Universe not expanding

@layman,

Quote:

Ever occur to you that new theories opposing "mainstream physics" are generally based upon rational thought, empirical evidence, and a need to eliminate inconsistencies and/or shortcomings in "mainstream science?"

Expertise is important. Understanding advanced mathematics is important. Education is important. Mastery is important.

Somebody who has not studied Physics, or learned advanced mathematics, or run experiments, or interacted with other experts is not in a position to oppose mainstream physics.

Someone who has done the work to master the subject... meaning studying the mathematics, taking the courses, writing papers and getting peer feedback, is in a position to develop and promote new theories. (I am not claiming to be in the position).

5,000 years ago, people were coming up with intuitive ideas of Physics based on what seemed right to them. We have advanced quite a bit from there.

There is a big difference between people with expertise, and people who know how to use Google to search for out of context phrases to back up their worldview.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

layman wrote:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0115550 Yeah, that link works---I missed the http part the first time.

Ok. That's not the theory I thought it was. I believe there is a newer theory out there which I've been hearing about, but this isn't it.

This is the one I was thinking of: http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/new-ideas-on-gravity-would-vanquish-dark-matter/

Erik Verlinde's theory that Gravity is a consequence of information related to entropy and quantum entanglement. His claim is that this model more accurately describes certain measurements which relate to Dark Matter, than the existing theory. And that's where it remains to be demonstrated. Not everyone was all that impressed with the analysis, but this is the type of thing that additional data and more precise analysis can address.

As the article summarizes, "Dark matter is still the best answer at this stage. But, until recently, it was the only viable answer at all. Now, we have a true competition of ideas, and the data can rule."

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Well, I'm totally different. For my part this discussion is totally philosophical, scientific too, without any religious meanings. I believe in God, but in my mind God has created the earth and many other planets, but the whole universe is not created, the God, his heavens, the material universe, all the multiuniverses, all together, the whole universe, everything that exists, has always been there, it is eternal. In short, if there is eternal God, He is inside the eternal universe and when we are thinking the universe we don't have to think of the God at all. The question of the God comes when we think of the evolution and creation of the parts of the universe, especially of the earth.

So I say the whole universe is eternal and this is a purely philosophical thought, and has nothing to do with God and religion. The judean- christian tradition thinks other way, they think that God has created the universe, from nothing, which is impossible.

It is the Pope and Steven Hawking and others who seems to think that the Big Bang was: "Let there be light!", not me.

Rationally the universe is eternal (it does not follow from the religion), empirically it is not proved, and I doubt if any model is proved, or can be yet proved.

I have started with the invention that the properties of the universe might explain the red shift. The limitlesness of the universe in the first place. Then I found in discussions in the forums that the space can be thought separately. Then that the space might be without time. These three things explain the red shift very well in the eternal and infinite (no edge) universe, and the expanding, any kind of expansion, mathematical or other, is not needed.

Normally nobody has taken me seriously. So, I admit that the cosmology goes over human understanding, but this should be the starting point for you others too.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

Do you have any specific examples that don't also come with their own set of conflicts with observed data?

I'm just not aware of any other theories that have a better broad range track record of matching the observed data.

Well, this is just a popular science account, but it's rather elaborate, and I'm sure the technical details of the theory(ies) are available if you care to pursue it:

Quote:

It was less than a century ago that Einstein was the most radical physics thinker around. With his general theory of relativity, he discarded the traditional notion of space and time as fixed and redefined them as flexible dimensions woven together to create a four-dimensional fabric that pervades the universe...

Yet Einstein’s fabric left a few loose threads that cosmologists have struggled to tie up ever since. For one, general relativity alone cannot explain the observed motions of galaxies or the way the universe seems to expand. If Einstein’s model of gravity is correct, around 96 percent of the cosmos appears to be missing....

Barbour and a growing cadre of collaborators see a need for a bold march forward. They aim to demolish the space-time fabric that stands as Einstein’s legacy and remap the universe without it. This new cosmic code could eliminate the need to invoke dark matter and dark energy. Even more exciting, it could also open the door to the theory of quantum gravity that Einstein was never able to derive. If Barbour is right, some of the most fundamental things cosmologists think they know about the origin and evolution of the universe would have to be revised....

