Even Saul Perlmutter who headed the group that was the first to discover this acceleration of the expansion realized that any acceleration NOW is impossible.
So what Saul Perlmutter says we have is Einstein's original cosmological constant.
Einstein gave us this cosmological constant in 1917.
This was thought to be a steady- state universe in 1917.
Einstein's cosmological constant was a repulsive force equal but opposite to gravity.
It was a repulsive force equal but opposite to gravity holding all the stars and galaxies apart.
Why does Saul Perlmutter say this?
Because of the principle of equivalence.
If the principle of equivalence states that we cannot discern gravity from an accelerating, contraction then it also means we cannot discern gravity's equal and opposite repulsive force from an accelerating, expansion.
So what we have Sylwester is a steady-state universe.
Welcome back to 1917.
Fitz
In our Universe there were (before the Big Bang) and are (in the expanding Universe) not conditions for action of the principle of equivalence. In my opinion the object before the Big Bang was created because of big fluctuation in the background of the infinite Universe. In the Big Bang was created the dark energy which has influence on the expansion of our Universe.
So: expansion - yes, acceleration started about 5 billion years ago - no. The biggest acceleration was just after the Big Bang.
czeslaw
15th October 2006 - 09:39 AM
Your theories - Sylwester and Zephir are very similar. Both of them have an aether like background.
Sylvester's theory has a good math and it may helps to develope Zephir your AWT.
Czeslaw
Sylwester Kornowski
15th October 2006 - 09:57 AM
QUOTE (Zephir+)
By
AWT the Universe is formed by dense chaotic interior of the black hole. The total density of Universe is by 1E+50 orders higher, then the density of observable matter.
But we know that such model does not lead to the correct value for the anisotropy power for the quadrupole. In my opinion such initial conditions are incorrect.
And my questions: from what was built of this interior, and what phenomena started the Big Bang? Natural is assumption that there was a collapse which created the Big Bang. In the AWT a collapse is impossible (collapse of the black hole?).
QUOTE (Zephir+)
By such way, the evolution of mass inside the Universe is solely driven by evolution of Aether, not the observable matter.It's obvious from the inflation phase, where no observable mass has existed at all. The black hole behaves like dense star, which collapses by it's own gravity with increasing speed, by the similar way, like most the stars inside our Universe.
As I said the inflation models have big problem with the quadrupole.
I think that we must define the mass and the weight.
My definitions:
The mass it is amount of substance. There are particles which create the gravitational field which have mass but have not weight. Such particles do not emit and absorb other particles. Only such particles can gives the observable properties of the gravitational field (I call them the eterions).
Particles which structure leads to emission and absorption of eterions have weight. It is obvious that such particles must have the internal helicity (similarly as the tropical cyclones but speed of eterions is 8 . 10^88 times higher than light in vacuum; only such high speed of eterions leads to the observable properties of the gravitational field; so in gravitational field is concentrated energy).
What are your definitions?
czeslaw
16th October 2006 - 07:24 AM
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Oct 15 2006, 09:57 AM)
The mass it is amount of substance. There are particles which create the gravitational field which have mass but have not weight. Such particles do not emit and absorb other particles. Only such particles can gives the observable properties of the gravitational field (I call them the eterions).
Particles which structure leads to emission and absorption of eterions have weight. It is obvious that such particles must have the internal helicity (similarly as the tropical cyclones but speed of eterions is 8 . 10^88 times higher than light in vacuum; only such high speed of eterions leads to the observable properties of the gravitational field; so in gravitational field is concentrated energy).
What are your definitions?
The eterions create something like space for the particles with a gravitational field ?
Sylwester Kornowski
16th October 2006 - 10:08 AM
QUOTE (czeslaw+Oct 16 2006, 07:24 AM)
The eterions create something like space for the particles with a gravitational field ?
In my theory eterions (the fundamental, smallest particles, without internal structure) do not emit and absorb other particles because there are not in existence smallest particles. It means that these particles have mass (amount of substance) but have not weight (because do not emit and absorb other particles; it means that they do not create a field in their surrounding). Such particles can interact only because of the dynamic viscosity when they collide. Such particles must fill infinite volume.
In spaces with very high density of these particles (because of fluctuations) are created toruses which behave similarly (very big approximation because the speed of eterions is much, much higher that speeds of molecules in air) as the tropical cyclones (they have the internal helicity and spin).
The torus curves the trajectories of eterions (because of the dynamic viscosity) the same as tropical cyclone curves winds.
