Nice stuff. But remember to check out your own backyard first. Stop purposely misrepresenting people of greatness to support your own view. Accept GR for what it is today...Accept the validity of the reality of all FoR's, including that of someone approaching a BH with a torch, and realise that he and the torch and the light do cross that EH with no hint of anything unusual. When you are able to realise that point [and maybe a few others] you may gain some credibility on forums such as this and elsewhere. Far better then the stubborn, resolute unmovable and lack of credibility you now have.
Farsight, given that you obviously can't do any mathematics, you can;t be taken seriously when you ciritcize someone who can actually do physics. You fail to notice how QuarkHead defined motion, as movement over time. (Now we all know that you don;t have a definition of movement, even though you claim its the foundation of your theories.) So, yes, one cannot have movement over time through spacetime because one cannot give time as a function of time. Yet this does not mean that the path of an object through spacetime cannot be parametrized, nor does it mean that the path of an object through spacetime does not exhaustively determine the movement of an object in space over time, nor does it mean that because we describe an object in spacetime that the object never moves. Nor does it mean that spacetime is static, since that has a specific meaning that you always ignore even after its pointed out to you. As always, you remain the dishonest one here, trying to pass off your mathematical illiteracy as some sort of divine blessing.
Paddoboy, you argued that point when you said that the BB and GR support each other. I made the point that BBT does not include the bang iself, and you called it rubbish.
The above is a great example of Farsight's mathematical illiteracy and his duplicity. The great thing is, I am sure that someone has pointed this out to him before, so he knows that its a lie but doesn't care! The citation that Farsight gives to support his theory (You know, the one that isn't Farsight's theory, it's really Einstein's theory and Farsight doesn't have to show you the math because it's all Einstein's math?) is for MOND, an alternative to Newtonian mechanics that makes different predictions from both Newtonian mechanics and from General Relativity. So here Farsight is claiming that his theory both predicts what GR predicts and something else entirely. OK, so show us the math and the entire argument. Oh, wait, you don't know any math and you don't really have an argument. You can only make an argument from your own authority, an authority that is clearly tarnished from all the lying you've done here and across the internet.
If you want to know the reason, then learn the science. You remain horribly ignorant about what people actually do in science and the content of science. The actual content of GR is what suggests to people that the expansion of the universe is not an explosion, as you seem to think that it is.
I'm arguing the point that because the BB and GR support each other, you can logically refer to them as the chicken and the egg analogy. The BB is inferred in mentally reversing the observed expansion of the Universe/spacetime.
Pot, kettle, go play with your time machine. You're still contributing nothing, you stay on filter. I've made it crystal clear umpteen times that movement is empirical. I can hold my hands up and show the gap, the space between them. And I can waggle my hands and show you motion. I can show you space and motion, but you can't show me time. And it make no sense to "define" something you can see in terms of something you can't. Or to say a clock "measures the passage of time" when it's patently clear that it's a device that displays a cumulative count of some kind of regular cyclical motion. Hurrah, another one has finally got it. But since that's all you've got, and you're otherwise still all bile and abuse, it's back on filter for you too.
Granted, but you are rejecting all speculation about preconditions, and making all of cosmological science about trying to explaining everything after that without benefit of a view on the possible preconditions. You end up trying to causally connect everything in the universe with the (implied) Big Bang event when the only scenario that fits the standard model is an expanding universe as of 10^-43 after some unmentioned event at t=0. You end up with it having to create new space as it expands, trying to explain dark energy, which your explanation doesn't do, passing on the possibility that at least a portion of the CMB might be being incorporated into the expanding "arena" from outside which explains why it comes from all directions at all points, missing the fact that there would be old cold dark galactic remnants from parent arenas being encompassed into the arena as it expands, and much more. So if you are happy with what we actually know, just realize you might be leaving a lot of information on the table when you talk about cosmology.
What I'm rejecting is an "explanation" that doesn't explain anything, and instead fobs me off with "the greater universe". How did that come about? Saying it's always been there is merely a reheat of the static universe from before we found out about galactic redshift. It just doesn't satisfy. I want more. I look at the speed of light then gravity then black holes then I wind the universe back to some "frozen star" state. That's as far as I can go. That's it. I have no more view. I don't know how the early universe got like that. That omits the infinite time dilation of the frozen-star early universe. There's no overall gravitational field but the energy-density is very high so gravitational potential is very low, so light doesn't move and clocks don't tick. So it doesn't make a lot of sense talking about 10^-43 seconds after the big bang. It ignores general relativity. You don't create new space per se, space gets bigger. There is no creation ex nihilo. You don't create new bubblegum when you blow a bubble. It explains it better than the people who say dark energy is created out of nothing. Totally in breach of conservation of energy. The CMBR is extremely uniform. I'm not leaving a lot on the table. There isn't much on the table. We don't have much evidence. Which is why I prefer to talk about the easy stuff, like gravity and electromagnetism and the mystery of the missing antimatter and what dark matter is. LOL, everything is easy compared to the beginning of the universe.
