20140827

Critique of TSW Part 18b The Infinite Universe

Blog 20140827

Being a believer in microcosmic finity, Bill has problems with Infinite Universe Theory even though he opposes the finite universe of Big Bang Theory.

I am ever so grateful to Bill Westmiller, whose comments are marked "BW: ". The quotes marked TSW are from "The Scientific Worldview" and my comments are marked "[GB: ".

The Infinite Universe (Part 2 of 2)

TSW:  "Under the influence of the mathematician Georg Riemann, Einstein laid out the possibilities for positively curved, negatively curved, and flat space."

BW: Correct, but missing the context. Once Einstein had concluded that gravity was an "inherent quality of mass" and that it was the same as linear acceleration, he needed Riemann's manifold vectors to explain the radial nature of gravity. However, he couldn't decide whether cosmic gravity was weaker or stronger than entropy. So, he simply threw in a "cosmological constant" that could be positive (forever expanding "curve"), or negative (reversible "curve"), or simply one (equilibrium) to describe the condition of the universe. For a long time, he thought it was one, just because that was the state of the evidence, and considered the CC to be a superfluous mistake. When red-shift came along, his constant acquired a positive value, which indicated that entropy was winning over gravity: "heat death".

So, while Riemann was a mystic, he didn't "influence" Einstein's sequential logic; he just provided the mathematical curvature tools to describe it. Riemann had nothing to do with the Equivalence concept or the Cosmological Constant.

[GB: Thanks for the info. It is always hard to figure out where AE’s ideas come from because he tends to omit references. I didn’t know that Riemann was a mystic, although it is pretty clear that AE was bordering on that. Of course, if you reread my info on the Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things), you will realize that the “heat death” of the universe is purely indeterministic. The redshift was misinterpreted as indicative of expansion. The “radial nature of gravity” is explained in our NGT paper.]

TSW:  "Only one of these was ... finite and unbounded ..."

BW: Not quite correct. A negative or ^=1 curve would have been finite, in the sense that it would reach some limit (either pulsating or equilibrium), but it didn't preclude a positive value, which was infinite, in the sense that the universe would expand forever. Only the equilibrium model (^=1) had an indefinite "boundary", even if all of them had "empty space" beyond the visible objects. As it turns out, with red-shift apparently increasing at the periphery, the current model is both infinite and unbounded. Entropy wins over gravity (^=.073), for an eternity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

[GB: BS. In the infinite universe, divergence and convergence are equal.]

TSW:  "From the univironmental perspective it is clear that gravitation must be the result of a push, not a pull ... motion can be transferred only through inertial contact."

BW: Inertial contact, yes. But witness the screw, which imparts linear motion to objects from its own rotational motion, which may be opposite to the linear motion of the screw itself, depending on the relationship of the two velocities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screw_theory

For example, a drill bit which is held in a fixed position relative to a wood board will cause the board to be *attracted* to the drill. We have to *push* the bit into the wood with enough force to counteract the opposite motion.

[GB: Huh? All of the motions of a screw involve pushes.]

TSW:  "... neither 'pullers' nor 'pushers' have been accepted as the physical agents responsible for gravitational effects."

BW: Aside from the screw, there is envelopment: the tendency of two vortices with the same spin to "attract" and combine, simply as a consequence of kinetic equilibrium.

The standard consensus is that "space curvature induces pull", but there are no physical models for how it actually produces the effects. In my Unimid Model, gravity is a lot of graviton screws. The angular momentum of a graviton exceeds its linear momentum, producing a "pull" that exceeds any "push" at the point of collision. Charge effects are vortex consolidations or repulsions. All kinetic, all matter in motion.

[GB: I like your double vortex example, mostly because it implies that there is a macrocosm containing smaller microcosms between them. If two vortices actually could exist with nothing but perfectly empty space between them, they would rotate independently and no “attraction” would ensue.]

TSW:  "... gravitational waves, the general idea being to detect the results of explosions or collapses of celestial bodies."

BW: Not quite right. Gravitational waves have nothing to do with explosions or collapses, but rather the cyclical variations in gravity effects from binary stars, rotating in an aligned plane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave

TSW:  "From the univironmental perspective a collapsing universe is not a logical possibility."

