Dynamic Matter

[Wick]

Coming back to the Big Bang concept. If the Big Bang happend as Hubble predicted, your model would seem to have prevented the expansion of space. It would seem that if the quarks began "reeling in space", at the very moment when there was hardly any space at all, the quarks would have drawn closer together and resumed their ordered "singularity" configuration. How could space have expanded/inflated after the Big Bang if all the fundamental matter was bringing the space "onboard."

Similarly, a Big Crunch would not be a decrease in the size of fundamental matter, because if the quarks were "offloading" space, there should have been an expansion of space and the quarks would have become more dispersed from one another. My understanding of a Big Crunch requires that space decrease in size until there is none, which pulls all matter back into the shape of a singularity.

How can distances between particles grow if the quarks are taking space on board? How can distances decrease if space is being "offloaded"?

[Wick]

Another question (sorry for the barrage, but I have only a limited time on the computer today):

If only quarks are growing in mass, the electrons will eventually sink in their atomic orbits. Yet we don't see that happening. How does your model prevent this from happening?

Wick

[Wick]

Another Wick question (apologies again):

On page 25, you seem to imply that space between celestial objects is increasing at the same time that those celestial objects are taking space "onboard" and thereby increasing their mass. How could space increase between such objects if the means whereby their mass increase actually requires space to be decreasing?

Also, on page 30, you state "Although the mass of the Sun is also increasing with time, the added gravitational force is too small to be significant." Please explain this to me. Your statement is not intuitive. It would seem to me that the relationship of mass to gravity should be exactly proportional. I'm missing something, but I'm not sure what.

Regards!

Wick

[jackaxama]

Hi Wick:

Thanks for reading my book. You raise a good point, one that I debated including. It is true, some view the quark as a singularity..ie, having no volume. While others maintain it has dimensions. I feel our overall view of the atom is generally skewed because we grew up with pictures of atoms where protrons, neutrons, and electrons looked like hard marbles. In actualality, the interior of an atom is really quite mushy, with no well defined boundaries. I reference the quark because it currently occupies our model as the smallest unit of mass. In actuallity they really only represent about 1/100 the mass of the nucleus. If you can get your mind around the picture I try to draw, its one where the space, as it approaches the heart of the atom, becomse more dense, eventually becoming more like mass than space. And can the reverse happen? My supposition is that as a black hole collapses into a singularity and eventually evaporating, then the mass of the original star or black hole is returned to the Universe as space. It is a popular speculation in theoretical physics that this mass goes into an alternate universe....a much more abstract concept then what I propose.

I will try to expand upon the question of size and mass. It seems the concept of a "singularity" is quite popular these days. The Hawking definition is: "A point in space-time at which the space-time curvature becomes infinite." I believe this means that, per general relativity and the lorentz transformation, mass approaches infinity and length contraction approaches zero. Hence no volume. However, black holes do not necessarily collapse to a singularity. This means that the matter within most black holes still has volume.

The picture I try to draw in my book is that, per the Lorentz transformation, volume can vary. This is Relativity, not me. My intent is to extend this volume variability to an intrinsic nature of matter. By doing so, and in a subtle way, it does seem to address the momentum anomalies that we observe. That is where the math and predictability come into play. It is a very small effect in our realm...Pioneer is slowing down a very very small amount. The variability seems to be a given...we started from a singularity in the Big Bang with no volume to matter, and now the Universe is filled with matter that has volume. Why do we assume we went from infinitely small to the current size all in one brief flash?

Thanks for the questions.

Jack

[jackaxama]

Hi Wick:
I enjoy your questions. I will try my best.
First, my view of the Universe prior to the Big Bang is different. If the mass was a singularity and there was no space...as you describe..that seems to me that there would than be no universe. However, if mass and space are interchangeable, per equation (6.1) then prior to the big bang, the Universe consisted of only space. All matter that collapsed into the singularity was transformed into space. Seeking a balance, it could perhaps not maintain this huge bubble of space and collapsed into the Big Bang.

