Relativity

[Michael]

Would expanding space produce a redshift? Yes or no?

No.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

We have empirical observation which is evidence.

You have empirical *uncontrolled* observation of photon redshift, and no empirical evidence that photon redshift is related to expanding space.

That is exactly what GR demonstrates. It is possible.

By your non demonstrated half baked logic GR also demonstrates that *anything* is possible in a "blunderized" version of GR.

 

[Loudmouth]

No.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

If you expand space you stretch the wavelength. Expanding space would produce a redshift.

By your non demonstrated half baked logic GR also demonstrates that *anything* is possible in a "blunderized" version of GR.

Now you are just making stuff up.

 

[Loudmouth]

No. I think GR theory as Einstein taught it to his students is correct, and I think your supernatural blunder hypothesis is incorrect.

Then you must agree that space can expand, and that the time dilation must result in the expansion or contraction of space.

 

[Michael]

That's what nonzero derivatives of the metric are: expanding (or contracting) space and time.

Without matter/energy, you have no space, and no time, and no "spacetime".

It's obvious.

It's *assumed*.

If a photon's clock slows down, it will decrease the frequency. If its ruler stretches, so does the wavelength.

In the sense that moving objects will do what you describe, that's all related to *moving objects*, and not related to *your* claim.

General relativity predicted time dilation redshift, and this has been measured in a lab. Prediction confirmed.

Ok.

Cosmologically relevant general relativity models

Technically speaking, many EU/PC models are also "cosmologically relevant general relativity models as well. They simply *include* EM field effects as well.

predict space expansion redshift

So we're *actually* talking about a very limited *subset* of cosmologically relevant GR models, in fact *one specific* model in particular, one that does *not* include any significant influence of EM fields in a mostly plasma universe.

over cosmologically significant distances, and this has been measured by labs.

Only redshift has been measured in labs, and there is no evidence that redshift is related to expanding space, just moving objects and inelastic scattering.

All your so called "evidence" comes right back to one giant affirming the consequent fallacy apparently.

 

[Michael]

If you expand space you stretch the wavelength. Expanding space would produce a redshift.

Your claim amounts to "magic spacetime expanding elves would produce redshift".

Now you are just making stuff up.

Irony overload. It's the fact you "made stuff up" by stuffing an otherwise good GR formula with metaphysical entities and claims that I object to, not GR.

 

[Michael]

Then you must agree that space can expand,

Nope, just "spacetime" can expand as objects in motion stay in motion.

and that the time dilation must result in the expansion or contraction of space.

Nope. Again, I keep coming back to the EM field analogy. Time can vary around gravity wells, but space doesn't have to vary, just as E fields can have a source and sink, but B fields do not.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I know this will make you happy, so I will answer this question. Gravity or GR is negligible in atoms, so electromagnetism is the primary force that determines the binding of electrons to the nuclei in atoms.



No, the Michelson-Morley experiment (and its subsequent refinements) destroyed the ether. Unless you have some new way to interpret those results -- and many have tried (unsuccessfully) -- the ether is gone.

Of course, that is why it is known as one of the most failed experiments of all time, because it settled the issue once and for all. Uhh, huh, if you say so.

Michelson–Morley experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After all this thought and preparation, the experiment became what has been called the most famous failed experiment in history. Instead of providing insight into the properties of the aether, Michelson and Morley's article in the American Journal of Science reported the measurement to be as small as one-fortieth of the expected displacement, but "since the displacement is proportional to the square of the velocity" they concluded that the measured velocity was "probably less than one-sixth" of the expected velocity of the Earth's motion in orbit and "certainly less than one-fourth."

Pobably why E wanted to call his gravitational field ether, but mainstream wouldn't let him.


Ether and the Theory of Relativity

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 wonld 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 inedia, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

So much for that idea since you insist on applying motion to it. It is objects of mass which move, not so-called spacetime. You have once again tried to mistakenly apply the idea of motion to it. Destroying the entire meaning of Relativity.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

In no other branch of physics would this sort of nonsense be tolerated, let alone elevated to the status of 'science'. What pure hokum.

Agreed, only in cosmology can one divorce cause and effect and still consider themselves practicing science.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Spacetime is the arena in which stuff exists. (and before you ask, no, it's not a physical arena made of girders or bricks, where they sell overpriced hotdogs).

