# Thread: Big-Bang Theory ,could be all wrong?

1. Newbie
Join Date
Apr 2005
Posts
1
lets, analize my theory on the big-bang, time,distance,light age views verses whats being told to us by the astrology, sience, experts , First lets look at the Big-Bang , explosions,from what i understand happen from within and when you have one the material is dispersed at once in all directions, leaving nothing in the center,so my ? is how can the the universe have galaxey&#39;s that are billions of light years distant ,when the constant of speed of the expansion of the universe is unchanged by the initial big-bang theory? and now my second ? when you look futher back into space,your looking back through time ,because of the distance it takes the light to reach earth, If the earth was the center of the universe.so ? this theroy, the big-bang happens,material is thrown out accross the universe , how can sience say thay can figure the age of the universe by measureing the time it takes light from distant stars to reach earth ,which they estamate too be 13 billion years old ,well , I have too ? there thinking,because you have too consider the time it took the material,from the so-called big-bang to reach the distance of space ,13-billion light years distant and than you have to consider the time it takes to form galaxey&#39;s and stars than you have to consider the time it takes the light of a new star to reach earth ,than you would have to say that the earth is the center of the universe in order to use the time,light ,distance,=age theory so lets have some feedback on my theory. I am not an expert on space,time,light ,distance=age theory Idea but I dont think the experts are eather. <_<

2. Originally posted by gojohnnie@Apr 14 2005, 12:45 AM
lets have some feedback on my theory
I didn&#39;t really see something that is your theory. Do you mean that your theory is that it makes sense to describe the Earth as the center of the universe when viewing the universe from the Earth?

I am happy that you have an interest in astronomy. I am not sure what your thoery provides in terms of predicting ability that the current theories don&#39;t have.

3. Join Date
Oct 2004
Posts
21
Just to clarify: your "theory" is really just a misunderstanding of a real "theory" that offers predictions.

Anyway, I think what he&#39;s asking is (and I tried hard to sift through the poor grammar) is this: Since starlight is moving towards us at the speed of light, and we are moving away from it at the speed of expansion, does the age of the universe take this into account? Like, do the age of the universe predictions compensate for the speed of light and expansion.

I&#39;m sure it does, but never looked into it, though I&#39;ve thought about it. Give the entire astronomical community some credit. Anyway, this question is up for debate.

4. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Mar 2004
Posts
13,441
There are many excellent resources available, for free, on the internet .... for example, Ned Wright&#39;s Cosmology Tutorial. For a more advanced review, try Padmanabhan &#39;s "Understanding out Universe".

Yes, gojohnnie&#39;s questions have been addressed by cosmologists ... and they&#39;ve worked long and hard on many, many other questions besides.

5. Br4nd0n Guest
I have an idea thats sort of an add-on to the big bang. I do believe in the big bang thoery but I consider it much like a light bulb if you will. Every time you turn on a light bulb or spark a match it creates a &#39;big bang&#39; only differant than the one capable of creating galaxies. Although the Big Bang was a chemical reaction with a nuclear substance and helium/hydrogen. Not your average household atoms found in the lightbulb, yet both produced light. The Big Bang was pure energy maybe taking the form of light and expanding in all directions.

h34r:

So the big bang happened and it spit atoms of water, nuclear energy, "tritium? and helium in every which direction, correct? Well supposadly 15 billion some odd years pass and we have the present, which is X when considered how old the universe is, but by whos [the human race] time scale? We consider we know how old the universe is by looking at the big bang radiation or something (which must mean we know where the universe originated from)? plus the speed of light pays some importance to the age of the universe. after all, when it happened atoms mixed up forming a &#39;light-like&#39; creation very fast.

