Revised theory of gravity doesn't predict a Big Bang

Jul 12, 2010 By Lisa Zyga feature
Illustration: Time Line of the Universe Credit: NASA/WMAP

(PhysOrg.com) -- The Big Bang theory has formed the basis of our understanding of the universe's origins since it was first proposed in 1927 by Georges Lemaitre. And for good reason: the theory is supported by scientists' latest observations and experiments, and is based on Einstein's widely accepted theory of general relativity. But scientists are always on the lookout for any evidence that might suggest an alternative to the Big Bang. The latest in this area of research comes from astrophysicists Maximo Banados and Pedro Ferreira, who have resurrected a theory of gravity from the early 20th century and discovered that a modified version of the theory may hold some surprises.

In a recent study published in , Banados and Ferreira have reconsidered the theory of gravity proposed by Arthur Eddington, a contemporary of Einstein. Eddington is perhaps best known for his trip to the Island of Principe on the west coast of Africa in 1919, where during a solar eclipse he observed that the Sun's gravity does indeed bend starlight, providing one of the earliest confirmations of general relativity.

Although Eddington played a significant role in developing general relativity, during the following decades he became more interested in finding a theory to unify gravity and - a task that is still being studied today. In 1924, Eddington proposed a new “gravitational action” as an alternative to the Einstein-Hilbert action, which could serve as an alternative starting point to general relativity. In astrophysics, a gravitational action is the mechanism that describes how gravity can emerge from space-time being curved by matter and energy. However, Eddington’s theory of gravity only worked for empty space and didn’t include any source of energy such as matter, making it an incomplete theory.

Since Eddington’s proposal, scientists have attempted various ways of including matter into the theory, although they have run into problems. In this study, Banados and Ferreira have tried a new way to extend the theory to include matter by using a gravitational action called the Born-Infeld action.

In their analysis, the scientists found that a key characteristic of Eddington’s revised is that it reproduces Einstein gravity precisely in the vacuum conditions (with no matter), but it produces new effects when matter is added. Due to this characteristic, the revised theory has implications especially for high-density regions, such as in the very early Universe or within a black hole. For instance, the theory predicts a maximum density of homogeneous and isotropic space-time, which could have implications for black hole formation.

More intriguingly, the theory could lead to an entirely new view of the Universe that doesn't include a Big Bang. In Big Bang theory, the state of the Universe is a singularity in early times, meaning that the Universe was once infinitely small. However, Eddington’s revised theory requires a minimum length of space-time at early times, which means that the Universe could not have been a singularity. The theory predicts that, depending on the Universe’s initial density, it may have loitered for a long time at a relatively small size before growing large enough to be controlled by standard cosmological evolution. Another possibility, depending on the initial conditions, is that the Universe could have undergone a bounce, resulting from the collapse of a previous Universe. Any kind of singularity-free Universe would solve the singularity problem that has bothered scientists about general relativity, since a singularity cannot be mathematically defined.

“Taking as a starting point what is a very old idea, we have ended up with a theory that has this very interesting property of not having singularities,” Ferreira, a professor of astrophysics at the University of Oxford, told PhysOrg.com. “It was unexpected and definitely not what we were looking for.”

In the future, Banados and Ferreira hope to perform a more detailed analysis of the gravitational Born-Infeld action. While the current study only looks at the classical behavior of the theory, there could also be quantum behavior, such as with the bounce concept. In addition, the scientists plan to look at the possible effects of a cosmological constant, which they did not investigate here. However, they note that the theory is still in the early conceptual stages, and has a long way to go before they know how accurate it is.

“The alternatives to Einstein's theory are all hypothetical possibilities,” Ferreira said. “The goal is to try and find some key observational test that may distinguish between Einstein's theory and the one we have stumbled upon.”

• Learn about becoming PhysOrg.com sponsor
• PhysOrg.com iPhone / iPad Apps
• PhysOrg.com Android apps (new version available)

Explore further: Researchers find first direct evidence of 'spin symmetry' in atoms

More information: Maximo Banados and Pedro G. Ferreira. “Eddington’s Theory of Gravity and Its Progeny.” Physical Review Letters 105, 011101 (2010). DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.011101

4.7 /5 (80 votes)

Related Stories

Celebrating gravity’s light-bending landmark

May 29, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Today Oxford University scientists are joining in a special celebration of the first test of Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity on the remote African island where the ground-breaking experiment ...

What is time?

Apr 13, 2005

The concept of time is self-evident. An hour consists of a certain number of minutes, a day of hours and a year of days. But we rarely think about the fundamental nature of time. Time is passing non-stop, and we follow it ...

Do we need dark matter?

Nov 12, 2009

It's the biggest problem in physics: the matter we can see in the universe accounts for just five per cent of the observed gravity that holds galaxies together.

Watson Lecture: Exploring Einstein's Legacy

Nov 15, 2005

November 25 marks the 90th anniversary of Einstein's formulation of his theory of general relativity, which describes gravity as a consequence of the warping of space and time.

Recommended for you

Water window imaging opportunity

4 hours ago

Ever heard of the water window? It consists of radiations in the 3.3 to 4.4 nanometre range, which are not absorbed by the water in biological tissues. New theoretical findings show that it is possible to ...

User comments : 213

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Eezyville
5 / 5 (3) Jul 12, 2010
In the first unbolded paragraph, I thought that Eddington discovered that the Sun's GRAVITY bent starlight and not the Sun's light.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 12, 2010
In the first unbolded paragraph, I thought that Eddington discovered that the Sun's GRAVITY bent starlight and not the Sun's light.

Correct. The editors missed that error.
TimESimmons
1 / 5 (7) Jul 12, 2010
The goal is to try and find some key observational test that may distinguish between Einstein's theory and the one we have stumbled upon.
Could it be this?

http://www.presto...ndex.htm
Jigga
1.8 / 5 (15) Jul 12, 2010
There are at least thirty alternative theories/extensions of general relativity - Einstein himself proposed five of them during his life. Most of them work better, then the original version from 1915 - but they're not straightforward and solvable in formal way - which prohibits mathematicians to use them as a salary generators.

Regarding the Eddington's competence, by the well known humorous story journalist Ludwik Silberstein, asked during one of Eddington's lectures: "Professor Eddington, you must be one of three persons in the world who understands general relativity." Eddington paused, unable to answer. Silberstein continued "Don't be modest, Eddington!" Finally, Eddington replied "On the contrary, I'm trying to think who the third person is."
Could it be this?
No.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (10) Jul 12, 2010
Could it be this?

http://www.presto...ndex.htm
No, inflationary mechanics make your hypothesis obsolete and observations contradict the existence of anti-gravity matter.
As related by Ludwik Silberstein, during one of Eddington's lectures he asked "Professor Eddington, you must be one of three persons in the world who understands general relativity." Eddington paused, unable to answer. Silberstein continued "Don't be modest, Eddington!" Finally, Eddington replied "On the contrary, I'm trying to think who the third person is."
It was Rosen. GR isn't difficult to understand. As for Einstein's other theories, he disproved or acknowledged their inadequecy. No theories exist that are more explanitive or encompass all known observational facts as GR does.

And starting your sockpuppetry so early, what a great way to begin a Monday.
TimESimmons
1.9 / 5 (9) Jul 12, 2010
No inflationary mecahanics involved, Skeptic Heretic. I'm just explaining observations:- core-and-disc-and-spiral galaxies, molecular clouds, globular clusters, pulsar kicks, etc. Do you have an explanation for them?

http://www.presto...ndex.htm
Jigga
1.5 / 5 (17) Jul 12, 2010
It was Rosen.
You NEVER linked source for your claims, which is why you're known as a notorious liar here. I'm just quoting Wikipedia - so I'm really interested about your source by now.

http://en.wikiped...lativity

..No theories exist that are more explanitive or encompass all known observational facts as GR does. ..
Because you don't know about them, that's all. For example, general relativity cannot predict dark matter, leads to singularities and it's not quantizable - with compare to many never theories of gravity. Which is why these theories are developed, after all. If the general relativity would work well, we wouldn't try to replace it.
Ridakulous
5 / 5 (20) Jul 12, 2010
It is basic tenet of science that one remain sceptical of any theory, or any law for that matter. It is never usefull to become wedded to any mainstream theory, or personal pet theory - no matter how well you believe it works. This article was interesting for the very reason that it challenges orthodoxy.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (10) Jul 12, 2010
You NEVER linked source for your claims, which is why you're known as a notorious liar here.
Funny how only those who are entirely full of pseudoscience and creationism say that about me while the rest of posters, the majority, do not. Have you ever heard of the Einstein Rosen bridge? A postulate provided exclusively through understanding of reltivity?

Because you don't know about them, that's all.
Name one.
For example, general relativity cannot predict dark matter,
Actually dark matter came directly from Relativity.
leads to singularities and it's not quantizable with compare to many never theories of gravity.
What?
If the general relativity would work well, we wouldn't try to replace it.
We want to replace all theories, Ridakulous hit it on the head. We change our theories as we learn more. Go ahead and tell us how GR is wrong, Alizee. This should be epically laughable.

Tim, you're not describing anything. Try QED.
Jigga
1.5 / 5 (17) Jul 12, 2010
Have you ever heard of the Einstein Rosen bridge?
Why not of Bose-Einstein condensate, for example?

Exactly as I expected - the only motivation of your silly posts is a deep negativism. You must have always some opposite opinion then your enemy - under fabrication of arguments at the price.
.Actually dark matter came directly from Relativity....
Another nonsense. Just try to prove it by link and not by some silly blurbs - and you will see...
Go ahead and tell us how GR is wrong, Alizee
Can you read? For example, general relativity cannot predict dark matter, leads to singularities and it's not quantizable - with compare to many never theories of gravity.
Phideaux
4.6 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2010
Re: "...the sun's gravity does indeed bend starlight..". I always assumed that a ray of light, by definition, always travels in a straight line. Near a massive body, it continues to travel in a straight line, but it moves in curved space; curved space being presented as a different cordinate system other than the familiar Cartesian coordinate system I learned in junior high school.
Jigga
1.4 / 5 (18) Jul 12, 2010
Near a massive body, it continues to travel in a straight line, but it moves in curved space
It moves in curved space-time by general relativity. This is the difference - the "only" questions is, how to prove it. If you would visit such place with clock (which is the only way, how to measure curvature of space-time), you wouldn't observe any lensing at this remote place. You would observe only the dilatation of time and gravitational blue shift of light coming from outside - but no curvature of path that light.

Which is one of conceptual problems of general relativity - it predict things, which violate experiments.
Bob_Kob
2.5 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2010
Yeah thats right but I guess in our perspective the rays of light have been bent.

Imo the big bounce holds the best candidate, it makes the most sense considering everything we observe in the universe is symmetrical, so why not the universe itself?
Jigga
1.7 / 5 (17) Jul 12, 2010
I guess in our perspective the rays of light have been bent

Indeed - the problem (of GR) is, this perspective is of quantum mechanics - not the general relativistic one. In another words, general relativity predicts the phenomena, which belong into realm of quantum mechanics, in fact.

