Astronomers put forward new theory on size of black holes

Mar 23, 2012
If matter and antimatter repel each other, the quick conversion of one into the other inside a supermassive black hole may look like a Big Bang. Image credit: NASA

(PhysOrg.com) -- Astronomers have put forward a new theory about why black holes become so hugely massive – claiming some of them have no 'table manners', and tip their 'food' directly into their mouths, eating more than one course simultaneously.

Researchers from the UK and Australia investigated how some grow so fast that they are billions of times heavier than the sun.

The team from the University of Leicester (UK) and Monash University in Australia sought to establish how black holes got so big so fast. Their research is due to published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.


Inclination is 150 degrees with full 3D rendering. These movies were made using the SPH visualisation software splash written by Daniel Price.


Inclination is 120 degrees.

Professor Andrew King from the Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Leicester, said: "Almost every galaxy has an enormously massive black hole in its centre. Our own galaxy, the Milky Way, has one about four million times heavier than the sun. But some galaxies have black holes a thousand times heavier still. We know they grew very quickly after the Big Bang.''

"These hugely massive black holes were already full--grown when the universe was very young, less than a tenth of its present age."

Black holes grow by sucking in gas. This forms a disc around the hole and spirals in, but usually so slowly that the holes could not have grown to these huge masses in the entire age of the universe. `We needed a faster mechanism,' says Chris Nixon, also at Leicester, "so we wondered what would happen if gas came in from different directions."

Nixon, King and their colleague Daniel Price in Australia made a computer simulation of two gas discs orbiting a black hole at different angles. After a short time the discs spread and collide, and large amounts of gas fall into the hole. According to their calculations black holes can grow 1,000 times faster when this happens.

"If two guys ride motorbikes on a Wall of Death and they collide, they lose the centrifugal force holding them to the walls and fall," says King. The same thing happens to the gas in these discs, and it falls in towards the hole.

This may explain how these black holes got so big so fast. "We don't know exactly how gas flows inside galaxies in the early universe," said King, "but I think it is very promising that if the flows are chaotic it is very easy for the black hole to feed."

The two biggest black holes ever discovered are each about ten billion times bigger than the Sun.

Explore further: Astronomers release most detailed catalogue ever made of the visible Milky Way

Related Stories

Measuring galaxy black hole masses

May 27, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Black holes, one of the most amazing and bizarre predictions of Einstein's theory of gravity, are irresistible sinks for matter and energy. They are so dense that not even light can escape ...

How do supermassive black holes get so big?

Apr 26, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- At the center of most galaxies lie supermassive black holes that can grow to become more than a billion times larger than our Sun. However, astrophysicists don’t fully understand the formation ...

Black Holes Lead Galaxy Growth

Jan 06, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Astronomers may have solved a cosmic chicken-and-egg problem -- the question of which formed first in the early Universe -- galaxies or the supermassive black holes seen at their cores.

Recommended for you

Violent origins of disc galaxies probed by ALMA

3 hours ago

For decades scientists have believed that galaxy mergers usually result in the formation of elliptical galaxies. Now, for the the first time, researchers using the Atacama Large Millimeter/sub-millimeter ...

The entropy of black holes

Sep 12, 2014

Yesterday I talked about black hole thermodynamics, specifically how you can write the laws of thermodynamics as laws about black holes. Central to the idea of thermodynamics is the property of entropy, which c ...

User comments : 209

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

I_talk_with_crows
1 / 5 (6) Mar 23, 2012
Do we know if black holes grow? Is time go slow near something that big maybe they are the big bang, fueling the expansion, we know much energy leaves the disk, can anyone prove anything can reach a singularity?
hemitite
not rated yet Mar 23, 2012
The caption for the above illustration seems to be from a different article.
SteveL
5 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2012
The two biggest black holes ever discovered are each about ten billion times bigger than the Sun.


A billion times more massive possibly, but "bigger" - really?
hemitite
5 / 5 (2) Mar 23, 2012
I guess they forgot to change the caption from the one they used in this article:

http://www.physor...ter.html
ultrabrad
1 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2012
I am confused...prior to this point in "studying" black holes (ie theorizing and running simulations on computers), no one, ever, considered things falling into a BH from different angles? Is that not beyond obvious? I would assume that the first calculation would be from it being completely surrounded in matter and taking it in as a sphere. Is there some obvious point I'm missing, if so please enlighten me, anyone.
hemitite
not rated yet Mar 23, 2012
Ultrabrad,

I believe that a spinning black hole drags spacetime around with it to the extent that any in falling matter is concentrated in a disk around the monster's equator. Perhaps this effect, like the power of the intense tidal forces around smaller black holes, may be lessened by the gentler curvature of the SMBH's event horizon, thus allowing more that one plane of accretion.
El_Nose
not rated yet Mar 23, 2012
I believe that the article is stating that doing simulations nothing should be able to fuel a black hole to grow as big as we know that they are.

So a black whole warps spacetime like that quarter game where it rolls into a hole shaped like a funnel... well if you were gas particle with momentum and hit this area you start to fall in like the quarter -- but like the quarter there is an area that your forward momentum and spacetime align and you orbit in this area really really fast and while you orbit at this speed you move toward the black hole very very slowly - almost like approaching a limit on a log function ...

the issue is matter could spend millions of years in this area and how the heck do you explain black hole growth ---

the article suggests that matter with different momentum have different areas where they are at this slow point -- and fast moving matter and slow moving matter may collide and lose the momentum that kept them - stuck to the walls - and they fall in
El_Nose
not rated yet Mar 23, 2012
so @ultrabad --- its not really that obvious of a solution if you only approach it from one angle this was never about matter falling in at more than one angle -- that can be abstracted away to matter falling in at only one angle -- what wasn't considered was the momentum different sets of matter would have and that they would eventually collide and fall directly into the gravitationally fueled matter to energy converter field we call a black hole --- a place in the universe that matter falls in and is evaporated in radiation.
eachus
1 / 5 (5) Mar 23, 2012
Hemitite, I would say it differently. A SMBH that is spinning rapidly pulls in matter in a way that, if anything, increases the black hole spin. So all SMBHs that we see today are spinning at close to or exactly at the limit on spin. That is one thing that makes eating so slow--in effect they can't eat matter that would increase their spin. (And it probably goes into the jets instead.)

But what about a black hole created with no spin? It can eat everything it sees until fluctuations in the local matter density or velocity start imparting spin to the black hole. Eventually it will, through feedback, reach the point where the black hole is spinning at the limit, and it is eating from a single accretion disk.

Why don't we see non-spinning black holes? They really are black--no accretion disk, no jets. So the only way to "see" them is through their gravitational mass, like dark matter. Is DM unspinning BHs or more to the point BHs that are not eating? An active area of research
ECOnservative
1 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2012
How does one measure the spin of a BH (what's actually spinning?) Rotation of the matter near the event horizon and/or accretion disk may be unconnected with anything in the interior. Does frame dragging depend on rotation? If yes, rotation of what?
Callippo
1 / 5 (11) Mar 23, 2012
In AWT the Universe is steady state and black holes therefore had enough of time for their growth. In addition, the black holes can be formed with condensing of huge clouds of dark matter (called the gravastars, dark energy stars in another theories), during which the excessive matter gets evaporated instead.
MorituriMax
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 23, 2012
In AWT you can do whatever you want since it doesn't have to adhere to actual science. That's why it's so much fun, you can just trot it out for anything.
Callippo
1.6 / 5 (14) Mar 23, 2012
In AWT you can do whatever you want since it doesn't have to adhere to actual science.
The more general theory is, the less postulates it's using. The simplest and most universal postulate is, the Universe is random and the simplest model of randomness is dense particle gas. I don't see nothing nonscientifical on it. It's streamlined attempt to formulate a TOE with modeling the Universe from bottom up, from simplest possible physical principles, which we can find in the nature. The problem of modern physical theories is, they're based on constructs, which we don't observe in common life and which we don't understand (without AWT), so we cannot be sure, they're working in wider scope. AWT uses the behavior of dense gas, which is essentially geometric and it cannot behave in other way, than it already does.
Callippo
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 23, 2012
Whole the above article is reflecting the emerging problem, the modern cosmology cannot explain the large amount of huge black holes, which we are observing at the most distant areas on Universe. In contemporary cosmology the Universe has a 13,7 billions years old history, at the beginning of which the matter was formed in very diluted and homogeneous state due the inflation. The Universe was essentially ready, when this matter started to condense. The problem is, this condensation takes time and the whole matter was very diluted and hot. In contemporary Universe even cold concentrated clouds inside of Milky Way galaxy don't condense easily - and now we are observing at Hubble deep field the developed galaxies with huge black holes at their centers - which are less than 300 million years old. They simply had no time to develop. What we can see is, the 300 million years old Universe was essentially ready, with empty space between galaxies without gas clouds.
Callippo
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 23, 2012
The whole paradox is as follows: in Big Bang theory the Universe formed matter in hot diluted state. How this matter managed to condense, when even the cold dense clouds of interstellar gas didn't managed to condense inside of 12.7 billion years old Milky Way? Do you really believe, we could explain it with angled colliding vortices around black holes?
Au-Pu
1.6 / 5 (16) Mar 23, 2012
What if 13.7 billion years is a load of nonsense and represents nothing more than our visual horizon? What if we were to be 6 billion light years in any direction from where we are now would we still have a 13.7 billion visual horizon? Then if we were to be another 6 or 7 billion light years away would we still have a 13.7 billion year visual horizon? Because everything in the universe is eventually recycled we may have a vastly older universe than we think. We are limited by what we are able to see. It is like wearing blinkers, we only see what we are allowed to see. In this case the blinkers are the speed of light. At 13.7 billion light years relative to us the universe is expanding at or above the speed of light so we are unable to see beyond that limit. Super massive black holes could be nothing more than left overs from an earlier stage of the universe.
Of course this could all be explained if we are at the epicenter of the big bang.
But that is the realm of magic etc.
Jitterbewegung
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 23, 2012
"Black holes grow by sucking in gas."

I love gravitational comedy:-)
Shinichi D_
5 / 5 (9) Mar 24, 2012
Au-Pu:
"What if 13.7 billion years is a load of nonsense and represents nothing more than our visual horizon? What if we were to be 6 billion light years in any direction from where we are now would we still have a 13.7 billion visual horizon?"

Yes it is a visual horizon. The universe would look probably the same from 7 billion lightyears.

"Because everything in the universe is eventually recycled we may have a vastly older universe than we think. We are limited by what we are able to see."

If the universe would be static and significantly older and like *forever* sporting the same star distribution that we see today, the sky would glow like a supernova. The night sky wouldn't be dark, but as bright as if you would look at the surface of Sirius directly.
Callippo
1 / 5 (9) Mar 24, 2012
"Black holes grow by sucking in gas."I love gravitational comedy:-)
It's as relevant, as the growth of stars and planets in this way. It may happen, but most of black holes were formed in quite opposite way.
Mahal_Kita
1 / 5 (3) Mar 24, 2012
I tend to think we found just a few of many species of Black Holes. It seems unrealistic to me that there could be something like a "Standard Black Hole" out there. Now we wait for someone who will mathematically theorise a true singularity.
MorituriMax
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 24, 2012
The whole paradox is as follows: in Big Bang theory the Universe formed matter in hot diluted state. How this matter managed to condense, when even the cold dense clouds of interstellar gas didn't managed to condense inside of 12.7 billion years old Milky Way? Do you really believe, we could explain it with angled colliding vortices around black holes?

There wasn't anything that matter formed "in." Big Bang happened, it expanded and as heat and pressure dropped, matter was able to form. So it didn't condense and then expand, it appeared from the Big Bang in a tiny area and went from there.

You just have your sequence screwed up, that's why you don't seem to be able to figure out what happened Callippo.
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Mar 24, 2012
So it didn't condense and then expand, it appeared from the Big Bang in a tiny area and went from there.
This area wasn't tiny, because inflation appeared a way before the dark period and condensation of matter.
You just have your sequence screwed up, that's why you don't seem to be able to figure out what happened Callippo.
Your reply indicates, you still did understand me perfectly. http://www.telegr...ims.html
brodix
1 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2012


If the universe would be static and significantly older and like *forever* sporting the same star distribution that we see today, the sky would glow like a supernova. The night sky wouldn't be dark, but as bright as if you would look at the surface of Sirius directly.

If on the other hand, redshift is an optical effect, then the background radiation is that glow, just shifted down below the visible spectrum.
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Mar 24, 2012
if the universe would be static and significantly older and like *forever* sporting the same star distribution that we see today, the sky would glow like a supernova.
If the Universe would appear like the water surface, then the ripples coming from more distant light sources would be dispersed into Brownian noise, i.e. the analogy of CMBR radiation and it's wavelength would expand to unobservable frequencies anyway.

But this model predicts too, that the light of more distant galaxies will be blurred like with passing trough fog, so that the more distant galaxies will appear larger, than these close ones. And this is exactly what we are observing by now.

Whereas in Big Bang theory the Universe just expands, even with increasing speed, so that the more distant objects should appear relatively smaller. Which is what we don't observe.
Callippo
1 / 5 (7) Mar 24, 2012
BTW even if the light of distant sources wouldn't be dispersed, the infinite size and age of Universe in steady state model wouldn't lead to the bright sky anyway, because of limited lifespan of stars and speed of light spreading - but this is another story. And we shouldn't forget the shielding of light with dead stars and clouds of interstellar gas, which would make the falsification of Olber's paradox even more difficult.
Fleetfoot
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2012
In AWT you can do whatever you want since it doesn't have to adhere to actual science.
The more general theory is, the less postulates it's using. The simplest and most universal postulate is, the Universe is random and the simplest model of randomness is dense particle gas. I don't see nothing nonscientifical on it.


