Penn astrophysicists zero in on gravity theory

May 11, 2012
A galactic image taken by the Hubble Space Telescope. Galaxies like this one "screen" the effect of a hypothetical fifth force.

(Phys.org) -- Most people take gravity for granted. But for University of Pennsylvania astrophysicist Bhuvnesh Jain, the nature of gravity is the question of a lifetime. As scientists have been able to see farther and deeper into the universe, the laws of gravity have been revealed to be under the influence of an unexplained force.

By innovatively analyzing a well-studied class of stars in , Jain and his colleagues — Vinu Vikram, Anna Cabre and Joseph Clampitt at Penn and Jeremy Sakstein at the University of Cambridge — have produced new findings that narrow down the possibilities of what this force could be. Their findings, published on the Arxiv, are a vindication of Einstein’s theory of . Having survived a century of tests in the solar system, it has passed this new test in galaxies beyond our own as well.

In 1998, astrophysicists made an observation that turned gravity on its ear: the ’s rate of expansion is speeding up. If gravity acts the same everywhere, stars and galaxies propelled outward by the Big Bang should continuously slow down, like objects thrown from an explosion do here on Earth.

This observation used distant supernovae to show that the expansion of the universe was speeding up rather than slowing down. This indicated that something was missing from physicists’ understanding of how the universe responds to gravity, which is described by Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Two branches of theories have sprung up, each trying to fill its gaps in a different way.

One branch — dark energy — suggests that the vacuum of space has an energy associated with it and that energy causes the observed acceleration. The other falls under the umbrella of “scalar-tensor” gravity theories, which effectively posits a fifth force (beyond gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces) that alters gravity on cosmologically large scales.

“These two possibilities are both radical in their own way,” Jain said. “One is saying that general relativity is correct, but we have this strange new form of energy. The other is saying we don't have a new form of energy, but gravity is not described by general relativity everywhere.”

Jain’s research is focused on the latter possibility; he is attempting to characterize the properties of this fifth force that disrupts the predictions general relativity makes outside our own galaxy, on cosmic length scales. Jain’s recent breakthrough came about when he and his colleagues realized they could use the troves of data on a special property of a common type of star as an exquisite test of gravity.

Penn astrophysicists zero in on gravity theory
Bhuvnesh Jain in his office. The lens simulates gravitational lensing, a phenomenon predicted by general relativity.

Astrophysicists have been pursuing tests of gravity in the cosmos for many years, but conventional tests require data on millions of galaxies. Future observations are expected to provide such enormous datasets in the coming data. But Jain and his colleagues were able to bypass the conventional approach.

“We’ve been able to perform a powerful test using just 25 nearby galaxies that is more than a hundred times more stringent than standard cosmological tests,” Jain said.

The nearby galaxies are important because they contain stars called cepheids that are bright enough to be seen individually. Moreover, cepheids have been used for decades as a kind of interstellar yardstick because their brightness oscillates in a precise and predictable way.

“You can measure the brightness of a light bulb at some distance and know that, if you move it twice as far, it will be four times as faint. So you can tell just by the difference in its observed brightness how much further you moved it,” Jain said. “But you need to know how intrinsically bright the bulb is first to determine its actual distance from us.”

Cepheids have a unique trait that allows astrophysicists to get this critical information: their luminosity oscillates over the course of days and weeks. The known relationship between a cepheid’s rate of oscillation and intrinsic brightness serves as that baseline for calculating its distance from Earth, which in turn serves as a baseline for calculating the distance of other celestial objects. The accelerating universe observation, for example, relied upon cepheid data for scale.

“Now that we understand a little bit more about what makes the cepheids pulsate — a balance of gravity and pressure — we can use them to learn about gravity, not just distance,” Jain said. “If the fifth force enhances gravity even a little bit, it will make them pulsate faster.”

Because of their usefulness, there was already more than a decade of data on cepheids based on the Hubble Space Telescope and other large telescopes in Chile and Hawaii. Using that data, Jain and his colleagues compared nearly a thousand stars in 25 galaxies. This allowed them to make comparisons between galaxies that are theoretically “screened” or protected from the effects of the hypothetical fifth force and those that are not.

Larger galaxies and ones that belong to galaxy clusters are screened, while smaller, isolated galaxies are not.

“If we compare galaxies that don't permit this extra force, like our own galaxy, with others that do, then we should see a difference in the way those galaxies’ cepheids behave,” Jain said. “Because this new force would increase the speed of their oscillations and because we can use the rate of their oscillations to their measure distance from us, the measurement we get from cepheids in unscreened galaxies should be smaller than distance measurements made with different techniques.”

Jain and his colleagues ultimately did not see variation between their control sample of screened galaxies and their test sample of unscreened ones. Their results line up exactly with the prediction of Einstein’s . This means that the potential range and strength of the fifth force is severely constrained.

“We find consistency with Einstein’s theory of gravity and we sharply narrow the space available to these other theories. Many of these theories are now ruled out by the data,” Jain said.

With better data on nearby galaxies in the coming years, Jain expects that an entire class of gravity theories could essentially be eliminated. But there remains the exciting possibility that better data may reveal small deviations from Einstein’s gravity, one of the most famous scientific theories of all time.

Explore further: Two families of comets found around nearby star Beta Pictoris

More information: arxiv.org/abs/1204.6044

Related Stories

Light from galaxy clusters confirms theory of relativity

Sep 28, 2011

All observations in astronomy are based on light emitted from stars and galaxies and, according to the general theory of relativity, the light will be affected by gravity. At the same time all interpretations ...

Integral challenges physics beyond Einstein

Jun 30, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- ESA's Integral gamma-ray observatory has provided results that will dramatically affect the search for physics beyond Einstein. It has shown that any underlying quantum 'graininess' of space ...

Cosmic thread that binds us revealed

Sep 29, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Astronomers at The Australian National University have found evidence for the textile that forms the fabric of the Universe.

Physicists propose test for loop quantum gravity

Jan 03, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- As a quantum theory of gravity, loop quantum gravity could potentially solve one of the biggest problems in physics: reconciling general relativity and quantum mechanics. But like all tentative ...

Recommended for you

New window on the early Universe

20 hours ago

Scientists at the Universities of Bonn and Cardiff see good times approaching for astrophysicists after hatching a new observational strategy to distill detailed information from galaxies at the edge of ...

Chandra's archives come to life

22 hours ago

Every year, NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory looks at hundreds of objects throughout space to help expand our understanding of the Universe. Ultimately, these data are stored in the Chandra Data Archive, ...

New robotic telescope revolutionizes the study of stars

23 hours ago

In the last 8 months a fully robotic telescope in Tenerife has been carrying out high-precision observations of the motion of stellar surfaces. The telescope is the first in the SONG telescope network and ...

User comments : 263

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Origin
May 11, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Origin
1 / 5 (27) May 11, 2012
The shielding-of-shielding model of cold dark matter leads into some predictions. For example, it's amplified when two or more massive objects are in conjunction. In this situation the dark matter fibbers would become most prominent. IMO no other model of gravity accounts into it, as both MOND/TeVeS theories, both MOG/STVG theories doesn't account into geometry of neighbouring objects. In addition, the shielding-of-shielding model could explain some gravitational anomalies, which do occur during eclipses, like the Allais effect.

But even in context of AWT the shielding-of-shielding is not the only reason of dark matter, because not all dark matter is of geometric nature. So called the hot dark matter is supposed to be formed with neutrinos, which are attracted to cold dark matter fibbers due their negative gravitational charge.
Tuxford
1 / 5 (16) May 11, 2012
I wonder if these guys included non-existent time dilation in their distance calculations??? It would seem to be a critical assumption....

http://phys.org/n...752.html

Origin
1 / 5 (27) May 11, 2012
If the fifth force enhances gravity even a little bit, it will make them pulsate faster.
In AWT the "fifth force" resulting from shielding-of-shielding mechanism is mass dependent, as it violates the equivalence principle of general relativity. It will manifest only for small objects and for large objects it tends to manifest outside of them. The change in frequency of pulsars or cepheids should therefore manifest only when such object would cross the connection line between two other massive objects.

The galactic plane should have increased density of dark matter, because the shielding of gravitational shielding is the most probable there. The increased density of dark matter would lead into increased speed of decay of radioactive elements, which is heating the Earth mantle and oceans. So I suspect, the global warming is induced with gravitational shadow of Great rift shielding the center of galaxy at the galactic plane, which the solar system is just passing through.
jalmy
1 / 5 (13) May 11, 2012
I think they are incorrect about the apparent observations of the universe increasing in speed. I think that we are moving much faster through the universe then they think and the time dilation is throwing off their numbers and observations to make it appear as if the universe is speeding up when in fact it isnt. Einstein died almost 60 years ago and modern science with all its math and tech. still cannot rival what this man did just by spending some time thinking about things.
Origin
1 / 5 (12) May 11, 2012
I wonder if these guys included non-existent time dilation in their distance calculations?
The absence of time dilation applies to quasars only, not the galactic clusters.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (14) May 11, 2012
Again, they did not prove the universe is accelerating!
If the universe "is acceleating", that means the acceleration is happening now. But the only galaxies claimed to show this are presumably five billion light years away, viewed as they behaved five billion years ago, not now!
The "researchers" said the galaxies presumably viewed five billion years ago were "farther away then they should be". That is their exact line. But how did they know how far away they "should be"? By looking at the spectral Doppler shift, indicating speed, and using Hubble's Law comparing distance and velocity. Theyb claimed the Type 1a syupernovas were dimmer than they should be, so the galaxies should be moveing faster than thought. But, then, why didn't that show up in their Doppler shifts?
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (2) May 11, 2012
A fifth repulsive force would be a byproduct of dark energy.
julianpenrod
1.4 / 5 (9) May 11, 2012
A few points about the subject.
Among other things, the "accelerating universe" theory was based on observation of Type 1a sypernovae, not Cepheid variables!
Too, the mehodology is exteremely suspect. Gravity is not so "screened", there is no reason to assume a universal fifth force would be. It should exist everywhere and have significant effects only on large scales, if the small scale observations in the solar system can be trusted. Perhaps gravity itself is two different forces, one that drops off with distance differently than the other.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (8) May 11, 2012
And the idea of four fundamental forces is not even wholly legitimate. The "strong force" is represented more as a manifestation of quantum mechanics in the presence of hadron collections, protons, for example, coverting to neutrons then back to protons in a nucleus, so proton electrostatic repulsion doesn't cause the nucleus to dissolve. The term "force" is incorrectly given to the weak interaction which, essentially, is a means whereby sub particles inside potentially decaying particles convert to other sub particles that do not reside together and so cause the larger particle to decay. Many don't realize the imprecisions used in atomic physics as supposed "descriptions' of what's happening.
MrGrynch
1.4 / 5 (11) May 11, 2012
The idea of expansion at all is based on a flawed reliance on red-shift of light. As Halton Arp pointed out, red-shift occurs at discrete values symmetrically along the galactic plane. This implies that red-shift has an intrinsic aspect to it, which is NOT accounted for in current models. This makes all assumptions about distance, age, and recessional velocities questionable, and any theory based upon them equally so.
Origin
1 / 5 (10) May 11, 2012
The weak deceleration, which is slowing down the Pioneer spaceprobes is equal to the product of light speed and Hubble constant with 10% precision a =c * H = 8 x 10^{-10} meters/second^2. It means, the integrated deviation of 400,000 kilometers in both cases would correspond the expansion of Universe during time, which the light would need for its travel from the Sun to the actual position of Pioneer spaceprobes.
carmenabdalla
5 / 5 (4) May 11, 2012
this is not only fascinating research, but this type of studies have such huge and profound implications, they could re-shape our entire understanding of the Universe we live in and the forces that govern it
Anda
5 / 5 (14) May 11, 2012
Stupid "water ripples" aether brain Callippo/Rawa1 is back as "Origin"!
No one likes u Origin :)
Tuxford
1 / 5 (6) May 11, 2012
@Origin,

LaViolette predicted the Pioneer anomaly before it's discovery, and asked JPL about it in the early '80's. They did not acknowledge it until the late 90's. His explanation which accounts for intergalactic red-shift, also includes this effect, being a slight blue shift of the signal within galaxies. His explanation accounts for about half the best measured discrepancy, a discrepancy acknowledged by senior JPL scientists to exist, regardless of the spacecraft.

His explanation also accounts for the discreet nature of the red-shift at extreme distances. Does the universe exist only in discreet shells at extreme distances???
Nanoparticler
5 / 5 (19) May 11, 2012
What is it about Global Warming articles and Gravity articles that brings out all the nutjobs? Seriously, does anyone think that trolling science articles about gravity theories is fun...or makes you cool? The psychology here is fascinating. I, personally, LOVE hearing about "dense aether theory." However, can I spell it "ether theory?" More importantly, if I huff it, can I get as high as some of you guys clearly are?
Skultch
5 / 5 (6) May 11, 2012
There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge, and I knew we'd get into that rotten stuff pretty soon.


Ah, devil ether. It makes you behave like the village drunkard in some early Irish novel. Total loss of all basic motor skills. Blurred vision, no balance, numb tongue. The mind recoils in horror, unable to communicate with the spinal column. Which is interesting because you can actually watch yourself behaving in this terrible way, but you can't control it.
jalmy
3.8 / 5 (14) May 11, 2012
Ya so they solved the pioneer thing a couple of weeks ago, seems it is caused by the electronics compartment radiating heat.
http://planetary....459.html
Do more reading less writing.
Tuxford
1.7 / 5 (12) May 11, 2012
Nonsense. JPL Juno scientist said last year it exists on other spacecraft with different configurations. These guys want to claim it is solved. Makes you feel better, right.... Relax. Go to Starbucks.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (7) May 11, 2012
There is nothing basically wrong with Origin/Terriva's "ripples in pond" hypothesis as it agrees, basically, with my own hypothesis of Adimensional space/Time having always existed even prior to Big Bang, and subsequent expansion of contents of BB (matter and energy) according to Fibonacci Sequence for expansion outward in all directions from source/Singularity. The difference is that Origin/Terriva seems to refuse to acknowledge Big Bang as source/Singularity for his Aether and its subatomic particles and eventual creation of stars and galaxies within that Aether. I think his Aether is just another word for "space", but I might be mistaken.
Red shift and blue shift is good method for now of measuring distances of bodies from our Sun, but better methods must be found for more precise accuracy.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (5) May 11, 2012
As I have not explained yet in the other thread that the Dark Matter and Dark Energy reside within the Adimensional space, I now say it here. Consider that what you see in Hubble and other telescopes and instruments consist of dust, gases, matter, energies, EM, Gravity, etc., all as results of atomic and subatomic particles and their reactions with each other. But the Dark Matter and Dark Energy cannot be seen with eye or instruments but somehow, their force supposedly can be detected through effects and possible action on cosmic bodies. However, the DM and DE, as part of Adimensional space, does not actually have big effect on cosmic bodies due, in part, to its separateness of dimensionality from 3Dimensional matter and energies. Three dimensional space cannot be seen either, as it is clear, and only evidence of its existence only seems apparent by the cosmic bodies, et al, that "float" in it.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (6) May 11, 2012
I am not, at this point, believing in 3Dimensional space due to that space not actually having quantifiable dimension except by a guess. It has no mass and no force that is discernible. Whatever is attributed to 3D space, I believe to be only the force of Gravity as space of itself has no force, but only enables force. I am not even so sure that the 3D space came out of the Big Bang along with matter and energy. It is possible that there is only Adimensional space in which all matter/energy floats. If space had 3 dimensions, then it would be possible to see it. All we can see are the matter and energy and the Forces within the visible universe.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (6) May 11, 2012
But the Gravity and all other forces that affect 3D matter has no effect on the DM and DE that resides within the Adimensional space. That space is everywhere, cannot be seen or detected presently, and is not subjected to interacting with matter and energy. Dust and gases float in it; gamma and X-rays, et al, flow through it unimpeded, due to the Adim space ability to part itself to accommodate the forces and matter that go through it. It is similar to river of water flowing downstream. When the water encounters a big rock, the water must part itself to flow on either side of the rock and then rejoin on other side.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (6) May 11, 2012
That is property of Adimensional space; it exists and enables expansion of universe. It enables matter and energy to make stars and galaxies by being slightly quiescent but always present.
Pyle
4 / 5 (4) May 11, 2012
JPL Juno scientist said last year it exists on other spacecraft with different configurations.

Citation? Several groups have all come to the same conclusion for the Pioneer anomaly. I have yet to see anything from other space craft as you have mentioned.

With Pioneer in mind, where is MOG in all of this? Based on my cursory reading the Modified Gravity (MG) analyzed in the paper seems to be of a different sort than Moffat's MOG. Moffat's fifth force works in the opposite manner of the fifth forces in these MG theories. The MG fifth force attempts to explain accelerating expansion, i.e. Dark Energy. Moffat's MOG fifth force attempts to explain galactic rotation and Dark Matter, but leaves accelerated expansion and Dark Energy without an alternate explanation.

I'll have to do some work to figure out if the proposed Cepheid variability test is relevant for MOG as they indicate it is for MG theories.

Might have to find myself a new pet theory.
Terriva
1 / 5 (6) May 11, 2012
his explanation which accounts for intergalactic red-shift, also includes this effect, being a slight blue shift of the signal.
I do personally consider LaViolette's prediction of blue shift of Pioneer maser very interesting, because this is essentially what the dense aether predicts too: the Hubble red shift observable with visible light and the blue shift observable with the light of wavelength longer than CMBR radiation. Because we lack the reliable distant sources of long wavelenght EM radiation, the Pioneer maser could help us to confirm this prediction (Pioneer masers is using frequency 2.1 GHz, whereas the frequency of CMBR has frequency 160.2 GHz). The water surface analogy of this situation is pictured here: the short wavelength ripples scatter to longer wavelengths, the long wavelength ripples do expand instead.
Terriva
1 / 5 (2) May 11, 2012
With Pioneer in mind, where is MOG in all of this?
MOG is not completely wrong. The point is, the general relativity is not complete theory. The derivation of Einstein's field equations is based on energy conservation: the energy of space-time curvature is equal to the energy of gravitational field, which is the reason, why space says the matter, how to move and the matter says the space how to curve. But it's not complete story, because the curvature of gravitational field has its energy density too. This energy density is quite minute under normal conditions - but it manifests just at the places, where the gradient of gravity field is strongest - at the perimeter of massive objects. Because energy density corresponds the mass density by E=mc^2 equation, this energy field leads to the weak massive field around galaxies, which correspond the dark matter. Under normal circumstances this field is very weak, but at the case of large or very dense massive objects it manifests clearly
Terriva
1 / 5 (2) May 11, 2012
MOG theory therefore implies, the gradient of gravity field across whole solar system should manifest with additional weak massive field at the sufficient distance from Sun, which would slow down the Pioneer spaceprobe at the moment, when it escapes from solar system. Intuitively, this result can be described as follows: far from a source gravity is stronger than the Newtonian prediction, but at shorter distances, it is counteracted by a repulsive fifth force due to the vector field. On the scale of the solar system, the theory predicts no significant deviation from the results of Newton and Einstein.
Unfortunately, all relativity and field based theories fail in the observations, in which the dark matter is behaving like viscous slimy fluid, for example during collisions of galactic clusters. Therefore the dense aether model considers, the dark matter field attracts the heavier particles, which have the opposite gravitational charge like this field, but they've its own inertia.
Terriva
1 / 5 (2) May 11, 2012
Even more detailed insight is as follows: at the place of gravitational shadow between massive objects the excess of gravitational waves is formed. These gravitational waves are normally tachyons and as such of the negative mass. At the moment, when their density exceeds certain limit, the solitons of gravitational waves are formed, i.e. the neutrinos, which have imaginary rest mass. They're behaving like the massive particles, only slightly faster than the light. The very massive neutrinos could become even of positive rest mass. Whereas the gravitational shadow propagates superluminaly, the neutrinos are slower and they inflow/outflow into this shadow like the massive colliding particles. This complex mixture of gravitational waves and their solitons of different mass is what is forming the dark matter around massive bodies, especially during their conjunctions. It behaves both like the vector field, both like the scalar particles in analogy to wave-particle duality of QM.
adwarakanath
5 / 5 (10) May 11, 2012
So many nutjobs. WOW. Rev. Penrod, please don't comment here when you have no idea of what you are talking about. A first year physics student could call your bullshit.

Please, Physorg mods, can we not keep these morons out? We want healthy scientific discussions, not random rantings of retarted rubbertubes.
julianpenrod
1.4 / 5 (10) May 11, 2012
adwarakanath claims a "first year physics student" could reveal supposed flaws in what I am saying. Since adwarakanath seems to recognize these flaws and knows what level of physics could contradict them, that means adwarakanath must be aware of the flaws themselves. Will adwarakanath demonstrate their knowledge of these flaws and why they are flaws? Failure to do so will be for adwarakanath to admit they are a malingerer, talking only to hear themselves talk.
Tuxford
2.1 / 5 (7) May 11, 2012

Citation? Several groups have all come to the same conclusion for the Pioneer anomaly. I have yet to see anything from other space craft as you have mentioned.


http://science.jp...e/Levin/

At the time this guy presented on the Juno mission in early 2010, he was it's principal scientist. I asked him straight up if they had accounted for the Pioneer effect. He asked for name, then said yes, as it was a key factor in making the careful velocity differential measurements they need to map Jupiter's internal structure. They have the best guy working on it...

Still, he admitted my question was valid; that the effect was real. He also offered that JPL has noticed the effect on other spacecraft, measuring the effect on Earth flyby's. So claims to have solved it due to various radiative effects, I regard, as just claims. These spacecraft vary, but the effect is constant, according to Levin.
Terriva
1 / 5 (4) May 11, 2012
Will adwarakanath demonstrate their knowledge of these flaws and why they are flaws?
I seriously doubt it...;-)
These spacecraft vary, but the effect is constant, according to Levin.
IMO it's still hard to say. For most of spaceprobes (including the Voyagers) this effect is unmeasurable, as they use the active propellers during their flights.
komone
1 / 5 (1) May 11, 2012
Perhaps Einstein's cosmological constant was not "the greatest mistake" but merely a prediction without an available path to a physical explanation?
simplicio
5 / 5 (1) May 11, 2012
Einstein track record is amazing especially that we now live in sophisticated hitech times and can test things to very high levels.
Terriva
1.8 / 5 (5) May 11, 2012
Perhaps Einstein's cosmological constant was not "the greatest mistake" but merely a prediction without an available path to a physical explanation?

Nope, Einstein used it as a postdiction. He believed in flat steady state Universe and he introduced this constant for fitting of his newly derived general relativity to his belief, which would make it more trustworthy in the eyes of the rest of physicists. It was sorta cheating, because the original derivation didn't require anything like it.
Shabs42
5 / 5 (3) May 11, 2012
Please, Physorg mods, can we not keep these morons out? We want healthy scientific discussions, not random rantings of retarted rubbertubes.


Couldn't we at least do some sort of downranking system? Maybe if a comment is averaging less than a 1.5 after 10 comments it is automatically minimized so you have to click to expand it?
Lurker2358
3.4 / 5 (10) May 11, 2012
Couldn't we at least do some sort of downranking system? Maybe if a comment is averaging less than a 1.5 after 10 comments it is automatically minimized so you have to click to expand it?


Self-regulating doesn't work on internet forums, because it causes "clicks" or just trolling wars.

How would you like it if random people could log on, or even make phony accounts, and give you enough negatives to permanently minimize your posts?

That sort of system would be bad for any board, because "real" trolls and bullies will make multiple accounts and just spam negatives on everybody.

Then it devolves into all out troll or clan wars, which still happens on many other websites, with people hacking the site, making hundreds of accounts to negative people, falsely accusing people to the admins, etc.

This site already has some of that behavior as is.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (7) May 11, 2012
Perhaps Einstein's cosmological constant was not "the greatest mistake" but merely a prediction without an available path to a physical explanation?

Nope, Einstein used it as a postdiction. He believed in flat steady state Universe and he introduced this constant for fitting of his newly derived general relativity to his belief, which would make it more trustworthy in the eyes of the rest of physicists. It was sorta cheating, because the original derivation didn't require anything like it.
- Terriva -

Adimensional space could be considered steady-state universe due to the hypothetical fact that this space has always existed and provides the smooth matrix for matter and energy to transition from Big Bang inflation and spread out through universe and keep going. Red shift is clear indicator of outward expansion matter/energy/Forces. If not a closed universe, then expansion may never come to a halt, but might slow down somewhat, possibly by Gravity from the Source.
Shootist
2.7 / 5 (7) May 12, 2012
Nope, Einstein used it as a postdiction. He believed in flat steady state Universe and he introduced this constant


not quite correct. at the time consensus science held that the galaxy WAS the entire Universe and the Universe was steady state. Shapely had yet to find the center and Hubble was yet to discover the red-shift, and with it, the expanding Universe. After that the CosmoConstant became trendy.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet May 12, 2012
Couldn't we at least do some sort of downranking system? Maybe if a comment is averaging less than a 1.5 after 10 comments it is automatically minimized so you have to click to expand it?


At the top of the page click on "Account" then in the Dropdown go to "Activity" and there to "Display Settings"

There you can set a threshold. Comments with a lower rating will be automatically filtered out.
rah
1 / 5 (1) May 12, 2012
..."This means that the potential range and strength of the fifth force is severely constrained." To like, zero.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) May 12, 2012
To like, zero.

Possibly, though we shouldn't jump to that conclusion too hastily. After all: we already have precedent of an effect which only really becomes noticeable at a certain range (relativistic effects - which only really gets noticeable close to the speed of light).
For hundreds of years it looked like space and time were nicely linear things and then suddenly they weren't.
Terriva
1 / 5 (5) May 12, 2012
Red shift is clear indicator of outward expansion matter/energy/Forces
A clear indicator you say? We can interpret it with scattering of light at the vacuum fluctuations inside of steady state Universe as well. Such an explanation even fits better many later observations and concepts, including the inflation, dark matter and energy - which are ad-hoced in Big Bang cosmology.
at the time consensus science held that the galaxy WAS the entire Universe and the Universe was steady state
Consensus is just another form of religion. It's your private decision, if you will believe in some consensus - or rather your private theory (like me). Einstein did the former one and he manipulated his equations to fit this religion. And he was indeed punished for it. If he wouldn't do it, he would predict the red shift and he would probably got a new Nobel price for it. Instead of it, he did lost his chance. Not to say, such manipulation with equations is close to definition of scientific fraud
Benni
1 / 5 (2) May 12, 2012

Nope, Einstein used it as a postdiction. He believed in flat steady state Universe


No he did not beleive in a "flat" or "steady state" Universe. He emphatically declared it to be "spherical" (not flat) and "finite", read up on his GR. He declared the Universe to be "spherical" & "finite" because he understood that Conservation of Energy does not work in a Universe with any physical parameter that is infinite in size. The Universe is a giant pressure (energy) containment vessel, poke a hole in the wall of that finite vessel & it will begin to lose energy and deflate, so far no one has found a hole in the wall of the finmitre Universe.
Terriva
1 / 5 (5) May 12, 2012
No he did not beleive in a "flat" or "steady state" Universe. He emphatically declared it to be "spherical" (not flat) and "finite", read up on his GR
I see, just another expert... Why not to read some Wikipedia article at least, before you'll interfere the discussion? A first sentence would be enough for you...
.. the cosmological constant ... was proposed by Albert Einstein as a modification of his original theory of general relativity to achieve a stationary universe. Einstein abandoned the concept after the observation of the Hubble redshift indicated that the universe might not be stationary, as he had based his theory on the idea that the universe is unchanging.."
The Internet discussions are flooded with trolls, who are just twaddling, because they're lazy or incompetent to become familiar with basic facts first.
CardacianNeverid
5 / 5 (5) May 12, 2012
The Internet discussions are flooded with trolls, who are just twaddling, because they're lazy or incompetent to become familiar with basic facts first -ZephirTard

Hypocrite.
Terriva
1 / 5 (5) May 12, 2012
I'm strictly adhering to well accepted facts and distinguishing them from my private ideas. Such an ideas are labeled with words like the "in dense aether model", "in AWT". My opponents often calling it annoying, unwanted promotion of AWT. But for me it's just thorough distinguishing of private ideas from these intersubjectively accepted ones.

Many people here are claiming their private ideas as an intersubjectivelly accepted facts. If Benni would be honest, he would say: "IN MY OPINION, the Einstein did not believe in a 'flat' or 'steady state' Universe.", because this claim can be found nowhere on the Internet. He would say "IN MY THEORY the Universe is a giant pressure vessel, poke a hole in the wall of that finite vessel" etc. - because this claim can be found nowhere on the Internet.

So I do perceive the labeling of my private ideas and theories as a sign of intellectual honesty. I'm not mixing the intersubjectivelly accepted facts with my suggestions nowhere on the Internet.
Terriva
1 / 5 (5) May 12, 2012
The Internet discussions aren't suited for parroting of well accepted facts, which everyone can read at the Wikipedia and textbooks. In certain sense, just the confrontation of the alternative ideas should occur here. But these alternative ideas should be always labeled so. We should always confront them with well accepted facts and such confrontation is possible only when we will distinguish them thoroughly. I don't see nothing hypocritical with it, such a labeling is actually the necessary condition of every Socratic discussion.

The promotion of PROPERLY LABELLED private ideas doesn't mean, their author is not aware of these intersubjectivelly accepted ones - on the contrary. I know quite well, how the mainstream theories work and where their connecting points with my ideas are. Just the absence of labeling makes their author a troll, who is unable to distinguish between his private ideas and intersubjectivelly accepted facts.
CardacianNeverid
4.8 / 5 (5) May 12, 2012
I'm strictly adhering to well accepted facts and distinguishing them from my private ideas.

AWT is well accepted by whom? Cranks? Here's a newsflash - cranks don't count!

If you think otherwise then write a paper and submit it for peer review, otherwise go away.
Terriva
1 / 5 (5) May 12, 2012
AWT is well accepted by whom? Cranks?
Can you read? If the AWT would be accepted with mainstream, I wouldn't start my sentences with words "In AWT". You missed the whole point of my previous posts.
If you think otherwise then write a paper and submit it for peer review, otherwise go away.
The single paper is not enough for explanation of AWT in all connections. And frankly, people are flooded with scientific papers, which are just following the grants and they're very incremental. The AWT is based on certain paradigm of thinking, the working of which can be understood in many contexts only.

Technically speaking, I could write the single paper: "LOL, people, the Universe is random material stuff, just handle it so" - and the whole AWT would be ready. But who could manage such a concept in practical situations? It must be explained patiently again and again. The repetition is the mother of wisdom here. The AWT is dual to deterministic theories and it must be handled so.
Husky
not rated yet May 12, 2012
if we assume that a finite amount of space contains a finite amount of energy and thus a finite amount of dark energy and all is obeying to the law of conservation of energy, then it must follow that dark energy cannot expand space indefinately, because it will have transferred its momentum to that space, so while the total energy of the system in that expanded cube will remain the same, the average density of dark energy within that cube will be lower.

That doesn't mean the universe will stop expanding (if there is insufficient gravity to counter it) , just that i would expect it stop accellerating at some point, what happens there afterward is anybodies guess.
MorituriMax
5 / 5 (5) May 12, 2012
It would be cool that if we were signed in we could have a blocklist so once we select a given nutjob, we never see their posts again.

Some of them seem to think this is the place where they post their manifesto of the day over a half-dozen sequential posts.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) May 12, 2012
The absence of time dilation applies to quasars only, not the galactic clusters.


Time dilation affects quasars in the same way as all other distant sources. In fact time dilation alone may allow the redshift of quasars to be determined to within a few percent:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.5191

You may previously have seen the paper cited as ref 3 in the above which failed to measure time dilation using a different technique. The probable conclusion from Hawkins work is that brighness variations occur over longer periods than the 24 years his data covered.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) May 12, 2012
Again, they did not prove the universe is accelerating! If the universe "is acceleating", that means the acceleration is happening now. But the only galaxies claimed to show this are presumably five billion light years away, viewed as they behaved five billion years ago, not now!


No, the conclusion comes from fitting a curve to observations spread over the range from now about 7 billion years ago.

http://ned.ipac.c...re4.jpeg

adwarakanath claims a "first year physics student" could reveal supposed flaws in what I am saying


Probably, I'm a layman in this field and I can reveal them.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (8) May 12, 2012
Red shift is clear indicator of outward expansion matter/energy/Forces
A clear indicator you say? We can interpret it with scattering of light ..


No you can't, Compton Scattering (which is the technical term for what you are describing) fails for at least two reasons, it is frequency dependent while cosmological redshift is not and it would make the universe opaque. As I pointed out to you before, even Zwicky in 1929 who first proposed Tired Light made it clear in the paper that Compton Scattering would not work.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (9) May 12, 2012
I'm strictly adhering to well accepted facts and distinguishing them from my private ideas. Such an ideas are labeled with words like the "in dense aether model", "in AWT". My opponents often calling it annoying, unwanted promotion of AWT. But for me it's just thorough distinguishing of private ideas from these intersubjectively accepted ones.


I would certainly support your identification of your posts as your own thoughts, what causes the problem is that your method of doing so gives the impression that these ideas are based on a theory when in fact no such theory exists, there is is no such thing as "AWT". If you just said "I think" as others often do, you would then be seen to be honest. Lying to fake credibility only has the opposite effect when you have been found out.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (8) May 12, 2012
if we assume that a finite amount of space contains a finite amount of energy and thus a finite amount of dark energy and all is obeying to the law of conservation of energy, then it must follow that dark energy cannot expand space indefinately, because it will have transferred its momentum to that space, so while the total energy of the system in that expanded cube will remain the same, the average density of dark energy within that cube will be lower...


What you say is true for that model but that is one form of what is called "quintessence". If as QM suggests, the vacuum creates a constant density of energy then the effect doesn't diminish while the density of matter falls. That is what is described by Einstein's Cosmological Constant and is seen in the lab as the Casimir Effect. Measurements by WMAP etc show the actual behaviour is within 0.5% of being constant.

Dark energy has a negative pressure so the negative work done compensates for the extra vacuum energy.
Husky
not rated yet May 12, 2012
Yes fleet, that was exactly what i am wondering, if the dirac sea of virtual particles get diluted as space expands?, i am pondering the thought that maybe sometimes thesevirtual particles do not annihillate with their own antiparticle in time but get snatched by another antiparticle , of other mass/energy, so you would get leftover fraction energy, that *might* get carried over to stretching space or something...
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) May 12, 2012
Yes fleet, that was exactly what i am wondering, if the dirac sea of virtual particles get diluted as space expands?


It is a question that should be answered by observation. The key parameter is the equation of state (called "w") for dark energy. If the vacuum energy is simply a property so doesn't dilute at all, the value of w should be -1. The current measurement is -0.980 plus or minus 0.053.

i am pondering the thought that maybe sometimes thesevirtual particles do not annihillate with their own antiparticle in time but get snatched by another antiparticle , of other mass/energy, so you would get leftover fraction energy, that *might* get carried over to stretching space or something...


You would still get a matching matter/antimatter balance from the remaining partners. That's why the particle guys are still looking for processes that break the symmetry.
baudrunner
2.6 / 5 (5) May 12, 2012
.. the other falls under the umbrella of scalar-tensor gravity theories, which effectively posits a fifth force .. that alters gravity on cosmologically large scales.
There's a hint,"cosmologically large scales". If a giant big enough to use stars for stepping stones were to take a stroll using the sun and the next star as flag stones, then if we could see him do so, we would see a figure moving slower than the hour hands of a clock, and if he could look down at us on Earth, he would see a blur of activity out of which he would have difficulty extracting any detailed visual information. Our cosomological, and for that matter quantum, observations are perceptions influenced by scales of scope.
baudrunner
1 / 5 (2) May 12, 2012
Are these scientists comparing stars and galaxies to quarks? When a quark is separated from its twin (they occur in pairs) the bond between them grows stronger the farther they are apart, like an elastic band connecting them that relaxes when they close in on one another. Cosmological entities don't behave like that at all. They don't favor pairing, for starters. If the Voyagers 1 and 2 return to the sun, it will be because they no longer have the momentum to continue. They will either run out of steam or start orbiting another body.
Terriva
1 / 5 (3) May 12, 2012
It would be cool that if we were signed in we could have a blocklist so once we select a given nutjob, we never see their posts again.
I proposed it before many years already.
.. Compton Scattering (which is the technical term for what you are describing) fails for at least two reasons..
If it fails, then it's not the scattering, which I'm describing with water surface model. After all, the Compton scattering relies to charged massive particles, which you don't have in the vacuum.
there is is no such thing as "AWT"
The existence of theories is not dependent on what you or me are saying. Theories are logical constructs, whose life is independent to the life or even opinion of their promoters/opponents.
typicalguy
5 / 5 (7) May 12, 2012
These AWT nuts are a bunch of pseudo scientists. When asked (many times by myself and others) to provide a mathematical explination of the theory, they blow it off. These people will criticize string theory,red shift, and even Einstein yet when asked to provide their own disprovable theory that we can calculate, we are presented with the notion that intuition and their word should be good enough reason to believe they have figured out the universe. I'm sorry but when AWT is presented in this manner, it sounds like a cult. At least string theory can eventually be disproved. AWT can never be proven or disproven as we have to depend on their word that it's right. It sounds a bit too much like Heaven's Gate for my liking. It's best to skip the entire comment when you see AWT in it or maybe physics org can provide us with an ignore feature so we never have to see certain user's comments.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (9) May 12, 2012
These AWT nuts are a bunch of pseudo scientists.

