Exploring the Mysteries of the Center of the Universe

[Eh]

Originally posted by subtillioN

Well it is because they represent portions of physical reality without dealing with the physical reality as such. They are metrical abstractions for the quantification of nature.

We already had this discussion. There is nothing purely abstract about geometry, otherwise the volume of everything would disappear. And, as flat volumes can be described by the rules of Euclidean geometry, curved volumes must be described by different rules. It hardly makes space a non real phenomena.

The fact that they neglect the physicality of reality is what gives rise to the break-down of space-time into a mathematical singularity.It is a direct consequence of the physically empty mathematical abstraction itself. [The physical regions of the universe that they represent are real however and they have real neglected properties which prohibit the mathematical singularities from actually applying to physical reality itself.

No, an assumption of continuous space and the application of GR where the theory is no longer valid (quantum physics) is what gives us the singularity.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by subtillioN
I have studied GR, and I have studied Sorce Theory which gives the causation beneath the entire structure of the standard model. It is easy to be confident when you have this inside AND outside perspective.

If you studied GR, you wouldn't be asking questions like "how can nothingness be curved?" or such. It's good to think outside the box, but you should at least know what the box actually is first.

I am not claiming a conspiracy, just an unconscious social tendency to self-stabilize around a "Standard" meme-structure. I also simply recognize the unconscious mechanisms of this self-stabilization as I encounter it on a daily basis.

It's just an excuse that cranks use. Take it to the theory development forum before someone locks this thread.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
If you studied GR, you wouldn't be asking questions like "how can nothingness be curved?" or such. It's good to think outside the box, but you should at least know what the box actually is first.

The simple fact is that I do not believe in relativity theory. That gives me license to ask ANY question I like. Such a license is quite usefull really, when trying to get to the truth.

There are many questions that one is not "supposed" to ask when dealing with relativity theory. That is because the theory is far removed from experience-based logic and must maintain the hermetic seal of its alternative logic chamber in order to function. When one asks questions based on the logic of experience, one breaks this seal and contaminates the structure of the logic with experience of reality. When this happens the whole self-consistent, self-referential logic structure grinds to a halt.

It is my belief and experience that any theory that forces us to adopt an alternate non-experience-based logic and then enforces laws about which questions are "proper" or not, is falling into the same trap that the religions have fallen into. To seal ones' logic off from contact with reality is to fossilize the growth of the theory.

Such an artificial logic-policing scheme is entirely unnecessary when one is dealing with a correct theory. With such a theory ANY question is as valid and constructive as ANY other. Isn't that the scientific method after-all?

[[ BTW, I am speaking with experience of such a theory. I am not just entering into wishfull thinking. I have seen the difference first-hand and it casts quite a different light on the whole structure of modern physics. ]]

It's just an excuse that cranks use.

That pidgeon-hole technique is just a mechanism that believers use to justify the continuation of their ignorance of an alternate i.e. "dissident" pov.

Are you a believer or an explorer?

 

[r637h]

To subtillioN:

"Flunking the course": (metaphorically, of course)

If I wrote anything that offends, I humbly retract it.

I'll attemt to give you some examples of Newtonian complexity vs. Relitivistic simplicity, as time permits.

Beg pardon about any offense.

Thanks, Rudi

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
We already had this discussion. There is nothing purely abstract about geometry, otherwise the volume of everything would disappear. And, as flat volumes can be described by the rules of Euclidean geometry, curved volumes must be described by different rules. It hardly makes space a non real phenomena.

Geometry is the measure of physical extension and physical relation.

No, an assumption of continuous space and the application of GR where the theory is no longer valid (quantum physics) is what gives us the singularity.

Ok so you are saying essentially that the micro structure of "space" itself is not incorporated in Relativity theory. That is basically what I said. But you are also saying that quantum mechanics is needed to fix this problem, but QM doesn't even have a clue of the deeper causality either. That is the whole impetus behind the unification theories such as String Theory.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by r637h
To subtillioN:

"Flunking the course": (metaphorically, of course)

If I wrote anything that offends, I humbly retract it.

