The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Tue Jul 08, 2014 1:58 pm

robheus wrote:Therefore we need a theory that unites QM + GR to make better predictions.

It is good to work together to find a better theory.

First I would like to remove GR, because it is somehow invalid.
Also SR might need adaption.
See my relativity thread for this discussion.
(But don't forget to read the many links to discussions that solar provided).

Without GR, the unification theory becomes much simpler.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby robheus » Wed Jul 09, 2014 3:11 am

viscount aero wrote:
robheus wrote:
Going back in time, the observable universe shrinks down to a tiny patch. But there is nothing to forbid us to think, an it is even assumed that that tiny patch itself was part of an infinite (or very large) space, but which regions expanded in parts of the universe far outside of our observational horizon.


That paragraph is not understandable. Restate what you mean. "Which regions expanded in parts of the universe..." is nonsensical.


I just meant to say that outside of our horizon there is more universe, and since it looks very near to completely flat, the universe might as well be infinite, therefore the universe never was as small as a point.
robheus
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:21 am

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby robheus » Wed Jul 09, 2014 3:13 am

Zyxzevn wrote:
robheus wrote:Therefore we need a theory that unites QM + GR to make better predictions.

It is good to work together to find a better theory.

First I would like to remove GR, because it is somehow invalid.
Also SR might need adaption.
See my relativity thread for this discussion.
(But don't forget to read the many links to discussions that solar provided).

Without GR, the unification theory becomes much simpler.


Can you tell what observational fact would contradict GR?
robheus
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:21 am

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby Native » Wed Jul 09, 2014 3:17 am

@robheus
I just meant to say that outside of our horizon there is more universe, and since it looks very near to completely flat, the universe might as well be infinite, therefore the universe never was as small as a point.

You just keep it coming and coming . . .
So now your Big Bang inflation doesn´t expand in all directions, but flat as a pancake?
What about expanding your horizons into the EU & PC-directions in space?
Life makes senses and who could doubt it, if you have no doubt about it. - "Grooks" by Piet Hein - My fellow Danish countryman and also a Natural Philosopher
Native
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:42 am

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby robheus » Wed Jul 09, 2014 4:08 am

Native wrote:@robheus
I just meant to say that outside of our horizon there is more universe, and since it looks very near to completely flat, the universe might as well be infinite, therefore the universe never was as small as a point.

You just keep it coming and coming . . .
So now your Big Bang inflation doesn´t expand in all directions, but flat as a pancake?
What about expanding your horizons into the EU & PC-directions in space?


Flat means: not curved, so, like euclidean 3d space.
robheus
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:21 am

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby Native » Wed Jul 09, 2014 4:46 am

@robheus
Flat means: not curved, so, like euclidean 3d space.

So, now we, i.e. you cannot anymore count on the Einsteinian "curvation of space"?

Besides this, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_space#Intuitive_overview
In order to make all of this mathematically precise, the theory must clearly define the notions of distance, angle, translation, and rotation for a mathematically described space. Even when used in physical theories, Euclidean space is an abstraction detached from actual physical locations, specific reference frames, measurement instruments, and so on.

Do you mind not posting all that abstract mathematical nothingness and nonsense which isn´t attached to any realities anywhere?
Life makes senses and who could doubt it, if you have no doubt about it. - "Grooks" by Piet Hein - My fellow Danish countryman and also a Natural Philosopher
Native
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:42 am

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby viscount aero » Wed Jul 09, 2014 11:15 am

robheus wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
robheus wrote:
Going back in time, the observable universe shrinks down to a tiny patch. But there is nothing to forbid us to think, an it is even assumed that that tiny patch itself was part of an infinite (or very large) space, but which regions expanded in parts of the universe far outside of our observational horizon.


That paragraph is not understandable. Restate what you mean. "Which regions expanded in parts of the universe..." is nonsensical.


I just meant to say that outside of our horizon there is more universe, and since it looks very near to completely flat, the universe might as well be infinite, therefore the universe never was as small as a point.


