[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by RascalPuff It is said that the electromagnetic force reciprocating between an electron and a proton is 1039 times the gravitational force; the gravitational force between these two ‘particles’ alleged to be ‘too weak’ to be measured’ at this microcosmic level. The nuclear force which is distinquished from gravity ‘because’ it is 1039 times stronger, is (microcosmic - 'earlier Moment A') gravity (unrecognized and unacknowledged by physicists): this is due to the (4-D continuum) fact that the value(s) of time is covariant with the moment(s) of space it (time/motion) occurs in...

Rascal ... a small correction here .... The Nuclear Force is much stronger than the electromagnetic force so it can't also be 10^39 times stronger than gravity. (I may have misled you in an earlier post in another thread.

Originally Posted by RascalPuff The value of a linear, square or cubic mile of space on (earlier) Moment A earth, is not the same value as that same mile measured on (later) Moment B earth, or on (latest) Moment C earth.

Originally Posted by RascalPuff When a motorist on Moment A earth drives his automobile at the speed he measures as 60 miles per hour, he is not traveling 60 of Moment B miles per Moment B hour... .......................... When the ‘mini person’ inhabitant of Moment A earth may look ‘up’ along the positive (future) side of the 4th dimension of time, and see themselves at (later) Moment(s) B or C, they would see their own image as an incredibly huge, slow moving giant; if this slow moving giant of Moment A mini-person’s future could look ‘down’ along the past side of their continuously accelerating 4-D projection, they would then observe themselves as a tiny, very fast moving ‘mini-person’. There is no way for Moment A mini-person (thinking in 3-D conceptual physics) to know that their 3 dimensions of space, and consequently their time will be relatively larger (spatially) and slower (chronologically) at (future) Moments B and C. Conversely, there is no way for that same giant, slow moving person in (later) Moments B and C to know that the spatial dimensions and time of their entire (Moment A) universe was correspondingly more contracted in space, having proportionately smaller durations of time, at Moment A. ................ This is the reason that Einstein called ‘Space and Time’ : Space-Time. ........................... This is the cause of what Einstein calls ‘Non-absolute time’, and 'non-absolute space'. ................................. It is also the cause of what Einstein calls ‘time dilation’. The value of time is determined by the value of space it occurs in. Larger moments of 4-D space result in relatively slower time, when compared with the value of time in smaller moments of 4-D space.

This is a personal concept of Space-Time and Einstein's General theory of relativity. Don't you think you may be interpreting the math too literally. Mass and Matter are not the same. A Massive object does not have to be a giant object ?

I have my own personal concepts for this ... I don't think it is important for concepts to agree ... just that they satisfy and allow for progress.

1 .. Twice you state that there is no way to know. Then how do you know ?

2 .. Why do you only see space as expanding, never contracting ? and vice versa for time ?

3 .. If Spacetime is pulsating everywhere in different regions, to use your words, there is no way to know ?

4 .. To put it simply, if the expansion of space, relating to your theory, was filmed and then replayed, could the Maths distinguish between the film running forward or reverse ?

cool bananas ... greg

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by neutralino Your flagrant lack of knowledge of basic cosmology, and physics, is somewhat baffling, especially since you seem to constantly question the foundations of these subjects. I'm sure I've told you this before, but I shall say it once again. 'Dark Energy' and 'quintessence' are NOT different things. Dark energy is the blanket term used for the thing that is causing the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. Dark energy can be one of two major things: The cosmological constant. Mathematically, the cosmological constant is a constant of integration obtained on integrating the acceleration equation to get the Friedmann equation.* Thus, if you take this viewpoint you necessarily have to add the cosmological constant to the other fundamental constants. There could be some density attributed to the vacuum (this is, essentially, quintessence). This means that, even when there is no conventional matter in the spacetime, the right hand side of the acceleration equation is non-zero Now, to your other points. Dark energy and dark matter will always be scrutinised: such is the nature of science! Black holes are not being scrutinised by any reputable physicist that I know of at this time since the physics community are convinced that they exist. Gravitons are particles that have been made up in order to mediate the gravitational force. However, since we do not have a quantum theory of gravity, then it makes no sense to conjecture whether they exist or not! String theory is not taken as a standard theory and so, of course, is being scrutinised. The big bang theory is taken as standard cosmology, and is not being questioned by any large number of cosmologists. *I would like to urge you to read up on some basic cosmology: I have provided many links in my thread in this subforum, precisely so that we can avoid having to explain the standard view again and again. I also think you should clarify what is in the standard model, and what is not. In my opinion, and I think I speak for the majority of scientists here, one cannot critisize a theory if one does not understand the basics of it!!

