Relativity

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

Good point, we should go back to the overwhelming consensus amongst astronomers that the Milky-Way is the only galaxy in the universe. Or the overwhelming consensus that the Earth is at the center. Oh wait, you have already went back to that with your belief that red-shift = velocity and distance as no matter which quadrant of the sky one gazes into, objects are redshifted in a 360 degree sphere. Proving beyond all shadow of a doubt that we are the center of the universe. But I thought we did away with that belief???

You sure you want to go with consensus opinion?

The consensus opinion that space is electrically neutral.

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

Hazards of Solar Wind On Moon | NASA Lunar Science Institute

NASA - Electric Moon Jolts the Solar Wind

NASA - Cassini Sees Saturn Electric Link With Enceladus

And let us all forget about the 100,000 amperes constantly going between earth and space.

Birkeland current - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Auroral Birkeland currents carry about 100,000 amperes during quiet timeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current#cite_note-7 and more than 1 million amperes during geomagnetically disturbed times.

And while we are at it let us ignore the fact that every single spacecraft entering space immediately becomes electrically charged in that electrically neutral environment. Funny how that works.

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s9500.pdf

So yes, let's all stop thinking for ourselves and go back to when the world was flat, was that not also a consensus opinion? Or epicycles, that was once scientific consensus too.

Heaven forbid science actually advance and new things be discovered not thought of 100 years ago. We got experiments in the lab with plasma redshift. What do you got? An expanding nothing. yah right, so much for consensus. Guess if you will buy an expanding nothing, you will buy anything.

Well, what do you know, redshift on the sun itself.

http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/adminstuff/webpubs/2003_ajl_L81.pdf

 

[Michael]

Not according to the overwhelming consensus amongst astronomers and physicists.

Appeal to authority much? Who cares? They're they same folks that claimed SUSY sparticles did it, both before and *after* all those falsifications of mathematical SUSY models at LHC. They invent new supernatural sideskicks about ever decade or so. Based on that PLANCK data set fiasco, we're due for another one about any day now.

You also claim that galaxies are full of plasma,

So do the astronomers. Of course they *inaccurately* labeled a multi-million degree plasma a "hot gas".

NASA - NASA's Chandra Shows Milky Way is Surrounded by Halo of Hot Gas

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.

It's simply a distance issue. Care to justify any of those claims with written papers by the way, or is that just a pure handwave?

 

[Michael]

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

He talked about "spacetime" expanding and contracting. Let's hear you quote him on your expanding space claim.

You are clearly wrong.

Not in the lab I'm not. You can't get your mythical "space" thingy to do magical expansion tricks in the lab.

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

Considering the menagerie of supernatural constructs you're willing to stuff in there, I'm sure you can get a *blunder* theory do just about anything and everything. Inflation's big "claims to fame" went up in smoke in the PLANCK data set, so another supernatural construct is sure to be forthcoming. You guys will do *anything* to avoid EM fields in spacetime.

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

Nope. I'm fine with an expanding (object) scenario too. I'm just a skeptic of all your claims that fail to show up in the lab. It's nothing personal, I'm just not a huge fan of supernatural invisible, impotent on Earth constructs.

 

[Loudmouth]

He talked about "spacetime" expanding and contracting.

Yes, not about objects expanding and contracting. He showed that the time and space metrics are tied together. If time contracts or expands then space must as well. We have experiments demonstrating that time contracts and expands, so to must space.

Considering the menagerie of supernatural constructs you're willing to stuff in there, I'm sure you can get a *blunder* theory do just about anything and everything.

You are still posting blabber. Your record is stuck in the same groove.

 

[Loudmouth]

Appeal to authority much? Who cares?

If they are authorities then you can appeal to them. That's the whole point. The people most knowledgeable in the field say that you are wrong. I think I will agree with the experts and not the guy who can't write a paragraph on any subject without going into an apoplectic fit about plasma.