Light always but always moves at "c" within ones own FoR. You know that, yet you either lack the intelligence or the intestinal fortitude to say it. Let me say it again....[whether you have me on ignore doesn't bother me, I'm doing this for those that just may take any notice of you] Light/photons are never ever seen to be stopped, anywhere including near the EH of a BH. They are just redshifted beyond viewable range, gradually disappearing from view: All from the PoV of any remote FoR. From a local frame, the speed of light remains at "c" and time dilation is not evident.
Compared to talking about seeing time and light to be stopped, it makes far more sense. The first thing that farsight must accept, and an important part of GR [which he says he supports] is the validity of all FoR's. As long as he ignores that, he will forever be behind the eight ball.
What it does is it makes you reject the greater universe, not consider it seriously. If there is a greater universe, and if it didn't come from nothing, it could easily be thought to have always existed. How is that different from the frozen-star black hole that preexisted all motion? What I have given you is some scenario that could cause the fsbh; you're welcome (just kidding, I know you don't see it that way). Two things. When you put it that way, you are mixing scenarios, i.e. theories and hypotheses that are developed from different preconditions. Two, there is a difference between relativity and General Relativity. We know what GR is, but relativity itself is that everything is in relative motion, and there is no absolute space or time that can be detected. That is the relativity that I invoke in my model. It doesn't include curved spacetime, but replaces it with the energy density gradient of the medium of space. I'll just point out that the uniformity has parameters. If you refer to the monopole temperature of the CMB, it is ~2.7K, and the fluctuations are all within a narrow range. If you look at the dipole, i.e. 180 degrees apart, there is a difference from one side of the universe to the other. That dipole temperature might be consistent with CMB from two parent arenas that each have slightly different monopole temperatures; just saying, lol. Maybe you aren't interested in possibilities, but then maybe you aren't interested in changing years and years of work to mitigate or accommodate some of those possibilities. I change mine all the time, which is why I do the yearly updates out in Fringe.
Well, that's another lie. I also have inconvenient questions: you have never answered a scientific question I have asked you. I even asked you to show how a pencil falls, your own example, and you remained silent. Putting me on ignore means I get to point out your lies without you wasting everyone's time by posting more lies.
Farsight has said this before, but he has never pointed out who has made this claim. Nor has he ever shown how dark energy violates conservation of energy, or even what conservation of energy means on a cosmological scale. More questions that Farsight cannot begin to think how to answer. So easy that he can't actually do it.
Because I say I don't know how it got there, and that I don't have the answer. I'm not presenting a non-answer as an answer like the God Did It guys or Hawking. General relativity "subsumes" special relativity. It allegedly incorporates it, and I tend to use the label relativity for brevity. That's what people say, but that isn't in line with what Einstein said about space being a thing that has properties, or with the CMBR reference frame. That's essentially the reference frame of the universe. It isn't quite an "absolute" reference frame in the relativity sense, but it's as absolute as it gets. No problem with that. You will not find Einstein saying "curved spacetime". Have a read of http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204044 and note this in the abstract: "The interpretation of gravity as a curvature in space-time is an interpretation Einstein did not agree with. Fair enough, the axis of evil is interesting too. But it's all thin gruel. And there's rich pickings elsewhere. I'm interested, but there has to be some kind of supporting evidence or logic to keep me interested.
When one denies God he takes away the beauty from him or herself that God has created to be reflected into the lower realms of sine and the physical planes of existence.
Just to be clear, when I said that there is a difference between relativity and General Relativity, I wasn't referring to a difference between SR and GR. I meant that the relativity I invoke is governed by gravity as orchestrated by the energy density gradient of the medium of space. I agree that the CMB reference frame is a useful concept, and in cases of relativistic motion, is one way of determining the velocity of objects relative to it, and therefore relative to each other to say which is being accelerated and by how much. The dipole temperature is actual physical evidence. What do you accept as the explanation for it? My hypothetical explanation for the cause of the dipole in the CMB is that it indicates preconditions to the Big Bang, and my scenario of two similar parent Big Bang arenas expanding until they overlap would be consistent with that explanation for the dipole temperature variance. I'll leave it at this: The dipole temperature of the CMB is evidence of something, and one hypothetical scenario that could explain it also has a phase that might correspond to your referenced frozen-star black hole, while at the same time supporting my concept of a greater universe where there might be a potentially infinte number of similar Big Bang arenas playing out across the landscape of the greater universe.
The speed of light is same in all references and is an absolute frame of reference. References that are close to absolute frames still allows wiggle room for magic tricks. Mass is not relative, while energy is. We can't red shift mass so the mass becomes smaller (relativity mass will actually increase), but we can red shift energy so the energy value appears to decreases as wavelength stretches. The equivalency of mass and energy changes between frames. The equivalency only applies within the same frame of reference. Since we can't measure mass directly, we need to depend on changing energy, due to relative motion, to infer mass. We use something less than absolute to define an absolute.