What is 'nonscientifical' [sic] is that "AWT" doesn't exist, there is no such theory and never has been. You just stick the words "AWT says" in front of any random claim you want to make. In order to "say" something in science, you have to show how the equations of the theory lead to the conclusion you claim and in aether theory you have no equations beyond the Lorentz Transforms.

Your original suggestion that the aether could be in the form of a gas is also unscientific because light is a transverse wave and therefore would rely on shear strength in an aether theory which a gas cannot provide as has been explained to you before.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2012
What is 'nonscientifical' [sic] is that "AWT" doesn't exist, there is no such theory and never has been
The dense aether model was proposed with Oliver Lodge at the 1904 and he wrote a pile of books about it later. This theory was even mentioned in some textbooks of this era. Everyone can read about it and you simply cannot deny the reality.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2012
Au-Pu:
"What if 13.7 billion years is a load of nonsense and represents nothing more than our visual horizon? What if we were to be 6 billion light years in any direction from where we are now would we still have a 13.7 billion visual horizon?"


That is what the BB model says, you could be 100 billion light years away and would still have the same horizon. The horizon exists because the universe isn't old enough for more distant light to reach us yet, if it was older we would see farther.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2012
you have to show how the equations of the theory lead to the conclusion you claim
Logical sequence is enough. For being able to prove it with equations you should prove first, these equations can be constructed and they're solvable in formal way, which is not always possible for many equations. After all, the very general theory, which is proving, the Universe is NOT mathematical can hardly be ever proven mathematically. You cannot prove the rain is wet and stay dry during it.
suggestion that the aether could be in the form of a gas is also unscientific because light is a transverse wave
Every gas spreads the energy in two dual ways: in transverse and longitudinal waves. Why all physicists have such large problem to understand it? Aren't they biased?
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2012
What if 13.7 billion years is a load of nonsense and represents nothing more than our visual horizon?
Of course - there is no apparent reason for to have Universe beginning just before the light was dispersed completely at the particle horizon. If nothing else, such an assumption would violate the cosmological (Copernicial) principle. But because the mainstream cosmology is based on relativity and it explains the red shift with expansion of Universe instead of dispersion of light, it has no other option then just to put the beginning of Universe right there, or it should allow the expansion with superluminal speed.
Fleetfoot
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2012
What is 'nonscientifical' [sic] is that "AWT" doesn't exist, there is no such theory and never has been
The dense aether model was proposed with Oliver Lodge at the 1904 and he wrote a pile of books about it later. This theory http://www.keelyn...rey7.htm and you simply cannot deny the reality.


Lodge was writing about Lorenz's theory, I've read the document you cited previously (the second document you quote this time) and the only equation I found in it was Lorenz's length contraction. In the first web page you cite, at the end it says "but it could generate the velocity of light with a density comparable to that of water". This suggests Lodge was unaware of the problem posed by polarisation even though he mentions the effect three times in describing the experimental evidence in his book.

Your citations confirm that there is no such thing as "AWT" as a theory per se, it is only Lodge's flawed speculative description of Lorentz's theory, i.e. "LET".
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2012
Lodge was writing about Lorenz's theory, I've read the document you cited previously (the second document you quote this time) and the only equation I found in it was Lorenz's length contraction
This is just a problem, the formally thinking physicists cannot understand anything but a equations, which they can derive and handle mechanically. It's a sort of professional degeneration. So, when I write a thick book about evolution containing one single random equation (like the gravitational law), then the formally thinking physicists would believe, whole this book is just about gravity. This is indeed funny and it illustrates, the physicists cannot actually handle nonformal logics better, than any other people. They're not simply trained with it, because their theories are highly counterintuitive and impossible to grasp at the trivial logic level. They're "smart idiots" so to say.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (7) Mar 25, 2012
you have to show how the equations of the theory lead to the conclusion you claim
Logical sequence is enough.


No, using logic alone is called "philosophy" while hard science is quantitative hence must use maths, that is why we have two different names for the differrent disciplines.

To qualify as a "theory" in science requires meeting a minimum of three criteria: you must have an equation (or set of), the variables in the equation(s) must represent measurable quantities and the range of applicability should be specified. Some would add a fourth criterion, that the predictions obtained must match observation but that's only a semantic difference between "not a theory" or "a failed theory".
Fleetfoot
4.8 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2012
If on the other hand, redshift is an optical effect, then the background radiation is that glow, just shifted down below the visible spectrum.


There is an optical effect called "reddening" where shorter wavelengths are absorbed more than longer, but that doesn't move spectral lines. Dispersion also causes a wavelength-dependent delay but doesn't move spectral lines and is used to measure electron density in space. Scattering effects can cause a small shift but also broadens lines. Cosmological redshift of spectrallines is wavelength independent over many orders of magnitude, it can't be an optical effect.
Shinichi D_
not rated yet Mar 25, 2012
Sorry Fleetfoot that supposed to be a 5 I just read the quote :)
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2012
This situation is nothing very new in history of science, because the contemporaries of Galieo had the very same problem to understand his logical, though nonformal arguments, while their formal epicycle model worked so well. This model was able to predict the eclipses and planetary conjunctions with so high precision, it appeared nearly impossible, such a model could be wrong at the conceptual level. These old mathematicians and geometers really didn't understand the Galileo arguments about Venus phases and Lunar shadows, they considered them unscientific babbling and fabricated and they even refused to look through his telescope to make sure about it.

Now this history just repeats at the more advanced level again with dense aether model (which is bad) and with cold fusion (which is disastrous)...
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2012
here is an optical effect called "reddening" where shorter wavelengths are absorbed more than longer, but that doesn't move spectral lines. Dispersion also causes a wavelength-dependent delay but doesn't move spectral lines and is used to measure electron density in space. Scattering effects can cause a small shift but also broadens lines. Cosmological redshift of spectrallines is wavelength independent over many orders of magnitude, it can't be an optical effect.
This is correct argument, but it's valid only for dispersion with obstacles, the size of whose is larger than the wavelength of light. At the case of tiny and shallow density fluctuations the dispersion of light occurs in similar way, like thedispersion of ripples at the water surface and its wavelength is changing toward both smaller, both larger values. Which is just the way, in which such model can be tested and falsified, after all..
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2012
Lodge was writing about Lorenz's theory, I've read the document you cited previously (the second document you quote this time) and the only equation I found in it was Lorenz's length contraction
This is just a problem, the formally thinking physicists cannot understand anything but a equations, ..


No, this is just about correcting the attribution. Lodge's book was based on a speech he gave the year before in support of Lorentz's theory, he wasn't claiming to have his own alternative.

So, when I write a thick book about evolution containing one single random equation (like the gravitational law), then the formally thinking physicists would believe, whole this book is just about gravity.


They would distinguish between "soft" and "hard" science. Soft science follows the scientific method in areas where observations cannot be quantified. Evolution is becoming hard science, measurements of the rate of random mutations now allow us to work out when species diverged.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2012
No, using logic alone is called "philosophy" while hard science is quantitative hence must use maths, that is why we have two different names for the different disciplines.
Dense aether model just explains, the evolution of human understanding occurs in similar way, like the spreading of ripples at the water surface. During this the character of surface ripples changes from longitudinal Brownian noise into transverse capillary ripples, which are spreading in deterministic way, so that the observer who is using them can get the impression, the more deterministic approach he will use, the better and farther he would recognize the more distant areas of water surface.

Unfortunately, at the certain distance from observer/source of ripples these ripples change their character back into longitudinal waves, and the more intuitive and holistic approach can become more insightful and effective, at least temporarily. IMO the contemporary physics just got into this phase.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2012
Dispersion also causes a wavelength-dependent delay but doesn't move spectral lines and is used to measure electron density in space.
This is correct argument, but it's valid only for dispersion with obstacles, the size of whose is larger than the wavelength of light. At the case of tiny and shallow density fluctuations the dispersion of light occurs in similar way, like the http://www.aether...ples.jpg

The wavelength in those pictures is not changing.

and its wavelength is changing toward both smaller, both larger values. Which is just the way, in which such model can be tested and falsified, after all..


If it changed in both directions, that would broaden the width of spectral lines. That does not happen so your model is indeed falsified. See again Wolfe et al which I cited previously.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2012
Lodge's book was based on a speech he gave the year before in support of Lorentz's theory, he wasn't claiming to have his own alternative
Oliver Lodge himself called his theory "Electric Theory of Matter" (Harper Magazine. 1904) - so he did perfectly aware, he's promoting a new theory.
They would distinguish between "soft" and "hard" science
No such distinction actually exist, until you adhere at the logics at all steps of scientific theory development. The problem is, many contemporary scientific theories are fringe at the logical level, but the pile of formal math successfully covers it even before their developers, not to say about layman society.

I'm just here to demonstrate it patiently.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2012
No, using logic alone is called "philosophy" while hard science is quantitative hence must use maths, that is why we have two different names for the different disciplines.
Dense aether model ..


That's a better term :-)

During this the character of surface ripples changes from longitudinal Brownian noise into transverse capillary ripples,


Nope, without shear strength, transverse propagation cannot be supported, period, and light never has a longitudinal component.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2012
The wavelength in those pictures is not changing
I'd say, at the left picture the wavelength of surface ripples decreases with increasing distance from source, at the right picture it increases, and at the middle picture it stays unchanged. If you cannot see it, they you're like unaware cow at the meadows, which can see the grass, it can even eat the grass - but it cannot recognize it.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2012
Nope, without shear strength, transverse propagation cannot be supported, period, and light never has a longitudinal component.
In simplified Maxwell-Heavidiside's theory not but in linearized, EinsteinMaxwell theory on flat spacetime, an oscillating electric dipole is the source of a spin-2 field. Actually this component is well known already and it's called a photons. The photons really aren't pure harmonic light wave - they're a wave packets, i.e. the solitons of light waves, and every soliton follows from mutual interference/resonance of transverse and longitudinal waves of elastic massive environment.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2012
Oliver Lodge himself called his theory "Electric Theory of Matter" (Harper Magazine. 1904) - so he did perfectly aware, he's promoting a new theory.


Language evolves, into today's terms he was only applying existing theories to create a new model.

You see the same confusion over the big bang, some people call it a theory but it isn't, it is only a model built on e.g. the theories of thermodynamics (adiabatic expansion) and GR.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2012
The wavelength in http://www.aether...ples.jpg is not changing
I'd say, at the left picture the wavelength of surface ripples decreases with increasing distance from source, at the right picture it increases, and at the middle picture it stays unchanged. If you cannot see it, they you're like unaware cow at the meadows, which can see the grass, it can even eat the grass - but it cannot recognize it.


That only shows that the three sources varied their frequency over time, it doesn't show that the wavelength altered as the waves moved across the surface. You don't appear to understand what you are trying to illustrate.
brodix
1 / 5 (1) Mar 25, 2012
That is what the BB model says, you could be 100 billion light years away and would still have the same horizon. The horizon exists because the universe isn't old enough for more distant light to reach us yet, if it was older we would see farther.

With the BB model, space itself is expanding, yet it still assumes a constant speed of light. If the universe expands, such that two galaxies x lightyears apart, become 2x lightyears, that's not expanding space in lightyears, just increased distance. So what dimension of space maintains a stable speed of light, if space itself is expanding? Otherwise we would just have a normal expanding bubble, with ourselves at the center.
On the other hand, redshift proportional to distance makes sense if redshift is an optical effect of distance.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2012
Dense aether model .. That's a better term :-)
Dense aether model is only one dual part of AWT. The another interpretation of AWT is based on D'Alambertian waves spreading in infinite number of dimensions, which I do believe is roughly equivalent to the spreading of energy in infinitely dense particle environment.
If it changed in both directions, that would broaden the width of spectral lines. That does not happen so your model is indeed falsified.
The vacuum is behaving like metamaterial in this extent. It actually disperses both the light, both the spectral lines heavily, but we render such a vacuum as a nontransparent surface of massive objects. What we can see through is just a narrow window, in which the Stokes dispersion compensates with anti-Stokes dispersion. We can compare it to the Alexander's dark band between primary and secondary rainbows during heavy rain.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2012
Nope, without shear strength, transverse propagation cannot be supported, period, and light never has a longitudinal component.
In simplified Maxwell-Heavidiside's theory not but in linearized, EinsteinMaxwell theory on flat spacetime, an oscillating electric dipole is http://rspa.royal...62/2071. Actually this component is well known already and it's called a photons.


It is very well known and eliminates Lodge's model:

http://mathpages....9-04.htm

"Hence the 'spin axis' of a photon is always parallel to its direction of motion, pointing either forward or backward, as illustrated below."

"Later this transverse wave was found to be a feature of the electromagnetic waves predicted by Maxwells equations, according to which the electric and magnetic fields oscillate transversely in the plane normal to the direction of motion (and perpendicular to each other)."
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2012
It is very well known and eliminates Lodge's model:
I don't see how it should eliminate the dense aether model (Lodge was not first, who did come with it, the very similar ideas got the Robert Hooke and another physicists a many years before). The harmonic light wave IS NOT a photon of light, it just differs from it with its longitudinal component (which gives a minute, but non-zero rest mass to photon, between others). The direction of photon spin is irrelevant after then, because the whole existence of photon serves as a tangible evidence of longitudinal component of light by itself - not the direction of its spin.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2012
On the other hand, redshift proportional to distance makes sense if redshift is an optical effect of distance.
In random Universe model of AWT both approaches will become indistinguishable each other at the sufficient distance (which is the consequence of dispersive geometry of energy spreading as well). Currently it seems, that the steady state Universe model is better supported with recent observations than the Big Bang model, but for example the Doppler anisotropy of CMBR violates them both. For example Laura Mersini proposes, the Universe is behaving like the giant quantum wave, which travels from place to place and ignites a nucleosynthesis in it. Such a model is sorta mixture of both steady state, both Big bang model of Universe and it's more consistent with AWT as such.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2012
That only shows that the three sources varied their frequency over time, it doesn't show that the wavelength altered as the waves moved across the surface. You don't appear to understand what you are trying to illustrate.
How some wave can change its wavelength in time only and not in space accordingly? IMO the arguments of yours are getting increasingly absurd...
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2012
How some wave can change its wavelength in time only and not in space accordingly?


Water waves don't change their wavelength at all, that's the point.

IMO the arguments of yours are getting increasingly absurd...


That's because you don't understand the basics of the subject:

Dispersion means that waves of different wavelength travel at different speeds so for the flash produced by a pulsar, different "colours" (though usually we observe in RF) arrive at different times. Each component of the signal arrives at the same wavelength it was transmitted.

Refraction by materials causes light to bend due to the change in speed (see Huygens method) hence a prism bends light by different amounts depending on colour, but it doesn't change the wavelength, blue light in gives blue light out.

In cosmological redshift, what is emitted as blue light arrives as red and the ratio by which shifts is independent of frequency. No other physical interaction has either characteristic.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2012
Currently it seems, that the steady state Universe model is better supported with recent observations than the Big Bang model, but for example the Doppler anisotropy of CMBR violates them both.


Rubbish. There is no such term as "Doppler anisotropy" but you probably mean the "dipole anisotropy" which is caused by the Doppler effect. It is simply a measure of the Earth's local motion relative to the mean of the plasma that emitted the CMBR.

The old Steady State model could not explain the dipole because it could not even explain the existence of the CMBR. It had no explanation for redshift either. Attempts were made to postulate tiny iron fibres drifting throughout space acting as receivers and retransmitting lower frequency signals but they would have made space too opaque so it never worked.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2012
It is very well known and eliminates Lodge's model:
I don't see how it should eliminate the dense aether model ... The harmonic light wave IS NOT a photon of light, it just differs from it with its longitudinal component ..


Think of a photon like a top. The axis is along the direction of motion so the rotation is in a plane perpendicular to the motion. As a result, the spin can have no longitudinal component. The macroscopic wave description is the statistical aggregate of large numbers of photons and therefore also cannot have a longitudinal component. If you learned enough of the basics to follow this stuff, you would see that the page you cited actually proves your own claims to be wrong.

The aether model bore no resemblance to any of this, it was like taking the edge of a sheet of chicken wire and moving it back and forth sideways to send ripples across the surface (only in 3D like transverse waves in a crystal of course).
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2012
Water waves don't change their wavelength at all, that's the point.
If physicist cannot explain some phenomena, he can still refuse it. If he cannot refuse it, then he can still attempt to deny it. It works so with cold fusion for twenty years, so your response is not really surprising for me.
Dispersion means that waves of different wavelength travel at different speeds
Of course, they really do it. We can observe it at the case of distant gamma ray bursts: the short-wavelength photons will arrive first.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2012
The macroscopic wave description is the statistical aggregate of large numbers of photons and therefore also cannot have a longitudinal component.
Of course, because the spin-2 components are of various gravitational charge, so they do compensate mutually. But if you're not trying to deny the existence of photons as such, then you cannot deny even the existence of artifacts, which do violate the transverse character of light wave at the microscopic scale. Actually, the light of distant gamma ray sources is composed of such longitudinal pieces of light nearly completely, it doesn't radiate light waves at all.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2012
[b]If two guys ride motorbikes on a Wall of Death and they collide, they lose the centrifugal force holding them to the walls and fall," says King. The same thing happens to the gas in these discs, and it falls in towards the hole.[/b]

Duh?

This is pretty obvious in any situation with discs or objects orbiting the central object on multiple planes.

Like, DUH.

Are these guys physicists and they just now thought of this kind of stuff?

I've been talking about this sort of stuff for years regarding planetary systems and galactic systems. This is ridiculous.

One of the most likely cases where this would happen in terms of SMBH would be in galaxy mergers.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2012
Water waves don't change their wavelength at all, that's the point.

If physicist cannot explain some phenomena, he can still refuse it. If he cannot refuse it, then he can still attempt to deny it. It works so with cold fusion for twenty years, so your response is not really surprising for me.


http://fys.kuleuv...100.html the short-wavelength photons will arrive first.

The wavelength doesn't change. It will in a pond because the depth varies, just choose better images.

Dispersion means that waves of different wavelength travel at different speeds

Of course, they really do it. We can observe it at the case of http://proceeding...ized=no: the short-wavelength photons will arrive first.


Correct, that is what I told you, but they arrive with the wavelength as transmitted. You still haven't grasped that these are two different phenomena.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2012
Water waves don't change their wavelength at all, that's the point.


Actually, they DO change their wavelength as they ride up on the coast. They tighten up their wavelength and grow in amplitude, as the parts of the water on the bottom interact via friction and slow down, which piles up the water higher and higher, yet still moving forward at tens of miles per hour. this is what does the real damage in tsunamis.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2012
Water waves don't change their wavelength at all, that's the point.


Actually, they DO change their wavelength as they ride up on the coast. They tighten up their wavelength and grow in amplitude, as the parts of the water on the bottom interact via friction and slow down, which piles up the water higher and higher, yet still moving forward at tens of miles per hour. this is what does the real damage in tsunamis.


Yes, changing depth does change the wavelength as I told him, but if you measure the frequency it's still the same, that's what refaction does too. When we measure remote light sources, we do so with the same telescopes as nearby galaxies so the local refractive index effect (ground telescopes are in air) cancel out.

The redshift is up to factors of 8 anyway while the refractive index of air can only produce a small percentage change.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2012
The wavelength doesn't change. It will in a pond because the depth varies, just choose better images.
The ripple tank is just using the capillary waves of wavelength, the value of which doesn't change during their dispersion (see the middle image at my above picture) Guess what? You should learn the basis of physics of Victorian era first, before you'll waste our time here.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2012
The wavelength doesn't change. It will in a pond because the depth varies, just choose better images.
The ripple tank is just using the capillary waves of wavelength, the value of which doesn't change during their dispersion (see the middle image at .. Guess what? You should learn the basis of physics of Victorian era first, before you'll waste our time here.


Since the source in the ripple tank is a single frequency there can be no dispersion. Perhaps you should what the words mean before trying to use them.
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2012
The redshift is up to factors of 8 anyway while the refractive index of air can only produce a small percentage change.
Vacuum is pretty much more dense (actually of infinite density in AWT), so it allows a much more pronounced dispersion effects, than the air or surface of water. Just the principle remains the same - and the wavelength of waves, for which the Stokes and anti-Stokes dispersion remains balanced.
if you measure the frequency it's still the same, that's what refraction does too
It indicates, that the speed of light will change during the red shift.
Since the source in the ripple tank is a single frequency there can be no dispersion.
Nope, even the monochromatic waves do disperse. The ripple tank is just too tiny to demonstrate it clearly. Learn the classical physics - if nothing else, it helps the understanding of dense aether model a lot.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Mar 25, 2012
[b]If two guys ride motorbikes on a Wall of Death and they collide, they lose the centrifugal force holding them to the walls and fall," says King. The same thing happens to the gas in these discs, and it falls in towards the hole.[/b]

Duh?

This is pretty obvious in any situation with discs or objects orbiting the central object on multiple planes.

Like, DUH.

Are these guys physicists and they just now thought of this kind of stuff?


I guess it's because the extreme frame dragging means that material on the inside of the accretion disc has to move at close to the speed of light relative to a distant observer. A counter-rotating disc shouldn't be able to exist in that environment. It would require SMBH to have unusually small spins.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (7) Mar 25, 2012
The redshift is up to factors of 8 anyway while the refractive index of air can only produce a small percentage change.
Vacuum is pretty much more dense (actually of infinite density in AWT), so it allows a much more pronounced dispersion effects, ...


Once again, dispersion refers to speed, it does not change the frequency.

Since the source in the ripple tank is a single frequency there can be no dispersion.
Nope, even the monochromatic waves do disperse.


Once again, the term "dispersion" refers to different frequencies travelling at different speeds. If there is only one frequency, it travels at only one speed - dispersion does not apply.

Learn the classical physics - if nothing else, it helps the understanding of dense aether model a lot.


I've got a degree in it, you don't even know what the words mean. Look up a scientific dictionary if nothing else.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2012
Once again, dispersion refers to speed, it does not change the frequency.
I never talked about frequency in connection to my pictures, but about wavelength.
If there is only one frequency, it travels at only one speed - dispersion does not apply
Even the monochromatic laser light can undergo the dispersion in inhomogeneous environment. It's called a Raman shift, for example.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2012
Once again, dispersion refers to speed, it does not change the frequency.
I never talked about frequency in connection to my pictures, but about wavelength.


A cosmological redshift of "z=7" for example means that the frequency of the received signal is one eighth of that which was transmitted.

If there is only one frequency, it travels at only one speed - dispersion does not apply
Even the monochromatic laser light can undergo the dispersion in inhomogeneous environment. It's called a Raman shift, for example.


I got my degree in a department specialising in building tunable lasers using spin-flip Raman scattering so I am well aware of it. The effect is small and frequency dependent. Cosmological redshift is independent of frequency, again see Wolfe et al who confirmed the same redshift within 0.03% with frequencies differing by 172,000:

http://books.goog...;f=false
brodix
1 / 5 (1) Mar 25, 2012
There is an optical effect called "reddening" where shorter wavelengths are absorbed more than longer, but that doesn't move spectral lines. Dispersion also causes a wavelength-dependent delay but doesn't move spectral lines and is used to measure electron density in space. Scattering effects can cause a small shift but also broadens lines. Cosmological redshift of spectrallines is wavelength independent over many orders of magnitude, it can't be an optical effect.

An interesting argument for that:
http://www.fqxi.o...kets.pdf
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2012
Cosmological redshift is independent of frequency
It indeed depends on frequency, as the recent observations of ISV effect illustrate http://www.tgdail...-at-all. In microwave spectrum all red shift effects effectively disappear as a single man.
brodix
1 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2012
Fleetfoot,
I do understand it is an issue to explain redshift other than by recession, but when one considers all the patches required to make BBT work, from inflation to dark energy and that we really have no way to test light over intergalactic distances, one would think there might be some effort to consider the poroblem from all possible angles.
One thought that occurs to me is that since light has no mass, what holds a photon to a point in a vacuum? Wouldn't it expand and essentially be entangled with others from the same source, frequency, etc. Then the received photon isn't a discrete quantum of light that traveled individually for billions of years, but is a sampling of that body of light. Such that light is holographic, rather than fundamentally pixelated.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2012
since light has no mass, what holds a photon to a point in a vacuum
The lights has a mass by mass-energy equivalence (E=mc^2): for example the star is losing its matter during radiation of photons, not just energy. It doesn't mean though, that the photons are infinitely stable or pin-point objects - they do oscillate like every solitons and disappear occasionally for to reappear somewhere else. In QM such a process is called a decoherence.
MorituriMax
3 / 5 (2) Mar 25, 2012
Lurker2358
[b]If two guys ride motorbikes on a Wall of Death and they collide, they lose the centrifugal force holding them to the walls and fall," says King. The same thing happens to the gas in these discs, and it falls in towards the hole.[/b]

Duh?

This is pretty obvious in any situation with discs or objects orbiting the central object on multiple planes.

Like, DUH.

Are these guys physicists and they just now thought of this kind of stuff?

I've been talking about this sort of stuff for years regarding planetary systems and galactic systems. This is ridiculous.

One of the most likely cases where this would happen in terms of SMBH would be in galaxy mergers.
I'll check around and see if I can find the paper you wrote explaining this simple thing years ago. Will I find one?
MorituriMax
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2012
Callippo
The wavelength doesn't change. It will in a pond because the depth varies, just choose better images.
The ripple tank is just using the capillary waves of wavelength, the value of which doesn't change during their dispersion (see the middle image at http://www.aether...les.jpg) Guess what? You should learn the basis of physics of Victorian era first, before you'll waste our time here.
The only poerson wasting our time is you, and Fleetfoot is being incredibly generous with his time since you, like a petulant child, just don't want to understand what goes contrary to the whole of your existence, clinging to aether whatever to explain everything. It is certainly easier to do than learning actual science.

Have you considered the significance of the flood of 1 ratings you get and the flood of 5s that people trying to correct you get?
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2012
Cosmological redshift is independent of frequency
It indeed depends on frequency, as the recent observations of ISV effect illustrate http://www.tgdail...-at-all.


It's the "ISW" effect:

http://en.wikiped...e_effect

You won't understand the maths but read the last line:

http://fizisist.w...math.htm

That however is nothing to do with cosmological redshift, it's a different effect entirely.

In microwave spectrum all red shift effects effectively disappear as a single man.


Nope, remember Wolfe et al? They measured the redshift of the 21cm line as 2.039. The source is at 1420.4 MHz but we receive it at 476MHz.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2012
The lights has a mass by mass-energy equivalence (E=mc^2): for example the star is losing its matter during radiation of photons, not just energy. It doesn't mean though, that the photons are infinitely stable or pin-point objects - they do oscillate like every solitons and disappear occasionally for to reappear somewhere else. In QM such a process is called a decoherence.


Every sentence is wrong and irrelevant so I won't waste much time on this. For your education:

E^2 = (mc^2)^2 plus (pc)^2

For massive particles, when p=0, that reduces to E=mc^2

For a photon E=pc hence m=0

http://en.wikiped...relation

Photons have to be stable because they travel null geodesics.

"Decoherence" is nothing like what you say, for those interested, this is the simplest explanation I've seen:

http://www.ipod.o...ence.asp

Press the button at the bottom of the text before the comments (about 1/3 of the way down the page).
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (7) Mar 25, 2012
Fleetfoot,
I do understand it is an issue to explain redshift other than by recession, but when one considers all the patches required to make BBT work, from inflation to dark energy and that we really have no way to test light over intergalactic distances, one would think there might be some effort to consider the poroblem from all possible angles.


Zwicky proposed Tired Light in 1929, it has been extensively studied and simply fails many key tests.

One thought that occurs to me is that since light has no mass, what holds a photon to a point in a vacuum?


It has no mass but it has momentum.

Wouldn't it expand and essentially be entangled with others from the same source, frequency, etc.


Entanglement depends on the method of production, typically when photons are produced as pairs in a single event.
Callippo
1.1 / 5 (7) Mar 25, 2012
E^2 = (mc^2)^2 plus (pc)^2 For massive particles, when p=0, that reduces to E=mc^2 For a photon E=pc hence m=0
This is just a circular reasoning, don't you think?
Zwicky proposed Tired Light in 1929, it has been extensively studied and simply fails many key tests.
Cold fusion or aether theories were studied extensively too and they failed many key tests. It's a good reason to rethink these tests again.
It has no mass but it has momentum.
This is just a modern theology, my dear. All we know, when the star or whatever else object is shining, it's losing real mass, not just a momentum. For example, excited atom nucleus, which absorbed photon, is really heavier in a way, which is measurable with mass spectrograph.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2012
remember Wolfe et al? They measured the redshift of the 21cm line as 2.039. The source is at 1420.4 MHz but we receive it at 476MHz.
It's an experimental mistake. Just have look at the original data.
Fleetfoot
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2012
E^2 = (mc^2)^2 plus (pc)^2 For massive particles, when p=0, that reduces to E=mc^2 For a photon E=pc hence m=0
This is just a circular reasoning, don't you think?


You used the headline simplification of the full equation not realising it is only valid for matter at rest. You can learn the correct version or continue making the newbie error, your choice.

Zwicky proposed Tired Light in 1929, it has been extensively studied and simply fails many key tests.
Cold fusion or aether theories were studied extensively too and they failed many key tests.


The false claims of cold fusion were nothing but incompetence, they didn't do the tests.

LET could have been valid, it is only an interpretation of the transforms, but it doesn't extend to cover gravity so until someone resolves its problems, we use GR.

It has no mass but it has momentum.
This is just a modern theology, my dear.


This is measured fact, my clueless newbie.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Mar 25, 2012
remember Wolfe et al? They measured the redshift of the 21cm line as 2.039. The source is at 1420.4 MHz but we receive it at 476MHz.
It's an http://www.aether...sar.gif.


Wrong paper, the one in question is about redshift and is from 1985:

http://books.goog...;f=false

That would probably be before the online preprint system started. I haven't found an online copy but the same is seen in the thousands of galaxies whose redshift has been measured since then.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (7) Mar 25, 2012
I'll check around and see if I can find the paper you wrote explaining this simple thing years ago. Will I find one?


No, but you might find quite a few of my posts here under various screen names over the years.

It's not exactly paper material IMO anyway. It's freaking obvious to anyone with an analytical mind and spatial analysis skills.

That's why I say "Duh!"

Pathetic.

I can't believe people get paid for this shit.
jscroft
2 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2012
The two biggest black holes ever discovered are each about ten billion times bigger than the Sun.


A billion times more massive possibly, but "bigger" - really?


Yes. A black hole has an infinite radius--sort of--but a well-defined and finite circumference that is a function of its mass. (Mostly. <-- flame retardant)
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2012
E^2 = (mc^2)^2 plus (pc)^2 For massive particles, when p=0, that reduces to E=mc^2 For a photon E=pc hence m=0
The general relativity doesn't recognize quantization and therefore has nothing to say about photons. It deals only with harmonic waves, which indeed have no rest mass. But which derivation of rest mass for photon the general relativity provides?
This is measured fact, my clueless newbie.
Nope, the speed of photons has been never measured, only the speed of light. This is not the same.
yyz
5 / 5 (2) Mar 25, 2012
"Wrong paper, the one in question is about redshift and is from 1985:

http://books.goog...;f=false"

Fleetfoot, the 1985 study of PKS 0458-02 by Wolfe et al is available here: http://articles.a...ype=.pdf
brodix
1 / 5 (2) Mar 25, 2012
Fleetfoot,
I'm still curious as to why the speed of light as a unit of measure would not affected by the expansion of space. If those galaxies are really moving away from us, they are doing so in constant lightyears. If space is really expanding, wouldn't this foundational measure of space have to expand as well?
Also gravity is the contraction of the measure of space, so wouldn't the "space" expanding between galaxy clusters collapse into these gravity wells and balance out the overall effect?
Mass contracts, while radiation expands. Could these be two sides of a larger cycle?
MorituriMax
4 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2012
Callippo
Nope, the speed of photons has been never measured, only the speed of light. This is not the same.

http://www.ust.hk...893.html

Care to try again?
SteveL
not rated yet Mar 26, 2012
The two biggest black holes ever discovered are each about ten billion times bigger than the Sun.


A billion times more massive possibly, but "bigger" - really?


Yes. A black hole has an infinite radius--sort of--but a well-defined and finite circumference that is a function of its mass. (Mostly. <-- flame retardant)

Were its radius infinite, so too would be its mass (GM/c^2) - Not that we would never know it. Not being alive and all...
SteveL
not rated yet Mar 26, 2012
If the radius if a black hole is "infinite", does that mean that its mass is more than infinite? (Just teasing)..
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Mar 26, 2012
Fleetfoot, the 1985 study of PKS 0458-02 by Wolfe et al is available here: http://articles.a...ype=.pdf


Excellent, thank you!
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Mar 26, 2012
Fleetfoot,
I'm still curious as to why the speed of light as a unit of measure would not affected by the expansion of space.


The parameter 'c' is a fundamental constant. Light travels at that speed in vacuo because it has no mass.

If those galaxies are really moving away from us, they are doing so in constant lightyears. If space is really expanding, wouldn't this foundational measure of space have to expand as well?


When we talk of distaces, the numbers are the ratio of the actaul separation to our unit of length. Expansion means the gap between the galaxies expressed as a multiple of theunit is increasing.

Also gravity is the contraction of the measure of space..


Curvature, not contraction.

so wouldn't the "space" expanding between galaxy clusters collapse into these gravity wells and balance out the overall effect?


To an extent mass does cause the expansion to slow but the amount is below the critical level needed for balanc
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Mar 26, 2012
E^2 = (mc^2)^2 plus (pc)^2 For massive particles, when p=0, that reduces to E=mc^2 For a photon E=pc hence m=0
The general relativity doesn't recognize quantization and therefore has nothing to say about photons.


SR treats photons the same as any other particle, the equation I gave is valid for all. The relationship is just geometry:

http://en.wikiped...relation

The experimental upper limit is 14 orders of magnitude below that and consistent with zero.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Mar 26, 2012
Yes. A black hole has an infinite radius--sort of--but a well-defined and finite circumference that is a function of its mass. (Mostly. <-- flame retardant)


Were its radius infinite, so too would be its mass (GM/c^2) - Not that we would never know it. Not being alive and all...

I think he's alluding to the fact that if you were to take a ruler and try to measure the distance between opposite sides of the event horizon from the inside then the distance would indeed be inifinite. You could keep laying down rulers (or measuring light seconds) but you'd never get from one side to the other.

But, as seen from the outside, the event horizon has a finite radius. From the outside you can measure the circumference and determine a radius AS IF the inside weren't warped.

So this sort of 'radius' is just a measure to get us a clue about how far to stay away - not how big the thing is on the inside.

A black hole is larger on the inside than (it appears) on the outside.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (2) Mar 26, 2012
SR treats photons the same as any other particle, the equation I gave is valid for all.
This is just not true, as the photons are the only "non-massive particles". Without it the E=mc^2 equation would be enough. Anyway, to exclude the energy of photons from relativity is pretty strange even from conceptual point of view. When excited atom nuclei will radiate the photon with energy 240 MeV, in which way you'll compute the mass loss of this atom nuclei?
the 1985 study of PKS 0458-02 by Wolfe et al is available here.
The red shift reported is not red shift for emission, but for absorption of photons. Such a red shift can be consequence of gravitational well rather than the metric expansion of space-time.
brodix
1 / 5 (1) Mar 26, 2012
When we talk of distaces, the numbers are the ratio of the actual separation to our unit of length. Expansion means the gap between the galaxies expressed as a multiple of the unit is increasing.

Exactly. The reason BBT is not simply an expansion in space, but of space, is if it was just in space, then with everything redshifted proportional to distance, we would have to be at the center of the universe. So the argument is that space itself is expanding; the loaf of raisin bread analogy. Yet what dimension of space determines a stable speed of light?
Say I have a rubber ruler and stretch it, it's still always twelve inches long, but if I take a rubber band and stretch it along a yardstick, from twelve inches to thirty six inches, I'm not stretching my units of measure, only increasing the number of them. So if we say space is expanding, then turn around and compare it to a stable unit of measure, what is the basis of that unit of measure?
brodix
1 / 5 (1) Mar 26, 2012
Curvature, not contraction.


If you're talking about light bent by a gravity field, it's curvature, but if it's falling into a black hole, it seems pretty much like contraction. One could also describe the expansion of space as a reverse curvature. The hills between the gravity wells. Originally Einstein proposed the cosmological constant to balance gravity and the expansion seems to be what he proposed. So if it balances gravity then wouldn't the expansion of intergalactic space balance the "curvature" of gravity? We do observe flat space and just assume the curvature is so large, it only appears flat to local observation, but what if his original purpose for the cc is right and it does balance gravity and the universe is ultimately flat?
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Mar 26, 2012
SR treats photons the same as any other particle, the equation I gave is valid for all.
This is just not true, as the photons are the only "non-massive particles". Without it the E=mc^2 equation would be enough.


That only tells you the energy when the particle is at rest. You could add that to Newton's formula for kinetic energy but you get the wrong answer for fast particles. The formula above is correct for all bodies.

the 1985 study of PKS 0458-02 by Wolfe et al.
The red shift reported is not red shift for emission, but for absorption of photons. Such a red shift can be consequence of gravitational well rather than the metric expansion of space-time.

Whether it is an absorbtion or emission feature is irrelevant. You are right that the effect is essentially the same as gravitational redshift, as in the Pound-Rebka experiment for example. Now explain why every distant galaxy is in a gravitational well whose depth is proportional to its distance from Earth.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Mar 26, 2012
Part of my previous reply was deleted by the 'edit' function:

This is measured fact, my clueless newbie.
Nope, the speed of photons has been never measured, only the speed of light. This is not the same.


We were talking about the mass of a photon and you suggested it was defined by E=mc^2.

http://www.pveduc...f-photon

For visible light that would be about 1.5eV to 3.0eV.

http://en.wikiped...ton_mass

The experimental upper limit is 14 orders of magnitude below that and consistent with zero.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Mar 26, 2012
Curvature, not contraction.


If you're talking about light bent by a gravity field, it's curvature, but if it's falling into a black hole, it seems pretty much like contraction.


It is still curvature but in the time axis, a free falling object curves towards the hole (or any mass in fact).

One could also describe the expansion of space as a reverse curvature.


No, it is more complex.

The hills between the gravity wells.


Yes, negative curvature is a saddle point.

but what if his original purpose for the cc is right and it does balance gravity and the universe is ultimately flat?


The CC does seem to be just enough to make it flat but it also causes expansion. His original intention was to model a static universe but that could not be stable. The CC was right but more by luck than judgement!
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Mar 26, 2012
Exactly. The reason BBT is not simply an expansion in space, but of space, is if it was just in space, then with everything redshifted proportional to distance, we would have to be at the center of the universe.


No, if the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, there is no centre with either model. The reson it is described as space expanding is because that is what the Friedmann Equations model and for galaxies at redshifts greater than about 1, the rate of expansion is more than 1 light year per year. That's why you can't model the recession of distant galaxies as a speed through space, because the numbers would exceed the speed of light.

Yet what dimension of space determines a stable speed of light?


If you think of a sheet of graph paper with the vertical axis being time and horizontal being space, the speed of light is 45 degrees. The curious number we use for that angle is down to history.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (2) Mar 26, 2012
Now explain why every distant galaxy is in a gravitational well whose depth is proportional to its distance from Earth.
This is just the point. The Wolfe's quasar is the only exception.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2012
This is just the point. The Wolfe's quasar is the http://www.aether...sar.gif.


Why are you posting a graphic from the wrong paper that has nothing to with what we are discussing? Wolfe's measurement of the redshifts only uses the quasar as background illumination, the spectral lines are created in the intervening gas cloud. Remember too that the paper is from nearly forty years ago, redshift measurements are the most robust and accurate measure of distance and taken as a matter of course these days, tens of thousands of such measurements have been made since then all confirming the fact that it is frequency independent. Denial of reality is never an effective argument.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2012
Cold fusion or aether theories were studied extensively too and they failed many key tests. It's a good reason to rethink these tests again.
You get a 5/5 for outrageous audacity (no you dont)
No, but you might find quite a few of my posts here under various screen names over the years.

It's not exactly paper material IMO anyway. It's freaking obvious to anyone with an analytical mind and spatial analysis skills.
You too get a 5/5 for outrageous audacity (hah! no you dont, you get a 5/5 for fearless display of mental illness)(hah - no you dont)
brodix
1 / 5 (2) Mar 26, 2012
If you think of a sheet of graph paper with the vertical axis being time and horizontal being space, the speed of light is 45 degrees. The curious number we use for that angle is down to history.

So if the universe is expanding, for C to remain a 45 degree angle, the time axis would have to grow at the same rate as the space axis, thus light would have to speed up as space expands. No?
brodix
4 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2012
His original intention was to model a static universe but that could not be stable. The CC was right but more by luck than judgement!

Static and stable are not the same thing. A regular heartbeat is stable, but not static. A moving bicycle is stable, but not static. If we have space expanding between gravity wells at the same rate it is falling into them, that is stable, but not static.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2012
If you think of a sheet of graph paper with the vertical axis being time and horizontal being space, the speed of light is 45 degrees. The curious number we use for that angle is down to history.

So if the universe is expanding, for C to remain a 45 degree angle, the time axis would have to grow at the same rate as the space axis, thus light would have to speed up as space expands. No?


No. The units of the axes aren't changing, objects are moving farter apart.
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Mar 27, 2012
His original intention was to model a static universe but that could not be stable. The CC was right but more by luck than judgement!

Static and stable are not the same thing.


Correct. A static universe would have a constant mean desnsity but randomly scattered galaxies. Within that, those that happen to be closer together than the average would fall into clumps while less dense regions would expand to voids. We see that trend in the dark matter structure but it is ongoing because the universe isn't old enough for it to have reached the condition of nothing but black holes and voids. The static universe model would not have had a finite age into the past so would have collased that way.
brodix
1 / 5 (1) Mar 27, 2012
No. The units of the axes aren't changing, objects are moving farther apart.

Exactly. Space isn't expanding, the distance, in stable lightyears, is increasing(theoretically). So where does that stable space, as measured by C, come from?
brodix
1 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2012
The static universe model would not have had a finite age into the past so would have collased that way.

Yet we have black holes far larger than can be explained within this timeframe, as well as large galaxies as far as can be seen.
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Mar 27, 2012
No. The units of the axes aren't changing, objects are moving farther apart.

Exactly. Space isn't expanding,


I've explained this several times now so if I have failed to get it across, I probably won't get any further by repeating it. The Friedmann Equations are the basis and they model space expanding in relation to a fixed unit of length. You can find out more here:

http://en.wikiped...quations

So where does that stable space, as measured by C, come from?


Again, is the value of a 45 degree angle so that doesn't change. The ratio of 299792458m to 1s is like 25.4mm to 1 inch, it's just a historical number. If you wan't to know more about that, you need to learn a bit of special relativity. I usually recommend "Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler as a very accessible book.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2012
Correct. A static universe would have a constant mean density but randomly scattered galaxies.
If you understood the water surface analogy, then it must be clear for you, that the perceived density will change with distance from observer both in Big Bang, both in Steady State model. The light waves coming from large distances are dispersed more and they do propagate faster. It implies some sort of void in Robertson-Walker universe models.
Within that, those that happen to be closer together than the average would fall into clumps while less dense regions would expand to voids.
The water surface doesn't form clumps in avalanche-like way. It's density fluctuations are behaving rather like density fluctuations of gas. The more dense clumps tend to dissolve and evaporate the faster, the more dense they are. The same process occurs with galaxies - these very large ones are quite radiative (quasars) and they do evaporate fast.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Mar 27, 2012
The static universe model would not have had a finite age into the past so would have collased that way.

Yet we have black holes far larger than can be explained within this timeframe, as well as large galaxies as far as can be seen.


We also have stars and galaxies which would not exist if the universe were infinitely old, there would be nothing but black holes (or nothing at all if they evaporate via Hawking radiation).

The large early black holes have been a puzzle but recent simulations which take account of the fact that dark matter doesn't interact with photons and would start collapsing much earlier are giving results quite close to what we see. The processing power needed is much larger though so it may be some time before those models can be confirmed.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2012
that dark matter doesn't interact with photons and would start collapsing much earlier are giving results quite close to what we see
OK - but why the dark matter doesn't collapse so fast by now? We should consider, its amount it still five times higher, than the mass of observable matter and it's concentrated around galaxies by now - so that its density must be higher than the density of dark matter after formation of Universe. If one fifth of dark matter collapsed so fast, why not the rest? These speculations are just trying to save the Big bang model in its entirety - we can perceive them as a natural hysteresis prohibiting the switching into new paradigm.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Mar 27, 2012
If one fifth of dark matter collapsed so fast, why not the rest?

Well, if it doesn't interact with photons it might not interact with itself as strongly as 'odinary matter' interacts with itself.

In the most extreme case (no interaction at all) it might collapse - but the stuff would fly right past itself and just keep on oscillating forever.

But we really don't know enough about dark matter (or dark energy) to nail down any specifics on what it is.
brodix
1 / 5 (1) Mar 27, 2012
Fleetfoot,
Since overall space is measured to be flat and gravity fields are positive curvature, wouldn't intergalactic space have a negative curvature/negative gravity?
Not trying to be a complete idiot here, but all I've read says they balance out, then says the universe is still expanding.
Also won't an infinite universe permit the conservation of energy, so what is radiated away from one area is absorbed by surrounding areas and vice versa? If space is infinite and has the same level of mass/energy everywhere, there would be nowhere for it to dissipate. So there would be a continuous convection cycle of radiation expanding over tens of billions of lightyears and mass contracting over tens of millions of lightyears. We know mass converts to radiant energy, so is it possible that radiation eventually cools to the point, say 3.7k, that it starts to coalesce back into subatomic particles? This would explain the smoothness of CMBR, without the serious issues raised by inflation.
brodix
1 / 5 (1) Mar 27, 2012
As for black holes sucking up all the energy, they do have those enormous jets shooting out much of that energy back into the surrounding universe. Do we really know they pull energy out of the universe into some other dimension, or are they more of a gravitational cyclone that eventually deposits collected energy back into this universe?
SteveL
5 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2012
Cold fusion or aether theories were studied extensively too and they failed many key tests. It's a good reason to rethink these tests again.
You get a 5/5 for outrageous audacity (no you dont)
No, but you might find quite a few of my posts here under various screen names over the years.

It's not exactly paper material IMO anyway. It's freaking obvious to anyone with an analytical mind and spatial analysis skills.
You too get a 5/5 for outrageous audacity (hah! no you dont, you get a 5/5 for fearless display of mental illness)(hah - no you dont)

It's cruel to tease people with special needs.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2012
If you understood the water surface analogy, then it must be clear for you, that the perceived density will change with distance from observer both in Big Bang, both in Steady State model.


Dispersion is a well known effect but it has no effect on measured density at all. Your nonsense about water waves isn't even related to dispersion.

The light waves coming from large distances are dispersed more and they do propagate faster.


Dispersion results in the speed at any location varying with electron density but it only alters the speed locally, it is not cumulative. It is also completely different to redshift which alters the frequency.

Your pictures of water ripples show that the speed depends on the depth but there is no indication of either dispersion or frequency change in them. You need to do a bit of studying and find out how these effects differ, you're conflating them at the moment.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2012
OK - but why the dark matter doesn't collapse so fast by now?


Because the density has decreased and it now in isolated regions. Think of the difference between holding a golf-ball sized black hole in a cloud of fog or in a bucket of water.

its density must be higher than the density of dark matter after formation of Universe.


Far from it, it the early universe matter was denser than water everywhere.

If one fifth of dark matter collapsed so fast, why not the rest?


It's a race between the holes growing and the density dropping. Which wins is a very hard question to answer.

prohibiting the switching into new paradigm


If you can invent a new paradigm that isn't already disproven, everyone would love to hear it, but first you need to learn what observations already exist that you need to work within. I've given you a few but you have several decades to catch up on, a lot has happened since 1908.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2012
Well, if it doesn't interact with photons it might not interact with itself as strongly as 'odinary matter' interacts with itself.


The evidence from the Bullet Cluster suggests it doesn't interact with itself at all, i.e. it may be bosonic.

In the most extreme case (no interaction at all) it might collapse - but the stuff would fly right past itself and just keep on oscillating forever.


It is alomst certainly virialised:

http://en.wikiped..._theorem

But we really don't know enough about dark matter (or dark energy) to nail down any specifics on what it is.


That's why cosmology is so interesting, there are still many surprises out there :-)
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Mar 27, 2012
wouldn't intergalactic space have a negative curvature/negative gravity?


They would be regions where dark energy would be under-compensated so I think that would be correct.

Not trying to be a complete idiot here, but all I've read says they balance out, then says the universe is still expanding.


It's a complex subject and I'm just learning it myself. The universe is flat if the total equals the critial density. It expands because dark energy is dominant.

Also won't an infinite universe permit the conservation of energy, so what is radiated away from one area is absorbed by surrounding areas and vice versa?


That is also true if it "wraps round", finite or infinite doesn't matter.

is it possible that radiation eventually cools to the point, say 3.7k, that it starts to coalesce back into subatomic particles?


No, locally energy is conserved so you need 511keV to create an electron say.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Mar 27, 2012
Do we really know they pull energy out of the universe into some other dimension, or are they more of a gravitational cyclone that eventually deposits collected energy back into this universe?


The latter, via Hawking Radiation.
brodix
1 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2012
The universe is flat if the total equals the critial density. It expands because dark energy is dominant.

Isn't the only proof for dark energy the mismatch between theory and observation? If redshift is due to some as yet unexplained lensing effect and galaxies are not actually moving apart, there would be no need for dark energy. In most fields, this would be the point you go back and tear apart the theory, math, program, etc. Normally it's only in faith based systems that they just assume the theory must be right, so if the theory says green unicorns, everyone starts looking for green unicorns.

No, locally energy is conserved so you need 511keV to create an electron say.

I was thinking something much less substantial, like say neutrinos, higgs....
brodix
1 / 5 (1) Mar 27, 2012
The latter, via Hawking Radiation.


I was thinking more in terms of the entire spectrum of radiation escaping from the entire galactic system, whether it equals the mass being pulled into it.
Off the wall thought, but no one seems to be able to find gravity waves. If expansion is as much a characteristic of radiation, as gravitational contract is an aspect of mass, could radiation, being what escapes from gravitational collapse, be the missing gravity wave?
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Mar 28, 2012
Isn't the only proof for dark energy the mismatch between theory and observation? .. Normally it's only in faith based systems that they just assume the theory must be right ..


It's the other way round, the theory includes a parameter and if you presume it is zero on faith theory and observation match out to a few billion light years but then diverge slightly. If you remove the assumption and choose the best fit, the match becomes exact as far out as we can see. That value is 72% of the critical level and together with the 28% matter we see other ways also matches the fact that the universe is flat.

If redshift is due to some as yet unexplained lensing effect and galaxies are not actually moving apart, there would be no need for dark energy.


If that were the case, theory and observation would not match at all. Dark energy is only a very small discpancy in the brightness of supernovae at high redshifts.

Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Mar 28, 2012
The latter, via Hawking Radiation.


I was thinking more in terms of the entire spectrum of radiation escaping from the entire galactic system, whether it equals the mass being pulled into it.


Mass isn't "pulled into" a galaxy. You asked about a BH and I answered accordingly.

Off the wall thought, but no one seems to be able to find gravity waves.


Hulse and Taylor did. LIGO is sensitive above ~150Hz but orbiting binaries have periods in days so we have no instrument to see them yet, and LISA was cancelled :-(

could radiation, being what escapes from gravitational collapse, be the missing gravity wave?


That makes no sense, radiation is not gravity.
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2012

Off the wall thought, but no one seems to be able to find gravity waves.


Hulse and Taylor did. LIGO is sensitive above ~150Hz but orbiting binaries have periods in days so we have no instrument to see them yet, and LISA was cancelled :-(

could radiation, being what escapes from gravitational collapse, be the missing gravity wave?


That makes no sense, radiation is not gravity.


@Fleetfoot: Are you suggesting from above that Hulse & Taylor proved "gravity waves" exist?
brodix
1 / 5 (2) Mar 28, 2012
It's the other way round, the theory includes a parameter and if you presume it is zero on faith theory and observation match out to a few billion light years but then diverge slightly.

