Redshift, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, etc., etc.

[Justatruthseeker]

ah, so what you got from the oil drop experiment is electric charge is a form of antigravity. you sure you didn't get something about the quantum nature of charge? I'll give you a mulligan on this one if you want

A mulligan? You can't defend your stance. I'm still waiting for you to Tee off.

It sure did tell me something about the quantum nature of charge. That there is no quantum theory of gravity - only quantum electrodynamics. So we sure were not discussing gravity at that quantum level, now were we.

So when you can even make it off the Tee, let me know.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I personally think that there is a danger in trying to do 'too much, too fast' as it relates to the gravity issue. Even by the mainstream's standards, gravity is merely a 'bit player' with "dark energy" supposedly defying gravity and causing acceleration, and where 'space expansion' effectively defyies the conservation of energy laws on a moment by moment basis. Even their beloved Lambda-CDM relegates gravity to a small role in the whole process.

That's just it Michael, it's not "too much, too fast" that is the problem, but they are not moving at all when it comes to gravity - because they seek only a mechanical explanation for an electrical event. And then they require all those ad-hoc assumptions because they refuse to accept what the forces they call dark energy and dark matter really is.

Acceleration is only a problem in a gravity dominated viewpoint. It's a simple law of physics.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...ecreates-astrophysical-jets.html#.VXrlF0YjYig

"The formation soon straightened into a jet because of a simple law of physics - currents flowing in the same direction attract each other, while currents flowing in opposite directions repel each other."

There's nothing mysterious or dark going on, except the darkness caused by their refusal to accept demonstrated laboratory experiments with plasma.

I agree with you that some day a theory of everything will probably tie gravity and EM fields into two facets of the same EM process. On the other hand, I'm not personally willing to commit to one specific TOE at the moment. I'm fine with treating gravity as a geometric curvature in GR, so long as they leave out all the supernatural nonsense.

But treating it as a geometric curvature is the supernatural nonsense part. It's a mathematical description of the behavior of solids, liquids and gasses within electromagnetic fields.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)

"In the modern framework of the quantum theory of fields, even without referring to a test particle, a field occupies space, contains energy, and its presence eliminates a true vacuum."

Treating it like a supernatural construct is only going to get us more Fairie Dust and further from that ToE.

In terms of changing the tide, I think the "short term" strategy has to be focused on demonstrating the superiority of empirical physics over the 'faerie dust' mythology that they teach to unsuspecting college students, and that they popularize on TV.

How's that been going?

It does seem like such a fundamental shift will probably take more than 5 years, but maybe less than 25, and I hope to ride the wave of grace and stick around planet Earth for awhile. I'd love to see empirical physics triumph over their supernatural Frankenstein of a cosmology theory in my lifetime, but alas, the mainstream does seem to have it's head firmly buried in the supernatural sand, and no amount of failed "tests" of any of their claims seems to matter to them one iota. I haven't seen a real "victory" for the Lambda-CDM model in almost a decade. Every improvement in technology takes us one step closer to empirical physics, and one step away from their magnetic supernatural mythology. Sooner or later they will have to wake up to the electrical nature of the universe around us, the electrical currents that power the aurora, that power every aurora around every planet with an atmosphere, and which power the coronal loops in the solar atmosphere as Birkeland demonstrated over 100 years ago in the lab.

At the moment they seem frightened and afraid to move like deer caught in the headlights, and they seem hopelessly stuck in the dark ages of astronomy.

When oh when will they see the electrical light?

Because cosmologists won't treat plasma like plasma, instead insisting it behave like the other three states of matter. It doesn't matter that not a single plasma physicist does so in any laboratory. In case you haven't figured it out theorists in mainstream don't care about the empirical evidence as long as funding continues.

They are not willingly going to give up their "expert" position to become a "student" in a new paradigm willingly. The only real solution is to bypass them and bring the science back in with or without their cooperation.

One cannot even get them to accept simple laws of physics demonstrated in every single laboratory, so wrapped up are they in explaining everything gravitationally - and gravitationally only. It's all a state of matter and also a state of mind. It's all about applying the correct physics to the correct states of matter. And when we get down to the quantum level where talk of the Higg's begins, we can ignore gravity altogether, and need only discus the quantum electrodynamics of the situation.

