Is it true? Is the universe flat?

No, it actually means I'm moving in a particular frame related to a co-moving one in the FRW metric. The photons seen in the CMB are not from any single source and they come from all directions, their sources were all different and a great distance from one another originally. The expansion of the universe causes doppler shifting in a way which the MMX experiment simply doesn't deal with, its a general relativistic effect, not a special relativity one.

You should learn a bit about the FRW metric and get over your obsession with the MMX.

You have to 'explain things' because you don't understand mainstream physics and thus you constantly fail to understand what people say. You also don't realise you don't understand it and so you think its everyone else's fault. Its a typical crank behaviour.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You seem to have a deep understanding of crank behavior.

At first, you claimed you were at rest with photons.
Then you claimed you meant 0 dipole or more specifically frequency isotropy in all directions within a small number to CMB.
At this point I corrected your failed understand of using isotropic frequency as a mechanism of determining your motion relative to photons as evidenced by MMX and the sagnac.

Now you claim at rest with photons means:
"No, it actually means I'm moving in a particular frame related to a co-moving one in the FRW metric". This means you are at rest with the expanding universe. In that case, you should be detecting a declination of frequency over time and hence you would not conclude you are "at rest" with the photons.

I am just not sure what to think about all your different "crank views".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You continue to have issue with understanding beyond your usual talking points. Can't you grasp what I was deferring to? Are you familiar with the FRW metric? Do you understand this is something special relativity cannot account for, nor the mmx? Answer ky questions directly, dont just shift to a talking point.

Written on a mobile, spelling errors not withstanding.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Good, now we can understand the totality of your statement.

Besides, setting yourself to be at rest wrt to a particular huge set of photons is no different to setting yourself to be at rest wrt to anything else.

If you don't mind I will inject your recent revisions.

Besides, setting yourself to be at rest with the expanding universe is no different to setting yourself to be at rest wrt to anything else.

This is truly funny.

Oh, what did you say?

Are you familiar with the FRW metric? Do you understand this is something special relativity cannot account for
and
is no different to setting yourself to be at rest wrt to anything else

 

Sorry not to have replied sooner, I've been pushed for time this week.

Only for brevity.

None of the above. I understood Einstein, and he said what he said. He didn't say the space is curved or the spacetime is curved. He said “empty space” in its physical relation space is neither homogeneous nor isotropic. If you haven't already, read Inhomogeneous Vacuum: An Alternative Interpretation of Curved Spacetime. The motion of light through inhomogeneous space is affected by that space, its curvilinear, and people talk of curved spacetime. But on a large scale space is homogeneous, the FLRW metric starts with the assumption of homogeneity and isotropy of space. That's space, not spacetime. So when we set aside the expansion of the universe, the motion is linear rather than curvilinear, and the universe is flat.

You're treating mathematical objects used to "describe its state" as if they're the real thing. Don't. Consider the space in front of your face. It's just space there, not some matrix. A tensor equation can tell you something about it and motion through it, but this is space, and like Einstein said, it isn't nothing. Disregard the air and the only thing there is space, a field isn't something separate - a field is nothing more than non-uniform space. Pick up a pencil, hold it in front of your face, and let it go. That pencil falls down. It does this not because of magical action-at-distance or mystical gravitons, but because it's composed of dynamical particles like electrons with spin angular momentum and magnetic dipole moment. Electrons can be created via pair production and diffracted. There's internal motion, and again this is affected by the state of the local space. As a result the pencil falls down.

And it falls through space, not spacetime. This last point is of crucial importance. To make it simple, set aside gravity and imagine your pencil doesn't fall down. It stays where you put it. You can then plot a worldline in Minkowski spacetime. But take careful note: the pencil isn't moving through Minkowski spacetime. Your hand might move as you draw the pencil's worldline, but the pencil isn't "moving up its worldline". That's just a figure of speech, there is no motion through Minkowski spacetime. The addition of the time dimension means everything within this all-time-view "block universe" is static. So if somebody tells you "light curves because it's moving through curved spacetime", take it with a pinch of salt.

 

Farsight, as a casual observer, this post in no way addresses the point raised. You've simply restated your position! I'm guessing you want scientists to take notice of your ideas - if you want them to do this, you'll need to produce more than "because that's how I interpret this sentence".

