andreasjva Posted January 16, 2015 Author Posted January 16, 2015 OK. You have said that. Now can you justify it? No. That is well beyond my ability mathematically, and probably 99.99% of the people on this planet. You know as well as I do how difficult it would be to prove it, especially if it is correct. That implies everything is in a relative state, including all the constants. I'm not even sure where to begin looking. The only place I could imagine starting would be in the redshifts from distant galaxies, and an awful lot of assumptions would have to be made from them. To me, they are possibly showing a change in mass and time. We call it expansion and acceleration, and I say it's possibly caused by contracting time and mass.
Strange Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 No. That is well beyond my ability mathematically, and probably 99.99% of the people on this planet. You know as well as I do how difficult it would be to prove it, especially if it is correct. I'm not really asking you to prove it, just for some reason or evidence why you think it is so. Otherwise, why say it? Do you have any reason for saying that mass is relative other than you just like the idea?
andreasjva Posted January 16, 2015 Author Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) If all you have are analogies, you are not following the guidelines for posting here. There is mathematical evidence to suggest a key component in my reasoning is supported by the scientific community, which I offer as "some sort of proof". http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212686413000332 I have also made a prediction that gravity and expansion are equal and opposite forces within the universe. They are inherently bound in my view. Admittedly though, this is very difficult to prove given the relative nature of the problem, and the mathematical evidence has not been validated through the peer review process. None the less, I am following the guidlines. Analogies are very difficult to judge fundamentally, and will always be a subjective beast. For example, I have often read of the universe being compared to a loaf of raisin bread expanding in the oven. The galaxies are represented by the raisins. The heating up of the bread doesn't make a whole lot of sense though, but one can certainly understand it if they don't take it in an absolute literary sense. Surely the universe isn't in an oven. I mostly struggle with explaining the concept. It is difficult to convey the information properly. Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure. I'm not really asking you to prove it, just for some reason or evidence why you think it is so. Because I can't imagine a universe without causation. I can't imagine a dense energy that just happened to be sitting in the middle of infinite nothingness, before time, and before physics. I can't imagine it would have any reason to change states and become a universe randomly. I see the whole idea as illogical. I don't like the dodge by science of the hows and whys. There is an answer for all of it. Simply telling me the physical properties of things is not an answer. Just because is not an answer. In my view, it's somewhat of a cop out. Scientists aren't really allowed to ask why. I am. If you think my interpretation is hard to swallow, then just consider something like the creationists of the world. Yikes! At least I'm trying to use my brains. The logic has lead me to this conclusion. Everything is relative. That's why. ----------------------------------------- Look at it like this way. Expansion outward builds the energy. Following the laws of physics, a reaction to the expansion follows, and contraction begins. That contraction process is what forms the initial mass. Our universe starts at the top, and falls backwards, forever contracting until it no longer exists. This is very similar to the rough description of a quantum particle. Edited January 16, 2015 by andreasjva
swansont Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 There is mathematical evidence to suggest a key component in my reasoning is supported by the scientific community, which I offer as "some sort of proof". http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212686413000332 Wetterich's model, as I understand it, is simply a change of variable form standard cosmology, keeping all dimensionless constant the same, but by varying individual parameters. At its core, it is standard cosmology. Thus, it does not have gluon fields, or foam causing compression. It's also indistinguishable from standard cosmology — there is no way to test it. Such is the problem of trying to lean on someone else's idea because it has a few buzzwords in common. You either have to take Wetterich completely and add no other frills, or you don't get to cite him. because any modifications you make cause the model to fall apart. Science theories are intertwined, not a-la carte. I have also made a prediction that gravity and expansion are equal and opposite forces within the universe. They are inherently bound in my view. And here would be an example. If it's not part of standard cosmology, then you can't cite Wetterich, since your view and his view are not the same. You need your own model. Admittedly though, this is very difficult to prove given the relative nature of the problem, and the mathematical evidence has not been validated through the peer review process. None the less, I am following the guidlines. You don't get to make that determination. You are being told that you are not Analogies are very difficult to judge fundamentally, and will always be a subjective beast. For example, I have often read of the universe being compared to a loaf of raisin bread expanding in the oven. The galaxies are represented by the raisins. The heating up of the bread doesn't make a whole lot of sense though, but one can certainly understand it if they don't take it in an absolute literary sense. Surely the universe isn't in an oven. I mostly struggle with explaining the concept. It is difficult to convey the information properly. Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure. Analogies are used as explanations when trying to simplify, for people who would have trouble with a mathematical model. We want the model. In the raisin example, it's to explain one specific part of cosmology — expansion not having a central expansion point — for people who can't otherwise visualize what's going on. Or as an accessible example for those who think it's not possible. You're giving us the Cliff's notes when we want the actual novel.
