Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 33

Thread: GR and the Universe

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066

    GR and the Universe

    GR has been shown to be tremendously successful in a great many individual situations concerning different parts of astronomy, as many have attested to.

    However, since the Unification of GR and QFT have become such an obvious
    dilema, this has to beg the question...

    Is there another way, besides the 'shrinking the universe down to a point' (where the whole universe must come out of the beginnings at once), to apply GR to the universe as a whole???

    Any Ideas?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    Quote Originally Posted by RussT View Post
    GR has been shown to be tremendously successful in a great many individual situations concerning different parts of astronomy, as many have attested to.

    However, since the Unification of GR and QFT have become such an obvious
    dilema, this has to beg the question...

    Is there another way, besides the 'shrinking the universe down to a point' (where the whole universe must come out of the beginnings at once), to apply GR to the universe as a whole???

    Any Ideas?
    Well, my prediction here was exactly correct!

    That this would get 0 responses!

    There is another way!

    What would the INVERSE of the Big Bang look like?

    The concept of Naked Singularity>Gamma Radiation>Electrons/Protons>HI and He is a correct one!

    And The reality of Massive Black Holes is also a correct concept.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,541
    If I good understand there are two concepts:
    1. The beginning was in a point ?
    2. The beginning was a nacked singularity of the Massive Black Hole ?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    Quote Originally Posted by czeslaw View Post
    If I good understand there are two concepts:
    1. The beginning was in a point ?
    2. The beginning was a nacked singularity of the Massive Black Hole ?
    This does not look like anything Inverse to me.

    But I should have reversed these too.

    1.[And The reality of Massive Black Holes is also a correct concept]

    2.[The concept of Naked Singularity>Gamma Radiation>Electrons/Protons>HI and He is a correct one!]

    But, as the OP says, shrinking the universe down to a point and blowing it back up, is NOT the 'only' way that the universe could have started.

    So, think 'space' first and where we 'see' the expansion happening (but NOT the universe 'in' a black hole) and then #2.

    But, to be honest czeslaw, this is PURE GR, so I am not sure what you think you are going to see here. This means "REAL" black holes.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by RussT View Post
    GR has been shown to be tremendously successful in a great many individual situations concerning different parts of astronomy, as many have attested to.

    However, since the Unification of GR and QFT have become such an obvious
    dilema, this has to beg the question...

    Is there another way, besides the 'shrinking the universe down to a point' (where the whole universe must come out of the beginnings at once), to apply GR to the universe as a whole???

    Any Ideas?
    What comes to mind is that all perceivable universes are implicit within their singular source. In other words, if a single point without extension in space and time exists, then all points are necessarily coincident and simultaneous with it. This conforms with Bell's theorem of non-locality. Thus every quantum event in the universe of local consensus is thoroughly entangled with every other. In this sense there's no cause and effect as everything is caused by everything else. The cosmos is a homogeneous blob of probability seen from the compound perspective of its myriad perceptual nodes.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    Quote Originally Posted by eremon View Post
    What comes to mind is that all perceivable universes are implicit within their singular source. In other words, if a single point without extension in space and time exists, then all points are necessarily coincident and simultaneous with it. This conforms with Bell's theorem of non-locality. Thus every quantum event in the universe of local consensus is thoroughly entangled with every other. In this sense there's no cause and effect as everything is caused by everything else. The cosmos is a homogeneous blob of probability seen from the compound perspective of its myriad perceptual nodes.

    So, based on this, how does 'space' and the galaxies get here?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    Here is perhaps a better way to start.

    For 50 + years the brightest minds on this planet have tried to figure out another way that baryonic matter, the electrons, protons, and neutrons
    become part of our universe, and make up the Hydrogen and Helium that begin
    star formation, and in all that time...Zilch, Nada, Zippo!

    So, let's just say for a moment that Big Bang "TYPE" nucleosynthesis is the correct answer for this, then, besides the Big Bang...

    What is the only possible source for this "TYPE" of nucleosynthesis that we know of???

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,712

    Questions

    I have thoroughly enjoyed the level of debate here and as a
    newbie was wondering about the form of the crunch.

    In a collapsing universe would a spin have any effect rather
    than a direct in line collapse.

    For the first 130,000 years the early universe was a rapidly
    expanding sphere of light and heat.

