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: Thomas Heger on 18 May 2010 15:07 J. Clarke schrieb: > On 5/18/2010 5:44 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Sam Wormley schrieb: >>> On 5/18/10 1:06 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> My 'book' you find here: >>>> http://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 >>>> (Still this stupid google.doc. But you can download it as pdf with the >>>> little arrow 'actions' down/left). >>> >>> Damn--Another bullshit book! >>> >>> You talk about General relativity, but include of of the GR >>> mathematics. The whole book is just nonsense! Word Salad! >>> >> Well, I don't think it is nonsense. I did my best to make it as good as >> possible, what is certainly not enough. As being not a mathematician I >> have some trouble with such a formulation. But I have found interesting >> books and papers, where such a construct is used and appropriate models >> are developed. The bi-quaternion system was used by various people. In >> recent times by Prof. Rowlands, who wrote a book called "Zero to >> Infinity". >> If you are interested in mathematics, you could follow some of the links. >> Actually I'm no physicist neither and treat the subject as a hobby ('for >> amusement only'). So, like it or don't. > > If you're going to come up with a new model, you need to be able to show > that its predictions are not in conflict with observation. If you can't > calculate with your model then you can't do that. > Well, no. I don't present a model, but something I call an idea about a fundamental mechanism. The difference is this: guess you describe a machine (e.g. a plane), than a model is a little toy, operated by a remote control and the plane is the 'real thing'. That is something very different. You can understand something, but are not able to model it in a way, that enables predictions. The model, that you seem to demand, would require the ability to predict future events. But there is no guarantee, that this could be achieved. We certainly would like something usable. But usefulness is a human category and there is no need to assume, that this would be supported by nature. To model something, this has to be understood first. This requires to think about the subject and then try to build assumptions, why this phenomenon behaves in such a way. Then one needs to build some kind of simplification, that behave as the phenomenon itself behaves. Here you see the mayor steps: first identify a problem, than think about how it might work and then try to cast that knowledge into a usable form and compare this with the observed behavior. But the model works as different to the real thing as the toy compared to the plane. And model-building is a different category of doing, too. My aim is mainly the 'mechanics' and to describe that and compare this with observed phenomena. > The existing models are not accepted because they kinda sorta say that > things are vaguely going to happen in more or less a certain way, they > provide numerical predictions that have proven to be quite remarkably > accurate. Without some understanding about the 'machinery' you are kind of stumbling through the fog. One might possibly derive a fitting solution. But this is not enough, because we would like to know, what this solution is good for and why it is just this solution. So I write about an idea for a relatively simple fundamental mechanism, that we could find in various forms and sizes. Even if I can't present some usable model about this, it would be certainly worth to explore such an idea, because it could lead to a better understanding and in that progress to better models. greetings TH >
From: Thomas Heger on 19 May 2010 01:00 eric gisse schrieb: > Thomas Heger wrote: > >> 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" ... > >> 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. > > Which sounds really impressive until it is realized that he's doing nothing > more than querying the SDSS database and isn't doing any serious refinements > past that. > > Let's start... > > Figure P.1. He queries for quasars and plots apparent magnitude vs redshift. > He "finds" a mismatch with Hubble's law. WOW if only astronomers thought to > do this. But wait, let's look at what he actually did. > > He plots _APPARENT MAGNITUDE_. Think about it for a second. What is Hubble's > law? Hubble's law states that there is a linear relationship between > velocity [which is translated to redshift] and distance. No part of standard > cosmology of which I'm privy states that there's linear relationship between > apparent (as opposed to absolute!) magnitude and redshift. Writing a book > that butchers Hubble's law in the first few pages is a Bad Sign(tm). Yes, that is Hubble's law and the basis for the big bang idea. It is the velocity, that is attributed to redshift and to depth in space. If reverted, these points had to come from the same origin, hence there was a big bang. But in a curved spacetime paradigm this has not necessarily to be the case, but it could be, that the light-cones are not all parallel (what Einstein excluded) and we come to a more Minkowskian interpretation. Than whole regions of the universe could bent away from our sight, together with the apparent contraction of that region, what we interpret (wrongly) as a black hole. Since such an interpretation would allow relatively near objects to have different redshift and to increase redshift in a time those objects could not possible have moved the distance predicted by Hubble's law, we had to accept the Minkowskian interpretation. This would exclude the calender-like steady timeflow, that is one of the foundations of the big-bang idea, but would need a more geometric behavior of time (What is btw the title of that book). So redshift cannot be attributed to velocity, but to the evolution of spacetime itself, what is in contradiction to Hubble's law. My personal interpretation is, that the universe performs on a very large scale a shift of the timeline. That creates objects in it like drops in wet air (in realtime). Since we have a certain context we live in, the objects we see are younger in greater distance (due to the speed of light) and were colder than. (According to my idea Jupiter will once be a sun and form a binary system with our current sun.) But not only the universe does this, but the celestial objects, too. With age we have a shift of the timeline. Since we see actually our past light cone, those objects will enter the hyperbolic section of that cone, what we perceive as explosion. The same mechanism I assume to happen on a very small scale, too, but with -of course- much higher frequency. Than all these frequencies superimpose to a fractal pattern with distinct scales, that all have a different temporal context. TH
