A Critical Look at the Standard Cosmological Picture by Daryl Janzen

Daryl

But 1905 is not SR. More importantly, that definition of simultaneity (from Poincare) is where the problem starts, because it is incorrect. So the subsequent expounding of relativity was incorrect. But their core start point, ie dimension alteration (and then light curvature in GR), may be correct. A flawed explanation of a hypothesis does not mean the hypothesis is wrong. It is spacetime and simultaneity that is wrong, these being the contexts within which it became 'explainable'. Dimension alteration might be right.

Paul

Daryl

OK. Though I am somewhat inclined to believe what Einstein said it was.

Paul

Daryl

Putnam might have had an inkling of the 'right' answer, but not of the proof. Forget SR, and all these other mangled approaches. It is very simple, reality is a sequence, so there is only one at a time. Timing is extrinsic to reality, not intrinsic. It being a methodology for rating the speed at which alteration occurs, ie between realities, not of a reality.

Paul

Daryl

The key point here is this 'red herring' of trying to reconcile with SR. Because people are trying to reconcile with something which is not actually SR, ie 1905. Einstein clearly states what SR constitutes (see my post in my blog 13/7 11.24). In sum, it involves no dimension alteration (ie fixed shape bodies), light that travel at a constant speed and in straight lines (ie no gravitational forces)and only uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion (ie in effect, stillness). So Euclidean maths is applicable. The other more subtle point is that although not overtly stated, there is still 'time' in SR, but it has been 'written off' against a level of dimension alteration that is omnipresent. In other words, a non-existent variance has been negated by an irrelevant variance. It being irrelevant because it is omnipresent and therefore makes no relative difference.

My "picture" just looks 'presentist'. Physical reality has no 'time' in it. Only the relative size/shape of physically existent phenomena which comprise it. That is, space, as such, does not physically exist. [There are more than 3 dimensions, that just being the minimum one can conceptualise and remain consistent with what that feature is in physical reality]. Physical reality involves alteration, therefore it is a sequence. Sequences can only occur 'one state at a time', because the predecessor must cease in order that the successor can occur. So, phyical reality only has the relative shape/size (colloquially refered to as space but physically it is dimension)of that which constitutes it, not time. And it can only exist in one specific physically existent state at a time.

There cannot be an "absolute present" which "continuously endures". Because that would mean one physicaly existent state which never ever changes. But I suspect you did not mean this. There is only a 'present', ie that which physically existed as at any given point in time. There is a sequence of 'presents'.

Poincare and his incorrect definition of simultaneity is the seat of the problem (see my post 11/7 19.33 in my blog).

Incidentally, all this is not my essay, it is an essay that I could have otherwise have written.

Paul

Daryl

I have re-read your essay, and would say this.

Section 3 alludes to a truth, physically. But the problem (1st para) is not contrariness to Relativity. It is contrariness to the explanation of Relativity (ie Poincare's simultaneity and Minkowski's spacetime model). Both of these being incorrect representations of physical reality. Relativity, in its 'raw' form, may or may not, be correct.

In other words, you are correct to alight on 'time' as being a problem in the current explanations of what you are considering. But the real issue is how physical existence must occur, which then reveals why 'time' is a problem. That is, there is no more a 'cosmic time' than there is any other 'form of' 'time', in it. There is only timing. A measuring system which calibrates rate of change (ie between realities). The physically existent phenomenon is different existent states, which demonstrates alteration, which occurs at a rate. Not 'time'. The concept of 'time', as usually expressed, is false, because there is no physically existent phenomenon which corresponds with that.

Now, expansion is alteration, so it has a rate of change. Expansion involves alteration in spatial position. Acceleration means that alteration in spatial position is occurring at a faster rate than it was previously. You are just(!) considering an alteration in the entirety of physical reality, rather than components thereof. The reference (in effect timing device) for this judgement is CMB. So, if one considers the entirety of physical reality as a sequence (ie one at a time), which it is, then timing that with CMB may well enable a proper explanation of expansion, and reveal the flaws in the current explanation, which presumes, incorrectly, a form of time to be an innate attribute of physical reality. [Incidentally, one of the few books I have read in the past year is The 4% Universe by Panek].

