Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ruling out an expanding universe with conventional proofs
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 223 (702115)
07-01-2013 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Alphabob
06-28-2013 2:07 PM


In short, the apparent sizes of distant galaxies and clusters are compared to the predictions of lambda-CDM. It is further demonstrated that the theory underestimates the size of distant clusters by up to 15,000% with respect to observations.
Maybe you measured the sizes wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Alphabob, posted 06-28-2013 2:07 PM Alphabob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Alphabob, posted 07-01-2013 5:09 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 223 (702192)
07-02-2013 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Alphabob
07-01-2013 5:09 PM


while the big bang theory is off by up to 15,000%
How do you know that you calculated the sizes correctly for the Big Bang Theory?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Alphabob, posted 07-01-2013 5:09 PM Alphabob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Alphabob, posted 07-02-2013 1:17 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 223 (702220)
07-02-2013 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Alphabob
07-02-2013 1:17 PM


How does that tell you that the numbers you got for the Big Band Theory, the ones that were 15,000% off, were the right numbers according to the theory?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Alphabob, posted 07-02-2013 1:17 PM Alphabob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Alphabob, posted 07-02-2013 2:58 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 223 (702224)
07-02-2013 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Alphabob
07-02-2013 2:49 PM


(or publish it as two individual papers)
What's so bad about that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Alphabob, posted 07-02-2013 2:49 PM Alphabob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Alphabob, posted 07-02-2013 3:08 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 223 (702234)
07-02-2013 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Alphabob
07-02-2013 3:08 PM


From Message 67:
Finally I took the average size and range of local ones as a reference, then plugged them into each model via their angular scale predictions.
How do you know that the sizes that you think the model predicted were correct?
The two parts are interdependent and the central discussion would be lost.
The central discussion could have just referenced the two parts.
So my goal right now is to get as much internet traffic so that the paper is at least visible while I work things out.
Do you think this was a good idea?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Alphabob, posted 07-02-2013 3:08 PM Alphabob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Alphabob, posted 07-02-2013 4:23 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 71 of 223 (702242)
07-02-2013 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Alphabob
07-02-2013 4:23 PM


Well, it seems like they've already solved the faint blue galaxy problem. It looks like you're failing to take into consideration that "update" to the Big Band Theory, and that's leading you to the excessive error of 15000%.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Alphabob, posted 07-02-2013 4:23 PM Alphabob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Alphabob, posted 07-03-2013 12:55 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 160 of 223 (705469)
08-27-2013 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Son Goku
08-27-2013 2:42 PM


Re: Questions.
Particles are excitations of the field in QFT.
Why do the fields get excited?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Son Goku, posted 08-27-2013 2:42 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Theodoric, posted 08-27-2013 4:53 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied
 Message 162 by Son Goku, posted 08-27-2013 5:57 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 163 of 223 (705493)
08-27-2013 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Son Goku
08-27-2013 5:57 PM


Re: Questions.
The fields contain a certain amount of energy, the energy they started with due to the big bang.
Is there another way for the fields to "get" the energy besides from the Big Bang?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Son Goku, posted 08-27-2013 5:57 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Son Goku, posted 08-28-2013 5:50 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 165 of 223 (705518)
08-28-2013 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Son Goku
08-28-2013 5:50 AM


Re: Questions.
Makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to reply.
Oh, if you don't mind:
When does it start getting to atoms of matter?
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Son Goku, posted 08-28-2013 5:50 AM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Son Goku, posted 08-29-2013 5:31 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 173 of 223 (705594)
08-29-2013 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Son Goku
08-29-2013 5:31 AM


Re: Questions.
That is so awesome. Thanks again for taking the time to write it. It actually makes sense and I feel like I've got a lot more understanding now. It was neat to imagine it coming together from the other side... that is, rather than thinking from the macro level down into the individual atom and proton level.
I'll keep asking questions, but I'll understand if you don't bother answering them.
there are the eight gluon fields and six quark fields.
I realize that a 3D image of something like that isn't really a good idea, but how should I imagine these fields being in relation to each other? Like, are they wrapped up around each other, or would it be more like a lamellar structure or something?
*Contrary to popular explanations a beam of light is not made of photons/is a stream of photons any more than an electric field is. It's an extended excitation of the photon field.
I remember seeing the double-slit experiment in a physics lecture. (they even had a shallow water bath placed on an overhead projector with a little wave pusher so we could first see the constructive and destructive interference of the water waves... which was pretty sweet). Then they did it with a laser against the wall.
Anyways, for the light part of it, they said that there was an experiment with an emitter that emitted a single photon of light at a time, and then they go on to explain how the pattern still emerges. But what I don't get, now, is where the emission of a single photon, which QM+R demand be concentrated in small lumps, could also be an extended excitation?
Also the proton is not made of quarks, despite what one will commonly see in texts.
Being "made of" quarks was always something that didn't quite add up for me. The way you've explained it actually seems more intuitive to myself.
Hopefully the paragraph above gives some indication of how complicated the proton is, being a similtaneous excitation of 14 fields.
For sure. This universe is really freakin' weird. It can't believe it gets sooo complicated at such minute levels. You'd think it'd get simpler
Then, when an electron and proton come into contact with each other the electric field around both of them alters their dynamics. Essentially altering the probability field of the electron, so that it becomes vanishingly unlikely to be far away from the proton. This is a hydrogen atom.
Thanks again. You really nailed my question. I feel like I'm learning a lot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Son Goku, posted 08-29-2013 5:31 AM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Son Goku, posted 08-29-2013 12:23 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 176 of 223 (705613)
08-29-2013 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Son Goku
08-29-2013 12:23 PM


Re: Questions.
s you said, these things are flat out impossible to imagine. However, the closest macroscale system that quantum fields are similar to is a grid of springs, like you would find in a mattress.
Alright, your description that follows makes a fair amount of sense.
All fourteen layers will be disturbed simultaneously. However there is only one such disturbance which doesn't disperse, this is the proton.
So for the disturbances that do disperse: Is that something that is happening all the time? If so, does it manifest itself in some way?
Now again, I know it might seem stupid to use a mattress or a drum as an analogy, but if you take the mathematics of 4D set of springs or drum membranes add in quantum mechanics and take the limit as the springs get infinitely small, you literally get the mathematics of a quantum field. So this is "objectively" the best analogy. Particles are more mathematical similar to musical harmonies than any other macro-scale phenomena.
That's really cool. I love reading this shit.
Anyways, for the light part of it, they said that there was an experiment with an emitter that emitted a single photon of light at a time, and then they go on to explain how the pattern still emerges. But what I don't get, now, is where the emission of a single photon, which QM+R demand be concentrated in small lumps, could also be an extended excitation?
The pattern actually isn't reproduced by a single photon. If you emit single photons, one after the other, they eventually (after a few million) build up the same pattern as a beam of light.
Oh, sure. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
What I was questioning wass that, since QM+R demand the excitation be concentrated into small lumps (i.e. a photon) then how can a single photon emission also be an extended excitation (and thus exhibit the wave-like behavior needed to make the pattern)?
Well to give you an idea, the first reasonably accurate simulation of a proton (the simulation ignored four of the six quark fields) in 2008, took IBM supercomputers hundreds of hours to complete. This was for a single proton. Now keep in mind that these same computers can simulate black hole collisions, the fluid dynamics of Boeing aircrafts and the collisions of galaxies in less than a tenth of the time the proton simulation took.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Son Goku, posted 08-29-2013 12:23 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Son Goku, posted 08-30-2013 6:22 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 183 of 223 (705693)
08-30-2013 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Son Goku
08-30-2013 6:22 AM


Re: Questions.
That is basically current theoretical physics. Sixteen mattress like objects living in a four-dimensional background spacetime that warps and bends under their presence.
Well, thanks again. Your explanation was really helpful.
I can't think of any questions right now, but if I do I'll reply again with them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Son Goku, posted 08-30-2013 6:22 AM Son Goku has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 190 of 223 (742418)
11-19-2014 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by JonF
11-19-2014 4:35 PM


Re: Is this an Electric Universe guy
Is this an Electric Universe guy
Yes. See Message 259 and onward.
And Message 24 too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by JonF, posted 11-19-2014 4:35 PM JonF has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 201 of 223 (781355)
04-04-2016 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by starlite
04-03-2016 7:20 PM


Then it has to be laziness also to claim a singularity existed you know not why or how, and burped out the universe for no known reason.
The singularity is not a thing that does stuff.
Think of it like an asymptote.
Consider the plot of 1/X as X approaches zero. The closer you get to the Y-axis, the more the value of X approaches infinity.
What you're asking is like asking how the Y-axis burps out the plot of 1/X. It just doesn't make sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by starlite, posted 04-03-2016 7:20 PM starlite has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by starlite, posted 04-04-2016 1:24 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 207 of 223 (781389)
04-04-2016 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by starlite
04-04-2016 1:24 PM


If the little hot soup did nothing,
The singularity is not a thing. It is not a thing that can do something.
This is your first misconception to get over.
then in your mind no expansion would have happened, that is supposed to be something.
I think the expansion happened, it just didn't occur from the singularity.
Or do you admit it is really nothing!?
There has never been nothing.
There has been some thing at every point in time.
There are no points in time where no things exist.
The catch is that time extends into the past direction by a finite amount. (think about how you can only go north for a finite distance)
Why consider math that has no application or bearing on reality?
Analogizing concepts can make it easier to understand them.
If there was a teeny weeny hot soup, and soon after, the universe appeared, that seems to have to mean something happened.
There is not a point in time where the universe does not exist, so there is no "after" that non-existent point from where the universe appeared. The Universe exists at all points in time.
Not sure how mentioning y or x or some imaginary plot or line changes that?
At what point does the plot of 1/X reach the Y-axis?
Hint: it never does. The y-axis is an asymptote.
Similarly, the Universe never reaches the singularity. The singularity is not a point in time where the Universe exists. It is not a thing, nor a state of the Universe, from where/when the Universe expanded.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by starlite, posted 04-04-2016 1:24 PM starlite has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by starlite, posted 04-04-2016 2:27 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024