Ok but whatever you actually meant to say (which is still vague in my estimation) the BB theory implies that the cosmos was a point. The theory was then modified to be just near being a point but not really one, stopping shy of being a "point." Regardless, BB theory reduces the universe to a near-point in diameter. You surely know this. In other words, you cannot get around the BB theory's insistence that the universe was super tiny, unfathomably small in diameter like an atom--which is utterly preposterous anyway as no matter or anything with the material concentration of the entire universe could ever actually reduce to that space.

Also, please do away with such terms as "flat space" and such nonsense. Space isn't flat. It never was and never will be. Space is in 3D.
Last edited by viscount aero on Wed Jul 09, 2014 11:20 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby viscount aero » Wed Jul 09, 2014 11:16 am

Native wrote:@robheus
Flat means: not curved, so, like euclidean 3d space.

So, now we, i.e. you cannot anymore count on the Einsteinian "curvation of space"?

Besides this, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_space#Intuitive_overview
In order to make all of this mathematically precise, the theory must clearly define the notions of distance, angle, translation, and rotation for a mathematically described space. Even when used in physical theories, Euclidean space is an abstraction detached from actual physical locations, specific reference frames, measurement instruments, and so on.

Do you mind not posting all that abstract mathematical nothingness and nonsense which isn´t attached to any realities anywhere?

:lol: LOL
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby jacmac » Thu Jul 10, 2014 3:45 pm

It seems that expanding space uses a two dimensional example for a three dimensional situation, the same as bending of space by gravity. What does one call the area where the space expands into ? How does gravity bend space if there is already other space there ? The visual that is used of the earth in a dip of the space grid makes no sense, is there not another dip coming up from the bottom ?
Jack
jacmac
 
Posts: 595
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby Native » Thu Jul 10, 2014 4:08 pm

@jacmac
It seems that expanding space uses a two dimensional example for a three dimensional situation, the same as bending of space by gravity. What does one call the area where the space expands into ? How does gravity bend space if there is already other space there ? The visual that is used of the earth in a dip of the space grid makes no sense, is there not another dip coming up from the bottom ?
Jack

PLEASE Jack, don´t ask all these logical questions - a certain newbie member gets all too confuse. :D
Life makes senses and who could doubt it, if you have no doubt about it. - "Grooks" by Piet Hein - My fellow Danish countryman and also a Natural Philosopher
Native
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:42 am

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby viscount aero » Thu Jul 10, 2014 4:29 pm

jacmac wrote:It seems that expanding space uses a two dimensional example for a three dimensional situation, the same as bending of space by gravity. What does one call the area where the space expands into ? How does gravity bend space if there is already other space there ? The visual that is used of the earth in a dip of the space grid makes no sense, is there not another dip coming up from the bottom ?
Jack


Correct.

Cosmologists always refer to the rubber sheet with the grid + calling space "flat." None of these things describe outer space whatsoever. Space isn't flat. Nor is it curved. It is a 3D continuum. "Flat" and "curved" space describe nothing in actuality.

But then the cosmologists will look upon you as you are an idiot if you say these things to them.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby Native » Thu Jul 10, 2014 10:46 pm

Watch here what Bill Gaede thinks:
Debunking Einstein's space-time - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Q9IePuHut4&list=PL70689492C45363CD&index=5
Life makes senses and who could doubt it, if you have no doubt about it. - "Grooks" by Piet Hein - My fellow Danish countryman and also a Natural Philosopher
Native
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:42 am

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby viscount aero » Fri Jul 11, 2014 12:42 am

Native wrote:Watch here what Bill Gaede thinks:
Debunking Einstein's space-time - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Q9IePuHut4&list=PL70689492C45363CD&index=5

That's an excellent video. Thanks for posting that.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby viscount aero » Fri Jul 11, 2014 1:21 am

They say "space is flat" to denote that it is not shaped like a "saddle" or paraboloid or something exotic like that. They think in these terms because they are employing purely mathematical abstraction models upon outer space. I've seen such illustrations for years in science magazines where they have an illustration of the "possible shapes of the universe" and one is a saddle shape! To even take that possibility seriously, a saddle shaped cosmos as a possible "shape," is preposterous.

