The direction of the big bang

[danbridge]

Dude, you said that you were trippen on DMA. Then you mentioned God. That is a blatent no-no for coversation threads. Please be careful. Thank you.

 

[cues]

Personally, I think we are all thinking 'inside the box' too much.
Much as (not many) years ago we thought the earth was flat, now we are narrow-minded enough to think ours is the only universe.
If space has a limit, what is at the edge? A brick wall or something?
Then there is the next unlimited dimension. Time. Where is the limit on that? If those monkeys haven't written the complete works of Shakespeare yet, you can bet they will at some point.
I honestly believe that somewhere, sometime, someone or something will be writing this exact same message but over millions of miles and millions of years away. The reason we don't accept this is a combination of narcissism and a lack of scientific knowledge.
P.S. The bible makes a good door-stop.

 

[Doer]

So you ask me a question, I give you specifics, and later actual numbers, with the concept just as clear as can be, and you have no response to the actual concept or numbers, but simply rebut with gibberish.

Please explain clearly in you own words, staying on topic, where I go wrong. I have clearly shown where Einstein goes wrong, and given you the correction. Now, put up or shut up. Save the personal insults for some other time. Stick to the task at hand.

You stick and we all will. Don't keep playing smarmy. This is not a right or wrong discussion for God sake! You have clearly not shown anything. And this burning desire of yours, to be right, makes this a very un-interesting conversation.

Since Space seems to be compressible and forms gradients around mass. (observable) And the spaceframe around Earth drags against the rotation. (observable) and Light does nothing observable when the source moves. I don't see that you have the total concept, to debate against. The light source, due to all the planes of rotation is never still. Never was and cannot be. There may be an absolute inertia frame for the universe, perhaps. (Maxwell?) But there is no such thing as, observable Absolute Reference Frame. You want your point source to be the absolute reference but it is in known and unknown combinational motion. So not a reference.

Of course, you seem to still believe that Space was here before the Big Bang. That is a religious style of thinking. It is impossible, by what we know, (now)

So, the burden of proof is hardly on me. You are behind in your reading, I think.

 

[Seedling]

You stick and we all will. Don't keep playing smarmy. This is not a right or wrong discussion for God sake! You have clearly not shown anything. And this burning desire of yours, to be right, makes this a very un-interesting conversation.

Since Space seems to be compressible and forms gradients around mass. (observable) And the spaceframe around Earth drags against the rotation. (observable) and Light does nothing observable when the source moves. I don't see that you have the total concept, to debate against. The light source, due to all the planes of rotation is never still. Never was and cannot be. There may be an absolute inertia frame for the universe, perhaps. (Maxwell?) But there is no such thing as, observable Absolute Reference Frame. You want your point source to be the absolute reference but it is in known and unknown combinational motion. So not a reference.

Of course, you seem to still believe that Space was here before the Big Bang. That is a religious style of thinking. It is impossible, by what we know, (now)

So, the burden of proof is hardly on me. You are behind in your reading, I think.

You should be a politician if not already one, your ability to evade the issue is exceptional!

I said:

The light would be traveling at c, and you would be traveling at .99c, so from the start point, 1 second later the light would be 299,792,458 meters away from the start point, and you would be 299,792,458*.99=296,794,533.42 meters away from the start point. The light would be 2,997,924.58 meters ahead of you after 1 second. Your measure of the speed of light would therefor be 2,997,924.58 m/s, because the light started at the same point you did, and after 1 second it was 2,997,924.58 meters away from you.

Do you agree with those numbers? If not, clearly state in the context of the example given why you don't agree and give the numbers you think are correct. Please don't go off on another tangent, that is so boring and uninteresting listening to you evade the task at hand.

Mind you, that measurement was taken along one axis in your frame, we'll say the x axis. Do you think if you took a measurement along the y or the z axis that it would be the same as it was along the x axis? Certainly that would be impossible, since along different axis in your frame the light is different distances from you after 1 second has elapsed.

 

[cannabineer]

No, I speak of space as simply a volume in which light travels and defines distance. I made no mention of an aether.

