A Portrait of reality 2nd edition.

[uwot]

2nd edition just posted on blogger. Still tweaking before publishing on Amazon so any comments gratefully received. Page numbers included for ease of reference. http://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk

[-1-]

2nd edition just posted on blogger. Still tweaking before publishing on Amazon so any comments gratefully received. Page numbers included for ease of reference. http://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk

A very well done presentation. It answered a lot of things for me that hadn't even been questioned. And it helped me finally understand Special Relativity -- at least some aspects of it.

Willi, you asked for some constructive criticism, or else editorial help. I ain't a professional editor, but I think the following need improvement:

The phenomenon as stated and the conclusion are incongruent on page 10.

It states that 3 is not only farther away, but is moving faster.

But displacement is dependent on speed and original position and time spent on travel.

Speed is measured by the red shift. Position does not indicate speed at all.

If indeed 3 is travellign faster than 1, then it ought to be painted redder. That red shift is the only possible indication of speed. Position is not.

Of course position is BUT ONLY IF you assume all things started to move from one point outward at the same time. But that is what you want to show later. It's self-fulfilling prophecy. You can't prove that things farther away move faster because they are moving faster. That's an observation, and the diagram fails to show that, unless you paint the second of each pair that are red, a deeper red when they are farther away.

Page 26: there's the shells... grammar error. Used singular verb for a plural subject.

Page 31: seventh panel, bottom part, sentence needs syntactic improvement.

Page 31: eighth panel: the word "it" is used many times, and its antecedent is not clearly connected by the reader. For me it is not connected at all: does "it" repeatedly refer to the turbulance of the Big Bang, or to the universe, or to our technology...? The script needs to be cleaned up to help "it" to make sense. Generally, a good writer of technical stuff spells out the nouns instead of using a pronoun to designate the subject or object. Makes for much cleaner, easier, smoother reading.

Page 37: explains how moving atoms gain weight. But it does not tell us why stationary atoms have weight.

Page 39: fifth panel: football has fields, not pitches. And the diagram shows soccer fields, not football fields. I appreciate that in England soccer is called football. Why not call it labdarugo jatszoter, the Hungarian expression, and nobody gets confused.

Page 40: panel 2: "an hour wide." Width is a distance, or displacement, should be measured in distance units, not in time units. The mind easily corrects to what you want to say, but you said it in a sloppy way... uncharacteristic and unworthy for the calibre of your book.

Page 52: panel 3: the two parts in the graphic are indiscernible for detail. They are equal. So how do we know the conclusion is logical, if two identical things are different? The illustration is not indicative of the message it tries to show.

[-1-]

The last entry in my previous post should say "page 51:" instead of "page 52:".

The problem with the diagrams is that they don't show speed; they show position. Now I get what you mean with that diagram: one photon moves faster than the other between two mirrors. At first I did not get this; for the longest time I kept on seeing a position difference, not a speed difference. I went away from it for two hours, and now, that I've come back to it, only now I got what you meant to describe in the picture.

I don't know how you can eliminate the misunderstanding by my kind. The kind of reader whose learning style is the same as mine.

Some authors show velocity vectors when they show movement. They show an arrow that points in the direction of the movement, and is larger or smaller according to its magnitude. Maybe you could try that.

[Impenitent]

as an aside, is this one really real?

-Imp

[-1-]

Is it real? It is plausible to me, and that's more than a layman can want. I understand it, it makes sense, and it has no self-contradictions. The, to me new, information in the text aligns well with what I had already known.

I mean, they don't dish out Nobel prizes to any Tom Dick or Harry.

The only problem is that I have not learned why the theory states that the universe is accelerating in its expansion. This is not measurable. It is equally likely, with what I learned from the presentation, that the outer you are from the centre in our expanding world, the larger the INITIAL acceleration of the expansion was. And the speed has been kept constant since, save for the gravitational pull, which is almost completely negligible over such huge distances.

Then again, it is possible that the Big Bang "stuff" has had less resistance in its outward motion the farther away was from the centre of the explosion, and the parts closer to it have more "stuff" resistance to over come... so they slow down. In which case it is actually the opposite to what they say: the universe is slowing in its expansion, because some of its kinetic energy is used up in overcoming the "stuff" resistance.

