Page 2 of 4

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 3:26 pm UTC
by Nicias
After an (astronomical) brief cool-down the white dwarf will have a surface tempatures of the order of 10^4 K and the neutron star will have a temperature on the order of 10^6 K. Neutron star is hotter. I'm not sure why you think smaller implies cooler?

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 3:30 pm UTC
by PM 2Ring
Yeah, ok. I guess the neutron star will be significantly more massive than the WD, and it will have a smaller surface area to radiate from. :oops:

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 5:39 am UTC
by Bloopy
Haha, I have this book lying around. Anyone want it? Otherwise it's eventually going into the paper recycling to be turned into something useful.

The book's based on the alternative hypothesis of gravity that all particles/planets are inflating or expanding, causing gravity. As someone called it, "Einstein's equivalence principle taken literally". I'm sure some of you could address the problems with the idea much better than he did (if it hasn't already cropped up on the forum before). He basically takes a giant dump on science trying to make his theory fit.

I enjoyed reading the book for how it made me think, ie. how my imagination ran wild. Now that I've grown up a bit and can understand the simple beauty of relativity, I can only laugh at this other crap.

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 6:26 am UTC
by Tass
PM 2Ring wrote:Yeah, ok. I guess the neutron star will be significantly more massive than the WD, and it will have a smaller surface area to radiate from. :oops:


On the other hand its internal degrees of freedom might freeze out at a higher temperature.

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 8:27 am UTC
by PM 2Ring
Tass wrote:
PM 2Ring wrote:Yeah, ok. I guess the neutron star will be significantly more massive than the WD, and it will have a smaller surface area to radiate from. :oops:


On the other hand its internal degrees of freedom might freeze out at a higher temperature.


Thanks, Tass! Why didn't I think of that? :)

"Frozen" degrees of freedom would force a chunk of neutronium containing a given amount of heat to have a greater temperature than a chunk of WD of the same mass & heat content, implying that it's rate of cooling would be greater. But would that be sufficient to overcome the mass and surface area effects... ?

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:33 pm UTC
by Eebster the Great
Tass wrote:
PM 2Ring wrote:Yeah, ok. I guess the neutron star will be significantly more massive than the WD, and it will have a smaller surface area to radiate from. :oops:


On the other hand its internal degrees of freedom might freeze out at a higher temperature.

It would presumably have to be at a much higher temperature, since there isn't much in the way of electrons. Aside from its "nuclear" degrees of freedom, it only has six degrees of Kevin Bacon freedom, right? Or am I vastly oversimplifying things?

I know that the surface of a neutron star isn't actually neutronium, but if we ignore the surface and just look at the core, this would seem to be the implication.

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 5:19 pm UTC
by davidstarlingm
Bloopy wrote:Haha, I have this book lying around. Anyone want it? Otherwise it's eventually going into the paper recycling to be turned into something useful.

The book's based on the alternative hypothesis of gravity that all particles/planets are inflating or expanding, causing gravity. As someone called it, "Einstein's equivalence principle taken literally". I'm sure some of you could address the problems with the idea much better than he did (if it hasn't already cropped up on the forum before). He basically takes a giant dump on science trying to make his theory fit.

I enjoyed reading the book for how it made me think, ie. how my imagination ran wild. Now that I've grown up a bit and can understand the simple beauty of relativity, I can only laugh at this other crap.

Scan it and put it up online for everybody to mock.

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:19 pm UTC
by Tass
Eebster the Great wrote:
Tass wrote:
PM 2Ring wrote:Yeah, ok. I guess the neutron star will be significantly more massive than the WD, and it will have a smaller surface area to radiate from. :oops:


On the other hand its internal degrees of freedom might freeze out at a higher temperature.

It would presumably have to be at a much higher temperature, since there isn't much in the way of electrons. Aside from its "nuclear" degrees of freedom, it only has six degrees of Kevin Bacon freedom, right? Or am I vastly oversimplifying things?