Paul

Hi Daryl,

I've read parts of your essay, and it leads me to a problem. I will try to show you the problem. Whenever people present their understandings of the universe it goes through a filter that is in my mind. This filter once offended can't be reset back into neutral. Here is an example of the filter in action. We first claim that the earth doesn't exist. now our model of the.... You see the earth not existing presents problems. So, in my efforts to tame this filter, I have in conversations said, if there is something presented in your argument that I have issues with, I will raise my hand. The hand usually goes up very early in the conversation.

So, I am trying to read your paper and I am struck by one thing first; It's not simple. It is complicated needlessly. Einstein presented special relativity simply that is part of it's genius. But that isn't the reason why I write, it is just a warning sign. I write because the hand went up, big time. Here is the offending paragraph.

"The causal and inertial structures of special relativity are thus reconciled by describing the world-lines of all observers in uniform motion through the cosmic present as their proper time axes, and rotating their proper spatial axes accordingly, so that light will be described as moving at the same rate in either direction of proper 'space'. And then, so that the speed of photons along invariant null-lines will actually be the same magnitude in all inertial frames, both the proper space and time axes in these local frames must also be scaled hyperbolically."

1) What "causal and inertial structures of special relativity"? 2) This statement shows a lack of understanding of special relativity; "thus reconciled by describing the world-lines of all observers in uniform motion". Special relativity has no "all observers in uniform motion". Two people in conversation on earth, walking towards each other, will view the galaxy in Andromeda in two completely separate light-cones. Any motion greater then zero between two observers will do this. Let me give you a hint, all observers have motion greater then zero relativity to each other. But, Ok, lets ignore that and go on. 3) "rotating their proper spatial axes" according to who's frame of reference? 4) "so that light will be described as moving at the same rate in either direction of proper 'space'", light will always be described as moving at the same rate for all observers regardless of your conditions. And then you go on and say sort of the same thing in this sentence; "so that the speed of photons along invariant null-lines will actually be the same magnitude in all inertial frames". 5) But this paragraph is then illustrated in figure 2. One problem with figure 2, the lines of A, B, and C aren't parallel. They need to be parallel if they are in uniform motion to each other in any frame of reference you choose to create.

After that paragraph, I concluded that you are saying the earth doesn't exist, blah, blah, blah.

Just in case you think I am fictional, I will tell you this. I live, according to Googlearth, 2.5 miles away from the movie theatre that had the shooting and was thinking of actually going to see "Dark Knight Rises" at that very theatre.

There is always a debate in my mind whether to keep quite and hopefully better minds then mine will correct errors, or point them out myself and appear upset at you or whoever I am posting too. I can't decide for you whether I am upset or not. I hear one of your excuses already, "not enough room". Good luck at using that one at me.

Jim Akerlund

Jim

The essential point here is that relativity is not a theory of observation, but a theory of referencing (the clue as they say, is in the title!). The next point, and most important one, is (see my post above to Daryl is that one needs to understand SR, as defined by the man who wrote it. And he defined what it was. At that stage, reconciling anything with SR can then be seen as the 'red herring' for which it is. But that does not necessarily then underrmine Darly's general arguement.

Paul

oops sorry, this post was from me, the crazy spherical Jedi.

Hi Paul,

The title of Einstein's paper on SR is "On the Electrodynamics of moving bodies". That title is in no way about the theory of referencing, it is a title about observations. Poincaré also tried to describe SR but he didn't get it quite right. Einstein correctly described SR not SR was created by Einstein. If you come along and give a better description of SR (not aether) then we will be calling it Reed's better SR. SR exists independently of it's finder. Science to be understandable needs SR. It is like trying to remove oxygen (SR) from the earth (science) and still have us living on it (universe making sense).

Jim Akerlund

Thanks Daryl in this sort of discussion it is easy to take statements too literally and out of context. Unless I detail exactly how to restate SR and start anew it does not do me much good, even though I have a specific set of assumptions in mind. It will take too long to explain these here - basically they are the same as expounded in my Beautiful Universe Theory link in my July 18 post above. I really should do more work presenting my case mathematically!

Cheers

Vladimir

James

Not so. The title of Einstein's 1905 paper is On the electrodynamics of moving bodies. But this is not SR (see my post in my blog 13/7 11.24). The other point is that none of his theory is about observation, per se. This is a misconception based on his frequent mentioning of light, the use of phraes such as frame of reference and observer moves with, and the substitution of light for distance incorrectly in an equation (see my post in my blog 11/7 19.33)

For now here are a few quotes where Einstein defines SR, ie it is not 1905:

1 Einstein Foundation of GR 1916, section A, sub sec 3:"the case of special relativity appearing as a limiting case when there is no gravitation."

