Closest Type Ia supernova in decades solves a cosmic mystery

Dec 14, 2011
The Palomar Transient Factory caught SN 2011fe in the Pinwheel Galaxy in the vicinity of the Big Dipper on Aug. 24, 2011. Found just hours after it exploded and only 21 million light years away, the discovery triggered the closest-ever look at a young Type Ia supernova. Credit: Image by B. J. Fulton, Las Cumbres Observatory Global Telescope Network

Type Ia supernovae (SN Ia's) are the extraordinarily bright and remarkably similar "standard candles" astronomers use to measure cosmic growth, a technique that in 1998 led to the discovery of dark energy – and 13 years later to a Nobel Prize, "for the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe." The light from thousands of SN Ia's has been studied, but until now their physics – how they detonate and what the star systems that produce them actually look like before they explode – has been educated guesswork.

Peter Nugent of the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) heads the Computational Cosmology Center in the Lab's Computational Research Division and also leads the Lab's collaboration in the multi-institutional Palomar Transient Factory (PTF). On August 24 of this year, searching data as it poured into DOE's National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC) from an automated telescope on Mount Palomar in California, Nugent spotted a remarkable object. It was shortly confirmed as a Type Ia in the Pinwheel Galaxy, some 21 million light-years distant. That's unusually close by cosmic standards, and the nearest SN Ia since 1986; it was subsequently given the official name SN 2011fe.

Nugent says, "We caught the supernova just 11 hours after it exploded, so soon that we were later able to calculate the actual moment of the explosion to within 20 minutes. Our early observations confirmed some assumptions about the physics of Type Ia supernovae, and we ruled out a number of possible models. But with this close-up look, we also found things nobody had dreamed of."

"When we saw SN2011fe, I fell off my chair," says PTF team member Mansi Kasliwal of the Carnegie Institution for Science and the California Institute of Technology. "Its brightness was too faint to be a supernova and too bright to be nova. Only follow-up observations in the next few hours revealed that this was actually an exceptionally young Type Ia supernova."

Because they could closely study the supernova during its first few days, the team was able to gather the first direct evidence for what at least one SN Ia looked like before it exploded, and what happened next. Their results are reported in the 15 December, 2011, issue of the journal Nature.

Confirming a carbon-oxygen white dwarf

Scientists long ago developed models of Type Ia supernovae based on their evolving brightness and spectra. The models assume the progenitor is a binary system – about half of all stars are in binary systems – in which a very dense, very small white-dwarf star made of carbon and oxygen orbits a companion, from which it sweeps up additional matter. There's a specific limit to how massive the white dwarf can grow, equal to about 1.4 times the mass of our sun, before it can no longer support itself against gravitational collapse.

"As it approaches the limit, conditions are met in the center so that the white dwarf detonates in a colossal thermonuclear explosion, which converts the carbon and oxygen to heavier elements including nickel," says Nugent. "A shock wave rips through it and ejects the material in a bright expanding photosphere. Much of the brightness comes from the heat of the radioactive nickel as it decays to cobalt. Light also comes from ejecta being heated by the shock wave, and if this runs into the companion star it can be reheated, adding to the luminosity."

By examining how SN 2011fe's brightness evolved – its so-called early-time light curve – and the features of its early-time spectra, members of the PTF team were able to constrain how big the exploding star was, when it exploded, what might have happened during the explosion, and what kind of binary star system was involved.

The first observations of SN 2011fe were carried out at the Liverpool Telescope at La Palma in the Canary Islands, followed within hours by the Shane Telescope at Lick Observatory in California and the Keck I Telescope on Mauna Kea in Hawaii. These were shortly followed by NASA's orbiting Swift Observatory.

This is the Pinwheel Galaxy before (left) and after (right) the supernova called SN2011fe happened. It's the brightest and closest stellar explosion seen in 25 years. Credit: BJ Fulton (Las Cumbres Observatory Global Telescope)/Palomar Transient Factory/Space Telescope Science Institute

Says Nugent, "We made an absurdly conservative assumption that the earliest luminosity was due entirely to the explosion itself and would increase over time in proportion to the size of the expanding fireball, which set an upper limit on the radius of the progenitor."

Daniel Kasen, an assistant professor of astronomy and physics at the University of California at Berkeley and a faculty scientist in Berkeley Lab's Nuclear Science Division, explains that "it only takes a few seconds for the shock wave to tear apart the star, but the debris heated in the explosion will continue to glow for several hours. The bigger the star, the brighter this afterglow. Because we caught this supernova so early, and with such sensitive observations, we were able to directly constrain the size of the progenitor."

"Sure enough, it could only have been a white dwarf," says Nugent. "The spectra gave us the carbon and oxygen, so we knew we had the first direct evidence that a Type Ia supernova does indeed start with a carbon-oxygen white dwarf."

The expected and the unexpected

"The early-time light curve also constrained the radius of the binary system," says Nugent, "so we got rid of a whole bunch of models," ranging from old red giant stars to other in a so-called "double-degenerate" system.

Kasen explains that "if there was a giant companion star orbiting nearby, we should have seen some fireworks when the debris from the supernova crashed into it." A red giant would have made the supernova brighter by several orders of magnitude early on. "Because we didn't observe any bright flashes like that, we determined that the companion star could not have been much bigger than our sun."

Nor was there much chance the companion was another white dwarf in a double-degenerate system, unless it had somehow avoided being torn apart and littering the surroundings with debris. A shock wave plowing through that kind of rubble would have produced a burst of early light the observers couldn't have missed. So unless the companion was positioned almost exactly between the exploding star and the observers on Earth, closer to it than a 10th the diameter of our sun – an unlikely set of circumstances – the white dwarf's companion had to be a main-sequence star.

While these observations pointed to a "normal" SN Ia, the way the white dwarf exploded held surprises. Typical of what would be expected, early spectra obtained by the Lick three-meter telescope showed many intermediate-mass elements spewing out of the expanding fireball, including ionized oxygen, magnesium, silicon, calcium, and iron, traveling 16,000 kilometers a second – more than five percent of the speed of light. Yet some oxygen was traveling much faster, at over 20,000 kilometers a second.

"The high-velocity oxygen shows that the oxygen wasn't evenly distributed when the white dwarf blew up," Nugent says, "indicating unusual clumpiness in the way it was dispersed." But more interesting, he says, is that "whatever the mechanism of the explosion, it showed a tremendous amount of mixing, with some radioactive nickel mixed all the way to the photosphere. So the brightness followed the expanding surface almost exactly. This is not something any of us would have expected."

PTF team member Mark Sullivan of the University of Oxford says, "Understanding how these giant explosions create and mix materials is important because supernovae are where we get most of the elements that make up the Earth and even our own bodies – for instance, these supernovae are a major source of iron in the universe. So we are all made of bits of exploding stars."

"It is rare that you have eureka moments in science, but it happened four times on this supernova," says Andy Howell, coleader of PTF's SN Ia team: "The super-early discovery; the crazy first spectrum; when we figured out it had to be a white dwarf; and then, the Holy Grail, when we figured out details of the second star."

Howell adds, "We're like Captain Ahab … except our white whale is a white dwarf. We're obsessed with proving they cause supernovae, but the evidence has been eluding us for decades." This time, he says, "We got our whale … and we lived."

"This first close SN Ia in the era of modern instrumentation will undoubtedly become the best-studied thermonuclear supernova in history," the PTF team notes in their Nature paper, and "will form the new foundation upon which our knowledge of more distant Type Ia supernovae is built."

Two decades after the Berkeley-Lab-based Supernova Cosmology Project, led by 2011 Nobel Prize-winner in Physics Saul Perlmutter, proved that could be used to measure the expansion history of the universe, Berkeley Lab astrophysicists and computer scientists have finally gotten a close-up look at what these remarkable cosmic mileposts really look like.

Explore further: Kepler proves it can still find planets

More information: "Supernova 2011fe from an exploding carbon-oxygen white dwarf star," by Peter E. Nugent, et al., appears in the 15 December, 2011, issue of Nature.

Related Stories

Team finds Type Ia supernovae parents

Aug 11, 2011

Type Ia supernovae are violent stellar explosions whose brightness is used to determine distances in the universe. Observing these objects to billions of light years away has led to the discovery that the universe is expanding ...

'Instant cosmic classic' supernova discovered

Aug 25, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- A supernova discovered yesterday is closer to Earth—approximately 21 million light-years away—than any other of its kind in a generation. Astronomers believe they caught the supernova ...

Hubble Snaps Images of a Pinwheel-Shaped Galaxy

Feb 07, 2006

Looking like a child's pinwheel ready to be set a spinning by a gentle breeze, this dramatic spiral galaxy is one of the latest viewed by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope. Stunning details of the face-on spiral ...

The purple rose of Virgo

Mar 27, 2007

Until now NGC 5584 was just one galaxy among many others, located to the West of the Virgo Cluster. Known only as a number in galaxy surveys, its sheer beauty is now revealed in all its glory in a new VLT image. ...

Rapid supernova could be new class of exploding star

Nov 05, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- An unusual supernova rediscovered in seven-year-old data may be the first example of a new type of exploding star, possibly from a binary star system where helium flows from one white dwarf ...

Recommended for you

Kepler proves it can still find planets

9 hours ago

To paraphrase Mark Twain, the report of the Kepler spacecraft's death was greatly exaggerated. Despite a malfunction that ended its primary mission in May 2013, Kepler is still alive and working. The evidence ...

The hot blue stars of Messier 47

Dec 17, 2014

Messier 47 is located approximately 1600 light-years from Earth, in the constellation of Puppis (the poop deck of the mythological ship Argo). It was first noticed some time before 1654 by Italian astronomer ...

User comments : 177

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Skultch
5 / 5 (8) Dec 14, 2011
But what about the neutrino timing? .....backs away slowly
Cave_Man
1.3 / 5 (29) Dec 14, 2011
I still don't see how astrophysicists can say they know a darn thing about the universe. If the universe is expanding from a centerpoint and we can still see this center point or big bang then at some point we must have been moving away from it faster than the speed of light and have since slowed down or something.

But how can this be that we see it at all, if we were travelling away from it at the speed of light or faster then slowed all the radiation coming from that big bang source would wind up all crunched up and be like a giant bright spot in the sky visible to the naked eye.

It really makes you wonder what it will look like in a million or a billion years. Good thing time travel into the future is incredibly easy. All you need to do is create an artificial source of gravity or travel near a large enough mass to slow down your own relative time and when you come back to earth it will be the future.
bewertow
4.6 / 5 (23) Dec 14, 2011
You n00b, the universe isn't expanding from a central point. The big bang wasn't "an explosion in space." It was an explosion of space and time itself.
Skultch
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 14, 2011
Cave_Man - I think you are suffering from this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

and possibly subjected to third law of:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke's_three_laws

from your perspective.
that_guy
4.3 / 5 (9) Dec 14, 2011
But how can this be that we see it at all, if we were travelling away from it at the speed of light or faster then slowed all the radiation coming from that big bang source would wind up all crunched up and be like a giant bright spot in the sky visible to the naked eye.


Ironically cave man is off, but also to a degree, answering his own questions.

In some ways, the expansion of the universe would be geometric, and in other ways they would not be. It's not like looking at a balloon as it's being blown up: It's like being IN the balloon as it's being blown up. You'll notice the skin of the balloon is stretched and grows bigger and the color less dense. That's like the CMB.

And then your postulate that the expansion of space would have to speed up and then slow down...You just described the most supported part of inflation theory.

I believe that they are probably off on a lot of things, but you don't learn by sitting on your hands...
Nanobanano
1.2 / 5 (15) Dec 14, 2011
Unfortunately, black dots allegedly representing galaxies are drawn on the surface of a balloon being blown up...

This is precisely the analogy every text book uses when discussing the big bang.

Does "nothing" really exist?

If you take hawking seriously, it's possible for a proton and anti-proton to appear out of nothing, so long as they move in opposite directions.

Maybe that's the answer to the damn question about cosmology eh?

Maybe we don't find anti-matter, because the anti-matter simply went in the opposite direction from the matter, and is beyond the light horizon now.

Pretty simple stuff, dim whits.

I should get a medal or Nobel or something.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (16) Dec 14, 2011
You n00b, the universe isn't expanding from a central point. The big bang wasn't "an explosion in space." It was an explosion of space and time itself.


This is not what all those Astronomers standing outside the Griffith Observatory in those "Universe" documentaries on the History & Science channels keep telling us. They are adamant that it was a big bang of an explosion. If they didn't want us to believe there was an explosion then they could just simply say it. So far, I've never heard a single one of them say the "big bang" was not an explosion, and an explosion is what they lead off with in all their animated video presentations.

So, who are the "experts" here? Unidentified critics? Or those willing to stamp their facial & name recognition onto their hypothesis?
Telekinetic
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 14, 2011
"Pretty simple stuff, dim whits.

I should get a medal or Nobel or something."