So after all of the different "shapes" for the cosmos being ruled out, they claim conclusively that space is a "spheroid" with parallel lines of sight in every direction. That is their meaning of "flat." Yet that isn't flat. Outer space is not flat. Space is not a number line. Space is not a grid system. Space is not 2-dimensional.

Space is for all purposes a 3D continuum in every direction regardless of how it formed or when.


But it's not finished yet.

Then the cosmologists throw around the term "curved space" to sound intellectual. Curved space? That is when a gravitational envelope impinges upon "spacetime" thus warping or curving it. Ok. Then that heavily implies that spacetime is a thing, a substance subject to influence. Ok so what is spacetime made of? That is never answered or discussed.

If spacetime is a real object that can be bent, curved, compressed, etc... this means it is a form of matter. So what is it? Is it a solid? No. It's transparent and massless, a void. You can travel through it. Is it a liquid? No. Water is liquid. Space isn't. Space has no traits of a liquid ocean physically. Is it a gas? No. Freezing space if it were a gas should collapse into a solid form. But it allegedly keeps "expanding" like a hot gas escaping from something. So it's not a gas. Is it a plasma? No. Space is inert. It doesn't conduct electricity. So what is "space" made of?

That is never answered.

If it isn't a state of matter, a real thing, then how can this thing be expanding? Moreover, how could it have "fit" into a vanishingly tiny diameter at the "big bang"? Not only would "regular" matter need to compress smaller than the space of an atomic diameter (which is utterly and completely impossible and preposterous to take seriously as a theory), the alleged "spacetime" stuff would also need to be so compressed---all with nothing existing outside of this event for it to be relative to. How is this possible?

That is never discussed.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby Native » Fri Jul 11, 2014 2:36 am

@viscount aero, you wrote:
If spacetime is a real object that can be bent, curved, compressed, etc... this means it is a form of matter. So what is it? Is it a solid? No. It's transparent and massless, a void. You can travel through it. Is it a liquid? No. Water is liquid. Space isn't. Space has no traits of a liquid ocean physically. Is it a gas? No. Freezing space if it were a gas should collapse into a solid form. But it allegedly keeps "expanding" like a hot gas escaping from something. So it's not a gas. Is it a plasma? No. Space is inert. It doesn't conduct electricity. So what is "space" made of?

The answers to these questions could scientists really have gained from the best of the numerous cultural descriptions of Stories of Creation - if interpreted in modern terms of "basical and principle elementary conditions; energies and motions" and not as "deities of this and that".

"In the beginning" cannot be taken as "a beginning" since the mythical and native concept of everything is cyclical, and thus no Big Bang here either. They all talks of "a latent stage of elements and their qualities" before anything firm matter and form is created. Here the stories of creation speak of eternal Primeval Waters, (CMB), and of infinite voids filled with these basical and fluctuatiing elements, where hydrogen and helium ("watery and airy elements") mostly fills up the vast void.

The next following mythical explanation deals with "the setting in motion issue". Here light "let there be light" = electromagneto-dynamics and discharges and cold and hot conditions = thermodynamics comes into the equaton. Then we have the aspect of "assembling and spreading" where both thermodynamics and electrodynamics can achieve these swirling patterns of "infolding and outfolding" formation.

And so on and etc.

For centuries we have been told by intellectually educated people who told that its all very complex - but the complexity only derives from the cultural and scientifical disattachment from Nature and its obvious patterns of formation everywhere.

Once we were told and learned only that an apple fell from the tree - now we also ponders over the natural motions of formations which creates the apple in the tree in the first place.
Life makes senses and who could doubt it, if you have no doubt about it. - "Grooks" by Piet Hein - My fellow Danish countryman and also a Natural Philosopher
Native
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:42 am

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests