Relativity

[Justatruthseeker]

Actually, GR does in fact 'better' predict the orbit or Mercury, so it has value even within the solar system.

That's what I said, it explains the solar system just fine without Fairie Dust. But it does not explain the rest of the universe 99% one little bit. It fails miserably, and to "fix" it they added dark matter, black holes, neutron stars, all the Fairie Dust of mainstream because they continue to ignore what 99% of the universe really is.

I am not claiming it doesn't explain 1% of the universe really well.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No kludging required. It's straight from Al's theory.

No kludging required? really? What is dark matter, black holes, neutron stars? Kludges without which GR would be a miserable failure and is. If GR worked you would not need all that Fairie Dust to explain galactic rotation curves. It doesn't need it for its limited domain of applicability, the solar system. The only place it is even close at all. Everywhere else it has failed miserably and dramatically.

 

[essentialsaltes]

me: "It's straight from Al's theory."

No kludging required? really? What is dark matter, black holes, neutron stars?

The 'it' in my sentence is the metric expansion of space, which does not require any of the things you mention.

You and Michael don't even accept the predictions of the unblundered, unkludged theory. So there's no point talking about further developments of the theory.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

me: "It's straight from Al's theory."



The 'it' in my sentence is the metric expansion of space, which does not require any of the things you mention.

You and Michael don't even accept the predictions of the unblundered, unkludged theory. So there's no point talking about further developments of the theory.

No, it just requires the expansion of absolutely nothing at all. So then it isn't doing anything, objects are merely moving through space in relation to voltage differentials. You constantly ignore the electrodynamics of moving bodies and instead want the movement of nothing to affect everything.

GR has nothing to do with expanding space, it is the generalization of Special Relativity, which deals exclusively with the electrodynamic relationships of moving bodies. In GR gravity is not a force and is only bent by mass. What part of your own theory don't you understand? What mass is causing this spacetime to be expanded? Without mass spacetime does nothing in and of itself as it is not a force.

It is your incorrect beliefs about redshift that forces you to make up Fairie Dust of an expanding nothing. If there is expansion going on you can be sure it is due to electric fields, the only thing known to accelerate anything away from anything else.

But since 99% of the universe is plasma, and plasma redshift is a laboratory tested phenomenon, I think I'll personally believe that 99% of the universe causes redshift instead of the belief that nothing at all does it.

Of course, if you didn't ignore what 99% of the universe actually is, you would realize you didn't need all that Fairie Dust to explain it. But go figure, to each his own I guess. believe in all the Fairie Dust you want.

Just don't ask me to call it science.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Special Relativity, which deals exclusively with the electrodynamic relationships of moving bodies.

Wrong. You should read more than the title of his original paper on the subject.

Just don't ask me to call it science.

That's what the young earth creationists say about evolution and radiometric dating. Fortunately, neither they nor you are the judges of what science is.

 

[Michael]

me: "It's straight from Al's theory."

In the sense that you can *subjectively choose* to build a 'blunder' theory out of his maths, yes, it's quite clear that it's possible to do that. I choose *not* to do that, since I cannot demonstrate that "gravity" does any such thing in controlled experimentation, and neither can you!

I can't stop you from kludging GR theory with inflation, dark energy, the new rumored supernatural sidekick "curvatons', or whatever you might decide to kludge it up with. If empirically demonstrated physics isn't the limit, then supernatural constructs necessarily rule the roost mathematically speaking. The invisible sky is the limit in that case, and empirical physics could never hope to compete mathematically.

The 'it' in my sentence is the metric expansion of space, which does not require any of the things you mention.

It requires "faith in the unseen" (in the lab). I'm perfectly happy with *my own religion* thank you very much. I have no need for any other acts of faith in the unseen in the lab. If you have such an emotional need, you'll continue to kludge up GR theory, and turn a completely blind eye to the *real force of nature* that you left out of your formulas, AKA the "electromagnetic field*.

You and Michael don't even accept the predictions of the unblundered, unkludged theory. So there's no point talking about further developments of the theory.

Sure I do. I give you the fact that I cannot stop you from claiming that "space expands" based on *your* interpretation of the math formulas, including where *you* think it's 'ok' to clam the metric expands rather than simply the objects expanding.