    The reverse possibly wouldn't happen so evenly or over the
    same sort of time frame.

    So would time and space need to assemble and be held
    at a point before starting off again?

    Does it have to be a bang or would a lesser stream of light
    and heat released at a point have a similar effect?

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by RussT View Post
    So, based on this, how does 'space' and the galaxies get here?
    This makes no assertions regarding how the observable universe comes into being out of non-locality, just as the big bang makes no such assertions. What it is saying, in accordance with the Heisenberg uncertainty principal, is that non-locality is imbued with apparent locality by virtue of observation. Thus the consensus universe is an agreement among its localizing perceivers. At one time not too long ago, it was a diamond studded celestial sphere surrounding the earth; at the moment it's an accelerating big bang.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    Quote Originally Posted by eremon
    At one time not too long ago, it was a diamond studded celestial sphere surrounding the earth
    Well, this is certainly an assertion!

    Quote Originally Posted by eremon
    This makes no assertions regarding how the observable universe comes into being
    If you are not serious about the observables, How Baryonic Matter gets here, How the Baryonic Matter is basically clumped into galaxies, how 'space' gets here, How the Voids appear to be expanding, then...

    Please start your own thread to talk about what you think is happening.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Noonan View Post
    I have thoroughly enjoyed the level of debate here and as a
    newbie was wondering about the form of the crunch.

    In a collapsing universe would a spin have any effect rather
    than a direct in line collapse.

    For the first 130,000 years the early universe was a rapidly
    expanding sphere of light and heat.

    The reverse possibly wouldn't happen so evenly or over the
    same sort of time frame.

    So would time and space need to assemble and be held
    at a point before starting off again?

    Does it have to be a bang or would a lesser stream of light
    and heat released at a point have a similar effect?
    Michael, the OP (Opening Post) specifically starts out...

    [Is there another way, besides the 'shrinking the universe down to a point' (where the whole universe must come out of the beginnings at once), to apply GR to the universe as a whole???]

    All your above assumes a 'shrinking the universe down to a point' beginning, a Big Bang, and then possibly a Crunch.

    Think...expansion from the Voids and the Nucleosynthesis question I posed above.

  12. #12
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by eremon
    At one time not too long ago, it was a diamond studded celestial sphere surrounding the earth

    Quote Originally Posted by RussT View Post
    Well, this is certainly an assertion!
    My point is that consensus descriptions of the nature and origin of the observable universe have rapidly evolved over human history from simple ideas such as this to the intricate, often incongruous, array of contemporary theories.

    Quote Originally Posted by RussT View Post
    If you are not serious about the observables, How Baryonic Matter gets here, How the Baryonic Matter is basically clumped into galaxies, how 'space' gets here, How the Voids appear to be expanding, then...
    Please start your own thread to talk about what you think is happening.
    It's not that I'm not serious about the observables. I understood your original question to be asking for an alternative explanation to the big bang that might help to resolve incongurities between GR & QFT. I believe GR addresses the relationships between large scale structures observed at their present stage of evolution, while QFT addresses the processes that give rise to observation itself.

    I am suggesting that the unification of these two must address the relationship between original non-dimensionality or non-locality and the consensus view of reality as an array of individual events located in spacetime.

    If you believe this is not germane to your inquiry, then I will happily desist from further participation in your thread.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    Quote Originally Posted by eremon View Post
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by eremon
    At one time not too long ago, it was a diamond studded celestial sphere surrounding the earth


    My point is that consensus descriptions of the nature and origin of the observable universe have rapidly evolved over human history from simple ideas such as this to the intricate, often incongruous, array of contemporary theories.


    It's not that I'm not serious about the observables. I understood your original question to be asking for an alternative explanation to the big bang that might help to resolve incongurities between GR & QFT. I believe GR addresses the relationships between large scale structures observed at their present stage of evolution, while QFT addresses the processes that give rise to observation itself.

    I am suggesting that the unification of these two must address the relationship between original non-dimensionality or non-locality and the consensus view of reality as an array of individual events located in spacetime.

    If you believe this is not germane to your inquiry, then I will happily desist from further participation in your thread.
    While your summation is very astute, and your participation is welcomed on any level that can address...[consensus view of reality as an array of individual events located in spacetime.]

    After all, we are looking for cause and effect, right?