I'll attemt to give you some examples of Newtonian complexity vs. Relitivistic simplicity, as time permits.

Beg pardon about any offense.

Thanks, Rudi

Oh, none taken (I was continuing the metaphor), and thanks for being open minded.

 

[chroot]

I can guarantee that subtillioN (a self-proclaimed explorer, thinker, plasma cosmologist and anti-relativity zealot) cannot explain to us what the Einstein equation is.

- Warren

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
I can guarantee that subtillioN (a self-proclaimed explorer, thinker, plasma cosmologist and anti-relativity zealot) cannot explain to us what the Einstein equation is.

- Warren

It is the fudging of the classical concept of time to mathematically retro-fit the null-results of the M&M experiment. The fact is that the classical notion of a solid ether with the shear modulus of elasticity no less than that of steel was simply incorrect. The whole reasoning behind this faulty classical notion is now defunct because it is now known that a superfluid can transmit transverse waves so there was no reason to assume that the ether was a solid in the first place.

Take for instance this quote from G.E. Volovik in “The Universe in a Helium Droplet” .

“According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons, neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium called the quantum vacuum. This is the new ether of the 21st century. The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum."


Why do you suppose that the "quantum vacuum" is identical to a zero-energy superfluid? Do you suppose that is a pure coincidence and that the "quantum vacuum" is a purely mathematical substrate?


Despite all of the various manifestations of the deep qualitative, interpretive, errors of Modern Physics, the equations which have been custom fit to model the results of our experimental contact with physical reality, actually tell a quite different story. The equations directly model the fundamental level as a frictionless fluid yet the Standard Model consistently denies that this fluid physically exists. The claim is that fundamental reality consists merely of probabilistic wave-equations defining the likely positions of its fundamental, extensionless “point-particles” which paradoxically exhibit a “wave-nature”. To admit that the fluid nature of the quantum level physically exists would be anathema to the dogma of the denial of the ether initiated by none other than the patron saint of Physics himself, Albert Einstein, who, unknown to most people, later said that the ether must exist and it must be dynamic. [see “Ether and the Theory of Relativity” by Albert Einstein, an address delivered on May 5th, 1920, University of Leyden where he said "Einstein said, “It may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility… What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, which are amenable to law in the form of differential equations…”.]

In “The Big Bang Never Happened” , Eric J. Lerner writes,

“... since the nineteenth century it’s been recognized that the equations of electromagnetism are almost identical with the equations of hydrodynamics, the equations governing fluid flow. Even more curious, Schrödinger’s equation, the basic equation of quantum mechanics, is also closely related to equations of fluid flow. Since 1954 many scientists have shown that a particle moving under the influence of random impacts from irregularities in a fluid will obey Schrödinger’s equation.
“More recently, in the late seventies, researchers found another curious correspondence while developing mathematical laws that govern the motion of line vortices—the hydrodynamic analogs of the plasma filaments ... The governing equation turns out to be a modified form of Schrödinger’s equation, called the nonlinear Schrödinger equation. [This equation is a central part of the study of ‘quantum liquids’ as well. The interesting coincidence is that it is a modified form of the equation describing the shell structure of an atom. How this fluid-dynamic shell gets quantized into the known electronic “orbits” is a key concept illustrated in The Orb and Sorce Theory.]
“Generally in science when two different phenomena obey the same or very similar mathematical laws, it means that in all probability they are somehow related. Thus it seems likely that both electromagnetism and quantum phenomena generally may be connected to some sort of hydrodynamics on a microscopic level. But this clue, vague as it is, leaves entirely open the key question of what the nuclear particles are. And what keeps them together? How can fluids generate particles? [This book will fill in these crucial gaps as well.]
“But the idea of particles formed from vortices in some fluid is certainly worth investigating. (This is a real return to Ionian ideas: the idea of reality being formed out of vortices was first raised by Anaxagoras 2,500 years ago!) …However, I think there are additional clues, some developed from my own work, which indicate that plasma processes and quantum mechanical processes are in some way related.
“First and foremost are Krisch’s experimental results on spin-aligned protons. Qualitatively, the results clearly imply that protons are actually some form of vortex, like a plasmoid. Such vortices interact far more strongly when they are spinning in the same direction-which is certainly the behavior Krisch observed in proton collisions. Because vortex behavior would become evident only in near-collisions, the effects should be more pronounced at higher energies and in more head-on interactions—again, in accordance with Krisch’s results.
“A second clue lies in particle asymmetry …. Particles act as if they have a “handedness,” and the simplest dynamic process or object that exhibits an inherent orientation is a vortex. Moreover, right-and left-handed vortices annihilate each other, just as particles and antiparticles do.”

