Butch Posted November 2, 2017 Author Share Posted November 2, 2017 14 hours ago, Strange said: It isn't. Could that be one of those errant assumptions? We are doing well Strange, you may never accept my hypothesis, however I believe very soon you will understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 1 minute ago, Butch said: Could that be one of those errant assumptions? No. We would see more distant objects being smaller, which we don't. Don't you think you should a little basic cosmology before attempting to overthrow it? There is difference between "thinking outside the box" and not even knowing there is a box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butch Posted November 2, 2017 Author Share Posted November 2, 2017 5 minutes ago, Strange said: No. We would see more distant objects being smaller, which we don't. Don't you think you should a little basic cosmology before attempting to overthrow it? There is difference between "thinking outside the box" and not even knowing there is a box. I am not trying to over throw anything, I hope to expand our understanding. Actually objects at a distance do indeed appear smaller, we label this "perspective" this is something we accept without further consideration because it is a natural part of our relative universe. I am familiar with 1/d^2, so you need not go there. If you would stay with me while I present some charts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 8 minutes ago, Butch said: I am not trying to over throw anything, I hope to expand our understanding. You are the one who needs to increase their understanding. 8 minutes ago, Butch said: Actually objects at a distance do indeed appear smaller, we label this "perspective" Just to be clear, we would see distant objects actually being smaller, which we don't. Sheesh. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvestru Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 18 minutes ago, Butch said: Actually objects at a distance do indeed appear smaller, we label this "perspective" I always thought the cow enlarges from the size of an ant to a full grown cow the more I approach it. I will never understand your "Absolute universe" now. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butch Posted November 2, 2017 Author Share Posted November 2, 2017 (edited) These charts are plots of space v time via the function space = 1/time^2. For clarification: Time here is absolute time, it is flat and infinite. Space is the absolute dimension of space, not just the void between particles. This then is the path of space v time, at this scale it approaches a right angle and indeed plotted with limits of infinity it would be a right angle. But let us take a closer look... This is not the chart I had prepared but it will do... At this scale we observe a hyperbolic curve, the relative soace/time we are familiar with lies along this curve. The "Big Bang" began at -unity. If you refer to the first chart note that unity is at the vertex of the right angle. Our present is at T-15ms (neural delay) as we look into the distance we are looking into the past, the past lies along the path of T-n, the furthest we can observe is T-1. 36 minutes ago, Silvestru said: I always thought the cow enlarges from the size of an ant to a full grown cow the more I approach it. I will never understand your "Absolute universe" now. The physics student wondered, "Why is that frisbee getting larger?" And then it hit him. (At T0, however he did not realize it until T+15ms). 48 minutes ago, Strange said: You are the one who needs to increase their understanding. Just to be clear, we would see distant objects actually being smaller, which we don't. Sheesh. We do not see them actually being smaller because we are also matter that is expanding, their relative size remains the same at any point in time, however we are observing distant objects as they were in the distant past... They were smaller then. I warned you that this concept would seek to escape you, it is difficult to think outside of relative space time. Simply put, perspective is a part of the illusion that is the relative universe... It is difficult to ignore this illusion, it is ultimately persistent. Perhaps it would provide incentive to grasp this concept if it seemed a worthy pursuit, so what is the use of understanding something that is outside of our "reality"? This absolute frame of reference would provide a means by which to verify and/or modify current science, it would also provide clues for new discoveries. It should not however negate solid scientific theory, rather it should enhance our understanding. Edited November 2, 2017 by Butch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 1 hour ago, Butch said: These charts are plots of space v time via the function space = 1/time^2. What does "space = 1/time^2" mean? Dimensional analysis shows it to be wrong/meaningless. What evidence are these graphs based on? Or have you just made it up? Quote For clarification: Time here is absolute time, it is flat and infinite.Space is the absolute dimension of space, not just the void between particles. That is pretty meaningless as well. Quote We do not see them actually being smaller because we are also matter that is expanding, their relative size remains the same at any point in time, however we are observing distant objects as they were in the distant past... In which case we wouldn't see red-shift. You can't have it both ways. Quote Perhaps it would provide incentive to grasp this concept if it seemed a worthy pursuit, so what is the use of understanding something that is outside of our "reality"? More to the point, what evidence do you have for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butch Posted November 2, 2017 Author Share Posted November 2, 2017 (edited) 7 hours ago, Strange said: That is pretty meaningless as well. Close but no cigar... What is space without time and what is time without space, note that in the absolute space and time do not coexist! 