Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The New Cosmology of Mr. Mayer
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3966 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 76 of 90 (615333)
05-12-2011 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by cavediver
05-12-2011 5:11 AM


cavediver writes:
Well, I would agree to the extent that, yes, indeed the Big Bang theory is in a blatant contradiction with the most elementary relativity and Mayer is doing nothing more than pointing out all which is under every one's nose.
No, you have missed the whole point. Almost everything that Mayer is claiming as revolutionary and his own discovery is just basic relativity. Why would he do this unless he is either a liar or just completely confused by relativity. I strongly suspect the latter, but then you never know. And you are simply following the blind, liking what you hear but having far too little knowledge and experience to discern its credibility.
Not my impression at all. His ideas about relativity seem to be crystal-clear. He is correcting errors exactly where I see them too. Otherwise, you might just as well say that Galileo and Newton are all the relativity any one needs while Einstein and Minkowsi are redundant. That is true but not quite. Mayer is making predictions that may stand unless refuted.
He is claiming to explain the anomalies not modelled by the existing theory. If you know how to explain them yourself, then where is your Nobel prize?
To be taken seriously by me you'd need also to substantiate and explain why his formulas match digital sky survey data while those derived from the Hubble constant do not. You'd need to send me your enlightened refutation analysing the mistakes that you allege are in the dissertation blow by blow.
Otherwise, I may suspect that you are trying to trivialise something that is too hard nut for you to refute.
Come on, Cavediver, do you homework. Trivialising out of hand what threatens you may not work. You need to demonstrate that it is indeed trivial first.
Talking about errors, well, of course, I would love more experience just like you said, still what I have already is more than enough to see that the concept of the infinite point-mass the current idea of black holes and singularities is based on was a mathematical howler.
Point is an abstract representation of absolute rest that may have no physical existence and no use other in making maps of reality. It may not exist on its own but only in the dialectical opposition to a line or plane. The error is in attributing such an abstraction the possibility of a concrete existence.
Absolute rest of a dimensionless point not existing on its own other than an abstraction leads to the conclusion that a point set in motion acquires all the dimensions necessarily. Straight line is a point in motion, point is a straight line at rest. Further on, the line itself is not the territory but a map only so the same dialectical opposition persists. Straight line is circle at rest, circle is straight line in motion. Circle is again not quite the territory, it is still a map existing on paper only while only the sphere is physical, since only the sphere is possessing all the dimensions of the real motion. Thus it is clear that finally dimensionless point is but sphere at rest and sphere is point in motion while motion and rest do not exist on their own but only in dialectical opposition to each other. They are mutually implied. If that is properly understood it becomes abundantly clear that all the singularities and black holes as they are currently conceived may exist on paper only and ascribing to them any concrete physical reality is taking the map for the territory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by cavediver, posted 05-12-2011 5:11 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by cavediver, posted 05-13-2011 4:07 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3966 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 77 of 90 (615347)
05-12-2011 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Oli
05-10-2011 6:00 PM


Oli writes:
Alfred Maddenstein writes:
Do you believe the process that is the Universe behaves physically like a Hilbert hotel?
That's an interesting analogy. Yes, since every galaxy is moving away from every other galaxy. Although the universe might not be infinite in extent, and the number of points in space between each galaxy is uncountably infinite...
Why do you believe that Hilbert's reasoning is valid in spatial terms and not temporal?
It depends who is looking at the universe. In the frame of reference of observers stationary with respect to the galaxies, space is expanding.
But for observers in another frame of reference, some of the time appears to become space and some of the expanding space becomes time, so that I guess they observe some time expansion as well as the spatial expansion.
That makes your point about the elements that should need a certain time to be formed redundant and meaningless.
The point was that there is a lot of Hydrogen and Helium in the universe, but stars are constantly burning these elements into heavier ones. If the universe had been around forever, wouldn't most of the Hydrogen and Helium already have been burnt up?
Would be very nice though if Hilbert's reasoning applied to orgasms.
Oh dear
Oli
That reasoning is taking for granted that everything started burning up at once so it must end simultaneously too. In this flawed concept of infinity forever is long, long straight line which it may be not.
If at once is understood to be not absolute but universally relative the issue may disappear. The Local Group of Galaxies is likely to be quadrillions years of age yet that figure may not mean anything universally.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Oli, posted 05-10-2011 6:00 PM Oli has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 78 of 90 (615500)
05-13-2011 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Alfred Maddenstein
05-12-2011 10:20 AM


Not my impression at all.
but you know nothing about the subject matter, so that is irrelevant

