Jump to content

aramis720

Senior Members
  • Posts

    69
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by aramis720

  1. 3 minutes ago, beecee said:

    Of course the possibility of any scientific theory including the standard cosmological model, based on new and extended observations, may show that it is wrong or needs modification.But also criticizing is easier than building a theory, and the achievements of the standard theory must not be underestimated. 

    Yes, of course. But in this case we have a verifiable/checkable very serious challenge to the standard model. In fact, I just found out that Wikipedia has redshift data on these objects in Virgo and Fornax, so I'll double check the Fornax numbers if you want to double check the Virgo numbers? It's just about a dozen objects to check. 

  2. 29 minutes ago, beecee said:

    I'm simply saying that what he proposed with his interpretation of observation, only applied to a small sample in the greater scheme of observational data. DM did not invalidate GR, and this anomaly is not enough to invalidate what the overwhelming observations say.

     

     

    I disagree, Beecee, because if just one (let alone dozens or hundreds, as Arp has collected) redshift anomaly is correct, then Hubble's Law is invalidated because it shows that redshift is not caused solely or primarily by expansion. Do you know of any databases for redshift of extragalactic objects? 

  3. 17 hours ago, beecee said:

    Like Freddy Hoyle, Arp was probably an otherwise great astronomer, but in this instant, based on some limited data, (as compared to overwhelming data supporting the accepted definition of redshift) he was apparently wrong. Was he also a supporter of the defunct and invalidated Electric/Plasma universe hypothetical?

    By what data are you suggesting he was wrong? Have you looked at the redshift data for the objects he identifies or can you link to an analysis by anyone who has? 

  4. 18 hours ago, Mordred said:

    In a sense Strange has a valid point. Early structure formation arises from regions where particles effectively drop out of thermal equilibrium.

     Dark matter is strongly supported as being one of the earliest matter particles to do so. However as we know so little about DM we can only estimate when this will occur. Unfortunately we cannot lab test the properties of DM to even estimate its total mass to apply a calculation as to when it will drop out of thermal equilibrium.

     IF DM drops out of equilibrium early enough then structure formation can occur far earlier, the rates can then be estimated via Jeans Instability and Density wave theory as to the time for Spiral galaxy formation, however there is two major problems.

    Lack of mass value for DM and the Dark ages beyond the surface of last scattering, using light we can only see so deep into the CMB opacity regions where baryonic matter starts to decouple and form atoms. Evidence supports DM  as the original anistropy seeds and not baryonic matter. (baryonic matter decouples far too late)

    Thanks for these insights. A further major problem arises, however, when we consider that we still have no good evidence of dark matter beyond the original anomalous observations that led to its hypothesis. None of the candidates for DM have panned out. So it seems we should at this point be reconsidering the DM hypothesis IMHO. 

  5. Though we all know that Halton Arp gets no respect among mainstream cosmologists, despite his background and pedigree working with Hubble, I'd like to know if anyone here can help with debunking or supporting one of Arp's key arguments for a very different kind of cosmology. In his 2003 book, Seeing Red, he describes strings of galaxies and related objects in both Virgo and Fornax with anomalous redshifts, but anomalous in a patterned way that suggested to him that the central galaxy in each string was a parent galaxy that ejected the higher z value galaxies to each side in pairs that then disperse over time and give birth to their own galaxies. I know this sounds very weird and upside down from the standard model perspective, but he shows the z values for these various objects and they do indeed mirror each other in Virgo and Fornax. I'm curious if anyone else has looked into this and can either tell me where Arp went wrong with his data and analysis or whether they find his information compelling? Here's Fig. 9-3 from p. 239 of Seeing Red. He also describes his observations succinctly at p. 162: "The Fornax Cluster represents a hierarchy of redshifts. The largest galaxy is the oldest and has the lowest redshift. Successive generations of galaxies are smaller, increasingly young and active and climb to higher intrinsic redshifts in steps. The younger galaxies emerge in opposite ejection directions and, with some rotation, give, as in Vrgo, an overall 'S' (for spiral) shape to the cluster."

    IMG_1913.jpg

  6. Mordred, the problem of course is that we now know from WMAP and many other sources of data that there is in fact large-scale anisotropy to the universe, in both baryonic matter and CMB. So there is a growing view that the Cosmological Principle has been falsified, but this fact doesn't seem to have been internalized in our theories yet. 

  7. A new study finds a very calm and defined spiral galaxy 11 billion years old: http://zeenews.india.com/space/scientists-discover-most-ancient-spiral-galaxy-2054481.html. Does this finding present a challenge to the 13.8 billion year age of the universe in terms of the general view that it takes far longer for this kind of spiral galaxy to form through normal gravitational processes? 

  8. 3 minutes ago, swansont said:

    Phonons are one example.

    It's useful if it works.

    Ah, so you don't think physics is about explaining reality? For you, it's about useful calculation tools? This is a serious question and I think indicative of a deep split among certain physicists and philosophers. 

    Also, would appreciate more than the phonon example since you suggested that physics is rife with useful fictions. 

  9. On 8/27/2017 at 1:07 AM, swansont said:

    And my broader point is that you can say this about any model in physics. But that's not how we actually apply physics, so the objection is moot.

    You are wrong in saying it is unfalsifiable. We can measure things well enough to be able to see if it matches with theory. We just can't do it to arbitrary precision. If time dilation ended up being linear in v, (or completely absent) we would see this quite easily. 

    Physics is rife with useful fictions

    What other useful fictions do you see in today's physics? At what point does a useful fiction become just fiction? 

  10. On 8/25/2017 at 2:06 PM, beecee said:

    Nothing is perfect, including science and the scientific methodology, but it is by far the best we have. While to some extent, sometimes alternative approaches,(particularly alternative to GR or the BB) are hard to get to see the light of day, that stems from the fact that theories such as GR have continually made successful predictions such as gravitational waves and even more recently, the orbital parameters of stars orbiting close to the Milky Way's SMBH. But again with the number of ongoing tests of our incumbent theories, and the number of young up and coming physicists that would dearly love to extend the parameters of the BB and/or GR, if anything was to surface and really shown to be more accurate then the incumbent, no amount of pedestalization, or stone walling, or attempts at shutting down, will ever be maintained for too long. String theory and/or any of its derivitives are in my opinion just in a hiatus, due to the fact that their validity is impossible to verify as we as yet do not have the technology to observe and/or measure at such scales....whether one of them proves to be a QGT remains to be seen. I see Beckmann  is an electrical engineer, and while that does not disqualify him, it still puts him behind the eight ball so to speak.

    At this time the holy grail of physics is a validated TOE/QGT: A TOE/QGT that by definition will be more accurate then Einsteins GR, but you can also bet your short n curlies that it will also encompass GR and the BB itself.

    We'll see. Two key points: if you subscribe to a Kuhnian notion of scientific revolutions, the change, when it does come, will be relatively rapid as the older guard dies off and the new guard recognizes the growing pile of anomalies/epicycles behind GR/SR (in particular, DM, DE and inflation), and then the history books will be re-written in such a way that the new approach will be made to look like it was a smooth path from the old approach. That is, if we believe Kuhn. Second, yes, generally new theories in physics and other fields include and transcend old theories. But not always. In my years of reading in this field, it's growing increasingly apparent to me that some kind of ether theory will be the TOE/QGT, and GR is in fact sometimes framed as a new kind of ether theory with the gravitational field as the new ether (though of course GR is not a TOE). Even Einstein adopted this ether language from about 1916-1924 (see Kostro's Einstein and the Ether for more on this). But I'm also of the view that the new ether approach can't be relativistic in terms of Lorentz invariance, as Einstein suggested his new ether was. Beckmann's is just one of many velocity-dependent approaches to gravity (see also Ghosh's book Origin of Inertia), and all this means is that there is some kind of background/ether/space that exerts dynamical effects akin to moving through air or water, but just far more of an attenuated medium. There are many lines of evidence suggesting that this kind of attenuated drag approach is accurate and far simpler than GR, but we are in my view stuck in the dogma of the allegedly background-independent approach of Einsteinian relativity for now and the foreseeable future. 

    20 hours ago, Strange said:

    As the OP is pushing a non-mainstream theory (to put it kindly) I think explaining why he is mistaken is completely on-topic.

    I'm not pushing any theory here. My OP was simply asking about the application of GR vs. SR and then the discussion flowed naturally to related topics. That said, I'm happy to make it plain that I don't find SR/GR very convincing, for a variety of reasons relating to their very nonintuitive postulates and to the series of epicycles that have arisen around GR in particular to make it work within known empirical facts. 

    17 hours ago, swansont said:

    And strictly speaking no physics model is correct. But that's not how we do physics, so it's moot.

    My broader point about SR was that it's good to realize that it has no strict application in the real world because it's an idealized theory. There are in practice always gravitational fields present, but yes of course we can often ignore them as negligible. But that said we should also realize that SR is built on an unfalsifiable tautology: that we know what an inertial frame is and can identify them. Einstein and Infeld acknowledge in their book The Evolution of Physics (p. 210) that the idea of an inertial frame is a "useful fiction," is "built on sand", and is tautological. Strong criticisms from the creator of SR!  

