What demise? ATM is alive and well!

[folkhemmet]

Kind of ironic how the title of a recent now closed thread is the 'Demise of ATM discussion' when as of this writing 147 folks are posting or at least viewing the ATM section, and the number of people viewing and/or posting in the ATM section is consistently on par with or greater than the other sections in this forum. Thus, "demise" is surely the wrong word to describe the current state of affairs. "Disorganized" or "fragmented" are probably better descriptors here. Essentially, the current cosmological model relies on the assumption that Einstein's theory of GR (General Relativity) is a correct description of gravitation in our Universe. Most ATM cosmologies, including Jerry's, attack this central notion.

I think we can all agree that, going back decades, there's been no shortage of vibrant ATM discussions trying to show that GR is not actually correct. These ATM theorists have ranged from the "Einstein got it all wrong type" to "Einstein is right about much, but we may be placing too much faith in the extent to which it can be used type." For example, even David Spergel, a member of the WMAP team, came out with a paper in which he discusses the idea that there may be no dark energy and really what we think is a new form of energy may merely be a breakdown of GR on large scales. And, unlike ATM theorists such as Jerry, who spend most their time criticizing and bashing, Spergel actually proposes a way to test this new idea. To believe that your ideas, Jerry, will just be forever (even if you eventually present them in a manner not unlike a PHD thesis) dismissed is to essentially suggest that you have a monopoly on the scientific method and, miraculously, everybody else lacks your degree of objectivity, clarity, and mental acuity. Is this likely, are you really that special? Kind of anti-Copernican if you ask me. Again, there seems to be no end to the grandiosity and delusions of persecution....

Here is some advice based on an analogy with the current New Left protest movement. Many of the recent left-wing protests have been scattered in terms of their organization with many different groups each criticizing a different aspect of the establishment-- some anti-war, others anti-animal exploitation, others expressing dismay over the genuine inaction in the face of potentially catastrophic global environmental decline. But, unfortunately, the lack of a unifying theme and a planned alternative to the establishment makes these groups easier to ignore, easier to marginalize, easier to deride as bunch of young nuts, etc. What they need to do, some argue, is to come together and protest/replace the central tenet of modern post-industrial civilization--that is, replace endless growth and consumption with efficiency, mutual aid, conservation, and perhaps most importantly, anti-power and wealth concentration in the hands of the few. Now, similarly, if ATMers unified and consolidated their efforts in order to demonstrate conclusively that General Relativity is seriously flawed, then by implication, the current cosmological model would fall as well. However, as I've stressed before to Jerry, this overhaul will require a lot more than just concocting a slew of "frustration posts" on this forum. For better or worse, internet forums and online dating, although becoming more acceptable, are still not taken seriously and are looked down upon by many in our society—somewhat analogous to the "free trade" protestor with dreadlocks and Che T-shirt being made fun of by a smug CNN reporter. So, the overhaul will require rigorous deductive mathematical reasoning, detailed technical proposals for new hitherto unknown experiments, and ideas on how existing or planned experiments might be able to test these ideas, and so on.

[madman]

since this thread relates to the "demise" one (now closed), i thought i'd better take the opportunity to apologise for an error i made in that thread.

in respect of the attribution of a particular section of the wmap cmb image as being "eridanus void", i marked the wrong spot...the actual area is the dark clover leaf shape just below the area i circled.

sorry about that.


the argument/overview of the reasons why the mainstream understanding of the cmb has altered remains the same though...there was concern about the excessive divergence of "large bright and dark areas" in that particular section of the image (the southern hemisphere section) and a study of the nearby eridanus void contributed to that new understanding.


*********************************************

as an extra, i thought i'd add an image that helps to explain the colour and brightness of the original wmap image
http://www.universetoday.com/wp-cont...in_fullsky.jpg
..and how it relates to a basic greyscale, which is what i've back-converted the image to, in my "redscale" version.

see attached.

[weatherc]

I find it amusing that none of the ATM "theorists" can help talking about their own pet theory in any thread that's just talking about ATM in general. It's like some odd compulsion, and they just don't even realize they're doing it.

[Neverfly]

I find it amusing that none of the ATM "theorists" can help talking about their own pet theory in any thread that's just talking about ATM in general. It's like some odd compulsion, and they just don't even realize they're doing it.

