AbnormallyHonest

Expansion of Space

60 posts in this topic

23 minutes ago, beecee said:

Again, you show your ignorance of science and scientific theories. Quickly glancing through this thread, all your questions and ramblings have been answered and shown to be invalid at best and speculative nonsense at worst. Again, as you have been informed, nothing is really "proven"  in science. A scientific theory best describes a set of observations and makes successful predictions as per GR. As those theories continue to make successful  predictions and as they continue to describe accurately our observations, they grow in certainty over time. Theories such as the BB, SR, GR, Evolution are very near certain. Theories are never quite 100% proven...But it only takes one observation or experiment that contradicts the theory, to show it is wrong.

The only invalidation was the fact that this model relied on QM, so that was attacked. Then, the same QM was used to demonstrate predictability. GR may make successful predictions, but Maxwell's Equations for electromagnetism make the same predictions. So which one is correct? Is it 2+2=4 or 2x2=4?

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

15 minutes ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

The only invalidation was the fact that this model relied on QM, so that was attacked. Then, the same QM was used to demonstrate predictability. GR may make successful predictions, but Maxwell's Equations for electromagnetism make the same predictions. So which one is correct? Is it 2+2=4 or 2x2=4?

We do not have a full theory of QM.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations_in_curved_spacetime

"In physics, Maxwell's equations in curved spacetime govern the dynamics of the electromagnetic field in curved spacetime (where the metric may not be the Minkowski metric) or where one uses an arbitrary (not necessarily Cartesian) coordinate system. These equations can be viewed as a generalization of the vacuum Maxwell's equations which are normally formulated in the local coordinates of flat spacetime. But because general relativity dictates that the presence of electromagnetic fields (or energy/matter in general) induce curvature in spacetime,[1] Maxwell's equations in flat spacetime should be viewed as a convenient approximation.

When working in the presence of bulk matter, it is preferable to distinguish between free and bound electric charges. Without that distinction, the vacuum Maxwell's equations are called the "microscopic" Maxwell's equations. When the distinction is made, they are called the macroscopic Maxwell's equations.

The electromagnetic field also admits a coordinate-independent geometric description, and Maxwell's equations expressed in terms of these geometric objects are the same in any spacetime, curved or not. Also, the same modifications are made to the equations of flat Minkowski space when using local coordinates that are not Cartesian. For example, the equations in this article can be used to write Maxwell's equations in spherical coordinates. For these reasons, it may be useful to think of Maxwell's equations in Minkowski space as a special case, rather than Maxwell's equations in curved spacetimes as a generalization."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

As I suggested previously, making certified definite claims, opposing mainstream science on a science forum, open to any Tom, Dick or Harry, most likely reflects on your ignorance of the incumbent theory you are trying to suppress or over throw. The status quo stands.

Edited by beecee
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, beecee said:

We do not have a full theory of QM.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations_in_curved_spacetime

"In physics, Maxwell's equations in curved spacetime govern the dynamics of the electromagnetic field in curved spacetime (where the metric may not be the Minkowski metric) or where one uses an arbitrary (not necessarily Cartesian) coordinate system. These equations can be viewed as a generalization of the vacuum Maxwell's equations which are normally formulated in the local coordinates of flat spacetime. But because general relativity dictates that the presence of electromagnetic fields (or energy/matter in general) induce curvature in spacetime,[1] Maxwell's equations in flat spacetime should be viewed as a convenient approximation.

When working in the presence of bulk matter, it is preferable to distinguish between free and bound electric charges. Without that distinction, the vacuum Maxwell's equations are called the "microscopic" Maxwell's equations. When the distinction is made, they are called the macroscopic Maxwell's equations.

The electromagnetic field also admits a coordinate-independent geometric description, and Maxwell's equations expressed in terms of these geometric objects are the same in any spacetime, curved or not. Also, the same modifications are made to the equations of flat Minkowski space when using local coordinates that are not Cartesian. For example, the equations in this article can be used to write Maxwell's equations in spherical coordinates. For these reasons, it may be useful to think of Maxwell's equations in Minkowski space as a special case, rather than Maxwell's equations in curved spacetimes as a generalization."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

As I suggested previously, making certified definite claims, opposing mainstream science on a science forum, open to any Tom, Dick or Harry, most likely reflects on your ignorance of the incumbent theory you are trying to suppress or over throw. The status quo stands.