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by RussT View Post
    While your summation is very astute, and your participation is welcomed on any level that can address...[consensus view of reality as an array of individual events located in spacetime.]
    This seems to rather neatly exclude consideration of the very point I was trying to make!
    Quote Originally Posted by RussT View Post
    After all, we are looking for cause and effect, right?
    Perhaps even cause and effect warrants questioning. Hold on now! Before anyone goes ballistic, please consider the distinction between attributions of cause and effect and the identification of correlations among discrete events. Coupled with the full implications of Bell's theorem, in which all events are non-local, even cause and effect become problematic. I'm not suggesting that this tolls a death knell for scientific inquiry, but rather that it may afford a less culture-laden and more fruitful backdrop for it.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    [This seems to rather neatly exclude consideration of the very point I was trying to make!]

    Yes, I was trying to direct you away from the philosphy (which of course I noticed was your major) and back to the cause and effect, which of course is intimately tied to 'observational interpretation'.

    So, to be honest, I am not looking to debate the philosphy of science, 'good science', methodology, etc.

    So perhaps you would like to take a stab at this question...

    For 50 + years the brightest minds on this planet have tried to figure out another way that baryonic matter, the electrons, protons, and neutrons
    become part of our universe, and make up the Hydrogen and Helium that begin
    star formation, and in all that time...Zilch, Nada, Zippo!

    So, let's just say for a moment that Big Bang "TYPE" nucleosynthesis is the correct answer for this, then, besides the Big Bang...

    What is the only possible source for this "TYPE" of nucleosynthesis that we know of???

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by RussT View Post
    [This seems to rather neatly exclude consideration of the very point I was trying to make!]

    Yes, I was trying to direct you away from the philosphy (which of course I noticed was your major) and back to the cause and effect, which of course is intimately tied to 'observational interpretation'.

    So, to be honest, I am not looking to debate the philosphy of science, 'good science', methodology, etc.

    So perhaps you would like to take a stab at this question...

    For 50 + years the brightest minds on this planet have tried to figure out another way that baryonic matter, the electrons, protons, and neutrons
    become part of our universe, and make up the Hydrogen and Helium that begin
    star formation, and in all that time...Zilch, Nada, Zippo!

    So, let's just say for a moment that Big Bang "TYPE" nucleosynthesis is the correct answer for this, then, besides the Big Bang...

    What is the only possible source for this "TYPE" of nucleosynthesis that we know of???
    So you decided that I'm interested in philosophy rather than science from something you read in my profile. Is that what you call the scientific method? I believe that an objective examination of my remarks will reveal that they are not properly characterized as "philosphy of science, 'good science', methodology, etc."

    It's obviously your prerogative to decide how you want to narrow discussion in your thread. However, misrepresenting my remarks is not necessary to accomplish that.
    Last edited by eremon; 2006-Oct-20 at 03:39 AM.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,712

    Smile I'll give it a go

    Quote Originally Posted by RussT View Post
    Well, my prediction here was exactly correct!

    That this would get 0 responses!

    There is another way!

    What would the INVERSE of the Big Bang look like?

    The concept of Naked Singularity>Gamma Radiation>Electrons/Protons>HI and He is a correct one!

    And The reality of Massive Black Holes is also a correct concept.

    The inverse of the Big Bang what would it look like?
    Fair enough shape might be important. So might heat, spin, stretch,
    fold or flow.
    My high school description.

    1. If the universe crunches back as an even sphere:-
    All the matter and whats left of heat fall inwards.
    The matter collects into black holes and they join up.
    All wavelengths fall into the event horizon.
    Ultimately they meet at a point and form one singularity.

    2. If the universe experiences an unbalanced collapse:-
    Picture the universe as the neck of a balloon dense at one point.
    This part collapses first to a singularity and drags in the rest.
    This may look like a deflating sausage.

    If the neck goes inwards the sphere falls in on itself.
    It may pull the back of the sphere into the point of singularity.
    This would look like a doughnut flatened on one side.
    So one centre is falling in more rapidly.

    The sphere may have more than one density region.
    This may resemble a bunch of grapes with one common point.
    The collapse may appear to be occuring in several places to the
    observer on the outer surface of this collapse.

