Expanding Space Is Retarded

I'm not a physicist, just a very interested layman asking awkward questions over the years, and i too have a problem with the logic of expanding space that can move mass, rip and is somehow curved by mass. Articles by a man called Don Hotson - published in '02 and still available on line - make a lot more sense to me. He returns to Dirac's original relativistic wave eqaution - the one that led to the prediction of antimatter, et al - and proceeds to investigate the implications of accepting the negative energy component of that equation (dismissed because it was akin to the aether). The result is a non-local but still causal, physical description of reality that "makes sense", even to a layman like me. No big bang, no inflation, no dark anything, no expanding space (he also points out that apparently Hubble himself was not entirely convinced by the 'expanding space' hypothesis), no curved spacetime. The physics of plasmas plays a large role in his conclusions. Hotson's work, coupled with some of the late Tom Van Flandern's work, describe for me a more physically logical universe than is currently taught. Maybe others here with more training than me could take a look at Hotson, see what they think.

This conversion reduced the energy level. The remaining energy is becoming more diffuse as the universe expands but is still there in the form of the microwave radiation which fills the universe.

reply to post by mmach


Flandern was very close to having it nailed down.

Flandern got the physics right when he proposed a steady state situation governed by Lorentz's version of relativity and Maxwell's equations.

These observations are what we know to be true and verifiable about the physics of the world around us.

It has never been proven beyond any doubt that Einstein's version of relativity is correct.

Gravitational waves have never been measured

Dark matter has not been directly detected

Dark energy is a completely unprovable and illogical assumption

Frame dragging has not been proven

Nothing Einstein has said about our observed reality has been proven beyond wild hypothesis based on observations of astrophysical objects. Observations that can all easily be explained within the known laws of steady state physics.

Where Flandern and I differ is that Flandern wasn't fully up to speed on energized plasma physics.

Plasma cosmology offers simple solutions to all observed phenomena while remaining true to steady state provable lab tested physics.

I find it ironic that Einsteinian's wail and moan that the MM test disproved the aether, yet when LIGO and CDMS have failed to prove Einstein was right, they ignore these findings and continue on their merry way.

The aether is real.

It is not the stuff of Lorentz or Miller, but I think we can say with certainty that Einstein is far more wrong than Lorentz was.

My favorite theory that accounts for the MM test failure is this one:

glafreniere.com...



[edit on 15-6-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1


I hadn't heard of Gabriel LaFreniere and am intrigued by his description of the aether and the electron.

The man i mentioned in my first post, Don Hotson, describes a universe with the electron as fundamental particle; no super-strings, quarks or the rest of the standard model zoo required. He describes the aether as real and it's rejection as fundamental to problems in physics today (i'm reminded that the late John Bell said the aether was rejected on philosophical grounds, not scientific ones).

Hotson likens the aether to a Bose-Einstein Condensate and points to the importance of plasma physics in understanding this aether.

Although no physicist myself, i did wonder how quantum mechanics fit into Tom Van Flandern's model. I've since come to consider it an important stepping stone away from thinking along GR lines, but find Hotson's treatment of Dirac's original wave equation more satisfying.

I will though be forever grateful to Van Flandern for pointing out the Emperor's New Clothes flaw of the rubber sheet analogy: the ball sinks into the sheet and marbles roll towards the ball 'cause there's a planet underneath it. Try it out in deep space and the ball will just sit on the sheet. The anaology just begs the question - how does mass curve this thing called spacetime? I still kick myself for not spotting something so obvious!

If anyone's interested those Hotson articles can be found at:

www.openseti.org...
www.openseti.org...

Thanks for the LaFreniere link, will enjoy reading.

reply to post by mmach


That was an interesting read and i see no one has written on the subject up to this day

Mnemeth, you keep confusing "nothing" and "void". The empty space between matter is not nothing, it is void. As others have told you, it is a sea of virtual particles.

This sea of virtual particles is what is getting bigger.

As for the force that causes this, it is unknown.

Originally posted by masterp
Mnemeth, you keep confusing "nothing" and "void". The empty space between matter is not nothing, it is void. As others have told you, it is a sea of virtual particles.

This sea of virtual particles is what is getting bigger.

As for the force that causes this, it is unknown.

I am kinda curious, what exactly do you mean by 'virtual'? do you mean it is not real and only exists in our mind?

Well, as for the "standard" answer to your question:

Virtual particles are bosons, or the subatomic particles that carry force exchanges. For example, "virtual" photons are responsible for the electromagentic force... They are called "virtual" because they are not detectable, but are predicted by the standard model of particle physics...

I think the standard model is BS however: there are too many issues with it and too many holes in the theory IMO...



There is definitely a vast amount of energy in "empty" space however - there is no doubt about that.

reply to post by BellaMente


That's an awesome reponse thank you. It makes me wonder why so called reputable scientists refuse the concept of negative energy. I grew up assuming that because of symmetry energy should be both +ve and -ve. To me, in simple terms, this was the only way for an energy potential to exist. I know its too simple to assume that if enerygy can flow, then there has to be a gradient or potential.