The universe is an object in space. The universe is getting less dense by means of expanding its volume. The volume of the universe is the volume of space that the universe occupies in space. The finite but expanding volume of the universe resides in an infinite volume of surrounding space. I made no mention of the velocity of the universe in that space.

You are decoupling the Universe from space. The problem is, that space is the Universe. They are the same thing. Time obeys a similar constraint.
This is the key concept on which we disagree. You want to give space a sort of aseity (independent, self-supported reality): a sempiternal existence independent of all its other entanglements and "obligations" that physicists recognize.
Since you have not advanced a descriptive theory (starting from known or accepted premises of math/physics), you run afoul of a basic principle of this forum: what was presented without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. You are making statements that declare a rejection of relativity, but not one based on comprehension of the theory.
Your claim that there is space apart from the Universe is in conflict with existing theory about the Universe and timespace. I must conclude that you invented your model from whole cloth. cn

 

[cannabineer]

Personally, I think we are all thinking 'inside the box' too much.
Much as (not many) years ago we thought the earth was flat, now we are narrow-minded enough to think ours is the only universe.
If space has a limit, what is at the edge? A brick wall or something?
Then there is the next unlimited dimension. Time. Where is the limit on that? If those monkeys haven't written the complete works of Shakespeare yet, you can bet they will at some point.
I honestly believe that somewhere, sometime, someone or something will be writing this exact same message but over millions of miles and millions of years away. The reason we don't accept this is a combination of narcissism and a lack of scientific knowledge.
P.S. The bible makes a good door-stop.

There is extensive mathematical exploration of the nature of timespace and the material universe strung onto it. They are bound to and inform each other. And that math describes a "closed" continuum if we could visualize it in a purely imagined hyperspatial matrix. So while from our perspective space has no limits, from a higherdimensional one it looks perhaps like the surface of a ball, without borders but nonetheless with finite size. cn

 

[Seedling]

You are decoupling the Universe from space. The problem is, that space is the Universe. They are the same thing.

So what you are saying is that we can eliminate either the term space, or the term universe from our vocabulary, since they are the exact same thing according to you? Mathematically, if space is represented as a, and the universe is represented as b, you are saying a=b, and therefor b=a, correct? You are saying that there is no difference between the universe and space? The universe has mass, space does not! Space is simply volume, which is simply 3 dimensional distance, irrespective to the mass contained in that volume. You can have the space of 1 gallon of gas or 1 gallon of oxygen. The space is the same, the mass of the contents is different and has no bearing on the 3 dimensional distance (volume).

 

[high|hgih]

Dude, you said that you were trippen on DMA. Then you mentioned God. That is a blatent no-no for coversation threads. Please be careful. Thank you.
​

Why is that? Makes no sense to me. Do you not think of these things while tripping?

 

[cues]

There is extensive mathematical exploration of the nature of timespace and the material universe strung onto it. They are bound to and inform each other. And that math describes a "closed" continuum if we could visualize it in a purely imagined hyperspatial matrix. So while from our perspective space has no limits, from a higherdimensional one it looks perhaps like the surface of a ball, without borders but nonetheless with finite size. cn

O.K. Then
I will re-phrase that to 'Thinking within the sphere'
Seriously though Cb, my response wasn't a knee-jerk reaction but is something I have been interested in for years.
So, what are your opinions on black holes and white holes? I suspect it is all related and is the 'missing link' we are looking for in time travel.

 

[cannabineer]

So what you are saying is that we can eliminate either the term space, or the term universe from our vocabulary, since they are the exact same thing according to you?

No. That is not what I am saying.

Mathematically, if space is represented as a, and the universe is represented as b, you are saying a=b, and therefor b=a, correct? You are saying that there is no difference between the universe and space? The universe has mass, space does not!

You drew these conclusions from your distortion of my argument, not from what I provided.

Space is simply volume, which is simply 3 dimensional distance, irrespective to the mass contained in that volume. You can have the space of 1 gallon of gas or 1 gallon of oxygen. The space is the same, the mass of the contents is different and has no bearing on the 3 dimensional distance (volume).