From: BURT on 19 May 2010 01:37 On May 18, 10:00 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > eric gisse schrieb: > > > > > > > Thomas Heger wrote: > > >> 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" > .. > > >> 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. > > > Which sounds really impressive until it is realized that he's doing nothing > > more than querying the SDSS database and isn't doing any serious refinements > > past that. > > > Let's start... > > > Figure P.1. He queries for quasars and plots apparent magnitude vs redshift. > > He "finds" a mismatch with Hubble's law. WOW if only astronomers thought to > > do this. But wait, let's look at what he actually did. > > > He plots _APPARENT MAGNITUDE_. Think about it for a second. What is Hubble's > > law? Hubble's law states that there is a linear relationship between > > velocity [which is translated to redshift] and distance. No part of standard > > cosmology of which I'm privy states that there's linear relationship between > > apparent (as opposed to absolute!) magnitude and redshift. Writing a book > > that butchers Hubble's law in the first few pages is a Bad Sign(tm). > > Yes, that is Hubble's law and the basis for the big bang idea. It is the > velocity, that is attributed to redshift and to depth in space. If > reverted, these points had to come from the same origin, hence there was > a big bang. But in a curved spacetime paradigm this has not necessarily > to be the case, but it could be, that the light-cones are not all > parallel (what Einstein excluded) and we come to a more Minkowskian > interpretation. Than whole regions of the universe could bent away from > our sight, together with the apparent contraction of that region, what > we interpret (wrongly) as a black hole. > Since such an interpretation would allow relatively near objects to have > different redshift and to increase redshift in a time those objects > could not possible have moved the distance predicted by Hubble's law, we > had to accept the Minkowskian interpretation. This would exclude the > calender-like steady timeflow, that is one of the foundations of the > big-bang idea, but would need a more geometric behavior of time (What is > btw the title of that book). > So redshift cannot be attributed to velocity, but to the evolution of > spacetime itself, what is in contradiction to Hubble's law. > My personal interpretation is, that the universe performs on a very > large scale a shift of the timeline. That creates objects in it like > drops in wet air (in realtime). Since we have a certain context we live > in, the objects we see are younger in greater distance (due to the speed > of light) and were colder than. (According to my idea Jupiter will once > be a sun and form a binary system with our current sun.) But not only > the universe does this, but the celestial objects, too. With age we have > a shift of the timeline. Since we see actually our past light cone, > those objects will enter the hyperbolic section of that cone, what we > perceive as explosion. > The same mechanism I assume to happen on a very small scale, too, but > with -of course- much higher frequency. Than all these frequencies > superimpose to a fractal pattern with distinct scales, that all have a > different temporal context. > > TH- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Space was a singularity but not energy. Energy was created in a Ring Big Bang and the universe expanded. Mitch Raemsch
From: Thomas Heger on 19 May 2010 08:07 eric gisse schrieb: > Thomas Heger wrote: >> I have developed something I call 'structured spacetime'. According to >> this there are no real particles as real, countable, independent >> entities, but we could describe certain states with such an assumption, >> if we encapsulate this behavior into operators and treat those as real >> things. That is like a tornado for example. We could describe a tornado >> as an entity. But a tornado is a vortex, consisting of air. >> In the analog the rotation around the center is called (be me) >> 'radiation term'. This does not radiate by itself, only if gets tilted. >> This could happen through gravity or electric forces. In case of stars >> gravity is the thing, that makes stars shine (according to my model). >> That is like a three-dimensional version of a tornado. The 'air' in that >> picture is spacetime itself, that is treated as something real, but >> mostly invisible. >> My 'book' you find here: >> http://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 >> (Still this stupid google.doc. But you can download it as pdf with the >> little arrow 'actions' down/left). >> >> greetings >> >> TH > > 60 pages skimmed, 2 lines of math. Both are SR. > No, the bit of math I have written stems from quaternion algebra. I Try to justify the assumptions I made and connect this to known phenomena. The math itself is difficult, but I gave some useful links to where that is done. One of my favorites is from Jonathan Scott: http://pws.prserv.net/jonathan_scott/physics/cfv.pdf This one is from Diego Saa http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0711/0711.3220v1.pdf This is about Lanczos' method to replace the Dirac equation with bi-quaternions http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0112/0112317v1.pdf (I use bi-quaternions and complex-four-vectors as synonym). As written before: if you are interested in this kind of math, you may just follow some of the links. TH
From: PD on 19 May 2010 08:52
On May 18, 2:07 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > Even if I can't present some usable model about this, it would be > certainly worth to explore such an idea, because it could lead to a > better understanding and in that progress to better models. > Unfortunately for you, no. Ideas like what you are floating are not viable until they become even the barest of usable models. Ideas are a dime a gross. Models are a dime a dozen. Theories that can be tested are worth their weight in salt. Theories that have been tested and appear so far to work are worth their weight in gold. As to your defense that you are not equipped to build a model because you are not a mathematician. One does not have to be a mathematician to have mathematical skills, and skills are both ancillary and required for practice in physics. Likewise, competency in physics is necessary for an architect, though an architect need not be a physicist, and competency in organic chemistry is necessary for a doctor, though a doctor need not be an organic chemist. I'm afraid, Thomas, that there really is no short cut, and there is a strong limitation on the contributions to physics by hobbyists for this reason. If you are interested enough in your own ideas to see them furthered, then you will be motivated to acquire some of the skills needed to accomplish that. Take that as a word of ENcouragement, not of DIScouragement. PD |