To remap the cosmos, Barbour has tapped into both Newton’s and Einstein’s conceptions of nature and then discarded key elements of both....Barbour felt that Einstein had taken a circuitous route to reframing the cosmos. Einstein’s 1905 publication on special relativity seemed to bring him closer to Mach’s camp, dismantling part of Newton’s grid by abolishing the notion that time was absolute. But it did so only by linking time to the three dimensions of space to create a rigid, four-dimensional block of space-time...

By 1982 Barbour and Bertotti had come up with a new theory of gravity (pdf) that described the world just as accurately as Einstein’s general relativity but without invoking time as a fundamental dimension.

http://discovermagazine.com/2012/mar/09-is-einsteins-greatest-work-wrong-didnt-go-far

And, again, Barbour is just one of many modern theoretical physicists who are rejecting SR.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Another excerpt from that article I just cited:

Quote:

Most physicists are trained to get on with calculating things and not worry too much about these contradictions,” Barbour says, but to him, they were key. In his true Machian theory, there is no space-time fabric that could be torn apart by quantum fluctuations. In fact, there is no fundamental dimension of time to create conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics, removing any obstacle to coming up with a complete theory of gravity that works in both cosmic and quantum realms.

He's talking to you, Max.

1 Reply

@layman,

He is not exactly talking to me, but I think he is wrong. Sure, Physics is done by humans. But, we have a scientific process and a scientific community that functions to challenge new ideas (although Barbour is holding onto an old, idea that has been long rejected by the scientific community rather than promoting a new one).

I think it is funny that you say there are "many modern theoretical physicists" who agree with you. You might have a different understanding of the word "many" than I do. There are tens of thousands of people who have done the 12 years or so of study, learning, peer review and work to earn doctorates in Physics. of course you are going to find a couple who reject the prevailing view.

Rejecting the prevailing view doesn't make them right. Of course, it doesn't make them wrong either... but you have to ask the question. Why are you elevating a few rogue physicists and treating them as gospel truth rather than accepting the vast majority of scientists with expertise in the field who are actually doing the work?

We have a scientific mainstream community that has an incredible track record of succes. They are not only making and confirming predictions, they are also creating GPS networks, and semiconductors and electron microscopes. Note, I am talking about the scientific community here as a whole. But the point is the scientific process has great success. And, they do there work in public. The mathematics is open to everyone... of course you have to take the time to actually learn about mathematics.

So let's talk about what is going on here.

You have a set of intuitive beliefs that are based on philosophy. These beliefs contradict with the generally accepted understanding of the Physicists who have earned advanced degrees and are pushing the boundary of science.

So instead of actually taking the time to learn about science; which would involve you studying mathematics and solving field equations... but would undoubtedly increase your understanding... you are spending your time googling for the less than 1% of physicists who reject the general understanding of the scientific community.

Your rejection of expertise and mathematics is the real issue here. Getting a University degree in Physics is a good way to gain an education about Physics. Googling for articles that support your pre-existing philosophical beliefs is not so good.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

They are not only making and confirming predictions, they are also creating GPS networks, and semiconductors and electron microscopes. Note, I am talking about the scientific community here as a whole.

Your rejection of expertise and mathematics is the real issue here.

Your never-ending employment of a fallacious resort to established dogma gets tedious, Max.

If you understood the CONCEPTS (forget the math) which underlies the GPS, then you would understand that it's functioning relies on eschewing SR and implementing LR.

I reject neither expertise nor math.

What I do reject is your long-repudiated understanding of the relationship between math and physics and your implicit claims to "expertise" as a means of attempting to avoid analysis and debate and "settle" the argument in that fashion.

You think that by asserting your dubious "credentials" you can PROVE your own claims to be right.

I don't think so! Homey don't play dat.

1 Reply

@layman,

If you are doing Physics, then you are doing math. If you take Physics course, you will be learning to work with math. If you read a real Physics article, it will be based on math. Whether or not this means that "Physics is math" is an argument in heurmaneutics. People who do actual work in Physics are working with mathematics.

At this point in Physics, you can't understand the concepts without understanding the math. Sorry, but when you are talking about Manifolds and Einstein field equations, that is just the way it goes.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

If you are doing Physics, then you are doing math.