What I see you doing is conflating two semantic nuances of the word and forcing identity upon them to make a point. The Germans do it better imo, they use the word Raum for space as volume and der Weltraum for space as the totality of volume, and the dimensionality of that volume-conferring condition.
I did not do this conflation, and I disagree with it. It allows the derivation of patently absurd conclusions, as you have shown.

We only know of space as within the context/embrace of our cosmos. In fact, the math of cosmology describes that that space is congruent with the cosmos. So all space is contained within the Universe, and every point within that universe is space. But the other properties: time, zero point, mass, objects, events ... while they all exist within space, they are distinct. I never claimed otherwise.

What makes the topic difficult (but irresistible for some) is that we're trying to describe the nature and limitations of universal properties from within. We're limited by our 3+1-dimensional imaginations. cn

 

[cannabineer]

O.K. Then
I will re-phrase that to 'Thinking within the sphere'
Seriously though Cb, my response wasn't a knee-jerk reaction but is something I have been interested in for years.
So, what are your opinions on black holes and white holes? I suspect it is all related and is the 'missing link' we are looking for in time travel.

I don't think time travel can ever be achieved in a useful form; it would violate Niven's Law.
As for black holes, I don't know. The topic is a bit beyond me. I've nibbled at the edges of papers describing the "lost space" inside the event horizon as going "down" and not "up", suggesting they contact continua dimensionally/causally impoverished compared to ours. Just as our cosmos is thought to have "precipitated" within a dimensionally richer ur-continuum. (iirc it was all very speculative, perhaps metaphysical.) But to suggest that time and space as we know it operated/operates within that ur-continuum is something I can't accept without the full weight of theory behind it. Without it, that would be a human-centered imposition fully as arrogant as to declare that there is a God who resembles us. We might be ill-equipped to see reality from unhuman angles. cn

 

[cues]

Umm yah, o.k.
The way I see it, light speed is supposed to be the be all and end all, impossible to achieve, but black holes appear to circumnavigate that and even have the gravity to pull in light. The theory is that there is a white hole to every black hole where this matter is being spewed back out (surely it can't just vanish). We know about the time/distance relationship changing near light speed. If something is pulling in something faster than light, surely there is some form of time travel going on?
This reminds me of a girlfriend I had once that was psychic and could see into the future. She once kicked the shit out of me in a row about my current g/f before I'd even met her! SHe was O.K about the future wife though because she likes her dog (Bit weird, I hate dogs, but then again , haven't met them yet).

 

[cannabineer]

Umm yah, o.k.
The way I see it, light speed is supposed to be the be all and end all, impossible to achieve, but black holes appear to circumnavigate that and even have the gravity to pull in light. The theory is that there is a white hole to every black hole where this matter is being spewed back out (surely it can't just vanish). We know about the time/distance relationship changing near light speed. If something is pulling in something faster than light, surely there is some form of time travel going on?
This reminds me of a girlfriend I had once that was psychic and could see into the future. She once kicked the shit out of me in a row about my current g/f before I'd even met her! SHe was O.K about the future wife though because she likes her dog (Bit weird, I hate dogs, but then again , haven't met them yet).

Iirc the event horizon is defined by the surface where escape velocity touches c. Since this cannot be exceeded in our space, everything inside the event horizon is no longer in our universe. But since a white hole hasn't been observed, I'm not sure about the hypothesis binding the black ones to white ones.

As for the material and information ... from our perspective it did vanish! It's no longer in, or accessible to/from/ our continuum. I did read that right at the edge of the event horizon, relativistic effects become extreme. The outside universe's rate of time appears to become infinitely fast, and even the cosmic background is blueshifted/intensified to a blinding blaze of hard gamma. Some theorists think that in that extreme environment, some spacelike dimensions (in our space) become more timelike. I have trouble visualizing that, and the weirdness of the idea suggests even greater weirdness in the "unspace" behind the event horizon. cn

 

[mindphuk]

It doesn't matter what it USED to be defined as, or it's origin, it is what it is today. Even if you were to change it back my theory would still be correct and Einstein's wrong. The definition is what helped me along to see how it really works, which allowed me to see Einstein's mistakes.

You used that fact of our standard as the basis for your claim. The origin matters because if c wasn't a constant, then you couldn't use it to define a measurement. If I can measure the speed of light in my inertial FoR different than your measurement of the same beam then we cannot agree on lengths. So somewhere our measurements must be in error, either length, time or speed of light. If we cannot agree on basic measurements, then it becomes impossible to do science and each and every place in the universe can have it's own local laws.

No I am NOT suggesting a variable speed of light, I am saying that light speed is constant (as defined), but that MEASUREMENTS of the speed of light will be taken differently depending on the frame one takes those measurements in.

How is it to be determined who has the 'correct' measurement then? Who's FoR is the preferred one?

Time dilation and length contraction are BS!

How do you explain atomic clock experiments traveling on planes showing a discrepancy exactly equal to what was predicted using Lorentz transformations?

Length contraction has never been proven to be a real effect

It hasn't been directly observed, correct. Nothing is actually ever proven in science so your language is suspect. Length contraction has never been falsified.

. Length contraction is more a hindrance to SR than anything the way I see it.

I don't expect you see much considering your lack of understanding of the implications of your unfounded beliefs.

Length contraction only applies to one axis, say the x axis, while the y and z axis are not length contracted. That creates massive problems and ultimately internal innconsistancy in SR.

Length contraction occurs in every axis of travel. No one expects contraction in a direction where there is no relative movement. Using the Cartesian coordinates, if I am moving in only the x axis, that is where the contraction will occur, if I'm moving in both the x and y axises, there will be contraction in both of those.

You better learn to understand what the definition of a meter is and how you would go about establishing the length of a meter in a particular frame using light and clocks.

You are making it impossible as there is no way to determine a preferred frame of reference. In your world, everyone will measure a meter an/or a second different depending on how they are moving.

You obviously have no real understanding of which you speak.

Really? I could say the same for you bu I am better off merely demonstrating why you don't understand.

You are simply parroting what you've been brainwashed with.

Learning physics is not being brainwashed.

The light would be traveling at c, and you would be traveling at .99c, so from the start point, 1 second later the light would be 299,792,458 meters away from the start point, and you would be 299,792,458*.99=296,794,533.42 meters away from the start point. The light would be 2,997,924.58 meters ahead of you after 1 second. Your measure of the speed of light would therefor be 2,997,924.58 m/s, because the light started at the same point you did, and after 1 second it was 2,997,924.58 meters away from you.

So the speed of light IS variable. I measuring the same beam of light at 10% of the speed that you are measuring it.

That is, if you consider your frame to be at a zero velocity to take measurements from

Zero velocity relative to what? You? Why is your FoR special?

(which clearly isn't in your question, because you stated the car was driving .99 c), which is another of Einstein's blunders.

More like his brilliant insight. If I'm traveling .99c relative to you, then you appear to be traveling .99c away from me. Who's motion is preferred? You on earth are flying through the solar system, which is zooming through the galaxy, which is moving withing our local group, etc. Where exactly is the 'at rest' FoR?

I can tell you the velocity of the frame,

No you actually cannot which is your major error on which your whole house of cards falls.

Einstein can not. He has no way of knowing the velocity of a frame in space,

No one has any way of knowing, including you. You have no way of knowing if your inertial reference frame has any velocity unless you consider it relative to something else, hence the name.

 

[tyler.durden]

^^ Damn, MP! +rep...

 

[mindphuk]

Seedling, serious question-- which do you think is more likely...
a- 100 years of brilliant theorists and experimentalists have been unable to see these obvious problems with relativity which are so apparent to some random guy on a stoner website?
or
b- there are some aspects and concepts of Einstein's theories that you just don't understand or comprehend?

 

[Seedling]

You used that fact of our standard as the basis for your claim.

