Quantized redshift anomaly

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by JMB</i>
<br />I say: beyond 5 billions of years, I do not know what the universe was, discussing about a beginning is not more serious than discussing about the sex of the angels.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We see many things in the universe older than 5 billion years. But what difference does it make how much we can *see*? Reason tells us that the universe must be infinite in extent, infinitely old, and infinitely divisible and constructable. Our view of it will always, necessarily, be limited to an infinitesimal sample. That doesn't interfere with our ability to understand the universe, or how things came to be the way we see them.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">We do not know whether entropy works or not at the scale of the Universe;<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I disagree. We can reason with confidence to the conclusion that some forces (such as electromagnetism) are entropic, while other forces (such as gravity) are anti-entropic. The net of all forces over all scales muct be no change in entropy, because the alternative would be an evolving universe. While forms in the visible universe are ever changing, evolution of the whole makes no sense in an infinite, eternal universe. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />dowsing ... I saw it work<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">If you truly want to KNOW things -- as opposed to believing in things the way most of the world does -- then you must retract your belief and change the status of such propositions about physics to hypotheses. Then devise tests with CONTROLS. Without controls, everything one observes tends to confirm one's prior beliefs.

For example, experts in dowsing have been tested with controls. The control group has no dowsing skills, and uses just reason and educated guesswork to find water. Expert dowsers were consistently unable to out-perform guessers over many trials in many settings.

The dowsers believe in dowsing because it works for them. And when it fails, they find good reasons for those failures and dismiss those cases, remembering only the successes. This is typical self-deception when controls are absent.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I wonder why the skeptics do not seem to mind when some scientists claim that suddenly the universe came into being, and somehow there was this point of infinite energy, and in order for it to work it had to get to the size of the univese today, even bigger, and it did this in a split second, ...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I'm a skeptic and I do mind. An informal poll in 1998 suggests that very few members of the general public place much confidence in the Big Bang theory. Common sense prevails when jobs, money, and careers are not at stake.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">So I can't believe the skeptics either.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Belief must play no role if you seek knowledge.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">3. Tom says that the atomic particles are formed of gravitons. OK, let's say that this speculation is true, what are gravitons formed of?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">"It's turtles all the way down!" [}] In MM, reality is infinitely divisible, and space exists only when it is occupied at some scale. So Great Walls are composed of superclusters, composed of galactic clusters, composed of galaxies, composed of stars, planets, gas, and dust, composed of elements, composed of baryons, composed of quarks, composed of elysons, composed of gravitons, etc. ad infinitum. There is nothing fundamentally different about any scale.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">4. Tom says gravitons, so where does the graviton get its energy?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">"Energy" is not a separate thing or even a useful concept when speaking of fundamentals. Your own kinetic energy might be zero relative to your surroundings, but is certainly huge relative to something at rest in the solar system because of your planet's rotation and orbital motion. Do you feel all that energy? Does it exist within you? I think not.

Gravitons likewise do not "get" energy. Because there is no absolute space, gravitons simply exist. At their ultra-small scale, change is happening much faster than at our scale. So while a graviton (and everything else on that scale) may see itself crawling along at a "snail's pace", it is perceived by us as having a very high relative speed. But neither us nor gravitons possess something internal that we can call "energy". Their only properties are substance (measured as "mass") and relative motion (measured as "speed").

