Re: Search for Higgs Boson not dangerous.
From: TomGee (lvlus_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 09/01/04
- Next message: puppet_sock_at_hotmail.com: "Re: Hypothetical question."
- Previous message: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: What before big bang?"
- In reply to: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Search for Higgs Boson not dangerous."
- Next in thread: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Search for Higgs Boson not dangerous."
- Reply: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Search for Higgs Boson not dangerous."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 1 Sep 2004 10:04:06 -0700
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<ch1e79$ocu$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> TomGee wrote:
> >
> > I know what inertia is. I want to know how comets are "fixed" in the
> > expanding space of the universe,
>
> They aren't. I never said they are. I said above that 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. Comets
> obviously are not comoving with the cosmological expansion.
>
>
So how do comets figure in "space expansion"theory?
>
>
> > and how the Earth is fixed in the
> > space around the Sun which according to you expands and moves bodies
> > along with it.
>
> The Earth also is obviously not comoving with the cosmological expansion.
>
>
Is the Sun doing that? Or of not, is our galaxy doing that?
> > Did you forget about comets and gravitation?
>
> No, not at all. But apparently you are unaware that on such small scales
> as our solar system, the cosmological expansion is totally irrelevant;
> the motions of objects in our solar system are determined by a
> Schwarzschild metric (well, actually a Kerr metric, but the differences
> are negligible), which is embedded in the cosmological Robertson-Walker
> metric.
>
>
Ok, what about gravitation and comets located way across the universe?
>
>
> >>>>>>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....
>
> Yes. As I explained below.
>
>
> >>Do you know these equations?
>
> Hello? Do you know them or not?
>
>
Why and how is that relevant to our discussion? We are not comparing
equations, and remember my contention that you can prove anything with
math constructs. It seems to me your arguments are corrupt and now
you wish to hide within irrelevant and imaginary math.
>
>
> > But since
> > spacetime is not a real place, it is not spacetime which is being
> > dragged.
>
> That sentence is largely meaningless. "real place" is not a physical
> term, and I don't see how the second part of the sentence should follow
> from the first part.
>
>
Don't know what planet you're writing from, but here on Earth, in
physics, "real" refers to something visible to us and "virtual" refers
to something unreal, or unseen.
>
>
> BTW, what is it then which is being dragged?
>
>
Well, if you don't know, why expect me to know? Since there is no
real place as spacetime, we know it ain't that, right?
>
>
> Yes, that's clear. And now please tell me what that has to do with what
> you write above, especially with that phrase "distance remains
> the same through time".
>
>
I believe I was referring to a schoolgirl and her desk as they move
through time, or else to Einstein's spaceship set on Earth while
moving through time. >
>
> >>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
>
> Probably you mean x and t axes?
>
>
Whatever.
>
>
> Clear.
>
> But I *still* do not see what that has to do with "distance remains the
> same through time", and how anything what I said about the expansion of
> space contradicts this stuff.
>
>
It seems to me that if we can objects in constant acceleration wrt
each other, it cannot be space itself which is expanding.
>
> > Now, perhaps you referred to the concept of a homogeneous expansion of
> > objects in the universe,
>
> No. I referred to the expansion of space itself, as shown by the
> Robertson-Walker metric:
> ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - a^2(t) (dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2)
>
>
> > used to explain why it seems that all bodies
> > are moving away from us,
>
> A homogeneous expansion of objects in the universe could not be used to
> explain why it seems that all bodies are moving away from us.
>
>
".... Once it is noticed that the other galaxies are moving away from
us, there are two conceivable explanations. The first is that we
might be in the center of the universe.... In this case, an
attractive alternative can be found. The alternative explanation can
be called homgeneous expansion."(Alan H. Guth, Starting The Universe:
The Big Bang and cosmic inflation, pg.108, in Bubbles, voids, and
bumps in time: the new cosmology/edited by James Cornell, Press
Syndicate of the U. of Cambridge, 1989)
>
>
> > 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.
>
> *sigh* For the third time, at least: 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.
> That is what the geodesic equation says.
>
>
I know what you said, I want to know where GR claims that it is space
itself which is expanding....
