Elemental Puzzle

[davar55]

Originally Posted by lavalamp

If anything, a beginning to the universe (or omniverse/multiverse, whichever is larger and exists) seems somewhat neater to me, but really I'm good either way.

Good posting by cheesehead there. davar55, it seems that your new cosmology is rather based on the assumption of the opposite though.

The non-having-a-beginning-fact of the universe (there is no
omniverse or multiverse) is hardly an assumptioin but a fact.

If you're good either way, go for correct (no beginning) rather than incorrect (big bang or creationism).

You might re-read that portion of "A New Cosmology - Heart
Of Reality", presented in first draft earlier in this thread.

[lavalamp]

Originally Posted by davar55

The non-having-a-beginning-fact of the universe (there is no
omniverse or multiverse) is hardly an assumptioin but a fact.

*le sigh*

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by davar55

The non-having-a-beginning-fact of the universe (there is no
omniverse or multiverse) is hardly an assumptioin but a fact.

If you're good either way, go for correct (no beginning) rather than incorrect (big bang or creationism).

(* sigh *)

Did you actually read my posting #196?

Big Bang does NOT require a beginning of the universe.

Are you continuing to confuse (a) the very dense, very small state that is a conclusion, not assumption, in the Big Bang theory, with (b) beginning of the universe? Some folks may casually refer to (a) as though it were (b), but that's just sloppiness. Whether or not the "Big Bang" event (beginning of expansion from very small, very dense state) was the "beginning of the universe" is not something answered, assumed, or concluded by the Big Bang theory.

Do you have that clear now, so that you will stop making a false statement about Big Bang theory? Big Bang theory IS compatible with the idea that there was no beginning of the universe!

I'm not saying your theory is false.

I'm saying that your characterization of Big Bang theory with regard to beginning of the universe is false.

Whatever other objections to the Big Bang theory you may have, please stop making a false, straw-man objection on the false grounds that Big Bang theory assumes, requires, or states that there was a beginning of the universe.

[davar55]

Originally Posted by davar55

The non-having-a-beginning-fact of the universe (there is no
omniverse or multiverse) is hardly an assumption but a fact.

If you're good either way, go for correct (no beginning) rather than incorrect (big bang or creationism).

You might re-read that portion of "A New Cosmology - Heart
Of Reality", presented in first draft earlier in this thread.

(sigh) Ignorance
more frequently begets confidence
than does knowledge.

That's a shame.

(sigh) Did you actually read my earlier posting?
[I personally think] Big Bang does not require a beginning of the universe.
Are you continuing to confuse the very dense, very small state that
is a conclusion, not assumption, in the Big Bang theory, with beginning
of the universe? Some folks may casually refer to the former as though it were the latter , but that's just sloppiness (sic). Whether or not the
Big Bang event (beginning of expansion from very small, very dense state) was the beginning of the universe is not something answered, assumed, or concluded by the Big Bang theory (to my knowledge). Do you have that clear now? Big Bang theory is (I say) compatible with the idea that there was no beginning of the universe (author's note: no, it isn't).
I'm not saying your theory is false (it isn't false, hence true). I'm saying that your characterization of Big Bang theory with regard to beginning of the universe is false (not so). Whatever other objections to the Big Bang theory you may have, please stop making a straw-man objection on the grounds that Big Bang theory assumes, requires, or states that there was a beginning of the universe.

I shouldn't have to re-explain these fundamental errors made by those
who even give lip service to creationism or bangism.

I gave a more than brief explanation in the monograph. I haven't noticed
anyone trying to quote my work (A New Cosmology, etc.) to challenge
any part of it, only quoting obscure other cosmology references such as
referenced by the Wikiped.. article.

Just quote my work, then challenge it, then ask a question, and I'll try to
answer it. I'm not going to respond to the errors made by other, if any.

[davar55]

Let me rephrase that: I'd be glad to try to answer any foundational
question in cosmology. If I have a pat answer, fine, if I've thought
about it, I'll add something to what may be in the draft 1 monograph,
if not, I'll add it to my TBE (to be explained) list.

Science is a progressive, mutual understanding. My ideas are not all
new and revolutionary, just a few are, and even those are I think
natural extensions of classical and relativistic cosmological physics,
but with a critical eye on origins, limits, and bounds.

If this New Cosmology is accepted because of merit and not intimidation,
then this mathematician's foray into Science rather than just Math
will have been well worth it.

And I do have about six additional topics I'm already in some stage of
integrating into draft 2 of the monograph, although that might take
several months as I have some other projects on my plate.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by davar55

I shouldn't have to re-explain these fundamental errors made by those who even give lip service to creationism or bangism.

To which "these fundamental errors" do you refer? When you don't bother even specifying what you mean by that phrase, you have no business adopting your high-horse attitude.

I can't correct a "fundamental error" that's not specified to me.

"those who even give lip service to creationism or bangism" -- That's an ad hominem. Can't you explain your theory without mischaracterizing those who dispute it?

Can't you specifically list "these fundamental errors" without insulting others? Inabliity to do so is a mark of kookiness.

- - -

I gave a more than brief explanation in the monograph.

Of why you keep mischaracterizing the Big Bang theory? No, you don't explain that.

It's one thing to present an alternative explanation of the phenomena that inspired the Big Bang theory. It's something else to repeatedly misstate or mischaracterize the Big Bang theory. The latter straw-man approach might reflect that you don't really have a better explanation, or that you don't really understand the Big Bang theory. If you want to have your claimed-to-be-better theory to get any respect, you have to show that you understand the mainstream explanations, or else you just look like you're ignorant.

When Galileo, Newton, and Einstein proposed better explanations for phenomena, they first demonstrated that they understood the existing mainstream theories. It's a common attribute of kooks that they fail to demonstrate such an understanding of the established mainstream theories before proposing an alternative.

- - -

I haven't noticed anyone trying to quote my work (A New Cosmology, etc.) to challenge any part of it, only quoting obscure other cosmology references such as referenced by the Wikiped.. article.

Denigrating other cosmology references as "obscure" just confirms that you have a haughty attitude that is inappropriate for someone who genuinely has a better new explanation.

Just quote my work, then challenge it, then ask a question, and I'll try to answer it. I'm not going to respond to the errors made by other, if any.

"the errors made by other, if any" -- what does that mean?

Okay, I'll grit my teeth at your insults, mischaracterization and failure to specify what you mean by vague phrases, and quote from your work. (If you didn't put up those obstacles, you might get more feedback from others. ... Or maybe you put up these obstacles precisely because you fear reasonable critiques from others, so you want to be able to blame a lack of feedback on the attitudes of others rather than honestly facing your own attitudes.)

In cosmo1-1.txt is this section of two consecutive paragraphs:

... This means that generally only high energy / small wavelength electromagnetic radiation (EMR) and the smallest of neutrinos can pass through the skin and thus get dispersed essentially randomly into the Universe.

It is thus by which light, traveling over large distances, loses a small part of its energy and thus experiences a red-shift approximately proportional to the distance it has traveled. ...

But the red shift is observed to occur at all frequencies, not only "high energy / small wavelength".

You first claim that (leaving out the neutrinos for now) "... generally only high energy / small wavelength electromagnetic radiation (EMR) ... can pass through the skin ...'. Immediately after that you write, " It is thus by which ...", which says that you are referring back to the just-preceding statement about what passes through the skin. You continue with, "... light, traveling over large distances, loses a small part of its energy and thus experiences a red-shift approximately proportional to the distance it has traveled."

But what about the non-"high energy / small wavelength" electromagnetic radiation? It also is observed to show red-shifts, and they're consistent with the red-shifts of higher frequencies/energies from the same source.

You propose a mechanism that applies only above some frequency, then claim that it explains a phenomenon that is observed to occur at all frequencies. That isn't the mark of a theory that's superior to mainstream theories, but it might be the sort of flaw you don't really want pointed-out.

- - -

Now, I've insulted you back, so we're even. If you continue the same attitude in your response to this, I'll just say bye-bye, you won't get the benefit of my further feedback, I'll regret the time I took to compose this, and other readers may decide that there's no benefit in responding to you in the manner that you claim to want. But you can have the last word.

[cmd]

"forgive our intrusion:
a simple question ...
because theories, be called theories?"

e : Got_"love" ( Gotama )

[davar55]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

To which "these fundamental errors" do you refer? When you don't bother even specifying what you mean by that phrase, you have no business adopting your high-horse attitude.

I can't correct a "fundamental error" that's not specified to me.

"those who even give lip service to creationism or bangism" -- That's an ad hominem. Can't you explain your theory without mischaracterizing those who dispute it?

Can't you specifically list "these fundamental errors" without insulting others? Inabliity to do so is a mark of kookiness.

- - -

Of why you keep mischaracterizing the Big Bang theory? No, you don't explain that.

It's one thing to present an alternative explanation of the phenomena that inspired the Big Bang theory. It's something else to repeatedly misstate or mischaracterize the Big Bang theory. The latter straw-man approach might reflect that you don't really have a better explanation, or that you don't really understand the Big Bang theory. If you want to have your claimed-to-be-better theory to get any respect, you have to show that you understand the mainstream explanations, or else you just look like you're ignorant.

When Galileo, Newton, and Einstein proposed better explanations for phenomena, they first demonstrated that they understood the existing mainstream theories. It's a common attribute of kooks that they fail to demonstrate such an understanding of the established mainstream theories before proposing an alternative.

- - -

Denigrating other cosmology references as "obscure" just confirms that you have a haughty attitude that is inappropriate for someone who genuinely has a better new explanation.

"the errors made by other, if any" -- what does that mean?

Okay, I'll grit my teeth at your insults, mischaracterization and failure to specify what you mean by vague phrases, and quote from your work. (If you didn't put up those obstacles, you might get more feedback from others. ... Or maybe you put up these obstacles precisely because you fear reasonable critiques from others, so you want to be able to blame a lack of feedback on the attitudes of others rather than honestly facing your own attitudes.)

In cosmo1-1.txt is this section of two consecutive paragraphs:
But the red shift is observed to occur at all frequencies, not only "high energy / small wavelength".

You first claim that (leaving out the neutrinos for now) "... generally only high energy / small wavelength electromagnetic radiation (EMR) ... can pass through the skin ...'. Immediately after that you write, " It is thus by which ...", which says that you are referring back to the just-preceding statement about what passes through the skin. You continue with, "... light, traveling over large distances, loses a small part of its energy and thus experiences a red-shift approximately proportional to the distance it has traveled."

But what about the non-"high energy / small wavelength" electromagnetic radiation? It also is observed to show red-shifts, and they're consistent with the red-shifts of higher frequencies/energies from the same source.

You propose a mechanism that applies only above some frequency, then claim that it explains a phenomenon that is observed to occur at all frequencies. That isn't the mark of a theory that's superior to mainstream theories, but it might be the sort of flaw you don't really want pointed-out.

- - -

Now, I've insulted you back, so we're even. If you continue the same attitude in your response to this, I'll just say bye-bye, you won't get the benefit of my further feedback, I'll regret the time I took to compose this, and other readers may decide that there's no benefit in responding to you in the manner that you claim to want. But you can have the last word.

As soon as you used the word haughty, I realized you were right -
I was going to qualify that by adding to some degree but changed my
mind - your criticism of my attitude is genuinely important to me and
I trust this post will demonstrate that I take it seriously and can adjust
my tone (and even my attitude) appropriately. For selfish reasons, I
can be unselfish when I come to understand another's reaction.
So thanks, and thanks for the real feedback re: the monograph. That's
what I'll address briefly now.

My concept of the skin is: the fourth spatial dimension, the Riemannfold
of the other three spatial dimensions, filled with the fourth dimensional
extension of the matter of the universe that extends the three dimensions.

Because matter is variegatedly dispersed in density throughout space,
(e.g. stars are denser than intergalactic space, nucleii are denser than
electron clouds, etc) the skin is thus almost uniformly dense but porous.
I estimated (based on neutronium and Radius R = 20Blyrs) width of
the skin is approximately 0.5 microns.

The porosity of the skin is (I think) manifested like small pinholes /
bubbles through which the smaller neutrinos (probabably the
type 1 neutrinoinos) can pass. It is also porous to light / EMR, but
the higher the frequency, the smaller the wavelength, hence the
more that gets through (think diffraction grating).
This leads to a distribution function for the different wavelengths,
of what relative proportion gets "absorbed" (actually transferred through)
at the various frequencies of light / EMR, which overall produces a
loss of energy as manifested by the observations of the Red Shift.

The remainder of this part of the explanation (as far as it went, I may
in a few months have draft 2, this helps) is in draft 1 of the monograph.

[lavalamp]

Originally Posted by davar55

I estimated (based on neutronium and Radius R = 20Blyrs) width of the skin is approximately 0.5 microns.

Through what method did you arrive at this number? Relative to particles this thickness is huge, wouldn't this be readily observable and important in particle physics?

Originally Posted by davar55

It is also porous to light / EMR, but
the higher the frequency, the smaller the wavelength, hence the
more that gets through (think diffraction grating).
This leads to a distribution function for the different wavelengths,
of what relative proportion gets "absorbed" (actually transferred through)
at the various frequencies of light / EMR, which overall produces a
loss of energy as manifested by the observations of the Red Shift.

When you look at a star, the further away you are, the dimmer the star looks since the light has spread out more and therefore less energy reaches you. But the star is still the same colour, providing you are stationary relative to it. Why does this fourth dimension somehow cause a drop in frequency (aka redshift) rather than just a dimming of the light?

Finally, there are many ways to determine distances to objects astronomically, and there is a strong correlation between these distances which are measured independently of the redshift, and the observed redshift. The explanation you disagree with is that this is due to expansion of the universe, and the one you propose is that the redshift is an artifact of the distance travelled. Both of these seem to conflict with something you said earlier, "The so-called super-distant objects are being measured at incorrect distances." My question is, assuming you are right about them being incorrectly measured, how can you then propose the same result that redshift is linked to distance.

In fact, the problem is made worse for you, since you say that higher frequencies are redshifted more than lower frequencies. That means that the distant objects must be even more distant than currently thought for the light to have been redshifted as much as it has been.

[davar55]

Quick answer (I'm in a hurry on this computer).

Think diffraction grating. More of the small wavelength light
gets through the pinholes in the skin, so what's left is
proportionally more large wavelength light, i.e. we see it
as redder (red shifted).

Consequently, as you stated, I think the Radius = 20 B lyrs may
be closer than the current value of 13.7 B or whatever.

[lavalamp]

Originally Posted by davar55

Quick answer (I'm in a hurry on this computer).

Think diffraction grating. More of the small wavelength light
gets through the pinholes in the skin, so what's left is
proportionally more large wavelength light, i.e. we see it
as redder (red shifted).

That's not what redshift is, it isn't simply a dulling in intensity of the higher frequencies. The high frequencies are actually moved down to become lower frequencies, and the lower frequencies are moved down to become even lower frequencies again. We can tell this because of the absorbtion lines present in the spectra of the received light. This is a nice illustration:
Absorption lines in the optical spectrum of a supercluster of distant galaxies (right), as compared to absorption lines in the optical spectrum of the Sun (left). Arrows indicate redshift. Wavelength increases up towards the red and beyond (frequency decreases).

Originally Posted by davar55

Consequently, as you stated, I think the Radius = 20 B lyrs may
be closer than the current value of 13.7 B or whatever.

Although the universe is thought to be 13.7 billion years old, the most distant objects we can see are thought to be 46 - 47 billion light years away. While light can only travel 13.7 billion light years in 13.7 billion years, the space between us and the distant objects has expanded considerably in that time. I am sure you will disagree with this though.