The New Cosmology of Mr. Mayer

[Copied from our private exchange]White holes do have a history of being thought to be behind a number of astrophysical phenomena: gamma ray bursters, active galactic nuclei (AGN) engines, quasar engines, etc. The trouble is defining what is meant by a white-hole. They first appear in the maximally extended Schwarzschild black hole solution, and are paired with a black hole. BUT, stuff does not flow into the black hole to appear at the white hole. Quite the opposite, the stuff falling into the black hole hits the future singularity (which lies in the future!) and the white hole is "fed" by the past singularity, which unsurprisingly lies in the past.Even then, this is the extended solution, which is primarily mathematical in nature, and it is difficult to conceive of this occuring in nature. The black holes formed by gravitational collapse are not maximally extended and do not have the past singularity and the past event horizons of the white hole.Alfred discussing Mayer suggests a black hole connected to a white hole by the Einstein-Rosen bridge wormhole. This "wormhole" is again a feature of the maximally extended solution, not the astrophysical blach hole. And it essentially connects two black holes together, not a black hole to a white hole. And it is non-traversable in that it is a "space-like" connection, so that nothing travelling at c or below can cross it.Finally, black holes and white holes and Einstein-Rosen bridges are not things to be described in words. They are precise mathematical features of the black hole solutions to General Relativity. As soon as you leave GR, these terms become essentially meaningless unless you can use alternative mathematics to demonstrate that you have similar features in your own model. Mayer certainly does not have anywhere close to that level of mathematical detail of his "ideas", so is essentially talking nonsense. Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic content.

Mayer writes: And? This is simply what happens in the FLRW solutions to the Einstein Equation of General Relativity. Simply quoting what happens is hardly ground-breaking...

I'm sorry, but Mayer doesn't even begin to understand the nature of metrics, as is blatently obvious from his website and the quote you have provided. Therefore, any conclusion he makes is doomed to be nonsense save for fortuitous chance. That he thinks that his quoted obseravtion suggest something different to FLRW simply speaks to his complete cluelessness of space-time physics.

quote:

---

"...Irrespective of any relative motion, the greater the distance to a galaxy is, the larger the component of its time axis projected onto the radial space dimension: time becomes space."

---

It is precisely this projection of the time-component of a distance galaxy's 4-velocity onto the local radial space dimension that gives rise to observed red-shift *and* recession. They are one and the same unified concept: time does indeed become space; passage through time becomes passage through space; passage through space is velocity.And if you are willing to discuss metrics, then how can you possibly question so unbelievingly the possibility of the expansion of space? The most obvious thing in the world is the jump from Minkwoski's:ds² = - dt² + dx² + dy² +dz²to the curved space-time physics of:ds² = - A(t,x,y,z)dt² + B(t,x,y,z)dx² + C(t,x,y,z)dy² +D(t,x,y,z)dz²Einstein's journey of discovery was simply to find what restrictions are placed upon the functions A(), B(), C(), and D().

For as long as you demand that the Universe conform to your own prosaic understanding of what is logical and sensible, you will remain utterly ignorant. Those of us who have devoted much of our lives to understanding the Universe, long ago learnt to let go of all presuppositions and let the Universe itself dictate its characteristics without interference from our ignorance. You would do well to do likewise.Do you even understand how General Relativity gives rise to the possibility of an expanding Universe, independent of any hypothetical "nothingness" that according to you surrounds it? And perhaps you could explain how "nothingness" can somehow transcend its own "nothingness" to gain the ability to "surround"?

Is Mayer really so stupid as to not realise that this exactly what happens in the Standard Model of cosmology???His (and consequently your) whole hang-up on this supposed "absolute time" of standard comsology is a complete brain failure on his part - there is no "absolute time", all the time vectors do point in different directions, and time-dilation is very much observed in the distant galaxies and quasars. All of this very much implies expansion - it does not negate it

So please explain why Mayer is presenting his time dilated observation of the Universe as something new

I have taught this repeatedly as this exactly the situation in General Relativity and more specifically in cosmology. I think you mean "observed rates", but yes this is correct. This is also true. Are you refering to the Horizon problem here? There isn't. But there is a special set of frames of reference within which the elapsed time since the Big Bang is maximised, and this maximum value is consistent across these frames of reference. Yes, but only in that "reverse direction" is just an artefact of the 3d embedding of your picture of a 4d Universe. A stake in the ground in the UK points up. A similar stake in the ground in New Zealand also points up, although the two stakes are pointing in close to opposite directions. And here you simply fail. Your inability to do as Minkowski instructed and to view the Universe from its true 4d perspective is what is blinding you. The Universe is static, the Universe just is, and is all existence as a constant. BUT ONLY WHEN VIEWED IN 4D. The expansion of the Universe is equivalent to the expansion of the Earth as one travels down from the North Pole to the equator. If you cannot view time as just another dimension, you will never undestand this.

No, you have missed the whole point. Almost everything that Mayer claims is revolutionary 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. Yes, Alfred, I will follow your guidance despite you having read a few books, where as I have devoted much of my life to this subject. I'm sure that will work out just fine

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.

but you know nothing about the subject matter, so that is irrelevant