A couple of logic issues regarding red shift.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pshrodr</i>
<br />1. In order to accept expansion, 3 bodies on the same radii exiting the original bang point must be each accelerating relative to the ones behind them.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">As this pertains to cosmology, your reasoning is incorrect. In the Big Bang, galaxies do not "move apart". Instead, galaxies remain at rest in their local space, and new space is continually created between them, making them farther apart even without motion of any galaxies. We are told to imagine an expanding balloon as a 2-dimensional analog of what galaxies do in 3-D. Dimes taped onto the balloon get farther apart as the balloon expands even though no dimes are moving on their local surface.

In these parts, the Big Bang is not very much in favor. Our members tend to favor various alternative cosmologies, and we specialize in the Meta Model. You can read more about the latter in my book, <i>Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets</i>. -|Tom|-

I have received your ‘Dark Matter —‘ book and clearly it will take a long time to get up to speed with your views. However the preface has helped me form a response to your mention of the balloon analogy. I love your focus on the numerous confusing theoretical perspectives about the big bang and gravity. I do see where the first part of my submission was incorrect in addressing expansion as accelerating away rather than as the creation of new space. At least the error was only in my addressing existing theory and not in my theory as partly revealed in part 2. One cause of the error is that my mind is locked into the universe being fixed/flat 3 dimensional space. Thus I am opposed to using constructs like the balloon as analogies.

As you indicate other readers seek alternative cosmologies to the big bang. Part 2 of my submission presents my alternative.

Years ago there was attention paid to the Mobius strip and subsequently the Klein bottle as analogies of our complicated space and universe. The Mobius strip showed something like a closed continuum of 2 dimensional space. Then by extension, the imaginary Klein bottle was a closed continuum of 3 dimensional space. Every part of space could be included in the bottle and that container dictated any warping of the behaviors of the contents. In reality the mobius strip is not closed 2 dimensional space because it continues in only 1 direction. It has edges/ends and therefore doesn’t contain all of its potential space. Plus it is directional. By extension the Klein bottle is a bent container as viewed from the outside and doesn’t contain all of the external space in which it exists.

In a way the balloon analogy is like the Mobius strip; a closed 2 dimensional continuum. The space between things can expand by stretching this surface or by adding more balloon material so it grows relative to 3 dimensional space. And like the Mobius strip it forms a closed and curved 2 dimensional region. But it is a surface that is clearly not flat. The balloon is a 2 dimensional surface in 3 dimensional space. To extend the analogy to the creation of space it would seem to need a 4th dimension relative which it grows.

These analogies are constructs to represent space. However, we learn in math, via Euclidean geometry, that space is a 3 dimensional flat construct. Using that view, which most of us grew up with, one must discuss the interrelation between the contents of that space with each other rather than with space itself. This is in contrast to the constructs above. They invoke warping and multi-dimensions in particular. Physicists today use these assigned features of their space to absorb some of the behavior of the contents. By contents I refer to gravity, light, motions and time. Consider Einstein and his 4th dimension to represent time, and in general relativity using Riemann geometry to analyze gravity.

So I note that, like Newton, my constructs only relate the actions and contents to each other within 3 dimensional rectilinear space. In the preceding red shift issue notes, I mentioned the need to relate light with gravity. Also I have touched on my answer to the issue raised in the Dark Matter — preface about space expanding between galaxies while not doing so within galaxies. I view that vast empty and ‘expanding’ space as the impression we receive due to the slowing of light between galaxies.

I run afoul of modern physics by using a variable speed of light. The constancy of the speed of light concept, initiated by Einstein and still in vogue today, occurs locally and necessarily as an extension of the existence of our physical equilibrium here on earth. Our equilibrium on earth created by the interactions of gravity and motions, demands likewise the equilibrium of light speed here but not necessarily elsewhere.

Upon reading the ‘Dark matter’ introduction list of points, I find that my disagreement is with 5 dimensions and with a limited range for the force of gravity.


Paul Schroeder


paul schroeder

Paul,

Welcome to our world. Tom is either traveling now or preparing to travel, and may not be able to respond right away. In the mean time here are a few things to consider.

Einstein's theories are mathematical descriptions rather than physical explanations. They do a very good job of producing numerical descriptions and predictions of what happens or will happen when an experiment or observation is made. But they fall short when called upon to explain, physically, what is causing these results. The balloon analogy demonstrates this - no one ever attempts to explain how matter causes space-time to curve. "Matter tells space-time to curve, space-time curvature tells matter how to move" is little more than a mantra, but the equations behind it produce powerfully accurate answers. For some reason, that is enough for most technologists. They seem to have no curiosity.

Le Sageian gravity and the Meta Model make numerical descriptions that are (so far) merely equal to the mainstream theories, but they give us better physical insight. Since you lean toward a euclidean three-space-plus-time view of reality, I suspect you will find much here that is to your likeing. It will be interesting to see if the disagreements you mention (5 dimensions and limited range of gravity) remain after you get past the introductory material and begin to understand the reasoning behind them.

Regards,
LB

Larry, I am trying to get a copy of "Pushing Gravity" by interlibrary loan to read. One question I have regarding Le Sageian gravity or graviton theory is falsifyability. Of course, if a theory is scientific there must be a way to falsify it. How could the existance of gravitons, far smaller than anything else known and moving at least 20 billion times light speed, be falsified?

As long as it is possible <u>in principle</u> to detect something, a theory that predicts that something can be falsified by a failure to detect. Of course, building the equipment to detect something that has never been detected is usually hard. Until that becomes possible the theory and it's predictins remain unverified.

Gravitational waves are another example of a predicted something that has not been verfied. We are presently attempting to build the equipment. In fact, several "gravitational wave telescopes" are being tested or are in the late stages of construction now. Time will tell.

But suppose that after many years of looking, we see no gravitational waves? Have we falsified the prediction? Or might we just have built a defective machine?

It can be dificult to know for sure.

LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by nemesis</i>
<br />How could the existance of gravitons, far smaller than anything else known and moving at least 20 billion times light speed, be falsified?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">My chapter in <i>Pushing Gravity</i> (PG) uses the Le Sage model to predict five new properties of gravity not presently recognized by gravitational physics.

One of those is speeds at last 20 billion times light speed, which has (arguably) already been verified by the six experiments sensitive to the speed of gravity.

A second property is a change in the character of the inverse square law to inverse linear over ranges greater than 1-2 kpc. That would eliminate the need for "dark matter" as an invisible crutch for the Big Bang, and in that sense has already been partially verified.

A third prediction is gravitational shielding. It's too early to tell about that one, but an anomalous acceleration of the Lageos satellites shows promise.

The fourth prediction is excess heat flows, which all large planets show. There are other possible causes which need to be sorted out before we can judge the outcome of this test.

The last new property predicted is graviton drag on material bodies as a function of their relative speed. For this test we have only an upper limit, but not yet a detection.

So how does falsification occur? The theory has a number of free parameters, as outlined in Slabinski's chapter in PG, such as the mass, cross-sectional area, speed, and density of the gravitons and their medium. Each property of gravity we can measure sets a constraint (an upper or lower limit) to some of these parameters or to some combination of them. As observations increase in accuracy and knowledge improves, either these upper and lower limits will converge on some specific value that will then be a new constant of physics; or else they will cross, ruling out any possible set of parameters that can explain observations. In the latter case, the theory is falsified. -|Tom|-