In curved space-time the path of light must always remain straight as a laser beam - which means no gravitational bending or lensing (not saying about some dark matter effects) should occur there - and whole universe would appear transparent - and flat.
Jigga
1.7 / 5 (17) Jul 12, 2010
BTW the quantum mechanics suffers with the exactly opposite problem - after all by the same way, like every formal theory: it describes the Universe from perspective (or under conditions), which aren't defined just by this particular theory. You - as an observer - should always remain invariant to these conditions for being able to observe/predict at least something by this particular theory. It means, you must violate the theory for being able to use it...;-)

Therefore Mr. Eddington had to stay in flat space-time for being able to measure the curvature of space-time around Sun during solar eclipse in 1919. If he would really measure the curvature of space-time, then he could measure anything without clock. What he really measured was the violation of Lorentz symmetry and relativity by light bending.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.8 / 5 (16) Jul 12, 2010
Why not of Bose-Einstein condensate, for example?
Because that doesn't require understanding of relativity, merely QED and Thermodynamics.
Exactly as I expected - the only motivation of your silly posts is a deep negativism.
Sorry, that's incorrect.
You must have always some opposite opinion then your enemy - under fabrication of arguments at the price.
Hence your army of ready to rank sockpuppets?
Another nonsense. Just try to prove it by link and not by some silly blurbs - and you will see
So GR postulates that the fabric of spacetime is warped directly by the presence of mass. Through that presence of mass we can observe the movement of items within this spacetime fabric. When the motions don't add up we looked deeper and found Dark matter. GR predicts dark matter by setting the expectations of speed and rotation within the space-time fabric.

Do further your education. It will make our talks easier.
frajo
3.4 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2010
Until now four comments (one of them in this thread) of user Jigga have been rated by user NisaJ. Both are nicks of one and the same person, known as alizee. Unfortunately, I don't see any possibility to inform the PhysOrg administration except writing this OT comment.
Jigga
1.4 / 5 (21) Jul 12, 2010
You should know, the dark matter is revealed just by violation of relativity by visible mass lensing. The dark matter effect to light bending is about six times larger, then this one predicted by general relativity. Which is why we have six times more of "dark matter" in our Universe, then the real, i.e. visible matter. This amount was determined just by gravitational lensing by using of general relativity because we have no better tool, how to convert lensing to matter. But this "dark matter" is NOT gravitationally attractive, on the contrary - it seems, it attributes to acceleration of Universe expansion, instead.

You're just one of deeply confused half-educated trolls, who are spaming forums by various nonsenses under belief, they fulfill their definition of "correct science". Such people are just trying to appear more qualified by pursuing various apparent crackpots. I met with many similar people at other forums, so you're nothing exceptional in your category - just admit it.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.9 / 5 (15) Jul 12, 2010
You should know, the dark matter is revealed just by violation of relativity by visible mass lensing.
You should know that gravitational lensing is predicted by relativity, not in spite of it.
But this "dark matter" is NOT gravitationally attractive, on the contrary - it seems, it attributes to acceleration of Universe expansion, instead.
No, that's dark energy. Dark matter and dark energy are entirely different things. DM and DE don't share the same connection as matter and energy within the Baryonic universe.
You're just one of deeply confused half-educated trolls, who are spaming forum by various nonsenses under belief, they fulfill their definition of "correct science".
I'd say you're projecting here.
Jigga
1.4 / 5 (19) Jul 12, 2010
BTW the belief, the dark matter confirms general relativity is widespread even between fully qualified astronomers, in fact:

http://www.physor...813.html

These guys first estimated the amount of dark matter from lensing by general relativity and after then they're claiming, this amount determined in such way supports general relativity into account of various alternative theories, who are able to estimate the mass of dark matter from mass of observable matter directly, just in less exact way....;-)

It's not surprising after then, various trolls are believing, the phenomena, which was revealed by violation of general relativity actually confirms it. This trollism is quite widespread in mainstream physics.
Jigga
1.4 / 5 (19) Jul 12, 2010
Dark matter and dark energy are entirely different things
I'm not saying, they're the same thing. I'm saying instead, that dark energy appears as being the effect/result/product of dark matter. And as usually, I've peer-reviewed support for it.

http://www.univer...e-thing/

It seems, you're unable to distinguish such nuances. And your negative voting is just a manifestation of the general lack of arguments. It's quite understandable stance, but such negativism is making whole voting feature useless here. Because just the people, who are able to support their stance in logical way will get the lowest negative score from mortally offended trolls.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.8 / 5 (10) Jul 12, 2010
It's not surprising after then, various trolls are believing, the phenomena, which was revealed by violation of general relativity actually confirms it. This trollism is quite widespread in mainstream physics.
Except it isn't contradictory to Relativity it is contradictory to each and every competing theory so far. I don't see how you're not understanding this unless you're entirely unschooled in the current understanding of cosmology. Which by your following statement manifests readily.
I'm not saying, they're the same thing.
Actually you are insinuating it.
I'm saying instead, that dark energy appears as being the effect/result/product of dark matter.
No, you didn't say that at all.
And as usually, I've peer-reviewed support for it.
Ok, and your point? Have you read the actual paper? How about a link directly to it so we can read it for ourselves.
Jigga
1.5 / 5 (17) Jul 12, 2010
..it is contradictory to each and every competing theory so far.

Actually there are many working theories of dark matter. About two dozens or even more, I guess. Which is why these theories are promoted, after all. Or do you really believe, the physicists who are publishing various theories of dark matter would contradict it?
Parsec
4.7 / 5 (12) Jul 12, 2010
There are lots of gravitation theories, some of which are more problematic that others. GR has so far perfectly predicted and explained every single cosmological observation we have. Some of the consequences ( like big bang singularity, and dark matter ) are potentially incorrect, but so far there is no evidence to demonstrate that.

The only deep problem with GR is its incompatibility with quantum mechanics.

Its very interesting that someone has come up with an alternate theory that could be observationally tested, compatible with GR, and quantum mechanics.
SteveL
5 / 5 (10) Jul 12, 2010
Can we get these two love birds a room?

I have to agree with Ridakulous. Theories need repeated challenging by those with the skills to do so. We don't need modern versions of earth = center of the universe.

One thing about this web site is that new things are being discovered and reported daily. This implies that just a moment before there was something basic, in some tomorrow's reference, that we didn't understand. Each and every discovery highlights the human battle against ignorance, and that change in the human knowledge base is continuious. If anyone says in any particular field that "This is all there is to know.", you can bet they are wrong.
GSwift7
3.7 / 5 (14) Jul 12, 2010
"proposed by Arthur Eddington, a contemporary of Einstein. Eddington is perhaps best known for his trip to the Island of Principe on the west coast of Africa in 1919"

A trip made famous mainly due to the cooperation between Germany and England, and seen as a major step in diplomacy at the time. Herr Einstien was German, after all. Eddington was widely criticized as being an enemy sympathizer due to his desire to maintain scientific relations with "the enemy". Eddington was a huge supporter of Relativity over Newtonian physics, and he became involved in a huge controversy over the validity of his measurements. Some people today still claim that his observation of the bending of light was contrived, even though subsequent observations confirm his claims. It's an interresting story really. As with science today, there is much interplay between politics, science, religion, common beliefs, personal agendas, etc. History repeats itself again.

riot
3.2 / 5 (10) Jul 12, 2010
wow. my comment will probably be looked at as closely as the vatican looking into a sex abuse case but here i go....
Does anyone wonder why religion is winning? Read through these posts and posts on other sites like this. You guys can't even agree on anything. You treat people who are intellectially challenged like the church treats homo-sexuals. You talk over each other and your ideas are the right ones...
I'm not a scientist...PLEASE get your crap together and figure out the universe TOGETHER!
I'd really like to visit that restaurant at the end of the universe before I die.
Jigga
1.6 / 5 (20) Jul 12, 2010
GR has so far perfectly predicted and explained every single cosmological observation we have
This is just another nonsense, which illustrates, how people are willing to parrote the things, which they don't understand just because of their unconscious tendency to have some explanation for them.

GR cannot explain most of observational problems related to red shift, (lack of) gravitational waves, dark matter of dark energy phenomena. We can say, whole contemporary cosmology is based on observations, which are deeply violating general relativity instead.

Dark matter is not "a consequence of GR", because it's observed just by violations of GR. Astronomers know, how gravitational lensing of galactic clusters predicted by general relativity should appear and they're forced to subtract it from observed lensing phenomena.

Only trolls, who don't know anything both about experimental astronomy, both about general relativity theory can claim such things.
Jigga
1.5 / 5 (15) Jul 12, 2010
PLEASE get your crap together and figure out the universe TOGETHER

I explained already many times here, how Universe appears at very general scale. It's completely random inhomogeneous matter similar to clouds.

One of the reasons, why general relativity violates the contemporary cosmology so much is, the appearance of Universe at large scales is much closer to appearance of quantum noise, then the relativity. It's not general relativity, it's not quantum mechanics - it's the mixture of both, i.e. classical physics again - i.e. the very same physics, which we are experiencing at the most close proximity in common life.
Jigga
1.5 / 5 (15) Jul 12, 2010
We don't need modern versions of earth = center of the universe.
This is a correct insight, the modern cosmology is anti-copernician.

http://www.fixede...ions.htm

.You guys can't even agree on anything...
It's logical, because the causal extrapolations of random universe can be nothing, then just fuzzy again.
trekgeek1
4.2 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2010
How exciting. Though general relativity is the heavyweight champion (no pun intended) so far, I am very excited that there MAY be a better explanation. Even though I feel it's unlikely that the new modified theory will prevail, the chance to study the universe with some different rules and therefore, different possibilities is amazing.
rahulksharma_nanu
1 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2010
actually i m against of big bang theory due to lack of evidence i was forced to accept it...by the way multi universe purposal is best 4 nowadays n this can a milestone 4 it.
Jigga
1.5 / 5 (15) Jul 12, 2010
I am very excited that there MAY be a better explanation

But what is better, actually? The problem of more general explanations is, they don't fit the more particular examples so well, because they're poorly conditioned here in the same way, like the more exact theories fail in description of more general phenomena.

For physicists, who are earning money just by writing of math equations the more general theory is even harmful, because it limits their jobs. For physicists is advantageous to have as many perspective theories in game, as possible.
Kyle_Perkins
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 12, 2010
I dont even think gravity is real.
Jigga
1.3 / 5 (18) Jul 12, 2010
What you think is not relevant at all. The important is, what you can argument here. Try to support your idea by some argument or even testable prediction - and we will see. Without arguments you're just spreading religious behavior here in the same way, like Frajo or S_Heretic, who are (down)voting the others without arguments. You're supporting people in such stupid behavior by promoting this approach.

Everyone has a full right for his belief - but he shouldn't use it as a mean of dishonesting of other people (actually this is what the religion served for from its very beginning, I know...). Please, forget the behavior of primitive tribes here. I don't care, what you're thinking, believing or (dis)liking here.

Without arguments EVERY your activity here is a pure trollism - no matter what you're thinking about it.
rahulksharma_nanu
1 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2010
dude don b temper.just chill.general theory is always controversial but this approach can give some insight about in it.meanwhile we can think about different nature of expansion.so that somthing can b highlighted.is there always same phenomenon for expansion?plz help me...
rahulksharma_nanu
1 / 5 (1) Jul 12, 2010
is there always same phenomenon for expansion?