By "stuff" I mean the apparent wave-form network of spinning whatchimagajits. Read the presentation, and figure it out.

This was well worthwhile reading for me, and I finished it in about an hour. My ADD almost made me give up in the last quarter, but I grit my teeth and I plodded through that last quarter.

[uwot]

The only problem is that I have not learned why the theory states that the universe is accelerating in its expansion.

Thank you very much for your input. I have changed pages 10 and 31 in the light of your suggestions. Hopefully I have now made it clear what, according to the model, dark matter is and why the expansion is accelerating.
I'm reviewing your other comments and will incorporate some of them, but I'm afraid the reference to football pitches is just my entireworldapartfromnorthamericaocentric bias showing. If American or Canadian publishers demand a gridiron, I will be happy to oblige. http://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk

[-1-]

The only problem is that I have not learned why the theory states that the universe is accelerating in its expansion.

Thank you very much for your input. I have changed pages 10 and 31 in the light of your suggestions. Hopefully I have now made it clear what, according to the model, dark matter is and why the expansion is accelerating.
I'm reviewing your other comments and will incorporate some of them, but I'm afraid the reference to football pitches is just my entireworldapartfromnorthamericaocentric bias showing. If American or Canadian publishers demand a gridiron, I will be happy to oblige. http://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk

Hi, Will. thanks for the special consideration to my criticism.

I have more critical questions coming up from this, as follows, but please bear with me.

A. Page ten reiterated that the farther away the stuff is, it moves quicker away from the observer. That has already been accepted, I had accepted that, there was no problem with accepting it. Due to red shift.

B. Page 31 mentions the dark matter.

Now, this is important:

B.1. Was dark matter B.1.a. discovered or B.1.b. hypothesized to exist BECAUSE they knew (or mistakenly believed) that the universe was accelerating outward, and therefore they needed this hypothesis to explain it?

B.2. Has the acceleration been observed, in any way? I hardly think that the red shift got shifted any noticeable amount in a person's lifetime, or in two or three human generations' time.

C. Is it possible that some ancient mind (by ancient I mean the age of the original thinker's mind who's come up with the explanation of why the red shift at the outer edge of our known universe is happening) explained the red shift as a function of current acceleration, and everyone accepted it, instead of explaining the red shift as a remnant of an acceleration at the time of the big bang? After all, the red shift we see is as old as the universe. So why suppose that the dark matter exist, if the ONLY reason we assume it exists is that we see the red shift, and we assume that it never stopped accelerating?

Please tell me the answers to these questions as per the currently accepted consensus of scientific literature. Thanks.

Please note that in physics I have the equivalent of the graduate of a Hungarian high school. I took physics in university in Canada, but they hadn't taught anything outside of what I'd already known based on my education in Hungary. I am telling you this so you can gear your explanation by "thinking down" to my level, but not any or much lower than that.

The football pitch thing is interesting... it sounds so strange to my ears. Oh, well, stranger things have been known to happen. You see, you pitch a baseball in North America... from a pitcher's mound.

My eyes are hurting. My ears are buzzing. Okay, football pitch, ... oy. I can't get used to it.

Mind you, I listen to enough commentators with heavy British-English accents during televised football (in my country, soccer) games, and never, I mean never, have I heard them refer to the playing field as a pitch. "The pass panned the entire pitch." Never heard of that. "He dribbled the ball half the the pitch." "Don't listen to that pitch, just take your coat and come drinking with us." No one ever said on my TV.

[-1-]

One more tiny question.

You say that the matter in the universe is constantly expanding.

What do you measure the expansion with? A ruler. Of any type, it measures distance.

But space has no ruler. The only rulers made are made of matter.

So if all matter in space expands, then rulers expand. If the matter in space expands on a linear scale, then rulers crumble instantly (because they are three-dimensional). If space expands on a cubical scale, then rulers crumble (because it is both a linear and three-d object.) If the rulers expand areally, the ruler shatters.

So there is no way of saying that matter is expanding... because the ruler expands at the same rate, and in fact, any expansion creates tension in a solid, which eventually breaks down the solid.

Let's assume the rulers are somewhat expansive, like rubber. So they won't shatter at the tiniest of expansions linearly, spacially or areally. If the ruler expands at the same rate as any other matter, and it must, since it is made of matter, how can you realize that there is an expansion?

