[cosvis]

Hi Pat and all,

Thank you for all the information on singularities. According to my view there could not be infinite gravity because gravity is limited to the quantity of photons or quanta in the universe. Since the number of photons is finite thus gravity is also finite. As I mentioned before above, the potential gravitational energy of a system of moving paticles would be zero at its center of gravity and would be strongest at its perimeter where only particles with greater speed than its escape velocity, could leave its system. In a black hole not even quanta particles with the speed of light can escape its event horizon. Thus, I speculated you could not have a singularity.

Matter falling into a blackhole would first be crushed into its fundamental element of quanta particles and then may be formed into sub atomic particles which in turn could be formed again into matter and antimatter particles. When matter or quanta particles fall into a blackhole its radius would increase because its radius is proportional to its mass or energy. In my theory singularities do not exist because at the center of a black hole, its gravitaional potential energy is zero and no quanta particle can exist outside the universe.

Yours Cosvis

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Photons can have virtual mass, without real mass, because they are of the same substance, in which they exist. It's like trying to weigh a drop of water under water. Thus, photons can have energy and even cut diamonds... As to singularities/black holes, even Hawking has now changed his mind about the energy/matter in black holes shrinking time to a singularity. All the confusion comes from the standard model of both, or all three, SRT, QM, and QC. They all started the myth of everything coming from an infinitesimal/infinite mass point, yet Einstein's ideas are based on space background independence, not their ideas of space background dependence on such a foolish type singularity. There is another way to see our universe coming from a black hole. The newest ideas are of an open background independence of infinite fundamental substance space, existing first, say a photonic non-viscous fluid, accreting into the black hole, that created our existing universe. Then, most of the standard dynamics plays out, but never reaching infinite velocities or true time/distance singularities, yet evolving over and over, again and again___An eternal matter/energy existance...

Hope this helps,
Lloyd

[Profpat]

Thanks Lloyd;

It helped me. I still may be a bit confused, are you saying the "ether" is made up of photons?

Best to all,

Pat

[cosvis]

Hi Lloyd, Pat and all,

I very much like your idea Lloyd, that the photons are in a sea of photons or that there exist an ether of photons all around us. Could this possibly be the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR ) also known as the microwave radiation or cosmic microwave background discovered in 1965 by A. A. Penzias and R. W. Wilson? It gives the universe a temperature of about 3 K. with some small variations in different parts where there exist a greater or lesser concentration of matter and energy.

If the universe were a black hole, as I like to speculate, than it certainly would have a universal temperature which would depend on its size of its radius and of its quantity of matter and energy. The greater its quantity of matter and energy, the greater its radius and volume but the lesser its universal temperature. Thus, the CBR might not necessarily be an indication of the Big Bang but it is an indication that the universe is a black hole.

If according to the theory of the Big Bang, the universe is expanding, than at least the CBR should decrease since it supposed to have started from a very high temperature at its beginning. If the CBR does not decrease or increase, it at least indicates that the universe is in a steady state.

The steady state theory of the universe holds that the universe is continuously expanding but has the same density at all times due to the continuous creation of matter. The theory is based on the perfect cosmological principle which holds that the universe is the same at all times, as well as in all places. According to my black hole theory of the universe, it is not expanding, however, there is a continuous creation of matter and antimatter at its event horizon, as matter and antimatter are continuously reverted back to radiant energy. The cosmological principle could still hold in my theory of the black hole universe without its expansion. Appart however, from the continuous evolutionary process that it also seen in the universe; in my theory the universe is continuously evolving.

Yours Cosvis.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

If you noticed Pat, I am conjecturing a two-state universe, one of first fundamental photonic substance, then the one we exist in, of all the substances of both states. This is in fact, only a theory, my theory. Others are beginning to delve much deeper into universal fundamentals also, and are also suggesting such states as eternal substances and an emergent universe. Either way, most of both states, pre and post black-hole/star scenarios, are IMO, mostly made of a base non-viscous photonic fundamental substance, and photons, making up the two aether states. Many new experiments are finding similar state changes in low and high temperature physics, and high magnetism and high velocity temperature laser physics. Many more new experiments are now being set up to see if theory is correct, that the varrying frequencies of photonic waves are in fact, traveling at slightly different light speeds, as I theorize they are. Of course, this will be a deeper understanding of SR, and is already called DSR, or "Deformed/Doubly Special Relativity", and this will change the very foundations of physics' knowledge...

