Cosmology at the threshold of encountering the reality

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by The God, Nov 25, 2015.

  1. The God Valued Senior Member

    With due permission from resident die hard mainstream supporters, I would like to list few of theories/propositions/Ideas which are expected to be taken off the shelf in a decade or so, and they are.....The list is quite restricted.

    1. Black Hole Theory

    This has gotten a cult status thanks to Sir Hawking, I must admit he has very limited materialstic requirements, an otherwise inspirational guy, but he has made an Industry out of Black Hole for others to benefit. We will never get an answer whether he knew from day one about the cult status which Black Hole would acquire one day. "The Detailed History of Time" also will not be able to tell us about this. I have already taken a copyright on this title....."The Detailed Histroy of Time".

    Other demises : ThermoD of BH, Worm Hole, White Hole, Singularity etc.

    2. Spacetime (Flat & Curved)

    A massive mathematical jugglery. Everyone admits (even the scientists) that there is no physical thing called spacetime, but it bends, it distorts, it has curvature and lo behold the curvature of the spacetime is Gravity. The greatest contribution of this spacetime is enhancement of our knowledge on complex mathematics. No one can explain to others what is 'curved spacetime' and what is 'curvature of spacetime' but these two are the highest used terms in the last hundred years of cosmology.

    Other Demises : Frame Dragging (in present form), Geodetic, Geodesic

    3. Inflation

    Already out, what massive joke it is / was. Tell me how can such thing become digestible even to a die hard mainstream follower. We can digest that we had no Physics before t = 0, but once t = 0 is taken in, then give a chance to Physics, not to some funny idea. Physics is not something which is evolving.

    Other Demises : Dark Energy (in present form), expansion faster than light, eternal inflation.

    4. General Relativity

    This is a gone case. It will be a scientific mystery how this theory survived for more than a century in an era wherein we had great resources and great minds. The root cause of most of the problems, but the brighter side is that mathematics benefitted.

    Other Demises : It will hit the 10K limit.

    Now, the point is what next ? Physics will take over once again. Few centuries ago Physics was in the clutches of pops and philosophers, they were crushed on the point, now for last few decades this has been gripped by Industrialized Scientists (a la funding dependent scientists), this will also go away and true Physics will win. Time has come, all on Board with their genuine ideas. Please lets stick to explainable science. What is the use if we cannot explain infinite mass density, infinite spacetime curvature, bending of spacetime, exponential expansion within 10^-36 to 10^-30...this is no Physics.
    Little Bang likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    In your amateurish lay person's opinion.
    No, that's just more of your silly histrionics and fairy tale notions...BH's of course are borne out because no one can explain the effects of spacetime and matter/energy by any other method. Particularly amateurs like your self...BNS's not with standing

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    They are maninly only speculative scenarios that are permitted by GR.
    Or do you intend to change GR?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    That is total bunkum again and requires you come up with a replacement for GR.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    What can I say? This poster, who after having a paper totally demolished under another handle, shows his total lack of intestinal fortitude, by taking on another handle to avoid the lambastery he was receiving, and continues on with exactly the same credentials, no evidence, just blabber blabber and more balabber.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You must be getting quite frustrated my friend.
    Plenty of blabber, no substance, no credentials, just empty unsupported claims.

    Let me tell you quite simply and logically, sure physics will change, but not in the manner or way you imagine. Most of what you imagine will probably have better explanations over DM, DE.
    GR will be extended on with finally a validated QGT.
    GR will still probably be the cosmos prime theory of gravity for most things.
    Newtonian will still be used within its domain of applicability.

    What you need to absorb my friend, is that it is only on a forum such as this you would be able to claim such nonsensical fairy tales....Even other science forums such as Cosmoquest would have you banned. All we do is shift your notions/ideas/BNS's to the la la bin.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Cosmology/physics proceed with out you.....they proceed without me....they proceed without this forum. Your wasted nonsense on your little bit of cyber space, will fade into total oblivion, just like your BNS...
    And again, going on this and other posts of yours over the last couple of days, I sense a religious overtone. The similarity is amazing in fact!
    But I won't tan your hide for that anyway, I'm having fun seeing you doing what you do best...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Finally with regards to your thread title, perhaps you could take note and face the reality yourself. Not your imagined ego inflated reality...that's only a ruse to impress people...but the reality of recognising that you are only participating on a two bit science forum, and although you get the chance to hog some cyber space on occasions, there's a big wide wonderful world and Universe out there, with educated professionals working in all the sciences.
    The mainstream becomes the mainstream, because it in the opinion of the majority, describes reality better and makes legitimate predictions.
    All present accepted scientific theories were once just ideas and then hypotheticals, before being recognised.
    Even a man in your amateurish position, with no education in cosmology should be able to recognise that fact.
    That's called the scientific method.
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2015
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    100 Years of General Relativity: Why Einstein Still Stands.