I know that the surface of a neutron star isn't actually neutronium, but if we ignore the surface and just look at the core, this would seem to be the implication.


Well if it were hot enough there would be three degrees of freedom per neutron - a classical neutron gas (but then they would also decay to protons and electrons). But as it cools it is being held up by degeneracy pressure rather than thermal pressure, as we know. That means that most of the neutrons are trapped in the lowest energy state accessible to them an only the top neutrons (energy-wise, not in terms of position) are contributing thermal energy, the rest are frozen out.

But the top ones probably will still contribute something until the temperature goes pretty low. I don't think comparing it to a big nucleus is very reliable to estimate the temperature regimes here. For one the vastly different size will mean much closer spaced energy levels.

I am to tired to actually do Fermi gas math right now.

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 12:15 am UTC
by Bloopy
davidstarlingm wrote:Scan it and put it up online for everybody to mock.

It'd be a lot more convenient to mock the PDF version!

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 2:10 am UTC
by ahammel
Bloopy wrote:The book's based on the alternative hypothesis of gravity that all particles/planets are inflating or expanding, causing gravity.
Would objects be able to orbit one another if that was true?

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 3:12 am UTC
by Eebster the Great
Tass wrote:
Eebster the Great wrote:
Tass wrote:
PM 2Ring wrote:Yeah, ok. I guess the neutron star will be significantly more massive than the WD, and it will have a smaller surface area to radiate from. :oops:


On the other hand its internal degrees of freedom might freeze out at a higher temperature.

It would presumably have to be at a much higher temperature, since there isn't much in the way of electrons. Aside from its "nuclear" degrees of freedom, it only has six degrees of Kevin Bacon freedom, right? Or am I vastly oversimplifying things?

I know that the surface of a neutron star isn't actually neutronium, but if we ignore the surface and just look at the core, this would seem to be the implication.


Well if it were hot enough there would be three degrees of freedom per neutron - a classical neutron gas (but then they would also decay to protons and electrons). But as it cools it is being held up by degeneracy pressure rather than thermal pressure, as we know. That means that most of the neutrons are trapped in the lowest energy state accessible to them an only the top neutrons (energy-wise, not in terms of position) are contributing thermal energy, the rest are frozen out.

But the top ones probably will still contribute something until the temperature goes pretty low. I don't think comparing it to a big nucleus is very reliable to estimate the temperature regimes here. For one the vastly different size will mean much closer spaced energy levels.

I am to tired to actually do Fermi gas math right now.

The "degrees of freedom per neutron" are the "internal degrees of freedom" referred to, right? I was thinking of something along the lines of the last equation on this page. Most of the time for ordinary matter you cannot reach such a low temperature that the nuclear degrees of freedom "freeze out," but for neutronium this should happen even at very high temperatures, since almost all degrees of freedom are essentially "nuclear" in a sense (which is what makes it a degenerate Fermi gas even at 1012 K).

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 7:09 am UTC
by Tass
Eebster the Great wrote:The "degrees of freedom per neutron" are the "internal degrees of freedom" referred to, right? I was thinking of something along the lines of the last equation on this page. Most of the time for ordinary matter you cannot reach such a low temperature that the nuclear degrees of freedom "freeze out," but for neutronium this should happen even at very high temperatures, since almost all degrees of freedom are essentially "nuclear" in a sense (which is what makes it a degenerate Fermi gas even at 1012 K).


I seem to have misunderstood what you meant with "nuclear degrees of freedom". In ordinary matter you have three degrees of freedom (translation) for each nucleus, those practically never freezes out. But you almost never have high enough temperature to actually excite the internal degrees of freedom of those nuclei. At high enough temperatures you'd have three degrees of freedom per nucleon not per nucleus. Those are almost always frozen out in normal matter.

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 7:26 pm UTC
by Eebster the Great
Wait, six degrees of freedom, not three. Right?