I'm upholding the definition of the meter, SR does not. Explain to me how you determine the length of a meter in a frame, using light and clocks, according to SR and I will show you the error of your way.

The origin matters because if c wasn't a constant, then you couldn't use it to define a measurement.

What does the origin of the definition have to do with light traveling at a constant speed in a vacuum? We use light travel time to define the meter because light does travel at a constant rate in a vacuum, INDEPENDENT OF OBJECTS!!!!! The speed of light is not relative to objects, it is relative to space. Light is laying meter sticks in space as it travels its constant rate for a duration of time.

If I can measure the speed of light in my inertial FoR different than your measurement of the same beam then we cannot agree on lengths.

Correction, if you don't know what your frame's velocity is, then you have no business measuring light in your frame and debating me about the speed of light in my frame (that does know the frame's velocity, and therefor can know both the speed of the frame and the speed of light). I know the speed of the frame, so like in your example, I determined the car was traveling .99c, so I KNOW that since my car is traveling .99c that the real speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s. On the other hand, you don;t know the velocity of the car, because you have no way of determining that velocity in space, not relative to no other object. There is no other object to have a relative velocity to, there is simply a car in space and the light it emitted. You made up some BS .99c car velocity, like you had known that from measurements you took in the car. So tell me, how did you determine the .99c velocity using light and clocks in your car??? I'm dying to hear this!!!

So somewhere our measurements must be in error, either length, time or speed of light. If we cannot agree on basic measurements, then it becomes impossible to do science and each and every place in the universe can have it's own local laws.

Don't make plural what is not. It's not "our" measurements in error, it's YOUR measurements in error. I know what the velocity of the frame is, you do not. Since I know the velocity of the frame I can make an ACCURATE determination of the real speed of light.

How is it to be determined who has the 'correct' measurement then? Who's FoR is the preferred one?

Everyone has the correct measurement if they first know their frame's velocity. If you use Einstein's ways, you don;t know the frame's velocity, because in Einstein's world, it's not your frame that is moving, it's every other frame that is moving. Ask all of them, they'll tell you. (What a load of crap!)

Nothing is actually ever proven in science so your language is suspect. Length contraction has never been falsified.
I don't expect you see much considering your lack of understanding of the implications of your unfounded beliefs.

Length contraction has never been falsified so it's what, still taken to be true? (rolls eyes) I have an invisible blue dragon in my living room. It's never been falsified.

Length contraction occurs in every axis of travel. No one expects contraction in a direction where there is no relative movement. Using the Cartesian coordinates, if I am moving in only the x axis, that is where the contraction will occur, if I'm moving in both the x and y axises, there will be contraction in both of those.

If you are moving only along the x axis the y and z axis are NOT contracted. So as in your car example, the car is moving along the x axis. Do you think the light will be the same distance from you along the y and z axis after 1 second, as it is along the x axis after one second?

You are making it impossible as there is no way to determine a preferred frame of reference.

Another correction. It's Einstein that doesn't have a way to determine the preferred frame. I have a way of determining an absolute zero velocity in the preferred frame. I know the frame's velocity, regardless of the velocity (to include a zero velocity). Einstein has no method of determining an absolute zero velocity, so he fabricates his illusion world.

In your world, everyone will measure a meter an/or a second different depending on how they are moving.

Correct, but again, they know the frame's velocity in addition to the measurements they took, and from that information they know the speed of light. But, let's get real here for a minute. It's only in Einstein's world do you need to keep measuring the speed of light over and over and over. In my world (and in yours too) the speed of light is defined, so I know what the speed of light is. Light travel time DEFINES the meter, hence the speed of light is defined!

So the speed of light IS variable.

No, the speed of light is defined. It is impossible for the speed of light to be anything different than 299,792,458 m/s, because the very definition of a meter is the length of the path that light travels in a vacuum in 1/299792458 of a second. So, light travels 299,792,458 meters in one second, hence the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s. Not variable, not possible to be different than 299,792,458 m/s. Comprehend?

