|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 07/11/2006 : 13:00:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
All of these positioning variables could directly affect what we see, and it is inapprorprate to "assume" what the view might look like from any other perspective. We don't know.
What??? The whole point of developing a model, Michael, is to be able to explain what we see instead of something else. You must "assume" what various views might look like from any other perspective if you wish to demonstrate that our view is even possible under your BS theory. By making zero claims about why the Universe appears to us the way it does, or being able to imagine what it might look like if certain events are presumed to have happened, then you don't have a theory of any kind. Just a handful of objections.
Objections are not a theory, Michael.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2006 : 13:19:53 [Permalink]
|
Some more on-line research into redshift and Hubble's Law came up with this: quote:
The Hubble's law observation has two possible explanations. One is that we are at the center of an explosion of galaxies, a position which is untenable given the Copernican principle. The second explanation is that the universe is uniformly expanding everywhere as a unique property of spacetime. This type of universal expansion was developed mathematically in the context of general relativity well before Hubble made his analysis and observations, and it remains the cornerstone of the Big Bang theory as developed by Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker.
This is in accords with what I've read and what others have said here. Given what we know about redshift, either we happen to be right at the center of the BS, or everything is moving away from everything else in accords with Hubble's Law.
Am I missing something? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2006 : 13:27:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
We're only looking a small piece of a very large pie.
That's precisely my point. A small piece of a large pie will subtend a small angle relative to the center of the pie.
And then:quote:
I do however feel compelled to point out again that not every galaxy moves away from us at the hubble constant...
That's correct, but if the Doppler redshift was larger than the cosmological redshift, Hubble probably wouldn't have found it. The relationship between distance and recessional "speed" would have been buried in the noise.quote:
...and we do not know what every view from every position might look like. We only know what our own view looks like, and we really don't know where we sit in the grand scheme of things. Any arguement that begins with the premise that "all the galaxies have to have the same view we do" is going to be automatically disqualified in my book.
Then you are disqualifying lots of different sciences, which all presume that there's nothing special about where we are.quote:
We can't know such a thing because we only know what *we* see from here.
That's why "no privileged position" is a premise, and not a conclusion. The premise is validated to some extent because all sorts of experiments based upon such a premise work so well.quote:
We could be positioned near the center of the expansion. We would be positioned near the middle of the expanding waves. We could be positioned somewhere near an outer edge somewhere. All of these positioning variables could directly affect what we see, and it is inapprorprate to "assume" what the view might look like from any other perspective. We don't know.
No, this is quite incorrect, since we can easily work through the geometry of radially symmetrical expansions, and find out that we should be able to observe differences between the center and some far-flung location. That's what I've been explaining to you: the model only matches observation if we're at the center. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2006 : 13:33:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
If the spaces between the galaxies are growing then we can move faster than light relative to those galaxies with enough space between them and us.
This is absolutely correct Papa, however Michael does not believe that space expands, as a matter of fact Michael does not believe that any space exists that is not filled with particles or energy.
You either deliberately build strawmen out of my statements, or you have a hard time comprehending my statements. I believe that electro-magnetic fields/waves/particles can and do expand. What I said was that "spacetime" does not exist in the absense of these things. Such an environment would simply be "empty-space", and I do not believe that "empty-space" can expand or do anything for that matter. It's just "space", not "spacetime". I don't believe that "spacetime" exists unless it is filled with particles and fields and energy and things that can "referenced". Nothing cannnot expand. Particles however *can* expand. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2006 : 13:37:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Some more on-line research into redshift and Hubble's Law came up with this: quote:
The Hubble's law observation has two possible explanations. One is that we are at the center of an explosion of galaxies, a position which is untenable given the Copernican principle. The second explanation is that the universe is uniformly expanding everywhere as a unique property of spacetime. This type of universal expansion was developed mathematically in the context of general relativity well before Hubble made his analysis and observations, and it remains the cornerstone of the Big Bang theory as developed by Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker.
This is in accords with what I've read and what others have said here. Given what we know about redshift, either we happen to be right at the center of the BS, or everything is moving away from everything else in accords with Hubble's Law.
Am I missing something?
I'm thinking that you are missing the notion that we are riding an expanding electromagnetic wave that is flowing through the galactic fields of spacetime. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2006 : 14:03:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Some more on-line research into redshift and Hubble's Law came up with this:
It's a good find, Cune, and it's probably important to read the entry on the Copernican Principle, too.
