light never travels in a straight line (Second try)

[ogmios]

My father used to laugh at the funny theories of Einstein; the most ludicrous residing within Relativity. The Universe stands for everything and everything cannot expand into itself, for that would not be an expansion. There would have to be something else out there to expand into, beyond three dimensional space. And since we would be expanding it to it, it would have to be bigger than 3d space, so we would have to redefine Universal to mean less than half of everything.

I have performed 3d graphics for too many years on computers and I have developed an innate ability to visualize in 3d accurately. If you are expanding all of three dimensional space, it would include all the space that mass inhabits. You would never notice any space difference between two object; everything scales; even what ever symbolic means of measuring you chose to use.

It is easy to prove this wrong with a simple graphing out of path a laser would take when traveling from the Earth to the Moon. First you need to understand the movement Earth traverses. We spin, counterclockwise. We rotate around the sun counterclockwise. The solar system spins clockwise around the Milky Way. And the Milky Way travels around a super galactic spin. In all we are traveling at a rate of over 700 miles per second. So if you pointed a laser at the moon, it would take over a second to get there. In that second the point of origin and the point of destination would have moved over 700 miles away from where they were. So the light would not be traveling in a straight line, it would be curved in 4 different directions. It would still appear as straight to us on Earth because we would be traveling with the same momentum as the light. You could say light travels in a line of momentum.

 

It is a miracle that curiosity survives a formal education.In order to form an immaculate member of a flock of sheep one must, above all, be a sheep.

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

Perfection of means and confusion of ends seems to characterize our age.

To punish me for my contempt for authority, fate made me an authority myself.

Albert Einstein

there I posted it correctly

link removed

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

 

Rule 2.7 reads, in part

 

Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it.

 

Accordingly, I have removed the link to your blog.

 

[Strange]

I have performed 3d graphics for too many years on computers and I have developed an innate ability to visualize in 3d accurately.

 

Next, you need to lean a little basic physics.

 

If you are expanding all of three dimensional space, it would include all the space that mass inhabits.

 

Not really. Massive objects, and even clusters of galaxies, are bound together by electromagnetic and gravitational forces. This is why we only see evidence of expansion on very large scales.

 

Perhaps you have an alternative explanation for galactic red-shifts, the CMB, the amount of hydrogen and helium in the universe, and all the other evidence for the big bang model.

 

And, as you are discarding general relativity, perhaps you can provide an alternative but equally accurate explanation of gravity?

 

 

So if you pointed a laser at the moon, it would take over a second to get there. In that second the point of origin and the point of destination would have moved over 700 miles away from where they were.

 

Here's an idea: why not aim the laser at where the moon will be in 1 second?

[Bignose]

My father used to laugh at the funny theories of Einstein; the most ludicrous residing within Relativity.

Would your father really laugh at 113 pages the references the plethora of experiments that agree with relativity? http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7377

 

because relativity has been supremely successful at making predictions that agree with what it measured. If you have something that does even better, though, I think a lot of people would be interested. When can we expect you to publish a paper that shows how the predictions made in your idea fit the measured data even better than the paper I referenced above?

[Endy0816]

Your father would be incorrect and rather arrogant. The Universe is not bound by human limitations.

 

If you can imagine the points Laniakea and Poipu at two fixed co-ordinates, with an ever increasing distance between them, that is what expansion is like.

[StringJunky]

It bemuses me how you denigrate Einstein, on the one hand, via your Father's thoughts::

 

My father used to laugh at the funny theories of Einstein; the most ludicrous residing within Relativity

 

Then use him as a pillar of wisdom on the other:

 

...It is a miracle that curiosity survives a formal education.In order to form an immaculate member of a flock of sheep one must, above all, be a sheep...

 

What's going on there?!

Edited March 23, 2015 by StringJunky

[studiot]

I'm glad no one rushed to add negative points here.

 

However I didn't see a question or point for discussion in your original post so what is your point?

 

I also have a question of my own for you.

 

ogmios

I have performed 3d graphics for too many years on computers and I have developed an innate ability to visualize in 3d accurately...........

.......................... So the light would not be traveling in a straight line, it would be curved in 4 different directions.

 

Are you aware of the Frenet Formulae?

 

A line in 3D Euclidian space has only 2 directions of curvature.

 

So how is your Maths as well as your Physics?

Do you understand the term geodesic?

Edited March 23, 2015 by studiot

[ajb]

 

There would have to be something else out there to expand into, beyond three dimensional space.

 

 

 

This must be the biggest common misunderstanding of cosmology. It is a shame it keeps coming up.

 

Anyway, you don't have to think of it as an expansion as such, but rather the distance between (clusters of) galaxies is increasing with time. This really is what general relativity is telling us.

[Strange]

I'm glad no one rushed to add negative points here.

 

It was tempting...

[StringJunky]

 

 

This must be the biggest common misunderstanding of cosmology. It is a shame it keeps coming up.

Blame Fred.

[ajb]

Blame Fred.

I guess the name 'big bang' is just too suggestive. Anyway, people could actually look into the basic ideas before discarding them.

 

This also reminds me of 'Einstein's trampoline' and bowling balls used as an analogy to describe space-time curvature and geodesics. The problem is that this analogy clearly requires 2 space to be embedded in 3 (forgetting time) and uses the Earth's gravity quite explicitly. Thus you hear 'you cannot use gravity to model gravity,so general relativity is wrong and Einstein is a crank'.

 

The bottom line is you cannot use analogies to completely and accurately describe the system. You need mathematics and it is here that real understanding can be found.

Edited March 24, 2015 by ajb

[StringJunky]

..The bottom line is you cannot use analogies to completely and accurately describe the system. You need mathematics and it is here that real understanding can be found.

Most people are geared towards qualitative and material descriptions that relate to their physical senses, so analogies that make use of them are the only way to get quantitatively derived ideas across. Unless people make the effort to learn sufficient maths that's the best they are going to get.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Most people are geared towards qualitative and material descriptions that relate to their physical senses, so analogies that make use of them are the only way to get quantitatively derived ideas across. Unless people make the effort to learn sufficient maths that's the best they are going to get.

.

 

Surely you need both , in fairly equal doses.

 

We could not live and exist in a purely mathematical world and conceive " what ever is going on " , neither could we gain numerical quantities with any degree of accuracy without the mathematical calculations .

 

Surely that is so !

 

Mike

Edited March 24, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[StringJunky]

.

 

Surely you need both , in fairly equal doses.

 

We could not live and exist in a purely mathematical world and conceive " what ever is going on " , neither could we gain numerical quantities with any degree of accuracy without the mathematical calculations .

 

Surely that is so !

 

Mike

Yes, in life in general, but scientifically numbers and their relations are the only useful means that scientists can share exactly ...it's their machine-code; to use an analogy.

[ajb]

Surely you need both , in fairly equal doses.

Indeed, interpretations and analogies are useful. However they should come after the mathematics and for sure not separate from it.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Indeed, interpretations and analogies are useful. However they should come after the mathematics and for sure not separate from it.

.

 

. WA HEY , WOW ! . I AM NOT SO SURE ABOUT THAT ,!

 

I met up with a well known colleague of this forum ,in person yesterday . We discussed this very subject .

 

That mathematics is in fact a HUMAN construct.

 

The terminology composed by man, the transforms identified by man , etc, YES drawing its structure from what man perceives the much underlying structure or reality that exists BENEATH maths . One layer down.

 

What this is , or what one could call it , I do not know . Whether Plato had some ideas on this , I am not too sure. In this underlying structure are all the ridged reality from which mathematics is able to derive its formulae, it's transforms , it's mathematical mechanism for doing its calculations , relationships , it's ability to work with separateness and thus Number . Yes in some ways it might look like maths IN PART . But the bit we know and think of as maths is only an image of the reality beneath . It may not be complete, it may be wrong in some areas , it may have many more types to discover, yet that incorporate flexibility, probability , statistics , and something not yet even named.

 

To use the term mathematics to describe everything down there in that reality , say like Mike Tegmark has attempted to do , is likely to persuade mankind that mathematics and for that matter science covers everything.

 

IT DOES NOT . At the moment maths and science only glimpses a small portion of reality. There is ( I believe) and I agree I could be entirely wrong , a whole sea of reality that looks nothing like our current scientific and mathematical view of reality. And to limit our horizon to ' only that which can be calculated , and only that which fits in with our current methodology for conducting science , is likely to blind us to future discoveries, and dismiss observations that can give us a clue to the REAL REALITY that lays beneath. ( or sideways and above , for that matter, )

 

Mike

 

Ps. . I do , none the less concede that mathematicians and scientist are digging , ever deeper into the ' substructure into the earth so to speak ' , but there may well be a 'whole sea of reality up the other way ( into the sky and beyond ) "

 

.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

.

 

. WA HEY , WOW ! . I AM NOT SO SURE ABOUT THAT ,!

 

I met up with a well known colleague of this forum ,in person yesterday . We discussed this very subject .

 

 

 

!

Moderator Note

 

You've also discussed this at length in one of your threads, so you (collectively) can continue this conversation there.

 

As the OP seems to have left in a huff and we've drifted off-topic, I'm closing this.

 

 

edit

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72725-is-mathematics-alone-a-safe-medium-for-exploring-the-frontiers-of-science-or-should-observation-and-hypothesis-lead-in-front/

 

[ajb]

I think we are off topic here. I suggest you start another thread about mathematics and how it relates to nature.

[Strange]

That mathematics is in fact a HUMAN construct.

 

Maybe. That is a topic of much debate. However, the analogies devised to explain the mathematics to non-specialists are definitely a human construct. They are also approximations and often grossly inaccurate.