What's a universe?

[Hjarloprillar]

Tillingborn

well said. It seems my kudos in 'ancient history was misspent at age 18.
[that's in history when such was taught in school"] i liked the war.

I look forward to more post by you.

your knowledge of thinking people from that time has generated much interest.
I continue to research so this is but
a fill in.

THE ONLY True freedom we have is to work shit out for ourselves

[SpheresOfBalance]

Tillingborn

well said. It seems my kudos in 'ancient history was misspent at age 18.
[that's in history when such was taught in school"] i liked the war.

I look forward to more post by you.

your knowledge of thinking people from that time has generated much interest.
I continue to research so this is but
a fill in.

THE ONLY True freedom we have is to work shit out for ourselves

Obviously you see purple elephants flying about. Science is the ONLY language in which truth can be found. And the experts know a lot more, than someone self taught, that seemingly skipped over the meanings of words. As you read, if you don't understand a word, immediately look it up, or largely, you'll have no understanding of what follows.

[Cerveny]

... The cause of gravity or the structure of quantum entities is irrelevant to some physicists what matters is what happens...

As regards the gravity and quantum mechanics, there is no reason to panic: the force of gravity is caused by tension in the physical space / vacuum / aether that is caused by its inhomogeneities - by matter. The probability of particle position retains during the interaction ("measurement") in quantum mechanics, instead of retaining simple position of particle in the classical mechanics (simply put) – the problem of point particle is blurred into probability of occurrence of particle :)

[Hjarloprillar]

And the experts know a lot more, than someone self taught, that seemingly skipped over the meanings of words. As you read, if you don't understand a word, immediately look it up, or largely, you'll have no understanding of what follows".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

what a load of crap. how many degrees from Harvard did Socrates have. none? well he we ignor. self taught wanker he is.

how many degrees did the wright brothers have. when the experts said heavier than air flight was imossible

[SpheresOfBalance]

And the experts know a lot more, than someone self taught, that seemingly skipped over the meanings of words. As you read, if you don't understand a word, immediately look it up, or largely, you'll have no understanding of what follows".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

what a load of crap. how many degrees from Harvard did Socrates have. none? well he we ignor. self taught wanker he is.

I'm sorry!

I have given you the best that I can, I'm sorry if you will not heed.
You have to feed the body and mind pure things, i.e., whole, fresh, organic, raw plant foods, and positive thoughts via biofeedback. Understand epigenetics? Read: Bruce Lipton's (PhD in Developmental Biology): "Biology of Belief"

You can lead a fool to knowledge, but you can't make him think, unfortunately.

[Hjarloprillar]

... The cause of gravity or the structure of quantum entities is irrelevant to some physicists what matters is what happens...

As regards the gravity and quantum mechanics, there is no reason to panic: the force of gravity is caused by tension in the physical space / vacuum / aether that is caused by its inhomogeneities - by matter. The probability of particle position retains during the interaction ("measurement") in quantum mechanics, instead of retaining simple position of particle in the classical mechanics (simply put) – the problem of point particle is blurred into probability of occurrence of particle 

inhomogeneities?
"the force of gravity is caused by tension in the physical space "

your post is lovely dance of words that means ziltch.
don't flake out now. just when i thought i had found a rational thinker

please

prill

[Hjarloprillar]

And the experts know a lot more, than someone self taught, that seemingly skipped over the meanings of words. As you read, if you don't understand a word, immediately look it up, or largely, you'll have no understanding of what follows".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

what a load of crap. how many degrees from Harvard did Socrates have. none? well he we ignor. self taught wanker he is.

I'm sorry!

I have given you the best that I can, I'm sorry if you will not heed.
You have to feed the body and mind pure things, i.e., whole, fresh, organic, raw plant foods, and positive thoughts via biofeedback. Understand epigenetics? Read: Bruce Lipton's (PhD in Developmental Biology): "Biology of Belief"

You can lead a fool to knowledge, but you can't make him think, unfortunately.

sob " imherit the wind."

we will slip the book of spheres of balance, tidily in between Numbers and Deuteronomy.


sleep more. zzzzzzzzzz

[SpheresOfBalance]

And the experts know a lot more, than someone self taught, that seemingly skipped over the meanings of words. As you read, if you don't understand a word, immediately look it up, or largely, you'll have no understanding of what follows".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

what a load of crap. how many degrees from Harvard did Socrates have. none? well he we ignor. self taught wanker he is.

I'm sorry!

