Nothing by Nobody Nowhere (No Where = Now Here)

[Graybeard]

Think about it Greg__It can't be a constant, due to the fact that the more pressure applied to any solid structure, the greater is the mass increase, just as your post stated, and my information also states__as pressure generates heat. Therefore; if mass increases__it's required to increase its gravity potential

There are two methods pressure adds to gravity. The one above as your saying.

The other method is simply by its presence. If you re-read 'b' above. The gravitational increase caused by the 'presence' of pressure becomes the major part of gravity under the conditions described by BB/Inflaton.

It can't be a constant, due to the fact that the more pressure applied to any solid structure, the greater is the mass increase

This is a difference in pressure exerted .... but the total 'conserved' pressure remains the same.

This pressure is a constant .... and because 'normal gravity' decreases in strength with distance, then it becomes possible for 'negative constant pressure' to begin to overwhelm the attractive force .... around 7 billion years ago, I tink .... acceleration began to increase.



cool bananas ... greg

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Greg, you can believe that non-sense if you want to__I don't...

It has zero legitimate foundational mechanics, and you even admitted it last year, in your own thread. You stated such a model would require another Universe, for its prime mover motion and matter, etc.__so what use continuing to post on it...???

Big-bang/inflation is out until you can show a foundation for its matter, mass, energy and motion__It's foundationally__Pure Nonsense...

That's why FS is so much a better model__We(Dave, Tim, I and now Nobody coming right along) can show all the foundational conditions as necessities of presently known scientific laws, maths, logics, methods and facts__Your models can't...!!! Sure, we can use a lot of these models' correspondences, where they are correct, but the cosmology needs much correcting...

Force is not attractive__Force is repulsive, just as Newton stated__that's why it's called a force...

Greg, whatever this means to you__"What causes your 'negative constant pressure???'"

[Lloyd Gillespie]

I think this may help, over here too...

Sorry Frank, but that just puts all theorizing right back into the impossible situation of having to have an infinitely regressive creation of motion model__as time/distance is known to be the fundamental action state of matter in motion. We've already tried all these ways around the motion problems here at TQ, and when any model implying the zero state of motion is offered, which any zero state of time/distance suggests and necessitates, you're simply falling into the impossible logics of states reduced below, what is capable of reducing any fundamental state of the Universe, to ever have been, no matter what the conventional physics states and theorizes. The base fundamental can never be reduced below a triad of matter/mass in motion thus having energy__thus requiring this base state to have time/distance of such motion__or you've inadvertantly commited the illogical step of undefining/deconstructing the Universe's basic and necessary function state...

No state can exist withour the three prerequisites of matter/mass_motion_energy__which automatically necessitates time/distance. To take any one of the three constituents from the fundamental state undefines the logic of any reality perceivable. Take away matter/mass there's nothing to describe. Take away motion there's nothing to describe. Take away energy there's nothing to describe. Take any one of these three entities/actions out of the Universal equation and you've got no time/distance__but, you've also no state of description logically possible__without resorting to infinite regresses to 'creation myths', logical contradictions and/or logical impossibilities...

Sure, imagination can dream up no-time states, but logic can not function to describe such imaginations__and if logic can't describe such states__then a physical Universe can not have that state either__as it must absolutely be a describable physical mechanics state__or it's a belief-state requiring some sort of 'creation myth'__especially the 'creation myth' of motion, to produce time/distance__to induce its mechanics__thus, it's not a valid mechanics foundation for either physics or logic...

No model can ever have a total stop motion state, and be valid__Thus time/distance, the bi-product of motion, is eternally required by the fundamental necessity of its Universal mechanics to exist__forever__to avoid the 'creation myth regressions' of any physical descriptions and logics mechanically possible... This is what all the modern models of physics are ignoring...

If you don't think so__Then; "What is your prime mover?"__from an absolute stopped state of Time/Distance/Motion?__because, in total, they are one state...???

[Graybeard]

It has zero legitimate foundational mechanics, and you even admitted it last year, in your own thread. You stated such a model would require another Universe, for its prime mover motion and matter, etc.__so what use continuing to post on it...???

You have mis-understood or I have incorrectly posted something ... Inflation theory does not need a pre-existing universe ... if you have the link please post it and I will correct.

Big-bang/inflation is out until you can show a foundation for its matter, mass, energy and motion__It's foundationally__Pure Nonsense...

That's why FS is so much a better model__We(Dave, Tim, I and now Nobody coming right along) can show all the foundational conditions as necessities of presently known scientific laws, maths, logics, methods and facts__Your models can't...!!! Sure, we can use a lot of these models' correspondences, where they are correct, but the cosmology needs much correcting...

Inflation theory requires a fundamental substance ?? So how can an FS be a better model.

Force is not attractive__Force is repulsive, just as Newton stated__that's why it's called a force...

I have no idea what your talking about ... how do you relate this 'repulsiveness' to this:

One of the foundation concepts of physics, a force may be thought of as any influence which tends to change the motion of an object. Our present understanding is that there are four fundamental forces in the universe, the gravity force, the nuclear weak force, the electromagnetic force, and the nuclear strong force in ascending order of strength. In mechanics, forces are seen as the causes of linear motion, whereas the causes of rotational motion are called torques. The action of forces in causing motion is described by Newton's Laws under ordinary conditions, although there are notable exceptions.

Forces are inherently vector quantities, requiring vector addition to combine them.

The SI unit for force is the Newton, which is defined by Newton = kg m/s2 as may be seen from Newton's second law.

cool bananas ... greg

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Greg, whatever this means to you__"What causes your 'negative constant pressure???'" Just answer this question...

Newton's force statement is on the first page of his introduction, in his 'Principia...'

Greg, you posted nothing contradictory to the force of gravity being a repulsive force, to what I stated, so there's no question to answer__yet...

But, understanding the above is the whole enchilada__It's why it's so tricky to fathom__It takes understanding chiral fields, and magnetohydrodynamics__Gravity as repulsive force, not attractive...

Just take a bar magnet, some iron filings and a piece of white paper__see the magnet as the Sun, and place the Earth in the field proportionately close to the magnet as sun__what direction are the field lines striking the Earth from, if you could see em all...??? Old encyclopedias, at the end of the 19th century had good drawings of the Sun's electro-magnetosphere, which clearly showed what I'm trying to relay to you__but anyway, forces of gravity are repulsive forces, not attractive... They simply appear attractive... There also exist neutral areas of gravity balances, according to masses of planets and moons present, just as NASA is going to use one in deep space to place the new space telescope...

It's called Lagrangian Points, or L points...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_points

P.s.
Any bound rotation will create torque on the field...
All masses are bound rotations with torqueing rad emissions...
The larger the mass, the larger the torque force, on the field...
The chirality of bound rotational masses create torque on fields...
These forces are the same, all the way down from galaxies to particles, and back out through the fields, etc...
The entire mechanics of motion is controlled by the momentums of these inertias and chiral torqueing affects/effects...
Linear motions of field forces, upon entering stronger field masses, must become more chiral, by the conservation law of angular momentum, to conserve linear motion into angular chiral motions, torques and spins, upon entry into any more dense field or wave-particles and particle structures__and function with opposite forces on the way out, and varying masses in both directions, thus inducing gravity as a torqueing force__also...

How do ya like me now...??? From the mechanics book of a magician__me...

[Graybeard]

Greg, whatever this means to you__"What causes your 'negative constant pressure???'" Just answer this question...
?

You recently posted somewhere that you had read my 'Something from Nothing' thread from beginning to end and that it was all wrong.

Even if it was wrong, that thread was, wrongly or rightly, explaining Inflation Theory. In other words it was explaining 'negative pressure'. Thats what inflation means. So I have answered 'just that one question'

Do I post the whole thing here ?? Or do I give you links to the math of the 'Inflaton Field' ?

Or do I just say 'the Super-Cooled Higgs Field' ...

If the field has a restless urge to seek the smooth state, then once achieved, its energy value would measure zero value, and we would measure zero value if we measured its rate of change of this value. We would say metaphysically that we found 'nothing' to measure ? If we arbitrarily raised the value of the whole field uniformly, or lowered it uniformly, we would still measure zero/zero across the field. The field when still (or smooth) is contributing the least possible energy it can.

In the electro-weak theory, above 10^15 degrees this field has an average value of zero, all fundamental matter particles are mass-less and all force particles are mass-less as well. Above 10^28 degrees (grand unified Higgs) photons, gluons, W and Z particles can all be freely interchanged with no observable consequence. Total symmetry. So as the universe cools the field goes thru phase transitions that break symmetry.

Here is the base math

It is not difficult to see how accelerated expansion arises. One of Einstein's equations is d^2a/ dt^2/ a = -4 pi/ 3(P + 3p) Where a, P, p are scale factors of the universe. Its 'size', the energy density and the pressure density respectively. Notice that if the right hand side of the equation is positive, the scale factor will grow at an increasing rate: the universe's rate of growth will accelerate with time. For a Higgs field perched on a plateau ...

its pressure density turns out to be equal the negative of its energy density. ...

.. The same is true for the cosmological constant. And so the right hand side of the equation is indeed positive

cool bananas ... greg

[Graybeard]

I'm sorry ... I don't understand the PS either. I don't understand how you are using the word 'chiral'. I can't read anything into it that is saying a force is repulsive and not attractive, whatever that means.

greg

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Well, if you're trying to show inflation theory has zero meaning__you've accomplished your goal, quite readily... You did not answer the question...

Zero states of energy would mean a Universal full stop__thus requiring 'creation myths', infinite regresses and logical contradictions and impossibilities to all infinity, to ever start such a state__again__Therefore; It Fails to meet any reasonable criteria of a sensible model. Besides most physicists long ago abandoned inflation theory for these very reasons__It's math and non-logic make no sense__What-so-ever...

Lotta words and maths, with no meanings...

What you wrote in that post is so far from physical reality mechanics, it's more than a fairy-tale...

We are not gonna be able to communicate again Greg, due to your over-academic worship of ideas, with absolutely no ground base...

I don't intend to discuss big-bang and inflation nonsense, with absolutely zero foundational status...

Sorry for asking you to answer anything...

I threw that sillyness away, years ago...

[Graybeard]

Maybe I was abrupt. I apologise. I thought you would have understood what I was saying having read the thread.

I think I have answered the question of 'how' negative pressure generates and behaves. I have not answered the 'why' and perhaps thats the answer your looking for, but I don't know that.

The zero energy field, because of the uncertainty principle, has the jitters at the micro-micro-level. These jitters vary across the mean. At the ends of the Bell curve, not even that far, it becomes possible, mathematically, to describe an inflation bubble within the FS.

I don't understand the maths of how they arrive at this ... but here are some different outcomes

... if the initial inflaton field's energy density was about 10^82 grams/cm^3 so that a volume of (10^-26 cm)^3 = 10^-78 cubic centimetres would have total mass of about 10kg. These values are typical to a fairly conventional class of inflationary models, but are only meant to give you a rough sense of the numbers involved.

To give a flavour of the range of possibilities, let me note that in Andrew Linde's chaotic models of inflation, our observable universe would have emerged from an initial nugget of even smaller size, 10^-33cm across (the so called Planck length) whose energy density was even higher, about 10^94 grams/cm^3, combining to give a lower total mass of about 10^-5 grams (the so called Planck mass).

In these realisations of inflation, the initial nugget would have weighed about as much as a grain of dust.

cool bananas ... greg

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Greg, here's one more attempt to try and show you why big-bang/inflation theories are 'Creation Myths'__as thus far constructed...

Maybe I was abrupt. I apologise. I thought you would have understood what I was saying having read the thread.

Greg, it isn't a problem of what you may be saying, as you aren't saying what you personally, logically and scientifically think__You are simply repeating what others have said about the 'Creation Myths' of big-bang/inflation theories...

I want only your personally considered logical and scientific knowledge of these myths' faults, and what may correct them into sound science__Only... Any of us can parrot the existing literature and false ideas of severe incompletenesses...

I think I have answered the question of 'how' negative pressure generates and behaves. I have not answered the 'why' and perhaps thats the answer your looking for, but I don't know that.

And no, I do not want the 'Why', as we both know whys are not within the science of the issues involved. I want the exact and complete 'How' of the exact mechanics, definitions and interpretations involved...

The zero energy field, because of the uncertainty principle, has the jitters at the micro-micro-level.

This is pure pre-suppositional conjecture on your part__as there's no such entity as a 'zero energy field'__this is impossible to a Universe in eternally necessitated motion... You can not use imagination beyond logic and physical realities, in this fashion__without entering pure and totally unfounded beliefs__not allowed in scientific thought and theorizing, not even counting the physical realities of the Universe's necessities of FS-matter in motion...

These jitters vary across the mean. At the ends of the Bell curve, not even that far, it becomes possible, mathematically, to describe an inflation bubble within the FS.

Dave and I already went all through trying to use faulty mathemenatic, i.e., guage theories__to describe the Universe__Mathematics does not a Universe__Make__Ever... You must have a solid model__FIRST__to fit the mathematics into, that corresponds to all the laws of thought, logic, maths, experiments and sciences__not a correspondence to the many 'Bogus Creation Myths...'

I don't understand the maths of how they arrive at this ... but here are some different outcomes

You don't have to understand the maths__All you need is to be able to separate the impossibilities of imagination, from the soundness of truly reliable logical and scientific models...

To give a flavour of the range of possibilities, let me note that in Andrew Linde's chaotic models of inflation, our observable universe would have emerged from an initial nugget of even smaller size, 10^-33cm across (the so called Planck length) whose energy density was even higher, about 10^94 grams/cm^3, combining to give a lower total mass of about 10^-5 grams (the so called Planck mass).

In these realisations of inflation, the initial nugget would have weighed about as much as a grain of dust.

Greg, dis-engage your logical brain from your imagination just long enough to go over what I have bolded in red above. Don't you see the impossible logical, mathematical and physically scientific contradictions and impossibilities__With this 'Pure Creation Myth...???' The simple common sense of the conservation and motion Laws of Physics clearly make the above description absolutely impossible__and none of the other big-bang/inflation/emergence theories have any better ideas__Just pure and unadulterated contradictions of physics' possibilities and impossibilities of any sound logic__separated from 'Creation Myth Imaginations...'

Energy is not an entity__in and of itself__Energy is a Measurement of finer, and finer structures of "Matter In Motion"__All the way to the finest infinitesimals of the 'Hyper-Fine-Structures...'

Greg, you can't possibly physically get a Universe__the size of ours__from any of the mathematical guage models offered by presently existing physics and math__It's an absolutely impossible 'Religion...'

Try to realize, your imagination simply accepts such non-sense, due to the pre-programming of your childhood, to accept so many impossible imaginary concepts, that if you do not take the time to accurately separate those early childhood illusions from your own sound intellectual logic and truly possible sciences__it will always seduce you into believing such nonsense as exists in bolded red above...

The only way to understand sound logical science is to clear your mind of pre-suppositional acceptances of such Mythologies, of Something Coming From Something Smaller Than Itself__It don't happen, except in the world of "Creator Gods and Angels..."