    3. If the fabric twists there may be spin:-
    At least matter falling into a black hole is represented as spinning.

    Finally there is one singularity full of all the super dense matter.
    When the last of the grapes or whatever is drawn in there is no more space
    to exert gravity in. The singularity is surrounded by space time as it too
    approaches the point of singularity. They meet time ends.

    Funny thing this, what to do with all the matter of the universe as it is no
    longer contained. It is unwrapped from time and appears.

    It may have the size of a marble or a grapefruit or a house or a star.
    It is spinning and now at a size where its outer surface is moving faster
    than light. Remember it was singularity size at the end of the collapse.

    This is where time begins. The outer surface is blown off and forms a disk
    of high energy wavelenghts. The matter now has a new time space surface
    rapidly expanding and collapses under its own weight into a singularity.

    The wave of light is followed by a wave of gravity that does not catch up with
    the light due to the time lost in falling into a singularity. Everything between
    the new disk of "energy" and the singularity ends up staying in the singularity
    until this new time space universe collapses.

    The black hole at the centre of the universe doesn't start pulling on the matter
    in the new universe until it starts forming some one to two hundred thousand
    years from time start of the new big bang.

    As time goes by the gravity of the central black hole slows down the matter
    but has no effect on the empty regions of this sphere. It appears to the people
    of this time that empty space has its own energy and is accelerating.

    This process will repeat every 20 to 30 billion years. The inhabitants of this time
    realise that their only escape is to separate themselves from the time and space
    connection to the central black hole and ride out the next collapse.

    I may be totally wrong about this but it was fun and a description of a collapse.
    Cheers

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    Well Michael, I am glad that you enjoyed the excercise!

    Actually, this somewhat insightful, because what you are describing is the infall of baryonic matter in a black hole, but trying to do it at the level of the whole universe does not work.

    But this does work on a galaxy by galaxy basis.


    MASSIVE BLACK HOLES, ARE COSMIC BLACK HOLES

    As mentioned above, the predictive power of this argument, of Our Universe working according to the Laws of Thermodynamics of an Open system, extends very naturally to the SMBH’s, the Cosmic Massive Black Holes, and had this been realized, would have saved Professor Hawking, Kip Thorne, and John Preskill, not to mention a whole slew of String/”M” Theorists, many decades of very hard and frustrating work.
    So what happens to all of the baryonic matter that enters the event horizon of a massive black hole? It simply gets stripped of all its baryonic qualities and when it gets to the Planck size Ring Singularity (these are Kerr BH’s), it gets reduced to its base unit, the base elementary particle, that gives electrons and protons their base mass. So it is simply Planck mass Inert Non-baryonic Dark Matter.


    SPACE, & The Unification Of GR and QFT

    Now that we “Know” that the darkness of space MUST be made of something
    physical, the simple reality is, that something must create it, and as shown above, Massive Black Holes, in an Open system, and in perfect harmony with the Laws of Thermodynamics, create and then release Planck size/mass DM and that makes up our darkness, space…ALL OF IT.
    Now, since this is coming from Massive Black Holes, it most definitely should be traveling at the speed of light, ‘C’!
    So, if all of space is made of Planck size/mass inert DM traveling at ‘C’, this would make a Background Gravity Field (BGF), that does not interact with baryonic matter.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,712

    Quick note cheers

    Hi I have overcome the problem of new time needing to start before the
    old one finished.
    This is a work in progress so please forgive the repeat of some of it.

    This would work for all singularities.

    Well back to selling insurance at work...


    Can you reverse engineer the Big Bang?

    The inverse of the Big Bang what would it look like?
    Fair enough shape might be important. So might heat, spin, stretch,
    fold or flow.

    My high school description.

    1. If the universe crunches back as an even sphere:-
    All the matter and what’s left of heat fall inwards.
    The matter collects into black holes and they join up.
    All wavelengths fall into the event horizon.
    Ultimately they meet at a point and form one singularity.

    2. If the universe experiences an unbalanced collapse:-
    Picture the universe as the neck of a balloon dense at one point.
    This part collapses first to a singularity and drags in the rest.
    This may look like a deflating sausage.

    If the neck goes inwards the sphere falls in on itself.
    It may pull the back of the sphere into the point of singularity.
    This would look like a doughnut flattened on one side.
    So one centre is falling in more rapidly.

    The sphere may have more than one density region.
    This may resemble a bunch of grapes with one common point.
    The collapse may appear to be occurring in several places to the
    observer on the outer surface of this collapse.

    3. If the fabric twists there may be spin:-
    At least matter falling into a black hole is represented as spinning.
    Finally there is one singularity full of all the super dense matter.

    When the last of the grapes or whatever is drawn in there is no more space
    to exert gravity in. The singularity is surrounded by space time as it too
    approaches the point of singularity. They meet time ends.

    Funny thing this, what to do with all the matter of the universe as it is no
    longer contained. It is unwrapped from time and appears.

    Remember it was singularity size and spinning at the end of the collapse.
    It was only regarded as a singularity in the old universe which no longer exists.
    Now there is no other reference as the mass is now the sum total of the universe.

    It is outside time and dimension so the new universe must redefine itself from
    the mass and inertia as well as the substance and structure of the mass.

    For a new time frame to happen it must take in the spin inertia of the mass.



    Reference for the start of time


    Time and space restarts, probably from the centre of the mass.
    There is a real physical separation of old universe ending and new time starting.

    Now if time and space must be on a fixed grid the start of the new universe will
    rip the mass apart from the point time starts. This is because time establishes
    itself from the start point spreading at the new values defined by the mass.

    Where the mass is the ultimate reference means there is no fixed grid and all of
    the new time has a spin component.

    That redefinition starts at the centre of the mass
    It is spinning and now at a size where it is spinning and is moving faster
    than light. It may have the size of a marble or a grapefruit or a house or a star.

    The outer surface is blown off and forms a disk
    of high energy wavelengths. The matter now has a new time space surface
    rapidly expanding and collapses under its own weight into a singularity.

    The wave of light is followed by a wave of gravity that does not catch up with
    the light due to the time lost in falling into a singularity. Everything between
    the new disk of "energy" and the singularity ends up staying in the singularity
    until this new time space universe collapses.

    The black hole at the centre of the universe doesn't start pulling on the matter
    in the new universe until it starts forming perhaps one to two hundred thousand
    years from time start of the new big bang.

    As time goes by the gravity of the central black hole slows down the matter
    but has no effect on the empty regions of this sphere. It appears to the people
    of this time that empty space has its own energy and is accelerating.

    This process may repeat over the years.
    (oops very bad, previous post the stat here like 92% of all stats made up on
    the spot – please disregard entirely).

    The inhabitants of this time realise that their only escape is to separate
    themselves from the time and space connection to the central black hole and ride
    out the next collapse.

    I may be totally wrong about this but it was fun and a description of a collapse.

    Cheers








    Releasing energy from a singularity


    How is it possible to have time start from an enclosed entity such as a
    black hole?

    This was the key to how mass and not energy could be the start of the universe.
    Then it became obvious black holes unlock.

    For any singularity to work it therefore needs to be a singularity with regard
    only to the space time reference it is in and not the object itself. In effect
    space time wraps around the mass and it appears as a singularity only at that
    point in the space time frame.

    The perception of the observer is that the object shrinks but it doesn’t.
    Gravity pulls space and time together and in the case of a singularity pinches
    it so the only reference frame is a single point.

    From the position of singularity in time and space the black hole has no means
    of escape until the universe “forgets” where it put the black hole.
    Translocation comes into effect here. The “observed” site of singularity is
    within the event horizon which of course can’t be observed.

    In order for this to happen the flow of gravity needs to be disrupted. Gravity
    is not able to effectively pull the singularity along with the rest of the
    universe.

    This means the event horizon is the reference for where the singularity formed
    and all gravity exchange takes place. However the singularity drifts and falls
    further out of position if there is a change of space time expansion.

    This solves the problem of black holes losing mass because they don’t.
    The connection to space time becomes so stretched that the strength of the
    gravity field is registers lower down the scale.

    Eventually the connection becomes stretched to a length where it is so tenuous
    that time and space can no longer keep it from being influenced by the space time
    it has translocated to.

    As the new space time connection takes hold and establishes the link with the
    singularity it overpowers the old connection which bursts catastrophically and
    the singularity emerges in the new time frame.

    Whatever is held in the original gravity field at the original location is
    totally disrupted with a resulting shockwave.

    Michael Noonan

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Noonan
    Can you reverse engineer the Big Bang?