I have given you the best that I can, I'm sorry if you will not heed.
You have to feed the body and mind pure things, i.e., whole, fresh, organic, raw plant foods, and positive thoughts via biofeedback. Understand epigenetics? Read: Bruce Lipton's (PhD in Developmental Biology): "Biology of Belief"

You can lead a fool to knowledge, but you can't make him think, unfortunately.

sob " imherit the wind."

we will slip the book of spheres of balance, tidily in between Numbers and Deuteronomy.


sleep more. zzzzzzzzzz

Then die if you want, it's yours to do with as you see fit, but make no mistake, you have the final say as to cancer.

[Cerveny]

..."the force of gravity is caused by tension in the physical space "
your post is lovely dance of words that means ziltch.
don't flake out now. just when i thought i had found a rational thinker...

I'm sorry that I have disappointed your hopes in me

[Hjarloprillar]

..."the force of gravity is caused by tension in the physical space "
your post is lovely dance of words that means ziltch.
don't flake out now. just when i thought i had found a rational thinker...

I'm sorry that I have disappointed your hopes in me

Cerveny

sorry , was very tired.
And when i get tired i get uppity.

let us begin anew [again]

[tillingborn]

It would seem that the only thing you understood was that "3) Electromagnetic energy..." was true, but failed to see it's implications.

Well,it's the only thing I didn't challenge, but you're right, I don't see the implications.

It would seem that you've only parroted something you've read, without understanding it, and paraphrased at that.

I'm not sure that I can parrot and paraphrase, but I accept I may not understand everything I read.

What I was doing was listing those things, that if one understands them, and applies a little thought, it's plain to see that the theory, that red shift is indicative of an expanding universe is not necessarily correct. It shows that it has flaws, so as to raise enough doubt, so as to be inconclusive.

And I agreed that with you that the evidence "precludes the necessity of any particular deduction". I think that some physicists are more sophisticated than you give them credit for, most are sufficiently philosophically clued up to know they are working with analogies and models. However, since Newton it has been believed that a static universe would collapse, that the force of gravity would draw everything together. Newton argued that the universe must be infinite, so that the force on every point is the same. But such a balancing act is untennable in a universe in which there is movement, if only planets orbiting the sun. The discovery by Hubble (the man, not the telescope) of red shift, which he made by comparing absorpton lines in spectra, was taken as evidence that the universe is expanding, at a stroke solving the puzzle of why it isn't collapsing. It's a very neat hypothesis. The discovery of evidence that the expansion is accelerating demonstrates that it isn't perfect, if it were cosmolgists would be out of a job.

Do you know what Doppler shift is?

I've a rough idea. If you run into the sea, the waves hit you more frequently, if you run to the shore they hit you less often. Same with fire engine sirens, same with stars and galaxies. In the first case you get wetter or drier, in the second the pitch is higher or lower, and in the case of light, it is redder or bluer.

It's in fact a shift in frequency of the light from a static value which is in fact dependent upon the stars composition, age, and size. One first has to know what frequency the stars light is when the observer is of parallel trajectory at the same speed.

I believe Hubble was trying to work out those things when he discovered that the absorption lines were red shifted.
According to special relativity, the 'static value' is 'when the observer is of parallel trajectory at the same speed'. We can't tell if anything is in fact static, we would almost certainly be moving relative to it. But since we are moving relative to every atom in the universe, you take your pick which one to measure from.

Then and only then can one know if in fact its frequency is either compressed or expanded, i.e., respectively, blue or red shifted.

We cannot know anything in absolute terms. If a fire engine passes at 60mph the siren rises and falls, it seems obvious that the fire engine is moving and we are stationary. You get exactly the same effect if you drive past a stationary fire engine at 60mph; 'obviously' you are moving. But since the world is turning, going round the sun, etc, etc, whether you or the fire engine is moving in absolute terms is impossible to tell.

You have to see a change, (A SHIFT) otherwise how could one possibly know if in fact the blue or red color was due to shift and not that it was the stars natural color, or being distorted due to gravitational pull from another body, either reflected, scattered, absorbed, rarefied or some combination, or not.

You are right, there are lots of other things to consider, but since every distant galaxy demonstrates red shift, it is reasonable to assume that there is a common cause, especially one that accounts for the non-collapse of the universe.

[Hjarloprillar]

You are right, there are lots of other things to consider, but since every distant galaxy demonstrates red shift, it is reasonable to assume that there is a common cause, especially one that accounts for the non-collapse of the universe.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Aye common sense. is not [common]
rehashed links by nincompoops to perspectives s what we get.
where
-------------------
"You have to see a change, (A SHIFT) otherwise how could one possibly know if in fact the blue or red color was due to shift and not that it was the stars natural color, or being distorted due to gravitational pull from another body, either reflected, scattered, absorbed, rarefied or some combination, or not.
------------------
is called what it is.
And astronomers do not know the difference of star frequency from doppler shift.
so therfore all red giants are moving faster.. lol

stellar bigotry ,something new.

[Kuznetzova]

Rather than being warped, as Einstein suggested, the field is condensed wherever there is a bunch of knots, matter, and rarefied where there isn’t. Hence waves and particles passing matter are refracted. Since particles are two or more knots tumbling over each other they are doubly refracted; as a knot goes one way it is refracted by the field, as it swings around it’s partner and goes the other way it is still refracted by the field, so the particle feels a force towards the matter that is the source of the condensed field, which is gravity. Mass, rather than being the degree to which an object warps spacetime, is how much field it puts out increasing the local density.

This was pretty good up to this paragraph, where you appear to be veering dangerously into independent research. My primary complaint is your use of the squirrelly phrase "...the particle feels a force towards the matter...". Your level of investigation in the earlier paragraphs suggests that you understand very precisely how the exchange of bosons between fermions would give rise to what observers would refer to as a "force". Except then you digress into a classical concept of force as "ghostly pushing" between things. If you are going to talk in the language of Quantum Field Theory, you will need to continue talking in that language, for the sake of continuity.

Our situation in this universe is more mysterious than your story of these "knots". A particle appears to be a perturbation in a field, where the wavelength is associated with the particle's energy-momentum. Particles do not move, as much as propagate in the field. The propagation process is very weird. The particle will go everywhere at the same time, and you add up all the everywheres and get an observable which is the location of the particle in the future. In experiments in which the researchers lose track of which particle is which, the two particles will start acting like a single "perturbation", no matter how far apart they move from each other. By "act like a single" I mean to say their internal properties , such as spin or polarization become related. (I'm talking about Entanglement here). Despite the mysteriousness of all this, there are aspects of all these fields that cause the total energy to always be conserved. My first guess would be that this conservation results from symmetries of the fields.

[Hjarloprillar]

Rather than being warped, as Einstein suggested, the field is condensed wherever there is a bunch of knots, matter, and rarefied where there isn’t. Hence waves and particles passing matter are refracted. Since particles are two or more knots tumbling over each other they are doubly refracted; as a knot goes one way it is refracted by the field, as it swings around it’s partner and goes the other way it is still refracted by the field, so the particle feels a force towards the matter that is the source of the condensed field, which is gravity. Mass, rather than being the degree to which an object warps spacetime, is how much field it puts out increasing the local density.

This was pretty good up to this paragraph, where you appear to be veering dangerously into independent research. My primary complaint is your use of the squirrelly phrase "...the particle feels a force towards the matter...". Your level of investigation in the earlier paragraphs suggests that you understand very precisely how the exchange of bosons between fermions would give rise to what observers would refer to as a "force". Except then you digress into a classical concept of force as "ghostly pushing" between things. If you are going to talk in the language of Quantum Field Theory, you will need to continue talking in that language, for the sake of continuity.

Our situation in this universe is more mysterious than your story of these "knots". A particle appears to be a perturbation in a field, where the wavelength is associated with the particle's energy-momentum. Particles do not move, as much as propagate in the field. The propagation process is very weird. The particle will go everywhere at the same time, and you add up all the everywheres and get an observable which is the location of the particle in the future. In experiments in which the researchers lose track of which particle is which, the two particles will start acting like a single "perturbation", no matter how far apart they move from each other. By "act like a single" I mean to say their internal properties , such as spin or polarization become related. (I'm talking about Entanglement here). Despite the mysteriousness of all this, there are aspects of all these fields that cause the total energy to always be conserved. My first guess would be that this conservation results from symmetries of the fields.

I think he is full of crap. he knows as much of gravity as my 2 year old granddaughter knows of political turmoil in Uzbekistan.

[Kuznetzova]

Mathematicians brought physics where there is: singularity, infinity, determinism, empty space or fractal quantum foam, desperate quantization of gravity, constantly increasing number of dimensions, dark matter, breaking of symmetry ... From physics faded logic, physical sense, "healthy" sense and at the end the prestige. Nobody knows what the universe is.

I think you are on the right track. Rumor has it that the absolute temperature of the universe is the one, deciding factor in breaking symmetry. So at the very highest temperature/energy, all the four fundamental forces are all a single unified force. When temperature drops, gravity "breaks off" from the other three. At even lower temperatures, electroweak force breaks with the Strong Force, and they start to look like different forces. Going lower still, the electromagnetic force splits with the weak force. The academics call this Electroweak symmetry breaking.

In summary, when the temperature goes down, symmetry breaks.

After so much discussion of general laws of the universe, a person can forget that you have a name and you live in a city. But how did that happen? How do you have a name and why do you live in that city? Reading this thread, you would think we are all a bunch of particles zipping around in an endless quantum vacuum. See my thread on general laws versus particular facts: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=9904