Exploring the Mysteries of the Center of the Universe

[Brad_Ad23]

Unfortunately a lot of references in those sites are well over 15 years old. The progress made in the development of the big bang theory has been rather well documented. I would suggest getting some more reliable sources as well.

Indeed, the BB theory has passed countless tests as has been stated.

 

[jcsd]

Originally posted by subtillioN
That is absolute bull****. I have gone to a university and they do NOT deal with the alternatives. When they do mention them they mis represent them drastically.

If you can deal with the alternatives then prove it and debate the links I posted.

Well can you explain to me the uniformity and istropy of the CPR? Cos, that's one thing I've never seen an alternative theory explain.

 

[subtillioN]

cop out

 

[drag]

Greetings !

These are purely speculative ideas that have no known means of experimental verification.

This is what the scientist that wrote that Physics Essays
article in ST's link says about what is theorized to have
happened in the BB. I wonder, when he says "experimental
verification" what precisely does he mean ? Has he ever
seen a virtual pair of particles, or directly interacted
with them or touched them ? Did he ever set his feet on
Mars ? Did he taste the Sun to check it's flavour and
make sure it's "real" ?

Live long and prosper.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by jcsd
Well can you explain to be the uniformity and istropy of the CPR? Cos, that's one thing I've never seen an alternative theory explain.

Yes the MBR is due to the Planck radiation from the ubiquitous interstellar molecular medium.

see http://www.Newtonphysics.on.ca/COSMIC/Cosmic.html

 

[jcsd]

Originally posted by subtillioN
Yes the MBR is due to the Planck radiation from the ubiquitous interstellar molecular medium.

see http://www.Newtonphysics.on.ca/COSMIC/Cosmic.html

I have to say that explantion is laughable, why don't we observe more CPR in the region of the sun or stellar sources then?

 

[CrystalStudios]

I get the feeling sub is just a troll...

 

[Brad_Ad23]

Analyzed. It makes several faulty connections.


1) The average density of the inteseller hydrogen is quite low, meaning that it should not interact. True some was formed in the past, but not nearly enough. Remember, the hydrogen atoms would have to get close enough to each other through mutual gravitation, which needless to say is extremely feeble.

2) As I stated, the references are old, so it is of no surprise it does not deal at all with the modern Big Ban (also called Inflationary big bang). In this version of it the problems of anisotropy are no longer present.

3 The claim that the universe must have been a black hole. While it is generally claimed the universe had some initial singularity, as I had mentioned in some other thread, the BB signularity is a fundamentally different singularity than that in your typical black hole. Also to boot, the properties of physics themselves as well as the strengths of the 4 forces were very different in the early universe (and yes not all of that is theoretical. Particle accelerators have verified that as we get to higher energy levels the behaviors of forces do change, for example, the weak nuclear force and the electromagnetic force couple into the electro-weak force. At even higher temperatures [which we haven't reached yet so this is not yet verified directly] the strong force joins in, and then eventually at the instants of creation so does gravity). Again also it does not take into account the inflationary Big Bang in which quantum fluctuations essentially turn the gravitational field from what is classified as a tensor field into a scalar field and cause immediate exponential expansion until freezing out and returning to normal.

As I said, all this is well documented and a bit of research from credible sources will show it.

 

[Hurkyl]

Your logical mind says that in any finite explosion there must be a point definable as a "center" yet this is forbidden by the abstract non-sensical notion of the universe as "finite but unbounded".

This is the point where you cease working with the analogy of an explosion and you seek what the math actually says.

The big bang theory says that there was a time when the universe had an extremely small volume (but no boundary) and extremely high temperature. From that time onward the universe has been expanding.



With an ordinary explosion, you can point at a region of the universe and say "Yah, all of the material was there, inside a bomb, then it exploded". (Of course, you still can't find a point that is the exact center of the explosion, but you can say something fuzzy like the bomb was the center of the explosion)

With the big bang, there is no "outside" to the universe from where you can say "Yah, it was all inside that little region at first"; the energy was spread through the entire universe.

But if you really like to cling to analogies, then this will do. After your bomb explodes, can you tell me which atom of the bomb was at the center of the explosion?

The oxymoronic mantra is "finite but unbounded". This nonsense notion is stolen directly from abstract mathematics (curved space)

The correct phrase is "finite but without boundary". Care to explain why it is nonsense? (I make this correction because "unbounded" and "without boundary" really do have totally different meanings)

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by jcsd
I have to say that explantion is laughable, why don't we observe more CPR in the region of the sun or stellar sources then?

