The direction of the big bang
- Thread starter high|hgih
- Start date
Doer
Well-Known Member
Like I said, if you can't take it in, don't stain. Belief based views are quite alright. Believe what you what. I, however, am a skeptic. I can only be swayed by the math.....and even then, there is an edge to it all, we just don't know.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Oh, I'm gripped up fairly tight, you? I would like to hear more of your views on Einstein. At what point, do you think he slipped? Or was he always just seeking fame, an artist, as you say.
BTW< Big Bang didn't bang into Space. Big Bang created Space. We are in the spacetime blast front. We have no idea where we are in this expanding skin or how thick it is, or how wide.
That's Big Bang Theory.
Just saying it's impossible or I'm silly to believe it is getting old. First off, I don't believe BBT. Never said I did. You are surely happy to remain just as confused as before. It's too big a picture. Fine.
So, relax and tell us, when did you first begin to have these feelings about Herr Einstein? In your childhood? Was it your Mother?
Seedling
Well-Known Member
When I started reading his work and noticing that we had very different views on space and time, and upon closer examination it was revealed he was full of it...
For instance, the second postulate in SR. While Einstein postulates that the speed of light is measured to be c in all frames of reference, I can show this to be unequivocally false. The only way light can be measured to be c in a reference frame is if the frame is at an absolute zero velocity. Make no mistake, a meter is defined as the length of the path that light travels in a vacuum in 1/299792458 of a second. Light travel time defines the meter, hence the speed of light is defined. With the defined speed of light, traveling independently of objects means that as the object's absolute velocity changes, so too does the time it takes for light to travel the length of a meter in that frame, hence the speed of light can't be measured to be c in a frame of reference unless that frame has an absolute zero velocity in space.
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
Einstein's views of space and time were different from everyone's views. They seem to be on the right track, especially seeing that we use them to get to specific sectors of Mars very accurately using them...
Wait, how is the bolded statement above true? The meter was an establish unit of measure in 1875, we had no idea about the speed and nature of light at that time...
Seedling
Well-Known Member
I don't have a TOE, I have a theory of absolute velocity.
Seedling
Well-Known Member
Are you denying the definition of a meter is as follows??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meter
The metre (meter in American English), symbol m, is the fundamental unit of length in the International System of Units (SI).Originally intended to be one ten-millionth of the distance from the Earth′s equator to the North Pole (at sea level), its definition has been periodically refined to reflect growing knowledge of metrology. Since 1983, it has been defined as “the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
Are you denying the definition of a meter is as follows??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meter
The metre (meter in American English), symbol m, is the fundamental unit of length in the International System of Units (SI).Originally intended to be one ten-millionth of the distance from the Earth′s equator to the North Pole (at sea level), its definition has been periodically refined to reflect growing knowledge of metrology. Since 1983, it has been defined as “the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval ofof a second.
I was unaware of this, thanks for sharing!
Doer
Well-Known Member
Can you share the nutshell? The Elevator Pitch? The Abstract?
Seedling
Well-Known Member
Light travel time defines distance in the preferred frame. Light is emitted at time t=0 at a point in space from a source, and light travels spherically away from that point in space that it was emitted. The distance the light travels is ct from the point of emission. The absolute velocity of the source is in relation to that point in space that it emitted the light sphere. If the source remains at that point then the source remains at the center of the expanding light sphere and the source has an absolute zero velocity in the preferred frame (that the light sphere created.) If the source travels away from that point in space then the source is no longer at the center of the expanding light sphere. The distance the source travels away from that point, can be used to calculate the absolute velocity of the source in the time the light traveled ct. Absolute velocity in the preferred frame. Of course, all objects travel in the preferred frame, and at the same time can have a relative velocity to another object in the preferred frame.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Does the bolded not contradict itself? cn
Seedling
Well-Known Member
No. The preferred frame is space. Light travel time defines distance in the preferred frame. Absolute velocity is the velocity of the object in the preferred frame (space). That velocity is not relative to another object, it is relative to a point in space which is incapable of motion in the preferred frame. It is simply a point in space. There is nothing there if the source travels away from that point.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I hope I'm reading this wrong, but defining space as being/having a preferred frame sounds like the aether, which is really another way of saying that the universe has a net (zero) velocity. Relativity put paid to that. cn
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
You appear to be making post-hoc arguments. The meter was defined using the speed of light in a vacuum (c) because it is a standard that is based on the fact that c doesn't change. Are you suggesting a variable speed of light? If so, you should know that every experiment conducted to disprove SR and GR has failed. Time dilation and length (Lorentz) contraction are real effects. It still takes the same time for light to travel the meter in the other frames because the meter is shorter when observed from an independent FoR.
Please expand on your hypothesis. If you were driving a car at 0.99*c and turned on the headlights, what would you see? Would photons be traveling at 0.01*c?
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Then please explain the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
Seedling
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
Time dilation and length contraction are BS! Length contraction has never been proven to be a real effect. Length contraction is more a hindrance to SR than anything the way I see it. 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.
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 obviously have no real understanding of which you speak. You are simply parroting what you've been brainwashed with.
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. That is, if you consider your frame to be at a zero velocity to take measurements from (which clearly isn't in your question, because you stated the car was driving .99 c), which is another of Einstein's blunders. I can tell you the velocity of the frame, Einstein can not. He has no way of knowing the velocity of a frame in space, so he makes up his BS second postulate and claims all frames will measure the speed of light to be the same. That is simply an impossibility according to the definition of the meter.
Seedling
Well-Known Member
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.
Doer
Well-Known Member
And you talk like a Charlatan. Insult and derision to hide that fact that you don't know what you are taking about.
I doubt that you are at all familiar with the modern experiments since, obviously you are such a high ego that you don't "get" Einstein. And you are such a low-brow character as to brush it all off as bullshit art.
From the beginning you have derided anyone that wants to discuss this with you. Bully-boy tactics just mean you are a lost, anti-science fight-boy. That's all you want is to get into a name calling fight, seems to me.
You don't even know who you are talking to. But, it's good you didn't post claptrap in the Science section. You don't have the papers to reference. Or the Math. So, personal theories are interesting to me. But, you would not take this smarmy mouth, approach in person.
And it means you have no training or ability to carry on a conversation at this level and you are stooping to picking the posts apart instead of riding straight at the fact these ideas were dis-proven, long ago.
You can't even come up with the guys that have proposes these ideas, with math, but had their math dis-proven. They had courage. What do you call this stuff? I know what I call it. Arguing in circles.
I doubt that you are at all familiar with the modern experiments since, obviously you are such a high ego that you don't "get" Einstein. And you are such a low-brow character as to brush it all off as bullshit art.
From the beginning you have derided anyone that wants to discuss this with you. Bully-boy tactics just mean you are a lost, anti-science fight-boy. That's all you want is to get into a name calling fight, seems to me.
You don't even know who you are talking to. But, it's good you didn't post claptrap in the Science section. You don't have the papers to reference. Or the Math. So, personal theories are interesting to me. But, you would not take this smarmy mouth, approach in person.
And it means you have no training or ability to carry on a conversation at this level and you are stooping to picking the posts apart instead of riding straight at the fact these ideas were dis-proven, long ago.
You can't even come up with the guys that have proposes these ideas, with math, but had their math dis-proven. They had courage. What do you call this stuff? I know what I call it. Arguing in circles.
Seedling
Well-Known Member
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.