Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The New Cosmology of Mr. Mayer
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 1 of 90 (614539)
04-27-2011 2:38 PM


I was being relegated to here in order to discuss something I am currently..well, it could be said obsessed about. That is both new and business as usual for me. It's, on the one hand, quite an ordinary thing for me to get passionate at some irregular intervals about something or other, though being that selfish bastard that I am, any one else's ideas had never really been the object of my passion. Well, at least not in this way.
I mean, of course, I've loved dozen of remarkable names with their wonderful mental achievements but never in the way as to want to share their lights with others. Shakespeare, Nicholas of Cusa or Schopenhauer are supreme but if any one is not remotely interested in anything they had to say what do I care?
Then again those are all established luminaries so their luminosity may have all the propping from countless other people with or without me. Anything casting a doubt on their greatness could be trumped with plenty of sources and authorities right on the spot. For example, my compatriot Leo Tolstoy wrote a pamphlet "proving" that Shakespeare was just a pretentious punster. Tolstoy's reasoning was rather sound within the limits of his own logic yet I may disagree and Orwell with countless others would back up my point.
So that might be an explanation to the difference in my attitude here. In Shakespeare's case, giving support is taking the safest bet, I am taking no risks so the whole thing is way too bland for me to be interested.
Whereas with Mayer the situation is entirely different; he is the guy whose mind strikes me to be of a very fine calibre, the fellow is full of ambition and he dreams of being a new..well, he goes to Jagielonian university in Cracow with his presentations so it must be Copernicus. He proposes a new model of the universe which if proven to be correct may validate such a dream though right now he is taken for a crank and as things go might even die a crackpot. He is not too old but change might be slow so you never know.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 04-27-2011 4:12 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 90 (614540)
04-27-2011 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Alfred Maddenstein
04-27-2011 2:38 PM


Hi Alfred,
Thank you for submitting this thread proposal. Could you please flesh it out a bit with an outline of what Mayer is proposing? Feel free to cut-n-paste from your early messages, click on your name for a list of all the threads you've participated in thus far. Once you're in a thread you'll see a link under your name saying "Alfred Maddenstein's posts only". Click on that and it should make the job easy.
I'm not sure what the problem is, but I thought I was clear that I wasn't happy that you were introducing Mayer's ideas into multiple threads on other topics. Since you continued posting anyway in the How did round planets form from the explosion of the Big Bang? and The accelerating expanding universe threads I've temporarily removed your posting permissions in the Big Bang and Cosmology forum. I will restore them as soon as this thread proposal is accepted and promoted.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 04-27-2011 2:38 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 05-01-2011 9:00 AM Admin has replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 3 of 90 (614541)
05-01-2011 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
04-27-2011 4:12 PM