I will note: I think we all do that when we are really worked up or passionate about something.

Like us military guys never miss a chance to relate something to "one time in the Army..." etc.

[Jerry]

Kind of ironic how the title of a recent now closed thread is the 'Demise of ATM discussion' when as of this writing 147 folks are posting or at least viewing the ATM section, and the number of people viewing and/or posting in the ATM section is consistently on par with or greater than the other sections in this forum. Thus, "demise" is surely the wrong word to describe the current state of affairs. "Disorganized" or "fragmented" are probably better descriptors here. Essentially, the current cosmological model relies on the assumption that Einstein's theory of GR (General Relativity) is a correct description of gravitation in our Universe. Most ATM cosmologies, including Jerry's, attack this central notion.

I must agree with you completely. The ATM section has is lighting up, the conversation is vigorous and spirited. Jerry was wrong again.

[/quote]And, unlike ATM theorists such as Jerry, who spend most their time criticizing and bashing, Spergel actually proposes a way to test this new idea. [/quote]
Well, I think the 'truth is out there' meaning that a proper interpretation of much of the data in-hand would go a long way towards finding it; and I still have to insist that I am making both numerical and general predictions, not just questioning modern interpretations of modern data. Oh, and reparameterizing GR (again) will not fix the problems.

...Internet forums and online dating, although becoming more acceptable, are still not taken seriously and are looked down upon by many in our society—somewhat analogous to the "free trade" protestor with dreadlocks and Che T-shirt being made fun of by a smug CNN reporter. So, the overhaul will require rigorous deductive mathematical reasoning, detailed technical proposals for new hitherto unknown experiments, and ideas on how existing or planned experiments might be able to test these ideas, and so on.

The most pleasing progress is that many like you realize that some kind of overhaul is necessary. To what extent the internet forums such as this have added to a growing consensus that change is needed is a good question. It is my personal opinion that the BA/UT web pages will be invaluable in tracing the roots of future mainstream wisdom.

[JimJast]

Essentially, the current cosmological model relies on the assumption that Einstein's theory of GR (General Relativity) is a correct description of gravitation in our Universe. Most ATM cosmologies, including Jerry's, attack this central notion.

That's why they don't have any success since Einstein's General Relativity might be right and what may be wrong is only what cosmologists added to it against Einstein's opinion, namely an assumption that the universe is expanding which might be wrong without harming General Relativity.

The original General Relativity prohibits non conservation of energy which on Noether's theorem prohibits the expansion of the universe. In the contemporary mainstream science it is assumed that the principle of conservation of energy is invalid to allow for the expansion of the universe (on the same Noether's theorem).

As I pointed in AMT thread "Einstein's universe", if the density of the universe were (6.0+/-0.5)x10^-27kg/m^3 the expansion as well as its acceleration were explained by Einstein's general relativity as ILLUSIONS resulting from the principle of conservation of energy. That's why this new "general relativity with the expanding universe" needs to get rid of conservation of energy to keep the Big Bang hipothesis. Einstein's general relativity does not need the expanding universe and it does quite nicely just with the conservation of energy. However it needs the density of the universe to be 2.3 time greater what astronomers are observing to keep the conservation of energy and to get rid of expansion.

So the real issue is only whether astronomers see everything what there is in the universe and the universe is expanding and so the energy can be created OR the energy is conserved and astronomers don't see about 57% of the universe mass. For the time being there is no doubts that Einstein's general relativity is right. Just the assumption of expansion might be wrong. But it as not Einstein's idea but only cosmologists' who insist that Hubble redshift is Doppler.

[nutant gene 71]

That's why they don't have any success since Einstein's General Relativity might be right and what may be wrong is only what cosmologists added to it against Einstein's opinion, namely an assumption that the universe is expanding which might be wrong without harming General Relativity.
...[snip]...

As I pointed in AMT thread "Einstein's universe", if the density of the universe were (6.0+/-0.5)x10^-27kg/m^3 the expansion as well as its acceleration were explained by Einstein's general relativity as ILLUSIONS resulting from the principle of conservation of energy. That's why this new "general relativity with the expanding universe" needs to get rid of conservation of energy to keep the Big Bang hipothesis. Einstein's general relativity does not need the expanding universe and it does quite nicely just with the conservation of energy. However it needs the density of the universe to be 2.3 time greater what astronomers are observing to keep the conservation of energy and to get rid of expansion.

