How Gravity Works

[darkbeaver]

Actually, peer review only extends down to the CMB, the surface of last scattering. Before that there are no observations (as far as I know), and there is nothing forcing anyone to believe anything.

Thus people are free to speculate beyond that point, and the big bang lies beyond that point. There is no consensus on the big bang because there is no evidence, although whatever occurs before the CMB is often referred to with that label.

This is the chief difference between science and religion: in science, where there is no hard evidence, people are free to speculate. And people will only believe your pet theory when you have the hard evidence.

The CMB is hard evidence. At one point in time, the universe was filled with a hot dense plasma.

Hard evidence is a closed circuit maybe. Expansion, accretion, black holes, frozen magnetic fields, bending time and vacuum aren't all these a matter of great scientific consensus and at the same time speculations/fables supported in whole by math alone. There was a lot of math done that proved aircraft were science fiction. Mathmatical speculation can be very elegant I'm told. I'm of the opinion that there was never time, point or a singular mass of hot dense plasma. We the peeple need a lot of faith to swallow that at one point in time there was nothing but hot dense plasma. If that is true. Where did the external enter from where did the catalyst come for change of state and once in a state of change how was it possible to stop so that it could begin? Why does the universe need a concept like "in the begining" to be comprehensive?

 

[Niflmir]

Hard evidence is a closed circuit maybe. Expansion, accretion, black holes, frozen magnetic fields, bending time and vacuum aren't all these a matter of great scientific consensus and at the same time speculations/fables supported in whole by math alone. There was a lot of math done that proved aircraft were science fiction. Mathmatical speculation can be very elegant I'm told. I'm of the opinion that there was never time, point or a singular mass of hot dense plasma. We the peeple need a lot of faith to swallow that at one point in time there was nothing but hot dense plasma. If that is true. Where did the external enter from where did the catalyst come for change of state and once in a state of change how was it possible to stop so that it could begin? Why does the universe need a concept like "in the begining" to be comprehensive?

No matter which direction you look, you observe a very specific temperature black body spectrum. That is the evidence: at one point the entire universe was in thermal equilibrium and was very hot and dense. This is exactly what a plasma is.

There is no "in the beginning" in this picture. There is the surface of last scattering: the point at which the photons decoupled from a thermally equilibrated plasma. There was a universe prior to this event. Scientists are trying to find ways to probe earlier times, nobody is appealing to mystery, or saying we will never have the answers. Many people speculate, sure, but that is their right.

 

[AnnaG]

I don't think Mr Proffesor Fenymen will respond. The point is Anna, my what have you done with your hair, it's stunning, ah the point is according to Proff Fenyman is that the big bang is creation, the stories are essentially the same. Modified to fit the times and the moods.

Any hypothesis is a creation. After more study, the subject may become theory, in which case, it is usually fact with unknown parts. The difference being that scientists will describe and in time will make known what was unknown whereas "Creation" proponents won't. I simply would rather have something explained to me by someone using universal laws and sometimes being temporarily wrong than someone saying it was all done by magic.

 

[AnnaG]

You are a very religious person.

Nonsense.

You believe that everything exploded out of nothing in a big cloud of smoke.

Nope, I don't, that would be the creationists who think that. And the Big Bang isn't described as coming from nothing. Nor is it described as being explosive in the manner like a blast of TNT. The description says it took a fair bit of time to happen. Your understanding of science is extremely limited.

The bunny does not really come out of the hat Anna.

Like the religious seem to think it does? I know that. I don't believe magic to be anything other than magic. It is illusive and explanation by magic is elusive.

Scientific slight of hand is as old as science or will you tell me the human scientist is impervious to the errant ways of the human.

Humans are humans. The facts always show up to show who was right and who was BSing.

Thick amidst the scientific ranks we find the most horrific examples of psycopathic monsters.

You've been watching Jekyl & Hyde, The Fly, or something again, haven't you? Hollywood makes things magical, doesn't it?

Of course they are not exclusive to science but they are exclusive to power.

Science is a tool, not a group. Religions are groups and more prone to twisting facts and inventing imaginary things.
But I am not the topic. Gravity is. Try to stick to it. I know it's hard through that haze of potsmoke between your eyes and the pc screen, but try.

 

[countryboy]

I just wanna' make sure that "what goes up must come down" is still true. True?

 

[AnnaG]

Do not mistake the lack of consensus in the quantum gravity community with a lack of understanding of classical gravity. There is absolutely no observation where quantum gravity is necessary and it could be possible that there is a plurality of theories instead of a grand unified theory: general relativity could survive the whole way down. Any new theory must reproduce the results that general relativity (together with proper matter equations) already explains, and so it must contain general relativity (or its appropriate limit) in an appropriate limit.

And there are a lot of observations to explain: gravitational lensing, gravitational time dilation, gravitational wave emission rates, the compactness and lack of emission of Sagittarius A* (it's a black hole), the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, the cosmic microwave background radiation.

So I was right and gravity isn't totally defined.

 

[AnnaG]

Hard evidence is a closed circuit maybe. Expansion, accretion, black holes, frozen magnetic fields, bending time and vacuum aren't all these a matter of great scientific consensus and at the same time speculations/fables supported in whole by math alone. There was a lot of math done that proved aircraft were science fiction. Mathmatical speculation can be very elegant I'm told. I'm of the opinion that there was never time, point or a singular mass of hot dense plasma. We the peeple need a lot of faith to swallow that at one point in time there was nothing but hot dense plasma. If that is true.

It still beats, "God(s) did it and things just are the way they are just because".

Where did the external enter from where did the catalyst come for change of state and once in a state of change how was it possible to stop so that it could begin?

From the little store over on the corner.

Why does the universe need a concept like "in the begining" to be comprehensive?

It doesn't, but people seem to need a "beginning" and an "end" to stuff.

 

[AnnaG]

I just wanna' make sure that "what goes up must come down" is still true. True?

Hold a hammer over your foot and let go.

 

[countryboy]

Hold a hammer over your foot and let go.

OK, I did it. Still true what they say about gravity. Now I'm happy. (But my foot hurts like hell!) :lol:

 

[AnnaG]

OK, I did it. Still true what they say about gravity. Now I'm happy. (But my foot hurts like hell!) :lol:

lol
I should have said, "Hold a hammer or SOMETHING over your foot and let go".

 

[countryboy]

lol
I should have said, "Hold a hammer or SOMETHING over your foot and let go".

What? You mean gravity works for more than just hammers and apples? Boy, this heavy scientific stuff is difficult... :-?

 

[AnnaG]

What? You mean gravity works for more than just hammers and apples? Boy, this heavy scientific stuff is difficult... :-?

Oh, a warning about apples, you might want to scope the neighborhood when you are dealing with apples because there might be a Swiss guy with a bow around. He uses gravity to guide his arrows to their target.

 

[Tonington]

Use a bag of oranges. No bruising.

 

[AnnaG]

Use a bag of oranges. No bruising.

Are you trying to confuse the Swiss guy?

 

[darkbeaver]

No matter which direction you look, you observe a very specific temperature black body spectrum. That is the evidence: at one point the entire universe was in thermal equilibrium and was very hot and dense. This is exactly what a plasma is.

There is no "in the beginning" in this picture. There is the surface of last scattering: the point at which the photons decoupled from a thermally equilibrated plasma. There was a universe prior to this event. Scientists are trying to find ways to probe earlier times, nobody is appealing to mystery, or saying we will never have the answers. Many people speculate, sure, but that is their right.

Not according to these guys and by the way Hawkings is insane. Why would two or more universes be necessary when the one we're in is infinite I believe. There isn't anywhere to put another. IMhO


If Arp and others are right and the Big Bang is dead, what does the Cosmic Microwave Background signify?

The simplest answer, from the highly successful field of plasma cosmology, is that it represents the natural microwave radiation from electric current filaments in interstellar plasma local to the Sun. Radio astronomers have mapped the interstellar hydrogen filaments by using longer wavelength receivers. The dense thicket formed by those filaments produces a perfect fog of microwave radiation—as if we were located inside a microwave oven. Instead of the Cosmic Microwave Background, it is the Interstellar Microwave Background. That makes sense of the fact that the CMB is too smooth to account for the lumpiness of galaxies and galactic clusters in the universe. We cannot "see" them through the local microwave fog.
Nobel Prize for Big Bang is a Fizzer

 

[darkbeaver]

 

[darkbeaver]

Do not mistake the lack of consensus in the quantum gravity community with a lack of understanding of classical gravity. There is absolutely no observation where quantum gravity is necessary and it could be possible that there is a plurality of theories instead of a grand unified theory: general relativity could survive the whole way down. Any new theory must reproduce the results that general relativity (together with proper matter equations) already explains, and so it must contain general relativity (or its appropriate limit) in an appropriate limit.

And there are a lot of observations to explain: gravitational lensing, gravitational time dilation, gravitational wave emission rates, the compactness and lack of emission of Sagittarius A* (it's a black hole), the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, the cosmic microwave background radiation.

The Black Hole at the Heart of Astronomy
The thoughtless followers of Einstein have fashioned God in their own image as a mathematician but “He” is much smarter and avoids high school howlers like the gravitational “black hole.” Yes, a theoretical “black hole” exists—and it sucks the very heart out of astronomy and astrophysics. The astronomer Halton Arp articulated the math howler of dividing by zero to give a near infinite concentration of mass in a hypothetical black hole: “Since the force of gravity varies as the square of the inverse distance between objects why not make the ultimate extrapolation and let the distance go to zero? You get a LOT of density. Maybe it goes BOOM! But wait a minute, maybe it goes in the opposite direction and goes MOOB! Whatever. Most astronomers decided anyway that this was the only source that could explain the observed jets and explosions in galaxies.”

Precisely! And when the gravitational force is as close to zero as doesn’t matter, in comparison to the electric force, you must be very careful (as any high school student knows) to not divide by zero, otherwise you introduce infinities. What does it mean for the radius of a physical object to tend to zero?

In the face of discordant data, a scientist is required to check the original works and assumptions that lead to the theory under test. But there are very few such scientists in this modern age. As Sir Fred Hoyle put it, today the pressure is on to “do what aging gurus tell them to do, which is nothing” and simply build on the consensus those gurus have established. A fellow Australian, Stephen Crothers, has shown mathematical theorists to be remarkably unintelligent and sloppy in the application of their talent to physical problems. It seems that most of them don’t really follow the mathematical arguments anyway (which is not surprising) but are happy to extol the results of others, based on reputation, regardless of the principles of physics or commonsense. Crothers has done his historical and mathematical homework and delivered a paper, The Schwarzschild solution and its implications for gravitational waves, at the Conference of the German Physical Society, Munich, March 9-13, 2009. He concludes, inter alia, that:

 

[darkbeaver]

No, it is like this:

I can buy a fancy ring from a shop and take it apart into both a plain ring and a diamond. I cannot buy a diamond alone and make a ring out of it, I need to buy some metal to make the plain ring, then I need glue to stick them together.

I can take Einstein's equations and extract from them Maxwell's equations. There is no way to take Maxwell's equations and do the same, I would have to add fields to it.

The correct statement is: A ⊂ B, not A=B. Since ⊂ is not commutative one cannot say B ⊂ A.

Electric Gravity in an Electric UniverseEinstein in his special theory of relativity postulated there was no medium, called the ‘aether.’ But Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism requires it. And Sir Oliver Lodge saw the aether as crucial to our understanding. So Einstein, at a stroke, removed any possibility that he, or his followers, would find a link between electromagnetism and gravity. It served the egos of his followers to consecrate Einstein’s ideas and treat dissent as blasphemy. “Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it's wrong.”[9,10]

DB If you could link to a paper covering this this drop of Maxwells equations from the Einstiens funny papers I would appreciate it.

DB it is thought that Einsteins work was exactly that and only that, to remove that relationship from academic consideration and their is an interesting paper trail that indicates the method, the cost to humanity is incalculable to any and all except the bankers.DB

 

[Niflmir]

Not according to these guys and by the way Hawkings is insane. Why would two or more universes be necessary when the one we're in is infinite I believe. There isn't anywhere to put another. IMhO


If Arp and others are right and the Big Bang is dead, what does the Cosmic Microwave Background signify?

The simplest answer, from the highly successful field of plasma cosmology, is that it represents the natural microwave radiation from electric current filaments in interstellar plasma local to the Sun. Radio astronomers have mapped the interstellar hydrogen filaments by using longer wavelength receivers. The dense thicket formed by those filaments produces a perfect fog of microwave radiation—as if we were located inside a microwave oven. Instead of the Cosmic Microwave Background, it is the Interstellar Microwave Background. That makes sense of the fact that the CMB is too smooth to account for the lumpiness of galaxies and galactic clusters in the universe. We cannot "see" them through the local microwave fog.
Nobel Prize for Big Bang is a Fizzer

Ah, now you have stepped in it.

Remember I said that the CMB radiation had a blackbody spectrum? Well an electric current flowing through a hydrogen gas (your hypothesis) would have a completely different emission spectra, in fact it would have hydrogen emission/absorption lines, completely different from the CMB. Quite different from a blackbody with a temperature of the cmb. In fact the CMB as initial conditions for structure formation in the lambda-cdm model gives exactly the clumpiness seen in the universe.

But here we will see the real difference between science and religion. You, who have now been debunked of your electric current hypothesis, will completely ignore the evidence and hold on to your belief, religiously. You rely on a lack of understanding (read ignorance) of science in order to accept your beliefs on faith. When confronted with facts that would force you to abandon your hypothesis, instead of taking the time to understand them, you will merely assert their falseness.

It has a blackbody spectrum. This is a measurement, not a hypothesis. The measurement is not up for debate, although the explanation is. Your model cannot account for a blackbody spectrum.

 

[Niflmir]

DB If you could link to a paper covering this this drop of Maxwells equations from the Einstiens funny papers I would appreciate it.

Nobody cites Einstein's papers, as the equations exist independent of him now. Here you can follow the derivation of the Maxwell equations from the Einstein equations. Assuming you recognize the Faraday tensor and the action for Maxwell's equations.