Admin writes:
Hi Alfred,
Thank you for submitting this thread proposal. Could you please flesh it out a bit with an outline of what Mayer is proposing? Feel free to cut-n-paste from your early messages, click on your name for a list of all the threads you've participated in thus far. Once you're in a thread you'll see a link under your name saying "Alfred Maddenstein's posts only". Click on that and it should make the job easy.
I'm not sure what the problem is, but I thought I was clear that I wasn't happy that you were introducing Mayer's ideas into multiple threads on other topics. Since you continued posting anyway in the How did round planets form from the explosion of the Big Bang? and The accelerating expanding universe threads I've temporarily removed your posting permissions in the Big Bang and Cosmology forum. I will restore them as soon as this thread proposal is accepted and promoted.
But why should you be so unhappy with that? That forum does not seem to be particularly active. Since I've been gone no new activity could be detected so even if I derailed the train of forum's thought off any topics, it was the derailment of a slow train indeed. It rather looked like no topics were much discussed at all. I hope no passenger bones have been broken.
As to the question of Alexander Franklin Mayer..well, let's say I am investigating the phenomenon and its aspects. What strikes me is the glaring gap between my own assessment of the man's achievements and the level of interest they currently generate.
That is, I want to find out whether I am a moron to hold something almost completely ignored in such a high esteem.
So, in a way, the issue for me to settle is who is foolish here. Myself or the venerated opinion of the many.
I propose that the thread should be copied into Is it science? forum for the opinion I have heard repeatedly is that the man is a worthless amateur in astrophysics having next to no peer-reviewed papers published and so on.
You ask me to give an outline of the theory. I must say that I am not sure I am the best person to do that as my translation of his ideas would necessarily be a very free one giving a somewhat wrong impression of his style. Which though not dry and jargon-laden by any means is quite matter-of-fact and investigative.
The best way is to hear it from the horse's mouth and judge for oneself.
The model is called MdR and that it because it is derived from the ideas of Minkowski, de Sitter and Riemann and in a nutshell is proposing that time should be considered in strictly geometrical terms. Space and time are strictly equivalent and mutually convertible measures with light expressing the constant ratio of the conversion. That is the reason why its velocity is not a variable and why no deviation in its measure is physically possible. That precludes any acceleration, inflation or expansion of the standard model. Geometrically time is strictly orthogonal to space. Thus if time and space are assumed to be an infinite circle, in such analogy the spatial part of the mixture could be taken to be the area of the circle and the temporal its circumference. If a radius is drawn from any of the points on the infinite circumference that should represent one of the infinity of the possible directions of time. Time is understood to be local necessarily.
The phenomenon of time dilation is taken to have a much wider significance than it is currently understood and in practical terms its manifestations are taken not to be limited to acceleration and deceleration of bodies involving local and relatively short distances.
For if any change in velocity is a reciprocal contacting and dilating of a distance and a time, then a sufficiently long distance on a cosmic scale is itself bound to produce exactly the same effect on the respective scale without any acceleration or deceleration involved.
Which may imply that on the universal scale the rates of processes, otherwise known as ageing are inversely proportionate to the distance to the observer. There could be no universal rate to the passing of time possible and the idea that a common clock may show a time the whole universe should agree on as it is proposed in the Big Bang model is incorrect. There may be the two rates of ageing to any object in cosmos- intrinsic and apparent at a distance. Any two observers at a close distance from each other would find that their intrinsic and apparent rates of ageing should roughly coincide in each other's estimation, yet any spatial distance between them may create a divergence in the respective reading of the two rates. At close distances that difference of rates may be ever so slight and practically negligible, yet the discrepancy between the two readings may grow as a function of distance and on the scale of billions of light years may become ever so great necessarily.
If instead of a circle the space and time relation is modelled as a sphere, then there is a parallelism between time and gravity. Time-lines may be then understood to be similar to gravity vectors in respect to the surface of the earth. Just like there is no gravity at the very centre of the earth's mass where all the vectors coincide, the sum of all times in the universe is agelessness necessarily. Mayer puts it beautifully and concisely saying in one of his papers that the universe is the physical manifestation of eternity.
Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : Grammar and style
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Lots more blank lines.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 04-27-2011 4:12 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Admin, posted 05-04-2011 7:05 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied
 Message 6 by Admin, posted 05-04-2011 7:20 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied
 Message 7 by Larni, posted 05-05-2011 5:24 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 05-05-2011 12:43 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 4 of 90 (614543)
05-04-2011 7:03 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the The New Cosmology of Mr. Mayer thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 5 of 90 (614544)
05-04-2011 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Alfred Maddenstein
05-01-2011 9:00 AM


If a productive discussion develops I'll leave this here in the Is It Science? forum, and if not I'll move it to the Free For All forum.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 05-01-2011 9:00 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 6 of 90 (614550)
05-04-2011 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Alfred Maddenstein
05-01-2011 9:00 AM


Your posting permissions in the Big Bang and Cosmology forum have been restored, please respect the topic.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 05-01-2011 9:00 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 7 of 90 (614575)
05-05-2011 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Alfred Maddenstein
05-01-2011 9:00 AM


Can I clarify that one of your points is that time passes at differing rates depending on how far away two points are?
Can you show me some maths for that?

Jesus Saves! The rest of the party take full damage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 05-01-2011 9:00 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 05-05-2011 1:03 PM Larni has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 8 of 90 (614615)
05-05-2011 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Alfred Maddenstein
05-01-2011 9:00 AM


Does Mayer's theory differ from general relativity in its predictions of the effects of a spinning object on the geometry of space?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 05-01-2011 9:00 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 05-05-2011 1:34 PM Percy has replied
 Message 13 by fearandloathing, posted 05-05-2011 3:09 PM Percy has replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 9 of 90 (614618)
05-05-2011 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Larni
05-05-2011 5:24 AM