So the real issue is only whether astronomers see everything what there is in the universe and the universe is expanding and so the energy can be created OR the energy is conserved and astronomers don't see about 57% of the universe mass. For the time being there is no doubts that Einstein's general relativity is right. Just the assumption of expansion might be wrong. But it as not Einstein's idea but only cosmologists' who insist that Hubble redshift is Doppler.

Einstein's theory of General Relativity may not be entirely right, especially if Hubble redshift is from non-Doppler effect. If the density of the universe needs to be 2.3 times greater than observed, there is room for another theory of why observed light appears redshifted. There is a lot of free space between galaxies in any line of sight that is not entirely empty, but filled with very dilute gas and dust, all of which may account for the missing density if taken together. But that would necessitate per Equivalence, if it is to sum up at 2.3 times greater, that the mass of this dust and gas is all together 2.3 times greater than now assumed. However, short of discovering that intergalactic space is 2.3 time fuller with dust and gas than observed, it would mean that, per Equivalence, the gravity to mass relationship in intergalactic space is greater than now assumed, with a non-constant universal 'constant' Newton's G. But how to measure for that? And if found not a universal constant, what changes to Einstein's General Relativity would account for the difference? Or worse, would this ATM discovery totally upset the Einstein et al apple cart, where gravity is not a space-time distortion but a real effect in how, per Equivalence, inertial mass in intergalactic space is different from here? With or without Dark Matter, the apple cart is already teeter tottering. Some simple measurements can push it over, if we can measure the mass of intergalactic dust and gas for its true mass value. Energy conservation can be preserved, if gravity of all that intergalactic space dust and gas is holding together a non-Doppler universe, one perhaps infinite (whatever that means) and balanced in all directions equally, so there is not expansion nor contraction of space, just lots of space. All those atoms floating in intergalactic space may be 'heavies' with higher inertial mass, per Equivalence, with higher G? Just a thought....

In your original paper posted on the Einstein Universe thread, you wrote in the conclusion:

The article demonstrats that Einstein's physics predicts in a stationary space a Hubble type redshift that simulates accelerating expansion of this space. The predicted values of this redshift as well as its acceleration are about the same as observed in our universe.

That this "simulates" a Hubble type redshift may be more than mere coincidence that it also approximates the Pioneer Anomaly. The two may be related by the same phenomenon, that "space expansion" illusion (line of sight only, no lateral confirmation) is from the same factors that effect the Pioneers, that the inertial mass away from our Sun is higher, which causes mass gain by the probes, which accelerates them back towards the Sun; which is the same reason why intergalactic space mass is "heavier" (not Dark Matter, just heavier non-energetic matter), which shows up as the Hubble effect, which matches Einstein's lambda. They all work together as one, but since we're interpreting this as "space expansion" rather than "inertial mass expansion", we come to the wrong conclusions with the same math. The problem, therefore, may be so seminal and elemental that we painted a whole cosmology out of redshifted "illusion" because at root cause is a non-constant gravity for intergalactic space! Wow... could we get it this wrong, and still make it look right?

[CodeSlinger]

But it as not Einstein's idea but only cosmologists' who insist that Hubble redshift is Doppler.

Why do you keep saying that cosmologists insist on Hubble redshift being Doppler? AFAIK, mainstream science doesn't say that at all. I fear you have been batting at a strawman:

In the early part of the twentieth century, Slipher, Hubble and others made the first measurements of the redshifts and blue shifts of galaxies beyond the Milky Way. They initially interpreted these redshifts and blue shifts as due solely to the Doppler effect, but later Hubble discovered a rough correlation between the increasing redshifts and the increasing distance of galaxies. Theorists almost immediately realized that these observations could be explained by a different mechanism for producing redshifts. Hubble's law of the correlation between redshifts and distances is required by models of cosmology derived from general relativity that have a metric expansion of space. As a result, photons propagating through the expanding space are stretched, creating the cosmological redshift. This differs from the Doppler effect redshifts described above because the velocity boost (i.e. the Lorentz transformation) between the source and observer is not due to classical momentum and energy transfer, but instead the photons increase in wavelength and redshift as the space through which they are traveling expands.

