http://www.physorg.com/news76314500.html
The evidence against the Big Bang and an expanding universe has been mounting for decades. May this be the final nail in the coffin of established dogma?
Unfortunately current cosmology is dominated by scientists who"ve staked their careers on the current model, and all who do not subscribe have been blocked by the peer review process, which is also dominated by believers of the Big Bang hypothesis. Because of this, the amount of funding available to explore other ideas is very limited.
One such alternative theory is gaining momentum, Plasma Cosmology. In plasma cosmology, there are none of these "surprises"which continually baffle classical astronomers. Plasma cosmology has been criticized for being less developed than the current model, but considering the resources given the current model, this is understandable. That does not take away from the validity of the plasma model of the univers. When the sands of scientific opinion shift, and the dollars start moving in that direction, the model will mature very rapidly.
-G
Maybe the Steady State Theory is correct after all. Perhaps white holes are leaking matter out into an infinite-sized universe, perhaps also dark matter and antimatter? But this doesn't explain the accelerating, expanding universe, or DOES it?
No certainties can exist with regard to the expansion state or rate of expansion so long as this belief is based on the redshift of light. There are currently numerous anomalous observations of redshift which defy explanation under the current model. For more information on the questionable validity of redshift as a measure of universal expansion, check out the works of Halton Arp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_Arp
I am a believer in the infinite universe, and any expansion seen in our local neighborhood may not be reflective of the universe as a whole.
-G
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_Arp
I am a believer in the infinite universe, and any expansion seen in our local neighborhood may not be reflective of the universe as a whole.
-G
Interesting article.
Imagine some sort of virtual particle production, though not simply virtual, spread across all space creating an effect associated with the Big Bang.
Hawking Radiation would seem likely to exist anywhere a gravitational gradient does and not be limited to existing along the event horizon of a black hole - basically all mass could 'evaporate' over time and recondense elsewhere. A large galaxy, with a large gravitational gradient would produce more, though it would also shield things from the effect, so observations could depend on the relative rates of absorbtion and emission, and this could be a function of wavelength, as larger wavelengths would seem less likely to be absorbed.
Now if we took the idea of the universe being a black hole and the galactic layers correlating with reflections perceived as light falls back inside it, then background radiation would not be coming from behind galactic layers, but instead cycling between them.
Of course being located in an area where mass is higher in the universe gravitational compression could easily make the rest of the universe, or prior reflections of it, appear larger in comparison (which also would lend support to the why galactic orbits appear faster than they should be - the sizes would appear larger than they physically were ... they could even be closer, in a sense, than imagined)
Just ideas ...
Imagine some sort of virtual particle production, though not simply virtual, spread across all space creating an effect associated with the Big Bang.
Hawking Radiation would seem likely to exist anywhere a gravitational gradient does and not be limited to existing along the event horizon of a black hole - basically all mass could 'evaporate' over time and recondense elsewhere. A large galaxy, with a large gravitational gradient would produce more, though it would also shield things from the effect, so observations could depend on the relative rates of absorbtion and emission, and this could be a function of wavelength, as larger wavelengths would seem less likely to be absorbed.
Now if we took the idea of the universe being a black hole and the galactic layers correlating with reflections perceived as light falls back inside it, then background radiation would not be coming from behind galactic layers, but instead cycling between them.
Of course being located in an area where mass is higher in the universe gravitational compression could easily make the rest of the universe, or prior reflections of it, appear larger in comparison (which also would lend support to the why galactic orbits appear faster than they should be - the sizes would appear larger than they physically were ... they could even be closer, in a sense, than imagined)
Just ideas ...
Bravo G!
"The Big Bang" as an hypothesis to explain the universe origin fails the "Origin" test every time. "The Beginning" begins with "nothing". An explosion of "nothing" would not even tilt your hat, no matter how big the area! If we are to explain the "origin" of ALL there is we simply HAVE to begin with SOMETHING!!
E. L. Earnhardt
E. L. Earnhardt
QUOTE (E. L. Earnhardt+Sep 1 2006, 11:50 PM)
"The Big Bang" as an hypothesis to explain the universe origin fails the "Origin" test every time. "The Beginning" begins with "nothing". An explosion of "nothing" would not even tilt your hat, no matter how big the area! If we are to explain the "origin" of ALL there is we simply HAVE to begin with SOMETHING!!
E. L. Earnhardt
Ditto me a copy of that sentiment.
I think the continued origin of the universe has been an eternal non-zero probability of anything/everything and of course some things are more or less likely to be witnessed using specific methods of observation. For example, humans are unlikely to be around when things look like plasma.
From this perspective the question becomes not why the universe has specific characteristics, but instead why are you viewing it in a specific way - what makes your perspective of it unique?
Consider the simply fact that some people are color blind or dyslexic. For them things can appear reversed or altered significantly in how they perceive the universe, yet despite this fact that likely no two people (or even particles) "see" things exactly the same way, there's a shared stream of information that has common components between potentially all of them and probably something similar to this has existed forever (though possibly in wildly different contexts).
From that perspective, the universe appears a lot more like point to point connections between "observer/objects" and space similar to a shared network in which these communicate.
I don't know much except that on occasions it's entirely fascinating to consider "what might be" and the more you dig into science, the more amazing it becomes on how little we potentially know and the quite likely possibility that for at least some specifics, there may continually remain unknowables (and certainly this is true for individuals).
But, yes, it makes more sense to assume "in the beginning there was everything", instead of "in the beginning there was nothing". (Everything taken at once would look like nothing specific anyway ... and probably a lot like vacuum fluctuations in an empty space)
E. L. Earnhardt
Ditto me a copy of that sentiment.
I think the continued origin of the universe has been an eternal non-zero probability of anything/everything and of course some things are more or less likely to be witnessed using specific methods of observation. For example, humans are unlikely to be around when things look like plasma.
From this perspective the question becomes not why the universe has specific characteristics, but instead why are you viewing it in a specific way - what makes your perspective of it unique?
Consider the simply fact that some people are color blind or dyslexic. For them things can appear reversed or altered significantly in how they perceive the universe, yet despite this fact that likely no two people (or even particles) "see" things exactly the same way, there's a shared stream of information that has common components between potentially all of them and probably something similar to this has existed forever (though possibly in wildly different contexts).
From that perspective, the universe appears a lot more like point to point connections between "observer/objects" and space similar to a shared network in which these communicate.
I don't know much except that on occasions it's entirely fascinating to consider "what might be" and the more you dig into science, the more amazing it becomes on how little we potentially know and the quite likely possibility that for at least some specifics, there may continually remain unknowables (and certainly this is true for individuals).
But, yes, it makes more sense to assume "in the beginning there was everything", instead of "in the beginning there was nothing". (Everything taken at once would look like nothing specific anyway ... and probably a lot like vacuum fluctuations in an empty space)
>> found a lack of evidence of shadows
>> to look for evidence of "lensing" effects which should have been seen (but weren't) >>
yes The BB has no hope of surviving...... it is a flawed hypothesis
>> If the standard Big Bang theory of the universe is accurate and the background microwave radiation came to Earth from the furthest edges of the universe, >>>
>> the background microwave radiation reaching Earth today would have traveled billions of light years through space from the furthest edges of the universe. >>
This is a bother
How can the light from the BB still be coming to Earth ?
How can we "look back" into the beginning of time ?.... to do that we (as observers) would have to have been here already to greet the light rays that we view.
Earth (matter) surely took more time to get here than the emitted radiation,
unless the Universe is closed and light just goes around and around.............
I have no time for the concept of the Big Bang.
>> to look for evidence of "lensing" effects which should have been seen (but weren't) >>
yes The BB has no hope of surviving...... it is a flawed hypothesis
>> If the standard Big Bang theory of the universe is accurate and the background microwave radiation came to Earth from the furthest edges of the universe, >>>
>> the background microwave radiation reaching Earth today would have traveled billions of light years through space from the furthest edges of the universe. >>
This is a bother
How can the light from the BB still be coming to Earth ?
How can we "look back" into the beginning of time ?.... to do that we (as observers) would have to have been here already to greet the light rays that we view.
Earth (matter) surely took more time to get here than the emitted radiation,
unless the Universe is closed and light just goes around and around.............
I have no time for the concept of the Big Bang.
The findings of Dr. Lieu and his associates at the University of Alabama in Huntsville are expected in light of the discovery that the periodicity of the Atomic Elements is octahedral.
The octahedral periodicity of the Atomic Elements implies that the atoms are crystalline assemblies of identical regular octahedra. It follows that a photon is an atom or an assembly of atoms. Because of this, a geometric explanation of the pinhole diffraction pattern is required and has been found. See LIGHT in Octahedron1stEd.pdf at
http://homepage.mac.com/whitby/FileSharing103.html
In addition, experiments with brass tubes having diameters too large for a wave effect have produced the same concentric pattern of light and dark rings. See pinholeDiff.pdf at
http://homepage.mac.com/whitby/Light/FileSharing120.html
Blackbody experiments have found that different materials at the same temperature have the same color. It follows that the reciprocal of the "wavelength" is proportional to the momentum of the photon.
The red shift is due to the retarding effect of the polar interaction between adjacent photons radiating from the same source at the same speed over the duration of their journey from source to observer. See RedShift.pdf at
http://homepage.mac.com/whitby/Stars/FileSharing162.html
The octahedral periodicity of the Atomic Elements implies that the atoms are crystalline assemblies of identical regular octahedra. It follows that a photon is an atom or an assembly of atoms. Because of this, a geometric explanation of the pinhole diffraction pattern is required and has been found. See LIGHT in Octahedron1stEd.pdf at
http://homepage.mac.com/whitby/FileSharing103.html
In addition, experiments with brass tubes having diameters too large for a wave effect have produced the same concentric pattern of light and dark rings. See pinholeDiff.pdf at
http://homepage.mac.com/whitby/Light/FileSharing120.html
Blackbody experiments have found that different materials at the same temperature have the same color. It follows that the reciprocal of the "wavelength" is proportional to the momentum of the photon.
The red shift is due to the retarding effect of the polar interaction between adjacent photons radiating from the same source at the same speed over the duration of their journey from source to observer. See RedShift.pdf at
http://homepage.mac.com/whitby/Stars/FileSharing162.html
QUOTE (Zarkov+Sep 2 2006, 12:56 AM)
>> If the standard Big Bang theory of the universe is accurate and the background microwave radiation came to Earth from the furthest edges of the universe, >>>
>> the background microwave radiation reaching Earth today would have traveled billions of light years through space from the furthest edges of the universe. >>
This is a bother
How can the light from the BB still be coming to Earth ?
How can we "look back" into the beginning of time ?.... to do that we (as observers) would have to have been here already to greet the light rays that we view.
The idea of the Big Bang is basically that the universe was much more compact in the past and that it expanded and cooled along the way. (This idea goes along with conservation of energy, which may not be entirely accurate)
The manner in which light is envisioned as being seen from the origin of the Big Bang is that because space itself has expanded, the distance between two points in space can be stretched potentially faster than light speed, though light within this space could still be considered to be moving at light speed. (I know, it makes it sound like light speed isn't that constant if space itself can stretch or be squeezed potentially faster than light, but let's ignore that)
So it's envisioned that some photons from the Big Bang could still be travelling through space toward us. There would have never been any observable walls in space, even if the universe was compressed to a point simply because you could never see outside the universe.
Anyway, these photons would be moving toward us at light speed, but also the expansion or stretch of space is moving them away from us at the same time.
So at some distant point in space, a photon could be moving toward us at light speed but be simultaneously, because of the large amount of space in between, expanding, be moved away from us in a complimentary manner ... maybe the overall influence for some photons remaining on the very edge of this is to progress them forward by only inches each year.
But as they gain some headway slowly, there's now less space expanding between "us and them" and so they slowly make headway but gain speed against this counteracting effect.
Eventually once we observe them, there's no more space left expanding between them and an observer and so they're moving at light speed, but may have remained almost stationary in space against the expansion for a long time.
Anyway, that's basically how the standard theory goes, though it does seem there are many alternate ideas out there.
Something to consider is that though we imagine this light to have travelled a straight path getting here, depending on what you use as a reference for space, it's easy to imagine gravitational forces bending the path of light on its way ... possibly even in a full circle, or multiple such circles and create the appearance of evenly spaced galactic walls in space www.fractaluniverse.org ... just a thought.
>> the background microwave radiation reaching Earth today would have traveled billions of light years through space from the furthest edges of the universe. >>
This is a bother
How can the light from the BB still be coming to Earth ?
How can we "look back" into the beginning of time ?.... to do that we (as observers) would have to have been here already to greet the light rays that we view.
The idea of the Big Bang is basically that the universe was much more compact in the past and that it expanded and cooled along the way. (This idea goes along with conservation of energy, which may not be entirely accurate)
The manner in which light is envisioned as being seen from the origin of the Big Bang is that because space itself has expanded, the distance between two points in space can be stretched potentially faster than light speed, though light within this space could still be considered to be moving at light speed. (I know, it makes it sound like light speed isn't that constant if space itself can stretch or be squeezed potentially faster than light, but let's ignore that)
So it's envisioned that some photons from the Big Bang could still be travelling through space toward us. There would have never been any observable walls in space, even if the universe was compressed to a point simply because you could never see outside the universe.
Anyway, these photons would be moving toward us at light speed, but also the expansion or stretch of space is moving them away from us at the same time.
So at some distant point in space, a photon could be moving toward us at light speed but be simultaneously, because of the large amount of space in between, expanding, be moved away from us in a complimentary manner ... maybe the overall influence for some photons remaining on the very edge of this is to progress them forward by only inches each year.
But as they gain some headway slowly, there's now less space expanding between "us and them" and so they slowly make headway but gain speed against this counteracting effect.
Eventually once we observe them, there's no more space left expanding between them and an observer and so they're moving at light speed, but may have remained almost stationary in space against the expansion for a long time.
Anyway, that's basically how the standard theory goes, though it does seem there are many alternate ideas out there.