Larni writes:
Can I clarify that one of your points is that time passes at differing rates depending on how far away two points are?
Can you show me some maths for that?
Well, yes, that is one of the main tenets of the theory. Now without understanding the basis this conclusion is built upon first the actual maths may not tell you anything.
In the book he is introducing some new concepts the equations are reflecting so it may be necessary to grasp those novelties first before examining the maths.
He is talking, for example, about the cosmological latitudes and cosmological redshift horizon and the formula for the differing rates of processes in cosmos describes the relation between the observer and the observed as a function of distance.
The map of cosmos he has drawn assumes Milky Way to be positioned right on the pole of the hypersphere. Any latitude below 90 degree is beyond the visible horizon which is similar to region south of the terrestrial equator with the difference that the pole, the equator and the antipodes are perfectly relative and arbitrary since the map is the space-time globe where any two observers may exchange any information inside one hemisphere only . Any place in the universe would have those relative to itself but the cosmic radius and the distance from the visibility horizon may be the same anywhere.
His idea is that the Minkowski geometry implying an infinity of spatial planes with each plane having its unique proper time that is strictly orthogonal to the plane necessitates different readings of clock rates as a function of distance and that beyond the horizon time may flow in reverse, yet experientially it would feel exactly the same similar to the mundane experience of gravity by the folks down under.
In his own words:
"Measurement of photon frequency is fundamentally associated with time measurement. Let the photon have the natural frequency f0 as measured by an ideal clock 1 in its emission rest frame. If, from the perspective of a remote observer's local ideal clock 2, a relativistic phenomenon causes clock 2 to record time faster in comparison to clock 1, then according to clock the same number of cycles in a periodic process is counted in a greater amount of time. Accordingly, the apparent emission frequency f of the photon in reference to clock 2 is lower than its natural frequency f0 as measured by clock 1 in proportion to the clock differential. Consequently, when the photon of natural emitted frequency actually arrives at the remote location of the clock 2, it is physically measured by clock 2 to have the lower frequency."
What he means is that time dilation is a ubiquitous phenomenon unrelated to relative velocities and is an inevitable natural consequence of the space-time geometry itself.
If you want to check all the maths for that in detail, that is plain to see on page 28 of the dissertation that is free to download at jaypritzker.org
Though as I said it is better to be absorbed step by step from the very beginning and from the horse's mouth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Larni, posted 05-05-2011 5:24 AM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 05-05-2011 1:29 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 10 of 90 (614623)
05-05-2011 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Alfred Maddenstein
05-05-2011 1:03 PM


In the quote it clearly states that the difference is due to a relativistic phenomenon affecting clock 2 relative to clock 1.
So I guess you must have chosen the wrong quote. The one you have is only talking about relativistic red-shift, nothing more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 05-05-2011 1:03 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Oli, posted 05-05-2011 6:41 PM PaulK has replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 11 of 90 (614625)
05-05-2011 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Percy
05-05-2011 12:43 PM


Percy writes:
Does Mayer's theory differ from general relativity in its predictions of the effects of a spinning object on the geometry of space?
--Percy
Well, first as far as rotation is concerned, as I understand it there is a difference in his treatment of excess radius. Otherwise, the theory assumes that space-time itself rotates, so to speak, or rather the co-ordinates do, with the space being gradually transformed into time in the direction away from the observer resulting in the proportionate dimming of the distant objects.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 05-05-2011 12:43 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 05-05-2011 2:19 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 12 of 90 (614630)
05-05-2011 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Alfred Maddenstein
05-05-2011 1:34 PM


I can't tell if that's a yes or a no.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 05-05-2011 1:34 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 05-05-2011 3:45 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 29 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 05-08-2011 6:59 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 13 of 90 (614643)
05-05-2011 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Percy
05-05-2011 12:43 PM


Percy writes:
Does Mayer's theory differ from general relativity in its predictions of the effects of a spinning object on the geometry of space?
--Percy
Hi Percy,
Don't know if you have seen this
It dose not answer your question, but it does support general relativity.

"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 8 by Percy, posted 05-05-2011 12:43 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 05-05-2011 3:19 PM fearandloathing has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 14 of 90 (614647)
05-05-2011 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by fearandloathing
05-05-2011 3:09 PM


I hadn't seen that particular article, but yes, that's the recent news that prompted the question. I'm curious whether Mayer's theory makes any predictions that would differentiate it from general relativity.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by fearandloathing, posted 05-05-2011 3:09 PM fearandloathing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by fearandloathing, posted 05-05-2011 3:36 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 15 of 90 (614650)
05-05-2011 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Percy
05-05-2011 3:19 PM


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.
I find this interesting, as far as I can tell, it is accepted that white holes cannot be formed by gravitational collapse, if there are any then they would be remnants of the big bang. If this is true then Mayer cannot be right. There should be evidence of white holes in the same proportion as black holes if you believe Mayer, yet there is no evidence of them, they are only theoretically possible.
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 14 by Percy, posted 05-05-2011 3:19 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by cavediver, posted 05-06-2011 4:02 AM fearandloathing 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