The matter in the region near the sun is much hotter obviously. Why would you expect it to stay at 3K. The ambient temperature is very weak and cumulative.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Analyzed. It makes several faulty connections.


1) The average density of the inteseller hydrogen is quite low, meaning that it should not interact. True some was formed in the past, but not nearly enough. Remember, the hydrogen atoms would have to get close enough to each other through mutual gravitation, which needless to say is extremely feeble.

There are measurements of vast H clouds in interstellar space. It is not as tenuous as you believe. The mere presence of the Hydrogen in interaction with the ambient radiation from stars and other astrophysical objects is enough to account for the MBR.

2) As I stated, the references are old, so it is of no surprise it does not deal at all with the modern Big Ban (also called Inflationary big bang). In this version of it the problems of anisotropy are no longer present.

Inflation is a kludge to fix the huge problem of isotropy of the MBR and a valid argument is a valid argument regardless of its age.

3 The claim that the universe must have been a black hole. While it is generally claimed the universe had some initial singularity, as I had mentioned in some other thread, the BB signularity is a fundamentally different singularity than that in your typical black hole. Also to boot, the properties of physics themselves as well as the strengths of the 4 forces were very different in the early universe (and yes not all of that is theoretical. Particle accelerators have verified that as we get to higher energy levels the behaviors of forces do change, for example, the weak nuclear force and the electromagnetic force couple into the electro-weak force. At even higher temperatures [which we haven't reached yet so this is not yet verified directly] the strong force joins in, and then eventually at the instants of creation so does gravity). Again also it does not take into account the inflationary Big Bang in which quantum fluctuations essentially turn the gravitational field from what is classified as a tensor field into a scalar field and cause immediate exponential expansion until freezing out and returning to normal.

As I said, all this is well documented and a bit of research from credible sources will show it.

There are simpler cosmologies which fit the data much better without the constant readjustments of inflation etc. required by the big bungle.

 

[Brad_Ad23]

there may be clouds, but the nebulae are not isotropic.

And the argument is not valid in the new big bang. As for simpler cosmologies, I must disagree. All the other possible versions I have read about lead to serious problems. And inflation does not make constant adjustments mind you-it happened once for an extremely short amount of time and is a sound theory.

 

[r637h]

This may sound picayune, but: The CBR is not isotropic.Recent measurements have demonstrated this (although the means of measurement are taxed to the limit, signal-to-noise-wise).

Incidentally, the spectrum of CBR should tell us the same thing (or the fact that CBR has a spectrum).

The concepts of uniformity and isotropy are related, but different:
CBR may be "uniform" everywhere we look, but not necessarily isotropic (A bit like comparing precision with accuracy).

We can't "see" the future, but we can predict it (A bit like predicting the weather, though).

For example: Assuming the same dimensions, if we could reasonably compare the manifold(s?)) of the CBR with the manifold(s?) of what the Universe looks like today, perhaps we could derive an end-point of some sort.

It may be simplistic to say so, but the fact that CBR is the same everywhere we look may mean the the Universe has no center.

Thanks, Rudi

 

[Brad_Ad23]

Right on, I was just about to say, the CBR is slightly anisotropic..but this is extremely small, which is good. If it were perfectly isotropic, structure would not have emerged in the universe.

Anywho, cases for the Big Bang:

The universe is expanding. This indicates that sometime in the past it was denser.

The CBR. Not only does the thermal spectrum match extraordinarly well with what the BB predicts. Not only that, but we can measure it at cosmic distances as well and show it was hotter in the past (Researchers at the Paranal Observatory showed it was by studing intersteller dust clouds).

Not only that, but the evolution of stars and galaxies and clusters is indicated by the big bang and observed. As are the production of light elements from primordial nucleosythesis.

 

[jcsd]

Originally posted by subtillioN
The matter in the region near the sun is much hotter obviously. Why would you expect it to stay at 3K. The ambient temperature is very weak and cumulative.

But why don't we see more radiation of the CBR wavelength from the sun? The point is though if it had a stellar origin it would be less isotropic.

The correct phrase is "finite but without boundary". Care to explain why it is nonsense? (I make this correction because "unbounded" and "without boundary" really do have totally different meanings)

Actually Hurkyl, your incorrect, unbounded is the right term here. In cosmological models it means 'without boundaries'.