We are simply discussing scale, near fields and far fields. Matter composed of equal numbers of bound protons and electrons behaves according to the gravitational laws - which are Maxwell's equations for individual charged matter, through the use of tensors and transforms, equated to the behavior of multiple bound charges in matter. It's one and the same thing. There is no supernatural construct of expanding, bending, accelerating nothing called spacetime. Einstein took away all motions of an aether - leaving only the motion of particles within space. Since motion could no longer be applied to the aether - they bent, accelerated and expanded nothing instead. And pretend it's not electromagnetic fields the particles move through.

EDIT:

All E did was explain how bound charges behaved as they emitted and moved through those electromagnetic fields. There is no movement of the aether, because fields do not move, the particles move through the fields. Fields simply change in energy level in response to the movement of those particles. A field is not nothing, it is energy at the basic level - occupying all of space.

 

[[serious]]

A mulligan? You can't defend your stance. I'm still waiting for you to Tee off.

It sure did tell me something about the quantum nature of charge. That there is no quantum theory of gravity - only quantum electrodynamics. So we sure were not discussing gravity at that quantum level, now were we.

So when you can even make it off the Tee, let me know.

As far as i know, this is the first mention of the idea of quantum gravity in the thread. Since you aren't tying it into any larger point, I'm assuming you are just trying to distract f
rom your previous demonstrations of ignorance of basic science:

To recap:
1. The electronvolt (eV) is not the same thing as the elementary charge (e)
2. Electric charge is not a form of antigravity
3. Neutrons are not neutrinos

We are simply discussing scale, near fields and far fields. Matter composed of equal numbers of bound protons and electrons behaves according to the gravitational laws - which are Maxwell's equations for individual charged matter, through the use of tensors and transforms, equated to the behavior of multiple bound charges in matter. It's one and the same thing. There is no supernatural construct of expanding, bending, accelerating nothing called spacetime. Einstein took away all motions of an aether - leaving only the motion of particles within space. Since motion could no longer be applied to the aether - they bent, accelerated and expanded nothing instead. And pretend it's not electromagnetic fields the particles move through.

Wait, do you believe in some sort of aether?

 

[[serious]]

Should of seen mine. They point me to references when I ask a question, so when they asked one I pointed to my references, but suddenly what was good for them, wasn't good enough for me.

Oh yeah, like that time that you posted a link, accused no one of reading it, then demonstrated that you hadn't read it yourself?

Prove it - here is my model which you have never even bothered to read.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hubble/

The CMB? Now that's a laugh. You really want to know how, or have you not thought it out yet?

A complete thermal spectrum? You mean a specific spectrum of microwave at the frequency of 3K right which is all you consider? I'm not convinced you understand the theory yet. It's the Cosmic Microwave background Radiating at 3K.

Ah, I knew you didn't actually read that paper.

Reading check:

What was the expected wavelength of light from such scattering according to the paper you linked?

Hint: it's not 3K

Ah, good times!

By the way, did you ever go back and check what the predicted wavelength of the bremsstrahlung scattering would be according to your espoused model?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

As far as i know, this is the first mention of the idea of quantum gravity in the thread. Since you aren't tying it into any larger point, I'm assuming you are just trying to distract f
rom your previous demonstrations of ignorance of basic science:

To recap:
1. The electronvolt (eV) is not the same thing as the elementary charge (e)
2. Electric charge is not a form of antigravity
3. Neutrons are not neutrinos

Just what did you think we were talking about when discussing charges on oil drops? Large scale structure?

I think you are just trying to distract that there is no quantum theory of gravity/

1) The electronvolt is the elementary charge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_charge

"The elementary charge, usually denoted as e or sometimes q, is the electric charge carried by a single proton, or equivalently, the negation (opposite) of the electric charge carried by a single electron....Thus it is 1 volt (1 joule per coulomb, 1 J/°C) multiplied by the elementary charge (e, or 1.602176565(35)×10−19 C). Therefore, one electron volt is equal to 1.602176565(35)×10−19 J."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron

"−1.602176565(35)×10−19 C

1 Joule and 1 Coulomb - are the exact same things.

2. So you say. Yet charged particles rise in an electric field.

3. I thought you already knew this, so why keep insisting on the obvious as if you are the only one that understood this?