Not in literature, though.
Callippo
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 14, 2011
because the anti-matter simply went in the opposite direction from the matter, and is beyond the light horizon now.
It would mean, all black holes contain a high portion of antimatter, which makes problem for the theory of their formation with accretion of normal matter stars - at the certain moment whole the matter of collapsar should suddenly change into antimatter.
Not in literature, though
It was dry..
Callippo
1.6 / 5 (13) Dec 14, 2011
It was an explosion of space and time itself.
It has problem with the fact, the more distant Universe doesn't appear more dense in general (the relative distances between galaxies are the same) and these distant galaxies even appear expanding instead of collapsing. http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.4956 It rather supports dispersive origin of Hubble red shift, because the shapes of more distant objects appear fuzzy, blurred and larger in size, when being observed through dispersive environment.
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (7) Dec 14, 2011
You n00b, the universe isn't expanding from a central point. The big bang wasn't "an explosion in space." It was an explosion of space and time itself.


This is not what all those Astronomers standing outside the Griffith Observatory in those "Universe" documentaries on the History & Science channels keep telling us. They are adamant that it was a big bang of an explosion. If they didn't want us to believe there was an explosion then they could just simply say it. So far, I've never heard a single one of them say the "big bang" was not an explosion, and an explosion is what they lead off with in all their animated video presentations.

So, who are the "experts" here? Unidentified critics? Or those willing to stamp their facial & name recognition onto their hypothesis?

bs, i watch those shows and have seen plenty of them explain inflation.
Deesky
5 / 5 (15) Dec 14, 2011
Maybe we don't find anti-matter, because the anti-matter simply went in the opposite direction from the matter

Which direction would that be?

They are adamant that it was a big bang of an explosion. If they didn't want us to believe there was an explosion then they could just simply say it. So far, I've never heard a single one of them say the "big bang" was not an explosion, and an explosion is what they lead off with in all their animated video presentations.

That's the problem when complex topics are poorly communicated to laypeople. Go read a scientific reference, not pop-sci descriptions.

Here'a a good start:
http://www.astro....faq.html

Benni
1 / 5 (6) Dec 14, 2011

This is not what all those Astronomers standing outside the Griffith Observatory in those "Universe" documentaries on the History & Science channels keep telling us. They are adamant that it was a big bang of an explosion. If they didn't want us to believe there was an explosion then they could just simply say it. So far, I've never heard a single one of them say the "big bang" was not an explosion, and an explosion is what they lead off with in all their animated video presentations.

So, who are the "experts" here? Unidentified critics? Or those willing to stamp their facial & name recognition onto their hypothesis?

bs, i watch those shows and have seen plenty of them explain inflation.

I too have heard them make very brief mention of "inflation", but always (and I mean always) preceded by the explosion of the "big bang".
Nanobanano
1.2 / 5 (12) Dec 14, 2011
Which direction would that be?


"out"

Ok, maybe I invoke an extra dimensional axis myself.

Now, most of the matter went in the positive direction, and most of the anti-matter went in the negative direction. Problem solved.

all black holes contain a high portion of antimatter, which makes problem...,etc


Wouldn't matter, because only thing you can "know" about a black hole from teh outside is mass, charge, and angular momentum.

Whether or not it's made of anti-matter won't change anything, because any explosion or anything like that below the event horizon could never produce enough energy to get anything back out of there...

If an anti-matter black hole collided with a matter black hole, assuming you could even differentiate the two, it would just make another bigger black hole. The energy wouldn't escape.
Deesky
5 / 5 (10) Dec 14, 2011
"out"

Out of what?

Ok, maybe I invoke an extra dimensional axis myself.

Now, most of the matter went in the positive direction, and most of the anti-matter went in the negative direction. Problem solved.

Problem not solved. What's the 'positive' direction and what's the 'negative' direction? And which 'axis'? The one you invented with a hand-wave?

Wouldn't matter, because only thing you can "know" about a black hole from teh outside is mass, charge, and angular momentum.

Whether or not it's made of anti-matter won't change anything

If it doesn't matter, why then did you invent a fantasy framework?
Vendicar_Decarian
4.1 / 5 (10) Dec 15, 2011
"But how can this be that we see it at all, if we were travelling away from it at the speed of light or faster then slowed all the radiation coming from that big bang source would wind up all crunched up and be like a giant bright spot in the sky visible to the naked eye." - Cave Man

You are foncused because you are still inside the point from which the universe originated. You have never left your location, and neither have far away galaxies. They are now in roughly the same place they were at the beginning. the difference is that more space has been added between you and they.
Cave_Man
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 15, 2011
It's hard to articulate complex topics in only 1000 characters, I get caught up in trying to explain and end up looking like an idiot because I omit important ideas or dont re-read my ideas before submitting them.

I understand what the expanding universe theory is all about and im familiar with most einstienian logic. But I have numerous quandries and qalms regarding the way science is pursued, and lately how it seems to be getting so abstract that you need to think in math in order to comprehend the ideas.

One problem with the way space and time are measured is that any defined point has no value or possible use without being relative to another arguably arbitrary point. This has always occurred to me when considering life and death as well, how can there be something and then nothing, or is that just the dichotomy which is self-referential enough to give meaning to itself and create a thing from nothing.

Philosophy in English is impossible the language is a paradox
Cave_Man
1 / 5 (8) Dec 15, 2011
I mean come on, I'm not overly religious but going from a single cell (with a 3-4 billion year lineage), to a trillion cells, maturing from a baby to an adult and then the contrast of dying seems like some huge thing.

One thing I always wondered is that if light is going the speed of light (lol) then does time pass from the photons point of view? You think it would have to or it wouldn't be able to move so maybe a better way to see spacetime is as the heartbeat of the universe, the only way to "see" it is by examining the energy content of a particular area. Photons are light weight and move in a wave, protons are heavy and move much slower.

Also are we made of light? Like under certain circumstances (thermonuclear fusion anyone?) would we, our bodies that is, convert to pure light? Pretty epic, I'd travel into a type 1a if I had lived a few billion years. Coolest death ever! Besides maybe traveling backwards in time to the big bang and being blown to bits by it.
YummyFur
4.3 / 5 (13) Dec 15, 2011
Nice to remember that the photons from this supernova had already been travelling to Earth for 20.9 million years when the recently evolved H. sapiens were wandering around in a probable state of utter bewilderment.

During the last 100,000 years of it's journey the photons must have been wondering if it was worth the effort. However just in the nick of time we drag ourselves out of our mythology, get up to speed with the quantum nature of the Universe, and greet the photons with a glass of champagne. The journey was not in vain, neither theirs nor ours.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2011
"But how can this be that we see it at all, if we were travelling away from it at the speed of light or faster then slowed all the radiation coming from that big bang source would wind up all crunched up and be like a giant bright spot in the sky visible to the naked eye." - Cave Man

You are foncused because you are still inside the point from which the universe originated. You have never left your location, and neither have far away galaxies. They are now in roughly the same place they were at the beginning. the difference is that more space has been added between you and they.


@VD Is this "Inflation" without a "big bang"? Or a "singularity"? Sounds like you're suggesting everything just sort of showed up in the present form at a single instant in time.
dschlink
1 / 5 (2) Dec 15, 2011
Why is the Big Bang always depicted in the popular media as an explosion? How else would they show it? An expansion of space/time cannot be depicted within space/time, only observed on the actual scale.

Something from nothing is clearly demonstrated by the Casimir effect. Also, light has recently been generated from the vacuum. http://www.physor...uum.html
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Dec 15, 2011
Maybe we don't find anti-matter, because the anti-matter simply went in the opposite direction from the matter

Which direction would that be?

They are adamant that it was a big bang of an explosion. If they didn't want us to believe there was an explosion then they could just simply say it. So far, I've never heard a single one of them say the "big bang" was not an explosion, and an explosion is what they lead off with in all their animated video presentations.

That's the problem when complex topics are poorly communicated to laypeople. Go read a scientific reference, not pop-sci descriptions.

Here'a a good start:
http://www.astro....faq.html



I knew about this site, but went there anyway. Guess what I found? Every topic on the link you provided discussed the "big bang" as I've been pointing out is being presented on the animated videos.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 15, 2011
Something from nothing is clearly demonstrated by the Casimir effect. Also, light has recently been generated from the vacuum. http://www.physor...uum.html


A reflected image of something does not mean that two now exist, one is real, the other is intangible. If I hold a million dollar bill in my hand, then go look at myself in a mirror holding that bill, do I now have 2 million?
Deesky
5 / 5 (10) Dec 15, 2011
I knew about this site, but went there anyway. Guess what I found? Every topic on the link you provided discussed the "big bang" as I've been pointing out is being presented on the animated videos.

Is that so - every topic? You must have missed the link where it says:

"The Big Bang has NO center. It is NOT an explosion radiating from a point. In an explosion you get an expanding spherical shell of fragments...This shell has both an outer and an inner edge, and these can be used to locate the position of the explosion. BUT in the Big Bang there is NO edge. You might think that by backtracking the velocity vectors you can locate the center of the Big Bang but this is NOT the case! There is NO center because ALL positions in the Universe are EQUIVALENT. The Universe is homogeneous, which is part of the cosmological principle."

http://www.astro....ter.html
Deesky
5 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2011
Something from nothing is clearly demonstrated by the Casimir effect. Also, light has recently been generated from the vacuum. http://www.physor...uum.html


A reflected image of something does not mean that two now exist, one is real, the other is intangible. If I hold a million dollar bill in my hand, then go look at myself in a mirror holding that bill, do I now have 2 million?

You really do need to be less superficial in your skimming of scientific articles if you truly wish to learn about the underlying principles.

I'm not sure what your motivation is - it appears that you wish to learn about things and yet you seem to be petulantly rejecting good information that is offered to you by many respondents in this thread. Strange.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2011
Something from nothing is clearly demonstrated by the Casimir effect. Also, light has recently been generated from the vacuum. http://www.physor...uum.html


A reflected image of something does not mean that two now exist, one is real, the other is intangible. If I hold a million dollar bill in my hand, then go look at myself in a mirror holding that bill, do I now have 2 million?

You really do need to be less superficial in your skimming of scientific articles if you truly wish to learn about the underlying principles.

I'm not sure what your motivation is - it appears that you wish to learn about things and yet you seem to be petulantly rejecting good information that is offered to you by many respondents in this thread. Strange.


The real problem here is that so many theorists here do not understand "perpetual motion machines", as an engineer, I do. Something from nothing is classic "pmm".
bewertow
5 / 5 (7) Dec 15, 2011
What's with all these crackpot idiots that always post their crappy ideas on these stories?
Ethelred
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 16, 2011
It's hard to articulate complex topics in only 1000 characters
So keep going and stop when you finish, use a text editor, not the physorg box. THEN break it up into sets of 1000 or less. Don't worry about it fitting until after all the ideas are down. Read and clean. Run a spell check. Try and find the bleeding missing words. All of that before you break into sections. If a section is close to 1000 maybe you can edit part out now that you have ALL the important stuff.

and lately how it seems to be getting so abstract that you need to think in math in order to comprehend the ideas.
That isn't the way works. The math is for checking that the ideas work. I know what Feynman said about doing the math. He still understood most of what was going on, unless of course he was wrong like Dr. Prins thinks. While I find Dr. Prins ideas interesting I am pretty darn sure he is wrong a lot. Like quarks for instance. It makes more sense to me with them than without.>>
Ethelred
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 16, 2011
One problem with the way space and time are measured is that any defined point has no value or possible use without being relative to another arguably arbitrary point.
Sounds good to me. Edmund Halley was not the only contemporary of Newton that thought his idea of absolute position was wrong. Of course they tended to keep it to themselves. Newton was an asshole.

This has always occurred to me when considering life and death as well, how can there be something and then nothing,
Well that isn't the way things are. There are two somethings and they split of another thing together, for sexual species.

or is that just the dichotomy which is self-referential enough to give meaning to itself and create a thing from nothing.
What meaning? Meaning is in our heads. The Universe simply is. Don't mistake words and definitions for facts. That is why philosophy often produces crap.>>

Example of fitting. I just split a paragraph in two for this breakpoint.
Ethelred
3.1 / 5 (9) Dec 16, 2011
I had a rather long argument with Superhuman and Noumenon and I told Superhuman he was arguing from definition. He insisted it was the correct method. I pointed out that was true only:

IF we both agreed on the definitions FULLY.
AND the Universe agreed with them as well.

Example - It doesn't matter a damn to talk about the infinitely small if the smallest possible thing is the Plank Length. Or the shortest time the Plank Interval.

Which is why complaining about singularities is a waste time. It is likely that they literally cannot exist in the Universe because the smallest volume is a Plank Volume.

Philosophy in English is impossible the language is a paradox
It is impossible in all human languages and math/logic is something philosophy has tried to hijack as if was their province alone.>>
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (9) Dec 16, 2011
I'm not overly religious but going from a single cell (with a 3-4 billion year lineage), to a trillion cells, maturing from a baby to an adult and then the contrast of dying seems like some huge thing.
There are billions and billions of those things even if you only count humans. Are you really going to stumble over such simple numbers. 1,000,000 add 3 more zeds and you have a billion. A billion years is a long time but it is still simple number. Not even close to Google.

One thing I always wondered is that if light is going the speed of light (lol) then does time pass from the photons point of view?
No. I suppose it must do so when not in a vacuum.