I'll also grant you that we don't live in a Euclidean spacetime, we live in a "bent" spacetime that is described well without metric expansion.

I'd also grant you that the EU/PC community hasn't done nearly enough to add GR theory into it's equations, and that only a *marriage* of pure GR (no metric expansion) and plasma physics principles can ever *accurately* explain what we observe. I accept that spacetime is curved, but even that geometric relationship may ultimately have it's roots in the EM fields that hold matter/energy together.

What I can say is that Lambda-CDM doesn't cut it, and no EU/PC theory that excludes GR theory really describes reality correctly either.

IMO both the mainstream and the EU/PC community are going to need to meet somewhere in the middle to fully explain all observations from spacetime.

 

[Michael]

No kludging required. It's straight from Al's theory.

Well, straight out of the formulas *if* you refuse to limit yourself to demonstrated physics (in the lab). Objects can be shown to move in the lab, but space has yet to perform any expansion tricks in controlled experimentation. You've gone from 'demonstrated physics' to "anything goes" in terms of what those formulas mean, and whether *your* interpretation is accurate.

No, the assumption of Euclidean space as a model is hardly evidence that the universe is Euclidean.

The bending of light by the sun (measured almost a hundred years ago) is evidence that the universe is non-Euclidean.

I'd grant you all of that actually. As I mentioned in my previous post, I think that the EU/PC community has done a very poor job of adopting GR theory into it's equations, just about as poorly as the mainstream has done at adopting EM field equations, and scattering/broadening effects into their cosmology equations.

Without a combination of EM fields *and* GR theory, I don't think it's actually possible to describe spacetime accurately, at least not without a complete electromagnetic 'TOE' that explains the 'bending of light', time dilation, and other things that can be demonstrated in controlled experimentation. That could be *a long* way off. If Einstein didn't do it, I'd be happy for the time being at least with some combination of demonstrated empirical physics that includes GR theory and plasma physics theory. I probably won't be fully satisfied with anything less, short of a pure EM theory of everything, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Instead of the mainstream even attempting to work on a TOE, they seem intent on *inventing* a whole host of new invisible supernatural entities that could *never* be reconciled into a single TOE, and do not show up on Earth.

Justaseekeroftruth and I seem to differ in one area. I'm willing to take a 'baby step' between GR and MHD theory *before* trying to figure out an EM TOE to describe reality. I'd go half way, whereas he seems to insist on getting there all at once. I don't think cosmology theory will progress well without some concept of bent spacetime, and I don't see that happening in the EU/PC community. Likewise I don't believe that cosmology theory can progress without including EM fields, scattering and signal broadening into the equations. Anything less than a combination of concepts is likely to fail IMO, at least for the time being. I'd like to see real progress in my lifetime, not the stalemate that currently exists between mainstream cosmology theory, and the PC/EU community. There has to be a "reasonable midpoint" somewhere between the two extremes.

 

[essentialsaltes]

In the sense that you can *subjectively choose* to build a 'blunder' theory out of his maths

Ugh. You're regressing. We've already covered this, and you've agreed to it in the past.

Einstein's original theory predicted spatial expansion or contraction.
Einstein added the blunder to stop space from expanding or contracting.

The non-blunder theory that you allegedly accept requires expansion or contraction of space.

So no, we do not have to build a blunder theory. Al's original theory yielded metric expansion of space.

I give you the fact that I cannot stop you from claiming that "space expands" based on *your* interpretation of the math formulas, including where *you* think it's 'ok' to clam the metric expands rather than simply the objects expanding.

We've gone over this before, too. But alas your denialism prevents you from accepting the obvious fact that what the Einstein tensor is, is a combination of derivatives of the metric. If the metric has nonzero derivatives, then space is expanding or contracting. GR is about how the metric changes. GR is a theory of how rulers and clocks wiggle and wobble.

 

[Michael]

Ugh. You're regressing. We've already covered this, and you've agreed to it in the past.

Einstein's original theory predicted spatial expansion or contraction.
Einstein added the blunder to stop space from expanding or contracting.

The non-blunder theory that you allegedly accept requires expansion or contraction of space.

You and I have a fundamental disagreement about the concept of what GR actually "predicts" in terms of 'expansion". I'll grant you that *objects can move*. Objects in spacetime will not tend to stay in motion forever and ever all by themselves however. They will eventually tend to 'contract', to pull together based on the curvature of spacetime.

