How Roy Masters tried to disprove the Big Bang
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Twins Paradox doesn't add up with light
Next: Terra incognita, Sacred ground, Mysterious territory.
From: BURT on 17 May 2010 21:10 On May 17, 2:43 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > G. L. Bradford schrieb: > > > > > > > > > "Thomas Heger" <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote in message > >news:85dcquFs5qU1(a)mid.individual.net... > >> G. L. Bradford schrieb: > > >>> "Thomas Heger" <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote in message > >>>news:85d4ttF9biU1(a)mid.individual.net... > >>>> Sam Wormley schrieb: > >>>>> On 5/17/10 1:07 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > >>>>>> One argument against big-bang cosmology is, that objects with very > >>>>>> different redshift seem to influence each other. But that cannot > >>>>>> happen, > >>>>>> if the big-bang model would be correct, because this relates > >>>>>> redshift to > >>>>>> age and younger events cannot have an impact on older ones. > > >>>>> That's a pretty nasty misunderstanding you got there, Heger. > > >>>> You think so? Isn't the Hubble law, that the velocity would increase > >>>> with distance? > >>>> Since more distant means longer time to travel for light, we see > >>>> earlier events further away. If you link redshift to distance and > >>>> that to age, than nearer events happened later and have lower > >>>> redshift. But the direction of influence goes from earlier to later > >>>> and not in the opposite direction. > >>>> If now stars or galaxies with different redshift influence each > >>>> other, that cannot happen at different times. Or maybe at different > >>>> times, but the direction has to be from past to future. But later > >>>> events cannot influence earlier ones, because they have happened > >>>> already. > >>>> If now objects with different redshift have an influence on each > >>>> other, that has to happen in a causal order. Hence you cannot > >>>> attribute redshift to age and not to distance. This because only > >>>> objects in relative vicinity would (could) influence each other. > >>>> This would very much invalidate one of the main assumptions of the > >>>> big-bang cosmology. > > >>>> Greetings > > >>>> TH > > >>> ========================= > > >>> At its increased velocity relative to the observer and > >>> instrumentation a particle decays earlier than the physicist observes > >>> it to decay, thus appearing to have stretched time. The time to > >>> observation of the decay (a non-local event) took longer due to a > >>> somewhat milder equivalent of a black hole existing, not the event of > >>> the decay itself (a local event). Light even at the constant speed of > >>> c taking longer to escape a relative deflation of a relatively > >>> malleable space but in the end escaping. > > >> I don't see the relevance of particle physics in the realm of > >> galaxies. And I can't find a connection to the question considered. > >> So, please, explain, what you have in mind. > >> My statement was, that redshift cannot be attributed to distance > >> according to Hubble's 'law', because galaxies with different redshift > >> seem to influence each other. So, they cannot be too far away from > >> each other, because otherwise their effect on each other would be > >> negligible. > > >> TH > > > ============================== > > > The variable (relative) geometry of SPACE-time doesn't care whether one > > is talking micro- or macro-verse. There is simply no difference except > > relative differences. And there is no such thing as NEGLIGIBLE effect > > when it comes to gravity's singularity (Singularity) (singularities) > > (field(s)) (well(s)) (hole(s)) (plane(s)) (universal reach(es)). > > > The gravity of an infinite Universe would never be 'local'. It would be > > 'non-local'. Every 'local' singularity (every 'local' universe) of an > > infinity of locals being its constituent makeup, thus impervious to the > > [Big Rip] of its infinity (rather the Big Crunch / Big Bang > > 'Singularity' beyond its own [distantly down and in] Planck horizon > > being impervious to itself [distantly up and out]). Not that we wouldn't > > observe complex entangling intra-active effects -- relatively speaking > > -- of such naked (infinite) 'Singularity'. > > > What is "distance" when it comes to gravity's 'singularity' / the > > singularity of gravity (the universality of gravity)? A variable > > (relative) geometry of SPACE-time. A relatively malleable space. > > Singularities are a dubious concept by itself. We think about the Earth > gravitational field as if the mass is concentrated in a point. But we > know, that the mass isn't. And the gravitational field -or the effect > that things fall in the direction of that point- is not concentrated to > a point neither. Then why could we assume pointlike singularities in the > first place? > Something may look like that, but we most certainly make a fault with > such an assumption. > What happens is the impression of movement and that looks distorted to > us, because it appears to happen in a region, that seems to be too small > (a 'black hole'). But isn't relativity a theory of spacetime, where time > could be to some extend exchanged with time if we perform a coordinate > transformation. > So, in such regions this seems to happen and the observed space looks > too small, because the timelike axis is pointing in a 'wrong' direction > (away from ours). > But if we would perform such a coordinate shift, the space would expand > again and in such a region everything would look as usual, except that > the Earth would just vanish in a black hole. > Hence 'space' denotes the impression an observer would have, that is > moving along his worldline and not what we perceive as such. We have our > own impression, but that is special to us. So distance has to be > measured relative to the observer in question (from an assumed distant > point and not from Earth) and with the appropriate timelike axis (the > one measured locally at that point). > > Greetings > > TH- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - In the absolute beginning there was a space singularity that was empty and space expanded. Then time began for the universe with energy spread out and it continued to expand. Mitch Raemsch