You think it would have to or it wouldn't be able to move
Another way to look at it is space/time is a ratio. More space/Less Time. Until light interacts with something besides space it does not experience time.>>
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (10) Dec 16, 2011
Photons are light weight and move in a wave, protons are heavy and move much slower.
Photons have no mass of their own thus all the energy goes into the creating the wave. Protons have mass and must be accelerated to move at all and gain kinetic energy in the process.

Also are we made of light?
Both we and light are mass/energy but light is a boson and we are made of baryons. We have half-integer spin. Light is full integer. Light waves can pass through light waves. Matter waves collide.

Ethelred
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 16, 2011

"The Big Bang has NO center. It is NOT an explosion radiating from a point. In an explosion you get an expanding spherical shell of fragments...This shell has both an outer and an inner edge, and these can be used to locate the position of the explosion. BUT in the Big Bang there is NO edge. You might think that by backtracking the velocity vectors you can locate the center of the Big Bang but this is NOT the case! There is NO center because ALL positions in the Universe are EQUIVALENT. The Universe is homogeneous, which is part of the cosmological principle."

http://www.astro....ter.html


So when are you & your colleagues in the Astro-physcists enclaves going to stop using the term "big bang"? If you are so convinced there was never an "explosion", then stop using "explosive" terminology; "big bang" is "explosive" terminology & it is used everywhere by Astronomers in the Universe series.
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (15) Dec 16, 2011
going to stop using the term "big bang"?
I am curious. Just what the hell is your problem? You call yourself a student and an engineer which normally is contradictory. People try to help you understand and you piss on them and others.

In this case it is again your ignorance that shows in the post.

http://news.bbc.c...3721.stm

Sir Dr. Frederic Hoyle coined the term Big Bang to make fun of the theory that replaced his Steady State theory. Other people took up the name because it was cool and I suspect to annoy Fred for trying to make of fun of them.

And yes I am fully aware the article doesn't mention why Fred did that. Look it up if you don't believe me.

Now would you mind doing something to start learning and stop with the whiny ass posts? Please.

Ignorance is not a mortal sin. It is curable. Whining is just annoying.

Ethelred
YummyFur
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 16, 2011
@dschlink,

"Something from nothing is clearly demonstrated by the Casimir effect."

'Nothing' in the sense you are using it, does not exist. 'Nothing' is a crazy Buddhist concept. The Casimire effect demonstrates something from something.
YummyFur
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 16, 2011
@Ethelred

To be fair to Fred, (and he deserves that much considering he was denied a Nobel prize for his pioneering work into nuclosynthesis)he denied the term 'Big Bang' as coined by him, was meant to be derogatory. And I have no reason to doubt Hoyle, he was a man of first class integrity.
Callippo
1 / 5 (12) Dec 16, 2011
Now would you mind doing something to start learning and stop with the whiny ass posts? Please.

Ignorance is not a mortal sin. It is curable. Whining is just annoying.
It's funny, when ignorants like your are replacing arguments with accusations of ignorance.

http://en.wikiped...r_effect

Photons have no mass of their own thus all the energy goes into the creating the wave
This is just an example. How many times I explained you, the trapping of photon increases the mass of object? Of course photons have mass - they lack the mass only in general relativity, because this theory doesn't recognize/support photon concept as such. It's like explanation of concept of snow to people, who live at sub saharan Africa.
Callippo
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 16, 2011
The Casimire effect demonstrates something from something.
The Casimir effect demonstrates force between (already existing) objects, not the formation of matter from nothing.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 17, 2011
If you take hawking seriously, it's possible for a proton and anti-proton to appear out of nothing, so long as they move in opposite directions.
...
Maybe we don't find anti-matter, because the anti-matter simply went in the opposite direction from the matter, and is beyond the light horizon now.

Note if you treat time on an equal footing with space then the matter and anti-matter particles must go in opposite directions in time also. That's why positrons go in opposite directions in a synchrotron and appear to have opposite charges, as noted by Feynman (idea first postulated by Dirac). So when you talk about present time you're talking about time running in both directions.
But that's not why you don't find much anti-matter around. Anti-matter would also have a similar reaction in a gravitational field, in which case anti-matter experiences anti-gravity and so it tries to escape spacetime like bubbles underwater.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 17, 2011
So far, I've never heard a single one of them say the "big bang" was not an explosion, and an explosion is what they lead off with in all their animated video presentations.

So, who are the "experts" here?

Well maybe Mark Whittle. Listen to his sound of the big bang at http://www.astro..../~dmw8f/ Doesn't sound like that much of a bang to me.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 17, 2011
One thing I always wondered is that if light is going the speed of light (lol) then does time pass from the photons point of view?

No. Interesting that photons are their own anti-particle. Since anti-particles travel in opposite directions in time as I understand it the only was this could happen is for no time to pass either in the forward or reverse directions.
would we, our bodies that is, convert to pure light?

Yes our final destination after being recycled by the black hole at the center of our galaxy. Actually radiation, not necessarily light.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 17, 2011
Doesn't sound like that much of a bang to me.
More like you suddenly let the air out of a tire, like decompression. It could be that spacetime is trapped and squeezed between the inner and outer shells of the images Penrose sees in the CMBR, like the outer shell would be positrons and the inner shell electrons.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 17, 2011
Doesn't sound like that much of a bang to me.

More like you suddenly let the air out of a tire, like decompression.

This probably only refers to inflation after the initial contact between positron and electron shells. Strangely we get it wrong again. Inflation is actually deflation, at least as viewed from the BB.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Dec 17, 2011

Now would you mind doing something to start learning and stop with the whiny ass posts? Please.

Ignorance is not a mortal sin. It is curable. Whining is just annoying.

Ethelred


Judging from the time required to come up with your lengthy postings, you seem to have a lot of time on your hands, so I presume you are retired, and you need to do something to occupy your time, I understand that.

What you do not understand is my world of very high technology engineering, one wrong calculation by one person in our engineering department in the design of our electro-mechanical products can result in a lot of people losing life & limb. So, for this reason, it is a professional habit of mine to call people out for inaccurate & inconsistent use of terminology and attempts to put their words in the mouths of other people, I know you can't understand this because you've never been in my position & are better suited for political commentary than scientific.



Code_Warrior
5 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2011
...I presume you are retired, and you need to do something to occupy your time.
Your evidence is too weak to make this presumption.
...my world of very high technology engineering, one wrong calculation by one person in our engineering department in the design of our electro-mechanical products can result in a lot of people losing life & limb. ...it is a professional habit of mine to call people out for inaccurate & inconsistent use of terminology and attempts to put their words in the mouths of other people
Interesting choice of words. Are you an engineer in that department? I'm an engineer. Imprecise calculations/conclusions concern me more than poor choices of terminology. Just to be precise, lose the dash in electromechanical.
...you've never been in my position...
You have no evidence to conclude that Ethelred has never been in your position.
You complain about imprecise use of terminology, but reach imprecise conclusions with weak or no evidence. Interesting...
Ethelred
3 / 5 (10) Dec 17, 2011
To be fair to Fred, (and he deserves that much considering he was denied a Nobel prize for his pioneering work into nuclosynthesis
I agree and have said so before.

he denied the term 'Big Bang' as coined by him, was meant to be derogatory.
Yes but I had never seen a claim by him or others before that he wasn't at least twitting the idea.

And I have no reason to doubt Hoyle, he was a man of first class integrity.
Memories fade and change. I think the first time I ran accross the the term as coming from him had him using it in a personal discussion while visiting someone or perhaps working here in California.

The first time I heard of him was when I found and read either A for Andromeda or the Black Cloud.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (12) Dec 17, 2011
It's funny, when ignorants like your are replacing arguments with accusations of ignorance.
Funny that coming from you of all people. Even sillier than if it came from Oliver.

This is just an example. How many times I explained you, the trapping of photon increases the mass of object?
Never. And what does that claim have to do with photons not having mass of their own. They only have the mass of the energy they cary. Period.

Of course photons have mass - they lack the mass only in general relativity,
Or in any other theory, including QM, except maybe yours and since you refuse to make your theory eplicit (I asked just the other day and you ran away instead) there is no telling just what you think on this. Nor does anyone really care what you think on it.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.2 / 5 (11) Dec 17, 2011
Judging from the time required to come up with your lengthy postings, you seem to have a lot of time on your hands,
I make time. I am here to learn not just comment.

so I presume you are retired
No.

and you need to do something to occupy your time, I understand that.
Clearly you don't understand as I have to work to keep eating.

What you do not understand is my world of very high technology engineering,
You implied in other posts that you were a student. Sorry if I misunderstood.

So, for this reason, it is a professional habit of mine to call people out for inaccurate & inconsistent use of terminology
You have to know the terminology first to do that.

know you can't understand this because you've never been in my position
No you don't have a clue on this. I try to be precise at all times(unless making a joke) and if you look around you will find me trying to pin down what people really mean when they use vague terminology.>>
Ethelred
3.2 / 5 (11) Dec 17, 2011
The Big Bang isn't so much vague as it carries a lot of baggage. You don't seem have gotten the idea that it is a shortcut phrase for a rather complex set ideas that include various theories that overlap and often conflict with each other.

are better suited for political commentary than scientific.
This ain't engineering. And its not like engineers don't use rules of thumb either. When I first started college engineers use slide rules. I used slide rules and I was a chem major.

Different areas of study use different terms. If you want to learn new things you have to deal with the terms used in the new area. If you are going to bitch and moan about them not fitting your definitions you are going to have conflicts because you are the newbie. In this case the term Big Bang is older than you are. You are only going to see the shorthand stuff in TV shows. If you watch enough of them you will find one says one thing and another says something quite different fairly frequently.>>
Ethelred
3.2 / 5 (11) Dec 17, 2011
To give an example of words being used differently in other fields I give you:

Artifact.

Archeology - its a good thing. Find an artifact and learn about the makers.

Computers - a way to generate colors on NTSC monitors without actually generating a color signal. Done by cramming bits together in such a way that the NTSC system produces a color. This is how the Apple][ and the IBM CGA monitors worked.

Biology - A Bad Thing. Artifacts in biology are Things That Did Not Belong and came from the experimenters not keeping their own personal chemistry or perhaps lunch out of the experiments.

New field means learning new terms with new rules. And you don't get to make the rules unless you carry the weight of people like Dr. Hoyle did. And physicists often have an odd sense of humor.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (10) Dec 17, 2011
http://en.wikiped...ow_paper

In physical cosmology, the AlpherBetheGamow paper, or aß? paper, was created by Ralph Alpher, then a physics PhD student, and his advisor George Gamow.
Note the lack of Hans Bethe there.

Gamow humorously decided to add the name of his friendthe eminent physicist Hans Betheto this paper in order to create the whimsical author list of Alpher, Bethe, Gamow
So if you want to learn about astrophysics you will have to get used to people not using words the way you want.

I remembered this wrong. Somehow I was thinking Murry Gell-Mann had a finger in this.

Ethelred
Benni
1 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2011
Ethelred


This website is overdue for a spam filter upgrade.
Ethelred
3.2 / 5 (13) Dec 18, 2011
Does that mean you want everyone to ignore you?

Ethelred
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Dec 18, 2011
Does that mean you want everyone to ignore you?

Nope, you just don't know, what the spam filter is. It means the ability to filter out the posts of particular posters at private basis. For other readers the reading of spam would remain opened, until they wouldn't apply their spam filters too. It's very democratic functionality, which is probably why it wasn't enabled at any forum yet.
Benni
1 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2011
Does that mean you want everyone to ignore you?

Ethelred


.....an appropriate setting that keeps your "sliderule" inside the walls of the retirement community in which you presently reside...nothing like telling on yourself as well as one of your other login handles......
MorituriMax
4 / 5 (2) Dec 18, 2011
bewertow
You n00b, the universe isn't expanding from a central point. The big bang wasn't "an explosion in space." It was an explosion of space and time itself.
Minor correction, it wasn't an "EXPLOSION of space and time" it was "an EXPANSION of spacetime."
YummyFur
1 / 5 (2) Dec 18, 2011
@callipo

[quote]The Casimir effect demonstrates force between (already existing) objects, not the formation of matter from nothing.[/quote]

That's what I said, 'something from something', 'force' is something, it's er... force, and matter, is something too. Everything is something. Ergo there is not such a thing as nothing. It's just crackpot Buddhist philosophy.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Dec 18, 2011
Without massive objects you cannot have Casimir force between them, the causality arrow is clear here (even the existence of these objects is not sufficient condition, you should have them in proximity). By Mach hypothesis even the existence of gravity requires the presence of massive objects in the Universe and I presume the same about dark matter.
YummyFur
1.5 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2011
callipo, what is your point. My point is simply that there is no such thing as nothing. Even if, for example, there was no casimir effect, even if there were no such thing as virtual particles, even if there was such a thing as completely empty space, nothing at all in the space, even the cursed Buddhist 'nothingness' was all that existed in this little pocket of empty space, still there would be the space itself, which is 'something'.
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (12) Dec 19, 2011
.an appropriate setting that keeps your "sliderule" inside the walls of the retirement community in which you presently reside...
You might try learning how to read.

I said I work. I am not retired.

nothing like telling on yourself as well as one of your other login handles......
So just how many logins do you have. You must be talking about YOU since I don't do that.