    Devin Powell
    at 10:06 AM Nov 23 2015

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Albert Einstein as seen in a photograph from the U.S. Library of Congress
    Science //
    One hundred years ago this month, Albert Einstein redefined what gravity is, overthrowing his own hero Isaac Newton.

    Newton had imagined gravity to be a force like any other that pulls on things to get them going. But Einstein wove gravity into very fabric of space and time, molding an invisible landscape of hills and valleys through which objects move. The equations describing this vision, known as the general theory of relativity, have since become a cornerstone of modern physics—opening new doors for understanding everything from how planets and stars move to existence of dark matter and the early days of the universe itself.

    “Today it really is the standard model for gravity,” says Clifford Will, a physicist at the University of Florida who has devoted his career to the theory. “It has passed every experimental test with flying colors.”

    Einstein to identify the cause: warped spacetime near the Sun has a pronounced effect on Mercury, the closest planet to the Sun.

    General relativity also predicted how much those distortions from the Sun's gravity should bend a ray of light passing nearby. Teams of British astronomers who traveled to South America and Africa famouslyconfirmed that prediction by photographing stars visible close to the Sun during a solar eclipse.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Negative of a solar eclipse verifying Einstein's general relativity
    In this 1919 negative of a solar eclipse, British scientist Sir Arthur Eddington helped verify Einstein's theory of general relativity, showing light bending around the Sun as predicted in the theory.
    Others have since cast doubt on that experiment—claiming that the astronomers perhaps saw what they wanted to see—but the ability of stars and other celestial entities to not only bend light but shift its color is now well-proven. Some heavenly bodies even focus the light coming from distant objects, acting as lenses that, for instance, help planet hunters to find alien worlds around faraway stars.

    Gravity Probe B, moved wobbled in a way consistent with Earth's mass both warping the fabric of spacetime like a bowling ball on a trampoline and twisting it like a spoon twirled in honey. Here on the surface, the world's most precise clocks, which keep time with vibrating atoms, tick slightly slower if placed on the floor instead of the table—thanks to the slightly stronger gravity on the floor slowing down time.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Illustration of spacetime warping around Earth
    In this NASA illustration, the effects of Earth's gravity can be seen warping spacetime in accordance with Einstein's theory of general relativity. NASA's Gravity Probe B spacecraft is also depicted.
    Thwarted by planets and stars, those hoping to poke holes in Einstein's theory have begun to look to uncharted water elsewhere in the universe.

    “About 5 to 10 years ago, people started to realize that we needed to test general relativity at larger scales,” says Luca Amendola, a theoretical physicist at the University of Heidelberg.

    New projects that will check relativity's predictions for the structure of the universe itself include European space mission Euclid and the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope, which broke ground this year in Chile and will use a panoramic camera to photograph galaxies.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Artist's rendering of the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST)
    Artist's illustration showing the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope currently under construction at Cerro Pachón, Chile. The reflecting telescope includes the world'es largest digital camera and will survey the entire night sky every three nights for 10 years in an effort to understand its structure.
    Others are focusing on the most gravitationally awesome objects in the universe: black holes.

    “We want to test gravity in different regimes,” says Dimitrios Psaltis, an astrophysicist at the University of Arizona. “We want to see if we can find evidence of new physics that appears beyond some threshold.”

    Psaltis has joined an international team of astronomers watching the black hole that lives at center of our galaxy. The black hole itself is invisible; its gravity is so strong that nothing crossing its event horizon, including light, can escape. But just outside of the event horizon lies a hazy ring of light and radio waves given off by dust falling into the black hole.

    Nearly a dozen telescopes on four continents are tuning in to those radio waves to check whether that ring has the size and shape predicted by general relativity. Synchronized with atomic clocks, the network functions as one giant virtual telescope: The Event Horizon Telescope, which stretches from Spain all the way down to the newest member of the collaboration that joined this spring, the South Pole Telescope.

    A European space mission due to launch this month also has black holes on the brain. Called LISA Pathfinder, it will try out technologies destined to fly on a 2034 mission, eLISA, that will check out what happens when two black holes orbit each other.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ESA LISA Pathfinder illustration
    Artist's rendering of the LISA Pathfinder spacecraft, which will test the concept of low-frequency gravity waves.
    General relativity predicts that such couples should create waves in spacetime that ripple outward, causing objects to expand and contract. LIGO, a ground-based instrument recently upgraded in September, has been trying unsuccessfully to catch those gravitational waves for years. eLISA will cast its net using three sets of free-floating objects.

