Cosmology at the threshold of encountering the reality

Well its far more advantageous and logical than taking notice of you, isn't it?
Like I said, Professor Bennett recommended QORA....But then again, Professor Bennett also tore a few strips off you, did he not?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are back to your old pal reference. You are a bad and indignified looser..
You can pick up any science from Qora or Quora, thats your choice, but you really are uneducable.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's "undignified" and no I'm quite dignified and also perceptive. Enough to know you are religiously driven and once had another handle.
I'm also quite able to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Take it easy my friend.

ps: yes QUORA, thank you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Greetings from a long-time silent member! So be rest assured, O divine one (= The God).

What you seek is at hand i.e. Black holes, spacetime, inflation & GR as well as all the other paraphernalia of what we term Lorentzian Relativity as well as Einstein's Relativity are all BS!

The answer is Galilean Relativity ONLY - plus a new theory of light which disproves SR as it is really seen by considering well-known experimental data.

However, paddoboy and I sure remember one another - and I'm sure he's itching for another round!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

FOLZONI

 

Care to elaborate on this "new theory"?

 

Dear Daecon,

If you want me to start another thread I can - or you can - since I don't want to crowd out this one.

The new theory arises from realizing that the so-called Lorentz Transformation Equations (LTs) - applied to space & time - actually derive from the work of Woldemar Voigt, who applied the same equation to the Doppler Effect in order to quantify Doppler changes with motion. Voigt believed however in a crystal aether, but when we remove that artifice we see exactly where the equation properly applies - to light, and NOT to space and time.

Hence both length contraction (LC) and time dilation (TD), usually considered together (I.e. D&LC), are pseudophenomena* invented to justify a stagnant aether (= ARF, absolute reference frame) as a light-bearing medium, this latter being identified with Newton's absolute space.

Getting rid of all the above we are left with Voigt's Doppler Equation. So we now consider a laser beam L (i.e. narrow wavelength) emitting a yellow light to the right. Tell me what color and what light speeds an approaching observer (B) and a receding observer (R) will observe when they see this laser light otherwise observed as being yellow when seen by someone at rest relative to the source.

L>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<B<<<<<...................................................................>>>>>R>>>>>

Your correct answers (easy!) will govern the ensuing debate and reveal the new theory's truth as you put the observations together.

FOLZONI

*They have not been found experimentally even though experimental results (e.g. survival of subatomic particles) have been twisted theoretically to justify time dilation.

 

Yes, in order to *observe* (measure) the universe (space-time) in its entirety and any dynamic properties of the universe, one would have to do this from a frame of reference which is independent (outside) of the *thing* you want to measure.

Finally, you are conceding the fundamental mathematical nature of space-time.
Yet you have argued that a *hole in the ground* has no mathematical properties. Seems to me there is contradiction to be found here. Please explain.

Pray tell, how one could "measure (physical observation) the ripples in the curvature of spacetime", if you are not outside the frame of reference of the system itself. Can you tell how fast a train is moving if you are in it and have no other reference frame?
Are you aware that you are at this moment moving at some 1000 mph, plus the speed of the earths rotation around the sun, plus the speed of the sun, plus the speed of the the galaxy, plus the speed of the universal *pilot wave*? Are you able to observe or even experience these speeds?

And I won't waste my time anymore, trying to illustrate my position with *copy and paste* which apparently you do not read, contrary to your claim that you have *read them all*.

But I would suggest you read David Bohm's *Wholeness and the Implicate order*?
And I would suggest you read the *De Broglie-Bohm Pilot Wave* theory?

And *ripples and curvature* of space-time can be demonstrated by the interference patterns caused by the wave function in the double slit experiment. Now multiply these interference patterns by the number of say, all the particles in the universe which propagate through the wave function..

Can you visualize the *foamy* result. ("ripples" indeed).

Can we even measure the *ripples" (wave interference patterns) in the oceans"?

Can you visualize the *probabilistic* properties (Implicate potentials) of such a space-time condition?

Can you visualize a Black Holes as *whirlpools* in the space-time fabric? Theoretical physics predicted the probability of such things and were later confirmed by observation of the existence of quasars and the behavior of the surrounding galaxies..

Your list of scientifically accepted (concensus) theories that *gotta go* is the height of ignorant ad hominem I can possibly think of and IMO, the OP title is non-sensical to begin with.

"Encountering The Reality?? What does that even mean?

 

Welcome back...All we need now is undefined and chinglu to complete the chorus line.
You do realize as I have often pointed out to our divine friend and other nuts, that forums such as this are the only outlet you people have got?
Beddy time anyway so nighty night to all.

 

Thats the question. You are late in the party.

Over all your post is quite incoherent, you are taking the whole universe as single entity as if we can do nothing without getting out of it, we can always work on various parts of a system without goint out of that system.

Is it really that difficult to measure the speed of a train from inside ?? You throw a figure that we are moving at 1000 mph, but we really did not go out of this universe (whatever that means) to find that out.

For your information (you throw some interference stuff also), do you know why and how interference happens, due to differential path travelled by light beams. The space-time ripples cause the distance covered by a light beam to change, so a perturbatioin in mathematical model (Space-time is no physical stuff) causes the variation in the path of light.

do you buy this ?