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What evidence is there which proves that [galaxies] are in fact rotating inward which in turn implies that matter is falling inward as the standard theory assumes.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">There is no "evidence". just "density wave" theory. It's more nonsense. Outward evolution makes more sense, but perhaps not in the same way you were thinking. Many spiral galaxies have more than two arms (including our own Milky Way); and elliptical galaxies have no arms.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">instead of sucking matter into a black hole, matter is being sprewed out from a while hole.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Both those concepts are fictions of the standard model. They do not exist in reality.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">wouldn't it seem reasonable to assume that a vast collection of [gravitons] say at the center of a galaxy, would be the source required to produce huge amouhts of matter?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No. Absorption and emission of gravitons must be in balance, or else matter will vaporize. Elysons are a better candidate for the next stage of composition below quarks.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">8. Do the planets have more "mass" than the Sun?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No. Even plasma has mass. Plasma is a state of matter, others being solid, liquid, or gaseous. But matter is still matter, and everything that exists is a form of substance, and can be measured as having mass once we set appropriate standards for such measurements.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">9. Does forever have a beginning?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The word has more than one meaning. In physics, "eternal" has no beginning or end. Substance is eternal, but all forms (which are made of substance) are finite. This is analogous to "the set of all integers is infinite, but all integers are finite". Forms are always being "created" and "destroyed", but their substance can never be created or destroyed. Hence, the universe was essentially the same infinitely far into the future or the past.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">10. If the space of the universe is expanding, doesn't this mean that "distance" between object in that space is also expanding? So it would seem that the distance between orbiting bodies would also expand and over a period of several billion years alter that orbit dractically. OK, they say that gravitationally bound object "selfcorrect" but how would that wrk? It would amount to gravity changing the orbit.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Not exactly. In the Big Bang, gravity prevents new space from being created in regions controlled by gravity.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">11. The CBR is said by the BB gang to be a remnant of the early big bang event. BUT isn't there an intrinsic temperature of space as well? ... They trapped themselves in a contradiction which they deny by claiming that there is no intrinsic temperature of space. Please don't say that my words are not the correct ones, they probably are wrong, but you get the idea.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You make a good point. But a Big Banger would say that space is mostly empty, so it has no temperature. If the microwave radiation comes from the background, then they are correct. If it has a more local source, then you are right. Recent evidence is pretty definitive thet the microwave radiation must have a local origin, at least in part.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">12. Does the photon lose energy or not?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It does in all theories wherein the speed of light is constant, including Big Bang. In MM, graviton friction is the cause of this energy loss. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
3. JMB says that atomic particles do not radiate energy but they do have a magnetic field (some of them) Yet this magnetic field can interact with other fields. Are you saying that it doesn't require any energy to do this?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
a) In classical electrodynamics, the absorption of a field is obtained adding an opposite field. There is no other way to obtain a zero field in the whole space. Considering that these fields are alone in the universe (mathematics, not physics !), squaring and integrating them to get their energies give the same energy.

b) Some people compute "the energy radiated by a dipole" squaring the field radiated by the dipole and integrating in space, but taking no account of other fields. This is completely absurd: applying this rule to the fields considered in a), you obtain 1+1=0.

Pay attention : tHE ENERGY DOES NOT OBEY LINEAR EQUATIONS !

Ignoring this evidence leads to absurdities, for instance saying that the classical Bohr's electron falls to the kernel: it does not fall because the interference of the field it radiates with the zero point field shows that while the electron radiates a field, it does not radiate energy.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />1. It's interesting that almost all of the experiments which were used to disprovew this or that were conducted by skeptics.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Rocard, a good physicist who was far from being skeptic accepted that a team of non-skeptics and skeptics collaborate to study problems of detection of water and various other things. The result was that skeptics and famous users of sticks or pendulum had exactly the same probability to get the good result.

It is very difficult to make such experiments. It was possible this time because Rocard was a good physicist, accepting the use of scientific methods, and obtaining however the collaboration of people coming from both sides.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
2. I wonder why the skeptics do not seem to mind when some scientists claim that suddenly the universe came into being, and somehow there was this point of infinite energy,
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I say and try to show that Big Bang is not science.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by JMB</i>
We see many things in the universe older than 5 billion years.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Supposing that Hubble's law works. But the exact value is not important.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Reason tells us that the universe must be infinite in extent, infinitely old, and infinitely divisible and constructable.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Seems reasonable, but our reason is so weak ...
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
We do not know whether entropy works or not at the scale of the Universe;<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I disagree. We can reason with confidence to the conclusion that some forces (such as electromagnetism) are entropic, while other forces (such as gravity) are anti-entropic. The net of all forces over all scales must be no change in entropy, because the alternative would be an evolving universe. While forms in the visible universe are ever changing, evolution of the whole makes no sense in an infinite, eternal universe. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Supposing that the universe is stationary, I agree.
Maybe the required source of negative entropy is an agregation of neutrinos into neutrons, and so on... Up to now it is not science.

Comparing our points of view, I am more careful.