 

[jcsd]

Yes, as brad points out it is slightly anisotropic, but only 1 part in 10,000 a degree of isotropy which means that the source must be very far away.

 

[Hurkyl]

Actually Hurkyl, your incorrect, unbounded is the right term here. In cosmological models it means 'without boundaries'.

Sigh, so much for the myth of standardized terminology!

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by jcsd
But why don't we see more radiation of the CBR wavelength from the sun? The point is though if it had a stellar origin it would be less isotropic.

The CBR is only measured at ~3K and the matter near the sun is HOTTER than 3K. Therefore it is NOT seen in the 3K CBR surveys.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
there may be clouds, but the nebulae are not isotropic.

And the argument is not valid in the new big bang. As for simpler cosmologies, I must disagree. All the other possible versions I have read about lead to serious problems. And inflation does not make constant adjustments mind you-it happened once for an extremely short amount of time and is a sound theory.

You are severely lacking in your understanding of the alternatives. Do you know Plasma Cosmology models?

see www.electric-cosmos.org

Learn it and then come back to debate it, otherwise you are just blowing smoke.

 

[subtillioN]

Anywho, cases for the Big Bang:

The universe is expanding. This indicates that sometime in the past it was denser.

The universe is only expanding according to the doppler interpretation of redshift, but Halton Arp showed this interpretation to be flawed.

The CBR. Not only does the thermal spectrum match extraordinarly well with what the BB predicts.

Actually the steady state model was much more accurate with its prediction.

Not only that, but we can measure it at cosmic distances as well and show it was hotter in the past (Researchers at the Paranal Observatory showed it was by studing intersteller dust clouds).

Obviously if the radiation gets red-shifted it cools down. That is no argument for the BB.

Not only that, but the evolution of stars and galaxies and clusters is indicated by the big bang and observed.

That is completely false. The galaxies at the very edges of the visible universe look EXACTLY the same as those in the very center. The problem is that in a Universe of a mere 15 billion years (only three times as old as the minimum age of the infinitesimal earth) those furthest seen galaxies would have only rotated about two times! That is simply not enough time to create the spiral structure that they exhibit.

As are the production of light elements from primordial nucleosythesis.

Plasma Cosmology can deal with that as well through fusion and fission processes in stars. See www.electric-cosmos.org if you care to understand the alternatives which you are dismissing off-hand.

 

[CrystalStudios]

Sub-troll said: The universe is only expanding according to the doppler interpretation of redshift, but Halton Arp showed this interpretation to be flawed.

I say: No - doppler is one of the hundreds of various INDEPENDANTLY DISCOVERED AND MASSIVELY TESTED ways that the big bang has been proven. Disproving one of them does NOTHING to the theory at all whatsoever.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by CrystalStudios
Sub-troll said: The universe is only expanding according to the doppler interpretation of redshift, but Halton Arp showed this interpretation to be flawed.

I say: No - doppler is one of the hundreds of various INDEPENDANTLY DISCOVERED AND MASSIVELY TESTED ways that the big bang has been proven. Disproving one of them does NOTHING to the theory at all whatsoever.

So is that how you deal with any alternate interpretation? By calling its proponents trolls?

You continually just repeat your mantra that the BBT is beyond reproach continuing to ignore any arguments to the contrary.

This is a sign that your mind has ossified. You can no longer participate in civilized debate.


You say there are HUNDREDS of tests. List them one by one and I will carve them up for you with Occams Razor. I am certainly willing to debate the alternatives.

 

[Hurkyl]

You continually just repeat your mantra that the BBT is beyond reproach continuing to ignore any arguments to the contrary.

That's because the arguments to the contrary are directed at a convenient strawman and not BBT itself.

You say there are HUNDREDS of tests. List them one by one and I will carve them up for you with Occams Razor. I am certainly willing to debate the alternatives.

Well, big bang theory is based upon general relativity... and you appear to be a Newton type of guy, so I imagine the discussion would be most productive if we started with the tests of general relativity.


Test 1: Precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit.

Classical theories were off by 43 arcseconds per century in the calculation of the precession of Mercury's orbit.

General Relativity, however, is dead on.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
That's because the arguments to the contrary are directed at a convenient strawman and not BBT itself.

Care to back up this or any other statement? I am attacking the BBT head on. If you think otherwise then prove it.

Well, big bang theory is based upon general relativity... and you appear to be a Newton type of guy, so I imagine the discussion would be most productive if we started with the tests of general relativity.