7 hours ago, Strange said: What does "space = 1/time^2" mean? Dimensional analysis shows it to be wrong/meaningless. What evidence are these graphs based on? Or have you just made it up? My hypothesis says that the relative universe exists at T0, the absolute present. We can never witness the absolute present because of neural delay and the limited speed of light. The relative universe that we witness in one instant, no longer exists in the next instant. Our sense of time is created by our minds and is a factor of the neural delay (a fly has a much different sense of time). The absolute function would be as T approaches 0, S approaches infinity. When plotted to infinity this path is a right angle... When we translate this into what we witness in the relative, it becomes an accelerating expansion of space (matter included) so the formulae I have presented is simple acceleration... Do not let this trip you up, we are for the most part unaware of this expansion because we are a part of it. There are some indications of it and it can be measured... It can also become a victim of errant assumptions. 7 hours ago, Strange said: In which case we wouldn't see red-shift. You can't have it both ways. Actually, we do have it both ways... The object is distant and in the past, it is smaller then and the photons it originated then have a shorter wavelength than the photons it is originating at present. If these photons do not experience red shift in their journey across space they would arrive at our retina with higher frequency and hence energy than they should have. Please note that the absolute facet of this phenomena would have the photons accelerating with expansion a double whammy for energy of the photon, thus the red shift in the absolute would be equal to that in the relative and they would be additive, one we can measure, one we cannot... That is we cannot measure it directly, however we know it is equal to the relative. Expressing this in more precise mathematical terms would again be meaningless until you grasp the concept, if you will study the charts I think it will help. 7 hours ago, Strange said: More to the point, what evidence do you have for it? Redshift and the apparent accelerating expansion of the universe that current assumptions postulate. There is other evidence, but again, we would be getting ahead of ourselves. I really am making a great effort to make sure you have your head around this concept before we move on. That does not mean you need accept it, just grasp it. Edited November 3, 2017 by Butch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 10 hours ago, Butch said: Redshift and the apparent accelerating expansion of the universe that current assumptions postulate. These are not postulates, they are based on evidence and mathematical models. You have presented no evidence and no mathematical model, just some metaphysical mumbo-jumbo. Is it time to ask the mods to close this because there is no science? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butch Posted November 3, 2017 Author Share Posted November 3, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, Strange said: These are not postulates, they are based on evidence and mathematical models. You have presented no evidence and no mathematical model, just some metaphysical mumbo-jumbo. Is it time to ask the mods to close this because there is no science? The evidence for those postulates is confined by the relative universe. They are postulates, because nothing in science is fact. It perhaps is time for you to think on those charts and try to understand so that we can move on. I am pretty sure that you are the rare breed that does not confine themselves to learning, teaching and verifying... You want to explore. Edited November 3, 2017 by Butch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 59 minutes ago, Butch said: They are postulates, because nothing in science is fact. Those are not the only two possibilities. Reported for lack of science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanTrentfield Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 On 11/15/2016 at 9:30 AM, Butch said: Not critiquing, if space were expanding at an accelerating rate, how would we perceive it? By "Space" I am referring to the dimension of space v the dimension of time. Would you refer to this space as flat or curved? And for our next trick I present to you, Door number three! (AKA Hubble's law). http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/hubble.html A successful science paper often contains 1% idea and 99% evidence. Please cite some evidence besides a statement Einstein made, like at least some math or genuine scientific papers investigating the phenomenon you are describing. 1 hour ago, Butch said: The evidence for those postulates is confined by the relative universe. They are postulates, because nothing in science is fact. It perhaps is time for you to think on those charts and try to understand so that we can move on. I am pretty sure that you are the rare breed that does not confine themselves to learning, teaching and verifying... You want to explore. If nothing in science is fact then nothing is fact. Which means I'm a super rich dude with a mansion an a garage full of cars that cost five million a piece, which I am clearly not. Physical laws and scientific theories can never be 100% confirmed because you could never observe 100% of the scenarios where it could be observed. To doubt the fact that is in science is like doubting you have a hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butch Posted November 3, 2017 Author Share Posted November 3, 2017 4 hours ago, DanTrentfield said: And for our next trick I present to you, Door number three! (AKA Hubble's law). http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/hubble.html A successful science paper often contains 1% idea and 99% evidence. Please cite some evidence besides a statement Einstein made, like at least some math or genuine scientific papers investigating the phenomenon you are describing. If nothing in science is fact then nothing is fact. Which means I'm a super rich dude with a mansion an a garage full of cars that cost five million a piece, which I am clearly not. Physical laws and scientific theories can never be 100% confirmed because you could never observe 100% of the scenarios where it could be observed. To doubt the fact that is in science is like doubting you have a hand. That is why we call them postulates. 4 hours ago, Strange said: Those are not the only two possibilities. Reported for lack of science. I have presented the simplest math I can at this point and you pretend ignorance. It is simply acceleration... Do you or do you not understand S=1/T^2 it is a simple acceleration formula... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 1 hour ago, Butch said: That is why we call them postulates. Nope. That is not what a postulate is. The closest thing to "fact" in science is a theory. 1 hour ago, Butch said: I have presented the simplest math I can at this point You have presented no meaningful math. 1 hour ago, Butch said: Do you or do you not understand S=1/T^2 it is a simple acceleration formula... Have you not heard of dimensional analysis? Your "formula" is meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butch Posted November 4, 2017 Author Share Posted November 4, 2017 (edited) 19 hours ago, Strange said: Nope. That is not what a postulate is. The closest thing to "fact" in science is a theory. You have presented no meaningful math. Have you not heard of dimensional analysis? Your "formula" is meaningless. As I Have Stated previously... The math of our relative universe does not work in the absolute, if you look at the charts you should be able to understand that with limits of infinity, the hyperbolic curve of acceleration becomes a right angle... This indicates that the framework of the universe exists only @ T0 absolute present time. Because of neural delay and the travel time of photons we witness the curved path between -15 Ms and -13.67 billion years, if we look at a distant body it can be plotted as a single point between these two. I have elected to describe the beginning of the big bang as the point of unity, as we cannot measure things that are in the past beyond the right angle represented by the plot with limits of infinity, thus we can plot objects on this curve as a function of time with values less than unity. For example a body at a distance of 1 gly would be placed at 1/13.67 = T-0.073152889539136. I prefer to call 13.67 gly one cosmic unit, if you think it wise to use different units I am open to suggestions. If you follow me, we can continue with dimensional analysis, I am just trying not to lose you along the way, you have been responding for quite some time... I do appreciate that. Edited November 4, 2017 by Butch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted November 4, 2017 Share Posted November 4, 2017 Dimensional analysis shows your formula cannot possibly be right. Why do you ignore this and just repeat the same hogwash? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted November 4, 2017 Share Posted November 4, 2017 ! Moderator Note Enough! Butch, you aren't listening to criticism, and that makes this more of a blog for you than a meaningful discussion for the membership. We gave you SO MUCH SPACE to convey and support your ideas, and it's obviously not enough to convince your peers here that you're on to something. Closing this, please don't bring this subject up again, because you can't adequately support it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.cc169fb67f9c969aeace623286b9b5e6.jpg)
Recommended Posts