These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Out of Pod Experience

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Proving That The Higgs Field Theory Is A Fallacy

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kijo Rikki
Killboard Padding Services
#81 - 2014-06-28 18:57:22 UTC
I thought Einstein called his cosmological constant his greatest blunder. I was under the impression he introduced it to fit with the accepted observation at the time that the universe was constant and eternal. His theory would have failed to meet observations and be discarded had he not. Kinda neat that his term can be introduced on the opposite side of the equation to equal the energy-momentum that is driving the universe apart as we observe it today.

Quote:

It was originally introduced by Albert Einstein in 1917 as an addition to his theory of general relativity to "hold back gravity" and achieve a static universe, which was the accepted view at the time. Einstein abandoned the concept as his "greatest blunder" after Hubble's 1929 discovery that all galaxies outside our own Local Group are expanding away from each other, implying an overall expanding Universe.


Quote:

He was also the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article.


Even when he's wrong he was right, and many years before either Hubble or Lemaitre.

You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam. 
Riyria Twinpeaks
Perkone
Caldari State
#82 - 2014-06-28 19:04:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Riyria Twinpeaks
If the discovery of the CMB would have caused contraditions with the theory of relativity, I'm sure some of the many brilliant physicists who lived after Einstein would have worked on correcting this.

But our observations still tell us that it doesn't matter in which inertial reference frame we are. The speed of light is the same, all observable forces act the same, whether our reference frame moves relative to the CMB frame or not.

Edit: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25928/is-the-cmb-rest-frame-special-where-does-it-come-from
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#83 - 2014-06-28 19:06:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
Kijo Rikki wrote:
I thought Einstein called his cosmological constant his greatest blunder. I was under the impression he introduced it to fit with the accepted observation at the time that the universe was constant and eternal. His theory would have failed to meet observations and be discarded had he not. Kinda neat that his term can be introduced on the opposite side of the equation to equal the energy-momentum that is driving the universe apart as we observe it today.

Quote:

It was originally introduced by Albert Einstein in 1917 as an addition to his theory of general relativity to "hold back gravity" and achieve a static universe, which was the accepted view at the time. Einstein abandoned the concept as his "greatest blunder" after Hubble's 1929 discovery that all galaxies outside our own Local Group are expanding away from each other, implying an overall expanding Universe.


Quote:

He was also the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article.


Even when he's wrong he was right, and many years before either Hubble or Lemaitre.


I actually had no idea he had a hand in the concepts of expansion.


But... apparently he had to change his theory do to another's observations. How could he not at that point? He may have still been right even when he was wrong, but he still made a boo boo.

And where the hell is poor Lemaître in all of this lol

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#84 - 2014-06-28 19:08:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:
If the discovery of the CMB would have caused contraditions with the theory of relativity, I'm sure some of the many brilliant physicists who lived after Einstein would have worked on correcting this.

But our observations still tell us that it doesn't matter in which inertial reference frame we are. The speed of light is the same, all observable forces act the same, whether our reference frame moves relative to the CMB frame or not.

Edit: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25928/is-the-cmb-rest-frame-special-where-does-it-come-from



It may not "matter" but that does not mean that it is not true. The possible implications of which I have been trying to debate here btw Blink



Quote:
The theory of special relativity is based on the principle that there are no preferred reference frames. In other words, the whole of Einstein's theory rests on the assumption that physics works the same irrespective of what speed and direction you have. So the fact that there is a frame of reference in which there is no motion through the CMB would appear to violate special relativity!

However, the crucial assumption of Einstein's theory is not that there are no special frames, but that there are no special frames where the laws of physics are different. There clearly is a frame where the CMB is at rest, and so this is, in some sense, the rest frame of the Universe. But for doing any physics experiment, any other frame is as good as this one. So the only difference is that in the CMB rest frame you measure no velocity with respect to the CMB photons, but that does not imply any fundamental difference in the laws of physics.

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
Riyria Twinpeaks
Perkone
Caldari State
#85 - 2014-06-28 19:10:42 UTC
Then I've misunderstood you. Nevermind then.
Riyria Twinpeaks
Perkone
Caldari State
#86 - 2014-06-28 19:13:40 UTC
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
[...]


Ok I think you are talking about how two objects moving at the same rate will have proportional red/blue shifts that would appear to cancel each other out if you are moving with them.

I am in fact talking about an independent stationary observer who is capable of detecting the Doppler shift coming off of both cars.


My bad... I was miss reading what you were saying. Now onward with the thread!


I was always stating the reference frame of the observers as being stationary to the mirrors or cars, when talking about that.
An independent "stationary" observer would move relative to the cars, thus detect a Doppler shift, I agree.

