Geocentric Belief

Matter per se did not, could not exist.
Matter is anything that has mass.
Energy is the ability to do work.
http://profmattstrassler.com/articl...tter-etc/matter-and-energy-a-false-dichotomy/
In reality, matter and energy don’t even belong to the same categories; it is like referring to apples and orangutans, or to heaven and earthworms, or to birds and beach balls.

I'm not speculating. I'm standing on the shoulders of giants, taking into account what we do know and their logical speculations and or predictions on reasonable scenarios that appears to align with the BB and GR, men far more attuned to what is going on, and far more knowledgeable than you or I.

No, we are talking about the observable data that leads reasonable people to conclude that the Universe/spacetime is expanding, as against an interpretation of that, that can be used in limited scenarios [the same as a flat Earth] but is not generally used in most forms of science.

Not real smart to see you move away from one area of your thinking [on my using of the word poof] to another even more unlikely scenario.
At least I got one misinterpretation resolved.

We are talking about a seldom used, interpretation of what is observed in an expanding Universe/spacetime.
This is where having an agenda can be totally catastrophic in accepting what really obviously is.

Perhaps on that score, I should take a leaf out of your book and ignore your own nonsensical extreme thinking on science, politics and the resulting conspiracies you then find it necessitates to fabricate .

Yes, I have noticed that, particularly when you have accused me of ad hominems and personal attacks, while interpreting your own vitriol as aggressive debating.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

False. The standard mainstream distinction used in GR distinguishes the gravitational field, on the one hand, and matter, which is everything else, on the other hand. In particular, at least for the context of GR, the EM field (photons) is matter. But photons are massless.

Moreover, the most fundamental particles we know, and which are "matter" even in the most restrictive interpretation of the meaning of "matter" which would exclude all gauge fiels as well as the Higgs field, the fermions, all have mass. Even the neutrions. (Ok, you could refer here to taking the SM more seriously, as true on a more fundamental level, where all mass terms disappear, because they are interpreted as interaction terms with the Higgs field. But why after this matter would no longer be matter, remains your secret.)

please stop trample down these poor giants. They have not deserved such an inhuman treatment. And leave "logical speculations" (whatever this means - speculations are speculations, of course, even speculations should not contain logical contradictions, but this is only a minimal requirements even for speculations which are otherwise completely off, not something which disctinguishes some higher class of speculations) to scientists who know physics.

As far as you want to suggest that there is a difference that your interpretation is what we observe, and my interpretation is something worse, it is wrong. What we observe is that, in comparison with our rulers, the distances between far away galaxies increase. (And even this "observation" is an interpretation of observation using theoretical assumptions, like the thesis that theories of "tired light" are wrong, but given that nobody questions all these theoretical conclusions here, let's ignore this.) There is no independent empirical evidence which would favour the idea that this has to be explained by expanding distances in comparison with shrinking rulers.

As far as you want to suggest that clever, reasonable people follow you, and I'm simply a stupid, unreasonable outsider, this is simply your usual behaviour trait and not a scientific argument.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No, correct just as I explained. Just another of your now familiar cop outs.
Matter per se did not, could not exist.
Matter is anything that has mass.
Energy is the ability to do work.
http://profmattstrassler.com/articl...tter-etc/matter-and-energy-a-false-dichotomy/
A Photon is a quanta of energy/light and the force carrier for electromagnetic interaction and is massless.

No, not my secret, accepted mainstream interpretation as to the non existence of massive particles/matter in the first instant after the BB, when only the Superforce existed.

The logical speculative scenario about matter/mass not existing at the first instant after the BB stands despite your attributing it to me, and your derision of those giants of the present and past, that were/are at the coal face of science, while you play your games here.

No it is correct just as I have described and just as my links have supported.
Let me state it again.....
The shrinking ruler analogy is an alternative to the accepted model [universal expansion] that is on the odd occasions used for sake of convenience.
It only plays a very minor role in cosmology interpretations against the far more accepted expanding Universe/BB model.
If you object to that or think it is wrong. please support your objections and claims with a reputable link.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Wow! That thin skin is showing through again.
I never suggest that clever reasonable people are following me, in fact more likely than not, it is I that follow the clever reasonable people, particularly if they don't indulge in silly conspiracies or have other agendas to support.
What else you interpret about yourself is your problem.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Repetitions with zero new arguments omitted.

Fine. To avoid such misunderstandings in the future, I would suggest you to avoid formulations like the following: "No, we are talking about the observable data that leads reasonable people to conclude that the Universe/spacetime is expanding, as against an interpretation of that,"

To explain the difference: The mainstream knows that this question is about interpretation, and not about physics. Physics tells that the distancies between far away galaxies increase relative to our rulers. The theory is named "relativity" because it fundamentally underscores that only such relative information matters in physics. Thus, there is no observational support nor for expanding universe with fixed size rulers, nor for fixed size universe and shrinking rulers, above are equally valid interpretations.

So, the mainstream scientist uses, without any problem, in the FLRW ansatz coordinates which correspond to the shrinking rulers interpretation (the far away galaxies have fixed coordinates) but talk about the expanding universe. Every physicist understands, that nor the choice of the coordinates matters, nor the choice of words. They name one quark property "color", another one "charm", and once people use to talk about "expanding universe" instead of "shrinking rulers", and this is also a valid interpretation, they continue to talk about "expanding universe", that's all. If the guy who has first used "expanding universe" would have said "shrinking rulers", they would talk today about shrinking rulers, but this would not change the physics at all - and no physicist would seriously fight someone who would talk about an expanding universe.

So, the fighting against my "shrinking rulers" interpretation is your personal fighting. It is a consequence of your fanatical following the mainstream, who talks about the "expanding universe", without understanding that this does not really matter and is essentially nothing but an established naming convention.

 

But correct none the less.

You can avoid the legitimacy of my claim as much as you like, that just reflects on your dishonesty and your paranoia and ego inflated persona, to never having to admit any error.
Let me state it again.....
The shrinking ruler interpretation/analogy is an alternative to the accepted model [universal expansion] that is on the odd occasions used for sake of convenience.
It only plays a very minor role in cosmology interpretations against the far more accepted expanding Universe/BB model.
That statement in bold is correct and is the reason you see the need to totally avoid it. The shrinking ruler analogy while being an alternative interpretation, is limited in its application, and not generally used in mainstream accepted cosmology, just as my links suggest.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Not at all but that "quality" could be applied to yourself.
Just to jog your memory it was you who objected to my claim in post 8, that the Universe has no center in post 9...[Other than of course ones own personal observable universe].I was of course correct in that claim, but you saw it as a chance to raise this shrinking ruler interpretation, probably again in your own way, to try and throw some more credibility on your past claims. It didn't work.

But that appears to be par for the course from your "lofty" position, who also claims similar with a theoretical scientific paper/s that languishes without any recall. Why? Because the already accepted mainstream model/s are [1] a better descriptive interpretation of reality, [2] The incumbent model will never be displaced by anything that doesn't do a better job, [3] and most alternatives to mainstream are to some extent faulty.

The point is the established naming convention, in this case has a far better wide ranging descriptive application then your shrinking rulers. It is what a cosmological redshift, observationally verified, dictates.
At the very least, if the shrinking rulers were applied, it would see a Doppler redshift by definition, and in my opinion, despite your objections to the contrary, a blueshift.
A Doppler shift of course is what we would observe if matter was moving away [shrinking] rather than intervening space expanding.
Finally and definitively, as I have claimed, the expanding model of the Universe, is the generally used descriptive model that explains the evidence that supports it.
The "shrinking ruler"alternative interpretation is just that....and alternative interpretation that has limited application and as a result, very rarely used.

On the first point of my supposed "fanatical following of mainstream",[1] at best that is plainly a cop out and unsupported, secondly, the mainstream position becomes the mainstream position, because it is the most realistic, best descriptive, logical model that meets present observations, thirdly, as a lay person, it leaves me with two choices...to accept on faith what mainstream claim [which I do on odd occasions just as everyone needs to accept some things on faith] or alternatively accept the rantings, ravings, pseudoscientific claims and alternative interpretations of a maverick scientist, who spends his working time on a science forum, opened to any and all comers.In the mean time our real astronomers/cosmologists/physicists are at the coal face, advancing and interpreting knowledge, based on the data from our many state of the art probes and 'scopes.

At the same time, if I personally do not understand any aspect of mainstream science, I will ask questions, and I am able to access reputable learning institutions for answers and explanations.
I also had the pleasure of being a part of another now defunct science forum, that had our own "irregular" astronomer, and a young GR theorist expert.
Two scientists who earned my total respect.