Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[Native]

How do you think I have been in disagreement with myself?

Because your (the "scientific") defintion of a specific *subject* goes in all disconnected directions at the same time.

A Newtonian particle = mass = force

In Quantum Mechanics, a *piece of light* is determined as *a particle*.

Te definition of a *photon* as in light, is also mentioned in the *particle terms* instead of *a piece of an E&M current*.

Particle definition
"In the physical sciences, a particle (or corpuscule in older texts) is a small localized object to which can be ascribed several physical or chemical properties such as volume, density or mass..
They vary greatly in size or quantity, from subatomic particles like the electron, to microscopic particles like atoms and molecules, to macroscopic particles like powders and other granular materials".
Particles can also be used to create scientific models of even larger objects depending on their density, such as humans moving in a crowd or celestial bodies in motion".

In he last sentence it´s all about formation and motion, *of course* without mentioning the natural binding and mowing force of E&M.

Furthermore
"However, the noun 'particulate' is most frequently used to refer to pollutants in the Earth's atmosphere, which are a suspension of unconnected particles, rather than a connected particle aggregation".

But all these particles in the Earth´s atmosphere don´t count at all in the Newtonian particle = mass = force calculations and equations. This is scientifically inconsistent.

The atmospheric particle = mass = density = force only comes scientifically to account of the reentry of a spacecraft. All hell breakes lose if it doesn´t hit the right entry angle thrugh this aggregated force. Either it burns up or it´s ricosheted out in space again because of the atmospheric force which is completely ignored and confused as *the Earth´s gravity* by Newton and his proponents.

You see? The scientific definitions and theories inconsistently goes in all directions, thus in no logical direction at all.

There is NO overall scientific agreement in anything and this of course is mirrorred in the scientific references and arguments.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

This will have to be a bit of a guess but I presume the argument is that one does not have to consider the full range of frequencies extending to infinity, which would lead to an infinite result. There are some reasons to think current physics cannot be extrapolated to distance shorter than the Planck length, for instance, so I would hazard a guess that maybe there is an argument that wavelengths shorter than this can be neglected, or something.

Thank you, I guessed it may have been the Planck Length thing. Iirc I remember there being a belief, unrelated to ZPE, that there was some technical reason preventing em wavelengths smaller than Planck Length., however I could not follow/understand the reason given then, nor now, so I hope someone can explain.

 

[exchemist]

Thank you, I guessed it may have been the Planck Length thing. Iirc I remember there being a belief, unrelated to ZPE, that there was some technical reason preventing em wavelengths smaller than Planck Length., however I could not follow/understand the reason given then, nor now, so I hope someone can explain.

Not me, I'm afraid. All I can do is read the Wiki article, which no doubt you have already done.

One of the problems will all this stuff is there are infinities all over the place which have to be got rid of by renormalisation. It is technically fairly hairy.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Not me, I'm afraid. All I can do is read the Wiki article, which no doubt you have already done.

One of the problems will all this stuff is there are infinities all over the place which have to be got rid of by renormalisation. It is technically fairly hairy.

Yes, I know a lot of this stuff is beyond me, nevertheless my mind persists in wanting to understand, and so I welcome the less complex mathematical version conveyed by the more knowledgeable folk, including Wiki articles. It is a never ending story of discovery bought about by correcting of errors.of misunderstanding.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I might add, re Planck Length cut off wavelength, I am currently of the opinion that wavelengths exist to the infinitesimal, for the reason that to have a cut off raises the issue that if there is no true vacuum, what would fill the space beneath Planck Length em energy wavelength?

 

[Polymath257]

I might add, re Planck Length cut off wavelength, I am currently of the opinion that wavelengths exist to the infinitesimal, for the reason that to have a cut off raises the issue that if there is no true vacuum, what would fill the space beneath Planck Length em energy wavelength?

Beneath the Planck length, it isn't even clear that the concept of distance makes sense. The reason is that the spacetime geometry is determined, in part, by the local mass and energy. But at the Planck length, there are spontaneous particle/anti-particle pairs spontaneously forming that affect that geometry all the time.

So, just like you cannot determine the position and momentum of a particle simultaneously, it may be impossible to determine the positions closer than a Planck length simultaneously.

 

[Polymath257]

Not me, I'm afraid. All I can do is read the Wiki article, which no doubt you have already done.