>
>
> > He proved that with math constructs, one can prove we live in a static
> > universe.
>
> Nonsense. He only showed that his equations have a static universe as one
> of their solutions. He did not prove that this particular solution
> describes our universe. Additionally, that does in no way show that
> "anything is possible with math constructs".
>
>
No, not at all. Most people now believe that Einstein was only human
and he fudged on the truth a little so as to prove his subjective
opinion that the u. was static. He proved it with numbers and some of
his most ardent followers claimed that they understood and that it was
correct math and the result was true to reality. It was not until
Hubble that his little sleight-of-hand was discovered and he was
forced to call that fiasco one of his biggest blunders.
Fool us once, shame on you; fool us twice, shame on us!
>
>
> >>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?
>
> Because it contradicts the geodesic equation for the Robertson-Walker
> metric.
>
>
Sigh.... Explanation, please.
>
>
> >>>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?
>
> Care to answer that?
>
>
No.
>
>
> >>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.
>
> So what? If an idea is news to you, why do you simply assume that it is
> wrong?
>
>
I did not simply assume that. I thought about it for a full 2 seconds
before I realized it was wrong.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> I supported it by explaining to you how this follows from the equations
> of GR. You keep ignoring these explanations.
>
>
Your so-called explanations that "...this follows from (GR), are no
explanations atall, as you don't explain specifically where they
follow from.
>
>
> >>>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,
>
> Err, I did not say that objects stay where they are. I said that their
> coordinates stay the same (if they are comoving), but nevertheless
> the distance between them increases.
>
>
> > since you
> > admit the objects involved would move and not stay where they are.
>
> I admitted nothing like that. I only agreed with your statement above
> that objects would separate all the more as more space is added. That
> has nothing to do with admitting that they actually move (i.e. that
> their coordinates change).
>
>
So to you, if the coordinates of two or more objects do not change
even though they have separated farther apart in space, that is not
"moving"?
>
>
> >>>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 there is no conservation law for a particular quantity, there
> is no reason why it shouldn't increase with time. Do you also ask where
> the additional entropy comes from in irreversible processes?
>
>
Personally, I do ask that. But if a quantity does not fall under a
conservation law, there is no reason why it should increase with time,
either.
>
>
> >>>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.
>
> That totally contradicts the actual Big Bang theory, based on General
> Relativity.
>
>
Yes, but only where it is thought that space came out with the BB into
a so-called "...nothingness." So it does not "totally" conflict with
the BB theory. It also overthrows the need for an Inflationary Period
which has no explanation as to its cause.
>
>
> If you think that your interpretation agrees with the math of GR, feel
> free to explain how.
>
>
No, thanks.
>
> [snip]
> >>>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).
>
> "absolute space" means "space devoid of anything in it"?
>
>
Yes. Why do you ask?
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Well, that's what the math actually says, sorry for you.
>
>
And what math is that? I don't think so.
>
>
> >>>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?
>
> I am fairly aware of that, yes.
>
>
> > And that thus the BB seems to be not halfway over as yet?
>
> Huh??? How on earth does that follow???
>
>
That is what physicists are saying. Don't you keep up?
>
>
> What do you *mean* when you say "Big Bang"? Apparently you use another
> meaning for that term than its standard meaning (which is something like
> "the initial singularity of the universe").
>
>
I mean the same, except that there are several ideas today that
question the necessity of the singularity.
>
>
> > Visible and dark matter are also described as positive energy and
> > negative energy.
>
> Wrong. Dark matter has positive energy. Dark *energy* has negative
> energy.
>
> And my question above was not about the "positive" and "negative"
> energy. I did not understand what you mean by "the BB empties out energies".
>
>
Okay. What came out of the BB soup initially is thought to have
contained no matter but only energy from a singularity. Seconds
later, there was some congealing of energies into elements as the BB
continued to expand outward.
- Next message: puppet_sock_at_hotmail.com: "Re: Hypothetical question."
- Previous message: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: What before big bang?"
- In reply to: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Search for Higgs Boson not dangerous."
- Next in thread: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Search for Higgs Boson not dangerous."
- Reply: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Search for Higgs Boson not dangerous."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
