The Matrix of Indian philosophy Reloaded

[Avinash 0]

I agree that Quantum Physics should be incorporated. Scientists have been trying to unify general theory of relativity and Quantum Physics. Superstring theory is the only theory which does that. But, it has still not been experimentally verified.

 

I agree that one should take into account the nature of reality. But, I find that in many of your posts (in this thread as well as in some other threads), you are criticizing some of scientific theories based on misunderstanding those theories. This may mislead other members of this forum.

[Guest guest]

 

the facts speak for themselves.

the theories of mathematicans without

any basis other then their speculations on what reality

might be, based on others speculations, all without

any actual experimentation is what todays

establishment cosmology is based on.

 

rubbish, all of it.

 

http://evolution-facts.org/Cruncher%20TOC.htm

[Avinash 0]

I agree that experiments should be done. But, I object to your posts because I find that you post many things about scientific theories which are not based on proper understanding of those theories.

As an example, you asked what closes the universe. If you consider the meaning of closed universe in relativity, then this question itself is meaningless. This is just one example. There are more.

[Guest guest]

 

 

maybe you don't understand, ever consider that possibility ?

 

a closed universe is impossible, it states that

the universe is infinite within a finite space,

total jive.

this is what happens when mathematicians try to explain reality based on their math ability, without considering

reality first.

 

these people think themselves qualified to interpret the universe because of their ability to calculate numbers,

they then convince others that they are correct,

and then when there calculations are proved wrong

by actual data and experimentation and observation,

they insist that there are invisible or dark entities

like super strings, dark matter, etc, that MUST exist,

Why ? Because their reputation is at stake,

and since their theories have been proven wrong, there must

be a way that show that actually they are right, and waht is that way ? they insist that our technology is insuffecient and when we advance we will discover they were right all along, for now jsut accept their theories

with the caveat; invisible unknown things when known and seen will prove us right.

 

http://www.bluffton.edu/~bergerd/NSC_111/TenMyths.html

 

http://www.bluffton.edu/~bergerd/NSC_111/science1.html

 

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/links.htm

 

http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id5.html

[Avinash 0]

I am not saying that there is anything wrong in not believing some of scientific theories. Even scientists disagree among themselves. But, what I am trying to say that if you should not claim that a theory says something when, in reality, it does not say that. It is not good to misrepresent any theory, or for that matter, any statement.

Criticize a theory. It is possible that the theory is really wrong. But do not misquote it.

As an example if you do not believe in Big Bang, it is fine. But you should not claim that Big Bang says something when, in reality, it does not say that.

 

PS: I also do not believe in Big Bang.

[Avinash 0]

space cannot curve, that is foolish.

 

What do you think is the meaning of curvature of space in relativity?

[Guest guest]

in fact there are various takes on the big bang,

so to say i gave the wrong idea,

is incorrect, i gave one of the ideas.

 

the curvature of space is trying to explain various things, gravity, the big bang,black holes, it's all about

the influence of mass on time space.

 

the problem is it is conceived without knowledge

of the presence of God, the single most important

thing in reality, without that idea in theory

of relativity , you miss the main influence, and the theory becomes useless.

[Guest guest]

/images/graemlins/smile.gif thats how the black whole gets synonymous with "singularity"

 

-enlightened.

[Guest guest]

The question about the curvature of space

[Guest guest]

http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/#curved

http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/#specrel

 

 

black holes are not collapsed stars,or singularities,

that has been disproven numerous ways,

they are completly different, and have a different function

in a galaxy,here

 

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/galaxies.htm

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/universe.html

[Guest guest]

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

 

I gotta show this to my physics teacher

[Avinash 0]

You have written that without considering God, any theory is useless. But, I find that your posts are in favour of Quantum Physics. Do you think that Quantum Physicists keep God in mind while developing theories? There are many interpretations in Quantum Physics about why the particles behave the way they behave. Which of these interpretations do you believe?

Moreover, you have still not answered what you think is the meaning of "curvature of space" in relativity.

[Avinash 0]

Do you believe that light bends due to gravity? Yes/No?

[Avinash 0]

Please do not try to learn Physics from such sources. You will find many such web pages which point out problems in Physics theories based on wrong understanding of these theories.

Please note. I am not saying that it is wrong to criticize a theory. But, when we point out faults in a theory, then we must not claim that the theory says something when in reality it does not say that.

As an analogy, suppose that I fight you because you called me an idiot. I am unjustified in doing so. Why? Simply because you never called me an idiot. This is the problem I find in the first two links mentioned by Siva (both of these links are on the same page). I have still to go through the other two links.

If you want to know why I find those pages misleading, then just post what arguments in those pages you find as good (please be very specific). Then I will explain why those are misleading.

 

PS: From one of your posts, I came to know that you are in high school. I must say that your knowledge in Science is far better than I had when I was in high school.

[Guest guest]

 

 

it's easy to say you are right,and

everyone else is wrong.

 

where is your proof, iv'e given lots of stuff,

all you have done is criticize and provide nothing

to prove your point whatever that is.