Exactly, it is made of nothing. It is the voltage difference between any two objects of matter. If I was to propose that nothing existed it would violate the very tenants of science, that a theory MUST be falsifiable to be considered a theory.

Unless you can come up with a valid procedure for testing nothing? Of course, with so many non-detections of gravity waves and wimps, non-detection has been ignored. It was what 4 non-detections of ether that disproved it. We are up to what, 6 with gravity waves and at least 12 with dark matter? Why won't you apply the same standards of science to dark matter and gravity waves that you applied to the ether?

Why we just proved spacetime, see, we found what we were looking for, absolutely nothing.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You showed me *hypothetical* GR mathematical models

Nothing hypothetical about it. It is an exact solution to Einstein's equation, the one you say you accept.

Birkeland's cathode sun theory suggests that *all suns* are cathodes with respect to space. They should actually 'repel' each other.

Too bad they don't. Otherwise galaxies would be unstable.

Without matter/energy, you have no space, and no time, and no "spacetime".

Fine, put matter in there. Like Einstein did. What do you get? Expanding space.

Technically speaking, many EU/PC models are also "cosmologically relevant general relativity models as well. They simply *include* EM field effects as well.

What do they use as the stress-energy tensor? What do they use as the equation of state? Show me the solution to the GR equations.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Of course, that is why it is known as one of the most failed experiments of all time, because it settled the issue once and for all. Uhh, huh, if you say so.

You poor, poor thing. You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?

The actual phrase was "the most famous failed experiment"

The M-M experiment was designed to measure a property of the ether.

The fact that the experiment 'failed' to measure anything is the famous evidence that the ether is not there. This was unexpected and caused some controversy, until it was ultimately satisfactorily explained by relativity.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The fact that the experiment 'failed' to measure anything is the famous evidence that the ether is not there. This was unexpected and caused some controversy, until it was ultimately satisfactorily explained by relativity.

And yet I am not the one that needs absolutely nothing to bend and expand, to wiggle and wobble.

And you have yet to answer my previous question. Is a neutron a dark matter particle? Dark matter is electrically neutral and you claim a neutron is too. Now Neutrinos are claimed by some to be candidates. They are claimed to be electrically neutral as well, yet supposedly they change flavors. Quite frankly I find your claims that you can measure a particle that is electrically neutral by means of electromagnetic devices quite unlikely.

Do you know what the voltage of a 12V battery is at the positive or negative pole? How about half way between the circuit? If you start at the negative pole it is 0V and the positive is +12V. If you start at the positive pole it is 0V and the negative is -12V. If you start half way between it is 0V and the negative pole is -6V and the positive pole is +6V. To measure voltage it must be measured with respect to any other point, which is considered 0V.

This is the entire job of the neutron, to be the 0V sink in the electrical circuit. It is the one combination of particles that allows it to transfer both positive and negative charges (they call em quarks) between protons and electrons. Keeping the in-flux and out-flux of charges equal. A balance to the system, what they like to call conservation of energy. What, you think quarks just exist *inside* protons and neutrons? Yet we know a lone neutron spontaneously decomposes into its constituent particles in less than 14 minutes. What constituent particles are those? Quarks? Bosons, mesons? Whatever they are they are charged particles, you can be sure of that.

E=mc^2, the math you claim to follow. Nothing exists without energy, even in a hypothetical state of rest. You have simply taken the E out of the equation and now can't understand why you need so much Fairie Dust to make the math work anywhere but the solar system.

You need to learn what balanced is. If I have two equal weights on a balance scale, both weights do not cancel each other out, making the weights weightless, they simply both are pulled downward equally by the Earth. Likewise balanced negative and positive charges do not make no energy, they simply react equally to all surrounding charges. Just as the weights would act equally to outside influences, air density, etc.

The neutron is like the scale, except it transfers excess charge from one side to the other to keep the atom balanced.

 

[essentialsaltes]

And you have yet to answer my previous question. Is a neutron a dark matter particle?

Asked and answered.

Now Neutrinos are claimed by some to be candidates. They are claimed to be electrically neutral as well

They are.

yet supposedly they change flavors.

They do. This has been observed.

Quite frankly I find your claims that you can measure a particle that is electrically neutral by means of electromagnetic devices quite unlikely.

Is angular momentum conserved? Yes? Well, then it's not that hard to detect interactions involving neutrinoes.

That free neutron decay you're talking about? It involves a neutrino.