Btw, I've edited my "sources" into the post you responded to in my quote. You might have missed it, as I was slow in editing.
Kijo Rikki
Killboard Padding Services
#87 - 2014-06-28 19:23:46 UTC
He had to add a term to the curvature of space time to match a static universe but would not affect Newtonian physics on a solar system level, but would build up on the scalecof the galaxy to hold everything in place against gravity.

It is strange that it now equals a term that contributes to the energy and momentum of the universe because until the 90's, it was assumed the universe was slowing down. Now that term is exactly the expansion as we currently observe it.

You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam. 
Kijo Rikki
Killboard Padding Services
#88 - 2014-06-28 19:43:35 UTC
Eternum Praetorian wrote:




And where the hell is poor Lemaître in all of this lol


I linked him in the second quote just to show when he came out with the hubble constant.

You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam. 
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#89 - 2014-06-28 19:54:52 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
"I don't understand physics, but I'm going to wax philosophical about how all the physicists are wrong."

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#90 - 2014-06-28 20:13:30 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
"I don't understand physics, but I'm going to wax philosophical about how all the physicists are wrong."

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.



*Snip* Removed reply to an edited out part of the quoted post. ISD Ezwal.


You have no idea what my credentials are and you have no idea that what I am talking about are fundamentals of a pretty comprehensive alternative model for the universe.

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#91 - 2014-06-28 20:15:08 UTC
Well you've chosen to post them here, so it's pretty safe to say you have neither credentials nor comprehensiveness.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#92 - 2014-06-28 20:15:27 UTC
Kijo Rikki wrote:
He had to add a term to the curvature of space time to match a static universe but would not affect Newtonian physics on a solar system level, but would build up on the scalecof the galaxy to hold everything in place against gravity.

It is strange that it now equals a term that contributes to the energy and momentum of the universe because until the 90's, it was assumed the universe was slowing down. Now that term is exactly the expansion as we currently observe it.


There are legitimate alternatives to the idea of universal expansion. But the physics gets very deep and it only works if you factor in the existence of spacetime, light as a wave and a universal coordinate system which most people are unwilling to do.

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#93 - 2014-06-28 20:17:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Well you've chosen to post them here, so it's pretty safe to say you have neither credentials nor comprehensiveness.


The edited bridged version for the sake of debate yes.



But by all means... let me have it Lol

Join in the debate, tell me where my presumption fail and why what you think is correct. Give me links and correlations. Dazzle me! TBH I am surprised one of you took so long to show up.

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#94 - 2014-06-28 20:33:23 UTC
What I think is probably correct because it's backed by mountains of experimental and observational evidence. Your conjectures are not. I say probably because science is done by inductive reasoning which can only demonstrate probable truths, not absolute ones which requires deductive reasoning.

Your failure to understand something extremely basic such as how relativistic Doppler shift occurs is a pretty clear indication that you don't have any kind of background in physics to even begin tackling the standard model, quantum mechanics, or general relativity.

I see other comments here saying things like "my understanding of quantum mechanics is that we don't know anything". Well, no... quantum mechanics has been able to predict and explain a great deal many phenomena observed in the natural world and in our experiments, and without our understanding of it we wouldn't, for example, be able to build the computers that we have today.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#95 - 2014-06-28 20:41:52 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Your failure to understand something extremely basic such as how relativistic Doppler shift occurs is a pretty clear indication that you don't have any kind of background in physics to even begin tackling the standard model, quantum mechanics, or general relativity..



I was trying to explain something to someone who did not appear to understand. What ended up happening was I was saying tomato and he was saying tomaato. I am not in the habit of refactoring in the observer after I remove the need for the observer, so i am just not used to it. The point of debate is to see what people come back at you with in order to dot all your I's and cross your T's. Or at least it is for me.

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#96 - 2014-06-28 20:43:07 UTC
"I've refuted all of physics with my armchair thought experiments, but you're the troll for calling me out on it."

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#97 - 2014-06-28 21:26:01 UTC
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay.
Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!

The Rules:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#98 - 2014-06-28 21:33:19 UTC
Daymn... ISD's were watching this thread closely. Shocked

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#99 - 2014-06-28 21:47:26 UTC
Anyway now that we have established the whole two mirrors and Doppler thing...



I think we have just gotten to the point in the debate where it is clear that most of you are ok with an explanation that contradicts all other physical laws in order to describe light's properties. If that is so there then is no way that you could be made to understand the implications of changing inertia with frequency without change in velocity.

Therefore: the point of this thread is now moot. How can it be used to describe a flaw in the Higgs field if everyone is cool with "Virtual" photon mass.

Maybe one day i'll try and approach this from another angle.

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
Christina Project
Screaming Head in a Box.
#100 - 2014-06-28 22:06:00 UTC
I can't believe I'm reading this on the front page of GD ...


I literally BURST out in laughter! :D

[i]"Don't look into another human's bowl to see how much he has ... ... look into his bowl to see if he has enough !" - Sol[/i]