[Guest guest]

 

ditto

[I_love_krishna_ 0]

The guest who posted after you is not me . it is some one else. In order to decrease the amount of confusion that has been in this forum, I am going to login from this time onward./images/graemlins/grin.gif

_____

anyway,

This guy who ever it is goes against my physics books my teachers' teachings... kind a ..

I do remember my teacher saying that the doppler effect is seen everywhere. And he explains how the doppler effect is used to see if a certain object is moving away or moving toward.

 

If it is moving away, then the color should be red.

If it is moving closer the color should be different.

 

_______________

 

"

he says thats not the case here.

Big Bang cosmologists conclude that more distant galaxies move faster because they assume the redshift to be caused by the Doppler effect as more distant galaxies show a higher redshift. However, no one has actually observed yet that the distance between galaxies increases with time (obviously, one could tell this only after billions of years). In fact, the 'Hubble Law' is not at all an exact linear relationship but only an average tendency with quite a significant spread. It is even known that there are spectral lines from the same object (!) that show differences in the redshift by up to 10%. This does of course completely invalidate the interpretation of the redshift as a Doppler effect. I have consequently suggested an alternative explanation for the galactic redshift as being due to the electric microfields in the intergalactic plasma (i.e. the redshift would essentially be distance related not velocity related) (see my website http://www.plasmafacts.de (under Cosmological Redshifts) for more details). There are of course also problems of a general conceptual nature if one assumes the universe is expanding (more). In addition, there have been crucial flaws in the analysis of observational data that apparently confirm the Big-Bang theory (see the page regards the WMAP Data Analysis).

(see also Olbers Paradox, Curved Space, General Relativity). "

 

 

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

thanks !

 

-enlightened.

 

[Avinash 0]

What will you consider as proof?

I asked you if you believe that the path of light is bent by gravity. Why didn't you answer that?

[Avinash 0]

iv'e given lots of stuff

 

You have provided links to sites which criticize some of theories of Physics. You call this as proof that you are right. There are many sites which support these Physics theories. Will you consider these as proof? If not, why not?

Could you answer the question I asked in my previous post?

[Avinash 0]

However, no one has actually observed yet that the distance between galaxies increases with time (obviously, one could tell this only after billions of years).

 

Even on Earth we can do experiments which show that if the source of light is moving away from us, then there will be red-shift. Redshift has been observed from distant galaxies. Physicists explain this observation by saying that those galaxies are moving away from us. The author of the site claims that this is not the reason for red-shift here. Why not? He says that nobody has observed that the galaxies are moving away. Why should we not consider the observance of red-shift as proof that the galaxies are moving away?

 

In fact, the 'Hubble Law' is not at all an exact linear relationship but only an average tendency with quite a significant spread.

 

Average tendency is not at all surprising. Consider a sphere. There are many ants on the surface of that sphere. Assume that they are not moving. Now I start expanding the sphere (may be, by pumping air into it). The ants will move away from each other. In this case there will be an exact relationship between the relative speed of separation between two ants and the distance between them.

But now, assume that the ants are themselves moving. Now the relative movements between two ants is governed by

1. The expansion of the sphere.

2. The individual movements of the ants.

 

As you can easily guess, in the latter case, the relation between the relative speed between two ants and the distance between them will not be exactly linear. There will be "an average tendency with quite a significant spread." But, it does not prove that the sphere is not expanding.

The relative movement between two objects in our universe is governed by:-

1. The overall expansion of space.

2. The individual movements of these galaxies.

(I just wanted to mention that our nearest neighbour galaxy Andromeda is moving towards us).

 

It is even known that there are spectral lines from the same object (!) that show differences in the redshift by up to 10%.

 

This should not worry us at all. The galaxies are not rigid objects. So, there is no need why redshift from different parts of a galaxy should be the same.

 

Did I miss explaining anything? If yes, please point out. Then, I will explain.

Did you find anything in the pages mentioned by Siva or in any other web pages which try to prove that the idea of curvature of space is a foolish idea? Would you like any explanation on those? If yes, please post.

 

If I may ask, where do you study? I find that your knowledge is very good compared to what I had when I was in school.

[I_love_krishna_ 0]

To my understanding, the guy here clearly says curved space is impossible:

______

Curved Space: The concept of a 'curved space', which is essential for present cosmological models, is logically flawed because space can only be defined by the distance between two objects, which is however by definition always given by a straight line. Mathematicians frequently try to illustrate the properties of 'curved space' through the example of a spherical (or otherwise curved) surface and the associated geometrical relationships. However, a surface is only a mathematical abstraction within the actual (3-dimensional) space and one can in fact connect any two points on the surface of a physical object through a straight line by drilling through it.

Strictly speaking, one can not assign any properties at all to space (or time) as these are the outer forms of existence and it makes as much sense to speak of a 'curved space' as of a 'blue space'. Any such properties must be restricted to objects existing within space and time.

