Faster Than Light: Part One

[Sparky]

November 19, 2013 by Stephen Smith

What if Hubble’s original premise was flawed? What if redshift is really a red herring? Where then shall we turn for an explanation of what we observe?

Well, they see me as an outsider, and gather the standard model villagers, with their torches, to intimidate me.

Cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation projected onto a sphere. Credit: NASA/WMAP


How am I suppose to read this image/map? From the center point
of a sphere..?.

[Frantic]

I have the same question. As I understand it(and I don't) we are on the surface, and we see everything expanding away.

So, my completely amateur thoughts on the big bang theory and a lot of questions :

It seems in all directions there is light and stars around us, or is that incorrect? Yet according to big bang theory we are on the surface of an inflating bubble so large it actually appears a flat plane to us. Would we not see all the stars and light around us arranged on a plane? Our area of observation is so small and flat on the sphere we could not see down to another side or through in anyway. The observable universe does not appear one plane of matter. The theory logically seems invalid unless some of my above assumptions are incorrect.

Additionally the usually ignored curvature of space would be more important in understanding the physics of the alleged big bang as it deals with times when the universe was as small as a point particle. The changes in curvature of space alone could violate all their expectations of light and redshift. How can they account for space curvature, gravitational lensing, dust and plasma interactions, etc. with so little empirical data?

If the universe is a sphere, then the explosion powered the inflation from within a pre-existing space, as an explosion cannot create a sphere of space(at least in observation). The space would have had to exist before the explosion, if space exists why is the matter in a point particle? The explosion would have been 3D in nature while the proposed universe seems to be a 2D shell.

The most coherent explanation I have read of the big bang skips the origin, and begins with a smaller universe completely filled with a glowing plasma, presumably hydrogen. This expands into the current universe continually losing energy, models always show a continuous loss of energy and conversion to matter, yet we see both in the universe, conversion of mass to energy, and energy to mass.

I think anti-matter has at least actually been observed. It would seem a better explanation to not need an inexplicable explosion, an interaction of matter/anti-matter colliding to produce energy all around. Like spots on a leopard, matter the spots, surrounded by anti-matter. If E=MC^2 and you have a mixture of matter and anti-matter like a standing wave pattern then you have the opportunity for a dynamic ever changing universe where matter, energy, and anti-matter are continually balancing with each-other, a closed system where cold-heavy matter is not actually the end. But I am probably completely insane. I don't have a problem thinking a universe could exist within an atom, and that our universe is nothing more than an atom of another universe. (using atom in its original context: can a universe be divided? is it not by definition an atom?) I doubt anyone will read all of this, but to the original post, I say how could the data not be flawed? I expect it is.

[Sparky]

But I am probably completely insane. I don't have a problem thinking a universe could exist within an atom, and that our universe is nothing more than an atom of another universe.

And to what good end do such beliefs bring you.?

We have been betrayed by "science" in several areas.

It is humanities' lot for each to belong to some sort of madness.

But we must hold on to what we know that seems to work.

Grief is that which comes when we discover just how wrong we are.

I exist knowing that I know nothing.

Good Luck with your delusions.

[Frantic]

The lack of knowledge beyond the universe makes my sepculations as valid as the big bang. The big bang should be viewed, like my speculation, with a grain of salt. And, no good ends Sparky, even if we had complete understanding of the universe we would then most likely destroy it. Probably best we don't know.

Regarding the TPOD and the idea of interstellar radiation :

Are there competing theories for what generates redshift besides doppler effect? (I suppose the interstellar radiation?)

The smoothness could be explained by interstellar radiation, but does that also satisfy the redshift observations?

The assumption of redshift is the burning of hydrogen creates the spectra, in EU, since the spectra is created by current moving through a hydrogen plasma, is Thornhil asserting that would emit radiation in the microwave wavelength, and the assumption of burning hydrogen being red-shifted is incorrect? That essentialy the radiation from fusion of hydrogen and movement of current through hydrogen may generate entirely different spectra?

Current moving through plasma is not included in any current mainstream theories as a source of radiation?

Given the uniformity of the radiation, would that imply currents flowing through interstellar hydrogen fillaments are constant?

[Sparky]

Scientific knowledge and the rules that govern it are inextricably bound to empirical evidence. It is always and forever subject to falsification as the knowledge base expands almost exponentially with new discoveries. It is therefore hard-wired into the method that no theory can be held with complete certainty, and by implication, that it does not allow sacred cows in any shape, size, or form. The method employed by scientists does indeed have built-in self-correcting mechanisms, and by design acknowledges any anomalies that might arise. Sadly, scientists themselves are not nearly so magnanimous or scrupulously honest.