Newton's laws of motion only diverge slightly from what's observed.
If you remove the assumption and choose the best fit, the match becomes exact as far out as we can see. That value is 72% of the critical level and together with the 28% matter we see other ways also matches the fact that the universe is flat.

72% is a rather big "fit."

If that were the case, theory and observation would not match at all. Dark energy is only a very small discpancy in the brightness of supernovae at high redshifts.

So we assume the universe is 72% invisible, rather than there might be a small lensing effect that only matters at billions of lightyears?

Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Mar 28, 2012
Off the wall thought, but no one seems to be able to find gravity waves.


Hulse and Taylor did. LIGO is sensitive above ~150Hz but orbiting binaries have periods in days so we have no instrument to see them yet, and LISA was cancelled :-(


@Fleetfoot: Are you suggesting from above that Hulse & Taylor proved "gravity waves" exist?


Not me, they were awarded the Nobel Prize for their work that showed that the system was losing energy at exactly the rate required by GR for gravitational radiation.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Mar 28, 2012
It's the other way round, the theory includes a parameter and if you presume it is zero on faith theory and observation match out to a few billion light years but then diverge slightly.


Newton's laws of motion only diverge slightly from what's observed.


If you want to know the mass of Jupiter, you can use the motion of its moons and Newton's Laws. You don't assume it has some other value on faith and discard Newton.

If Dark energy is only a very small discpancy in the brightness of supernovae at high redshifts.

So we assume the universe is 72% invisible, rather than there might be a small lensing effect that only matters at billions of lightyears?


If you can do the maths and show lensing fits, everybody will be delighted. By all means post your calculation here.
brodix
1 / 5 (2) Mar 28, 2012
Fleetfoot,
I did post an interesting possibility early in this thread:
http://www.fqxi.o...kets.pdf
It's not as though the issues raised by inflation have been dealt with, in fact Paul Steinhardt, one of the original developers, had a front cover article in SciAm, discussing the fact it raises more issues than it solves. No one even has a clue as to what dark energy is, other than it matches Einstein's CC, but as you say, cosmologists dismiss his reasons for proposing it in the first place.
Basically it boils down to the fact that cosmology has no real clue as to how to solve its current issues, but if you want a job as a cosmologist, you better stick to the BBT script. You can get on television talking about multiversess, but you will be ostracized if you bring up lensing issues.
Mastoras
not rated yet Mar 28, 2012
Actually, I have a saved copy of the same picture since before 2009, from an article about how a black hole losses energy.

But I suppose,it is an artist's illustration, suitable for more than one subjects.
-.
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Mar 28, 2012

Not me, they were awarded the Nobel Prize for their work that showed that the system was losing energy at exactly the rate required by GR for gravitational radiation.


If you ask me, coming up with the math to prove energy loss is the equivalent of proving "gravity waves" is something that is a real stretch of imagination. Seems to me the Nobel committee has again allowed their favored team to jump the gun in the race to prove GW's exist. I did a search for the research on that binary, and it in no way proved the existence of GW's, only thst the stars exhibited behavior which may be in accordance with Einstein's theory that GW's exist.

By the way, I've done some playing around with that redshift calculator you put me on to. I like it for so far as the upper limit of the integral takes me. I understand how the age of the Universe has been calculated, but I personally believe it is a lot more than 13.66 Gyrs due to the observed flat nature of the observable universe.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Mar 29, 2012

It is alomst certainly virialised:

http://en.wikiped..._theorem

Thanks for the link. Hadn't thought of that, but it makes sense. even without interaction (i.e. only gravitational interaction) the velocities wold even out eventually.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Mar 29, 2012
Fleetfoot,
I did post an interesting possibility early in this thread:
http://www.fqxi.o...kets.pdf


I saw it before. The paper shows that a dissipative viscosity term can produce a frequency shift as well as attenuation though I suspect the latter is the larger effect. So use that and the Hubble Constant to work out the various terms in the equation, then use them to predict the attenuation. Then compare that to the Tolman Test:

http://en.wikiped...ess_test

Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Mar 29, 2012
No one even has a clue as to what dark energy is, other than it matches Einstein's CC


Not true, many scientists think it is probably the same as the Casimir effect. See the section on dark energy here for example:

http://www.calphy...zpe.html

but as you say, cosmologists dismiss his reasons for proposing it in the first place.


It was a careless mistake, his model would not have worked even with the CC.

Basically it boils down to the fact that cosmology has no real clue as to how to solve its current issues, but if you want a job as a cosmologist, you better stick to the BBT script.


ROFL, so how did Saul Perlmutter get a Nobel for finding the value of the CC was .72 of the critical value when the "BB script" had said it was zero for 7 decades! You say the silliest things sometimes.

.. you will be ostracized if you bring up lensing issues.


Lensing makes background objects brighter. The evidence for DE is that distant SNe are not bright enough.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Mar 29, 2012
Then compare that to the Tolman Test:
The Tolman test supports steady state model in rather straightforward way, because the more distant galaxies appear larger and more luminous, than these closer ones. http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.4956

Albeit Universe is expanding seemingly (Hubble 1929), the astronomers have found recently, the galaxies are actually shrinking with time. Because a true galaxy-size increase would be incompatible with standard cosmology, if not with the laws of gravity, authors indicate the presence of systematical errors in Sloan Digital Sky Survey.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Mar 29, 2012
No one even has a clue as to what dark energy is, other than it matches Einstein's CC
In dense aether model the gravity is the result of gravitational waves shielding between massive objects, the cold dark matter is the result of the shielding of this shielding with nearby objects. And because the observable Universe is limited, this shielding gets lower at its boundaries, which leads into dark energy effect, in this sense the dark energy is the shielding of dark matter shielding, which is the shielding of gravity wave shielding. One evidence for this interpretation is the formation of thick fibers of dark matter between collinear galaxies and gravitational anomalies following the eclipses and conjunctions of planets.
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Mar 29, 2012
coming up with the math to prove energy loss is the equivalent of proving "gravity waves" is something that is a real stretch of imagination.


They didn't come up with any maths, GW are predicted by Einstein's GR equation, the same one that says gravity on Earth is nearly inverse square but not quite, got the right answer for the orbit of Mercury, for the bending of starlight, and dozens of other tests. The energy loss for GW was in the textbooks. They got the credit for being the first to find a way to test it by observation.

Seems to me the Nobel committee has again allowed their favored team to jump the gun in the race to prove GW's exist.


They were the first to do that type of test, the result doesn't actually matter. Perlmutter won the Nobel for being the first to measure the CC but he showed the conventional value was wrong.

the stars exhibited behavior which may be in accordance with Einstein's theory that GW's exist.


Which is all science ever proves.
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Mar 29, 2012
By the way, I've done some playing around with that redshift calculator you put me on to. I like it for so far as the upper limit of the integral takes me. I understand how the age of the Universe has been calculated, but I personally believe it is a lot more than 13.66 Gyrs due to the observed flat nature of the observable universe.


There is a button specifically to force the numbers to be exactly flat but it doesn't make much difference, the measured values are very close anyway.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Mar 29, 2012
If you ask me, coming up with the math to prove energy loss is the equivalent of proving "gravity waves" is something that is a real stretch of imagination.
And you're right, if the gravitational waves would be superluminal, then the energy loss will be the same, but we could never detect them as a harmonic waves. From AWT follows, the gravitational waves do manifest like the notoriously known CMBR noise and the silly physicists are just wasting billions of tax payers for their detection in gravitational wave detectors. This conclusion actually follows from general relativity as well: 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.
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Mar 29, 2012
Then compare that to the Tolman Test:
The Tolman test supports steady state model in rather straightforward way, because the more distant galaxies appear larger and more luminous, than these closer ones. ..


In a steady state universe, they would not have been closer so would not appear larger. As the article states, steady state says the brightness should not vary with redshift, in fact it goes as roughly the cube.

http://en.wikiped...ess_test
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Mar 29, 2012
steady state says the brightness should not vary with redshift
In steady state model the red shift is caused with dispersion of light with CMBR fluctuations - the same dispersion will blur the images of distant galaxies, thus making them larger and more luminous in similar way, like the streetlights observed through fog.
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Mar 29, 2012
In dense aether model the gravity is the result of gravitational waves shielding between massive objects, ..


Not true. Aether theory (LET) had no model for gravity at all, just the Lorentz Transforms. What you describe is most often known as Le Sage's gravity (though it originated with Fatio) and was blatantly wrong from the day it was suggested.

http://en.wikiped...vitation
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Mar 29, 2012
if the gravitational waves would be superluminal, then the energy loss will be the same ... 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.


Wrong again, the maths is quite clear, gravitational waves are quadrupole and propagate at the speed of light hence it is invariant.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2012
Aether theory (LET) had no model for gravity at all
Dense aether theory relies to ancient de Duillier-LeSage theory of gravity in this point, from which the inverse square law follows rather clearly. Actually it's the only theoretical model of gravity, which we have, because in general relativity the gravitational constant comes from Newton's law, which was deduced from observations of solar system with Arabian astronomers. Or how else do you believe Einstein deduced the dependence of potential energy of massive body to distance in gravity field during derivation of his field equations?
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Mar 29, 2012
In steady state model the red shift is caused with dispersion of light with CMBR fluctuations - the same dispersion will blur the images of distant galaxies, thus making them larger and more luminous in similar way, like the streetlights observed through fog.


Wrong again on every point: distant sources aren't blurred, dispersion only relates speed to frequency, it doesn't change speed or frequency while redshift is defined as the change of frequency, and fog doesn't change the colour of a sodium light, it remains yellow. I've corrected you on all these points numerous times and you can easily check what I say for yourself so why are you still repeating this nonsense?
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Mar 29, 2012
Wrong again, the maths is quite clear, gravitational waves are quadrupole and propagate at the speed of light hence it is invariant.
The location of gravity wave in flat space-time is not defined, as the only reference frame can serve the gravitational wave itself. In this way, every derivation of gravitational wave speed relies to itself, i.e. it's singular by its very nature. Why do you believe Einstein hesitated to subscribe himself bellow first article about gravitational waves?

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, 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 does not otherwise exist:
http://www.jstor..../2371768
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Mar 29, 2012
Aether theory (LET) had no model for gravity at all
Dense aether theory relies to ancient de Duillier-LeSage theory of gravity in this point,


Aether theory is independent from Le Sage's model.

from which the inverse square law follows rather clearly.


It does, but the inverse square law is wrong.

Actually it's the only theoretical model of gravity, which we have,


That is a blatant (or clueless lie).

because in general relativity the gravitational constant comes from Newton's law


In GR, the constant is 1, it is only a conversion factor for human units.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Mar 29, 2012
distant sources aren't blurred
They appear so http://www.space....eil.html Anyway, on this blur some methods of quantum fluctuations of vacuum detection are based.
dispersion only relates speed to frequency, it doesn't change speed or frequency
Try to explain, why wavelength of ripples changes during spreading of ripples at the water surface? http://people.rit...4565.jpg
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2012
In GR, the constant is 1, it is only a conversion factor for human units.
It's the Newton's constant, just read the original article of Einstein. Or do you believe, Einstein understood geometrodynamics in his time? http://www.bartleby.com/173/

It does, but the inverse square law is wrong.
But Einstein still used it in his derivation of field equations. Without it you cannot derive the relation between metric tensor and stress-energy tensor.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Mar 29, 2012
Aether theory is independent from Le Sage's model.
LeSage model is the consequence of dense aether model. In 1863 F.A.E. and Em. Keller presented a theory by using a Le Sage type mechanism in combination with longitudinal waves of the aether. They supposed that those waves are propagating in every direction and losing some of their momentum after the impact on bodies, so between two bodies the pressure exerted by the waves is weaker than the pressure around them. In 1869 L. de Boisbaudran presented the same model as Leray, but like Keller he replaced the particles with longitudinal waves of the aether. In AWT these longitudinal waves are just gravitational waves, it's the only difference.

http://en.wikiped...l_aether
CardacianNeverid
5 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2012
I've corrected you on all these points numerous times and you can easily check what I say for yourself so why are you still repeating this nonsense? -Fleetfoot

Good question. I'm sure there's a PhD in Psychology in it for someone willing to do the work...

I applaud your patience, but it's for naught. Callippo is a well known crank on this and other science forums and uses many aliases like Zephyr, Kydrel, rawa, etc. The fact that he's been at it for many years, despite people like yourself trying to educate him, indicates some kind of psychosis.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Mar 30, 2012
I applaud your patience, but it's for naught. Callippo is a well known crank on this and other science forums and uses many aliases like Zephyr, Kydrel, rawa, etc.

I think he's just his own 50 cent party:
http://en.wikiped...nt_Party
Whenever some crank in the world comes up with anything he'll contact them and ask for 50 cents per post defending their theory all over the net.
actually, that would be a smart way to make a living of off dumb people.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2012
Some of this nonsense comes from Monash University. Silly self promotional wankers and I do not quite understand why anyone gives them the time of day.

Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Mar 30, 2012
In GR, the constant is 1, it is only a conversion factor for human units.
It's the Newton's constant, just read the original article of Einstein.... But Einstein still used it in his derivation of field equations. Without it you cannot derive the relation between metric tensor and stress-energy tensor.


If you measure one side of a right-triangle in inches and another in millimetres, you need to know that 1 inch = 25.4 mm but you don't need it to derive Pythagoras' Theorem.
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Mar 30, 2012
Aether theory is independent from Le Sage's model.
LeSage model is the consequence of dense aether model. ...

http://en.wikiped...l_aether


Nope, it's is incompatible with it. Like SR, Lorentz's work on aether theory prohibited anything moving faster than light but, from the same article you quote, in 1887 Ryánek used the orbit of Neptune to show a lower limit on Le Sage's particles (or waves if you like) of 5*10^19cm/s or about 1.7 billion times the speed of light. Poincare later showed it had to be at least 2.4*10^18 times the speed of light and the temperature of the Earth would rise at 10^13 degrees per second and as he said "the earth could not long stand such a regime".

Fatio's gravity is and always has been a dead duck.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2012
I applaud your patience, but it's for naught.


This is supposed to be a science-based site and unless someone shows up this clueless drivel for what it is, kids reading it can take it as authoritative. It's a shame there seems to be no moderation of the site, it really should just be deleted.

It obviously contravenes the posting rules so has anyone tried reporting him or is that why he uses so many socks?
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Mar 30, 2012
distant sources aren't blurred
They appear so http://www.space....eil.html


However, that doesn't happen when you aren't looking through an intervening cloud of gas.

http://people.rit.edu/andpph/photofile-c/splash-water-waves-4565.jpg

Try to explain, why wavelength of ripples changes during spreading of ripples at the water surface?


ROFL, you can't even get it the right way round. That photo shows long wavelengths at the centre becoming short as they move out, i.e. blue shift :-)

In reality, the vertical oscillations of the surface drop in frequency after a stone enters producing the pattern you see. If you saw a video, the short wavelengths at the outside would not change as they spread, nor would the longer wavelengths at the centre. The ripple tank photo I posted before proved the point because ther you had a source of fixed frequency and the wavelength remained the same for the length of the tank.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Mar 31, 2012
Wrong again, the maths is quite clear, gravitational waves are quadrupole and propagate at the speed of light hence it is invariant.
The location of gravity wave in flat space-time is not defined, as the only reference frame can serve the gravitational wave itself.


Rubbish, the speed is defined relative to a test particle of negligible but non-zero rest mass, the same way that the speed of light can be defined in SR. If you don't understand simple math, you shouldn't try to look knowledgeable, learn the basics first.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2012
Nope, it's is incompatible with it. ..Fatio's gravity is and always has been a dead duck.
Fatio model is much richer, than it appears at the first look for schematically thinking people. It allows to explain most of relativistic violations of Newton laws in simple way, the dark matter effects in particular. In dense aether model the cold dark matter is simply consequence of the shielding of gravitational shielding with nearby massive objects. http://aetherwave...ines.gif
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2012
That photo shows long wavelengths at the centre becoming short as they move out, i.e. blue shift :-)
That's right. Because you're not observing the water surface from the perspective of its own ripples, but from perspective of much faster waves of light, which you indeed haven't available, when sitting in the vacuum. The ripple tank is too small to demonstrate these open space effects.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2012
The fact that he's been at it for many years, despite people like yourself trying to educate him, indicates some kind of psychosis
But I do know the mainstream theories fairly well..;-) I know, that mainstream physics explains the red shift with metric expansion of space. The fact, I'm explaining more general model here indicates, I'm more smarter, than that. General relativity describes the space-time from perspective of hypothetical non-dispersing waves of light. Such a waves spread only in completely flat space-time, which actually doesn't exist in the universe. If the light would spread really with CONSTANT SPEED across all areas of Universe, we could never observer the gravitational lensing, not to say about more dense refractive objects. The existence of lensing means, that the speed of light is changing from place to place. This logics is virtually unbeatable. It's just you, who aren't able to understand it, not me.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2012
It's a shame there seems to be no moderation of the site, it really should just be deleted.
The retarded state of contemporary physics is just the consequence of the fact, every eye opening ideas were censored and ignored from their very beginning systematically. It was not consequence of some centralized conspiracy - it was work of myriads of anonymous people like you, the teachers and similar people. This is simply the way, in which religion persists and maintains itself in the society. It was very simple in the world without Internet, now it's just a bit more harder. Your attempts for censorship is the censorship of the very same kind, which for example North Korea and China applies to its citizens - do you realize it?
MorituriMax
3 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2012
Callippo,
The retarded state of contemporary physics
Is this from the same source you got the false idea that the speed of a photon has never been measured?
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2012
We actually never measured it directly. Everything what we measured was the speed of light waves. This is indeed a difference. The photons are SOLITONS, i.e. the wave packets of light waves and the solitons always move in different speed, than their parental waves, which are forming them. If physicists wouldn't be retarded and biased against aether model, they would realize it already before many years, because this is not a rocket physics definitely. What prohibits us in the direct measurement of speed of photons is their decoherence: the photons tend to dissolve in vacuum and emerge from it somewhere else.
MorituriMax
3 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2012
We really, REALLY need a 0-rating button.

Callippo, do you even HAVE a degree in anything, and if so, what is it and in what field(s)?
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2012
the speed is defined relative to a test particle of negligible but non-zero rest mass, the same way that the speed of light can be defined in SR
Inside of completely flat space-time you have no reference point for derivation of speed. Only some minute space-time deform, i.e. the gravitational wave itself can serve as such point - in this moment the derivation of gravitatonal wave speed becomes an implicit selfreferencing tautology.

If you would consider the reference frame in special relativity as the some particle with minute mass, than this reference frame cannot be inertial anymore. Please, don't try to point me to the intrinsic inconsistency of special relativity in this naive way, as I'm expert on it. I indeed know about most of simplifications, which helped the mathematicians to derive their deterministic models, but these models are always violated in the indeterministic universe in lesser or wider extent.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2012
do you even HAVE a degree in anything, and if so, what is it and in what field
Do you really have some argument, or we should start with social club here, while exchanging our private experiences with education, wifes, cars and rabbit farming? These things are indeed irrelevant for every matter-of fact discussion - and you should know about it very well in the same way, like me. This is a transparent trick, how to detract the discussion. If you would think and act scientifically, i.e. strictly logically without using fallacies, you would have no problem with me.
MorituriMax
3 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2012
I'm just trying to figure out if you were always full of shit, or if you somehow took actual scientific background and twisted it inside out? In other words are you a real scientist I need to listen to so I don't go on being completely ignorant of science, an amateur with no -- clue, someone who just doesn't understand what he learned in school, a troll, or a disgruntled scientist who thinks he is gods gift to the world.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2012
somehow took actual scientific background and twisted it inside out
You got certain point here, the AWT is sorta dual version of mainstream physics in CERTAIN extent: it deals with Universe from the indeterministic perspective of longitudinal waves which always violate Lorentz symmetry, whereas the mainstream physics is Lorentz symmetry centric. AWT follows the nonformal logics of observable reality, whereas the mainstream physics follows the formal logics. Whereas Einstein compiled a number of nonformal ideas and derived a new formal model from it, I do syntesize many formal but counterintuitive theories into new generation of still nonformal, yet intuitive view of Universe. Of course I do realize, from perspective of mainstream scientists I will appear like bag full of shit in the similar way, like every heretic inside of mainstream society. Or like the neutrino between hadrons.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2012
The similar topological inversion of causal space-time occurred in physics before years, when the astronomers switched from geocentric model into heliocentric one. The geocentric model was actually quite relevant - it was able to predict the conjunctions and eclipse of planet as reliably, as the heliocentric model did. It was "just" way more complex and counterintuitive, because it observed the local part of universe from intrinsic perspective, instead of extrinsic one. The similar inversion of observational perspective occurred later again - just in weaker extent - when Hubble realized, that the Milky Way is the same "wheel of Suns", like many other galaxies around it. In this sense the AWT is just a continuation of this trend.
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Mar 31, 2012
That photo shows long wavelengths at the centre becoming short as they move out, i.e. blue shift
That's right.


I know, it's obvious.

Because you're not observing the water surface from the perspective of its own ripples, but from perspective of much faster waves of light, which you indeed haven't available, when sitting in the vacuum.


The analogy is that you are at a point on the surface a fixed distance from the source. What we see are undulations whose frequency is less that what would have been seen closer to the source. Your picture, if you assume a constant source frequency (not true) and uniform speed (possibly true) shows the frequency increasing with distance instead of decreasing. Your understanding of this is so badly wrong, you picked an image that is the exact opposite of what you tried to show.

The ripple tank is too small to demonstrate these open space effects.


Your duck pond is much smaller and you don't have a monochromatic source.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Mar 31, 2012
Nope, it's is incompatible with it. ..Fatio's gravity is and always has been a dead duck.
Fatio model is much richer, than it appears at the first look ...


It is irrelevant how "rich" it is, it is blatantly wrong.

Which part of:
the temperature of the Earth would rise at 10^13 degrees per second

did you not understand?
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2012
The fact that he's been at it for many years, despite people like yourself trying to educate him, indicates some kind of psychosis
But I do know the mainstream theories fairly well..;-) I know, that mainstream physics explains the red shift with metric expansion of space. The fact, I'm explaining more general model here indicates, I'm more smarter, than that. ... It's just you, who aren't able to understand it, not me.


You've obviously read many popularisations but you clearly haven't done any of the math yourself and you don't understand the words of others you are reposting. You couldn't even tell the difference between increasing and decreasing frequency, and you seem unable to tell the difference between dispersion and redshift even though I've explained it to you in newbie terms several times. These are easy effects to grasp yet seem to be beyond you.

Sorry to be blunt but it is obvious to everyone that you are pretty clueless on all of this.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2012
I've corrected you on all these points numerous times and you can easily check what I say for yourself so why are you still repeating this nonsense? -Fleetfoot

Good question. I'm sure there's a PhD in Psychology in it for someone willing to do the work...

I applaud your patience, but it's for naught. Callippo is a well known crank on this and other science forums and uses many aliases like Zephyr, Kydrel, rawa, etc. The fact that he's been at it for many years, despite people like yourself trying to educate him, indicates some kind of psychosis.

Why are you blogging on Physorg.com? You do not know anything about science!
SteveL
4 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2012
I'm more smarter, than that.

I can't help but find it humorous when at the very moment someone is attempting to express their advanced intelligence they still struggle with simple grade school level English syntax.
MorituriMax
1 / 5 (1) Mar 31, 2012
I'm more smarter, than that.

I can't help but find it humorous when at the very moment someone is attempting to express their advanced intelligence they still struggle with simple grade school level English syntax.
Would be hYumorous if this were anD English Spelling 4orum.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2012
It is irrelevant how "rich" it is, it is (Fatio/LeSage gravity theory) blatantly wrong.
@Fleetfoot: If it's wrong blatantly, it shouldn't be a problem for you to explain, why is it so. Without it it's just your subjective judgment of personal antimpathy, which couldn't be taken seriously.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2012
It is irrelevant how "rich" it is, it is (Fatio/LeSage gravity theory) blatantly wrong.
@Fleetfoot: If it's wrong blatantly, it shouldn't be a problem for you to explain, why is it so.


1) Fatio's model explains an inverse square force as modelled by Newton. The precession of Mercury shows that an inverse square force is inaccurate.

2) In Newtonian mechanics, particles carry kinetic energy as well as momentum so as I said before:

"in 1887 Ryánek used the orbit of Neptune to show a lower limit on Le Sage's particles of 5*10^19cm/s. .. Poincare later showed it had to be at least 2.4*10^18 times the speed of light and the temperature of the Earth would rise at 10^13 degrees per second and as he said 'the earth could not long stand such a regime'."

Without it it's just your subjective judgment of personal antimpathy, which couldn't be taken seriously.


You cited the same source:

http://en.wikiped...essments
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Apr 01, 2012
1) Fatio's model explains an inverse square force as modelled by Newton. The precession of Mercury shows that an inverse square force is inaccurate.

Inaccurate doesn't mean wrong. After all, the general relativity doesn't describe the dark matter too and nobody refuses it just because of it. Fatio's model is the simplest model of gravity, we have. In particular, the Fatio's model neglects the shielding of gravitational shielding by nearby objects. http://www.aether...ding.gif
Poincare later showed it had to be at least 2.4*10^18 times the speed of light
I do agree with superluminal speed of gravity, but I don't understand, where the people got such a temperature? The energy of gravitational waves is radiated away continuously as a ZPE energy. Apparently the people have no idea, how shielding of tachyons works.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2012
I do agree with superluminal speed of gravity, but I don't understand,

What makes you think gravity has superluminal speed?
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2012
What makes you think gravity has superluminal speed?
There have been several articles about the subject. One measurement showed gravity traveled slightly FTL. I have being trying to find the article for several years to no avail. I remember reading about a theory were gravity is in another brane or in another dimension of space not subject to our laws of physics. You will need to do some research to find the sources.
MorituriMax
3 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2012
and yet, it obeys our laws well enough to only travel slightly FTL, strange. Almost like the FTL Neutrinos that weren't.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2012
What makes you think gravity has superluminal speed?
There have been several articles about the subject. One measurement showed gravity traveled slightly FTL. I have being trying to find the article for several years to no avail. I remember reading about a theory were gravity is in another brane or in another dimension of space not subject to our laws of physics. You will need to do some research to find the sources.


Some months ago I did, and found only that satellite tracking data has revealed that Earth's orbit does not follow the 8.3 minute retarded image of the sun, it follows the actual position of the sun. This makes complete sense due to the Law of Conservaton of Momentum in which a body in motion tends to remain in motion retaining the direction of that motion unless acted upon by an external force deviating its' path. This negates the concept of superluminol gravity.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2012
What makes you think gravity has superluminal speed?
For example the Fatio/LeSage gravity theory requires it. The CMBR noise can be explained with gravitational waves, if these waves would be superluminal. After all, even the holographic projection, in which the gravity is explained in Verlinde's entropic model of gravity couldn't work, if this projection would be luminal.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2012
@Benni:

That is not the article I was talking about. The article I am referring to was published five or six years ago. It was a direct comparison with light speed. It is out there somewhere if you can find it. It may be about the force of gravity or maybe it was about gravitational waves themselves. Again the article said gravity was slightly superluminal, but by a very small amount. Maybe the measurement was later repealed. I have even heard in the past that the effect of gravity can travel across the entire universe almost instantly, but finding it will take a lot of searching. If you are able to find anything I hope you let me know.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Apr 02, 2012
@Benni:

That is not the article I was talking about. The article I am referring to was published five or six years ago. It was a direct comparison with light speed. It is out there somewhere if you can find it. It may be about the force of gravity or maybe it was about gravitational waves themselves. Again the article said gravity was slightly superluminal, but by a very small amount. Maybe the measurement was later repealed. I have even heard in the past that the effect of gravity can travel across the entire universe almost instantly, but finding it will take a lot of searching. If you are able to find anything I hope you let me know.


The satellite tracking data I was referring to was done between 1999-2004, which falls into your time frame. Maybe the FTL hypothesis to which you refer is extrapolated data from those observations which obviously include instrumentation error, because I do remember there was a very slight satellite deviation from 8.3 minutes.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Apr 03, 2012
1) Fatio's model explains an inverse square force as modelled by Newton. The precession of Mercury shows that an inverse square force is inaccurate.

Inaccurate doesn't mean wrong.


It may not mean useless, the Newtonian approximation is adequate for most work, but it is unquestionably wrong. Fatio's model gives the wrong prediction so we know the universe doesn't work that way.

After all, the general relativity doesn't describe the dark matter too ..


GR describes the gravitational effect of dark matter perfectly, it just doesn't say anything about type of matter.

Poincare later showed it had to be at least 2.4*10^18 times the speed of light


... I don't understand, where the people got such a temperature?


Newtonian physics:

KE = 1/2 m v^2
Momentum = m v
hence
KE = momentum * v/2

Derivatives:

Power = force * v/2

Undergraduate physics:

http://en.wikiped...mann_law
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2012
It may not mean useless, the Newtonian approximation is adequate for most work, but it is unquestionably wrong. Fatio's model gives the wrong prediction so we know the universe doesn't work that way.
General relativity is violated with quantum mechanics with many orders of magnitude. Does it mean, it's a wrong too? Every theory has its validity scope - outside of it is simply BS.

As I explained you already, the general relativity is using "wrong" Newton theory (inverse square law and gravitational constant) too in its derivation of stress tensor from metric tensor. We simply have no better way, how to derive the energy of curved space from potential energy of massive object in gravity field and this dependence is just borrowed from Newton's law. If this theory is wrong, then every derivation based on it is wrong as well, as you probably realize.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2012
The problem is different - we have no better explanation of Newton gravitational law, than Newton did - from observations of motion of planets. The Fatio/LeSage theory is the only theory, which explains it in intuitive way. There is another entropic theory, which is actually equivalent to it, but it's very complex and it relies to extradimensions snd superluminal projection of holographic model. If you don't like the tachyons of Fatio theory, then the Verlinde's theory will not help you anyway.

The energy of gravitational waves shielded with massive object is released back again in form of quantum fluctuation. The energy density of quantum field is immense and it corresponds the high temperature computed with formulas above = we can only see the subtle portion of it as a ZPE field.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Apr 03, 2012
.. the Newtonian approximation is adequate for most work, but it is unquestionably wrong. Fatio's model gives the wrong prediction so we know the universe doesn't work that way.
General relativity is violated with quantum mechanics with http://en.wikiped...strophe. Does it mean, it's a wrong too?


From the page you quote, Voyager set an upper limit of 10^14GeV/m^3 but QM predicts a much higher level therefore QM is wrong, not GR.

Every theory has its validity scope - outside of it is simply BS.


Correct, and for GR that is near the big bang and at the centre of black holes. There is no GR equivalent to the failure of the inverse square law for Mercury.

As I explained you already, the general relativity is using "wrong" Newton theory (inverse square law ...


You have "explained" a great deal, most of which was nonsense. G is nothing more than a conversion of units and GR doesn't "use" the inverse square law.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2012
The problem is different - we have no better explanation of Newton gravitational law, than Newton did - from observations of motion of planets. The Fatio/LeSage theory is the only theory, which explains it in intuitive way.


There is no obligation on the universe for it to be understandable to your limited intuition. GR is a perfectly undestandable model to those who can grasp differential geometry. Whether you personally find Fatio's model easier is irrelevant,
it is wrong.

Verlinde's work is certainly interesting and promising but until you can grasp simple stuff like ripples in a water tank, it is far beyond your reach.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2012
QM is wrong, not GR
Both theories are equally wrong. GR predicts, all objects should collapse into singularity, QM predicts, the quantum wave packets of all particles should expand into infinity. In real life nothing like it happens. Some objections against GR are summarized here (you may feel free to ignore religious blurbs during this).
There is no GR equivalent to the failure of the inverse square law for Mercury
Most of Mercury precession is caused by gravitational tug of the other planets, i.e. with classical effects. Mile's and Marion's classical dynamics and many other approaches are explaining it too. For example here is classical formula for gravitational acceleration which predicts "relativistic" effects like precession of the Mercury without relativity.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2012
Verlinde's work is certainly interesting and promising but until you can grasp simple stuff like ripples in a water tank, it is far beyond your reach.
LOL, at least you're funny. Verlinde's theory is very simple and I explained it's derivation at many places of the web.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2012
The satellite tracking data I was referring to was done between 1999-2004, which falls into your time frame. Maybe the FTL hypothesis to which you refer is extrapolated data from those observations which obviously include instrumentation error, because I do remember there was a very slight satellite deviation from 8.3 minutes.
Thanks for the info. BTW, maybe you have heard the statement somewhere that said changes to gravity can be felt throughout the entire universe instantaneously, or something like that?
SteveL
not rated yet Apr 03, 2012
What makes you think gravity has superluminal speed?
There have been several articles about the subject. One measurement showed gravity traveled slightly FTL. I have being trying to find the article for several years to no avail. I remember reading about a theory were gravity is in another brane or in another dimension of space not subject to our laws of physics. You will need to do some research to find the sources.


Were you looking for something like this? http://metaresear...vity.asp
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Apr 03, 2012
What makes you think gravity has superluminal speed?
There have been several articles about the subject. One measurement showed gravity traveled slightly FTL. I have being trying to find the article for several years to no avail. I remember reading about a theory were gravity is in another brane or in another dimension of space not subject to our laws of physics. You will need to do some research to find the sources.


Were you looking for something like this? http://metaresear...vity.asp


Just read through this link, also looked at the dates of "Acknowledgements", all pre-1999. I do remember now that it was a NASA site on which I read about the satellite tracking data between 1999-2004. Use a search engine at a NASA site & see what you can come up with.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Apr 04, 2012
There have been several articles about the subject. One
Were you looking for something like this? http://metaresear...vity.asp


Just read through this link, also looked at the dates of "Acknowledgements", all pre-1999. I do remember now that it was a NASA site on which I read about the satellite tracking data between 1999-2004. Use a search engine at a NASA site & see what you can come up with.


If you haven't come across him before, TvF is a well known "crank". There's a relevant article here, just search for his name:

http://www.salon....instein/

The paper by Steve Carlip debunking TvF is here:

http://xxx.lanl.g...87v2.pdf
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2012
I'm not here to fight against general relativity (GR) blindly. But the fact, this theory is using the Newton's law in its derivation, i.e. the same law, which the GR is supposed to replace serves as an indicia, this theory is approximative and incomplete. The consequential derivation of GR would lead to complex implicit model, which would be impossible to solve. For example, in general relativity the curvature of space-time (metric tensor) has some energy distribution (stress tensor) assigned. But if we consider the mass-energy equivalence, then we can consider this energy distribution as the new source of sparse matter, which forms a weak additional gravity field, which has its own curvature of space assigned, which has its own energy distribution assigned, which has its own gravitational field, etc, ad infinitum. These components which correspond the dark matter and energy are independent to the mass of original object, only to its density, which in violates the equivalent principle.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2012
Therefore, as we can see, the consequential introduction of mass-energy equivalence (which is the direct consequence of relativity) violates another fundamental postulate of general relativity - which makes this theory intrinsically inconsistent.

Another question is, how small the massive object handled with general relativity rules only could be for not to collapse into singularity by its own weight? This question has been answered in 1964 already: no such limit actually does exist - each such an object will just collapse into singularity with no mercy, no matter how small or lightweight it actually is. You'll need to consider another theory or ad-hoced assumptions independent to relativity postulates - or the general relativity can/will not work by itself.

IMO every layman should know about these limits of mainstream theories.
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Apr 04, 2012
@Fleet: Great links. I do recall having read the VF paper, but that was after I read about the satellite tracking data, so it was easy from that information to surmise VF was just trying to be some kind of "denialist".

I had never seen the Carlip paper until a few minutes ago, it was simply a good synopsis of what I already knew in the broader scope of my engineering curriculum studies in physics, chemistry, thermo, & nuclear reactor design.

It appears to me, the FTL'ers are trying to eek out "infinite parameters" inside the sphere of a finite Universe. They surmise that if they can somehow design an "instantaneous" Universe, that will give them the cover they need for an "infinite" Universe & the "perpetual motion machine" they so sacredly covet.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Apr 06, 2012
@Fleet: Great links.


Glad I could help.

surmise VF was just trying to be some kind of "denialist".


I think some older scientists feel they need to go a bit more on the fringe to stay in the public eye as progress leaves their expertise behind.

It appears to me, the FTL'ers are trying to eek out "infinite parameters" inside the sphere of a finite Universe.


I think many of them never get beyond the Newtonian concepts so consider action-at-a-distance to be instantaneous if there is no aberration. The old analogy of gravity being like the slope of a hill is useful. Release a ball on the slope and it rolls immediately, but it makes no sense to say the "speed of the slope" is infinite. It is really only sensible to talk of the speed of changes in gravity.

The only recent attempt at a direct measurement of which I am aware was that of Kopeikin and Fomalont:

http://en.wikiped...surement
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2012
I'm not here to fight against general relativity (GR) blindly. But the fact, this theory is using the Newton's law in its derivation, i.e. the same law, which the GR is supposed to replace serves as an indicia, this theory is approximative and incomplete.


It is fundamental that any new theory must pass all the tests of old theories. Einstein started from Newtonian Mechanics for SR but then corrected Newton's erroneous assumption about time using Maxwell's Equations to make the older approximation into an exact theory.

Similarly, Einstein started from the Reimann geometry of SR in developing GR but still had to ensure it fitted all existing experimental tests. Knowing it must be asymptotic to Newtonian gravity as the field went to zero was a way of achieving that, but GR completely discards the concept of gravity as a vector force described by an inverse square law so to say it uses "Newton's law in its derivation" is quite wrong.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2012
From the page you quote, Voyager set an upper limit of 10^14GeV/m^3 but QM predicts a much higher level therefore QM is wrong, not GR
Both theories are equally wrong


No, the incorrect prediction of the density of vacuum energy lies only with QM. GR does not predict its value, it only says the equation of state should be w=-1 if it is modelled by the Cosmological Constant.

The currently measured value is -0.980 give or take 0.053.

http://en.wikiped...d_models

No error there.
Terriva
1 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2012
GR completely discards the concept of gravity as a vector force described by an inverse square law so to say it uses "Newton's law in its derivation" is quite wrong
From which equation the Newton's gravitational constant got into Einstein's field equations? Maybe we could trace its genetic origin here.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2012

I think some older scientists feel they need to go a bit more on the fringe to stay in the public eye as progress leaves their expertise behind.

I think many of them never get beyond the Newtonian concepts so consider action-at-a-distance to be instantaneous....

(...but the denialists need "spooky action" so they can continue promoting infinite parameters inside the finite space better known as the "universe").....

The old analogy of gravity being like the slope of a hill is useful. Release a ball on the slope and it rolls immediately, but it makes no sense to say the "speed of the slope" is infinite. It is really only sensible to talk of the speed of changes in gravity.


@Fleet: This won't deter them, remember even Hawking fell into the "information loss" trap of "infinity". It was the most embarassing period of his career, just as when Einstein came up against Einstein & lost on the CC issue. Excellent job my friend, our astronomy club appreciates it.

Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Apr 08, 2012
GR completely discards the concept of gravity as a vector force described by an inverse square law so to say it uses "Newton's law in its derivation" is quite wrong
From which equation the Newton's gravitational constant got into Einstein's field equations? Maybe we could trace its genetic origin here.


Here is John Baez's introduction:

http://math.ucr.e...ne2.html

The constant is mentioned on the third line of part 13, as I said before, it just converts the units after you have developed the theory.

In the same way, 25.4mm = 1 inch converts distance units regardless of the theory, and 299792458m = 1s in SR (a.k.a. the "speed of light").
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Apr 08, 2012
@Fleet: ... Excellent job my friend, our astronomy club appreciates it.


Thank you. It's good to know dispelling the disinformation matters to others as well.