Test 1: Precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit.

Classical theories were off by 43 arcseconds per century in the calculation of the precession of Mercury's orbit.

Besides the fact that proving Relativity Theory does not prove BBT the perihelion had been calculated by classical science previously to Einstein and when Einstein calculated it he used Newtonian time not relativistic time to do so. See this classical explanation of the Mercury perihelion.

http://www.Newtonphysics.on.ca/MERCURY/Mercury.html

"Using Einstein's general relativity, it is generally believed that space and time distortions are absolutely required to explain the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. This is untrue. The advance of the perihelion of Mercury was first calculatd by P. Gerber in 1898 by Paul Gerber (1A). We show here that this phenomenon can be fully explained using Newton's physics and mass-energy conservation, without any relativity principle. Without having to introduce any new physics, we arrive to the same equation as predicted by Einstein. Therefore, the relativity principles are useless. "

General Relativity, however, is dead on.

Well you are half right.

 

[Brad_Ad23]

The Steady state model did not predict a CBR, nor does it have any reason to include a CBR.

And I did some research on this Arp fellow.

Quoted from a site containing his theories

Mainstream astronomy is presently trying to explain away a large set of high redshift quasars that are closely associated with low redshift galaxies as being optical illusions caused by "gravitational lensing". Here, below, are ten examples of such groupings. The only way such an optical illusion could occur is if Earth, a nearby galaxy, and a distant quasar (all three) precisely fall on a single straight line. Could this happen once? Surely. But dozens of times?! Not likely. In fact the probability is vanishingly small.

That alone tells me that we are dealing with a crackpot fringe movement here. It is appealing more to the layperson who does not have a firm grasp of just how immense the cosmos is. It is indeed so immense that such an 'improbable' allignment is actually rather probable. Indeed, such sights that rely on imagination and the massive scientific conspiracy are just plain silly.


And you misunderstood my point about the gas and all. They showed the CBR was hotter, not merely the gas clouds.

That is completely false. The galaxies at the very edges of the visible universe look EXACTLY the same as those in the very center. The problem is that in a Universe of a mere 15 billion years (only three times as old as the minimum age of the infinitesimal earth) those furthest seen galaxies would have only rotated about four times! That is simply not enough time to create the spiral structure that they exhibit.

Not sure what you mean there...in the picture of galaxies ones at the edge look like the center? Or ones further away look like ones closer up? You are mistaken there. They do indeed look different. Generally they are more blob like than spiral shaped.

And unfortuantely for your position, plasma techniques and fusion in stars (indeed fission cannot occur past iron, just as fusion can't occur past iron) create the universal 23-24% helium concentration that is present.


That and it is generally not good when sites you link to deal with such things as "Were the ancients really visited by aliens? We think so!"

D'oh!

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
The Steady state model did not predict a CBR, nor does it have any reason to include a CBR.

You are wrong on that one. You are simply repeating a BBT mantra. Look up the ACTUAL history... I don't have the time to do it for you.

Planck radiation from interstellar gasses is BASIC physics. That is why none of you can argue against it. It was known to the SST physicists who made CBR predictions much closer than the BBT theory did.

NOTE: I am not arguing for SST either, but for the Plasma Cosmology model.

Not sure what you mean there...in the picture of galaxies ones at the edge look like the center? Or ones further away look like ones closer up? You are mistaken there. They do indeed look different. Generally they are more blob like than spiral shaped.

That is not true at all. I have seen the pictures and they look just the same. There are massive spiral galaxies and eliptical galaxies just like everywhere else. The spiral galaxies at the very limits of perception have had a mere two revolutions since the BB. That is not even close to enough revolutions to generate their spiral structure.

And unfortuantely for your position, plasma techniques and fusion in stars (indeed fission cannot occur past iron, just as fusion can't occur past iron) create the universal 23-24% helium concentration that is present.

You clearly have not studied Plasma Cosmology. The Plasma Cosmology model does indeed account for the production of ALL the elements. Learn it and then debate it.

 

[Brad_Ad23]

That site you linked to has some serious issues.

Namely how it treats mass as something that can vary. It cannot and does not, and indeed this has been verified by objects (probes) we send out to space. Their paths behave exactly like they should. And meters are suddenly longer on mecury now? Interesting.

Again I say D'oh!


Hurkyl, I think we have a lost cause here.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
That site you linked to has some serious issues.

