Thinking Straight About Curved Space

[nix]

[
I don't believe the observation of what is called, Cosmic Background Radiation, IS cosmic background radiation, either. Its based on a missing interpretation of what light actually is and how it travels in long distances in space.

Have you never studied electromagnetism and Maxwell's equations? That is a theory of light and how it travels through space and is the basis of all telecommunications! The point is we have a well tested knowledge of the nature of light and how it propagates and its spectrum when it is in equilibrium with matter.

I ask you simply, how do you know the model you pluck from your imagination for light and space and mass has anything to tell us about nature?

[Scott Mayers]

[
I don't believe the observation of what is called, Cosmic Background Radiation, IS cosmic background radiation, either. Its based on a missing interpretation of what light actually is and how it travels in long distances in space.

Have you never studied electromagnetism and Maxwell's equations? That is a theory of light and how it travels through space and is the basis of all telecommunications! The point is we have a well tested knowledge of the nature of light and how it propagates and its spectrum when it is in equilibrium with matter.

I ask you simply, how do you know the model you pluck from your imagination for light and space and mass has anything to tell us about nature?

I'm sufficiently qualified intellectually on this contrary to your apparent disapproval. Yes I'm highly familiar with anything regarding electricity and magnetism.

And no, I cannot respond simply enough here for you. The theory of light is not 'wrong', but incomplete. I'd need to draw diagrams to demonstrate examples of what is missing.

But let me try with one example I might have mentioned elsewhere in part. Take what we understand about quasars. They are deemed to be understood as objects from a great distance that have an unusual brightness or intensity. It is used to confirm the belief that these phenomena represent a phase in an evolutionary development of our universe that literally had galaxies that differ from those we see up close. However, this can be actually due to the way matter expands through space as a cone over great distances, not a cylinder simply stretched in its general propagated average direction.

If you have electromagnetic waves formed from sources close to us, we can be limited to being able to measure those waves formed beyond our traditional gamma radiation on the spectrum, especially if they are so energetic AND small as they approach closer to an infinite frequency. Also, what is apparently of wavelengths we can measure close up, eventually approach such slow frequencies through great distances that they fall off the map of our ability to observe any electromagnetism representing light at all from certain distances.

A quasar can be understood as ultra high frequency light that gets emitted with the absence of any capacity to measure what originated as local light. Instead, what we measure from those radio frequencies could actually represent what is normally invisible from sources close by that have shifted so far down the spectrum to become measurable as the radio frequencies we observe. As to its intensity, this can be the result of sheer quantity per unit rate of space that whatever causes such ultra-high frequencies from matter close up is just as unobservable. Also, since they could penetrate more often with relative ease compared to waves formed from larger initial waves, the depth to which the center source of a galaxy, like a black hole, can give off a greater abundance of such waves in greater depths.

So what looks like a confirmation of BB if it argues that what we see distinctly different about galaxies as representing any galaxies we are familiar with close up, this could actually be a result of the nature of the distances to actually be the cause of why they appear different only. This accepts their great distances but demonstrates how such a reinterpretation of what was presumed to confirm BB actually confirms SS better.

As to CMBR, this is predictable as even further galaxies whereupon we only see some reference of some even higher frequency wave creation from matter we can't determine exists subatomically close up. I'd be interested in seeing whether a full range spectrum in the radio frequencies of distant quasars demonstrate spectral gaps everyone is familiar with more locally? If they differ, this might prove my point as they would demonstrate shifts reduced to the radio ranges as not of simply light from the characteristics of the chemistry we know normally but to the extended spectrum of higher gamma waves that have slowed down to pass the light range into the radio ranges.

[nix]

As to CMBR, this is predictable as even further galaxies whereupon we only see some reference of some even higher frequency wave creation from matter we can't determine exists subatomically close up.

Eh?

I forgot yet another piece of evidence for the hot BB: cosmic abundances of H, He, Li are not accounted for by stellar nucleosynthesis but are accounted for quantitatively by a hot big bang model. But lets stick to CMBR since this is strong evidence for the BB and so your steady state universe model would have to find a quantitative explanation as to why you would see this radiation with the blackbody spectrum, corresponding to a temperature 2.725K, and uniform to within 1 part in 100000 in every direction (isotropic) in space. Matter is not distributed so regularly. If the CMBR was somehow being constantly generated alongside matter the distributions of both in space would be expected to be the same. They are not found to be. Your model cannot predict the observed phenomena quantitatively. Thus I say it is inferior to the BB model.

[Scott Mayers]

As to CMBR, this is predictable as even further galaxies whereupon we only see some reference of some even higher frequency wave creation from matter we can't determine exists subatomically close up.

