. Instead of vacuum energy density being the mysterious dark energy, the expansion of our arena would not be due to the cosmological constant, but it would be due to something else. I say that something else, given the preconditions in my model, would be energy density equalization between the high density big bang arena and the low energy density surrounding space. My delusions have different answers for everything, just like the French have different words for every thing, lol.

I have wondered before if the acceleration itself could be what everything is actually traveling relative too, but then this frame seems to even be able to change. So, idk, it seems like even an object that is accelerating with the expansion of space can assume that it is at rest. You would think that if we were actually accelerating at these speeds that we should at least feel something from it, but we don't.

We don't feel it because everything is separating with us. It is like being in a moving train. You toss a ball in the air and you catch it as if the train was at rest.

It doesn't matter if the Klingons or the Vulcans are watching us through there telescopes accelerating at completely different speeds, we don't feel anything from it. You would think from all this acceleration that we would be able to say, yes, everything is accelerating out from the Big Bang, but maybe this. But, the fact of the matter is that even though everything in the universe is accelerating, we can't make heads or tails of it.

The universe is much bigger than our local big bang arena in my model, and the cosmological constant is not a part of my model because it says that our arena (aka the mistaken view that our arena is the whole universe) is all there is. The arena landscape of the greater universe (a multiverse) is part of my delusions. Reject them if you want, I don't care.

Relativity says we should know and feel the force of acceleration, but I guess the force is not with this one today.

I guess not, lol.

 

[quantum_wave]

The background radiation can be detected in a unhooked T.V. or antenna. I haven't detected that much of a change in it yet, idk, it does look pretty random. The T.V. fuzz does seem to keep a steady constant pitch. An object traveling along with the expansion of the universe can travel at any relative speed and not show any signs of relativistic effects. The is one of the most popularized ideas in current Big Bang Theory. There are parts of the expansion that can be seen as going faster than the speed of light.

If you mean that things can both have separation momentum in opposite directions, and the sum of their motion exceeds the speed of light, I agree. If you are saying that FTL is because space is stretching or being added between them, then that violates my model because space is already everywhere.

I think it could be possible to not see a big change in the CMB from relative motion, idk maybe I should hook my T.V. to a rig and find out, lol. I don't think there have been any reports of metal getting hotter by being in relative motion, that is a new one for me.

Where did you get the "metal getting hotter" comment? Obviously when metal moves rapidly during space travel when it encounters the atmosphere it gets hot enough to melt, as in meteors. But seriously, you haven't allowed yourself to consider the concept of wave energy density at relativistic velocities, and you haven't asked yourself how gravity works if there is a foundational medium and gravity waves that traverse it. The gravity waves are an element of wave energy density. What gives off gravity waves? Matter. If matter gives off and receives gravity waves, is there higher wave energy density around large masses relative to small masses? Yes. If that is so, as it is in my model, would that require a change in thinking about the physics of motion? Space doesn't curve, the wave energy density surrounding matter increases as the mass increases. Light travels slower in high wave energy density and so it appears to curve around the sun, as in the Eddington measurements.

 

[Prof.Layman]

I think the point I was trying to make is that I don't see how it is possible for the expansion of the universe to be described accurately without space being a type of "thing" that is stretching out as everything accelerates from each other. I don't think it can be just seperation momentum on its own or we would feel the force of this momentum. You mentioned that something could change its temperture by relative motion to the CMB, I thought metal would be the best conductor that would see this change in frequency of the CMB. If that is true than you should notice something differently on your T.V. or a peice of metal (antenna) by seeing it travel in relative motion as a peice of metal or plug on the back picks up on the CMB. I think the change in temperture from any redshift from the link you gave is the temperture of the Big Bang itself, and not other objects receiving the signal as the value of T is way to hot. I think the effect would be similar to the effect seen in changing red shifts/blue shifts of objects that are traveling quickly against the rate of expansion of the universe. If you take it to the extreme and say that relative motion could turn a CMB signal into an X-ray, then it would have little interaction with matter and then not cause a change in temperture. So I don't think a change in frequency directly relates to the temperature of a moving body.