What the hell is your problem anyway?

Ethelred
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 20, 2011
Everything is something.
That should cover it. Ergo there is not such a thing as nothing. It's just crackpot Buddhist philosophy. Nothing is where the U came from. Else there must be something else besides the U in which case the U isn't really complete and therefore technically not a U. That crackpot philosophy might be pretty hard to break.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 20, 2011
Sorry put Ergo... in quotes.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2011
By Mach hypothesis even the existence of gravity requires the presence of massive objects in the Universe and I presume the same about dark matter.
Maybe that's why people think every little dink in spacetime must be caused by some massive body. I'd say spacetime comes with its very own dinks courtesy of BB turbulence.
Henrik
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 20, 2011
It seems to me that the big bang is either poorly understood by scientists or poorly defined. If one cannot explain a theory clearly then perhaps the theory is flawed. Furthermore: what caused the singularity? To say it is uncaused, violates one of the strongest principles of logic. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence, but the evidence for the big bang is quite indirect.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Dec 20, 2011
To say it is uncaused, violates one of the strongest principles of logic.

No. Causation (and logic) rely on an implicitly defined arrow of time. At the big bang event such an arrow of time is not defined (time - and space - do not exist independently of the universe we live in).
Hence you cannot apply the concept of causation to such an event.

The flaw is not in the logic. The flaw is to assume that logic (and causation) hold without any prerequisites.
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Dec 20, 2011
at the big bang event such an arrow of time is not defined
Only from perspective of 4D relativity theory. The higher dimensional theories are handling 4D singularity rather smoothly in higher number of dimensions (dense aether theory, ekpyrotic model based on brane cosmology). Such a theories can describe the interior of black holes beneath event horizon too. If during initial singularity the time arrow wouldn't really exist, then the Universe would never evolve into its current state. For everyone is clear, when the black hole collapses into "singularity", something can still exist beneath the event horizon.
Henrik
1 / 5 (5) Dec 20, 2011
Causation (and logic) rely on an implicitly defined arrow of time. time - and space - do not exist independently of the universe we live in


How do you know for sure that time cannot exist outside our universe? This seems like an assumption without basis. Perhaps some for of time does exist ouside our observeable universe.

Second, cause and effect could be simultaneous, like a weight suspended on a chain. The chain causes the weight to remain suspended. Furthermore we cannot exclude that timeless causation is possible. I see no logical argument against timeless dependencies between entities.

Lastly, how could time come in existence fully uncaused? Why would time begin to exist at all? It defies all logic that a theory would not have an explanation for that. The singularity would then be an event very close to a form of magic or metaphysics.
rawa1
1 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2011
The gravity violates radiative time arrow of relativity quite apparently from this perspective. When massive object collapses into "singularity", from perspective of general relativity theory it's interior doesn't exist anymore in the same way, like the Universe before Big Bang. But its gravity or even charge remains unchanged. You can deduce the superluminal gravity speed from this insight easily. Apparently, even if the Universe wouldn't exist before singularity, its gravity and charge/spin would still manifest itself in unattenuated way (...does the charge spread in superluminal speed too?). From this reason the Newton could be quite right, when he speculated, gravity is manifestation of God, because it should really survive even the formation of Universe in general relativity sense.
Ethelred
3.2 / 5 (13) Dec 21, 2011
You can deduce the superluminal gravity speed from this insight easily.
No. Since nothing changes outside the event horizon that can NOT be deduced from that.

I have yet to see anyone show evidence or a good reason for thinking gravity propagates at superluminal speeds.

From this reason the Newton could be quite right, when he speculated, gravity is manifestation of God,
Newton also thought he was specially chosen to determine how Jehovah made the Universe work. He got it wrong, brilliant work that fit the evidence available, however he clearly wasn't inspired in any way that caused him to outdo the evidence available. I see no reason to agree with him on that.

Ethelred
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2011
How do you know for sure that time cannot exist outside our universe?

Since the demonstration of spacetime we know that time isn't independent of space (and that there are instances where time isn't even applicable - e.g. from the point of view of a photon no time passes). Space and time are relative. This means that you need at least 2 points (events) in spacetime to meaningfully define what it is. So it cannot be independent of the universe.

If we postulate that the universe did start from a big bang whence spacetime expanded fom then the notion of what we call time makes no sense outside this context.

This leaves aside the question whether there are other dimensions and whether our universe is embedded in a greater dimensional conglomerate (e.g. brane theory). But that just shifts the issue to a higher order - not eliminating it.
I.e. even that wouldn't show that dimensions can exist independent of stuff in them.
rawa1
1 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2011
I have yet to see anyone show evidence or a good reason for thinking gravity propagates at superluminal speeds.
These reasons are collected here http://aetherwave...ves.html
How do you know for sure that time cannot exist outside our universe?
The observation of galaxy older than the observable Universe would be sufficient.
But that just shifts the issue to a higher order - not eliminating it.
We are talking about observable Universe here all the time. Outside of Universe as such cannot exist anything even in dense aether theory, simply because in this model the Universe is infinite random space-time geometry.
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (14) Dec 21, 2011
http://aetherwave...ves.html

The usual handwaving had no evidence that supported your claims.

No one has expected to find gravity waves with the present equipment so not finding any is not evidence that supports any conclusions.

Try again after they finish the stuff that is supposed to find something. The stuff you don't want them to build with money that you have nothing to do with. Could it be that you don't them find anything?

Gravitational waves are deformations of space-time curvature, i.e.
Yes.

they're manifesting like density fluctuations of space.
No. Curvature is not density. Maybe if you would do the math you might prove they are equivalent in your handwave theory. Without the math its just waving and saying it is so. There was no logic there.

CMB photon is component of density fluctuation,
No it is a PHOTON. An electro-magnetic wave.>>
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (13) Dec 21, 2011
Gravitational waves forming CMB noise at human scale are dual to gravitons at Planck scale
There is no evidence of gravitons.

In addition, GWs shouldn't be confused with gravity waves, which are product of gravity and EM interaction coupling in material environment
I wouldn't dream of being as confused as that nonsense. Gravity waves are not EM.

I do like these two:
Concept of gravitation waves (GWs)

GWs shouldn't be confused with gravity waves,
Which is just bit self-contradictory. Normal for you.

As a direct analogy of GWs in AWT model of water surface are underwater sound waves, which are spreading in extra-dimensions with respect to surface waves.
Nice but unsupported by any evidence and does not fit GR.

Inside of vacuum - which is much more dense phase of Aether
Or it could just be a wave of the hands.

As an evidence of GWs dispersion can serve Casimir force
No. That is due to the Uncertainty Principle in a vacuum.>>
Ethelred
3.2 / 5 (13) Dec 21, 2011
and its distance dependence corresponds the longitudinal wave shielding in six dimensions,
It is dependent on the wave length of EM radiation. A small enough gap inhibits the formation of virtual particles by suppressing all but the shortest wavelengths which are the highest energy and therefor the least likely to spawn.

From analogy with underwater wave spreading follows, GWs are way way faster, then the light waves
Only there is no evidence that.

So GWs are violating causality of information
Which makes it highly unlikely that they exist.

and they're inherently chaotic
Its your theory but that still was a handwave not supported by anything you said.

so they're interacting with chaotic matter only, i.e. boson condensates
Would you care to give any evidence for the that or for the existence of boson condensates.

shielding during Podkletnov anitgravity experiments
Comparing nonsense with nonsense produces nonsense except by accident.>>
rawa1
1 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2011
There is no evidence of gravitons
Gravitons manifest itself in the same way, like the gravitational waves, i.e. with CMBR noise. Gravitons bosons aren't distinguishable from fermions with compare to all other particles. The evidence for CMBR noise is overwhelming.

http://www.aether...tons.gif

You apparently didn't understand, that the mainstream physics didn't recognize its own concepts in the observable reality. To bring the theory for some artefact is one thing, to recognize you're sitting on it is another one.
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2011
For example, Big Bang theory is assuming, the gamma rays formed during Big Bang event expanded into CMBR noise during inflation. OK, but what happened with gravitations waves? They collapsed instead into the very same CMBR photons.

http://www.aether...tion.gif

As Eddington pointed out already before many years, gravitational waves do not have a unique speed of propagation. The speed of the alleged waves is coordinate dependent. A different set of coordinates yields a different speed of propagation and such waves would propagate like noise.

The same result can be imagined easily with water surface model, where transverse waves are serving like analogy of waves of light and the gravitational waves are behaving like longitudinal sound waves, which are spreading through underwater. Because sound waves are spreading a way faster, then the surface waves, they would manifest like noise at the water surface.
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (14) Dec 21, 2011
Oh this one is fun:
Being tachyons, gravitational waves are expected to be primarily responsible for entanglement and "action at distance" phenomena of quantum mechanics.
Did you achieve escape velocity with that high frequency handwaving? Action at a distance has yet to be proved. Tachyons are wild assed speculation with zero evidence and you concept of gravity waves is also based on well nothing but handwaving.

Highly dimensional character of gravity interaction is the main reason, the intensity of gravitational waves decreases a much faster with distance, being dispersed by membranes of quantum foam, because they're spreading across quantum foam bubbles in longitudinal waves.
Wonderfully without evidence, logic or reason of any kind that is pure word wuze.

The three dimensional character of gravity makes it decrease in a standard inverse square law. Its pure geometry. Highly dimensional is yet another meaningless noise.>>
rawa1
1 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2011
The three dimensional character of gravity makes it decrease in a standard inverse square law. Its pure geometry.
Many forces in real life decrease a much faster, for example the Casimir force or various dipole forces, thus indicating the presence of extradimensions in the same logics.

You're right, it's pure geometry.
high frequency handwaving.. wild assed speculation ..nothing but handwaving.
This is not argumentation at all, just a religious hand-waving negation. Why I should dispute with it?
Ethelred
3.2 / 5 (13) Dec 21, 2011
This effectively means, gravitational waves are of dispersive character, so they cannot be observed at distance even et the case of quite energetic events, like at the case of black hole and pulsar merging.
It isn't magnetic so magnetic events are irrelevant. Nor is there any reason yet for thinking they cannot be detected. Yes it is clear why you don't want the new detectors built. They could make that page even sillier.

Note that holographic projection at Universe scale requires superluminal speed of GWs for to be able to work at all,
It doesn't work at all. The holographic universe is pure nonsense as it has non-local causality in every way imaginable even WITH superluminal communication. It also is contradictory to your claims of higher dimensions since is a lower dimensional theory. Really strange to try to conflate the two ideas.

No wonder you have never published the 'predicates logics' that you claim supports you.

Ethelred
rawa1
1 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2011
There exist more rigorous derivation of superluminal nature of gravitational waves indeed. Relativists use a simplified form of Eistein field equations to calculate various properties of his gravitational field, including Einstein gravitational waves, which are based on the Einstein's pseudo-tensor. This simplified form is called the linearised field equations. They do this because Einstein's field equations are highly non-linear (implicit actually) and impossible to solve analytically. So they use the linearised form, simply assuming that they can do so. However Hermann Weyl proved in 1944 already, that linearisation of the field equations implies the existence of a Einstein's pseudo-tensor that, except for the trivial case of being precisely zero, does not otherwise exist:

http://www.jstor..../2371768

But I'm sure, if you cannot understand the simple logical arguments, then the highly derived formal proof can add nothing very much to your understanding of reality.
rawa1
1 / 5 (9) Dec 21, 2011
Anyway, it follows clearly from dense aether model, that gravitational waves must exist, if we can observe the light waves. Because aether is particle environment and every particle environment supports just two kinds of waves: the transverse waves and the longitudinal waves. We already know, the light waves are transverse waves, so we are missing the longitudinal gravitational waves. In addition, we have CMBR noise and we essentially don't know, what this noise is. We have no usage for it in any mainstream theory. So that the assumption, just the CMBR noise is formed with these gravitational waves should be considered as the very first option. If Eddington would live longer, he would definitely predict the existence of CMBR noise a well before it was be observed.
Ethelred
3.2 / 5 (13) Dec 21, 2011
Gravitons manifest itself in the same way, like the gravitational waves, i.e. with CMBR noise
Funny how you just wave that into being with no evidence to support you. No logic either.

Gravitons bosons aren't distinguishable from fermions
So far they aren't distinguishable period and boson ARE distinguishable from fermions.

The evidence for CMBR noise is overwhelming.
Yes it is overwhelming evidence of the decoupling of matter from energy. Overwhelming to all but the most tightly shuttered minds.

You apparently didn't understand, that the mainstream physics didn't recognize its own concepts in the observable reality.
I understood that you have no evidence and that you contradicted yourself in the midst of massive handwaving.

o bring the theory for some artefact is one thing, to recognize you're sitting on it is another one.
You just can't stop with the word wuze.>>
Ethelred
3.2 / 5 (13) Dec 21, 2011
For example, Big Bang theory is assuming, the gamma rays formed during Big Bang event expanded into CMBR noise during inflation
NO. You really are completely without a clue. The CMB is from the long after inflation. Inflation, if it happened, took place during the first second of the Universe. The CMBR didn't form for many thousands of year when the hydrogen and helium cooled enough that it deionized thus decoupling it from light.