"Charge is the manifestation of energy in particles of physical matter. If there is no electric charge - there is no particle." (me)

"yeah? so neutrinos dont exist?" (you)

"That claim is the same as the neutron being electrically neutral. Utterly worthless. You just can't measure it." (me)

So because I told you that we are just incapable of measuring the electric charge of a neutrino - as we are incapable of measuring it for the neutron - you somehow deduced that equated meaning they were the same?????? No wonder you believe in bent nothing.

Wait, do you believe in some sort of aether?

Don't you considering what E told you himself?

http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

I think you are the one attempting to distract from the fact you couldn't apply motion to it - so you bent, expanded and accelerated nothing instead. So why do you keep applying the thought of spacetime as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time? Especially when the idea of motion may not be applied to it?

After all, it isn't me that insists this spacetime which is composed of nothing bends, accelerates and expands, applying those very characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. It's not me that is too blind to see you did the very thing E tried to prevent you from doing - applying movement to it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Oh yeah, like that time that you posted a link, accused no one of reading it, then demonstrated that you hadn't read it yourself?

Go ahead, post that link - prove to me where what I said is incorrect - or quit making silly distracting claims.... That's what I thought. Hot air.

By the way, did you ever go back and check what the predicted wavelength of the bremsstrahlung scattering would be according to your espoused model?

Sure I did, you and they just never bothered to read the references, so are still at a loss as to what has been shown.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hubble/

"2.3 Characteristics of the Energy Loss Equation.
It is interesting to note that in Equation (12), the relative energy loss is independent of the frequency n of the incoming radiation in the case stated (blackbody radiation). Therefore, the whole spectrum will undergo a constant relative displacement in energy toward lower frequencies. This displacement of the spectrum is exactly similar to the redshift produced when a source of radiation recedes from the observer (Doppler effect)....


...One must then conclude that a redshift is produced due to hydrogen in space according to Eq. (12). This redshift appears undistinguishable from Doppler redshift for radiation with a short coherence time. The energy loss of the initial radiation appears separately as very low frequency radio waves."

Microwaves. It's not my fault none of you bothered to read it so are left with nothing but strawmen.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/cosmic/index.html

 

[Loudmouth]

Just what did you think we were talking about when discussing charges on oil drops? Large scale structure?

I think you are just trying to distract that there is no quantum theory of gravity/

1) The electronvolt is the elementary charge.

e != eV

Those are two different things.

2. So you say. Yet charged particles rise in an electric field.

Birds rise in the air. They don't use anti-gravity. They use a force in opposition to the force of gravity.

3. I thought you already knew this, so why keep insisting on the obvious as if you are the only one that understood this?

That's rich.

 

[[serious]]

1 Joule and 1 Coulomb - are the exact same things.

No, they really aren't.

Wait, you aren't questioning the existence of the concept of voltage, are you?

 

[Michael]

But treating it as a geometric curvature is the supernatural nonsense part. It's a mathematical description of the behavior of solids, liquids and gasses within electromagnetic fields.

While I agree with a lot of what you said, I'd argue that treating gravity as a geometric curvature isn't "supernatural" nonsense in and of itself. Only when they add the 'space expansion' and "dark energy" claims to the mix does it turn "supernatural" IMO. Gravity may or may not be a geometric curvature in the final analysis, but gravity certainly is a real process, and I personally experience it on a daily basis. I don't experience "space expansion" however, or "dark energy".

How's that been going?

That particular response made me laugh out loud. You got me on that one.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, they really aren't.

Wait, you aren't questioning the existence of the concept of voltage, are you?

You don't even know what voltage is.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

While I agree with a lot of what you said, I'd argue that treating gravity as a geometric curvature isn't "supernatural" nonsense in and of itself. Only when they add the 'space expansion' and "dark energy" claims to the mix does it turn "supernatural" IMO. Gravity may or may not be a geometric curvature in the final analysis, but gravity certainly is a real process, and I personally experience it on a daily basis. I don't experience "space expansion" however, or "dark energy".

And yet if you allow space to be bent or curved, what is then stopping it from expanding??? The math isn't supernatural - but the description of it as spacetime curvature and not a force is. Nothing moves without a force acting on it. Gravity is a two body equation.

I agree those voltage fields that exist throughout space can be described in terms of geometric curvature, but curvature of space in the final analysis leaves out the physical property of what causes the force between two bodies. I could care less if you bent space at 90 degrees - a body will not change its direction or speed unless acted upon by an outside force. This is basics, to then imply that bodies change their course or speed due to anything other than a force - well - it's a supernatural construct to avoid the underlying cause.

That particular response made me laugh out loud. You got me on that one.

Yah, it's been working out the same here. Like someone once said: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Just got to keep getting the science out to the new generation. People that hopefully can think for themselves instead of being told what to think and closing their minds to anything else.

 

[Michael]

And yet if you allow space to be bent or curved, what is then stopping it from expanding???

Gravity, and the concentration of mass/energy would stop "space" from doing anything. The term "space" isn't even defined in GR, just the term "spacetime", which is a term that relates to the *concentration of mass/energy", and the geometric features that it creates. By trying to claim that "space" magically expands, they're effectively trying to remove the mass/energy concentration from the curvature aspect of GR entirely. They're intentionally trying to remove the *cause/effect* relationship between *bent spacetime*, and the concentration of mass/energy.

The math isn't supernatural - but the description of it as spacetime curvature and not a force is. Nothing moves without a force acting on it. Gravity is a two body equation.

I'll grant you that a quantum theory of gravity that is based on EM field (photon) interaction is a likely replacement for GR, but treating gravity as a spacetime geometric curvature isn't really a supernatural concept. It's just a mathematical way of describing gravity that gives pretty accurate results, and many aspects of the space-time relationships have been verified by experimental results.

I agree those voltage fields that exist throughout space can be described in terms of geometric curvature, but curvature of space in the final analysis leaves out the physical property of what causes the force between two bodies. I could care less if you bent space at 90 degrees - a body will not change its direction or speed unless acted upon by an outside force. This is basics, to then imply that bodies change their course or speed due to anything other than a force - well - it's a supernatural construct to avoid the underlying cause.

I think we need to define the term "supernatural". A geometric representation of gravity that describes the attractive properties of mass isn't really 'supernatural" IMO. There's nothing being introduced in the idea that doesn't show up on Earth, and/or can't be tested in an purely empirical and experimental manner. It's only when they start slapping in "space expansion" claims, and "dark energy" voodoo that jump from experimental concepts, to purely theoretical "acts of faith" in things that do not happen and cannot happen in labs on Earth, and/or places that humans cannot go.

I don't find the whole geometric idea "supernatural". It's might ultimately be misguided in the sense that a QM theory of gravity some day replaces it, but until then I'm find with GR theory without all the supernatural extensions, like space expansion claims, and dark energy nonsense.

Yah, it's been working out the same here. Like someone once said: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Just got to keep getting the science out to the new generation. People that hopefully can think for themselves instead of being told what to think and closing their minds to anything else.

It's a little sad that empirical physics has done so much for all of their lives, given them computers, cell phones, cars etc. For whatever reason however, when they look into a telescope, they immediately shun empirical physics in favor of a creation mythology that has failed probably a dozen "tests" in just the last 5 or 6 years.

I can't even imagine what else might go wrong with Lambda-CDM after that whole Bicep2 fiasco. They started falsely advertising the idea even before it was peer reviewed, and their grandiose and egotistical claims didn't even make it through the peer review process! How humiliating.

Inflation theory has been a disaster. Dark energy theory was built upon a premise that has already been falsified, and it's not even necessary to explain larger data sets even if that flawed premise is applied to a larger data set.

Dark matter claims have been falsified a dozen different ways. Their mass estimation techniques in 2006 stunk to high heaven, and every experimental test of their claims was falsified in the lab. It's been a really tough decade for magic matter theory. They're basically praying for a miracle at LHC over the next couple of years, otherwise it's going to get really hard to sell the physics world on exotic stable forms of matter that were never actually necessary in the first place in that 2006 lensing study. At that was necessary in that 2006 lensing study were *more accurate baryonic mass estimates* of various galaxies.

The whole Lambda-CDM theory seems like a complete embarrassment to the empirical physics community. While empirical physics related to EM field technology is creating wonderful electronic gadgets, and improving by leaps and bounds, and medical technology produces tangible goods galore, Lambda-CDM has failed every serious "test" that it's been put to over the past decade, and it produces *no tangible goods whatsoever*!