My addon to the Big &#39;Bang Thoery&#39; is that powerfull electric currents are running through the entire universe. The hydrogen atom was not our planets water, but &#39;Heavy Water with 3 more hydrongen protons than earths. This is the matter of space, almost like the form of water. In space you float even if you dont have the mass of a rotating planet. Which means a human being contains no potential energy. Energy in the form of electricity however is in every planet, square foot of outter space, and especialy orbit patterns. I believe this because: the planets containing massivly compacted rock and circular if given enough time can form allignment. planets such as Earth and mars all the way 2 Pluto rotate on the same orbit around the sun; as long as they contain a central &#39;core&#39; of Iron, or a metalic like element. Earths core is Iron in either a liquid or solid state. Both forms contain a magnetic structure, Solid form being the most powerfull because of the straighter formed atoms. With these magnetic cores they balance on a powerfull &#39;current of electric voltage&#39; At the AMP of anyones guess, altho mathematics can calculate the OHms pretty easy. So these planets rest on the electric current and one day will alligne? if this ever happens my theory is correct, that earth like planets balance on a electric current, much like 2 differant ends of a magnet. When tried to make contact with 2 opposite ended magnets they push apart, this is what happens with Earth, it just rests on &#39;nothingness&#39;. Every planet, the same axis?

thank you for taking the time to read this, it actually took me a little over a half hour. Does it make sence that planets with a metalic core rest on powerfull, inter-galactic electric currents?

6. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Mar 2004
Posts
13,441
Br4nd0n, this idea is certainly not &#39;mainstream&#39;&#33; As such, I think it belongs in the Alternative Theory part of UT, not here in Questions & Answers. (Perhaps a moderator will move it?)

7. Guest Guest
ok heres my universe question - Do space atoms have a possative electric charge

8. Established Member
Join Date
Sep 2003
Posts
2,405
Do space atoms have a possative electric charge
Atoms, no by definition of atom. Ions, yes by definition.

9. Originally posted by GOURDHEAD@Apr 21 2005, 04:49 PM
Ions, yes by definition.
Hi GH, I don&#39;t like contradicting you because you generally are very careful to express yourself accurately, but there are negative ions. I expect that they are VERY rare in space, and we haven&#39;t knowingly observed any* there, but they can and do exist.

* we have observed gammas and atmospheric cascades from antiprotons, but counting those as ions is not what I was talking about.

10. Established Member
Join Date
Sep 2003
Posts
2,405
Thanks for the needed correction Antoniseb.

11. Newbie
Join Date
Apr 2005
Posts
5
Big bang is very likely to wrong. You have only to ask questions.

12. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Mar 2004
Posts
13,441
Originally posted by JB007@Apr 22 2005, 08:41 PM
Big bang is very likely to wrong. You have only to ask questions.
What questions?

13. Newbie
Join Date
Apr 2005
Posts
5
How is cosmic structure created from particles that fly apart?

14. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Mar 2004
Posts
13,441
Originally posted by JB007@Apr 23 2005, 09:35 AM
How is cosmic structure created from particles that fly apart?
Would you mind being a little more specific please?

In one sentence: cosmic structure arises because as the universe expands, it cools; as it cools, the symmetries of the various forces are broken; as those symmetries are broken, equilibrium conditions cease; as the constituent particles (essentially) cease to interact, under- and over-density regions can decouple (to some extent); in the case of baryonic matter, gravity (a &#39;one-way&#39; force) may amplify an over-density region; as baryonic matter undergoes (local) gravitational collapse, a hierarchical fragmentation process begins.

15. ngeo Guest
How does gravitational collapse occur when baryonic particles (protons and neutrons?) are flying apart? Protons, with like charges, repel; they are also flying apart; so when does gravitational attraction occur?

16. Join Date
May 2005
Posts
36
Originally posted by ngeo@Jun 11 2005, 01:23 PM
How does gravitational collapse occur when baryonic particles (protons and neutrons?) are flying apart? Protons, with like charges, repel; they are also flying apart; so when does gravitational attraction occur?
Charge repulsion is a short-range effect and its induced acceleration drops away rapidly as the distance between the two same charge electrons (or two protons) opens up, where upon the attraction of their mutual mass expression becomes the dominant induced acceleration vector in surrounding space, thus slowing, then reversing their repulsion induced separation, eventually leading to mutual elliptical harmonic orbit (which will stay that way, unless disturbed by another &#39;force&#39; vector, which in the real cosmos, they always are).

