Lambert-Charlier Hierarchical Cosmology

[FOLZONI]

While I guess I seem to have created a reputation for claiming that Plasma Cosmology according to Eric Lerner is always right, it is not always so.

In Hannes Alven's works, he mentions in passing the correct layout upon which Plasma Cosmology needs to be based. (As Lerner still believes in SR, so I am told, he shied away from discussing the fundamental ontological principles underlying Plasma Cosmology).

The Lambert-Charlier Hierarchical Cosmology provides much of what is missing in Lerner's fundamentals.

Carl Vilhelm Ludwig Charlier, a Swedish mathematician-astronomer, based his principles on that of Kant's contemporary, Heinrich Lambert, famed for having invented hyperbolic functions. (You will remember of course that Kant had suggested that many nebulae - fuzzy spots of light rather than stars - were actually outside the Milky Way rather than parts of our galaxy).

In Lambert-Charlier Hierarchial Cosmology (LCHC) the universe is infinite in space and time, increasingly large regions of the universe exhibiting an ever-decreasing density. None of the 'average density' stuff of Einstein in Relativity Appendix IV. This means that at scales much larger than found with the most distant galaxies, there are new & hitherto unexpected structures to be discovered since space continues forever so does not and cannot curve back on itself as we instead find with Einsteinian spacetime.

Philosophically, LCHC accepts the position that the 'things' comprising physical reality are plural, NOT monistic. In other words, physical reality comprises three different things - matter, space and time - always ontologically separate so that they cannot be dissolved one into the other (unlike what happens with Einstein-based cosmologies).

The relation of the three is indirect i.e. prepositional: matter is in space, both of these being in time.

In this way we clear out the logical paradoxes of Special Relativity (SR) which so obscure cosmology today. Readers will now object of course that if I am going to discard Einstein's relativity then I need to replace SR with some other physics to explain what goes on when two differently moving observers observe a light source. So I would NOT post here if I did not already have new theory ready to lay down here!

Still, the detractors can always find plenty to laugh at - e.g. one even calling my postings "pseudo quackery", which presumably means that he prefers genuine quackery instead.

There are further issues to be teased out about LCHC but I don't want to rattle on in a long post and bore people.

So therefore critics are very welcome - as even very negative comment here can prove extremely helpful and insightful.

FOLZONI

 

[origin]

In this way we clear out the logical paradoxes of Special Relativity (SR) which so obscure cosmology today. Readers will now object of course that if I am going to discard Einstein's relativity then I need to replace SR with some other physics to explain what goes on when two differently moving observers observe a light source. So I would NOT post here if I did not already have new theory ready to lay down here!

There are no paradoxes from relativity, the paradoxes were always there, relativity simply RESOLVES those supposed paradoxes.

Still, the detractors can always find plenty to laugh at - e.g. one even calling my postings "pseudo quackery", which presumably means that he prefers genuine quackery instead.

Rest assured, your conjectures are genuine quackery.

 

[PhysBang]

The problem with these alternative cosmologies is that they only say, "what if?"and they never deal with measurement evidence.

 

[FOLZONI]

Greetings PhysBang. I suspect we have met before in another life!

The problem with these alternative cosmologies is that they only say, "what if?"and they never deal with measurement evidence.

But your reply is that of an Einsteinian since the Einsteinians redefine the measuring sticks to whatever they want - like a football field with movable goal posts that ensure that any wild kick by the home team always scores a goal. And Einstein of course, as origin will tell us ad nauseam is the home team.

My task is to expose the Einsteinian 'sport' of automatic goal-post shifting - just as it is the appointed task of origin and other Einsteinians to sputter in rage with excuses when I do!