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 9:02 pm UTC
by Tass
Eebster the Great wrote:Wait, six degrees of freedom, not three. Right?


I am not sure at which energies rotations of nuclei or nucleons begin to matter.

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:44 pm UTC
by Jorpho
Do the rotational energies of "spherical" particles ever matter? We never talked about that in statistical mechanics. I can't quite remember why.

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:47 pm UTC
by thoughtfully
The Earth is a mostly spherical particle. Nucleons, rather less so.

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 11:59 pm UTC
by Bloopy
ahammel wrote:
Bloopy wrote:The book's based on the alternative hypothesis of gravity that all particles/planets are inflating or expanding, causing gravity.
Would objects be able to orbit one another if that was true?

His explanation is that objects fundamentally move along curved paths (conveniently avoiding the word geodesic). If I understood it right: for it to be possible for two objects to remain the same distance apart (surface to surface, regardless of whether in orbit), they must be able to accelerate away from each other on exponentially curved paths, because they're expanding exponentially. In the case of orbit it'd be a spiral. I guess not only their volume is expanding, but also their momentum somehow.

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:04 am UTC
by Eebster the Great
It's almost as if that change in momentum were caused by some sort of force . . .

How does he tie in electromagnetism and the nuclear forces? Or does his "final theory" only involve gravity?

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 3:23 am UTC
by Shro
Google ads decided to serve up a banner ad for One Direction's new fragrance while visiting this page (all that browsing for makeup at sephora/ulta). I may have found it more captivating than the actual content.

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2013 8:56 am UTC
by Bloopy
I scanned a couple of pages for a bit of amusement:

Image Image

The second one explains that the electric charge is actually a different rate of expansion at the sub-atomic level. Yes, every atom is like a little TARDIS. If I'd scanned the pages following, you'd learn that electrons bounce off the nucleus rather than orbiting it. I... need to destroy this book.

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2013 3:00 pm UTC
by davidstarlingm
Bloopy wrote:I scanned a couple of pages for a bit of amusement:

Image Image

The second one explains that the electric charge is actually a different rate of expansion at the sub-atomic level. Yes, every atom is like a little TARDIS. If I'd scanned the pages following, you'd learn that electrons bounce off the nucleus rather than orbiting it. I... need to destroy this book.

BOING!!

**reads the first page**

Oh God what is this horseshit.

Two objects....passing each other....are actually expanding....so they seem closer....which makes us think they are orbiting? Because that makes perfect sense and exactly matches our observations of the conservation of energy in orbital mechanics.

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2013 4:24 pm UTC
by Flumble
davidstarlingm wrote:Two objects....passing each other....are actually expanding....so they seem closer....which makes us think they are orbiting?

Can't you see? It's clearly shown in the diagrams!

Well, at least it is for the part where they have passed eachother and they expand tangentially... and then the universe explodes.

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2013 5:02 pm UTC
by davidstarlingm
Flumble wrote:
davidstarlingm wrote:Two objects....passing each other....are actually expanding....so they seem closer....which makes us think they are orbiting?

Can't you see? It's clearly shown in the diagrams!

Well, at least it is for the part where they have passed eachother and they expand tangentially... and then the universe explodes.

Did he even remotely consider whether or not this would work for a single orbital cycle?

Periodic occultation?

Elliptical orbit?

Anything?

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2013 7:37 pm UTC
by Eebster the Great
No, he doesn't even understand any of those things well enough to consider them. He can't even math.

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2013 1:17 pm UTC
by Mutex
Bloopy wrote:Haha, I have this book lying around. Anyone want it? Otherwise it's eventually going into the paper recycling to be turned into something useful.


It sounds like it'd be useful to use as a paperweight. Obviously until the internal battery runs out and it doesn't have the energy to exert pressure downwards, of course.

EDIT: Just read the first page... just... wow. So two objects sat right next to each other just expand until they overlapped each other? Or do they push each other apart or something... I need to lie down.