I measuring the same beam of light at 10% of the speed that you are measuring it.

Did you take into account that your frame had a velocity in space where light travels independent of your frame?

Zero velocity relative to what?

Relative to the light sphere. Relative to the point that the light was emitted in space.

You?

No, the point of emission of light, the center of the light sphere.

Why is your FoR special?

It's not "my" frame of reference, it's the preferred frame because all objects travel in the preferred frame where light travel time defines distance.

More like his brilliant insight. If I'm traveling .99c relative to you, then you appear to be traveling .99c away from me. Who's motion is preferred?

No, his BS! I had it right the first time. There is one car in space. How do you determine its velocity using light and clocks? Again, Einstein has no way of knowing that, so he pretends that since you don't know the velocity of the frame, and no way of knowing, that it must be zero. lol

You on earth are flying through the solar system, which is zooming through the galaxy, which is moving withing our local group, etc. Where exactly is the 'at rest' FoR?

When light travel time is the same one way times along a stick and back, in all directions, then the stick has an absolute zero velocity. If the one way times were 1/299792458 of a second, then that stick is a meter stick.

No one has any way of knowing, including you. You have no way of knowing if your inertial reference frame has any velocity unless you consider it relative to something else, hence the name.

Who the F is Einstein to tell me no one can know the absolute velocity of my frame. His whole world is based on a misguided assumption that one can't possibly know the velocity of a frame in the preferred frame. His whole world is based on the assumption that his frame is never in motion, it's always the 'other' frame that's in motion. Sorry buddy, when using light and clocks to determine the meter you have to KNOW the velocity of the frame!

 

[Seedling]

Seedling, serious question-- which do you think is more likely...
a- 100 years of brilliant theorists and experimentalists have been unable to see these obvious problems with relativity which are so apparent to some random guy on a stoner website?
or
b- there are some aspects and concepts of Einstein's theories that you just don't understand or comprehend?

You mean "more likely" as in not 100%? You mean there is a slight chance that a stoner on a website could be right and all those "brilliant" theorists could be wrong? Is that what you are implying, that a stoner on a website could be right?

 

[Doer]

You mean "more likely" as in not 100%? You mean there is a slight chance that a stoner on a website could be right and all those "brilliant" theorists could be wrong? Is that what you are implying, that a stoner on a website could be right?

This is how meglomaniacs think. A lazy, giant ego, un-educated, and unwilling to be in the crucible. Certainly, and completely un-quaified.

And willing to be a jerk about it. The peanut gallery of faith. No there is not the slightest chance. You don't have the math. You substitute derision and sour grapes toward the true giants of thought. The ones that have advanced us, their ideas,
are certainly to be challenged, but you make it personal and thus very juvenile. And credibility is gone.

There have been guys like Chandra, that work alone with the math before they are ever "discovered." And that is exactly the story of Einstein. No Blues without Dues. Really if you just want an audience for ideas, everyone knows I like that.

If you can't discuss without a right-fight, it means you are not qualified.

 

[Seedling]

This is how meglomaniacs think. A lazy, giant ego, un-educated, and unwilling to be in the crucible. Certainly, and completely un-quaified.

And willing to be a jerk about it. The peanut gallery of faith. No there is not the slightest chance. You don't have the math. You substitute derision and sour grapes toward the true giants of thought. The ones that have advanced us, their ideas,
are certainly to be challenged, but you make it personal and thus very juvenile. And credibility is gone.

There have been guys like Chandra, that work alone with the math before they are ever "discovered." And that is exactly the story of Einstein. No Blues without Dues. Really if you just want an audience for ideas, everyone knows I like that.

If you can't discuss without a right-fight, it means you are not qualified.

So you evade the scene until you think the coast is clear and then when you do make a reappearance you only throw personal insults around. When are you going to answer my questions that I asked of you? Your drivel is meaningless, and I will not carry on a one sided conversation with you. What's the point if you never answer any of my questions? Answer the questions and I will carry on with you, if not, I'll not respond to a intellectually dishonest person such as yourself.