But to get back to the topic, PhysBang, LCHC is based on the firm philosophical position that the universe is infinite in space and time as well as being infinite in matter-content, differing from the Newtonian Universe in this regard, since Newton's universe consisted only of the Milky Way and virtually nothing beyond, leading to an entirely empty though spatially infinite universe. In other words, Newton's argument is logocentric, thinking only of humanity & God without considering the question of an infinite universe in any meaningful sense. Contrast this with Galileo who considered an infinite universe the only sort of universe worthy of the deity, since in Galileo's universe there is an infinity of worlds, i.e. inferentially an infinite amount of matter in infinite space and time.

That Einstein prevented this realization indicates instead that most physicists know little of philosophy so have been too readily hoodwinked by Einstein's mathematics, even though the basics of SR depend only on straightforward algebra.

FOLZONI

 

[paddoboy]

Still, the detractors can always find plenty to laugh at - e.g. one even calling my postings "pseudo quackery", which presumably means that he prefers genuine quackery instead.
FOLZONI

It appears you have at this time a mortgage on both pseudo and quackery.
Best of luck with it.

Just out of interest, are you also going to claim you have a ToE, as at least three other quackers have?
Or are you one of those quackers that delves in the sewer and comes back under a different guise?

 

[paddoboy]

Still, the detractors can always find plenty to laugh at - e.g. one even calling my postings "pseudo quackery", which presumably means that he prefers genuine quackery instead.
FOLZONI

It appears you have at this time a mortgage on both pseudo and quackery.
Best of luck with it.

Just out of interest, are you also going to claim you have a ToE, as at least three other quackers have?
Or are you one of those quackers that delves in the sewer and comes back under a different guise?

 

[paddoboy]

My task is to expose the Einsteinian 'sport' of automatic goal-post shifting - just as it is the appointed task of origin and other Einsteinians to sputter in rage with excuses when I do!

:roflmao:
DIAGNOSIS: Delusions of Grandeur: Tall Poppy Syndrome:

The Einsteinians and mainstream adherents adhere to the scientific method and peer review, while the likes of those with the above two maladies, scream conspiracy.
Mainstream science will continue to keep on keeping on, improving with new and further observations as our state of the art equipment improves.
The pseudscientists and fellow quackers, will keep on quacking to the grave I would imagine.... :shrug:

 

[PhysBang]

But your reply is that of an Einsteinian since the Einsteinians redefine the measuring sticks to whatever they want - like a football field with movable goal posts that ensure that any wild kick by the home team always scores a goal. And Einstein of course, as origin will tell us ad nauseam is the home team.

Look, we all know that you are ignorant and that you haven't taken the time to read any science, but you don't have to rub it in. Physics is about measuring physical things, it has been this way since Galileo. Einstein (and those following him) have produced clear results producing better matches to measurements.

You are welcome to produce a single example of goal post moving (it is doubtful you will succeed). You are also welcome to show how your preferred (crackpot) alternative can compare to measurements of the universe in any way.

My task is to expose the Einsteinian 'sport' of automatic goal-post shifting - just as it is the appointed task of origin and other Einsteinians to sputter in rage with excuses when I do!

Again, you have yet to produce an example.

But to get back to the topic, PhysBang, LCHC is based on the firm philosophical position

That doesn't matter. Can you make your (crackpot) theory say anything about the physical world and how we actually experience it?

That Einstein prevented this realization indicates instead that most physicists know little of philosophy so have been too readily hoodwinked by Einstein's mathematics, even though the basics of SR depend only on straightforward algebra.

Einstein knew quite a lot of philosophy, as did many of the prominent people that he worked with. Given your statements, I suspect he knew far more than you.

 

[FOLZONI]

The usual abuse by an Einsteinian is to be expected - and is also trivial - but PhysBang makes one significantly understated observation.

Einstein knew quite a lot of philosophy, as did many of the prominent people that he worked with. Given your statements, I suspect he knew far more than you.

Einstein not merely "knew quite a lot of philosophy"; rather he was genius at it, knowing how to use it to manipulate his colleagues! Hence your praise of his understanding is understated to the extreme.

