Re: What before big bang?
From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 09/02/04
- Next message: ande452_at_attglobal.net: "Re: The Truth is Meant to be Known"
- Previous message: Alain Fournier: "Re: Can we now build the space elevator?"
- In reply to: truegridtz: "Re: What before big bang?"
- Next in thread: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: What before big bang?"
- Reply: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: What before big bang?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 00:45:54 GMT
"truegridtz" <marko@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
news:413604f4$0$446$a726171b@news.hal-pc.org...
> You said pertaining to "c": "You might try being more precise. Constant
> with respect to what? Do you
> > know the answer to that question?"
>
> "c" is constant no matter what the velocity of the observer.
>
>
> The space-time alterations due to velocity are all automatically adjusted
so
> that "c" is perceived to be the same.
>
> You also said: " Please present that evidence. For starters, you could
> explain how
> electrons can be EMR."
>
> I am not saying that they are. I am saying that they could be. I don't
> know what the actual waveform would be. I see considerable evidence that
> most everything in the atomic world is EMR.
First please explain to me what you think EMR is?
EMR are solutions to Maxwells free field equations which generally take the
form of waves. Now, for starters, please explain, without QM, how waves can
be particles? And if you introduce QM then things become much more
difficult.
>
> What happens when light travels in a circle?
>
How is it possible for light travel in a circle?
> It would continually
> accelerate toward the center wouldn't it? IOW there would be a factor
> involved that is not seen in rectilinear motion.
>
> My position is that science is closed minded. Piling up evidence is not
> going to lead to a useful application of present knowledge. Sooner or
later
> the nature of gravity will be discovered.
The nature of gravity has been discovered - it is space-time curvature
>
> I have little doubt that whoever first generates the gravitational field
> will do it with a specific EM waveform. I cannot prove this. Whoever
does
> this will not arrive at the understanding by piling up more quarks and
other
> such evidence.
>
>
> Relativity is a continuously adjustable multi-dimensional feedback system.
> Evidence concerning this universal system keeps piling up through the
years,
> but there seems to be little effort to see what it all leads to.
Please tell me the book you learnt relativity from.
>
> It is obvious to me that it points to EMR as being the prevailing
component,
> if not the only one.
>
I strongly suspect you do not even know what EMR is.
>
>
> Virtually everything has electromagnetic qualities. EM is the common
> factor. It seems logical to look at the nature of gravity through EM.
>
First, the weak interaction in not EM - although they unify at high enough
energy but that is another issue. Second gravity has properties not
explainable in terms of EM; EM only affects electric charge but gravity also
affects neutral objects such as neutrinos.
>
> I don't see why you, and probably most, think that laboratory evidence is
> all that matters. Sure, science is based on fact (or what is perceived to
> be fact), but there is also the important element of interpreting the
> evidence and theorizing about what it could mean.
Of course - but what you have written does not conform to known
experimentally verified facts.
>
> AE taught us that things aren't always as they appear. Newtonian
mechanics
> was not the whole story. This lesson should not be forgotten.
>
> IOW, don't be so quick to assume that what we perceive is what is really
> there. These manifestations that appear in laboratories could easily be
> something far different than what they appear to be.
>
> When the Hubble went into operation it was stated that 70% of all that we
> believed about the universe was proved to be false.
>
> I don't know what else to say. I can see where you are situated (to a
> certain extent), but I don't see why you are so committed to remaining
> there.
>
> I don't mean to be rude, but judging from your reactions, I would say you
> know very little about relativity.
>From other posts I know Bjoern Feuerbacher is well acquainted with
relativity. However I suspect you are not.
> Much of what I said was basic theory.
> You don't seem to recognize it.
>
Light does not travel in circles.
>
> Perhaps you are so involved with current laboratory evidence that you
can't
> see it.
>
> You said: " What properties of matter does light have? For starters, it
has
> neither
> > rest mass nor charge."
