Formulating the Universe ~unified field theory and a unified

[D J]

This volume derives a unified field theory and a unified particle theory.

Intimately involved in the particle-wave riddle in the nature of light mystery is the question of whether or not there is a luminiferous ether (or aether), or light wave medium. If light is a particle, there would not need to be a light wave medium. The particles of light, once emitted, would travel in free space unimpeded until they struck some obstacle or object and were absorbed or reflected. On the other hand, if light is a wave, it would only stand to reason that light is a wave of some medium, just as waves on the sea are water waves, and sound is waves of atoms, whether gaseous, liquid, or solid. Is there, or is there not, a medium for light waves?

The centuries-long wave-particle controversy (which we studied in the last chapter)
http://www.wcug.wwu.edu/~erikba/ziegler/1-1.html
was, at the same time a debate over whether there is or is not an ether, or light wave medium. For the most part, whenever there was a belief that light is a wave, the n there was a belief in a light wave medium, or ether. And, for the most part, whenever there was a belief that light is a particle, then there was a getting away from the concept of an ether of space.
http://www.wcug.wwu.edu/~erikba/ziegler/1-2.html

Formulating the universe
This volume derives a unified field theory and a unified particle theory.
Copyright © 1994 by Gordon L. Ziegler. All Rights Reserved

http://www.wcug.wwu.edu/~erikba/ziegler/contents.html

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-12-26 18:18 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-12-26 18:20 ]</font>

[Aldrin]

This is the first time I see one of your post backing with Math formulas.Did Einstein was wrong? because if Aether exist what will happend for the calculation based on Einstein General and Special Relativity?

[cable]

http://www.wcug.wwu.edu/~erikba/ziegler/1-2.html

atomic clocks go at constant rates at constant altitudes in a gravitational field, but go at constant rates at constant velocities, not constant accelerations. With sufficient experiments with atomic clocks it is possible t o differentiate between accelerations and gravitational fields. (40) Thus Einstein's whole Theory of General Relativity is based on a faulty foundation. Again the principle of equivalence is nearly true. Accelerometers ca nnot differentiate between gravity and inertia. But atomic clocks can. Therefore the principle of equivalence is partial, not absolute.

I am surprised.
I thought atomic clocks expriment did give full support to General Relativity.
is GR based on a principle of approximate equivalence or full equivalence ??

so let's check and recheck/rewrite GR on earth and earth vacinity, before going to apply it at hundreds of LYs away.

[D J]

[quote]
On 2002-12-27 06:31, cable wrote:

http://www.wcug.wwu.edu/~erikba/ziegler/1-2.html

so let's check and recheck/rewrite GR on earth and earth vacinity, before going to apply it at hundreds of LYs away.

Do you really believe the Big Bangers will realise one day than Einstein could be wrong because he rejected the existence of the Aether?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-12-27 15:40 ]</font>

[michael cyrek]

On 2002-12-26 18:06, Orion38 wrote:
This volume derives a unified field theory and a unified particle theory.

Intimately involved in the particle-wave riddle in the nature of light mystery is the question of whether or not there is a luminiferous ether (or aether), or light wave medium. If light is a particle, there would not need to be a light wave medium. The particles of light, once emitted, would travel in free space unimpeded until they struck some obstacle or object and were absorbed or reflected. On the other hand, if light is a wave, it would only stand to reason that light is a wave of some medium, just as waves on the sea are water waves, and sound is waves of atoms, whether gaseous, liquid, or solid. Is there, or is there not, a medium for light waves?

The centuries-long wave-particle controversy (which we studied in the last chapter)
http://www.wcug.wwu.edu/~erikba/ziegler/1-1.html
was, at the same time a debate over whether there is or is not an ether, or light wave medium. For the most part, whenever there was a belief that light is a wave, the n there was a belief in a light wave medium, or ether. And, for the most part, whenever there was a belief that light is a particle, then there was a getting away from the concept of an ether of space.
http://www.wcug.wwu.edu/~erikba/ziegler/1-2.html

Formulating the universe
This volume derives a unified field theory and a unified particle theory.
Copyright © 1994 by Gordon L. Ziegler. All Rights Reserved

http://www.wcug.wwu.edu/~erikba/ziegler/contents.html

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-12-26 18:18 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-12-26 18:20 ]</font>

cyreks reply: I am only an amateur but I believe I can answer the question of the light medium.
Space is permeated by electro-magnetic force field just as gravity is also. This is the medium that light uses to travel through space. It extends to infinity just as gravity does. The electron transitions that generate light are charged particles and their electric charges extend to infinity. When the electron changes orbits, it creates a distubance in this field to emit the photon pulse.
Regarding Einseins General Theory of Relativity, I wondered why he introduced the cosmological constant. I think I know why.
He postulated that gravity curves space and this curvature of space causes matter to curve. However, I think he realized that if space can curve matter, than it can also erode its momentum. This would result in a collapsing universe. This, I believe is why he introduced the coamological constant to prevent this from happening. The rest is history. However, what will happen if the big bang is falsified? His theory will be faced with the same problem again.

[ljbrs]

cyreks reply: I am only an amateur but I believe I can answer the question of the light medium.
Space is permeated by electro-magnetic force field just as gravity is also. This is the medium that light uses to travel through space. It extends to infinity just as gravity does. The electron transitions that generate light are charged particles and their electric charges extend to infinity. When the electron changes orbits, it creates a distubance in this field to emit the photon pulse.
Regarding Einseins General Theory of Relativity, I wondered why he introduced the cosmological constant. I think I know why.
He postulated that gravity curves space and this curvature of space causes matter to curve. However, I think he realized that if space can curve matter, than it can also erode its momentum. This would result in a collapsing universe. This, I believe is why he introduced the coamological constant to prevent this from happening. The rest is history. However, what will happen if the big bang is falsified? His theory will be faced with the same problem again.