Here's a great opportunity: there are several professional scientists on these forums. I would very much like you to try to convince us why there is no conflict between your interpretation of Einstein's words and his reference to ten functions in the metric tensor.

[On an unrelated side note - I was interested in your views on TQFT in another thread that seems to have been moved to another forum. If you get chance, I'd be delighted if you could respond.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

]

 

*sigh* I see you're going to need to be walked through this....

Let's consider what I first said :

"Besides, setting yourself to be at rest wrt to a particular huge set of photons is no different to setting yourself to be at rest wrt to anything else."

As I've elaborated on, this was in reference to the dipole shift of the CMB due to the difference in the observer frame and the comoving frame related to the expansion of the universe. The expansion relates to a length scale a(t) which defines the Hubble 'constant' by \(H = \frac{\dot{a}}{a}\). This length scale is also responsible for the gradual red shifting of the entire CMB, as it 'stretches' wavelengths. The notions of a co-moving frame with a variable length scale and the resultant alterations to photons are general relativistic effects, as special relativity doesn't have a time dependent metric.

Farsight originally brought up this 'frame' because he thought it was 'absolute', in that you can be anywhere in the universe, look at the CMB and then put yourself into a frame such that there is no dipole. He said "you can't get much more absolute!". I pointed out that although such a frame exists at each point in the universe each point has a different frame, so its not 'absolute' as it is position dependent. This dependency is also due to the time dependency of the length scale, something special relativity can't handle.

Yes, when you look around at the CMB and then consider how to remove the dipole you see you're going to use a Lorentz boost, which is special relativistic, but if you neglect to consider the general relativistic origins of some of what you see then you might make the mistake Farsight did and think you're now in some universal absolute frame.

Your mentioning of the MMX is redundant, since the fact there is a frame whereby there's no dipole in the observed CMB is independent of whether or not there's a universal frame or an aether or you use an interferometer. Its not even necessary to use special relativity when wanting to work out the motion which (for an instant) removes the dipole. All you're measuring is whether or not the photons from one direction have the same thermal profile as those in the antipodal direction (at least up to a certain accuracy, as then you get into the minor fluctuations WMAP looked at).

Yes, if you wanted to then you could say "Never mind the frequencies of the photons, what are their speeds? Is it direction dependent?" and then you get into MMX like considerations. However the issue of shifting into a frame where there is no dipole is an issue about the 'temperature of the sky' and even if photons were moving with different speeds temperature is associated to the energy throughput, not speed alone.

A rational person would think "Seeing as I've not read any of Einstein's quantitative work and don't understand the quantitative details of it or related physics its unlikely I have the definitive true understanding of his work", rather than make the assertions you do. Reading a pop science book and watching a documentary doesn't a scientist make.

Perhaps you can provide some reasoning as to why you think you have the true understanding of what Einstein said, despite not knowing any of the details or having any comprehension of his quantitative work and models, particularly compared to people whose day job is to work on GR. And even if you can manage a decent reasoning for your assertion you would still need to get an explanation as to why Einstein's view of things is the definitive one. Newton's views of physics aren't consider gospel, despite him being considered one of, if not the best physicists ever.

You complain that people like myself are just parrots and don't open our minds to new ideas yet you're arguing for us to listen only to Einstein and ignore all the advances and developments in understanding of his work which have been done for the last 60~100 years. Its common crank practice to whine about people not mindlessly accepting things the mainstream says but then they complain when that same "Can you justify that?" scepticism is applied to their work. This is yet another reason the label of 'crank' applies to you. Reminds me of the behaviour of many fundamental Christians in the US, they want to remove the separation of Church and State so religion can play a role in schools or courts but then throw a fit when someone who isn't in their particular religion or denominator does likewise. They want people to open up their minds to religion but only provided its their religion. Cranks do the same, they want people to open their minds and be sceptical about the mainstream but they don't want to (more often than not they can't) have the same scepticism applied to them.

Come on Farsight, even you should manage to grasp this. You can't whine about string theory supposedly being unable to model anything and then avoid facing up to the fact your work can't. You can't whine about mainstream dogma and then say "Listen to what Einstein said!!". You want to have your cake and eat it.