Don't you see, that you are basing this on conjecture that spacetime is curved. I would say that spacetime is flat between the boundaries, but at the extremes curvature would apply, and that is why it is not as predictable. Einstein may have shown Newton's Laws of Motion to be incorrect or primitive, yet spacecraft to other worlds rely on one set of principles. Does it not make sense that Newton and Maxwell's version of spacetime both cohesively explain the same thing using the same model, doesn't that represent stronger validation than another as assumed to be "more accurate"?

Even Einstein said, "It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

Don't you see, that you are basing this on conjecture that spacetime is curved. I would say that spacetime is flat between the boundaries, but at the extremes curvature would apply, and that is why it is not as predictable

As I said previously, "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence then does knowledge" is something you really need to consider. We observe the many different aspects of curvature and the geometry of spacetime in many different ways...gravitational lensing, Lense Thirring effect, and gravitational waves just to name three, and of course the Eddington eclipse confirmation. Spacetime curvature in its many forms are fact. Denying that in the face of overwhelming evidence and denying it many times, on a forum open to anyone, really means nothing.

1 hour ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

 Einstein may have shown Newton's Laws of Motion to be incorrect or primitive, yet spacecraft to other worlds rely on one set of principles. Does it not make sense that Newton and Maxwell's version of spacetime both cohesively explain the same thing using the same model, doesn't that represent stronger validation than another as assumed to be "more accurate"?

Einstein did not show Newton's laws to be incorrect, rather they showed them as limited, just as GR itself is limited. Newton's laws of gravity are suffice to explain everyday Earth based mechanics and most space endeavours in our solar system. GR gives the same results with far more accuracy, but also far more complicated mathematical structure, which simply is not needed for those efforts. Newton's laws are correct within their zone of applicability. Einstein's GR extends that zone of applicability.  

1 hour ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

Even Einstein said, "It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience."

Einstein's GR certainly follows that quote, and at this stage of proceedings, is still recognised as the overwhelming model of gravity that best describes what we observe and continues to make predictions that are substantiated.

Edited by beecee
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

Don't you see, that you are basing this on conjecture that spacetime is curved.

This is not a conjecture; it is one of the most thoroughly tested scientific theories. As you have no alternative beyond some vague, slightly incoherent ramblings, I don't see any reason to discard this as the basis of physics.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

/rants

You're going on incoherent tangents, none of which have anything to do with your ''theory''. It's ironic that you're talking so much about math without ever providing any. Please focus on the thread and provide concrete evidence and cases, instead of handwaving.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

Did it exist before or after humans came up with a concept of how to describe it?

Did the concept exist before the concept existed? No. Did the behavior? Yes.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

Science believes mathematics is God, wouldn't you say?

No, I wouldn't say

Quote

So what if one day, we find that our interpretation of mathematics is as limiting in our understanding as our vision is into understanding the electromagnetic spectrum.

Then we'll adopt the better way that has come along. Until there's a demonstrable better way, we'll stick with what works best.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

It does, because it predicts "Red Shift" and the bending of light.

Red shift is a classical phenomenon. Refraction is a classical phenomenon.

Quote

These have to do with the warping of spacetime. Einstein's model of the universe creates a fluid dynamic existence of spacetime that exists differently at different locations. Time does not flow the same for everyone. The Universe may be much younger to differing perspective or much older even. If we have two perspectives in space, that do not exist within the same gravitational system, and both those locations prove to be the center of that perspective, that's pretty clear validation. Space expands from every point, it can't do that without division.

What does this nonsense have to do with QM?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, swansont said:

Then we'll adopt the better way that has come along. Until there's a demonstrable better way, we'll stick with what works best.

Bingo! As I have said a few times now to our self appraised "online experts"  Science is a discipline in eternal progress. These self appraised online experts have plenty of "what ifs" "perhaps" and "maybes" and totally lacking in facts and evidence, 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now