    The inverse of the Big Bang what would it look like?
    Michael, did you read any of what I posted above?

    Big Bang....starts with Naked Singularity
    Inverse...universe starts with the Singularity in the Masive Black Holes (making 'space', the Planck size/mass 'inert' DM elements)

    Big Bang starts out with ENERGY.
    Inverse...universe starts out with 'space'. the 'inert' (no energy) DM elemnts (Gravity).

    Once 'space' is here with its 'inert' DM elements, then Radiation Events (Singularities) that make galaxies, one at a time happen. Once the Radiation cools ( dark era) enough to form the hydrogen and Helium, then star formation can begin for each galaxy one by one.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,712

    Smile Second attempt

    I am trying, are we trying to expand or implode?
    What if there was no inverse?

    If there was a naked singularity a very big one.
    Along the lines of zero point energy release.
    We may not the first universe just a subset of a so massivel
    beginning our bang could easily be missed.

    We see a singularity because space curves to hide it from us.
    We measure gravity so it should have gravity causing components.
    If baryonic matter is stripped down, then it may be full of 'Planck mass inert
    Non-baryonic dark matter'.

    What we see is our end held fixed in our space time.
    It is full of gravity causing 'mass' with real inertia.
    The other is hidden. It drifts when our universe can't pull it along.
    The black hole is a quantum structure a conduit for gravity, a tube.

    When the tube gets too long it can't hold the containment
    from our fixed end in our space and time and it breaks free.
    The 'mass' is free at the new point in space that it has drifted to.
    We may see it release its contents or it may collapse again with gamma burst.

    We might be only part of many scattered universes too far away to ever see.
    Our big bang may have just been the biggest locally.
    To reverse engineer it, create a rift in space, maybe a one ended sub atomic
    worm hole. Then fire 'Planck mass inert Non-baryonic dark matter' into it and
    see if it pops out or bends space somewhere else.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,712

    This would cost a bundle

    A worm hole is the closest thing to a tube out of space
    that I can think of.

    If you get two charged plates designed to pump in 'Planck mass inert
    Non-baryonic dark matter' and create a micro worm hole.

    Bring the plates round so there is a loop. Fill it with as much 'Planck mass
    inert Non-baryonic dark matter' that you can pump in. Spin the plates then
    change direction and move at right angles to origional direction.

    This will give a defined quantity of 'Planck mass inert Non-baryonic
    dark matter' in the tube.
    The number of revolutions can be counted.
    The origional position can be plotted.
    It would show if a structure that punctures space could hold 'Planck mass
    inert Non-baryonic dark matter'.
    The distance from start point is measurable.

    If a burst occurs its drift angular rotation and drag may help give some
    figures for predicting singularity bursts.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    Michael, you are defintely 'getting warmer'!

    Allow me to parse out a couple of 'warmer' concepts, and 'cool off' some not so warm ones.

    [I am trying, are we trying to expand or implode?]

    Neither!!!

    The universe didn't bang into existence!

    Just think...Expansion from the Voids.

    [If there was a naked singularity a very big one.]

    No...once 'space' is here from the Voids...Then naked singularities...but, small ones that makes the galaxies one at a time.

    [We may see it release its contents or it may collapse again with gamma burst.]

    Yes the gravity in our 'space' (coming together from different voids) causes this and makes a galaxy.


    [The black hole is a quantum structure a conduit for gravity, a tube.]

    Yes, that is how the gravity gets here, in the Voids...which is 'space', which is... 'Planck mass inert Non-baryonic dark matter' in the tube.

    And here is the key and one of the ways I got to this...
    NARRATOR: Randall tried to calculate how gravity could leak from our membrane Universe into empty space, but she couldn't make it work. Then she heard the theory that there might be another membrane in the eleventh dimension. Now she had a really strange thought. What if gravity wasn't leaking from our Universe but to it? What if it came from that other universe? On that membrane, or brane, gravity would be as strong as the other forces, but by the time it reached us it would only be a faint signal. Now when she reworked her calculations everything fitted exactly. My Bold.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,712

    Smile Energy, Matter and now Structures

    I see like a cosmic vacuum cleaner.

    What if the structure that translocates the singularity is
    not destroyed when it shatters.
    After delivering the singularity it would retain an effective
    funnel shape.

