Exposing the Myths of Settled Science

ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

That is the point you guys are missing. If true nothingness doesnt exist, then dont use the word nothing to describe something you are claiming exists. And I think true nothingness does exist, somewhere...

Does true nothingness exist? This is unknown and probably unknowable, since we can't make any observations beyond the observable universe, and if such a region existed it would probably be beyond not only our observable universe but our entire universe. Because of this, discussion of such is probably not very useful or productive, if we can never make any observations to confirm any one of a million speculative ideas about this topic, so I have no idea why you'd make such a big deal out of it.

The only relevant point in time where such a discussion might make sense is at the time of the big bang. Regarding how the subject of "empty space is not really empty" is communicated to laypeople, how do you expect this to be conveyed when the models and the math of quantum field theory are far over the heads of most people? Like any complex science beyond the understanding of most people, it has to be dumbed down a bit to be communicated in a way that people might grasp part of it. But, if you actually study quantum field theory, and communicate the way physicists do to each other, the apparent paradox you're making such a big deal about really is a non-issue, because the model spells out how it works which is why we can see the computer simulation of empty space that dragonrdr posted.

dragonridr

 

so the expansion of the universe isnt like a balloon blowing up. But more like raisin bread in an oven when it cooks the space between the raisins expand. The raisins arent moving but bread is expanding making it seem there moving away from one another.

Actually, the Universe is more like the balloon than raisin bread. In your 3D raisin bread universe there are edges to the universe in all directions. But, if we reduce the Universe to a 2D surface so we can wrap the surface around into a 3D sphere, or balloon, we can eliminate all the edges. Now, you have to imagine that our 2D universe is just the surface of the balloon, not the 3D space inside and outside the balloon. Our 2D creatures that exist on the surface cannot observe more than their 2D world, just like we can only observe 3D space. Now, as the balloon expands two dots on the surface will move away from each other; the farther apart the faster, just like our 3D Universe.

reply to post by Galileo400


Reality is like the mind's eye and you cannot encapsulate it because there is no end to the depth of consciousness.

If the universe is a balloon, or loaf of bread, in which universe does the balloon and/or bread exist? The 4th dimension? And where is the 4th dimension's boundary? The 5th?... There can be no boundary to reality; from its beginning, to its end, it must exist as a limitless boundary.

Galileo400
Actually, the Universe is more like the balloon than raisin bread. In your 3D raisin bread universe there are edges to the universe in all directions. But, if we reduce the Universe to a 2D surface so we can wrap the surface around into a 3D sphere, or balloon, we can eliminate all the edges. Now, you have to imagine that our 2D universe is just the surface of the balloon, not the 3D space inside and outside the balloon. Our 2D creatures that exist on the surface cannot observe more than their 2D world, just like we can only observe 3D space. Now, as the balloon expands two dots on the surface will move away from each other; the farther apart the faster, just like our 3D Universe.

Sort of, but the problem with that model is that the dots get bigger, while the raisins don't which is more like reality, except for the edges of the bread as you said, but we don't really know the true geometry of the universe, whether it loops around in 3D like the balloon does in 2D so that if you keep going in one direction you'll end up back where you started.

What I've seen people do to fix the balloon model, is instead of drawing dots on the balloon, after partially inflating it, they paste little galaxy pictures on it. That makes the pictures more like the raisins (and like real galaxies) in that they don't get any bigger as the balloon expands, and you still have the spherical geometry though we aren't sure if our universe really has a spherical geometry or not....it looks pretty flat. We can put limits on the flatness to say if it's spherical, it must be a pretty big sphere, which makes it look flat, sort of like a hot air balloon looks flat to the ant crawling on it to use Michio Kako's example, and he thinks it might be spherical. If we knew the geometry of the universe was really spherical, the balloon analogy might be most apt, but we don't know.

Any analogy is flawed in some respect and even the best models cease to be a perfect representation of reality at some point or extreme, or to put it in the words of George Box:
"All models are wrong. Some are useful." That applies to raisin bread and balloon analogies as well as the ΛCDM model. Even though the last is much better than the first two, it's not perfect either.

Galileo400

dragonridr

 

so the expansion of the universe isnt like a balloon blowing up. But more like raisin bread in an oven when it cooks the space between the raisins expand. The raisins arent moving but bread is expanding making it seem there moving away from one another.