Einstein's Cosmological Constant, Lambda (a/k/a Dark Energy, a/k/a Quintessence) is back in style and the result is the Accelerating Universe (i.e. Perlmutter, et al., published 1 January 1998, NATURE - Letters) using Type 1a Supernovae as standard candles combined with redshift. I think that Einstein is being vindicated, and his Lambda was no blunder. He was just ahead of his time. This study (above) of Type 1a Supernovae is not about to lie down and play dead. It is sad that so many people are missing so much. They are still back fighting the battle of the Aether and of other astronomical, astrophysical, and cosmological mistakes which were laid to rest during the 20th Century -- R.I.P. There are some real astronomers, astrophysicists, and cosmologists who visit this Bad Astronomy site. We all should listen to them.

ljbrs [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img]

[David Hall]

I think that Einstein is being vindicated, and his Lambda was no blunder. He was just ahead of his time.

No, I have to disagree here. Einstein put the CC into his equations because he couldn't accept the idea that the universe could expand or contract. When he put it in it was a completely unsubstantiated and unsupported factor. He was right in calling it his "greatest blunder" because it had no business being in there. He should have known better than to try to force his theory to fit his assumptions.

The new discovery that the universal expansion is accelerating however, leads to a different conclusion. In order to find some mechanism to explain it, physicists have gone back to his equations and are looking at adding in an expansion factor. But this is not the same factor that Einstein added. This one is motivated by direct observation, not preconceptions. However, it does have a similar effect and has similarly an unexplained mechanism, so it's natural to compare the two.

(However, I do think the current addition to the theory still has the weakness of not having a solid mechanism behind it. That hasn't been solved yet. It may turn out to be a bit of a "blunder" as well.)

So whereas Einstein added his cosmological constant based on unfounded assumptions that later turned out to be false, modern cosmologists have added their constant based on observation, something already known to be factual. A crucial difference. Einstein's "vindication" is an illusion.

[D J]

On 2002-12-30 06:35, David Hall wrote:

So whereas Einstein added his cosmological constant based on unfounded assumptions that later turned out to be false, modern cosmologists have added their constant based on observation, something already known to be factual. A crucial difference. Einstein's "vindication" is an illusion.

Again another attemp to save the BB theory.
How can cosmologists repeat that a cosmological constant was "the biggest mistake of his (Einstein's) life" [3] when the equivalent of such a constant is now copied by the new cosmologists?
And this is not the only inconsistency they have to solve here some example:
Main Unsolvable Difficulties of the Big Bang Model.
A. Time Zero.
When the universe was at time t=0, the density of the universe was infinite. This is a singularity. It is argued [6]that space-time itself did not exist for times less than zero. How could the universe be created from nothing [6](no space, no time)? The universe cannot be the result of a quantum fluctuation [6] that appeared before the existence of space and time

B. Critical Value of G.
C. Age and Isotope Problems.

For more details see:
The Cosmological Constant and the Redshift of Quasars
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/QUASARS/Quasars.html

[David Hall]

On 2002-12-30 14:43, Orion38 wrote:

Again another attemp to save the BB theory.

It's no such thing, at least not in the derogatory tone you imply it is. You make it sound like the BB is a house of cards facing a huge crisis, but really it's nothing new. Simply put, there have been some new and unexpected observations. So like any good scientists, attempts are being made to explain them. Nothing dishonest there. If science finds they can adequately incorporate the new findings into the BB, then there's no problem. But if they can't, well, they'll have to admit they can't and continue searching for other options. In spite of what all the detractors say, cosmologists are not irrationally married to the Big Bang. They will accept that it's wrong if the proper proofs of that are presented and move on to other possibilites.

Anyway, how is this any different from any other theory? If the steady state or the plasma cosmology were on top and were faced with such a similar test, would anybody just toss them aside? No, they would attempt to reconcile theory and observation first. And rightly so. No theory is perfect. They all need tweaking as new observations come in.

What you insinuate is a weakness in the BB (continual modification) is really the thing that made it as strong as it is today. It's the process that all theories go through to weed out the weak and unworthy.

How can cosmologists repeat that a cosmological constant was "the biggest mistake of his (Einstein's) life" [3] when the equivalent of such a constant is now copied by the new cosmologists?

I thought I made this clear in my previous post. Einstein was premature in including a cosmological constant because there was no scientific reason to include it at the time and for the purpose it was designed. There was no rational reason to include it. Einstein should have left his theory alone and waited to see if observations bore out the predictions it made. Instead, he tried to modify it to fit his preconceptions (he couldn't believe the universe wasn't static). Therefore, it was a blunder.

The new and surprising observations that have caused a "rethinking" of that idea only appeared a few years ago. In this case, scientists are not now merely "copying" or "repeating" the old constant, they are simply testing the inclusion of a similar function as one way to model the current observations.

You see, it's not the same constant, but it is the same force (because it is as yet undefined) in both instances. The original constant was a force designed to counterbalance the natural instability of the universe predicted by relativity. The new constant not only doesn't counteract the instability, it has to add to it to explain the acceleration. The needs are completely different. But it just happens that the same anti-gravity force can be used for both applications, so in that way they are the same.

It's really still too early to see if adding in a counter-force to gravity it's the correct way to go in modifying the BB, and I don't think any honest cosmologist sees it yet as anything other than one possibility. It may be something else entirely. Time will tell.

[AgoraBasta]

On 2002-12-30 17:11, David Hall wrote:
It's really still too early to see if adding in a counter-force to gravity it's the correct way to go...

Do you at least understand that such a counter-force comes up most naturally in plasma model?