Eh?

I forgot yet another piece of evidence for the hot BB: cosmic abundances of H, He, Li are not accounted for by stellar nucleosynthesis but are accounted for quantitatively by a hot big bang model. But lets stick to CMBR since this is strong evidence for the BB and so your steady state universe model would have to find a quantitative explanation as to why you would see this radiation with the blackbody spectrum, corresponding to a temperature 2.7K, and uniform to within 1 part in 10000 in every direction (isotropic) in space. Matter is not distributed so regularly. If the CMBR was somehow being constantly generated alongside matter the distributions of both in space would be expected to be the same. They are not found to be. Your model cannot predict the observed phenomena quantitatively. Thus I say it is inferior to the BB model.

You'll have to excuse me for not buying into this. I don't know what all traditional Steady State theorists asserted for as an essential rebuttal, but I know I would predict at least the possibility of some apparent radiation from afar that appears more uniform. The further you go back in space, while the apparent material nature of what we observe about even the emptiest spaces locally may actually be witnessed from afar by shifts even greater AND in more quantity that gets distributed more evenly from there. This is no different than recognizing a loss of our capacity to interpret a distant mountain by parallax using our eyes alone. The distance merges to a plane such that if we'd interpret the mountain as an image painted on some big wall, this would imply that the mountain was spread out more consistently as the paint being used to represent the whole mountain.

As to being a black body that maps onto what we might interpret as heat, this too could represent the nature of harmonic intervals that may exist that we cannot determine locally. For instance, think of matter as a spiraling string extending outwardly that maintains the maximum speed, "c". given a distance comparison between the center and each consecutive distances in one direction we could imagine a 'fractal'-like repetition of relatively similar appearance of this as we zoom out to look at such a spiral at increasingly larger distances. As such, what might be interpreted as a direct correspondence to light in local black body observations may represent the measures we see as a result of a repeat in harmonic intervals existing in parts of the spectrum we don't see.

But note that I lack clarity on how they determined this. For any 'white' body emission spectrum could be inverted to give us the black body version. How would they not presume that the heat we measure is also not a function of absorption of energy from such potential particles we understand locally but in deep space shadowing the actual source except for the general background? This effect would invert the white body source to appear as black body radiation.

[nix]

Let me respond with the following consideration of your model.

If I understand correctly, you assert that space is expanding (I agree cf Hubble etc) but you assign this space some sort of material property which somehow acts as an agent to produce both matter and possibly radiation (here I disagree, but let's go along with the hypothesis). The radiation emitted from that new matter which was "produced", occurs by this matter, in an excited state relaxing to a ground state and emitting the radiation. So you say you should see uniform radiation arriving here on earth from every direction just like the CMBR. OK but let's go on. The emission from each point in space by this process must be equivalent to every other point in space. lets assume for simplicity that only one frequency is emitted by the process, f1, What would I expect to see in a detector which can measure intensity of light at different frequencies?

The detector will sample all light coming in from a small solid angle. The number of emission points seen increases with (dist)^2 from the detector but the intensity of light from each point falls as (dist)^2 so each distance from the detector contributes the same intensity of light (number of photons, I) to our signal . The light from more distant sources, emitted before that from closer sources, will be red shifted (to lower frequency than f1) by an amount proportional to the distance (Hubble's law- now well established by empirical measurements). So the spectrum I will see in my detector (graph of I(f) vs f) will be a flat line I(f) = constant from the highest frequency f1 to the lowest frequency (highest red shift detected). If instead of a single emitted frequency the radiative process from the "new matter"gave a whole range of frequencies with different intensities (for example a black body spectrum of frequencies expected if the matter and radiation were created in thermal equilibrium say) What would my detected signal be? Well every shell of emitters at a given distance from the detector would contribute the whole spectrum but red shifted proportional to the distance, and the sum of all these contributions would be the observed spectrum. Again we get a flat graph of I(f) vs f. This is a prediction of your model which can be tested against the empirically observed spectrum of the CMBR. We already know the result, The CMBR is not a flat line expected from the steady state hypothesis but a black body curve predicted by the hot BB model.

[Obvious Leo]

gravity is a force that acts on all stuff in the same way

Not so. Sometimes a comet is moving towards the sun and sometimes it's moving away. Your idea of gravity as a force is nonsense because it is no such thing. It is a fundamental property of the universe because it is simply an expression of time.

Theories of unification of forces in physics have all four forces as emergent from something different from each of them, this unification only acts at energies close to that of the big bang.

This is what I mean when I say that your narrative of physics is wrong. You imagine that all the sub-atomic particles were made shortly after the big bang and that they've existed ever since as unchanging bits of stuff. This creationist narrative is simply an unworkable procedure of thought and no unification model can possibly be derived from it. A sub-atomic particle is not a piece of stuff but an observer-specified suite of emergent properties which emerge as the outcome of a process continuously occurring at the Planck scale at the speed of light. These particles are continuously being created because an atom is a PROCESS.

How can your absurd model account for the fact that the various sub-atomic particles have the properties they do instead of some other properties? These particles are nothing more than man-made procedures of thought and yet you treat them as if they were the fundamental units of physical reality. This is a proposition which defies human reason because it allows for no explanation as to the origin of the properties you've described. Are these supposed to be the gift of god? Clearly the properties of the sub-atomic particles are being specified for by an underlying process and one of these properties is mass. According to Einstein's mass/energy equivalence principle mass is simply an emergent form of energy configured in a particular way, thus we can say that particles with mass are "made up of" massless energy. One thing we know for sure from Maxwell's equations is that all massless energy moves at the speed of light. Whatever is happening within the sub-atomic particles is happening at light-speed because this hierarchy exists below the one at which mass is a meaningful construct.

The properties of the sub-atomic particles are being conferred on them by an underlying process of energy exchange occurring at the speed of light.
Why is this not a more coherent procedure of thought to define the atom? Is it only because it cannot be accommodated within the spacetime paradigm or is there something actually wrong with it? I'm using exactly the same data set as you are but merely offering a different interpretation of it.

'It is the THEORY which determines what the observer will observe".....Albert Einstein.

[nix]

gravity is a force that acts on all stuff in the same way

Not so. Sometimes a comet is moving towards the sun and sometimes it's moving away..

Oh Please! Lets be pedantic then: "In the Newtonian approximation to the situation you describe (which accurately models the observed measurements of the comets position) the path of the comet is determined by the force of attraction between sun and comet. This force is always attractive and is given the name gravity. In fact between bodies with mass the force is always attractive, i.e there is only one sort of stuff from the point of view of gravity and that is mass. The case of the electrical forces between charged bodies there are two sorts of stuff because the forces can be attractive or repulsive between charged bodies."

[nix]

. A sub-atomic particle is not a piece of stuff but an observer-specified suite of emergent properties which emerge as the outcome of a process continuously occurring at the Planck scale at the speed of light. These particles are continuously being created because an atom is a PROCESS.

what a load of tosh! Go read Feynman's lectures on physics

[nix]

According to Einstein's mass/energy equivalence principle mass is simply an emergent form of energy configured in a particular way, thus we can say that particles with mass are "made up of" massless energy. One thing we know for sure from Maxwell's equations is that all massless energy moves at the speed of light. Whatever is happening within the sub-atomic particles is happening at light-speed because this hierarchy exists below the one at which mass is a meaningful construct.

Again nonsense on stilts! :

"particles with mass are "made up of" massless energy": No they are not; (this claims that any particle is "made up" of photons:- this is simply not true- if they were, all particles would always travel at the speed of light, we would never measure them moving at less than this speed which is obviously wrong. You confuse the notion of rest mass of particles and total inertial mass-energy. the concepts are distinct.

[Obvious Leo]

You are using the model I'm refuting to refute the model I'm offering which is a logically invalid argument. I have no further comment to offer other than to say that I'm perfectly familiar with what you're claiming.

[nix]

You imagine that all the sub-atomic particles were made shortly after the big bang and that they've existed ever since as unchanging bits of stuff. These particles are continuously being created because an atom is a PROCESS.

No I dont! Take the carbon atom as an example: I don't think the carbon nucleus existed shortly after the big bang. All that nucleosysnthesis in this pre star era produced was H, He and Li; the heavier nuclei are products of stellar nucleosynthesis. But the carbon atoms that are around today have been around a long time, are stable and are in no sense a process now in the way you sugest. If I were to subject them to some extreme physical conditions of temperature and pressure then physical change will occur, the atom undergoes a process but it isn't itself a process occurring at the plank scale at the speed of light.

[Obvious Leo]

Take the carbon atom as an example:

The carbon atom is not a sub-atomic particle.

[Obvious Leo]

How quickly are you changing, nix? What is the speed at which you are turning into new you?

[nix]

Take the carbon atom as an example:

The carbon atom is not a sub-atomic particle.

That's why I talked about the carbon nucleus which is a sub atomic particle.

[nix]

How quickly are you changing, nix? What is the speed at which you are turning into new you?

At a rate of one year per year but it sometimes feels faster than that!