Strange Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) Because I can't imagine a universe without causation. That doesn't explain why you think mass is relative or what you think it is relative to. I'm not even sure what it means. We know we can measure the speed of object B relative to object A. But we can measure the mass of A independently of anything else. That is what I am trying to get at: relative to what? Because I can't imagine a universe without causation. I can't imagine a dense energy that just happened to be sitting in the middle of infinite nothingness, before time, and before physics. I can't imagine it would have any reason to change states and become a universe randomly. I see the whole idea as illogical. If there is one thing we learn from science (the methodology, not any particular subjects) it is that what we think should be true, what we want to be true, or what seems sensible is often irrelevant. There is an answer for all of it. Simply telling me the physical properties of things is not an answer. Just because is not an answer. In my view, it's somewhat of a cop out. Scientists aren't really allowed to ask why. I am. So study philosophy or theology, not physics. That is where the answers to those questions lie. There is nothing wrong with wanting those answers, you are just looking in the wrong place. Edited January 16, 2015 by Strange
andreasjva Posted January 16, 2015 Author Posted January 16, 2015 Couple of points first for clarity whether you wish to define expansion as increase in volume or shrinking matter is fine. Personally don't agree with the latter but that's unimportant. Shrinking matter, static space. We haven't really moved anywhere since we came into existence in my view, excluding local galactic motion and such. I know you don't like it, but it is exactly what I see. I am having difficulty determining what it would mean to the universe in general. I state our universe exists on the surface of sphere, but that's a very fluid definition. It is factually accurate though. We are indeed living proof of this simple fact. Our view of anything in the universe begins at the surface of all matter. We are influenced by space and things deeper in the atomic structure, but our perspective is really bound to the outer shell that makes us up. This really doesn't say much about the whole of the universe though. We could very easily just be tuned to see/experience things relative to our state bound by a frequency range or something. What we can't see could very well be trillions upon trillions of light years of universe. The universe by all means could be pushing the bounds of infinity in a perpetual manner. Our physical view is finite, and seems to be bound by C, although I do consider C a bit fluid in my view. For example if you had some influence outside our observable universe its influence is limitted by c. So it cannot immediately influence the universe everywhere at the same time. In principle, I understand. Particle entanglement does seem to bypass the rules a bit if I understand it right. I would also wonder if there would be any significance to the underlying space within we exist. Would it play by the rules of C, or does it define the rules? Conjectures of what is outside what we can measure is highly controversial and conjectural. In many ways more philosophy than science. I definitely appreciate why, but I also think it will be necessary to conjecture at some point to move forward, and not in a philosophical manner. There just isn't a mathematical answer to every problem, and observing is out of the realm of possibility. That only leaves scientists one tool to work with, their brains. They are going to have to use logic and reason the problem through to a conclusion, and then form a consensus of sorts. Admittedly, it's a bit like herding cats. I'm sure they'll figure it all out eventually once they finish examining all the protons a few thousand years from now. As for me, I prefer my short cut to understanding. I only have another 30 or 40 years, if I'm lucky. That doesn't explain why you think mass is relative or what you think it is relative to. Misunderstood the question I suppose. I thought you simply wanted to know why I thought about it all.
imatfaal Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 That doesn't explain why you think mass is relative or what you think it is relative to. I'm not even sure what it means. We know we can measure the speed of object B relative to object A. But we can measure the mass of A independently of anything else. That is what I am trying to get at: relative to what? No we cannot Strange. All we can say is that such a particle is x times heavier than such a base level particle; in reality all we have is ratios. just like length - if every thing got twice as long we could not tell and if everything got twice as heavy ditto. [mp][/mp] Movement is relative in one use of the term - ie it can only be determined in relation to another object. This I think you would agree without hesitation and is the more standard usage. The way in which mass is relative is not this usage; in terms of mass (or length or time) the word relative is used to show that we can measure only in terms of something else as a base unit. We at present use Système International d'Unités which is clearly arbitrary - but when you think about all basis of measurement are arbitrary. If all massive particles grew in mass by 1 pct this evening (along with the rules which govern stability etc) there would be no way we could ever tell. The same would apply for length - as I have read you explaining in the relativity forum. The measurement is based on arbitrary relative units not absolute units. in short - for movement there is no way we can determine either quantitatively or qualitatively without reference to a second object. for mass we can determine qualitatively without reference ie in absolute terms - but for quantification we need a base of measurement that is manmade arbitrary and relative
andreasjva Posted January 16, 2015 Author Posted January 16, 2015 No we cannot Strange. All we can say is that such a particle is x times heavier than such a base level particle; in reality all we have is ratios. just like length - if every thing got twice as long we could not tell and if everything got twice as heavy ditto That's exactly what I keep seeing in my mind. How do we know any of this until it is ruled out? No ones ever tried. No ones ever thought this way to my knowledge. We saw the redshift, concluded we were expanding, and then saw acceleration, and made up a theory to cover it, and we've been using expansion as the best guess ever since. I admit, it's very strong evidence, but it's not necessarily correct. My idea could cover dark energy quite easily, because it uses two elements of contraction, time and matter. Time is speeding up, and mass is contracting inward. Both would have an impact on the redshift of distant galaxies, and it would be time dependent. The math is well beyond me though. All the data is sitting there for someone to examine and rule out.
Strange Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) No we cannot Strange. All we can say is that such a particle is x times heavier than such a base level particle; in reality all we have is ratios. just like length - if every thing got twice as long we could not tell and if everything got twice as heavy ditto You are right. of course. And I suppose this relates to the fact that, currently, the kilogram is the only base unit defined by an object. But it is still different from, speed, say where we cannot define zero velocity, just zero relative to something else. And something with a mass of 1kg will have the same mass everywhere and at all speeds, etc. We saw the redshift, concluded we were expanding, and then saw acceleration, and made up a theory to cover it, and we've been using expansion as the best guess ever since. That is not quite true: the prediction of expansion came first. Red-shift was just the first bit of evidence (and not the most convincing). No ones ever thought this way to my knowledge If you mean reinterpreting expansion as shrinking matter, it has been thought about a lot: both by physicists who have worked out the implications and by people who post their theories on science forums! My idea could cover dark energy quite easily, because it uses two elements of contraction, time and matter. I don't see why: you still have to account for "something" that caused the rate of contract to start accelerating at some point. (But this is what every one who claims to have invented this idea says.) Edited January 16, 2015 by Strange
andreasjva Posted January 16, 2015 Author Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) So study philosophy or theology, not physics. That is where the answers to those questions lie. There is nothing wrong with wanting those answers, you are just looking in the wrong place. I am an atheist, and I could care less about philosophy. I am exactly where I need to be. That is not quite true: the prediction of expansion came first. Red-shift was just the first bit of evidence (and not the most convincing). I do know the history of it. Once the observation was made, it was considered resolved. Although acceleration has thrown it a bit of a curve ball. I believe we were supposed to be slowing down according to the original theory. I don't see why: you still have to account for "something" that caused the rate of contract to start accelerating at some point. (But this is what every one who claims to have invented this idea says.) Nothing really had to start it accelerating. Think of a bouncing ball. It starts at its highest energy, and then loses energy while increasing in frequency with each bounce. Kind of a standard everyday physics problem I would imagine. That's one of the reasons I like the idea so much, because it's utterly simple in concept. The complexity is in the backward engineering of the problem we're doing now. The universe is following the most basic laws of physics in my view. Edited January 16, 2015 by andreasjva
Mordred Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) You missed Hoyles counter arguments and the thermodynamic support in the historical aspects. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle He tried a steady state with matter creation model No model is ever without competing models. EVER. 30 years of studying cosmology I've seen some pretty wacky and weird peer reviewed models in just about anything you can name Edited January 16, 2015 by Mordred
Strange Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 I do know the history of it. Once the observation was made, it was considered resolved. It wasn't resolved by the observation of red-shift. There were other possible explanations for that. Even the steady state model could be extended to account for that.
Mordred Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) Tired light was another alternative to redshift. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light Edited January 16, 2015 by Mordred
andreasjva Posted January 16, 2015 Author Posted January 16, 2015 Yes, my experience in life says there are very few new ideas, but many ideas simultaneously and independently considered. Evolution at its finest I suppose. Has anyone ever considered matter and time contracting simultaneously, with all perspectives relative? Just curious.
Mordred Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 Both in combo I can't recall any individually yes. Though there have been time dilation due to reduction in universe density models so those could count.( Keep in mind that example doesn't conform to GR )
andreasjva Posted January 16, 2015 Author Posted January 16, 2015 Though there have been time dilation due to reduction in universe density models so those could count.( Keep in mind that example doesn't conform to GR ) My view of time is a bit different, so I'm not sure it would be compatible. I am also very heavy on GR. It's more like GR on steroids.
Mordred Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 Here is space condensate model http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0501176
andreasjva Posted January 16, 2015 Author Posted January 16, 2015 It wasn't resolved by the observation of red-shift. There were other possible explanations for that. Even the steady state model could be extended to account for that. Okay, let me put it another way. Once the observation was made, a majority consensus built, and all other theories were pushed into obscurity. Science follows the money, and there was no stock in competing with it. Everyone has to make a living. Here is space condensate model Thanks.
Mordred Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 Money has little to do with it. Models get replaced by models that have greater precision to observation and data. LCDM is the leading model for this reason. Despite numerous attempts to show it as inaccurate.
andreasjva Posted January 17, 2015 Author Posted January 17, 2015 Money has little to do with it. I'm not sure I agree with that 100%. Money is what makes the world go round, and there's nothing wrong with that. These experiments take millions and billions of dollars at the current level, and investors want to know the science is sound before coughing it up. Politicians also want votes when using tax dollars, and they certainly don;t want a loser on the front page. They don't want to bet on the dark horse. It's just reality. I'm not even saying it's all that bad. Yes, mostly I would say you are correct, but people do tend to flock around the idea with the biggest bank roll.
Strange Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 (edited) Okay, let me put it another way. Once the observation was made, a majority consensus built, and all other theories were pushed into obscurity. Science follows the money, and there was no stock in competing with it. Science follow the evidence. The big rewards: fame, Nobel Prize, etc. (driven by youthful ambition and dissatisfaction with current explanation) comes from showing that existing theories are wrong (or incomplete). This idea that scientists were happy to overthrow theories of the past with revolutionary ideas but have now given up is just silly. As this is a science forum, perhaps you could provide some evidence for this - like show that all the research and published papers looking at alternative theories don't actually exist. These experiments take millions and billions of dollars at the current level, and investors want to know the science is sound before coughing it up. They want to know the science is sound (i.e. the particle accelerator will work, the detectors will detect, etc. and that it isn't been proposed by some Internet crank) But they don't know what the results will be. Many physicists were disappointed when the LHC found the Higgs boson because all it did was provide yet more confirmation of the Standard Model. It would have been much more exciting if it had found something else, or shown that the Higgs didn't exist. Experiments may be described in the popular press as "proving Einstein" or whatever, but what the researchers are really hoping for is to find a crack in the theory that leads to new physics. Edited January 17, 2015 by Strange
swansont Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 I'm not sure I agree with that 100%. Money is what makes the world go round, and there's nothing wrong with that. These experiments take millions and billions of dollars at the current level, and investors want to know the science is sound before coughing it up. Politicians also want votes when using tax dollars, and they certainly don;t want a loser on the front page. They don't want to bet on the dark horse. It's just reality. I'm not even saying it's all that bad. Yes, mostly I would say you are correct, but people do tend to flock around the idea with the biggest bank roll. Theory is relatively cheap, and the first cut of any theory is if it agrees with existing evidence. The issue here is that you do not have a theory that can be compared to experiment, for you do not make specific, math-based predictions. Nobody's going fund that. So the rest of this comparison is moot. But your claim is false, and probably stems from not being in the science community to see that it is false. New and/or competing models do not stop appearing. Politicians don't generally approve individual research projects (yet, at least; that would be a disaster), they approve budgets for the people that do, and scientists are involved in deciding where the money goes.
Phi for All Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 Okay, let me put it another way. Once the observation was made, a majority consensus built, and all other theories were pushed into obscurity. Science follows the money, and there was no stock in competing with it. Everyone has to make a living. I've heard this argument so many times over the years! It sounds like it could be true, and many might wish it were true, so nobody stops to think why "the money" everyone's following would go into a poor theory? If a scientific theory that's being considered mainstream isn't accurate, why are people paying scientists to shut up about it and keep working on it? That's the opposite of what investors do in my experience, but it's a great Hollywood plot, so far too many people get duped into thinking it's more plausible than "sorry, your idea is just wrong".
swansont Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 I've heard this argument so many times over the years! It sounds like it could be true, and many might wish it were true, so nobody stops to think why "the money" everyone's following would go into a poor theory? If a scientific theory that's being considered mainstream isn't accurate, why are people paying scientists to shut up about it and keep working on it? That's the opposite of what investors do in my experience, but it's a great Hollywood plot, so far too many people get duped into thinking it's more plausible than "sorry, your idea is just wrong". To extend this, consider the ramifications: how can you take a bad theory and build working technology on it? Or otherwise exploit it for long-term profitable gain, like many businesses do?
andreasjva Posted January 17, 2015 Author Posted January 17, 2015 Fair enough. I will concede money as an irrelevant factor in scientific progress. Mostly the system works. However, I wouldn't be so quick to conclude science is exempt from corruption. My experience in life tells me otherwise. Where's there is money, there is temptation, and there is always someone willing to exploit an opportunity for more personal reasons. I am not being cynical either. It is merely a fact of life. And that's all I have to say about it. We are way off topic now. I did want to go back to my original assumption of -infinity/+infinity=-1, I think science is putting a little too much weight in pure mathematical logic. By doing so, they leave out the most obvious and simple solution to the problem. Personally, I think the answer to the universe has been hiding in plain site all this time. Why? Because science demands rigorous mathematical proof for an irrational problem, which cannot be solved using a rational process like mathematics. Math can only approximate irrational numbers, because math itself is a rational process. In my mind, the answer becomes self evident. -pi/+pi=-1. Although we might consider -1 a static rational number value, logically the result would be more of a virtual rational number, because the answer doesn't quite represent reality. We know this because there is no true physical static value for pi. It rises infinitely in value. I think that's a dilemma that needs defining. I'm sure I'm not the first person that's thought about it. So, I'm going to consider infinity the primary irrational number, but it can only be expressed in terms of a + or - value because the true value is indeterminate. I'm also going to suggest that any irrational number divided by itself will always yield a virtual rational value of 1 or -1. What that means for an irrational universe in my view, is that everything is bound by a relative or virtual perspective. Nothing can escape it. We don't know how big we are. We don't know how much we weigh. We don't know how fast we're going. And we don't know what time it is. We can however, determine all these answers when comparing it to other elements within our relative perspective. It should be understood that our perspective is a bit more fluid than it appears though. Strange, your arguments in thermodynamics are irrelevant to the problem. You're basing the physics on a static state of mass or matter. Of course it's going to behave in a static manner based on your static viewpoint. The underlying reality of that state though, is relative. The scale of the universe is a relative perspective, like time and motion. There is nothing in physics to suggest an entire universe couldn't fit into a thimble. It's just utterly weird to imagine it could from our relative perspective. If however, you stepped out to the furthest reaches of infinity and looked back, that's exactly what it would look like. And no, this is absolutely not philosophy. It takes an irrational processor to solve an irrational problem. Human beings by nature are irrational processors of information. Computers and mathematics are rational processors of information. They can only simulate irrational processes in a rational manner.
Recommended Posts