Now after reading Hoston's article, all of a sudden i realized how bogus the standard model is. The SM fails the Orkham's razpr test...A scienist won a nobel prize by putting infinity under the rug...awesome stuff!

Originally posted by LiveEquation

Now after reading Hoston's article, all of a sudden i realized how bogus the standard model is.

Wait... so you've read one interweb page and now you've come to the conclusion that the SM is 'bogus'?

reply to post by mmach


Ether was rejected on scientific grounds, not philosophical grounds.

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by LiveEquation

Now after reading Hoston's article, all of a sudden i realized how bogus the standard model is.

Wait... so you've read one interweb page and now you've come to the conclusion that the SM is 'bogus'?

Yes sir, I had my doubts too while taking physics and physical chemistry in college. I don't know if you read most of the thread and their arguments. The question I started asking was what is energy. To date, the standard model cannot tell you what energy is. Saying that energy cannot be created or destroyed means no one can model energy because it has no cause or effect. But somehow it affects particles. This very concept of energy souds religious to me because its an idea that cannot be verified or falsified

reply to post by LiveEquation



It only exists within the mathematical calcluations. You see, what happens with science when it is transmitted to the general populace is it is dumbed down beyond belief into such simplistic terms that it is basically incorrect. That is what masterp is doing, parroting some information that he picked up from some Science or Discovery program.

Nobody knows if "virtual" particles are created and destroyed over and over again because the scale they are talking about is beyond undetectable with current technologies. What the mathematicians do to determine quantum states is use a matrix of all the possible states and arrangements of the particles being considered. They stick the data from all the possible states into a matrix which in turn provides a value they can input into their calculations. This helps them to determine the probability of the arrangements, velocities etc of the particles being considered. This matrix of all the possible states used in the mathematical calculations is what has led to the perpetuation of the "virtual particles constantly pop into and out of existence" story and "the cat is both alive and dead" business. Because one of those many possible states is what will eventually be "found," and all possible states are considered it somehow got simplified to every single possible arrangement and state exists at the same time until it is verified (measured), at which point the quantum gobbledigook collapses the superposition of states into the one state that is "found."

Space isn't expanding it just appears to be reletive to our position in it. Sure there might have been a big bang ,perhaps one of many that take place in the universe far beyond what we can see.

I think its more like standing in the middle of an explosion. If you were to watch it in slow motion it would appear as if everything was moving away from you, and from each other. If you were a particle blown out from it you would see the same thing, other particles moving away from you in all directions but from a central locatation. This expansion of "space", from within, would appear to be all there is but a mile away there might be another similar explosion in which all the tiny particles think they are unique when in all actuality they are just one of many deluded by their own inability to think outside of their own, local, bubble.

reply to post by polit


Doesn't the mathematical Lorentz's theory imply that at the speed of light the mass of an object (with mass) goes to infinity. Where would it get all that mass? out of thin air?

If a particle has no mass then what kind of a particle is it? A photon has no mass?

lets see, 0=Energy/(speed of light)=0/(c^2), that means a photon has zero energy? O lets try to look at the equation again, the energy of a photon is 10e(-19) eV and this is close to zero so we should just say it is zero?

That's what SM says...and we should be ok with these lies?

All mass needs to move in the vacuum of space is momentum, velocity, acceleration, thats it. In order for space to expand an object only needs to move away from another object thus creating "space" between them. OMG space EXPANDS!!

No one knows what dark matter is because dark matter isn't real.

Its a fictitious form of matter criminal looting physicists add to their equations to make them agree with observations.

Atoms are not space, they are matter.

nothing can not expand.

I used to wholeheartedly agree. However, I recently did see a Stephen Hawking special that used a pretty decent analogy to explain the concept.

Picture a man digging a hole to build a hill. The hill represents the matter and energy in the Universe. The hole represents the corresponding negative of the same. He posits that there is the same amount of matter and dark matter in the universe.

Of course, the end result then, is nothing (i.e. they both cancel each other out)...and of course, that makes the sum of everything = nothing.

Kind of profound, if not depressing....

I'm still not so sure I believe Stephen's ideas on this...but I can't argue with the logic. As you said though, it could very well simply be figments of the physicists' imagination just used for the math to be "right"...

@LiveEquation

The equation you are thinking about is E = (1 / sqrt [1-(v^2/c^2)] ) mc^2 which shows that mass and energy are equivalent.

The rest energy (at v=0) is mc^2 and as v approaches c you are approaching sqrt(1 - c^2/c^2) which gives sqrt(1 - 1) = sqrt (0) and (1 / 0 ) is infinity (diving anything by zero gives infinity)

So as v approaches c, the energy approaches infinity, as would the mass, as would the density, etc, etc


Also, it would take an incredible amount of force to accelerate an object to such incredible speeds.

Nothing can't exist!
It is impossible to define and imagine nothing. Impossible. There was always something, and always will be.

Matter does not exist. An Atom is product of moving energy, force, ether, or whatever you call it. The reason why we can't go through wall is because atoms of our body and atoms of wall repel, not because they are solid. They create force fields that repel.

This energy is alive, intelligent, and invisible.

To create something with this energy, and to understand it buy the way, it is necessary to use mathematics: numbers and geometry.

www.youtube.com...