And Guest has requested a discussion on TQFT, just as I've requested a discussion on curvature in relativity. Are you going to ignore him too? Remember, we're not professors with decades of research under our belts, defending your work against us would be easier than against a couple of said professors and if you truly want your work to be taken seriously such defences are required (such as in regards to journals). You claim to be an expert in electromagnetism and to have superior understanding of GR than (at least) everyone on these forums (if not the mainstream as a whole). If you believe your claims and assertions you should believe you're be able to swat us like flies, so you really have no excuse other than the fact you know, deep down, you'll be the one swatted.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You are trying to force an interpretation of what Einstein said that makes no sense in the general context of GR. Einstein's choice of words doesn't prove much when taken in isolation. It's quite common for physicists to say "space" when they mean "space-time", and he never said gravity is inhomogenous "space", just that "space" is inhomogenous. The interpretation you're pushing already makes no sense when you consider the rest of Einstein's sentence, let alone general relativity in full detail.

Followed by "compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gμν)". Why did he say that? Why ten, given that only metrics in four dimensional spaces have ten components? Do you have a good explanation for this?

 

This is all very nice and a very wordy way of trying to walk back y9our contradictiom. Still you contradicted yourself and none of your extensive wording changes that fact.

My post remains valid.

I see I need to explains this in simple language.

You said, "Do you understand this is something special relativity cannot account for"

But yes said, "is no different to setting yourself to be at rest wrt to anything else"

which is a relativity concept.

Do you understand yet how you contradicted yourself or is it still beyond your grasp?

 

Did you hear that series of distant *whoosh* sounds, chinglu?
That's the sound of things going way over your head.

 

No I don't think you did. But, why don't you spell it out so all can know you are correct.

 

'Relativity' is more than 'Special Relativity'.

• Galilean Relativity can only be applied to local regions of spacetime and low relative speeds, local enough that spacetime is approximately Euclidean.
• Special Relativity can be applied to a larger regions of spacetime and any relative speed, but still local enough that any curvature can be ignored.
• General Relativity can be applied to any regions of spacetime, including those with significant curvature where SR is inadequate.

Not to mention everything that Alpha spelled out in his post regarding your hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty that you conveniently ignored.

Would you care to address those charges? Or do you want to keep your fingers in your ears and pretend you can't hear him?

 

I addressed the charges based on HIS statements. they were reduced to a contradiction that any fool could understand. I can't improve your IQ.

 

[*]General Relativity can be applied to any regions of spacetime, including those with significant curvature where SR is inadequate.

So, what does GR say about the expanding universe?

 

Way to ignore reality, chinglu.

Why don't you find out for yourself?

 

If you are able to prove the AN posters case, prove it.

If you are able to prove GR explains the expanding universe as you said, prove it.

 

I'm not the one pushing a barrow, chinglu. I have nothing to prove.

 

You haven't explained anything and you've ignored any explanation I've given. No one is buying what you're saying Ching.

Special relativity cannot account for the fact two people in different places can set their motion such that they each see the CMB to have no dipole and yet they turn out to be moving relativity to one another. This is because the expansion which causes this motion is a general relativistic effect, the metric changes in time. The second thing you quote of me refers to the fact that whether you choose to instantaneously set your frame by the CMB dipole, the Earth or any other object you care you consider none of them are 'absolute' in any way other than saying "I am at rest with respect to that object". That considers the view of one person and multiple frames, which is something special relativity does deal with.

Special relativity can not handle the fact the CMB is cooling in a specific way or that some objects are moving further apart due to the universe's expansion. It can deal with the fact having objects in space you can compare your motion to. In regards to the notion of an absolute frame the CMB is no different to any other physical thing, it provides you with reference points/velocities but not in a way which is absolute and universal. I said as much when I replied originally to Farsight and now I've explained it to you more than once. If you do nothing more than just post your previous post again you're trolling because you don't seem to be wanting a discussion, you only want to make assertions. I'm able to back up and explain my position, you should be doing the same.

 

If you take a position, it would seem you would support your position. I see you do not think that way. You just take positions whether or not you can prove them.

 

You are the one that claimed setting yourself at rest wrt a large set of photons (CMB in this case) is no different from setting yourself at rest with anything else.

I have proven your statement false in this context. In fact, you even forgot your line of reasoning, I suppose, and even admitted setting yourself at rest with CMB is not SR derivable. Yet, you said, setting yourself at rest wrt to CMB is no different from setting yourself at rest wrt to anything else which by any standard is SR derivable.

Even the casual user can understand you contradicted yourself.