Namely how it treats mass as something that can vary. It cannot and does not, and indeed this has been verified by objects (probes) we send out to space. Their paths behave exactly like they should. And meters are suddenly longer on mecury now? Interesting.

What are you talking about. Please quote the article and we will see it in context.

 

[Brad_Ad23]

The only physical mechanism responsible for the advance of the perihelion of Mercury results from the change of mass due to the gravitational and kinetic energy.

Following the change of the Bohr radius, quantum mechanics predicts a change of quantum levels, due to the change of electron mass, giving also a change of rate of atomic clocks [1]. It is also demonstrated that all matter, including organic matter and even human bodies, function at a different rate when electrons forming them have acquired or released some potential or kinetic energies.
Since Mercury in its orbit has a different gravitational energy and possesses a different kinetic energy, matter on Mercury (i.e. due to its Mercury distance from the Sun) has a different mass. In addition, clocks on Mercury are functioning at a different rate. We consider that Newton's laws are perfectly valid on Mercury (as everywhere else) using the masses and the clock rates that are existing on Mercury. This is the universality of the physical laws. This requires using all proper values on Mercury, taking into account that the standard kilogram and the clock rate on Mercury clocks are slightly different from the standard kilogram and the clock rate on Earth. Furthermore, since the principle of mass-energy conservation has modified the mass of the particles on Mercury, it would not make sense to use the mass of the particles on Earth to calculate the interaction of the particles on Mercury immerged in the solar gravitational field. Consequently, one must always use everywhere (here Mercury) the units of mass, of lengths and the clock rate existing at the location where the interaction takes place. The relationships transforming the units between locations at different gravitational potentials and different velocities have already been calculated [1]. We have seen that the number of units representing the physical length of an object in different frames, can be expressed with respect to any standard reference in any given reference location. This gives us the possibility to calculate the same absolute physical length, either using Mercury or Earth meters. Physical lengths can be expressed either in Earth meters [meterE] or in Mercury meters [meterm]. The physical length of the radius of the orbit of Mercury is a real physical quantity, therefore absolute. It is equal to the number of Mercury-meters times the length of the local standard Mercury-meter. The same orbit of Mercury can also be measured using the shorter standard Earth-meter. Then, the number of Earth-meters to measure the same physical orbit of Mercury is larger when it is measured using the shorter Earth-meter.
We must notice that Newton's laws of physics deals with the numbers that are fed into the equations. Since the number of meters to measure the same physical length (using the longer Mercury meters) is smaller than the number of Earth meters, we must not be surprised to find different physical results when Newton's laws uses the correct local (proper) number.
In physics, there exist several systems of units using meters, feet, kilograms, pounds, coulombs, statcoulombs, abcoulombs etc. that have been devised in a coherent way so that the coherent use of any set of units leads to answers which are compatible, independently of any system of units. In fact, one has a complete choice of systems of units that leads to the same physical answer, although represented by different numbers and using units having different names. However, contrarily to the above, when we apply the principle of mass-energy conservation, the relationship between the units of mass, energy, lengths and clock rates do not vary in the same proportion which previously led to the same physical result, when we switch to locations having different energies. Most importantly, the principle of mass-energy conservation must be satisfied. Consequently, the application of the same Newton's laws at Mercury location (with Mercury units) will give a different physical prediction than using Earth units. Of course, the correct calculation is the one existing at the place where the phenomenon takes place. Doing otherwise would be absurd. Physics does not depend on observer's location. We show here below, that this logical correction explains perfectly the advance of the perihelion of Mercury without any relativity principle.

there you go.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Again I say D'oh!

Homer,

Einstein used Newtonian time to to explain the perihelion of mercury, not relativistic time. This calculation had already been done previous to Einstein through classical methods.

You are attempting to shift the focus onto Relativity theory which does not prove BBT. You claim that BBT is proven yet you cannot list any argument that does not have a better explanation in a nonBB theory.