In fact, is this expansion strictly theoretical, or has it been measured? If it has been measured, how could they reliably measure it?

So... what do you say to that. I hope you see am not arguing as a contrarian, but as making valid points.

I am asking you these questions because you are the first person whom I've come across who has the knowledge to answer my queries, and who has the time for me. Other people in my past who had the same knowledge as you, Will, simply dismissed me, along with my questions. I don't know to this day why I always got dismissed: because my questions are not congruent with the theory, but are superseded by the theory, and they are explained, but only if you go very deeply into the theory, which the knowers of theory knew was beyond me, or way above me; or else I got dismissed because the knowers of the theory I'd known just did not know how to answer me, but had a confirmation bias for the theory (which my questions challenge) and they dismissed me that way.

[-1-]

To be fair:

According to the Oxford dictionary, online, "field" and "pitch" are equivalent when each means an area to play outdoor team sports. So which one you use is technically entirely up to you.

In Toronto, Ontario, they used the word "pitch" for one such area, the Christie Street Pitch; it housed several playing fields, and it was in a one-time river bed. This is the only instance I've ever come across using the word "pitch" as "fields".

Also, because of its rare usage, and only for that instance, originally I figured they meant to say "ditch". I fully understood why they call the Christie Street Pitch that, only now, due to your enlightening me.

-------------------------

Edit: correction. It's not called the Christie Street Pitch. The area was called the Christie Street Pits, which had been a quarry. There is a park now, the Christie Street Pits Park. I still don't think I ever heard the expression "pitch" to describe a field before. I am not arguing, I am just describing my personal experience.

[Noax]

Thought I might attempt some of the answers, as best I understand them, which isn't great.

Now, this is important:

B.1. Was dark matter B.1.a. discovered or B.1.b. hypothesized to exist BECAUSE they knew (or mistakenly believed) that the universe was accelerating outward, and therefore they needed this hypothesis to explain it?

More distant galaxies are observed to be further apart than would be predicted by a fixed expansion rate. Basically the better telescopes were able to better measure distance to them by finding objects of fixed known brightness (certain classes of supernova). The dark energy was hypothesized to explain this. Dark matter I think was needed to explain the shape of a galaxy and the way it rotates and forms arms.

B.2. Has the acceleration been observed, in any way? I hardly think that the red shift got shifted any noticeable amount in a person's lifetime, or in two or three human generations' time.

Yes, it has been directly observed by noting the pace in the past. Telescopes see the distant past. You can still see the fireball of the big bang in fact, the wall blocking our view of even older things. That's what the CMB is.

C. Is it possible that some ancient mind (by ancient I mean the age of the original thinker's mind who's come up with the explanation of why the red shift at the outer edge of our known universe is happening) explained the red shift as a function of current acceleration, and everyone accepted it, instead of explaining the red shift as a remnant of an acceleration at the time of the big bang? After all, the red shift we see is as old as the universe. So why suppose that the dark matter exist, if the ONLY reason we assume it exists is that we see the red shift, and we assume that it never stopped accelerating?

Hubble is that thinker, and he discovered expansion (around 1930), but not the acceleration of it, which came half a century later when it could be more accurately measured for distant objects.

You say that the matter in the universe is constantly expanding.

Space is expanding, not matter. Space occupied ruler does indeed expand, growing a percent about every 140M years, but EM forces keep the object its original size. If the rate of expansion grows sufficently, the 4 forces may not be enough to pull things back together. First galaxies will spin their components away, then planets will fly apart, and eventually the ruler and even protons. This is the big-rip theory and is a true end of time if it turns out to be the case.

What do you measure the expansion with?

A telescope. The recession velocity is measured by red shift, and distance to the things are measured by brightness of objects with known luminosity, which are those supernova.

[-1-]

I am awfully sorry, Noax, but acceleration is still not proven with the data you provided.

You state that speed and position are both available.

But there is no other data about speed and position than what we see now.

From these two data points we can't deduce any acceleration to take place.

You wrote this to my question:
B.2. Has the acceleration been observed, in any way? I hardly think that the red shift got shifted any noticeable amount in a person's lifetime, or in two or three human generations' time.
Yes, it has been directly observed (((But NOT by the way I asked for... but))))) by noting the pace in the past. Telescopes see the distant past. You can still see the fireball of the big bang in fact, the wall blocking our view of even older things. That's what the CMB is.

The pace in the past and the pace in the not-so-distant past are NOT of the same object. Therefore you can't assume that acceleration is happening now.

What I need, basically, is OBSERVED (not theorized) data that says:

An object's speed has increased over time.

This can only be done by two measurements of one and the same object: a speed now, and a speed in the past.

Or else with three measurements of one and the same object: distance now, distance some time ago, and another distance some different time ago.

I don't believe this data has been available, harnessed, or observed.

So there is nothing to deny that the different speeds of objects are due to the different rate of acceleration in a span of time that is not now but the past.

For instance, the big bang. It could have propelled the outside stuff for longer at the same acceleration rate as the inside stuff, or else propelled it at a greater acceleration rate for the same amount of time or longer.

Maybe even that the inside stuff (what was inside in the time of the big bang) got accelerated faster or longer or both, and this stuff has become now the outside stuff.

But I haven't seen a reasonable explanation of why we MUST think that the acceleration is occurring now.

I think we ought to wait for uwot to come back to the site and tell me how the theory has been arrived at which says that the acceleration of the outer edges are occurring now.

[-1-]

-1- asks: What do you measure the expansion with?
-2- Noax answers: A telescope. The recession velocity is measured by red shift, and distance to the things are measured by brightness of objects with known luminosity, which are those supernova.


This is also explained by the speed of objects. Expansion is not needed in the theory, it is only a different way of looking at it.

I see where you come from: if acceleration is assumed to be occurring now, and you extrapolate the reasoning of increasing speed in outward directions down to simple man-sized objects, then I see your point clearly and brightly.

But it still is contentious to me, why you insist that acceleration is happening now. It is fully assumed, without data support. Data support exists, but the same data support can be applied to at least one different competing theory, with the same strength of reasoning, which says that the world is NOT accelerating outwardly. (That theory which I promote, which says different accelerations acted on different parts of the mass that was together or that came out at the big bang, AND there is no acceleration now.)

The acceleration is not observed, and it is assumed to be powered by dark energy / dark matter (I don't know the difference, please pick the correct name) and it has no other manifestation but a fantasy that it exists because it must exist.

Well, maybe dark matter (or dark energy?) with current acceleration do exist and happen, but maybe the alternative theory is the right one instead. The alternative theory is equally acceptable, inasmuch as explaining the difference of speed with which objects move outwardly away from us and from each other, without assuming that a whole bunch of things exist which we can't detect.

[Noax]

I am awfully sorry, Noax, but acceleration is still not proven with the data you provided.

You state that speed and position are both available.

But there is no other data about speed and position than what we see now.

This would be true only if light traveled instantly.
What we see now when we look far away is the distant past, which we can compare to more recent states of things nearby.

The pace in the past and the pace in the not-so-distant past are NOT of the same object. Therefore you can't assume that acceleration is happening now.

No, they're not the same objects, and it takes a large dataset to draw conclusions. We just observe how fast distant galaxies are moving from each other and compare that to what the local galaxies are doing. Turns out they're expanding slower than what a constant rate predicts.

What I need, basically, is OBSERVED (not theorized) data that says:

An object's speed has increased over time.

No, we don't have that data. The acceleration is drawn from mapping movement of younger galaxies, not by tracking changes for any one thing. The latter requires far more time than is practical.
There is more than one way to measure expansion acceleration rates. They were expecting the data to say it was slowing, not accelerating. Took the cosmologists sort of by surprise.

I think we ought to wait for uwot to come back to the site and tell me how the theory has been arrived at which says that the acceleration of the outer edges are occurring now.

I find that uwot has a fantastic way of explaining things.

BTW, 'outer edges'? The expansion rate is not about edges. The universe has no edges. That would sort of imply matter expanding into what was empty space, not space itself expanding much like the balloon analogy.

[Impenitent]

if the universe is expanding, wouldn't the rulers (measuring devices) expand as well?

-Imp

[Greta]

if the universe is expanding, wouldn't the rulers (measuring devices) expand as well?

-Imp

No, it's only the space between galaxies that's expanding. The galaxies themselves and the stuff in them is largely held together by gravity, EM forces and perhaps dark matter.