>
> E=MCsquared: The energy of a photon is its mass times C. Rest mass of
> light?
Light has no rest mass which is the reason it travels at c. Do you even
understand what rest mass is?
>
> You don't understand the redshift? You don't understand that the light
> changes direction when in the vicinity of a large mass? These effects are
> attributed to the properties of free space.
>
> This is what amazes me. Relativity theory is used as a computation tool,
> but the actual understanding of it seems to be relegated and ignored. It
is
> a partial explaination of how material reality operates.
>
> You said :
>
> " Fields in a transformer are not radiation."
>
> Yes they are. The propagation velocity of any electromagnetic field is
"c".
>
> I don't mean to be rude, you haven't been rude to me. I suppose we are
in
> two different worlds and yours is the most common one.
>
> I welcome any replies you may have, but I don't know how to answer them.
> There is obviously a very wide communication gap. Many of your questions
> make sense. Many of my statements are basically out of order on a
> scientific basis.
>
> For example: "> So it assembles in basic packages, call them quantum.
> >
> > How does EMR "assemble" in packages?"
>
> With very poor context I was trying to say that the means whereby
particles
> come into existence could be a purely EM event. My basic perspective is
> that little effort is put forth in physics to understand more about EM
> propagation. I'm sorry, I don't have the words.........physics is stuck
in
> the mud in a certain way.
The reason you do not have the words is that physics is written in the
language of mathematics, a language I suspect you are not familiar with.
>
> Since there is insufficient focus on the EM evidence there is
consequently
> little or no effort to explore the possibility that what is perceived to
one
> thing is really something else: The possibility that what is perceived as
> particles is really a form of EM.
>
> There is overwhelming (as I see it) evidence that the relativistic effects
> (I am at a loss of words)
If you are lost for words why not try the math?
> of reality are causing, perpetuating, and
> accommodating EM waveforms that have yet to be identified. Nobody seems
to
> entertain the possibility that much of what is detected is explainable
with
> (as yet unknown) knowledge about EMR..
Yes they do - for example Kaluza-Klein theories that link gravity and EM are
still an active area of investigation see
http://astro.uwaterloo.ca/~wesson/.
>
> I strongly suspect that the answer lays hidden within the relationships of
> the Theory of Relativity. I wouldn't be surprised if the answer was
hidden
> in plain view.
>
> The one thing that most students in enginerring and physics don't
understand
> is the basic theoretical relationships upon which things are based. They
> work the equations and get the answers, but they never really understand
> what the equations really mean. Einstein built upon Maxwell and others.
> Building upon Einstein is a unique chore because of the contiuously
changing
> complexities.
Please see the following to understand what theoretical physics really
requires: http://modeling.la.asu.edu/R&E/SecretsGenius.pdf.
Bill
>
>
> Sincerely, Mark
>
>
> "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
> news:ch4i2a$g5k$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
> > truegridtz wrote:
> > > "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
> message
> > > news:ch3tr5$d2s$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
> > >
> > >>truegridtz wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>"Albert Einstein" <dadaismo@tin.it> wrote in message
> > >>>news:iG7Zc.178539$OR2.8434846@news3.tin.it...
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >BF: This is about a short as I could make it and hopefully it makes
> > >sense. I have trouble reading it myself.
> >
> > We'll see.
> >
> >
> > >>>As I see it the ultimate in science (relativity) proves that the
> > >>universe was created.
> > >>
> > >>General Relativity is the best theory we have up to know - but
> > >>essentially everyone agrees that for very small times, it breaks down
> > >>due to quantum effects,
> > >
> > >
> > > There is always the problem of the "observer." Since we have but one
> basic
> > > observation point (possibly the term is "world event") we cannot be
sure
> > > exactly what we see. Matter is in motion, internally.
> >
> > Sorry, I don't see what that has to do with my argument above.
> >
> >
> >
> > >>and in order to describe these first times, we
> > >>need a theory of Quantum Gravity. It may well turn out that then that
> > >>the universe *had* no beginning.
