Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9189 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Michaeladams
Post Volume: Total: 918,946 Year: 6,203/9,624 Month: 51/240 Week: 66/34 Day: 3/6 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The accelerating expanding universe
Oli
Junior Member (Idle past 4584 days)
Posts: 16
From: United Kingdom
Joined: 04-03-2011


Message 136 of 149 (613776)
04-27-2011 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Alfred Maddenstein
04-25-2011 1:08 PM


Re: Relativity
Alfred Maddenstein writes:
Just saying that you do not see how anything fits together is not good at all, I am afraid.
Indeed, apologies.
From what I’ve read, Mayer's logic goes something like this:
1) Einstein did not properly understand Minkowski's idea of time in special relativity as a geometric effect.
2) So when Einstein worked out general relativity he didn't properly take these ideas into account. Mayer writes: A fundamental conceptual error occurred at the beginning of his quest to unify special relativity with accelerated reference frames.
3) Cosmological models based on GR are therefore flawed.
4) Mayer introduces cosmological latitude Ϛ: an angular parameter relative to any arbitrary point of observation in the Cosmos. The different values of Ϛ map out a circle, with the time directions everywhere perpendicular to it.
5) Comparing the rates of clocks at different values of Ϛ gives the cosmological redshift for light travelling between them.
My first problem is that 2 is just not true. As I understand it, the equivalence principle from which Einstein derived GR says that in a freely-falling laboratory in a small part of spacetime the laws of physics are those of special relativity. Mathematically, this means that in a small region around every point the geometry can be described exactly as in 1 (in an appropriate coordinate system). Minkowski’s spacetime is the foundation of GR.
Also, the quote in 2 reveals Mayer’s lack of understanding since special relativity has no problem dealing with accelerated reference frames.
Secondly, it is not made clear how 2 leads to 4, although I guess this kind of leap is ok if the conclusion is supported by experiment.
However, the book doesn’t give a metric for the proposed four dimensional spacetime in 4, or a lot of mathematical details about how this comes about. Only two dimensions are described. Also, it doesn’t reference the matter in the universe and how that justifies the chosen geometry. GR says that the matter and energy distribution of the universe results in curvature of spacetime. How does Mayer explain gravity if he’s not taking general relativity into account?
Oli

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 04-25-2011 1:08 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by fearandloathing, posted 04-27-2011 10:13 AM Oli has not replied
 Message 140 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 04-27-2011 1:31 PM Oli has not replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4335 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 137 of 149 (613780)
04-27-2011 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Oli
04-27-2011 9:37 AM


Re: Relativity
Black holes, says Mayer, are actually the "in" end of a tunnel through spacetime (ie a wormhole) which leads to the opposite side of the universe. And at that end one finds a "white hole" spewing forth raw energy and fundamental particles. Dead star goes in, elemental ingredients come out. That means 100% recycling of material and energy, occurring everywhere in the universe, for all eternity. Can't get much more sustainable than that.
This is from one of Mayer's papers, just thought it was interesting as far as I know a white hole hasn't been found.
Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.
Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.
Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson
Ad astra per aspera

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Oli, posted 04-27-2011 9:37 AM Oli has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by cavediver, posted 04-27-2011 11:11 AM fearandloathing has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3834 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 138 of 149 (613787)
04-27-2011 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by fearandloathing
04-27-2011 10:13 AM


Re: Relativity
This is from one of Mayer's papers...
...and is complete bollocks, much like the rest of his site. Funny how he has no model to back this up, and no metric as Oli points out. This guy is so clueless, he doesn't even realise how the concept of a "black hole" arises. He thinks that as long as he can squeeze in enough buzz words and cool sounding jargon, that he may just pass for someone who knows what he is talking about. Unfortunately, he is just one big epic fail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by fearandloathing, posted 04-27-2011 10:13 AM fearandloathing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by fearandloathing, posted 04-27-2011 11:34 AM cavediver has not replied
 Message 141 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 04-27-2011 1:44 PM cavediver has replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4335 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 139 of 149 (613791)
04-27-2011 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by cavediver
04-27-2011 11:11 AM


Re: Relativity
I have muddled through enough of his stuff to agree with you completely.
I find it interesting that the final release of his book has been moved to July now, it was set for this month.
I firmly believe in an expanding universe, not one where black holes link to, as of yet undiscovered, white holes that spew out matter. If this was true it seems there would be some observations to support it.

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson
Ad astra per aspera

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by cavediver, posted 04-27-2011 11:11 AM cavediver has not replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 4158 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 140 of 149 (613799)
04-27-2011 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Oli
04-27-2011 9:37 AM


Re: Relativity
Oli writes:
Alfred Maddenstein writes:
Just saying that you do not see how anything fits together is not good at all, I am afraid.
Indeed, apologies.
From what I’ve read, Mayer's logic goes something like this:
1) Einstein did not properly understand Minkowski's idea of time in special relativity as a geometric effect.
2) So when Einstein worked out general relativity he didn't properly take these ideas into account. Mayer writes: A fundamental conceptual error occurred at the beginning of his quest to unify special relativity with accelerated reference frames.
3) Cosmological models based on GR are therefore flawed.
4) Mayer introduces cosmological latitude Ϛ: an angular parameter relative to any arbitrary point of observation in the Cosmos. The different values of Ϛ map out a circle, with the time directions everywhere perpendicular to it.
5) Comparing the rates of clocks at different values of Ϛ gives the cosmological redshift for light travelling between them.
My first problem is that 2 is just not true. As I understand it, the equivalence principle from which Einstein derived GR says that in a freely-falling laboratory in a small part of spacetime the laws of physics are those of special relativity. Mathematically, this means that in a small region around every point the geometry can be described exactly as in 1 (in an appropriate coordinate system). Minkowski’s spacetime is the foundation of GR.
Also, the quote in 2 reveals Mayer’s lack of understanding since special relativity has no problem dealing with accelerated reference frames.
Secondly, it is not made clear how 2 leads to 4, although I guess this kind of leap is ok if the conclusion is supported by experiment.
However, the book doesn’t give a metric for the proposed four dimensional spacetime in 4, or a lot of mathematical details about how this comes about. Only two dimensions are described. Also, it doesn’t reference the matter in the universe and how that justifies the chosen geometry. GR says that the matter and energy distribution of the universe results in curvature of spacetime. How does Mayer explain gravity if he’s not taking general relativity into account?
Oli
Well, the geometrical reasoning appears to me sound though whether that true or not finally may only be decided experimentally. He claims the geometry is bound to explain GPS satellites anomalies.
It seems that the anomalies still remain unexplained otherwise.
Also, the last time I checked what exactly was gravity nobody had a slightest clue. It appears to be an intrinsic aspect of motion just like time is, so that should be only natural if there found to be a geometrical parallelism between gravity and time.
Another consideration is that comparing his predictions and those of the standard model I checked the databases through the hyperlinks provided and if the standard model is not flawed but the guy is simply too stupid to realise its correctness, then how come his predictions fit the data so nicely while the correct model's are off the mark by several orders of magnitude?
Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : grammar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Oli, posted 04-27-2011 9:37 AM Oli has not replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 4158 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 141 of 149 (613800)
04-27-2011 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by cavediver
04-27-2011 11:11 AM


Re: Relativity
cavediver writes:
This is from one of Mayer's papers...
...and is complete bollocks, much like the rest of his site. Funny how he has no model to back this up, and no metric as Oli points out. This guy is so clueless, he doesn't even realise how the concept of a "black hole" arises. He thinks that as long as he can squeeze in enough buzz words and cool sounding jargon, that he may just pass for someone who knows what he is talking about. Unfortunately, he is just one big epic fail.
What he is suggesting was called Einstein-Rosen bridge the last time I checked

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by cavediver, posted 04-27-2011 11:11 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by fearandloathing, posted 04-27-2011 2:04 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied
 Message 143 by cavediver, posted 04-27-2011 2:32 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4335 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 142 of 149 (613802)
04-27-2011 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Alfred Maddenstein
04-27-2011 1:44 PM


Re: Relativity
Hi alf,
Where are the white holes? Where is there any data and observations to even support a model of one?? As far as I can find they are only theoretically possible, and cannot be formed through gravitational collapse.
If Mayer's model of the universe were true then there should be as many white holes as black holes, I think we should be able to observe one if he was right. Where is any evidence of one.
Edited by fearandloathing, : add content

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson
Ad astra per aspera

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 04-27-2011 1:44 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 04-27-2011 3:20 PM fearandloathing has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3834 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 143 of 149 (613805)
04-27-2011 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Alfred Maddenstein
04-27-2011 1:44 PM


Re: Relativity
What he is suggesting was called Einstein-Rosen bridge the last time I checked
The Einstein-Rosen Bridge is a specific cross-section of the Schwarzschild (and related) space-time(s) - and Mayer obviosuly doesn't have a Schwarzschild space-time as he has replaced General Relativity with something of his own making.
Furthermore, the Einstein-Rosen Bridge is purely space-like and is thus non-traversable - nothing can cross it from one-side to the other - it is merely an artifact of the space-time geometry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 04-27-2011 1:44 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 4158 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 144 of 149 (613812)
04-27-2011 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by fearandloathing
04-27-2011 2:04 PM


Re: Relativity
fearandloathing writes:
Hi alf,
Where are the white holes? Where is there any data and observations to even support a model of one?? As far as I can find they are only theoretically possible, and cannot be formed through gravitational collapse.
If Mayer's model of the universe were true then there should be as many white holes as black holes, I think we should be able to observe one if he was right. Where is any evidence of one.
Well, yes, but don't forget that to claim that black holes themselves are anything really observed is a contradiction in terms. Something or other is observed that via a few logical steps is interpreted to be black holes as they are currently conceived. Otherwise they are purely mathematical objects and if the premise behind the maths is wrong, the black holes may evaporate from the public imagination in a couple of decades.
Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : Grammar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by fearandloathing, posted 04-27-2011 2:04 PM fearandloathing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by fearandloathing, posted 04-27-2011 3:36 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 145 of 149 (613813)
04-27-2011 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Alfred Maddenstein
04-26-2011 1:10 AM


Re: Relativity
Alfred Maddenstein writes:
1) How do you mean? As I understand it, the theory clashes with the description of gravity on the solar scales as according to it most of the matter in the solar system is of the cold, dark and undetectable kind. Or is the Solar System an exception to the homogeneousness rule so unlike anywhere else the dark matter is absent in it? Or maybe the Milky Way is an exception?
This is wrong. The universe is clearly not homogeneous on a solar system, galaxy, or galactic cluster sized scale. Observationally, the effects of dark matter show up on a galactic scale scale but not on a solar system scale. This observation is not inconsistent with the scale on which the universe is thought to be homogeneous, i.e., somewhere beyond super cluster size.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 04-26-2011 1:10 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4335 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 146 of 149 (613814)
04-27-2011 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Alfred Maddenstein
04-27-2011 3:20 PM


Re: Relativity
Alfred Maddenstein writes:
fearandloathing writes:
Hi alf,
Where are the white holes? Where is there any data and observations to even support a model of one?? As far as I can find they are only theoretically possible, and cannot be formed through gravitational collapse.
If Mayer's model of the universe were true then there should be as many white holes as black holes, I think we should be able to observe one if he was right. Where is any evidence of one.
Well, yes, but don't forget that to claim that black holes themselves are anything really observed is a contradiction in terms. Something or other is observed that via a few logical steps is interpreted to be black holes as they are currently conceived. Otherwise they are purely mathematical objects and if the premise behind the maths is wrong, the black holes may evaporate from the public imagination in a couple of decades.
It seems you are avoiding my question, where is there evidence of white holes?
Mayer's model of the universe depends on white holes if it is to be stable,with no beginning and no end. How else would matter be recycled into new matter for new stars ect...Without this feature of his model then, as I see it, eventually the universe would run out of energy and end in a cold death.
If the math that supports black holes is wrong, then his model is also wrong.
Black holes are observable trough their interaction with the observable...ie stars ect...

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson
Ad astra per aspera

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 04-27-2011 3:20 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 04-27-2011 3:54 PM fearandloathing has replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 4158 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 147 of 149 (613818)
04-27-2011 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by fearandloathing
04-27-2011 3:36 PM


Re: Relativity
fearandloathing writes:
Alfred Maddenstein writes:
fearandloathing writes:
Hi alf,
Where are the white holes? Where is there any data and observations to even support a model of one?? As far as I can find they are only theoretically possible, and cannot be formed through gravitational collapse.
If Mayer's model of the universe were true then there should be as many white holes as black holes, I think we should be able to observe one if he was right. Where is any evidence of one.
Well, yes, but don't forget that to claim that black holes themselves are anything really observed is a contradiction in terms. Something or other is observed that via a few logical steps is interpreted to be black holes as they are currently conceived. Otherwise they are purely mathematical objects and if the premise behind the maths is wrong, the black holes may evaporate from the public imagination in a couple of decades.
It seems you are avoiding my question, where is there evidence of white holes?
Mayer's model of the universe depends on white holes if it is to be stable,with no beginning and no end. How else would matter be recycled into new matter for new stars ect...Without this feature of his model then, as I see it, eventually the universe would run out of energy and end in a cold death.
If the math that supports black holes is wrong, then his model is also wrong.
Black holes are observable trough their interaction with the observable...ie stars ect...
Well, he proposes AGN of Seyfert galaxy NGC 1068 as an example of what a white hole is. Otherwise, yes, that is what he claims- the current maths behind black holes as they are currently conceived is skewed, he says.
The interaction with the stars is far from being anything direct. That is nothing like watching my tea-kettle boil I am engaged in right now.
Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : grammar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by fearandloathing, posted 04-27-2011 3:36 PM fearandloathing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by fearandloathing, posted 04-27-2011 4:11 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4335 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 148 of 149 (613822)
04-27-2011 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Alfred Maddenstein
04-27-2011 3:54 PM


Re: Relativity
The interaction with the stars is far from being anything direct. That is nothing like watching my tea-kettle boil I am engaged in right now.
How are the observations made with Hubble and Chandra not direct?
current maths behind black holes as they are currently conceived is skewed, he says.
Please explain how they are skewed?

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson
Ad astra per aspera

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 04-27-2011 3:54 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13100
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 149 of 149 (613824)
04-27-2011 4:15 PM


I have removed Alfred Maddenstein's posting permissions in the Big Bang and Cosmology forum. Alfred has submitted a thread proposal over at Proposed New Topics, and I will restore his posting permissions as soon as his proposal is promoted.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024