    In the quiet of space, the distance between those objects, as measuring by lasers that link the three spacecraft carrying them, should change slightly if a wave from two black holes in two merging galaxies passes by.

    Catching a wave would not necessarily confirm Einstein's theory
    “LISA should see a few tens of these merger events over the length of the mission,” said Jonathan Gair at the University of Cambridge.

    Catching a wave would not necessarily confirm Einstein's theory; it must change distances only in directions perpendicular to the wave itself. Otherwise, physicists will need to go back to the drawing board.

    Theorists can tell us little today about what new physics would be needed if any of these projects finds something strange. They will continue to play with their toy theories—refining and revising the math and throwing out ones that have problems—in the absence of an evidence to justify them. But they will dream of the day that the data challenges Einstein. Until then, his theory of gravity will continue its now-century-long reign.

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    @ Paddoboy,

    Thanks for that excellent presentation, but I am afraid it will be totally wasted on this egocentric individual who calls himself *The God*., you know, the One who sees all, knows all, regardless of perspective or point of observation.
    This guy is literally *out of this world*.
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    No probs and thanks.
    Most have him on ignore due to his nonsense and lying.
    I believe someone [even me] needs to keep him honest. [I use the last word loosely]
  9. The God Valued Senior Member

    Any comments on the contents of the post ? Or only adhominems ?

    While Paddoboy's copy paste on this thread may look excellent to newbies in the subject, but they offer nothing on the points raised in OP. That is general Paddoboy trick, copy paste without understanding what is the content.
  10. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Your expectations are not very likely to be realized.
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Yes, yes, we all know [

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ] That's why my previous tutorials stand as correct and your BNS was demolished.
    Do better.
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    You set the stage.
    As to ad hominem, according to GR , only an observer outside the system would be able to see the system in its entirety. For that one would have to be outside this universe, to support youe claim.
    Oh, I have high confidence in paddo's ability to understand. Moreover, he does provide supporting evidence, whereas you have only made a claim, withot any supporting evidence whatever.
    You are the one engaging in the ad hominem dismissal of hundreds of years of *scientific* and *predictive testing* by dedicated scientists with knowledge of *how things work*. Do you have any evidence for your *verbal assault* on accepted science?
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I prefer to see it as standing on the shoulders of giants, and as a lay person, is why I do always provide supporting evidence.
    Getting back to your original post in this thread.....
    These observations of yours are totally true. But isn't this the basic definition of most of our alternative hypothesis pushers? The "undefines" [remember him?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ] The Farsights, the chinglus, and the list goes on......Some have a religious agenda, some claim to have a TOE, but all claim to know more than what is generally accepted, all claim to rewrite 20th/21st century cosmology, and all are afflicted with egocentric delusions of grandeur.

    I suppose in thinking about this in depth, that we, those interested in science, can be somewhat thankful that at least these clowns are at least kept away from mainstream academia, and are only allowed to spew their anti mainstream science venom on forums such as this.
    They forget two very important facts: Firstly, all mainstream science was once just ideas and hypotheticals, and all needed to run the gauntlet to be finally accepted as a logical interpretation of our observations, and secondly, and as I have repeated many times, if any of them had any substance in their hypothetical delusions, they would not really be here.
    They would be espousing the scientific method and undergoing proper peer review.
    Write4U likes this.
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Personally, I would be very interested in seeing any scientifically sound revelatory paper which has escaped scientific notice.
  15. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    I'm not sure how that has anything to do with what I said.
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Reread my post, it starts with a quote from The God, offering to show evidence for his mindset.

    I was actually echoing your sentiments and challenged him to provide his *evidence*. Does that clarify? Perhaps I misunderstood your comment.
  17. The God Valued Senior Member

    Outside this universe ??

    Thats nice.
    Request please spend few minutes and read Post #263 and #273 of below linked thread.

    Try this.
    "Spacetime' is a mathematical geometry, not someting physical and it is not the empty space around us which we call as space" far so good and quite simple to understand, fairly ok.

    Now, please note that we are trying to measure (Physical observations) 'the ripples in the curvature of the spacetime'; Please explain to me with your understanding (not copy paste, I have read them all), what is so physically measurable about this "ripples in the curvature of the spacetime", when the spacetime itself does not exist in reality, it is just maths.
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    A pity you are too egotistical to take notice, either that or to uneducated to understand.
    I could give you my version, but what the heck!
    Is spacetime a real "thing" or just a mere concept?

    "Thing" is not a well-defined word, and concepts are not classified into "things" and non-things beyond elementary school. Usually, everyone agrees that matter is a thing. I think they are less sure about light.

    Would you consider the electromagnetic field to be a real "thing"? If yes, you should consider spacetime to be a real "thing" as well.

    Spacetime is not just a passive arena for light and matter. It has its own dynamics; it interacts with (i.e influences and is influenced by - there are no one-way interactions) energy/momentum (and also with itself), so it should be thought of as an independent physical entity.

    The above says it all, and please keep in mind, QORA is not just some simple Q and A format, it was recommended by Professor Bennett Link when he was trying to knock some sense into you.
    Here's another......
    What is a space time continuum?
    In 1906, soon after Albert Einstein announced his special theory of relativity, his former college teacher in mathematics, Hermann Minkowski, developed a new scheme for thinking about space and time that emphasized its geometric qualities. In his famous quotation delivered at a public lecture on relativity, he announced that,

    "The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality."

    This new reality was that space and time, as physical constructs, have to be combined into a new mathematical/physical entity called 'space-time', because the equations of relativity show that both the space and time coordinates of any event must get mixed together by the mathematics, in order to accurately describe what we see. Because space consists of 3 dimensions, and time is 1-dimensional, space-time must, therefore, be a 4-dimensional object. It is believed to be a 'continuum' because so far as we know, there are no missing points in space or instants in time, and both can be subdivided without any apparent limit in size or duration. So, physicists now routinely consider our world to be embedded in this 4-dimensional Space-Time continuum, and all events, places, moments in history, actions and so on are described in terms of their location in Space-Time.

    Space-time does not evolve, it simply exists. When we examine a particular object from the stand point of its space-time representation, every particle is located along its world-line. This is a spaghetti-like line that stretches from the past to the future showing the spatial location of the particle at every instant in time. This world-line exists as a complete object which may be sliced here and there so that you can see where the particle is located in space at a particular instant. Once you determine the complete world line of a particle from the forces acting upon it, you have 'solved' for its complete history. This world-line does not change with time, but simply exists as a timeless object. Similarly, in general relativity, when you solve equations for the shape of space-time, this shape does not change in time, but exists as a complete timeless object. You can slice it here and there to examine what the geometry of space looks like at a particular instant. Examining consecutive slices in time will let you see whether, for example, the universe is expanding or not.

    But as usual you sidestep the crux of the matter my friend. You apparently believe all of 20th/21st century cosmology is wrong, by your own listing.
    Others have noted your arrogant egotistical approach to science, this forum and yourself, so are you really that far gone as to be unable to recognise the delusions you are under?
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2015
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    And what are they supposed to achieve?
    Two posts and worthless unsupported comments by yourself?
    Two posts reflecting yet again, the power of your egotistical outlook on science, this forum, and yourself?
    Two posts that just continually support your lack of supplying any references?
    While I do take some time with Schmelzer, in that unlike you, he is a professional, but he is also a self acclaimed so called independent researcher who has an ether paper and also claims this is superior to GR.
    Add that to his absolutely way out political affiliations, and most here will understand where he is coming from.

    You have made many claims since you started on this forum. Not one has been supported, including the nonsensical rubbish you have started this thread on.
    Others ignore you for obvious reasons.
  20. The God Valued Senior Member


    What is your point ? Can you write clearly and briefly?
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2015
  21. The God Valued Senior Member

    Is that your argument ?? You have written this line some 100 odd times in almost every thread? I am yet to know about this 'others ignore you', but how does this help prove your point? You may take a vicarious pleasure that this guy who opposes me is ignored by others, but that does not prove or support your nonsense. BTW who all have me on ignore, I am yet to know? Or you are just bluffing. Or does it really matter to me?
  22. The God Valued Senior Member


    Who is this fellow who has written this crap ? Paddoboy, show some acuity and some independent thinking, how can you follow such nonsense even after spending decades?
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Yep, just as I often remark on your lay person's status, and other relevant issues like referencing and supporting your nonsense.
    And they will be repeated when I find it necessary.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Check out the lack of replies from most posters to your I said, I know of four.

    You really believe I should reveal this? What a card!
    And I don't take any pleasure from arguing with anti maintream amateurs either.
    You can prove the point any time you like by simply referencing or linking some reputable material to support your claims...Simple as that. Except you can't.

Share This Page