Actually, the Universe is more like the balloon than raisin bread. In your 3D raisin bread universe there are edges to the universe in all directions. But, if we reduce the Universe to a 2D surface so we can wrap the surface around into a 3D sphere, or balloon, we can eliminate all the edges. Now, you have to imagine that our 2D universe is just the surface of the balloon, not the 3D space inside and outside the balloon. Our 2D creatures that exist on the surface cannot observe more than their 2D world, just like we can only observe 3D space. Now, as the balloon expands two dots on the surface will move away from each other; the farther apart the faster, just like our 3D Universe.

there called analogy's there pupose is to get you to picture something not to explain how it works. If you want to know what i consider the best theory of the universe picture expanding bubbles. There all the same universe but something strange happens in the process of inflation. Eventually a universe creates an event horizon this is the limit of the observable universe. Eventually parts or our universe are moving so fast away from us caused by the expansion of the universe it actually becomes a separate universe. This separate universe cant send information back to ours and is litterally on its own. To the people in this new universe if intelligent life forms they would have the same background information and see the expansion of the universe to look exactly like we do.Also would explain how time only moves in one direction as well because the universe is expanding and to us would seem flat because we only see a very small portion and the universe is vastly larger consisting of trillions of separate universes. This isnt the like a balloon by any means but more like the surface of water as new bubbles are created all around us.

Mary Rose
From "The Plasma Universe of Hannes Alfvén" by David Talbott, pages 5-10 of a 20 page .pdf file of EdgeScience:

. . . Magnetic fields, he said, are only part of the story. The electric currents that create magnetic fields must not be overlooked, and attempts to model space plasma in the absence of electric currents will set astronomy and astrophysics on a course toward crisis, he said. . . .

In retrospect, it seems clear that Alfvén considered his early theoretical assumption of frozen-in magnetic fields to be his greatest mistake, a mistake perpetuated first and foremost by mathematicians attracted to Alfvén’s magnetohydrodynamic equations. Alfvén came to recognize that real plasma behavior is too “complicated and awkward” for the tastes of mathematicians. It is a subject “not at all suited for mathematically elegant theories.” It requires hands-on attention to plasma dynamics in the laboratory. . . .

From the Thunderbolts Project website:

Cosmology

Today, we are seeing things in space that were never imagined. We detect magnetic fields everywhere, even in the “empty” depths of intergalactic space. Magnetic fields cannot exist without causative electric currents.

The naked electric force is 39 orders of magnitude (a thousand billion billion billion billion times) stronger than gravity. The visible universe is constituted almost entirely of electrically active plasma.

In the twentieth century the pioneers of plasma science inspired a new school of investigation called plasma cosmology. Plasma cosmologists suggest that electricity is the primary force organizing spiral galaxies and the astonishing galactic clusters now seen in deep space.

Plasma cosmology has achieved surprising success in predicting major discoveries of the space age. This new perspective does not require purely theoretical inventions like the Big Bang, dark matter, dark energy, neutron stars, or Black Holes.

From "Essential Guide to the EU – Chapter 10 Rotational Effects":

. . . Galaxies are known, through precise Faraday rotation measures (RM) of the polarization of the light they emit, to possess magnetic fields aligned with their axes of rotation, and they also have conducting plasma among their stars. Assuming that currents exist in the plane of the galaxy similar to the equatorial current sheet known to exist in the Solar System, then the conditions appear to be similar to that in a Unipolar Inductor or Faraday Motor. Of course the disk in this case is not rigid. The exact mode of rotation would depend on the balance between the radial driving current and the rotationally induced opposing current, as in a Faraday Motor, but it is at least possible that it is these electrical effects that are causing the anomalous rotation that we see, not some huge quantity of invisible Dark Matter. . . .

Mary Rose

Mary Rose
From "The Plasma Universe of Hannes Alfvén" by David Talbott, pages 5-10 of a 20 page .pdf file of EdgeScience:

. . . Magnetic fields, he said, are only part of the story. The electric currents that create magnetic fields must not be overlooked, and attempts to model space plasma in the absence of electric currents will set astronomy and astrophysics on a course toward crisis, he said. . . .

In retrospect, it seems clear that Alfvén considered his early theoretical assumption of frozen-in magnetic fields to be his greatest mistake, a mistake perpetuated first and foremost by mathematicians attracted to Alfvén’s magnetohydrodynamic equations. Alfvén came to recognize that real plasma behavior is too “complicated and awkward” for the tastes of mathematicians. It is a subject “not at all suited for mathematically elegant theories.” It requires hands-on attention to plasma dynamics in the laboratory. . . .