Which is why mass clusters at cosmic scales, yet besides this, opposite electric and magnetic polarisation causes electrons and protons to cluster with neutrons at quantum scales, as well.

--

This is of course extremely simple to visualise if all ‘force’ is simply the mechanics of anisotropic space distribution in that space (space tension and inversely related space mass, i.e. space tension goes up, so space mass inversely goes down in exact proportion) … then ‘matter’ is also just a pulsating (+/- polarising) anisotropy, within a real space with real mass, and real elastic tension - total mechanical simplicity.

17. ngeo Guest
FDNE you wrote,

“Charge repulsion is a short-range effect and its induced acceleration drops away rapidly as the distance between the two same charge electrons (or two protons) opens up, where upon the attraction of their mutual mass expression becomes the dominant induced acceleration vector in surrounding space, thus slowing, then reversing their repulsion induced separation, eventually leading to mutual elliptical harmonic orbit (which will stay that way, unless disturbed by another &#39;force&#39; vector, which in the real cosmos, they always are).”

But the baryonic matter (or the protons or neutrons, or electrons?) is not flying apart because of charge repulsion. It is flying apart because of some other cause. Is this not one of the ‘problems’ with the current theories? ‘Space’ is expanding.

“This is of course extremely simple to visualise if all ‘force’ is simply the mechanics of anisotropic space distribution in that space (space tension and inversely related space mass, i.e. space tension goes up, so space mass inversely goes down in exact proportion) … then ‘matter’ is also just a pulsating (+/- polarising) anisotropy, within a real space with real mass, and real elastic tension - total mechanical simplicity.”

Why would this system of space distribution mechanics, left to itself, not eventually achieve ‘equilibrium’, or become ‘isotropic’? In other words, what is the true force behind the mechanics that give rise to the apparent ‘force‘? My idea is that expanding space, an energized medium, is the true force. And the energy manifested as expanding space does not cease to operate within the field of space, but continues to operate, essentially impeding itself. The result is pressure. I don’t understand the tension part. I understand tension as the result of a pull, and pressure as the result of a push. The pull has to come from the outside; the push comes from the inside.

18. Join Date
May 2005
Posts
36
Originally posted by ngeo@Jun 12 2005, 01:25 AM
Why would this system of space distribution mechanics, left to itself, not eventually achieve ‘equilibrium’, or become ‘isotropic’? In other words, what is the true force behind the mechanics that give rise to the apparent ‘force‘? My idea is that expanding space, an energized medium, is the true force. And the energy manifested as expanding space does not cease to operate within the field of space, but continues to operate, essentially impeding itself. The result is pressure. I don’t understand the tension part. I understand tension as the result of a pull, and pressure as the result of a push. The pull has to come from the outside; the push comes from the inside.
The True force?

It is the gradient described by the anisotropy in space’s tension and mass distribution, from the isotropic scale of observation, grading to the smallest scale, along an exponential gradient ‘curve’ in space. The steepness of the gradient determines how far ranging it’s ‘affecting’ expression is. The shallow end of the gradient (the G ‘force’) is long-ranging because a shallow gradient curve naturally covers a vast volume of space. The very steep end of the gradient curve has very short ‘affecting’ range, because the steep gradient curve of course can only occupy a proportionally smaller volume of space, thus at the smallest scale you will get the strongest ‘force’ with the shortest range, but each ‘force’ is just the same thing—a continuous anisotropic gradient in a real space (rather than discontinuous, disconnected separate ‘forces’).

--

I suspect I see where you’re coming from with the pressure in space notion. I expect you mean that the great voids are under pressure and thus are sweeping clusters aside into their margins as networked clusters we see, as all the voids distend space under pressure?

I don’t see where you are going though. Whence the pressure? Is it kinetic like a particulate ‘gas’ pressure? If so, how are ‘new’ voids forming? A kinetically interacting energised &#39;gas&#39; under pressure will mix and equilibrate very quickly. What is the physical origin of the energy of this space? And if the space is a ‘medium’, is it particulate in fine structure? If so, how can it be unified as one if intrinsically thus disconnected (not in direct continuous contact with itself, all of the time)?