The set of the curved trajectories of the eterions connected to a torus I call the gravitational field of the torus (the higgson).
See chapter 'Gravitational field' - www.cosmology-particles.pl , popular version, pages 14, 15 (there are figures).
Only such particles (eterions) can create gravitational field which has strictly determined properties.
WE CANNOT TANGLE THE GRAVITATIONAL FIELD (BUILT OF PARTICLES WHICH DO NOT EMIT AND ABSORB OTHER PARTICLES) WITH THE QUANTUM MECHANICS BASED ON PARTICLES WHICH EMIT AND ABSORB OTHER PARTICLES.
Gravitation is based on the dynamic viscosity!
Thank you CZESLAW for this question.
Zephir
16th October 2006 - 10:33 AM
QUOTE (czeslaw+Oct 15 2006, 12:39 PM)
Your theories - Sylwester and Zephir are very similar. Both of them have an aether like background. Sylvester's theory has a good math and it may helps to developer Zephir your AWT.
Here's an incredible amount of Aether theories, they're using a quite different models. The
AWT is using just the wave equation at the place of math model and I've no reason to change something about it..
Sylwester Kornowski
17th October 2006 - 09:20 AM
QUOTE (CZESLAW+)
Your theories - Sylwester and Zephir are very similar. Both of them have an aether like background. Sylvester's theory has a good math and it may helps to developer Zephir your AWT.
QUOTE (ZEPHIR+)
Here's an incredible amount of Aether theories, they're using a quite different models. The AWT is using just the wave equation at the place of math model and I've no reason to change something about it..
1. My theory of structures, which with the QM, SR and GR gives the groundwork of the ultimate theory, is based on very different initial conditions than the AWT. There is only one type of fundamental particle without the internal structure. The physical state of the fundamental particles is described by 7 parameters. The nature has its internal defensive mechanism which prevents the creation of singularities of infinite mass density.
2. The AWT is based on only one parameter. It suggests that this theory contains hidden parameters because there are the 4 physical constants. They are the parameters in each complete theory.
3. I calculated a few hundred physical quantities with high accuracy. All can see my calculations and results (see www.cosmology-particles.pl ). These calculations are very simple because the nature is very simple when we understand this nature. Where we can see the CALCULATIONS made within the AWT? Are they only in the author computer? Theory without calculations does not exist. I repeat my only one question:
Can author of the AWT show us the calculations for the nucleons? Within the theory of structures I obtained:
Mass of proton 938.28 MeV
Mass of neutron 939.55 MeV
Magnetic moment of proton +2.7937 mi-B
Magnetic moment of neutron -1.9135 mi-B
Range of strong interactions 2.7047 . 10^-15 m
Range of weak interactions of proton 8.7107 . 10^-18 m
Means of squares of charges of nucleons components 0.29 e^2
Life-time of proton stable
Life-time of neutron 929 s,
and many others. See my calculations.
Can you show your calculations?
Zephir
17th October 2006 - 10:47 AM
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Oct 17 2006, 12:20 PM)
...It suggests that this theory contains hidden parameters because there are the 4 physical constants. They are the parameters in each complete theory...
These constants should follow from recursive solution of wave equation and they're related mutually, for example the G=2/c. Everything in the nature should have it's own reason, even the etherons of your theory.
From this point of view, the complete theory is just an oxymoron.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Oct 17 2006, 12:20 PM)
I calculated a few hundred physical quantities with high accuracy...
Can you explain the photon formation by your theory?
Sylwester Kornowski
18th October 2006 - 09:09 AM
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 17 2006, 10:47 AM)
These constants should follow from recursive solution of wave equation and they're related mutually, for example the G=2/c. Everything in the nature should have it's own reason, even the etherons of your theory.
From this point of view, the complete theory is just an oxymoron.
Can you explain the photon formation by your theory?
The ultimate theory exists because there is only one the nature. There must be the relations between microcosm and macrocosm and minds.
All physical quantities must have the physical meaning. And it is the rule in my theory. It was big effort to understand the physical meanings within one homogeneous and coherent description. The G=c/2 has not a physical meaning. Want you say that the gravitational constant is equal to the half of the speed of light in vacuum? It explains nothing.
In my theory packet wave is built of the elementary photons. The elementary photon it is binary system of neutrinos of different weak charges (they attract one another). In the background of the Universe there are plenty of the elementary photons (i.e. the binary systems of neutrinos) with rotational energy equal to zero.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click
here.