> > >
> > >
> > > I do not subscribe to what might be termed quantum theory.
> >
> > *big sigh* Why not? And why does every piece of evidence we have
> > so far agree with it, in some cases even to an accurary of 12
> > significant digits?
> >
> >
> >
> > > I see overwhelming evidence that everything is EMR.
> >
> > Please present that evidence. For starters, you could explain how
> > electrons can be EMR.
> >
> >
> > > So it assembles in basic packages, call them quantum.
> >
> > How does EMR "assemble" in packages?
> >
> >
> > > I strongly suspect that what is perceived
> > > through science is highly flawed because many observations are flawed,
> > > thus results and extrapolations are flawed.
> >
> > Which observations are flawed, and what is your evidence for that?
> >
> >
> > > Science is trying to fit all the evidence together into a unified
> theory.
> > > A lot of the evidence is not what it appears to be.
> >
> > For example?
> >
> >
> > > Much of it is
> > > mathematical representation that has little resemblance to reality.
> >
> > Evidence is not mathematical representation.
> >
> >
> >
> > >>For some, still speculative, ideas, look here:
> > >>
> >
>
>><http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=00042F0D-
> 1A0E-1085-94F483414B7F0000>
> >
> >
> > Have you looked there?
> >
> >
> > >>>No matter what type of theory is set forth pertaining to a beginning
of
> > >>>our
> > >>>existence, there must have been the propagation medium present
> > >>>beforehand for anything to work.
> > >>
> > >>Huh? Could you please explain that logic further?
> >
> > I don't see anything below where you explain why a "propagation medium"
> > had to be there "beforehand for anything to work".
> >
> >
> >
> > > As I see it, the "writing on the wall"
> >
> > What do you mean?
> >
> >
> > > says that EMR traveling through
> > > free space is traveling through a propagation network that is "bent"
by
> > > gravity.
> >
> > Huh? What do you mean by "propagation network"?
> >
> >
> > > The bending is only a mathematical and geometric observation.
> >
> > Well, since bending *is* something geometrical, that's not surprising,
> > isn't it?
> >
> >
> > > What is actually happening is probably quite different than a bending.
> >
> > If you can reproduce the predictions of General relativity without
> > the assumption of curved spacetime, feel free to do so.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Relativity, in a geometric sense, is mostly rotation through 90
degrees
> > > or somewhere in between.
> >
> > I have no clue what you mean here.
> >
> >
> > > What is actually happening is most uncertain.
> >
> > Not at all.
> >
> >
> > > The propagation medium is what is called free space. It has properties
> that
> > > are necessary for matter to operate as it does.
> >
> > For example?
> >
> >
> > > The "writing on the wall"
> > > strong suggests (from my perspective) that matter does not inherently
> have
> > > all of the qualities of space-time.
> >
> > I have no clue what you mean by "matter has (or has not) qualities of
> > space-time".
> >
> >
> > > What matter reacts to is a quality (qualities) of free space.
> >
> > Huh
> >
> >
> > > It must have been present in the beginning.
> >
> > *What* must have been present there, and why?
> >
> >
> > > Whatever massive material event happened (that appears to be steadily
> > > expanding), call it the Big Bang,
> >
> > The Big Bang is not "steadily expanding", and it even makes no sense
> > to say that a "massive material event happened that is steadily
> > expanding". Events don't expand.
> >
> >
> > > must have had an already existant free space.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> >
> > > Once again, (assuming that there is some scientific explanation for
> > > the presence of the initial quantity of matter in the beginning)
> >
> > See the link above for some ideas, as I said.
> >
> >
> > > the matter
> > > itself did not and does not generate the qualities of free space.
> >
> > Well, I know of no one who says that "matter generates the qualities
> > of free space". Probably because it is totally unclear what you *mean*
> > with "the qualities of free space".
> >
> >
> > > It is conceivable to me that the generation of matter in the beginning
> could
> > > have been an electromagnetic event that literally generated matter.
