The Universe is a continuum of matter

[ZVBXRPL]

As you can tell in order to be a model such as the one your presenting you will need to be able to answer the questions on this thread in a rigorous manner. We only presented a few questions.

 

Might help if you study why scientists believe so strongly in dark energy dark matter quantum tunnelling the FLRW metric as represented by LCDM.

 

My signature contains several articles and textbooks to help truly understand the above mentioned

This is describing the eather theory which has been disproved by the experiments mentioned by Bignose

It isn't the same thing. That experiment was to try and detect motion of matter through an ether. That is completely different to my theory. In my theory there is no motion of matter and there is no distinction between the Earth and the surrounding Universe, it is all part of a continuum.

[Bignose]

It isn't the same thing. That experiment was to try and detect motion of matter through an ether. That is completely different to my theory. In my theory there is no motion of matter and there is no distinction between the Earth and the surrounding Universe, it is all part of a continuum.

Everything you're used to describe as your continuum are the properties that were attributed to the luminiferous aether. Just saying "they aren't the same" doesn't fix anything. I could call it "banana pudding", but all it is doing is renaming something that has already been proposed and not detected.

 

Again, I don't care what you call it, if there is a continuum out there, why haven't any of the experiments designed to detect a continuum found anything? How does this continuum have some properties that are unlike anything close to what we've observed to date? What experiment will detect it?

Edited December 29, 2014 by Bignose

[ZVBXRPL]

Everything you're used to describe as your continuum are the properties that were attributed to the luminiferous aether. Just saying "they aren't the same" doesn't fix anything. I could call it "banana pudding", but all it is doing is renaming something that has already been proposed and not detected.

 

Again, I don't care what you call it, if there is a continuum out there, why haven't any of the experiments designed to detect a continuum found anything? How does this continuum have some properties that are unlike anything close to what we've observed to date? What experiment will detect it?

It is 2 totally different concepts. One involves matter and empty space, one involves no empty space and wave motion.

[Bignose]

It is 2 totally different concepts. One involves matter and empty space, one involves no empty space and wave motion.

How? I am using your word. Continuum.

 

If there is no empty space -- your continuum -- it has to be rigid enough that the wave motion of light moves at a very high speed. Yet, your continuum has to be massless and viscosityless that the motion of planets through it remains unaffected. This has to be explained. Quit telling me that it is different. You are the one proposing a continuum that fills all space. I am just pointing out what this continuum has to do to fit with the observations that we have -- namely the speed of light and the motion of the planets.

 

Now, quit dodging these questions, and answer how your continuum has these properties?

[ZVBXRPL]

Light travels as a wave. The medium is the continuum of matter, the continuum is the medium for all motion. The energy levels of the medium, the continuum of matter, at light's level of substructure are the reason for it's speed. If the energy level of the medium changes the speed is affected.

[Mordred]

How is this different than luminiferous aether? And now were back to continuum of matter not continuum of energy which is it?

[ZVBXRPL]

How? I am using your word. Continuum.

 

If there is no empty space -- your continuum -- it has to be rigid enough that the wave motion of light moves at a very high speed. Yet, your continuum has to be massless and viscosityless that the motion of planets through it remains unaffected. This has to be explained. Quit telling me that it is different. You are the one proposing a continuum that fills all space. I am just pointing out what this continuum has to do to fit with the observations that we have -- namely the speed of light and the motion of the planets.

 

Now, quit dodging these questions, and answer how your continuum has these properties?

You are still talking about a Universe that has empty space and motion of matter. My theory does not involve those 2 concepts. I said about light above and about planets above. All motion in the Universe is wave motion, energy transferring from one location to another, the medium is the continuum of matter. It does not involve matter and empty space moving through empty space and matter..

[Mordred]

Here read this then explain how your theory differs

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

[Bignose]

the continuum of matter, at light's level of substructure are the reason for it's speed

Yes, right, we have the relationship for the speed of a wave in a continuum:

 

[math]a = \sqrt{\left(\frac{\partial p}{\partial \rho}\right)_s}[/math]

 

for a = c, then this derivative has to have a very high value. The change in pressure in the medium has go up a very, very large amount with just a small change in density. In other words, it must be very rigid.