Note that in Michael's model, things would indeed be homogeneous for the most part, in that for any given radius from us, we would find that galaxies at that radius are all receeding at more-or-less the same rate. The model isn't homogeneous at the outer edges of the "explosion" (because, of course, a telescope pointed outward from the explosion won't see as many galaxies), and whenever conditions exist which might allow for faster-than-light travel in some reference frame (in which case there will be decelerations to keep things under the "speed limit").
The problem I'm pointing out is that Michael's model is also heterogeneous for the Hubble Constant itself. In other words, if this model is correct, then you'd get different results if you measured the Hubble Constant at the center of the "explosion" than if you measured somewhere close to - but not overlapping - the edge of it. The fact that Michael wants us to view the whole model as if "we are riding an expanding electromagnetic wave that is flowing through the galactic fields of spacetime" only makes those heterogeneous measurements worse, not better, since he would have to posit a magnetic field which gets stronger with distance in order to have the Hubble Constant remain the same no matter where you measured it, and that's backwards to how electromagnetic fields usually function, dropping off in strength with the distance from the source, squared. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2006 : 14:15:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
The fact that Michael wants us to view the whole model as if "we are riding an expanding electromagnetic wave that is flowing through the galactic fields of spacetime" only makes those heterogeneous measurements worse, not better,
From a physical perspective as it relates to redshift specifically, that statement is not true. It is the fact that the expansion of the electromagnetic wave "continues" that allows for the redshift data to make sense. You can't remove the acceleration aspect of this arguement and get the desired results. There has to be a process of "expansion" taking place to explain the redshift, and I believe that expansion process is electromagnetic in nature. As the current increases, the fields strengthen and the distances between objects continues to expand. It's the expansion itself that is responsible for the redshift, not simply the initial "kickstart" of the explosive stage.
quote:
since he would have to posit a magnetic field which gets stronger with distance in order to have the Hubble Constant remain the same no matter where you measured it,
No, you would simply have to assume that the field is growing in strength over time, probably due to current flow, hense my statement about "electro"magnetic waves.
quote:
and that's backwards to how electromagnetic fields usually function, dropping off in strength with the distance from the source, squared.
Except of course when electricity involved and then the magnetic field grows with the increasing current flow. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/11/2006 14:17:09 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2006 : 14:21:15 [Permalink]
|
| Where is the current coming from, Michael? Why is there any usable energy left in an infinitely old universe with but a finite amount of matter and energy in it? What is violating the laws of thermodynamics such that not only is entropy not at its maximum, but your speculative current flow increases over time? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2006 : 14:21:28 [Permalink]
|
| Let's go back to our initial analogy Cune. Each car continues to accelerate, they don't just reach a certain speed and slow down. Therefore the distance between them is alway increasing and the velocities (relative to one another) are always increasing as is their redshift. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/11/2006 14:22:37 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2006 : 14:31:08 [Permalink]
|
| Also, what is preventing any two randomly-chosen galaxies anywhere amongst the "explosion" from going faster than light relative to one another, especially when this current is getting stronger and allegedly keeps everything accelerating? The features of Special Relativity should kick in at some point, and cause the current in the field to rise exponentially just to maintain a steady acceleration - which unfortunately will be seen as a slowing acceleration by observers in other reference frames no matter what, since the alternative is something going faster than light relative to some viewer somewhere. At the very least, that will happen as galactic speeds rise to very close to c, causing the amount of current to head towards infinity to get those penultimate millimeters/second/second of acceleration (you can't have the last one, since it would indeed require infinite power to reach lightspeed). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2006 : 14:33:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Where is the current coming from, Michael?
Our universe is completing a circuit inside the rest of the cosmos Dave. Electricity flow is a requirement of this model, and there needs to be an external influence to make it all work.
quote:
Why is there any usable energy left in an infinitely old universe with but a finite amount of matter and energy in it?
For exactly the same reason that there is still energy in the system. In other words, I have no idea. The energy within the cosmos simply exists.
quote:
What is violating the laws of thermodynamics such that not only is entropy not at its maximum,
It's moving in that direction.
quote:
but your speculative current flow increases over time?
It increases from the the same reason that current begins to flow in an arcwelder as the arc begins to form. Electricity simply follows the path of least resistance. As the mass of the event spreads out, it helps complete a "circuit" within the rest of the cosmos. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2006 : 15:46:45 [Permalink]
|
| By the way Dave, what is driving expansion in BB theory in your opinion, or shall I just call it "expans(i)on fields"? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2006 : 16:24:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Our universe is completing a circuit inside the rest of the cosmos Dave.