As for the atomic distances remaining relative, it seems to me that the sub atomic electrostatic, and strong and weak forces will also increase with the increase in matter. Does this conversion of space to matter imply that the distances are getting less between matter? I think this is where you are figuring out my model. Yes, the distances are getting less...and if you follow the math you will see it coincides exactly with Gravity. Newton felt his biggest failing was that he did not discover the cause of gravity...only the effects. Einstein also did not unveil the cause. Did you get to the part where I use Einstein's formula to calculate the velocity of space at the surface of the Earth? This is exactly where your logic is taking you. Gravity is due to the flow of space...or as you put it, a reduction in the distance between the matter. I didn't change any of the gravity numbers, I used Newton's and Einsteins. On page 18, I outline an example of how curved space per Einstein and flowing space are geometrically equivalent. That may help in your visualization.

Jack

[jackaxama]

Another Wick question (apologies again):

On page 25, you seem to imply that space between celestial objects is increasing at the same time that those celestial objects are taking space "onboard" and thereby increasing their mass. How could space increase between such objects if the means whereby their mass increase actually requires space to be decreasing?

Also, on page 30, you state "Although the mass of the Sun is also increasing with time, the added gravitational force is too small to be significant." Please explain this to me. Your statement is not intuitive. It would seem to me that the relationship of mass to gravity should be exactly proportional. I'm missing something, but I'm not sure what.

Regards!

Wick

Hi Wick:
I think you misinterpruted page 25. If gravity is due to flowing space, rather than curved, please understand, this doesn't mean anything changes. Gravity is what is, the flow I outline does not imply that there is some new contraction or expansion in distances happening....it is gravity...I am just outlining a model that endeavors to give a real physical explanation to gravity. Again, look at the numbers. All the numbers I use are gravity numbers...not some new spatial relationship that goes beyond gravity.

The reference to the Sun was with regards to Pioneer. You are correct, forces remain proportional. All I was saying was that the added mass to the Sun was an insignificant factor in the Pioneer anamoly.

While the idea I propose may be difficult to take in at first, it sometimes helps if one follows the math, and how the numbers resolve the anomalies. That is what happened with many regarding quantum theory. No one wanted to believe it but the math predicted the experiments to 9 decimal places. It is hard to argue with that kind of success. And while real physcists understood and believed Einstein, it took Eddington's eclipse experiment to convince the larger body of non believers. The truth is in the numbers.

Jack

[austintorn@aol.com]

The concept of point particles makes some equations pointless, going to infinity, for the points occupy the same space, such as in a singularity. String Theory, although it appears to be going nowhere, avoids this by having length and more dimensions to a string.

Also, it's not clear that "infinity" can actually complete, as that is opposite of its definition as being a state that can never be gotten to.

[jackaxama]

The concept of point particles makes some equations pointless, going to infinity, for the points occupy the same space, such as in a singularity. String Theory, although it appears to be going nowhere, avoids this by having length and more dimensions to a string.

Also, it's not clear that "infinity" can actually complete, as that is opposite of its definition as being a state that can never be gotten to.

Well put Austin!
And if quarks are a singularity...then atoms have no volume and could not be volumetrically dynamic. I think a post to that effect was submitted yesterday. And if that was true, then where does our volume come from?

Is it just me or is there a propensity for some to gravitate toward the abstract. It would appear for some that my postulate on the dynamics of matter just is not abstract enough. I will have to admit that string theory, alternate dimensions and ideas of worm holes is much more sexy. Meanwhile, the math that ties together the momentum anomalies should imply something? www.dynamicmatter.com
Jack

[austintorn@aol.com]

Sexy Universe Theory: The 3rd dimension that makes volume is an illusion, for it is holographically projected. This is why the entropy of a black hole only depends on a 2D area. The 2D holographic projection plate was made by aliens who are actually very heavenly bodies, such as the Virgin Virgo. They were born from Infinity. Our 3D space is lit by their spirit passing through the plate like a laser beam. We will get to hang out with the Lovelies after we die, for then we enter the cosmic subway line of a black hole. Next stop, the 7th dimension of the Twilight Zone. The proof is that equations go to infinity, which, amazingly, is the correct answer! QED

[jackaxama]

Now we are talking! SEXY UNIVERSE THEORY. You have just inspired me on my new path of intellectual pursuit toward the quest for a theory of everything. Do you have some of the great artwork of yours to go with it?