Jigga
1.5 / 5 (15) Jul 12, 2010
is there always same phenomenon for expansion?
Are you trying to ask, whether the expansion of Universe is universal phenomenon? Some pulsars and dark flow galaxies are violating Hubble law in both directions (they're exhibiting blue shift, or they're moving faster or even in superluminal speed seemingly). I predicted before some time, most of radiowave sources should exhibit a blue shift, too. In general, objects inside of galaxies are prone to expansion of Universe, because the close galaxies doesn't appear larger or more sparse, then the these most distant ones.
rahulksharma_nanu
1 / 5 (5) Jul 12, 2010
thanks jigga u gave me new insights about blue shift.if something unpredictable happens in this universe then why can't we assume that something is unnoticed beyond big bang theory.ther must b something we r unaware about it.bcoz in this mystrical universe lots of mystries r yet to b explred n we need time travel to explore.somwhere recently i read in site that black hole is the main criteria frm which our universe originated.wat was abt it i was confused.
frajo
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 12, 2010
who are (down)voting the others without arguments
You are posting under several nicks and you are uprating yourself. That's the most important argument. You've been told before. Why don't you learn?
Jigga
1.3 / 5 (15) Jul 12, 2010
that's the most important argument

This argument is relevant for only two trolls here: you and S_Heretics. Only for two from thousands of users here...;-) Wouldn't be much easier to assume, you're just a regular voting trolls, which exist on every such forum?
Durrr
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 12, 2010
If dark matter and energy are causing the expansion of the universe then does that mean these are building up in our universe in tandem with the increasing speed of this expansion?
Parsec
5 / 5 (10) Jul 12, 2010
Jiqqa - its inappropriate to argue that anyone that disagrees with you is either stupid or a troll. The first assumption is not only arrogant but self-destructive because it acts as an input filter for any information that facilitates learning.

The second is just an unsupported ad hominiem attack with no relevance scientifically to the points being made.

It really isn't true that dark matter (just one of your examples) isn't just assumed as a consequence of GR violations. There are several lines of arguments unrelated to GR that support it. Also note that we have observed dark matter clouds that have NO luminous components that act as gravitational lenses.

The problem with your examples is that they haven't been thought through, or are based on a laymen's understanding of the phenomena. Based on the serious filtering you are doing to contrary viewpoints, thats not surprising.
Jigga
1.3 / 5 (16) Jul 12, 2010
..then does that mean these are building up in our universe in tandem..
Yes, it's possible, the dark matter is the very first step of observable matter formation, although there is still little evidence for this.

..its inappropriate to argue that anyone that disagrees with you is either stupid or a troll..
Not anyone, only two from thousands of other users here. This is a difference supported by trivial probability calculus. If only two users are downvoting systematically, it's improbable, they're doing so on background of some logical arguments.

The conclusion, they're both voting trolls is not ad-hominem attack, but just a logical deduction, after then - until you provide some alternative explanation for such behavior.

Jigga
1.3 / 5 (16) Jul 12, 2010
It really isn't true that dark matter (just one of your examples) isn't just assumed as a consequence of GR violations. There are several lines of arguments unrelated to GR that support it.
Dark matter existence isn't a consequence of some GR violations, it DOES violate GR. You cannot make it compatible by assuming some other theory, which doesn't use GR at all.
Jigga
1.2 / 5 (19) Jul 12, 2010
serious filtering you are doing to contrary viewpoints
I'm not filtering alternative viewpoints by downvoting users on background, but by logical arguments, if available. Yes, this may be a serious problem - but only for those, who have no logical counterarguments. For example my previous post was downvoted by Frajo. He could use some argument instead, but because he has none, he is just trolling in such way.
Parsec
4.8 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2010
I just do not see how the predictions of GR related to gravitational lensing etc. that support dark matter are GR violations. GR predicts that dark matter in such and such a quantity and at a given location have certain observable gravitational effects and lo and behold thats exactly what we see. We observe galaxies with and without dark matter, and GR holds, and we can observe dark matter clouds with and without galaxies (from lensing effects), and GR is exactly predictive. We can predict the presence of dark matter from the observed ratio's of baryonic matter to the overall quantity of mass in the universe, simulate the evolution of the universe with and without dark matter (dark matter is the only thing that works),I am puzzled why you maintain that there are any violations of GR.
Parsec
5 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2010
is there always same phenomenon for expansion?Are you trying to ask, whether the expansion of Universe is universal phenomenon? Some pulsars and dark flow galaxies are violating Hubble law in both directions (they're exhibiting blue shift, or they're moving faster or even in superluminal speed seemingly). I predicted before some time, most of radiowave sources should exhibit a blue shift, too. In general, objects inside of galaxies are prone to expansion of Universe, because the close galaxies doesn't appear larger or more sparse, then the these most distant ones.

I had this idea a couple of decades ago, that expansion would weaken gravity inside a galaxy. I actually sat down and calculated the effect, and inside a galaxy its very small compared to the gravitational field. Thats why even at very large red shifts galaxies look basically the same in terms of stellar density.
Jigga
1.5 / 5 (14) Jul 12, 2010
I just do not see how the predictions of GR related to gravitational lensing etc. that support dark matter are GR violations.

After then you don't understand whole subject of dark matter. The problem of dark matter is, it does lensing at places, where no observable matter resides. This violates the GR, because by GR every curvature of space should be related to some observable matter. Another point, in which dark matter violates the GR is, it exhibits antigravity behavior from extrinsic perspective (dark energy), the deceleration from intrinsic perspective (Pioneer anomaly, for example).

If these effects wouldn't violate GR in its present state, we would use them for confirmation of this theory already - don't you think? For example, if we could compute Pioneer anomaly from GR, we couldn't call it an "anomaly".
Jigga
1.5 / 5 (14) Jul 12, 2010
Actually, the general relativity could be reconciled with dark matter/energy quite easily (at the conceptual level, not the formal one) by consideration of mass-energy density of gravity field curvature or by consideration of omni-directional expansion of Universe - but this expansion doesn't belong into GR postulates, so sorry. We must develop modified theory of GR with different equations. Actually some such equations were derived already for both cases by various people, they're just too complex for being used in real-life examples.
genastropsychicalst
Jul 12, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
OregonWind
5 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2010
For those who enjoy or can handle math, you would find the free access white paper from Maximo Banados and Pedro Ferreira at

http://arxiv.org/...69v1.pdf

Published on 9 June 2010
HaveYouConsidered
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2010
Jigga, is English a primary or secondary language for you? Please learn properly when to use the word "then", and when to use the word "than".
Jigga
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 12, 2010
I dont even think gravity is real.

Dr. Verlinde has said so, too...

http://www.nytime...3&hp
MorituriMax
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 12, 2010
@jigga wrote, "Not anyone, only two from thousands of other users here."

Wow, thousands of people are debating you in several of your physorg threads? Or altogether in all of the threads you populate? Incredible.
Jigga
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 12, 2010
The only deep problem with GR is its incompatibility with quantum mechanics. ... Its very interesting that someone has come up with an alternate theory that could be observationally tested, compatible with GR, and quantum mechanics.
It's not interesting - if A doesn't equal B then it's impossible for C = A AND C = B
v_ferrer
1 / 5 (5) Jul 12, 2010
Singularity philosophy, http://http://beautifulvictoryofone.blogspot.com/2010/07/singularity-my-philosophy.html
Hesperos
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2010
Yadda yadda yadda.

I'm not convinced of the validity of DM and DE, esp. DM. If it's "out there", it has to be here too, nu? so where is it? I just checked under the bed and (so far as I can tell) it's not there!
Ravenrant
4.7 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2010
.... GR predicts that dark matter in such and such a quantity and at a given location have certain observable gravitational effects and lo and behold thats exactly what we see.


Parsec, Last I heard we saw the gravitational effects and THEN invoked dark matter to keep GR from being wrong.
Bob_Kob
1.5 / 5 (2) Jul 13, 2010
I always thought hawkings theory was a work around to the GR singularity problem. Simply reverse time and you will have a black hole emitting matter.
frajo
4 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2010
For example my previous post was downvoted by Frajo. He could use some argument instead, but because he has none, he is just trolling in such way.
I'm here to learn and discuss science. I'm not here to waste my time with people who try to cheat in order to get attention and high scores.
Jigga
1.2 / 5 (15) Jul 13, 2010
LOL, all your posts here are just asocial posts about me - in the same way, like in another topics which I visited. If you want to discuss science, why didn't you do it already like other readers?

Why do you think, scientists are developing theories without Big Bang by now, if Big Bang is so robust and seemingly successful theory, for example?
johanfprins
3.6 / 5 (16) Jul 13, 2010
LOL, all your posts here are just asocial posts about me - in the same way, like in another topics which I visited. If you want to discuss science, why didn't you do it already like other readers?

Jigga, and whatever other name you use: There are other people like probably frajo who visit these forums in the hope of understanding more about physics. Your posts are based on such claptrap that you only serve to confuse such people. PLEASE as I have asked many times on this forum: Take a year off and work through a book on elementary physics before posting here again.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2010
It's not interesting - if A doesn't equal B then it's impossible for C = A AND C = B
No actually it isn't. You NEED a proper education in mathematics, physics, cosmology/astronomy, and basic chemistry, I'd also recommend a course on Logic as well as you've shown yourself to be hopelessly incapable of all of the above.
MadPutz
5 / 5 (1) Jul 13, 2010
A universe in every black hole, universes in their black holes, ad infinitum. Who knows?
Jigga
1 / 5 (13) Jul 13, 2010
A universe in every black hole, universes in their black holes, ad infinitum. Who knows?

It's improbable, the black hole younger then our Universe could contain some daughter Universes in them. But recently some evidence of ancient galaxies older then our Universe was found.

http://www.dailyg...way.html

Of course, the presence of such galaxies not only violates Big Bang hypothesis, but every periodic model of Universe formation too. Instead of it, our Universe would consist of randomly boiling mixture of galaxies, which are condensing from vacuum and disappear again like giant fluctuations of random gas. Some remnants of dwarf galaxies, which formed our Milky Way originally could be still older, then every model of inflation and Big Bang allows. Just the probability laws of statistics have caused, we are surrounded mostly by galaxies of the approximately of the same age.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2010
Of course, the presence of such galaxies not only violates Big Bang hypothesis, but every periodic model of Universe formation too. Instead of it, our Universe would consist of randomly boiling mixture of galaxies, which are condensing from vacuum and disappear again like giant fluctuations of random gas. Some remnants of dwarf galaxies, which formed our Milky Way originally could be still older, then every model of inflation and Big Bang allows. Just the probability laws of statistics have caused, we are surrounded mostly by galaxies of the approximately of the same age
No, their presence violates the standard Cosmological model, not the Inflationary Theory. Again, education is necessary for you to understand the difference.
Jigga
1 / 5 (13) Jul 13, 2010
And of course, if Big Bang didn't occurred, then both inflation and subsequent expansion of Universe have no meaning anymore - they're simply not needed in such model. We should find another interpretation for red-shift observed. One of such explanation can be the tired-light hypothesis of F. Zwicky, which plays well with model of random Universe.

http://en.wikiped...ed_light
Jigga
1 / 5 (13) Jul 13, 2010
..their presence violates the standard Cosmological model, not the Inflationary Theory..

LOL, inflationary theory is an immanent part of standard cosmological model. Your hate and negativism has removed all residua of your ability to think logically. BTW it's at least the fifth BS of yours just in this thread.

http://en.wikiped...DM_model

You should read this topic apparently, too:

http://tinyurl.com/lf8nuk
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2010
LOL, inflationary theory is an immanent part of standard cosmological model. Your hate and negativism has removed all residua of your ability to think logically. BTW it's at least the fifth BS of yours just in this thread.


Inflation doesn't require the standard model but the standard model requires inflation. You need to understand what the theory is before you can make the connection and you obviously don't.

Inflation deals with the expansion cause and scope, Brane theory uses a bangless origin and includes inflation where as the standard model uses a bang and inflation.

Be careful, your ignorance is showing again.
Jigga
1.3 / 5 (14) Jul 13, 2010
Inflation doesn't require the standard model but the standard model requires inflation.
If Big Bang didn't occurred, then no inflation could occur - from which state the Universe would expand, after then - if not from some dense initial state? And why it should do?

