|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 52 (9219 total) |
| |
swooptaxi | |
Total: 920,755 Year: 1,077/6,935 Month: 358/719 Week: 146/204 Day: 23/15 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Ruling out an expanding universe with conventional proofs | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
In short, the apparent sizes of distant galaxies and clusters are compared to the predictions of lambda-CDM. It is further demonstrated that the theory underestimates the size of distant clusters by up to 15,000% with respect to observations. Maybe you measured the sizes wrong?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
while the big bang theory is off by up to 15,000% How do you know that you calculated the sizes correctly for the Big Bang Theory?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
How does that tell you that the numbers you got for the Big Band Theory, the ones that were 15,000% off, were the right numbers according to the theory?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
(or publish it as two individual papers) What's so bad about that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
From Message 67:
Finally I took the average size and range of local ones as a reference, then plugged them into each model via their angular scale predictions. How do you know that the sizes that you think the model predicted were correct?
The two parts are interdependent and the central discussion would be lost. The central discussion could have just referenced the two parts.
So my goal right now is to get as much internet traffic so that the paper is at least visible while I work things out. Do you think this was a good idea?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Well, it seems like they've already solved the faint blue galaxy problem. It looks like you're failing to take into consideration that "update" to the Big Band Theory, and that's leading you to the excessive error of 15000%.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Particles are excitations of the field in QFT. Why do the fields get excited?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The fields contain a certain amount of energy, the energy they started with due to the big bang. Is there another way for the fields to "get" the energy besides from the Big Bang?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to reply.
Oh, if you don't mind: When does it start getting to atoms of matter? Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
That is so awesome. Thanks again for taking the time to write it. It actually makes sense and I feel like I've got a lot more understanding now. It was neat to imagine it coming together from the other side... that is, rather than thinking from the macro level down into the individual atom and proton level.
I'll keep asking questions, but I'll understand if you don't bother answering them.
there are the eight gluon fields and six quark fields. I realize that a 3D image of something like that isn't really a good idea, but how should I imagine these fields being in relation to each other? Like, are they wrapped up around each other, or would it be more like a lamellar structure or something?
*Contrary to popular explanations a beam of light is not made of photons/is a stream of photons any more than an electric field is. It's an extended excitation of the photon field. I remember seeing the double-slit experiment in a physics lecture. (they even had a shallow water bath placed on an overhead projector with a little wave pusher so we could first see the constructive and destructive interference of the water waves... which was pretty sweet). Then they did it with a laser against the wall. Anyways, for the light part of it, they said that there was an experiment with an emitter that emitted a single photon of light at a time, and then they go on to explain how the pattern still emerges. But what I don't get, now, is where the emission of a single photon, which QM+R demand be concentrated in small lumps, could also be an extended excitation?
Also the proton is not made of quarks, despite what one will commonly see in texts. Being "made of" quarks was always something that didn't quite add up for me. The way you've explained it actually seems more intuitive to myself.
Hopefully the paragraph above gives some indication of how complicated the proton is, being a similtaneous excitation of 14 fields. For sure. This universe is really freakin' weird. It can't believe it gets sooo complicated at such minute levels. You'd think it'd get simpler ![]() Then, when an electron and proton come into contact with each other the electric field around both of them alters their dynamics. Essentially altering the probability field of the electron, so that it becomes vanishingly unlikely to be far away from the proton. This is a hydrogen atom. Thanks again. You really nailed my question. I feel like I'm learning a lot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
s you said, these things are flat out impossible to imagine. However, the closest macroscale system that quantum fields are similar to is a grid of springs, like you would find in a mattress. Alright, your description that follows makes a fair amount of sense.
All fourteen layers will be disturbed simultaneously. However there is only one such disturbance which doesn't disperse, this is the proton. So for the disturbances that do disperse: Is that something that is happening all the time? If so, does it manifest itself in some way?
Now again, I know it might seem stupid to use a mattress or a drum as an analogy, but if you take the mathematics of 4D set of springs or drum membranes add in quantum mechanics and take the limit as the springs get infinitely small, you literally get the mathematics of a quantum field. So this is "objectively" the best analogy. Particles are more mathematical similar to musical harmonies than any other macro-scale phenomena. That's really cool. I love reading this shit.
Anyways, for the light part of it, they said that there was an experiment with an emitter that emitted a single photon of light at a time, and then they go on to explain how the pattern still emerges. But what I don't get, now, is where the emission of a single photon, which QM+R demand be concentrated in small lumps, could also be an extended excitation?
The pattern actually isn't reproduced by a single photon. If you emit single photons, one after the other, they eventually (after a few million) build up the same pattern as a beam of light. Oh, sure. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. What I was questioning wass that, since QM+R demand the excitation be concentrated into small lumps (i.e. a photon) then how can a single photon emission also be an extended excitation (and thus exhibit the wave-like behavior needed to make the pattern)?
Well to give you an idea, the first reasonably accurate simulation of a proton (the simulation ignored four of the six quark fields) in 2008, took IBM supercomputers hundreds of hours to complete. This was for a single proton. Now keep in mind that these same computers can simulate black hole collisions, the fluid dynamics of Boeing aircrafts and the collisions of galaxies in less than a tenth of the time the proton simulation took.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
That is basically current theoretical physics. Sixteen mattress like objects living in a four-dimensional background spacetime that warps and bends under their presence. Well, thanks again. Your explanation was really helpful. I can't think of any questions right now, but if I do I'll reply again with them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Then it has to be laziness also to claim a singularity existed you know not why or how, and burped out the universe for no known reason. The singularity is not a thing that does stuff. Think of it like an asymptote. Consider the plot of 1/X as X approaches zero. The closer you get to the Y-axis, the more the value of X approaches infinity. What you're asking is like asking how the Y-axis burps out the plot of 1/X. It just doesn't make sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If the little hot soup did nothing, The singularity is not a thing. It is not a thing that can do something. This is your first misconception to get over.
then in your mind no expansion would have happened, that is supposed to be something. I think the expansion happened, it just didn't occur from the singularity.
Or do you admit it is really nothing!? There has never been nothing. There has been some thing at every point in time. There are no points in time where no things exist. The catch is that time extends into the past direction by a finite amount. (think about how you can only go north for a finite distance)
Why consider math that has no application or bearing on reality? Analogizing concepts can make it easier to understand them.
If there was a teeny weeny hot soup, and soon after, the universe appeared, that seems to have to mean something happened. There is not a point in time where the universe does not exist, so there is no "after" that non-existent point from where the universe appeared. The Universe exists at all points in time.
Not sure how mentioning y or x or some imaginary plot or line changes that? At what point does the plot of 1/X reach the Y-axis? Hint: it never does. The y-axis is an asymptote. Similarly, the Universe never reaches the singularity. The singularity is not a point in time where the Universe exists. It is not a thing, nor a state of the Universe, from where/when the Universe expanded.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025