Something to consider is that though we imagine this light to have travelled a straight path getting here, depending on what you use as a reference for space, it's easy to imagine gravitational forces bending the path of light on its way ... possibly even in a full circle, or multiple such circles and create the appearance of evenly spaced galactic walls in space www.fractaluniverse.org ... just a thought.
All these “new findings” are grasping at straws. The support for the Big Bang model is verified in all large-scale observations. It is interesting that the first thought of non-verification of a hypothesis about the Big Bang is that there was no Big Bang and not that the hypothesis is wrong. Where have all the men of science gone.
QUOTE (tlocity+Sep 2 2006, 01:17 AM)
All these “new findings” are grasping at straws. The support for the Big Bang model is verified in all large-scale observations. It is interesting that the first thought of non-verification of a hypothesis about the Big Bang is that there was no Big Bang and not that the hypothesis is wrong. Where have all the men of science gone.
I believe there are a few reasons why people are looking for alternatives to the Big Bang (have no fear, the Big Bang isn't going anywhere quickly):
1) The origin of the Big Bang is a bit unsatisfying. If everything was compressed into a single point this has the same singularity issues as black holes and provides no way to see "past" this event.
2) The Big Bang doesn't fit in well with conservation ideas ... "where did the Big Bang come from?" is probably a question most people who've thought about it for very long consider. Maybe it all was truly created in a blinding flash somehow ... maybe not. Though making assumptions in favor of this singularity as an origin tend to keep people from recognizing alternate, potentially more rewarding views.
3) The Big Bang has been a patchwork of various "constants" and a lot of time has been spent trying to reconcile observations that can appear contradictory. There are other puzzling observations like dark matter and the inflationary period, that give hints that there might be a simpler model that bypasses the need for adding more complexity. It's easy to wonder whether many models, if given enough massaging would similarly fit and would any models need less massaging.
4) If a Big Crunch were likely, this might give more credibility to a complimentary Big Bang, but without an obvious way for the universe to recycle information, if we assume conservation laws hold, then the universe should grow distant and cold.
Now it's entirely possible that the ideas of the universe being ultimately ripped apart are the equivalent of a Big Crunch (I believe approaching a singularity would actually be seen as large tidal forces ripping things apart), but anyway the verdict I've heard is that current models show the universe effectively fading into a frozen mist of isolated and dead particles. That seems to imply the universe is a "one-shot" deal with a finite time and it's hard to imagine how life, being so apparently rare from our perspective, could arise within such a one time event.
5) Quantum observations seem to indicate particles can be created out of what appears to be nothing. Along with the Casimir effect, it appears space is much more dense and active than imagined in the past.
Such actions could easily create a non-stationary system, with both creative and destructive events occuring.
My personal view is that the Big Bang reflects the general cumulative effects of these forces over time. In effect, the Big Bang could be an on going event that alters the general characteristics of matter over time. So, for example, if you see a distant mountain as hazy, it's not because the mountain was or is hazy itself, but that observing it from over a distance (and similarly time) alters the observed characteristics.
Along similar lines, if physical "constants" altered over time, then the properties of matter and energy could be altered. As the relationships became more chaotic relative to the relationships that currently are in place, coherent references for time between the two events would quickly become unobservable over a time (and things would simply look like a short blast of plasma before incoherence). In this way the Big Bang could effectively be infinitely old, but we can't see this time because we can't easily correlate events over time in the past with events currently seen. So basically if the laws of nature change, once they diverge enough from our references, space can quickly appear to dissolve into chaos past some point.
There are many possibilities. In the end, if an alternate model provides a much better explaination without as much patchwork needed, then I'm confident things will sway that direction, if not, then the Big Bang model will remain and likely continue to be occassionally revised.
The Big Bang model might work well, but it may ultimately not be the best ... there are always new horizons to be seen.
I believe there are a few reasons why people are looking for alternatives to the Big Bang (have no fear, the Big Bang isn't going anywhere quickly):
1) The origin of the Big Bang is a bit unsatisfying. If everything was compressed into a single point this has the same singularity issues as black holes and provides no way to see "past" this event.
2) The Big Bang doesn't fit in well with conservation ideas ... "where did the Big Bang come from?" is probably a question most people who've thought about it for very long consider. Maybe it all was truly created in a blinding flash somehow ... maybe not. Though making assumptions in favor of this singularity as an origin tend to keep people from recognizing alternate, potentially more rewarding views.
3) The Big Bang has been a patchwork of various "constants" and a lot of time has been spent trying to reconcile observations that can appear contradictory. There are other puzzling observations like dark matter and the inflationary period, that give hints that there might be a simpler model that bypasses the need for adding more complexity. It's easy to wonder whether many models, if given enough massaging would similarly fit and would any models need less massaging.
4) If a Big Crunch were likely, this might give more credibility to a complimentary Big Bang, but without an obvious way for the universe to recycle information, if we assume conservation laws hold, then the universe should grow distant and cold.
Now it's entirely possible that the ideas of the universe being ultimately ripped apart are the equivalent of a Big Crunch (I believe approaching a singularity would actually be seen as large tidal forces ripping things apart), but anyway the verdict I've heard is that current models show the universe effectively fading into a frozen mist of isolated and dead particles. That seems to imply the universe is a "one-shot" deal with a finite time and it's hard to imagine how life, being so apparently rare from our perspective, could arise within such a one time event.
5) Quantum observations seem to indicate particles can be created out of what appears to be nothing. Along with the Casimir effect, it appears space is much more dense and active than imagined in the past.
Such actions could easily create a non-stationary system, with both creative and destructive events occuring.
My personal view is that the Big Bang reflects the general cumulative effects of these forces over time. In effect, the Big Bang could be an on going event that alters the general characteristics of matter over time. So, for example, if you see a distant mountain as hazy, it's not because the mountain was or is hazy itself, but that observing it from over a distance (and similarly time) alters the observed characteristics.
Along similar lines, if physical "constants" altered over time, then the properties of matter and energy could be altered. As the relationships became more chaotic relative to the relationships that currently are in place, coherent references for time between the two events would quickly become unobservable over a time (and things would simply look like a short blast of plasma before incoherence). In this way the Big Bang could effectively be infinitely old, but we can't see this time because we can't easily correlate events over time in the past with events currently seen. So basically if the laws of nature change, once they diverge enough from our references, space can quickly appear to dissolve into chaos past some point.
There are many possibilities. In the end, if an alternate model provides a much better explaination without as much patchwork needed, then I'm confident things will sway that direction, if not, then the Big Bang model will remain and likely continue to be occassionally revised.
The Big Bang model might work well, but it may ultimately not be the best ... there are always new horizons to be seen.
Does matter exist at time zero?
Do Tell? Think outside the box! Water boils at 212 degrees farenheit at sea level yet at lower temperatures as one gains altitude - at least on the current 3rd planet of this particular "solar system" ! Now I would ask: How do we , as a civilization, know that what we have observed to be "scientific fact" in our local area of the cosmos- apply to all of everything? As a young man I read profusely all the Science I could procure at my local library and also all the Sci-Fi I could find also! Much Data was processed by my small Human Brain and the end result was an "Open Mind"! My mind is somewhat older now but if anything even more "Open". I have met ,what some people deem, "Extremely Intelligent" individuals who could not conceive of boiling the previously mentioned water in a paper cup over an open fire! As a civilzation we have settled for comfortable explanations to what we do not understand and over some millennia have been lucky to get a very few things near enough correct to allow us to evolve our sciences- albeit still staying within the constraints of comfortability! What I percieve of the current level of science on this planet is stagnation- cultural, social and GOVERNMENTAL restraints on "Knowledge", have all but doomed the true exploration of all that "is"! Without going deeply into Sagan's "billions and billions", I merely opine; Knowing, definitively, everything about one grain of sand on the beach in Oahu - tells us very little about the whole island, let alone the planet! Ergo; tiny blue planet in unremarkable solar system in uremarkable galaxy in all of our "percievable" universe - THINK AGAIN!
universe is a system in a permanent dynamic equilibrium
there was no creation, no big bang
see my article:
"AGN as a Renewing Systems of the Universe" (2005) Sorli
http://www.ejtp.com/articles/ejtpv2i6p7.pdf
there was no creation, no big bang
see my article:
"AGN as a Renewing Systems of the Universe" (2005) Sorli
http://www.ejtp.com/articles/ejtpv2i6p7.pdf
QUOTE (octahedron+Sep 2 2006, 01:06 AM)
The findings of Dr. Lieu and his associates at the University of Alabama in Huntsville are expected in light of the discovery that the periodicity of the Atomic Elements is octahedral.
The octahedral periodicity of the Atomic Elements implies that the atoms are crystalline assemblies of identical regular octahedra. It follows that a photon is an atom or an assembly of atoms. Because of this, a geometric explanation of the pinhole diffraction pattern is required and has been found. See LIGHT in Octahedron1stEd.pdf at
http://homepage.mac.com/whitby/FileSharing103.html
In addition, experiments with brass tubes having diameters too large for a wave effect have produced the same concentric pattern of light and dark rings. See pinholeDiff.pdf at
http://homepage.mac.com/whitby/Light/FileSharing120.html
Blackbody experiments have found that different materials at the same temperature have the same color. It follows that the reciprocal of the "wavelength" is proportional to the momentum of the photon.
The red shift is due to the retarding effect of the polar interaction between adjacent photons radiating from the same source at the same speed over the duration of their journey from source to observer. See RedShift.pdf at
http://homepage.mac.com/whitby/Stars/FileSharing162.html
This was quite interesting reading......... until page 38.......
"Life
The crystalline atom leads to the conclusion that photons are atoms or groups of atoms. It follows that stars are planets whose surfaces are atomically afire, its atoms disintegrating into their components hydrogen and helium. Life is the active agent in concentrating unstable atoms to produce heat. This results in the production of ever larger numbers of unstable atoms. This leads to uncontrolled fission which leads to high surface temperature and the planet thus becomes a sun. Each star was once an earth populated with humans who attained the technology possessed by our contemporaries.
Polar communication
Each of the edges of the octahedron which joins with identical octahedra to form the atoms is a magnetic pole. The edge of one octahedron has a polar effect on each edge of each octahedron towards which it is directed. This effect is modified by any change in the orientation of the octahedron. The effect is immediate; there is no delay, no matter how remote the edges may be. This effect offers the possibility of the inhabitants of one planet communicating with the inhabitants of other planets throughout the universe. The inhabitants must have reached the same technological level at the same time."
Hmmmmmm...... You can draw your own conclusions
The octahedral periodicity of the Atomic Elements implies that the atoms are crystalline assemblies of identical regular octahedra. It follows that a photon is an atom or an assembly of atoms. Because of this, a geometric explanation of the pinhole diffraction pattern is required and has been found. See LIGHT in Octahedron1stEd.pdf at
http://homepage.mac.com/whitby/FileSharing103.html
In addition, experiments with brass tubes having diameters too large for a wave effect have produced the same concentric pattern of light and dark rings. See pinholeDiff.pdf at
http://homepage.mac.com/whitby/Light/FileSharing120.html
Blackbody experiments have found that different materials at the same temperature have the same color. It follows that the reciprocal of the "wavelength" is proportional to the momentum of the photon.
The red shift is due to the retarding effect of the polar interaction between adjacent photons radiating from the same source at the same speed over the duration of their journey from source to observer. See RedShift.pdf at
http://homepage.mac.com/whitby/Stars/FileSharing162.html
This was quite interesting reading......... until page 38.......
"Life
The crystalline atom leads to the conclusion that photons are atoms or groups of atoms. It follows that stars are planets whose surfaces are atomically afire, its atoms disintegrating into their components hydrogen and helium. Life is the active agent in concentrating unstable atoms to produce heat. This results in the production of ever larger numbers of unstable atoms. This leads to uncontrolled fission which leads to high surface temperature and the planet thus becomes a sun. Each star was once an earth populated with humans who attained the technology possessed by our contemporaries.
Polar communication
Each of the edges of the octahedron which joins with identical octahedra to form the atoms is a magnetic pole. The edge of one octahedron has a polar effect on each edge of each octahedron towards which it is directed. This effect is modified by any change in the orientation of the octahedron. The effect is immediate; there is no delay, no matter how remote the edges may be. This effect offers the possibility of the inhabitants of one planet communicating with the inhabitants of other planets throughout the universe. The inhabitants must have reached the same technological level at the same time."
Hmmmmmm...... You can draw your own conclusions
Its too quick to say that big bang is wrong .Although there are various competitors , i am not sure whether this effect is a evidence strong enough to refute big bang .
If this observation combined with other anomalies let us say red shift controversy/red shift quantization is conclusively proven then perhaps we will need a paradigm shift .
The reason cosmologists favour big bang model is that it explains most observations ,
not all and that is true of other models as well .They also suffer from various shortcomings . If these observations hold then in my view we will need perhaps a new cosmological model , not bigbang , not steady state or any other known model. However it is possible that it will share many chracteristics of bigbang theory .[I]
If this observation combined with other anomalies let us say red shift controversy/red shift quantization is conclusively proven then perhaps we will need a paradigm shift .
The reason cosmologists favour big bang model is that it explains most observations ,
not all and that is true of other models as well .They also suffer from various shortcomings . If these observations hold then in my view we will need perhaps a new cosmological model , not bigbang , not steady state or any other known model. However it is possible that it will share many chracteristics of bigbang theory .[I]
QUOTE (MrGrynch+Sep 1 2006, 02:10 PM)
The evidence against the Big Bang and an expanding universe has been mounting for decades. May this be the final nail in the coffin of established dogma?
Hi all,
The Big Bang theory is alive and well, folks … sorry to disappoint some.
For some reason people imagine the big bag, as if it were a grenade going off with bits flying in all directions … this is what is coursing all the problems.
The big bang was a point source, therefore one dimensional (1D).
Simplistic Explanation:
So imagine big bang happening in a straight line in the macro and a straight line in the micro. This simultaneous event caused rotation in the macro and the micro.
Note:
The path of a point moving along in a straight line (at uniform speed) being rotated about a fixed point is called a spiral (Archimedean).
In the macro, the big bang path of the building blocks of matter followed a spiral.
