Scientists confirm the universe has no direction

September 22, 2016 by Hayley Dunning

The universe is not spinning or stretched in any particular direction, according to the most stringent test yet.

Looking out into the night sky, we see a clumpy universe: planets orbit stars in solar systems and stars are grouped into galaxies, which in turn form enormous galaxy clusters. But cosmologists assume this effect is only local: that if we look on sufficiently large scales, the universe is actually uniform.

The vast majority of calculations made about our universe start with this assumption: that the universe is broadly the same, whatever your position and in whichever direction you look.

If, however, the universe was stretching preferentially in one direction, or spinning about an axis in a similar way to the Earth rotating, this fundamental assumption, and all the calculations that hinge on it, would be wrong.

Now, scientists from University College London and Imperial College London have put this assumption through its most stringent test yet and found only a 1 in 121,000 chance that the universe is not the same in all directions.

Oldest light in the universe

To do this, they used maps of the (CMB) radiation: the oldest light in the universe created shortly after the Big Bang. The maps were produced using measurements of the CMB taken between 2009 and 2013 by the European Space Agency's Planck satellite, providing a picture of the intensity and, for the first time, polarisation (in essence, the orientation) of the CMB across the whole sky.

Scientists confirm the universe has no direction
Four potential CMB patterns for universes with direction

Previously, scientists had looked for patterns in the CMB map that might hint at a rotating universe. The new study considered the widest possible range of universes with preferred directions or spins and determined what patterns these would create in the CMB.

A universe spinning about an axis, for example, would create spiral patterns, whereas a universe expanding at different speeds along different axes would create elongated hot and cold spots.

Dr Stephen Feeney, from the Department of Physics at Imperial, worked with a team led by Daniela Saadeh at University College London to search for these patterns in the observed CMB. The results, published today in the journal Physical Review Letters, show that none were a match, and that the universe is most likely directionless.

Cosmology is safe

Dr Feeney said: "This work is important because it tests one of the fundamental assumptions on which almost all cosmological calculations are based: that the universe is the same in every direction. If this assumption is wrong, and our universe spins or stretches in one direction more than another, we'd have to rethink our basic picture of the universe.

"We have put this assumption to its most exacting examination yet, testing for a huge variety of spinning and stretching universes that have never been considered before. When we compare these predictions to the Planck satellite's latest measurements, we find overwhelming evidence that the universe is the same in all directions."

Lead author Daniela Saadeh from University College London added: "You can never rule it out completely, but we now calculate the odds that the prefers one direction over another at just 1 in 121,000. We're very glad that our work vindicates what most cosmologists assume. For now, cosmology is safe."

Explore further: Do we live in a special part of the universe?

More information: Daniela Saadeh et al. How Isotropic is the Universe?, Physical Review Letters (2016). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.131302 , https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.07178

Related Stories

Do we live in a special part of the universe?

April 4, 2016

We've already talked about how you're living at the center of the universe. Now, I'm not going to say that the whole universe revolves around you… but we both know it does. So does this mean that there's something special ...

Cosmology: Lore of lonely regions

August 16, 2016

A research group led by Ludwig-Maximilians-Unversitaet (LMU) in Munich physicist Nico Hamaus is calculating the dynamics of cosmic voids and deriving new insights into our entire universe.

A riddle for our time

September 12, 2016

One of the most remarkable successes of astrophysics in the last century was its discovery that the age of the universe as measured by its oldest stars was about the same as the age estimated in an entirely different way, ...

Recommended for you

Ultra-thin camera creates images without lenses

June 22, 2017

Traditional cameras—even those on the thinnest of cell phones—cannot be truly flat due to their optics: lenses that require a certain shape and size in order to function. At Caltech, engineers have developed a new camera ...

Problem of wheeled suitcases wobbling explained

June 21, 2017

(Phys.org)—A team of researchers at Universite Paris-Diderot has uncovered the reason for wobbling of wheeled suitcases. In their paper published in Proceedings of the Royal Society A, the group explains the physics behind ...

170 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

eric96
1 / 5 (16) Sep 22, 2016
This study is inherently flawed in that you would need to measure the CMB from multiple points billions of light years apart in the universe in order to come to any "real" conclusion. This is a useless study on a one track mind. Another way to put is that a finite universe would look infinite from one view point, and in all directions; this fact not obvious on its face however and many would debate. A thinking phytoplankton would believe the ocean is infinite. You would try to challenge that by saying the phytoplankton would never have access to our technology, and that is arrogance on an infinite scale because our technology is worthless when compared to the size of the universe. If we are to determine its size we must first see faster then the speed of light. We must first discover particles that travel faster than light, and then we must listen in. What interesting is that faster then light particles would be able to pass thru earth and escape cern, so how to detect?
antialias_physorg
4.8 / 5 (19) Sep 22, 2016
This study is inherently flawed in that you would need to measure the CMB from multiple points billions of light years apart

Erm...I don't think you quite understand what the CMB.
Azrael
5 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2016
Please take note, wduckss.
shavera
5 / 5 (13) Sep 22, 2016
eric96: to simplify your argument, what you're arguing against is "scientific inference," the idea that we can take one specific experimental result and generalize it to broader cases. And while you can personally choose to believe that is or is not allowed, and I can't really argue that, I can say that it is permitted within the standard realm of science. So at least insofar as what the scientific answer to the question is, which is not necessarily the same thing as what the 'truth' is, the universe doesn't appear to have any bulk motion.
optical
Sep 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
shavera
5 / 5 (10) Sep 22, 2016
CMB anisotropy and the axis of evil disappeared?

No, there are always some degree of anisotropy in the CMB itself, you could kind of think of it as sound waves in the medium of the early universe, slightly more pressure here, slightly less there, and so on. Plus a major dipole anisotropy from Doppler shifting because we're in motion relative to the rest frame of the plasma that emitted the CMB.

As for the apparent anomalous dipole in the paper you link, it seems not to show up in this paper and its analysis. I don't find it all that surprising that it doesn't, it could still be some statistical error or some other simple thing that doesn't provide any real insight into the universe.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (9) Sep 22, 2016
Got it half right. Every charge in the universe is felt at every point, temporal variations, due to motion. CMB? No Big Bang or anything like that. Anyway, you did not define spinning as a top, i.e. the universe as an object. However, a force outward could be defined. The visual suggestions have no basis. So I say the jury is still out! My point how do you define out, not jury out, universe out? Would that, not be, that all the charges combined are the essence of space, i.e empty as non-existent. Defining the center as every where. But there is no outside, so ... Think we need to re-evaluate our axiomatic structure. Any paradox is a logical disproof not some newly found possibility. In other words, this paper does not inform. You could try a 4D normed space, and make the norm your functional space. But why not simply use real physics?
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (11) Sep 22, 2016
We only have a piece of the total carpet, and the physics. Well we know the correct physics; but, we apply bull $hit! juz say'n
philstacy9
1 / 5 (15) Sep 22, 2016
Climate must also have no direction since is part of the universe.
optical
Sep 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2016
FTA;
"You can never rule it out completely, but we now calculate the odds that the universe prefers one direction over another at just 1 in 121,000. "

Wow! Lot better odds than winning the Powerball jackpot.......:-)

barakn
1.7 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2016
Another way to put is that a finite universe would look infinite from one view point, and in all directions; this fact not obvious on its face however and many would debate. A thinking phytoplankton would believe the ocean is infinite. -eric96
I think it is safe to assume they were only referring to the visible part of the universe.
TrollBane
5 / 5 (10) Sep 22, 2016
"Climate must also have no direction since is part of the universe."
Congrats, @philstacy, you've found The One Rating To Rule Them All... Now why don't you implement your plans to 'protect' Muddled Earth from the Sauron of socialist science and leave the discussion of cosmology to the good people at the adult table?
philstacy9
Sep 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Mimath224
4.3 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2016
@shavera I'm not quite sure I understand what these researchers are saying so I'm hoping that you can put me right. One quote is; 'A universe spinning about an axis, for example, would create spiral patterns....'. Isn't this what we do observe, galaxies have a 'spiral' nature, stars spin, planets spin...all the way down to the quantum level. If the article is ignoring these just what do they refer to when talking of spiral patterns? (am I confusing effects of gravity with something else?) Genuine question...thanks in advance.
barakn
5 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2016
philstacy9's post clearly have no purpose other than to start a flamewar. Please find and click on the Report link on each of its posts.
Elmo_McGillicutty
1 / 5 (9) Sep 22, 2016
Sorry guys, if it took 13-14 billion years for the signal to get here (CMB), we'll need to watch it a little longer to see rotation. Who can detect the changing position of anything far away?
Only by watching it a very long time. And remember...all the background components are moving at different velocities.........AT different times. One object might be 2 billion yrs. ago and another 7 billion yrs. ago.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (12) Sep 23, 2016
Sorry guys, if it took 13-14 billion years for the signal to get here (CMB), we'll need to watch it a little longer to see rotation.

