Welcome to the Theory of Everything forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
| | |
| | White Belt
Status: Offline Posts: 6
Thanks Given: 0
Thanked 0x in 0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2006 Rep Power: 0 | On The Development of a Theory of The Universe -
05-24-2006, 01:02 AM
They who know of no purer sources of truth, who have traced up its stream no higher, stand, and wisely stand, by the Bible and the Constitution, and drink at it there with reverence and humility; but they who behold where it comes trickling into this lake...
Last edited by Robert : 08-05-2006 at 01:16 AM.
Reason: Removed the [size] references
| |
|  | | | | Re: On The Development of a Theory of The Universe
Hi Joseph
Seems to have gone a little quiet so lets see if we can stir things up again. My previous posts on this thread concerned WP duality and uncertainty but I wanted to question your assumption of the BB. Can you, or any other BB devotee, explain the difference between the single singularity - i.e. the source of the BB, and the series of smaller singularities which we all accept - i.e. the black holes at the centre of each galaxy?
The formation of the galaxies is not explained by the (very) minor differences in the strength of the CBR as it would exhibit extremely high variations in the vicinity of those galaxies. Nor can they be explained by the expansion principle as the CBR would be graded. Overall the current BB paradigm is severely difficient when it comes to an explanation of their existence and relative consistency. The 'observed' expansion of the universe is much more likely to be a property of light related to the distance travelled than an accelarating expansion.
Assuming that most of the hard work done on the math and description of BHs is OK, is it reasonable to assume that we did not have one BB but actually have many - one at the centre of each galaxy? The C4 documentary 'Master of the Universe' which documents SH's life, confirmed that this alternative model is now acceptable. The only thing missing is for main-line science to realise that a (relatively) steady state universe is now an acceptable alternative to a single BB with a ready made explanation for the formation of the galaxies.
I will post this in my own TOE (The Dance of Shiva) shortly which also contains a proposed explanation for the mechanism of time.
regards
Felix | | | | | | Re: On The Development of a Theory of The Universe
Hello, Joseph,
Hello, Felix,
I am going to jump in here without having read the entire thread, so forgive me if I end up being redundant.
I want to comment on a few things, but I may be taking them out of order to how they appeared in the original quote.
Felix: "The only thing missing is for main-line science to realize that a (relatively) steady state universe is now an acceptable alternative to a single BB with a ready made explanation for the formation of the galaxies."
Do you mean the same explanation as the one used for the single Big Bang that you reject? Wouldn't that reject the many Big Bangs also?
What troubles me about the single Big Bang theory are a couple of things.
1. What could possibly have pushed all the existing matter and energy together in the first place with nothing to push against. It seems that you have a one sided equation of force with no equal and opposite force. It makes no sense what so ever.
2. If we shot out from the Big Bang to where we are now, wouldn't we have to be out in front of any "light" from the Big Bang. Otherwise wouldn't all the light from the Big Bang have long ago passed us and gone out beyond us.
Or did we somehow get out here by traveling faster than the speed of light and now we have somehow slowed down, so that the light from the Big Bang 13 billion years ago is just now able to finally catch up to us so that we can see it finally. Neither of these makes any sense.
3. If we are basing the BB theory on the straight line comparison of galaxies twice as far away in one direction are twice as red shifted, that is all well and good, but because we are spinning around out galactic center that further galaxy that we are using in the comparison is/was actually in a completely different direction at the time the light left it maybe even from the opposite direction. How does that mesh in any way with the notion that everything can be shrunk back in a straight line model to a common point of origin?
4. If Gravity or "Mass" sucks, would someone please explain just how it is
that it does that?
I however, have proposed a very logical explanation of how simply gravity can be modeled to be a straight forward good old Newtonian push force of photonic and particle conglomerate working in accord with the strictest principles of geometry--Cosmic geometry in a static but dynamic ever exchanging universe.
e
4. In addition, I do not believe that anyone has yet come up with a definition of singularity that makes any sense either. If singularity implies everything being in one place or state of equal position or equal potential, then all the data would seem to disprove it by the sheer diversity of states, positions and potentials. The diversity is most evident and prevalent if anything is true. This would have to hold true at every potential state of compression in a black hole or even a total universal compression/collapse, which is just unjustifiable to my mind.