 

[subtillioN]

“To Einstein’s law of gravitation Newton’s law is an extremely close approximation so that these laws give results in our own solar system which are indistinguishable from those of Newton except in one place, namely, the motion of the perihelion of Mercury. The law which is usually used was first given by Schwarzschild and it indicates an advance in the perihelion of Mercury of 43 seconds of arc per century greater than that indicated by Newton’s Law. Now it happens that there were two small discrepancies between the implications of the Newtonian theory and the observations. One of these is a slight irregularity in the motion of the moon, and the other is that the perihelion of Mercury is advancing 43 seconds per century faster than the theory indicated. Einstein’s theory would explain one of these, but not the other.
“That Einstein’s law of gravitation should fit one of these discrepancy so perfectly and ignore the others altogether is a bit puzzling. But naturally the relativists seize upon this one agreement as a striking confirmation of their procedure.
“The electromagnetic theory was based upon the concept of an ether, and it is the relativists themselves who put the ether into the discard. This is one of the defects of the doctrine of relativity for it does not say anything about how light is propagated. Both the emission theory and the wave theory give clear notions on this point. They may not be adequate, but the doctrine of relativity gives nothing at all.
“We of the present generation are too impatient to wait for anything. Within thirty years of Michelson’s failure to detect the expected motion of the Earth with respect to the ether we have wiped out the slate, made a postulate that by no means whatever can the thing be done, and constructed a non-Newtonian mechanics to fit the postulate. The success which has been attained is a marvelous tribute to our intellectual activity and our ingenuity, but I am not so sure with respect to our judgement.
“It is not our normal mode of procedure to assume, after two or three failures, that by no means whatever can the thing be done. It is particularly distasteful to do so when such an assumption involves the conclusion that our experience can no longer be interpreted in terms of the time and space of our intuitions, and that we have accordingly reached the limits of what is intelligible .
“It will be observed that in the preceding discussion I have granted all of the claims of the relativists, and still I have denied their conclusion that the relativists are the sole dispensers of the truth and that we must all become relativists. The situation is something like that of a boy and his bed clothes. The boy grew but discovered that his little toes were sticking out from under the covers and he was decidedly uncomfortable. Try as he would the bed clothes could not be stretched far enough to cover them up.
Suddenly he had a bright idea. All he had to do was to slip the entire bed covers down six inches. His feet went under beautifully and he was so happy about it that it took him some time to discover that now his neck was uncovered and that he had merely shifted the seat of difficulty for the bedclothes were no longer than they were before. The relativists have succeeded in covering up the little terms of order two, but in doing so they have robbed us of all ideas as to how light is propagated in space, and that problem is even more important than the little difficulties at the other extremity.
“Let us turn attention now to another of the so-called proofs of Einstein theory. This is the advancement of the perihelion of the planet Mercury. It is well known that the orbits of the planets are ellipses. It has been observed that the orbit of Mercury slowly rotates about the sun. Leverrier computed the path of Mercury, taking account of the attractions of Earth, Venus, Jupiter, and three other bodies. He found that the actual and calculated motions failed to agree by an amount which would be nearly 38 seconds of arc per century. Leverrier could not understand this discrepancy and suggested that there might be unknown masses of matter near the sun. Since that time some matter has been found and exactly where Leverrier predicted that it should be. In 1895, Newcomb repeated the calculation and by slightly reducing the eccentricity of the orbit he slightly increased the rotation and obtained 41 seconds per century.
“Now Einstein by the use of the equations of relativity has calculated that the perihelion of Mercury should rotate 43 seconds per century due to the supposed change in space and time in the neighborhood of the mass of the sun. It has been pointed out by Professor Poor that, in making these calculations, Einstein failed to use his relativity unit of time, but used instead our constant Newtonian unit of time. The agreement between the calculated values of Leverrier and Newcomb on the one hand, and of Einstein on the other has been considered definite proof of relativity. But it must be remembered that Newcomb was forced to guess the density of Mercury and the other planets. Hence, Figure 9-7 may be far in error. Since the so-called verification by the calculations of Einstein, the rotation of the perihelion of Mercury has been recalculated and values 33 and 29 have been announced. We have here a variation of 27 percent.


----------------

Max Born, “Einstein’s Relativity,” pp 132-133.

Abstracts from “A Debate on the Theory of Relativity.” M. E. Hufford, “Is the Experimental Evidence of Relativity Conclusive?” and W. D. MacMillan, “Postulates of Normal Intuition,” pp 56-86, noninclusive. The Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago, Illinois, 1927.

 

[Hurkyl]

according to your link

The only physical mechanism responsible for the advance of the perihelion of Mercury results from the change of mass due to the gravitational and kinetic energy.

according to other sources

As seen from Earth the precession of Mercury's orbit is measured to be 5600 seconds of arc per century (one second of arc=1/3600 degrees). Newton's equations, taking into account all the effects from the other planets (as well as a very slight deformation of the sun due to its rotation) and the fact that the Earth is not an inertial frame of reference, predicts a precession of 5557 seconds of arc per century. There is a discrepancy of 43 seconds of arc per century.