Guys. Look up what the CMB is before posting BS.

The CMB is from the time of earliest visible time (age of recombination). Even if you wait another 50 billion years it will still be exactly from that time.

A universe spinning about an axis, for example, would create spiral patterns....'. Isn't this what we do observe

They mean spiral patterns in the CMB. Local spirals in matter don't...erm...matter. They are talking about rotation of the universe as a whole, not some insignificant little speck within it.
In the end itmeans that the sum of angular momentum in the universe is zero. This does not mean that every part in the universe must have zero rotation. (Just like an average temperature of 0°C doesn't mean that every part of the body in question must be exactly 0°C)
Reg Mundy
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 23, 2016
The CMB is from the time of earliest visible time (age of recombination).

Is it now? That is an assumption that has never been "proved"..It might be from "now" but originating beyond the distance from which light has reached its "longest" wavelength.
shavera
5 / 5 (12) Sep 23, 2016
Mimath: they're talking scales much much much larger than galaxies. All the other stuff you're talking about is conservation of angular momentum. What they're looking for is a total rotation or flow to the universe as a whole that would distort the CMB in a predictable pattern. They're completely separate concepts, even though they may have the slightest bit of surface similarity.

Elmo: Another way to think about it is that the CMB encodes information about its motion within the variations of temperature itself. Stuff moving further away would be red-shifted a bit more, stuff moving closer would be blue-shifted a bit more. This study used computer modeling to demonstrate what kinds of patterns may be expected if the universe had some anisotropic bulk motion to it.
optical
Sep 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (13) Sep 23, 2016
It might be from "now" but originating beyond the distance from which light has reached its "longest" wavelength.

What does that even mean?
shavera
5 / 5 (15) Sep 23, 2016
It might be from "now" but originating beyond the distance from which light has reached its "longest" wavelength.

It might also be daemons dancing around our planet spitting microwaves at us to make it look like the universe is super old. It's not important what it 'might also be.' We should be trying to discuss what it means within the context of scientific philosophy. Within that context, we see that general relativity explains a great many experiments one can do locally. We see that general relativity explains a great many phenomena we observe cosmically. We see that GR predicts a family of kinds of universes, one subset of which matches what we observe. We know that plasma is opaque until it becomes a neutral gas. The prediction for when that plasma became neutral, the temperature of the plasma, and so on match pretty well the CMB observations we make.

So, no, it may not be 'proved' but it will take an awful lot of evidence to overcome the existing data.
optical
Sep 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
optical
Sep 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
thingumbobesquire
1 / 5 (12) Sep 23, 2016
Fatuous study by fatuous statisticians. The Universe is continuously developing in the direction of this higher ordered Transfinite function: Inorganic-> Organic-> Human Noesis.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (10) Sep 23, 2016
It might be from "now" but originating beyond the distance from which light has reached its "longest" wavelength.

What does that even mean?

As usual, you are being deliberately obtuse.
I say that CMB is continuously created, you say it was all created at big-bang. Simple enough for you?
optical
Sep 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
shavera
5 / 5 (14) Sep 23, 2016
it analyzed the possibility, whether the Universe rotates in time.

No, it actually checked a good deal of other scenarios in addition to rotation. Rotation is just the easiest to graphically display and communicate. But the point of the paper is to actually cover the whole set of the allowed types of bulk motion, and they've seemed to find none of them are particularly probable given the data we observe.
antialias_physorg
4.8 / 5 (13) Sep 23, 2016
I say that CMB is continuously created

By what?
Reg Mundy
1.6 / 5 (13) Sep 23, 2016
I say that CMB is continuously created

By what?

By all the usual sources of radiation, stars, galaxies, black hole accretion discs, etc. The radiation simply originates from great distances away from us. If the wavelength of radiation lengthens correspondingly to distance of origin away from us (as is indicated by observation) then either the wavelength reaches a point where photons cease to exist (a wavelength of infinity is obviously meaningless in the context of the known universe, so the photon must resolve into its component parts, i.e. a t-rd and a t+rd in my TOE.), or asymptotically approaches a value at which it stabilises prior to ultimate disintegration (to put it in a mathematical model concept), i.e. CMB.
Do I have to keep putting this in simplistic terms for you to acknowledge understanding, or will you put your brain into gear for yourself?
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (14) Sep 23, 2016
By all the usual sources of radiation, stars, galaxies, black hole accretion discs, etc.

So how come it isn't correlated with all those? And how come it doesn't show any similarity to the spectra associated with those?

eaches a point where photons cease to exist

The observed wavelength is well within the range where photons exist (colder stuff has been created on Earth). And what does that even mean "photons cease to exist"? You're missing some very fundamental understanding of physics, here.

i.e. a t-rd and a t+rd in my TOE

Oh puh-leeeze. You're TOE that was supposed to be published a month from now (according to you several years ago). That schtick is getting so old. No on was impressed by that load of hot air then. No one is impressed now.

Do I have to keep putting this in simplistic terms for you to acknowledge understanding

Nah, you make it amply clear that you have no clue about physics.
Benni
1 / 5 (11) Sep 23, 2016
When we compare these predictions to the Planck satellite's latest measurements, we find overwhelming evidence that the universe is the same in all directions."


Comparing quotes from the article above & Einstein's GR below:

Part III: Considerations on the Universe as a Whole
Albert Einstein 97
If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical or elliptical. Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical, i.e. the universe will be quasi-spherical. But it will be necessarily finite. In fact, the theory supplies us with a simple connection between the space-expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it.
Benni
1 / 5 (12) Sep 23, 2016
Nah, you make it amply clear that you have no clue about physics.
............and all this coming from a person whose degree is in BIOLOGY, a completely mathless field of endeavor where absolutely no proficiency in PHYSICS is required.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2016
Great news, considering the spurious statistical fishing for anomalies that has been done! Glad they could rule out all large scale problems at once.

@eric96: It is quite obviously not flawed or useless, since they successfully - i.e. without errors, as far as we know - test a hypothesis against observations.

And no, you don't need to measure from other reference points, for several reasons.

First, uniformity and homogeneity of the entire observable universe is what you need when you compare with observations.

Second, those observations include cosmic variance, i.e. variations of a wavelength several times, roughly 5, larger than the observable universe.

Third, you need a finetuned conspiracy to cut off the universe in space or time within the volume which is bounded by our uncertainty. I.e. as likely as any other 3 sigma theory, cosmology cover a volume 10*8 times larger than the observable universe. (From the measured curvature.)

[tbctd]
Dark_Solar
5 / 5 (5) Sep 23, 2016
I have to agree at least somewhat with eric96; to state that the Universe is directionless based on what is almost certainly an incomplete data set smacks of over-assumption. But, like all science, as more data is acquired the hypothesis can be remodeled so letting it slide hardly matters.

All this discussion about CMB radiation raises an interesting speculation; given that M. rad has both amplitude and vector and that at the point of its generation in the primordial Universe, it should have propagated directionally as a shock-front outward into whatever is beyond the Universe at almost the speed of light, should we even be able to perceive it? Or more to the point, does the fact that it's still hanging about indicate something about the overall nature of the Universe --i.e. perhaps the Universe is reflective at the universe/not-the-universe boundary? Perhaps the lumpiness is transitory because of the time-frame necessary for a universe (assume a center) to accrete ?
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 23, 2016
[ctd]

Do you want to be the one that proposes that contrived conspiracy? And will you try to compete it against the trend of ever better smaller uncertainty bounds on a perfectly flat space? Then your "flawed, useless" alternative will stand 1-2 years, from experience.

@Dark Solar: The data set covers the entire observable universe. We can't have anything bigger than that!