I will be making a strong case for the red shift being simply associated with greater distance in one of my papers that make up my ToE.
That's enough for now.
Respectfully, J. Aaron Nicholson | | | | | | Re: On The Development of a Theory of The Universe
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesANicholson  "The only thing missing is for main-line science to realize that a (relatively) steady state universe is now an acceptable alternative to a single BB with a ready made explanation for the formation of the galaxies." - Do you mean the same explanation as the one used for the single Big Bang that you reject? Wouldn't that reject the many Big Bangs also? | I don't reject the concept of a BB, or the mechanism - just the concept that there was a single BB at the beginning of the universe. The formation of the galaxies is a clear indication that the single BB concept is wrong. Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesANicholson What could possibly have pushed all the existing matter and energy together in the first place with nothing to push against. It seems that you have a one sided equation of force with no equal and opposite force. It makes no sense what so ever. | Perhaps it makes more sense if you consider what the matter/energy does inside a BH. If it is condensed back into the source from which it came then it will not be matter as we know it. Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesANicholson If we shot out from the Big Bang to where we are now, wouldn't we have to be out in front of any "light" from the Big Bang. Otherwise wouldn't all the light from the Big Bang have long ago passed us and gone out beyond us. Or did we somehow get out here by traveling faster than the speed of light and now we have somehow slowed down, so that the light from the Big Bang 13 billion years ago is just now able to finally catch up to us so that we can see it finally. Neither of these makes any sense. If we are basing the BB theory on the straight line comparison of galaxies twice as far away in one direction are twice as red shifted, that is all well and good, but because we are spinning around out galactic center that further galaxy that we are using in the comparison is/was actually in a completely different direction at the time the light left it maybe even from the opposite direction. How does that mesh in any way with the notion that everything can be shrunk back in a straight line model to a common point of origin? | I can't find any reasonable explanation for these problems and agree that the current model makes no sense. Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesANicholson If Gravity or "Mass" sucks, would someone please explain just how it is that it does that? | See my article 'The Dance of Shiva' which illustrates the relationship of mass and gravity in simple terms which accords with both GR and QM. Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesANicholson I do not believe that anyone has yet come up with a definition of singularity that makes any sense either. If singularity implies everything being in one place or state of equal position or equal potential, then all the data would seem to disprove it by the sheer diversity of states, positions and potentials. The diversity is most evident and prevalent if anything is true. This would have to hold true at every potential state of compression in a black hole or even a total universal compression/collapse, which is just unjustifiable to my mind. | You are envisaging a BH as containing ordinary matter/energy in a highly compressed state. It's not going to be like that. The everyday laws of physics will not apply inside as the construction will be different. My concept is that the gravitons will get so constricted that they are reabsorbed back into the masons. When this happens there is no matter and no gravity - just a solid concentration of masons. Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesANicholson I will be making a strong case for the red shift being simply associated with greater distance in one of my papers that make up my ToE. | I agree - it's the most obvious explanation.
regards
Felix
Apologies to Joseph for hijacking your thread! | | | | | | Re: On The Development of a Theory of The Universe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix Schrodinger
. . . My concept is that the gravitons will get so constricted that they are reabsorbed back into the masons. When this happens there is no matter and no gravity - just a solid concentration of masons.
regards
Felix
Apologies to Joseph for hijacking your thread!
|
Felix,
What kind of Masons are you referring to that are not massive or material?
I think that black holes are just huge potential "Weak" Nuclear force depositories and are fully capable of reversing their "gravity" direction given enough time. They are just very efficient structures for stacking the energy/matter by using all the empty space between the atomic nuclei and the electrons. They are just very "tightly wound springs."
In my humble proposed ToE, at least.