There's only one AWT nut (posting under a number of sockpuppets).
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (4) May 12, 2012
From what I have read here, regarding those who insult and suggest to others who are contributing and espousing their theory or hypothesis, even though unpopular, to take their ideas out of the thread and go away is, imo, not even worthy of consideration. It might be different if those making the suggestion were themselves contributing to the cause of science and providing full explanation of their own science facts, but they do not. And it seems to be the same names over and over again and same speech patterns in many threads who are preferring no exchange of ideas and corrections of those ideas from the contributors for the sake of science. I do not understand why Terriva and Julian Penrod are referred to as trolls. Penrod did not even mention religion. I wish to read his contributions, as well as Terriva's and Fleetfoot's, to name a few. Otherwise, all honest contributors to science will be told to go away and only the actual trolls will be left, and will still post no science.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (4) May 12, 2012
My own hypothesis is unpopular. I understand that and accept it. But Fleetfoot and a few others have taken the time to correct any errors I have made and suggest a better way so that it might be possible for me to improve on such ideas as I have decided upon. I appreciate the science help and they understand that I have no science training at University in my country, but that I wish to correlate the facts with my own and decide then which parts are in error. I feel that every honest contributor of science ideas should recognise the real trolls by their insults and who, in reality, have nothing to offer in the threads, except to tell people to go away.
I cannot understand why there is necessary to be hurtful. Such a website that allows bad behaviour will surely not be very popular for long. I also must laugh at seeing one ratings from those who do not speak in the thread to offer a correction or give their own science opinions. It has happened to me also, but I am unconcerned.
Terriva
1 / 5 (5) May 12, 2012
..these people will criticize string theory,red shift, and even Einstein yet when asked to provide their own disprovable theory that we can calculate.
String theory has no calculable predictions as well. But with compare to AWT is even has no predictions, which could be derived logically. BTW the fact, some theory is able to compute something still doesn't mean, it's correct - as the example of epicycle model of geocentric solar system demonstrated. I'm not criticizing red shift and Einstein's theory - I simply provide alternative explanation for them.
at least string theory can eventually be disproved.
Many physicists aren't sure with it. The fact, string theory is forty years old and we still have no evidence for it speaks for itself. With compare to AWT which provides a number of testable predictions. You can recognize them easily, because they're making the proponents of mainstream physics upset.
Terriva
1 / 5 (4) May 12, 2012
AWT can never be proven or disproven as we have to depend on their word that it's right
The question is, if you know some predictions of AWT at all. Just in this thread I named at least ten predictions of AWT regarding the dark matter. These predictions are testable already. If you don't know about it, then you're not qualified to judge it.
typicalguy
5 / 5 (5) May 12, 2012
Ruski, "provide their own facts" implies the AWTpeople you defend are providing facts. They provide nothing but dogmatic belief with no math or actual facts. If you had been here for any length of time, you would know that they come here and claim that AWT predicted any and every theoretical article. These predictions are based on their word without any evidence. If scientists found the universe riding on a turtle's back, you can be sure that they would tell you AWT predicted it. They are even worse than he who shall not be named that believes neutron repulsion is powering the sun. I haven't seen him in a while, he might be in jail?
typicalguy
5 / 5 (8) May 12, 2012
Okay terriva, give me an AWT formula that I can punch numbers into to predict the time dilation in a flat unverse as accurately as relativity does with curved space time. Also, please give me an accurate AWT formula that predicts virtual particles in space without resorting to the use of the standar model.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (3) May 12, 2012
typicalguy, you are mistaken. I am not defending Terriva's AW hypothesis, just as I will not defend the idea of a fifth force, which this thread is about, and which is specifically called a "hypothetical" fifth force on the first page next to the picture. I only wish to hear all sides of argument and to draw my own conclusion, and possibly add or subtract to my own hypothesis of Adimensional space and Time. I am not yet finished with my Admin s/T. It is yet incomplete and, as I have said, Terriva does not seem to want to commit to Big Bang as source of his AW. I believe in Fibonacci Sequence of spatial wavelengths, but I have no way to prove it. Someday I might have a way, but I would like to get idea across to lead people into thinking about it as viable hypothesis, if possible. If they wish to turn down my proposal of the space and Time as Adimensional, that is okay too.
typicalguy
5 / 5 (7) May 12, 2012
One of the most famous and first experiments to validate relativity was the prediction that light would bend around massive objects in curved space time. This was famously shown to be true during a solar eclipse when light from a star behind the sun was seen even though the sun was completely between the earth and the star. This experiment was done almost a century ago, surely you can provide a similar experiment or provide a math formula alternative to relativity that makes the same prediction.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (4) May 12, 2012
As someone else has said, there is method for not viewing such comments that you deem offensive. It is apparent to me that the real trolls must enjoy reading such theory and being offended, because they do not seem to turn off the comments. They might enjoy actually to tell someone to go away and say bad things, but not to offer alternative science that might make sense. I do not understand such behaviour in a science website.
And yes, Terriva has also said that Fibonacci is consistent with AWT. I do not believe it, but he may know something that I do not. So I read him and I read Fleetfoot and many others, and I take into consideration many things that may apply to my own hypothesis. Not to defend, but to find possible relation.
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) May 12, 2012
AWT can never be proven or disproven as we have to depend on their word that it's right
The question is, if you know some predictions of AWT at all. Just in this thread I named at least ten predictions of AWT regarding the dark matter. These predictions are testable already. If you don't know about it, then you're not qualified to judge it.
- Terriva -

Terriva, correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that Dark Matter and Dark Energy is relatively recent hypothesis. How is it that your AWT has already predicted such unseen and undetectable object in space?
typicalguy
5 / 5 (7) May 12, 2012
Ruski, I believe they stated its possible to not see comments that have low ratings, not ignore specific people (which is badly needed). Most of us simply ignore the AWT comments. Most people here don't provide alternatives to AWT because we believe that relativity provides a very accurate explination of the universe and itis already well defined. AWT has no math, therefore we cannot attempt to make predictions that differ from relativity and determine it is a more accurate representation of the universe. All we are ever given are assurances that AWT predicts the results of every scientific study. Stick around and it will quickly become obvious to you as well that nothing of substance is ever provided.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (6) May 12, 2012
@typicalguy
There is no such thing as Time Dilation in any universe. You cannot dilate time; you cannot put it in Black Hole; you cannot break it apart with gravitational pull; you cannot burn it with EM energy and lightning. It is a myth that has been heaped upon trusting scientists for very long time. Time is the same everywhere but mostly in human accordance to rate of rotation of planet so that the rate of change with night and day may be measured with timepiece. We have been fooled with a myth.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (4) May 12, 2012
Yes, I too understand that the AWT is unsubstantiated and that it may be impossible for Terriva to provide equations. I have confessed in other thread that I am mathematically challenged, simply because I did not choose science subjects at University at home. Perhaps by some chance, Terriva is also thusly challenged?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (10) May 12, 2012
There is no such thing as Time Dilation in any universe. You cannot dilate time; you cannot put it in Black Hole; you cannot break it apart with gravitational pull; you cannot burn it with EM energy and lightning.

Yet you make a statement like this:
I am mathematically challenged, simply because I did not choose science subjects at University at home.


Now color me crazy, but don't you think that YOU making DEFINITE statements about something you admittedly have no clue about is somewhat....unwarranted?

...And that people who have made it their lives' work to understand these things should probably be trusted more on this?

After all: they have come up with experiments that show what they claim - and you use products every day that incorporate that knowledge (and would NOT work if YOUR claims were true)
brt
4.3 / 5 (6) May 12, 2012
What is it about Global Warming articles and Gravity articles that brings out all the nutjobs? Seriously, does anyone think that trolling science articles about gravity theories is fun...or makes you cool? The psychology here is fascinating. I, personally, LOVE hearing about "dense aether theory." However, can I spell it "ether theory?" More importantly, if I huff it, can I get as high as some of you guys clearly are?


I fully agree with you. So many paradoxes in so few words. For instance; they have this amazing theory of physics which explains everything in the universe...yet they want to share every single detail online. could that possibly be because they have no qualifications? yes. Is this person some guy working as a salesman at a computer store? probably. If they really think it's so important, then why not become a physicist? I mean really; what the hell is going on in their haywire brains?!
brt
3.7 / 5 (3) May 12, 2012
There is no such thing as Time Dilation in any universe. You cannot dilate time; you cannot put it in Black Hole; you cannot break it apart with gravitational pull; you cannot burn it with EM energy and lightning.

Yet you make a statement like this:
I am mathematically challenged, simply because I did not choose science subjects at University at home.


Now color me crazy, but don't you think that YOU making DEFINITE statements about something you admittedly have no clue about is somewhat....unwarranted?

...And that people who have made it their lives' work to understand these things should probably be trusted more on this?

After all: they have come up with experiments that show what they claim - and you use products every day that incorporate that knowledge (and would NOT work if YOUR claims were true)


Thank you.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (6) May 12, 2012
Of course they would work. Such products are only partially dependent the time of scientific equations. THAT time is based on cosmic 3D - distance, direction, and dimension, plus an arbitrary and unseen 4th dimension representing time. Without adding Time to the equation, I suspect the same results would be had, and the time involved is only for measurement of distance, direction and dimensions of objects, velocity and distances. You believe the Einstein equations as though your life depends upon it. I do not.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (5) May 12, 2012
Your mind is adapted to things you have been taught to believe, and that would be SR and GR and the formal equations that compute to expected principles that absolutely MUST include Time or everything will be wrong. That is nonsense. Science has the knack for choosing the easiest way and easiest methods to get an answer. Or should I say scientists have the knack.
I may also say that time is what you make of it, but only as long as you have the correct instrument for measuring the concept of time, according to set science dogma of how to measure distance, direction and dimension.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (5) May 12, 2012
(laughing) How ironic that I have chosen those three words all beginning with letter d that relate to 3D.
As I have said many times, Time is Adimensional. It exists but cannot be quantified because it is unseen. The five senses cannot detect it. It is all in the mind and yet, out of perceived necessity, somebody came up with that idea long ago. Cosmic Time only measures the present and the future as I have explained to Amrit Sorli. Incidentally, Mr. Sorli et al, imo, did not go far enough in his theory of Time. He hung back because to think "out of the box" in modern science is the nail in the coffin of innovation.
MorituriMax
5 / 5 (6) May 12, 2012
Russkiycremepuff ,
My own hypothesis is unpopular.

Actually what is unpopular and very rude is your pushing it in everyone's face across multiple posts (which should indicate to your right there it's the wrong place to post it) which nobody asked for.

Your unsolicited posting of your "theory" or "idea" is going to get you nothing but insults and 1-ratings, so WHY do you DO it?

Equally insulting is your attempt to basically hijack an interesting article as a vehicle for your "manifesto."
MorituriMax
5 / 5 (1) May 12, 2012
Of course they would work. Such products are only partially dependent the time of scientific equations. THAT time is based on cosmic 3D - distance, direction, and dimension, plus an arbitrary and unseen 4th dimension representing time. Without adding Time to the equation, I suspect the same results would be had, and the time involved is only for measurement of distance, direction and dimensions of objects, velocity and distances. You believe the Einstein equations as though your life depends upon it. I do not.

It seems to me that without that 4th dimension of "time" all you have is a disjointed series of frames, where each frame is a specific moment, or holographic snapshot of the universe. With time added, you are able to order them correctly, so each moment happens when it is supposed to in the right order.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) May 12, 2012
Such products are only partially dependent the time of scientific equations.

I assume you have used a GPS at some time in your life? Or noticed that gold isn't silverish in color (like it should be because it is a metal)?
Those are relativistic/time dilation/space contraction effects in action you can observe - the latter one even without any apparatus at all.

. You believe the Einstein equations as though your life depends upon it.

I do think Relativity is a good model (the best model we currently have to be precise)

From a historical perspective I am pretty sure that it will eventually be replaced (as every scientific law has).
From that same perspective I'm sure it will be replaced by something that gives the same results for the observable phenomena - not something that gives different results (it will give different results for as yet unobserved phenomena - otherwise it won't be able to replace it)

Belief has nothing to do with it. I use that which works best.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (9) May 12, 2012
Science has the knack for choosing the easiest way and easiest methods to get an answer.

Scienec finds rules for stuff we observe. OF COURSE will it choose the easiest way to represent all observations. There is no such thing as an 'ultimately true law' (provably). However there is such a thing as a currently best known law.

Now, you deny that law - but you have nothing better. So that's your loss. If you wish to go though life with a lesser understanding then that's your choice. Just don't think anyone is going to be impressed by someone who actively professes that he wants to remain dumb.

As I have said many times, Time is Adimensional.

Proof? Observation to this effect? Do you have any?
Write them down. Put them to the test. If they predict phenomena better than current theories you get a Nobel Prize. Otherwise you're just deluding yourself.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) May 12, 2012
´
Without adding Time to the equation, I suspect the same results would be had, and the time involved is only for measurement of distance,

That doesn't work.
If time were truly separate from space then the following would happen: Take two clocks - identically made and set to the same time - and travel with them along different paths from some point of origin to a destination. When you get there compare the times they show: No matter what path you take they should still show the same time.

However this si not what we observe. Take a clock ad have it stand on the ground, and take another clock and put it on a plane (or in orbit). Then bring them back together. The times are different. This has been experimentally verified (and as noted: all sattelite navigation and positioning must take this into account or fail in their mission).
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (4) May 13, 2012
Science has the knack for choosing the easiest way and easiest methods to get an answer.

Scienec finds rules for stuff we observe. OF COURSE will it choose the easiest way to represent all observations. There is no such thing as an 'ultimately true law' (provably). However there is such a thing as a currently best known law.

Now, you deny that law - but you have nothing better. So that's your loss. If you wish to go though life with a lesser understanding then that's your choice. Just don't think anyone is going to be impressed by someone who actively professes that he wants to remain dumb.

As I have said many times, Time is Adimensional.

Proof? Observation to this effect? Do you have any?
Write them down. Put them to the test. If they predict phenomena better than current theories you get a Nobel Prize. Otherwise you're just deluding yourself.
- antialias -

That is one of my objectives, which is to produce evidence to that effect. I thank you.
MorituriMax
5 / 5 (5) May 13, 2012
The difference between science and religion is that science works whether you believe in it or not.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (7) May 13, 2012
The time difference in the clock on the plane, I believe to be caused by drag of Gravity or Gravitational drag on the mechanical works to make it run slower slightly and the fact that both clocks are increasing Distance away from each other, and drag should be greater on one. You do not mention if temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, air pressure, and some other factors could contribute to lengthening or shortening of clock's forward movement. To say that Time has power to move a clock's mechanism even slightest is like saying that Time is magician to do such tricks. Presto change-o.
If a fly is in midair in middle of passenger car of speeding train, and suddenly the fly stops moving wings and falls asleep but does not fall to floor, does the fly move to back of passenger car with momentum of speeding train? Or does it remain in midair in the middle of passenger car? Train is still speeding when fly wakes up and moves wings. Does fly still remain in midair in middle of car?
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (5) May 13, 2012
The difference between science and religion is that science works whether you believe in it or not.

- Morituri -

How deeply profound. I am not religious whether in the religion of science or the religion of Creation. I believe, just like antialias, that science is not static and can change with new discoveries that have merit. If my hypothesis has merit, then I might win Nobel Prize as he said in so many words. In meantime, please continue with believing in SR and GR with Time as performing magic tricks. I will work on my hypothesis; maybe forego my life as future professor of English in my country and concentrate on science if I can get funding. Goodnight
Terriva
1.4 / 5 (11) May 13, 2012
The difference between science and religion is that science works whether you believe in it or not
I wouldn't so sure about it. The cold fusion is ignored for twenty years without evidence, the string theory is promoted for forty years without evidence, not to say about gravitational waves or Big bang theory which are nearly eighty and one hundred years old - and still mistaken. It's five generations of physicists!

For further reading: Why scientific 'Truth' so often turns out wrong and sixty links providing evidence in comment section.
Terriva
1.4 / 5 (11) May 13, 2012
Of course, the primary reason of all these failures is, the science changed into religion quietly - but who of scientists involved or their supporters would be willing to admit it? In this way, the science cannot be often distinguished from religion and propaganda, especially when money are involved. And because the contemporary science cannot work without heavy subsidizes (the era of cheap finding is over), the manipulation of science in religious way is rather the rule, than the exception.
Shinichi D_
5 / 5 (5) May 13, 2012
The time difference in the clock on the plane, I believe to be caused by drag of Gravity or Gravitational drag on the mechanical works to make it run slower....


This experiment was done with atomic clocks. You really think they didnt factor in things like humidity? No one was thinking of that, i'm sure.
The experiment was first done with static (to each other) clocks. One on top, one on bottom of a tower. The bottom clock with a little more gravitational pull run slower, the top one faster.
The aircraft experiment was also done, but here the direction of flight is important. An eastbound plane (adding extra speed to earths rotation) makes the clock run slower, actually working against the gain caused by less gravity.
If you fly towards west, (taking away speed from earths rotation) the hight and speed effect working in the same direction, making the clock run faster.
I guess you not going to get the Nobel Prize this morning.
Terriva
1 / 5 (6) May 13, 2012
The rotation of Earth gets more interesting when dark matter is taken into account. Because the dark matter (neutrinos in particular) tend to concentrate around surface of Earth (the higher curvature of space-time and gravity force is there) and they're of the opposite gravitational charge, they tend to create the swirling vortex which is pumped in axial direction. This gives the Earth geoid the shape of pearl and it manifests with various fly-by anomalies. A similar effect can be observer around large rotating galactic clusters. These effects are difficult to explain with general relativity without deep modification of existing equations.
Terriva
1 / 5 (6) May 13, 2012
At the case of massive dense objects the effect of dark matter to their rotation may become so pronounced, it leads to the suppression of one of the polar jets. The CP-symmetry breaking observed with radioactive atom nuclei can be of the same mechanism (the radioactive cobalt nuclei oriented with strong magnetic field tend to radiate in one preferred direction). This indicates the dark matter effects are actually scale invariant - they do manifest always, when density fluctuations of vacuum are involved. Dense aether model predicts the existence of four areas at the mass/energy density scale, where the CP-symmetry violation effects will manifest itself in particularly pronounced way.
Shinichi D_
5 / 5 (5) May 13, 2012
The rotation of Earth gets more interesting when dark matter is taken into account. Because the dark matter (neutrinos in particular) tend to concentrate around surface of Earth (the higher curvature of space-time and gravity force is there) and they're of the opposite gravitational charge, they tend to create the swirling vortex which is pumped in axial direction. This gives the Earth geoid the http://maic.jmu.e..._new.gif can be observer around large rotating galactic clusters. These effects are difficult to explain with general relativity without deep modification of existing equations.