That Einstein's relativity is primarily philosophy & not science is clear from his own words in Relativity Appendix V.

Why is it necessary to drag down from the Olympian fields of Plato the fundamental ideas of thought in natural science, and to attempt to reveal their earthly lineage? Answer: In order to free these ideas from the taboo attached to them, and thus to achieve greater freedom in the formation of ideas and concepts. It is to the immortal credit of David Hume and Ernst Mach that they, above all others, introduced this critical conception. ******

Ernst Mach has a place in both philosophy & physics since he discredited Newton's Absolute Space (a quintessentially philosophical concept!) by realizing that centrifugal force was not the result of spinning relative to space but instead relative to "the fixed stars." Hume and Plato, as you are probably aware, PhysBang, are best known as philosophers.

The conclusion follows from Einstein's own words - that his Theory of Relativity is primarily for establishing a philosophical position rather than being a physical theory!

But Einstein well understands that philosophy undergirds physics - a fact which has escaped the diabolic duo (origin & paddoboy) for example. This is why this LCHC thread is here - to found the countervailing philosophy upon which the correct physics has to be built.

FOLZONI

 

[paddoboy]

But Einstein well understands that philosophy undergirds physics - a fact which has escaped the diabolic duo (origin & paddoboy) for example. This is why this LCHC thread is here - to found the countervailing philosophy upon which the correct physics has to be built.

FOLZONI

Einstein also said....

• "I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
• • But he certainly did not believe in God.
  
  
  
• "Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we dont know:
• Bertrand Russell:

 

[FOLZONI]

Einstein believed in Spinoza's God which was not a sentient being but "the universe as a whole."

Einstein also said: "I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details." But he certainly did not believe in God.

• "Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we dont know:
• Bertrand Russell:

For Einstein God was not a personal being - despite the fact that he attributes "thoughts" to God that he would like to know! Hence Einstein is a pantheist rather than an outright atheist.

As for Bertrand Russell's quote, Russell had his own bizarre philosophy, his words here merely demonstrating the positivist prejudice - that we can only know what we are certain of. What he means to say is that since we cannot fully know the universe we have to use philosophy to sort out the unknowns, though as believed in rubbish like SR along with its logical paradoxes he did not get very far. Nevertheless there is no such thing as a "philosophical answer". There are different philosophies - and scientists need to find the one(s) that work. Einstein's philosophy - & the supposed 'scientific method' deriving from it - is sharply at variance with practice & philosophy elsewhere in science.

The idea that Einstein has rendered philosophy obsolete or irrelevant is merely part of the modernist prejudice that Einstein's diabolical duo on this website like to indulge.

FOLZONI

 

[paddoboy]

Einstein believed in Spinoza's God which was not a sentient being but "the universe as a whole."
For Einstein God was not a personal being - despite the fact that he attributes "thoughts" to God that he would like to know! Hence Einstein is a pantheist rather than an outright atheist.

As for Bertrand Russell's quote, Russell had his own bizarre philosophy, his words here merely demonstrating the positivist prejudice -

I would say you are being arrogant in the extreme in regards to telling all and sundry what Einstein meant with regards to God. He said what he said, although he was basically an Atheist.

As for Bertrand's Russell bizzare philosophy, [your words] it fails into insignifigance with your own.

 

[FOLZONI]

Well if Einstein were truly an atheist, paddo ol' boy...

I would say you are being arrogant in the extreme in regards to telling all and sundry what Einstein meant with regards to God. He said what he said, although he was basically an Atheist.

...he would not "want to know God's thoughts" since if he truly believed that there was no God then this 'no God' would have no thoughts either!

Haven't you ever thought about such things?

Evidently not - and evidently not appreciated that there are many different kinds of atheists, and that they do not agree with each other! Pantheism is basically a half-way house between atheism & theism as Einstein reveals - i.e. thought without a thinker!