> >
> > What is an "electromagnetic event", and how can it generate matter?
> >
> >
> > > It is
> > > conceivable that light and velocity were spontaneously generated
> >
> > Contradicts conservation of energy, don't you think?
> >
> > And, BTW, velocity of what?
> >
> >
> > > and then matter formed due to some type of interaction.
> >
> > That's marvelously vague, congratulations!
> >
> >
> > > Even so, the properties of
> > > free space would have to be present the mass-energy conversions to
take
> > > effect.
> >
> > What "properties of free space" do you mean?
> >
> >
> > > Who knows, maybe someone stuck a match in a room of of mirrors
> > > inside a black hole.
> >
> > A black hole has nothing to do with the BB.
> >
> >
> > > Maybe that's what the damned ape did. Playing with a
> > > cigarette lighter. Kabooom. Mabey it was an anti-cigarette
> > > lighter......anyhow....
> >
> > What ape? Sorry, I don't get the joke.
> >
> >
> >
> > > The qualities of free space (as far as I know) are homogeneous through
> the
> > > universe no matter what the quantity of matter in the vacinity (surely
> there
> > > is some exception to this at the edge of reality, wherever that might
> be, if
> > > there is such a place). Yes, the matter in the vacinity changes the
> free
> > > space, but the free space itself is the same every where.
> >
> > Err, if it is changed, how can it be the same?
> >
> >
> > > From this it
> > > seems logical to conclude that the qualities of free space were not
> > > generated at the moment of the beginning.
> >
> > How does that follow?
> >
> >
> > > These qualites were already
> > > present. Someone put free space in operation. In fact, a universe
this
> > > complex could not have generated itself.
> >
> > Why not?
> >
> >
> > > The whole theory of evolution is patently absurd.
> >
> > *even bigger sigh*
> >
> > Please go to www.talkorigins.org and read *all* of the articles there.
> > That will keep you busy for some days...
> >
> >
> >
> > > My point is that science is used to generate arguements in behalf of a
> > > godless beginning of existence.
> >
> > Science deals only with natural explanations, since supernatural events
> > can't be studied with the methology of science. And science found such
> > natural explanations for a lot of things which were previously
> > considered to be the work of god(s). If you have a problem with that,
> > then apparently your faith is rather weak.
> >
> >
> > > I say that the highest science (which
> > > describes accurately the nature of free space) makes it obvious that
> what
> > > ever evolutionary model is set forth requires an already existant free
> > > space.
> >
> > What "highest science" is that which achieves such marvelous things?
> >
> >
> > > Gravity, mass, energy, space-time are all predicated on events
occuring
> in
> > > relation to the ether.
> >
> > Unsupported, baseless assertion.
> >
> >
> > > Mass increases with velocity.
> >
> > Yes, indeed. Nice that we agree on that.
> >
> >
> > > Electrons are moving
> > > at high velocities in (from our perspective) circular orbitals.
> >
> > Wrong. If they would do that, they would radiate off electromagnetic
> > radiation, and spiral into the nucleus.
> >
> >
> > > The
> > > gravitational effect of matter seems to be due to the mass of the atom
> > > interacting with free space.
> >
> > Again, marvelously vague.
> >
> >
> > > The mass of the electrons and vibrating protons and neutrons
> >
> > What is vibrating there?
> >
> >
> > > is due to the interaction of their velocities with free
> > > space.
> >
> > Still marvelously vague.
> >
> >
> > > This gives them their mass. It is a system that we percieve as
> > > material existence. It could all be EMR.
> >
> > How?
> >
> >
> > > Light has mass.
> >
>
<http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html
> >
> >
> >
> > > Light has velocity.
> >
> > Finally something we can again agree upon.
> >
> >
> > > Light's path is changed as
> > > gravitational fields change the nature of free space, the medium
through
> > > which light propagates. Light is EMR and has the properties of
matter.