19. ngeo Guest
FDNE, my (limited) understanding is that a gradient is a mathematical description of the change in a field. So I take it that you mean the ‘true’ force is the force described by this gradient, and is a single force (and I agree with that). But what is the actual force, as opposed to its mathematical formulation? My idea is that the force is spatial expansion, and the mathematical description of this force would be that every ‘point’ in space is a vector field with the arrows pointing outward in every direction. And for every ‘point’ in space, in addition to its arrows pointing outward, there would be arrows pointing at it from every surrounding point. And at some ‘point’, something would have to give under the universal pressure. So some ‘points’ would begin to spin. Then you have an acceleration, time begins, direction begins, change begins, and matter is created as a spinning region which absorbs expansion energy by its spin. At the edge of the universe, there is nothing to oppose the expansion of space. But within the universe (or universal field) the expansion impedes itself. So the universal spatial field is an energy field (this would replace the vacuum). In the vicinity of the spinning regions, the field does not expand, which in the context of universal expansion we perceive as gravitational attraction. The evolution of the universe is the continual exchange of energy between matter and the field in a kind of breathing. Spinning regions combine to create more efficient absorption mechanisms, can absorb more energy than the field can emit, and release energy back into the field, etc.

In this scenario the great voids are regions of relatively low pressure. In the evolved universe, the high pressure is just inside the expanding edge, and that is where new matter forms. In the rest of the universe, spinning bodies of matter are continually maintained by the field. (In other words, the power is always ‘on’, and there is no way to turn it off.) The field is not particulate but we can only deal with it by breaking it down arbitrarily into a particulate structure for mathematical purposes. I think this necessity (arising from our historic experience with individual ‘pieces’ of it) becomes part of the problem of understanding the essential infinite nature of the universe, its indivisibility. Our measurements create finiteness or discreteness when none exists other than in our imaginations.

20. Join Date
May 2005
Posts
36
Originally posted by ngeo@Jun 12 2005, 03:58 AM
[1] FDNE, my (limited) understanding is that a gradient is a mathematical description of the change in a field. So I take it that you mean the ‘true’ force is the force described by this gradient, and is a single force (and I agree with that).

[2] But what is the actual force, as opposed to its mathematical formulation?

[3] My idea is that the force is spatial expansion, and the mathematical description of this force would be that every ‘point’ in space is a vector field with the arrows pointing outward in every direction. And for every ‘point’ in space, in addition to its arrows pointing outward, there would be arrows pointing at it from every surrounding point. And at some ‘point’, something would have to give under the universal pressure.

[4] So some ‘points’ would begin to spin. Then you have an acceleration, time begins, direction begins, change begins, and matter is created as a spinning region which absorbs expansion energy by its spin. At the edge of the universe, there is nothing to oppose the expansion of space.

[5] But within the universe (or universal field) the expansion impedes itself. So the universal spatial field is an energy field (this would replace the vacuum).

[6] In the vicinity of the spinning regions, the field does not expand, which in the context of universal expansion we perceive as gravitational attraction.

[7] The evolution of the universe is the continual exchange of energy between matter and the field in a kind of breathing. Spinning regions combine to create more efficient absorption mechanisms, can absorb more energy than the field can emit, and release energy back into the field, etc.

[8] In this scenario the great voids are regions of relatively low pressure.

[9] In the evolved universe, the high pressure is just inside the expanding edge, and that is where new matter forms. In the rest of the universe, spinning bodies of matter are continually maintained by the field. (In other words, the power is always ‘on’, and there is no way to turn it off.)

[10] The field is not particulate but we can only deal with it by breaking it down arbitrarily into a particulate structure for mathematical purposes. I think this necessity (arising from our historic experience with individual ‘pieces’ of it) becomes part of the problem of understanding the essential infinite nature of the universe, its indivisibility. Our measurements create finiteness or discreteness when none exists other than in our imaginations.
I&#39;m replying as per the numbering I&#39;ve included in the quote.

[1] Yes.

[2] As I said, its the physical local distribution of space&#39;s elastic tension and inversely proportional density (m), which the gradient follows and describes via the dynamics we are observing at all scales.

[3] Static pressure implied a container, but an infinite space has no container. You refer here to inward and outward, but infinity can have neither.

[4] Infinity has no edge, no boundary. If the model has an edge, then it&#39;s a finite model.

[5] Your first few words again indicate you are referring to an intrinsically finite bounded system. Infinity does not have an &#39;outside&#39;. Inside, outside and directionality are meaningless terms in reference to infinity, as is time, and as is dimension, as a dimension is really just a limited measurement of an observer (without the observer … there’s is no dimensional measurement), but an infinity is absolutely unlimited—immeasurable.

[6] I don&#39;t follow. You mean relative to the actual cosmic expansion component of the cosmos, the local galaxy experiences gravity instead, because the galaxy spins, the Earth orbits the Sun, the Earth has polar rotation, and electrons spin around protons and neutrons? ... thus we feel a form of locally-intense ‘inverse anti-expansion’, within the bounded pressure of an expansion? Where does static pressure induce spin?

In physics terms I can&#39;t see how this logically follows from the observed mechanics of either cosmic or sub-atomic scale.

[7] I don&#39;t follow this. For one thing, the observed isotropy of space actually implies non-evolution of the cosmos with time. The 2DF quasar survey results a couple of years back mapped quasar distributions (25,000 of them) in a slice of the cosmos and found them to be homogenously distributed throughout space, within the volume of space the survey mapped in detail.

Prior to this it was thought Quasars were clustered at great distances (thus very old aspects of the earliest BBT cosmos), but 2DF mapping shattered that false belief, and this result meant there was no clear evidence of cosmic evolution with time as the BBT suggested. Structurally and observationally, the cosmos is the same everywhere, at all observed depths.

Spectral differences with depth have time and again been related to techniques and Doppler implications plus absorption and emission phenomena. No one can firmly say the cosmos has evolved, because there is no evidence for it. In fact, the extraordinary isotropy and flatness of space suggests (very strongly) that the cosmos hasn&#39;t fundamentally evolved at all over the period and radial distance we have so far observed (much to the disappointment of BBT…).

[8] How can something which is uncontained maintain a pressure difference? If you have a container and place the lid on it, heat it mildly above ambient, pressure rises; but if you cool it below ambient, the pressure drops. Take the lid off and the interior equilibrates with the pressure outside, very quickly. So when you say &#39;lower pressure&#39;, what is the impermeable space container around it which allows lower pressure difference to occur, or be maintained?

[9] Here you are confirming clearly that you are modelling a finite cosmos.

[10] Particulate of not, this is a finite closed discontinuous cosmos you describe, not an open indivisible one. Placing of a boundary is what makes it devisible. You are placing an ad-hoc boundary because you realise that a pressure interpretation or mechanism requires a boundary, or it can’t work. You are describing a finite space with an inside, a boundary, and an ‘outside’.

--

How can infinity have an outside? Infinity is not exclusive, it is profoundly inclusive, it is everything and one, or else it is divided and finite. This is the very reason why finiteness and infinity are logically and actually immiscible existential states. You can have one within the cosmos, but never both.

Do away with the boundary and discontinuity, or logically you will not be able to achieve an actual physical unification.

21. ngeo Guest
FDNE, thank you for your acute comments. I feel our terminology may be causing misunderstanding, but there is a source of this. I think one problem with the &#39;finite-infinite&#39; break is one of definition. I believe a limitless system - one that does not end - can still have limits both in our measurements of time and space and in the motion that leads us to measure time and space. Limitless expansion into nothingness can be limited by the rate of expansion. If the field expands at a certain constant rate, even into nothingness, there is a current limit to the field, although it has no limit to its expansion (there is nothing &#39;outside&#39; it).

The crux of the distinction is the &#39;time&#39; factor, which is inherent in the motion, or change, of the universal system although its measurement as a &#39;dimension&#39; is artificial. &#39;Time&#39; is our expression of motion, or change. The &#39;existence&#39; of infinite time, or infinite change, does not preclude a current time limit - in fact, it requires it. An infinite future requires a finite present. The universal field can limited and limitless at the same time.

The past has a different character. Past events dictate current and future events (although that does not mean we can predict the future). The arrow of time is not reversible. And as past events are the &#39;source&#39; of current events, so the &#39;inward&#39; direction I am referring to is the &#39;source&#39; of &#39;outward&#39; motion, or expansion. THe universe is a one-way system. There may be nothing outside it, but there is something inside it. And from this &#39;inward&#39; direction comes the infinite energy which powers the system. It operates only outwardly, so its innards are inherently unreachable, although nothing stops us from making calculations as far into the innards as we like. And it operates endlessly, constantly, limitlessly, from an infinite &#39;inside&#39; to an infinite &#39;outside&#39;. In other words, the source of the system is &#39;inside&#39; the system everywhere. In the system you describe I do not find the source - the &#39;true energy&#39;. I believe the source of our universal system, the energy that creates and powers it, is an (infinite) ability to move. I suspect we could look in ever smaller regions, forever, and never find the source of this ability. That would be God, I guess. In other words, I agree with your view that &#39;infiniteness&#39; extends infinitely both inward and outward. In your terms, what is the source of &#39;infiniteness&#39;?

My simple (or simplistic) view as I look at the universe is that the essential characteristic of the ability to move is the ability to expand (from nothing, into nothing). That is why I describe a &#39;vector field&#39; with all its arrows pointing outward from a point. And at every &#39;point&#39; within the universal vector field is a small vector field with all its arrows pointing outward, etc. At the infinitely small &#39;center&#39; of every infinitely small) &#39;point&#39; is the source of the arrows, and this source, however infinitely small it may be, cannot be reached, since it keeps pushing you away (or keeps getting smaller).

In reality, there are no &#39;points&#39;, these words and mathematical distinctions are just our way of grasping what cannot be grasped. Like I said, the power is always &#39;on&#39; and there is no way to turn it off. But it creates matter, in a open system, because while at its outer limit (and at its inner &#39;limit&#39;, wherever we arbitrarily put it) there is no field to impede it, within the field the field impedes itself. The universe is not a closed system, but that does not prevent it from creating pressure within itself. If we take a &#39;point&#39; and expand it to a sphere at a constant rate, and at every &#39;point&#39; within the sphere we create a similar sphere, we immediately outrun the ability of the expanded (and expanding) sphere to contain all the volume of the spheres we have created.

The spinning regions I refer to would be &#39;subatomic particles&#39;. Interestingly, if you rotate a sphere on three axes (i.e., in order to replicate a region spinning on the equivalent of three axes in order to absorb arrows coming from all firections) you find two distinct patterns of spin depending on the direction of spin. There are eight possible combinations of three-axial spin, and two patterns.

Since these regions absorb the expansion energy of the field, in these regions the field does not appear to expand. In the general context of expansion, we perceive this non-expansion as gravitational attraction (it may be that combinations of spinning regions can actually cause the field to contract). So subatomic particles are &#39;storage containers&#39; for energy, and their absorption of energy from the field would take, it seems to me, the form of a kind of breathing - say, the initial creation of a spinning &#39;particle&#39; will temporarily create a deficit in the field, in which case energy will be emitted back into the field, which will create a deficit in the particle, etc. So the entire system operates by the continuous absorption and emission of energy by &#39;particles&#39;.

On the cosmic scale, the picture I remember is one with two pie-slices, which showed a filamentary distribution that seemed kind of crystalline, as if the objects were &#39;clustered&#39; in the boundaries between crystalline voids. I don&#39;t have a problem with that. I haven&#39;t got that far yet. But spin seems to be a fundamental feature of the universe, from the smallest &#39;particles&#39; to the largest bodies. I understand that electrons have &#39;intrinsic angular momentum&#39;. Why is that? What causes it? In my scenario, the electron is constantly receiving energy from the field. (I remember seeing pictures showing a &#39;cloud&#39; of &#39;virtual particles&#39; surrounding an electron. These &#39;virtual particles&#39; come from the vacuum. It seems to me that the vacuum is the current mathematical counterpart of the universal field.

22. Join Date
May 2005
Posts
36
Thank you ngeo, I see what you are getting at a little clearer, though I can&#39;t see what the energy ‘source’ it is which you are referring to, or in what form it physically is expressed, in the first instance.

I must say, I don&#39;t see how infinite space can expand in to nothing, as in infinity there is not a nothing, there is just everything which is one. Sorry to be insistent, but I can not logically swallow a &#39;nothing&#39;, outside an infinite expansion, which also had no beginning.

--

The more obvious questions are; you said earlier that this space is not &#39;particulate&#39;, i.e.;

" ... The field is not particulate but we can only deal with it by breaking it down arbitrarily into a particulate structure for mathematical purposes. ..."

So my first questions;

1. What causes a solid neutron or electron to be hard and impenetrable, yet scatter elastically, within such an underlaying non-particulate substrate space?

2. Second, what is G exactly in actual mechanical terms within such a space? (I can not grasp anything from what has been said, I appologise ngeo)

3. What is m, and where does it come from, and most importantly, why do the solids in such a space exhibit the thing called m, and of course, why is G acceleration always associated with it, in constant proportion?

4. What is it about the &#39;solid&#39;, which causes gravitational and inertial acceleration equivalence within this space, and how does it mechanically physically emerge?

5. What is antimatter, and why is the cosmos observably not filled with mutual cancellation photon flux from it?

6. What is the implied actual structure of the electron?

7. What exactly is dark matter in this space?

--

Of course, these are very tough questions, which we can quickly heap up on any new notion, but each requires a complete natural model, which integrally produces and implies all the right intrinsic mechanics, without any ad-hoc forcing, speculation or blanks, and each answer must not contradict or disallow the preceding answers – or else none of the answers will be valid, or physical unity.

Of course, then it must stand up to further tricky problems thrown at it, and keep working in a natural, logical and non-contrived way … plus of, course, accord with observation and produce solid testable predictions.

Can this space answer these as one, logically, congruently, seamlessly?

That’s all I’m interested in, because these are the issues that have been put in the &#39;too-hard&#39; basket and we will get no where unless we, or someone, faces up to the challenge in that basket, in one answer.

--

PS: and it can already be done with finiteless space, via +/- anisotropy sine wave oscillations of space and the associated anisotropic gradient curve away from cosmic scale isotropy.

Sorry ngeo if I seem a little intense or hard-edged about these sorts of points/issues, but I want answers, real answers, and no ideas about the real space observations, as they are now, and that the answer will also naturally imply newer observations without blanks or the current routine mystery and contrivance. I don&#39;t mind if that seems impossible for some, everything is at first, but I won&#39;t settle for less than this, and I feel (heck, I know) this is the only attitude/approach which stands a chance of working it out (individually, or cooperatively).

23. ngeo Guest
FDNE,

The energy source is the same source that creates ‘space-time’. In other words, ‘space’ is both the medium and the energy source: an energized, or energetic, medium. In loop quantum gravity, I have been told by someone at the university where Abhay Ashtekar teaches, it is speculated that ‘matter’ arises naturally from the ‘geometry’ of space. Unfortunately I have not kept the email. But the gist of it is that ‘space-time’ in LQG resembles an energized, or energetic, medium.

I agree that it is difficult logically to swallow something that doesn’t exist. (I agree that ‘nothing’ doesn’t exist&#33; And conversely, everything does exist.) To try to describe ‘logically’ what I am trying to say, there is a limit to the rate of expansion. This limit does not come from the ‘nothingness’ that lies outside the field, but is intrinsic to the field: it expands at a constant rate, whether or not there is any ‘thing’ outside it (and there isn‘t). As far as ‘no beginning’ goes, my sense (?) is that the field is constantly ‘beginning’, and there is no beginning (nor an end) to its beginning - it always began, always begins, and always will begin.

In this scenario, ‘infinite space’ is infinitely energetic space-creating expansion, which expands into itself, causing itself to spin.

1. The space (energetic space) is not an underlaying substrate; the neutron, proton or electron and the ‘substrate’ are integral to each other, they are ‘variable density‘ versions of each other. The ‘difference’ between the body and the ’substrate’ is that the ‘body’ is absorbing energy from the ‘substrate’, and emitting energy to it. The solid is hard and impenetrable because it is full of energy, and scatters elastically because it is of the same ‘stuff’ (space) as space.

2. If G is the ‘force’ of gravity, I think of it as the convergence of space-time co-ordinates. So when we shoot an arrow, it proceeds in a straight spatial line, but its time line is curved and it converges with the earth. We see this as a curved spatial line.

3. If m is mass, it comes from the field, and represents the constant ‘amount’ of energy stored by the body. When bodies come together they create a more efficient storage mechanism by their combined spins, and we perceive this as an increased ‘density of matter’. Measuring by space-time coordinates we would see a greater rate of convergence. All similar ‘densities of matter’ will have similar rates of convergence in their associated space, the size of which is affected by the total number of bodies and their respective densities, other bodies, etc. Ultimately it is a universal system of eddies, whirlpools, etc. which all affect each other.

4. Sorry, I can’t get my head around this one. Gravitational attraction is an acceleration. I think all motion in the universe is an acceleration, and what we think of as ‘constant’ motion is in reality a combination of accelerations.

5. As I said above, there are eight possible combinations of three-axial spin, and the eight combinations break down into two sets of mirror-images which would be ‘anti-matter‘ to each other. (In other words, right-up-clockwise would be the mirror image of left-down-counterclockwise. I laboriously drew all the possible combinations long ago, but when I start thinking about this I get confused. But it is very interesting, and I used to wish someone with a computer animation program would create a three-axial spinning sphere and trace the moving position of points on its surface.) I think the universe is basically one-handed, and this could be due to the first ‘break’ into a spinning ‘structure’. Once the first region ‘breaks’, all others naturally follow. However I think there are anti-particles in nature and I don’t know why.

6. My initial impression is that an electron would be one of the two forms of spinning regions, while a proton would be the other. But it may be that these two forms actually are much smaller than either a proton or an electron, and that these are combinations. I have read some descriptions of a neutron as a proton surrounded by an electron ‘shroud’. This implies elasticity, and this elasticity may also apply to a proton-electron combination, to free electrons, etc.

7. From what I read, dark matter as an unexplained gravitational augmentation or field seems to take the form of a halo. This makes me wonder whether it would correspond to an orbital torus in the way that an electron is sometimes characterized. I think of ‘matter’ as being the manifestation of a gravitational field, i.e. it is our observation of its space-time geometry that leads us to a gravitational field, which we call ‘matter’ (but we then turn the situation backwards by saying that the gravitational field is the ‘property’ of matter). If ‘matter’ is in a completely stable ‘breathing‘ relationship with the field, it should emit no extra radiation, and we will not see it. So maybe dark matter is a halo of stable matter surrounding a collection of bodies of unstable matter.

I believe this scenario (which is a very naive and skeletal scenario at this point) is in agreement with your description of oscillations of space, which in turn seems to me to point toward the &#39;quantum geometry&#39; of LQG. I wonder if you are familiar with that. I am neither a physicist nor a mathematician and I think only in visual ways, so I can&#39;t really go any further than I have already with this. But as a way of describing the universe I think it can be fitted onto what is known. As I see it, the BB theory as a visual is not satisfactory, and it seems to me that theorists are seeing the whole picture backwards - &#39;gravitational collapse&#39; is really &#39;gravitational consolidation&#39;. And this comes from the idea that energy (and gravitational attraction) is a &#39;property&#39; exchanged between bodies of &#39;matter&#39;. It is hard to free the idea of &#39;energy&#39; from the idea of &#39;matter&#39; and place it in the insubstantial realm of &#39;space&#39;.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•