Hrm...

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Hrm...

"Now Einstein by the use of the equations of relativity has calculated that the perihelion of Mercury should rotate 43 seconds per century due to the supposed change in space and time in the neighborhood of the mass of the sun. It has been pointed out by Professor Poor that, in making these calculations, Einstein failed to use his relativity unit of time, but used instead our constant Newtonian unit of time. The agreement between the calculated values of Leverrier and Newcomb on the one hand, and of Einstein on the other has been considered definite proof of relativity. But it must be remembered that Newcomb was forced to guess the density of Mercury and the other planets. Hence, Figure 9-7 may be far in error. Since the so-called verification by the calculations of Einstein, the rotation of the perihelion of Mercury has been recalculated and values 33 and 29 have been announced. We have here a variation of 27 percent.
"

Read my latest post before this one.

I will be back later to continue this discussion...

Anyway enough of this diversion from the Big Bang Theory... Can you successfully defend it? We'll see...

 

[Brad_Ad23]

I have yet to see ANY account of a SS model that incorperates A)The CBR and B)A reason why such a thing exists, and C)A mechanism for how matter is continuously created to keep the universe steady if one assumes it expands.

2. The Big Bang flows naturally out of GR. It calls for an expanding universe. Hence I think that is why Hurkyl went that avenue.

3. Relativistic time is time under extreme gravitational or near light speed time. What he used was curved spacetime.

4. Plasma cosmology asserts that the universe is governed primarily by the electromagnetic force, not gravity. In other words, it claims such things as black holes, or neutron stars are not necessary. However, we know neutron stars exist. Indeed black holes are almost certainly for real. However other problems I see with it are the flat out denial that the standard model is at all useful (it is not the ultimate word, but very useful), the prediction of faster than light processes, and the claim that the work done by Alan Aspect shows light is not the fastest thing. Quantum tunnelling and delayed choice experiements such as that, do not send useful information. That is the often ignored consequence of relativity--no information may travel faster than c. Also, how would the electrical force be dominant over the universe when it is oddly enough, mroe or less neutral? If it did play a big part, we would be moving much faster towards other galaxies (such as Andromeda) and a lot of observations would be very much off.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
I have yet to see ANY account of a SS model that incorperates A)The CBR and B)A reason why such a thing exists, and C)A mechanism for how matter is continuously created to keep the universe steady if one assumes it expands.

The SS model predicted CBR more accurately than BBT. If you don't know about it that is because it is not taught in your Standard Model classes. would you expect them to want to upset their status quo? It is part of history. nonetheless.

"In fact, some physicists (including Sir Arthur Eddington in 1926 and Andrew McKeller in 1942)(28) had estimated temperatures in the range of 2 to 3 K; closer to that of the MBR than has been estimated by BB cosmologists."

I am not arguing for SS so your other points do not apply to my argument.

2. The Big Bang flows naturally out of GR. It calls for an expanding universe. Hence I think that is why Hurkyl went that avenue.

BBT is entirely dependent on the doppler interpretation of the Hubble red-shift. This interpretation has been falsified by Halton Arp and the redshift is much better inter[reted by Plasma Cosmology.

4. Plasma cosmology asserts that the universe is governed primarily by the electromagnetic force, not gravity.

Electromagnetism is evident in every region of space. It is orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. The Plasma Cosmology model only makes sense and it does not require the existence of hypothetical dark matter/energy entities such as WIMPS MACHO's and the like.

In other words, it claims such things as black holes, or neutron stars are not necessary. However, we know neutron stars exist.

Neutron stars are an interpretation. They have not been observed.

The entire HR diagram is much more consistently explained in the Plasma Model.

Indeed black holes are almost certainly for real.

another interpretation from the Standard model.

However other problems I see with it are the flat out denial that the standard model is at all useful (it is not the ultimate word, but very useful)

It has obvious limits that Plasma Cosmo goes beyond.

Also, how would the electrical force be dominant over the universe when it is oddly enough, mroe or less neutral? If it did play a big part, we would be moving much faster towards other galaxies (such as Andromeda) and a lot of observations would be very much off.

Non Sequiter.

EM is orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. You do the math.

It is also visible in the heart of our galaxy and strongly at the surface of the sun.