One of the problems will all this stuff is there are infinities all over the place which have to be got rid of by renormalisation. It is technically fairly hairy.

Yes, renormalization is one of those things that bothers mathematicians (me) and not physicists (also me, but less so).

The basic idea is that there is always a cloud of particle/anti-particle pairs around any particle. So, close to an electron, there will be electron/positron pairs spontaneously formed. And those virtual particles affect the measured charge (and other properties) of the electron. So, the 'bare' charge you put into the equations is not, ultimately the charge that is actually measured.

Furthermore, if you probe deeper, you have less the virtual froth shielding the bare electron, so you measure a different charge. Where you 'cut off' determines what the relation is between the bare charge and the measured one.

So, how do you determine the bare charge? It cannot be directly measured. So, it becomes a *parameter* that is adjusted to fit the measured charge. Again, it depends on a cut-off.

BUT, if you do this, you can get a correspondence between the measured charge and other properties of interest (like wavelengths of Compton scattering). And these can be measured, so you have testability.

Mathematically, this is very sketchy. But, it gives predictions that are amazingly accurate physically. So it is the best we have at this point.

 

[Native]

I might add, re Planck Length cut off wavelength, I am currently of the opinion that wavelengths exist to the infinitesimal, for the reason that to have a cut off raises the issue that if there is no true vacuum, what would fill the space beneath Planck Length em energy wavelength?

You can hold up the very best of astrophysical textbooks in front of a *Planck Length distance of Light* and the definition will disappeare immediately.

I wouldn´t waste my time too much on such *constant*' speculations as the space isn´t empty and light is dispersed and delayed everywhere it propagates, hence ligth is not constant at all in the real world.

 

[Polymath257]

Because your (the "scientific") defintion of a specific *subject* goes in all disconnected directions at the same time.

A Newtonian particle = mass = force

Wrong.

Maybe you need to understand what physics is actually saying before saying what it gets wrong?

 

[exchemist]

Beneath the Planck length, it isn't even clear that the concept of distance makes sense. The reason is that the spacetime geometry is determined, in part, by the local mass and energy. But at the Planck length, there are spontaneous particle/anti-particle pairs spontaneously forming that affect that geometry all the time.

So, just like you cannot determine the position and momentum of a particle simultaneously, it may be impossible to determine the positions closer than a Planck length simultaneously.

That's a very nice explanation!

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Because your (the "scientific") defintion of a specific *subject* goes in all disconnected directions at the same time.
A Newtonian particle = mass = force

Wrong.
Maybe you need to understand what physics is actually saying before saying what it gets wrong?

Wrong?
Maybe you then need to explain logically how it is that *two separate assembled lumps of particle masses as in planets or anywhere* can affect forces on each other as in Newtons *occult agency forces*.

Not that I believe in such non sense, though.

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
Because your (the "scientific") defintion of a specific *subject* goes in all disconnected directions at the same time.
A Newtonian particle = mass = force

Wrong?
Maybe you then need to explain logically how it is that *two separate assembled lumps of particle masses in planets* can affect forces on each other as in Newtons *occult agency forces*.

Not that I believe in such non sense.

How is irrelevant. The hypothesis is that they do. And that hypothesis gives testable, speciifc results that agree with observation in many cases.

Has the EU produced testable, specific results that agree with observations?

 

[Native]

How is irrelevant.

I know. What IS relevant to you and the consensus science is that it all doesn´t matter HOW as long as the participants can play the illusional game of *occult agency forces* and when asked into the logics of their ideas they jump over the annoying logical questions and accuses the questioner to be wrong. STILL without providing REAL answers.

 

[alsome]

A borrowed thought

"Astrologically thinking, I think about the mysterious working of the Cosmos.
I wonder how it really came about, the egg or the chicken syngamy.
In the past few billions of years, there have evolved many wonderous entities.
If there was a true 'beginning', some sort of energy form must have existed.
Since it was certainly a solely isolated form,
alone in that depth of all that was,
it must have been contained in some form of emptiness, a crypt so to speak.
I wonder how it got there, and from where it came ?

Well...we have to suppose that it got there, cause it was there !
Interesting that it was all alone in that emptiness of nothing,
sort of appeared from out of nowhere, just existed there all alone.
What in my mind could be around it, what mysterious entity surrounded it ?
What 'nothing' could be 'everywhere', and be 'nothing', except in the crypt ?
Everywhere else in this Cosmos was this 'nothing', except for the 'void' of zero,
that absolute absence of anything of any presence at all.