2 Einstein SR & GR 1916, section 28: "The special theory of relativity has reference to Galileian domains, ie to those in which no gravitational field exists."

"In gravitational fields there are no such things as rigid bodies with Euclidean properties; thus the fictitious rigid body of reference is of no avail in the general theory of relativity."

3 Einstein SR & GR 1916, section 18: "provided that they are in a state of uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion with respect to K; all these bodies of reference are to be regarded as Galileian reference-bodies. The validity of the principle of relativity was assumed only for these reference-bodies, but not for others (e.g. those possessing motion of a different kind). In this sense we speak of the special principle of relativity, or special theory of relativity. In contrast to this we wish to understand by the "general principle of relativity" the following statement: All bodies of reference are equivalent for the description of natural phenomena (formulation of the general laws of nature), whatever may be their state of motion."

Paul

Vladamir

Yes, but the crucial point here is what did Einstein define SR as, after all, he wrote it! To me, alarm bells go off when somebody writes 'special', so I went to the original writings of 100 years ago and tracked what constitutes 'special'. And Einstein clearly defines it, many times, in different papers (and probably more than I have read, as I understand the concept was first mentioned before it was articulated in 1916). And it is not that which was written in 1905. The conditions invoked in 1905 and SR are different.

Paul

Hi Paul,

If you want to call Darwin's theory of evolution, SR, I say go for it. You may not have a lot of takers, but that's OK.

So, in your investigations of GR did you perchance read Hilbert's GR? The story goes that Einstein described what he was doing about space being the mediator of gravity to David Hilbert. Hilbert understood what Einstein was talking about and knew the math better and in two weeks time wrote out Hilbert's version of GR. I suspect this version preceeded Einstein's version, but the scientific community says it was Einstein who did GR. So any arguments that you quote to Einstein in your post could equally apply to Hilbert. Was Hilbert wrong? Before you answer that question, you need to really understand who David Hilbert was. I'm just warning you. But I suspect you will go on with your own answer that will have nothing to do with my question. A good way to answer posts is to answer questions that the previous post didn't ask.

Jim Akerlund

Jim

"If you want to call Darwin's theory of evolution, SR, I say go for it"

It is not a matter of what I want to call SR, it is a matter of what Einstein said it was, after all, he wrote it.

"So, in your investigations of GR did you perchance read Hilbert's GR?"

No. Because I have not "investigated" GR, and am not commenting on its contents. Furthermore, your point does not relate to the above, because it certainly is not the author, per se, that creates the validity of what is being said, but the correspondence of what is being said with validated facts. Now it was Lorentz (and Fitzgerald) that postulated dimension alteration, Poincare with simultaneity, etc. But the point above is that Einstein said what SR constituted, many times, in different papers, and he did not say it was 1905. That is a presumption which is being made, without any deference to what the author wrote. Neither are the two similar, when they are compared, which is also something of a 'give away'. So SR is not 1905.

"So any arguments that you quote to Einstein in your post could equally apply to Hilbert. Was Hilbert wrong?"

I have not said whether SR is valid or not, that is a separate issue. But if one is going to comment on it, or reconcile other ideas with it, then the best start point is to ensure that the theory is properly defined, as per what the author said it was.

"A good way to answer posts is to answer questions that the previous post didn't ask"

Indeed so, but as far as possible I try to avoid doing that.

Paul

Jim

Another way of expressing this argument is as follows.

In 1905, in expounding his new theory, Einstein stipulates that only two postulates are necessary. In defining them he writes that they are "only apparently irreconcilable". This is bizarre. Here is a new theory, just two postulates, and yet the author admits to a potential problem. Which is then not formally addressed until 1916, when he expounds his real theory, GR, and reconciles that apparent irreconcilability with SR.

In other words, 1905 is, in effect, a first draft of GR. He knows it does not 'all fit together', as written, and possibly knew why and what the resolution was. Hence his admission that there might appear to be a problem, but it is resolvable.

And the problem is that in 1905, objects are not 'in vacuo' (there is dimension alteration, ie there is something affecting objects), BUT light is in vacuo. In other words, the two components cannot co-exist because they are not deemed to be existing under the same conditions. In SR everything is 'in vacuo', in GR nothing is.

Paul