Big Bang in trouble?

[xelasnave]

Thanks Geoff for the encouragment and that sure is interesting but how do they do circuit diagrams if its back to front...I will have a long think about this... I do recall some cars are about face..but that is very dim.
alex

[bojan]

Should I jump in or not... that is the question
No I will not

[GTB_an_Owl (Geoff)]

come on in bojan - the waters fine

talking about water - how come the water down a plug hole in the southern hemisphere goes one way and the opposite way in the northern hemisphere ?

but that's off topic

or is it ? - equal and opposite reactions, light matter - dark matter, push - pull

if you get my drift (now which way does drift go ?)

geoff

[xelasnave]

Please do jump in we need some help here... if you see misinformation or views you can help correct it is your duty as a caring human to assist.

And I was suspicious when I saw your original post Bojan that it was something to get me to bite given how my views sometimes slightly differ from the norm....that is why I held back..a bit

And I could never get that Physics mountain site you provided to give up its treasures but the other link (particle physics) has been fantastic I am still working with it..(the 4th year Uni of NSW course)...but it is a hard slog because of my limited math ability...but I take the ideas they present and assume the math will be correct..I mean they are not going to be wrong so I look at the ideas the math supports and seek to prove conclusively.

alex

[bojan]

Originally Posted by GTB_an_Owl

come on in bojan - the waters fine

talking about water - how come the water down a plug hole in the southern hemisphere goes one way and the opposite way in the northern hemisphere ?
geoff

Ah.. recently I was asked to be the arbiter in a bet about this very issue, my mates from northern hemisphere are intrigued by this question from time to time and they think I am the best person to ask (because I spend first 40y there and now I am doing anther 40 here ... I even performed a number of experiments, dozen of times, in controlled environment (my bathroom) and the results are inconclusive... simply, the vanity is too small, so the effects of Coriolis force are not significant enough to make the difference.. maybe a thousand or even more measurements should be done to notice the trend into one direction.... But, storms, hurricanes and other cyclonal and anti-cyclonal activities are definitely rotating the other way here.
Anyway, I won my fee as an arbiter (it was a promise for a couples of pints of Guinness, when I appear there, which is not highly likely to happen any time soon

[bojan]

But, as far as push-pull is concerned, one thing holds: it is not possible to derive Newton's inverse square law for g-force as a result of a push, without extraordinary assumptions about the flux of that hypothetical radiation (if one assumes among other things that this flux is infinite from all directions, then the Newton's law perhaps could be derived for all densities and sizes of the attracted /pushed-away objects.. but this is rather wild assumption. Not to mention the nature of that radiation, and its energy levels etc...
Here we may have a model which possibly makes mathematical sense, logically it might be consistent but when applied to reality it does not hold water, because in nature you do not have infinite fields and forces.

edit:
The reason I started this thread was because I was lazy and sort of hoped that others will shed more light on those problems mentioned on that website, and weather those observations and measurements they were mentioning are accurate or not.. because if they are not then those theories based on inaccurate results are of course wrong.

[goober (Doug)]

Originally Posted by GTB_an_Owl

come on in bojan - the waters fine

talking about water - how come the water down a plug hole in the southern hemisphere goes one way and the opposite way in the northern hemisphere ?

I'm not sure it does! There's a chap in Africa on the equator who performs this experiment with a basin. He sends the water spinning on one side of the equator, then walks a couple of meters and sends the water spinning in the opposite direction on the other. It's all sleight of hand. You need something on the scale of miles (i.e. weather systems) for the hemisphere to matter.

[bojan]

Originally Posted by GTB_an_Owl

Stir - Stir

just a little misconception we have about electricity

"There has been confusion about the direction of flow of electricity in an electrical circuit
for more than 200 years. During the late 1700s, when it was discovered that electricity had a
polarity (+ and -), scientists such as Benjamin Franklin proposed that electricity flowed from
positive potentials to negative potentials. Thus during the development of electrical power
systems and rail systems during the 1800s electrical devices were marked with arrows to show
the direction electrical current is flowing from positive to negative in the devices and systems.