Frantic:

Current moving through plasma is not included in any current mainstream theories as a source of radiation?

Don't seem to..Some know. It will take a little more time for EU to be proven to those with their heads in the sand.

Given the uniformity of the radiation, would that imply currents flowing through interstellar hydrogen fillaments are constant?

Is it uniform?...I would not expect currents to be constant.

[Frantic]

Hi Sparky. I have spent some time going back through a lot of the TPOD's. Great stuff there, I was looking at the more recent TPOD of the missing holes in the radiation, but now I actually found the one you were referencing.

The observation is that redshift does not correlate to speed toward or away from the observer, as their exist systems containing signatures of differing redshifts.

The theory is intrinsic redshift as a property of matter. Is there observational evidence to suggest this? Can someone dumb down for me what that would really mean that redshift is an intrinsic property of matter? Is their speculation that their exists matter states, (ie spin, energy level, ionization/conductivity/resistance, etc.) that do not absorb along the standard model of absorption?

According to wiki : Pulsar's are ejected, maintain angular momentum, and begin spinning at rapid rates but are ultimately slowing down. The crab pulsar for instance is calculated as having 1.4 solar-masses and a radius of 1.4 solar radii. Watching a video of a pulsar the size of its glow appears to be the same as the star next to it with the exception of pulsing. It does not appear to be a narrow beam of radiation but rather the same as the star next to it, but in brief flashes. The description of a pulsar's narrow beam I do not see on observation.

I was trying to understand if relativistic rotation speeds could cause redshift and was thinking how fast these Pulsars have to rotate. For the crab pulsar, The 1.4 R radius and rotation speed of 33 per second would imply : 695,000,000 M x 2 x 3.14 x 33 rotations/s = 144,031,800,000 m/s Is that really the implied rotational velocity, or am I missing something? That is over 40 x the speed of light so I must be wrong, to be rotating at the speed of light since it is linear relationship, the radius would have to reduce by a factor of 40. To reduce the radius by a factor of 40 implies increase of density on the order of 40^3(since volume is proportional to r^3) Then the density becomes impossible by their own models, and exotic matter like neutron stars are required to explain how an object could be this dense.

From the pulsar, EMR is in bursts rather than the usual continuous light. Is it possible to have anything like a semi-conductor in plasma physics? i.e. as it spins it changes from conductor to non-conductor? I think if the stars and pulsars are connected electrically, the period when the pulsar goes dark, something else should brighten, given the short periods it would be difficult to detect especially if it were redistributed evenly to nearby connected stars.

Is it uniform?...I would not expect currents to be constant.

The scientists have told us for a long time the CBMR is uniform, when they found irregularities they were explained by quantum fluctuations in the inflation field. Right, you believe its all uniform don't you Sparky, are you saying they are wrong? shock Looking at the holes in the radiation that are not supposed to be there is really interesting. When we presume the light is 13 billion light years away small variances are overlooked due to the scale, if the origin were interstellar the variances would represent larger discrepancies and when investigated could shed light on the true origins of the CBMR.

If Arp's theory could be shown true, it would indicate highly red-shifted matter would be birthing galaxies signifying that all around is birth, not doom and gloom. If the CBMR's origin is not the universe's beginning the big bang theory's only real evidence would be removed.

[Sparky]

The observation is that redshift does not correlate to speed toward or away from the observer

that's correct.......for several reasons...

The theory is intrinsic redshift as a property of matter. Is there observational evidence to suggest this?

yes, .... http://www.plasmaredshift.org//Article_Archive.html remember that there is a great deal of energy in some objects.

CBMR is uniform, when they found irregularities they were explained by quantum fluctuations in the inflation field. Right, you believe its all uniform don't you Sparky, are you saying they are wrong?

yes, the standard model is in error.
they have made wild speculations that became assumptions and now the whole model has been falsified by several observations. The big bang appears on the surface to be nonsense, and that conclusion is supported by evidence.

birth, not doom and gloom.

either that or the Big Bang is still Banging!

the universe that we observe is full of magnetic and other EM emanations ...it is filamentous, so how could there be uniformity.

[viscount aero]

I have the same question. As I understand it(and I don't) we are on the surface, and we see everything expanding away.

So, my completely amateur thoughts on the big bang theory and a lot of questions :

It seems in all directions there is light and stars around us, or is that incorrect?

Correct.

Yet according to big bang theory we are on the surface of an inflating bubble so large it actually appears a flat plane to us.

Yes, that's the theory. We are allegedly on a "2D plane" only. But wait.... there are 3 spatial dimensions observed and experienced.

Would we not see all the stars and light around us arranged on a plane?

Well if we were truly in 2D then we couldn't see anything at all. We couldn't perceive depth of any kind as our view would be immediately blocked by the first thing "in front of" our faces (which would be completely flat, too, so we would not have any eyes or bodies). Part and parcel to depth perception is being able to see around, through, and above/below objects. None of that would exist in 2D perception. Mind you this is a theoretical non-state. Human beings cannot exist in 2D.

Our area of observation is so small and flat on the sphere we could not see down to another side or through in anyway.

That's right. Even if we accept that the alleged expanding "bubble" is 3D, and we are on it's surface, we couldn't see through the bubble to the other side anyway, not at any point. The theory prohibits anything being "inside" this so-called expanding bubble. Therefore were this true we couldn't know the extent of the universe anyway, not ever. We would only be able to see the "local" area of "flatness."

The observable universe does not appear one plane of matter. The theory logically seems invalid unless some of my above assumptions are incorrect.

You are correct in your thinking. The big bang is nonsense. The likelihood of it being true is slim to zero.

Additionally the usually ignored curvature of space would be more important in understanding the physics of the alleged big bang as it deals with times when the universe was as small as a point particle. The changes in curvature of space alone could violate all their expectations of light and redshift. How can they account for space curvature, gravitational lensing, dust and plasma interactions, etc. with so little empirical data?

You're "pointing" out another issue: the whole conundrum of the "singularity." Phyiscs however vehemently rejects having anything to do with it. Cosmology falls silent, deaf, and dumb and just states "physics is not responsible for explaining that. We are explaining down to the first nano-moment of the big bang, not before it." And this way they are off the hook. You then counter them by stating "but the only conclusion to draw from the big bang theory is that it rewinds back to a singularity--what other conclusion can possibly be drawn?" And then they say "no, not necessarily. It need not imply it reduces back to a singularity." And they never explain it.

If the universe is a sphere, then the explosion powered the inflation from within a pre-existing space, as an explosion cannot create a sphere of space(at least in observation). The space would have had to exist before the explosion, if space exists why is the matter in a point particle? The explosion would have been 3D in nature while the proposed universe seems to be a 2D shell.

Yes. And you are pointing out yet another conundrum within the big bang theory. Theorists are vague when explaining it but the big bang theory presupposes that the alleged moment of expansion renders a shell of expansion only with nothing in the center (from a super tiny "point" that is never explained). That is, the "surface" of the cosmos remains only that--a "2D surface" that expands like a balloon or spherical shape. But wait.... that requires there be a 3D object--a sphere. But wait.... they insist that it is a "2D surface" only that is expanding. How can this be? Clearly, when observing reality, we live in 3D everywhere. Therefore, were the expansion taking place in a "2D" reality then there would never have been a 3D x, y, z spatial dimension from the very beginning. And the moment of expansion, the "explosion" would only have been 2-dimensional. A spherical "surface" couldn't exist without a 3-dimensional space for it to exist in. So the idea of the cosmos expanding as a "flat plane" is entirely erroneous and false. It is so false that is it "not even wrong." It is beyond wrong.

[CosmicLettuce]

The theories developed about a universe dominated by gravity are all mind-benders to say the least.

The problem I've seen in the discussion above is a fundamental misunderstanding of the expanding universe theory. To "simplify" things, most people are taught in school to think of everything in the universe existing on a 2D plane and then "bent" or "curved" into a 3D sphere (or a saddle or one of an infinity of possible surfaces). This is the typical "dots on a balloon that's being blow up" that everyone knows about.

The problem that you run into if you think about this a little too much is the exact problem that has been stated and your deduction from this would be correct: the expanding universe theory is BS!

However, the picture isn't quite that simple, and here's why: according to these "expanding universe" theories, space is indeed 3D, but then "curves" into 4D space-time (which IMO is a terrible terrible term). It's very difficult for the "average person" to understand a "3D surface" existing in "4D space-time" so the description is simplified (a math trick) by dropping it all down one spacial dimension. This causes a lot of confusion which is what I read in some of the the conversation in this thread.