His ideas of the universe have all ready been proven wrong there are a couple of theories involving plasma cosmology that are still around but only because they are vague and make no predictions. His theories were disproved on 2 points i can think of just off the top og my head and it involves filaments needed for his galaxies to work. The CMB showed no filaments to be present but even if you to argue that wouldnt show up ok fine. When an electric current passes through a plasma it produces x rays chandra should have seen these plasma filaments well they wernt there. Since this is the basis for his model it all falls apart.

dragonridr



First dark matter indeed has been observed but wait hows that possible you ask? Well we see the effect it has on light called gravitational lensing. Showing us indeed there is a mass outside of galaxies with no observable mass.

This is perfect for my theory of dark matter I think, But why would you need mass outside the galaxy to claim is responsible for lensing. If the mass of the galaxy creates a 3 d shell of gravity field, are you assuming light from galaxies beyond that galaxy would be curved into the galaxy and refine the light like a convex lens? Is it not possible that this moving sphere of gravity field, (moving and possibly rotating) is reflecting the light from distant galaxies off of it? Basically what I am suggesting is that there is a novel yet unknown reaction that takes place where the end of the gravity field meets outergalactic space, and when light reaches that point it is scattered around it.


Also I have some random questions; in particle accelerators when particles are smashed how does the emitted em radiation not mess with the results?

When an electron is vibrated up and down to create em radiation, is em radiation created traveling in the direction of the up and down? Why or why not?

If the speed of light constant when the universe was created and now was half what we know it to be (besides the speed of light being half) what if anything would be different about the universe?

dragonridr


Ok you seem to be under the assumption that the universe expands in to a void of some kind a true nothingness? Because thats not the way space works.Do to the expansion of the universe space is being created not expanding into something.I know people have a hard time with this but observing the universe tells us it isnt expanding. However between galaxies space is being created the further the galaxy from us the more space thats created between us. so the expansion of the universe isnt like a balloon blowing up. But more like raisin bread in an oven when it cooks the space between the raisins expand. The raisins arent moving but bread is expanding making it seem there moving away from one another. Just in the case of the universe its not heating but cooling of the universe causing this expansion.There is no outside the universe because you can never get outside the universe. If a universe is created it merely continues to expand new space created. There are several theories on the multiverse im not entirely sure will ever solve this one because the laws of physics are stacked against us.

edit on 10/24/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

You are not that great at thinking.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Millions of speculations about those ideas. There are only 2. Does nothing exist, or does it not. And if it does, does it exist within the confines of the universe, or does it not. If vacuum is not nothing, if every point of the universe contains part of multiple fields, that are always subtly vibrating and there, that is very profound and confounding.

Ok, why do you and physicists (please dumb it down for me) think that the most micro areas of every point in the universe are quantomly fluctuating? Why and how do you think that foundation exists and is connected to itself, is those the fields themself, the structure of them?

ImaFungi

dragonridr


Ok you seem to be under the assumption that the universe expands in to a void of some kind a true nothingness? Because thats not the way space works.Do to the expansion of the universe space is being created not expanding into something.I know people have a hard time with this but observing the universe tells us it isnt expanding. However between galaxies space is being created the further the galaxy from us the more space thats created between us. so the expansion of the universe isnt like a balloon blowing up. But more like raisin bread in an oven when it cooks the space between the raisins expand. The raisins arent moving but bread is expanding making it seem there moving away from one another. Just in the case of the universe its not heating but cooling of the universe causing this expansion.There is no outside the universe because you can never get outside the universe. If a universe is created it merely continues to expand new space created. There are several theories on the multiverse im not entirely sure will ever solve this one because the laws of physics are stacked against us.

edit on 10/24/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

You are not that great at thinking.

wow personal attack if you dont like the theory not mine by the way then argue against it. So far by the basic physics questions youve been asking i find that unlikely but your welcome to try.

ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Millions of speculations about those ideas. There are only 2. Does nothing exist, or does it not. And if it does, does it exist within the confines of the universe, or does it not. If vacuum is not nothing, if every point of the universe contains part of multiple fields, that are always subtly vibrating and there, that is very profound and confounding.

Ok, why do you and physicists (please dumb it down for me) think that the most micro areas of every point in the universe are quantomly fluctuating? Why and how do you think that foundation exists and is connected to itself, is those the fields themself, the structure of them?

edit on 25-10-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

Well the simple answer is energy your still not getting the picture. Nowhere in the entire universe is an area with no energy. your so stuck on fields your not seeing the picture.Energy will all ways try to get to its lowest energy point in order for this to happen certain physical properties manifest themselves as fundamental forces.

ImaFungi
Ok, why do you and physicists (please dumb it down for me) think that the most micro areas of every point in the universe are quantomly fluctuating? Why and how do you think that foundation exists and is connected to itself, is those the fields themself, the structure of them?

Quantum mechanics can only be dumbed down so much before the explanations become meaningless, because they are so different from our classical preconceived notions. But this is as good an attempt to dumb it down as any:

QED vacuum

A perfect vacuum is itself only attainable in principle. It is an idealization, like absolute zero for temperature, that can be approached, but never actually realized:

“One reason [a vacuum is not empty] is that the walls of a vacuum chamber emit light in the form of black-body radiation...If this soup of photons is in thermodynamic equilibrium with the walls, it can be said to have a particular temperature, as well as a pressure. Another reason that perfect vacuum is impossible is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle which states that no particles can ever have an exact position ...Each atom exists as a probability function of space, which has a certain nonzero value everywhere in a given volume. ...More fundamentally, quantum mechanics predicts ...a correction to the energy called the zero-point energy [that] consists of energies of virtual particles that have a brief existence. This is called vacuum fluctuation.”

–Luciano Boi, Creating the physical world ex nihilo? p. 55

Virtual particles make a perfect vacuum unrealizable, but leave open the question of attainability of a quantum electrodynamic vacuum or QED vacuum. Predictions of QED vacuum such as spontaneous emission, the Casimir effect and the Lamb shift have been experimentally verified, suggesting QED vacuum is a good model for a high quality realizable vacuum.

Read more about the Lamb shift, spontaneous emission, etc if you are really seeking an answer to that question about what convinces physicists that empty space isn't really empty.

Boi mentions a vacuum chamber, but there are places in interstellar space where the "vacuum" or scarcity of atoms is far greater than any vacuum chamber we have created, but such places receive many other types of radiation, like the CMB microwave, as well as radio, visible, X-ray and even gamma ray radiation from all directions, and our observations of the universe suggest there is no place where this would not be the case. So, there is no true nothingness anywhere in our observable universe as far as we know, nor could we create that in a vacuum chamber for the reasons stated. We can't really say what's outside our observable universe, or what came before it.

Mary Rose

I had never heard of Eric Lerner before pulling up that video. I was curious so I checked Amazon for his book The Big Bang Never Happened. Reading the "LookInside" for the book, I was struck by the quotation from the AP about "proving God" because I have not thought in terms of the Big Bang theory being an attempt to prove there's a God - although I have been aware of the expression "the God particle" for the Higgs boson.

I believe I've read that it was a Catholic priest who came up with the Big Bang theory.

From the Thunderbolts Project website, "Essential Guide to the EU – Chapter 3 Plasma":

Mary Rose

Mary Rose

I had never heard of Eric Lerner before pulling up that video. I was curious so I checked Amazon for his book The Big Bang Never Happened. Reading the "LookInside" for the book, I was struck by the quotation from the AP about "proving God" because I have not thought in terms of the Big Bang theory being an attempt to prove there's a God - although I have been aware of the expression "the God particle" for the Higgs boson.

Scientists hate that God particle expression the media latched onto.

But sure, read the scientific literature on big bang and all it talks about is how God did it, it never mentions real evidence collected from satellites like COBE, WMAP and Planck (which was just decomissioned a few days ago). Even the WMAP and Planck satellite links only talk about God and religion.

/sarcasm

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Do you believe it's true the theory originated with a Catholic priest?

Mary Rose
"Essential Guide to the EU – Chapter 3 Plasma":

Plasma is sometimes referred to merely as an “ionized gas”. While technically correct, this terminology is incomplete and outdated. It is used to disguise the fact that plasma seldom behaves like a gas at all. In space it does not simply diffuse, but organizes itself into complex forms, and will not respond significantly to gravity unless local electromagnetic forces are much weaker than local gravity. Plasma is not matter in a gas state; it is matter in a plasma state.

The Sun’s ejection of huge masses of “ionized gas” (plasma) as prominences and coronal mass ejections against its own powerful gravity serves to illustrate this succinctly. The solar ‘wind’ is plasma, and consists of moving charged particles, also known as electric current. It is not a fluid, or a ‘wind’, or a ‘hot gas’, to put it in plain terms. Use of other words from fluid dynamics serves to obfuscate the reality of electric currents and plasma phenomena more powerful than gravity, around us in space, as far away as we can observe.