The last question is indeed relevant even at the scope of L-CDM model itself. Inflation model is ad-hoced from its very beginning, it was introduced to save BigBang model before apparent paradoxes and it doesn't explain at all, why Universe should do such extravagant things. It just replaces some unexplainable things about Big Bang by another one. After all, this is one of reasons, why ekpyrotic cosmology was introduced.

http://physicswor...ws/32439
Jigga
1 / 5 (13) Jul 13, 2010
Brane theory uses a bangless origin and includes inflation where as the standard model uses a bang and inflation.
This is sixth(!) joke of yours. You would upset at least five thousands of physicists by such sentence. You apparently don't know anything about both standard model, both ekpyrotic model, which is sad and surprising with respect to your arrogant stance. Of course ekpyrotic model rivals inflation - in the same way, like many other models here:

https://www.u-cur...o/163014
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2010
Rather than just bleeting "YOU'RE WRONG" how about you actually do out the math and show us where I'm wrong.
Jigga
1.1 / 5 (13) Jul 13, 2010
..show us where I'm wrong...

This math is linked in the articles presented above.

http://arxiv.org/...2.2040v2

Actually, you wouldn't understand it, if you haven't understood the difference between ekpyrotic model and inflation already. The logical model always precedes this formal one - you cannot understand the math without knowing, what this math described actually. Without such understanding every math is just a pile of neutral formulas - just because it was designed so - in strictly neutral style. Math is a tool for description of logic, not for explanation of its motivations.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2010
Actually, you wouldn't understand it, if you haven't understood the difference between ekpyrotic model and inflation already.
Straw man argument, I said Brane theory, not one specific model of Brane theory. Second item you're missing is the fact that the Cyclical model for the Universe explains your objections to the Standard Cosmological Model.
The logical model always precedes this formal one - you cannot understand the math without knowing, what this math described actually. Without such understanding every math is just a pile of neutral formulas.


So you can't do it, or understand it if it's done for you. In that case it looks like we're done here.
dsanco
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2010
Tesla had some interesting theories about gravity that seem to line up with these thoughts... He discovered that a switch, properly isolated to allow current to flow in one direction only, was rapidly opened and closed that he felt a distinct pressure. He spent much time and resources to investigate this and related phenomena. I extrapolate that the expansion effect of the universe is related to this. Supernovae expelling grand quantities of unidirectional outward pushing energy ...

http://www.electr...ritings/

Jigga
1 / 5 (12) Jul 13, 2010
I said Brane theory, not one specific model of Brane theory
Which "Brane theory" do you mean? I don't know about any "Brane theory" in cosmology. Link the exact Wikipedia keyword instead of misspelling blurbs from popular journals.

Cyclical model for the Universe explains your objections to the Standard Cosmological Model
If some galaxies older then observable Universe exist, then they should survive the cosmological cycle, during which the matter has been formed and anihillated again.

Do you really believe, such explanation is possible and not self-contradicting? Or do you have a better one (just a link, please... - without link I don't believe you a single word)?
Jigga
1 / 5 (12) Jul 13, 2010
switch, properly isolated to allow current to flow in one direction only
Did he worked with diode? If you don't understand the nature of device, it's the same situation, like when S_Heretics believes in inflation without understanding its mechanism.

I'd recommend in such case to believe in anything. Life is too short to spend it with belief in things, which we don't understand.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2010
Which "Brane theory" do you mean? I don't know about any "Brane theory" in cosmology. Link the exact Wikipedia keyword instead of misspelling blurbs from popular journals.
Hilarious.

If some galaxies older then observable Universe exist, then they should survive the cosmological cycle, during which the matter has been formed and anihillated again.
This is an assumption on your part. An incorrect one if I may say so myself.

Do you really believe, such explanation is possible and not self-contradicting? Or do you have a better one (just a link, please... - without link I don't believe you a single word)?

Education, get one. Nothing I produce will be understood seeing as you intrepret wikipedia as an authoritative source for scientific definition.
SteveL
3.6 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2010
Why does every valuable topic thread have to turn from civility into an insult hurling contest?

Useful debate would be nice, but trying to duck all the mud slinging from a few prolific posters makes attempts to follow any productive discourse more challenging than it should be.
Jigga
1 / 5 (13) Jul 13, 2010
OK, Skeptic Heretic in brief:

1) It's not true, the sentence "I'm trying to think who the third person is." is attributed to Rosen
2) It's not true, general relativity predicts dark matter and the lensing attributed to it
3) It's not true, GR postulates, the fabric of spacetime is warped by the presence of mass (it's a theorem of string theory)
4) It's not true, dark matter and dark energy are entirely different things by recent theories
5) It's not true, dark matter isn't contradictory to relativity
6) It's not true, when two theories predict different results, then some third theory could predict the same result for both of them
7) It's not true, the presence of gallaxies older then the universe wouldn't violate inflation, which occured later
8) It's not true, Brane theory (actually named M-theory) is ekpyrotic model
9) It's not true, inflation doesn't contradict the ekpyrotic model
Skeptic_Heretic
4.8 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2010
In turn
1) No, I said the third, at that time, was Rosen.
2) It accounts for a total mass, unobserved mass is dark matter, GR predicts dark matter
3) GR does speak directly to the warping of space time
4) yes DM and DE are different things
5) DM does not contradict GR it enhances it
6) has happened multiple times
7) prove it
8) half correct, they are not the same theory, nor are brane theory and M theory the same theory.
9) inflation is required by the ekpyrotic model.

Get an education. Until then I'm just not going to engage in this foolish pedantry with you. You have no inkling of what you're talking about, you've proved this several times, and aside from that you don't have the basic reading comprehension required to assimilate information given to you to get you up to speed. In short, I'll bait you no longer, troll.
Jigga
1 / 5 (15) Jul 13, 2010
1) It violates Wikipedia article http://tinyurl.com/2bl259g
2) General relativity never predicted the rotational curves of stars in galaxies, neither the lensing effects around massive clusters. Therefore it cannot predict any extrapolations of these phenomena.
3) "to postulate" (axiom) is not "to speak" (theorem). General relativity can say nothing about "space-time fabric", as such concept has no meaning in GR
4) yes DM and DE are different things - not in this peer-reviewed theory, supported by math http://tinyurl.com/58zcs9
5) DM is in direct contradiction to GR, which predicts flat space-time at the places, where it isn't (i.e. around galactic clusters or inside of solar system)
6) no, such conclusion violates rigor of and you didn't give any example
7) if ancient galaxy would exist before inflation, now it would have diameter larger then the whole universe, because during inflation space-time expanded in 1:10E+41 ratio. No such huge galaxy was ever observed
9) nonsense
Jigga
1 / 5 (13) Jul 13, 2010
Until then I'm just not going to engage in this foolish pedantry with you.
Actually, the number of observations and theories of Universe formation is so high today, to estimate the most probable scenario isn't so difficult even for layman person, which doesn't care about technical background of this knowledge. It just requires quite strict and consequential logical thinking, which you're not capable of apparently.

The mainstream proponents of individual theories aren't able of such reconciliation too - mostly from psychological reasons: they're overspecialized, so they cannot see things as a whole, and they're tend to protect their pet theories, developed for years.

Why experts are usually wrong: http://tinyurl.com/36owhx2
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2010
It just requires quite strict and consequential logical thinking, which you're not able of apparently.

The mainstream proponents of individual theories aren't able of such reconciliation, though - mostly from psychological reasons: they're overspecialized, so they cannot see all things as a whole, and they're tend to protect their pet theories, developed for years.
This from an aether hypothesist.
Jigga
1 / 5 (12) Jul 13, 2010
If you will remain tolerant to existing theories, you would see no holes in it, after then you would have no motivations to improve it. One of reasons, for which physicists ignored the aether model as a whole is, they were quite engaged and satisfied by dual system of general relativity and quantum mechanics, although both these theories are supplying diametrically different predictions. Physicists have used them just because it was relatively easy to write some equations and publications about it. And publications mean money in contemporary science.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2010
One of reasons, for which physicists ignored the aether model as a whole is, they were quite engaged and satisfied by dual system of general relativity and quantum mechanics, although both these theories are supplying diametrically different predictions.
The other would be that in the 60's we went into space and found no aether.
Jigga
1 / 5 (12) Jul 13, 2010
Luminiferous aether is forming environment for light spreading, as its name implies. It cannot be seen by light waves in the same way, like the water surface cannot be seen with surface waves.

Some Western sources claimed that Gagarin, during his space flight, had made the comment, "I don't see any God up here." In a 2006 interview a close friend of Gagarin, Colonel Valentin Petrov, stated that Gagarin never said such words, and that the phrase originated from Nikita Khrushchev's speech at the plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU, where the anti-religious propaganda was discussed.
Jigga
1 / 5 (10) Jul 13, 2010
Actually, if you would given an order: "prove the existence of water surface just by using of water surface waves!", what would you do?
Jigga
1 / 5 (12) Jul 13, 2010
Cosmology with torsion - an alternative to cosmic inflation

http://arxiv.org/...7.0587v1

"Accordingly, our own Universe may be the interior of a black hole existing in another universe."

So concludes Nikodem Poplawski at Indiana University in a new paper about the nature of space and the origin of time.
Dan_K
5 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2010
Did anyone else read the title to imply that the theory of gravity had been revised?
adaptation
4 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2010
I agree SteveL, the arguing has gotten in the way of the science. I doubt what I say will change that, but...

If Einstein had never thought "outside the box" we wouldn't have GR now. It's crucial to consider all sides of an argument BEFORE coming to a conclusion.

Thanks to Jigga for providing links to support a lot of the things you were saying. For those of you with more traditional views on physics, it would help the rest of us if you posted more source material. An explanation of how you came to your conclusions would benefit every one here.

In all the arguing some interesting ideas from Ravenrant, Hesperos, trekgeek1, riot, and SteveL (and probably others) have gone unanswered. This is quite a shame.
jackross
Jul 14, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
hush1
1.5 / 5 (2) Jul 14, 2010
O.k. I used to be frighten by thoughts that did not make sense to me. Now I know there's no reason to fear any thought - whether I understand it or not. The thoughts that contribute to my grasp/attempt to understand anything preoccupy me - until, of course, those are understood.

If you told me, you understood the human language, (all 6000 present day versions, plus the past versions - that includes the languages of math, music etc etc), then proclaim to me, you are at a loss for words, a language, a vocabulary,...well?, who is going to believe that?

Who will proclaim to know the entire human language?

How large does a portion of the entire human language have to be - to make 'progress'?

What will (still) be missing - by knowing all of one (or many)part(s) (of the entire human language)? Knowing all of Math. Or Physics. Or dozens of Languages?

Isn't that (which is still missing) called arguing?
Or lack of understanding?

Isn't learning fun? :)
taka
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2010
GR had definitely a problem - the dark matter and dark energy were invented to make it fit observations. This is only one possible outcome, not necessarily the correct one. So it is hypocrisy to claim that GR predict dark matter.

But it does not necessarily mean that it is wrong and dark matter is not even the only (best?) mechanism that can be used for fitting. Simple electric charge + few usual dark objects (not necessarily even black holes) can explain all observations.