 

[Eh]

Chroot wins a prize for guessing correctly.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
Chroot wins a prize for guessing correctly.

I never claimed to be a expert in relativistic mathematics, just that I understand the principles of relativity.

I am sure that there are equations that neither of you know, but so what? I am not discussing the mathematics which fairly accurately models the structure of the g-field without giving any mechanism for gravity.

Do either of you know Sorce Theory? I know both the standard model and the alternative model well enough to know the crucial difference which is unknown to either of you.

Sorce Theory can explain the causation which the Standard Model has claimed does not exist.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by subtillioN
The simple fact is that I do not believe in relativity theory. That gives me license to ask ANY question I like. Such a license is quite usefull really, when trying to get to the truth.

Most people here don't believe in cartoon theories of GR either. Asking questions is what forums like these are all about, but to proclaim you've studied the theory after asking the said questions (which clearly show you have not) is rather dishonest.

So it will take a little more intellectual honesty to get anything out of these forums. Simply screaming that current theories are wrong and quoting plasma cosmologists is not going to help anyone.

There are many questions that one is not "supposed" to ask when dealing with relativity theory. That is because the theory is far removed from experience-based logic and must maintain the hermetic seal of its alternative logic chamber in order to function. When one asks questions based on the logic of experience, one breaks this seal and contaminates the structure of the logic with experience of reality. When this happens the whole self-consistent, self-referential logic structure grinds to a halt.

Like I said, you have to learn what a certain theory actually says before proclaiming it to suffer from logical inconsistencies.

That pidgeon-hole technique is just a mechanism that believers use to justify the continuation of their ignorance of an alternate i.e. "dissident" pov.

Yeah yeah, I've heard it all before. Legit science continues to make enormous progress, while cranks continue to accomplish absolutely nothing. Coincidence?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
I can guarantee that subtillioN (a self-proclaimed explorer, thinker, plasma cosmologist and anti-relativity zealot) cannot explain to us what the Einstein equation is.

- Warren

I can guarantee that Warren (an inherently zeno-phobic individual) can not give a mechanism for gravity.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by subtillioN
I can guarantee that Warren (an inherently zeno-phobic individual) can not give a mechanism for gravity.

Actually, I thought Zeno served up some pretty good food for thought.

Or perhaps you meant 'xenophobic,' but in reality, some of my best friends are foreigners.

Oh well, you still can't tell me what the Einstein equation is.

- Warren

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
Most people here don't believe in cartoon theories of GR either. Asking questions is what forums like these are all about, but to proclaim you've studied the theory after asking the said questions (which clearly show you have not) is rather dishonest.

The fact is that I have studied Relativity. It is not dishonest whatsoever.

So it will take a little more intellectual honesty to get anything out of these forums. Simply screaming that current theories are wrong and quoting plasma cosmologists is not going to help anyone.

So let us debate the alternatives. That is my point.

Like I said, you have to learn what a certain theory actually says before proclaiming it to suffer from logical inconsistencies.

I know what it actually says. What makes you think that I don't? and be specific.

Yeah yeah, I've heard it all before. Legit science continues to make enormous progress, while cranks continue to accomplish absolutely nothing. Coincidence?

So I guess you would have called the Copernican model of the solar system a "crank" theory just because it was not established at some point in time.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
Actually, I thought Zeno served up some pretty good food for thought.

Or perhaps you meant 'xenophobic,' but in reality, some of my best friends are foreigners.

Oh well, you still can't tell me what the Einstein equation is.

- Warren

Zeno was wrong too.

So you don't know something that I do and vice versa. Big deal.

Enough with this banal ad hominem nonsense. Let's discuss the alternatives.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by subtillioN
I know what it actually says. What makes you think that I don't? and be specific.

You don't know what the Einstein equation is. How much more specific do I need to be?

- Warren

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by subtillioN
So you don't know something that I do and vice versa. Big deal.

What don't I know? A mechanism for gravity? GR is a mechanism for gravity. A precient one, too.

- Warren

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
You don't know what the Einstein equation is. How much more specific do I need to be?

- Warren

Are you claiming that one can not understand relativity without knowing the mathematical formalisms?

That is not what my professor said.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
What don't I know? A mechanism for gravity? GR is a mechanism for gravity. A precient one, too.

- Warren

That is a description of the effect of an unknown mechanism.

Please tell me HOW mass creates a gravitational field. And then proceed to tell me how this field ACTUALLY changes the motion of an object.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by subtillioN
Are you claiming that one can not understand relativity without knowing the mathematical formalisms?

That is not what my professor said.

Sounds like you need a new professor.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by subtillioN
That is a description of the effect of an unknown mechanism.

Please tell me HOW mass creates a gravitational field. And then proceed to tell me how this field ACTUALLY changes the motion of an object.

Please tell me HOW 1 + 1 = 2. And then proceed to tell me how this equation ACTUALLY predicts the structure of the integers.

(Psst.. there are axioms in any system -- even yours!)

- Warren

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
Please tell me HOW 1 + 1 = 2. And then proceed to tell me how this equation ACTUALLY predicts the structure of the integers.

(Psst.. there are axioms in any system -- even yours!)

- Warren

get real. I am talking about the physical mechanism of gravity which you can only think of abstractly several levels removed from the level of causality.


Of course there are axioms in any quantitative system. But the point is to distinguish between mathematical formalisms and reality. They are not the same thing, BTW.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
Most people here don't believe in cartoon theories of GR either. Asking questions is what forums like these are all about, but to proclaim you've studied the theory after asking the said questions (which clearly show you have not) is rather dishonest.

So it will take a little more intellectual honesty to get anything out of these forums. Simply screaming that current theories are wrong and quoting plasma cosmologists is not going to help anyone.

I simply understand it from a different point of view which can only exist if you don't believe in the theory. So to say that because I talk about it differently than the flock does not prove that I don't understand it at all or that I have never studied it.

The fact is that Relativity theory is incorrect and superfluous to the understanding of physical reality.

See this article for some Sorce Theory about Relativity.
http://home.comcast.net/~anpheon/html/Articles/4LP.htm

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
Simply screaming that current theories are wrong and quoting plasma cosmologists is not going to help anyone.

You are correct, no one seems willing to entertain any alternative to the prevailing theory. There doesn't even seem to be any curiosity even with all the problems of the standard model that Plasma Cosmology claims to fix. I would be intensly curious as to any alternative to any obviously problematic model... but that is just me.

 

[chroot]

Why do you continue to tell everyone that you've studied relativity, despite the fact that you are incapable of telling us what the Einstein equation is?

Someone certainly does need to get real, but it ain't me.

- Warren

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
Why do you continue to tell everyone that you've studied relativity, despite the fact that you are incapable of telling us what the Einstein equation is?

Someone certainly does need to get real, but it ain't me.

- Warren

I have studied it qualitatively and I have not memorized the equations. Not so difficult to understand really.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by subtillioN
I have studied it qualitatively and I have not memorized the equations. Not so difficult to understand really.

Listen, kiddo. It means nothing to study a scientific theory "qualitatively."

- Warren

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
Listen, kiddo. It means nothing to study a scientific theory "qualitatively."

- Warren

Ok pappa, but you are absolutely wrong on that count.

I am not a physicist so I don't yet need the math. You are only correct in the fact that the modern theory is devoid of causality and simply contains mathematics, but that is because of its core errors.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by subtillioN
I am not a physicist

So let me get this straight... you're not a physicist, you don't know the math, and don't even know qualitatively what the Einstein equation is...

What makes you think you're qualified to even DISCUSS relativity?

This thread is like watching a room full of second-graders arguing about neurosurgery.

- Warren

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
So let me get this straight... you're not a physicist, you don't know the math, and don't even know qualitatively what the Einstein equation is...

What makes you think you're qualified to even DISCUSS relativity?

This thread is like watching a room full of second-graders arguing about neurosurgery.

- Warren

Qualified to even DISCUSS? What? Oh do I need to get a certificate in order to discuss it?

I don't care about "qualifications". I care about understanding. I am interested in discussing the mechanism of gravity which relativity does not touch upon.

This thread is like watching a room full of second-graders arguing about neurosurgery

Yes, second graders who call each other idiots.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
This thread is like watching a room full of second-graders arguing about neurosurgery.

Claiming that I am not "qualified" is an elitist method of saying that you cannot answer the original question I posed to you. It is an attempt to justify your ignorance by "disqualifying" my question.

Can you, with all your quantitative knowledge of Relativity Theory, even come close to giving me an explanation of the MECHANISM of gravity that exists beneath the equations?

Relativity Theory is an incorrect interpretation of the equations that quantify the structure of "space" and "time". It is completely unnecessary to actually UNDERSTAND the structure of a g-field and the "gravitational" response to this field by each and every atom of a molar body.

Can you give me a description of the mechanism of Time dilation? Or are you forbidden to ask whether there actually is a mechanism?

 

[Hurkyl]

Claiming that I am not "qualified" is an elitist method of saying that you cannot answer the original question I posed to you. It is an attempt to justify your ignorance by "disqualifying" my question.

He didn't only claim it, he proved it by demonstrating you have no idea what the most important equation of General Relativity is. I don't even have a physics degree (mine are in Math and Computer Science) and have only taught myself the very basics of differential geometry, and I know what the Einstein equation is. I think Chroot has given a fairly convincing demonstration that you are not qualified to talk about it.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
He didn't only claim it, he proved it by demonstrating you have no idea what the most important equation of General Relativity is. I don't even have a physics degree (mine are in Math and Computer Science) and have only taught myself the very basics of differential geometry, and I know what the Einstein equation is. I think Chroot has given a fairly convincing demonstration that you are not qualified to talk about it.

The fact is that relativity itself is not qualified to talk about the mechanism of a gravitational field nor is it qualified to discuss the mechanism of the gravity force itself. It's sole purpose is to define the shape of the field and not the mechanism. Such a purpose is relatively banal (no pun intended) IMHO. I am interested in discussing the actual mechanisms of all the forces, however, but if your elitest qualification scheme excludes me from being worthy of your company then oh well. You can't force someone to want to understand the mechanisms of physical reality.

Can you explain the mechanisms of all the forces as manifestations of a single fluid-dynamic pressure? I think not. Do you care what the mechanism actually is? I think not. Do you feel comfort in your self-prescribed elitism? I think so.

 

[Dave]

Sorry.. what's this thread about?

Maybe I should start one up called: Centre of the universe and we could talk about that!

 

[Eh]

It's called thread hijacking, Dave.