In the micro the inverse happened, the building blocks of matter spiral inwardly … how else is the micro going to be so small.
Also everything in the macro had an inverse twin in the micro … this is how we have this feeling of things being real and not ghost like.
The building blocks through their travels formed partnerships …. and we ended up with what we have now.
The explanation for why the background radiation is only 25% of what is expected is quite clear if you divide the point source of the spiral by a vertical and a horizontal line.
The tail of the spiral will be in only one quadrant.
So the background radiation will only be coming from the tail part, and not from all directions.
Also the spiral is the reason why the furthest galaxies are moving faster away from us … it is definitely not a 'current bun in the oven' model.
In fact if astronomers where to us this spiral model for mapping the galaxies they would be able to estimate their distances far better … wheels within wheels is the analogy.
Cheers
I have long held that, due to the infinities generated by assuming a singularity (Big Bang) which must be negated by other, hard to come by infinities, the answer would be closer on the order of a series of regional "Little Bangs" and "Little Crunches". These would continue to repeat over time. Being regional, they would be capable of emissions from all directions and thus few shadows would be found. Food for thought.
There is a conventional explanation for the anomalous SZ effect. It has something to do with strong AGN inside clusters etc..
See http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0607304.
Ps. Why so many people on this site are against the mainstream?? Are you frustrated or a little bit brainless ?
See http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0607304.
Ps. Why so many people on this site are against the mainstream?? Are you frustrated or a little bit brainless ?
Yet another proof against the Big Bang!
QUOTE (blade+Sep 4 2006, 07:05 PM)
There is a conventional explanation for the anomalous SZ effect. It has something to do with strong AGN inside clusters etc..
See http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0607304.
Ps. Why so many people on this site are against the mainstream?? Are you frustrated or a little bit brainless ?
But doesn't this in effect also say that the prior assumptions of this WMAP data reflecting Big Bang radiation can be explained otherwise?
If similar radiation can be generated by high velocity charges passing through space against a background level of radiation, then no matter where you're looking, you'll likely see this effect.
So if that's the case, then why would this radiation have to be specifically associated with the Big Bang?
It sounds like they're reinforcing the idea that this database isn't directly representative of radiation from the Big Bang as was assumed prior, and instead it's associated with secondary emissions (which could easily be imagined to introduce tertiary radiation etc. in a cyclic manner instead ... so effectively you have high velocity charges "stirring" the radiation soup in space to make it uniform instead of it arising from a uniform source ... that's not unbelievable and it seems to run counter to the Big Bang).
You can spin a story any way you want.
It seems that if the radiation in the WMAP observations was intended to largely reflect observations of background radiation associated with distant (in time) emissions during the Big Bang, then this radiation should have originated long ago and travelled through space to reach us. If the radiation seen does not possess these characteristics, then this is evidence against the idea and not an indirect confirmation of it.
Personally I don't see why the Big Bang had to be a one shot event. Consider that this paper alone could explain why distant objects appear to share certain characteristics - because we see them processed in a similar manner over time through space and so photons travelling a large distance actually do interact in space over time as many people have claimed before and on top of it they aren't even necessarily travelling straight the entire time but can be indirectly absorbed and reemitted in a different direction.
Wouldn't this lend credibility to ideas similar to "tired" light? If high velocity electrons can sap some energy from a photon travelling through space and redirect this energy, then you'd have light losing energy over time while simultaneously generating a rather uniform background radiation from this loss.
Again, I admit having a lot more curiousity than knowledge in the field, so I welcome having my ideas shot down (as it serves to make the ones left standing more reliable).
See http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0607304.
Ps. Why so many people on this site are against the mainstream?? Are you frustrated or a little bit brainless ?
But doesn't this in effect also say that the prior assumptions of this WMAP data reflecting Big Bang radiation can be explained otherwise?
If similar radiation can be generated by high velocity charges passing through space against a background level of radiation, then no matter where you're looking, you'll likely see this effect.
So if that's the case, then why would this radiation have to be specifically associated with the Big Bang?
It sounds like they're reinforcing the idea that this database isn't directly representative of radiation from the Big Bang as was assumed prior, and instead it's associated with secondary emissions (which could easily be imagined to introduce tertiary radiation etc. in a cyclic manner instead ... so effectively you have high velocity charges "stirring" the radiation soup in space to make it uniform instead of it arising from a uniform source ... that's not unbelievable and it seems to run counter to the Big Bang).
You can spin a story any way you want.
It seems that if the radiation in the WMAP observations was intended to largely reflect observations of background radiation associated with distant (in time) emissions during the Big Bang, then this radiation should have originated long ago and travelled through space to reach us. If the radiation seen does not possess these characteristics, then this is evidence against the idea and not an indirect confirmation of it.
Personally I don't see why the Big Bang had to be a one shot event. Consider that this paper alone could explain why distant objects appear to share certain characteristics - because we see them processed in a similar manner over time through space and so photons travelling a large distance actually do interact in space over time as many people have claimed before and on top of it they aren't even necessarily travelling straight the entire time but can be indirectly absorbed and reemitted in a different direction.
Wouldn't this lend credibility to ideas similar to "tired" light? If high velocity electrons can sap some energy from a photon travelling through space and redirect this energy, then you'd have light losing energy over time while simultaneously generating a rather uniform background radiation from this loss.
Again, I admit having a lot more curiousity than knowledge in the field, so I welcome having my ideas shot down (as it serves to make the ones left standing more reliable).
As a College Astronomy teacher I believe that the Big Bang Never occurred. See The Big Bang Never Happened by Eric Lerner, (1984) which argues that the Big Bang Theory is a gravity based theory and that there is another power (Plasma Energy) that may explain many things that the Big Bang Theory fails to explain, such as galaxy formation, red shifting, etc..
As for light red-shifting at greater distances, perhaps that can be explained by the "Old" Tired Light Theory. Einstein acknowledged that there are two explanations for redshifting. One, that the Universe is expanding and the second is that light coming out of a gravity well loses energy and appears red shifted. The Tired Light Theory states that at the greatest scale the Universe is a sphere and that light from great distances must come "up hill" to our location, as it does it loses energy and appears redshifted.
I tell my students that we live in very exciting times. The currently accepted Big Bang Theory fails to answer many questions. The Theory has been modified so many times to keep it from falling apart that my head is spinning. Inflation Theory is based upon NO scientific fact whatever, COBE's scientific results were overstated, and Dark Energy and Dark Matter are a fig leaf covering an embarassing mountain of scientific failure.
The Big Bang Theory should have been discarded decades ago but the pride, ego and vanity of our top scientists has kept us from looking at other potential theories, such as the Plasma Theory and the Tired Light theory.
James
As for light red-shifting at greater distances, perhaps that can be explained by the "Old" Tired Light Theory. Einstein acknowledged that there are two explanations for redshifting. One, that the Universe is expanding and the second is that light coming out of a gravity well loses energy and appears red shifted. The Tired Light Theory states that at the greatest scale the Universe is a sphere and that light from great distances must come "up hill" to our location, as it does it loses energy and appears redshifted.
I tell my students that we live in very exciting times. The currently accepted Big Bang Theory fails to answer many questions. The Theory has been modified so many times to keep it from falling apart that my head is spinning. Inflation Theory is based upon NO scientific fact whatever, COBE's scientific results were overstated, and Dark Energy and Dark Matter are a fig leaf covering an embarassing mountain of scientific failure.
The Big Bang Theory should have been discarded decades ago but the pride, ego and vanity of our top scientists has kept us from looking at other potential theories, such as the Plasma Theory and the Tired Light theory.
James
dear James,
I can only hope that someone will take your license to teach away.
It is really incredible to hear that someone who belives in "Old Tired Light Theory" is allowed to teach students . The theory you are mentioned are excluded by observation.See http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm , http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0504481 or better when you understand german look ( at http://www.br-online.de/alpha/centauri/archiv.shtml )the video" Wird licht müde ?
The other aspects you mentioned are absolutly insolent.You downgrade thousands of hard working physics to idiots who don`t know how to interpret their data.
Sorry that I`m so angrily but it is very frustrating when so many people are posting
theories which make no sense.I also apologize for any grammar or spelling mistake (I´m not living in the USA)
I can only hope that someone will take your license to teach away.
It is really incredible to hear that someone who belives in "Old Tired Light Theory" is allowed to teach students . The theory you are mentioned are excluded by observation.See http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm , http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0504481 or better when you understand german look ( at http://www.br-online.de/alpha/centauri/archiv.shtml )the video" Wird licht müde ?
The other aspects you mentioned are absolutly insolent.You downgrade thousands of hard working physics to idiots who don`t know how to interpret their data.
Sorry that I`m so angrily but it is very frustrating when so many people are posting
theories which make no sense.I also apologize for any grammar or spelling mistake (I´m not living in the USA)
No beginning?
The singularity theorem.
How did the Big Bang get over its infinite gravity?
Matter had to be created spread out. This also changes future matter singularities.
The singularity theorem.
How did the Big Bang get over its infinite gravity?
Matter had to be created spread out. This also changes future matter singularities.
No, does not , or even attempt to, explain the origin, just smooths out some of the mathematical difficulties for current state.
QUOTE (blade+Sep 4 2006, 07:05 PM)
Ps. Why so many people on this site are against the mainstream?? Are you frustrated or a little bit brainless ?
It is probable because some are braneless!
Ill get my coat
QUOTE (Tio T. Aitch+Sep 2 2006, 04:09 AM)
I merely opine; Knowing, definitively, everything about one grain of sand on the beach in Oahu - tells us very little about the whole island, let alone the planet! Ergo; tiny blue planet in unremarkable solar system in uremarkable galaxy in all of our "percievable" universe - THINK AGAIN!
Actually, if you knew EVERYTHING about one little grain of sand on Oahu, you would in effect know everything.
Actually, if you knew EVERYTHING about one little grain of sand on Oahu, you would in effect know everything.
QUOTE (Guest Lee+Sep 7 2006, 05:05 AM)
No, does not , or even attempt to, explain the origin, just smooths out some of the mathematical difficulties for current state.
My point is that matter has to be spread out to explain how the Big Bang got over its gravity. If matter was singular it would have infinite gravity.
This explains that there probably was no matter singularity. But there was a space-time singularity.
The question remains: when did matter come into existence?
My point is that matter has to be spread out to explain how the Big Bang got over its gravity. If matter was singular it would have infinite gravity.
This explains that there probably was no matter singularity. But there was a space-time singularity.
The question remains: when did matter come into existence?
QUOTE (Nick+Sep 8 2006, 12:59 AM)
My point is that matter has to be spread out to explain how the Big Bang got over its gravity. If matter was singular it would have infinite gravity.
This explains that there probably was no matter singularity. But there was a space-time singularity.
The question remains: when did matter come into existence?
Hi Nick
Generally the key terms in the big bang theory are: ‘Time’, ‘Spallation’ and ‘Nucleosynthesis’.
Unfortunately ‘nothing’ has not been given enough attention.
The views are that ‘nothing’ cannot exist … if ‘nothing’ existed at the very beginning then there should be no change in that status … but because we are here, then something must of existed at the very beginning.
That’s it … end of discussion on ‘nothing’.
From that assumption we then leap to various beliefs:
God created the Universe … the original ‘something’.
The universe always existed … just is.
Big bang theory … from something very small but very dense.
Big bounce … now you are, now you’re not etc..
Probability … just had to happen.
Then various combinations of the above plus some special conditions … is where we have ended up today.
We are in this situation because ‘nothing’ has not been given proper examination.
Maybe if we have a better understanding of ‘nothing’ we may be able to come up with some better reasons why things are.
We are still in a position where we see effects first then give explanations … without ever finding definitive explanations eg the modern understand of the ‘Copenhagen interpretation’ is not the same as the original.
Are we sure we are on the right road?
Are we going to accept that we cannot define ourselves because we are part of the system that we are trying to measure?
I won’t give you my full interpretation of ‘nothing’ at this time, apart that ‘nothing’ is a paradox.
I will now answer your question.
Because I like the ‘Consistent histories’ approach; first there was ‘nothing’.
Out of this ‘nothing’ an equilibrium state occurred which produced God as everything (‘all’);
to God’s ‘right-hand’ was the macro (empty) and to God’s ‘left-hand’ was the micro (again empty) … this the ‘Trinity’.
So far all this can be shown mathematically … just visualise an A and B intersection, with the universal set = {A,B,C} … like a Venn diagram.
Where A = macro, B = micro, C = All.
Next two options for creating matter:
1. This state is totally perfect … and God decides to create matter and then us via the macro and micro … what we call big bang … God is still at C.
2. This state is not totally perfect because the ‘all’ is energy. The energy leaks through the macro and the micro … what we call big bang … there is still plenty of energy at C.
For both options there was a single source of matter.
I believe it is still out there somewhere in the universe.
If we can map our universe accurately we should be able to find the macro source.
Present information says everything is moving away from us and from everyone else … so we are not going to find the source with our present day calculations/thinking.
Aside … finding the source is not a short-cut to heaven ... the door is one-way … access by invitation only.
"... when did matter come ...". When we find the source and the tail then we will be able to work it out.
Maybe we should look into the micro ... we know the the smallest particle and the largest orbit possible ... convert the path into a spiral we can then work out an age.
As for 'matter' it exists ... 1D, 2D and 3D versions to us.
Space-time is only a model as is also the 'quantum world' ... they don't exist.
Cheers
This explains that there probably was no matter singularity. But there was a space-time singularity.
The question remains: when did matter come into existence?
Hi Nick
Generally the key terms in the big bang theory are: ‘Time’, ‘Spallation’ and ‘Nucleosynthesis’.
Unfortunately ‘nothing’ has not been given enough attention.
The views are that ‘nothing’ cannot exist … if ‘nothing’ existed at the very beginning then there should be no change in that status … but because we are here, then something must of existed at the very beginning.
That’s it … end of discussion on ‘nothing’.
From that assumption we then leap to various beliefs:
God created the Universe … the original ‘something’.
The universe always existed … just is.