They're they same folks that claimed SUSY sparticles did it, both before and *after* all those falsifications of mathematical SUSY models at LHC. They invent new supernatural sideskicks about ever decade or so. Based on that PLANCK data set fiasco, we're due for another one about any day now.

Broken record once again. This has nothing to do with relativity.

So do the astronomers. Of course they *inaccurately* labeled a multi-million degree plasma a "hot gas".

NASA - NASA's Chandra Shows Milky Way is Surrounded by Halo of Hot Gas

This is not relaitivity either.

 

[Loudmouth]

You sure you want to go with consensus opinion?

It is lightyears ahead of your falsified claims.

The consensus opinion that space is electrically neutral.

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

Hazards of Solar Wind On Moon | NASA Lunar Science Institute

NASA - Electric Moon Jolts the Solar Wind

NASA - Cassini Sees Saturn Electric Link With Enceladus

And let us all forget about the 100,000 amperes constantly going between earth and space.

Birkeland current - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And while we are at it let us ignore the fact that every single spacecraft entering space immediately becomes electrically charged in that electrically neutral environment. Funny how that works.

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s9500.pdf

So yes, let's all stop thinking for ourselves and go back to when the world was flat, was that not also a consensus opinion? Or epicycles, that was once scientific consensus too.

Heaven forbid science actually advance and new things be discovered not thought of 100 years ago. We got experiments in the lab with plasma redshift. What do you got? An expanding nothing. yah right, so much for consensus. Guess if you will buy an expanding nothing, you will buy anything.

Well, what do you know, redshift on the sun itself.

What does this have to do with relativity again?

 

[essentialsaltes]

They're they same folks that claimed SUSY sparticles did it

That was hardly "the overwhelming consensus amongst astronomers and physicists".

 

[essentialsaltes]

Let's hear you quote him on your expanding space claim.

You're just playing games to waste people's time. Nevertheless...

"The Influence of the Expansion of Space on the Gravitation Fields Surrounding the Individual Stars"

Albert Einstein & Ernst Straus

From the first paragraph: "On the other hand, we know that real space is expanding, and that ... the field equations will imply such an expansion."

 

[Michael]

Yes, not about objects expanding and contracting. He showed that the time and space metrics are tied together. If time contracts or expands then space must as well. We have experiments demonstrating that time contracts and expands, so to must space.

Nope, one claim doesn't follow the other. Electric fields have a source and a sink, but magnetic fields do not. You can't simply *assume* space does expansion tricks just because time is variable, particularly since you cannot demonstrate *your specific* claim in controlled experimentation.

 

[Michael]

If they are authorities then you can appeal to them. That's the whole point.

What authority? You can't even tell me where to get a quantity of dark energy, or dark matter, let alone define a way to "control" it. Authority on what? Supernatural constructs?

All those popular SUSY maths bit the dust at LHC, and the Planck data doesn't jive with your claims.

The people most knowledgeable in the field say that you are wrong.

Knowledge? What 'knowledge"? Where does dark energy comes from? What is the *exact* energy state of "dark matter"? Your concept of "knowledge" seems bizarre.

I think I will agree with the experts and not the guy who can't write a paragraph on any subject without going into an apoplectic fit about plasma.

Believe whoever you like, but your supernatural constructs are more impotent on Earth than any average concept of "God".

 

[Michael]

That was hardly "the overwhelming consensus amongst astronomers and physicists".

Really? All I seem to read about on Arxiv is how some SUSY sparticle is responsible for dark matter, and WIMPS emit gamma rays.

Space station's antimatter detector finds its first evidence of dark matter - NBC News.com

Now of course you've got no evidence at all that WIMPS even exist *at all*, and no evidence they emit gamma rays, *ever*.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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

Seriously? Yes, GR explains matter in close confines ok, like in the solar system. Doesn't need one little bit of dark matter, expanding space, black holes, SUSY. But the second you start talking about unbound plasma, 99% of the universe it fails miserably and dramatically. So miserably in fact, that at least 6 separate non-detectable entities have been fabricated to make it even come close.

It needs so much magic it isn't even funny anymore.

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

Why would we do that? I assume an expanding, contracting, static, ever changing universe. Electrical forces both attract and repel, I need invent no Fairie Dust to explain anything we observe, just the electrical force that you ignore in your theories. And then wonder why you can not get the micro and macro united.

Because you leave the controlling force of the atom out of your theories of the universe. Even when E tried to tell you, it is the electrodynamics of moving bodies you observe. E=mc^2.

 

[Michael]

You're just playing games to waste people's time. Nevertheless...

"The Influence of the Expansion of Space on the Gravitation Fields Surrounding the Individual Stars"

Albert Einstein & Ernst Straus

From the first paragraph: "On the other hand, we know that real space is expanding, and that ... the field equations will imply such an expansion."

It was supposed to be busy work for LM, not you. Hmmm. I don't think I've ever actually read that specific paper. Thanks.

 

[Loudmouth]

Seriously? Yes, GR explains matter in close confines ok, like in the solar system. Doesn't need one little bit of dark matter, expanding space, black holes, SUSY. But the second you start talking about unbound plasma, 99% of the universe it fails miserably and dramatically. So miserably in fact, that at least 6 separate non-detectable entities have been fabricated to make it even come close.

And more plasma blabber. Why?

GR models predict an expanding universe. Why do we need magic when GR explains it just fine?

Why would we do that? I assume an expanding, contracting, static, ever changing universe. Electrical forces both attract and repel, I need invent no Fairie Dust to explain anything we observe, just the electrical force that you ignore in your theories. And then wonder why you can not get the micro and macro united.

It is not being ignored.

Because you leave the controlling force of the atom out of your theories of the universe. Even when E tried to tell you, it is the electrodynamics of moving bodies you observe. E=mc^2.

That's not left out either.

 

[Loudmouth]

Really? All I seem to read about on Arxiv is how some SUSY sparticle is responsible for dark matter, and WIMPS emit gamma rays.

Which has nothing to do with relativity or the fact that the universe is expanding.

 

[Loudmouth]

What authority?

The authority of the overwhelming majority of physicists and astronomers who all agree that the universe is expanding, and that GR models an expanding universe.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nope, one claim doesn't follow the other.

Yes, it does. When clocks change the rulers change with them. That is relativity. Always has been.

You can't simply *assume* space does expansion tricks just because time is variable, particularly since you cannot demonstrate *your specific* claim in controlled experimentation.

That is precisely what relativity says, that space and time are one thing, and changing one must change the other. You are flat out denying relativity now.

 

[Michael]

Yes, it does. When clocks change the rulers change with them. That is relativity. Always has been.

Whereas it can be demonstrated via controlled experimentation that time is variable, it cannot be empirically demonstrated that 'space' does expanding tricks in controlled experimentation.

That is precisely what relativity says, that space and time are one thing, and changing one must change the other. You are flat out denying relativity now.

No, I'm not. You're simply making a *claim* that you ultimately cannot empirically demonstrate. You simply *assumed* what you wanted about "space". Your supernatural space thing doesn't do any magic expansion tricks in controlled experimentation, so I completely "lack belief" in your *unsupported claim* about space doing any expanding. When can I expect you to demonstrate that claim in a controlled experiment?

 

[Loudmouth]

Whereas it can be demonstrated via controlled experimentation that time is variable, it cannot be empirically demonstrated that 'space' does expanding tricks in controlled experimentation.

If clocks change then space must be changing as well. That is relativity. By showing that time changes you are demonstrating that space is changing. The only way around this conclusion is to reject relativity.

 

[Michael]

The authority of the overwhelming majority of physicists and astronomers who all agree that the universe is expanding,

It's still an appeal to authority claim that defies empirical support. Whereas moving objects and inelastic scatter *do* have empirical effects on photons, your supernatural invisible stuff has *zero* effect on a photon in a lab.

and that GR models an expanding universe.

GR can model an expanding, a contracting, and even a *static* universe. It can model any of those scenarios, not just *one* of them!