Re: Search for Higgs Boson not dangerous.
From: TomGee (lvlus_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 08/30/04
- Next message: Steve Harris sbharris_at_ROMAN9.netcom.com: "Re: Leonardo Da Vinci - About Aliens, Dimensions, Consciousness, Time, And Earth's Past And Future"
- Previous message: Spaceman: "Re: What causes time dilation?"
- In reply to: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Search for Higgs Boson not dangerous."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 30 Aug 2004 14:37:03 -0700
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cgv98n$agt$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> TomGee wrote:
> > Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cgnosr$p41$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> >
> >>TomGee wrote:
> >>
> >>>In an explosion, matter flies outward from its center in all
> >>>directions due to the impetus provided by the forces of the explosion,
> >>>and such matter moves independently of the space it moves through. In
> >>>a landmine explosion, e.g., the air through which the metal fragments
> >>>fly does not expand or move along with them. In order for objects to
> >>>move along with the expansion of space as if they are fixed in the
> >>>space they occupy, something must fix them "in place" like a glue
> >>>would fix ants on the surface of an expanding balloon.
> >>
> >>The force which fixes them there is simply inertia.
> >>
> >
> > And just how does does inertia fix them in place?
>
> Inertia is the resistance of objects if one tries to change their
> state of motion. If something rests, it will stay resting unless
> a force acts on it. The analogy in cosmology: if the coordinates of an
> object do not change (i.e. it is comoving with the cosmological
> expansion), it will not suddenly start changing its coordinates.
>
I know what inertia is. I want to know how comets are "fixed" in the
expanding space of the universe, and how the Earth is fixed in the
space around the Sun which according to you expands and moves bodies
along with it. Did you forget about comets and gravitation?
>
> >>>>The theory which says that the universe "carries" objects with it as it
> >>>>expands is called General Relativity.
> >>>>
> >
> > No, that is incorrect. GR says no such thing. References, please.
>
> That follows from the equations of GR. See below.
>
Oh, I see. It follows....
>
> Do you know these equations?
>
> BTW, there is also a somewhat similar effect, which is currently
> measured by the Gravity Probe B: moving matter can drag spacetime
> along with it.
> <http://einstein.stanford.edu/gpb_intro.html>
>
Yes, I am aware of that claim and the recent "proof" of it. But since
spacetime is not a real place, it is not spacetime which is being
dragged.
>
> >
> > But doesn't that contradict the basis of the spacetime diagram where
> > distance remains the same through time? (Kitty Ferguson, "Stephen
> > Hawking Quest For A theory Of Everything", Bantam Books, 1991, pp
> > 100-105).
>
> Sorry, I have no clue what you mean here. What does "distance remains
> the same through time" mean, and what has that to do with the "basis of
> the spacetime diagram"?
>
No clue, huh? As an object moves in space, it also moves in time, and
these movements can be calculated by using a spacetime diagram, a math
construct, an imaginary graph of an object's movement through time and
space.
>
> Hey, I am even not sure what sort of spacetime
> diagram you mean - that term is rather ambiguous!
>
> How coy! Read up on them, why don't you.
>
> I don't have the book you mention above available here - could you
> please quote some relevant passages?
>
Sure, but she includes a basic spacetime diagram with x and y axes
where she plots a young lady moving from her desk to another place
where she stops momentarily then moves again. The author explains how
We can plot her position in time and space at any particular event.
>
Now, perhaps you referred to the concept of a homogeneous expansion of
objects in the universe, used to explain why it seems that all bodies
are moving away from us, which makes it appear that we are the center
of of the universe. I do not disagree with the concept; I think it
works well. However, it does not claim "...that the universe
'carries' objects with it as it expands", as you claim GR states.
>
> > Remember that anything is possible with math constructs, as
> > Einstein proved with his "static universe".
>
> What has Einstein's static universe to do with "anything is possible
> with math constructs"?
>
He proved that with math constructs, one can prove we live in a static
universe.
>
> > Now GR talks about a
> > rocketship fixed on the surface of the earth while actually moving
> > through time, but he made that up so as to explain his curved-space
> > theory.
>
> Sorry, I do't understand what you mean here.