BW: In your terms, if the universal "macrocosm" is in a state of equilibrium, that doesn't preclude the contraction of "microcosmic" portions - namely our "luniverse" - while neighboring luniverses expand. If we recognize that we can only observe objects in our "light cone", the visible cosmos may only be a small portion of our luniverse. An infinite universe (all things) doesn't logically preclude local collapse.

[GB: That would be true only if you use the oxymoronic definition of universe, as they did when astronomers thought of galaxies as “island universes.” When you use the proper definition (all things), as you did in your last sentence, then my statement in TSW is true.]

TSW:  "A four-dimensional universe would be finite and unbounded. It could expand, as it were, into itself."

BW: I don't think "four-dimensionality" dictates those qualities, any more than three-dimensionality. Simply adding the time dimension doesn't change the boundary conditions. The "standard model" accepts an infinite amount of space - even if it's presumed empty - into which the "luniverse" can expand. However, it doesn't assume a perpetual expansion, though that seems to be the state of the current evidence. The question is whether gravity wins or loses against entropy, which produces the Cosmologic "Constant": if gravity=entropy, CC=1 and it's a "steady state" universe, with some indefinite bounds.

[GB: False. Various Big Bangers have various interpretations of what is required to explain what they presume to be universal expansion. Without four dimensions, we are back to a Euclidean universe implying that the supposed universal expansion just happens to be centered on us. With over 10^23 stars already observed, the probability for that is minuscule. Among the silliest interpretations is the entropy versus gravity idea you mentioned, which becomes moot with the Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things). The existence of the universe does not allow for empty space. If the universe exists in one place, it must exist in all places.]

TSW:  "Only by considering time as matter rather than motion could one claim that four dimensions represented reality."

BW: That's not what's claimed. Time isn't a substance, it's a motion that can be quantified; therefore it has dimensionality. It's distinct from spatial dimensions, but only occurs because of changes in the relative spatial positions of matter. Granted, the idea isn't clearly articulated - and it's frequently confused - but it doesn't propose four dimensions *of space* and doesn't conflict with your "Univironmental Theory".

[GB: Reread my paper on “Einstein’s Most Important Philosophical Error.” You are right that time isn’t clearly articulated in regressive physics. Quantification does not guarantee dimensionality. Dimensionality is a property of things, not of motions. To measure motion, we need to observe things. Motion per se cannot be observed, only the things in motion can be observed. Motion is inferred and thereby quantified through observation of the locations of microcosms with respect to other microcosms. Motion does not exist, it occurs. Matter exists and has xyz dimensions; motion does not. This was explained by the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion).]

TSW:  "[I]t wasn't just matter that was created in the big bang, but spacetime as well. There was nothing ‘outside’ for the big bang to explode into."

BW: Logically correct, once you adopt Einstein's error, noted above. An infinite regression to a geometric (abstract) point allows for no matter, space, or time. The very idea that such a thing could exist, much less explode, is nonsense.

[GB: Glad you agree.]

TSW:  "The galactic redshift has been called the most critical observation used in support of the Big Bang Theory."

BW: Perhaps, but *incremental* redshifts (as reported at the extremes) is actually contrary to the original BBT, requiring the supposition of internal, repulsive, "Dark Energy" or external, attractive, "Dark Matter". Simple errors will just compound into huge evasions.

TSW:  "... in an infinite, relatively homogeneous universe with perfect light transmission, about half of the galaxies would be coming toward us, exhibiting blue light, and half would be going away from us, exhibiting red light. This is not what is observed."

BW: Correct: the facts contradict the idea of an infinite universe in full equilibrium. As noted above, the facts don't preclude "local" (light cone "microcosm") expansion or contraction, IF there are real boundary conditions. You describe this "second interpretation", but dismiss it:

"The demise of this [second] interpretation is a result of its anthropocentrism - the apparent fortuitousness of the earth’s location at the center of the expansion."