Big bang theory … from something very small but very dense.
Big bounce … now you are, now you’re not etc..
Probability … just had to happen.
Then various combinations of the above plus some special conditions … is where we have ended up today.
We are in this situation because ‘nothing’ has not been given proper examination.
Maybe if we have a better understanding of ‘nothing’ we may be able to come up with some better reasons why things are.
We are still in a position where we see effects first then give explanations … without ever finding definitive explanations eg the modern understand of the ‘Copenhagen interpretation’ is not the same as the original.
Are we sure we are on the right road?
Are we going to accept that we cannot define ourselves because we are part of the system that we are trying to measure?
I won’t give you my full interpretation of ‘nothing’ at this time, apart that ‘nothing’ is a paradox.
I will now answer your question.
Because I like the ‘Consistent histories’ approach; first there was ‘nothing’.
Out of this ‘nothing’ an equilibrium state occurred which produced God as everything (‘all’);
to God’s ‘right-hand’ was the macro (empty) and to God’s ‘left-hand’ was the micro (again empty) … this the ‘Trinity’.
So far all this can be shown mathematically … just visualise an A and B intersection, with the universal set = {A,B,C} … like a Venn diagram.
Where A = macro, B = micro, C = All.
Next two options for creating matter:
1. This state is totally perfect … and God decides to create matter and then us via the macro and micro … what we call big bang … God is still at C.
2. This state is not totally perfect because the ‘all’ is energy. The energy leaks through the macro and the micro … what we call big bang … there is still plenty of energy at C.
For both options there was a single source of matter.
I believe it is still out there somewhere in the universe.
If we can map our universe accurately we should be able to find the macro source.
Present information says everything is moving away from us and from everyone else … so we are not going to find the source with our present day calculations/thinking.
Aside … finding the source is not a short-cut to heaven ... the door is one-way … access by invitation only.
"... when did matter come ...". When we find the source and the tail then we will be able to work it out.
Maybe we should look into the micro ... we know the the smallest particle and the largest orbit possible ... convert the path into a spiral we can then work out an age.
As for 'matter' it exists ... 1D, 2D and 3D versions to us.
Space-time is only a model as is also the 'quantum world' ... they don't exist.
Cheers
QUOTE (Janus+Sep 9 2006, 12:19 AM)
Maybe we should look into the micro ... we know the the smallest particle and the largest orbit possible ... convert the path into a spiral we can then work out an age.
As for 'matter' it exists ... 1D, 2D and 3D versions to us.
Space-time is only a model as is also the 'quantum world' ... they don't exist.
Very interesting Janus' other face. From the core!!!
Moreover, convert all INNER cosmic spiral levels into OUTER one... h = f[exp(theta)] in meta-polars!? Also I'd add 0-D, "Observer Dimension".
As for 'matter' it exists ... 1D, 2D and 3D versions to us.
Space-time is only a model as is also the 'quantum world' ... they don't exist.
Very interesting Janus' other face. From the core!!!
Moreover, convert all INNER cosmic spiral levels into OUTER one... h = f[exp(theta)] in meta-polars!? Also I'd add 0-D, "Observer Dimension".
QUOTE (Nick+Sep 8 2006, 12:59 AM)
My point is that matter has to be spread out to explain how the Big Bang got over its gravity. If matter was singular it would have infinite gravity.
This point is paradoxical in it's entirety. Were matter spread out, then no Big Bang is possible.
I find myself more and more amused by those who cling to Big Bang as the origin. No matter how far along one goes in the quest for a unified theory, whether string theory or Big Bang, the number of anomalies increases far more rapidly than any gain in mathematical certainty. This alone should be sufficient to know that we have yet to begin on the correct path.
There must be a singularity of the existence of matter, but we are apparently vastly removed in time from that event. The singularity for matter may even have begun with a minutely small mass of matter and expanded for all we can ascertain.
This point is paradoxical in it's entirety. Were matter spread out, then no Big Bang is possible.
I find myself more and more amused by those who cling to Big Bang as the origin. No matter how far along one goes in the quest for a unified theory, whether string theory or Big Bang, the number of anomalies increases far more rapidly than any gain in mathematical certainty. This alone should be sufficient to know that we have yet to begin on the correct path.
There must be a singularity of the existence of matter, but we are apparently vastly removed in time from that event. The singularity for matter may even have begun with a minutely small mass of matter and expanded for all we can ascertain.
QUOTE (Janus+)
Because I like the ‘Consistent histories’ approach; first there was ‘nothing’.
Out of this ‘nothing’ an equilibrium state occurred which produced God as everything (‘all’);
to God’s ‘right-hand’ was the macro (empty) and to God’s ‘left-hand’ was the micro (again empty) … this the ‘Trinity’.
So far all this can be shown mathematically … just visualise an A and B intersection, with the universal set = {A,B,C} … like a Venn diagram.
Where A = macro, B = micro, C = All.
Next two options for creating matter:
1. This state is totally perfect … and God decides to create matter and then us via the macro and micro … what we call big bang … God is still at C.
2. This state is not totally perfect because the ‘all’ is energy. The energy leaks through the macro and the micro … what we call big bang … there is still plenty of energy at C.
For both options there was a single source of matter.
I believe it is still out there somewhere in the universe.
If we can map our universe accurately we should be able to find the macro source.
Present information says everything is moving away from us and from everyone else … so we are not going to find the source with our present day calculations/thinking.
I don't believe there's a God in the typical sense of a single ruling intelligence to existance, or at least I can't recall ever having a chat with the guy/gal, but I do believe there's a spiritual side to the universe and 'something else', 'out there' (in a non-specific direction).
But anyway, I do see some properties that would agree a lot with the ideas of the universe requiring at least 3 distinct properties though possibly more, but likely 3 is fundamental and 4 or more could be rather arbitrary, 2 isn't enough to get the ball rolling, as any observations from one of these two properties would only see the other - basically you'd only have a single unchanging contrast. You need at least a third property to allow for change.
I see this similar to the eastern ying-yang view though where you have two absolutes in contrast and our universe lies sandwiched in the middle between possibly only two extremes.
If you plot fractal images, what we usually see lies on the border between absolute order and absolute chaos. Both ends are very similar in that they don't represent anything meaningful or tangible in themselves to us. One is an absolute 0 and frozen semiconductor with no resistance (or in another sense absolute resistance as you can't encounter anything else within it - everything passes through unchanged - space - immutable, except in relationship to exterior events).
Chaos on the other hand is pure energy, blinding white - creative or destructive, uncontrollable, unintelligeable, no handle to 'grab it by' and do anything with except to simply be exposed to it, a never ending explosion without form.
In the middle of this, I see the physical universe - powered by condensing chaos into order and extracting reality from a continually changing difference between the two. The future is unknown and chaotic, the past, rigid and unchanging, the present is an infinitely small slice of existance between the two where we measure individual changes, one by one and find a pattern to the chaos, then add it to the order, where it disappears and become part of the "observer" - a memory.
So to be honest, humans at least, neither the future nor the past physically exist, except as respectively, perceptions and memory, and I see 'will' as the mind constructing an order from the chaos. So from a more technical perspective, you have a sphere embedded within space of absolute order, chaos on the outside and the "mind" being the thin surface of this.
If you want to view this as many minds, you could have many such spheres, even possibly overlapping or of various scales as well. Each sees themself as absolute order - the continual indentity x=x or a boolean 1, unity, truth etc. - a rigid order. Of course you can swap this view as well and consider an outside view looking in as being an exact compliment of this not(x)=not(x), so an observer isn't truly one side or the other but instead a plane dividing the universe into two complimentary sets and there could be many or possibly an infinite of such planes.
These spheres or planes are abstract and don't necessary need to exist in any specific dimensional space as they're simply mental, gravity, as a mental concept doesn't exist in space itself. It's simply a concept that relates to other spacial concepts that define what space is and how it's understood. The mental perception of space and gravity doesn't necessarily correlate identically to the physical process, because it's interpreted by the brain (of which the exact boundaries seem a bit nebulous) so the mental concept of gravity, from an individual perspective is a process of learning and association and can be seen as having an abstract multidimensional relationship to other mental concepts.
I placed gravity into a more abstract mental framework because I wanted to show a graph Zephir has posted in the past:
This shows a plot of surface area to number of dimensions of a hypersphere. If we imagine that the mind lies along the surface of a potentially infinite dimensional mental space, that separates the internal order of "itself" from the external chaos, the maximum area, or size in this case, of the mind for fixed (or relativistically fixed ... whatever mental ruler you're using to measure how "important" a concept is measures things in relative terms and disregards the less important, so the things you think about tend to lie within a certain range of importance, no matter the physical size or physical importance ... this is similar to relativity).
So anyway, this plot could be shown to represent the potential efficiency of working with various numbers of abstract dimensions.
Short term memory tends to work with about 7 (+/- 2) concepts at once.
The brain is not a perfect 3-D sphere, which would be optimal for delays, but nistead has a convoluted higher dimensional surface. It might be interesting to know if such folds (and possibly recursions) have any relationship to a fractalized higher dimensional space. If left and right hemispheres each operate in independent spaces, the dimensionality of each hemisphere might only need to be half of this (~3.6 dimensions) so each hemisphere could work with about 3-4 concepts with the higher ~7 dimensional thought being a relationship between these. Each hemisphere would effectively be working with the square root of the number of total number of "thoughts" possible. (I know most people seeing such attempts at applying mathematical concepts to this will either love the idea or hate it ... such is life
).
I just have to point this out, if the underlying "fabric" of space is truly quantized and binary, the fine structure constant is basically a ratio of energies between an electron and proton.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_structure_constant
a=(e/qp)^2 ≈ 1/137
Here's another interesting quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupling_constant
"... at the scale of the Z boson, about 90 GeV, one measures α ≈ 1/127."
So if instead of multidimensional hyperspheres, we had binary hypercubes, this would lead to dimensions of log2(137) = 7.098 dimensions and log2(127) = 6.989 dimensions. Both are very close to this 7 dimensional space.
But consider that each space in instead would only need to exist in approximately half these number of dimensions: 7.098/2 = 3.549 and 6.989/2 = 3.494 or approximate 3 1/2 dimensions ... not unlike 3 bidirectional spacial dimensions with a half a dimension for the one way motion through time?
The ideas of a reciprocal space are interesting. It could be that each space has the equivalent of stationary mass with the other appearing as light speed energy relative to it and that the common elements shared between them average only ~ 1/(2^3.5) = ~1/11.3 of each
If each component exists in half of a ~7 dimensional binary space, then you'd have two reciprocal spaces of ~3.5 dimensions. It would be interesting to see what a fractalized 3.5 dimensional space resembles.
I found an interesting link here:
http://gtalumni.org/news/magazine/fall94/finger.html
"Chaotic systems can be characterized by charting their behavior over time. The resulting visual representation, known as an attractor, provides a kind of "fingerprint" for identifying different forms of chaos. Additional information about a chaotic system comes from discovering the number of unstable directions of the attractor that influence the system's activity.
Researchers have thus far been able to control only relatively simple chaotic systems: those with just one unstable direction. But recent theoretical work suggests that more complex systems could also be controlled.
Dr. Rajarshi Roy and collaborator Zelda Gills are exploring the limits of their existing chaos control techniques, attempting to characterize chaotic systems and understand which classes of chaos they can tame. They are also looking at promising new control techniques for chaotic systems of higher dimensions.
"The aim is to figure out new techniques that will be more appropriate and applicable to the more complex types of attractors we have seen in our laser system," Roy explains. "For the laser attractors, we find that the ones we can control are typically around 3.5 dimensions. We would like to understand how to develop new algorithms for experimentally controlling chaotic attractors of higher dimensions."
The Georgia Tech researchers have extensively studied the solid state neodymium-YAG laser. Their control scheme, based on periodic small alterations or "kicks" in a single system parameter, stabilizes the laser and can boost its stable power output by a factor of 15.
They are also exploring semiconductor lasers in which chaos manifests itself in spatial fluctuationsÑchanges in the pattern of light output. Those fluctuations could be important for arrays of microlasers fabricated on chips."
Ah ha! Maybe it's not entirely chaotic. It's simply difficult (is that expression an oxymoron?).
Something interesting here also, is if we consider this 7 dimensional space to be similar to an exchange between 2, 3 1/2 dimensional approximately binary spaces, then controlling or predicting the motion of one end of these could increase the coupling by a factor of 2^(3.5) ~= 11.3, or not far from the claimed 15 times power output.
Out of this ‘nothing’ an equilibrium state occurred which produced God as everything (‘all’);
to God’s ‘right-hand’ was the macro (empty) and to God’s ‘left-hand’ was the micro (again empty) … this the ‘Trinity’.
So far all this can be shown mathematically … just visualise an A and B intersection, with the universal set = {A,B,C} … like a Venn diagram.
Where A = macro, B = micro, C = All.
Next two options for creating matter:
1. This state is totally perfect … and God decides to create matter and then us via the macro and micro … what we call big bang … God is still at C.
2. This state is not totally perfect because the ‘all’ is energy. The energy leaks through the macro and the micro … what we call big bang … there is still plenty of energy at C.
For both options there was a single source of matter.
I believe it is still out there somewhere in the universe.
If we can map our universe accurately we should be able to find the macro source.
Present information says everything is moving away from us and from everyone else … so we are not going to find the source with our present day calculations/thinking.
I don't believe there's a God in the typical sense of a single ruling intelligence to existance, or at least I can't recall ever having a chat with the guy/gal, but I do believe there's a spiritual side to the universe and 'something else', 'out there' (in a non-specific direction).
But anyway, I do see some properties that would agree a lot with the ideas of the universe requiring at least 3 distinct properties though possibly more, but likely 3 is fundamental and 4 or more could be rather arbitrary, 2 isn't enough to get the ball rolling, as any observations from one of these two properties would only see the other - basically you'd only have a single unchanging contrast. You need at least a third property to allow for change.
I see this similar to the eastern ying-yang view though where you have two absolutes in contrast and our universe lies sandwiched in the middle between possibly only two extremes.
If you plot fractal images, what we usually see lies on the border between absolute order and absolute chaos. Both ends are very similar in that they don't represent anything meaningful or tangible in themselves to us. One is an absolute 0 and frozen semiconductor with no resistance (or in another sense absolute resistance as you can't encounter anything else within it - everything passes through unchanged - space - immutable, except in relationship to exterior events).
Chaos on the other hand is pure energy, blinding white - creative or destructive, uncontrollable, unintelligeable, no handle to 'grab it by' and do anything with except to simply be exposed to it, a never ending explosion without form.
In the middle of this, I see the physical universe - powered by condensing chaos into order and extracting reality from a continually changing difference between the two. The future is unknown and chaotic, the past, rigid and unchanging, the present is an infinitely small slice of existance between the two where we measure individual changes, one by one and find a pattern to the chaos, then add it to the order, where it disappears and become part of the "observer" - a memory.
So to be honest, humans at least, neither the future nor the past physically exist, except as respectively, perceptions and memory, and I see 'will' as the mind constructing an order from the chaos. So from a more technical perspective, you have a sphere embedded within space of absolute order, chaos on the outside and the "mind" being the thin surface of this.
If you want to view this as many minds, you could have many such spheres, even possibly overlapping or of various scales as well. Each sees themself as absolute order - the continual indentity x=x or a boolean 1, unity, truth etc. - a rigid order. Of course you can swap this view as well and consider an outside view looking in as being an exact compliment of this not(x)=not(x), so an observer isn't truly one side or the other but instead a plane dividing the universe into two complimentary sets and there could be many or possibly an infinite of such planes.
These spheres or planes are abstract and don't necessary need to exist in any specific dimensional space as they're simply mental, gravity, as a mental concept doesn't exist in space itself. It's simply a concept that relates to other spacial concepts that define what space is and how it's understood. The mental perception of space and gravity doesn't necessarily correlate identically to the physical process, because it's interpreted by the brain (of which the exact boundaries seem a bit nebulous) so the mental concept of gravity, from an individual perspective is a process of learning and association and can be seen as having an abstract multidimensional relationship to other mental concepts.
I placed gravity into a more abstract mental framework because I wanted to show a graph Zephir has posted in the past:
This shows a plot of surface area to number of dimensions of a hypersphere. If we imagine that the mind lies along the surface of a potentially infinite dimensional mental space, that separates the internal order of "itself" from the external chaos, the maximum area, or size in this case, of the mind for fixed (or relativistically fixed ... whatever mental ruler you're using to measure how "important" a concept is measures things in relative terms and disregards the less important, so the things you think about tend to lie within a certain range of importance, no matter the physical size or physical importance ... this is similar to relativity).
So anyway, this plot could be shown to represent the potential efficiency of working with various numbers of abstract dimensions.
Short term memory tends to work with about 7 (+/- 2) concepts at once.
The brain is not a perfect 3-D sphere, which would be optimal for delays, but nistead has a convoluted higher dimensional surface. It might be interesting to know if such folds (and possibly recursions) have any relationship to a fractalized higher dimensional space. If left and right hemispheres each operate in independent spaces, the dimensionality of each hemisphere might only need to be half of this (~3.6 dimensions) so each hemisphere could work with about 3-4 concepts with the higher ~7 dimensional thought being a relationship between these. Each hemisphere would effectively be working with the square root of the number of total number of "thoughts" possible. (I know most people seeing such attempts at applying mathematical concepts to this will either love the idea or hate it ... such is life
).I just have to point this out, if the underlying "fabric" of space is truly quantized and binary, the fine structure constant is basically a ratio of energies between an electron and proton.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_structure_constant
a=(e/qp)^2 ≈ 1/137
Here's another interesting quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupling_constant
"... at the scale of the Z boson, about 90 GeV, one measures α ≈ 1/127."
So if instead of multidimensional hyperspheres, we had binary hypercubes, this would lead to dimensions of log2(137) = 7.098 dimensions and log2(127) = 6.989 dimensions. Both are very close to this 7 dimensional space.
But consider that each space in instead would only need to exist in approximately half these number of dimensions: 7.098/2 = 3.549 and 6.989/2 = 3.494 or approximate 3 1/2 dimensions ... not unlike 3 bidirectional spacial dimensions with a half a dimension for the one way motion through time?
The ideas of a reciprocal space are interesting. It could be that each space has the equivalent of stationary mass with the other appearing as light speed energy relative to it and that the common elements shared between them average only ~ 1/(2^3.5) = ~1/11.3 of each
If each component exists in half of a ~7 dimensional binary space, then you'd have two reciprocal spaces of ~3.5 dimensions. It would be interesting to see what a fractalized 3.5 dimensional space resembles.
I found an interesting link here:
http://gtalumni.org/news/magazine/fall94/finger.html
"Chaotic systems can be characterized by charting their behavior over time. The resulting visual representation, known as an attractor, provides a kind of "fingerprint" for identifying different forms of chaos. Additional information about a chaotic system comes from discovering the number of unstable directions of the attractor that influence the system's activity.
Researchers have thus far been able to control only relatively simple chaotic systems: those with just one unstable direction. But recent theoretical work suggests that more complex systems could also be controlled.
Dr. Rajarshi Roy and collaborator Zelda Gills are exploring the limits of their existing chaos control techniques, attempting to characterize chaotic systems and understand which classes of chaos they can tame. They are also looking at promising new control techniques for chaotic systems of higher dimensions.
"The aim is to figure out new techniques that will be more appropriate and applicable to the more complex types of attractors we have seen in our laser system," Roy explains. "For the laser attractors, we find that the ones we can control are typically around 3.5 dimensions. We would like to understand how to develop new algorithms for experimentally controlling chaotic attractors of higher dimensions."
The Georgia Tech researchers have extensively studied the solid state neodymium-YAG laser. Their control scheme, based on periodic small alterations or "kicks" in a single system parameter, stabilizes the laser and can boost its stable power output by a factor of 15.
They are also exploring semiconductor lasers in which chaos manifests itself in spatial fluctuationsÑchanges in the pattern of light output. Those fluctuations could be important for arrays of microlasers fabricated on chips."
Ah ha! Maybe it's not entirely chaotic. It's simply difficult (is that expression an oxymoron?
).Something interesting here also, is if we consider this 7 dimensional space to be similar to an exchange between 2, 3 1/2 dimensional approximately binary spaces, then controlling or predicting the motion of one end of these could increase the coupling by a factor of 2^(3.5) ~= 11.3, or not far from the claimed 15 times power output.
QUOTE (Janus+)
Present information says everything is moving away from us and from everyone else … so we are not going to find the source with our present day calculations/thinking.
I believe much of the motion stems from using statistical methods. Things appear in motion when you don't have a rigid reference for where they're at or where they're going etc. Dice rolls appear random and changing because the process by which a result is acquired isn't fully understood.
A car can be seen as moving, if you're outside it. Once you hop into the passenger seat, the rest of the world appears to move. It all becomes stationary a stationary value and predictable as a constant velocity or acceleration etc. once motion is understood and characterized.
The appearance of average contanst light speed motion I believe is simply due to using statistical equations for energy and distances.
We use the form E^2=e1^2+e2^2+e3^2 ... etc. or d^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + t^2 ... etc.
These formulas are used to measure average variance in statistics, so if you want to know the range a set of dice roll, you sum the squares of the rolls and average them in the exact same manner as we treat distances and energies.
The interesting part of this, is that constant motion is seen for fixed random changes.
If you take a series d^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + t^2 ... and you randomly add or subtract one of any of these values, the average value of d^2 increases by one each step.
Mathematically, if you average a change in one element by a step in a positive and negative direction, you get:
d(t+1)^2 = ((d(t)-1)^2 + (d(t)+1)^2)/2 = (d(t)-2*d(t)+1 + d(t)+2*d(t)+1)/2 = (2*d(t)^2 + 2)/2 = d(t)^2 + 1
So
d(t+1)^2 = d(t)^2 + 1
If you start from zero with d(0)=0 then:
d(t)=t
The way to visualize this appearance of constant motion is to imagine a cloud randomly diffusing into space. This is called Brownian motion.
Of course in reality the motions aren't diffused symmetrically in each direction, or we couldn't see them as everything would decay into an intangibly uniform mist and so it's only an approximation and it ignores relative measures of scale - if you're making measurements with a similarly diffused yardstick, then very little change in scaling is observed by making relative measurement comparing between two things that have undergone similar transformations.
If we were to assume this is a process associated with observations of the expansion of the universe according to the Big Bang theory, then there's also a complimentary view of gravity. As an observer expands, so do the scales of observations and this effectively shrinks distances as well, though a blurring on smaller scales can occur by this process. You have the subatomic blurring on one end of the scale, and you have this blurring stacked up over time into the distance on the other hand (and of course interestingly enough the Big Bang is seen as a prior compaction of space, so it also shares characteristics of blurring and upredictability on short scales of time and over smaller distances, though seen as a build up of large scale errors over large scales of time).
You can estimate the amount of time this process has been occuring for, without understanding the underlying process, by squaring all the displacements over time and summing them up - that's a stochastic clock, that on average tells the correct time - and almost certainly the way human senses determine time in an ~3 dimensional space, but everything appears in constant and often unpredictable motion, because the underlying order and process aren't understood. So it's random and statistical in many ways and this is what's seen when we apply typical human concepts of space and time to try to predict the motion of individual photons or sub atomic particles. We see repetitive wavelike errors as our space doesn't exactly mesh with the underlying fabric of space.
Yes, I know most all this stuff could be easily considered pseudo science, but if there's a link between the micro and the macro. The human mind works a lot better in the macro realm, while science excels in the micro realm. Maybe someday they'll meet up, shake hands and have lunch. I tend to see science as a compliment to religion (not any religion specifically but rather in terms of the mind and/or whatever soul/spirit might be associated with it). There's are reasons and motives behind science, that science itself doesn't provide. Science attempts to find order in what otherwise would be chaos ... but interestingly enough science serves no purpose without something to explore, and that requires a bit of chaos in the mix to delve into. So by the time science reduces one thing to order, the mind finds the another piece of chaos to explore.
I believe much of the motion stems from using statistical methods. Things appear in motion when you don't have a rigid reference for where they're at or where they're going etc. Dice rolls appear random and changing because the process by which a result is acquired isn't fully understood.
A car can be seen as moving, if you're outside it. Once you hop into the passenger seat, the rest of the world appears to move. It all becomes stationary a stationary value and predictable as a constant velocity or acceleration etc. once motion is understood and characterized.
The appearance of average contanst light speed motion I believe is simply due to using statistical equations for energy and distances.
We use the form E^2=e1^2+e2^2+e3^2 ... etc. or d^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + t^2 ... etc.
These formulas are used to measure average variance in statistics, so if you want to know the range a set of dice roll, you sum the squares of the rolls and average them in the exact same manner as we treat distances and energies.
The interesting part of this, is that constant motion is seen for fixed random changes.
If you take a series d^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + t^2 ... and you randomly add or subtract one of any of these values, the average value of d^2 increases by one each step.
Mathematically, if you average a change in one element by a step in a positive and negative direction, you get:
d(t+1)^2 = ((d(t)-1)^2 + (d(t)+1)^2)/2 = (d(t)-2*d(t)+1 + d(t)+2*d(t)+1)/2 = (2*d(t)^2 + 2)/2 = d(t)^2 + 1
So
d(t+1)^2 = d(t)^2 + 1
If you start from zero with d(0)=0 then:
d(t)=t
The way to visualize this appearance of constant motion is to imagine a cloud randomly diffusing into space. This is called Brownian motion.
Of course in reality the motions aren't diffused symmetrically in each direction, or we couldn't see them as everything would decay into an intangibly uniform mist and so it's only an approximation and it ignores relative measures of scale - if you're making measurements with a similarly diffused yardstick, then very little change in scaling is observed by making relative measurement comparing between two things that have undergone similar transformations.
If we were to assume this is a process associated with observations of the expansion of the universe according to the Big Bang theory, then there's also a complimentary view of gravity. As an observer expands, so do the scales of observations and this effectively shrinks distances as well, though a blurring on smaller scales can occur by this process. You have the subatomic blurring on one end of the scale, and you have this blurring stacked up over time into the distance on the other hand (and of course interestingly enough the Big Bang is seen as a prior compaction of space, so it also shares characteristics of blurring and upredictability on short scales of time and over smaller distances, though seen as a build up of large scale errors over large scales of time).
You can estimate the amount of time this process has been occuring for, without understanding the underlying process, by squaring all the displacements over time and summing them up - that's a stochastic clock, that on average tells the correct time - and almost certainly the way human senses determine time in an ~3 dimensional space, but everything appears in constant and often unpredictable motion, because the underlying order and process aren't understood. So it's random and statistical in many ways and this is what's seen when we apply typical human concepts of space and time to try to predict the motion of individual photons or sub atomic particles. We see repetitive wavelike errors as our space doesn't exactly mesh with the underlying fabric of space.
Yes, I know most all this stuff could be easily considered pseudo science, but if there's a link between the micro and the macro. The human mind works a lot better in the macro realm, while science excels in the micro realm. Maybe someday they'll meet up, shake hands and have lunch.
I tend to see science as a compliment to religion (not any religion specifically but rather in terms of the mind and/or whatever soul/spirit might be associated with it). There's are reasons and motives behind science, that science itself doesn't provide. Science attempts to find order in what otherwise would be chaos ... but interestingly enough science serves no purpose without something to explore, and that requires a bit of chaos in the mix to delve into. So by the time science reduces one thing to order, the mind finds the another piece of chaos to explore.
QUOTE (blade+Sep 4 2006, 07:05 PM)
There is a conventional explanation for the anomalous SZ effect. It has something to do with strong AGN inside clusters etc..
See http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0607304.
Ps. Why so many people on this site are against the mainstream?? Are you frustrated or a little bit brainless ?
It is exactly that kind of attitude that makes me question MS Science. There is a lot of valid questions about BB and saying "you are brainless if you question MS" is, well stupid. It seems that if you need to exit Laws of Universe in order to justify BB it is OK because if anyone questions it you can just call them names and problem is solved. Once you invoke "Inflation" I 'm allowed to invoke... anything really...
See http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0607304.
Ps. Why so many people on this site are against the mainstream?? Are you frustrated or a little bit brainless ?
It is exactly that kind of attitude that makes me question MS Science. There is a lot of valid questions about BB and saying "you are brainless if you question MS" is, well stupid. It seems that if you need to exit Laws of Universe in order to justify BB it is OK because if anyone questions it you can just call them names and problem is solved. Once you invoke "Inflation" I 'm allowed to invoke... anything really...
YES yes precisely.
Its not true at all, and all points have duely been mentioned for a through and clear understanding by scientific and educated standards.
Matter !CANNOT! just come up from no where. Please, this is worst than believing in santa, ghosts, liquid man, repunzel and banana man*
Matter !CANNOT! move direction and form out of no where
Matter !CANNOT! attain, nor retain the speed to propel that far and not have a medium to do so in from no where. Let alone everything working so perfectly in order, out of NOWHERE! Forming intelligence, a life and extremely IMPROBABLY IMPOSSIBLE systems from no where for no REASON!
What about gravity. What about the forces- em, photon, gluon, leptons, stars, blackholes, wormholes, galaxies, light, heat and all the constants and fixed relationships, patterns, trends, and laws of the universe???? What, flew into place from thin air?
Of course, NONE of this is in ANY where apart from many wildly delusional "physicist" minds.
How fast did this actual BB explode the matter then eh? AT light speed, with what INFINITE energy, to have actually triggered LIGHT to have gained that speed.
Some freakin schizo imagination to even be able to think that "oh my God! a big bang and everything started, replicating changing, specializing, and here we are, perfect creatures day by day, from worms to monkeys to humans!"
This, will be the most hilarious, most brain-dead thing to ever have pondered across the human mind, in the near future- showing all those considering such stupidity as ridiculous morons - showing what can happen if the "lead" or "trust" of humans is given into the wrong hands, or brains shall I say. It then takes TRILLIONS of $$$ and BILLIONS of men with ZILLIONS of time and effort plus 100's years to prove a simple pile of BS wrong. Humans can talk sh1t for life, really. Those a little distracted from "reality" i.e. scientists, a little too much more than others. I guess lost in space and finding aliens
BB is all atheists have. So "most" stick up more stubbornly than a religion-ist to support it, as it came from their own hidden desires to give purpose and meaning to their life (not all just those wierd stubborn diehard believing ones). I don't even believe in religions yet look, why not compare logic of bb-ists to creationists: the "books" cant be proven so they are false- ok
The books exist dated to at least 200years after the "supposed" religious leader.
Where does Big Bang have a proof, DIRECT from humans in the past, or traced to 200years, repeatedly, from its beginning?
Religion says, a man (mostly) came and taught them a religion from "God/s".
What does BB say about us and everything? Out of NOTHING!
Isn't is a coincidence that light exists (without initial propose) and wow, it then begins to show everything everything else, and we become ADAPTED with "yes" for that matter?
I wonder whay these BIG BANGS dont keep happening now, daily and why new lives and universes are not being created, along with new matter, in our surroundings... you know, like I'm sitting here and bang! Something created and became ever so complex and into life, and more and more, rapidly expanding, with some force we don't know yet,, we'll call it D for now, which can make people fly a little like gravity but anti???
Oh damn, and if there was NO space for the matter to exist in, where did it exist or come from? Furthermore, where did it develop in (the medium)?
Shows whats the actual BS, only it has the finance, propaganda and bigots behind it.
Where did the freaking 10^100000000000000+ yottajoules energy to start the big bang come from?
Oh, let me tell yu that one... the same dirty butt this theory came out of!
They've just confused themselves beyond the brink of sense here, like in most everything else of nowadays. Just of a helpless, hopeless, retarded and wacko computerized dreamy brain.
I do have one belief though... worked out, that the universe is a sphere, undoubtedly from my side
Its not true at all, and all points have duely been mentioned for a through and clear understanding by scientific and educated standards.
Matter !CANNOT! just come up from no where. Please, this is worst than believing in santa, ghosts, liquid man, repunzel and banana man*
Matter !CANNOT! move direction and form out of no where
Matter !CANNOT! attain, nor retain the speed to propel that far and not have a medium to do so in from no where. Let alone everything working so perfectly in order, out of NOWHERE! Forming intelligence, a life and extremely IMPROBABLY IMPOSSIBLE systems from no where for no REASON!
What about gravity. What about the forces- em, photon, gluon, leptons, stars, blackholes, wormholes, galaxies, light, heat and all the constants and fixed relationships, patterns, trends, and laws of the universe???? What, flew into place from thin air?
Of course, NONE of this is in ANY where apart from many wildly delusional "physicist" minds.
How fast did this actual BB explode the matter then eh? AT light speed, with what INFINITE energy, to have actually triggered LIGHT to have gained that speed.
Some freakin schizo imagination to even be able to think that "oh my God! a big bang and everything started, replicating changing, specializing, and here we are, perfect creatures day by day, from worms to monkeys to humans!"
This, will be the most hilarious, most brain-dead thing to ever have pondered across the human mind, in the near future- showing all those considering such stupidity as ridiculous morons - showing what can happen if the "lead" or "trust" of humans is given into the wrong hands, or brains shall I say. It then takes TRILLIONS of $$$ and BILLIONS of men with ZILLIONS of time and effort plus 100's years to prove a simple pile of BS wrong. Humans can talk sh1t for life, really. Those a little distracted from "reality" i.e. scientists, a little too much more than others. I guess lost in space and finding aliens
BB is all atheists have. So "most" stick up more stubbornly than a religion-ist to support it, as it came from their own hidden desires to give purpose and meaning to their life (not all just those wierd stubborn diehard believing ones). I don't even believe in religions yet look, why not compare logic of bb-ists to creationists: the "books" cant be proven so they are false- ok
The books exist dated to at least 200years after the "supposed" religious leader.
Where does Big Bang have a proof, DIRECT from humans in the past, or traced to 200years, repeatedly, from its beginning?
Religion says, a man (mostly) came and taught them a religion from "God/s".
What does BB say about us and everything? Out of NOTHING!
Isn't is a coincidence that light exists (without initial propose) and wow, it then begins to show everything everything else, and we become ADAPTED with "yes" for that matter?
I wonder whay these BIG BANGS dont keep happening now, daily and why new lives and universes are not being created, along with new matter, in our surroundings... you know, like I'm sitting here and bang! Something created and became ever so complex and into life, and more and more, rapidly expanding, with some force we don't know yet,, we'll call it D for now, which can make people fly a little like gravity but anti???
Oh damn, and if there was NO space for the matter to exist in, where did it exist or come from? Furthermore, where did it develop in (the medium)?
Shows whats the actual BS, only it has the finance, propaganda and bigots behind it.
Where did the freaking 10^100000000000000+ yottajoules energy to start the big bang come from?
Oh, let me tell yu that one... the same dirty butt this theory came out of!
They've just confused themselves beyond the brink of sense here, like in most everything else of nowadays. Just of a helpless, hopeless, retarded and wacko computerized dreamy brain.
I do have one belief though... worked out, that the universe is a sphere, undoubtedly from my side
As much fun as it might be to try to poke holes in a theory, (and I admit having fun trying), consider that without something better to fill in the holes ... then there'll just be lots of holes (yes, even if they were already there before people poked at them).
The Big Bang, just like many other theories have their various realms of use, even if it's simply as a common framework to describe in what ways the universe doesn't agree with the idea.
Whether or not a god created the place, there's not much use knowing it if he didn't hand someone any blueprints and most people don't want to just stumble around in the dark talking about how mysterious he is.
I think the main thing is to have a bit more personal knowledge of what's real or not and what's simply an idea versus something you've already been able to verify for yourself (of course for much of physics and astronomy it's second hand information). In the end, the only person that can decide the truth of something is yourself, but if you've got good ideas toss them out there.
The Big Bang, just like many other theories have their various realms of use, even if it's simply as a common framework to describe in what ways the universe doesn't agree with the idea.
Whether or not a god created the place, there's not much use knowing it if he didn't hand someone any blueprints and most people don't want to just stumble around in the dark talking about how mysterious he is.
I think the main thing is to have a bit more personal knowledge of what's real or not and what's simply an idea versus something you've already been able to verify for yourself (of course for much of physics and astronomy it's second hand information). In the end, the only person that can decide the truth of something is yourself, but if you've got good ideas toss them out there.
Dear Djurovic,
there are lots of open questions in the big bang paradigma (for example:are there any topological defects,what exactly is dark energy etc).But as I can tell you it is the best theory we have.It is very likely that we have to modify the standart model of cosmology in the future (quantum gravity effects should play a role when the universe was very young).
A small advice: Cosmology can be very difficult and it is absolutly impossible to conceive the conditions under the universe was born.All (simple) suggestions regarding problems of the big bang are very often doomed to fail (lots of posts in that forum show that).The best thing one can do is to study cosmology/physics or math .
here a good site : http://www.astro.uni-bonn.de/~peter/CosmoBig.html
Dear Hakinon06,
when we live in a flat universe (this is what the data tell us ) then the total energy created at the big bang is exactlly zero.But I`m too tired do explain that now.
there are lots of open questions in the big bang paradigma (for example:are there any topological defects,what exactly is dark energy etc).But as I can tell you it is the best theory we have.It is very likely that we have to modify the standart model of cosmology in the future (quantum gravity effects should play a role when the universe was very young).
A small advice: Cosmology can be very difficult and it is absolutly impossible to conceive the conditions under the universe was born.All (simple) suggestions regarding problems of the big bang are very often doomed to fail (lots of posts in that forum show that).The best thing one can do is to study cosmology/physics or math .
here a good site : http://www.astro.uni-bonn.de/~peter/CosmoBig.html
Dear Hakinon06,
when we live in a flat universe (this is what the data tell us ) then the total energy created at the big bang is exactlly zero.But I`m too tired do explain that now.
QUOTE (Hakinon06+Sep 10 2006, 05:43 PM)
Where did the freaking 10^100000000000000+ yottajoules energy to start the big bang come from?
Hi All,
To StevenA:
Very interesting, I think we are on the same wave length just out of phase.
Everywhere I look at; think about; in the big picture, is in order.
It’s only when I look locally that I find disorder … greed, power and stupidity being the main driving forces of this entropy.
All the dimensions are exact whole numbers … up to the number that is required to gets us back to the origin … akin to the Klein Bottle.
If the dimensions have not tied up to the origin, then that is the meaning of life … it is our job to do this somehow.
We came from nothing, and at anytime we could all go back to nothing.
We need to tie up the system into a perpetual system.
To Hackinon06:
I am now going to explain the paradox of nothing.
There are two types of nothing.
First a little mathematics:
First we invented a set of natural numbers: {1, 2, and 3, …to infinity}.
Then a set of whole numbers: {0, 1, 2, 3, … to infinity}.
Then we invented integers which consisted of: {… -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, …}.
Negative numbers came in to being so that we could solve a simple problem such as:
3 + n = 0
We called (n) negative 3 that is (-3) also known as the inverse of three.
Then the problem became:
(3) + (-3) = 0
From this method we can invent further negative numbers:
4 + n = 0
Then n = -4
Etc.
Now when we came to zero, something special happened:
0 + n = 0
Then using the rule above,
n = -0
Now because 0 + (-0) = 0 is the same as 0 + 0 = 0 it was decided not to burden ourselves with two symbols for nothing (zero).
The outcome: ‘negative nothing’ disappeared from our understanding.
The consequences being that people and the boffins can on only see one type of nothing.
Aside … ‘the empty set’ or ‘null set’ is written as { }.
Our mathematics would be up the creek if it were denoted as {0} … someone knew something.
That was the mathematics, how can we visualise this in practice.
I’ll just change the terminology a little: +0 = ‘macro nothing’ and -0 = ‘micro nothing’.
The description of ‘macro nothing’:
An infinitely huge space devoid of anything.
The description for micro nothing:
An infinitely small point without anything outside of it.
So image having to create nothing; which is the correct state to be in?
I image that the ‘macro nothing’ state was achieved then realising that this was wrong the micro nothing was achieved, and then back again to macro nothing etc.
I call this the ‘bouncing nothing’ and that is how this ‘virtual energy’ is accumulating …
until there is equilibrium found … which was found otherwise we would not be here.
Remember there is no ‘time’ so all this is happening instantaneously.
Pictorially I depict the ‘macro nothing’ as 2 two kissing spheres and the ‘micro nothing’ as two internally kissing spheres.
The equilibrium is depicted as ‘Vesica’ … now we have three states.
The central point of the vesica holds all the ‘virtual energy’ … almost infinite.
This ‘virtual energy’ realizes awareness of ‘self’ by:
Am I Big?
Am I Small?
I Am All.
The ‘virtual energy’ now became ‘real’ and big bang started ...when matter came into existence
If you don’t believe in the ‘real’ bit … then we and everything are all virtual.
Aside … in the Bible the phrase about ‘made in God’s image’ means this:
We have a left brain (macro) and a right brain (micro) and the equilibrium point of the two halves gives us our understanding of ‘self’ the ‘I Am’.
Later computers and machines can be given this feeling of ‘self’ by the way we make them process data … give them a connected macro and micro co-processor.
As for the question of is this physics … working towards it.
I’m trying to depict a model that closely resembles what may have happened and why, rather than a model that fits empirically results.
All our empirical results are flawed … but they work so we use them … even though we could be a million miles from what is truly happening.
Even the Bible quotes pi = 3 … good enough for building temples … or is it because of the number 3 being connected with God … the Egyptians had already calculated pi to be three and a sixth (Kahun Papyrus).
Another time I can talk about how matter gets assembled, the dimensions and universal constants … if anyone is interested.
Cheers
Hi All,
To StevenA:
Very interesting, I think we are on the same wave length just out of phase.
Everywhere I look at; think about; in the big picture, is in order.
It’s only when I look locally that I find disorder … greed, power and stupidity being the main driving forces of this entropy.
All the dimensions are exact whole numbers … up to the number that is required to gets us back to the origin … akin to the Klein Bottle.
If the dimensions have not tied up to the origin, then that is the meaning of life … it is our job to do this somehow.
We came from nothing, and at anytime we could all go back to nothing.
We need to tie up the system into a perpetual system.
To Hackinon06:
I am now going to explain the paradox of nothing.
There are two types of nothing.
First a little mathematics:
First we invented a set of natural numbers: {1, 2, and 3, …to infinity}.
Then a set of whole numbers: {0, 1, 2, 3, … to infinity}.
Then we invented integers which consisted of: {… -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, …}.
Negative numbers came in to being so that we could solve a simple problem such as:
3 + n = 0
We called (n) negative 3 that is (-3) also known as the inverse of three.
Then the problem became:
(3) + (-3) = 0
From this method we can invent further negative numbers:
4 + n = 0
Then n = -4
Etc.
Now when we came to zero, something special happened:
0 + n = 0
Then using the rule above,
n = -0
Now because 0 + (-0) = 0 is the same as 0 + 0 = 0 it was decided not to burden ourselves with two symbols for nothing (zero).
The outcome: ‘negative nothing’ disappeared from our understanding.
The consequences being that people and the boffins can on only see one type of nothing.
Aside … ‘the empty set’ or ‘null set’ is written as { }.
Our mathematics would be up the creek if it were denoted as {0} … someone knew something.
That was the mathematics, how can we visualise this in practice.
I’ll just change the terminology a little: +0 = ‘macro nothing’ and -0 = ‘micro nothing’.
The description of ‘macro nothing’:
An infinitely huge space devoid of anything.
The description for micro nothing:
An infinitely small point without anything outside of it.
So image having to create nothing; which is the correct state to be in?
I image that the ‘macro nothing’ state was achieved then realising that this was wrong the micro nothing was achieved, and then back again to macro nothing etc.
I call this the ‘bouncing nothing’ and that is how this ‘virtual energy’ is accumulating …
until there is equilibrium found … which was found otherwise we would not be here.
Remember there is no ‘time’ so all this is happening instantaneously.
Pictorially I depict the ‘macro nothing’ as 2 two kissing spheres and the ‘micro nothing’ as two internally kissing spheres.
The equilibrium is depicted as ‘Vesica’ … now we have three states.
The central point of the vesica holds all the ‘virtual energy’ … almost infinite.
This ‘virtual energy’ realizes awareness of ‘self’ by:
Am I Big?
Am I Small?
I Am All.
The ‘virtual energy’ now became ‘real’ and big bang started ...when matter came into existence
If you don’t believe in the ‘real’ bit … then we and everything are all virtual.
Aside … in the Bible the phrase about ‘made in God’s image’ means this:
We have a left brain (macro) and a right brain (micro) and the equilibrium point of the two halves gives us our understanding of ‘self’ the ‘I Am’.
Later computers and machines can be given this feeling of ‘self’ by the way we make them process data … give them a connected macro and micro co-processor.
As for the question of is this physics … working towards it.
I’m trying to depict a model that closely resembles what may have happened and why, rather than a model that fits empirically results.
All our empirical results are flawed … but they work so we use them … even though we could be a million miles from what is truly happening.
Even the Bible quotes pi = 3 … good enough for building temples … or is it because of the number 3 being connected with God … the Egyptians had already calculated pi to be three and a sixth (Kahun Papyrus).
Another time I can talk about how matter gets assembled, the dimensions and universal constants … if anyone is interested.
Cheers
QUOTE (Janus+Sep 12 2006, 01:18 AM)
... We came from nothing, and at anytime we could all go back to nothing.
Let's say that's true.
If something returns to the state from which it began, then it would begin again, otherwise it wouldn't be at the same state.
In other words, if figuratively we came from 0 and you return to 0, then that's a beginning, or maybe a continuation.
So, if you return to 0 and somehow this instead becomes an end, then something in the state must be different from the initial 0, so it's not truly a 0, it would have to be something else that indicated an end.
Basically if everything came to exist out of nothing, then even if everything becomes nothing again, that's no different than how everything started so I don't really see why anything needs to be tied up into a perpetual system when there's really no evidence that nothing ever existed in the first place.
Memories in the brain exist physically, and so can be lost, but the universe itself is a memory - each action creates an equal and opposite reaction and ultimately changes can't remain contained but instead are retained and expand outward (even a change in an orbital creates a gravitational influence that expands in changes outward and every motion created needs something to 'push' against in order to generate this motion, that opposite motion moves away and can be seen as a second complimentary copy of the motion).
So if you start with nothing, then somehow that becomes something, then you exist within it and add yet more information to the system, how can this all be erased? I guess I can't say it's impossible, but even if it were, that just puts you at another beginning (though I seriously doubt it's cyclic because that equates to a static, closed system with no external references for time or change ... you can't derive a change over time from a closed system. I won't go into a lot of detail but as a simple example if you watch a ball spin and see it turning, the ability for you to perceive this rotation comes not from the ball itself but a sense of time you acquire from the environment outside the ball. If the ball were an entirely isolated system, everything on or in the ball would simply feel a constant centifugal acceleration but no change from moment to moment as it would have no external reference to compare the motion to and when you dig down, even if a stationary ball was next to it so it could detect in a relative manner that it was spinning, there's still no way to differentiate one rotation from another without yet another reference outside this ad infinitum ... time requires a truly novel and previously unknown piece of information to enter the system in order to detect a change ... if such can be created from nothing, why would X number of these events exist and then somehow forever stop?
If something returns to the state from which it began, then it would begin again, otherwise it wouldn't be at the same state.
In other words, if figuratively we came from 0 and you return to 0, then that's a beginning, or maybe a continuation.
Hi StevenA, Hi all,
I haven’t fully disclosed the whole theory … so you can only go by what I’ve stated so far … I’m still tying up a few loose ends … but generally the theory it is sound … all explanations are being put simplistically … got to test if people are understanding what it is I am putting forward, first.
By the “‘we’ could all go back to nothing” … that refers to us … the cosmos … all the other dimension and anything else that we don’t yet know about … that is everything created from/by the ‘Vesica’.
The ‘vesica’ is in equilibrium this cannot be broken.
If the ‘vesica’ has endless amounts of energy to fuel the whole system, then we have nothing to worry about.
But there are also two other possibilities:
There could be more energy outside of the ‘vesica’ than within the ‘vesica’ then this could cause a reversal … a la ‘big crunch’ … this I don’t think can happen.
I believe the ‘vesica’ can be exhausted of its energy (but not fully) … analogous to the Young and Laplace bubble experiment … where the smaller bubble of the two bubbles continues to shrink while the larger one gets bigger.
The final state ‘we’ and the ‘vesica’ is one of mechanical equilibrium … with no movement ‘we’ become virtual and therefore equal to nothing … i.e. the big bubble will burst.
All that will remain is the ‘vesica’ … just ‘heaven’ if you want another word for it.
There is no route back to the original ‘nothing’, to give us another try … it’s ‘heaven’ or bust.
Your Quote:
“I'd say you actually want to open the system up and assure more new sources of information are available. Closing things up into a perpetual state seems the opposite of what you want.”
Our 3D universe is already closed we cannot keep on expanding for ever … planet hopping or galaxy hopping will not save us … its is akin to continually splitting an element and hoping to find the atom … it cannot be done … it’s a futile exercise … the atom does not exist.
But utilising the higher dimension gives us better possibilities … that has to be the correct option.
I just want to state that life cannot just be a ride on a big dipper.
We only have to look around … see the cosmos … why is everything so big … there has to be cosmological purpose … I can feel it in me … can you?
Cheers
Let's say that's true.
If something returns to the state from which it began, then it would begin again, otherwise it wouldn't be at the same state.
In other words, if figuratively we came from 0 and you return to 0, then that's a beginning, or maybe a continuation.
So, if you return to 0 and somehow this instead becomes an end, then something in the state must be different from the initial 0, so it's not truly a 0, it would have to be something else that indicated an end.
Basically if everything came to exist out of nothing, then even if everything becomes nothing again, that's no different than how everything started so I don't really see why anything needs to be tied up into a perpetual system when there's really no evidence that nothing ever existed in the first place.
Memories in the brain exist physically, and so can be lost, but the universe itself is a memory - each action creates an equal and opposite reaction and ultimately changes can't remain contained but instead are retained and expand outward (even a change in an orbital creates a gravitational influence that expands in changes outward and every motion created needs something to 'push' against in order to generate this motion, that opposite motion moves away and can be seen as a second complimentary copy of the motion).
So if you start with nothing, then somehow that becomes something, then you exist within it and add yet more information to the system, how can this all be erased? I guess I can't say it's impossible, but even if it were, that just puts you at another beginning (though I seriously doubt it's cyclic because that equates to a static, closed system with no external references for time or change ... you can't derive a change over time from a closed system. I won't go into a lot of detail but as a simple example if you watch a ball spin and see it turning, the ability for you to perceive this rotation comes not from the ball itself but a sense of time you acquire from the environment outside the ball. If the ball were an entirely isolated system, everything on or in the ball would simply feel a constant centifugal acceleration but no change from moment to moment as it would have no external reference to compare the motion to and when you dig down, even if a stationary ball was next to it so it could detect in a relative manner that it was spinning, there's still no way to differentiate one rotation from another without yet another reference outside this ad infinitum ... time requires a truly novel and previously unknown piece of information to enter the system in order to detect a change ... if such can be created from nothing, why would X number of these events exist and then somehow forever stop?
QUOTE (Janus+)
We need to tie up the system into a perpetual system.
I'd say you actually want to open the system up and assure more new sources of information are available. Closing things up into a perpetual state seems the opposite of what you want.
I'd say you actually want to open the system up and assure more new sources of information are available. Closing things up into a perpetual state seems the opposite of what you want.
QUOTE (StevenA+Sep 12 2006, 09:06 AM)
If something returns to the state from which it began, then it would begin again, otherwise it wouldn't be at the same state.
In other words, if figuratively we came from 0 and you return to 0, then that's a beginning, or maybe a continuation.
Hi StevenA, Hi all,
I haven’t fully disclosed the whole theory … so you can only go by what I’ve stated so far … I’m still tying up a few loose ends … but generally the theory it is sound … all explanations are being put simplistically … got to test if people are understanding what it is I am putting forward, first.
By the “‘we’ could all go back to nothing” … that refers to us … the cosmos … all the other dimension and anything else that we don’t yet know about … that is everything created from/by the ‘Vesica’.
The ‘vesica’ is in equilibrium this cannot be broken.
If the ‘vesica’ has endless amounts of energy to fuel the whole system, then we have nothing to worry about.
But there are also two other possibilities:
There could be more energy outside of the ‘vesica’ than within the ‘vesica’ then this could cause a reversal … a la ‘big crunch’ … this I don’t think can happen.
I believe the ‘vesica’ can be exhausted of its energy (but not fully) … analogous to the Young and Laplace bubble experiment … where the smaller bubble of the two bubbles continues to shrink while the larger one gets bigger.
The final state ‘we’ and the ‘vesica’ is one of mechanical equilibrium … with no movement ‘we’ become virtual and therefore equal to nothing … i.e. the big bubble will burst.
All that will remain is the ‘vesica’ … just ‘heaven’ if you want another word for it.
There is no route back to the original ‘nothing’, to give us another try … it’s ‘heaven’ or bust.
Your Quote:
“I'd say you actually want to open the system up and assure more new sources of information are available. Closing things up into a perpetual state seems the opposite of what you want.”
Our 3D universe is already closed we cannot keep on expanding for ever … planet hopping or galaxy hopping will not save us … its is akin to continually splitting an element and hoping to find the atom … it cannot be done … it’s a futile exercise … the atom does not exist.
But utilising the higher dimension gives us better possibilities … that has to be the correct option.
I just want to state that life cannot just be a ride on a big dipper.
We only have to look around … see the cosmos … why is everything so big … there has to be cosmological purpose … I can feel it in me … can you?
Cheers
QUOTE (Janus+)
I believe the ‘vesica’ can be exhausted of its energy (but not fully) … analogous to the Young and Laplace bubble experiment
I'm wondering something similar about quantum computation. In order to make gains, you have to keep the system isolated, but in the process these seems to reduce the available bandwidth. It might be that these two complimentary effects place an upper limit on the gains.
I'm wondering something similar about quantum computation. In order to make gains, you have to keep the system isolated, but in the process these seems to reduce the available bandwidth. It might be that these two complimentary effects place an upper limit on the gains.
QUOTE (Janus+)
The final state ‘we’ and the ‘vesica’ is one of mechanical equilibrium … with no movement ‘we’ become virtual and therefore equal to nothing
Our 3D universe is already closed we cannot keep on expanding for ever … planet hopping or galaxy hopping will not save us … its is akin to continually splitting an element and hoping to find the atom … it cannot be done … it’s a futile exercise … the atom does not exist.
I've posted a few times about doubting it's closed. First of all it seems hard to perceive changes over time in a closed system (I won't go into details here). Second, if it were closed, you'd still have the question where did it all come from and third, there's truly not much physical evidence it's closed anyway. It's often imagined to be a closed system, but that's just an assumption without much evidence supporting it. Even conservation laws seem to be questionable in quantum mechanics.
I've felt similar before, but I still can't 'figure it out'. Yes, it seems like there's something very important to do, or to learn etc., but it could very well be that it's nothing in particular but a lot of little things along the way.
Some of the more metaphysical/existentials views I've acquired are 1) there's a truth in everything. The hard part is learning how to sort them out. 2) what you find is based upon what you seek (nature sets the odds and difficulties but ultimately nothing's impossible) so finding the right questions is just as important as knowing the answers. 3) the value or importance of something to you is exactly what you determine it to be. If you devalue something, then it loses value or importance to you and if you place significance on something, it becomes important to you.