 

[Michael]

Nothing hypothetical about it. It is an exact solution to Einstein's equation, the one you say you accept.

It's absolutely a "hypothetical" universe that is devoid of any *source/cause* of geometric curvature, gravity, or spacetime. It's certainly a hypothetical construct since you cannot demonstrate your claim in controlled experimentation.

Too bad they don't. Otherwise galaxies would be unstable.

It's a good thing that gravity still plays the larger role in the push-pull process of galaxy formation. Then again there's all that million degree plasma around the galaxy and of course all the current that sustains that plasma at millions of degrees. Put the whole ball of wax together correctly, and I'm sure it works out just fine. Peratt did a whole series of computer simulations related to galaxy mass layouts based mostly on pure plasma physics.

Fine, put matter in there. Like Einstein did. What do you get? Expanding space.

Nah. In Einstein's case he got expanding or contracting spacetime when he abandoned his blunder theory, whereas in your case you've got supernatural claims galore stuffed into a blunder theory that remain unsupported in the lab and will *always* remain unsupported in the lab.

What do they use as the stress-energy tensor? What do they use as the equation of state? Show me the solution to the GR equations.

I have *no clue* what you *actually* intend to use to do anything. You've literally got *nothing*, so the logic of applying GR to "nothing" is a lot like attempting to apply MHD theory to "nothing". It's not applicable in the first place.

You keep *insisting* on trying to disconnect the *cause* (mass/energy concentration) from the *effect* of those equations (curvature/motion/stress-energy tensors) that you're trying to use. That's not even logical to start with.

I'm sure you've created an entire mythological brand of blunder theory that works on paper, but the problem is that it doesn't work in real life. In the real universe we live in, your theory *left out* the EM fields, the inelastic scattering and the signal broadening that is observed in laboratory plasmas. As a result, you're forced to attempt to make up for it with supernatural constructs galore. You've got four unsupported claims going so far:

Space expands
Inflation causes space to expand
Dark energy causes space to accelerate
Exotic matter makes up most of the universe

Not one of these four "acts of faith" on the part of the believer enjoys any empirical laboratory support. All four unsupported allegations only occur in *one* (and only one) otherwise *falsified* cosmology theory that we know for a fact left out EM fields and scattering processes in plasma.

Sorry, but even compared to my "faith in God", your *unwavering faith* in your four supernatural claims is in a completely different category. Even I have some hope of empirical vindication in the lab, in real controlled experimentation, if not now, perhaps sometime in the future.

You can't even *hope* for laboratory vindication of any of your claims. Talk about pure acts of faith in supernatural constructs. Lambda-CDM requires more supernatural constructs, and more acts of faith in the unseen (in the lab) than an average religion.

I don't think you and I are ever going to see eye to eye on your expanding space claim unless you can demonstrate your claim in a lab, in controlled experimentation. If you cannot do that, I have several *other* options to choose from, including gravitational redshift (time dilation around heavy objects), moving objects and inelastic scattering. I have no need for your supernatural constructs because I have no desire to leave out important characteristics of plasma and the observations of light traversing various plasmas. As long as you insist on leaving out the EM field and scattering aspects of plasma, of *course* you'll continue to wallow around in the literal "dark ages" of astronomy.

At the rate the mainstream is going, Birkeland was already more than 100 years ahead of the mainstream at understanding basic plasma physics in current carrying plasmas, and maybe 200 years. It took the mainstream 60 years to figure out Birkeland was right about aurora, and I suspect it will be over 120 years before they figure out he was right about suns acting as cathodes with respect to spacetime. I have no confidence at all that the mainstream understands anything correctly (not pseudoscience) about plasma physics, solar physics or astronomy in general. Lambda-CDM is 95 percent *supernatural construct* and only 5 percent token physics as window dressing.

Sorry, but IMO empirical physics always *eventually* trumps supernatural constructs. Sooner or later EU/PC theory is going to replace that supernatural dark sky nonsense with real physics. It's only a matter of time.

FYI, now that BBSO has been seriously upgraded, and IRIS images are starting to flow, how long can the mainstream keep pretending that the flux ropes aren't already radiating at high temperatures *before* they exit the photosphere? Another year? Two? Five? Ten?

Sooner or later the spaceweather folks are going to catch on the electrical nature of the solar atmosphere, and the jig will be up for solar physics and what Alfven called "pseudoscience". It's really just a matter of *when*, not if.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Asked and answered.