It's centrifugal force you moron.
Isn't dark matter an 'ad hoc' addition to make GR work anyway? Why are you using it? You can do better, just say in AWT planets are planet shaped, this proves me right, and you all wrong.
Terriva
1 / 5 (6) May 13, 2012
Isn't dark matter an 'ad hoc' addition to make GR work anyway?
Nope, dark matter is an 'ad hoc' addition to Big Bang theory (L-CDM model, as its name implies). The dark matter is inconsistent with general relativity, as its violates the equivalence principle, on which the GR is based.
It's centrifugal force you moron.
Centrifugal/centripetal force works in radial direction - not in axial direction. Be careful of who you are calling a moron here...
typicalguy
4.6 / 5 (10) May 13, 2012
Isn't dark matter an 'ad hoc' addition to make GR work anyway?
Nope, dark matter is an 'ad hoc' addition to Big Bang theory (L-CDM model, as its name implies). The dark matter is inconsistent with general relativity, as its violates the equivalence principle, on which the GR is based.
It's centrifugal force you moron.
Centrifugal/centripetal force works in radial direction - not in axial direction. Be careful of who you are calling a moron here...


AWT is BS. You provide no equations for us to use. It is only your imagination and no one believes you. You convince no one of it and your word is not good enough for anyone here. Only people in a cult believe "the truth" from someone else based entirely on their word that it's right. Stop wasting our time with your spam messages. No one cares.
Terriva
1.4 / 5 (11) May 13, 2012
You provide no equations for us to use. It is only your imagination and no one believes you
LOL, do you need to see an equation for to believe, your mother is your mother? And vice-versa: does the pile of math the string theory more convincing for physical world? You can prove the geocentric model or hollow Earth theory with using of math, as Euler already did. Maybe I'm wasting your time, but many physicists are wasting billions of dollars of tax payers with their dismissal of cold fusion or blind adherence on Big Bang or gravitational wave theories. The target of AWT models is just to explain the abstract concepts of mainstream physics without math and make them more accessible for people, who are familiar with everyday physics.
typicalguy
4 / 5 (8) May 13, 2012
You provide no equations for us to use. It is only your imagination and no one believes you
LOL, do you need to see an equation for to believe, your mother is your mother? And vice-versa: does the pile of math the string theory more convincing for physical world? You can prove the geocentric model or hollow Earth theory with using of math, as Euler already did. Maybe I'm wasting your time, but many physicists are wasting billions of dollars of tax payers with their dismissal of cold fusion or blind adherence on Big Bang or gravitational wave theories.

Yes I need equations to believe. You are wrong. I created the universe and it's based on HPT - hard poops theory. LOL if you can't see the obvious then you must have been adopted because your mother isnt your mother. OMG you are soooooo right, we should all make crap up and tell people it's true and stop doing basic research since we are all gods in our own minds. You can imagine anything but you are still stupid.
MorituriMax
5 / 5 (8) May 13, 2012
Terriva,
The difference between science and religion is that science works whether you believe in it or not
I wouldn't so sure about it. The cold fusion is ignored for twenty years without evidence, the string theory is promoted for forty years without evidence, not to say about gravitational waves or Big bang theory which are nearly eighty and one hundred years old - and still mistaken. It's five generations of physicists!

For further reading: http://aetherwave...out.html and sixty links providing evidence in comment section.

Of course you completely missed the point. Gravity works whether you believe in it or not. The Sun works through fusion whether you believe it or not. It's not whether you have "faith" that it does, and it won't stop working that way if you and everyone else who DID believe it dies.
Terriva
1 / 5 (5) May 13, 2012
Gravity works whether you believe in it or not.
And I'm not even doubting it. But HOW the gravity works? That's the question. Standard physics provides some models based on Newton's law and constant speed of light based on experiments - but it doesn't explains it. Although this explanation is known from centuries - and we can deduce dark matter and dark energy from it.

You're like the old black slave, who screams "Gimme that old-time religion, hallelujah.." But who is actually taking it away? If you don't understand, how gravity works, then you even have nothing to lose and believe in. I'm just filling the holes in your knowledge, which you even don't know, you have.
Terriva
1 / 5 (4) May 13, 2012
Because the mechanism, which drives the gravity is quite universal, we can find the analogy of gravity phenomena inside of every multiparticle environment, including the human society. This analogy even enables it to understand deeper. The dark matter effect is an analogy of the condensation of opponents around all proponents of all theories, which are dual to mainstream opinion. The people believing in relativity are representing the vacuum and the aether proponents are forming massive body in it. The hostile opponents of aether model aren't regularly dispersed within vacuum, though. They're condensing around proponents of new theory like dark matter around massive bodies and they're trying to negate it. Their meaning of life arises just from opposition of new ideas. We can replace the proponents of theories with proponents of religion, fans of operating systems or sport clubs, for example - the result will be the same: the social gradient attracts the people with the opposite opinion
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (4) May 13, 2012
I do not expect to win Nobel Prize as I will prefer now to teach English at University in my country. But I have learned much about people in Western countries and how some are extremely quick to basically tell those with whom they disagree to STFU. I have also seen those letters coming from several comments in many threads. When I found out what it means, I understood that the science threads in this website are only a medium for those who agree with everyone else to have their views read by others who also agree with same views. In effect, with no dissenting ideas against tried methods as scientific doctrine, each thread then becomes a "mutual admiration society" with any form of dissension and "out of the box" hypotheses given a royal heave-ho with insults and attacking of character and personality. If by chance, dissenting hypothesis can later be proven to be correct, the attackers will say that they only required the equations to make it true, with no other considerations.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (3) May 13, 2012
I will pursue my Adimensional space/Time after enlisting help of more learned men to formulate equations and explain certain good aspects of hypothesis as well as errors. They will be proficient in the laws, including SR and GR, but also of open mind to room for improvements that might make old laws even better and more accurate, or rendered replaceable.
Einstein was hero of his day, but perhaps there are newer explanations of equal or more value to replace or enhance his Theories. I think that antialias understands this concept and is a little more open minded than so many in this website.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (4) May 13, 2012
I do not detect any scientists in this or other threads in comment sections except for possibly one or two, but that is even debatable. Therefore, it seems that I am providing the little amount of my bigger hypothesis to the wrong crowd here, who seem to be mere onlookers who know some about cosmology but do not, in effect contribute alternative ideas. Only the going trend meets approval and, in my case, my alternative to mainstream science is deemed impossible without asking for more data. It took me awhile to understand that the real scientists are busy in their labs and out in the field doing their research and have no time to be on Phys.org to sink the ships of innovative ideas as a rule rather than the exception, as the onlookers do. I have had some instructional critique from a few and to whom I expressed gratitude. It is they who offered help who are the most likely to be scientists due to their understanding of how it was in their day, to be as a novitiate.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (4) May 13, 2012
But there are others in this and other threads whose comments I have been reading for about the past two years even before I registered as a user, who are generally offensive and request for moderators to take action against those commenters with whom they disagree as though it were a personal affront to their existence. I have also noticed that the speech patterns are the same, that of insulting and asking said "party" to go away or to be banned from the website.The speech patterns indicate that it is always the same person who does this, but with different user names in many cases.
It is my feeling that the most of the commenters in this and other threads take enjoyment from that person rather than taking umbrage that he has audacity to attempt censorship of ideas, and further, removal of the commenter due to unpopular alternatives.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (4) May 13, 2012
I understand from several sources now that this is ongoing, and that many others seem to think it is normal practice to censor and shout down, in effect. I do not understand why the person who does these things under different names is not himself shouted down by honest, interested parties, unless everyone in the threads know him on personal basis and are protecting him. I find this very strange in Western countries that are supposedly consisting of free thinkers. It is possible that the onlookers are afraid to criticize lest they themselves be censored and told to go away. This is, indeed, very strange. I suppose that Phys.org is not free society for honest commenters and their ideas, but rude and vicious language is acceptable.
Terriva
1 / 5 (4) May 13, 2012
..only required the equations to make it true, with no other considerations..
Such a trolls usually have no idea, how the evolution of scientific ideas is working. The formulation of formal model is often the very last step in the understanding. First of all we should understand the problem at its nonformal level for being able to construct the solution.
Such a people probably believe, that the formal models are constructed randomly from pile of math equations like the LEGO. Whereas even the solution of the simplest homework requires to understand the assignation first - just after then you can derive meaningful algebraic solution of it. And if we understand the assignation wrongly, then even the subsequent formal solution will be wrong as well - despite it could still remain formally correct.
As an iconic example can serve the epicycle model of geocentric solar system: it was formally correct - but because it has been based on wrong understanding, it was still utterly wrong.
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) May 13, 2012
I will no longer comment on any science (cosmology) topics in this website, no matter of great interest to me. I hesitated to say it, but it does appear to be conspiratorial against new and innovative ideas, and the one lone person of different names has upper hand, with everyone else backed against wall with fright of being singled out and hounded.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (4) May 13, 2012
To Terriva, with whom I disagree of his steady state universe, rather than dynamic universe, which is more to my thinking, I say as the British will tell you, "Keep a stiff upper lip".

So I bid all of you a fond adieu, and will relate my online experiences in Phys.org to others in my country. We will laugh together and celebrate that we are not like Westerners with their heads in the sand. You will all be subdued anyway and I do not envy you. It is just matter of "time" and many of you do not understand the "gravity" of it. (laughing)
Terriva
1 / 5 (3) May 13, 2012
Phys.org is not free society for honest commenters and their ideas, but rude and vicious language is acceptable
I'd say, you just need a bit of assertiveness training. I'd recommended you to try it - if nothing else, such a training could be good for your future carrier. But the assertiveness itself is not sufficient, if you're silly and/or you have nothing to say about subject. The environment of public Internet discussion is very evolutionary environment - it can help you in formulation of new ideas significantly, on the other hand it can be pretty cruel, if you have weak or fringe arguments. Of course, we should filter-out and ignore all comments, which don't bring any objections and counterarguments - only the negativistic dismissals. Such a people existed at all ages, the era of cosmic flights and Internet is no exception.
Terriva
1 / 5 (4) May 13, 2012
To Terriva, with whom I disagree of his steady state universe, rather than dynamic universe, which is more to my thinking
In dense aether model both models are of the same relevance. The Big bang cosmology just happens to be easier target by now - but the completely static model has no meaning in dense aether model anyway. In my opinion, because the Universe is intrinsically random, both models are essentially indistinguishable from sufficiently general perspective. Ironically, just the subtle phenomena, which do appear to violate Big bang theory by now (like the Doppler's anisotropy of the CMBR) may serve as a best arguments against steady state model. But it's difficult to explain the people, who cannot think in dual, i.e. AWT way. The thinking of most of people is competetive and such a people can understand new theory only when it's directly confronted with older theories. Most of people accepted the relativity mainly because it seemingly "disproved" the aether model.
Terriva
1 / 5 (4) May 13, 2012
people in Western countries and how some are extremely quick to basically tell those with whom they disagree to STFU
Western world tends to think in schematic deterministic way, whereas the people from Eastern world tend to think more in holistic, indeterministic way. So far the evolution of science developed like spreading of ripples at the water surface: the farther from source they are, the more deterministic they do appear - like regular circles. Such an evolution helped the proponents of deterministic way into the success of formal physics.
But in AWT both approaches are in mutual duality. When the spreading of ripples continues, at the sufficient distance it becomes as indeterministic and chaotic again, in similar way, like the spreading of ripples at the proximity. The contemporary physics is facing this phase right now. I'm sure, the proponents of schematic, strictly deterministic and formal thinking will be forced to reevaluate their ultimate stances soon.
Terriva
1 / 5 (3) May 13, 2012
This conceptual shift is already observable:
Max Tegmark, a MIT teacher: The Mathematical Universe
versus
Alan P. Lightman, a MIT teacher: We are living in a universe uncalculable by science.
It took just some twenty years for physicists to realize, that the formal description of Universe with low-dimensional deterministic models will not be as easy job, as it originally appeared. Most of modern theories got stucked in blind alley of indeterminism: string theory, quantum gravity. It's because the Universe really IS chaotic and random by its very nature and the reconciliation of every formal model with others would require the infinite number of recursions, dimensions, etc. For the understanding what is hiding behind it we should start to think about it in completely new way.
MorituriMax
5 / 5 (7) May 13, 2012
Ruski
I will no longer comment on any science (cosmology) topics in this website, no matter of great interest to me. I hesitated to say it, but it does appear to be conspiratorial against new and innovative ideas,..

1. Thank You.

2. LOL on your conspiracy theory.

3. We're not here to read YOUR pet "theories," we're here to read the articles by real scientists.

4. Why don't you pay for your own publication costs instead of using Physorg to backdoor what you THINK is revolutionary science that nobody else is smart enough to come up with?
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (10) May 13, 2012
You provide no equations for us to use. It is only your imagination and no one believes you
LOL, do you need to see an equation for to believe,


This website is called "phys.org" because it is about physics, and "physics" is the mathematical modeling of the physical of the natural world. If you have no maths, you do not have a theory in the way physics uses the word.

The target of AWT models is just to explain the abstract concepts of mainstream physics without math and make them more accessible for people, who are familiar with everyday physics.


You have made no attempt to explain current models whatsoever, the aether theory you try to push is over a century old and was completely outdated in 1917. What you are actually doing is trying to look as though you understand physics when in reality the constant errors you make has precisely the opposite effect.
Terriva
1 / 5 (4) May 13, 2012
...you do not have a theory in the way physics uses the word
It's like the describing the spreading of ripples with the wave equation. It works well up to certain distance limit, until the ripples are spreading in transverse waves like the well regular rings. But when the distance increases even more, the the deterministic character of ripples vanishes gradually and the formal approach becomes a brake of the further understanding of the wave spreading.
Can we get some new insights here? Of course we can. For example, we can see, the spreading of ripples at distance becomes fragmented into individual solitons, which avoid each other like the solid particles. So we can apply the geometry of packed spheres to it. This geometry is quite different from regular circles - it's rather similar to nested hexagonal grid. Could you bring this insight with formal analysis of the wave equation?

Hell, no way..
MorituriMax
5 / 5 (5) May 13, 2012
Can we get some new insights here?
Without the math they aren't insights, just opinions. Those are fine for brainstorming with other members of your science team, but they are a waste of time when it comes to real physics. If you want to post your "theories" then get them placed here as articles, not as ruminations as comments on other people's physics articles.
Terriva
1 / 5 (6) May 13, 2012
Without the math they aren't insights, just opinions.
Nope, without testable predictions these insight's are just an opinion. The Popper's methodology is based on falsification - not on the presence of math. If I find a way, how to test new ideas in unique reproducible way and you'll will find no way, how to oppose it - then it's win-win strategy, which doesn't violate the scientific method not a bit.

The contemporary system of physics is rotten and fringe, because it enables the physicists to pile dummy publications filled with equations of no practical sense for years and take money for it like alchemists of medieval era. I.e. without feedback both from the side of the community of the other physicists, both from the side of layman society, which is actually paying the whole fun from its taxes. The lobby of physicists revealed a hole in the law for their safe life and salaries and this praxis should simply stop.
MorituriMax
5 / 5 (4) May 13, 2012
The contemporary system of physics is rotten and fringe,

They always are to those who have nothing to contribute. Strange, isn't it, how that works.
Terriva
1 / 5 (6) May 13, 2012
Strange, isn't it, how that works.
The problem is, it just doesn't work well. The cold fusion is ignored for twenty years, although it's more and more evident, this effect existed from its very beginning. Fundamental findings of Podkletnov and J.F.Prins are ignored for twenty years. We have forty years old theories, like the string theory without single experimental confirmation. The research of gravitational waves is sixty years old - yes, one Nobel price, but again, no practical results. The Big Bang theory is eighty years old - and it becomes more and more controversial every day. And I'm not talking about misunderstanding of Michelson-Morley experiment and dense aether concept, which is more than one hundred years old.

Recently the Holly Church accepted the Big Bang theory, which means, even the Holly Church is able to change its opinion faster, than the mainstream physics.
typicalguy
5 / 5 (4) May 13, 2012
According to HSAT (hard poop aether theory), everything will come out fine after taking exlax.
typicalguy
5 / 5 (3) May 13, 2012
According to hard shit aether theory, no physicist is allowed to do research without Terriva's pre-approval.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) May 13, 2012
...you do not have a theory in the way physics uses the word
It's like the describing the spreading of ripples with the wave equation. It works well up to certain distance limit, until the ripples are spreading in transverse waves like the well regular rings. ..


If you knew what the word "transverse" meant, the rest might have been worth reading, but I doubt it.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (6) May 13, 2012
Without the math they aren't insights, just opinions.
Nope, without testable predictions these insight's are just an opinion. The Popper's methodology is based on falsification - not on the presence of math....


Many incorrect speculations can look logically viable, they can only be falsified by comparing numerical predictions against measurements. In physics, the word "theory" means an equation, the definition of its variables as measurable parameters and where relevant the bounds of applicability.
Terriva
1.4 / 5 (11) May 13, 2012
According to hard shit aether theory, no physicist is allowed to do research without Terriva's pre-approval.
Nope, but we should create a theory for prioritization of research. If you ever played the Civilization, Wacraft or Age-Of-Empire strategical game, you should already know, you should plan the resources invested into "research" of new items very carefully. If you would research too much, the "invented" items will remain unusable in given epoch/level of the game. It works so in nearly all strategical games, but not in the scientific research itself. The physicists just hope, they can get all money, which they can get at the given moment. So they study Higgs boson, like if it could avert end of world - whereas just the most useful findings, i.e. the cold fusion are ignored heavily. This is just a consequence of the contemporary mechanisms of scientific research. It's most pronounced in physics, but other branches of science suffer with absence of research prioritization too.
Terriva
1 / 5 (8) May 13, 2012
In the contemporary society everyone is f*cking the rest. We all know, Big Pharma companies are doing their research too - but they know, when they would research the medication, which don't actually cure, but just keeps the patients alive, they could make more money. So that the prioritization of research in Big Pharma companies is gradually adjusted in such way, it will provide the maximization of profit for these companies, not the contribution for patients.

The other branches of science don't play with profit, but at the science financed from mandatory fees (taxes) the rules of scientific priority are gradually adjusted in the way, the would maximize the research perspective and long-term job places for scientists involved. The research, the result of which could threat the jobs position in another research (like the cold fusion) is avoided apprehensively. It works quite well for community of physicists - those who are paying for it are forming the rest of the whole society.
Terriva
1 / 5 (8) May 13, 2012
In physics, the word "theory" means an equation, the definition of its variables as measurable parameters and where relevant the bounds of applicability
This is just another theory, invented by you right at place. No such definition of theory actually exists: you know about it - and I know, you know about it as well.
typicalguy
5 / 5 (4) May 13, 2012
According to hard shit aether theory, Terriva rewrites the dictionary in order to make all aether theories valid and true by definition.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) May 13, 2012
As to AWT:

Look at this (skip to 5:15 and watch 1 minute if you don't like having science explained to you). Then you will realize why AWT is pointless waste of time.

http://www.geek.c...2012059/
simplicio
5 / 5 (9) May 13, 2012
I hesitated to say it, but it does appear to be conspiratorial against new and innovative ideas

Idea is only innovative if it explain something unknown (or simplify known theory). But it must have math behind it and make prediction. If not, it is just nice story, not science. It is not conspiracy, it is minimum requirement. It is not hard to understand.

So I bid all of you a fond adieu, and will relate my online experiences in Phys.org to others in my country.

It is strange comment.
Skultch
5 / 5 (8) May 13, 2012
Not long ago, I used to think finding the specific cognitive malfunction in people like Zephir, Marjon, Omar(is he gone?), etc was worth the effort because 1.) I thought I might be able to help if I found the specific dissonance and 2.) it satisfied my curiosity for abnormal neurology.

Maybe it's me that has changed (busier at work, new hobbies, prego wife, etc), but I just care a lot less now. Sure, I still get in the mood to help/argue from time to time, but it's much less frequent.

That said, it *seems* like, especially with these particular nutjobs, that they have a hardware problem, not a software one (yea, I'm a nerd that thinks that way). I am getting closer to thinking there is no helping these people without medication, or at all. My brother has had schizophrenia for 12 years now and it is obvious that there was never and never will be any "talking him out of it."

I'm no doctor, but I see a disability above the every day neurosis we all have at some degree.

Wrong?
rah
1 / 5 (1) May 14, 2012
Very misleading headline isn't it? It should say; Penn astrophysicists, zero, in gravity theory.
CardacianNeverid
5 / 5 (3) May 14, 2012
So I bid all of you a fond adieu, and will relate my online experiences in Phys.org to others in my country.

It is strange comment -simplicio

Not so strange when you know with whom you're dealing. This so-called Russian (he used to be Sicilian) is a rather nasty individual that uses multiple names such as Pirouette, Xbw, RitchieGuy, NamVet666, Russkiycremepuff, Paoloilpotentata, Pfennigfuchser, Minstrel_Cycle, XXian_Juggernaut, Skulltch, Ooo O, et al. However, he always reveals himself through his stupidity and/or potty mouth racist outbursts. I wonder what his next nick will be... Place your bets.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (9) May 14, 2012

I'm no doctor, but I see a disability above the every day neurosis we all have at some degree.

I'm thinking it's the very same affliction that religious people have (selective schizophrenia), where two worlds coexist and they must bend the real world to fit their imagined one or something goes horribly wrong.

It's best expressed in the statement that "without religion there is no morality - what keeps an atheist from going on a murder rampage?"
What this basically says is that the religious nutjob uttering such a sentiment really is only one amnesia-attack away from going on a murder rampage.

The pseudo-scienece nutjobs are just as much in the superstition camp. They need the world to work a certain way or they feel lost. Doesn't matter if that way meshes with observation or not.

Knocking on wood, praying, AWT or neuron repulsion - it's all the same.
Origin
1 / 5 (3) May 14, 2012
I don't know, why the proponents of mainstream physics are so scared of dense aether model. It's generally accepted, that the vacuum is full of fast changing virtual particles, quantum fluctuations or space-time curvature. We can model such a field with Brownian noise at the water surface at 2D or foam at 3D and after then the rest is just a classical mechanics of scattering, which violates anything what we know about physics. You can imagine it and use for qualitative predictions, which we can support with formal models, but these models cannot violate these qualitative predictions anyway. I don't feel absolutely no stress here.

The only psychological problem here is historical, because the people learned, the aether model cannot work because of experiments, blah, blah - but dense aether model does differ from sparse aether gas very significantly and it does a much more things, than just some drag. I explained here many times, that the sparse aether model cannot work at all.
CardacianNeverid
5 / 5 (7) May 14, 2012
I don't know, why the proponents of mainstream physics are so scared of dense aether model -ZephirTard

Scared? They'd laugh at it if it ever reached peer review.

It's generally accepted, that the vacuum is full of fast changing virtual particles, quantum fluctuations or space-time curvature. We can model such a field with Brownian noise at the water surface -ZephirTard

No we can't. Brownian motion is in no way similar to quantum fluctuations.

The only psychological problem here is historical -ZephirTard

No, the only psychological problem here is in your head.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) May 14, 2012
I don't know, why the proponents of mainstream physics are so scared of dense aether model.

They're about as 'scared' of AWT as of unicorn fart theory. A theory that makes no predictions and is not testable is not worth their time of day. Qualitative predictions are pointless when we have quantitative theories that work.

after then the rest is just a classical mechanics of scattering

Photons would tend to disagree. Electrons would tend to disagree. Even buckyballs (C60) would tend to disagree. Stuff isn't waves (and it isn't particles). Wave mechanics was a first approach to quantum physics in 1929. It was soon discovered that wave mechanics alone won't get you far.

the aether model cannot work because of experiments, blah, blah

Weird, isn't it, how people can prefer reality over 'this sounds neat'? (/sarcasm)
Origin
1 / 5 (3) May 14, 2012
A theory that makes no predictions and is not testable is not worth their time of day.
Are you talking about string theory? I'm afraid so.. Because the AWT provides many testable predictions. For example the nonzero mass of photons, imaginary mass of neutrinos, explanation for gravitational waves with CMBR, prediction of blue shift and contraction of Universe in radiowave spectrum, the physics of scalar waves, their shielding and mirroring with superconductors, the negative radiation pressure of radiowaves etc..
how people can prefer reality over 'this sounds neat'?
The main argument for string theory so far was: "..but, but... - it's so ELEGANT theory"...;-) I'm not saying, the AWT is neat, but its main principles and analogies are understandable intuitively. It enables to navigate laymans over fast increasing pile of formal theories.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) May 14, 2012
]Are you talking about string theory?

I am, that, too. Notice how it's gotten rather quiet around string theory in the past few years. It looked promising at one time, but then it turned out that it has too many free variables.

the AWT is neat, but its main principles and analogies are understandable intuitively.[7q]
and I've told you before "how good something sounds" has nothing to do with it. "E8" sounded good for a while and it didn't go anywhere.

If you watched the entire clip by Feynman I posted then you may have noticed that he says this right off the bat.

It enables to navigate laymans over fast increasing pile of formal theories.


...In the wrong direction. That's no good.
Benni
3 / 5 (6) May 14, 2012
]

I am, that, too. Notice how it's gotten rather quiet around string theory in the past few years. It looked promising at one time, but then it turned out that it has too many free variables.



Any "free variable" that alludes to the existence of an infinite parameter inside the finite universe as Einstein put forth in his GR of 1916 & 1924, is simply an exercise in the denial of Conservation of Energy & a pitch for "perpetual mothion", AWT and its' offshoots are characterized by this characteristic.

The first thing I look for in any new (or old) cosmological theory is a single word, that single word can immediately invalidate the value of further introspection, it is the word "infinte". Propose "infinity" in a theory, and I simply cease reading about it, it simply is not worth the bother for further introspection.

For the AWT crowd,if you need "infinity" in your life so badly, pick a religious gathering & you will have "infinity" to your heart's content.
CardacianNeverid
5 / 5 (5) May 14, 2012
The first thing I look for in any new (or old) cosmological theory is a single word, that single word can immediately invalidate the value of further introspection, it is the word "infinte". Propose "infinity" in a theory, and I simply cease reading about it, it simply is not worth the bother for further introspection. BenniWithoutJets

What's wrong with infinity? I find it easier to imagine an infinite universe than a finite one. If the universe is finite, what's beyond its boundary? And if you say nothing is beyond, then you need to define what nothing is.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) May 14, 2012
. If the universe is finite, what's beyond its boundary?

Wrong question.
How can you have a concept of 'beyond' if there is no concept of 'space'. Space is only defined within the (a) universe.
The confusion you exprience arises because you pose an intrinsically illogical question.

There need not be anything 'beyond' it. Not even 'nothing' ('nothingness' being another one of these intrinsically illogical concepts, BTW.)

I find it easier to imagine an infinite universe than a finite one.
That we can or cannot imagine a thing does not mean it is true or not. Infinities, however, are merely a useful concept (just like the number zero) - not a picture of reality.
CardacianNeverid
5 / 5 (2) May 14, 2012
Wrong question -AP

In your opinion.

How can you have a concept of 'beyond' if there is no concept of 'space'. Space is only defined within the (a) universe -AP

I never mentioned space. If something is finite, then by definition it is bounded. And if it has a boundary, then there must be something on the other side. If their is nothing, then you need to define what nothing means. I don't know what that is.

The confusion you exprience arises because you pose an intrinsically illogical question -AP

Hardly. I'm neither confused nor have I asked any illogical questions. You seem to be the one making unwarranted assumptions.
CardacianNeverid
5 / 5 (2) May 14, 2012
There need not be anything 'beyond' it. Not even 'nothing' -AP

Now that's illogical and mere wordplay.

That we can or cannot imagine a thing does not mean it is true or not -AP

I never said otherwise - it was a personal observation. Stop jumping to conclusions.

Infinities, however, are merely a useful concept (just like the number zero) - not a picture of reality -AP

According to you, because you can prove the universe is finite? Cosmologists have no definite position on whether or not the universe is finite or infinite, and yet you seem to be certain. And no, I'm not talking just about the visible or the observable universe.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) May 14, 2012
If something is finite, then by definition it is bounded.

Nope. Consider a sphere. Finite extent. No boundary whatsoever - you can keep going on a sphere without ever hitting a wall.

Extend this to 3D space and 4D spacetime (something that is called a "hypersphere" in topology).
BTW, this is the view that Stephen Hawking has of the universe (See his book: "The Universe in a Nutshell").

Another example of finite/unbounded space lies inside the event horizon of a black hole. It is finite (as seen from the outside) but unbounded. Once inside you can go at the speed of light and never hit the event horizon. In essence it contains an infinite space (as measurable by someone inside) in a finite, unbounded volume.

Yes, that's freaky, and we have a hard time visualizing such things as they are not covered by everyday experiences - but it's also the nature of reality.

Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) May 14, 2012
In physics, the word "theory" means an equation, the definition of its variables as measurable parameters and where relevant the bounds of applicability
This is just another theory, ...


Nope, it isn't an equation therefore it isn't a theory ;-)

You simply don't know what the word means in the scientific field.
CardacianNeverid
5 / 5 (1) May 14, 2012
Nope. Consider a sphere. Finite extent. No boundary whatsoever - you can keep going on a sphere without ever hitting a wall -AP

So you agree it is finite in extent. The boundary is what makes the extent finite. And if it has a finite dimension, it must mean that either there is something outside this finite dimension or there is infinite space-time (beyond the observable universe), which is kind of the same thing and is what I was alluding to before.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) May 14, 2012
The boundary is what makes the extent finite.

A boundary makes something finite.
But as I have shown there are plenty of finite things that have no boundary.
In mathematics parlance a boundary is not a neccessary but a sufficient criterion to determine that something is finite.

And if it has a finite dimension, it must mean that either there is something outside this finite dimension or there is infinite space-time

No, because the definition of spacetime only goes within a universe. There is no 'outside'. To have an outside/inside relationship you must have a vector that goes from one to the other. No vector goes from an inside of a universe to an outside.

You're trying to map everyday experiences onto something where they dont apply. You're applying the concept of space (and time) to an 'outside' which doesn't support these features

If you do that you will naturally get confusing results. It's GIGO (Garbage In - Garbage Out)
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) May 14, 2012
For the AWT crowd,...


There is no "AWT crowd", it is just one crank posting under lots of names - sock puppet accounts. A few posts back, he even admitted there is no such thing as "AWT", he only puts that term in front of random content to mark it as his own.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) May 14, 2012
Nope. Consider a sphere. Finite extent. No boundary whatsoever - you can keep going on a sphere without ever hitting a wall -AP

So you agree it is finite in extent. The boundary is what makes the extent finite.


It would have been clearer if he had said "the surface of a sphere". It has finite area but NO boundary.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) May 14, 2012
The first thing I look for in any new (or old) cosmological theory is a single word, that single word can immediately invalidate the value of further introspection, it is the word "infinte". Propose "infinity" in a theory, and I simply cease reading about it, it simply is not worth the bother for further introspection. BenniWithoutJets

What's wrong with infinity? I find it easier to imagine an infinite universe than a finite one. If the universe is finite, what's beyond its boundary? And if you say nothing is beyond, then you need to define what nothing is.


How can you possibly imagine an infinite universe when you as yourself are a "finite" existence? That's an incongruous statement, you can't place one over the other & make it fit.

And why do you think there must be something on the other side of the impenetrable boundary of the Universe? Just because there's a boundary there? The "boundary" exists for one purpose, Conservation of Energy, nothing else.


Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) May 14, 2012
Nope. Consider a sphere. Finite extent. No boundary whatsoever - you can keep going on a sphere without ever hitting a wall -AP

So you agree it is finite in extent. The boundary is what makes the extent finite.


It would have been clearer if he had said "the surface of a sphere". It has finite area but NO boundary.


Depends on which side of that sphere you're on as to whether you're constrained by a boundary, AP & Fleet, you guys are galivanting around on the exterior surface from the context of your postings. Place yourselves inside that sphere & try getting to the exterior surface & tell me there is no boundary?

Inside the sphere of the Universe is where all of us are, whether we like it or not. We will never be able to stand on the exterior boundary of the Universe, because then we will then be outside of the Universe & Conservation of Energy will cease to exist. Maybe the Universe is a stellar island, but I have no idea.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) May 14, 2012
Depends on which side of that sphere you're on as to whether you're constrained by a boundary, AP

As Fleetfoot correctly pointed out I was talking about the surface, not the volume of the sphere. If you're on the inside of the surface you still have no boundary.

Place yourselves inside that sphere & try getting to the exterior surface & tell me there is no boundary?

It is a 2D analogy. You can construct nSpheres (n-Dimensional spheres) whose surface is unbounded in n-1 Dimensions.
pick up Stephen Hawking's book. It's a good read on the subject.
Alternatively you can google for 'Lawrence Krauss' who gives a number of interesting lectures on "a universe from nothing" (can be found on youtube etc.)
Benni
1 / 5 (2) May 14, 2012
Depends on which side of that sphere you're on as to whether you're constrained by a boundary, AP

As Fleetfoot correctly pointed out I was talking about the surface, not the volume of the sphere. If you're on the inside of the surface you still have no boundary.

Place yourselves inside that sphere & try getting to the exterior surface & tell me there is no boundary?

It is a 2D analogy. You can construct nSpheres (n-Dimensional spheres) whose surface is unbounded in n-1 Dimensions.
pick up Stephen Hawking's book. It's a good read on the subject.
Alternatively you can google for 'Lawrence Krauss' who gives a number of interesting lectures on "a universe from nothing" (can be found on youtube etc.)


Iknow Ant Phy, I know. I'm just trying to do a bit of friendly jousting with the two of you. However I am careful about certain subject matter Hawking gets into, remember he defied Einstein about "information loss", and lost to Einstein & had to recant.
CardacianNeverid
5 / 5 (2) May 15, 2012
You're trying to map everyday experiences onto something where they dont apply. You're applying the concept of space (and time) to an 'outside' which doesn't support these features -AP

AP, I am fully aware of the argument you make (surface of sphere/no boundary, etc), it's an old one, and I agree as far as it goes.

Now you can get bogged down in definitions about what a/the universe is and whether it's all that is (by definition) and therefore there can be nothing 'outside', or whether it's one of many universes, in which case there WOULD be some kind of 'outside'.

I also realize that we can only speak about what we can see, ie the visible universe which is finite in extent, as is the observable universe.

But in my initial remark, I said that it was easier for me to IMAGINE an overarching infinite universe (containing our universe and others) than it was to IMAGINE a single universe finite in extent, which just happened to come to exist not so long ago. That is all.
CardacianNeverid
5 / 5 (2) May 15, 2012
How can you possibly imagine an infinite universe when you as yourself are a "finite" existence? -BenniWithoutJets

Why not? I can imagine lots of things which may or may not be true, so I don't see your objection.

That's an incongruous statement, you can't place one over the other & make it fit -BenniWithoutJets

And that's a silly conclusion.

And why do you think there must be something on the other side of the impenetrable boundary of the Universe? -BenniWithoutJets

I didn't say I thought it - I obviously don't know what's beyond what we can see. I just said that I could imagine a certain scenario more easily than another.

Just because there's a boundary there? The "boundary" exists for one purpose, Conservation of Energy, nothing else -BenniWithoutJets

okaaay, I think I'll stop there...
Origin
1 / 5 (3) May 15, 2012
How can you possibly imagine an infinite universe when you as yourself are a "finite" existence? -BenniWithoutJets
You can indeed imagine whatever you want, but you cannot observe it directly - and this it the point. In dense aether model the Universe is infinite and just the limited scope of view of human observers does it limited and of limited age. In similar view like the infinite landscape under haze, or water surface being observed with its own waves.

The testable prediction of this perspective is, the observable Universe will expand accordingly with our improving technology. Whereas in other formal models the size and age of Universe will appear fixed.

http://www.techno...v/26333/

Origin
1 / 5 (1) May 15, 2012
For example, in Big bang cosmology the size of observable Universe is defined with age, in which the observable matter was created and with speed of light (the inflation and expansion of singularity occurred before). Therefore in this model is impossible to see the Universe older than 13.3 billions of years (the Universe is supposed to form before 13,75 billions of years in Big Bang cosmology and the first matter was formed, when the Universe was 400 millions years old).

http://innovation...rsal.jpg
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) May 15, 2012
Therefore in this model is impossible to see the Universe older than 13.3 billions of years

But since all points are the point where the big bang occured (we're talking inflation - not explosion) you always see light arriving from that time - because there will always be some points which have just now inflated to that distance from us.

(Excluding the first few hundred thousand years when the universe was opaque)
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (5) May 15, 2012
Therefore in this model is impossible to see the Universe older than 13.3 billions of years

But since all points are the point where the big bang occured (we're talking inflation - not explosion) you always see light arriving from that time - because there will always be some points which have just now inflated to that distance from us.

(Excluding the first few hundred thousand years when the universe was opaque)
- Antialias -

The precise age of the universe is unattainable due to there being something else beyond the region of universe that is visible to us, all the way back to where the Singularity that was the Big Bang resides. In a spherical universe, there would be a "horizon" from which we cannot see past it if we are closest to the "wall" of the sphere and looking along that wall. But in a sphere, the Singularity of the Big Bang must be in middle of sphere, from which everything exploded? inflated? outward in all directions. - cont'd
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (5) May 15, 2012
We are quite possibly seeking in wrong direction with only a narrow region of universe that is visible. If it could be ascertained the optimum direction to look for the exact center of the sphere, we might then be able to train our instruments in almost straight line, (accounting for such as gravitational lensing, etc.) and eventually find the genesis of all matter, energy, etc. The oldest galaxies are actually those that formed from the first bits of matter that came out of the BB. When we see the oldest galaxies, there is the red shift because they move away from BB (and us) if we are part of younger region that is part of matter that left BB later. I think that we should look for blue shift objects that are coming toward us and look beyond them from better vantage points, such as telescopes built for intergalactic travel. Earth-based scopes are too limited to find origin of BB.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) May 15, 2012
if we are closest to the "wall" of the sphere and looking along that wall.

Theer is no wall. you're (like many who take a very naive view) thinking about the Big Bang as an explosion. Admitdly the word 'Bag' suggests that.
But we're not dealing with an explosion at all.

An explosion happens INTO (an alread existing) space
but the Big Bang was an expansion OF space. So there is no 'middle' (The 2D analogy is: when you blow up a balloon from a very small state (a point) there is no 'center' on its surface. all points on the surface were once the center - and no matter where you look you encounter no wall.)

If there were a center of the sphere then we would see stuff moving differently. But we see stuff moving away from us in ALL directions and proportional to the distance.

Watch Lawrence Krauss explain it (around the 10 minute mark)
http://www.youtub...vlS8PLIo
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (4) May 15, 2012
The term "wall" is a substitute. I do not know if there exists a wall or not. But the BB must be in center or BB cannot be within a sphere, unless BB only occupied small area of sphere. We are talking about finite universe, yes?
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (2) May 15, 2012
In your analogy of balloon, it would seem that you are saying every dot is created already and there is no need for exploding BB. To say such as thing would mean an infinite universe that is only "inflatable" with no cataclysmic event for genesis of all those dots. Inflation is not explosion outward of all matter. Inflation would be more uniform and almost calculated. Is it possible that you object to my use of "genesis" as beginning of BB?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) May 15, 2012
But the BB must be in center or BB cannot be within a sphere

This is an expansion of spacetime. The BB is not within a sphere. it was at every point. Even where you and I are right now.

Is it possible that you object to my use of "genesis" as beginning of BB?

It is not needed, because it (naively) assumes that time is independent of the universe. It is not. There is a reason why we talk about spacetime and NOT "space and time". Relativistic length contraction and time dilation are intimately linked (you can't have one without the other).

To talk about a "genesis" you are talking about a "time before the Big Bang". But since the Big Bang is the beginning of spacetime such an idea doesn't make sense (because it separates space and time - and we know that's not the case)

it would seem that you are saying every dot is created already and there is no need for exploding

The 'need' to expand arises from the sum over energies in the universe (which is zero).

Shinichi D_
5 / 5 (4) May 15, 2012
The term "wall" is a substitute. I do not know if there exists a wall or not. But the BB must be in center or BB cannot be within a sphere, unless BB only occupied small area of sphere. We are talking about finite universe, yes?


There is no center out there somewhere. The center of the singularity is everywhere. Your head is the center. And mine in the same time. There is no sense to talk about how far we are from the epicenter, or how far is the shockwave of the 'explosion'. There was no explosion. The center and the shockwave is everywhere. They are the very same thing, and they are everywhere. It just expanded and cooled to its current state.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (4) May 15, 2012
- cont'd -
My view of space/Time is much different from yours, and I have discussed it extensively in another thread so I will not espouse it here again.
Yes, there was a Time before BB. I have said before that the Time and space were not within the BB but were outside already and in existence before any explosion or inflation. That is counter to Krauss's view of something from nothing, which I believe is completely illogical. Everything starts at Zero and has potential to expand to 1. Without this as law, everything remains at Zero and has no expansion or explosion. If you say that BB was everywhere already, then that agrees with Terriva's aether wave theory in which the universe consists of an aether that has always existed. He also disagrees with BB. If Time and space were within BB, then BB was a universe in itself and we would have to negate its existence as genesis of our universe. But Time and space outside of BB enables expansion of matter, etc.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (4) May 15, 2012
"There is no center out there somewhere. The center of the singularity is everywhere. Your head is the center. And mine in the same time. There is no sense to talk about how far we are from the epicenter, or how far is the shockwave of the 'explosion'. There was no explosion. The center and the shockwave is everywhere." -Shinichi -

The center of Singularity cannot be everywhere. There may no longer be a Singularity in center of universe that was BB, but it would be more logical to say that all contents of the BB that inflated outward are now centralised in themselves, similar to islands that exist everywhere, but cannot be in the center.
To say that your existence and mine are center of Singularity means nothing. Even Black Holes and anything spherical has a center. There are things that are taught in cosmology which are too illogical, and it is good thing that new discoveries will render them obsolete.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (4) May 15, 2012
"Everything starts at Zero and has potential to expand to 1. Without this as law, everything remains at Zero and has no expansion or explosion." - Russkiy -

I would like to explain this further. There is no absolute Zero in Time/Space or Big Bang. Even a fraction above Zero enables expansion (and explosions) to happen with chain reactions. Therefore, there IS something from which all occurred. Something from nothing is belief in ghosts to make the something happen. Pure nonsense that is catering to Atheist view of non-creation.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) May 15, 2012
Everything starts at Zero and has potential to expand to 1. Without this as law, everything remains at Zero and has no expansion or explosion

Nope. empty space seethes with virtual particle pairs. Having a state of EXACTLY zero is actually energetically much higher than one in which there is some uncertainty.

My view of space/Time is much different from yours

then you should look u at the sky. If the BB were an explosion things would look a LOT different. For one thing stuff would be moving in entirely different ways relative to us.

What you think is completely irrelevant. What is observed is what counts. and if you have a theory then it must explain what is observed. Yours does not. you#re just deluding yourself (and wasting everybody's time)
Pyle
5 / 5 (7) May 15, 2012
So here is the deal.
Zephir's AWT sounds fine and intuitive. RoosickyPoofy's undeveloped fetus in his head seems great to him. The problem is the mountain of evidence, our observations, have shown that LCDM and BB cosmology is the best we have. The math supports it. It works. There are little tweaks made with new observations, but for the most part it gets the job done. Not complete, but so far it doesn't seem to be terribly wrong.

So, until your pet theories can do something with math, they are pretty much useless in the majority of contexts. Here is a great example:
If gravity is "fighting" a fifth force that expands space, then we should see frequency variation in Cepheids that differs from that predicted by GR.
Searching for this detectable difference separates the alternative theory from GR.

So until you can do that, show some observation you get right that GR/BB/LCDM gets wrong, I'll continue to treat your ideas with some degree of derision/irritation/contempt.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) May 15, 2012
Nope. Consider a sphere. Finite extent. No boundary whatsoever - you can keep going on a sphere without ever hitting a wall -AP

So you agree it is finite in extent. The boundary is what makes the extent finite.


It would have been clearer if he had said "the surface of a sphere". It has finite area but NO boundary.


Depends on which side of that sphere you're on ...


You have to try to understand the analogy, we are discussing the surface AREA only. For example, from a point on the equator, you can start walking north on that surface and continue forever on a great circle. From the same point you can walk east forever too, yet the area is finite.

Compare that to Discworld which does have a boundary

http://en.wikiped...orld.png

The cosmological model of a closed universe is the 3D surface of a 4D hypersphere, it has a finite volume but no boundary.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (6) May 15, 2012
But in a sphere, the Singularity of the Big Bang must be in middle of sphere, from which everything exploded? inflated? outward in all directions. - cont'd


It is an analogy, you have to understand that the three dimensions of space with which we are familiar are represented by the two dimensions of the surface of the sphere. A billion years ago, the sphere was smaller and 13.7 billion years ago it was a tiny dot.

The radius of the sphere is essentially a representation of the age of the universe so this model suggests there was no time before the big bang just as a circle cannot have a radius less than zero.

Please note though that this is just one of several possible models which can fit the observations, the universe may also be infinite, we can't tell (yet).
Terriva
1.4 / 5 (9) May 15, 2012
the mountain of evidence, our observations, have shown that LCDM and BB cosmology is the best we have. The math supports it. It works
It just works, because every new layer of parameters, which were introduced into it (for to fit it with more advanced observations) were fitted to these observations. In similar way, like the epicycle model of Ptolemy.

The Big Bang theory predicted inhomogeneous universe. But universe appears homogeneous - so that the inflation was introduced into it. The extension of inflation was choosed just in such way, it would make CMBR fluctuations homogeneous enough.

But when dark matter has been found, it turned out, that the Universe is actually less homogeneous, than that. So what the cosmologists did? They introduced dark matter into their equations - just in the extent, which would fit these observations well.

At the end the dark energy was found. Once again: the existing equations got a new terms in the extent, which just fitted the observations.
Terriva
1 / 5 (6) May 15, 2012
But IMO the main conceptual problem of Big Bang model is, the radius of sphere at which the matter has begun to condense is equivalent to the radius of sphere, in which the speed of expansion exceeded the speed of light (the particle horizon of Universe).

Briefly speaking, for explanation of finite Universe size just the expansion of space and limited speed of light is enough. There is no good reason for why this limit should be synchronized with Universe beginning. The Universe may be infinitely larger, we just cannot see it because of limited speed of light spreading. But the Big Bang theory says in addition, we cannot see farther, because the Universe was hot and nontransparent there (dark era). This is redundant explanation.
Terriva
1 / 5 (3) May 15, 2012
We can illustrate this conceptual problem with inverse geometry of black hole event horizon. We cannot see inside of black hole, because the speed of space-time expansion (as expressed from space-time curvature) is higher, than the speed of light. That's general relativity explanation and I've no problem with it. But Big Bang theory says instead, the black hole is dark, because the matter is forming right above the event horizon and it makes the space-time nontransparent there. But why the matter condensation should occur just at the event horizon? It would be very strange coincidence - the physical surface of black hole (if exists at all) may be still well bellow the event horizon. If it wouldn't, then it would violate general relativity and this glowing surface could become visible. Which would change the object into naked singularity or white hole.

In brief, the Big Bang model is overdefined/overparametrized in my eyes.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (6) May 15, 2012
But IMO the main conceptual problem of Big Bang model is, the radius of sphere at which the matter has begun to condense is equivalent to the radius of sphere, in which the speed of expansion exceeded the speed of light (the particle horizon of Universe).


The radius at which the rate of expansion exceeds the speed of light is the Hubble limit, not the particle horizon. The former is at a redshift of roughly 1.64 while the latter is at infinite redshift. If by "matter has begun to condense" you mean recombination, that was at a redshift of 1089, none are the same.
MorituriMax
not rated yet May 15, 2012
CardacianNeverid
Why not? I can imagine lots of things which may or may not be true, so I don't see your objection.
Sure, but you have no idea at all whether what you are imagining has any bearing to what you THINK you are imagining. Sort of like describing a ball to a caveman and then asking him to imagine the ball at the event horizon of a black hole and then to further imaging the ball is a single particle of a virtual pair.

It just boils down to how useful it is to imagine stuff that doesn't actually correspond at any point to what actually is going on.
MorituriMax
5 / 5 (5) May 15, 2012
Russkiycremepuff
The precise age of the universe...
I thought you were doing us all the favor of going away? With the new balls and walls thing about the Big Bang you started throwing out, one wishes you had stuck with your resolution.

Or was it the other guy who was leaving us physics conspiracists forever?
Terriva
1 / 5 (3) May 15, 2012
The former is at a redshift of roughly 1.64
But we can see the objects of the red-shift larger than 8 - 9. The limit for observability of distant objects imposed with limited speed of light in the expanding Universe therefore must be way higher.

And my problem was still different - if the visibility limit of Universe is given with expansion of space-time, than we may not be able to observe any signs of Universe formation - no matter, how high their red shift could be.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) May 15, 2012
The former is at a redshift of roughly 1.64
But we can see the objects of the red-shift larger than 8 - 9.


Right. The space between us and a galaxy at z=8 was expanding at about 3.4c when the light was emitted. That's why you cannot treat it as equivalent to speed through space and use the Doppler shift for high redshift objects even though they are nearly equivalent at lower values.

The limit for observability of distant objects imposed with limited speed of light in the expanding Universe therefore must be way higher.


Yes, infinite redshift as I said.

if the visibility limit of Universe is given with expansion of space-time, than we may not be able to observe any signs of Universe formation - no matter, how high their red shift could be.


Sadly, that's true but the limit of visibility is the opaque plasma that blocks our view from about 300 to 450 thousand years after it started (z=1089) from which we get the CMBR, not expansion per se.
Terriva
1 / 5 (3) May 15, 2012
Yes, infinite redshift as I said.
This is not the red shift of particle horizon of universe, but a singularity. My question still remains - why the universe should be formed right at the moment, when the speed of light became sufficient for its observation due the omnidirectional space-time expansion? In another words, why the Big Bang singularity cannot simply be a consequence of limited speed of light? Why all the matter of the Universe should be formed just after few million years later? It could exist quite easily many billion years before - we just cannot observe it due the omnidirectional space-time expansion..
Terriva
1 / 5 (5) May 15, 2012
Please note, at the water surface analogy of the space-time the sight of view is limited with scattering of light ripples at distance (and close proximity as well). But it's not all: at this most remote distance the perspective of surface and underwater waves will mix together. We would see, how the surface and underwater artifacts (matter and energy) fuse just at the visibility boundary. From this perspective it's not accidental, the Big Bang theory puts the beginning of matter formation just at the visibility limit of the universe. But - as we can imagine easily with using of water surface analogy - this coincidence is relative to the actual position of the observer in it. Nothing really condenses or fuses at the visibility boundary. If we would travel there, we would see, the Universe appears there quite normally - because it's appearance and size is defined with our structure and complexity. For simple amoebas the observable Universe would be always a way simpler and smaller.
MorituriMax
3.9 / 5 (7) May 15, 2012
Oh Gods not the water surface thing again.

It. Doesn't. Support. Your. Beliefs.
Terriva
1 / 5 (5) May 15, 2012
It. Doesn't. Support. Your. Beliefs.
It.Pretty.Well.Does.So.And.You.Know.About.It.As.Well..;-)
I do use the water surface analogy for explanations and arguments, not for belief. I don't believe in anything, which I cannot explain from beginning to end.
Terriva
1 / 5 (5) May 15, 2012
Lenny Susskind is a string theory and multiverse boss and not a huge fan of Universe origin as well: The Argument for an Eternal Past. I perceive somehow funny, that the people who are actually controlling the contemporary physics wouldn't care about arguments of local schoolbook theorists at all. They're already living in their own abstract multiverses, which have nothing very much to do with Big Bang model.
MorituriMax
5 / 5 (5) May 15, 2012
Of course. When you can't make your ideas stand on their own merits, its off to the conspiracy theories about how everyone is trying to keep down the little guy.

Ever wondered why scientists wouldn't leap to embrace something that gives us lots of new physics to play with? Of course you didn't.
Pyle
2 / 5 (1) May 15, 2012
Ok, we seem to be off topic, despite my tremendous efforts to bring the article back into the conversation.

So the reason the multiverse isn't "adopted" by the main stream is because it isn't well defined yet or supported by observation. For now the theorists are dreaming up multiverses, searching for something that would be testable to determine which multiverse model works best. For the most part all of that is just dreaming for now.

The age of the universe is based on lots of data. We find pieces that adjust it, like heavier elements in stars with large red shift, but those were the tweaks I previously mentioned.

Zephir kind of got it right with the BB then add inflation then add DM then add DE comment. They did just start throwing that stuff in there in an epicycle-like fashion. I think physicists would love to find something fundamental that fixes all of that, but for now nothing fits so we work with the plugs that have been inserted.
simplicio
5 / 5 (5) May 15, 2012
Zephir kind of got it right with the BB then add inflation then add DM then add DE comment. They did just start throwing that stuff in there in an epicycle-like fashion.

I think this is not right. The added things have physical evidence for existing. Why talk about epicycle which is discredited mechanism?

I think physicists would love to find something fundamental that fixes all of that, but for now nothing fits so we work with the plugs that have been inserted.

Many things fit and there is lots of theory and observation. We do not know all, yes, but we are not in epicycle times. We are in exciting times!
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) May 16, 2012
Yes, infinite redshift as I said.
This is not the red shift of particle horizon of universe, but a singularity.


No, it is just a horizon. Photons from a little closer will reach us after a very long time and severly redshifted. Photons from a little farther away never get here because the accelerating expansion carries them away ever faster. It isn't too hard to work out on a spreadsheet if you want to check for yourself.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) May 16, 2012
My question still remains - why the universe should be formed right at the moment, when the speed of light became sufficient for its observation due the omnidirectional space-time expansion?


I don't understand that question, the speed of light doesn't change.

In another words, why the Big Bang singularity cannot simply be a consequence of limited speed of light?


In a sense you are right, we cannot see light that has been travelling for more than 13.7 billion years. However, we cannot see the earliest few hundred thousand years because the plasma was opaque. For exactly the same reason. we cannot see the core of the Sun.

If you plot distances and times on non-linear scales, it becomes clearer, this is from Ned Wright's cosmology tutorial:

http://www.astro....izon.gif

The yellow regions are opaque. The universe extends beyond that of course:

http://www.astro....o240.gif
Origin
1.7 / 5 (6) May 16, 2012
The added things have physical evidence for existing. Why talk about epicycle which is discredited mechanism?
Technically, epicycles model isn't and cannot be discredited, as you can always adjust their equations in such a way, it will fit the terrestrial observations perfectly. It's just unnecessarily complex and overparametrized - but the same can be said about many mainstream theories, including the Big Bang theory.
..we cannot see light that has been travelling for more than 13.7 billion years. However, we cannot see the earliest few hundred thousand years because the plasma was opaque...
Why the physicists are so sure, some opaque plasma is responsible for darkness of the remote Universe - and not just the Hubble red shift? When the wavelength of light expands to the size wavelength of CMBR at the sufficient distance, you couldn't recognize nothing with it anyway.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) May 16, 2012
Why all the matter of the Universe should be formed just after few million years later?


Matter all formed around the same time (a few minutes after the start) because the conditions (temperature and density) were the same everywhere.

It could exist quite easily many billion years before - we just cannot observe it due the omnidirectional space-time expansion.


We know the process only took a few minutes because we see deuterium in the earliest unprocessed nebulae and there is no other way to create it than rapid cooling of hot plasma, stars destroy lithium. The mix of 75% hydrogen to 25% helium matches predictions based on measured processes in nuclear reactors and accelerators and the neutrons needed for deuterium and helium have a half life of about 15 minutes. Even if the matter had been around for a long time, it could only be formed in rapidly cooling non-equilbrium conditions whenever it happened. We can even see the plasma as the CMBR.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) May 16, 2012
but the same can be said about many mainstream theories, including the Big Bang theory.

Scientists are always searching for the simplest possible theory. If you feel that the BB theory is 'overparametrized' then make up a better one that has fewer parameters AND better predictive value and the Nobel Prize will be yours for the asking.

(And please don't say "god" because god has ALL attributes and therefore is the MOST overparametrized system one could possibly propose)

some opaque plasma is responsible for darkness of the remote Universe

Because you can look at the CMBR and the expansion rate and then do a backwards projection on how hot the universe was at the time. And that temperature fits with a state of matter that is opaque.

We know the process only took a few minutes

Yes: A singular neutron is unstable (halflife of 15 minutes). If it had taken a lot longer then no neutrons would have been around and matter would not have formed (except hydrogen)
Pyle
5 / 5 (3) May 16, 2012
@simplico:
They did just start throwing that stuff in there in an epicycle-like fashion.


I think this is not right. The added things have physical evidence for existing. Why talk about epicycle which is discredited mechanism?

So the likening of epicycles to DE and DM bothers you? Why? Epicycles worked to find Neptune. Something was distorting Uranus and they guessed it was another body, calculated where it should be, and found it. They did a similar thing with Mercury's perturbations and didn't find Vulcan - enter Einstein and GR.

DM and DE are supported by our observations. But that we haven't found them leaves open the possibility of other explanations.

AP's latest response to Zephir/Origin/terriva is dead on. The standard model isn't arbitrary. There are sound reasons why the current models are generally accepted. That doesn't exclude drastic changes and more fundamental causes. It does, however, raise the bar on what alternatives will be considered.
Pyle
not rated yet May 16, 2012
Please note I knowingly conflated using Newton's theory with epicycles, but I think I did so honestly to demonstrate that sometimes older methodologies work, just maybe not in all cases.

(And of course this post hits another page so I fully expect people to rail against my previous one. Doh!)
Terriva
1 / 5 (7) May 16, 2012
..Scientists are always searching for the simplest possible theory...
Nope, they're always looking for employment and continuation of their jobs first. You cannot beat a Darwin theory in this context: the theorist, who will find a solution cannot survive, because his research will end prematurely and his family will die out...
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) May 16, 2012
Technically, epicycles model isn't and cannot be discredited, as you can always adjust their equations in such a way, it will fit the terrestrial observations perfectly.


Actually no, that is why it was abandoned, it was only ever an approximation.

Why the physicists are so sure, some opaque plasma is responsible for darkness of the remote Universe - and not just the Hubble red shift?


You have several different topics there. We can be sure there was a hot plasma (a) because we see nebulae, galaxies, etc. and that gas was always there, just compressed when the universe was younger, and (b) because we see the bright glow from the plasma. It is redshifted to become the CMB of course.

The period known as the "dark ages" was the time before the gas was sufficiently ionised by the earliest stars. We know from lab experiments that neutral hydrogen is opaque at some frequencies and we see that as the Gunn-Peterson Trough so again astronomers can see the effect of the cold gas.
MorituriMax
5 / 5 (3) May 16, 2012
..Scientists are always searching for the simplest possible theory...
Nope, they're always looking for employment and continuation of their jobs first. You cannot beat a Darwin theory in this context: the theorist, who will find a solution http://www.aether...emo.gif, because his research will end prematurely and his family will die out...

Do you just enjoy hearing yourself talk?
Nikstlitselpmur
1 / 5 (4) May 17, 2012
I always thought the bowling ball on a trampoline was a bit simplistic, Bending Space time is more than likely a result of electro magnetic energy, the same force that holds the electron at bay from the nuclei. Therefore "space" is comprised of particles with both a positive and negative, rendering them unrecognisable in our electro magnetic existence.
Fleetfoot
4.7 / 5 (3) May 17, 2012
(And of course this post hits another page so I fully expect people to rail against my previous one. Doh!)


You can configure your account to show most recent posts first by default.
Origin
1 / 5 (2) May 17, 2012
Actually no, that is why it was abandoned, it was only ever an approximation.
The epicycle model was the same approximation, as the Big Bang model by now. The formal model of epicycles has served for many exact predictions of solar eclipses and planetary conjunctions whole years and many contemporary astronomers did a nice money with it in similar way, like the contemporary cosmologists. The epicycle model was dismissed at the very end because it cannot account to LOGICAL problems (like the order of Venus phases or presence of stellar parallax), which doesn't affect the exactness of its equations.

This is just the point, which the proponents of formal models in physics "cannot" understand: the logical consistence of model has nothing to do with exactness of formal equations, which are based on this model. The people who are living from writing and selling of equations tend to repeat the same mistake again and again - and it's very easy to explain, why they're doing it.
Origin
1.8 / 5 (5) May 17, 2012
The learning of formal models is not easy and you can spent a substantial portion of productive life with it. Therefore the people who invested their time into their formal education want to utilize it as long as possible - but the progress in experimental physics and astronomy is often way faster - and these people are becoming a brake of the further understanding. They're overspecialised to problems of their interest. In addition, the orientation to formal model makes you a bit separated from experimental astronomy. Whereas I don't bother with subtleties of formal models, the main purpose of which is to fit the experimental observations. I'm combining a large number of facts in intuitive logical way, because I'm not specialized to facts, supporting the single theory of my specialization. Therefore I can see the emergent logical problems of contemporary theories, which do follow from many observations at the same moment. The formal and nonformal models in physics are in duality.
Origin
1 / 5 (1) May 17, 2012
This finding is somewhat more related to the actual topic: Pulsar heavyweight champ challenges Einstein. A pulsar with twice the sun's mass could challenge Einstein's theory of general relativity: but such a dense object is near impossible, according to his work. We could say, the effective mass of kinetic energy of quasar makes its matter somewhat more widespread over the nearby space. The fast speed of rotation probably creates a dense geometrodynamic field of sheared space-time around pulsar, the gravity of which prohibits the gravitational collapse of this object. The analogous effects are observable "directly" at the larger distance scale around large galactic clusters.
Origin
1 / 5 (2) May 17, 2012
Does such effect violate the general relativity? Yes and not. We used the relativistic mass-energy equivalence principle and the insight, that every space-time deform implies some gravity field for its deduction. But the result of this deduction effectively violates the equivalence principle, on which general relativity is based too. The scale of this effect depends on the density of pulsar, not on its mass. We are facing certain secondary gravitational field, which doesn't depend on the mass of object, only on its density. Such a gravity field differs from common gravity field with its opposite sign of gravitational charge. The equivalence principle would work, if we would apply it to the absolute value of gravitational potential in similar way, like the Hamiltonian is applied to potential in quantum mechanics. We can see, that this effect fits some principles of quantum mechanics, i.e. its quantum gravity effect. The extreme surface speed of quasar makes it similar to quantum objects
Origin
1 / 5 (2) May 17, 2012
In classical relativity theory every energy of space-time curvature implies the gravity field, but the the energy of gravity field itself is considered inert. It's because the consequential implementation of the mass-energy equivalence principle would make the relativity theory implicit and infinitely recursive, thus impossible to solve numerically. This simplification leads to the existence of Einstein's pseudo-tensor and harmonic gravitational waves, which wouldn't otherwise exist in rigorous formulation of quantum mechanics.

The point is, the acceptance of energy of gravity field would imply the presence of extradimensions, in which the mass of gravity field and the mass of gravity would manifest itself. But general relativity is four-dimensional theory - yet. Therefore the extension of relativity to the higher number of dimensions seems to be the logical step in further improvementof GR. The main problem is, the equations of GR are complex even in its existing state already.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) May 17, 2012
Nope, they're always looking for employment and continuation of their jobs first

Boy is that naive.

Listen: Scientists are smart. They have a host of skills that are VERY much in demand in the industry. It's easy to get a job there (example: I've already made the jump twice from science into the private sector. Both times in times of high unemplyment. Took my, both times, all of two weeks and EXACTLY one application to get the job I wanted.)

Science pays like shit. Anything who thinks scientists are in it for the money must be mad. My current job pays me more than 3 times what my last science job did - right off the bat (and no, that isn't some high paying job by industry standrads. That's only minimally above average wage for the job I do.)
Gawad
not rated yet May 17, 2012
Science pays like shit. Anyone who thinks scientists are in it for the money must be mad.


LOL! AA, you DO realize who you're responding to, no? I mean, you say that like it's not already conclusive :)
Nikstlitselpmur
1 / 5 (6) May 17, 2012
Space-time is comparable to a flowing stream of water, whose course is diverted around the protruding rock. The appearance of an expanding universe may well be the observer being carried downstream in the current of space-time, on their journey to nearest black hole.
Origin
1 / 5 (2) May 17, 2012
Anyone who thinks scientists are in it for the money must be mad.
Nope, they do it, because they do love their research more, than the results of this research. The job is a sorta toy for these people. They wanna play this game as long as possible. And indeed, many scientists have a good parallel jobs from participating on private research. I know perfectly, what the common science is about from my private experience.
Fleetfoot
4.2 / 5 (5) May 17, 2012
This is just the point, which the proponents of formal models in physics "cannot" understand: the logical consistence of model has nothing to do with exactness of formal equations, which are based on this model.


This is exactly the error that those who know nothing about the discipline fall into. A model is a set of values plugged into the equations so that the predictions fit observations while the theory is the equations themselves. Thus the Big Bang is a model with energy, radiation and dark energy densities fitted while the theory called General Relativity is the underlying set of equations without which you could not construct the model. You really need to learn the difference.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (6) May 17, 2012
Whereas I don't bother with subtleties of formal models, the main purpose of which is to fit the experimental observations.


That's why your alternative ideas invariably conflict with what is found in those experiments and observations, and when your ideas conflict with reality, it is your ideas that are wrong, not reality.

I'm combining a large number of facts in intuitive logical way, because I'm not specialized to facts, supporting the single theory of my specialization.


Exactly, you deny reality whenever it conflicts with your fantasy world. That nicely defines the concept of an internet "crank".
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) May 17, 2012
In classical relativity theory every energy of space-time curvature implies the gravity field, but the the energy of gravity field itself is considered inert. It's because the .. mass-energy equivalence principle would make the relativity theory implicit and infinitely recursive, thus impossible to solve numerically. This simplification leads to .. harmonic gravitational waves, which wouldn't otherwise exist in rigorous formulation ...


Close but wrong. GR is non-linear so a simpler linearised approximation is often used. Gravity waves exist in BOTH, but the linearisation loses a small effect. The error can be removed by using an "effective stress-energy tensor" for the waves which restores the result to the same as full GR.

For example, between two binary systems, there can be a standing gravitational wave which has an effective mass density. Adding that extra static curvature gives the same result, including the waves, as using the full non-linear GR directly.
Terriva
1.6 / 5 (7) May 17, 2012
Thus the Big Bang is a model with energy, radiation and dark energy densities fitted while the theory called General Relativity is the underlying set of equations without which you could not construct the model
A) Without equations you cannot construct Big Bang model/theory. B)Without experimental parameters fitted to the theory (speed of light c, gravitational constant G, cosmological constant, etc..) the equations of general relativity theory will not work with experiments anyway.
That's why your alternative ideas invariably conflict with what is found in those experiments and observations.
Nope, my ideas conflict with existing theories only (in some points, which do represent the falsifiability of AWT). A control question: in which experiment do you believe the AWT violates the reality?
Terriva
1.5 / 5 (8) May 17, 2012
The error can be removed by using an "effective stress-energy tensor" for the waves which restores the result to the same as full GR
The gravitational waves can never appear in rigorous GR, because in this theory only the space-time curvature may serve as a reference frame - and the gravitational waves are formed with nothing else, then just a curvature of space-time. The speed of object, the reference frame of which may be determined with the object itself only remains singular/undefined by the very definition of cyclic reasoning (as Edington pointed out already in 1938). And I can assure you, Edington had understood the relativity ten-times better, then you ever will have.
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) May 17, 2012
Space-time is comparable to a flowing stream of water, whose course is diverted around the protruding rock. The appearance of an expanding universe may well be the observer being carried downstream in the current of space-time, on their journey to nearest black hole.
- Nikstlitselpmur -

I have received PMs informing me that the above person is a sockpuppet of the infamous FrankHerbert, who is now attempting to take a part of my hypothesis example and post it here for to make the laughter and derision. As I have not posted here in quite awhile, it is evident that FrankHerbert, who has many sock puppets including the name CardacianNeverid is obviously mistaken that I would be the person he wishes me to be, but am not.
I thank those here who have informed me by PM so that I may defend myself against such a troll and crank, who appears to be pretending to be sock puppet of Vendicar and who is not. In my country, he would be placed in fine mental institution where he belongs.
simplicio
4.2 / 5 (5) May 17, 2012
A) Without equations you cannot construct Big Bang model/theory.

It is possible, but in limited way. Edwin Hubble saw galaxys moving away from each other, so obvious conclusion is to make time go backwards then galaxies will be approaching each other. This means everything was together at one point in past, so Big Bang came out of observation, not equation. Equations were then used to confirm, and they did.

B)Without experimental parameters fitted to the theory (speed of light c, gravitational constant G, cosmological constant, etc..) the equations of general relativity theory will not work with experiments anyway.

I dont know your meaning by this... but at least one thing is wrong. Light speed c is originally predicted from Maxwell equations, not from measurement (that was later).

A control question: in which experiment do you believe the AWT violates the reality?

Any experiment! :-)
Origin
1 / 5 (2) May 18, 2012
Light speed c is originally predicted from Maxwell equations, not from measurement (that was later).
Maxwell's equations were indeed based on previous experiments of Gauss, Faraday and many others.. The speed of light is really not a parameter, which would follow from these equations in any way..:-) From these equations only follows, this speed should be invariant to the motion of environment. Which is logical, because Maxwell's equations are based on the model of transverse waves in aether, and the speed of any transverse wave DOES NOT depend on the motion/reference frame of environment. But no equation could predict, how large such speed should be, especially not at Maxwell's time..
DarkHorse66
3.7 / 5 (6) May 18, 2012
" Nikstlitselpmur "
An unfortunate, but apt (under the circumstances) name for whoever this troll is.
Read the name from right to left.
At the end of the story, the princess told him his name (he had been so sure that she would never figure it out).
Out of sheer fury, he grabbed his own leg and pulled so hard.
That he actually tore himself in two... (That's one way to commit suicide...)
Why here? We REALLY don't need MORE space-filling sockpuppets. Especially making worthless comments? There are a myriad of other playgrounds. The web is vast.

@Rusky: I agree with the others that this is not the place for personal theories (you might try to comment on articles WITHOUT bringing your own theories into the mix), but I don't think that too many people here are actually laughing along with this guy. Humour can, under certain circumstances, be both constructive, funny and intelligent. His comments fitted into NONE of those categories.
Best Regards, DH66
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) May 18, 2012
A) Without equations you cannot construct Big Bang model/theory.


Model, not theory.

Nope, my ideas conflict with existing theories only (in some points, which do represent the falsifiability of AWT).


Nope, the fact that your idea differs from someone else's doesn't make either yours or theirs falsifiable, it only means you have a choice to make.

A control question: in which experiment do you believe the AWT violates the reality?


Since "AWT" doesn't exist, that's a meaningless question.

What you appear to have claimed is that you have a theory based on a gaseous luminiferous aether and as I have pointed out many times, gas has no shear strength so cannot support transverse waves in the bulk. That is in conflict with the observation of the polarisation of light. Genuine 19th century attempts at an aether-based theory recognised that the material had to be crystalline.
Terriva
1 / 5 (4) May 18, 2012
and as I have pointed out many times, gas has no shear strength so cannot support transverse waves in the bulk
This is why I'm using the "dense" word in explanation of dense aether model. At least you're doing a progress. Surprisingly, just this sparse aether model was considered with physicists in interpretation of Michelson-Morley experiment. Although this model could never work: with M-M experiment or without it.
the fact that your idea differs from someone else's doesn't make either yours or theirs falsifiable
Of course it does. For example the steady state model based on tired light hypothesis is very similar to Big Bang cosmology from the perspective of human observers. If you want to distinguish it, you should point to differences.
Fleetfoot
4.2 / 5 (5) May 18, 2012
and as I have pointed out many times, gas has no shear strength so cannot support transverse waves in the bulk
This is why I'm using the "dense" word in explanation of dense aether model.


Density makes no difference, you can even condense it to a fluid and it still has no shear strength, the hypothesis is not self-consistent.

Surprisingly, just this sparse aether model was considered with physicists in interpretation of Michelson-Morley experiment. Although this model could never work: with M-M experiment or without it.


On the contrary, both Lorentz's theories worked perfectly for the MMX though only the version including time dilation works for Kennedy-Thorndike and Ives-Stilwell.

With a few more ad-hoc effects, Lorentz is indistinguishable from SR and several professional physicists I've spoken to consider them to be the same theory with just a different philosophical interpretation because they are the same transforms, theory = maths!

Fleetfoot
4.2 / 5 (5) May 18, 2012
the fact that your idea differs from someone else's doesn't make either yours or theirs falsifiable
Of course it does. For example the steady state model based on tired light hypothesis is very similar to Big Bang cosmology from the perspective of human observers. If you want to distinguish it, you should point to differences.


Both are self-consistent philosophical ideas hence potential candidates. The differences only appear (and rule out both Tired Light and Steady State cosmology) when you do the maths and compare to observation.
Fleetfoot
4.2 / 5 (5) May 18, 2012
The error can be removed by using an "effective stress-energy tensor" for the waves which restores the result to the same as full GR
The gravitational waves can never appear in rigorous GR,


But they do, I've explained what is lost in the linearised version and how it is restored.

because in this theory only the space-time curvature may serve as a reference frame


The matter in the region through which the waves are passing provides the reference.

.. (as Edington pointed out already in 1938). And I can assure you, Edington had understood the relativity ten-times better, then you ever will have.


However, Misner, Thorne and Wheeler or Wald or d'Inverno or any of the authors of any of the current textbooks understand it better than Eddington, much has been learned since 1938 and gravitational waves are derived in all the textbooks.

http://blogs.disc...l-waves/
Terriva
1 / 5 (4) May 18, 2012
On the contrary, both Lorentz's theories worked perfectly for the MMX though only the version including time dilation works for Kennedy-Thorndike and Ives-Stilwell.

I didn't mentioned Lorentz's theories, so you cannot oppose me in this point. Lorentz theory is Maxwell's theory based which is dense aether based which is consistent with transverse model of light spreading, which is consistent with absence of reference frame observed. Circle is closed.
Density makes no difference.
Inside of dense gases a foamy density fluctuations are formed, which serve as a membranes for preferential transverse wave spreading. Inside the sparse gas the longitudinal waves are dominant. You should really become familiar with Victorian era physics, the knowing how to integrate will not save you against telling nonsenses...

Terriva
1.7 / 5 (6) May 18, 2012
I've explained what is lost in the linearized version and how it is restored.. I've explained what is lost in the linearized version and how it is restored.
You explained nothing. Herman Weyl proved/derived in 1944, that the Einstein's pseudotensor doesn't exist outside of linearized form of Einstein's equations, therefore the gravitational waves cannot exist in there too. http://www.jstor..../2371768
These insights are actually quite old - they're just ignored with lobby of gravitational waves seekers and private companies involved, which have a great business from it it. The gravitational wave detectors are very expensive devices and billion Euros investments, the only destiny of whose is to detect the CMBR noise, which everyone can observe with his analogous TV set...

http://physicswor...elescope

This is how the money of tax payers are actually wasted in contemporary physics.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) May 18, 2012
On the contrary, both Lorentz's theories worked perfectly for the MMX though only the version including time dilation works for Kennedy-Thorndike and Ives-Stilwell.

I didn't mentioned Lorentz's theories, so you cannot oppose me in this point. Lorentz theory is Maxwell's theory based which is dense aether based which is consistent with transverse model of light spreading, which is consistent with absence of reference frame observed. Circle is closed


You said:

Surprisingly, just this sparse aether model was considered with physicists in interpretation of Michelson-Morley experiment. ..


It was Lorentz's theory, which was originally just length contraction, which was invoked to explain why the MMX failed to measure the Earth's speed through the aether. He added time dilation later. Lorentz's theory was entirely independent of Maxwell's Equations, it only related to the length of physical objects, you need to learn what constitutes a theory.
Terriva
1 / 5 (3) May 18, 2012
It was Lorentz's theory, which was originally just length contraction
Lorentz theory had come ten years later after M-M experiment.
Lorentz's theory was entirely independent of Maxwell's Equations
Lorentz Ether theory was developed mainly between 1892 and 1906 by Lorentz and Poincaré, was based on the aether theory of Augustin-Jean Fresnel, Maxwell's equations and the electron theory of Rudolf Clausius.
Nikstlitselpmur
1 / 5 (5) May 19, 2012
"Darkhors66"

o s nsn sn s ;nn s nsn on s on o ndd q nn n sndno o non
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) May 19, 2012
It was Lorentz's theory, which was originally just length contraction
Lorentz theory had come ten years later after M-M experiment.
Lorentz's theory was entirely independent of Maxwell's Equations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory was developed mainly between 1892 and 1906 by Lorentz and Poincaré, was based on the aether theory of Augustin-Jean Fresnel, Maxwell's equations and the electron theory of Rudolf Clausius.


http://en.wikiped...#History

Indeed, so why do you say
Although this model could never work: with M-M experiment or without it.
Terriva
1 / 5 (4) May 19, 2012
Although this model could never work: with M-M experiment or without it
Because Lorentz model wasn't based on sparse aether. If it used the Maxwell's equations, then it was actually based on dense aether model instead. Only dense aether model is capable of transverse waves, which are considered in Maxwell's theory of light.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) May 19, 2012
Although this model could never work: with M-M experiment or without it
Because Lorentz model wasn't based on sparse aether. If it used the Maxwell's equations, then it was actually based on dense aether model instead.


Neither , it was based on Heaviside's ellipsoidal deformation of EM fields. Lorentz's contraction is:

L = L_0 sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)

where v is the speed of the object relative to the aether. The nature of the medium is not part of the theory, it only acts as a reference against which the speed is measured.

Only dense aether model is capable of transverse waves, ..


Nope, the only propagate in solids.

http://hyperphysi...mic.html

"S waves are transverse waves which involve movement of the ground perpendicular to the velocity of propagation. They travel only through solids, and the absence of detected S waves at large distances from earthquakes was the first indication that the Earth has a liquid core."
Fleetfoot
3.7 / 5 (3) May 19, 2012
If you are interested in the history of the aether and its properties, read the paragraph in this Wikipedia section about Christiaan Huygens, then the five paragraphs starting with the reference to "Young and Fresnel", it covers a numbers of points including polarization and the fact that they knew even then that the aether had to be a solid:

http://en.wikiped...of_light

It also discusses Lodge's presentation.
Terriva
1 / 5 (3) May 19, 2012
Nope, the only propagate in solids
Transverse waves do propagate along surfaces of liquids, foams and supercritical fluids as well. The aether was considered a fluid at the Maxwell's time.

http://www.space-...rg_1.pdf
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) May 19, 2012
Nope, the only propagate in solids
Transverse waves do propagate along surfaces of liquids, ..


There is no restoring force in a fluid or gas so that is not possible. Imaging trying to send a transverse wave through water under a sheet of glass. If polarised parallel to the glass, it is no different to trying to send it through the bulk, it doesn't work. If polarised normal to the surface, the boundary prevents the transverse motion. Sorry, but even a simple qualitative analysis shows you are wrong.
Terriva
1 / 5 (5) May 19, 2012
There is no restoring force in a fluid or gas so that is not possible
Capillary waves at the surface of water are transverse waves and their restoring force is surface tension. You couldn't invent the dense aether model even in your wildest wet dreams, simply because you're believing that whole number of things works in exactly the opposite, than the reality. How the hell you did you come into your vision of reality? You probably did study some anti-aether institute in your former life...
Fleetfoot
4 / 5 (4) May 19, 2012
There is no restoring force in a fluid or gas so that is not possible
Capillary waves at the surface of water are transverse waves and their restoring force is http://www.britan...ry-wave.


Sorry but those are movements of the boundary, not transverse waves in the bulk material. The problem is that you don't understand light enough to know what it is that you are trying to duplicate.

Transverse waves that were analogous to light would be horizontal motions of the water at the surface normal to the direction of the propagation or vertically polarised which if hitting the surface at a sufficiently low angle would experience total internal reflection.

In both cases, the key observation would be that they did NOT disturb the surface.

You couldn't invent the dense aether model ..


No need, it was done and discarded a century ago, you just know so little physics you can't follow even that.
Terriva
1 / 5 (4) May 19, 2012
Sorry but those are movements of the boundary, not transverse waves in the bulk material.
But the vacuum is not homogeneous, it's composed of many boundaries, i.e. from "fibers" or "strings" (at least in AWT, but some other theories are considering it too). AWT just explains the presence of these strings with density fluctuations of every dense gas, like the supercritical fluid, where these gradients are visible even with naked eye. http://www1.chem....co24.jpg It means, dense aether model provides both good explanation for stringy nature of space-time at small or very large scales (dark matter fibbers), both for transverse character of waves, which are spreading along it.
it was done and discarded a century ago
Dense aether model was originally proposed with Oliver Lodge in 1904 and it was completely ignored with mainstream community - after all, like every really good finding (cold fusion, antigravity, HT superconductivity of J.F.Prins).
Terriva
1 / 5 (4) May 19, 2012
The lack of arguments cannot replace the existence of arguments. If something is ignored, it cannot be never disproved.

Even now, after one hundred years I never found any reference to aether model of Oliver Lodge, some thorough analysis of it the less, some attempt for its refusal the less, some successful attempt the less, attempt in peer-reviewed literature the less, the attempt supported with some other independent peer-reviewed references the less. If you want to prove, this model was really refused, you've at least six levels of evidence to prove by now. You actually have absolutely no chance with it.
MorituriMax
3.7 / 5 (3) May 19, 2012
Dense aether model was originally proposed with Oliver Lodge in 1904 and it was completely ignored

I love how "true believers" always spin this kind of stuff. It wasn't "ignored."

That's like when TV Shows loudly and boomingly proclaim, "The Bermuda Triangle! Scientists STILL have no idea what is causing this enigma to suck in ships and planes to this day." They neglect to mention that no scientists are wasting time proving conspiracy alien theories.

It was done and discarded, not ignored.
Terriva
1 / 5 (5) May 19, 2012
It was done and discarded, not ignored.... no scientists are wasting time proving..
This is what the ignorance means. I don't deal here with the reasons, which may be objective or subjective, substantiated or not.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) May 20, 2012
Capillary waves at the surface of water are transverse waves and their restoring force is surface tension.
Sorry but those are movements of the boundary, not transverse waves in the bulk material.
But the vacuum is not homogeneous, it's composed of many boundaries, ..


Regardless of its composition, you would need a boundary between "vacuum" and "absence of vacuum" to match your analogy and the waves would only be perpendicular to that because a mix of many boundaries of random orientation is by definition homogenous on average. If you could show there would be "surface tension" in that boundary, you could get capilliary waves but that is still not an analogy that can explain polarisation.

AWT just explains ..
nothing. Use your proposed model for the vaccuum to calculate the surface tension and show that the value matches the speed of light and you can then say "AWT explains", failing that the best you can create is an analogy, you don't have a theory.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) May 20, 2012
The lack of arguments cannot replace the existence of arguments. If something is ignored, it cannot be never disproved.

Even now, after one hundred years I never found any reference to aether model of Oliver Lodge, some thorough analysis of it the less, ...


That's because he didn't have an independent theory, he was involved in developing the theory we usually attribute to Lorentz but that started as "Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction" and many others were working on similar ideas. Yo could argue it should be called "Lorentz-Fitzgerald-Lodge Contraction" but whatever name you give it, you'll find plenty of analysis in all the literature.
Terriva
1 / 5 (3) May 20, 2012
That's because he didn't have an independent theory, he was involved in developing the theory we usually attribute to Lorentz but that started as "Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction" and many others were working on similar ideas.
This is not true again, Lodge's theory was certainly original, the scope of Lodge's ideas was much wider and he actually didn't bother with Lorentz contraction during it (or do you believe, this book is about it?). At any case, the anonymous opinion of anonymous troll in the middle of long discussion thread cannot replace the lack of qualified peer-reviewed stance of the scientific community. Please, don't explain me, why this community ignored the Lodge's theory, when I'm just saying, it did so. I don't care about motivations which are often quite subjective - I'm just pointing to the result. Ignorants can always find reason for their ignorance, it's no secret for me
MorituriMax
5 / 5 (3) May 20, 2012
Terriva
It was done and discarded, not ignored.... no scientists are wasting time proving..
This is what the ignorance means. I don't deal here with the reasons, which may be objective or subjective, substantiated or not.

Well, I am not surprised by this, you make up science without any facts or evidence to support it; there is absolutely no reason you wouldn't also make up reasons to "support" your claims that your non-science is being ignored or suppressed.

I am curious, since you are so hell-bent on people working to bring these theories to light with all the work and effort that entails, have you also put in the work required to earn an advanced degree in the areas needed to develop theories about the Big Bang, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, the standard model, Cosmology, and so on?

I mean, you wouldn't want to ignore them now, would you? It's only fair that you not do what you accuse everyone else of doing, ignoring any theory out there.
Terriva
1 / 5 (3) May 20, 2012
I mean, you wouldn't want to ignore them now, would you? It's only fair that you not do what you accuse everyone else of doing, ignoring any theory out there.
I don't ignore any theory, I tend to absorb them in AWT instead. Without it the AWT would be restricted to few predictions and explanation of some physical phenomena. But why to ignore the fact, it can explains and reconcile the existing theories as well? After all, I'm doing it here all the time - if you visit the beginning of this thread, you'll see, how I'm trying to explain the modern extensions of general relativity with wave shielding models of particle system. But we shouldn't ignore the points, in which the predictions of AWT differ from existing theories, like the interpretation of gravitational waves, red shift cosmology, etc... Without it the AWT would remain a tool of pedagogical importance for introductory physical courses.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) May 20, 2012
That's because he didn't have an independent theory, he was involved in developing the theory we usually attribute to Lorentz but that started as "Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction" and many others were working on similar ideas.
This is not true again, Lodge's theory was certainly original, the scope of Lodge's ideas was much wider and he actually didn't bother with Lorentz contraction during it (or do you believe, http://www.scribd...of-Space is about it?).


Yes, see the last paragraph at the bottom of page 141 (173 of 204 on the slide bar), in the section entitled "Alternative Explanation" immediately after where he says that aether dragging is "dead against the experimental evidence". At the end of the second paragraph on the next page he says "This theory is now generally accepted."

Ignorants can always find reason for their ignorance, it's no secret for me


You are indeed a prime example.
Terriva
1 / 5 (6) May 20, 2012
..that aether dragging is "dead against the experimental evidence". At the end of the second paragraph on the next page he says "This theory is now generally accepted."..
Aether drag is not dead, as we have an independent confirmation of Lense-Thirring effects. After all, whole this theory is based on space-time drag effects at the cosmological scale.

This drag is just weaker, than the first aetherists expected, because these old chaps had no idea about energetic forms of electromagnetic radiation, like the X-rays and gamma rays, which were revealed later. If they would adhere on the luminiferous aether model in consequential way, they would realize soon, that the sparse aether exhibiting drag even at the relatively minor speed of Earth around Sun couldn't mediate such a EM waves of high energy density and they would shift the observability limit for aether drag effects accordingly.
Terriva
1 / 5 (8) May 20, 2012
You are indeed a prime example
I'm not ignoring any theory or insight, if it's substantiated logically. Even random thoughts of various laymans and crackpots can reveal new reality in emergent, collective way (like the fuzzy density fluctuations and overlapping patterns of these random ideas), so I'm able to absorb them gradually. AWT has a whole methodology for mining of such opinions developed, whereas the strictly deterministic mainstream science tends to refuse and ignore these random ideas as far, as possible. The ignorance of cold fusion finding is the prime (and most costly) example of this dismissive approach.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (7) May 20, 2012
Ignorants can always find reason for their ignorance, it's no secret for me.


This is not true again, Lodge's theory was certainly original, the scope of Lodge's ideas was much wider and he actually didn't bother with Lorentz contraction during it (or do you believe, http://www.scribd...of-Space is about it?).
Yes, see the last paragraph at the bottom of page 141 (173 of 204 on the slide bar), in the section entitled "Alternative Explanation" immediately after where he says that aether dragging is "dead against the experimental evidence". At the end of the second paragraph on the next page he says "This theory is now generally accepted."..
Aether drag is not dead, ..


Thanks for demonstrating. My reply showed you where Lodge specifically acknowledges the "FitzGerald-Lorentz theory" in the document you cited so you went off on a tangent you avoid admitting your error and learning from your mistake, you prefer ignorance to knowledge.
Origin
1 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2012
IMO the gravity works in similar way, like the ancient de Duillier-LeSage theory, i.e. with shielding of tachyons (gravitational waves) with massive objects. This model explains the newton's gravitational law in straightforward way, whereas the mainstream physics has no explanation for gravitational force (it even doesn't explain, why space-time is curved around massive bodies, as it used the Newton's law for derivation of Eisntein's field equations).

The shielding model works well for isolated massive objects, but inside of dense clusters of matter we should take into accounts the shielding of this shielding with nearby massive objects. This introduces the concept of fifth force, i.e. dark matter into gravity theory.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Jun 04, 2012
IMO the gravity works in similar way, like the ancient de Duillier-LeSage theory, i.e. with shielding of tachyons (gravitational waves) with massive objects.


1) That theory fails miserably because it predicts all matter will be vapourised in less than a microsecond.

2) Gravitational waves are variations of gravity so cannot be the cause of gravity.

3) Gravitational waves are not tachyonic, they move at the speed of light relative to local matter.

This model explains the newton's gravitational law in straightforward way, ...


4) Newton's Law of gravitation is wrong though a useful approximation.

The only current theory that matches observation is GR. TeVeS adds a tensor component to MOND and is close but looks as though it fails recent tests. Both le Sage's model and Newtonian gravity are purely vectors therefore cannot be correct.

All this has been pointed out to you many times, why do you make yourself look like an idiot by reposting known errors?
Terriva
1 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2012
That theory fails miserably because it predicts all matter will be vaporised in less than a microsecond.
A classical misinterpretation of dense aether model - again. For example, the CO2 molecules are supposed to absorb the IR radiation from sunlight too. They're not evaporating thought - they simply scatter and radiate this energy back again at longer wavelengths.
Gravitational waves are variations of gravity so cannot be the cause of gravity.
The CMBR noise is the cause of Casimir force instead - i.e. the short distance six-dimensional component of supergravity. Supergravity is the generalized shielding force in arbitrary number of dimensions in AWT.

The relation of gravity and Casimir force is analogous to the shielding of longitudinal waves below water surface and at the water surface in dense aether model of space-time. The energy density of longitudinal waves is different at both cases.
Terriva
1 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2012
Gravitational waves are not tachyonic, they move at the speed of light relative to local matter.
In general relativity only, which is slightly biased from AWT perspective. In AWT the photons have positive rest mass and the gravitational waves have negative rest mass, i.e. they're tachyonic. At the wavelength of CMBR the roles of both particles are exchanged - and this is just the place, where the aetheric physics becomes interesting and provides most of testable predictions (scalar waves and tachyonic photons).
The only current theory that matches observation is GR
GR is violated with QM heavily and the dense aether model reconciles both these theories. You may imagine, you're a waterstrider and the perspective mediated with surface ripples, which are smaller than you corresponds the QM, the perspective mediated with surface ripples of longer wavelength correspond the GR. These two perspectives are connected mutually with concept of hyperdimensional particle environment.
Terriva
1 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2012
why do you make yourself look like an idiot by reposting known errors
Which errors? For example the superluminal speed of gravitational waves (GW) is not an error, but a prediction of AWT. In GR this speed is undefined and it's considered luminal speed in ad-hoced and wrong way. There is no good reason for to have superluminal GW in GR anyway. In GR the speed of GW is undefined, as these waves serve both as a subject, both as the reference frame of observation in GR. 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
5 / 5 (3) Jun 05, 2012
That theory fails miserably because it predicts all matter will be vaporised in less than a microsecond.
A classical misinterpretation of dense aether model - again. For example, the CO2 molecules are supposed to absorb the IR radiation from sunlight too. They're not evaporating thought - they simply scatter and radiate this energy back again at longer wavelengths.


A typical failure to understand basic physics, an inelastic model in which the particles are reflected or re-radiated produces no net force. Do the maths and see for yourself or you'll find it in the usual references.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Jun 05, 2012
Gravitational waves are variations of gravity so cannot be the cause of gravity.

The CMBR noise is the cause of Casimir force ..


Why change the subject? The CMB is microwave EM radiation, that's what the "M" stands for. Simple tinfoil blocks it.

Gravitational waves are ripples of gravity and would pass through stars or planets as if they weren't there.

The Casimir Effect has been measured in the lab in high vacuum in steel containers so obviously the CMBR which is cosmic in origin (that's what the "C" means in the name) cannot get anywhere near the lab equipment.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Jun 05, 2012
Gravitational waves are not tachyonic, they move at the speed of light relative to local matter.
In general relativity only


And in any alternative.

In AWT the photons have positive rest mass


Actually as you have admitted, "AWT" doesn't actually exist, but if they had positive mass they would travel slower than c.

and the gravitational waves have negative rest mass, i.e. they're tachyonic.


You started this by saying you were adopting Le Sage's gravity model, that doesn't support gravitational waves.

At the wavelength of CMBR ...


Why change the subject, the CMBR is EM, not gravitational.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Jun 05, 2012
why do you make yourself look like an idiot by reposting known errors
Which errors?


Points 1, 2 and 3 in my previous post, all of which have been pointed out to you many times.

For example the superluminal speed of gravitational waves (GW) is not an error, but a prediction of AWT.


Show me the maths that makes this prediction. Bear in mind that there are no gravitational waves in Le sage's theory.

In GR this speed is undefined


Untrue, as you admitted in your previous post.

In GR the speed of GW is undefined, as these waves serve both as a subject, both as the reference frame of observation in GR.


If you had read my post, you would have seen I said the speed was c relative to the local mass.

As Eddington pointed out already before many years


Much has been learned in the decades since then, Eddington was found to be wrong on that point. Since then of course Hulse and Taylor have provided observational confirmation as again you know.