Around 1900 negatively charged electrons were discovered to be the actual source of electrical
current flow and they flowed from negative potentials and were attracted to positive potentials.
However, there was so much electrical equipment already in the world by 1900 marked with the
wrong direction of current flow and so many electricians that were taught about current that way,
the marking system has been continued to this day to be in the old, wrong direction. Even today
electrical and electronic devices such as diodes and transistors and their symbols are marked with
arrows in the opposite direction of electron current flow! This is one of the confusing problems
we face when we study electrical engineering today. "

see - you could be right Alex

geoff

About direction of current in conductors (and semiconductors)...
It is a convention. And it is about what people consider as a carrier of current that is flowing here... Mathematically it is quite irrelevant because the only different thing when accepting this or that convention is the sign of the final result, and nothing else. This is because the math that describe the electrical circuits are systems of linear equations.
Today we know that in conductors, we are dealing with free electrons, which have energy level high enough to be considered as "free" from crystal mesh of a metal.
And yes, the convention today is that el current flows from positive towards negative terminal of a voltage source, which is the opposite of the way electrons are actually moving.
But... in some semiconductors (P-type), we have another current carrier - a hole.
This hole is actually a place where electron is missing from mesh, and it behaves just like a particle with positive charge (like positron.. But of course it does not anihilate with electron. When hole and electrons are met at the PN juction, we say that we have recombination. The resultant effect is a current that flows through PN barier/juction) . This thing (a hole) can only exist in some types of crystal mesh, like in pure silicon (pure silicon is actually insulator) where we have deliberately planted impurities - atoms of elements with 3 electrons in outer shell (silicon has 4) ... so there is a "lack " of electrons there. It is very easy for an electron to jump into this "hole" from nearby position, leaving its own hole in a process. You can consider as if the positively charged hole moved in opposite direction of a negatively charged electron. This hole has other properties, like mass for example, which is different from effective mass of an electron, and its value depends on temperature, the semiconductor (silicon or germanium or GaAs or whatever), the concentrations of impurities etc, etc. It may be considered as a mathematical entity, totally abstract, but the model (hole) works and apart from simplifying math, it also gives some predictions, experimentally confirmed, that would have been impossible to obtain if we assume that we have only electrons to deal with. This is a fine example of mathematical, abstract model, very useful mathematical tool.
So in P-type semiconductors, the flow of current has the same direction as the moving of carriers...
Now, if we try to apply this analogy to force fields and relativity etc... the situations is quite different because the nature of equations are completely different. They are not systems of linear equations, they are systems of non-linear differential equations, where solutions change not only sign but many other properties, and the complete behavior may be different (singularities and other oddities instead of maximums or minimums of functions etc etc, I do not want to go into the details right now, we can do it sometimes later)

[bojan]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Please do jump in we need some help here... if you see misinformation or views you can help correct it is your duty as a caring human to assist.

And I was suspicious when I saw your original post Bojan that it was something to get me to bite given how my views sometimes slightly differ from the norm....that is why I held back..a bit

No Alex, I did not start this thread to tease you (but I was thinking/expecting that you would bite a bit earlier )
As I wrote above, I was not sure if those new data are correct or not, so I thought that somebody will know... Recently I am quite busy with other things so just tried to put the ball in some other court ( my daughter's Swift broke down, she was driving it for couple of days without a drop of water in the cooling system.. so now I have my carport filled with engine pars all over the place, no room for walking )
But dum spiro, spero...

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by bojan

No Alex, I did not start this thread to tease you (but I was thinking/expecting that you would bite a bit earlier )
As I wrote above, I was not sure if those new data are correct or not, so I thought that somebody will know... Recently I am quite busy with other things so just tried to put the ball in some other court ( my daughter's Swift broke down, she was driving it for couple of days without a drop of water in the cooling system.. so now I have my carport filled with engine pars all over the place, no room for walking )
But dum spiro, spero...

Well I did not really want to say it but I have been onto that link for sometime now many months and I have read all the news letters and all the links in the news letters, studies etc etc etc (I know you need only one etc but it was a lot) articles and all the links...

In fact I think that Background Radiation Shadowing study by the University of Alabama probably came from in there some place..I can not remember...if they have not got it there well they should ..another questioner..they are best all in the one place so they can interact.

there is some wild stuff and there is some reasonable stuff in my view... like everywhere ... there is stuff that sounds to me fair and there is stuff not so fair...I think of it as there may be points in any camp that can contribute to the final truth... as I said inflation is a problem for the big bang in my view but just accepting it solves a problem and moving past that with never questioning it again I dont know helps. But for some to question one part means you are chalenging the whole lot...not always with me... I keep relaxed about it all notwithsatnding how a play with it sometimes...


I just prowl everything to get ideas to support you know what
I cant recall but I think I saw the first refernce to the Meta Galaxy in the alternative cosmology group... another idea I dont buy but was conducted the right way..some Russian I cant remember his name.


The group only wants money so they can reasearch stuff as well and get ticked off they miss out a bit so they say ithe big bang is wrong we want some cash to prove it so... give everyone the money the more cosmologists the better better than feeding lawyers.