>
There's no reason to elaborate on that anymore anyway.
>
> > GR states that curved space "moves along" with massive bodies
> > in their travels through space,
>
> Huh? Do you mean the effect I mentioned above in connection with
> Gravity Probe B?
>
No, that effect has to do with "frame dragging", but I thought you
might be referring to Relativity's curved space which seems to move
along with massive bodies in space.
>
> > but I don't think Einstein meant that
> > space moves along with the bodies, just the curvature effect caused by
> > mass.
>
> Right.
>
> > Is that what you refer to with your references to GR?
>
> No, also the effect is somewhat similar.
>
>
> > If so, the analogy does not fit your point.
>
> Agreed.
>
> >>How else would you call that than "space carries objects along with it"?
> >>
> >
> > I have never heard it said that way.
>
> Well, I don't remember reading that anyway, too - but again: what
> else would you call the effect I described above?
>
> > I have heard it said that
> > objects move through space due to the effects of the BB,
>
> That's the point of view commonly presented in popular science
> descriptions of the BB - but from the viewpoint of GR, it does not
> make so much sense.
>
Why not?
>
> > and that
> > space, and thus our universe, is expanding due to the BB, but I have
> > not heard it said that space carries objects along with it as it
> > expands. You either have a new theory or you are not quite
> > comprehending the essence of that which we speak.
>
> Well, what is your knowledge of GR? Why do you think you are qualified
> to judge if I understand it or not?
>
Because you may be saying that your idea is that space carries objects
along with it as it expands, and that idea is new to me. If you read
it somewhere, I asked you to guide me to it's source. There are no
qualifications for asking that you support what you say.
>
> >>One could perhaps also say "object stay where they are, but the space
> >>between them expands" - that has the same effect.
> >>
> >
> > No, not so.
>
> Yes, so.
>
>
> > As the space expands, objects would separate all the more
> > as more space is added.
>
> Right. Your point?
>
Then your claim that objects "stay where they are" is false, since you
admit the objects involved would move and not stay where they are.
>
> > BTW, where do you propose all the new space is
> > coming from?
>
> Huh? Why does it need to come from somewhere?????
>
Well, one can't just make up anything one wants, can we?
>
> > If it is not from the BB, how is it created and expanded?
>
> Simple answer: we don't know.
>
I believe that our space was once space empty of everything the BB put
into it, and so space was already here when the BB occurred.
>
> > As the u. expands, it seems that objects are moving more
> > apart, as if space were moving them apart or as if their inertia due
> > to the BB were moving them apart.
>
> Both are from the observational point of view valid descriptions, but
> the first does more resemble the math of the theory.
>
>
> > I would go with the latter cause of
> > the effect, as space has not a power with which to move mass, nor to
> > curve space, for that matter, as Einstein contended.
>
> As I explained above: the coordinates of the objects remain the same,
> i.e. they do not move "with respect to space". But due to the expansion
> of space, the distance between them nevertheless increases.
>
Yes, I agree with that concept, as I so stated above.
>
> > I also think that space is absolute
>
> In what sense?
>
In the sense that if the BB emptied out into nothingness, that
nothingness could have been absolute space (which is simply space
devoid of anything in it). Others claim that the BB emptied out space
as well, but I can't accept that as easily as thinking that space was
already here.
>
> > except where the BB has emptied
> > out (and apparently is still emptying out)
>
> Huh? Do you want to claim that the BB is still happening?
>
Well, haven't you heard that it was recently shown the universe is
expanding even more rapidly than was expected previously? And that
thus the BB seems to be not halfway over as yet?
>
> > positive and negative
> > energies into empty space which is now not empty but filled with such
> > energies of which some have been converted into mass, and that space
> > is now our universe.
>
> Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by saying that the BB "empties
> out energies into emoty space".
>
Visible and dark matter are also described as positive energy and
negative energy.
TomGee
- Next message: Steve Harris sbharris_at_ROMAN9.netcom.com: "Re: Leonardo Da Vinci - About Aliens, Dimensions, Consciousness, Time, And Earth's Past And Future"
- Previous message: Spaceman: "Re: What causes time dilation?"
- In reply to: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Search for Higgs Boson not dangerous."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