The concept of a distorted space around massive physical objects for instance, as promoted by General Relativity, is therefore also inconsistent and should be replaced by appropriate physical theories describing the trajectories of particles and/or light near these objects.

__________

 

/images/graemlins/smile.gif I want to read more about bashing physics but I don't want to get my self confused during exam periods. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

 

so if you clear this myth up i would greatly appreciate it Avinashji /images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

I go to a school in Long Island , New York. They provide college and advanced courses for "enthusiastic" students.

 

We learn stuff in college board's AP physics and work with real scientists , like the guy I mentioned about the Ion collider before. He explained to me about it, he is a scientist in brookhaven labs. I am going to get him for a mentor.

 

[Avinash 0]

Unless we understand the meaning of "curved space", we can not say if the concept of curved space is inconsistent or not. When Physicists use this term, then they use it the way it is used in General Relativity. So, we have to understand what General Relativity means by curved space. I am going to explain here what is the meaning of curved space in General Relativity.

 

Not only space, the combination of space time (called space-time continuum) in our world is curved. What General Relativity really means by this is that the geometry which is applicable in this world is curved. What is the meaning of curved geometry? It simply means that Cartesian Geometry is not applicable. Let me give some examples of curved geometry. Then I will tell why it is said that the space-time in the world we are living in, is curved.

 

[Avinash 0]

Consider a sphere. Suppose that there is a being for whom the whole world is on the surface of the sphere. He is given two points on the surface of the sphere. He is asked to draw a straight line joining these two points. Infinite no. of curves can be drawn which join these two points. Which of these curves should that being consider as straight line? By definition, the straight line joining two points is the curve of the shortest length that joins those two points. For us, the inside of the sphere is also a part of world. For us, the straight line will not lie wholly on the surface of the sphere. Only its end points will be on the surface. The rest will be inside the sphere. But for the assumed being in our example, there is no meaning of the inside of the sphere; the surface of the sphere is the whole world for him. The straight line which he will draw will lie wholly on the surface of the sphere. For us it is a curve. But, for him, it is a straight line. Now suppose that he keeps extending the straight line in one direction. Ultimately he will reach the starting point. This is completely against Cartesian Geometry. (According to Cartesian Geometry, if you extend a straight line in any direction, then you can keep doing it indefinitely, and you will never reach the starting point.) Suppose that the being draws a triangle by drawing three straight lines. The sum of internal angles of the triangle will not add to 180 deg. So, again Cartesian Geometry is not valid. If you think, you will find many more cases in which Cartesian Geometry is not valid in his world. In the language of General Relativity, his world is curved.

 

You may say that the world of the person I have assumed in my example has curved geometry. But, what about our world? Are we living in a word where curved geometry (and not Cartesian geometry) is applicable? The answer is yes. I will give an example to explain how this is so. Many times when people talk of curved space, they do not realize that according to relativity, not only space but space-time is curved. This is really misleading. In order that you are not misled, I will give an example, which involves both space and time.

[Avinash 0]

 

Suppose that we have synchronized our clocks (i.e. our clocks show the same time). You are in a helicopter vertically above me. When our clocks show 9 AM, then you start flying vertically at 40 Km/hr. When your clock shows 10 AM, then you will start flying horizontally towards North again at 40 Km/hr. So you have flown vertically upto a height of 40 Km. From 9 AM to 10 AM (according to my clock), I will not move anywhere. When my watch shows 10 AM, I will start moving towards North (may be in some vehicle) at 40 Km/hr. You are moving horizonatally at 10 AM. I am also moving in exactly the same direction at 10 AM. When it is 11 AM in my watch I will stop and wait for you. This way I have covered a distance of 40 Km. When it is 11 AM in your watch, you will start descending downward. You have also covered a horizontal distance of 40 Km/hr. According to Cartesian Geometry, your complete path plus my path should form a square whose each side is 40 Km. Therefore, at the end you should be land on my head. But , according to relativity, it will not happen. This is because time depends on gravity. As you move up, the gravity for you changes. So, even though our clocks are synchronized initially, they will go out of synch. 10 AM for me is the not the same as 10 AM for you. 11 AM for you is not the same as 11 AM for me. So, you will not land above me. But, you should have landed above me according to Cartesian Geometry. So, we find that Cartesian Geometry is not applicable in our world. This is another way of saying that our space-time is curved.

 

[Avinash 0]

Strictly speaking, one can not assign any properties at all to space (or time) as these are the outer forms of existence and it makes as much sense to speak of a 'curved space' as of a 'blue space'. Any such properties must be restricted to objects existing within space and time.

 

The distance between two objects depends on the frame of reference. The time duration between two events also depends on frame of reference. Both of these have been proved. These are the kind of properties which relativity assigns to space and time. Since both of these have been proved by experiments, it is wrong to say that we can not assign these properties to space and time.

 

Now, do you see why I do not agree with the views expressed in those web-pages? If you think that something in my post needs clarification or if you think that you need to ask some other question, please post.

 

Good wishes for your education.