I have a Universe for each idea more or less..I have to have a big bang one to refer to and as you know I have been building the new Push one ...and I have another one in mind with a little from each... finally there will be various Universes to suit everyone...and of course appropriate T shirts so one can show which one they favour

alex

[xelasnave]

And Bojan I am happy to see you can only come up with a few small problems for the push thing

I promise I will fix them and show you when it is fixed... philosophy doesnt need math unless you are counting wise men or compemplating the importance of one

Seriously thanks for your push input ..you touch on why I need an infinite Universe as I suspect you know
alex

[bojan]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

... philosophy doesnt need math unless you are counting wise men or compemplating the importance of one

But you do.. because math is actually formalized language, tool to evaluate and present logic - which is necessary ingredient of any kind of philosophy which has aspirations to be accepted.

[xelasnave]

...the qualifyer...."has aspirations to be accepted"... unlike some many out there I dont care about anything I say being accepted....its just what I think really... there are a lot of nutters out there worse than me on their missions I reckon...it would be nice to be able to prove my idea with math but it requires an infinite Universe to get the power...and you dont have to do sums to see that ...and I need to add some big numbers to radiation pressure if I want to claim it as the source of the "push" for example.

I really like math I dont do it well but read its history and the contributions by various cultures ..look thru the list of different math on those sites that take a night just to read the stuff they cover... but I could not get into working 22 over 7 to see how many dec places...I need to look at the math dealing with infinities

I see there is a language formality in math that is very important... that is sort of like Law...some words have a meaning and that is it..there are books full of interpretations of words in Law.

So I have decided to change then from philosophy to what I really am..a morosopher... most folk wont know what its means but it will sound flash.. (it is the condition of having a "scientific theory" it is always an idea for me where you think everything you uncover adds to your case)...

I do try to be logical as I can with my ideas but I do get carried away I know that..I live with that..I also live alone..
alex

[xelasnave]

My question is as for the big bang is there not something better than inflation to hold the story line...will the Universe have to be older...getting rid of the observation that place some objects older than the Universe...it would seem there needs explaination of "older" objects .. are those observations correct reasonable etc or just a wish by those saying they have real evidence...older objects may mean the dates have to be moved I would think..will the theory stand the dates being moved ..well it may have to if the observations are reasonable and almost undeniably correct..I mean its hard to tell the age of people before you so they may look old and not be or youthful looking when you see their drivers licence...but while there are folk saying this it can not be good for either side.

On both sides of an argument folk may grasp the same observation and say it suits their proposition for example... I can give a specific example but it happens....

The big bang blew the steady state idea out of the water with observation of their predicted background radiation... it seems those in the steady state camp surrendered at that point... so given its significance as the prime observation one must ask...could the background radiation be telling us something different but coincidentally fits the expectations of the big bang theory... could the background radiation be light from beyond where we think the Universe ends for example... could the radiation be merely a shell a heat reflected back upon us by space of the overall radiation of our galaxy... these are of the top of my head as examples of questions not things that I think could be probable...

But as the big bang is put together in many parts one has to be careful that you think if you destroy one part the lot will fall but rather that removing a bad part may let the good parts grow...I hope that makes sense.

The us and them approach be sides of humans working on the same problem leaves each side unwilling to perhaps for a moment admit the other has an reasonable point on a particular aspect.

I think in their own way the alternative group will probably on the one hand strengthen the big bang from a scientific point of view as surely so folk will feel forced to address some of the areas that must be a concern within the big bang group... as I said inflation seems unreasonable and the big bang looses credibility on that point... I say so.. that however is taken as an attack on the whole idea rather than the part of the idea... each bit needs to relate to another but each part of the armour has to be strong...

here is one list as I posted with 30 points that someone feels smug about.. some are hair splitters really but some may need addressing..older stars would seem a worry for example.

The current big bang model may not be perfect but that in itself makes it neither right or wrong...
I do feel however if the force of gravity was seen not to be in the nature of attraction the initial expansion that we believe must have been held via the attraction of gravity would be a great deal different.. dark matter is not in the Universe so I took an instant like to it... but now I have started my case I will now see everything fitting in...and that is my point with the site and those they are against in views and visa versa ... all will see their evidence as supportive of their position and exclude reasonable consideration of how the alternatives may just change things just a little to give a better picture for all.

I said it as A joke to go thru each of the 30 one by one but that would be interesting.

I try not to think too much about the motivations of folk until I have considered how reasonable their proposition sounds and this is not easy for often you get a glimpse of where they come from by the use of a simple word they dont know betrays where they come from... most folk when they open their mouths also are trying to sell you on the idea so if they are clever they will sound plausible..at first..I mean you can listen to showone who does not know zip but has a good line strung together such that you are not prompted to ask any questions of them..

I think it ironic that the big bang was given its name by its strongest opponent in a throw away line of contempt for the idea and that stuck to gain respect opposite to the intentions of the name calling it so.... who was that man...mmm Fred Hoyle?? pretty sure that who it was... certainly was not Mr Hubble.
alex

[Outbackmanyep]

I thought gravitational lensing was evidence of dark matter?? Or am i misinformed?