No wonder you make so many silly claims.

OK, but what happened with gravitations waves?
They have yet to be detected and I don't see any reason for them to have anything to do with BB theory in the first place. With or without inflation.

hey collapsed instead into the very same CMBR photons.
No. The CMBR has nothing to do with gamma waves. It is from the decoupling event. How the hell have you been on this site for so long and never learned this?

http://en.wikiped...isotropy
>>
rawa1
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2011
I understood that you have no evidence and that you contradicted yourself in the midst of massive handwaving
This is the same stance, like the stance of people, who are claiming, the science has no evidence for evolution, because they never observed formation of new distinct species (which is true). Such people are representing 60% of Americans, so I don't expect, I can convince the people like you right here. There exists nothing, which could convince the religious people in real time.

The question therefore rather is, if such evidence can be given for you at all. What would you consider as an acceptable evidence, that the gravitational waves are CMBR noise? If nothing, then it has no meaning to convince you anymore. For me evidence is, no one of mainstream physics has considered this option so far. The simplest final solutions are always coming just at the very end.
Ethelred
3.2 / 5 (13) Dec 21, 2011
for example the Casimir force
Due to the wavelengths of light.

or various dipole forces
Pseudo forces. And gravity is not a dipole nor is it dependent of vacuum fluctuations.

thus indicating the presence of extradimensions in the same logics.
No. Indicating that dipoles constrain fields and wavelengths constrain the Casimir effect.

This is not argumentation at all, just a religious hand-waving negation. Why I should dispute with it?
I was pointing out that you had no argument and were just waving your hands about and claiming it was true AFTER I dealt with the rest of the crap you have there. You can ignore it all you want. You ignore evidence, logic and math and the actual meaning of the word religion so I don't expect you to deal with anything in any rational manner. I expected more bullshit. You just delivered more in those two replies.>>
rawa1
1 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2011
I was pointing out that you had no argument
This is just a claim of yours with no evidence. Whereas I presented here the arguments of Eddington, Herman Weyl and water surface analogy of CMBR noise from dense aether model.
Ethelred
3.2 / 5 (13) Dec 21, 2011
There exist more rigorous derivation of superluminal nature of gravitational waves indeed
It would be difficult to have anything less rigorous.

However Hermann Weyl proved in 1944 already, that linearisation of the field equations implies the existence of a Einstein's pseudo-tensor that, except for the trivial case of being precisely zero, does not otherwise exist:
Fine. A short cut that leaves out the details produces an artifact of the shortcut. What does that have to do with the actual physics? Or the speed of gravity?

But I'm sure, if you cannot understand the simple logical arguments,
I am still waiting for you use any logic at all. You skipped right over my pointing out the the Holographic Universe contracts you claim of higher dimensions so why do you want to use it?

Do you understand that link is about a SHORTCUT not the actual physics?>>
Ethelred
3.1 / 5 (12) Dec 21, 2011
The holographic universe is crap due to it fitting with any kind of causality. Unless of course you think we live in the Matrix and then it is still crap because the Matrix is linear and the holographic universe is planar. If you don't understand that statement you don't know how computer memory works.

then the highly derived formal proof can add nothing very much to your understanding of reality.
Do let us know when you have that proof formal, informal or with even a smidgen of logic, much less math. Heck you don't even have the most basic principles defined. You just wing in it in each post.

And speaking of not understanding when are you going to learn about the CMBR? You should be able figure that out from that link in about the time it takes to read it. Its really clear and simple to understand if you know what ionization is and how EM couples with ions and does not couple with neutral atoms.

Ethelred
rawa1
1 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2011
I am still waiting for you use any logic at all.
This is not my problem. You should prove instead, my arguments are logical fallacies. For example, did you understand the Eddington's argument? Yes? Not??

Actually, who cares. It cannot be proven, you have understood it - so it's not important at all in matter of fact discussion. The understanding of arguments of your opponent is solely just your problem. I could say with the same relevance, I don't consider string theory relevant, because I don't see any logic in it. This is apparently very silly stance, not an argument at all.

Instead of it, you should prove by now, this argument is wrong - or you cannot claim, it's not argument at all.
Ethelred
3.2 / 5 (13) Dec 21, 2011
There exists nothing, which could convince the religious people in real time.
The wonders of the hypocritical. You have no evidence and not logic and not math and you have the brass to lie that others are religious when YOU actually are a Christian.

The question therefore rather is, if such evidence can be given for you at all.
Sure. You just have not presented any. And lying that I am religious will not make that non-existent evidence real.

What would you consider as an acceptable evidence, that the gravitational waves are CMBR noise?
Evidence of gravitational waves would be the first step and then you would have show that it disperses in a random manner that produces EM that matches the CMBR. YOU leaning what the CMBR actually is would help YOU learn that isn't from gravity and is directly from EM.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (12) Dec 21, 2011
For me evidence is, no one of mainstream physics has considered this option so far.
that isn't evidence. That is your, using your own personal definition of religion, its a religious view. That no one is willing to look at an alleged theory with no actual propositions, no logic and no math is not evidence of anything except others are more rational than you.

The simplest final solutions are always coming just at the very end.
And you find your keys in the last place you look. You have no solution. You are just waving your hands and claiming you have one. And lying about you opposition which is why I give a one every time claim real science is just a way to get funding whenever I see you pulling that ludicrous crap. You and Oliver tell the same exact lie.>>
rawa1
1 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2011
So - until you explain, why the above arguments are wrong, I'll consider everything what are you saying here as an off-topic babbling. You got three arguments in total: this one of Eddington, Herman Weyl and water surface analogy of CMBR noise from dense aether model.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (12) Dec 21, 2011
This is just a claim of yours with no evidence.
No. That page was evidence since it had no physical evidence of any kind for any of it. The only logic you had was a self contradiction with you trying to use both more than 3 dimensions, which I have no problem with, AND use a purely 2 dimensional theory at the same time. Which is self contradiction.

Whereas I presented here the arguments of Eddington,
Eddinton was wrong.

http://scienceblo...vity.php

GR fits the evidence. IF gravity travels at the speed of light.

Herman Weyl
An argument about a shortcut not the actual physics.

and water surface analogy of CMBR noise from dense aether model.
An analogy based on no evidence and your blatant misunderstanding of the CMBR. Combined with a model that you have yet to define. That model is the ultimate ad hoc. It is whatever you want it to be in any given post.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (12) Dec 21, 2011
This is not my problem.
Really? Then never mind pretending relevance to reality.

. You should prove instead, my arguments are logical fallacies.
I did.

For example, did you understand the Eddington's argument? Yes? Not??
Yes. Its wrong as gravity is not the Sun pulling on the Earth. It is the Sun and the Earth shaping space. And GR does fit the binary pulsar evidence. So you don't have any evidence or logic.

Actually, who cares. It cannot be proven, you have understood it -
It can be proven you don't know what your talking about. I have done so in these posts.

The understanding of arguments of your opponent is solely just your problem.
The lack of logic in your arguments remains YOUR problem. That won't change just because you hold breath till your face turns blue.

I could say with the same relevance, I don't consider string theory relevant
I don't either.>>
rawa1
1 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2011
GR fits the evidence. IF gravity travels at the speed of light.
LOL, you cannot argue something just with theory, which considers exactly the opposite without further evidence... 8-) The long standing lack of gravitational wave observations serves as an experimental evidence against this assumption instead. The sensitivity of existing detectors is sufficient for observation of at least some GWs.
The lack of logic in your arguments remains YOUR problem.
Nope, until you prove, the logics is really missing there.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (12) Dec 21, 2011
because I don't see any logic in it.
I don't see finished math or evidence that separates it from the Standard Model. There IS logic involved it just isn't complete. That you don't see that is your problem.

This is apparently very silly stance, not an argument at all.
So why did you bring it up. I never brought up the String Hypothesis.

Instead of it, you should prove by now, this argument is wrong
What argument? You brought up string theory not me. You can deal with it. You brought up Eddington and it is your problem that his idea does not fit the evidence.

or you cannot claim, it's not argument at all.
I certainly can claim that page had no logic except bad logic and I showed it. All you have done is whine about my pointing that you did not use evidence or logic. You have not supplied any new evidence to show any error on my part.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (12) Dec 21, 2011
Go ahead. Show how your CMBR idea fits the actual evidence. That is YOUR responsibility. The mainstream physicists have already shown how it fits the standard models which is quite unlike the bogus model with gamma rays and inflation you used.

So - until you explain, why the above arguments are wrong, I'll
I did. Stonewalling won't change that.

I'll consider everything what are you saying here as an off-topic
You are almost always off topic.

You got three arguments in total: this one of Eddington,
Eddington was wrong and I showed it.

Herman Weyl
Again that was about a shortcut not the real physics. Are reading what you are replying to?

and water surface analogy of CMBR noise from dense aether model.
Which is an undefined and therefor non-model based on your ignorance of the what the CMBR really is.

So when you going to read the links or even the posts you are trying to evade with this non discussion?

Ethelred
rawa1
1 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2011
I don't see finished math or evidence that separates it from the Standard Model.
??? Why just Standard Model? Whether the SM predicts the tachyons and/or CMBR noise in the role gravitational waves?
his idea does not fit the evidence.
Which evidence? It's just you, who is lacking the gravitational waves - not Eddington. Eddington has predicted them as a noise, which is all around us.
Eddington was wrong and I showed it.
You just demonstrated, how silly you actually are - nothing less, nothing more.
rawa1
1 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2011
A slight paradigm shift, so to say:

Max Tegmark, a MIT teacher: The Mathematical Universe

http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646

versus

Alan P. Lightman, a MIT teacher: We are living in a universe uncalculable by science.

http://www.harper.../0083720
Ethelred
2.8 / 5 (11) Dec 21, 2011
LOL, you cannot argue something just with theory, which considers exactly the opposite without further evidence...
Lying like that won't change the fact that I gave the evidence and you did not.

8-) The long standing lack of gravitational wave observations serves as an experimental evidence against this assumption instead.
Not at all. That is just the usual handwaving. I gave evidence. It won't go away just because you didn't read it.

http://scienceblo...vity.php]http://scienceblo...vity.php[/url]
There it is again.

The sensitivity of existing detectors is sufficient for observation of at least some GWs.
No. It had a tiny chance IF there was a binary black hole merger fairly close.

Nope, until you prove, the logics is really missing there.
I did.

http://scienceblo...vity.php]http://scienceblo...vity.php[/url]
>>
Ethelred
2.8 / 5 (11) Dec 21, 2011
Trying the link without the leading 'h':
ttp://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/08/what_is_the_speed_of_gravity.php

and that link really isn't going away till you either deal with it or run or actually wonder of wonder LEARN something.

Lying that I didn't show logical errors in your blog won't change the blog. Ignoring most of my posts to avoid your bad version of the Standard Model of the CMBR won't make the real one go away either.

http://en.wikiped...isotropy

Ignoring the links won't change them.

A slight paradigm shift, so to say
Translation - Zephir finally figured out that he is wrong and won't admit it so he is changing the subject.

I notice things like that.

So now that you have admitted you were wrong on this what does it do to Aetherwave as it now has a big hole in it?

Ethelred
Henrik
1.3 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2011
Since the demonstration of spacetime we know that time isn't independent of space


That may be so for our ability to measure the passing of time, but not for it's ontology. In Einsteins original theory of relativity, time is not a 4th dimension but simply a parameter. Time is very different from space because it cannot be travelled back and forth freely. No-one has ever come to us from the future, and past events cannot be repeated.

This tells us that time is very, very different from space. There is no logical reason why a form of time could not exist as a distinct entity outside our universe.
rawa1
1 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2011
Since the demonstration of spacetime we know that time isn't independent of space
The dense aether analogy of spacetime with the water surface demonstrates close relation of space and time: the spatial direction is parallel with water surface, the time dimension is just perpendicular to it. But it illustrates clearly, the space-time can exist outside the observable universe region quite comfortably - we just cannot observe it like the remote landscape covered under the fog.
http://www.josesa...ples.jpg
But if we would travel inside of observable Universe to its remote areas, we would see new and new areas of space-time opening before us and closing behind us, so that the observable Universe zone would always appear roughly the same all the time during this travel.

Therefore the dependence of time and space doesn't imply, they cannot exist outside of observable Universe in observable way.
Henrik
1 / 5 (3) Dec 21, 2011
Science is not able to tell us what happened before the Planck time. What we are left with is a model that has space and time suddenly appearing out of nothing, caused by nothing. Since neither physical laws nor any for of logic apply at the Planck time, this implies that the universe cannot be caused by any natural phenomenon. The beginning of the universe then, scientifically speaking, does not have an explanation. And that is not only unsatisfactory but also defies logic, since we never observe that things come out of nothing caused by nothing.

(Even quantum events are not an exception to this rule, because they are caused by the already existing vacuum energy field, which exists in space and time.)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2011
the spatial direction is parallel with water surface, the time dimension is just perpendicular to it.

Erm...sorry. An analogy demonstrates nothing. It illustrates at best. But your analogy makes absolutely no sense in any context pertaining to the subject at hand.

Making deductions from an analogy is foolish.
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2011
An analogy demonstrates nothing. It illustrates at best... Making deductions from an analogy is foolish.
This is just a stance of yours, nevertheless the physicists are doing it often. How many black hole phenomena modeled with fluids, surface ripples, metamaterial foam and whatever else we faced in recent PO articles? Often these analogies are even more implicit and vague, than the my analogies (just compare the modeling of Hawking radiation with optical cable or array of SQUIDs). http://physicswor...ws/39501 http://www.scienc...3513.htm
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2011
Science is not able to tell us what happened before the Planck time.
Contemporary science maybe (there exists many cyclical universe models already, though). But AWT explains it quite clearly - there doesn't exist real beginning of time, just the spatial illusion of beginning.

http://www.aether...part.gif

You would dissolve inside of black hole, but if you COULD survive it, then you would perceive as an extension of observable Universe. Because the notion of space and time is effectively property of us, human observers, not the Universe as such. We are defining the appearance and scope of observable Universe, not the Universe as such. For simple observers the Universe appears small and simple, for complex ones big and complex. Universe as such is just random and it doesn't differ from random gas. The whole trick in its complexity is the motion at place for sufficient long time.
Ethelred
2.9 / 5 (11) Dec 21, 2011
What we are left with is a model that has space and time suddenly appearing out of nothing, caused by nothing.
Incorrect. The cause is unknown which is not the same as nothing.

Since neither physical laws nor any for of logic apply at the Planck time,
Incorrect. The principles of logic, rather than our formal statements of those principles, exist with or with a Universe.

this implies that the universe cannot be caused by any natural phenomenon.
It only implies that it is not caused by any known phenomena of our Universe.

The beginning of the universe then, scientifically speaking, does not have an explanation.
That one is correct.

And that is not only unsatisfactory but also defies logic,
It does neither. It simply makes it impossible to reason it out based on hard evidence.>>
Ethelred
2.6 / 5 (10) Dec 21, 2011
since we never observe that things come out of nothing caused by nothing.
Induction can't tell us everything. The same poor reasoning is used by Creationists to try to claim that abiogenesis is impossible though they do use the cheat of claiming that information only comes from intelligence because THEY, not I, have only seen it from intelligence. I see it come from the environment.

they are caused by the already existing vacuum energy field,
No. They are caused by uncertainty. There is no evidence that the vacuum has net energy. If it did the Universe would not be flat, the reason the Universe is flat is that energy produces gravity and gravity has negative energy. The positive energy of matter/energy, whether it is matter or antimatter, is countered by the negative energy of gravity.

This makes the total energy of the Universe equal to zero.>>
Ethelred
2.8 / 5 (11) Dec 21, 2011
Since the principles of math/logic do not need a universe and Universe appears to conform to those principles it is reasonable to assume that the Universe we live in exists simply because it can. Another way to put it is to ask this question.

Why shouldn't it exist?

Virtual particles come from Uncertainty not energy. Since all known principles of the Universe conform to math/logic Uncertainty likely does so and would do so without a Universe. Thus nothing literally cannot exist as it is against the principle of Uncertainty. The change from an undefinable nothing to a definable, but energy = zero, something creates space-time out of the principles of logic/math.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (12) Dec 21, 2011
Eddington was wrong and I showed it.

You just demonstrated, how silly you actually are - nothing less, nothing more.
No. Lying won't change the orbits of pulsar binaries. They conform to GR with gravity limited to the speed of light. Eddington was wrong and thus you are wrong.

Here are the two links you have been evading. They are not going away till you stop evading or leave the discussion.

http://en.wikiped...isotropy

http://scienceblo...vity.php

Oh yes. I am still waiting to see the actual definitions of your hypothesis. I have been told by others that they don't exist. Surely you can't be winging it every time despite the way it looks. You must have them written down somewhere.>>
Ethelred
2.8 / 5 (11) Dec 21, 2011
Or is really so ridiculous that you don't want anyone to see the basic concepts. On this site it looks like all you have is that water surface analogy that isn't based on any evidence. There is nothing inherently wrong with that IF it can be used to produce a logical system that can produce numbers that fit the evidence. So far you have not numbers and what little logic you have is neither complete nor always valid as in the dimensionality self contradiction you have on that page.

Ethelred
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 22, 2011
Gravitational lensing is proof photons have mass. Photons simply have no "rest mass". Something that has no mass cannot have its' trajectory altered.

Photons simply have no "rest mass" because they can exist in only one state, at the speed of light. As soon as energy is transformed to mass, & the photon becomes "mass", it can then be equated to "rest mass". (I don't have all the hours in a day to spend to devote time looking up links & cherry picking arguments as some respondents here, I just remember what I learned in my college physics & thermodynamics courses).

Gravity on the other hand is not governed by light speed & is not a form of electro-magnetism. If it were, black holes could not exist because the evidence is that gravity only prevents the escape of electro-magnetic waves from the surface of a black hole but obviously not gravity.

Earth's orbit does not follow the 8.3 light minute "retardation image" of the sun, it follows an arc of 8.3 light minutes beyond that.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (6) Dec 22, 2011
If it were, black holes could not exist because the evidence is that gravity only prevents the escape of electro-magnetic waves from the surface of a black hole but obviously not gravity.

Thanks for that thought. That is interesting.

Doesn't prove that gravity is faster than light, though. Only proves that gravity (or gravitons) don't interact with each other.
rawa1
1 / 5 (3) Dec 22, 2011
it looks like all you have is that water surface analogy that isn't based on any evidence
I'm using the water surface analogy widely for explanation of many phenomena and connections, so it's apparent, it has both many evidences, both many applications. There are evidences for superluminal gravity waves too. The first point is, we still didn't observe these luminal ones - but we are observing the CMBR noise from 1964. At second, the superluminal model brings many predictions, which are testable easily. For example, from this model follows, the remote events will manifest itself not with gravitational waves, but with less or more sudden changes of CMBR intensity comming from all directions at the same moment. I.e. in similar way like the underwater sound waves from nuclear explosions manifest itself at the water surface. These waves don't form ripples, but a noise at the water surface.

http://www.aether...terw.gif
rawa1
1 / 5 (5) Dec 22, 2011
Thanks for that thought. That is interesting.
It's just equivalent to my above arguments about gravity from beneath of event horizon, which I presented above to Ethelread - but because you're negativistic toward me, you're refuse to admit them just from me.
Only proves that gravity (or gravitons) don't interact with each other.
If they wouldn't, then the gravity field wouldn't keep its shape. They indeed do interact mutually, just in extra dimensions and as such with superluminal speed. One example of such interactions is just the kick of black holes, which manifest itself during their merging.
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2011
One simple example, how to deduce the superluminal speed is the thought experiment with light around black hole. We know, the light undergoes the gravitational lensing during which the light waves are moving in slower speed around black hole. It spreads with effective speed in the order of milimeter per year around black horizon. Now we can ask, how the normal speed of light at free cosmic space would appear for objects, which are moving around black horizon. It will indeed appear a much higher, than the speed of light at the event horizon.
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2011
Photons simply have no "rest mass" because they can exist in only one state, at the speed of light.
This is correct only in context of general relativity, which actually doesn't recognize any other artifacts of light, than just harmonic waves. The photons are solitons of light waves, i.e. hyperdimensional artifacts of quantum mechanics and general relativity can say absolutely nothing about their existence, their speed the less. But as we know, the solitons of transverse waves are usually move slower, than these waves (photons), the solitons of longitudinal waves are usually moving faster (neutrinos).

Such conceptual thinking is indeed very difficult for formally thinking theorists, who are using to combine equations from various mutually inconsistent theories blindly. I'd fire all these people with no mercy, because they're spending their productive lives just with generation of useless BS.
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2011
The only wavelength, for which the general relativity theory produces the same results like the quantum mechanics is the wavelength of CMBR radiation. For this chaotic noise the solitons of waves are equal just these waves, i.e. the photons of CMBR are equal to neutrinos and gravitons at the same moment. For all other wavelengths the quantum mechanics generates different predictions, than the general relativity and their equations cannot be combined freely, if you don't know exactly, what are you actually doing.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Dec 22, 2011
but because you're negativistic toward me, you're refuse to admit them just from me.

Don't flatter yourself. I just tend not to read 9 out of 10 post you make (same as with omatumr). You (and he) blather a lot of dumb stuff.

I rather spend my time reading posts that are worth my time.
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Dec 22, 2011
Doesn't prove that gravity is faster than light, though. /q]

I only pointed out that the path of Earth's orbit does not follow the "retarded" 8.3 light speed image of the sun, it follows the actual position of the sun. Orbital satellite data since about 1999 proves this to be the case.
rawa1
1 / 5 (5) Dec 22, 2011
I just tend not to read 9 out of 10 post you make
Why not, but you're expected not to answer it, after then. When you're replying to posts, which you don't actually read, you're just introducing the noise into discussion. The ignorance of AWT with mainstream physics proponents has the same origin, like the ignorance of cold fusion and it will have the very same consequences for them.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Dec 22, 2011
Why not,

You mean why I even bother to read 1 out of every 10 posts? Simple: I give you the benefit of the doubt that you'll shape up.

But time and time again that hope gets dashed, so you'll go the way omatumr has gone pretty soon (i.e. I won't read any posts from you or just set my filter)

The major reason being: My time is limited. I like to spend it on quality issues rather than on quantity spam.

And which of us is more likely to 'introducing noise' into a discussion should be fairly obvious from the ratings.
rawa1
1.6 / 5 (5) Dec 22, 2011
I only pointed out that the path of Earth's orbit does not follow the "retarded" 8.3 light speed image of the sun, it follows the actual position of the sun. Orbital satellite data since about 1999 proves this to be the case.
But do you have source for it? In this article the precession of perihelion of Earth and Venus corresponds the relativity.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.0176
Ethelred
3 / 5 (12) Dec 22, 2011
Something that has no mass cannot have its' trajectory altered.
No. It is NOT actually altered. Photons follow the curvature of space.

Gravity on the other hand is not governed by light speed
The evidence I have seen is to the contrary. Do you have a link?

Odd that Zephir is also asking for a link.

& is not a form of electro-magnetism.
Yes. Can't figure out where Zephir got that idea.

Earth's orbit does not follow the 8.3 light minute "retardation image" of the sun, it follows an arc of 8.3 light minutes beyond that.
It follows the curvature of space. This tendency to treat gravity as a force like EM is where people's goes wrong. It is not a force. It is a pseudo force created by the curvature of space-time.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (12) Dec 22, 2011
, so it's apparent, it has both many evidences, both many applications.
What you don't have is evidence. Or evidences as you insist on calling it.

here are evidences for superluminal gravity waves too.
No. For one no one has detected a gravity wave. We do have evidence that they exist in binary pulsars where the orbits are getting smaller exactly in accord with GR.

but we are observing the CMBR noise from 1964.
Which is due to the end of the period of ionization not gravity waves.

Still didn't read the link I see.

http://en.wikiped...isotropy]http://en.wikiped...isotropy[/url]

At second, the superluminal model brings many predictions, which are testable easily.
Tested and failed.

http://scienceblo...vity.php

but with less or more sudden changes of CMBR intensity


http://en.wikiped...isotropy]http://en.wikiped...isotropy[/url]
>>
rawa1
1 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2011
If the gravitational force between the Sun and the Earth were abberated then gravitational forces tangent to the earth's orbit would result, causing the Earth to spiral away from the Sun, due to conservation of angular momentum. Apparently the dual mechanism prohibits the fall of electron into atom nuclei. Current astronomical observations estimate the phase speed of gravity to be greater than 2.10E 10 than the speed of light.

http://webphysics...FEL.html

What you don't have is evidence.
The sudden changes in CMBR noise intensity were routinely observed at the GEO 600 detector.

http://www.geo600...-1/image
rawa1
1 / 5 (5) Dec 22, 2011
BTW What the CMBR isotropy has to do with it? We are talking about temporal changes at the case of gravitational waves?

Which is due to the end of the period of ionization not gravity waves.
This is just a tautology, as the age of the period of ionization is extrapolated just from frequency of CMBR noise. Again, you cannot argue some explanation with theory, which is just assuming it as a postulate. The proponents of mainstream physics are living in tautologies.
Ethelred
3.1 / 5 (12) Dec 22, 2011
but because you're negativistic toward me, you're refuse to admit them just from me.
It is the amount of handwaving you engage in and your refusal to learn anything you don't like that gets you that.

If they wouldn't, then the gravity field wouldn't keep its shape.
Let me know when someone finds a graviton. They make no sense in GR.

One example of such interactions is just the kick of black holes, which manifest itself during their merging.
Not yet detected so you really are making that up.

The photons are solitons of light waves, i.e. hyperdimensional artifacts of quantum mechanics
That is something you made up. For one thing QM is not multidimensional. One of its flaws I suspect.