What "rest of the cosmos?" Again: how far is it to the next-nearest universe?quote:
Electricity flow is a requirement of this model, and there needs to be an external influence to make it all work.
There is no evidence of anything "external" to this universe, yet you reject inflationary theory (even though it's simply a requirement of the Big Bang model).quote:
In other words, I have no idea. The energy within the cosmos simply exists.
Nothing but metaphysics there.
This is the surest example of a double-standard I've seen, Michael. You call Big Bang theory a "big fat myth" for the same reasons that you're demanding we accept as axioms (truths not requiring proof) for your own model.quote:
It increases from the the same reason that current begins to flow in an arcwelder as the arc begins to form.
An arcwelder's current draw doesn't increase at a constant rate over time, or else arcwelders would blow circuit breakers every time you used them.quote:
Electricity simply follows the path of least resistance.
Describe the conductive "path" between our universe and any other spot in the "cosmos." Or is this energy transferred via induction?quote:
As the mass of the event spreads out, it helps complete a "circuit" within the rest of the cosmos.
So what starts the acceleration at all? Please describe the electrical resistance of the medium "between" universes in the "cosmos." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2006 : 16:54:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
What "rest of the cosmos?"
It's the part we *can't* see.
quote:
Again: how far is it to the next-nearest universe?
Beats me. Talk to me in about 3 or 4 Hubble telescope replacement cycles. Maybe then I'll have a better idea of scales of things.
quote:
There is no evidence of anything "external" to this universe,
There is evidence that we can't see very far, and we therefore have no idea how "big" the cosmos might be.
quote:
yet you reject inflationary theory (even though it's simply a requirement of the Big Bang model).
I reject inflaton fields because they are not required in particle theory or QM or GR, and they've never been observed. Such a field and particle therefore falls outside of the realm of "physics", and can only be considered a from of "metaphyics". That is why I reject it.
quote:
quote:
In other words, I have no idea. The energy within the cosmos simply exists.
Nothing but metaphysics there.
No it's not! Energy is a given in *any* creation mythos Dave. You can't deny it's existence and nobody has a clue where it came from. It's not metaphysics to note that our existing universe is full of energy and the first law of thermodynamics applies. That is an examply of appling the laws of physics Dave, not metaphysics.
quote:
This is the surest example of a double-standard I've seen, Michael. You call Big Bang theory a "big fat myth" for the same reasons that you're demanding we accept as axioms (truths not requiring proof) for your own model.
The major difference here Dave is that I'm not proposing new kinds of laws of physics, or unobserved fields that have never been evidence ore even theorized in particle physics. All I'm doing here is noting that our universe has energy and the first law of thermodynamics applies. This is an example of applying the laws of physics to the issue Dave. The energy comes from somewhere. Where that energy comes from is anybody's guess. Thermodynamics however insists that the energy came from something.
quote:
An arcwelder's current draw doesn't increase at a constant rate over time, or else arcwelders would blow circuit breakers every time you used them.
As the arc begins to form, it certainly does start to draw more current. At some point the current may remain constant, but the "system" still remains "energized".
quote:
Describe the conductive "path" between our universe and any other spot in the "cosmos."
That would be somewhat beyond the scope of slam theory, well, at this time anyway.
quote:
Or is this energy transferred via induction?
I'd guess at some point it becomes a "quantum" exchange.
quote:
So what starts the acceleration at all?
The flow of current.
quote:
Please describe the electrical resistance of the medium "between" universes in the "cosmos."
Beats me. IMO, we're into the realm of plasma physics now and unfortunately Alfven isn't around anymore to answer any of the numberous questions I'd love to ask him. It's certainly over my head at the moment. I doubt it's even within our technological capability right now to even begin to answer that kind of question. Anthony Perat is probably the only living qualified individual to actually take a legitimate stab at that kind of figure IMO. You could email him if you were really interested. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/11/2006 16:54:42 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2006 : 18:57:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I'm thinking that you are missing the notion that we are riding an expanding electromagnetic wave that is flowing through the galactic fields of spacetime.
Uh... this doesn't register with me. Redshift makes sense to me. Hubble's Law makes sense to me. The dichotomy I expressed above seems very clear. Either, we are at the center of the universe (where the BS happened), or everything is moving apart from everything else.
I don't see how an "electromagnetic wave" that people (or the earth? or the sun? or Saturn?) fits into this at all. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
