Some questions for better understanding of Main Stream Cosmology

Answer to very simple question is not sure. Please note that FoR plays a very prominent role in relativity and we do not know the distortion of space time with respect to what ? This is agenda-less simple question. Any motion or displacement has to be with respect to some reference.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not sure that plays!

While the curvature of spacetime is relative to something or somethings, the resulting curvature of any defined location is not relative to any FoR... With the possible exception of the case, where someone attempts to associate the time dilation and length contraction associated with acceleration or a relative velocity, with a cuvature of spacetime.

The curvature of spacetime is a description of a gravitational field. And while the gravitational potential of a field may be experienced differently from different FoR, the field itself remains the same from all FoR.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not an expert.
But I did give an answer I'm not 100% sure on, so stop being dishonest, something you have portrayed throughout this thread, whenever you think you may have a point.
E-Mail your thoughts/ideas to an expert.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

While science theories are always conditional, some are as close to certainty as one could want. Evolution, Abiogenesis, SR, GR and the BB cosmology are in that category.

Now again, why don't you ask some expert re the silly manufactured problems you seem so deluded with as discrediting present cosmology....Or write a paper and get it peer reviewed.


One more thing re your post.....

I did state that rather poorly. "Drowned out" obviously was misconstrued by someone such as yourself, so determined to invalidate accepted cosmology.
The example I gave though with Dactyl the asteroid Galileo made a close pass to and discovered its moon Ida.
Another Asteroid I mentioned earlier was Graspa, also bypassed by Galileo, but not the one with the moon...my mistake!
The point I was making was that like Earth's Moon, Ida orbits Dactyl, and not the Sun directly. Both the Moon and Ida are affected by Earth's and Dactyl's curvature, rather then the Sun.
The same scenario is found throughout the Solar system.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

See, Paddoboy, I am not dishonest and I cannot be bulldozed, I have acknowledged your straight forward honest nature as many times as you have stated the near certainty of Evolution, Abiogenesis, SR, GR and the BB.

I would not have responded to your earlier post, but I stated it very clearly that you made the post some kind of concluding type with explanation..hence my response. I get vindicated when you admitted that word 'Drowned' was not a right choice.

Whenever there is some objection or deadlock with some theory, then the procedure is..

1. Fit the new observation by improvising/adding upon the existing theory.
2. Come up with an alternative theory which not only conforms to the existing observations, predictions but
resolves the present deadlock as well.
3. Just abandon the existing theory, and start searching for a new (or the worst take mine).

You know what happened in 1998 onwards, it was the step #1 which helped us in resolving the accelerating expansion of Universe.

Now the problem with few people (Let me assure you, I am not the one) around the globe, who are dis-satisfied with mainstream cosmology for reasons best known to them is, they want the step #3 while they have miserably failed to overcome the Step #2.

So we are on the same wavelength that anyone who wishes to disown or discredit the existing mainstream, must come forward and pass the test under Step #2. This is very honorable way of seeing the thing. My only objection with you is that let us not frustrate ourselves with the questions. You are responding and I am asking questions, there is nothing wrong in bringing out some of the difficulties or challenges, mainstream cosmology is not going to Step #3 without passing the Step #2. [in fact I do not like Mainstream before Cosmology...Cosmology is Cosmology, it is always mainstream.]

What more can I say ??

 

Weired glich that is forcing me to post... something.

 

The warpage is observed from a FoR outside of the gravitational field. If your FoR was in the field you would not see the warpage.

 

But how do you get a point outside of the Gravitational field ?? As I understand Gravity has infinite range..

 

Good point. To be more specific, your FoR needs to be different than the curvature you are observing. It does not matter if you are still in the graviational field of the mass that is causing the curvature.
As an example lets say that there is a black hole and you somehow standing on the event horizon you would see light travel in a straight line. To someone that was several 10s of millions of miles away the light would not be traveling in a straight line, its path would be highly curved.

 

You posting this thread in science is the first indication of your dishonesty in my opinion.
The second aspect is your continious refusal to accept any and all answers given to you, and yet ignoring suggestions that you get expert opinion on those questions.
That will do for now.
Do you doubt the "near certainty" of Evolution, Abiogenesis, SR, GR and the BB?
If so, which ones and why?

My only conclusion is that the standard cosmological model, is pretty firm [other then for a few issues like DM and DE], and that spacetime is expanding, and has been since the BB, and that this same spacetime is warped in the presence of matter/energy, subsequently exhibiting the phenomenon we call gravity.
This is what observational evidence supports.

Firstly, the scientific community in general, accept the model I have given above, along with its unknown aspects, simply because that's what the evidence shows.
Secondly, the accelerating expansion was "observed" and inferred by data from WMAP.
Logically and sensibly, cosmologists put it down to an unknown force....we call that DE.
Some think this DE is the CC that Einstein once exclaimed as his biggest blunder.
Of course accepted scientific theories are "added on to"as further observations are made.
That's why we also have Inflation....But knowing you [and your agenda] I'm not sure what you are getting at.
The following may help you with how the scientific method and peer review does apply.....

The above is from the "For the Alternaive theorists"thread in Science and Technology.

Yet you have refused to accept all answers and ignored suggestions made to rectify your apparent quandary.
From your many posts here, rightly or wrongly, I do see you as having an agenda, supported by your refusal to accept answers, and seeing supposed problems where they don't exist.

 

I don't see you as getting vindicated at all.
Although I used a phrase, "drowned out" , couple that with the examples I gave, I'm sure most here without any over-bearing agenda, would realise what I was getting at, and what I meant.

 

Nicely put origin.....I'm sure Rajesh should be able to accept that [fingers crossed

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

]

 

If you are truly interested in science Rajesh, here's a neat little video

http://www.wimp.com/largehadron/