 

But, then we also have the equations for drag in a continuum:

 

[math]F_D = \frac{1}{2}\rho v^2 C_D A[/math]

 

But, the planets don't seem to experience any drag in their motion -- though this continuum that you say is everywhere -- so one of the terms on this right hand side has to be 0 since the force of drag is 0. 1/2 and C_D are constants, so they can't be 0. v^2 is the velocity squared. We know the planets are moving, so v isn't 0. A is the cross sectional area, that isn't 0. That only leaves the density, [math]\rho[/math].

 

But, based on what you're saying, the density can't be zero, because it is were zero, the wave speed formula would be broken. There has to be some density for waves to propagate through it.

 

This one of many problems that needs to be explained by your idea. How can this continuum have both of these properties? Rigid enough for light to travel through it, but massless so that planets don't experience any drag at all?

Edited December 29, 2014 by Bignose

[Mordred]

Then read this article as you mentioned dark energy and dark matter and address the problems of dark matter and dark energy as aether described in the latter article

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2012/06/08/dark-matter-vs-aether/

[Bignose]

You are still talking about a Universe that has empty space and motion of matter. My theory does not involve those 2 concepts. I said about light above and about planets above. All motion in the Universe is wave motion, energy transferring from one location to another, the medium is the continuum of matter. It does not involve matter and empty space moving through empty space and matter..

No I am not. I am using your own words. I never mentioned empty space. I am using your assumption about it being full. I want to know how this continuum can propagate waves fast enough that the speed of light it what it is, yet behaves in such a massless and viscosityless way that the planets motion seems to not be affected by any drag whatsoever. No assumptions about empty space in this question. Just using your idea here, and expecting you to be able to answer a question about your completely and totally non-empty space.

[ZVBXRPL]

How can this continuum have both of these properties? Rigid enough for light to travel through it, but massless so that planets don't experience any drag at all?

The energy levels throughout the continuum are different. The Universe is a continuum of infinite energy fluctuations. The energy level of the light and the medium it travels through as a wave, the energy level of the Earth and the medium it travels through as a wave are all different. It is not a continuum of one energy level.

[Bignose]

The energy levels throughout the continuum are different. The Universe is a continuum of infinite energy fluctuations. The energy level of the light and the medium it travels through as a wave, the energy level of the Earth and the medium it travels through as a wave are all different. It is not a continuum of one energy level.

How does the 'energy level' affect the speed of waves through it? I posted the known equation for speed of waves through a medium. Please show how it works for your medium.

 

Also, the energy level of an object does not affect the drag. See the drag equation posted above. None of those variables are 'energy level'. Please show me the drag equation for your medium.

 

Show me these equations so that I understand how the jumble of words you've said make sense. Because, I am sorry, but I do not really know what you mean by those words. This is why having a model and showing us what predictions it makes is supremely valuable.

[Mordred]

Yes, right, we have the relationship for the speed of a wave in a continuum:

 

[math]a = \sqrt{\left(\frac{\partial p}{\partial \rho}\right)_s}[/math]

 

for a = c, then this derivative has to have a very high value. The change in pressure in the medium has go up a very, very large amount with just a small change in density. In other words, it must be very rigid.

 

But, then we also have the equations for drag in a continuum:

 

[math]F_D = \frac{1}{2}\rho v^2 C_D A[/math]

 

But, the planets don't seem to experience any drag in their motion -- though this continuum that you say is everywhere -- so one of the terms on this right hand side has to be 0 since the force of drag is 0. 1/2 and C_D are constants, so they can't be 0. v^2 is the velocity squared. We know the planets are moving, so v isn't 0. A is the cross sectional area, that isn't 0. That only leaves the density, [math]\rho[/math].

 

But, based on what you're saying, the density can't be zero, because it is were zero, the wave speed formula would be broken. There has to be some density for waves to propagate through it.

 

This one of many problems that needs to be explained by your idea. How can this continuum have both of these properties? Rigid enough for light to travel through it, but massless so that planets don't experience any drag at all?

Nice post +1 from me good descriptive

[ZVBXRPL]

How does the 'energy level' affect the speed of waves through it? I posted the known equation for speed of waves through a medium. Please show how it works for your medium.

 

Also, the energy level of an object does not affect the drag. See the drag equation posted above. None of those variables are 'energy level'. Please show me the drag equation for your medium.

 

Show me these equations so that I understand how the jumble of words you've said make sense. Because, I am sorry, but I do not really know what you mean by those words. This is why having a model and showing us what predictions it makes is supremely valuable.

You said "how can this continuum have both these properties?". It doesn't just have those 2 properties, it has every property, it is the Universe.

[Mordred]

Look at the properties he mentioned they conflict with each other that is the problem he wants your solution for

[ZVBXRPL]

There is no problem. The problem being talked about has nothing to do with the theory I have suggested.

[Mordred]

It has everything to do with it you simply don't understand why it does.

[ZVBXRPL]

If you do not understand what I am saying and don't fully understand the theory I am attempting to explain, how can you assign a problem to it?

[Mordred]

Yes, right, we have the relationship for the speed of a wave in a continuum:

 

[math]a = \sqrt{\left(\frac{\partial p}{\partial \rho}\right)_s}[/math]

 

for a = c, then this derivative has to have a very high value. The change in pressure in the medium has go up a very, very large amount with just a small change in density. In other words, it must be very rigid.

 

But, then we also have the equations for drag in a continuum:

 

[math]F_D = \frac{1}{2}\rho v^2 C_D A[/math]

 

But, the planets don't seem to experience any drag in their motion -- though this continuum that you say is everywhere -- so one of the terms on this right hand side has to be 0 since the force of drag is 0. 1/2 and C_D are constants, so they can't be 0. v^2 is the velocity squared. We know the planets are moving, so v isn't 0. A is the cross sectional area, that isn't 0. That only leaves the density, [math]\rho[/math].

 

But, based on what you're saying, the density can't be zero, because it is were zero, the wave speed formula would be broken. There has to be some density for waves to propagate through it.

 

This one of many problems that needs to be explained by your idea. How can this continuum have both of these properties? Rigid enough for light to travel through it, but massless so that planets don't experience any drag at all?

This covers the aether problem read it carefully

[ZVBXRPL]

This covers the aether problem read it carefully

Ether has nothing to do with my theory.

[Mordred]

You have zero empty space just as per the metrics posted here. It's the same problem no matter how you shake it

It's the same thing as everything you posted you have a continous medium precisely as the aether theory does. It's metrics and associative problems are identical

[ZVBXRPL]

You have zero empty space just as per the metrics posted here. It's the same problem no matter how you shake it

It's the same thing as everything you posted you have a continous medium precisely as the aether theory does. It's metrics and associative problems are identical

It is not the same theory. You cannot use a test done on a different theory and say my theory doesn't work because the test says that other theory didn't work. Conditions of the experiment are not the same because the theories are not the same.

When they did they the experiment, what did they believe the Earth to be and how did they believe it moved through the Universe?

Edited December 29, 2014 by ZVBXRPL

[Mordred]

Those metrics are not specific to the aether theory. The first is the speed of a wave in a continuum. The second is equation of drag in a continuum. Your theory by your words is a continuum. Therefore those metrics apply to your model.

[Strange]

I post in the speculations part of the forum because my theory falls into speculation category. You say there is no evidence for my theory, but there is evidence for dark energy and dark matter.

 

As this is a science forum, I think you will find the rules require evidence, even in the "Speculations" forum. Not just baseless ruminations.

 

What evidence is there really for dark energy and dark matter that doesn't result from the Big Bang and Expanding Universe theories?

 

I suggest you ask questions like that in the appropriate part of the forum. But it seems a bit odd to attack these hypotheses if you don't even know what the supporting evidence is.

 

You may believe those theories are more than theories and actual scientific fact, but they are not, they are theories.

 

Of course they are not "fact". We are talking about science here.

 

There are scientists around the world that do not believe them to be true. Just because they do not believe they are true does not mean they are wrong, it just means they have a different opinion to the majority.

 

And thge evidence will be what determines who is right, not what anyone believes.

 

Throughout history the majority have often been wrong, I think a good scientist should keep an open mind and accept the fact that any theory could be proven incorrect at some point in the future.

 

There is a difference between being open minded to new evidence and just making stuff up. You might as well say that all the stars we see are insible pink flying unicorns with light coming out of their horns.

 

As for evidence of my theory, what about the doube slit experiment?

 

As we have a very good theory that already explains that, you need to start by showing in suitable mathematical detail how your theory provides a better explanation than the current theory. Can you do that?