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2013 2:47 pm UTC
by davidstarlingm
Mutex wrote:
Bloopy wrote:Haha, I have this book lying around. Anyone want it? Otherwise it's eventually going into the paper recycling to be turned into something useful.


It sounds like it'd be useful to use as a paperweight. Obviously until the internal battery runs out and it doesn't have the energy to exert pressure downwards, of course.

EDIT: Just read the first page... just... wow. So two objects sat right next to each other just expand until they overlapped each other? Or do they push each other apart or something... I need to lie down.

Two objects set down next to each other are expanding, but the earth is expanding too, so they are kept apart because the distance between them along the earth's surface is increasing.

No explanation whatsoever for the proportionality of surface gravity to density.

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2013 2:56 pm UTC
by Mutex
Sorry if my example implied they were on the Earth's surface, I meant if they were in space, stationary, next to each other.

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2013 3:39 pm UTC
by davidstarlingm
Mutex wrote:Sorry if my example implied they were on the Earth's surface, I meant if they were in space, stationary, next to each other.

Then they will expand until they collide, but because everything is expanding, this will manifest as mutual gravitational attraction between the two objects. Which, to be fair, does happen.

But Eebster was right; he can't math at all. In order for the expansion to be undetectable, it must maintain a constant rate for any given system, taking into account the radii of the objects involved. However, even the most cursory torsion balance test will demonstrate that gravitational attraction is proportional to density for spherical objects. This is a mathematical requirement, too; if (apparent) gravitational attraction was proportional to radius, you could produce gravitational attraction of arbitrary degree by defining an aggregate of objects as a singular object (or vice versa). Clearly the force of gravity is unaware of the definition you have chosen.

Not to mention that different systems will produce different rates of expansion. In order to produce an apparent surface gravity of one gee, Earth would need to be expanding such that its surface accelerated toward other objects at one gee. (Never mind that this would make the inverse-squared relationship of gravity impossible.) Running a basic kinematic equation tells us Earth's radius needs to double every 1140 seconds, and so everything sitting on Earth's surface needs to also double in size every 1140 seconds. But the moon has a different radius and different gravity; it needs to double in radius every 1465 seconds. So when the astronauts were on the moon, their bodies would have been expanding more slowly than when they were on Earth. But in order to be within the same gravitation field of Earth, they'd still have to be expanding at the same rate too. Of course those kinematic equations depend on a constant acceleration, but acceleration is based on the definition of a meter, which is apparently expanding as well, so who knows how the math is supposed to work out.

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2013 7:45 pm UTC
by Copper Bezel
Yeah, I basically can't math either, but when he said that the reason we don't notice is because everything is expanding uniformly, and yet it has the effect of resembling motion (or any effect at all, for that matter) he failed basic life and clearly can't life at all.

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2013 7:49 pm UTC
by thoughtfully
Verbs into nouns I can deal with (building, etc), but this topsy-turvy, inverted, bass-ackwards stuff is turning my brain outside in.

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2013 8:58 pm UTC
by davidstarlingm
Copper Bezel wrote:Yeah, I basically can't math either, but when he said that the reason we don't notice is because everything is expanding uniformly, and yet it has the effect of resembling motion (or any effect at all, for that matter) he failed basic life and clearly can't life at all.

If everything was expanding uniformly but space was not, then you would certainly observe an apparent attraction between all bodies. Of course, to sustain the apparent attraction, you need exponential expansion, which would fill up the universe within a couple of days. His notion of expansion-in-relative-motion-looking-like-gravitational-perturbation is sadly not-so-well-thought-out.

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Sat Dec 21, 2013 9:44 pm UTC
by gmalivuk
thoughtfully wrote:Verbs into nouns I can deal with (building, etc), but this topsy-turvy, inverted, bass-ackwards stuff is turning my brain outside in.
So you have a problem with words like "sleep" or "drink" or "deal", right?

Oh wait.

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Mon Dec 23, 2013 3:17 pm UTC
by phillip1882
i actually kinda belive the theory.
yeah i know you all are probably gonna jump down my throat and go WHAT??!!
but it does make a wierd sence to me.
i dont think science currently is wrong, far from it, i just feel that matter expanding makes more sence to me than gravity endlessly pulling or warped spacetime.

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Mon Dec 23, 2013 4:00 pm UTC
by elasto
phillip1882 wrote:i actually kinda belive the theory.
yeah i know you all are probably gonna jump down my throat and go WHAT??!!
but it does make a wierd sence to me.
i dont think science currently is wrong, far from it, i just feel that matter expanding makes more sence to me than gravity endlessly pulling or warped spacetime.

But how does a circular orbit arise? If you've got a stationary object in the middle and another above it and moving left, and half an orbit later it is below it and moving right, how does that come about if there's no attraction between the two (just simply expansion)? How does a leftward trajectory turn into a rightward one?

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Mon Dec 23, 2013 6:08 pm UTC
by dudiobugtron
Bloopy wrote:I scanned a couple of pages for a bit of amusement:

[redacted]

The second one explains that the electric charge is actually a different rate of expansion at the sub-atomic level. Yes, every atom is like a little TARDIS. If I'd scanned the pages following, you'd learn that electrons bounce off the nucleus rather than orbiting it. I... need to destroy this book.


While the author might appreciate the advertising, I imagine you don't have their permission to copy the book. In New Zealand law, that is a breech of copyright, unless it's for personal study, or for educational purposes; and in the case of the latter, the educational institution should probably pay some royalty fees to the publisher. In US law, it might count as 'fair use', though I'm not sure exactly what that means. If you're just using it to deride the author, does that count as fair use? Should we really be able to read parts of the book without paying for the privilege?

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Mon Dec 23, 2013 8:40 pm UTC
by gmalivuk
Yes, criticism definitely counts as fair use. It doesn't mean it feels fair to the person being quoted, but that's not what the law means.

(I know there is still a limit to the quantity you can copy, and I don't remember what that limit is or how much was copied in this case, but the point is that quoting something to criticize it is not the problem in itself.)

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Tue Dec 24, 2013 3:14 am UTC
by phillip1882
okay so ill try to explain orbits here under the expanding matter hypothesis.
planetary rotation.png
planetary rotation.png (3.03 KiB) Viewed 5130 times

firstly, i make the implicit assumtion that total momentum in any system is constant.
that is, any change in momentum must be counteracted in someway.
since matter expands at an accelerating rate, this acceleration must be counteracted by a change in momentum.
in the above diagram, i show two bodies, one orbiting the other. the black line represnting the "desired" velocity, the red line showing the true trajectory as a result of the acceleration effect.

unforuntaly the theory does fall apart at a point. i can't really explain planetary orbits given the equation for gravity under the expanding matter hypothesis. i did the cacluations, and the earths moon should rotate about 4 times faster than it actually does given its distance, and many other such mathematical inconsistances.
i want to abondon the thoery but i just can't, it seems so beautiful.

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Tue Dec 24, 2013 3:41 am UTC
by gmalivuk
Expansion alone wouldn't get you *any* change in direction, though.

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Tue Dec 24, 2013 7:02 am UTC
by PM 2Ring
phillip1882 wrote: i want to abondon the thoery but i just can't, it seems so beautiful.

Sorry, that's a pre-scientific way of thinking. Sure, science likes beautiful theories, but beauty in a theory is not in itself sufficient: the theory has to tally with the empirical data.

BTW, the word you're looking for is theroy. :)

Re: Wrong on the Internet: The Final Theory

Posted: Tue Dec 24, 2013 7:41 am UTC
by Eebster the Great
Silly as that thread was, I would much rather have kids throwing out their wild ideas on forums like these then pretending they are proven and profound and trying to trick people into paying to hear them.