Such conceptual thinking is indeed very difficult for formally thinking theorists,
Only because it doesn't have evidence to support it.>>
rawa1
1 / 5 (3) Dec 22, 2011
Let me know when someone finds a graviton. They make no sense in GR
Photons have no meaning in GR as well. The existence of quanta follows from quantum mechanics, not the GR, which hasn't been quantized in unambiguous way yet (and it will never be). As I've said already, the GR deals just with harmonic waves and it doesn't recognize the pressure of radiation and the QM deals just with particle wave packets and it doesn't recognize gravity field at all. There two theories have nothing in common in strictly deterministic sense. They lead into predictions, which differ in 130 orders of magnitude.

http://en.wikiped...astrophe
rawa1
1 / 5 (3) Dec 22, 2011
Only because it doesn't have evidence to support it.
It has no deterministic evidence, because it cannot have it. At the moment when you try to prove it with using of pair of theories, which lead into different predictions for single phenomena, then you're facing huge anthropic landscape of solutions, i.e. the noise. It's mathematically impossible. Analogously, all deterministic evidences of superluminal gravity will be inconclusive and when they will be conclusive, they cannot be deterministic (at least not in the sense of radiative time arrow).
Ethelred
3.2 / 5 (13) Dec 22, 2011
There is still no evidence for gravitons. Neutrinos separated from matter earlier than photons and don't interact with them anymore except via gravity and neither produces much of that.

if you don't know exactly, what are you actually doing.
Well that leaves you out. Me too for that matter as neither of us can do the math. Only I admit it and you pretend you don't need it.

The ignorance of AWT with mainstream physics proponents has the same origin, like the ignorance of cold fusion and it will have the very same consequences for them.
Yes. Amusement.

But do you have source for it? In this article the precession of perihelion of Earth and Venus corresponds the relativity.
So why are you claiming gravity is superluminal? Did you change your mind without admitting it?>>
rawa1
1 / 5 (1) Dec 22, 2011
So why are you claiming gravity is superluminal?
I didn't say about it, Benni did. I talked about gravitational waves.
Ethelred
3.2 / 5 (13) Dec 22, 2011
BTW What the CMBR isotropy has to do with it? We are talking about temporal changes at the case of gravitational waves?
No.You are doing that in regards to the CMBR which you claim is from the so far undetected gravity waves. Which is not the case. Do read the link. It is about time you leaned what the CMBR is since insist on bringing it up.

This is just a tautology, as the age of the period of ionization is extrapolated just from frequency of CMBR noise.
Read the bloody link. It is inherent in the BB theory even if you use a Brane theory version. I said nothing about the time just that it is the source of the CMBR.

Again, you cannot argue some explanation with theory, which is just assuming it as a postulate.
YOU are the king tautology and handwaving. Hypocrisy thy name is Zephir. Well it isn't your name anymore than mine is Ethelred EXCEPT I have only used the one handle online.

Ethelred
rawa1
1 / 5 (6) Dec 22, 2011
Read the bloody link.
At first, don't link lengthy articles instead of argumentation with easy to follow logics. Don't argue with logics when the link to facts is required.

At second - I read it. What's next? This article is irrelevant to gravitational waves, so you cannot use it as an evidence, the CMBR is not formed with gravitational waves.
YOU are the king tautology and handwaving. Hypocrisy thy name is Zephir.
Yawn, just another boring name calling and no arguments. BB theory is tautological because it uses the (wavelenght of) CMBR noise for reasoning of (the age of) Big Bang and subsequently it uses the (age of) Big Bang for explanation of (the wavelength of) CMBR noise. This is what a tautology is called.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Dec 22, 2011
So why are you claiming gravity is superluminal?
I didn't say about it, Benni did. I talked about gravitational waves.


I didn't say it either! I only said that satellite data since about 1999 records the fact that the path of Earth's orbit follows a path 8.3 light minutes ahead of the visible image of the sun.

Maybe Oliver, with his connections to the Apollo project, can dig up the satellite data for us then Mr. Sliderule can interpret it. (my first lunch hour all week & I spend it reclaiming science from the "old folks home).

Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2011
When massive object collapses into "singularity"...its gravity and charge/spin would still manifest itself in unattenuated way
meaning its spin would have to be infinite if its mass was concentrated in a singularity in order to preserve angular momentum when it collapsed.
When black holes accrete matter it would have to travel from the event horizon to the singularity. I don't think during this time it would just go poof and be a singularity, so if black holes accrete matter they must contain more than just a singularity. I think black holes could contain lots of singularities but a lot of other things too.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2011
if black holes accrete matter they must contain more than just a singularity
The interior of such colapsar wouldn't differ from the interior of Universe with many black holes so much, it will be just a bit simpler and more similar to the interior of dense neutron stars. It's foamy structure was conjectured by Kipp Thorne before many years already. The singularities will sit inside the nodes of this foam in similar way, like the galaxies are sitting inside of nodes of dark matter.
Henrik
1.3 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2011
They are caused by uncertainty. There is no evidence that the vacuum has net energy


Neither is there any proof that the net amount of energy in the universe is zero. This calculation depends on how the potential energy is defined and initialized.

Uncertainty is not a causal principle, and to say uncertainty causes something constitutes a logical fallacy. Vacuum models make it clear that quantum events are unpredictable, but this does not mean that they are uncaused.

The appearance of virtual particles is described by the famous Heisenberg equation, which presupposes the existence of time and space. Time and space is the same as nothing.

The value of the vacuum energy is not well established. The measurement suffers from renormalization problems and it is certainly not generally accepted to be zero or any specific value for that matter.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2011
The value of the vacuum energy is not well established. The measurement suffers from renormalization problems and it is certainly not generally accepted to be zero or any specific value for that matter.
The general relativity describes the space-time from insintric perspective, i.e. it accounts just to the tiny residual ZPE of vacuum, whereas the quantum mechanics describes space-time from extrinsic perspective: it accounts to the energy density of underwater from the perspective of water surface analogy. These two perspectives actually cannot be reconciled in deterministic way, as you cannot observe the water surface both from inside, both from outside at the same moment. From perspective of AWT the QM value appears more relevant, but the exact value depends on the number of dimensions considered. In three dimensions it's roughly equal the inverse value of third power of Planck constant, i.e. 10E 90 J/ccm.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Dec 26, 2011
...the energy density of underwater from the perspective of water surface analogy.
I know where this comes from: "the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters" Genesis 1 verse 1.
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (49) Dec 29, 2011
Earth's orbit does not follow the 8.3 light minute "retardation image" of the sun, it follows an arc of 8.3 light minutes beyond that. - Benni


It follows the curvature of space. This tendency to treat gravity as a force like EM is where people's goes wrong. It is not a force. It is a pseudo force created by the curvature of space-time. - Ethelred


The effect Benni mentions would occur for a EM field as well as a gravitational field, so it's not really a matter of the non-force, curvature of space time, nature of general relativity.

The constant motion of an observer wrt a static field,.. EM or gravitational,.. does not cause the field intself to change, so that 'propagation of the field' does not come into play. There is no time-delay necessary, as the "static [gravitational] fields always point directly to the actual position of the bodies that they are [associated with]".
Noumenon
4.8 / 5 (48) Dec 29, 2011
,...This does not mean that gravitation propagates instantaneously. Gravitational waves, a change in the static field, propagates at c.
rawa1
1 / 5 (3) Dec 29, 2011
In dense aether model the gravity arises as a shielding force of waves at many scales at the same moment. The main portion arises from shielding of tachyonic gravitational waves (which are some-times called "scalar" waves in extended electromagnetic theory) and which are considered to spread with superluminal speed in the same way, like the sound waves beneath the water surface. Such waves manifest only with Brownian noise at the water surface and they represent the explanation of CMBR noise in the vacuum. The passage of gravitational waves will correspond the less or more sudden change of CMBR noise intensity from all directions at the same moment. These waves are forming stable solitons (neutrinos) which have character of particles in the same way, like the light waves are forming photons. With compare to photons, which are usually moving with slightly subliminal speed the neutrons are supposed to move with slightly superluminal speed.
rawa1
1 / 5 (3) Dec 29, 2011
The gravitational waves should be possible to generate with electronic circuits too. So-called the Caduceus coil with bifilliar winding should be able to radiate the scalar waves, which can be separated from residual photons with heavy shielding. http://jnaudin.fr...xmtr.htm

Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 29, 2011
Noumenen, the shape of space isn't static.

Oh and Bennie thinks I use sockpuppets and that I may be Frank Herbert because Zephir lied about that when I pointed out that he used a lot more than the two he is now using. Bennie is my number two suspect. Piroutte is the most likely. Of course Zephir could be responsible as he has done this exact thing past.

Zephir, that's all purest bullshit since you refuse to post the propositions you claim you have or the 'predicates logics' you also claim you have. When asked you just pretend the question never happened.

Ethelred
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2011
that's all purest bullshit since you refuse to post the propositions you claim you have or the 'predicates logics'
AWT is based on dense aether model: the inertial Boltzmann gas of infinite density. The observable reality appears composed of nested density fluctuations of it. These density fluctuations enable the propagation of both longitudinal waves, both transverse waves, like any other particle environment. The speed of transverse waves is always much lower, than the speed of longitudinal waves and they're behaving like tachyons. In this moment you can apply the old deDuillier-LeSage theory of gravity, which explains inverse square law for gravitational force with shielding of massive objects with these tachyons.

http://en.wikiped...vitation

Is it clear enough for you?
I pointed out that he used a lot more than the two he is now using
I used many accounts, when they were banned, but never more than two at the same moment.
Noumenon
4.8 / 5 (48) Dec 29, 2011
Noumenen, the shape of space isn't static. - Ethelred


Why this post? Please see my post in proper context. I'm am correcting Benni's following post that gravity is instantaneous, i.e. does not propagate at c.

Gravity on the other hand is not governed by light speed & is not a form of electro-magnetism. If it were, black holes could not exist because the evidence is that gravity only prevents the escape of electro-magnetic waves from the surface of a black hole but obviously not gravity.... Earth's orbit does not follow the 8.3 light minute "retardation image" of the sun, it follows an arc of 8.3 light minutes beyond that. - Benni


Benni
1 / 5 (3) Dec 29, 2011
Noumenen, the shape of space isn't static. - Ethelred


Why this post? Please see my post in proper context. I'm am correcting Benni's following post that gravity is instantaneous, i.e. does not propagate at c.

Gravity on the other hand is not governed by light speed & is not a form of electro-magnetism. If it were, black holes could not exist because the evidence is that gravity only prevents the escape of electro-magnetic waves from the surface of a black hole but obviously not gravity.... Earth's orbit does not follow the 8.3 light minute "retardation image" of the sun, it follows an arc of 8.3 light minutes beyond that. - Benni


This is about the third time someone has claimed I said something that I never said. That above quote does not state anything other than what it says. You're reading in words that are your own.
Noumenon
4.8 / 5 (48) Dec 29, 2011
Oh, perhaps you would like to clarify to prevent a forth time?
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2011
Zephir, I really expected more. Something that made more sense. I had this idea that you were using a granularity based Aether that took relativity into account and used a foam based model instead of a coordinate based model. That is why I had, several times, said it was more likely, MUCH more likely that you were right than Oliver was. But that LeSage theory of gravity is just so utterly wrong there is no way anything can come out that has any use.

AWT is based on dense aether model: the inertial Boltzmann gas of infinite density.
I see. So it starts of with an impossibility and then goes down from there.

The observable reality appears composed of nested density fluctuations of it.
See what mean. Starts with infinite density and then has fluctuations in infinity. Very good. Very insane.

Do you even have a clue of math or logic. You just ignored both.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2011
These density fluctuations enable the propagation of both longitudinal waves, both transverse waves, like any other particle environment.
No it doesn't. You started with an impossible density so there is nothing that can propagate anything, it is already maxed out.

The speed of transverse waves is always much lower, than the speed of longitudinal waves
That is an assumption based on water and at infinite density there won't be any waves.

they're behaving like tachyons.
A never seen particle that cannot exist at anything below C in a fantasy of infinite density based on the behavior of waves in water. Well yes behaving like tachyons would fit since there is no sign tachyons existence. and thus no way to tell how they would behave if they did exist. Have you heard about the Giant Invisible Orbiting Aardvark. It behaves exactly like tachyons in that it is undetectable.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2011
In this moment you can apply the old deDuillier-LeSage theory of gravity, which explains inverse square law for gravitational force with shielding of massive objects with these tachyons.


Is it clear enough for you?
Yes. Its much worse than I imagined. Duillier-LeSage theory of gravity is just about the worst attempt at explaining gravity that I have ever seen. I read the whole thing. Even in the late 1600s early 1700s that went over really badly.

It is ugly. Worse than QM with MUCH worse dependency on infinities. How the hell could you find anything in that worth using?

Ethelred
rawa1
1 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2011
LeSage theory of gravity is just so utterly wrong
Why it's wrong? It can be even extended to dark matter explanation. The principle of shielding has many connection to the projective holographic model. For example, if the projection wouldn't be of tachyonic nature, the holographic model couldn't work at all. It's rather difficult to imagine, how the behaviour of object would be driven with their projection with limited speed of light across whole Universe. It means, even the holographic model requires tachyons to work.

With the "subtle" difference, LeSage model is as physical, as the holographic model is artificial, because the shielding of energy routinely occurs in real life, whereas the nobody did actually see some real object formed with hologram. The formally thinking physicists cannot invent nothing real with their abstract imagination, but they're converging to the same principles like the AWT at least.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2011
Noumenen
Why this post?
Why not? The curvature is not static. It moves with the Earth and Sun which orbit around a common center EXCEPT that it isn't a simple set of equations but an iterative calculation whose accuracy depends on the granularity of the iterations. Assuming they did the hard but more accurate way.

Earth's orbit does not follow the 8.3 light minute "retardation image" of the sun, it follows an arc of 8.3 light minutes beyond that. - Benni
It doesn't do either of those. It follows the curvature of space-time. That curvature is produced by the Sun, the Earth and the rest of the planets but in the case most is by the Sun and the Earth. Careful calculations have shown that the curvature in space controlling orbit of the Earth and Sun around their common center propagates at the speed of light. That was covered in the link I posted above.>>
rawa1
1 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2011
Duillier-LeSage theory of gravity is just about the worst attempt at explaining gravity
Believe it or not, it's actually the only model, which explains inverse square law. Verlinder recent model uses the projective explanation too, it just works with abstract entropic flux and in general is much more complex. General relativity is out of the game in this context, because it itself uses the inverse square law for its derivation of stress-energy tensor from metric tensor. Gravitational constant in Einstein's field theory comes just from Newton's gravitational law, which considers infinite speed of gravity.

IMO your negativism toward deDuillier-LeSage model comes from the same source, like the negativism of aether model. Whole generations the physicists repeated, aether model has been refused in M-M experiments, so now it's accepted as a religion, which no one is trying to doubt. And LeSage model (which is itself aether model based) shares the same destiny naturally.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2011
I don't pretend that I can do the math, I am taking the astrophysicist's word that the math was calculated properly. If anyone can show otherwise I am willing to change my mind on this. This is not a simple Newtonian equation. It is a horrid mess of Einstein's GR equations and if they did it right it may have been an iterative calculation that could only be done on a supercomputer.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2011
Why it's wrong?


Any form of gravitational shielding would represent a violation of the equivalence principle, and would be inconsistent with the extremely precise null result observed in the Eötvös experiment and its successors all of which have instead confirmed the precise equivalence of active and passive gravitational mass with inertial mass that was predicted by general relativity.


However, in order to reduce the drag to an acceptable level (i.e., consistent with observation) in terms of classical mechanics, the speed v must be many orders of magnitude greater than the speed of light. This makes Le Sage theory fundamentally incompatible with the modern science of mechanics based on special relativity, according to which no particle (or wave) can exceed the speed of light. In addition, even if superluminal particles were possible, the effective temperature of such a flux would be sufficient to incinerate all ordinary matter in a fraction of a second.
>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2011
As noted in the historical section, a major problem for every Le Sage model is the energy and heat issue. As Maxwell and Poincaré showed, inelastic collisions lead to a vaporization of matter within fractions of a second and the suggested solutions were not convincing.
There is much more there.

The principle of shielding has many connection to the projective holographic model.
Which is also pure crap. It breaks causality completely.

Read your own link. No one thought it a good theory after running the numbers and it looks like crap in the fist place. The only reason anyone ran the numbers is because there was no theory of gravity. We have a theory of gravity that works. That one doesn't have a prayer of matching the real world.

Believe it or not, it's actually the only model, which explains inverse square law.
No I don't believe it. Geometry explains it.>>
rawa1
1 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2011
It is a horrid mess of Einstein's GR equations
In AWT virtually every theory can be expressed as a pile of another theories or like another theory extended with huge number of extradimensions. In this way the large condensed system of tiny space-time fluctuations follows the simple Newton's law of gravity and vice-versa: the complex gravity field around massive objects can be described as an integral of Newtonian gravity fields, which are composing it. This principle is completely symmetric. For example, many tiny Maxwell fields lead into gravitomagnetic behaviour of large gravity fields and vice-versa, the simple gravity fields of isolated particles lead into elastic behaviour of Maxwell's fluid.

The trick of AWT is, it just uses the simplest possible version of the duality. So if dense particle gas can be expressed like field of huge number of quantum wave packets and vice-versa, why not to use the simpler model as the introductory one? Both they lead into the same prediction
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2011
General relativity is out of the game in this context, because it itself uses the inverse square law for its derivation of stress-energy tensor from metric tensor.
It follows from basic geometry. It was the only MECHANICAL theory that fit the inverse square law. Newton's and Einstein's both fit the inverse square law EXCEPT it is slightly different in Einstein's which is supported by evidence.

Gravitational constant in Einstein's field theory comes just from Newton's gravitational law
That is just one number in around 200 pages and there has SOME number for the gravitational constant. It is based on actual measurements.

IMO your negativism toward deDuillier-LeSage model comes from the same source,
Yes. Rational thinking.

And LeSage model (which is itself aether model based) shares the same destiny naturally.
Utter bullshit. It is NOT aether based. Its crap anyway. Read the link YOU posted. It makes no sense.

Ethelred
rawa1
1 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2011
Any form of gravitational shielding would represent a violation of the equivalence principle, and would be inconsistent with the extremely precise null result observed
It would be problem if we wouldn't know about dark matter or quantum mechanics. But at the moment, when we know, the dark matter exist and it violates the equivalence principle, the same alleged imperfection suddenly becomes its strongest point, which enables to falsify the relativity theory into account of simpler model.
This makes Le Sage theory fundamentally incompatible with the modern science of mechanics based on special relativity
But it makes it compatible with quantum mechanics, which is just a big problem for every general relativity. Because constant speed of light in vacuum actually doesn't enable any subtle gravitational lensing, the refraction and formation of more dense objects the less. In strictly special relativity sense the space-time must be always empty, non-refracting and flat.
rawa1
1 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2011
I don't believe it. Geometry explains it.
But which geometry? Only the geometry of Le Sage model. The inverse square law of gravity force is apparently based on three-dimensional space in similar way, like the derivation of Casimir force is based on six-dimensional space.
It is NOT aether based.
Of course it is, or you couldn't explain, from where the superluminal waves are coming from. They're apparently correspond the underwater sound waves in water surface model of dense aether theory. Every object floating at this surface is shielding both surface ripples, both underwater sound waves. The resulting attractive forces are different - the first one is responsible for Casimir force and it applies to six-dimensional space, the later is responsible for gravity force and it applies to three-dimensional space.
Noumenon
4.8 / 5 (48) Dec 30, 2011
Why this post?


Why not? The curvature is not static.


Ethelred, you seem to be an expert at pulling comments apart out of context. I know that the universe is not static.

It appeared to me that Benni was saying that gravatation can't be limited by the speed of light, because gravitation escapes from the surface of a BH.

Wrt the point made by me, fapp gravitation is static relative the an observer seeing the phenomenon correctly pointed out by Benni, i.e. if gravitation is at c, then orbits would SEEM to follow the gravitational "[non]-retardation image",... but Benni correctly pointed out that IT DOES NOT, instead it follows the actual location of the Sun.

The fouth paragraph at this Wiki page explains the phenomenon, which I presummed Benni was fooled by.

http://en.wikiped..._gravity

BTW, no one would use Einsteins field equations to do simple orbits.
rawa1
1 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2011
In original de Duillier model the tachyons responsible for shielding of massive bodies were considered as an ultramundanne particles, i.e. the particles coming from different universe. It means, even the old geometers had a notion of parallel Universe or space-time and it's connection to superluminal speeds - we are just reinventing it. The dense aether model was quite widespread in Newton times too, as the Robert Hooke's remark implies: "All space is filled with equally dense material. Gold fills only a small fraction of the space assigned to it, and yet has a big mass. How much greater must be the total mass filling that space." [Hooke, 1687] De Duillier even speculated about foamy structure of space-time based on dense particle packing (Kepler's conjecture). It indicates, these old medieval chaps had quite deep understanding of the neighbouring reality - we are just slowly reinventing their insights again.
Noumenon
4.8 / 5 (48) Dec 30, 2011
Well, initially even Maxwell, Lorentz, and Poincare were thinking in terms of the aether,... until Einstein pointed out that is redundant and an obsolete notion.
rawa1
1 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2011
That is just one number in around 200 pages and there has SOME number for the gravitational constant. It is based on actual measurements.
Nevertheless its origin still makes trouble for general relativity at the large distance, when the dimensionality of space-time decreases and the inverse square law is not valid anymore - because the inverse square law of surrounding massive bodies gets into account. On the dual insight (violation of Newton's inertial law due the quantum fluctuations) the MOND theory is based. Both these mechanisms break the equivalence principle at large distances.
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (49) Dec 30, 2011
running the numbers - Ethelred


Ethelred, numbers don't run.
rawa1
1 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2011
Well, initially even Maxwell, Lorentz, and Poincare were thinking in terms of the aether,... until Einstein pointed out that is redundant and an obsolete notion.
Einstein replaced the aether concept in one half of physics, the other remained the domain of quantum mechanics. It's like the replacement of water surface model with equations describing the spreading of massive objects from perspective of surface and transverse waves (intrinsic and extrinsic perspective). These two approaches are the most deterministic approaches, which we can choose for description of space-time and the mainstream physics deserves credit for it.

But these four-dimensional approaches are hiding the hyperdimensional indeterministic nature of observable reality completely. At the human distance scale the appearance of Universe apparently doesn't follow neither quantum mechanics, neither general relativity. For example, we can never met with the quantum wave packets or Riemann spheres in real life.
rawa1
1 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2011
For example, to replace the behaviour of space-time with general relativity has the same effect, like if we would consider the water surface as an infinitely thin elastic membrane, which is not affected with underwater at all. Under such a situation, the (motion of) objects floating on such surface aren't affected with (motion of) underwater, so that Lorentz invariance can be applied here. At the certain distance scale the behaviour of surface ripples roughly follows such an behaviour (so called capillary or Langmuir waves, which are driven with surface tension) - so that the general relativity may be apply to it. But outside of this distance/energy density scale the influence of density fluctuations of light wave environment cannot be neglected anymore. we should realize, the general relativity is valid only for quite limited portion of Universe and this portion is even not defined well.
Noumenon
4.8 / 5 (48) Dec 30, 2011
It is too much of a restriction with respect to scientific progress, to burden it with the requirement of intuitive comprehensibility. It is also, arbitrary, because it is unlikely that Reality conforms to notions applicable at the macroscopic realm, in which humans have evolved.
rawa1
1 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2011
it is unlikely that Reality conforms to notions applicable at the macroscopic realm, in which humans have evolved.
Actually it's quite likely in anthropocentric model of reality. In this model the reality appears in the way, which we are observing it or we couldn't exist in it at all. The rest of Universe is simply random at both quantum, both cosmological scales. The most complex portion of Universe is enabled for evolution. And the remaining parts are domain of relativity and quantum mechanics theories. These theories aren't actually valid for most extreme distance scales or for the distance scales of common life, but for distance scales which are sitting roughly at the 2/4 and 3/4 of the distance scale range of observable Universe.

http://www.aether...cale.gif

These distance scales can be recognized easily because the observable objects are becoming here most symmetric and deterministic here.
Noumenon
4.8 / 5 (48) Dec 30, 2011
So, AWT can explain intuitively the qm realm?
rawa1
1 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2011
There are many indicia for anthropocentric model of reality. For example, we are existing just at the middle of dimensional scale of observable Universe. The scope of Universe, where the intelligent life could survive is very narrow ("fine tuning" problem). The Universe appears like the interior of transparent sphere with solar system at its center and outside of it appears random, whereas every violation of cosmological principle turned wrong in less or more distant perspective. The recent observations indicate, the actual Universe is much larger, than the directly visible portion of it.
rawa1
1 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2011
So, AWT can explain intuitively the qm realm?
Of course, the special relativity is perspective of water surface, in which the spreading of surface ripples is NEVER influenced with underwater. And the quantum mechanics is perspective, in which spreading of surface ripples is ALWAYS affected with water surface. Such a waves are always moving like the solitons, the mass density of which (the dilatation of water surface with deformation of surface) is always proportional to energy density (in blue color) in each time and space interval of this soliton.
http://www.aether...wave.gif
At the water surface such perspective correspond the narrow zone at the distance scale between wavelength of Brownian noise and the wavelength of Faraday waves. Bellow this distance scale the surface waves cannot spread anymore in deterministic way, above this scale they're spreading in deterministic capillary waves, which are modelling special relativity.
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2011
Why this post?


It appeared to me that Benni was saying that gravatation can't be limited by the speed of light, because gravitation escapes from the surface of a BH.

Wrt the point made by me, fapp gravitation is static relative the an observer seeing the phenomenon correctly pointed out by Benni, i.e. if gravitation is at c, then orbits would SEEM to follow the gravitational "[non]-retardation image",... but Benni correctly pointed out that IT DOES NOT, instead it follows the actual location of the Sun.

The fouth paragraph at this Wiki page explains the phenomenon, which I presummed Benni was fooled by.

http://en.wikiped..._gravity


Nope, not Wiki. Came out of a discussion I was having with a physicist in the lounge of the ski lodge we both frequent while he was in the States for the Holidays. He works on the math at CERN in Switzerland trying to increase the density of mass to create black holes.

Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (49) Dec 31, 2011
I wasn't trying to imply that you read Wiki. Is that not the phenomenon you mentioned though?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.