 

I am giving it to you , for free. You don't have to accept anything I specifically posted. Just think about it a little longer and deeper. You might encounter *The Reality*, the *How the universe functions*.

 

A false statement. At no time did I say or imply such a thing.

That garbage does not merit an answer.
A clear example of your dishonest and sloppy thinking. You don't experience the sensation of travelling. you didn't even know that at the earth's equator the surface speed of the earth is about

Therefore my estimate was very conservative and certainly not deserving of a casual dismissal.

However it is a clear sign that you do not think things through logically and in depth.

Moreover, I said

 

Very good to read that Write4U and The God both agree on the nature of spacetime....

...i.e. that it is an entirely mathematical construct. Exactly right, both of you - and that spacetime is NOT space either, nor time!

Hence gravity waves ("ripples in the curvature of spacetime") cannot ever be detected since we are not and cannot be "outside the frame of reference of the system itself".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I.e. physics has been fatally subordinated to mathematical speculation and we have to uncover where and why!

FOLZONI

 

And this forum is so so lucky that we have two divine characters that are going to uncover all the where's and why's. It's just a shame that this narrow band of cyber space on which this forum operates,and us few humans that participate on it, are the only ones that are ever going to benefit from such divine genius.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Are you another religious nut folzoni? I have uncovered one already in the god.

 

I do not disagree with anyone on the correct interpretation of prevalent mainstream, there are few posters, who claim to be the saviour of mainstream, but have incorrect notion of the same.

This guy Write4U, dissected my paragraph.....the first part of para defines the spacetime and emphasises that the spacetime is a mathematical representation and then the second part questions in rhetoric manner how physical ripples etc can be caused in a mathematical representation.

Write4U, started with uncalled for aggression (#4) and by the time he traversed through (#9 and #31) it all became Paddoboyish...its pain handling one, can't create another.

 

I am not sure I agree with that final statement.
I see *space* as an *a priori* state or condition, whereas *time* measures duration of events within this permittive condition of Potentials and Probabilities.. IMO, the *event* of an unfolding space creates time by it's continued chronological existence. The Universal timeline.

Correct and in accordance with GR. That's what I said.
However, while we cannot directly observe gravity waves, we can clearly see their effect caused by the presence of massive objects.

I don't follow that logic at all. E = Mc^2 is not mathematical speculation. What you call *speculation* is the human mathematics describing the universal mathematical functions, which are inherent *potentials* of space-time.
Sometimes these descriptions are inexact, incomplete, or just plain subjectively wrong. The scientific method tests all descriptions and discards or refines them in our human symbolic maths, to more accurately describe the mathematical function of space-time.
A small example: at one time a thunderstorm was the work of Thor (a god). Today we know it is a weather-front caused by disparate temperature and humidity ratios. So our scientific understanding changed the concept of a causal god to mathematical causal conditions.

 

Gravity waves and Gravitational Waves (henceforth GW) are two different animals.

Gravity waves do not require any elaborated interferometer, their effect is visible on any seaside every moment. Morover GW cannot be detected due to presence of any massive objects, it requires disturbance, some transient happenings for a meaningful detection.

[This is mainstream].

 

I agree.

Below is a more precise description of the differences:

and

But this may be of interest;

 

Thank you for the correction, my God! I did not differentiate between gravity and gravitational waves.

GWs are mainstream? That is certainly true when the popular prejudice is classed as mainstream - but the point is that GWs are fictional entities dependent on accepting general & special relativity (GR & SR). They have never been discovered and never will be. Even Write4U sees that these "ripples in spacetime" could not be detected within the reference frame. But this reference frame is merely spacetime, a solipsistic construction ultimately residing in Einstein's claim that "nothing can travel faster than light (relative to the individual observer)" - hence a disturbance within (e.g. the conjectured GWs) will be undetectable anyway.

FOLZONI

 

I had written: spacetime is NOT space either, nor time!

The underlying issue here is not epistemological - which is what Western and Marxist philosophers belabor - but rather the ontological question concerning space and time.

Are space and time merely human perceptions - or do they also have an independent i.e. objective existence in themselves. Only the latter can provide a logical-paradox free science, something you DON'T get from special relativity (SR) and its derivatives.

Your choice of space as an 'a priori' state implies such objective existence (as far as I can yet perceive it) while your description of time also suggests this since you have not subjectivized the nature of space and time with those words - neither subjectivized them to individual humans nor to their motion nor to matter itself.

But my interpretation of your words may be very wrong indeed, so please correct me if this is the case since I cannot see that space creates time by its unfolding as such an assertion implies the subjection of time to space and space in turn to matter (this last as 'some sort of event').

FOLZONI

 

@ FOLZONI,
IMO as layman, the mathematical *restriction* placed on the speed of light might be due to the *quantum function* itself. A quantum event requires time to complete the function.

This brought to mind that possibly, in this universe (space-time), all events affecting a change from one state to another are restricted by *c*, the fastest possible way for something to become explicated in physical reality.