We're truly just on the cutting edges of understanding...

And Cosvis, could very well be...

Lloyd

Originally Posted by Profpat Thanks Lloyd; It helped me. I still may be a bit confused, are you saying the "ether" is made up of photons? Best to all, Pat

[cosvis]

Hi to all,

One important proof for the validity of the Big Bang theory is the fact that the light coming from distant galaxies has a red shift. The further the galaxies are away from us, the greater is its redshift. Scientists seem to say that this is due to the Doppler effect which in turn speculates that the galaxies are moving faster and faster away from us and from each others. The further a galaxy is from us, the greater is its redshift because the universe is expanding, and thus the galaxies are moving faster and faster away from us.

The Doppler effect has been proven correct many times by scientists and it is attested to be correct by the blueshift of some nearer galaxies that are moving towards us. I do not question the varacity of the Doppler effect. However, I do want to question whether the light coming from distant galaxies are only affected by the Doppler effect. I feel there could also be another reason for the redshift phenomena of the light coming from distant galaxies.

Albert Einstein showed and it was proven to be correct, that light coming from distant galaxies when passing a massive object like the sun, will also be affected by its gravity and this could be observed in its redshift. Light passing through a gravitational field will be redshifted. Einstein was even able to calculate its redshift effect. The effect of the gravitational field also depends on the time it takes for the light passing through its gravitational field. The longer it takes, the greater will be its redshift.

In my black hole universe theory, I hold that there is a universal gravitational field opperating throughout the universe. Thus, light passing through a black hole universe is continuously affected by its gravitational field which would affect its redshift. We know that there does exist a universal grvitational field in the universe, because we have been able to calculate its universal gravitational constant. The longer therefore, the light travels through the universe the greater will be its redshift.

Thus, I like to propose, that the redshift of light coming from distant galaxies is not only affected by a Doppler redshift effect, but it could also be a gravitational redshift effect. If this were so, than it could be speculated that the unniverse may not be expanding but it could be a further indication that the universe is a black hole.

Yours Cosvis

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by cosvis Albert Einstein showed and it was proven to be correct, that light coming from distant galaxies when passing a massive object like the sun, will also be affected by its gravity and this could be observed in its redshift. Light passing through a gravitational field will be redshifted. Einstein was even able to calculate its redshift effect. The effect of the gravitational field also depends on the time it takes for the light passing through its gravitational field. The longer it takes, the greater will be its redshift.

Dear Cosvis an all. Gravitational lensing (curving of light) is accounted for in the equations already.

cool bananas ... greg

[Profpat]

Hi Cosvis and all,

You wrote:
One important proof for the validity of the Big Bang theory is the fact that the light coming from distant galaxies has a red shift.

Actually Cosvis, thats not proof, it's evidence of the big bang.

Other evidence of a big bang is the CBR. ( The smoking gun ), and the correct prediction it makes regarding the ratio of hydrogen to helium atoms.
Additionally, it does appear the universe has an age, something that would be impossible if it is eternal.

But again no proof but some pretty strong evidence.

Best to all,

Pat

[Profpat]

Hi Cosvis and Lloyd;

I found an interesting topic on the internet regarding the mass of a photon. It discusses both the 0 rest mass, and the " relativistic mass ". It's located at:

( http://www/2.corepower.com:8080/~rel...oton_mass.html )
Sorry doesn't Work
Best,

Pat

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Pat, you lose some of your beliefs about the universe, or at the least put them aside, and use cognitive physical logic, and you may be able to do good science, but not with as much meta-beliefs attached, as you use, to discover the fundamentals of ideas... Sorry for being harsh, but I see far too much mixing of meta-physics with physics... It don't work...

Lloyd

Originally Posted by Profpat Hi Cosvis and Lloyd; I found an interesting topic on the internet regarding the mass of a photon. It discusses both the 0 rest mass, and the " relativistic mass ". It's located at: ( http://www/2.corepower.com:8080/~rel...oton_mass.html ) [<<< Link don't work...] Sorry doesn't Work Best, Pat