    Even if just existed on a quantum level one end would be larger
    than the other.

    What if charged plates or high energy experiments didn’t create
    worm holes?
    What if they simply activated ones that were already there?

    Matter can be seen so we are aware of it. Energy is measurable
    or visible.
    Structures that exist as 'Planck mass inert Non-baryonic dark matter'
    may not register.
    It would try to balance itself if there was a charge difference
    at either end.

    Where both ends are in a charge balanced system the larger end would
    passively collect.
    This is because the area of charge is greater.
    It would transfer through to the smaller end compressing the charge.
    Area large times low charge equals area small times high charge.
    The smaller would have stronger active discharge.

    I don’t know about the eleventh dimension but if these structures
    are all through the universe. Then the net effect is to passively
    remove energy from low potential to high.

    Michael Noonan

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael
    What if the structure that translocates the singularity is
    not destroyed when it shatters.
    After delivering the singularity it would retain an effective
    funnel shape.
    The gravity of 'space' coming together (say from one void to another) caused the singulaity. Since space is full of gravity, it iss easy to see how 3 million + sol masses can be there.
    When the singularity explodes (GRB) it spews out Gamma Radiation and the Electrons, Protons, get there [ 'Planck mass inert Non-baryonic dark matter']
    mass, and then once it cools enough, it becomes Hydrogen, and eventually starts it star formation.

    Quote Originally Posted by MN
    Even if just existed on a quantum level one end would be larger
    than the other.
    Sure, the event horizon down to the singularity inside.

    Quote Originally Posted by MN
    What if charged plates or high energy experiments didn’t create
    worm holes?
    What if they simply activated ones that were already there?
    I'm not even sure that stellar black holes actually create a worm hole when the go supernova!
    We'll never have that kind of power! Besides, the worm hole is Planck size!

    Quote Originally Posted by MN
    Structures that exist as 'Planck mass inert Non-baryonic dark matter'
    may not register.
    Not yet anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by MN
    It would try to balance itself if there was a charge difference
    at either end.
    Remember, they are inert...no energy...when they go through the black hole, they get stripped of 'all' their baryonic matter qualities, and crushed to infinity, but it's not really infinity is it... it is the Planck size 10^-35 ring singularity.

    Quote Originally Posted by MN
    I don’t know about the eleventh dimension but if these structures
    are all through the universe. Then the net effect is to passively
    remove energy from low potential to high.
    The Eleventh Dimension in String Theory is 'our' universe! But the membranes in string theory run throughout 'our' universe and are developed as the ['Planck mass inert Non-baryonic dark matter'] comes into our universe, through the Voids.

    So those membranes colliding in the space they have made and are part of, is what is causing the Singularities (GRB's) to explode approximately once a day all throughout the universe and make the galaxies one day at a time.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,712

    Smile Spot the obvious Flaw

    In a static situation say put a funnel in water and observe no flow.
    This assumes the ends are the means of supplying pressure.

    This is not the case in a dynamic flow situation where the pressure
    is supplied by the funnel.

    If the tube was inert it would react with the matterial in it.
    So it must be active meaning flow in both directions.
    The overall result little self propelled tubes flying through
    space.

    Micro vacuum cleaners "Sadies" on a cosmic scale

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    Quote Originally Posted by MN
    In a static situation say put a funnel in water and observe no flow.
    Why are you assuming a 'static' situation?

    Quote Originally Posted by MN
    This assumes the ends are the means of supplying pressure.
    So far I have only described where the [ 'Planck mass inert Non-baryonic dark matter'] is 'flowing', 'leaking' "IN"...it is coming "IN" at all the Voids and therfore expanding 'space' inbetween the galaxy clusters.

    Quote Originally Posted by MN
    If the tube was inert it would react with the matterial in it.
    [ 'Planck mass inert Non-baryonic dark matter'] is 'flowing', 'leaking' "IN"...

    NO, it is all collisionless.

    Quote Originally Posted by MN
    So it must be active meaning flow in both directions.
    I have NOT yet described the 'flow' 'out'...Only the flow in, which is...[ 'Planck mass inert Non-baryonic dark matter'] is 'flowing', 'leaking' "IN"...

    But NO, Nothing can go out through the 'same' tubes in which it is coming in!

    However, it can go out through the same 'KIND" of tubes.