The incompatibility with quantum mechanics is also bad. But here the problem may lay in quantum mechanics, it had more serious internal problems then GR newer had and it cannot explain a load of experiments.
taka
1 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2010
The idea of universe inside a black hole is not an idea; it is direct conclusion from GR and Big Bang. If these two are correct there is no way it can be outside. But, if so then there exist such a phenomena as pseudo focus. Meaning there may newer actually be singularity or inflation, just this black hole starts with final size and may be growing even now.
taka
1 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2010
It is bad habit to think of space-time as a coordinate system. Space is mathematical construction, no more no less. In our world it manifests as light speed slowdown near a mass, the light curving is consequence from that (one side of wave has different speed then the other). But light speed is infinite for light itself and we see it as final because time stops when traveling with this speed. So, the light speed is the speed when time stops. It seems constant light speed for us, as the only measurement of time is the light speed itself, so if light slows then time accelerates. And the only measurement of distance is also the light (atom sizes are consequence of them reacting with light, so it really is the only measure). So, if all that holds then I do not know any more what the space-time is, it seems just plain illusion. If there is any mass it just create some space-time around itself, the more mass, the more space-time. If there is no mass there is also no space and no time.
taka
1 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2010
Gravity wave detection seems hopeless considering all this; even if they exist they are not detectable using light and/or matter.
two_cents
2.8 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2010
Just quickly,

Jigga, your arguments would be more concise and a damn sight more understandable if you edited, paying special attention to grammar.

Just wanted to throw that out there.
two_cents
2.8 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2010
Oh, one more thing...

Don't use wiki to try and prove ANYTHING.

Silly.
johanfprins
3.3 / 5 (12) Jul 14, 2010
Just quickly,

Jigga, your arguments would be more concise and a damn sight more understandable if you edited, paying special attention to grammar.

Just wanted to throw that out there.


It will make no difference whether Jigga, taka, VestaR, Alizee, or whatever this crazy mixed-up multi-personality calls itself, heeds your advice. Even the best grammer will still leave a physics message that will be confusing and nonsensical.
johanfprins
3.4 / 5 (12) Jul 14, 2010
So, if you see something in my posts, which is confusing and/or contradicting mutually or well known physics and/or without common sense, feel free to support your stance by some examples and/or arguments.

Without it it's just a post of yours, what is confusing here.


I have tried this in the past with you; but when I argue logic which you cannot argue against (for example that the Bohr atom of hydrogen cannot have a magnetic moment) you do not respond any further; but suddenly deluge this forum with all kinds of stories about unproven aether calculations: For example stories about "wave motions of planets". I do not have the time to waste to point out all the illogicalities in your arguments.
johanfprins
3.2 / 5 (10) Jul 14, 2010
I explained you, magnetic moment in Bohr's model of atom would be zero, only if this model would be completely symmetric with respect to electron/proton momentum, i.e. if the electron would encircle the center of proton - not the center of mass of proton-electron system.

This statement proves what I am saying all along: You do not understand elementary physics. Both the proton and the electron circles around the centre-of mass and each completes a cycle during the same time: Thus both a positive and negative charge circles simultaneously and therefore the total current around the centre-of-charge during each cycle is zero. No magnetic moment is possible even though their momentums are different.
If you cannot even do this simple calculation why should I engage you on the Big Bang?
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Jul 14, 2010
Standing waves. The concept fascinates me.

I'm standing next to the physical interpretation* of Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier investigations.

So, when I clap my hands together (an impulse of energy - if you will) the result is an infinite set of standing waves.

*The piano - without dampers. Or -
*My ears too.

Standing waves. Such a simple concept. With such big meanings - from the Big Bang to Superconductivity.

:)
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2010
These charges are the very same and they're moving with the same frequency/period - but they're revolving atom nuclei at different distance from common center of mass.
No, this is where you start going off the logical track. Nothing is orbiting the atomic nucleus. Technically nothing is orbiting at all. If anything was orbiting the center of mass you would need to have a way to address synchroton radiation that is not present in any current or past observation.
It means the amplitude of electrostatic intensity vector generated by one of charges is much smaller, then the another one and they cannot compensate mutually at distance.
Why would the amplitude change through static motion? Over what sort of distance, and again, how do you account for unobserved momentum of a particle that has mass and a fixed relative KE?

The answer is simple, you don't have to because none of these processes are actually occuring.
johanfprins
3.4 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2010
Well, this is why I told, you haven't understood my point at all.
These charges are the very same and they're moving with the same frequency/period - but they're revolving atom nuclei at different distance from common center of mass. It means the amplitude of electrostatic intensity vector generated by one of charges is much smaller, then the another one and they cannot compensate mutually at distance.

You see why you are incompetent: When you define a TOTAL current around an axis when charges are moving around the axis you MUST calculate it in tems of the centre of charge moving around the axis. Guess what the charge is at the centre of charge of a negative and positive charge of the same magnitude, EVEN WHEN THEY ROTATE AT DIFFERENT DISTANCES? If you cannot figure this out you are even more incompetent than I anticipated in my wildest dreams!!!
rahulksharma_nanu
2.8 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2010
let us don argue abt each other.rather than we should use our brain discussing science material.dont waste intelligence uselessly.if there is expansion then one day there wiil be contractiontoo.but anybody can help me is there any example or proof that in this universe contraction phenomenon has occured.
ArcainOne
not rated yet Jul 14, 2010
First off very interesting article I always appreciate different views, in that I hope to find a less depressing model of our universe. It is a small dim hope but a hope none the less.
ArcainOne
4.8 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2010
Honestly what bothers me here is that many commenter's have been lumping dark matter and dark energy under the same category which should immediately call into question ones understanding of this matter (pun intended).

"Dark Matter" is the much better understood of the two. It is observed through Gravitational Lensing. It is matter in the universe that we cannot see, but we can OBSERVE the effect this matter has on its surroundings. One possibility is very dim stars and brown dwarfs that have mass but do not produce enough light to view.

"Dark Energy" is an entirely different animal. Older models of our universe said that because of gravity the matter in the universe should expand to a point and then collapse back upon itself, or gravity should at least slow it down. Dark Energy came about because we discovered that our universe is accelerating. Therefore it is some energy we do not understand that is supplying our universe with the power it needs to accelerate matter.
Jigga
1 / 5 (11) Jul 14, 2010
what the charge is at the centre of charge of a negative and positive charge of the same magnitude

This discussion is completely OT here, nevertheless the fact, people are still upvoting your posts is striking. Bellow the animation of two models of hydrogen atom is linked:

http://tinyurl.com/355cgh8

Both atoms are modeled like rotating dipoles of different mass, but the same charge. First model is rotating around center of both charges, whereas the second one (more realistic) is rotating around center of mass.

Now I have two question:

1) will be the magnetic momentum of both models equal?
2) if not, which model would exhibit higher magnetic momentum?
yyz
5 / 5 (2) Jul 14, 2010
"One possibility is very dim stars and brown dwarfs that have mass but do not produce enough light to view."

Are you by chance referring to MACHOs here? It's been shown that they do not solve the missing mass problem. MACHOs as DM?: http://www.perime..._Matter/
Jigga
1 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2010
lumping dark matter and dark energy under the same category ...should immediately call into question ones understanding of this matter
Actually it's quite simple: dark matter is known by its repulsive action to observable matter and by the fact, it surrounds massive galaxies. Therefore the deduction, dark matter is responsible for accelerated expansion of these galaxies is trivial.
Jigga
1 / 5 (10) Jul 14, 2010
"One possibility is very dim stars and brown dwarfs that have mass but do not produce enough light to view."
It doesn't explain dark matter effects inside of our solar system, for example the Pioneer anomaly. Actually the cold dark matter seems to be quite omnipresent and even penetrating massive objects.
frajo
5 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2010
Bellow
"Bellow" is not the correct translation of "pod".
the animation of two models of hydrogen atom is linked:
http://tinyurl.com/355cgh8
Two "models" from www.aetherwavetheory.info - very convincing.
Jigga
1 / 5 (10) Jul 14, 2010
The purpose of these models is not to convince anybody, only to illustrate understanding problem of johanfprins and Skeptic_Heretic.
daywalk3r
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 14, 2010
For instance, the theory predicts a maximum density of homogeneous and isotropic space-time.
A theory, that is built on GR, aspires to extend it, and at the same time predicts absolutes? Essentialy proposing a single "universal" refference frame? :-X
In Big Bang theory, the state of the Universe is a singularity in early times, meaning that the Universe was once infinitely small. However, Eddington’s revised theory requires a minimum length of space-time at early times, which means that the Universe could not have been a singularity.
The whole singularity approach - or better said, its interpretation and translation into mathematics - is just wrong.

For example, a black hole can be considered as being a singularity - but only from a refference point which lies -outside- of its own radius/horizon. This however does not imply that it really has to be a singularity. A single point in space-time simply does not exist. Nor does a specific absolute minimum/maximum..
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jul 14, 2010
The purpose of these models is not to convince anybody, only to illustrate understanding problem of johanfprins and Skeptic_Heretic.

Ok then explain the lack of synchrotron radiation.

I have no issue debating you, and I have no problem educating you. I will not do both simultaneously.
Jigga
1 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2010
Ok then explain the lack of synchrotron radiation.
I can ask you, how is it possible, paramagnetic iron, oxygen or superconductor ring doesn't emanate synchrotron radiation, after then...
tarheelchief
not rated yet Jul 14, 2010
If there was a bounce,then when is the next one coming?If there was a bounce,what did the universe bounce off of?
Joelk
not rated yet Jul 14, 2010
I vaguely remember my abstract analysis class definition - Prove that any sequence of points P-sub-n approaches P for all points P in space S, this shows space S is complete - has no holes. The space of general relativity is not complete obviously. This had not occurred to me. Wonder what it means mathematically?
johanfprins
3.2 / 5 (9) Jul 15, 2010
I can ask you, how is it possible, paramagnetic iron, oxygen or superconductor ring doesn't emanate synchrotron radiation, after then...

Let us go to the superconducting ring: If the current is flowing as is modelled by the standard superconductor theories like the London equations, Gizberg-Landau equations etc., it would have emitted synchotron radiation. The reason why this is not happening is that the charge-carriers moving around the ring hop by means of quantum fluctuations: Therefore there is NO energy to generate synchotron radiation. In the case of an electron circling a proton, there will have to be synchotron radiation. The latter happens when one generates a so-called Rydberg atom for which the electron does actually circle the nucleus because its total energy is larger than its rest mass energy. The electron then decays by means of synchotron radiation as it MUST.
frajo
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2010
Prove that any sequence of points P-sub-n approaches P for all points P in space S, this shows space S is complete - has no holes.
Yes, that's maths. A bit more precise: A metric space S is called complete if every cauchy sequence converges in S.
The space of general relativity is not complete obviously. This had not occurred to me. Wonder what it means mathematically?
First of all, GR doesn't deal with a mathematical space but with a physical space which is being described by mathematical modelling. Second, (mathematical) completeness is not a property of space, but it is a property of the metric (defined on a metric space).
Now, by applying math operations to your model you can end up with a lot of mathematical results. It's up to you/the physicians to decide which subset of these results is meaningful for physics and how the meaningful subset of results has to be "translated" into physics.
Singularities, e.g., are meaningful mathematical entities - but not physical.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Jul 15, 2010
How does a theory predict something that would have had to happen billions of years ago?
'Stalking the Wild Pendulum' had an interesting theory that the universe was a continuous loop recycling through a 'singularity'.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Jul 15, 2010
Nevertheless the paramagnetic atoms with unpaired electrons (like the Fe2+ions, oxygen or hydrogen) still doesn't radiate synchrotron radiation in the same way, like the superconductor ring.
Which means there are no such thing as orbiting electrons. Thanks for proving my point.
Jigga
1 / 5 (10) Jul 15, 2010
Note that the model of "quantum hoping" proposed by johanfprins plays well with (special) relativity too, as it apparently enables to propagate all particles by speed, which is limited to the very same value (of light speed), despite the nature of particle.

Electrons inside of atom are revolving by the higher speed, the farther they're moving from atom nuclei. Which is why electrons at the surface of Rydberg atoms are losing their speed preferably - but the unpaired electron in hydrogen atom remains stable and it doesn't generate synchrotron radiation - while it's still generating magnetic momentum.

In this way we can reconcile relativity with quantum mechanics illustratively.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2010
which means there are no such thing as orbiting electrons.
Which could mean, the mechanism, which is keeping them in motion is similar to this one, presented by johanfprins for superconducting ring...
No, that isn't what he presents, nor is it similar to what I'm showing you. You're trolling again.
frajo
3.2 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2010
How does a theory predict something that would have had to happen billions of years ago?
You're right, "predict" is not suitable in this case. That's why many scientists use the neologism "postdict" to indicate an event of the past which has happened according to some theory.
icecycle66
1 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2010
I don't get why this is so big all of a sudden. About a year or so ago similar theories and findings were posted here:

http://www.trueli...nce.html

It goes on for 9 or 10 chapters explaining everything posted here. Som eof it is pretty far out, but it leans towards the philosophy of science. Most of it seems to make sense to me. It's at least an entertaining read, if you can follow it.

I guess I just don't understand why this is all over the news sites when the idea posted years ago.
frajo
3.6 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2010
Som eof it is pretty far out, but it leans towards the philosophy of science.
Not towards philosophy, not towards science, just towards bad HTML.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Jul 15, 2010
... It's up to you/the physicians to decide which subset of these results is meaningful for physics and how the meaningful subset of results has to be "translated" into physics.
Singularities, e.g., are meaningful mathematical entities - but not physic...


Thanks Frajo. Your insights (comments) for me, prove to be an invaluable aid to my learning curve. As proof (which you nor anyone else need) that I focus on your comments to aid my learning curve, I point out a triviality which everyone understood anyway, despite typo.

physicians=physicists

Maybe some of us need more than physics and math!

:)
Jigga
1.3 / 5 (13) Jul 15, 2010
No, that isn't what he presents, nor is it similar to what I'm showing you.
You didn't show anything, only categorical but void negations. Magnetic moment of monoatomic hydrogen is an experimental fact, the lack of synchrotron radiation from it as well.

It's just you who & johanfprins, who is trolling here. I know experimental physics well with compare to you.
Kumelys
5 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2010
Jigga, please be so kind and get a proper education instead of your internet/magazine/comics(?) knowledge.
Some (ok, many) of your statements shows you don't have a clue about cosmology and hadn't seen a textbook awhile.
Information that you provide is often from not so reliable sources, as physorg is not a super reliable site too.
And many of Skeptic Heretic and frajo statements are based on formal education in physics or similar field. These guys speak not from internet gossips but from the knowledge gained.
And please, stop boasting around that you know cosmology. You are making so many mistakes only in verbal form, so I am afraid that mathematical angle would make you look even more sillier (is that possible?).
Jigga
1 / 5 (12) Jul 15, 2010
Some (ok, many) of your statements shows you don't have a clue about cosmology and hadn't seen a textbook awhile
If many - can you provide just two examples of some factual errors in my posts?

Without evidence I cannot consider your memo seriously - on the contrary, it would make you troll instead of me. If you believe people like Skeptic_Heretic, who is claiming, hydrogen atom cannot exhibit magnetic momentum, or it would radiate synchrotron radiation - it's just another evidence, you're posting with other trolls as a solid team.
abhishekbt
not rated yet Jul 16, 2010
Any kind of singularity-free Universe would solve the singularity problem that has bothered scientists about general relativity, since a singularity cannot be mathematically defined


Can someone knowledgable guide me on this. What the above seems to indicate is, removing singularities from the equation would solve the problem. But I thought we have already proved that Black Holes really exist and therefore singularities exist.
What is the dilemma?
frajo
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 16, 2010
I point out a triviality which everyone understood anyway, despite typo.
physicians=physicists
My goodness, I did it again.
Thanks a lot for helping me to improve my English.
frajo
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2010
can you provide just two examples of some factual errors in my posts?
0) It's an error to assume that your worst errors are your factual errors.
dark matter is known by its repulsive action to observable matter and by the fact, it surrounds massive galaxies. Therefore the deduction, dark matter is responsible for accelerated expansion of these galaxies is trivial.
1) DM is not known.
2) DM is not known to exhibit repulsive action.
3) You are confusing observable and visible matter.
4) DM is not known to "surround" massive galaxies.
5) There is no accelerated "expansion of galaxies".
6) There is no accelerated expansion of "these galaxies".
7) Any halo of such repulsive stuff around a galaxy would destroy its morphology and diffuse its stars and its gas into intergalactic space.
8) The DE hypothesis does not affect the internal dynamics of galaxies - it affects spacetime only.
9) In this thread you have posted 48 comments as "Jigga" and 11 comments as "VestaR".
Ethelred
3.8 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2010
What the above seems to indicate is, removing singularities from the equation would solve the problem.
One way to get rid of singularities is to assume that there is limit how small anything can be in the Universe. The Planck length will do nicely.
But I thought we have already proved that Black Holes really exist and therefore singularities exist.
Sorta and no.

Cygnus X-1 is the source of very strong evidence for the existence of Black Holes. There is a radio source there which appears to be an accretion disc and it gives every sign of rotating around an object that is too massive for any known force to support its own weight. That is it is so massive that even the Strong Force that supports Neutron Stars will fail and the object really should collapse to form a Black Hole.

http://en.wikiped...gnus_X-1

However even if Black Holes exist, singularities may not. Not in the sense of a point source anyway.

Ethelred
abhishekbt
not rated yet Jul 16, 2010
@Ethelred : Thanks!

However even if Black Holes exist, singularities may not. Not in the sense of a point source anyway.


So to speak, we have proved the existance of Black Holes, (no other conceivable way to explain observation) but we haven't proved the existance of singularites yet.

So, you are saying that even beyond the event horizon an object with a non zero radius can survive??

But if BH's exist, wouldn't it be a logical conclusion to assume that gravity would continue to compress anything that cannot support itself to a point where nothing was left but a "point"?

Ethelred
4 / 5 (3) Jul 16, 2010
1) DM is not known. This is not true from 1934


Could you try writing that again so that it actually has meaning? And at best it contradicts:
2) DM is not known to exhibit repulsive action. It is known

That link makes a wild assed guess. That does no by any stretch of the most fervered imagination, beside that of Alizee the Hydra, constitute KNOWN. That word does not mean what you seem to think it means.
3) You are confusing observable and visible matter. Nope, until you prove it


At least some Dark matter is non-visible but observable.

4) DM is not known to "surround" massive galaxies. It indeed is.


It is believed to based on OBSERVATIONS of the way matter moves in Galaxies. It would help a lot if you learn how to post replies in manner with vastly greater clarity as to what is yours and what isn't.

5) There is no accelerated "expansion of galaxies". It indeed is


Step one endeth on to step two
Ethelred
4.7 / 5 (3) Jul 16, 2010
I think this is a matter of misunderstanding. GALAXIES are not expanding. The UNIVERSE is expanding. The one does not necessarily entail the other. Galaxies are gravitationally bound.
6) There is no accelerated expansion of "these galaxies".
Same thing. You guys, frajo too, need to work on your clarity. Don't say 'galaxies are expanding' when you mean they are moving away from each other. The former is ambiguous. Yes I know its a second language. However if you want to be clear you still need to improve.
Any halo of such repulsive stuff around a galaxy would destroy its morphology and diffuse its stars and its gas into intergalactic space.
True. IF the stuff repels itself. HOWEVER there is at present no need to assume that the DM repels anything. Especially since it was discovered by its ability to ATTRACT visible matter.

Do try thinking these thing through just a bit more.

Party of the second part needs a third party
Kumelys
1 / 5 (1) Jul 16, 2010
Jigga.
Without rereading all your silly posts here's two examples for you.
First, you stated that Universe is higly inhomogenous and this is so wrong. Take universe at the large scale and you find that it is perfectly homogenous (read ANY cosmological textbook instead of babble on internet).
Second, dark matter? Do you know where predictions for that come from and how people started suspecting that something 'is missing'. However, these are only guesses, not facts, we have no dark matter confirmed, only unofficially accepted in various theories. There is still no experimental data that shows that dark matter exists, and 'observations' are only trying to measure dark matter effects if the theory was right.
Kumelys
3.5 / 5 (2) Jul 16, 2010
And dude, hydrogen atom doesn't have magnetic momentum. It's a mathematical spot.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2010
Party of the Final Part
Off topic and it doesn't change what I've said above..
Double logons are not off topic. It is never polite. Especially seeing as how your latest DL claims to be from India and as Alizee you claimed IIRC to be Czech. Telling fairy stories and pretending to be other people AND having the brass to get mad at people for noticing is not polite. It IS mendacious and duplicitous, at best.

Ethelred
jonlawsb
4 / 5 (2) Jul 16, 2010
"Any kind of singularity-free Universe would solve the singularity problem that has bothered scientists about general relativity, since a singularity cannot be mathematically defined."

Surely this is BAD science. Just because a singularity cannot be defined by maths it's possibility should not be excluded. By trying to explain the possible 'birth' of this universe you must understand that it may not be possible mathematically because our maths is constrained by the properties of this universe at a fundamental level. Surely going so far back in cosmological time until a singularity is the only result shows the limit of our mathematics and physics.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (8) Jul 16, 2010
No, that isn't what he presents, nor is it similar to what I'm showing you.
You didn't show anything, only categorical but void negations. Magnetic moment of monoatomic hydrogen is an experimental fact, the lack of synchrotron radiation from it as well.

It's just you who & johanfprins, who is trolling here. I know experimental physics well with compare to you.
Then one would think that you'd be able to succintly exemplify your points without multiple screen names or posts per reply.
Kumelys
4.5 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2010
Jigga, or VestaR. Could you please keep the discussion you started on topic, because now, it is only beating around the bush and nothing clear.
Using two pseudonyms is not so polite as you might think and abusing anonymity of internet is not polite at all.
May I suggest that you use only ONE of your names, so we could know who is writing, and that you keep your facts as accurate as possible.
I pointed out two of your general and very general mistakes, and could you be so kind and stop pretending you have huge knowledge of physics when you don't have (I presume) formal education in it.
frajo
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2010
I don't care, who are you at all.
You do care who downrates your comments. You are upset about these users and call them "trolls".
If you would post under thousands of nick names and all your posts will be unique and dedicated to physics, then the number of yours nicks will be completely irrelevant.
You pretend not to care about the nicks of other users just because you are trying to hide the fact that you care very much about your scores. So much that you are constantly changing your nicks, generating new ones, and even voted yourself up several times. (Last time by using "NisaJ" to vote for "Jigga" comments.)
Note that the voting feature is post-centric, not person-centric.
You don't understand how this world functions:
As long as you continue to use more than one nick you'll have to accept that a lot of users won't uprate your comments. It's the only way for honest users to express their disapproval of your cheating method.
SteveL
5 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2010
A universe in every black hole, universes in their black holes, ad infinitum. Who knows?

It's improbable, the black hole younger then our Universe could contain some daughter Universes in them. But recently some evidence of ancient galaxies older then our Universe was found.

http://www.dailyg...way.html

Of course, the presence of such galaxies not only violates Big Bang hypothesis, but every periodic model of Universe formation too.


If this galaxy from the link you provided is older than our universe, why would it not have experienced the same universal and increasing rate of expansion we are seeing? Should it not have dissipated over 14+ billion years (assuming the age of our universe and adding a random age for this galaxy from a "previous" or parallel universe).
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Jul 16, 2010
It's strange. The endeavor to uphold and maintained consistency contained within concepts, such as the evolution of the universe, until the effort to maintain consistency exceeds our knowledge to maintain the consistency. At that point, we are quick to try another concept. This time under the guise of the words:"revised...Bang"

Both, consistency and inconsistency bear witness to logic, of all which has emotional meaning to us, as well.

A 'comfortable' bias - consistency.
baudrunner
1 / 5 (2) Jul 16, 2010
The concept of a "lingering" Universe, as if trapped in some kind of stasis, is ridiculous. There was no time before the beginning - no "before the beginning", for that matter, so there was never any singularity. The event happens, or, from within our own temporal framework, "has happened", in the past. Time, space, matter, all unfolded in the beginning, and continues creating at the periphery of the Universe, beyond which there is nothing, as before the beginning, which is now happening there. We can't excape the concept of time, which is just a tool wherewith to fit the perception of continuity, and all things must pass in it, as this creation will pass, while creation begins as always, just not "here".
Mercury_01
not rated yet Jul 16, 2010
Hey, I never did like the idea of a singularity, but just because there may not have been one doesnt mean there wasnt a big bang, does it? The title of this article goes too far.
Jigga
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 16, 2010
The title of this article goes too far.
Why do you think? Modification of GR by Born-Infeld action doesn't refuse Big Bang concept, it just simply doesn't require it for its predictions, being orthogonal to it.

http://iopscience..._035.pdf
hush1
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2010
Jigga and his zillion nics makes everything here ___________________(fill in - whatever you want)

He's never at a loss for words or anything.
It is not as if you are missing anything in your life had you never encountered Jigga+nics. After encountering him, it is, though.

:)
MorituriMax
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 17, 2010
@jigga, "It violates Wikipedia article"

Oh god, doubly hilarious. Now the Wikipedia's is some kind of scientific law?

"Up against the wall sucka, you not only violated good taste, gravity, and my sense of decency, you violated the Wikipedia."
Jigga
1.7 / 5 (12) Jul 17, 2010
.. Now the Wikipedia's is some kind of scientific law?..
Wikipedia is quoting it's sources in peer-reviewed literature. It's still much better, then the belief in some anonymous troll, who is claiming apparently nonsensical things without any link and/or evidence.

If Skeptic is so sure by authorship of Rosen, why he cannot support his opinion by any testable evidence?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 17, 2010
If Skeptic is so sure by authorship of Rosen, why he cannot support his opinion by any testable evidence?
Are you really this stupid? I said flat out that Rosen didn'rt author the quote, he was the third that the original speaker was referring to. I'm not sure which is worse, your inability to follow a conversation or your grasp of english.
Jigga
1.4 / 5 (12) Jul 17, 2010
..I said flat out that Rosen didn'rt author the quote, he was the third that the original speaker was referring to...
Another lie, just compare the "Skeptic_Heretic - Jul 12, 2010" post. I don't believe you anyway without link to source. A compulsive lying is a medicable syndrome - we are not forced to suffer from it.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.9 / 5 (10) Jul 17, 2010
Another lie, just compare the "Skeptic_Heretic - Jul 12, 2010" post. I don't believe you anyway without link to source. You're just a compulsive liar, did you ever realized it? Such syndrome is medicable, you're not forced to suffer from it.
The quote was from Silberstein. "Mr Eddington, as one of the 3 that understand GR" Eddingtin- "I'm trying to think of the third."

The three at the time were Einstein, Rosen, and Eddington as those were the only 3 working within the framework at that time.

Thanks for playing, you can now go read up on GR and determine this for yourself. You have all the necessary information, dates, names, and published works.

Hilarious that you, the man/woman of multiple online personalities and brutal amounts of misguided pseudoscience, think that I suffer from a medicable disease. Go drum yourself up some new sockpuppet accounts through which you can rank terrorize.
Jigga
1.4 / 5 (12) Jul 17, 2010
..the three at the time were Einstein, Rosen, and Eddington as those were.

Why not David Hilbert, for example? He published general relativity just few days after Einstein...

Anyway, it's sad, when the people (who are regularly down-voting the people, who are supporting their claims by references) never supported their opinion by some evidence.

You can think what you want about it - I'm just waiting for link, that's enough for me. Don't bring another OT blurbs about it here. Can you understand it?

The link. It's as easy, as it is.

which you can rank terrorize
Ranking history is freely available for recent posts - so that everyone can make sure, it's just you and frajo, who is abusing voting feature here.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (6) Jul 17, 2010
If you have done even the most introductory reading on general relativity you wouldn't require a reference for this. It is simply that plain that you haven't been properly schooled in physics and physical theory.

Proper understanding of GR requires proper understanding of the Schwartzchild tensor postulates within expanded GR. Prior to Rosen's work with Einstein tensor application could not explain what the coimplete effects of potential singularity effects within spacetime would yield. Einstein knew what a black hole was and denied their existence. Eddington knew what they were and acknowledged them as early as 1922. Rosen proved the application of blackholes with the correlary while working with einstein producing the famous and theoretical einstein rosen bridge.

That is complete understanding. Even hillbert got it wrong.
Jigga
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 17, 2010
You see, how many apparent BS you're required to invent instead of single link to source...

You just confused two wikipedia sources, this one:

http://en.wikiped...n_debate

and this one:

http://en.wikiped...ddington
Skeptic_Heretic
3.6 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2010
The difference between you and I is simple. I don't use wikipedia as a source. Thanks for posting not one, but two wikilinks that actually support my statement.
Jigga
1.4 / 5 (12) Jul 17, 2010
I don't use wikipedia as a source
That's basically true, as you never used source for your claims. None of these wikilinks provide support for your statement, Rosen was mentioned in the Silberstein's discussion with Eddington.

BTW I posted one of this links before and you're opposed it already as unreliable. Now you're claiming, it supports your opinion instead, which is simply funny.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.6 / 5 (7) Jul 17, 2010
BTW I posted one of this links before and you're opposed it already as unreliable. Now you're claiming, it supports your opinion instead, which is simply funny.
Again, reliability, and support are not the same word. I'd rather not argue english semantics with you as I think that would be rather unfair to you.
Jigga
1.6 / 5 (12) Jul 17, 2010
Indeed, the evidence support is a necessary condition of reliability, not vice-versa. Claims and theories without such support can be never considered reliable.
Shootist
3 / 5 (2) Jul 17, 2010
If you have done even the most introductory reading on general relativity you wouldn't require a reference for this. It is simply that plain that you haven't been properly schooled in physics and physical theory.

Proper understanding of GR requires proper understanding of the Schwartzchild tensor postulates within expanded GR. Prior to Rosen's work with Einstein tensor application could not explain what the coimplete effects of potential singularity effects within spacetime would yield. Einstein knew what a black hole was and denied their existence. Eddington knew what they were and acknowledged them as early as 1922. Rosen proved the application of blackholes with the correlary while working with einstein producing the famous and theoretical einstein rosen bridge.

That is complete understanding. Even hillbert got it wrong.


one 'l' in Hilbert
Anyone
1 / 5 (7) Jul 17, 2010
'Big Bang' is full of holes, but the one I like most is the fact that it cannot offer an answer a fundamental question -- from where do we get dirt?
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2010
LOL, you have no evidence for it. Everyone can pretend here, he is just me or whoever else. I could say easily, these fake ID are created by my opponents to decrease my credit with the same relevance.


Thank you for such a clear confirmation of my post. After all Jigga is pretending he ISN'T you and you are pretending you aren't Jigga. NO ONE would pretend they were Alizze-Jigga-VestaR.

Ethelred
HeloMenelo
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2010
You know what i would've liked, a physorg bar we i can drive to, where all the friends on physorg can gather and those giving commentry in a arena in the middle, i could sit and watch for a very long time... :) Maybe someday, should be good business for them too.
HeloMenelo
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2010
Being in the midst of the action.... oooowww, that would just stoke it up a notch somewhat... don't you say... :)
HeloMenelo
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2010
Being in the midst of the action.... oooowww, that just stokes it up a notch somewhat... don't you say... :)
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2010
This site is British so would you settle for a pub.

Ethelred
SteveL
2.5 / 5 (4) Jul 19, 2010
You know, I really don't care how many names a poster goes by. If I log in on a work computer, a laptop and a home computer, I'd likely have 3 different names so the system I'm using at the time would auto log me in rather than having to sign in on each system. A bit lazy perhaps - but so be it.

If this were the case however, I would likely create names such as SteveL2 or SteveLTwo and SteveL3, etc. - just to make it clear that it's still me, a single individual posting. I'd view this as the considerate thing to do.

I think there is far too much time and effort commenting and complaining about this issue as none of this will change what is happening. Any observant reader can tell from the content and the grammar that a single individual person is posting under multiple names. {shrug} so be it.

As for grading: I grade higher for discussion that is on topic, right or wrong, and lower for complaining and off-topic stuff that has nothing to do with the article at the top.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Jul 19, 2010
This site is British so would you settle for a pub.

Ethelred

I wouldn't exactly call that settling.
HeloMenelo
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 19, 2010
"This site is British so would you settle for a pub."

Ethelred

Sure my country has good relations with yours,
I didn't even know it was British.

Hope to see everyone there someday... :)
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Jul 19, 2010
The site is British, I am not. I live 5 miles from Disneyland.

Of course that is based on what was posted here around the time they started the 'brevity is soul for twits' business. And there are a lot of Brits on the About page. However just for the hell of it I just did a Who Is.

The host is nearly as close to me as Disneyland.

Brea, CA and you can look up the rest if your interested.

Ethelred
Jigga
Jul 19, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 20, 2010
Steve see this from Alazee-Jigga
Such approach definitely doesn't work here - I originally named myself Zephir, Zephir_AWT


He rated you a one for your post.

He is now having a snit about getting ones under two names for using two names AND giving people ones via both names.

He gave HeloMenelo two ones per post for the pub-bar posts. Totally uncalled for. He is just having a tantrum.

When he stops engaging in this sort of behavior he will get less ones. From me anyway. I usually just ignore him. But when he starts giving out ones for rational disagreements or pointing out that he is engaging double logins for ranking purposes he is going to get a lot of pushback.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 20, 2010
Actually I downvoted You for OT posts here


You downrated me for pointing out that you are not what you claimed to be. You had a snit fit and as always started giving out ones.

Next time I'll report Your OT post for abusing this forum


Go right ahead. I will reply in kind. Same as I do for the ones you give out. You abuse the site with crank theories and multiple logins.

Please, use the private mail feature for such purpose, thank You.


Practice what you preach and drop the bogus logins.

Private email is for ONE TO ONE not remarks meant for all. Learn the difference.

And you can drop the bogus 'thank you's in that hypocritical post as well as the double login.

And I won't thank you for it. I will just stop downrating whatever login you finally stick to.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 20, 2010
And I won't thank you for it. I will just stop downrating whatever login you finally stick to.
I'm on board with this ideology. Alizee/manyothernameshere Once you pick an individual name I'll also stop ranking your posts entirely.
Javinator
5 / 5 (4) Jul 20, 2010
'Big Bang' is full of holes, but the one I like most is the fact that it cannot offer an answer a fundamental question -- from where do we get dirt?


Actually the Big Bang Theory tells you from where we get dirt. It came from the Big Bang. Just like all the matter in the Universe according to the theory.
Skultch
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 20, 2010
Can anyone (not Alizze, Jigga, VestaR, etc) point me to a good beginner source to understand the basics of GR? I have Einstein's book, but I'd like something more fundamental, possible something that includes the basic mathematical knowledge necessary to understand GD. I only have an understanding of math up to intro calculus and intro physics.