@optical: I don't understand your point, parsimony (Occam's razor) is itself an ad hoc heuristic. Our universe works by physical laws, which tend to be simple due to that basic laws are based on symmetries.
optical
Sep 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
optical
Sep 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
snoosebaum
3 / 5 (2) Sep 23, 2016
then can someone explain to me the 'big bang ' . ie. how does a point source origin produce the above. i know, its all an illusion explained by math or it was a 3d grid of points. or you don't have to account for boundary conditions. ??
optical
Sep 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
optical
Sep 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dug
5 / 5 (3) Sep 23, 2016
If the universe is expanding doesn't that automatically imply that the area that it is expanding from is more dense in mass than the area it is expanding to? If so, the universe is not the same all over. If the universe is same all over, how can it be expanding?
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (4) Sep 23, 2016
Every charge is felt everywhere, it's "cloak" is updated at the speed of light relative to the center. We only move through its field or its field through you. Define a 4D partitioned space. I prefer unitless space, i.e. reset time to define lambda nu = 1, then x4 or t has the same units as our 3D, i.e. no unit, with each point given a set of calculable attributes. So what is happening in any volume, is simply an addition to define each virtual charge seen by any charge at any time. Limited only by computational power and or measurement. Now, after that calculation, at what point in this 4D space is our reference point? Earth? You beginning to see?
Zzzzzzzz
5 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2016
At least the article is readable. Most of the posting isn't - just useless drivel.
Phys1
5 / 5 (5) Sep 23, 2016
Climate must also have no direction since is part of the universe.

That is correct, climate has no direction.
shavera
5 / 5 (9) Sep 23, 2016
If the universe is expanding...

So, this is a common misconception. The universe isn't expanding *into* anything. It creates space *within itself*. It's so hard to picture what that means because human scales and dimensions aren't used to dealing with it.

One example that worked for me is the "Hilbert Hotel." Imagine you have a hotel with infinite rooms, and all of those rooms are full. More people show up and they want a room, but your hotel is all full, how do you fix it? Well, what you can do is you can tell everyone to go to the room that's twice their current room number. room 1 goes to 2, 2 to 4, 3 to 6... and so on. For every number, there's only one number twice its value, so all your current guests still have a room, but now all the odd rooms are unoccupied, so you can put more guests into those rooms too. That's not really how the universe works, but it's a property of infinities that help make them make more sense.
shavera
5 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2016
how does a point source origin produce the above.


Same common misconception. The big bang is not like an explosion, where a single point 'blows up' into universe, even though that's how it's often illustrated. We have to illustrate it like that because there's no good way to illustrate the actual geometry involved.

If the universe is finite in volume, it has always been finite, but it wraps back around on itself like the 2d surface of a sphere does (but in 3d, and not wrapping through another 'external' dimension, but just an internal curvature). If the universe is infinite in volume, it has always been infinite since its beginning. It has simply gotten less dense over time (by a lot).

The present data seems to pretty strongly support the infinite volume case.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Sep 23, 2016
Hi Mimath224. :)

Like Bicep2 'exercise', the above also based on 'iffy' assumptions and flaws in methodology, data/interpretation etc.

They haven't actually defined/explained what is supposed to BE 'rotating/expanding'!

Is it 'rotating/expanding' SPACE?

Or just matter/energy distribution within space?

Or just relative/absolute 'linear/spiral travel time/path' within space?

Nor do they seem aware that CMB may be from sources/processes NOT 'needing' BB 'genesis'!

Recent astronomical discoveries confirm 'deep space' REPLETE with plasma distributions/processes at all levels of ionization/radiation (dirty molecular/dust plasma, to 'clean' atomic/subatomic plasma states)!

The NEARER MW sources/signals we CAN 'attribute' because of close viewing, so no 'biggie' there.

HOWEVER, far distant sources/processes we CANNOT actually resolve; so CMB is THAT 'blended' background of 'unresolved' emissions from very far away in space/time.

I explained long ago. Cheers. :)
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (4) Sep 23, 2016
If the universe is expanding...

So, this is a common misconception. The universe isn't expanding *into* anything. It creates space *within itself*. It's so hard to picture what that means because human scales and dimensions aren't used to dealing with it.
.... .

Nuts, what is, is; what is not, is not! There is no new physics, just because your computer is too small to define all of reality.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Sep 23, 2016
Hi shavera. :)

"Hilbert Hotel" is just juggling of abstract numbers/labels; not physically existing things. :)

And 'infinities', 'singularities' and 'undefineds' are output from conventional mathematical 'axiomatics' and its consequential 'logic flow' ending in such 'absurdities'.

That is what happens when AXIOMS ('dimensionless points' etc) are mere philosophical/metaphysical NOTIONS rather than physically possible states/things in reality.

Your further 'extent' perspectives are also absurdities based on philosophical/metaphysical notions rather than real physical reality possibilities; for example:

(1) 'wrap around' finite universes, is a nonsense ad hoc overlay from mathematical gymnastics rather than actual energy-space reality states/motions/evolutions; and

(2) infinite universe 'getting less dense' is just 'word play' without any real meaning in logic or physical reality processes.

No wonder Einstein bemoaned: "The mathematicians have invaded my theory!" :)
optical
Sep 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (6) Sep 23, 2016
@auntie-physog
By all the usual sources of radiation, stars, galaxies, black hole accretion discs, etc.

So how come it isn't correlated with all those? And how come it doesn't show any similarity to the spectra associated with those?

This question illustrates perfectly why it is pointless conversing with you. You obviously either never read or completely failed to understand what I said. If you can see the object, it isn't far enough away to contribute to CMB. And if all the wavelengths are flattened to CMB, how can you see a spectra? You really are dozy...

Do I have to keep putting this in simplistic terms for you to acknowledge understanding

Nah, you make it amply clear that you have no clue about physics.

My problem is that I understand physics only too well, and long ago realised that much of it was nonsense. Most physicists get there in the end, but you are a hopeless case because you do not think...
shavera
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 23, 2016
RC: So all the physicists are wrong because you don't understand the maths? I'm sorry, but just because you can't seem to understand mathematics doesn't mean that they aren't relevant to actual physics. It appears to be 'word play' simply because you have no actual experience in physics, and it's understandable you'd think that way because of that ignorance.

Optical: Well I mean, you try to draw a 3d hypersphere or an infinite plane that expands with time. It's a hard picture to communicate easily without a lot of training in the relevant maths and physics. It's easy to handwave simple cases, but the cosmic topology is a bit harder.

Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (4) Sep 23, 2016
and now we talk as if in a jazz club with dark lights and a spotlight, some cool sounding misunderstanding between becoming and what is

it's only an infinite cloud of charges, that are never created or destroyed, only display energy relatively, without GR, occupying all space, individually, as diametrical spherical spheres of a continuous field never created or destroyed, update the relative field at the speed of light relative to it's center.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 23, 2016
Hi shavera. :)
So all the physicists are wrong because you don't understand the maths?
Mate, you should resist strawmen/misconstrued reading from your own confirmation bias/beliefs.

I just demonstrated that I know fulle well the mathemtical axioms/consequences of the conventional mathematical/geom/number theory and 'arguments' and 'results'.

And YOU just came back with baseless personal/insulting assertions not based on any facts whatsoever; not even in maths or physics!

That is the problem with 'physicists' and 'scientists' today. They have been inculcated with 'beliefs' from 'maths', and nothing will shake them! Not even the physical reality being discovered as we speak!

Did you even understand what I said about "Hilbert Hotel' (and the other 'absurdities') which merely manipulate abstract numbers/labels; not real physically possible states/things?

Please drop your own uninformed biases/beliefs; then objectively read/understand what I explained for you. :)
shavera
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 23, 2016
You demonstrated nothing. You simply asserted that mathematical things don't exist because you personally find them to be absurd. There's literally no reason whatsoever to believe that an infinite amount of space is any less logically possible than a finite amount of space. Calling 'wrap around' geometries 'mathematical gymnastics' demonstrates you don't understand non-Euclidean geometry sufficiently. You call 'getting less dense' mere wordplay, when it's an entirely definable concept: the density of matter declines over time is a hypothesis well supported by many observations.

So either you know what you're talking about and are lying intentionally about things, or you're ignorant. Being ignorant is okay, I don't mean it perjoratively. But if you are ignorant, you should attempt to learn instead of lash out about the superiority of your own ignorance.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2016
Rag-Undie:
And if all the wavelengths are flattened to CMB, how can you see a spectra?

Flattening* does not remove spectral lines.

*Whatever 'flattening' means in your weird world (it certainly ain't any physics lingo anyone uses. Photons do not move 'up and down'). I assume you mean redshift.

My problem is that I understand physics only too well

And you're definitely the only one that agrees with you on that (and our vapor-ware TOE). That is good. Keeps you out of the hair of real scientists.

Proof that you have no understanding 'superior' to any physicsist (let alone high-school kid): You are here. If you haad any understanding you'd be discussing your vapor-ware TOE with scientists.

No, you will not die an 'unsung hero of physics' because no one sings your kind of song. You're just one of the myriad of crazies on here (and by no means the most erudite of those. Even Zeph can argue better than you).
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 23, 2016
Hi shavera. :)
You simply asserted that mathematical things don't exist because you personally find them to be absurd.
Quantum Theorists now also agree BH 'central singularity' is 'math absurdity', not physical reality. :)

See the difference between belief/math and physical reality?
There's literally no reason whatsoever to believe that an infinite amount of space is any less logically possible than a finite amount of space.
I never said anything like what you just insinuated. So strawman.
Calling 'wrap around' geometries 'mathematical gymnastics' demonstrates you don't understand non-Euclidean geometry sufficiently.
Motional (not static) geometry over time and across REAL SPACE can be represented via non-Euclidean maths...but that doesn't make space ITSELF non-Euclidean etc. Get the difference between maths 'representations' etc and the physical reality ITSELF?

Eg, please explain physical (not maths) meaning of 'density' of an INFINITY/ETERNITY of SPACE? :)
shavera
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 23, 2016
No, space is itself non-Euclidean. Space is, by definition, the set of all measurements you can make with a ruler. When that ruler's length changes from position to position in space, when two perpendicular rulers rotate or skew variously from position to position in space, and so on, then space is, by definition, non-Euclidean.

I guess the problem I have with your point of view is that maths is a language. Like any language, it is always representational. But just because it's representational doesn't mean it's not descriptive of reality.

Density: Amount of energy per unit volume. In an infinite universe, there's an infinite amount of energy divided over infinite volume. And there's no physical problem with either, they make physical sense, unlike your specious comparison with black hole singularities.

RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (6) Sep 23, 2016
Hi shavera. :)
Space is, by definition, the set of all measurements you can make with a ruler. When that ruler's length changes from position to position in space, when two perpendicular rulers rotate or skew variously from position to position in space, and so on, then space is, by definition, non-Euclidean.
That is still mathematical definition, not actual physical reality definition. Consider: If what you said was actually physical reality descriptive, then the concept of "Rotating Universe" is a non-sequitur logically AND physically (which makes the above 'exercise' nonsensical from the starting assumptions, just as I already pointed out).
In an infinite universe, there's an infinite amount of energy divided over infinite volume. And there's no physical problem with either, they make physical sense, unlike your specious comparison with black hole singularities.
"Infinity" is NOT a "number". You can NOT "divide/multiply" etc with it.

See maths difficulties? :)
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Sep 23, 2016
Einstein wrote the following in GR:

Part III: Considerations on the Universe as a Whole
Albert Einstein 97
If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical or elliptical. Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical, i.e. the universe will be quasi-spherical. But it will be necessarily finite. In fact, the theory supplies us with a simple connection between the space-expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it.


Shavo wrote:

Density: Amount of energy per unit volume. In an infinite universe, there's an infinite amount of energy divided over infinite volume
.....Shavo is smarter than Einstein?
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Sep 23, 2016
RC: So all the physicists are wrong
Correction Shavo......put astro in front of "physicists" & it's accurate.

but just because you can't seem to understand mathematics doesn't mean that they aren't relevant to actual physics.
Schwarzschild's Black Hole Math has absolutely no relevancy to Nuclear Physics, only Asstro-physics.

It appears to be 'word play' simply because you have no actual experience in physics and it's understandable you'd think that way because of that ignorance.


Well shavo, I can design a working nuclear reactor, something you as an an asstro-physicist could never hope to do. And by the way, as long as you want to bring up a discussion about math, I can solve Differential Equations.

optical
Sep 24, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2016
I can design a working nuclear reactor... I can solve Differential Equations
@benni
no, you can't, and that is demonstrated by your inability to do basic math or comprehend basic physics/astrophysics - in your own posts, in your own words

this is demonstrated in the following threads:
http://phys.org/n...s_1.html

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

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

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

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

the above is called empirical evidence and it proves your Dunning-Kruger as well as incompetence in math, science and more (including your failure to research and your inability to utilise known nomenclature for specific communication in your professed field of "expertise")

rule 37
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 24, 2016
(in analogy with this scenario).
WARNING TO EVERYONE - THIS REDDIT LINK IS A PHISHING SPAM PSUEDOSCIENCE LINK

.

and vicious circle of pluralistic ignorance gets closed
@zeph
you do not understand the meaning of the term pluralistic ignorance

https://en.wikipe...c_method

promoting a known falsified and debunked belief system while blatantly ignoring data proven repeatedly by evidence is called delusional behaviour

or religion

take your pick
optical
Sep 24, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2016
@auntie-pizhog
Proof that you have no understanding 'superior' to any physicsist (let alone high-school kid): You are here. If you haad any understanding you'd be discussing your vapor-ware TOE with scientists.

Oh, now I realise that you are not here. I thought you were, amongst all us other "loonies" but, of course, you are different, not a loonie at all. Unless someone rattles your cage....
By the way, I have discussed my TOE with many scientists, and none could find a logical flaw or any way of disproving it. As you have never read it, your criticism lacks a certain authoritative edge most people would find essential.
Incidentally, when shavera says
You call 'getting less dense' mere wordplay, when it's an entirely definable concept: the density of matter declines over time is a hypothesis well supported by many observations.
you make no comment, but when I say it (and base my TOE on it) you immediately descend to gratuitous insults and call me a loonie.
shavera
5 / 5 (6) Sep 24, 2016
That is still mathematical definition, not actual physical reality definition.

No, measurements you make on rulers are physical reality. Maths just describe how those measurements change from location to location.

Amount of energy per unit volume.


Obviously you can't actually divide infinities, but you can always talk about 'unit volumes' within them. The latter phrase was meant to say that in an infinite amount of space there's an infinite amount of energy, but obviously it wasn't read that way
shavera
5 / 5 (9) Sep 24, 2016
Benni: You keep misunderstanding knowledge and intelligence. I know that the US had a president Reagan in the 1980s. Einstein never knew that. That's knowledge. I know that we've made a lot of observations supporting an expanding universe, that we've measured multipole power distributions of the CMB to look for curvature, and so on. Again, knowledge. Had Einstein had this modern knowledge, his intelligence likely would have meant he would write something pretty similar to modern scientific models, which include the likely possibility of an infinite universe with infinite density that has a definite local energy density and average energy density throughout the whole.

I can solve Differential Equations.

Oh yeah, I keep forgetting, you think that's the pinnacle of achievement. Well, good for you. You should be proud of yourself. Not everyone knows something like those sccarrryyyy Differential Equations....
shavera
5 / 5 (9) Sep 24, 2016
Schwarzschild's Black Hole Math has absolutely no relevancy to Nuclear Physics


All of the physicists doing strong force physics and taking advantage of the AdS-CFT correspondence would strongly disagree with you. You know. Nuclear physicists. The people who study nuclear physics. They use 'black hole math' a whole heck of a lot. You obviously aren't one of them, as I keep repeating, because you have no familiarity with even the basic tools of our trade.

https://en.wikipe..._physics
https://en.wikipe...pondence
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2016
I can solve Differential Equations.

I hate to bring this to you - but anywhere but the US that's high school stuff.

So: Bravo. You can do stuff that most kids can do. Yay (*yawn*).
Mimath224
5 / 5 (6) Sep 24, 2016
@shavera. Thanks for the reply...understood. What I don't understand is why you are implying Benni has has the slightest idea of what you mean with regard to those difficult words, 'knowledge' and 'intelligence'...okay, if you feel sorry for Benni you can give him a couple of marks I suppose...do you think he knows the difference between ODE's and PDE's, Ha!?
Benni
1 / 5 (8) Sep 24, 2016
The people who study nuclear physics. They use 'black hole math' a whole heck of a lot.
You clearly know nothing about Nuclear Physics.

Obviously I know better than you that the Inverse Square Law for Gravity should not be applied from the center of a stellar mass as is done in Schwarzschild's Black Hole Math. The only dynamic by which BHs can function is that gravity at the center of a BH must be greater than gravity at the surface or mass cannot gain increasing momentum to continue movement to the center, just the reverse of testable proven science that gravity would be zero.

It is also Asstrophysic's contention that simply increasing the density of a given mass will by some stroke of magic change the gravity field of that given mass & make the field even stronger & create additional gravitational attraction. Yeah, more Black Hole Math, there is no such dynamic in all laws of physics, but you need your fantasies to carry on with your narratives.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2016
Such a definition would fill string theory also.
@zeph
actually, no, it doesn't

string theory is a different way to approach the "knowns" ...technically, it's not testable (yet - see: http://www.math.c...s/?p=533 )

whereas your aether belief *is* testable

and more to the point, it has been falsified (AKA debunked and proven to be false, in laymans terms)

big difference

.

.

(and base my TOE on it)
@reg
problem 1 - your "ToE", so to speak, has no evidence. it only has your word and belief

problem 2 - your "ToE" is based upon a debunked idea

Problem 3 - reality and physics can test against your explanations of your ToE and it proves your ideas to be not only false, but blatantly delusional to boot

demonstrated here: http://phys.org/n...ong.html

Phys1
5 / 5 (6) Sep 24, 2016
The people who study nuclear physics. They use 'black hole math' a whole heck of a lot.
You clearly know nothing about Nuclear Physics.

On shavera's first link I read
"By applying the AdS/CFT correspondence, Sơn and his collaborators were able to describe the quark gluon plasma in terms of black holes in five-dimensional spacetime."
Perhaps shavera knows more about nuclear physics than you after all.
Then you make it worse by stating
or mass cannot gain increasing momentum to continue movement to the center
.
Mass does not have to gain momentum to reach the center. Any momentum will get it there.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (3) Sep 24, 2016
i think it would help [ or confuse the discussion more LOL ] if Roger Penrose's conformal univesre was considered. Penrose is no light weight but is never mentioned , he too has doubts about the Big Bang convention.
Phys1
5 / 5 (6) Sep 24, 2016
@snoosebaum
The "big bang" hypothesis is not a convention. It is at this point in time the only viable hypothesis. You may not like it but that is not relevant.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (2) Sep 24, 2016
penrose: the infinite universe expands until so cold and dark not even particles or time [ no measure] exist , he calls this an aeon , but since nothing is actually something the universe at some point [ for some reason] reforms as hot dense [ big bang] . The problem i see with this is it gets bigger ie less dense each time , but since we know little about ' nothing ' [ lol] there is osme wiggle room there. Any way makes more sense to me than BB problems , no boundary conditions , crazy math.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (3) Sep 24, 2016
i may not like it because it makes no sense, shouldn't things at some level make sense , is that asking too much? if no one understands a theory what is the point ?
Phys1
5 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2016
It is also Asstrophysic's contention that simply increasing the density of a given mass will by some stroke of magic change the gravity field of that given mass

No one but you says this.
I guess that makes you an "Asstrophysicist" by your own definition.
So that's what who you were talking about the past few hundred posts!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Sep 24, 2016
Hi shavera. :)
That is still mathematical definition, not actual physical reality definition.
No, measurements you make on rulers are physical reality. Maths just describe how those measurements change from location to location.
But unless you assign some physically real effective properties, to that 'measured space between objects', then it's all just abstract geometric relativities/values.

That's what 'spacetime' construct was invented for, to REMOVE (ie, ignore) all real effective properties of the space itself; and so just manipulate abstract numbers/relativities in 'spacetime' construct/analysis equations/predictions.

Einstein explicitly admitted it in his Leyden Address. :)
Obviously you can't actually divide infinities, but you can always talk about 'unit volumes' within them.
Yes, I'm glad you now realize that; and won't make similar invalid extrapolations from 'finite' extents/logics to infinite/eternal universal extent/logics compared to BB etc. :)
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2016
Try an isomorphic mathematical unitless 4D space. I like lambda as my dimensional unit on all axis. I set time via lambda nu = 1. Then any point of interest is a stationary point in time; hence, each point is defined with a set of attributes. I prefer its own zero reference point as one attribute, and the location of a virtual charge, which yields the same field as felt by the charge in question. You may add any other attribute that fits the physics. q = +/- 1.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2016
Einstein is wrong, the speed of the wavelet is lambda_emitted/measured_period! Speed, 0 -> infinity. Velocity, +/-. What we see, we pass through, either into the emitter or through its existing field behind us. Which direction? One measurement is forward in time, the other is backward in time.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2016
The attributes of the objects we call charge, protons and electrons. Neutrons are a pair. The centers may occupy the same point in time and space. Repulsion and attraction define elemental assembly. Each charge is fixed in space relative to its center. Relative updates are observed from any relative point as updated at the speed of light relative to its center.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2016
Don't let the simplicity of space confuse you. If it were only a vacuum how do we exist? Space is an infinite set of diametrical spherical fields. Each with a center and occupies infinity with the relative shells updated at the speed of light. Take time to observe the motion of the entire object. That's it!
Celione
1 / 5 (1) Sep 25, 2016
But in some other reference books, they've added that the universe is expanding. What can you explain about the term 'expanding' of the universe?
optical
Sep 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
5 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2016
Red shift can be explained with scattering of light at the vacuum fluctuations

No it can not.
Phys1
5 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2016
When we compare these predictions to the Planck satellite's latest measurements, we find overwhelming evidence that the universe is the same in all directions."


Comparing quotes from the article above & Einstein's GR below: ...

Inconsequential copy/paste snobbery.

Phys1
5 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2016
i may not like it because it makes no sense, shouldn't things at some level make sense , is that asking too much? if no one understands a theory what is the point ?

The theory makes testable predictions.
None of these have been falsified.
That is, it makes sense.
optical
Sep 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
5 / 5 (5) Sep 25, 2016
@optical
That is a tired light theory. Discredited.
http://www.astro....dlit.htm
As to your water waves, they appear to obey a nonlinear wave equation.
Light is different, it obeys a linear wave equation.
optical
Sep 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
optical
Sep 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
optical
Sep 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2016
@optical
The refutation of tired light theory often references
http://www.astro....dlit.htm ,
where the basis of the refutation rests on assumptions that are obviously wrong.
For example, observations dictate that either light speed is not constant or time is not constant in the vicinity of massive objects - either one or the other must change. If time changes (goes quicker or slower) wavelength of light must change if constant velocity is maintained. Conversely, if passage of time remains constant, velocity of light must change.
As we live in a scientific environment where velocity of light is sacrosanct, it must follow that time is a purely local phenomenon. Is light/radiation always created/emitted at exactly the same wavelength locally, but time varies relative to the emitting particle(s)? Thus, radiation is all CMB locally, but viewed from the spere of influence which dictates time perspective, is of different wavelengths. Overall, when ..(tbc).
optical
Sep 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2016
(contd.) Overall, when the sphere of influence dictating the passage of time is sufficiently large (as in our "universe" which includes everything we can "see") then radiation emanating from outside our sphere of time influence is uniform in wavelength (or nearly so), i.e. is CMB.
optical
Sep 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2016
Furthermore, the refutation seems to assume that redshift is directly proportional to distance, whereas redshift may approach limits asymptotically, or obey rules not representable by mathematics at all.
optical
Sep 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
optical
Sep 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2016
scientific environment where velocity of light is sacrosanct
It can be shown very simply, that the asumption of constant speed of light can lead into variable speed of light

Direct observation proves that the velocity of light varies depending on the medium thru' which it is passing (to an outside observer). The universe we inhabit has no (or very sparse) volumes of absolute vaccuum, there is always some matter.
If light/radiation continually passes thru' boundaries of different densities, is there some loss of energy during that transition? Experiments indicate that this may be so, and it may be that the energy loss occurs differently at different wavelengths whilst there is no energy loss at the wavelengths of CMB due to the inherent constitution of radiation and matter in our universe. Thus, all radiation would revert to CMB given sufficient distance travelled.
optical
Sep 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
optical
Sep 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
optical
Sep 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
optical
Sep 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
5 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2016
That is a tired light theory. Discredited
Nope, the tired light theory...


DISCREDITED

And so is the whole junkyard of ideas that you flood this site with.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2016
tired light theory

Look, a theory is dead as dead can be if even the guy who proposed it (Zwicky) went around *himself* and proved that it didn't work. (Not to meantion all the people after him who found even more reasons that it didn't work)
optical
Sep 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
optical
Sep 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
5 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2016
@optical
DISCREDITED
BECAUSE
INCONSISTENT WITH TIME DELAY
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2016
tired light theory

Look, a theory is dead as dead can be if even the guy who proposed it (Zwicky) went around *himself* and proved that it didn't work. (Not to meantion all the people after him who found even more reasons that it didn't work)

Look, Auntie, the labelling of any attempt to adjust the wavelength/velocity of light over either time or distance as "tired light theory" is simple tarnish by association tricks so that anything you (and your co-acolytes) disagree with you can dismiss as "Oh, tired light theory!" as if that completely refutes it. Look, you dickhead, it is universally accepted that time varies from place to place, so it stands to sense that something measured by time (e.g. frequency/wavelength) will vary from place to place. You can't dismiss this as "tired light theory" and get away with it. In any case, the refutations of "tired light theory" are as full of logic holes as the theory itself.
optical
Sep 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
optical
Sep 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
optical
Sep 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
optical
Sep 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
5 / 5 (5) Sep 25, 2016
@optical

I already gave this link above but here it is again
http://www.astro....dlit.htm
Phys1
5 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2016
Look, Reg Mundy
You are aggressive and rude, but that is boring.
What counts is that you are wrong.
As you always, reliably, are.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (5) Sep 25, 2016
But in some other reference books, they've added that the universe is expanding. What can you explain about the term 'expanding' of the universe?

But this action is poorly defined. The assumption of Einstein is an error. Nor have we shown that mu epsilon is not dependent on volume, and we have an error, the kilogram is not a fundamental measure, the number of pairs of the spherical fields are pertinent. So we have errors in our measurements. Hence, truth, yet to be defined!
optical
Sep 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Steelwolf
1 / 5 (5) Sep 25, 2016
It is funny how it is talked about how "Light has a Constant Speed in Vacuum", but, this is never Ever possible to prove for one major reason, there is NO area within our observable Universe that is a pure vacuum, even Intergalactic Space is acknowledged as filled with very low density plasma, photons and magnetics so there IS no true vacuum for light to be propagating in. THUS, All of our "Light speed" measurements are going to be measurements of "Light In A Medium" of some sort or another rather than thru vacuum. This means that ALL of our existing cosmological data be reconsidered on that basis: Observationally different densities of the medium (low density plasma) and how there would be areas dense enough to give gravitational effect, without being observable itself. Background microwave would just be light having traveled far enough to render it to the deep IR regime, where, due to the scattering effects of low energy photons, the spectrographic data would be lost in the 'fuzz'.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2016
It is funny how it is talked about

Well we can't find truth by starting with bull$hit; no offense.
Phys1
5 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2016
@optical
Not exactly. They claim that the Tolman test is consistent with "a static Euclidean universe (SEU) with a linear Hubble relation at all z"
So there is still a red shift to be explained. I don't know how to do that with a static universe. No one does, especially if time delay must also be explained.
http://www.worlds...14500588
BurnBabyBurn
5 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2016
Hyperfuzzy 1 /5 (1) 1 hour ago

Well we can't find truth by starting with bull$hit; no offense.


Great. Shaddap already!

Benni 1 /5 (10) Sep 23, 2016

............and all this coming from a person whose degree is in BIOLOGY, a completely mathless field of endeavor where absolutely no proficiency in PHYSICS is required.


Patently absurd. Maybe upgrade that home schooling with an decent biology course. "completely mathless field"- It boggles the mind to think what dank space you pull this crap from. Maybe you should be writing material for the Trump campaign. You've got that "utter crap pulled from nowhere but delivered in an arrogant manner" down pat.
BurnBabyBurn
5 / 5 (1) Sep 25, 2016

philstacy9 Sep 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.


So, why do accounts get terminated on here? What do they do??? Here you have a blatant troll spammer that posts the same discredited crap on every thread when it has nothing to do with the subject, glorying in being a philistine so much that he takes it as a handle, who gets so out of line that his post is deleted. Why is that simply deleted while much more tame statements end in the account being suspended from posting/voting?

Pandering. It's the only thing that makes sense, but to what?
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2016
@optical
Not exactly. They claim that the Tolman test is consistent with "a static Euclidean universe (SEU) with a linear Hubble relation at all z"
So there is still a red shift to be explained. I don't know how to do that with a static universe. No one does, especially if time delay must also be explained.
http://www.worlds...14500588

Wavelength_emitted/period_observed = speed_of_the_wavelet => frequency shift, QED!
optical
Sep 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
FredJose
1 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2016
So let me see, these scientists are perfectly happy with a 1 in 121000 chance or probability to reject a the hypothesis that there is a direction to the universe.

So what will it take to reject another hypothesis whose probability of success stands at a 1 in 10 to power 400? Here I'm of course referring to the mythical chance of life arising out of the ground or wherever, via purely random chemical and physical processes, all by itself.

The only hassle here is that it's not possible to reject this mythical hypothesis because to do so would invoke the much greater probability of there being a creator to whom all are accountable. No such sacrilege can be allowed in the purely humanistic world view.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (5) Sep 25, 2016
So let me see, these scientists are perfectly happy with a 1 in 121000 chance or probability to reject a the hypothesis that there is a direction to the universe.

So what will it take to reject another hypothesis whose probability of success stands at a 1 in 10 to power 400? Here I'm of course referring to the mythical chance of life arising out of the ground or wherever, via purely random chemical and physical processes, all by itself.

The only hassle here is that it's not possible to reject this mythical hypothesis because to do so would invoke the much greater probability of there being a creator to whom all are accountable. No such sacrilege can be allowed in the purely humanistic world view.

Truly - you are an idiot.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 26, 2016
it is universally accepted that time varies from place to place, so it stands to sense that something measured by time (e.g. frequency/wavelength) will vary from place to place

It's called Relativity. Time isn't variable willy-nilly.
And the variation is in accordance with the depth of the gravitational well. However if light moves completely *through* a gravitational well it comes out just the same wavelength as it did when it entered. Note that spectral lines aren't erased by this, either.

So let me see, these scientists are perfectly happy with a 1 in 121000 chance or probability to reject a the hypothesis that there is a direction to the universe.

No. If you read the article they say the chance that the universe rotates or is stretching is 1 to 121000. Not that they therefore reject the hypothesis. But it's a good bet to base future work on a non-rotating case. There will be future (more stringent) tests. So your argument (like you) is bonkers.
Phys1
5 / 5 (3) Sep 26, 2016
If the water can do it with its Brownian noise, then the vacuum would manage it too.

No way. Water is nonlinear. EM is linear.
also, I posted a link a few times summing up the problems with tired light.
Have you looked at it yet?
AlbertPierrepointOBE
4.5 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2016
RealityCheck 1 /5 (5) Sep 23, 2016

I explained long ago. Cheers. :)



It really isn't cricket to engage dotty old codgers and encourage them. This is what you get. Senile dementia is not an online role playing game, oh servants of the truth. Really care about setting the discussion straight? Stop feeding the delusions of the senile and mentally ill, like "benni".


FredJose 1 /5 (3) 10 hours ago
So let me see,


And fucking religionists like the only idiot in the Netherlands to still be promoting the old fairy story schtick. Do you realize how isolated he much be from Dutch society? Those three are some pretty sick puppies. Leave them to their private hells and you'll see them fouling the site less. Really. Try it.
optical
Sep 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Sep 26, 2016
Really care about setting the discussion straight? Stop feeding the delusions of the senile and mentally ill, like "benni".
.........and your problem with Benni is that he challenges your cosmic fantasies to good hefty doses of Testable & Observable scientific reality.

Just because you look in a mirror and are convinced that 80-95% of you is "missing" after stepping off that scale & calculating your Body Mass Index, that doesn't mean the real science community is as self indulgent as you are in your personal fantasyland of things you can't prove exist.

Reg Mundy
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2016
@auntie-alasfizog
if light moves completely *through* a gravitational well it comes out just the same wavelength as it did when it entered

Oh, you have proof of this! I must have missed it. I would be obliged if you would point it out.
Note that spectral lines aren't erased by this, either.

Not even a little teensy-weensy bit? Maybe, just a wee bit blurred?
EnsignFlandry
5 / 5 (2) Sep 26, 2016
So let me see, these scientists are perfectly happy with a 1 in 121000 chance or probability to reject a the hypothesis that there is a direction to the universe.

So what will it take to reject another hypothesis whose probability of success stands at a 1 in 10 to power 400? Here I'm of course referring to the mythical chance of life arising out of the ground or wherever, via purely random chemical and physical processes, all by itself.

The only hassle here is that it's not possible to reject this mythical hypothesis because to do so .....snip...No such sacrilege can be allowed in the purely humanistic world view.


There is no basis for this probability you have asserted. For one thing,it assumes a random meeting between atoms and molecules, but the process would not be random.
Even if the odds were that low, this would not imply a creator, except among those who already believe in one.
ddaye
5 / 5 (1) Sep 26, 2016
the mythical chance of life arising out of the ground or wherever, via purely random chemical and physical processes, all by itself.


There is no basis for this probability you have asserted.

Seems to me it's a common confusion of events that are random with those that are not. Two chemicals may have a random chance of coming into contact, but the possibilities and ways they can combine from that point on are anything but.
Phys1
5 / 5 (3) Sep 26, 2016
No way. Water is nonlinear. EM is linear
EM waves are also nonlinear - they're forming solitons, i.e. the photons. If the vacuum would be linear environment, then the gamma rays would flash scintillators across whole their surface, not just at localized points like the particles.


1) The equations of the EM field or potential are linear. Maxwell is linear. QED is linear - except for very weak effects of vacuum polarisation.
2) Scattering by vacuum fluctuations, whatever you mean by this, cannot alter photon energy or momentum.
3) Energy-momentum conservation imposes restrictions.
4) You speak about a nonlinear theory. Please provide links. Note that such a theory should reproduce the results predicted by linear EM theory.
optical
Sep 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
5 / 5 (2) Sep 26, 2016
@optical
without any mathematical fundament these statements are pure speculation.
also you still have to address the objections against tired light that I referred to above.
QED describes photons and electrons extremely well and is linear, apart from vacuum polarisation effects such as Delbruck scattering, in a probabilistic manner.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Sep 26, 2016
red shift to be explained. I don't know how to do that with a static universe
Vacuum contains vacuum fluctuations, which make the frozen helium fluid and which also scatter the light waves. If the water can do it with its Brownian noise, then the vacuum would manage it too.

So you are saying it's a calculation like the results of a gaussian beam moving through an inhomogeneous medium. Yes it is; however, this does not seem to be the same thing. Maybe over the large volume. This can be calculated. But if you ignore Einstein, you will then be defining wither the universe is expanding or not. , empirically.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Sep 26, 2016
The centers of the field move with respect to another field. That's all. So learn Maxwell and stop guessing. Dr. E did not do an analysis that is true for the perihelion of Mercury. He was a few months off; in fact, he used the previous years position. Newton would be closer if he had done an optical analysis, i.e. he would define a lens like media. It's time we stopped kidding ourselves and take a long hard stare at reality. It took me 69 years. There is so much bull$hit out there. The last chip of the BS was an optical connector that failed, gave a clear signal; but a 2ns delay, BS!
Phys1
5 / 5 (2) Sep 27, 2016
Whereas RC from time to time makes testable scientific statements, though in this case wrong, his problem is only that he is unwilling to admit or see this. Nevertheless, he is a Nobel prize winner compared to the certified drivel king Reg Mundy.
You are not in the same category, Reg.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Sep 27, 2016
Rag-Undie (hey, this is fun...I can see that you get riled up when someon throws the methods you use right back at you. Seems you're pretty insecure in yourself)
Oh, you have proof of this! I must have missed it. I would be obliged if you would point it out.

Any number of references. The easiest one is here:
https://en.wikipe...redshift

Not even a little teensy-weensy bit? Maybe, just a wee bit blurred?

Nope.
You *can* get broadening of spectral lines by interaction with matter (e.g. if a photon hits an atom and the atom reemits the photon. If the atom was moving relative to the final observer you will get broadening due to Doppler shift. This is actually one of the reasons why Zwicky finally rejected his own hypothesis of tired light because his theory predicted just such a broadening. But broadening isn't observed from distant sources .
optical
Sep 27, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
optical
Sep 27, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Sep 27, 2016
Rag-Undie (hey, this is fun...I can see that you get riled up when someon throws the methods you use right back at you. Seems you're pretty insecure in yourself)
Oh, you have proof of this! I must have missed it. I would be obliged if you would point it out.

Any number of references. The easiest one is here:
https://en.wikipe...redshift

Not even a little teensy-weensy bit? Maybe, just a wee bit blurred?

Nope.
You *can* get broadening of spectral lines by interaction with matter (e.g. if a photon hits an atom and the atom reemits the photon.......

If RM doesn't know the difference between frequency and wavelength why waste your time with explanations.

antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 27, 2016
This is actually one of the reasons why Zwicky finally rejected his own hypothesis of tired light because his theory predicted just such a broadening.

I wanted to add to this a bit more because I feel this is important. Zwicky was a good scientist. He made many contributions. Even his 'tired light' hypothesis is an example of good science: It is based on a sensibly sounding idea, was underpinned with solid math. and it made predictions which could be measured.
That the measurements, when they were feasible, contradicted the predictions and thereby demolished the theory (which he even helped in) is besides the point.

He followed a good scientific process and people on here who hold forth on their own vapor-ware theories or intuitive approach without math or quantitative predictions should take a page (better all pages) from Zwicky's playbook and start over.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2016
The only reason you speak so affably of a guy who was never a "scientist" but rather an asstrophysicist , is the fact that YOU are of the opinion his DM cosmic fairy dust is SETTLED SCIENCE, you have an 80-95% certainty of this.

Zwicky finally rejected his own hypothesis of tired light because
....."because" he so confronted by a Nuclear Physicist name of Einstein who warned him from the outset not to go there with his Tired Light, but he did it anyway & made such a fool of himself doing it, that along with his DM, consequently he was tagged by reputable scientists of his time as "Zany Zwicky".

He followed a good scientific process and people on here who hold forth on their own vapor-ware theories or intuitive approach without math or quantitative predictions
Oh really, like the math calling for 80-95% Missing Mass? You are clueless about what a "scientific process" is. 21st Century instrumentation technology has proven time & again how clueless he was.

optical
Sep 27, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (6) Sep 27, 2016
@auntie-pishog
Rag-Undie (hey, this is fun...I can see that you get riled up when someon throws the methods you use right back at you. Seems you're pretty insecure in yourself)

Attaboy, auntie, that's the spirit! Shaking off that old hangdog attitude and joining the fun! Oh, by the way, your reference "proof" is rubbish, and so are you. The only thing to recommend it is its general acknowledgement of the flexible nature of time, i.e. that it is subjective as I've always maintained. If you actually got off your arse and read some of my stuff, you would realise that my contention as to the nature of time is correct, and all the other things like the fact that gravity does not exist as a force follow on from that.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (6) Sep 27, 2016
@MiMoth

If RM doesn't know the difference between frequency and wavelength why waste your time with explanations.

What if all radiation has the same frequency and dictates time in its immediate vicinity? Are all photons exactly the same, but simply moving at different frequencies, or are X-ray photons different to light photons? Waste some of your time with explanations, it might do you some good.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2016
If you actually got off your arse and read some of my stuff,

Post it. You've been asked to do so before (must be in the triple digits by now that that has been asked of you)...but your vapor-ware TOE hasn't materialized yet.

Not that I'd read it, mind. I've seen enough of your crazy rationalisations on here to figure that anything you produce is BS. Utter. I just get a blast out of you trying to brown nose me.

So...meh.

Oh, and that link you termed as 'rubbish' has the niggling detail of actually having been vetted and verified. With experiments. So cry 'rubbish' all you want, but that doesn't change reality one bit.
Phys1
5 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2016
]What if all radiation has the same frequency and dictates time in its immediate vicinity?

Drivel.
Are all photons exactly the same, but simply moving at different frequencies, or are X-ray photons different to light photons?

You are not really asking a question but pushing more drivel.
Waste some of your time with explanations, it might do you some good.

Absolutely idiotic advice.
Here is some good advice: never listen to Reg Mundy.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Sep 27, 2016
If you actually got off your arse and read some of my stuff,

Post it. You've been asked to do so before (must be in the triple digits by now that that has been asked of you)...but your vapor-ware TOE hasn't materialized yet.

Not that I'd read it, mind. I've seen enough of your crazy rationalisations on here to figure that anything you produce is BS. Utter. I just get a blast out of you trying to brown nose me.

So...meh.

Oh, and that link you termed as 'rubbish' has the niggling detail of actually having been vetted and verified. With experiments. So cry 'rubbish' all you want, but that doesn't change reality one bit.

That's the spirit! Really get into this insults flame game, forget all about what this thread article had to say and what it meant. Slag off my TOE never having read it, never mind understood it. You'll find yourself really at home with the likes of Fizz, Irate, Cap'n Grumpy et al.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Sep 27, 2016

Hi Phys1. :)
Whereas RC from time to time makes testable scientific statements, though in this case wrong, his problem is only that he is unwilling to admit or see this. Nevertheless, he is a Nobel prize winner compared to the certified drivel king Reg Mundy.
You are not in the same category, Reg.
Err, thanks...for that 'faint/feint praise', mate. :)

But again, you sound so "certain" in your bald assumption/assertion "though in this case wrong".

Mate, if you read the whole exchange between me and shavera, on the substantive point involved, you will see that my last post on 24th explained how/why my point is correct. Note shavera was not able to counter that final observation which put into full relief his own misunderstandings on the point.

PS: So, mate, perhaps you might want to, as a courtesy, now withdraw your faint/feint praise and bald incorrect assertions about my being "wrong"; and substitute a more fulsome praise and acknowledgement of my correctness. :)
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2016
If you actually got off your arse and read some of my stuff,
hey reg moron... you mean stuff like this crap you tried to pass off on this site? here: http://phys.org/n...ong.html

you kept trying to explain your expansion bullsh*t but every time you did you made a serious faux pas that proved you were either:
-lying
-an idiot
-in a cult
-delusional
-ignorant of basic physics
-or worse

heck, even orbits completely undermines your expansion crap
and lets not get into tidal forces we can see and measure (like earth tides) or that whole "mass dependent expansion" problem with proportional measurement that i pointed out...

all you are trying to do is drum up suckers to buy your book

spammer
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2016
TOE never having read it

Post it. I dare ya. I double dare ya. You can't? Why is that? Because you have nothing. *Sigh*. We've been over this. As soon as you get asked for specifics you duck and hide and weasel and change the subject.

For that matter, here's why I know your TOE must be BS without reading it:

1) You make a lot of statements on here that are (presumably) based off of your TOE
2) All your statements are at odds with actual experiment (you know: what we normal people like to call 'reality')

So unless I'm wrong about 1) (i.e. you're continually making statements that are not supported by your theory*) then your TOE cannot be anything but dead wrong.

*And why would you? Unless you've invented a new form of crazy that goes beyond your regular form of crazy.

Here is some good advice: never listen to Reg Mundy.

Good idea. I found something better. I just put him on ignore.
Phys1
5 / 5 (1) Sep 28, 2016
@RC
Quantum Theorists now also agree BH 'central singularity' is 'math absurdity', not physical reality. :)

See the difference between belief/math and physical reality?[/]q
Link please.
Phys1
5 / 5 (1) Sep 28, 2016

Hi Phys1. :)
Whereas RC from time to time makes testable scientific statements, though in this case wrong, his problem is only that he is unwilling to admit or see this. Nevertheless, he is a Nobel prize winner compared to the certified drivel king Reg Mundy.
You are not in the same category, Reg.
Err, thanks...for that 'faint/feint praise', mate. :)

But again, you sound so "certain" in your bald assumption/assertion "though in this case wrong".

This is cross contamination from another thread, the one about Pluto.
I did not follow your exchange above.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Sep 28, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

Hi Phys1. :)
Whereas RC from time to time makes testable scientific statements, though in this case wrong, his problem is only that he is unwilling to admit or see this. Nevertheless, he is a Nobel prize winner compared to the certified drivel king Reg Mundy.
You are not in the same category, Reg.
Err, thanks...for that 'faint/feint praise', mate. :)

But again, you sound so "certain" in your bald assumption/assertion "though in this case wrong".

This is cross contamination from another thread, the one about Pluto.
I did not follow your exchange above.
Oh, OK. Noted.

But also note well that even in the Pluto thread I was correct. I explained therein how it was you got muddled about what I said/didn't say (ie: I said no tidal-heating of ice possible in Pluto-Charon tidally-locked system; I didn't say there was 'no ice'). Ok? :)
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Sep 28, 2016
@auntie-pizhog
Good idea. I found something better. I just put him on ignore.
Yup! I was right, you have joined Fizz, Irate, Cap'n Grumpy et al. Thanks for putting me on ignore, at least I won't prod you into action to spout insults for no reason, pardon me for breathing...(I see the Cap'n is posting, no doubt in response to my mentioning him. And old Fizz can't resist a poke now and then...).
Phys1
5 / 5 (1) Sep 28, 2016
@RC
See my reaction on the other thread.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Sep 28, 2016
It doesn't matter how crazy you are if you're right but if you're wrong!

We have 100 years of wrong, theoretically. One reason we test new theories. But now it's about the Nobel. Scientist just lose their minds. The rest are "suck-ups' quoting anything that fits their delusion.

However, the engineer sees it all in practice. To ignore an engineer with over 40 years experience is strange.

Light is simply a field being updated. Every field originates with a charge. The charge is never created or destroyed. There are 2 diametrical charges. Don't forget its infinite wardrobe.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2016
But now it's about the Nobel.

Oh my. No. It's never been about the Nobel. No scientist has ever said "I'm doing my research for the Nobel prize".
This prize is awareded at a time when researchers are - for the overwhelming part - way out of their active research phase. And there are so man scientists (and so few Nobel prizes) that aiming at such a prize as your life's goal is foolish.

However, the engineer sees it all in practice.

And funnily enough waht the engineer sees completely agrees with what you decry as "wrong for 100 years". So either every engineer in the world must be blind or you are just wrong. Guess which.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Sep 29, 2016
But now it's about the Nobel.

Oh my. No. It's never been about the Nobel. No scientist has ever said "I'm doing my research for the Nobel prize".
This prize is awareded at a time when researchers are - for the overwhelming part - way out of their active research phase. And there are so man scientists (and so few Nobel prizes) that aiming at such a prize as your life's goal is foolish.

However, the engineer sees it all in practice.

And funnily enough waht the engineer sees completely agrees with what you decry as "wrong for 100 years". So either every engineer in the world must be blind or you are just wrong. Guess which.

Theoretical Physics, Engineering is Applied Physics, very different things and people!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2016
Hi antialias, Hyperfuzzy. :)
Hyperfuzzy said: But now it's about the Nobel.
antialias said: Oh my. No. It's never been about the Nobel. No scientist has ever said "I'm doing my research for the Nobel prize". This prize is awareded at a time when researchers are - for the overwhelming part - way out of their active research phase. And there are so man scientists (and so few Nobel prizes) that aiming at such a prize as your life's goal is foolish.
Oh come off it, anti. Spinning yourself 'lies for children' about a perfect world of perfect scientists etc is just denying reality, mate. The bicep2 fiasco happened because the 'team' were so keen to 'beat the Planck team' to Nobel 'fame' for being "first to discover" primordial gravity wave 'signature' in CMB. No amount of denial of the bleeding obvious will hide the fact that TOO MANY cosmologists etc are subject to peer-pressure/publish-or-perish' etc imperatives, and dreams of a Nobel then/later. The reality. :)
snoosebaum
not rated yet Sep 29, 2016
i may not like it because it makes no sense, shouldn't things at some level make sense , is that asking too much? if no one understands a theory what is the point ?

The theory makes testable predictions.
None of these have been falsified.
That is, it makes sense.


@ Phys1 , fair enough, but it stlll makes no spatial sense as there is no observable center unless we could see back far enough in one direction , is that what is meant?

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

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