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 05-12-2011 10:20 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 05-13-2011 5:26 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3966 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 79 of 90 (615508)
05-13-2011 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by cavediver
05-12-2011 5:11 AM


cavediver writes:
Well, I would agree to the extent that, yes, indeed the Big Bang theory is in a blatant contradiction with the most elementary relativity and Mayer is doing nothing more than pointing out all which is under every one's nose.
No, you have missed the whole point. Almost everything that Mayer is claiming as revolutionary and his own discovery is just basic relativity. Why would he do this unless he is either a liar or just completely confused by relativity. I strongly suspect the latter, but then you never know. And you are simply following the blind, liking what you hear but having far too little knowledge and experience to discern its credibility.
Also in a previous post you claimed that everything that Mayer's theory implies you have already been teaching your students. That is a strange suggestion. Either you personally break the uniformity in the relativity teaching or I must be missing something.
For, me and my cat, we've got a few textbooks on the subject to go by in our comparative judgement and to give us an idea of what is being generally taught.
We've diligently ploughed through the books finding that all of them are listing two cases of time dilation only instead of three suggested by the new theory. No source is stating the multi-directional time geometry you said was so trivial that you were teaching it already for years demonstrating that there is no hung-up in our attitude to the flat, linear, anti-relativistic time in the canonical cosmology but such is the concept of time inherent in it.
Just one description from a typical textbook summing it all up nicely and without ambiguity:
"If a space is isotropic then it homogeneous. Likewise, if it isotropic around one point and also homogeneous, it will be isotropic around all points. Since there is ample observational evidence for isotropy and the Copernican principle would have us believe that we are not the centre of the universe and therefore observers elsewhere should also observe isotropy, we will henceforth assume both homogeneity and isotropy.
There is one catch. When we look at distant galaxies, they appear to be receding from us; the universe is apparently not static but changing with time.
Therefore we begin construction of cosmological models with the idea that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic in space but not in time.
In general relativity this translates into the statement that the universe can be foliated into spacelike slices, such that each slice is homogeneous and isotropic."
Further on, the author writes:
"The function (a)t is known as the scale factor and it tells us how big is the spacelike slice at the moment t. The coordinates used here in which the metric is free of cross terms dt dui and the spacelike components are proportional TO A SINGLE FACTOR t. " emphasis added by myself.
Nothing here is remotely resembling any reciprocal time dilation as a function of distance. The idea is clearly that the space slices representing the entirety of the universe at any particular moment grow in time and the growth accumulates along a single straight time line. Space spreads wider and wider as the time passes is the anti-relativist concept apparent in the textbook's description. The implication of the clock ticking at the same rate at any point on the slice is inescapable too.
If that single straight time-line is run in the opposite direction, the slices are implied to gradually shrink in size until they reach the size of a single point at the time zero.
Do you want to say that is not what you are teaching your students?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by cavediver, posted 05-12-2011 5:11 AM cavediver has not replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3966 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 80 of 90 (615511)
05-13-2011 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by cavediver
05-13-2011 4:07 PM


cavediver writes:
Not my impression at all.
but you know nothing about the subject matter, so that is irrelevant
Well, I may be as ignorant about the subject matter as you suggest but you are reckoning without my cat who is an extremely learned feline. When I have any trouble with maths I always consult him and he knows how to translate the most complex equation into the plainest piece of purring.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by cavediver, posted 05-13-2011 4:07 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3966 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 81 of 90 (633877)
09-16-2011 10:51 PM


Reflections after this while
I wonder now why I should have bothered at all about any of that? Why would I need to share any unconventional directions of thought? One thing is certain and this is that the current LCDM model is not a correct description of reality. Not a true model of the universal process. On the other hand the level of absurdity in an explanation is not any reflection of the practical uselessness of a model. BBT is not much worse than Ptolemaic cosmology in that respect - both describe and predict a lot so both may serve their fleeting purpose well.
I might just as well leave people alone to believe what they want to believe.
Be sure of myself and my own reason, not be in any need of any outside confirmation to the ideas that have an intrinsic explanatory power anyway. Be satisfied with that power of explanation only and not be bothered whether the explanation is tested to be confirmed or not. Let it roll the way it will. That's what my cat is telling me now.

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-18-2011 12:03 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied
 Message 84 by Larni, posted 09-18-2011 1:01 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


(1)
Message 82 of 90 (634034)
09-18-2011 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-16-2011 10:51 PM


Re: Reflections after this while
Well Alfred I can just say that I have really enjoyed reading everything you have posted here on this subject. Its rare to find someone who can so eloquently challenge the status-quo of the pack mentality. From what I understand you are doing so in a language that isn't even your native tongue. That's a noble feat.
That someone like this guy cavediver, who is supposedly dealing with a subject he has spent a long time thinking about, seems incapable of even writing one single paragraph of reasoned reply and dissection of your challenges, and instead spends his time throwing his hands up in the air in anemic dismissal says as much about the strength of your words as it does the flaccid words of his. If this was what I spent my entire life working on, and those were the best answers I could offer, I wouldn't feel too proud.
It is my observation that when someone claims they can't explain a subject coherently to others simply because they claim it is out of the realm of others to understand-what they are really saying is that that can't grasp it themselves and thus are incapable of verbalizing it.
It is so much easier to just claim its all in the numbers, without being able to demonstrate anything. Whatever ideas exist in the world can either be explained with words and demonstrations absent of made up symbols that can't be articulated (magic numbers) or it is simply a parlor game and has nothing to do with truth.
Thanks for your great thoughtful posts.
Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-16-2011 10:51 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by crashfrog, posted 09-18-2011 12:32 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 83 of 90 (634037)
09-18-2011 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Bolder-dash
09-18-2011 12:03 PM


Re: Reflections after this while
Just for our edification, Dash, do you think you could quickly describe what you think Maddenstein is trying to say?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-18-2011 12:03 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 84 of 90 (634039)
09-18-2011 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-16-2011 10:51 PM


Re: Reflections after this while
It seems to me that Mayer is pointing out what physicists already know.
You even have a physicist telling you that: where is the beef?

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-16-2011 10:51 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-18-2011 4:51 PM Larni has replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3966 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 85 of 90 (634050)
09-18-2011 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Larni
09-18-2011 1:01 PM


Re: Reflections after this while
Larni, if they already know that as you contend they seem to keep the knowledge a well-guarded secret.
But if you refer to Crankdriver's statement in the thread where he claimed to have been teaching the same relativity and the same idea of time dilation as Mayer proposes...well, I analysed Crankdriver's contention finding it completely unfounded.
There is a crucial difference: in Mayer's model to any observer wielding Crankdriver's theoretical tools while watching the Milky Way from a region of high redshift, the Milky Way may appear to be reciprocally younger irrespective of its intrinsic age. Whereas in Crankdriver's cosmology there are no possible conscious observers at a redshft that is high from our point view as the galaxies there are assumed to be intrinsically younger. The galaxies there are assumed to be inhabiting the lifeless baby universe. Life is not supposed to have developed there to result in any possible conscious observers as yet. Crankdriver's model assumes galaxy evolution as a function of redshift, Mayer's does not. Vast difference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Larni, posted 09-18-2011 1:01 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Larni, posted 09-18-2011 6:21 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 86 of 90 (634058)
09-18-2011 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-18-2011 4:51 PM


Re: Reflections after this while
Lawd abav!
None ov that reaches da critical Gary Nevel ov eighteen pence what allows me ter see where da itchy teef is.
But i' is late so I'll 'ave anuvver 'ry when I've got some kip.
Sorted mate, be lucky!

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-18-2011 4:51 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-18-2011 7:20 PM Larni has replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3966 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 87 of 90 (634064)
09-18-2011 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Larni
09-18-2011 6:21 PM


Re: Reflections after this while
Thank you, Larni, for demonstrating your proficiency in British dialects and soccer. Maybe you should stick to pub discussions of the game with your mates? To stating your opinions as to what is new on the pitch and what is not and leaving judging what is new in Mr. Mayer's cosmology and what is known to everyone already to those who actually took the trouble to read his exposition of his ideas for themselves?
It's a free country though and you can always try again and hear it from the horse's mouth:
http://www.jaypritzker.org/

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Larni, posted 09-18-2011 6:21 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Panda, posted 09-18-2011 7:37 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied
 Message 89 by Larni, posted 09-19-2011 3:25 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 88 of 90 (634065)
09-18-2011 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-18-2011 7:20 PM


Re: Reflections after this while
Larni writes:
None ov that reaches da critical Gary Nevel ov eighteen pence what allows me ter see where da itchy teef is.
Alfred Maddenstein writes:
Thank you, Larni, for demonstrating your proficiency in British dialects and soccer. Maybe you should stick to pub discussions of the game with your mates?
lol.
Thanks for demonstrating your lack of proficiency.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR
Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-18-2011 7:20 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 89 of 90 (634086)
09-19-2011 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-18-2011 7:20 PM


Re: Reflections after this while
My point was that I did not understand what you had written and that I would have another go after I slept.
Nothing to do with football or the pub: just another layered, sideways irreverent comment on the delusion of comprehension some posters display.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-18-2011 7:20 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-19-2011 4:04 AM Larni has not replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3966 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 90 of 90 (634090)
09-19-2011 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Larni
09-19-2011 3:25 AM


Re: Reflections after this while
Not that understood your post either apart from a reference to a footballer that is a staple pub fare which was not certain anyway as the name is spelled differently.
As to the delusions of comprehension.. that is a moot point again..it was you who claimed to comprehend definitely the level of novelty or its absence in Mayer's theory. I take it your claim was second-hand opinion based on what Crankdriver had said in one his posts. Hence my recommendation to read the original source.
If you did that to begin with, then I guess my last post might have seemed to you much less obscure.
Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : omitted word

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Larni, posted 09-19-2011 3:25 AM Larni has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024