__________________________________________________ ________________

Speak of large and small numbers of 'Standard Theorists' if you will.
Whereas, fortunately, science is not a democracy - there is no refuge in professional attendance ratings.

"Dark Energy' and 'quintessence' are NOT different things."

Neither do I say otherwise. They are in fact used interchangeably, while 'Dark Matter' occupys a schizoid netherealm adjacent to the double-talk of Dark Energy and 'quintessence'.

In your own words:
______________________________________________

Dark energy is the blanket term used for the thing that is causing the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. Dark energy can be one of two major things:

• The cosmological constant. Mathematically, the cosmological constant is a constant of integration obtained on integrating the acceleration equation to get the Friedmann equation.* Thus, if you take this viewpoint you necessarily have to add the cosmological constant to the other fundamental constants.
• __________________________________________________ ____

Dark energy is a blanket to cover up the fact that the Cosmological Constant has been unabashedly (necessarily) retrieved from politically induced retirement and is now back on the slate as 'LambdaColdDarkMatter' (and its improvised 'quintessential' cousins).

The 'Friedmann equation' allows for an expanding (or contracting) universe, and since it was formerly used to counterstate the presently purloined ('abandoned') Cosmological Constant - Lambda - it is now being used to (in your words) explain 'the thing that causes the acceleration of the expansion of the universe'.



The 'big bang' has no common center from which the recession originates. 'The center is everywhere'. This is not the signature of an explosive beginning. Whereas, it is the signature of a repelling force comparable to the Newtonian impelling force, only acting in an opposite vector. Namely, the necessary - pilfered and re-named - Cosmological Constant... (couldn't agree with you more on that note. Albeit, the big bangologists are desperately shoring up what used to be a common center based theory...)

Background radiation is characteristic of any model of an expanding universe. The expansion of matter itself requires no 'spontaneous creation of hydrogen' (a contradiction of the law of conservation of mass-energy) and reinstates the 'Steady State'.

_________________________________________

Sourced from "The Australian" July 2004

AFTER nearly 30 years of arguing that a black hole gobbles everything within it - including traces of its own existence - physicist Stephen Hawking has done an intellectual backflip.

Next week at a conference in Dublin, the wheelchair-bound Oxford University academic will recant his controversial "black-hole paradox".

It's an idea he first proposed in 1976 and involves the complicated physics of black holes, or dense objects such as what remains when some stars run out of fuel and collapse under their own weight.

Leading cosmologist Paul Davies, of Macquarie University's Australian Centre for Astrobiology, heard rumours earlier this year about Dr Hawking's intellectual conversion. "Evidently, something has caused him to change his mind, but he's being very coy about what it is," Professor Davies said yesterday.


(message truncated)
----------------

The Editors, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN,
415 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017

14 May 1976
(20 yrs. before '96, when the acceleration finally overran 'Standard Theorists')



"An Accelerating Universe?" "...that most reasonable observational data.... fit closely all models to which the expansion is accelerating. "The prediction of accelerating expansion is contrary to expectation... "something must be terribly wrong."..."The net forces between (receding) glaxies really are repulsive (Re: 'Hubble's Law - the more distant a given stellar or galactic light source the faster it's rate of recession from the point of observation". Re: Einstein's Cosmological Constant <repelling force acting parallel to and in the opposite direction as the popular concept of 'Newtonian impelling force>, a force different from others in that its velocity increases - rather than decreases, with distance.) - SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, 'Science and the Citizen', December 1975, James E. Gunn and Beatrice M. Tinsley.


'I point out this apparent conflict with the understanding that Gunn and Tinsley concluded "...the prediction of accelerating expansion is contrary to expectation... and that something must be terribly wrong." Especially so if "...the net forces between (receding) galaxies... really are repelling... and if gravitational values really are "equivalent to and synchronous with inertial acceleration values beyond a billionth of a second and the technical ability to measure any difference" (THE NEW GRAVITY <Is The 4th Dimension>, April 1976, Kent B. Robertson).

'Is it possible we are overlooking a rather obvious consideration, concerning the real nature of 'gravity?'

Very Truly Yours,


David F. Sicks, Anchorage, Alaska cc - Mr. Kent Robertson

( Mr. David F. Sicks received no response.)
_____________________________

Speaking at the 2005 Solvay conference David Gross (Nobel laureate) said:
"We are in a period of utter confusion...These equations tell us nothing about where space and time come from and describe nothing we would recognise. At best, string theory depicts the way particles might interact in a collection of hypothetical universes...we are missing something fundamental."

Excerpts from The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Thomas S. Kuhn, from paragraph 1: "Research is therefore not about discovering the unknown, but rather a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education".