(bold mine)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshif...nsion_of_space

[Michael Noonan]

Originally Posted by weatherc
I find it amusing that none of the ATM "theorists" can help talking about their own pet theory in any thread that's just talking about ATM in general. It's like some odd compulsion, and they just don't even realize they're doing it.

I will note: I think we all do that when we are really worked up or passionate about something.

Like us military guys never miss a chance to relate something to "one time in the Army..." etc.

Well noted. The hope is that through discussion something may be learned. So if I was to include what I wrote on a Catholic forum, not religious content naturally would that be considered adding to my little ATM position?

The question is what is truth. The three great questions are naturally what is truth, what is goodness and what is beauty. The idea is 'Correspondence Theory' meaning that which is true corresponds to reality ... therefore reality is truth. Well that makes truth even more interesting here as the argument is very strongly that quite a section of this community are not in agreement that what is presented by Mainstream science is now corresponding to reality.

This quip is just as applicable here as there:-

Well yes, what is truth has some interesting definitions. Strange for if one asked the same three questions of a simple person they may tell you that truth is in the honesty of their words and ways, goodness in their works and in the things around them and the measure of beauty is in all that can be experienced and known.

But that is just a simple explanation. A wise person has the capacity to analyses and nitpick to pieces anything presented much like a group of chooks penned over a patch of ground rich and green with growth then eventually remove all that made it lush, save for worms and the manure that needs to be scratched through for any further morsel to consume.

Michael.

I have not wasted my time as I now know from that forum, to study mathematics the first year or so of the degree is 'learning to ignore the obvious' and focus solely on proof by 'known' mathematical theorem. I might point out that a dedication to absolute mathematics kept the Egyptian empire stable and unchanging for some 3000 years. When the Greeks were later involved (due to a minor war) the world got a massive boost to art and culture and a new form of thinking catapulted the rest of the civilized world into a new era.

Waste a year or so learning to ignore the obvious, that is just the same as no new ideas here please. Believe me it would be cheaper and quicker to get a frontal lobotomy ... I know why there is not a single mind in the mathematical world with the capacity to appreciate the scope and complexity of new geometry of thought, that capacity became null and void before it ever had a chance to flower.

[Michael Noonan]

I would be morally wrong not to point out what an important role science takes up in the general community. So if my previous post was harsh it was meant to be.

The other sections of the community place great trust in the scientific advisers and theorists that lead new discoveries and confirm the stability of the world we all live in. Yet the science of mathematics has the longest proven history of halting advancement of the arts and culture even if at the time it did provide the greatest monuments humanity has ever constructed.

In bygone years advisers got the worst treatment from a disgruntled hierarchy and the outpouring of violence, murder of the intellectual elite and destruction of literary works at the Great Library of Alexandria show what happens when that all important line of what is known and 'safe' is lost.

Mathematics can be a great tool but that is all it is. Correcting reality to conform to mathematics is a dangerous game at best. Be it through lack of understanding or plain ignorance the leadership, the military and faith institutions look to science to know what is real and right. And the mob just don't care but when they do react it is either very very good or unspeakably bad.

[Tassel]

is from the same factors that effect the Pioneers, that the inertial mass away from our Sun is higher, which causes mass gain by the probes, which accelerates them back towards the Sun

At what rate would the mass of the Pioneers need to increase by to satisfy the Pioneer anomaly?

[nutant gene 71]

At what rate would the mass of the Pioneers need to increase by to satisfy the Pioneer anomaly?

You'll have to find the answer in Jim's paper, since in my above I was referring to his: http://geocities.com/jim_jastrzebski/sci/3270.htm
This is not my discussion to answer specific questions on his paper. Sorry.

[BTW, Tassel, you are welcome to send me a private message if you want an illustration of the rate needed. Cheers.]

[Gillianren]

You know, what would be killing ATM, at least around here--if I believed anything is, which I don't--is that certain proponents find it impossible to discuss the idea in the abstract. It always turns into "but science isn't considering my idea, so the system must be flawed!" Even when the proponent has offered nothing quantifiable for science to get into, which is usually the case around here anyway.