The Conceptual Flaw of a 'Curved Space'

[Thomas] "Strictly speaking, one can not assign any properties at all to space ... Any such properties must be restricted to objects existing within space and time. The concept of a distorted space ... should be replaced by appropriate physical theories describing the trajectories of particles and/or light near ... objects."

===

This is a pretty good short description of what we are trying to do here with the Meta Model. Read TVF's book, you will be pleasantly surprised. (In addition to the cutting edge / speculative stuff, there is also a lot of box stock mainstream science, such as the chapter on celestial mechanics, that is explained better than anywhere else I've seen. TVF is an excellent teacher.)

Then read it again. And again. It gets better each time, because you see things you missed the previous time. (I first read the book nearly 10 years ago, and I'm still rereading parts of it. And still improving my understanding of the details.) Don't overlook the articles posted here and printed in MRB, because they contain any recent new data or changes from original concepts. Then ask questions here. Then read. Then ask. (This is all still a work in progress. At some point you may be able to make a significant contribution.)

Good Luck,
LB

[Thomas] "Strictly speaking, one can not assign any properties at all to space ... Any such properties must be restricted to objects existing within space and time. The concept of a distorted space ... should be replaced by appropriate physical theories describing the trajectories of particles and/or light near ... objects."


The above is true.

Harry

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
This is a pretty good short description of what we are trying to do here with the Meta Model. Read TVF's book, you will be pleasantly surprised. (In addition to the cutting edge / speculative stuff, there is also a lot of box stock mainstream science, such as the chapter on celestial mechanics, that is explained better than anywhere else I've seen. TVF is an excellent teacher.)

Then read it again. And again. It gets better each time, because you see things you missed the previous time. (I first read the book nearly 10 years ago, and I'm still rereading parts of it. And still improving my understanding of the details.) Don't overlook the articles posted here and printed in MRB, because they contain any recent new data or changes from original concepts. Then ask questions here. Then read. Then ask. (This is all still a work in progress. At some point you may be able to make a significant contribution.)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I am well aware of the attempt to set up an alternative theory to the Big-Bang theory with the 'Meta-Model'. I am also aware that TVF has criticized some concepts the Big-Bang theory uses (like 'curved space') with similar arguments to the ones I gave above. However, looking at his page metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp , all the points mentioned merely 'test' the BB theory against observations. This could be seen as a kind of acknowledgement that, despite its conceptual flaws, the BB theory is an acceptable concept which can only be invalidated by observations. This in my opinion works involuntarily into the hands of BB cosmologists as these, apparently not being bound by logical principles, always can come up with modifications of their theory such that it seemingly satisfies observations again (not quite unlike how the Ptolemaic system of the universe was developed).

In my opinion it would tactically be much better to focus on the obvious conceptual and logical flaws inherent in the BB theory in any corresponding discussion. Of course, for the explanation of some facts like the redshift of galaxies 'alternative' theories are eventually needed (I have given my own redshift theory for instance under www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/redshift.htm ), but ultimately this is only a secondary matter. It is much more important to open people's eyes regarding the intellectual incompetence of BB cosmologists and put an end to the Big-Bang nightmare.

---

www.physicsmyths.org.uk
www.plasmaphysics.org.uk

Sorry, it sounded for a minute there like your range of interests was larger than just shooting bullits into a dead carcas (that would be BB). It is a hard-to-miss target.

Never mind,
LB

BTW, if you got the impression that we think " ...the BB theory is an acceptable concept ... " from an article posted on this site, you might want to read it a little closer. And you might want to try reading more than just one article.

BB has been a dead issue, from our perspective, for just about as long as it has been the darling of the main stream.

Ok we can put that to rest&gt;

Now I can go to bed with a BIG Bang, I hope.

---

Has anybody got any ideas on how dence a Plasma can become?

and How it does it






Harry

Einsten's theory of relativity explained the curvature of space to explain the relationship between the planets and the sun and how they orbit around one another via gravity.

ryan Henningsgaard