We disagree. No use "debating" it further. I have quoted you, among other things, Einstein's own pithy summary of the relationship between math and physics, to wit:

Quote:

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

Of course he, and many, many others, have said much more on the topic, which I have referred you to, but you don't seem capable of understanding a word of it.

I may refer to your misunderstanding of the math/physics relationship in the future, but I certainly won't exert any more effort to help "educate" you about the topic. You have proven yourself to be utterly immune to persuasion by means of rational argument. And yet you call others "religious." Your faith seems just as unshakable as that of any fundy I have encountered.

Go figure, eh?

1 Reply

@layman,

I don't suppose you have actually read any of Einstein's papers on Physics, have you (they are based on mathematics). You are obviously good at googling for out of context one-liners to support your position. I suppose that is worth something, but it isn't equivalent to actually studying physics.

I maintain that Googling is not a very good strategy for gaining a real understanding of Physics. But, as you said, we disagree.

But, your google skills at finding whatever you need to support your preconceptions are quite impressive.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I don't suppose you have actually read any of Einstein's papers on Physics, have you (they are based on mathematics).

Apparently you are unaware that Al published whole books and many articles for "the layman" that were devoid of math and only addressed the concepts.

Unlike you, he saw this endeavor as possible, educational, and worthwhile. You don't need any math to understand the concepts. On the other hand, if you only "understand" the math, you can never understand the concepts.

1 Reply

In his own extensive (prose) writings, Einstein has also made mention of your type, Max. Workaday physicists who ply their trade by rote following "formulas," who "can't see the forest for the trees," and who have no real creativity or interest in fundamental concepts and the ultimate problems they seek to address.

Maybe I'll find an excerpt for you some day.

Then, again, I doubt I'll bother. Look for yourself, if you care.

0 Replies

@layman,

I think it is funny that you reject Einstein's theories (which have been roundly accepted) as "crank" physics.... and now you are embracing him because you wanted to Google more quotes.

You are amusing.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

That the best you can do, Max? Set up some strawman to knock down by misrepresenting what I say?

Good luck with that.

1 Reply

@layman,

The theory of Special Relativity, which is the theory you are attacking even though it is accepted by the scientific community, was developed by Albert Einstein and first proposed in 1905.

The theory of Lorentizian Relativity was an accepted view before Special Relativity. It was proposed a good decade before Einstein and was the theory that Einstein refuted. Of course the real issue you are having with modern Physics is simultaneity which was established physics since the time of Isaac Newton (until Einstein changed that).

Einstein worked within the scientific community. His theory was accepted (and still is accepted) by mainstream science because it made predictions that could be tested.

Your narrative is all wrong. Einstein's great creativity, expressed in mathematics, was what led to Special Relativity and led to the rejection of the older Lorentzian Relativity that you are clinging to.

This is a example of the ability of the mainstream scientific community to embrace new theories that are better at making testable assertions about how the Universe works. There are new theories being proposed. The people who are proposing theories and testing them are people who have already earned their expertise by studying mathematics and science in Universities. That is how you gain the expertise. String theory can't be tested (at least not yet), yet it is being discussed as are new theories in QM. The science community keeps advancing.

You are rejecting the scientific advancement that came from Einsteins creative genious in favor of an older theory because the new one conflicts with your preconcieved notions.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

The theory of Lorentizian Relativity was an accepted view before Special Relativity. It was proposed a good decade before Einstein and was the theory that Einstein refuted.

Heh, "refuted?" I thought you claimed to know something about physics.

maxdancona wrote:

His theory was accepted (and still is accepted) by mainstream science because it made predictions that could be tested.

There ya go again, Max. You're right back to implying that Lorentz didn't make ALL the exact same predictions (without the numerous "paradoxes)--before Al, and with the math formula he, not Einstein, developed, and which Al stole from him.

If you ever taught SR for money, you owe them their money back and owe your apologies to the students.

Sorry, but I can't let your pseudo-scientific pronouncements go unchallenged when you're presenting them to an unsuspecting public, with the pretext that you are a physics expert.

1 Reply

@layman,

You are playing word games Layman. Two points for you.

0 Replies

Universe not expanding

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know