*If* we had enough of a release of energy from a single point, that mass/energy might leave from that location with such energy that it will never again all collect back to a single point (thermonuclear explosion in a 'one bomb' "spacetime).

What I will *not* agree with is your claim that GR theory *necessarily* insists that the metric itself *must* (the word must is important) expand. You and I seem to be in complete disagreement on that point.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171

So no, we do not have to build a blunder theory. Al's original theory yielded metric expansion of space.

How? By adding a non zero cosmological constant when a zero would have been fine in terms of the formulas themselves?

We've gone over this before, too. But alas your denialism prevents you from accepting the obvious fact that what the Einstein tensor is, is a combination of derivatives of the metric. If the metric has nonzero derivatives,

I think the operative word here is *if*, much like the term 'must' in my previous sentence. Why would the metric have a nonzero derivative (in terms of pure empirical physics)? Can it *never* have a zero derivative?

then space is expanding or contracting.

You haven't physically defined "space", nor have you physically explained why the metric *must* have a nonzero derivative.

GR is about how the metric changes. GR is a theory of how rulers and clocks wiggle and wobble.

Nope. You can demonstrate that time wiggles. You cannot demonstrate that rulers change or the metric does expansion that is somehow separate from the movement of objects.

As best as I can tell you've put a math formula on a theological pedestal, and you haven't demonstrated a metric expansion of space in controlled experimentation, nor could you ever hope to do so. What you've done is elevated a math formula to the 'supernatural god' realm, one that relates *only* to things that exist *away from* the Earth, in some mythical empty region of spacetime.

Face it. You left out all the plasma and EM fields that hold the whole universe together. You left out the scattering and signal broadening effects of light traveling through a plasma medium. You've left out the EM factors that *must* be accounted for in a mostly plasma universe.

That's exactly why you need all the various supernatural constructs and claims to fill in the gaps.

To your credit however, I'll grant you that the EU/PC crowd has done an equally bad job of incorporating GR theory into it's mathematical presentation. From my vantage point it's a bit like sitting the middle, watching two folks take two extreme positions rather than looking for a rational middle ground.

 

[essentialsaltes]

me: If the metric has nonzero derivatives,

I think the operative word here is *if*, much like the term 'must' in my previous sentence. Why would the metric have a nonzero derivative (in terms of pure empirical physics)?

What is the formula for GR? It is that G = constant*T

G is made up of the metric and derivatives of the metric.
T is the stress-energy tensor.

If the derivatives are all zero, then so is T. Which would mean there's nothing in the universe. I think this has been empirically disproven. Therefore, the derivatives of the metric are not all zero.

 

[Michael]

me: If the metric has nonzero derivatives,



What is the formula for GR? It is that G = constant*T

G is made up of the metric and derivatives of the metric.
T is the stress-energy tensor.

If the derivatives are all zero, then so is T. Which would mean there's nothing in the universe. I think this has been empirically disproven. Therefore, the derivatives of the metric are not all zero.

I added a few more questions after my original post which I doubt you ever saw. The point of the questions was to point out that some of the derivatives *are* zero, and you've yet to physically explain *why* the metric would expand, or *how* (physically) that occurs.

 

[Michael]

Honestly, in terms of pure GR theory, this one paper expresses my objection to your claim about "space expansion" better than anything else:

[astro-ph/0601171] Is space really expanding? A counterexample

 

[essentialsaltes]

Honestly, in terms of pure GR theory, this one paper expresses my objection to your claim about "space expansion" better than anything else:

[astro-ph/0601171] Is space really expanding? A counterexample

"Here, we study a particular Friedman model: empty universe."

But you reject models with empty universes, so this can't support your view.

"You showed me *hypothetical* GR mathematical models that try to describe a 'spacetime' in the absence of matter and energy as though gravity is not dependent upon matter/energy. Sorry, you can't simply separate *cause* from *effect* like that and expect me to believe you without experimental confirmation."


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

 

[Michael]

"Here, we study a particular Friedman model: empty universe."

But you reject models with empty universes, so this can't support your view.

Hmmm. You may actually have a point, but this geometric presentation has at least *some* energy in it, in the form of *photons* cruising through it.

I'll grant you that there is a cause/effect issue here that is related to *cause* of geometric spacetime curvature that is relevant. Unfortunately that cause/effect issue puts your claims squarely outside of the realm of *actual experimental physics*. It's the *concentration of mass/energy* that creates/causes spacetime curvature. You're trying to take *everything* out of it, and still claim it has 'curvature'. That's pure hokum.

In that paper he explains that what you're "interpreting" as "space expansion" may in fact be nothing more than a time dilation process.

What amused me most about Krauss's last paper on 'dark energy' is how he "trivially" points out the fact that his ad hoc claims about new forms of energy are utterly unsupportable and unfalsifiable in the lab. It no longer matters in astronomy that the concept presented is yet another ad hoc construct that defies experimental falsification/verification.

Apparently in astronomy today, absolutely *anything goes* as long as the supernatural metaphysical pig has a little bit of mathematical lipstick.

 

[essentialsaltes]

In that paper he explains that what you're "interpreting" as "space expansion" may in fact be nothing more than a time dilation process.

This interpretation is only possible in a universe with nothing in it. As I already told you, if the derivatives of the metric are zero, then the stress-energy has to be zero, making the universe empty. We know the universe is not empty, therefore this interpretation is not a possible model of our actual universe.

 

[Michael]

This interpretation is only possible in a universe with nothing in it. As I already told you, if the derivatives of the metric are zero, then the stress-energy has to be zero, making the universe empty. We know the universe is not empty, therefore this interpretation is not a possible model of our actual universe.

With light in it, it's not technically 'empty'. I hear you however, but I feel like you sidestepped my point entirely. The redshift *effect* that we observe isn't necessarily related to "space expansion" as that paper demonstrates. He uses GR to demonstrate that point.

 

[essentialsaltes]

With light in it, it's not technically 'empty'.

There isn't any light in it. His calculations are based on "fictitious" observers and photons.

I hear you however, but I feel like you sidestepped my point entirely. The redshift *effect* that we observe isn't necessarily related to "space expansion" as that paper demonstrates. He uses GR to demonstrate that point.

Yes, flat Minkowski space (or something that can be interpreted as flat Minkowski space) is a solution to the GR equations for an empty universe. But this model has no relevance to our universe, which is neither flat (as demonstrated by the gravitational bending of light) nor empty (as demonstrated by stuff).

The redshift we observe cannot be explained away by this.

 

[Michael]

There isn't any light in it. His calculations are based on "fictitious" observers and photons.



Yes, flat Minkowski space (or something that can be interpreted as flat Minkowski space) is a solution to the GR equations for an empty universe. But this model has no relevance to our universe, which is neither flat (as demonstrated by the gravitational bending of light) nor empty (as demonstrated by stuff).

The redshift we observe cannot be explained away by this.

Redshift can be explained away by inelastic scattering and moving objects. In fact those are the two primary ways (plus time dilation) to actually "explain" photon redshift based on pure empirical (lab demonstrated) physics. Objects of mass move in the lab and plasma causes photon redshift in the lab, but space doesn't do any expansion tricks in controlled experimentation. That's a *concept* you hold related to your highly *subjective interpretation* of Einstein's formulas. That particular claim is in fact an "act of faith' in your part, and you have no hope ever demonstrating or falsifying that claim in controlled experimentation. It's technically *outside* the realm of empirical physics.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, actually it calls for *either* a contracting *or* an expanding "spacetime" (moving objects), not "space".

He clearly talked about metrics of both space and time contracting and expanding together, not about moving objects. You are clearly wrong.

True. Then again his 'constant' was only intended to keep an otherwise imploding universe from imploding. He never tried to get 'space' to do any magic expansion tricks even with his one brief stint with a "blunder" theory.

Why would you need magic when GR explains it just fine?

In a static universe, a Euclidean model is one of the *simplest* models to work with.

So you assume a static universe from the start. Nice to know.

 

[Loudmouth]

Redshift can be explained away by inelastic scattering and moving objects.

Not according to the overwhelming consensus amongst astronomers and physicists.

You also claim that galaxies are full of plasma, and yet we do not see photon redshift for stars in our own galaxy, or even in other galaxies that are gravitationally bound to ours.