 

[quantum_wave]

I think the point I was trying to make is that I don't see how it is possible for the expansion of the universe to be described accurately without space being a type of "thing" that is stretching out as everything accelerates from each other.

No problem . You are just not going to be able to see how my model works, which makes you the sane one, lol.

I don't think it can be just separation momentum on its own or we would feel the force of this momentum. *

Can't agree with you there. You can't really detect motion through space if you are also feeling acceleration due to a strong gravitational field. You feel the pull of gravity toward the ground, but both you and the ground are moving together through space.

You mentioned that something could change its temperature by relative motion to the CMB, I thought metal would be the best conductor that would see this change in frequency of the CMB.*

Actually I said that the measured temperature of the background radiation would appear to heat up in the direction of motion. If I didn't say it that way or clearly enough I should go back and change that, but that is the well known effect of motion relative to the universal rest frame.

If that is true than you should notice something differently on your T.V. or a piece of metal (antenna) by seeing it travel in relative motion as a piece of metal or plug on the back picks up on the CMB. *I think the change in temperature from any redshift from the link you gave is the temperature of the Big Bang itself, and not other objects receiving the signal as the value of T is way to hot. *I think the effect would be similar to the effect seen in changing red shifts/blue shifts of objects that are traveling quickly against the rate of expansion of the universe. *If you take it to the extreme and say that relative motion could turn a CMB signal into an X-ray, then it would have little interaction with matter and then not cause a change in temperature. *So I don't think a change in frequency directly relates to the temperature of a moving body.

You are kindly bringing to my attention my failure to communicate. I'm saying that the CMB gives us a universal rest frame according to current theory. That is no big deal in physics because the laws of physics are not changed by the presence of the universal rest frame.

I'm saying that in your SR example, if one frame is a rocket moving through the background at relativistic velocity, that rocket cannot then be considered to be at rest relative to the universal rest frame. I'm saying that if the crew on the rocket took readings from the moving rocket ship of the temperature of the background in all directions, they could easily see that they were not at rest because the temperature of the CMBR would be elevated in the direction of motion (and correspondingly reduced in the opposite direction).

That same concept can be applied to the galactic redshift. Relativistic motion will cause you to see blue shift in the light from the galaxies out in the direction of motion, so you can tell if you are in motion relative to the universal rest frame from either the CMBR or the galactic redshift readings from your moving rocket.

The business of hooking a TV up and searching between channels allows the static from the CMBR to show up on the screen, but you can't tell anything about the CMBR from that since only a tiny bit of the static is CMBR; most of the static is Earth based interference. FYI, you can also "hear" meteorites during a meteorite shower by tuning a portable radio between stations.

This bit about metal heating up. I don't get that part at all. If it is something I said, forget it, for now; it is an advanced QWC topic, lol.

And your concerns about separation momentum, i.e. your belief that you would feel the motion are unfounded. This motion is not rapid acceleration from a position of rest. The motion has been roughly even and essentially smooth and you just don't feel it.

Is that Mamow/student discovery (shouldn't that be Gamow?) of a new cosmological constant in 2011, and an acceleration in expansion about 7 billion years ago peer reviewed (give me a link). As I have said, my model, which you are having understandable difficulty sifting out of my poor explanations, does not feature a cosmological constant. I tried to point out that Vacuum Energy Density, aka the cosmological constant (see http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html)
is not necessary in my model, but you are not quite up to speed on what I mean by that, I bet. Maybe it will come to you if you re-read. I'll probably try to re-write that part so maybe you will check back for it.

One last point about the separation momentum. I'm sure you know that observations are showing accelertion in the rate of separation. I attribute that to the fact that there are two opposing forces at play. The separation momentum on the one hand, and the gravitational attraction on the other. As the distance between galaxies increases, the inverse square rule comes into play and reduces the gravitation attraction, allowing the accelaration that we observe.