> >
> > What properties of matter does light have? For starters, it has neither
> > rest mass nor charge.
> >
> >
> > > All EMR travels at c, even the fields in a 120V 60Hz line
transformer.
> >
> > Fields in a transformer are not radiation.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Light is EMR and has mass.
> >
> > Wrong. See above.
> >
> >
> > > This relationship strongly suggests that all
> > > material existence is EMR
> >
> > Why?
> >
> >
> > > in forms that we cannot understand because we are
> > > wasting so much time on all this quark and quantum theory.
> >
> > Hint: these theories are the best theories we have, were tested hundreds
> > of thousands of times, and have never given a wrong prediction. Just
> > dumb luck, eh?
> >
> >
> > > It is good for
> > > what it is good for, but it will never get us where we need to go.
> >
> > Unsupported, baseless assertion.
> >
> >
> > > We need to prove or disprove whether electrons and all other forms of
> matter
> > > are small
> >
> > We know quite well that electrons are small (smaller than about 10^(-18)
> > m). That is shown by scattering experiments, which are based on
> > electrodynamics.
> >
> >
> > > (or mabey huge and dimensionally distorted) circular and
> > > self-sufficent webs of light.
> >
> > Where would their charge, rest mass and magnetic moment then come from?
> >
> >
> >
> > > Light travels at "c" because this is the standard propagaton velocity
> > > (from our perspective, from our reference point).
> >
> > Would that be different from other reference points? From which, why,
> > and how do you know?
> >
> >
> > > The redshift is due to
> > > the gravitational effect upon the propagation medium, the ether.
> >
> > Yet another unsupported assertion.
> >
> >
> > > Gravity
> > > itself appears to be as result of mass interacting with free space.
> >
> > Still marvelously vague.
> >
> >
> >
> > >>>EMR propagates through some type of universal format.
> > >>
> > >>Ever heard of the Michelson-Morley experiment?
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, amazing, but ineffective. It may have worked, but due to factors
> that
> > > had a cancelling effect there was no drift (for lack of the proper
term)
> > > detected for planet earth.
> >
> > What cancelling factors are these?
> >
> >
> >
> > >>>The "ether" surely exists or there would not be a reference point
> called
> > >>>"c". MH
> > >>
> > >>"c" is not a reference *point*. What do you mean?
> > >
> > >
> > > "Point" here means a place in the theory that is a reliable constant
> Not a
> > > geometric point, a reference point. A point of reference. A place in
> the
> > > theory that has a definable quantity. Relativity is based on "c"
being
> > > constant.
> >
> > You might try being more precise. Constant with respect to what? Do you
> > know the answer to that question?
> >
> >
> > > AE said that there was no proof of this, the value of "c". It
> > > was chosen to be the constant, but it does work out in the equations.
> >
> > Huh?
> >
> >
> > > It is
> > > the maximum theoretical obtainable velocity in mass-energy conversion.
> > > It can also be mesured, so it seems to be a reliable constant.
> >
> > So, why does the existence of this "reference point" imply the existence
> > of an ether?
> >
> >
> > > If anyone made it through this, thanks for reading it. If I read
> everything
> > > three times I could see what I was trying to say. I hope that it is
> > > basically sound according to theory.
> >
> > Sorry, but it consisted mainly of unsupported assertions, plain denial
> > of well-established theories, some totally vague statements, and some
> > misrepresentations of what science actually says.
> >
> >
> > > Comments are welcome, if they aren't based on tons of geometry.
> > > Regards, Mark
> >
> > What's your problem with geometry?
> >
> >
> > Bye,
> > Bjoern
>
>
- Next message: ande452_at_attglobal.net: "Re: The Truth is Meant to be Known"
- Previous message: Alain Fournier: "Re: Can we now build the space elevator?"
- In reply to: truegridtz: "Re: What before big bang?"
- Next in thread: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: What before big bang?"
- Reply: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: What before big bang?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