  11. 22 minutes ago, beecee said:

    Of course, and by the way Einstein is questioned every day by the experts in the field, which obviously Beckmann is not. As has already been conveyed to you, if anyone did have a hypothesis that either invalidated an incumbent theory, or explained more then the incumbent theory, that "anyone" would not be publishing it in a book...If he seriously had a workable hypothesis that did what he claimed, he would proceed by writing a proper scientific paper, for proper professional peer review.

    I mentioned it the other day in another thread, that in my time on another forum, we had over a couple of years , four "would be's if they could be's" each claiming to have overthrown Einstein's GR, and each after much questioning and probing by other members, were found to have agendas...in three of those it was a closeted ID/religious agenda that finally surfaced. The impetus that drives these type is the fact that science has pushed back any need for any deity into near oblivion, and they are driven to try and expose the science, particularly SR,GR and general cosmology as in error. The fourth was just a down and out anti science nut. You may not have an ulterior motive, but as you have been informed, there is a proper procedure for anyone to go through, if they had anything of any consequence and were fair dinkum. Let me say that I see that chance as vanishingly small, as  relativity and the mathematical validation that goes with it, is rather complicated.

    It is sometimes the case that theories become pedestalized to such a degree that anyone who tries to go through the normal channels is effectively shut down. Hence Beckmann's alternative approach. There are also a number of dissident physics journals created to mitigate this problem. Unfortunately, science isn't always entirely rational and funding, careers, groupthink, etc., can often prevent the most reasonable solutions from coming to the fore. Have you read Smolin's book The Trouble With Physics, looking in detail at why string theory is in his view a dead end, and yet consumed many physics careers for some time? 

  12. No, my OP had no ulterior motive :) But since the discussion went this way I asked. Anyway, if you're curious check out the book or Bethell's much more accessible overview that includes Beckmann's work (Questioning Einstein). Don't you agree that if a theory is strictly applicable and much simpler it would be worth looking at? The use of both SR and GR in the GPS is a good illustration of the complexity that Einstein's approach has led to. 

  13. Maybe not pointless if there are better approaches that do strictly apply and are simpler. Have you read Beckmann's book Einstein Plus Two, detailing his ether-based theory that is strictly applicable and simpler and encompasses both SR and GR? I'm not at this point equipped to say it's a superior approach but I'm working through it and it seems promising. 

  14. Hmm, even if the difference in fields is minimal SR won't strictly apply, correct? Of course, in physics small quantities are ignored regularly, but I'm just asking about strict applicability. And by the same token, no where in the universe will SR strictly apply because there are always grav fields. So SR is an idealized case. 

  15. I've read various accounts of the GPS that invoke both SR and GR in making required adjustments, but this use of both SR and GR confuses me. SR applies only in inertial frames and GR in all frames. Inertial frames don't actually exist in nature b/c there's always some kind of gravitational field present, even in empty space, so strictly speaking SR should never apply in the real world. But we still use it as a useful tool even though we know it doesn't strictly apply. That said, I'm confused why both SR and GR are invoked when it comes to the GPS system b/c it seems that any adjustments that would have to be made would require GR only. Or is SR being used for some adjustments b/c its math is so much easier? Any help clarifying these issues would be appreciated. 

  16. Ah, I'm wrong because I'm wrong? You can't or won't address my basic point. I appreciate your efforts to point me to various resources but I've read the peer reviewed papers that directly address these issues and I've posted here my objections to the arguments presented in these papers and my requests for clarifications. Still no one has addressed the basic logical points that must be the foundation for any scientific paradigm to work. Consider my 2D ballon metaphor and tell me how the lines and their coordinate system could detect any changes to the balloon's surface? You previously suggested that my mentioning contraction or expansion of the balloon made this thought experiment irrelevant to LIGO and GWs. You misunderstood again bc any wave is simply a series of expansions and contractions of space. The point of course is, in both 2D and 3D versions: how can you detect any changes of the medium with a device that exists in and is distorted by the medium that is trying to be measured?

  17. Beecee, you've misunderstood my point. Interferometers were developed to measure potential changes in the speed of light. Remember Michelson Morley? The LIGO interferometers are actually called Michelson interferometers. In the case of LIGO, interferometers are being used to detect minute distortion of the arm lengths from potential GWs, and my point this whole time has been that under the definition of GWs they can't measure any changes to the arm lengths because the arms distort by exactly the same amount as the GWs.

  18. Of course they're being used as a meter stick. That's the entire function of the interferometer: to measure differences in the speed of light from different directions, in this case by measuring wavelength fringe differences, which relies on differences in the mirror positions to work. And in my 2D thought experiment the perpendicular lines function as a meter stick in a similar way. Why is it so difficult to get anyone here to state their agreement that the 2D lines can't be used to measure expansion or contraction of the balloon? I'm not trying to trick you. I'm simply trying to establish some points of agreement to then get to the real world example.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.