From: Thomas Heger on 18 May 2010 00:46 BURT schrieb: > On May 17, 2:43 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: >> G. L. Bradford schrieb: ... >>> The gravity of an infinite Universe would never be 'local'. It would be >>> 'non-local'. Every 'local' singularity (every 'local' universe) of an >>> infinity of locals being its constituent makeup, thus impervious to the >>> [Big Rip] of its infinity (rather the Big Crunch / Big Bang >>> 'Singularity' beyond its own [distantly down and in] Planck horizon >>> being impervious to itself [distantly up and out]). Not that we wouldn't >>> observe complex entangling intra-active effects -- relatively speaking >>> -- of such naked (infinite) 'Singularity'. >>> What is "distance" when it comes to gravity's 'singularity' / the >>> singularity of gravity (the universality of gravity)? A variable >>> (relative) geometry of SPACE-time. A relatively malleable space. >> Singularities are a dubious concept by itself. We think about the Earth >> gravitational field as if the mass is concentrated in a point. But we >> know, that the mass isn't. And the gravitational field -or the effect >> that things fall in the direction of that point- is not concentrated to >> a point neither. Then why could we assume pointlike singularities in the >> first place? >> Something may look like that, but we most certainly make a fault with >> such an assumption. >> What happens is the impression of movement and that looks distorted to >> us, because it appears to happen in a region, that seems to be too small >> (a 'black hole'). But isn't relativity a theory of spacetime, where time >> could be to some extend exchanged with space, if we perform a coordinate >> transformation. >> So, in such regions this seems to happen and the observed space looks >> too small, because the timelike axis is pointing in a 'wrong' direction >> (away from ours). >> But if we would perform such a coordinate shift, the space would expand >> again and in such a region everything would look as usual, except that >> the Earth would just vanish in a black hole. >> Hence 'space' denotes the impression an observer would have, that is >> moving along his worldline and not what we perceive as such. We have our >> own impression, but that is special to us. So distance has to be >> measured relative to the observer in question (from an assumed distant >> point and not from Earth) and with the appropriate timelike axis (the >> one measured locally at that point). > > In the absolute beginning there was a space singularity that was empty > and space expanded. Then time began for the universe with energy > spread out and it continued to expand. > As I said, a singularity is quite a questionable assumption. And Hubble's law is not consistent with observations, as A.F. Meyer has shown. So your view would be that of Genesis I. But, come on, this is about physics and not about the bible. Mixing science with religious believes could cause serious trouble and I don't see, why that should be done. The church (e.g. the catholic) would certainly think differently about this and could. But physics has to describe the world as it is and not as we want it to be. The big-bang idea can be traced back to George Lemaitre, who seem to have an influence on Hubble. But a catholic priest (Lemaitre) has certainly more a bias towards biblical explanations than scientists should have. Greetings TH
From: Sam Wormley on 18 May 2010 01:09 On 5/17/10 11:46 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > As I said, a singularity is quite a questionable assumption. A star is held up from gravitational collapse by the energy created in its for from nuclear fusion... when there is no more nuclear fusion, the collapse continues. White dwarfs are held up by electron degeneracy pressure, but there is a limiting mass of about 1.44 solar masses beyond which gravitational collapse continues. Neutron stars are held up by neutron degeneracy pressure, but there is a limiting mass of about 2.9 solar masses beyond which gravitational collapse continues. I ask you what stops the continuing gravitational collapse for masses greater than 2.9 solar masses. It is thought that nothing stops the continuing collapse.
From: Sam Wormley on 18 May 2010 01:13 On 5/17/10 11:46 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Hubble's law is not consistent with observations, as A.F. Meyer has shown. What aspect of Hubble's law is inconsistent with observation? Please cite W.F. Meyer paper that you refer to.
From: Thomas Heger on 18 May 2010 01:48
Sam Wormley schrieb: > On 5/17/10 11:46 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Hubble's law is not consistent with observations, as A.F. Meyer has >> shown. > > What aspect of Hubble's law is inconsistent with observation? > Please cite W.F. Meyer paper that you refer to. > > > > http://www.jaypritzker.org/pages/book.html Alexander Franklin Meyer "On the Geometry of Time in Physics and Cosmology" It is more a book, hence a bit lengthy. He uses a program he has written himself to put the measured distances to stars into 'bins' (spherical shells with some depth). The method is more a statistical analysis of redshift compared to distance. Than he finds, that the number of stars within these sets mismatch Hubble's law by a factor of thousand and more. The aspect, that does not fit is, that Hubble's law requires more redshift with more distance. Hubble assumed a linear dependence (hence his 'constant' as a factor). But than stars with different redshift had to be remote from each other and that is why they could have no influence on each other. And redshift had to increase with distance, so we would find more stars with higher redshift, because of simple geometry. This would require more volume in these spherical shells, that are further away and more stars within those 'bins'. But that is not observed. Greetings TH |