Regards, Aaron | | |
By
arthur
on
04-03-2008, 08:50 AM
| | Re: On The Development of a Theory of The Universe
Joseph,
Congratulations,I believe that your basic premise, ie. 'equilibrium' etc, has hit the nail on the head. Over Fifty years ago I gave up theorizing on the "scientific" intangibles when I came to a similar conclusion and decided to apply it to the most important entity, ie. human beings, although I could and can successfully apply it to absolutely everything of which I was and am aware of. My Father, a 'real' scientist and also an electrical engineer and humanitarian who had not an inkling that the world of communication would be what it is today, when we discussed this concept said that I should not make it public. He suggested that it is not within the human capability to be objective enough to absorb it and continue with their 'normal' lives. He also suggested that if I did desire to publicize it to do so by applying it to some thing as far away from human beings and human nature as possible and let some one else make the link.
As some one else said in this forum, (I paraphrase) Be careful what you wish for you might find out something you regret. Joseph with respect....arthur webb. | | | | | | Re: On The Development of a Theory of The Universe
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesANicholson What kind of Masons are you referring to that are not massive or material? | Masons are described in my TOE article 'The Dance of Shiva'. They are my equivalent of the Higgs Boson except that they are the source of the strings which make up matter rather than creating mass by reacting with the strings. Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesANicholson I think that black holes are just huge potential "Weak" Nuclear force depositories and are fully capable of reversing their "gravity" direction given enough time. They are just very efficient structures for stacking the energy/matter by using all the empty space between the atomic nuclei and the electrons. They are just very tightly wound springs. | I don't see the connection with the weak force but the gravity issue is close to my own thinking. IMO BHs consist of a concentrated block of masons which have reabsorbed their associated gravitons. This would take up all of the empty space, as you describe, but much more as the gravitational field would not exist inside the BH. If the right circumstances occur, then a dramatic expansion back into the real world would happen just as you postulate.
regards
Felix | | | | | | Re: On The Development of a Theory of The Universe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix Schrodinger Masons are described in my TOE article 'The Dance of Shiva'. They are my equivalent of the Higgs Boson except that they are the source of the strings which make up matter rather than creating mass by reacting with the strings.
| Felix,
This is fun.
Can you expand on a few things for me, then? What's the difference?
Strings --> Higgs --> particles
Strings + Higgs (like your Masons) --> particles
or
(Your) Masons --> Strings --> particles
(Your) Masons (like Higgs) + Strings --> particles
Are you just giving a new name to the Higgs?
And why use the name "Masons" for your hypothetical 'actor' when it already has an existing workable definition in use at present in the standard model for a family of particle types.
----------------
Quote from Felix :
"I don't see the connection with the weak force but the gravity issue is close to my own thinking. IMO BHs consist of a concentrated block of masons which have reabsorbed their associated gravitons. This would take up all of the empty space, as you describe, but much more as the gravitational field would not exist inside the BH. If the right circumstances occur, then a dramatic expansion back into the real world would happen just as you postulate."
----------------------------------------
No GRAVITATIONAL FIELD inside of a black hole? Please explain what this means.
What can you tell us about these "gravitons" of which you speak. Since, none have been ever detected, exactly what do you think they are and how big are they, how energetic, what do they do, how do they do whatever it is that they do? How do they interact with matter. Are they fast or slow or a function of space/time somehow ala Einstein?
Tom Van Flandern thinks that he can show that Gravity acts at a speed that is 2x10^10 c. That's a lot of magnitudes faster than the speed of light. I don't think that he is right, because if gravity operated at that velocity, there would be some evidence of things traveling, drawn along by that gravity, to be much faster than light speed, but there isn't.
Re; the Weak Force of Black Holes---
I was only referring to the classical definition of the force responsible for the radioactive decay of "heavy" atoms. In my view heavy atoms are that way because they are more compressed, therefore under much more internal subatomic "pressures." Of course the other forces would be in there as well but, it will be the tendency to decay --the Weak Force--that will cause the Black Hole to eventually begin to reverse its "gravity" and vent or explode or "shine" once again. The Weak Force should grow stronger as the Black Hole grows in proportion to the other forces to eventually be dominant enough to overpower the 'other' forces. As evident by the fact that the denser an element the greater the Weak Force and the decay rate.
But check out Tom's gravity ''theory" and tell me what you think about it.
Regards, Aaron
Van Flandern's paper on v of c. http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp | |
Last edited by JamesANicholson : 04-12-2008 at 01:42 AM.
| | | | Re: On The Development of a Theory of The Universe
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesANicholson What's the difference?
Strings --> Higgs --> particles
Strings + Higgs (like your Masons) --> particles or
(Your) Masons --> Strings --> particles
(Your) Masons (like Higgs) + Strings --> particles
Are you just giving a new name to the Higgs?
And why use the name "Masons" for your hypothetical 'actor' when it already has an existing workable definition in use at present in the standard model for a family of particle types. | Hi Aaron
My paradigm does not fit with the existing one though it does overlap. First accept that there must be an underlying fabric - call it by any name that suits you - I use the term 'gravitational field'. This has to be made of something and have a structure. It is made of two things - masons and gravitons which occupy (what would otherwise be empty) space.
A mason (French 'maison' - house) is the structure which holds the string which, in combination, makes up matter. Normally the string is wound up inside the mason except for the gravitons. These are extended out from the mason in the three spatial dimensions and interlink with eachother to hold them in a rigid framework. Thus the masons form the nodes of the grid and the gravitons form the links. None of this is matter 'as we know it' - it is the underlying structure of space(and later space/time).
I use the term 'mason' to associate the ball of string (it's not a particle) with the source of mass but would be happy to change it to 'mazon' if the existing use results in conflict or confusion. Since it is the source of mass, it is the equivalent, in this paradigm, of the Higgs Boson but very different in concept. I argue that the Higgs will not be found by the LHC or any other real device as it is not a particle or even ordinary matter.
A particle is something that exists in the real world and is constructed of various combinations of string (but not like the string loops of string theory). It exists only for a very short time (the Planck time?) when the strings are emitted from the masons. This emission is initiated by the collapse of the particle's wave function which happens when the probability function exceeds a critical value. This (generally) only happens when two particles collide (i.e. their wave forms overlap) in the presence of a chronon (the time string). The exception is radioactive decay (the weak force) where the critical value is exceed by a single particle in the presence of a chronon.
Gravity is the effect (it's not a force) of the bending of the gravitational field in the presence of mass. Why does it bend? The wave forms which transmit the information about particles vary in frequency and amplitude. These are transmitted through the gravitational field by vibration of the gravitons which connect the masons. A large vibration represents a large mass. The bigger the amplitude of the vibration the greater the tension on the gravitons which consequently pull the masons together creating distortion of the gravitation field and hence gravity which is simply matter following the shortest path in the distorted GF. This explains why it is so weak in comparison with the other 'forces'.
Read this short resume whilst looking at the diagrams in my article (print the Word version) and tell me what you think. Also should I change 'mason' to 'mazon' or even 'maison'?
regards
Felix
PS - would you prefer to transfer this discussion to my own thread?
PPS - I am aware of a particle group called 'mesons' but don't think the term 'mason' has been used in the standard model before??? | |
Last edited by Felix Schrodinger : 04-05-2008 at 07:52 AM.
| | | | Re: On The Development of a Theory of The Universe
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesANicholson No GRAVITATIONAL FIELD inside of a black hole? Please explain what this means.
What can you tell us about these "gravitons" of which you speak. Since, none have ever been detected; exactly what do you think they are and how big are they, how energetic, what do they do, how do they do whatever it is that they do? How do they interact with matter. Are they fast or slow or a function of space/time somehow ala Einstein? | Hi again Aaron
The GF consists of masons (mazons if you prefer), as nodes, joined into a grid by gravitons, as links. Inside a BH the effect of gravity becomes so large that the gravitons are permanently absorbed back into the masons. Thus the inside of a BH consists of a 'solid mass' of masons and will obey its own laws which will differ from those applying to ordinary matter.
The masons and gravitons are not matter; they are the underlying structure which creates matter and controls its motion. They do not have size or move and are not detectable using any method involving instruments using matter (which includes all of the methods we currently use).
This concept of the GF is explained and illustrated in my article 'The Dance of Shiva' but I have yet to add the description of a BH.
regards
Felix
PS - thanks for the link which solved my problem with SR. I have now converted to LR! | | | |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Article: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | | | | Article Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new articles You may not post comments You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8 Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com | |