Theists tell me that this was where God was,
that He was the 'void',
the 'everything'.
I'm told that He alone was the 'container' of all,
and that entity not yet created.
But it was still there, this entity of the Spirit, the allness of existence,
'The All'.
And from this speck of 'The All' was created everything, and even the light,
shining out over everything, blazing with all that brilliance, sparkling with life.

Hard to believe isn't it, as far as one can see, amongst the trillions of galaxies,
uncountable stars and planets, and one single spot of life, Earth.
It has to be a miracle, doesn't it ? How else did we get here ?
Given the size of Earth, even though there are billions of people living here,
we alone are counted amongst the trillions and trillions of entities,
that live only here.

I'm amazed every day of my life, that so many thousands die, of all ages !
One of my best friends is in the process of leaving us, as I write.
And soon, I will have to follow, not willingly, but certainly.
I will never understand the mystery of it all, but I will most assuredly follow.

If I could have just one wish, only one mind you, it would be that everyone,
every single one of you, could love one another, and remember that love,
until you will certainly have to leave, to whatever your destiny.

Look out at those stars, remember them also, grasp on to that image,
and give tolerance to your neighbors, and also to those you love.
There's only one 'now', it might not be there tomorrow.
Peace"

~
`mud

 

[Native]

Has the EU produced testable, specific results that agree with observations?

If it wasn´t for the Danish discover of the E&M back in 1820, Hans Christian Ørsted, you even wouldn´t be able to use your PC to discuss all kinds of observations in space and to make particle accelerations in CERN, or to make any scientific tests in laboratories.

All observations from outer space are measured by E&M frequensies and STILL you´re are rejecting the E&M forces to play the prime role in the Universe.

You´re frequently asking for E&M predictions and the standing and my best one on is this prediction:

"Cosmological science will newer understand anything fully in cosmos before it get rid of both the Newtonian and Einsteinian perception of *gravity*.

And you can extend this prediction to count for a Theory of Everything too.

 

[Polymath257]

I know. What IS relevant to you and the consensus science is that it all doesn´t matter HOW as long as the participants can play the illusional game of *occult agency forces* and when asked into the logics of their ideas they jump over the annoying logical questions and accuses the questioner to be wrong. STILL without providing REAL answers.

No, what is relevant is whether the hypothesis makes predictions of new observations that agree with what is actually observed. The hypothesis that does this the best with fewest additional assumptions is preferred.

 

[Polymath257]

If it wasn´t for the Danish discover of the E&M back in 1820, Hans Christian Ørsted, you even wouldn´t be able to use your PC to discuss all kinds of observations in space and to make particle accelerations in CERN, or to make any scientific tests in laboratories.

All observations from outer space are measured by E&M frequensies and STILL you´re are rejecting the E&M forces to play the prime role in the Universe.

You´re frequently asking for E&M predictions and the standing and my best one on is this prediction:

"Cosmological science will newer understand anything fully in cosmos before it get rid of both the Newtonian and Einsteinian perception of *gravity*.

And you can extend this prediction to count for a Theory of Everything too.

That is not a prediction of a *specific observation* where EU and 'standard cosmology' make different claims. We can then make the observation and see who is wrong.

NOBODY is claiming that E&M forces do not exist. But *you* are the one claiming gravity does not. You have given no reason, based on specific observations, to think your claim is correct or that the standard model is wrong.

 

[Native]

No, what is relevant is whether the hypothesis makes predictions of new observations that agree with what is actually observed. The hypothesis that does this the best with fewest additional assumptions is preferred.

In the case of celestial motions anyone can set these impirical known motion on equations even not knowing of the factual causes of such motions - and this was excactly what Newton did after his disconnected idea of an falling apple and ascribing his *occult agency force at distances*.

You´re confusing matemathical equations without explanations of *causes and effects* as *evidence* which isn´t a proper scientific method. In fact you´re ascribing mathematical equations and calcuations on to a scientific unknown force.

 

[Native]

The hypothesis that does this the best with fewest additional assumptions is preferred.

I in fact agree in this statement. But the entire gravitational idea began with an *accult agency* assumption and it has lead to lots of other add hoc assumptions, all based on the ONLY observation of a falling apple.

That is not a prediction of a *specific observation*

You´re correct here. The prediction is not based on *a specific observation* but on *lots of specific observations* which anyone with a comparative logical and analythic sense can make.

But *you* are the one claiming gravity does not. You have given no reason, based on specific observations, to think your claim is correct or that the standard model is wrong.

I´ve given lots of reasons but they seem too logical to understand for *mathematical number acrobats* who seems to be disconnected from their natural philosophical sklls.

But I`ll happily give you one more example here:

Gravity Assist “Explanation”.
Gravity assist - Wikipedia
“To increase speed, the spacecraft flies with the movement of the planet, acquiring some of the planet's orbital energy in the process; to decrease speed, the spacecraft flies against the movement of the planet to transfer some of its own orbital energy to the planet”.
---------
What? “A spacecraft and a planet transferring its energies to each other” at distancies? Seriously? By what means? By teleportation?

The way of gaining knowledge via Natural Philosophy

Some migration bird brains apparently knows instinctively more of *gravitational causes and effects* than some ancient and modern gravitational scientists. Birds are using the atmospheric particle density to gain lift and to acquire *gravitational sling shot effects* when flying in a v-shaped formation.

In this way birds of course don´t "transfer energy to other birds" as the speculative nonsense above with "a spacecraft and a planet transferring energies to another" at distances.

It´s simply a question of using the natural effects of a local direct pressure and take advantage of the lesser pressure behind a moving object in the Earth´s atmosphere and logically the same is the case in space where planets and spacecrafts moves.

Some migrating birds knows that instinctively just by their feeling of motion in the air. This is an observable fact and known science and an experiment which birds do every year in and out.

This is the kind of *logics* and knowledge of *causes and effects* you can get when applying the noble and royal art of Natural Philosophy and thus get rid of your scientifically disconnected and unxplained *occult agency power* speculations.

Just think of it: Migrating bird brains senses natural forces more naturally than Newton and Einstein and their followers, and the migrational forces in play are REAL SCIENTIFIC observations, descriptions and explanations, compared to the use of *occult agency forces*, which is assumed to be a real force.

BTW: Birds don´t give a daim for *gravitational matters* from the Earth too.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

A borrowed thought

"Astrologically thinking, I think about the mysterious working of the Cosmos.
I wonder how it really came about, the egg or the chicken syngamy.
In the past few billions of years, there have evolved many wonderous entities.
If there was a true 'beginning', some sort of energy form must have existed.
Since it was certainly a solely isolated form,
alone in that depth of all that was,
it must have been contained in some form of emptiness, a crypt so to speak.
I wonder how it got there, and from where it came ?

Well...we have to suppose that it got there, cause it was there !
Interesting that it was all alone in that emptiness of nothing,
sort of appeared from out of nowhere, just existed there all alone.
What in my mind could be around it, what mysterious entity surrounded it ?
What 'nothing' could be 'everywhere', and be 'nothing', except in the crypt ?
Everywhere else in this Cosmos was this 'nothing', except for the 'void' of zero,
that absolute absence of anything of any presence at all.

Theists tell me that this was where God was,
that He was the 'void',
the 'everything'.
I'm told that He alone was the 'container' of all,
and that entity not yet created.
But it was still there, this entity of the Spirit, the allness of existence,
'The All'.
And from this speck of 'The All' was created everything, and even the light,
shining out over everything, blazing with all that brilliance, sparkling with life.

Hard to believe isn't it, as far as one can see, amongst the trillions of galaxies,
uncountable stars and planets, and one single spot of life, Earth.
It has to be a miracle, doesn't it ? How else did we get here ?
Given the size of Earth, even though there are billions of people living here,
we alone are counted amongst the trillions and trillions of entities,
that live only here.

I'm amazed every day of my life, that so many thousands die, of all ages !
One of my best friends is in the process of leaving us, as I write.
And soon, I will have to follow, not willingly, but certainly.
I will never understand the mystery of it all, but I will most assuredly follow.

If I could have just one wish, only one mind you, it would be that everyone,
every single one of you, could love one another, and remember that love,
until you will certainly have to leave, to whatever your destiny.

Look out at those stars, remember them also, grasp on to that image,
and give tolerance to your neighbors, and also to those you love.
There's only one 'now', it might not be there tomorrow.
Peace"

~
`mud

Mud! I have often wondered about you, and had concluded you had already left us, so glad you are still with us.