[GB: Facts depend on the assumptions used to interpret them. Note above my reiteration of the Big Bangers’ common assumption that light is transmitted perfectly. That is the key to all of this. Only an idealist could ever believe that. From the more realistic, neomechanical point of view the cosmic redshift must be a natural result of transmission over distance. Call it “tired light” or whatever you will. Think of it like the transmission of electricity over distance. There are always losses, never gains. With light, the losses show up as a decrease in energy, i.e., a redshift.]

BW: There's nothing in the standard model, nor my adjacent "luniverses" that puts Earth at the center. We are at the center of a "light sphere" which is necessarily equidistant in all directions. Although deists like to misinterpret the evidence, the standard model says a dominant redshift perception would be identical in every galaxy. Actually, the CBR has a redshift polarity, which is hidden by jargon in most commentaries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation#Polarization

... which means that the earth is *moving* relative to CBR and therefore is not even close to the "center" of whatever kind of expansion is occurring. In the Unimid Theory, our "light sphere" is only a portion of our "luniverse", which may not even include its center point. However, there is a boundary condition between adjacent luniverses and there may be galaxies near the boundary, where the sky appears half blue-shifted and half red-shifted.

[GB: Everything in the universe is moving with respect to everything else. There is no expansion of the universe. Forget that. Also, I don’t see why the sky would be half blueshifted and half redshifted in any particular place. The cosmic redshift should apply to all places.]

TSW:  "There is no known process in which a wave-packet of light would lose energy simply by traveling through nothing."

BW: Intergalactic dust with no luminosity and low albedo (Dark Matter) could theoretically cause "tired light" to slow down. This sentence also highlights an error in the "wave-packet" conception of light. A wave is necessarily a sequence of radial kinetic interactions in a media. If there is no media, there can be no wave. So, if you're committed to the wave theory of light, you (and Einstein) desperately need an Aetherial medium. My theory doesn't, since light is the emission of a particular material configuration that exhibits wave-like properties.

[GB: The wave-particle theory of light is BS. Light is simply a wave in the aether. Einstein vacillated on the aether, changing his mind a half dozen times. I don’t think he was a “desperate” aether proponent in any case. He only did the math—reality was not a significant component of his theory. That is why he had “immaterial” fields, which fit the math, but left the rest of us shaking our heads. Light definitely is not “the emission of a particular material configuration that exhibits wave-like properties.” Matter can interact with aether to produce waves in the same way a ship interacts with the sea to produce waves, which we consider to be motion, not matter.]

BW: I'll skip over Halton Arp's peculiar theory of "old" and "new" light, since we're getting into the aether concepts that I'll save for a subsequent discussion.

Next: The Univironmental Theory of Light

cotsw 039




1 comment:

Westmiller said...

GB: "... reality was not a significant component of [Einstein's] theory."

LOL. True. Einstein was great at fabricating stories about "what the math means", but I don't think he ever did any real experiments (at least, not independently). Nearly all of his imaginary fables incorporate gross contradictions (paradoxes), proving that they are false. It astounds me that
modern physicists can simply accept those paradoxes as inherent in reality, rather than inherent in Einstein's mistaken theories.

Post a Comment

Thanks so much for your comment. Be sure to hit "Preview" to see if it will publish correctly. Then hit "Publish". Include your email address if you wish to receive copies of your comment as well as all other published comments to this Blog.

For those having trouble getting this comment section to work:

Nitecruzr writes:

[FAQ] Why can't people post comments on my blog?

The Blogger / Google login status, and the ability to post comments, is sensitive to both cookie and script filters. Your readers may need to enable (stop filtering) "third party cookies", in their browser and on their computer. The effects of the newly unavoidable CAPTCHA, and the Google "One account" login, requires third party cookies, even more than before.

http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/11/the-google-one-account-login-and-cookie.html

http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/10/comments-and-cookie-filters-october-2014.html

http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/10/the-new-commenting-captcha-is.html

Third party cookies filtering, in a browser setting, is the most common solution, overall - but your readers may have to search for other filter(s) that affect their use of Blogger / Google.

Any filters are subject to update, by the creator. If the problem started a few days ago, your readers may have to look on their computers, and find out what product or accessory was updated, a few days ago.

http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/01/almost-nobody-controls-their-own.html