    Quote Originally Posted by MN
    Micro vacuum cleaners "Sadies" on a cosmic scale
    This goes back to your...Originally Posted by MN
    Even if just existed on a quantum level one end would be larger
    than the other.

    Sure, the event horizon down to the singularity inside...

    So the Micro would be the... ['Planck mass inert Non-baryonic dark matter'] is 'flowing', 'leaking' "IN"... at the Voids, and making our 'space'

    And the Macro would be...all our baryonic matter crosing the event horizon of the MAssive Black Holes and going "OUT"!

    But, you do realize the problem with all of this don't you?

    The Laws of Thermodynamics that Mainstream is hell bent on only considering ONE WAY!!!

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,712

    Translocation of Singularity and associated Wormholes

    Sorry this is your topic, I got carried away
    This post edited out

    Cheers
    Last edited by Michael Noonan; 2006-Oct-26 at 01:25 PM. Reason: This is Russt's topic I got carried away

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    Michael, after you read my latest response to you in your other thread, I would suggest that you just delete the one just above this one.

    It is just a suggestion though, you are of course free to do whatever you feel is best.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,712

    Smile The search for dark matter and also dark energy is over.

    Thank you for all you have taught me RussT. Gravity is both dark matter
    and dark energy. I wouldn't have found it without your help. You are so
    right about things being what they should be.

    Revision for publication


    The search for dark matter and also dark energy is over.
    We have a base of negative gravity even through the universe.

    That is why we can't find it. It is gravity pulling us outwards evenly.
    Gravity balances add it to the 4% matter and you don't need dark matter.
    It is also stretching the universe.

    Dark matter and dark energy can't be found because we were not loking
    for negative gravity.
    Now that is known to be gravity the real weight of the universe can be
    calculated. It also changes the time from the Big Bang.

    I am saying that we exist in the dimensions within the time space bubble
    of our universe to which all singularies connect. They give a uniform base level
    of gravity reading that our universe sits on.

    Due to the effect of gravity in our universe which is by connection at all
    points to the outer surface in our universe give us an overall flat negative
    gravity reading.

    It is much like the zero energy that clips the bottom of a waveform when
    read by an observer who has a higher base energy than the sender.

    The connection that requires a negative energy reading for wormhole building
    also requires that we experience the equal and opposite pull from our own
    universe applied equally right across us.

    All objects that orbit a body beyond a set distance must obey the same orbit.

    I started posting on Bad Astronimy against the mainstream.

    I admit I have been learning on the fly and deeply appologise for my multitude
    of errors in trying to explain this. After all I have only high school mathematics
    and a spell checker would have helped. But hey not a bad post for a first up.

    And yes no dark matter and dark energy connected permanently to
    the level above us. Now the mathematical proof is do all bodies obey the
    math of the same speed beyond a certain distance. The answer is Yes.

    It all started with Null Space an Energy Conduit.
    I had significant help from RussT who took the time to point me in the right
    direction.

    The long winded first link to my thread was the first post ever to a forum.
    It required an underlying zero above the level of zero which it now has so if in
    a hundred years there is unexplained loss of void space, please also
    consider:-

    So if we observed structures over a period of time it may appear that they are accelerating away from each other but on later observations appear to have moved closer together forming large structures. The observable bursts would show space being constantly blown apart forming large empty regions. The non observable null space regions developing are only apparent with observation over a fitting time frame.

    Bursts are the gamma ray bursts that until now have proved a mystery.
    Null space is not zero point energy as it connects only to ourselves.
    It means that contraction in voids is not directly observable.
    Only the apparent expansion of the universe is.

    Michael Noonan
    Last edited by Michael Noonan; 2006-Oct-29 at 07:22 PM. Reason: typo had "this" where it says link to "my" thread

Similar Threads

  1. Could our present universe be embedded within a larger universe?
    By potoole in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 2012-Jun-18, 01:46 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2012-Jun-04, 02:20 AM
  3. Acceleration of the expansion of the Universe and open Universe?
    By cosmos0 in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 2011-Jul-26, 02:51 PM
  4. Universe Older than 13.7 and Previous Epochs in the Universe??
    By mmaayeh in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 2010-Nov-23, 11:19 AM
  5. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 2004-Jul-24, 09:57 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: