[Bob Campbell]

Originally Posted by Profpat

Hi Nobody;

I too think there is a relationship between gravity and radiation. One being attractive ( gravity ) the other repulsive ( radiation ). They both follow the inverse law, though that is do to geometry. At the beginning of the big bang all things were repelled in the form of radiation, which I believe are the 1 dimensional vibrating strings. Some making quarks, which I believe combined making up our luminous matter.
Others made up quarks which did not combine accounting for our "dark matter". Still others are still open strings which would make up our "dark energy"

The problem I have with the reconciliation is the spatial inflation and expansion.

Best,

Pat

Hi Pat,

There are many problems with the Big Bang hypothesis that used to be recognized and contested, but unfortunately they seem to be swept under the rug nowadays. It is essentially a contradiction in terms. Space and time are concepts derived from creation then used to extrapolate backwards to a beginning in space and time of these very concepts. It is bootstrapping in the extreme that uses mathematics many orders of magnitude beyond what can ever be confirmed in empirical experience of any kind. Einstein repeatedly pointed out that general relativity is based on a smoothed out universe that cannot be applied to high densities. Singularities such as those associated with black holes have to be cut out. He was opposed in principle to a beginning in time to spacetime. So was Hoyle, Bondi and various others who were less vocal, including philosophers of the stature of Henri Bergson. Quantum mechanics and relativity theory are both used in the Big Bang hypothesis even though they are mutually exclusive. And a graviton is a scientific fantasy, like dark matter, strings etc., to plug obvious holes in theories. And if spacetime is expanding so is atomic matter, in which case no expansion can be detectable since spacetime relates directly to matter. Something is very wrong.

The sole direct evidence for a Big Bang is the red shift of distant galaxies. In a discontinuous universe an alternate explanation for this necessarily presents itself naturally along with explanations for a variety of other cosmological phenomena which otherwise remain a mystery. There is a recent article posted on science news “Big Bang or Big Goof…” where a radio astronomer essentially provides an alternate explanation for the background radiation, and there may be various other explanations for it also. In my posted TOE Theory article “Gravity and the Void…” you will find how an integrated quantum-relativity emerges naturally from a discontinuous universe. There is a related article “The Quantum Cosmic Mind” posted under Philosophy There are a number of related articles on my website that are fully consistent with the hard facts. The science of physics, including the nature of mathematical identities, derives from what I call System 3. There is nothing structurally conceivable that can possibly be more fundamental and consistent with phenomenal experience, if there is to be such a thing as Universal Wholeness. Anyone can see this by carefully examining the diagrams of System 3 on my website. It is not a belief system. It is not an intellectual contrivance of mine.

Gravity derives from the synchronous projection of atoms from their quantum energy equivalents in the timeless Void everywhere in the universe at once. Newton’s Law follows from conjugate identities. If you carefully study the integrated diagram of System 3 on the website you will see that it implicitly accounts for all possible symmetries of the primary hydrogen atom, for electronic charge, for the confined Universal Set consistent with quarks, and for degenerate antimatter and the so-called reversal of time. The transient short lived “particles” portray patterns consistent with degenerate variants of the higher Systems.

Coulombs Law derives from the intimate bonding by the Universal Set of electron, proton and photon within the primary atom, also according to conjugate identities. Electromagnetic fields and effects consistent with Maxwell’s equations derive from the spanning of this intimate linking up between electron and proton over many space frames when the electron is ejected beyond the ionization limit of the primary atom in a single space frame. Together all this provides an integrated and pragmatic new approach to physics and cosmology that can extend the horizons of both the physical and biological sciences.

I hope you don’t mind me pointing these things out here on your post, but I think you are seriously looking for some coherent answers. It admittedly takes a lot of deep reflection.

I do not deny that there are synchronous homologues to the way the cosmic order works that allow representations such as the I-Ching to act as mediation devices to facilitate the intuition in certain ways. I have studied Jung, for whom I have great respect, and tried quite hard years ago to relate the I-Ching directly to the cosmic order without much success, although there are certain parallels hinted at, that can facilitate intuitive insight. (I found the same result with the Buddhist Abidharma.) It is easy enough to get hung up here. The method of representation is just too simplistic to be a fully comprehensive representation of the cosmic order all by itself.

Best regards,
Bob

www.cosmic-mindreach.com

[Bob Campbell]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

If we are considering the three concept, and consider the three fundamental forces - electric, strong and weak - gravity can be thought of as not an additional force but rather a pseudo-centrifugal, gravito-magnetic effect. There are implications that I gather from your site, Bob, if I'm not mistaken, that are suggestive of light being equated with space. The discontinuous massive structures depicted, if in the form of magnetic moments, would be consistent with gravity being proportionate to mass. I liken the "creative" nature of gravity to a backward motion of time, equaling mass, and the light space you propose would be consistent with the decay of massive particles allowing observations of forward time.

Essentially, light and gravity would be synonymous, but we only observe light - photons, if you will - and never gravitons because they are confined as observed mass, observed only as the effects carried as light. The three consciousness correlations can be: consciousness with forward time, light, stable structures; subconsciousness with both forward and backward time, light and gravity, virtual structures; and unconsciousness with the absolute center of particulate structures.

Hi Nobody,

I don't quite see how the primary atom can be regarded as magnetic moments. The universal intimate binding of electron and proton with mutually inverse structural relationships to the photon in the diagram of System 3 accounts for electronic charge within the inner space of the atom. Magnetic moments occur in conjunction with EM fields when electrons are ejected beyond the ionization limit of atoms and thus relate to relative motions over successive frames in the integrated fabric of external space-time, consistent with Maxwell’s equations. There is no radiation in the inner space of the atom, and thus no energy radiated away, because there is no relative particulate motion in a single space frame. There is otherwise no explanation for why the electron does not lose orbital momentum. There is a fundamental difference between the inner space of the atom and the orthogonal and linear outer space between atoms. The latter is defined by light that is emitted from within atoms by orbital electron jumps between space frames.

There is some basis to your thought that light and gravity are in a sense synonymous. Gravity derives from the unified integration of all atomic matter as quantum equivalents of balanced energy in the timeless Void. The energies of electron and proton are timelessly coalesced as One within the open photon interface. In this quantum frame the photon IS the coalescence of electron and proton. And all photonic energy is balanced and integrated as One in the Void. So matter is both One as energy in the Void, and many separate particles in Space frames AT THE SAME TIME, since the Void is timeless. Conjugate identities give this mathematical expression as Newton’s law of gravitation. The Lorentz transformations also become significant as indicated in the posted TOE Theory article “Gravity and the Void…”. This equivalence between the massive particle and energy becomes expressed as E=mc2 in high relative motions, also consistent with conjugate identities implicit in the structural dynamics of System 3.

Regards,
Bob

www.cosmic-mindreach.com

[N0B0DY]

Bob,

My atomic model is based somewhat similar to Pat's in that it is progressive from zero-dimensional point sources to what can be an infinite number of dimensions. The reference to magnetic moments refers to multipole moments of solely electrons and positrons, and their respective annihilation serving as the basis for the gravitational monopole moments within the nuclei.

Essentially, the electron would not remain in orbit - does not acutally orbit - but is continually recreated according to the kinetic conversion of its mass. So what we are observing is the annihilation events carried by photons into the outer field you mentioned. I wanted to know if the space between atoms can be in the form of a hilbert space, whereby the density is inversely-proportionate to the inner space of the atom.

[N0B0DY]

Pat,

Rereading your post, I noticed you mentioned the combining of the strings. Could you elaborate on how they connect, if they do, and whether or not they can form loops of themselves? Also, what would be the cause for them to join?

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

Pat,

Rereading your post, I noticed you mentioned the combining of the strings. Could you elaborate on how they connect, if they do, and whether or not they can form loops of themselves? Also, what would be the cause for them to join?

Hi Nobody;

Thank you for the question.

I think as far as strings closing and forming loops, it's part of string theory itself, which I just accepted.
The following is from Wikipedia;

Closed and open strings
Strings can be either open or closed. A closed string is a string that has no end-points, and therefore is topologically equivalent to a circle. An open string, on the other hand, has two end-points and is topologically equivalent to a line interval. Not all string theories contain open strings, but every theory must contain closed strings, as interactions between open strings can always result in closed strings.

For the closed or "circle" strings to combine to form the proton, well that is part of my speculation. I believe it was Roger Penrose who stated that "Quantum theory requires wave functions to be superposed". I view closed strings vibrating, to be a wave function.
Now the tricky part of my Idea, that is the interweaving of the 3rd string, permanently keeping the 3 strings together to form the proton/neutron.

It's my thought that at the very beginning this was possible. Strings as they were closing, do the compact original area would surely superpose, and some times when the strings were closing that some strings may get interwoven, by chance, or probabilty theory if you will. Most of the time this would not occur, thus explaining why we have only~4% luminous matter. The rest being either dark matter or dark energy.

For those new viewers, my original Idea is located in post box #40 above.

Best to you,

Pat

[Profpat]

Bob;

I have to take exception to your post. Both in terms of implying that Dr. Einstein did not believe in the big bang and the lack of evidence you left out in referring to the big bang.

You are right that Einstein did not originally support the big bang theory. Later, however. being an intellectually honest man, did accept it, albeit reluctantly. The mathematician Stephen Hawkings, also accepts it. Hoyle, we all know, stubbornly refused to accept it as it was contrary to his OWN "steady state' theory.

While the big bang is still a theory you left out much of the evidence for it. Including WMAP being consistent with it. For further evidence as well as criticism of it please see:
( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html )

I think you and I should part coorespondence at this point you to defend your theory at YOUR THREAD, and I'll keep on answering questions and accepting comments regarding my Idea at MY THREAD.

Best to you,

Pat

[N0B0DY]

Hi Pat,

In another thread it was noted, I think by neutralino, that photons have no rest mass because they are never at rest. Yet if light is space, and its speed is absolute, then I think it could indeed be at rest.

The observed constant may have something to do with the instruments used, as is the case with our eyes as instruments being limited to the visible-light spectrum, to limit light's velocity.

I'm not sure exactly how you propose the membranes form the protons, but perhaps the following might shed light upon how they would appear to remain together.

http://www.newuniversetheory.com/

[Profpat]

Hi Nobody;

I don't know if I'm right, but I thought that box # 40 and # 325 explained how I thought the quarks ( membranes ) formed the proton. I really can't express it any simplier.

As far as your link, who the heck is Bobby McGehees.
Is that the same one from Janis Joplin's song? Oh no that was Bobby McGee.

According to his thread I guess an engineer.
And I was amazed in his rebuttal of the big bang that 2/3 of Americans don't believe it either. That is not 2/3 of American physicist, just 2/3 of Americans. I would be amazed if 2/3 of the Americans even heard of the theory.

But I guess that arguement says physics should be a democracy and we should vote on physical principles. The one with the most votes win.

Now if you want some real information from the University of California here it is:

The Big Bang


A Very Brief History of the Universe:
Was there really a Big Bang?

How can we possibly know? Here are four proofs:

1. The observed expansion of the universe ? the redshifts of galaxies first described by Edwin Hubble in 1929 implied a beginning to the universe, as had been suggested by earlier philosophers.
2. The observed abundances of deuterium, helium, and lithium; production of the observed quantities of hydrogen's heavier isotope and the next two heavier elements is thought to be due primarily to their synthesis in the first three minutes of the Big Bang. These elements are not produced in the required quantities in observed stellar fusion reactions.
3. The thermal spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) was predicted by Big Bang theory before its observation - always a convincing argument!
4. The CMBR appears hotter in distant clouds of gas. The speed of light is finite, so we are seeing these distant clouds at an earlier epoch, when the universe was denser and hotter, as expected from Big Bang Theory.

The Steady State alternative

The Steady State Model of scientists Hermann Bondi and Thomas Gold (and augmented by Fred Hoyle) postulated that there was no origin to the universe, that the large-scale features of the universe are constant from one epoch to the next, and thus to maintain the average density of galaxies in an expanding universe, whole new galaxies must be popping into existence between the previous ones. In addition, to explain the CMBR, a whole new class of 1014 weak microwave emitting sources must exist. This is ?about 100,000 times the total number of visible galaxies? (according to Hoyle). More modern estimates place the number of galaxies at about 1011, or "only" 1,000 times fewer. This lack of supporting evidence for the Steady State theory and the perfect match between Big Bang predictions and the later discovery of the CMBR has led to almost universal acceptance of the Big Bang theory.

Theoretical work in the 1960s ?showed that the universe could have had a singularity, a big bang, if the theory of relativity was correct (Stephen Hawking).? Mathematician Roger Penrose and physicist Stephen Hawking went on to prove in 1970 that there must have been a Big Bang singularity, provided only that Einstein?s theory of general relativity is correct and that the universe contains only as much matter as we observe. We will see later that this latter condition is probably not true, but for now, the Big Bang theory prevails.

Best to you,

Pat

[N0B0DY]

Contrary to popular belief, I don't intend to argue, but to push people's ideas to the limit, Pat, right or wrong is irrelevant. Also, as I mentioned to Bob and Fredrick previously, I don't wish to argue wholistic views, but only to share my picture and look at others and consider different explanations that can be useful. To me it's a personal journey and one where we help each other along the way.

The link I gave isn't to be swallowed whole either. I like how he explains the redshifting. I also like the Setterfields as well and they have been repeatedly ignored by the scientific community, eventhough they have an enormous amount of supportable evidence for zpe.

I've read your theory and am aware of the models, but I think the closure of strings from your proposed beginning of open strings requires more elaboration for me to understand even the basic idea behind it, and the interweaving as well I'm not sure how this occurs exactly.

Also, regarding the proofs, alot of the information is empirically-based and alot of scientists who advocate the big bang don't consider string theory to be legitimate. They also don't allow for extrapolation whereby - similar to the big bang itself - the center of point masses can hold an enormous amount of undetectible energy/heat decreasing through the scales to where instruments can detect only how cool the cmb is.

Off the record I'm sure all scientists laugh at the predicaments.

[Profpat]

Hi Nobody;

I guess I offended you once again and so I'll appologize once again. I'm truly sorry Nobody, no offense was meant to you. Granted I didn't like your link, but I didn't think that would offend you.

So lets talk about the strings, quarks, and membranes. But first the following which may help in the open strings closing:

"The strings we have discussed so far have been "closed strings": they close back on themselves in a loop, so they don't have any edges. However, string theory can also contain "open strings" which look like line segments instead of loops. The main new feature of open strings is their endpoints, which (not surprisingly) behave in many ways like point particles.
As illustrated here, open strings can interact by joining their endpoints together or by splitting apart. But even though the string's "worldsheet" now has boundaries, there still aren't any unique "special points" where interacting strings join up: just as before, string interactions are smooth"

I'm not a physicist and so I rely on information I get through researching, which I admit may not be correct, but does make sense to me. I call it my A Priori test.

As far as the interweaving, that is the tricky but required part of my Idea. I think it is possible and since I needed that to permanently lock those quarks together. This eliminates the need for gluons and can still use the QCD to explain the inner workings of the proton.

I was able to both draw the structure as well as construct a 3 dimensional pipe cleaner model. And so if I am able to concieve it and construct it, why not nature. ( BTW if you haven't bought 3 pipe cleaners please do, as it well help to understand the model )

I did say I thought this may be a chance occurance, and so I'm relying on probability theory that it perhaps did, and would therefore explain why only 4% is luminous rather than 100%.

I do however think right or wrong is relevant.

So I am sorry. Truly best to you Nobody,

Pat

P.S. I think you mentioned Fredrick and Austins name, not Bob. I think Bob is better at his own thread or perhaps yours. You are a most gracious host at the Theory of Nothing.Also the quote regarding open and closed strings can be accessed at:
( http://www.slimy.com/~steuard/resear...4/slide31.html )