I think it's worth considering as well what heaven would be. I doubt heaven is something found as much as something created. So the question would be, what's heaven to you? (You don't need to reply to this. It's just something to mull over)
I've felt similar before, but I still can't 'figure it out'. Yes, it seems like there's something very important to do, or to learn etc., but it could very well be that it's nothing in particular but a lot of little things along the way.
Some of the more metaphysical/existentials views I've acquired are 1) there's a truth in everything. The hard part is learning how to sort them out. 2) what you find is based upon what you seek (nature sets the odds and difficulties but ultimately nothing's impossible) so finding the right questions is just as important as knowing the answers. 3) the value or importance of something to you is exactly what you determine it to be. If you devalue something, then it loses value or importance to you and if you place significance on something, it becomes important to you.
I think it's worth considering as well what heaven would be. I doubt heaven is something found as much as something created. So the question would be, what's heaven to you? (You don't need to reply to this. It's just something to mull over)
Cheers
Have fun.
QUOTE
There is no route back to the original ‘nothing’, to give us another try … it’s ‘heaven’ or bust.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There is no route back to the original ‘nothing’, to give us another try … it’s ‘heaven’ or bust. |
Our 3D universe is already closed we cannot keep on expanding for ever … planet hopping or galaxy hopping will not save us … its is akin to continually splitting an element and hoping to find the atom … it cannot be done … it’s a futile exercise … the atom does not exist.
I've posted a few times about doubting it's closed. First of all it seems hard to perceive changes over time in a closed system (I won't go into details here). Second, if it were closed, you'd still have the question where did it all come from and third, there's truly not much physical evidence it's closed anyway. It's often imagined to be a closed system, but that's just an assumption without much evidence supporting it. Even conservation laws seem to be questionable in quantum mechanics.
QUOTE
But utilising the higher dimension gives us better possibilities … that has to be the correct option.
I just want to state that life cannot just be a ride on a big dipper.
We only have to look around … see the cosmos … why is everything so big … there has to be cosmological purpose … I can feel it in me … can you?
I just want to state that life cannot just be a ride on a big dipper.
We only have to look around … see the cosmos … why is everything so big … there has to be cosmological purpose … I can feel it in me … can you?
I've felt similar before, but I still can't 'figure it out'. Yes, it seems like there's something very important to do, or to learn etc., but it could very well be that it's nothing in particular but a lot of little things along the way.
Some of the more metaphysical/existentials views I've acquired are 1) there's a truth in everything. The hard part is learning how to sort them out. 2) what you find is based upon what you seek (nature sets the odds and difficulties but ultimately nothing's impossible) so finding the right questions is just as important as knowing the answers. 3) the value or importance of something to you is exactly what you determine it to be. If you devalue something, then it loses value or importance to you and if you place significance on something, it becomes important to you.
I think it's worth considering as well what heaven would be. I doubt heaven is something found as much as something created. So the question would be, what's heaven to you? (You don't need to reply to this. It's just something to mull over)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But utilising the higher dimension gives us better possibilities … that has to be the correct option. I just want to state that life cannot just be a ride on a big dipper. We only have to look around … see the cosmos … why is everything so big … there has to be cosmological purpose … I can feel it in me … can you? |
I've felt similar before, but I still can't 'figure it out'. Yes, it seems like there's something very important to do, or to learn etc., but it could very well be that it's nothing in particular but a lot of little things along the way.
Some of the more metaphysical/existentials views I've acquired are 1) there's a truth in everything. The hard part is learning how to sort them out. 2) what you find is based upon what you seek (nature sets the odds and difficulties but ultimately nothing's impossible) so finding the right questions is just as important as knowing the answers. 3) the value or importance of something to you is exactly what you determine it to be. If you devalue something, then it loses value or importance to you and if you place significance on something, it becomes important to you.
I think it's worth considering as well what heaven would be. I doubt heaven is something found as much as something created. So the question would be, what's heaven to you? (You don't need to reply to this. It's just something to mull over)
Cheers
Have fun.
QUOTE (Janus+Sep 12 2006, 01:18 AM)
Remember there is no ‘time’ so all this is happening instantaneously.
As time is merely the interval between two events, there can be no actions (events) while time does not exist.
We must build upon those things we know to be true and avoid the temptation of twisting them beyond a point where we violate their basic truth.
As time is merely the interval between two events, there can be no actions (events) while time does not exist.
We must build upon those things we know to be true and avoid the temptation of twisting them beyond a point where we violate their basic truth.
QUOTE (Guest Lee+Sep 13 2006, 07:31 AM)
As time is merely the interval between two events, there can be no actions (events) while time does not exist.
We must build upon those things we know to be true and avoid the temptation of twisting them beyond a point where we violate their basic truth.
Hi StevenA, Hakinon06, Guest Lee and all,
To StevenA:
I like your style, and the way you put your ideas across … you don’t shoot for the legs to cut someone down to size … you realize that proving anything is very difficult, there are concepts that just seem wrong and you know this because you are for ever ‘fire fighting’ your ideas.
As to heaven I will answer … it is the origin (the alpha) and also the end (the omega).
As to whether there is a God … I trust there is …and that is why I try to be good (hard as it is)…even though the pseudo-believers and psychos run roughshod over us … if there isn’t, I haven’t lost anything.
Also I don’t question God … why are there wars, famine, suffering etc … who am I to do this … unfortunately many do and come to a quick conclusion that there can’t be a God.
As for ‘intelligent design’ … yes and no … yes, but I don’t understand it … and no to the way people are pushing it.
The Bible might be the word of God … but man wrote it down … there must be mistakes … man does not listen properly.
Example: Genesis 1, v14 -19
It was on the fourth day that God create time, the earth was without sun, moon and stars, before that … even though there was vegetation on the third day … something wrong with the order here.
Therefore our understanding of day in the Bible has to wrong.
But there is a paradox … God works in mysterious ways … God creates Adam and Eve and their first born is a murderer … as to why God did not create Adam and Eve perfect … as stated before, it is not for us to question God.
To Hakinon06:
I’ve left it a few days before answering you … hope that you’ve cooled down … why are you letting other people control your life? … something is said and you go off on one … have some ‘tolerance’ and you will be a lot happier … that goes for the whole world as well.
You wrote a lot but said little … give us some of your ideas … you could be right.
To, Guest Lee:
I was giving a scenario of why ‘nothing’ could not exist, rather than just being flaky and saying it cannot exist.
Also, there is no observer … back to the old problem of: ‘If a tree in a forest falls, does it make a noise, if there is no one there to see it?’
But feel free to put an interval of time on it … physicists have put a dimension on the smallest particle ... piece of cake.
Cheers
We must build upon those things we know to be true and avoid the temptation of twisting them beyond a point where we violate their basic truth.
Hi StevenA, Hakinon06, Guest Lee and all,
To StevenA:
I like your style, and the way you put your ideas across … you don’t shoot for the legs to cut someone down to size … you realize that proving anything is very difficult, there are concepts that just seem wrong and you know this because you are for ever ‘fire fighting’ your ideas.
As to heaven I will answer … it is the origin (the alpha) and also the end (the omega).
As to whether there is a God … I trust there is …and that is why I try to be good (hard as it is)…even though the pseudo-believers and psychos run roughshod over us … if there isn’t, I haven’t lost anything.
Also I don’t question God … why are there wars, famine, suffering etc … who am I to do this … unfortunately many do and come to a quick conclusion that there can’t be a God.
As for ‘intelligent design’ … yes and no … yes, but I don’t understand it … and no to the way people are pushing it.
The Bible might be the word of God … but man wrote it down … there must be mistakes … man does not listen properly.
Example: Genesis 1, v14 -19
It was on the fourth day that God create time, the earth was without sun, moon and stars, before that … even though there was vegetation on the third day … something wrong with the order here.
Therefore our understanding of day in the Bible has to wrong.
But there is a paradox … God works in mysterious ways … God creates Adam and Eve and their first born is a murderer … as to why God did not create Adam and Eve perfect … as stated before, it is not for us to question God.
To Hakinon06:
I’ve left it a few days before answering you … hope that you’ve cooled down … why are you letting other people control your life? … something is said and you go off on one … have some ‘tolerance’ and you will be a lot happier … that goes for the whole world as well.
You wrote a lot but said little … give us some of your ideas … you could be right.
To, Guest Lee:
| QUOTE |
I was giving a scenario of why ‘nothing’ could not exist, rather than just being flaky and saying it cannot exist.
Also, there is no observer … back to the old problem of: ‘If a tree in a forest falls, does it make a noise, if there is no one there to see it?’
But feel free to put an interval of time on it … physicists have put a dimension on the smallest particle ... piece of cake.
Cheers
Janus,
I thoroughly enjoy your postings and welcome the mental exercise. I'm just clumsily making the point that we often lose sight of basic tenets as we probe deeper, leading some to believe we are steadily progressing in the right direction. I don't believe we have found the path yet, and perhaps never will. Not suggesting anyone here is fully sold on their own interpretations nor recommending that we stop poking and prodding since many gains have been made in physics and particularly mathematics along the journey.
My only disagreement, of any intensity, is with those who treat theory as dogma.
I thoroughly enjoy your postings and welcome the mental exercise. I'm just clumsily making the point that we often lose sight of basic tenets as we probe deeper, leading some to believe we are steadily progressing in the right direction. I don't believe we have found the path yet, and perhaps never will. Not suggesting anyone here is fully sold on their own interpretations nor recommending that we stop poking and prodding since many gains have been made in physics and particularly mathematics along the journey.
My only disagreement, of any intensity, is with those who treat theory as dogma.
Couldn't have said it better myself, grynch. I can't wait untill all of these "scientists" give a serious look at alternitives, like Plasma Cosmolgy (cosmic electrodynamics), and can stick that primordial atom back up their *** where it came from.
The alleged expansion of the Universe with concomitant Big Bang were spawned by theory, not by observations. Observations have been twisted and contorted to make them match this theory. This is not scientific method.
I remark that it has been proved that cosmological solutions for Einstein’s gravitational field for spherically symmetric isotropic type 1 Einstein spaces simply do not exist. But it is allegedly from “solutions” for such spaces that the Friedmann models and the expansion of the Universe with Big Bang are “derived”. Consequently, there is currently no valid relativistic cosmology at all. In other words, General Relativity does not predict an expansion of the Universe, and currently can say nothing about cosmology. This result has given rise to great consternation, anger, and embarrassment amongst the proponents of the Standard Cosmological Model, and so active measures have actually been taken by them in attempts to suppress the scientific facts. They have succeeded somewhat, but in the longer term this obstruction will prove futile.
The rigorous mathematical proof can be obtained, in full and free of charge, from the site of the publishing Journal:
www.ptep-online.com
in volume 3, 2005. See the paper on lambda-fields.
I remark that it has been proved that cosmological solutions for Einstein’s gravitational field for spherically symmetric isotropic type 1 Einstein spaces simply do not exist. But it is allegedly from “solutions” for such spaces that the Friedmann models and the expansion of the Universe with Big Bang are “derived”. Consequently, there is currently no valid relativistic cosmology at all. In other words, General Relativity does not predict an expansion of the Universe, and currently can say nothing about cosmology. This result has given rise to great consternation, anger, and embarrassment amongst the proponents of the Standard Cosmological Model, and so active measures have actually been taken by them in attempts to suppress the scientific facts. They have succeeded somewhat, but in the longer term this obstruction will prove futile.
The rigorous mathematical proof can be obtained, in full and free of charge, from the site of the publishing Journal:
www.ptep-online.com
in volume 3, 2005. See the paper on lambda-fields.
You guys also might want to check out Bryan Belrad's work:
www.BelradUniverse.com/bu.html
There's two free works posted right now (March 18, 2007), that really seem to tie all the problems with BB together. Even better, this guy likes to hear back from readers; he's very free with his information.
The first is a short paper "An Alternative View of the Universe" which was accepted for publication in several journals, but, as a private citizen who is not of the 'wealthy' class, Dr. Belrad couldn't pony up the several hundred dollar fees involved.
The other is a book "Testing the Big Bang", which is up for free to get reader comments, as part of Belrad's style of final editing prior to publication.
Both of them make reference to a model called 'Eternal Universe', presumably his own creation, as I can't find anything else on it. Evidently, Belrad is planning several more books on the EU model as soon as, according to him, "The Big Bang is beaten sufficiently for people to be willing to listen to other ideas".
Cheers, and good reading!
www.BelradUniverse.com/bu.html
There's two free works posted right now (March 18, 2007), that really seem to tie all the problems with BB together. Even better, this guy likes to hear back from readers; he's very free with his information.
The first is a short paper "An Alternative View of the Universe" which was accepted for publication in several journals, but, as a private citizen who is not of the 'wealthy' class, Dr. Belrad couldn't pony up the several hundred dollar fees involved.
The other is a book "Testing the Big Bang", which is up for free to get reader comments, as part of Belrad's style of final editing prior to publication.
Both of them make reference to a model called 'Eternal Universe', presumably his own creation, as I can't find anything else on it. Evidently, Belrad is planning several more books on the EU model as soon as, according to him, "The Big Bang is beaten sufficiently for people to be willing to listen to other ideas".
Cheers, and good reading!
I don't understand, why some "shadows" should be observed at all, if the Big Bang occurred in the whole volume of our Universe, including the vacuum with no center.
QUOTE (Nick+Sep 2 2006, 02:53 AM)
Does matter exist at time zero?
As long as there is a starting volume of space for it to exist within, then yes. It will exist at that point, as the most fundamental form. I see no problem with space being 1km^3 (or any arbitrary value) in volume, at the beginning. It is just a start condition, and Space's initial size, could be one of them. Time would not exist, if there was no Space for it to function in, so logic dictates that there must've been some Space for it to function within, and therefore some Space for Matter to exist within.
As long as there is a starting volume of space for it to exist within, then yes. It will exist at that point, as the most fundamental form. I see no problem with space being 1km^3 (or any arbitrary value) in volume, at the beginning. It is just a start condition, and Space's initial size, could be one of them. Time would not exist, if there was no Space for it to function in, so logic dictates that there must've been some Space for it to function within, and therefore some Space for Matter to exist within.
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.