ZVBXRPL

If a tree falls in a forest, with nobody around, does it make a sound? Yes.

If a deaf person is next to a tree in a forest, with nobody else around and it falls on their head, does it kill them? Maybe. Does it make a sound, Yes. The deaf person just could not detect the sound but the sound still exists.

Many years ago, I got myself in way over my head by taking an upper level philosophy course called "Philosophy of Science". I really enjoyed the course, but feel that I missed out by not taking the class later in my college career. We focused on paradigm shifts within the field of science. For those of you not familiar with a paradigm shift, think the shift in the idea of the sun revolving around the earth to what we know understand.

 

At one point and time, it was absurd to believe the things which we now understand. Herein lies my question; how can we, as scientists and philosophers, make sure that we do not fall victim to the same traps that others before us have? What sorts of things do you do to try and prevent yourself from limitations due to not questioning things "taught" as true.

 

As I progress with my education, I always ask myself what sorts of things am I being taught that is wrong? And once we know it is wrong or believe that it could be wrong, should we continue to teach convention until it is fully understood, or do we stop teaching the wrong concept and leave out the information altogether?

 

What do you think SFN?

Critical thinking.

In the Catholic world prior to Galileo's conflict with the Church, the majority of educated people subscribed to the Aristotelian geocentric view that the earth was the centre of the Universe and that all heavenly bodies revolved around the Earth. Is the geocentric view science or religion?

Today, we have the Big Bang and Expanding Universe. Science or religion. In critical thinking, you always ask the question. Question everything. Georges Lemaitre was the first person to propose the Big Bang theory, he was a Catholic priest. Science or religion? The question was asked during the time of Galileo and so it needs to be asked now, especially with the knowledge that the theory came from the mind of a Catholic priest. Failure to ask the question is failure to use critical thinking. That in itself is a major failure.

Big Bang theory puts a finite age on the Universe. It gives the Universe a beginning. If you have the belief that you understand how the Universe began, how it all works, know all the secrets, then the Universe is no longer mysterious and mind boggling. God takes that mantle. If anyone questions this belief that you understand how the Universe began, how it all works etc you defend your faith. When defending faith logic and reason go out the window, as it is a faith you are defending.

The majority of people subscribe to the Big Bang theory. Is the Big Bang theory truth because the majority believe it to be truth?

Evidence. If one educated and qualified scientist says "this is evidence that this is truth" and another educated and qualified scientist says "this is not evidence that this is truth" how do you know which scientist is telling the truth?

You could go with the majority. In the case of the Big Bang theory, this would mean that you go with the majority and listen to the scientist who says "this is evidence that the Big Bang is truth".

Or, you could use critical thinking, think about it yourself and come to your own conclusion. By using critical thinking you can side with EITHER the scientist who says "this is evidence that this is truth" OR side with the scientist who says "this is not evidence that this is truth". You are not blindly following, you are thinking for yourself and making a choice.

I cannot remember the exact day I stopped believing in a "God" and "Heaven" but I know it was around the same time I stopped believing in Father Christmas.

My faith would be critical thinking. I question everything and never accept anything as "gospel". I don't care who is providing the information to me, whether it is a family member, a politician, a celebrity, a scientist, a zookeeper or a hobo off the street. I always question them, whatever it is they are saying to me. More often than not the information I receive is false. So a major part of life is searching for truth through BS

This is now the third time I have asked what you mean by a continuum (posts 94 and 108)

 

Were they so impolite you did not deign to answer?

An infinite continuus body.

A couple of pages back I used a 3D infinite number line as an analogy.

Macocosm and microcosm are also infinite, both for the 3D number line and the Continuum Universe.

 

Please show in mathematical detail:

 

a) How your model predicts the temperature and spectrum of the CMB.

b) How the predictions of the big bang model are incorrect.

 

 

Please explain, in appropriate mathematical detail:

a) Why these regions should exist.

b) What the size and distribution of these regions should be

c) How the observed structure of the universe matches these predcitions.

 

 

Expansion is not a speed.

 

 

Gravity has always been a factor. It is, after all, a consequence of the same theory that the big bang model is based on.

 

 

Please show, mathematically, that this is the case.

 

 

Do you even know the cause of the CMB?

 

What is the source of the CMB in your model?

Instead of cherry picking and multi quoting my post, can you not single quote my entire post and reply to the whole thing in a paragraph or two? Or don't reply at all, one or the other, I don't mind which. If you do then I can reply with my own single quote paragraph or two.

CMB is interpreted as evidence for Big Bang Theory.

I would say that CMB is evidence for the theory I am suggesting and evidence against an expanding Universe which in turn is evidence against a Big Bang.

If the Universe is expanding and it is space itself that is epanding, then there should be large regions of the Universe that are totally devoid of anything. Only empty space exists in these regions and these regions are those that are expanding, giving the expanding Universe.

In the continuum Universe I am suggesting there is NO empty space anywhere in the Universe, so nowhere is there regions of empty space.

The fact that CMB is everywhere throughout the observable Universe supports that theory.

During the inflation period you get empty space expanding faster than the speed of light. The Universe as we know it is increasing in size to massive proportions.

At some point gravity becomes a factor.

All the matter in the Universe starts to come under the influence of gravity.

If all the matter is evenly distributed throughout the Universe before, during and after the Big Bang and inflation period, the gravity would have equal effect throughout the Universe.

You would not get a Universe that is still expanding. If you did, you would not get a uniform CMB, you would a large regions of the Universe without CMB.

Having a Big Bang, a Universe that expanded and is still is expanding, CMB being uniform throughout the Universe and gravity being a factor only within galaxies and not between galaxy clusters cannot all be true. There is conflict.

If there are large regions of space that are expanding, regions between galaxy clusters, these regions have been expanding since the Big Bang, you would not get CMB in these regions. CMB can only come as a result of something, it cannot come as a result of nothing. If the nothing is actually something, then you cannot have a period of inflation where this "nothing" travelled faster than the speed of light because "something" cannot travel faster than the speed of light. Even though the concept of nothingness travelling faster than the speed of light is a farcical concept in itself, it is a loophole, a way of getting round the "speed limit of the Universe" concept. If you don't have the loophole, you cannot break your own rules.

The CMB picture of the Universe would show large regions devoid of anything.

The CMB being present throughout the Universe is something you would expect to see in an Infinite Universe, where there is no empty space. There is never nothing, there is always something. CMB is just an example of the something.

 

It is not the Doppler effect. But otherwise this is correct. If you have an alternative model, please show (using maths) that it produces results that match observation.

 

This "tired light" idea was one of the first explanations proposed to explain red shift. It doesn't work.

 

 

The expansion of space only occurs over very large distances (where the distribution of matter is approximately homogeneous). On the scale of galaxy clusters, the galaxies are gravitationally bound and orbiting one another. Therefore there is no expansion. In this case we do see Doppler shifts meaning that some galaxies are blue-shifted (because they are approaching us) and others are red-shifted (because they are moving away from us).

 

 

Do you have a model that predicts these effects and that can be compared with observation?

 

Or do you just claim that every observation fits your vague idea? In which case your idea is not falsifiable and therefore not science.

 

 

(Redshift is not caused solely by Doppler shift: this only applies to a few galaxies in our local cluster that are moving away from us. Most redshift is caused by the expansion of space.)

 

On the one hand, there is one model that fits all the evidence.

On the other hand, you have no model at all.

 

I think I will stick with the science.

 

Also, how does your model explain the really strong evidence for expanding space such as:

- the success of general relativity

- the cosmic microwave background

- the exact amount of hydrogen and helium in the universe

 

I would prefer that they stuck to explaining science.

How would an expanding Universe that came as a result of the Big Bang lead to the situation you describe, where within galaxy clusters, space itself is no longer expanding, but the space between the clusters is expanding?

If gravitational attraction is the reason, why is it limited to within galaxy clusters? Why would it not be uniform throughout the entire Universe?

At whatever point in history of the Universe, gravity starts to become a factor, would it not be a factor throughout the whole Universe and cause the whole Universe to stop expanding?

Is CMB limited to within galaxy clusters? Or is it present throughout the whole Universe, including between the clusters, part of the expanding space?

If the CMB is uniform and spread evenly throughout the whole Universe, does this not conflict with the idea that the Universe is expanding between clusters but not expanding within clusters due to effects of gravity?

You say, on one hand there is a model that fits all the evidence, but there are many questions and issues with the model you speak of. The reason it is the standard model is because there is deemed to be a lack of an alternative model, not because the model is correct. It is more, the best we got for now.

Because there is only one model, any time a problem arises for that model, fixes are found and added on, but these fixes do not have any evidence to support them. They are an attempt to prevent ending up in a world of science with NO standard model.

If at some point the model is proven to be inaccurate, all the fixes to the model become ridiculous and pointless, because they were solutions to problems that didn't exist in the first place.

Why would redshift occur in this Continuum Universe?

The current explanation is that the light is shifted to the red, because of doppler effect and expansion of space itself. This is causing the increase in wavelength.

If light is travelling as a wave through the Universe, it can lose energy, the longer the distance, the greater this loss of energy can be.

The further away distant galaxies are the more energy they lose, the longer the wavelength, the greater the redshift.

If the reason for redshift is dopper effect and expanison of space, then why are some galaxies not redshifted? Why do some not have the redshift they should have?

if the reason is not doppler effect or expansion of space, but instead that the redshift is caused by the journey itself, then this would account for anomalies.

It is not only the distance travelled, loss of energy causing redshift but the environmental factors it encounters on it's journey.

One light wave might travel relatively unobstructed by anything and gradually lose energy and arrive at Earth and hit our eyes and telescope having undergone a redshift.

Another light wave may have a more arduous journey and gone through a phase where it actually increased in energy for a time and blueshifted, either staying blueshifted or eventually returning to redshift but not at the value expected.

When light wave is travelling through a galaxy, the surrounding continuum conditions are different to when it was travelling between galaxies. There is high chance the light wave could gain a little energy after it's long journey. When all light enters our galaxy it may undergo a slight increase in energy.

So if you take one light wave that travelled for VERY long time and underwent a large redshift through losing energy, when it enters our galaxy, there will be a slight increase in energy, but not enough for it to be blueshifted.

On the otherhand if you take a nearby galaxy, the light wave from that galaxy may undergo small degree of redshift, but nowhere near as much as the distant galaxy. Then when that light wave enters our galaxy and energy increases, the net result is a blueshift.

There is a way we could test this, it would involve sending out a spaceship/probe etc with detection equipment as far as possible out beyond the solar system.

Measure the redshift/blueshift of a light wave coming from a distant galaxy, on the probe and on Earth and compare the results.

If the results vary it shows that the redshift/blueshift phenomena can vary even at relatively short distances, so there is no way you can say that redshift is caused solely by doppler and no reason at all to believe that space is expanding.

.

ZVBXRPL.

 

I think you might be touching on something Frank Wilczek was trying to explain in his Book "The Lightness of being " . He called this continuum ' The Grid ' . . He won a Nobel prize for Quark behaviour. " Asymtotic freedom ' . So he should have some idea what he is talking about !

 

Mike.

 

.-----------------------------------------------------------.----------------------------------------.----------------------------

Links

 

 

Frank Wilczek (@FrankWilczek) | Twitter

https://twitter.com/frankwilczek

 

Wikipedia link:-

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Wilczek

Space Is the Primary Reality | Professor Frank Wilczek | The Search ...

I google him and the theory and there are some similarities to the theory I am attempting to explain. He is someone I would like to talk to about my theory and Science in general.

I have thought of an excellent way to describe my infinite continuum Universe, using a 3D number line.

Infinity ........ 10 - 9 - 8 - 7 - 6 - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 ........... Infinity

Y and Z axis all go on to infinity too

Next, zoom out the number line, so you get 10, 20, 30, 40 etc in all directions, zoom out again so you get 100, 200, 300, 400 etc

Zooming out represents the macrocosm, this is infinite.

Go back to original number line, zoom in so you get 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 etc and zoom in again and agin

Zooming in represents the microcosm, this is infinite.

This continuum is one continuus body, I called it continuum of matter, but perhaps I should have said continuum of energy to avoid confusion. The most important concept however, is that it is continuus, there are not 2, 3 or several continuus bodies, there is one continuus body, there is no empty space, anywhere in existence.

From our perpective, from where we are on the number line, where we reside in this continuum, we observe the Universe around us.

In this continuum Universe there is energy and the energy levels are in a constant state of flux. No energy is ever created or destroyed, energy only transfers either from one location to another location or from microcosm/macrocosm - macrocosm/microcosm.

The energy fluctuations are the cause for all motion and all interactions. The motion and interactions depend on the energy level of the region in the continuum we are concerned with and the energy level of the surrounding regions of the continuum. Whether we are zoomed out 1000x or zoomed in 1000x, whether we are at 4 on the number line or 4 billion.

Wow, this is some amazing stuff. How does it have no mass when planets move through it, but mass to allow wave propagation like light through it?

 

When light travels through space, air and water, the continuum it is travelling through is different in each because the continuum is variable, due to the energy fluctuations.

What would happen to the Earth's journey if you filled the galaxy full of water, or full of cement? The continuum has changed. Earth, the Stars and planets travel through space and they don't encounter the same kind of changes that light encounters on it's journey through the Universe.

Several centuries of research oft wrong. At first the Earth didn't move. This is where philosophy interfered with true science. Empirical evidence showed otherwise. Much like the topic at hand. Study the evidence before formulating a theory. Study current models before you state they are wrong.

Go to the chat and can discuss? If not I am logging off for the night.

 

As this is a science forum, I think you will find the rules require evidence, even in the "Speculations" forum. Not just baseless ruminations.

 

 

I suggest you ask questions like that in the appropriate part of the forum. But it seems a bit odd to attack these hypotheses if you don't even know what the supporting evidence is.

 

 

Of course they are not "fact". We are talking about science here.

 

 

And thge evidence will be what determines who is right, not what anyone believes.

 

 

There is a difference between being open minded to new evidence and just making stuff up. You might as well say that all the stars we see are insible pink flying unicorns with light coming out of their horns.

 

 

As we have a very good theory that already explains that, you need to start by showing in suitable mathematical detail how your theory provides a better explanation than the current theory. Can you do that?

The evidence doesn't determine who is right, the majority determine what is right.

One person might say "this here is evidence that that theory is true", another might say "no, I disagree, there are alternative explanations". The majority rule.

An example would be redshift.

Why did people first start to say the Universe is expanding? They thought galaxies were moving away from us and each other. Why did they think that? Redshift?

What if galaxies moving away and empty space expanding were not the reason for redshift?

There were and still are scientists who did not believe redshift was a result of expanding Universe, they are wrong because they are the minority.

You have zero empty space just as per the metrics posted here. It's the same problem no matter how you shake it

It's the same thing as everything you posted you have a continous medium precisely as the aether theory does. It's metrics and associative problems are identical

It is not the same theory. You cannot use a test done on a different theory and say my theory doesn't work because the test says that other theory didn't work. Conditions of the experiment are not the same because the theories are not the same.

When they did they the experiment, what did they believe the Earth to be and how did they believe it moved through the Universe?

This covers the aether problem read it carefully

Ether has nothing to do with my theory.

If you do not understand what I am saying and don't fully understand the theory I am attempting to explain, how can you assign a problem to it?

There is no problem. The problem being talked about has nothing to do with the theory I have suggested.

How does the 'energy level' affect the speed of waves through it? I posted the known equation for speed of waves through a medium. Please show how it works for your medium.

 

Also, the energy level of an object does not affect the drag. See the drag equation posted above. None of those variables are 'energy level'. Please show me the drag equation for your medium.

 

Show me these equations so that I understand how the jumble of words you've said make sense. Because, I am sorry, but I do not really know what you mean by those words. This is why having a model and showing us what predictions it makes is supremely valuable.

You said "how can this continuum have both these properties?". It doesn't just have those 2 properties, it has every property, it is the Universe.

How can this continuum have both of these properties? Rigid enough for light to travel through it, but massless so that planets don't experience any drag at all?

The energy levels throughout the continuum are different. The Universe is a continuum of infinite energy fluctuations. The energy level of the light and the medium it travels through as a wave, the energy level of the Earth and the medium it travels through as a wave are all different. It is not a continuum of one energy level.

How? I am using your word. Continuum.

 

If there is no empty space -- your continuum -- it has to be rigid enough that the wave motion of light moves at a very high speed. Yet, your continuum has to be massless and viscosityless that the motion of planets through it remains unaffected. This has to be explained. Quit telling me that it is different. You are the one proposing a continuum that fills all space. I am just pointing out what this continuum has to do to fit with the observations that we have -- namely the speed of light and the motion of the planets.

 

Now, quit dodging these questions, and answer how your continuum has these properties?

You are still talking about a Universe that has empty space and motion of matter. My theory does not involve those 2 concepts. I said about light above and about planets above. All motion in the Universe is wave motion, energy transferring from one location to another, the medium is the continuum of matter. It does not involve matter and empty space moving through empty space and matter..

Light travels as a wave. The medium is the continuum of matter, the continuum is the medium for all motion. The energy levels of the medium, the continuum of matter, at light's level of substructure are the reason for it's speed. If the energy level of the medium changes the speed is affected.

Everything you're used to describe as your continuum are the properties that were attributed to the luminiferous aether. Just saying "they aren't the same" doesn't fix anything. I could call it "banana pudding", but all it is doing is renaming something that has already been proposed and not detected.

 

Again, I don't care what you call it, if there is a continuum out there, why haven't any of the experiments designed to detect a continuum found anything? How does this continuum have some properties that are unlike anything close to what we've observed to date? What experiment will detect it?

It is 2 totally different concepts. One involves matter and empty space, one involves no empty space and wave motion.

As you can tell in order to be a model such as the one your presenting you will need to be able to answer the questions on this thread in a rigorous manner. We only presented a few questions.

 

Might help if you study why scientists believe so strongly in dark energy dark matter quantum tunnelling the FLRW metric as represented by LCDM.

 

My signature contains several articles and textbooks to help truly understand the above mentioned

This is describing the eather theory which has been disproved by the experiments mentioned by Bignose

It isn't the same thing. That experiment was to try and detect motion of matter through an ether. That is completely different to my theory. In my theory there is no motion of matter and there is no distinction between the Earth and the surrounding Universe, it is all part of a continuum.

Regarding the Earth moving through a fluid or not moving through a fluid. It doesn't, not in the theory I am suggesting. Light travels through the Universe as a wave. My theory is saying that EVERYTHING travels as a wave. In a continuum the only way for motion to occur is through waves. The energy fluctuations cause the interactions and motion.

Bosons are not considered matter. Matter occupies a given volume. An infinite number of bosons can occupy a given volume. However although bosons interact with fermions they cannot occupy the same space. Fermions is what forms matter. You left no room for bosons as all your available space is fermionic

In this Universe, there is no distinction between matter and not matter, it is all one continuum.

An infinite continuum with infinite amount of energy and energy fluctuations.

The energy fluctuations are the cause for everything in the Universe.

The problem is that your jelly has to start taking on some very magical like properties in order to fit the obervations we have today.

 

 

1) It has to be fluid in order to fill all of space (if it was solid, it wouldn't fill all of space)

 

2) Despite it being a fluid, it has to be very rigid to support the waves of light that travel at the speed of light (far, far faster than the speed of sound in all known substances)

 

3) In addition, it has to be massless and viscosityless, because the planets, comets, stars, galaxies etc. move through space without any retardation of movement.

 

4) it also is obviously transparent, incompressible, and continuous to very small scales

 

5) The Michelson-Morley experiment pretty conclusively proves that the earth is not moving through such a fluid, as the design of the experiment was to find the differences in the behavior of light as light traveled perpendicular to the earth's motion through the fluid or with the earth's motion through the fluid. This experiment has been repeated over and over with increasingly sophisticated and sensitive instruments and today the is no measured effect larger than 1 in [math]10^{-17}[/math].

 

6) If the fluid is moving with the earth, the first obvious question is why the earth is so lucky and the fluid follows our truly somewhat bumpy path as we orbit the sun, as the solar system orbits the Milky Way galactic center, etc... And secondly there have been numerous experiments to detect the effects of this fluid if it were necessarily following us with null results.

 

even if you can explain all of the above

 

7) The theories of special relativity and general relativity are supremely successful and don't require any such fluid. Can any 'fluid'-based ideas match the predictive successes of SR & GR? Please post them if they can.

 

 

The above questions are how science works. If you can adequately and rigorously explain every single point above, especially #7 and show that your fluid based predictions are as good or better than our current models, you will receive a great deal of attention from scientists. But, because of the above questions, the 'majority of scientists' have rejected this fluid based idea because the necessarily properties of this fluid are incredibly unlikely to occur and have never been detected.

 

It isn't a question about thinking for yourself. Science really isn't this combative. Science is about making prediction that agree with what is observed. To date, predictions based on such a fluid as you've described here make predictions that don't agree with what is seen. Science has properly rejected it as it is worse model than what we have now. If you can fix it, then I'd definitely be interested. But right now, you have a lot of unanswered questions.

It is not solid or liquid because both of those contain empty space. It is a continuum, no empty space.

I found a good description of what I mean when I say continuum.

"Materials, such as solids, liquids and gases, are composed of molecules separated by "empty" space. On a microscopic scale, materials have cracks and discontinuities. However, certain physical phenomena can be modeled assuming the materials exist as a continuum, meaning the matter in the body is continuously distributed and fills the entire region of space it occupies. A continuum is a body that can be continually sub-divided into infinitesimal elements with properties being those of the bulk material."