They are.



They do. This has been observed.



Is angular momentum conserved? Yes? Well, then it's not that hard to detect interactions involving neutrinoes.

That free neutron decay you're talking about? It involves a neutrino.

You are getting closer. We do indeed live in what you would consider an electrically neutral environment (balanced), carrying no excess charge. But you still refuse to accept that this planets and all bound matter is the ONLY place this balance occurs.

NASA - The Electric Atmosphere: Plasma Is Next NASA Science Target

Our day-to-day lives exist in what physicists would call an electrically neutral environment. Desks, books, chairs and bodies don't generally carry electricity and they don't stick to magnets. But life on Earth is substantially different from, well, almost everywhere else. Beyond Earth's protective atmosphere and extending all the way through interplanetary space, electrified particles dominate the scene. Indeed, 99% of the universe is made of this electrified gas, known as plasma.

But space is not like Earth, nor is plasma. It is not balanced electrically and magnetically. It carries an excess of electrical charges, not a balanced mixture of both negative and positive. Electric currents only flow when the charges are not balanced. This is why the cat does not carry electricity. It's atoms are still bound by the electrical force, but because the negative and positive charges are equal, there is no net drift of electrons causing a net voltage. They remain bound and acted upon equally. Yet we also know that cats emit an EM field, just like we do. This is because 3 quarks means an unbalance, why there is a electric dipole and magnetic dipole in every atom in your body. It is this slight imbalance in every atom in existence that causes the overall net attraction of one to another.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Nah. In Einstein's case he got expanding or contracting spacetime when he abandoned his blunder theory...

That's my point. The non-blunder theory that you claim to uphold produces exhibits expansion. And yet you deny expansion. You can't have it both ways.

essentialsaltes: "Show me the solution to the GR equations."

I have *no clue* what you *actually* intend to use to do anything.

What? My question was about you, not me. You claim to uphold GR. You claim that "many EU/PC models are also "cosmologically relevant general relativity models as well. They simply *include* EM field effects as well."

I would like to see one of these EU/PC models based on general relativity. Show me, please.

Sooner or later EU/PC theory is going to replace that supernatural dark sky nonsense with real physics. It's only a matter of time.

I guess we'll see. A good start would be to publish one of your many EU/PC general relativistic models. Don't hide your light under a bushel. Can I see one?

 

[Michael]

That's my point. The non-blunder theory that you claim to uphold produces exhibits expansion. And yet you deny expansion. You can't have it both ways.

Of course I can have it both ways. I can *accept* the expansion of objects/energy, aka "spacetime" expansion. I can also utterly reject your supernatural claim of 'space expansion', and I do. It's really that simple. GR is *absolutely fine* by me until you start mucking it up with supernatural claims and constructs. Without them, it's a great empirical theory. With supernatural constructs and unsupported claims however, it's a meaningless metaphysical hack, with the ad hoc entities growing by the decade. I already hear rumors through the grapevine of the mainstream thinking about adding 'curvatons' to fix their Planck data fiasco.

Sooner or later one has to stop and ask themselves if that kind of a theory makes any sense at all, particularly when you look at what Lambda-CDM actually "left out" in relationship to a plasma universe. It literally *left out* all EM field equations. It literally *left out* all types of inelastic scattering, and *all types* of signal broadening in a mostly plasma universe. These two *glaring omissions* alone are enough to cause me *huge concern*, but when the ad hoc entities just keep popping out left and right, sooner or later it's just a 'bad religion' composed of unwavering faith in mostly supernatural constructs. Faith is neither good nor bad, but it can be misplaced.

What? My question was about you, not me. You claim to uphold GR. You claim that "many EU/PC models are also "cosmologically relevant general relativity models as well. They simply *include* EM field effects as well."

I would like to see one of these EU/PC models based on general relativity. Show me, please.

Have you ever read Alfven's 'bang' theory? Have you ever read Alfven's book "Cosmic Plasma"? Peratt's book "Physics of The Plasma Universe"? IMO those are your best bets. Alfven simply added the flow of current to the process, and entertained the concept of expansion, though he didn't really commit one way or the other. I feel much the same way. I personally think Holushko's explanation, and/or Ashmore's explanation of supernova data sets makes a lot more sense to me. I also entertain an expanding universe, albeit at a more reasonable rate that *includes* inelastic scattering and signal broadening features of laboratory plasmas.

I guess we'll see. A good start would be to publish one of your many EU/PC general relativistic models. Don't hide your light under a bushel. Can I see one?

I suspect you're looking for one big huge, *singular* published work that combines EM fields inside of a GR formula like you're doing. That's typically not the way plasma people approach the issue. They work the issue through *plasma physics*, like Peratt's computer simulations of galaxy formation. They *assume* that plasma physics plays the primary role in a mostly plasma universe, and gravity plays the smaller role.

Your use of 'dark energy' by the way does the same thing. It relegates the attractive curvature of gravity to a minor bit player.

Plasma cosmology typically begins as Peratt begins, with basic plasma physics, applied to larger and larger structures. There are few if any *assumptions* made in PC theory as to the overall nature of the universe in terms of 'static vs. expanding'. I think we as a community understand that redshift isn't necessarily related to expansion, whereas it's akin to "sacred dogma" in the Lambda-CDM community.

The mainstream *always insists* that EU/PC theory make the *exact same assumptions* related to redshift. That's never going to happen. If you're looking for that type of presentation, you're unlikely to ever find one. I suspect the final version of EU/PC theory will include internally powered cathode suns, and lots and lots of signal broadening and inelastic scattering. Whether expansion is *really* the cause of all redshift remains to be seen within the PC/EU community so it's irrational to *require* PC theory to "work the same way"

Gravity is in fact a "bit player" in PC/EU theory, and PC theory is typically expressed in terms of plasma physics since 99+ percent of the universe is in the plasma state. In fact, they just found more mass in the form of million degree plasma than had been found in the whole of human history prior to 2012, and we already knew that most of the universe was in the plasma state prior to 2012. GR isn't the "be-all-end-all" in PC theory, it's "a" factor, but not the *only* factor.

 

[Michael]

That's my point. The non-blunder theory that you claim to uphold produces exhibits expansion. And yet you deny expansion. You can't have it both ways.

It's certainly possible to accept the concept of object expansion and reject the unsupported (in the lab) claim of "space expansion". One claim can be demonstrated in the lab so no 'faith' is required. The other claim *cannot* be demonstrated in any lab on Earth, so the claim begins as an "act of faith" on the part of the believer. Its just that simple.

Faith is great in religion and *occasionally* in science too. Sometimes you need to have 'faith' in a scientific idea, if only long enough to experiment in the lab to falsify or verify the claim. The Higgs is a great example of that kind of "good faith" that is in fact *required* in both science and religion.

There are however "unsupported" types of faith, and even "unsupportable" types of faith in terms of creating *supernatural* concepts that defy experimental falsification. This is true of all supernatural religious constructs, and it's true of all "scientific" supernatural constructs.

Where it gets *really ugly* in science is when the 'supernatural constructs' not only lack empirical verification in the lab now, they can defy such verification in the lab *for all time*. These so called "scientific" supernatural constructs fall outside of the realm of real empirical physics IMO, just as all religious supernatural constructs fall outside the realm of real empirical physics.

I'm not interested in supernatural constructs of any sort, but I'm absolutely not the least bit interested in supernatural constructs that defy experimental testing on Earth. It's a personal preference on my part, and an "act of faith" on my part, if only faith that empirical physics is 'better than" either "supernatural science" or 'supernatural religion".

That preference for empirical physics doesn't "rule out" all concepts of God, it simply leads me toward "one specific" concept of God. Likewise the redshift data doesn't rule out an expanding universe, but my preference for empirical physics leads me towards *one type* of expansion.

It is possible to embrace expansion of objects and reject your unsupported (in the lab) claim of "space expansion". That's really the only difference.

 

[Loudmouth]

Of course I can have it both ways. I can *accept* the expansion of objects/energy, aka "spacetime" expansion.

That is a bait and switch. Mass/energy is not spacetime.

I can also utterly reject your supernatural claim of 'space expansion',

Not without also throwing out GR. GR predicts an expanding universe.

Have you ever read Alfven's 'bang' theory?

Have you ever read up on General Relativity? You know, the topic of this thread?

 

[Loudmouth]

It's certainly possible to accept the concept of object expansion and reject the unsupported (in the lab) claim of "space expansion".

Once again with the bait and switch. GR predicts the expansion of spacetime, not objects with mass.

One claim can be demonstrated in the lab so no 'faith' is required.

The expansion of space can be observed through telescopes, so no faith is required.