 

[Michael]

As far as i know, this is the first mention of the idea of quantum gravity in the thread. Since you aren't tying it into any larger point, I'm assuming you are just trying to distract f
rom your previous demonstrations of ignorance of basic science:

I missed this earlier. In all fairness, I think the entire EU/PC community is open to the possibility that GR theory could/might/will be replaced by a quantum description of gravity that is based upon EM field interactions and/or the (virtual) photon interactions that make up the EM field. It's pretty much *assumed* that any/all EM descriptions of gravity would necessarily be a quantum description of gravity.

Wait, do you believe in some sort of aether?

What is a magnetic field if not an "aether" made of (virtual) photons?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What is a magnetic field if not an "aether" made of (virtual) photons?

Ahh yes, good old electric and magnetic fields - which in mainstream are just numbers in space. And now you begin to see my problem with a supernatural construct of spacetime which is not a force and is composed of nothing.

Their beliefs in a magical bending, expanding, accelerating nothing has led them to the idea that fields are also just numbers in space, without any physical reality. That fields are composed of lines of magical something.

And btw, I for one don't accept virtual photons. Photons are a byproduct of charged matter being accelerated. They are initially the cause of nothing. They are a byproduct of charge moving in relation to the underlying energy of the universe. Energy which is built up by movement through this energy and then the excess radiated away as EM fields.

Kinetic energy is not built up from the movement through nothing.

"In physics, the kinetic energy of an object is the energy that it possesses due to its motion. It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes."

It maintains this energy even when acceleration is stopped because it continues to gain energy through interaction with the underlying energy of space as it continues to move - and radiates the excess energy away in the form of electromagnetic radiation - photons, waves, whatever we decide to call it on any given day.

There is nothing "virtual" involved - just the underlying energy that exists everywhere throughout space interacting with an object as it moves through this energy. In response to the energy gained from this interaction the object begins emitting excess energy as EM radiation.

E understood this, which is why he stated that GR without an aether is "unthinkable." He simply understood that the idea of motion could not be applied to it, but must instead be applied to the objects moving through this aether. So instead, since they could not move and bend the aether - they chose to move and bend nothing instead. All because they had incorrect pre-conceived notions of what redshift was - and so could not according to those beliefs allow those objects to be moving at the speed and velocity this incorrect assumption implied - so bent and expanded the space between - applying that very motion of ponderable media to this aether that E showed was incorrect. And yet despite his warning, they went ahead and bent, expanded and accelerated it anyways, applying that motion to it because of their incorrect assumptions about redshift.

 

[[serious]]

You don't even know what voltage is.

I believe the accepted format is "I'm rubber and you're glue..."

 

[[serious]]

I missed this earlier. In all fairness, I think the entire EU/PC community is open to the possibility that GR theory could/might/will be replaced by a quantum description of gravity that is based upon EM field interactions and/or the (virtual) photon interactions that make up the EM field. It's pretty much *assumed* that any/all EM descriptions of gravity would necessarily be a quantum description of gravity.



What is a magnetic field if not an "aether" made of (virtual) photons?

I'm fine with the idea of quantum gravity, I just don't see how it's relevant to anything that has been discussed thus far.

As far as the aether idea, it's an interesting way of thinking about it, but I think reusing terms from older disproven ideas is a recipe for confusing those who aren't grounded in the science.

 

[[serious]]

There is nothing "virtual" involved - just the underlying energy that exists everywhere throughout space interacting with an object as it moves through this energy. In response to the energy gained from this interaction the object begins emitting excess energy as EM radiation.

E understood this, which is why he stated that GR without an aether is "unthinkable." He simply understood that the idea of motion could not be applied to it, but must instead be applied to the objects moving through this aether. So instead, since they could not move and bend the aether - they chose to move and bend nothing instead. All because they had incorrect pre-conceived notions of what redshift was - and so could not according to those beliefs allow those objects to be moving at the speed and velocity this incorrect assumption implied - so bent and expanded the space between - applying that very motion of ponderable media to this aether that E showed was incorrect. And yet despite his warning, they went ahead and bent, expanded and accelerated it anyways, applying that motion to it because of their incorrect assumptions about redshift.

You seem to be saying Einstein forwarded some sort of aether theory. I know there is an aether theory named after him, but my understanding is that was just named after him and was actually invented after his death. If it has an earlier providence, please post your source.