You seem to think of anti-Einsteinian thinkers (anti-relativists) as cartoon villains - & yourself as a Superhero dispensing justice & reason upon said villains! IOW in the Einstein fantasy world, paddoboy & origin clearly think along the lines of Batman & Robin - and yours truly as one of the ridiculously comic villains.

Presumably I'm the Joker then, but no doubt you'll have another name reserved for me!

FOLZONI

 

[PhysBang]

It is hardly surprising that FOLZONI would not respond honestly to my post.

Let's look at the very next sentence after the one FOLZONI quotes:

Science has taken over from pre-scientific thought the concepts space, time, and material object (with the important special case "solid body") and has modified them and rendered them more precise.

In context, Einstein is pointing out that relativity theory is about providing an empirical justification for ideas that previously were only considered to be a priori and only open to conceptual analysis.

So, again, FOLZONI, if your (crackpot) ideas can show us a picture of the universe that can be compared to measurement evidence, please show us.

 

[FOLZONI]

Note how Einstein in PhysBang's quote above treats only spacetime as science...

It is hardly surprising that FOLZONI would not respond honestly to my post. Let's look at the very next sentence after the one FOLZONI quotes:

Einstein: Science has taken over from pre-scientific thought the concepts space, time, and material object (with the important special case "solid body") and has modified them and rendered them more precise.

In context, Einstein is pointing out that relativity theory is about providing an empirical justification for ideas that previously were only considered to be a priori and only open to conceptual analysis.

So, again, FOLZONI, if your (crackpot) ideas can show us a picture of the universe that can be compared to measurement evidence, please show us.

...whereas earlier scientists, including Galileo, Newton & Maxwell, who treated space & time as separate entities are merely cursed & stigmatized by being labelled 'pre-scientific'!

That is an enormously arrogant claim from Einstein - yet PhysBang swallows it and regurgitates it as if he sees nothing wrong with it! Einstein reduces solid bodies to pointlike abstractions, rendering any 'solidity' questionable since such bodies lack extension in space as a result of applying SR. Meanwhile fluid physics is sidestepped entirely!

So I am NOT willing to abandon Galileo, Newton & Maxwell in favour of Einstein merely because the first three made some mistakes in their philosophy & theorizing! Why? Because Einstein's theorizing is raddled with logical paradoxes - and these derive specifically from time dilation & length contraction (TD&LC), the very heart of SR.

Now Newton's Absolute Space and Maxwell's Stagnant Luminiferous Aether are inconsistent with LCHC but LCHC certainly fits with Galileo's conception of the infinite universe and more particularly with Galilean Relativity - the only genuine relativity. If you read my other threads here, PhysBang, you will see that even Einstein himself admits that the only alternative theory to SR is a "more complicated law" for the propagation of light, a law "conformable to the [Galilean] Principle of Relativity" (Einstein, Relativity chapter VII). Furthermore, this more complicated theory is quantum-based and arises from simple considerations which Einstein discarded when he concocted SR.

To write as if "measurement evidence" means accepting Einstein's dogmas and that any rejection of Einstein's dogmas is to reject "measurement evidence" merely shows that PhysBang has no philosophical understanding of cosmological issues as he seems to think that cosmological understanding is merely manufactured by mathematical equations. That is why this thread is here - to reveal the underlying dogmas required to establish a cosmology with physical theories that do NOT lead to logical paradoxes.

Replacing space and time (labelling them 'pre-scientific') with spacetime is exactly the way NOT to handle the question correctly - unless by 'correct' one intends forever to muddle oneself & others in the TD&LC-induced logical paradoxes of SR!

FOLZONI

 

[PhysBang]

Note how Einstein in PhysBang's quote above treats only spacetime as science...
...whereas earlier scientists, including Galileo, Newton & Maxwell, who treated space & time as separate entities are merely cursed & stigmatized by being labelled 'pre-scientific'!

No, they all did the work of showing how to make space and time into something usable in physics through measurement.

You seem to be the only one who wants to return to a point before Galileo where we ignore observations and use only conceptual analysis.

To write as if "measurement evidence" means accepting Einstein's dogmas and that any rejection of Einstein's dogmas is to reject "measurement evidence" merely shows that PhysBang has no philosophical understanding of cosmological issues as he seems to think that cosmological understanding is merely manufactured by mathematical equations. That is why this thread is here - to reveal the underlying dogmas required to establish a cosmology with physical theories that do NOT lead to logical paradoxes.

No, you try to dodge the fact that your (crackpot) ideas can't be used to do physics.

So, again, if your (crackpot) ideas can be compared to measurement evidence, let's see it.

 

[paddoboy]

No, you try to dodge the fact that your (crackpot) ideas can't be used to do physics.

So, again, if your (crackpot) ideas can be compared to measurement evidence, let's see it.

Worth a repeat.

 

[FOLZONI]

Your statement is an evasion, PhysBang!

No, they [e.g. Galileo, Newton & Maxwell I presume] all did the work of showing how to make space and time into something usable in physics through measurement.

You seem to be the only one who wants to return to a point before Galileo where we ignore observations and use only conceptual analysis.

Space and time were in use as separate entities, conceptually & observationally, before the time of Galileo. As you rightly state above, Galileo, Newton & Maxwell developed this insight as to the separation of space and time as practical science - just as we see in the dimensions given in physics textbooks.

Einstein however is the one who fudged the fundamental distinction between space and time (and then matter) by concocting the nonsensical notion of 'spacetime'. In order to muster support for it he then labels all work on space and time that presumed their ontological separation 'prescientific'! You are evading the issue PhysBang: i.e. Einstein is labelling the work of Galileo, Newton & Maxwell as prescientific because they presume the ontological separateness of space and time, unlike Einstein himself who prefers 'spacetime'.

No, you try to dodge the fact that your (crackpot) ideas can't be used to do physics.

So, again, if your (crackpot) ideas can be compared to measurement evidence, let's see it.

Hence my physics is based on the 'crackpot' physics of Galileo, Newton & Maxwell - specifically the 'crackpot' notion of the ontological separation of space and time. LCHC recognizes this separation unconditionally too, so your task, PhysBang is to stop misrepresenting the situation and frankly admit that in the quotation that YOU gave, Einstein has in effect labelled the thinking of Newton and Maxwell - but especially Galileo (due to Galilean Relativity which he rejected) - as 'PRESCIENTIFIC', because they accepted the ontological separation of time & space.

Spacetime is Einstein's own concoction, not a practical principle found in nature. We live in space and time, not spacetime! You are the one who has to justify Einstein's introduction of it - & the resulting impracticality that it creates e.g. the failure to solve our energy crisis.

FOLZONI

 

[paddoboy]

Hence my physics is based on the 'crackpot' physics of Galileo, Newton & Maxwell - specifically the 'crackpot' notion of the ontological separation of space and time. LCHC recognizes this separation unconditionally too, so your task, PhysBang is to stop misrepresenting the situation and frankly admit that in the quotation that YOU gave, Einstein has in effect labelled the thinking of Newton and Maxwell - but especially Galileo (due to Galilean Relativity which he rejected) - as 'PRESCIENTIFIC', because they accepted the ontological separation of time & space.

Spacetime is Einstein's own concoction, not a practical principle found in nature. We live in space and time, not spacetime! You are the one who has to justify Einstein's introduction of it - & the resulting impracticality that it creates e.g. the failure to solve our energy crisis.

FOLZONI

 

[paddoboy]

You are fooling no one but yourself.
Physbang is correct. Science does progress and along with that progression is the fact that space and time, as separate real entities, are also reflected as a 4 D spacetime entity.
If you have anything of substance refuting any of accepted mainstream GR physics, then get it peer reviewed.