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by Graybeard Rascal ... a small correction here .... The Nuclear Force is much stronger than the electromagnetic force so it can't also be 10^39 times stronger than gravity. (I may have misled you in an earlier post in another thread. The figure may be 1041. Notwithstanding numbers, the point is made. This is a personal concept of Space-Time and Einstein's General theory of relativity. Don't you think you may be interpreting the math too literally. Mass and Matter are not the same. A Massive object does not have to be a giant object ? Matter is proved to be expanding, by G.P. Thompson, and by Einstein's 4-D revelation that all matter is 4-D. I am fully aware of the similarities and differences between mass and matter, we are talking about physical size and density here. I have my own personal concepts for this ... I don't think it is important for concepts to agree ... just that they satisfy and allow for progress. 1 .. Twice you state that there is no way to know. Then how do you know ? Yesterday's solar system was much smaller than today's. It's hours were much shorter consequently, it's miles per hour - and speed of light - were much slower when compared with those of today. This is a thought problem, and it is the means by which I reach the issued conclusions. 2 .. Why do you only see space as expanding, never contracting ? and vice versa for time ? Test objects don't 'fall' upwardly, hence the conclusion of expansion rather than contraction. 3 .. If Spacetime is pulsating everywhere in different regions, to use your words, there is no way to know ? 'Pulsating'? What do you mean by this? 4 .. To put it simply, if the expansion of space, relating to your theory, was filmed and then replayed, could the Maths distinguish between the film running forward or reverse ? The proposed accelerating expansion of matter and space is observable, only when compared with itself at earlier and later moments. Are you suggesting that it can be filmed and compared? cool bananas ... greg

Best regards,
- RP

[N0B0DY]

"Yesterday's solar system was much smaller than today's. It's hours were much shorter consequently, it's miles per hour - and speed of light - were much slower when compared with those of today. This is a thought problem, and it is the means by which I reach the issued conclusions."

I apologize for the interjection here, RP, but since I support most of your theory I feel I should get my head around this thought problem. If, again, we are keeping things proportionate, why would time change relative to scale?

I could understand that if, say, the earth were to revolve around a sun that was twice as large that the earth-measured year would be different, but if the earth and sun together grow twice the size or even infinitely larger or smaller, then the earth-measured year would not change at all.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY "Yesterday's solar system was much smaller than today's. It's hours were much shorter consequently, it's miles per hour - and speed of light - were much slower when compared with those of today. This is a thought problem, and it is the means by which I reach the issued conclusions." I apologize for the interjection here, RP, but since I support most of your theory I feel I should get my head around this thought problem. If, again, we are keeping things proportionate, why would time change relative to scale? I could understand that if, say, the earth were to revolve around a sun that was twice as large that the earth-measured year would be different, but if the earth and sun together grow twice the size or even infinitely larger or smaller, then the earth-measured year would not change at all.

Dear Nobody:

In a physically expanding universe:

Yesterday's square mile is (comparatively) much smaller than today's, just as today's will be much smaller than tomorrow's.

Yesterday's hour was much shorter than today's.

Yesterday's 60 miles per hour was much slower than today's.

Yesterday's speed of light is likewise much slower than today's.

All the while, the continuum reveals no changes to the likewise expanding observers, who consequently perceive no expansion and no corresponding changes. (until they realize what pins them to the ground, or when they release something above the earth's surface.)

The expansion mimics an impelling force on or near a major gravitational coordinate system.

As you move further away, the ersatz 'impelling' force (generated by a repelling force) becomes more recognizable as a repelling force - generated by the projection of electromagnetic fields from the (standing field of the) earth.

Good to hear from you, Nobody.
There's certainly no need for apology - this thread is open to whomever cares to participate.
- RP

[N0B0DY]

Really no explanation necessary for your theory, RP. I've read the bulk and it's fully pinned and accepted.

Yet, to express it in such a way that it would be acceptable by the mainstream, the relationship might have to be omitted because it doesn't make sense outside of the accountability of gravity.

In other words, I think that most scientists will think in terms of measuring a mile today as compared to measuring a mile tomorrow, which will render the same result - both a mile. Then, to measure a mile comparative to the gravitational constant is to me synonymous to weighing a mile.

If I'm overlooking something, how would we calculate the difference in the measurements of the square miles?

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY Really no explanation necessary for your theory, RP. I've read the bulk and it's fully pinned and accepted. Yet, to express it in such a way that it would be acceptable by the mainstream, the relationship might have to be omitted because it doesn't make sense outside of the accountability of gravity. In other words, I think that most scientists will think in terms of measuring a mile today as compared to measuring a mile tomorrow, which will render the same result - both a mile. Then, to measure a mile comparative to the gravitational constant is to me synonymous to weighing a mile. If I'm overlooking something, how would we calculate the difference in the measurements of the square miles?

Well phrased, Nobody, how indeed is the difference calculated - in your presented example of square miles, for instance?

I don't do math, but I can tell you that the descent rate of objects in free fall in the absence of air resistance is 32' per " squared, and that, therefore, is the rate at which the earth expands.

Also, escape velocity is 25,000 mph. (Notably, the earth is 24 or 25,000 miles in circumference). It's entirely computable, and I can also know that the difference (from one day to the next) is impressively vast, because of the factor of exponentiality - extrapolation, we are dealing with here.

Thank you very much and sincerely. I think there's more than enough talent around here to do just that. I anticipate that such figures will reveal themselves to relate to a lot of other considerations.

Thanks again, Mr. Nobody. Sir.
- RP

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by RascalPuff [size=2][size=2]The 'big bang' has no common center from which the recession originates. 'The center is everywhere'. This is not the signature of an explosive beginning.

Note that nowhere in the big bang theory does it state "the universe exploded into existence," or in fact anything to do with explosions!

Sourced from "The Australian" July 2004

I have no idea why you would quote an article that says "something might happen." How does Hawking's announcement on the lack of an information paradox in Dublin in 2004 have any relation to what you are trying to talk about here? Do you think this shows that black holes do not exist?

Also, note that Hawking is a professor at Cambridge, not Oxford.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by neutralino Note that nowhere in the big bang theory does it state "the universe exploded into existence," or in fact anything to do with explosions! I have no idea why you would quote an article that says "something might happen." How does Hawking's announcement on the lack of an information paradox in Dublin in 2004 have any relation to what you are trying to talk about here? Do you think this shows that black holes do not exist? Also, note that Hawking is a professor at Cambridge, not Oxford.

__________________________________________________ ____

Google excerpt:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/art...ce/sc0022.html

In the winter of 1998, two separate teams of astronomers in Berkeley, California, made a similar, startling discovery. They were both observing supernovae — exploding stars visible over great distances — to see how fast the universe is expanding. In accordance with prevailing scientific wisdom, the astronomers expected to find the rate of expansion to be decreasing, Instead they found it to be increasing — a discovery which has since “shaken astronomy to its core” (Astronomy, October 1999).

This discovery would have come as no surprise to Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966), a Belgian mathematician and Catholic priest who developed the theory of the Big Bang. Lemaitre described the beginning of the universe as a burst of fireworks, comparing galaxies to the burning embers spreading out in a growing sphere from the center of the burst. He believed this burst of fireworks was the beginning of time, taking place on “a day without yesterday.”
After decades of struggle, other scientists came to accept the Big Bang as fact. But while most scientists — including the mathematician Stephen Hawking — predicted that gravity would eventually slow down the expansion of the universe and make the universe fall back toward its center, Lemaitre believed that the universe would keep expanding. He argued that the Big Bang was a unique event, while other scientists believed that the universe would shrink to the point of another Big Bang, and so on. The observations made in Berkeley supported Lemaitre’s contention that the Big Bang was in fact “a day without yesterday.” When Georges Lemaitre was born in Charleroi, Belgium, most scientists thought that the universe was infinite in age and constant in its general appearance. The work of Isaac Newton and James C. Maxwell suggested an eternal universe. When Albert Einstein first published his theory of relativity in 1916, it seemed to confirm that the universe had gone on forever, stable and unchanging.
_____________________________

To this day, black holes have yet to be proven.

_________________________________

Duely noted that Hawking is a professor at Cambridge, not Oxford.
______________________________

Your beginning quote:

"Note that nowhere in the big bang theory does it state "the universe exploded into existence," or in fact anything to do with explosions!"
________________________________

You mean that in today's vigorously renovated and shored up big bang, there is no where to be found any trace of it's original (Lemaitre) presentation as an explosive event...
--------------------

Your prior quotes in this thread:

Your flagrant lack of knowledge of basic cosmology, and physics, is somewhat baffling, especially since you seem to constantly question the foundations of these subjects.

The big bang theory is taken as standard cosmology, and is not being questioned by any large number of cosmologists.

*I would like to urge you to read up on some basic cosmology: I have provided many links in my thread in this subforum, precisely so that we can avoid having to explain the standard view again and again. I also think you should clarify what is in the standard model, and what is not.

(Can you properly represent the original work of *Lemaitre?)

In my opinion, and I think I speak for the majority of scientists here, one cannot critisize a theory if one does not understand the *basics of it!!
(Who could reasonably disagree with that?)
____________________________

- RP
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie