Exploring the Mysteries of the Center of the Universe

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Dave
Sorry.. what's this thread about?

change vs. stagnation

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Eh
It's called thread hijacking, Dave.

It is called the natural flow of conversation. I wasn't the one who decided to discuss relativity. Because obviously I think it is irrelevant to the understanding of physical reality.

 

[meteor]

The filamentary structure of the superclusters is "bubblelike", and mostly circular in structure. Not like the "fingers of god"

The structure of the universe is bubblelike. But the superclusters are located in the tangent points of the bubbles, and indeed have a filamentary structure.One very famous filamentary structure is the Great Wall
Subtillion, give up. You are one against a hundred. A hundred people can't be wrong

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by meteor
A hundred people can't be wrong

Now THAT is a laugh!

 

[Hydr0matic]

Originally posted by meteor
The structure of the universe is bubblelike. But the superclusters are located in the tangent points of the bubbles, and indeed have a filamentary structure.One very famous filamentary structure is the Great Wall
Subtillion, give up. You are one against a hundred. A hundred people can't be wrong

Yes, the superclusters have a filamentary structure, but in a circular/spherical pattern, not as straight lines. Your argument fails anyway, since the Virgo cluster does not look like two fingers pointing at earth. It is spherically distributed like all the other clusters. See this map .. http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/virgo.html

This is subtillioN's point - the redshift mapping gives incorrect results.

A hundred people can't be wrong ? .. please ...

 

[Hurkyl]

You can't force someone to want to understand the mechanisms of physical reality.

A very astute, if ironic, observation.

 

[Hurkyl]

Do you not understand that the "expansion of space interpretation" IS the "Doppler interpretation of the Hubble Red-shift"? They are the same thing.

Not so. With the doppler effect, all of the redshifting occurs at the source. With expansion of space, the redshifting occurs as the light travels through space.

(not to mention the trivial fact that the Doppler interpretation makes no sense in general relativity since different coordinate charts would yield different relative velocities)

 

[Sting]

Others mentioned it before, but the to ask where the center of the Universe it is almost similar to the question "Where did the Big Bang happen at?"

The issue about that question is the Big Bang did not happen in space. It happened to space.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
A very astute, if ironic, observation.

Yes, ironic indeed.

 

[Brad_Ad23]

I most agree with Warren on this one as Hurkyl pointed out. The Einstein equation is the basis of general relativity. A lack of actually knowing what it is, or having studied it and what it does, you cannot talk about the theory. All you can talk about is what you have read about the theory from sources. An actual understanding of the equation and you can reach the same conclusions and have a much much better understanding of General Relativity.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Not so. With the doppler effect, all of the redshifting occurs at the source. With expansion of space, the redshifting occurs as the light travels through space.

(not to mention the trivial fact that the Doppler interpretation makes no sense in general relativity since different coordinate charts would yield different relative velocities)

Excellent point. The nomenclature of the Big Bang Theory is quite confused. It claims that it is space itself that is expanding yet if space itself were expanding there would be no relative changes in distance whatsoever because EVERYTHING would be expanding at the same rate. Thus we would see no so-called (and mis-labeled) Doppler Shift because the light waves would be expanding with our prisms and everything else in the same ratio-- end result? no perceptible change whatsoever.

Does that make sense to you?

BTW it is more accurately called the "velocity to distance" interpretation of red-shift. It means essentially the same thing as the doppler interpretation (in the confused language of BBT) as they are used interchangeably.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hydr0matic This is subtillioN's point - the redshift mapping gives incorrect results.

And so if the Doppler (or Velocity to Distance) interpretation of red-shift is incorrect then there MUST be some other mechanism of red-shift and thus there is zero evidence for the expansion of the universe. All we are left with is a relatively isotropic background radiation and the production of the elements both of which are easily explained through less dramatic and fantastical mechanisms than a cosmic explosion of the entire universe from a single sub-microscopic point.

The audacity of the BB claim is mind-blowing considering that it claims to understand the "origin" of the Universe down to the first nanosecond--a Universe whose extent is entirely unknown and seems to just go on infinitely and whose composition is supposedly formed from %99 dark matter of unknown properties. If %99 percent of the universe is unknown, doesn't this put a %99 improbability rate on any extrapolation of the ultimate nature of this universe?

A hundred people can't be wrong ? .. please ...

That is the mantra of the herd mentality.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
I most agree with Warren on this one as Hurkyl pointed out. The Einstein equation is the basis of general relativity. A lack of actually knowing what it is, or having studied it and what it does, you cannot talk about the theory. All you can talk about is what you have read about the theory from sources. An actual understanding of the equation and you can reach the same conclusions and have a much much better understanding of General Relativity.

So don't bother discussing Relativity theory with me. I won't mind, because it is useless for an understanding of physical reality.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by meteor
One very famous filamentary structure is the Great Wall

Good that you should mention that. The estimates of the time taken to form such a MASSIVE structure are about 150 billion years, based on the smoothness of the CBR (interpreted as an echo of a BB) and based also on the maximum observed relative motions of interstellar matter.

 

[Brad_Ad23]

Again you fail to realize that it is indeed relevant. But you kinda sort of need to understand the equations and the mechanisms first.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Again you fail to realize that it is indeed relevant. But you kinda sort of need to understand the equations and the mechanisms first.

Relevant to what? Give details please.

[[[ relevant to relativity perhaps ]]]

 

[Brad_Ad23]

Relevant to physical reality.

example: GR predicts orbiting bodies (such as pulsars for example) will radiate away energy and slow down. This has been observed and is true.

Or that time is affected by one's location in a gravitational field, also proven true.

Or that gravity redshifts light trying to escape, also shown to be true.

All this is predicted from GR (and yes, on low energy scales by Newtonian physics), and is very much physically relevant.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Relevant to physical reality.

example: GR predicts orbiting bodies (such as pulsars for example) will radiate away energy and slow down. This has been observed and is true.

Or that time is affected by one's location in a gravitational field, also proven true.

Or that gravity redshifts light trying to escape, also shown to be true.

All this is predicted from GR (and yes, on low energy scales by Newtonian physics), and is very much physically relevant.

The GR equations succesfully map the gravitational field and its effects on the trajectories and rates of objects and processes, but the interpretation of what those equations actually mean is entirely incorrect.

See this article:
http://home.comcast.net/~anpheon/html/Articles/4LP.htm


"There are four Light Postulates in Einstein's paper. Each has a different meaning than the others. Together, they impose an entirely different basic physical theory than that set forth by the Theory of Relativity. They require that moving systems physically deform in the ways Lorentz described in 1904. This will be mathematically demonstrated herein; thereby proving that Minkowski's thesis, that the deformations are exclusively due to geometrical reasons, is mathematically and physically false."

 

[Brad_Ad23]

Yes of course, they must be. I guess that is why based on these interpretations of it we have been able to conduct sucessful experiments that we know what is going on with. Because all our interpretations are wrong.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Yes of course, they must be. I guess that is why based on these interpretations of it we have been able to conduct sucessful experiments that we know what is going on with. Because all our interpretations are wrong.

It is not the interpretations that are successful it is simply the mathematics.

The interpretations simply justify the abandonment of the erroneous classical solid ether.

Einstein himself (who I would argue was an expert in the theory of Relativity) said that the MM experiments simply proved that the ether was dynamic and that his notion of curved space was entirely meaningless without this dynamic ether.

In an address titled “Ether and the Theory of Relativity” delivered on May 5th, 1920 at the University of Leyden, 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…”.

The new "quantum vacuum" fits this description rather well as it is essentially a "zero-energy superfluid". All one needs is to ascribe physical reality to the substance that the equations model and then add a few basic fluid-dynamic properties to the mix and...presto! A unified Field Theory!

[[[It's a bit more complex than that of course!]]]

 

[Brad_Ad23]

Listen closely.

Just having math and number does not tell us what sort of experiments to do or what happens. We MUST interpret what these equations actually are talking about to perform experiments and collect meaningful data.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Listen closely.

Just having math and number does not tell us what sort of experiments to do or what happens. We MUST interpret what these equations actually are talking about to perform experiments and collect meaningful data.

I completely agree with that, and that is a crucial point. Can you point out any instance in which the Relativity interpretations were the only possible interpretations which could have led to a successful experiment?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by subtillioN
I completely agree with that. Can you point out any instance in which the Relativity interpretations were the only possible interpretations which could have led to a successful experiment?

Actually I can point out a few myself, such as the time dilation experiments, but the equations were created before the interpretations and the equations themselves led directly to those conclusions about the changes of the rates of processes which have more realistic explanations than the ones given by Einstein.

 

[Brad_Ad23]

The case of gravitational redshifting, the rate of pulsar slowdown, gravity fields affecting the rate of time passage, etc.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
The case of gravitational redshifting, the rate of pulsar slowdown, gravity fields affecting the rate of time passage, etc.

Right, but these stem directly from his equations which show directly that the rates of processes must be effected by g-fields and motions relative to an absolute yet dynamic medium.

 

[Brad_Ad23]

You claim these come from the equations...yet you fail to actually know the Einstein Equation...interesting.

Now how is it that this model and our interpretation of the equations (which I might add those equations that dictate this and that have to be interpreted :) can be wrong then when they give us the right answer?


Now then, I do have to say to an extent I must agree that GR is not THE final answer. It is merely a model, like anything else in physics. It is not the last word. And for the very large part, physicists are aware of this. BUT, it is the most accurate and best model we have to date, and there are certain characteristics (essentially GR has to be an approximation of what would replace it and the best mechanism the theoretcial physics community has up is what will someday be quantum gravity. A pre-requisite is that GR appears out of quantum gravity, and in fact in some of the bigger theories, general relativity just emerges without us trying to make it emerge, in other words, it is forced on us, and yes there are other characteristics, but since I am not yet a professional, I am not entirely privvy to what they are) that must be met in order for it to be accepted and to replace GR as the model.

 

[subtillioN]

You claim these come from the equations...yet you fail to actually know the Einstein Equation...interesting.

I know much about the equations at a more global level, but I have never needed to know the level of the actual equations themselves. I am a physics student so I will have to learn them, however.

Now how is it that this model and our interpretation of the equations (which I might add those equations that dictate this and that have to be interpreted :) can be wrong then when they give us the right answer?

The equations were modeled in experimental contact with reality and the interpretations followed to make sense of the equations. (( this is not always the case but such an exception is quite rare))

 

[subtillioN]

Now then, I do have to say to an extent I must agree that GR is not THE final answer. It is merely a model, like anything else in physics. It is not the last word. And for the very large part, physicists are aware of this. BUT, it is the most accurate and best model we have to date, and there are certain characteristics (essentially GR has to be an approximation of what would replace it and the best mechanism the theoretcial physics community has up is what will someday be quantum gravity.

The trick is to replace the "quantum vacuum" with the "zero-energy superfluid" that the equations actually model. This "quantum fluid" needs some additional fluid-dynamics properties, such as continuity and compressibility. The GR equations naturally emerge from these premises along with bodes law of the planetary orbits and the electronic structure of the atom which both follow the same basic pattern and both stem from the same fluid-dynamic wave-resonance mechanisms. Thus the continuous field is quantized into the electronic shell structure of the atom and the graviational fields (with their intrinsic complexity not explained by GR) by fluid-dynamics and wave-resonance mechanisms. When the quantized electron shell is disrupted and emitted the continuous fluid is released in quantized bits. Thus we have the union of the classical GR and Quantum Mechanics.

[[[ of course the actual theory (Sorce Theory) is MUCH more complex and very detailed as to the causal mechanisms of all the forces, etc. ]]]

 

[r637h]

This is mainly for subtillioN:

1] I wrote that I would give examples of Newtonion complexity and Relativistic simplicity:
Newtonian complexity: Nothing could be more agonizingly complex (without a computer) than the laborious Newton(-Rapheson) numerical method of calculus that was used to confirm that the path of Halley's Comet was an ellipse and had a definite period (in 16-something) Newton told Halley how to do it; Mrs. Halley did most of the calculating, poor thing.
Relativitistic simplicity: Not to mention E=mc^2. Einstein's Field Equations are "relatively" simple. The derivation of Planck's Contant may have been the first "relativistic" equation ever written, and it is very simple.

2] Center of the Universe? I commend to you the modest dissertation: "Relativity: Special and General Theory," written by one A. Einstein 83 years ago. No one has ever disproven his macrocosmic assertions.

He deals with Newtonian difficulties in classical mechanics applied to cosmic phenomena in Part Three, Chapter XXX. i.e., There ain't no center to the Universe.

Q.E.D.


Thanks, Rudi

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by r637h
1] I wrote that I would give examples of Newtonion complexity and Relativistic simplicity:
Newtonian complexity: Nothing could be more agonizingly complex (without a computer) than the laborious Newton(-Rapheson) numerical method of calculus that was used to confirm that the path of Halley's Comet was an ellipse and had a definite period (in 16-something) Newton told Halley how to do it; Mrs. Halley did most of the calculating, poor thing.
Relativitistic simplicity: Not to mention E=mc^2. Einstein's Field Equations are "relatively" simple.

Excellent. Thank you very much. The equations of Relativity do match the data much better. That is the reason they were formulated, but Einstein formulated his interpretations of his equations after the fact and he was dealing with the unreconcilable (at that time) evidence of the M&M experiment. There are realistic interpretations of his equations, however, that give actual physical mechanisms for all of the phenomena described by his equations.

Also note that E=mc^2 can quite easily be derived by classical methods and is not even part of Relativity Theory.

2] Center of the Universe? I commend to you the modest dissertation: "Relativity: Special and General Theory," written by one A. Einstein 83 years ago. No one has ever disproven his macrocosmic assertions.

He deals with Newtonian difficulties in classical mechanics applied to cosmic phenomena in Part Three, Chapter XXX. i.e., There ain't no center to the Universe.

Thank you for those excellent examples of the superiority of Einsteins equations to Newtons.

In this dissertation does Einstein speculate a Universe of finite or infinite extent? How does he demonstrate that the Universe has no center? Through the use of Reimann mathematics? Ahhh, so...

His problem is his assumption that it makes any sense whatsoever to treat the Universe as a 2d plane. On what observational grounds can he make such an assumption? None whatsoever... more pi in the sky!



Thanks Rudi for this information,
subtillioN

 

[r637h]

" Once more, into the Breach..."

1] For all I know there may be classical solutions for the derivation of e=mc^2, but it is a "relative" equation and Einstein used "relative methods" to derive it.

I didn't say that e=mc^2 dealt with Relativity Theory, merely that the equation was arrived at by relative means.

2] The only experimental evidence that Einstein cites in "Relativity:..." is the Mercury perihelion thing, and that is very convincing. (Appendix D?)

3] Einstein believed that the Universe was possibly "finite but unbounded" (Chapter XXXI), but he also asserted that it was non-Euclidian.

4] I guess there's an insoluble disagreement here:
Would it be fair to summarize? If the Universe is Euclidian, then it can have a center; if it is non-Euclidian, then it cannot.

Thanks, Rudi

 

[ray b]

OK I see there is no X-marks the spot of the BIG BANG

but our univerce should be shaped like a big ball with a radius of less than 15 billion lightyears and so having both a center and a edge

the fact that we currently have no clue as to the location of eathor just shows that we are limited in our knowlage not that there is no center or edge or any way to get a placement of our milkyway relaitive to both, IE, a universal coridanate system

what canbe said currently is we appear to be more centrial, than, more near a edge as galixcys appear to be somewhat equaly distant even as we get near max distance that we can now see in all directions

all this proves we have a lot to learn about our place in the grand scheam of the univerce, not that it is unknowable, just we don't yet know much

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by r637h
" Once more, into the Breach..."

1] For all I know there may be classical solutions for the derivation of e=mc^2, but it is a "relative" equation and Einstein used "relative methods" to derive it.

Well I don't know how Einstein derived it, but if it is an exclusively relativistic equation then how could it be derived by classical means?

BTW, what do you mean when you say it is a relative equation? What is it about the equation that leads to this categorization?

2] The only experimental evidence that Einstein cites in "Relativity:..." is the Mercury perihelion thing, and that is very convincing. (Appendix D?)

But this derivation was arrived at previous to Einstein by classical methods which were ignorant of the true mass of Mercury and Einsteins derivation used Newtonian time instead of Relativistic time. Also when the perihelion was recalculated it was found that Einsteins derivation was off by a significant amount. (I could look up all the numbers and give references if you wish).

4] I guess there's an insoluble disagreement here:
Would it be fair to summarize? If the Universe is Euclidian, then it can have a center; if it is non-Euclidian, then it cannot.

I think this ignores the possibility that it could be infinite in extent in which case it would not have a center. Also it assumes that the Universe actually has a geometry i.e. that such abstract 2d-to-3d mapping schemes really do apply to a Universe of possibly infinite extent.

Thanks,
subtillio... N

 

[r637h]

King's X. I give up. I'd sooner try herding cats.

Thanks, Rudi

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by r637h
King's X. I give up. I'd sooner try herding cats.

Thanks, Rudi

lol, ok, thanks for playing.