But, if you can figure out a way to move your understanding of the 2D description to 3D, a lot of the problems you find with the 2D model go away (for example, all objects appearing to be on a 2D plane). If you think 4D, then all objects appearing on a 3D "plane" is exactly what we observe (stars and galaxies appear to be occupying all of space).

However, knowing all of this doesn't make the big bang and all that other stuff any more valid.

I hope what I said above doesn't cause more confusion. I've tried to be as clear as I can, but sometimes I'm not able to articulate things very well. I'll do my best to try to teach what I can, but ultimately I'm interested in research not teaching.

Peace, CL

[viscount aero]

All "4D" means is 3D + time. It doesn't imply 4 spatial dimensions. We don't live in a 4D spatial cosmos. We live in 3D.

My issue with an expanding 3D cosmos is the lack of accountability for how this is occurring, perpetually accelerating with no causal force behind it. That and how would a singularity suddenly begin expanding? Theorists deny the singularity as the origin but their explanation down to the Planck time leads to that conclusion anyway. But they avoid it.

Spiritually speaking, the expanding universe is poetic. But did it happen that way?

[CosmicLettuce]

The only way to exist in a 3D expanding universe is to have a 4th spacial dimension within which the 3D universe expands into. I can't account for an expanding universe therefore I can't accept the notion of 4D space, either. And yes, general relativity requires four spacial dimensions which is called "space-time". A very horrible term, indeed.

In a static universe, 3D is all that's apparently needed. In a static universe, time has no meaning and at best is much more a measurement of "duration" rather than a vector like the spacial dimensions. So "time" is to "seconds" as "length" is to "meter".

Anyhow, in a universe where time has no meaning (it doesn't actually exist) then things like "infinite velocity" is indeed possible which is what the EU theory also says. Groovy! There's something to this when you consider one can "instantly" visit a particular time and place in your memory. That does indeed appear to be a form of travel. But this is a lot of "woo woo" so I'll quit while I'm ahead.

Peace, CL

p.s. singularities are math tricks, along with the concept of "zero" and "infinity" and many many others. BTW, did you know that according to our beautiful mathematics, the sum of all positive integers is -1/12. How is this possible? Calculus -- the mathematics of infinity. Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-I6XTVZXww. The really interesting thing is that this sum is fundamental to string theory!

[viscount aero]

The only way to exist in a 3D expanding universe is to have a 4th spacial dimension within which the 3D universe expands into. I can't account for an expanding universe therefore I can't accept the notion of 4D space, either. And yes, general relativity requires four spacial dimensions which is called "space-time". A very horrible term, indeed.

In a static universe, 3D is all that's apparently needed. In a static universe, time has no meaning and at best is much more a measurement of "duration" rather than a vector like the spacial dimensions. So "time" is to "seconds" as "length" is to "meter".

Anyhow, in a universe where time has no meaning (it doesn't actually exist) then things like "infinite velocity" is indeed possible which is what the EU theory also says. Groovy! There's something to this when you consider one can "instantly" visit a particular time and place in your memory. That does indeed appear to be a form of travel. But this is a lot of "woo woo" so I'll quit while I'm ahead.

Peace, CL

p.s. singularities are math tricks, along with the concept of "zero" and "infinity" and many many others. BTW, did you know that according to our beautiful mathematics, the sum of all positive integers is -1/12. How is this possible? Calculus -- the mathematics of infinity. Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-I6XTVZXww. The really interesting thing is that this sum is fundamental to string theory!

Ok but the Universe is not expanding into anything. It just "is"--suspiciously metaphysically sounding (which is ok by me but mainstream science denies it). For some reason "modern science" must avoid spirituality, consciousness as Source, and God at all costs which I find silly.

[Sparky]

Anyhow, in a universe where time has no meaning (it doesn't actually exist) then things like "infinite velocity" is indeed possible which is what the EU theory also says

Infinite velocity does not exist....sorrry... Instant occurrence does....
Like hydraulic pressure, without friction or overcoming inertia...
Time has meaning. There is an arrow of time....from now forward. time is in the makeup of all matter and interactions. But, it is not a separable constituent...

You can take the man out of the farm, but not the farm out of the man...

[Sparky]

I was thinking of faster than light: It appears that the resistance of the aether limits the speed of light. If there were a way to transmit an aether disrupting wave along with the emf communication, that would be very fast.

A strong magnetic field seems to have an effect on the aether, and it is a part of the com signal. So, how to get enough energy to reach out to great distances faster than c?