[xelasnave]

Hi Out back

I don't know that it is ...
I don't know that it is not either as to proving the point either way...

For a start I think gravitational lensing works a little different to the current view ..but I am not really sure of the correct current view but I disagree with every artist impression... they always draw those diagrams with the ball on the blanket thing to explain space time at the back of their mind...and space is not bent that way in that analogy... space bends as if the ball were below the blanket.. and the math says that...however folk get caught on the examples and not what is being said.... so we see the light bend in these drawings presented incorrectly in my view... but that is a whole other story ..sorry to get sidetracked.

Simple statement of my belief... the presence of dark matter existing as a halo around a galaxy..if there will causes the lensing no doubt about that...but if it is not there there remains a galaxy nevertheless still capable of the job... the premise of lensing is finally that space time distorts..curves..bends..nothing is quiet the right word in many respects.. if you think of a 3d grid upon which 3dimenions and time can be added as "rulers" on the grid lines ...and ...if you place a ball in the center of one of the cubes making up the 3d grid the grid lines converge to it...which is not like a ball laying on a rubber sheet at all...

The principle will produce a curvature and it is the degree of curvature that will be related to the mass... so it would seem that we will get the effect irrespective of the amount of mass..that is with or without dark matter the grid will be bent to the mass... so it is degrees of mass.. on current sums it seems there is not enough stuff to account for the gravity as the sums say ..for most purposes ..that there must be more mass than we see as matter is acting that way..according to our current sums...

When I doubt dark matter it is because it would seem more logical to ask why can we not see some 95 % of the Universe (thats dark matter and dark energy) or just the dark matter still at 60% ..not sure with out a refresh but its a lot... does it makes sense or could it be there is no dark matter and we can see all there is to see and there is no mysterious substance that for a decade remains unproven... dark matter was to include many things within a galaxy but the fact is they need it all out side to make the fast stars do what they do..adding more in the galaxy makes the problem worse not better...so it has to be in halos...if it is there at all...

I have no idea of the math but I bet they can work out the bend in space and that this bend needs so much matter and as we only have 20% of that matter in the galaxy being observed then we need to get it someplace..dark matter...

I hope you can follow that I could only just... and I hasten to add I have no idea how the maths worked it out and hope that gravitational lensing is done different in the lab to the way it is represented in the drawings as the drawing suggest the opposite to the reality of the space time conception...



alex

[xelasnave]

and this is a link to the open letter which is not apparent when one goes to Bojan's link...

And you can read for yourself their problem... funding may well be at the heart of it as they think not enough goes to alternatives ... but it is pretty strong in view point ..and I guess they want some attention also ..and recognition..show me a human that does not want a little recognition.


open letter
http://cosmologystatement.org/

And while we are on the subject ...more money should go to funding push gravity research

more money for research any research give scientists good jobs and pay them better than anyone else... who is more deserving and dont say the guy running Telstra...

alex

[coldspace]

Hi Outbackmanyep,

It seems that Gravitational lensing has more to do with gravity influences from massive objects such as galaxy clusters, as well as dark matter. Check out this video from Hubble cast.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqYsh...escopes&fr=sfp

Matt.

[xelasnave]

That is what I am talking about as far as the bending of space..and coincidentally that is the very same movie that first got me thinking about the diagrams and the bending of space time to produce the lensing effdect..those are the first diagrams that got me started on this trip years ago...

I know all will think I am crazy ..so nothing has changed there.

I lent the movie to someone , cant remember who but they never returned it...I loved that movie near wore it out....what is on utube is just a part of the one I had.

All I say is this...if the light is bent in it follows the curvature of space..fair enough..but when it passes the object space is bent back if we are to say that it is following the curvature of space...these representations in my view are correct only in part...dam how can I explain what I mean ... think of the 3D grid I spoke about above to visualise the situation... the space time grid lines bend in to objects not around them...

I am not saying gravitational lensing does not occur on the contrary I believe it does and to a much greater degree than general consensus...it must..it must be everywhere because space curvature in everywhere...


Matt it is a great movie and introduction to the concept of gravitational lensing.

I dont think my view that space curves in on matter, not around it like the ball on the blanket example, is wrong ...and I believe I am only saying what general relativity says in my opinion ( humble of course) I listen to what it says to me... I feel incorrect views are formed from getting hooked on an incorrect example...that being the ball on the blanket...and then drawing the lines where light must go to fit the blanket idea...

Anyways dont worry its not the first thing that I see different to everyone else on the planet... but I do think long and hard about what is said and presented and so feel I have given the matter a great deal of thought probably more than someone who works from a poor example to apply a concept.... if I am wrong the math can prove it...maybe

alex

[bojan]

Alex, some food for thought...
try Google "Casimir effect" .....