Please PM me as I intend to avoid this train wreck of a thread.

Thanks.
james11
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 20, 2010
Skeptic, Alizee, ethelred, and whoever why dont you just leave each other alone? Or better yet do something challenging and get along.
james11
1 / 5 (4) Jul 20, 2010
Now if the whole world could do that... Not new world order but new world respect hmm I like that.
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 21, 2010
I was going to respond to James11 but then I looked at some his other posts.

So:
Please PM me as I intend to avoid this train wreck of a thread.


No guts no glory Skultch.

To really understand GR with the needed math I pretty sure you need Tensor Calculus. And no I don't know it either.

Ethelred
SteveL
3 / 5 (4) Jul 23, 2010
He rated you a one for your post.


I don't mind, the post was OT after all and as such should be rated poorly - as should this one. I just wanted to make a clarification.
marjon
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 23, 2010
@Parsec:
its inappropriate to argue that anyone that disagrees with you is either stupid or a troll.

I agree, but many here do not.
frajo
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 23, 2010
Once you pick an individual name I'll also stop ranking your posts entirely.
Sorry, I don't care about ranking at all - I'm visiting PO because of physics.
And you uprate your own comment with "5" by using your account "Jigga".
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 23, 2010
Once you pick an individual name I'll also stop ranking your posts entirely.
Sorry, I don't care about ranking at all - I'm visiting PO because of physics.
And you uprate your own comment with "5" by using your account "Jigga".

Couple that with the fact that "VestaR" now has a false identity added into it's profile, using an address that's known to produce nothing but spam and mailing lists....
Skultch
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 23, 2010
I was going to respond to James11 but then I looked at some his other posts.

So:
Please PM me as I intend to avoid this train wreck of a thread.


No guts no glory Skultch.

To really understand GR with the needed math I pretty sure you need Tensor Calculus. And no I don't know it either.

Ethelred


Thanks for the tip. I'll look into tensor. :)

I don't get the "no gut's no glory" thing, though. What did you mean?

I call this thread a train wreck, because it devolved into something I can't learn from. Did you think I meant something else?
james11
Jul 24, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 24, 2010
Sorry, I don't care about ranking at all - I'm visiting PO because of physics. I'd recommend You to do the very same.


Blatant lie. YOU keep giving yourself high ranks. YOU would not vote if you didn't care yet you care so much you rank yourself under three different names.

And that is three at the moment. Jigga VestaR and the banned Nisaj. Despite banning Nisaj is still ranking people.

Stop the cheating.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.8 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2010
I don't get the "no gut's no glory" thing, though. What did you mean?

I call this thread a train wreck, because it devolved into something I can't learn from. Did you think I meant something else?


You said were leaving. So why didn't you keep your word?

Thus I will stick to No Guts No Glory.

The whole site is a train wreck in any case. Not as bad as Yahoo but it is a mess of poorly written articles with even worse headlines. We posters are all that makes it worthwhile and they even handicap us with that STUPID:

Brevity is soul for twits. Just look at the brilliant marginal remark by Fermat. What a great example of brevity.

Of course the REAL theorem is a couple hundred pages long and refers to other very long proofs.

Brevity is for the idiots that write the misleading and even fraudulent headlines around here.

Ethelred
marjon
1 / 5 (6) Jul 24, 2010
Sorry, I don't care about ranking at all - I'm visiting PO because of physics. I'd recommend You to do the very same.


Blatant lie. YOU keep giving yourself high ranks. YOU would not vote if you didn't care yet you care so much you rank yourself under three different names.

And that is three at the moment. Jigga VestaR and the banned Nisaj. Despite banning Nisaj is still ranking people.

Stop the cheating.

Ethelred

Reminds me of high school cliques!
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2010
High School is not a place where one person can be four people at the same exact time. Even people with split personalities must time share the body. Whereas the MultiNamed Crank can be logged in as all of them at the same time.

Ethelred
frajo
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 24, 2010
Reminds me of high school cliques!
There are no cliques in this case. There are lots of users with very divergent opinions and different views but only one account per person (as you yourself)
and there is one user who is cheating by using multiple accounts. (Alizee, Jigga, VestaR, NisaJ, seneca, Zephir, GeneH, broglia, and many more.) Just have a look at the respective activity page when a comment from one of these accounts has a score above 1.0. In most cases it is because of him rating himself.
james11
Jul 25, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
frajo
4 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2010
You guys are really starting to bore...
That's no excuse for writing boring OT comments.
otto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2010
Brevity is for the idiots that write the misleading and even fraudulent headlines around here.
Less bile- more style.

Consider that, as Team Alizee continues his multiposts and we keep calling him on it, anyone who might potentially swallow his typical aether crap will be thoroughly put off by his obvious dishonesty.

He advertises his own total lack of credibility by his lying sockpuppetry. Perhaps at the beginning of every thread someone needs to post the latest alizee avatar list and a warning to disregard everything any of them says?
james11
1 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2010
Ethelred... I can admit you are smarter than me but you will never know or experience real respect on the level I have.
TabulaMentis
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 07, 2010
Ethelred quote:
"One way to get rid of singularities is to assume that there is limit how small anything can be in the Universe. The Planck length will do nicely."

What about sub-planck lengths that Brian Greene talks about?
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Aug 08, 2010
What about sub-planck lengths that Brian Greene talks about?


Can't recall running across that. I don't get any of the PBS channels at the moment and I don't go reading all his books. I think I have read one. Back when I was more enamored with String Theory.

If someone can show that sub-planck lengths have actual meaning in our Universe thrn singularities would remain a problem. In the meantime I think they can be ignored, at least for many aspects of GR. I just don't think it is something to throw out GR for without knowing that singularities are more than a mathematical concept that MIGHT have relevance to our Universe but quite possibly does not.

Ethelred

Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Aug 08, 2010
What about sub-planck lengths that Brian Greene talks about?
I do have pbs and the other channels as well as a large collection of books, containing the majority of Dr. Greene's work. When does he talk about sub planck length objects?
Jigga
1 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2010
In Elegant Universe Brian Greene discusses the strange world of the sub-Planck and how it "creates" the quantum universe by its averages. He claims that a string's force is inversely proportional to its tension, so gravitons and the like are very tense at 10^39 tons of force on one string alone, causing it to shrink to Plack length under this tension.

In his later work, The Fabric of the Cosmos, Greene states that "the familiar notion of space and time do not extend into the sub-Planckian realm, which suggests that space and time as we currently understand them may be mere approximations to more fundamental concepts that still await our discovery".

You should possibly re-read Greene's books occasionally.

http://en.wikiped..._physics
frajo
4 / 5 (4) Aug 08, 2010
What about sub-planck lengths that Brian Greene talks about?
Let me guess: You didn't read the "Elegant Universe" but something like this page: http://www.lifwyn...iron.htm
Jigga
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 08, 2010
I don't read silly stringy propaganda. My source is linked above in blue color underlined...
Skeptic_Heretic
3.2 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2010
You should possibly re-read Greene's books occasionally.

http://en.wikiped..._physics
At no point in time does he explore or attempt to describe sub planck lengths. You need to read it in your own language if you can't understand the English version properly.
I don't read silly stringy propaganda. My source is linked above in blue color underlined...
What an asshole you are.
Jigga
1.9 / 5 (8) Aug 08, 2010
What an asshole you are
Did I insult your Bible or something? I explained my stance regarding string theory already here. It's inconsistent theory, because it expects two things, which cannot occur at the same moment. As the result it leads to "landscapes" of solutions and it lacks testable predictions - it's as simple, as that.

http://www.math.c...able.pdf

BTW You've been reported from obvious reason.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2010
Did I insult your Bible or something? I explained my stance regarding string theory already here.
No, you're just an overly arrogant asshole.
It's inconsistent theory, because it expects two things, which cannot occur at the same moment. As the result it leads to "landscapes" of solutions and it lacks testable predictions - it's as simple, as that.
All theories start very broad and are refined over time as more observations and experiments are recorded and performed. You don't eat a pie out of the oven when you've jsut put it in do you? I like for the crust to rise and the pie to mature before I have a go at it.

BTW You've been reported from obvious reason.
Reported from? Well what did it report on me?
Jigga
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 08, 2010
You don't eat a pie out of the oven when you've jsut put it in do you? I like for the crust to rise and the pie to mature before I have a go at it

Are you a cooker? It would explain some aspects of discussion with you... Anyway, you can apply your approach to dense aether theory - it's still much younger, then fifty years old string theory. Whereas the inconsistency of string theory cannot be removed at future - it's hard-wired into its postulates.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.2 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2010
It would explain some aspects of discussion with you.
Is this where you fire off a snide "woman's work" insult? Not professionally.
Anyway, you can apply your approach to dense aether theory - it's still much younger
Aether goes back to the Egyptians.
then fifty years old string theory.
Not even close. Almost 90 years in the making now. 1919 is when the first postulation of 5th dimensional gravity was published by Theodor Kaluza.
Whereas the inconsistency of string theory cannot be removed at future
Claiming clairvoyance now?
it's hard-wired into its postulates.
Good thing that as we complete the theory, those postulates will change to become more rigid. If you're trying to say string theory isn't falsifiable, you're wrong. The LHC will be used both for testing AdS/CFT, and to check if the electroweakstrong unification does happen as predicted.

We'll have further verification or total falsification within the next 5 years or so.
Jigga
2.2 / 5 (9) Aug 08, 2010
Aether goes back to the Egyptians
Actually it goes even older. 5th dimensional gravity isn't string theory.
The LHC will be used both for testing AdS/CFT, and to check if the electroweakstrong unification does happen as predicted
AdS/CFT, electroweakstrong unification or supersymmetry aren't concepts specific to string theory - other theories are using them too (quantum gravity or QCD in partucular).
Skeptic_Heretic
3.3 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2010
AdS/CFT, electroweakstrong unification or supersymmetry aren't concepts specific to string theory - other theories are using them too (quantum gravity or QCD in partucular).

Correct. All three predict it, and several, like your dense aether theory, doesn't.
Actually it goes even older. 5th dimensional gravity isn't string theory.
That was the beginning.
frajo
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 08, 2010
I don't read silly stringy propaganda. My source is linked above in blue color underlined...
How do you know?
Here, it is not above, but below (sic!). And it's not underlined. See firefox, config:about, browser.underline_anchors.
You are assuming too much.
Jigga
1.7 / 5 (9) Aug 08, 2010
All three predict it, and several, like your dense aether theory, doesn't.
These theories doesn't predict, they're using it - it follows from holographics principle. Can you explain AdS/CFT correspondence in some illustrative way?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (7) Aug 09, 2010
These theories doesn't predict, they're using it - it follows from holographics principle. Can you explain AdS/CFT correspondence in some illustrative way?
Yes these theories do predict it. If you were familiar with the theories you'd know that mathematically the equations only point to one end result. electroweak/strong nuclear unification. Just because it's contrary to your poor education doesn't mean I'm wrong. Educate yourself.
frajo
3.4 / 5 (7) Aug 09, 2010
All three predict it, and several, like your dense aether theory, doesn't.
These theories doesn't predict, they're using it - it follows from holographics principle. Can you explain AdS/CFT correspondence in some illustrative way?
What's the use of explaining something to you? You don't even understand the correct use of "than" in comparisons although it has been explained to you several times.
You don't even understand that theories cannot be proved/verified although it has been explained to you more than once.
TabulaMentis
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 09, 2010
I consider a string to be a byte of information and sub-Planck lengths to be bits of information.
Why would singularities not end at the bit versus the byte?