The universe may not have started off with a bang after all.
Image: Pat Rawlings/SAIC
In Brief
- Einstein’s general theory of relativity says that the universe began with the big bang singularity, a moment when all the matter we see was concentrated at a single point of infinite density. But the theory does not capture the fine, quantum structure of spacetime, which limits how tightly matter can be concentrated and how strong gravity can become. To figure out what really happened, physicists need a quantum theory of gravity.
- According to one candidate for such a theory, loop quantum gravity, space is subdivided into “atoms” of volume and has a finite capacity to store matter and energy, thereby preventing true singularities from existing.
- If so, time may have extended before the bang. The prebang universe may have undergone a catastrophic implosion that reached a point of maximum density and then reversed. In short, a big crunch may have led to a big bounce and then to the big bang.
Atoms are now such a commonplace idea that it is hard to remember how radical they used to seem. When scientists first hypothesized atoms centuries ago, they despaired of ever observing anything so small, and many questioned whether the concept of atoms could even be called scientific. Gradually, however, evidence for atoms accumulated and reached a tipping point with Albert Einstein’s 1905 analysis of Brownian motion, the random jittering of dust grains in a fluid. Even then, it took another 20 years for physicists to develop a theory explaining atoms—namely, quantum mechanics—and another 30 for physicist Erwin Müller to make the first microscope images of them. Today entire industries are based on the characteristic properties of atomic matter.
Physicists’ understanding of the composition of space and time is following a similar path, but several steps behind. Just as the behavior of materials indicates that they consist of atoms, the behavior of space and time suggests that they, too, have some fine-scale structure—either a mosaic of spacetime “atoms” or some other filigree work. Material atoms are the smallest indivisible units of chemical compounds; similarly, the putative space atoms are the smallest indivisible units of distance. They are generally thought to be about 10–35 meter in size, far too tiny to be seen by today’s most powerful instruments, which probe distances as short as 10–18 meter. Consequently, many scientists question whether the concept of atomic spacetime can even be called scientific. Undeterred, other researchers are coming up with possible ways to detect such atoms indirectly.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
125 Comments
Add CommentThis article would have been timely 15 to 20 years ago, but the suggestion of a Big Bounce seems irrelevant and wrong. The subject of space atoms is current and intriguing however. Current information implies that our current universe will never stop expanding and hence cannot create a future Big Bounce. A previous universe must have had different physical laws that include no negative energy to expand the universe. This would imply that the laws of the universe changed during the bounce. There is no reason to assume that physical laws change between bounces, thus there was no previous universe. The quantum superpostion on page 51, lower left would appear to be the only reasonable start of our universe. This matches with many other theories relating to the beginning of this universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbouncing and banging seems to describe movement in black holes
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbouncing and banging seems to describe movement in black holes
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMartin Bojowald's article on "Follow the Bouncing Universe" suggests that space/time is quantized. If this is so, what is space/time? How does it expand? Does its size expand as the universe expands or is space/time continuously created so that the space/time quanta stay the same size? If the latter, where does the new space/time come from? If the former, what is the size of the space/time quanta now?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery interesting. But I don't feel that the explanation for the current movement of our universe (accelerating expansion) was sufficient imo. Is this article suggesting that because the universe is still expanding it is still "too dense" for gravity to act as an attracting force for matter over long distances? If that is true, then is there a decent guess as too what "dense" for space/time atoms is? Of coarse, all this is assuming that the universe will stop accelerating, will coast, and eventually (but slowly) begin to decelerate until it is at a standstill. Then, eventually, begin to "accelerate" in on itself (or collapse). If that is true, we obviously wouldn't be around to witness it. So, how can we possible measure or confirm this given the info we can collect today?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNonetheless, this article was very interesting.
I found the idea of a bouncing universe to be appealing, even when the author gave no explanation as to how the present acceleration will be stopped for the universe to re collapse. What is really amazing is the ability of the author to portrait the idea of the bounce in loop gravity (and the whole field for that matter) as if it was his sole idea. Isn't this a whole research program with many people involved?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBounce or crunch: it's an endless universe. It had no beginning, was not born or created. It did not arise out of nothing. The standard model of the big bang is dead, and good riddance!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you have different states of dimensions that flow in different Times (1 is lagging after the other and so on.) Which interact with each other indirectly?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf one collapses, the other dimensions will help with the origination of the new one.
We can also have different laws governing at different stages and at times have more then one set of laws working on the same area at the same time.
Remember we are infants at this new game called life we are in.
We all have much to learn, but we learn. We are all children.
If you have different states of dimensions that flow in different Times (1 is lagging after the other and so on.) Which interact with each other indirectly?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf one collapses, the other dimensions will help with the origination of the new one.
We can also have different laws governing at different stages and at times have more then one set of laws working on the same area at the same time.
Remember we are infants at this new game called life we are in.
We all have much to learn, but we learn. We are all children.
I, too, have problems correlating this "loop Quantum Gravity" theory of a bouncing universe with the observed and measured accelerating expansion of the universe as it is now. The author makes the astounding statement that "... the repulsive gravity caused space to expand at an accelerating rate." Going on, he admits that the period of expansion should have been at an "...early period..." in the formation of the universe. Are we still in such a early period that there are still "repulsive" gravity pockets around the universe? If so, that would seem to require another reversal in known physical laws, that of the constancy of the effect of gravity. If every particle of gravity is repelling every other particle at a force equal to the square of the distance between them (as would be true of a simple reversal in the attractive force), then there shouldn't be pockets where there are gravity particles still too close together to change into an attractive force. The article simply doesn't adequately address these issues. John Somerset, Birmingham, Alabama
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisihave had implosion ex plosion theory for a good while.can u tell me this problem i have ..if you put one ballon inside the other then blow them up then pop the inside one does it implode or explode....trying it with different elements?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi have a balloon theory thats simular.implosion explosion.if you stuck one balloon inside the other then pop the inside one does it implode or explode or both.depending on wot u blow the balloon up with?this would explain my exspanding uni.implosion uni at the same time .one going forward and one going backward
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree, the argument for accelerating expansion is not supported very well. Looks like ad hoc assumptions are being made to fit a loose theory with the annoying facts to make it look like a more tangible cosmology than it really is. There is a much more interesting cosmogony/cosmology at http://www.collidingstrings.org/strings.htm called "N-Ice" theory. N-Ice theory argues that the big bang was more of a "Pop-fizz," and that the accelerating expansion of the universe indicates the "fizz" part is still going on, that matter is still being introduced into the universe as it melts from the surface of a sphere of "nuclear ice" formed in a collapsar (instead of a classical singularity). It's a very interesting treatment of a black hole cosmogony that leads to daughter universes. As a bonus, the cosmogony is tied to an independently developed string theory (Colliding Corpuscular String Theory, CCST) that also quantizes space, redefines charge and gravity as corpuscular fields, and attributes mass to the recoil of charged particles interacting with the corpuscular couriers of charge and gravity, no Higgs fields required. In addition, the string theory defines the structures of approximately 30 nuclear shells. I keep hearing how string theory doesn't predict anything, but CCST makes a whole slew of testable predictions. The question is, why isn't anyone paying attention to this theory or testing its predictions? Its been around for 30 years, why hasn't anyone heard of it? -- Jim Barzydlo, (Author of CCST)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am curious as to what volume the pre-existing universe would have collapsed to before gravity became repulsive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvery time, the Lotus dwelling Brahma opens his eyes, a Universe comes into being along with its Indra, and when he closes the eye, the Universe ends and the Indra as well. You can count all the grains of sands but can not count all the Indras preceded you. So said Lord Vishnu.
From Brahmavaivrta Purana
If the universe is expanding, at an accelerating rate, how can it ever bounce back?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisat least bouncing and banging is an attempt to free gravity from one dimensional thinking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding the comments of Dr. Wagnert, I am inclined to agree that the idea of periodic big bang and big crush giving birth to a big bounce is a relatively old one. What is important however is the mathematics and as in most articles written for the wider public, there is no mathematics in Scientific American publications. Never the less the idea of space atoms, unlike what Dr. Wagnert implies, is not new either. As I understood from the article of Dr. Ambjorn and Dr. Loll from University of Utrecht, the atoms of space and time are very special kind of atoms which are called in mathematical jargon, fractal or Cantor sets. Again, from what I have read on the other site of Scientific American, the idea of modeling spacetime using these Cantor sets atoms goes back to an Egyptian scientist Mohamed El Naschie. I heard about him only recently but it would be interesting to see if his theory would support the work of Dr. Martin Bojowald. It seems a great deal of waste to create whole universes only to destroy them again. If nature behaved in this way then it is working according to the principle of maximum inefficiency. In such a universe Kant should have renamed his monumental work Critique of Pure Nonsense rather than Critique of Pure Reason. But who ever said that our universe is governed by reason. If you are in any about that just have a good look at every Head of State on this planet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding the comments of Dr. Wagnert, I am inclined to agree that the idea of periodic big bang and big crush giving birth to a big bounce is a relatively old one. What is important however is the mathematics and as in most articles written for the wider public, there is no mathematics in Scientific American publications. Never the less the idea of space atoms, unlike what Dr. Wagnert implies, is not new either. As I understood from the article of Dr. Ambjorn and Dr. Loll from University of Utrecht, the atoms of space and time are very special kind of atoms which are called in mathematical jargon, fractal or Cantor sets. Again, from what I have read on the other site of Scientific American, the idea of modeling spacetime using these Cantor sets atoms goes back to an Egyptian scientist Mohamed El Naschie. I heard about him only recently but it would be interesting to see if his theory would support the work of Dr. Martin Bojowald. It seems a great deal of waste to create whole universes only to destroy them again. If nature behaved in this way then it is working according to the principle of maximum inefficiency. In such a universe Kant should have renamed his monumental work Critique of Pure Nonsense rather than Critique of Pure Reason. But who ever said that our universe is governed by reason. If you are in any about that just have a good look at every Head of State on this planet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReason is a purely human invention. The gods (and heads of states)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdo not believe in it . The only difference is that heads of states usually only destroy but do not create. The universe is a mandala!
I am no physicist, but an architect, so I won't pretend... However, the behaviour of physical objects such as, let's say, concrete structures, under very strong pressures, such as eartquakes,where the nature of the material changes wildly from its state of repose, through is state of being subjected to intense pressure, til it collapses... For then to be rebuilt, many years later, with a different structure. Will this be a valid metaphor for this kind of transformation?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany of the posts here seem to find a problem with this article explaining why the expansion is still occuring, but unless I read it wrong, he didn't say the repulsion was still working, only that it pushed at an early stage and inertia is carrying the expansion onwards now. It sounded to me like his claim was that even when repulsion turned to attraction, the attraction was too weak to overcome the inertia, thus the expansion continues...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDid I miss something?
I might be wrong, but don't Newtons laws suggest that something put this cycle into motion. Like, was it ever at an equilibrium, a point where it was not expanding or collapsing? And if we don't throw out Newton's laws, than something (external to our universe) must have put this cycle into motion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis arrises another question, when the universe is at its most dense state, or any moment when it is collapsing, what is filling in the "space" where the universe used to be? And when it is expanding again, is it pushing on this "space", or simply expanding through it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't believe the intent of the article is to answer ALL the issues raised in comments: such as the nature of dark energy, possible eternal cycles and the ultimate fate of the universe. It addresses the quantum scale implications of the theoretical previous collapse of the universe and start of the present expansion, T.O.E will have many many parts. Emergent!
How on earth can Einstein be credited with describing the concept of an atom? Chemical formulas and even chemical structures were well established during the 19th century and had nothing to do with Einstein. Indeed, Thompson described electrons and the atomic nucleus during that century, long before Einstein. Sci Am really needs to review facts before publishing this stuff.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisneoguru - maybe YOU should check out your facts. When Eistein published his paper, atoms were considered theoretical at best. Most scientists completely dismissed the idea. Those that did not dismiss it, still had no idea how big or small these theoretical atoms might be.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEinstein was the first person to provide, based on the statistical analysis of brownian motion, an estimate of the approximate size of an atom. And was the first person to link a confounding experiemental result to a theory of atoms.
Finally, yes, elements have been known for thousands of years. Iron, copper, salt, etc. And experiments gave rise to a basic understanding of how elements would combine (mix 2 part this with 3 parts that to get 1 part so and so). Thompson knew about electrons, discovered them. But that is not the same as Atoms. You need to revisit science history, and stop assuming that just because YOU know today that electrons are part of an atom - that knowledge of electrons in that day in age meant they know all about atoms.
I must admit that I have also never heard anybody seriously claiming that Einstein discovered the atom. The atom of light, that is to say the photon, was discovered by Einstein. We have really to say rediscovered. Photon or the quanta of light was postulated long ago by Newton. However when the wave nature of light was discovered, Newtons theory of light particles was discredited. Only later with the advent of quantum mechanics did we get what is known as the wave particle duality. This is however not only characteristic of light but of all quantum particles. The entire story is well documented experimentally in the two-slit experiment with quantum particles. The resolution of this paradox constitutes part of the work of the Egyptian Mohamed El Naschie whose name was mentioned earlier on here on this site. As I understand it El Naschie was able to resolve this problem because as correctly mentioned earlier on also on this site, he discovered the atoms not of matter but of spacetime. These atoms are something considered by physicists to be esoteric mathematics. This mathematic is Cantor sets. A Cantor set normally has a dimension called Hausdorff dimension but it does not have a measure. This means it does not have a length or a volume. This seems to be crazy physically speaking but mathematically it makes a great deal of sense. And strange enough more often than not, what ever makes a great deal of mathematical sense turns out at the end to make a great deal of physical sense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was elated today to hear that Nambu, Kobayashi and Maskawa got the Nobel prize in physics for 2008. Particularly Nambu got his Nobel prize for a mathematical idea, namely symmetry breaking. Some may think that this is only mathematics but symmetry is an all embracing principle. Some may have found it also esoteric that the dimension of the exceptional Lie group E8E8 is equal to the number of massless gauge bosons in super string theory. How could we equate symmetry with particles? I do not think this is difficult after general relativity where Einstein equated matter with geometry. I think in time the unification monopole of tHooft, the E8 symmetry group of Green and Schwarz and Mohamed El Naschies Cantor sets atoms of spacetime will prove to be indispensable physical concepts although originating in mathematics. As a mathematician I can only congratulate the Nobel Committee on their choice for the 2008 Nobel prize in physics.
Nary everyday you encounter someone’s explanations of the creation and existence of everything, each and everyone have their opinions and vision of it, if you let yourself be cohered and convince of their authentic originality, without getting involved into a deeper search for a practical solution, that would satisfy you, and your opinion, of the facts, then you are at the limit’s of your ability to imaginations, or of further search.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn our conscientious state, we always look at the practical existence, without considering other facts, such as an outside interference not necessary practical but dimensional and parallel to our comprehensive nature.
You cannot be here just as a dreamer, (with the ability, to touch and see another dimension, and pass the information to someone to have it put down in writing (adding his misinformed characterization of the facts)) as it has been don before.
But you should read and understand, and question by comparing your visions with others, to sharpen your motivation to a better search and understanding.
My opinion about the big-bang is practical and to the point, the expansion of the Universe will continue until the compose state of all the atoms created by the expansion will disintegrate, the speed of the expansion will increase to over the speed of light, becoming a black hole, through which then, the disintegrated ashes will regenerate, as an organized new creation, intelligent information will not be last in the process.
Can man affect or control gravity? If so, can man affect or control time? Can the space/time units (atoms) be influenced/affected/controlled by an appilied force? If so, what force? Applied in what manner?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe more practical the developing theories the more exciting they become.
Can man affect or control gravity? Can man affect or control Time? Can the space/time units (atoms) be affected/changed/controlled by an applied force? If so, what force? How can it be applied? What is the affect of applying such force?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe more practical the developing theory, the more exciting it becomes.
Interesting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow do you explain the behavior of supernovas turning into black-holes?
If space is quantized, then during the collapse of a supernovae on its way to a singularity enough matter should be able to fill at least one quantum time/space "atom" to create the putative repulsive force. However, we have seen no evidence of exploding back-holes.
L
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur Scientific Heritage
The Hindu Cosmology and Cosmogony
The day of Brahma is the basic cycle called Kalpa. Each kalpa lasts for 4,320,000,000 years. The night of Brahma is as long as the day. 360 such days and nights form one year of Brahma. Brahmas life span lasts for 100 such years. The current kalpa, called the Varaha kalpa, is the first day of Brahmas 51st year. During the day of Brahma, creation is in its active phase. During the night there is a cosmic calm and life is at a standstill.
Each Kalpa is divided into 14 manvantaras (or secondary cycles, each lasting 306,720,000 years). In each manvantara the world is entirely recreated with a new Manu as its progenitor. Currently we are in the seventh manvantara of the kalpa and Manu Vaivasvata is its progenitor.
Each manvantara in turn contains 71 mahayugas or eons, of which 1000 form a kalpa (each lasting 4,320,000 years). Each mahayuga is further divided into four ages called yugas, namely Krta, Treta, Dvapara and Kali: the first lasting 1,728,000 years, the second 1.296,000, the third 864,000 and the last for 432,000. We are now in the 5,102nd year of the Kali Yuga of the 28th mahayuga of the 7th manvantara of the Varaha kalpa. This Yuga is said to have begun in the year of the Mahabharata war. Another reference quotes the commencement of the current kali Yuga to coincide with the day of the death of Krishna.
At the beginning of each kalpa or the Day of Brahma, when he wakes the Three Worlds (referred to often in the myths) are manifested afresh, according to the individual karma. Only the ones who passed beyond the Three Worlds in the previous kalpa are released from the cycle (nirvana, moksha). At the end of Brahmas day, the Three Worlds resolve into chaos with great floods (pralaya). The Night of Brahma, again lasting for the same 4.32 billion years, when there is no life from in the universe, follows this. Sleeping Narayana is now resting on the cosmic ocean, supported by Ananta (Infinity), the seven-hooded snake, with Brahma seated on the lotus arising from his navel. After one hundred Brahma years, the creation resolves into great chaos (mahapralaya) and a new Brahma does not appear for another hundred Brahma years.
The time span of each kalpa is remarkably close to the life span of our star, the sun, at least in terms of billions of years. Upon the death of our sun (supernova), life as we know it, comes to an end. The ancient thinkers seemed to have grasped the enormous and infinite scale of the universe and the only way to measure the scale of t
I am only a mathematician but I could answer Franks question. It was Kurt G�del who found a solution for Einsteins equation of general relativity in which there are closed time-like curves. If a time-like curve is closed that would mean that you could travel back in time. G�del is known for his work in logic. He is probably the most famous logician and mathematician of the last century. Many people do not know that G�del was actually a physicist. That is probably why he became a close friend of Einstein when they met again in Princeton. G�del is Austrian so they spoke together in German. G�del gave this paper as a present for Einsteins birthday. I read a paper by Mohamed El Naschie about G�dels theorem and chaos theory. It was published some eight years ago in the Journal of the Franklin Inst. in the USA. I also read later on another paper by the same Author published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals about the connection between G�dels theory of gravity and high energy particle physics. Now if you can control time then in a sense you can control gravity. This is born by the so called Feynman-El Naschie conjecture. It says that gravity may be equated to fractal time. That is to say the origin of gravity is in the fractal flow of time. El Naschie was inspired by the work of Feynman on the subject. Feynman said that there are similarities between van der Walles forces and gravity. These forces are due to unbalance in the equilibrium between the different molecules creating fluctuation which is perceived as a force. El Naschie reasoned that the fluctuation of fractal time has a similar effect producing gravity or more correctly, producing quantum gravity which manifests itself later on as classical gravity. I cannot remember where I read all that. It may well be on Elseviers Science Direct.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for the supernova (ABK007 comment), this is a huge explosion but in a black hole not even light could escape so I am not sure what ABK007 means. Of course, as I said, I am a mathematician and the sequence to a black hole starts from red giants to a white dwarf which cools down and starts gravitational collapse into a black hole from which even light cannot escape, as I said earlier. I hope this is helpful.
The problem that an ever expanding universe can not create a future Big Bounce may be resolved if the vacuum energy is decaying in the far future. Another possibility would be to introduce a brane component term in the FRW equation, which allows for a late time turnaround of the accelerated expansion, where the vast inflated universe fragments into individual small causal patches which deflate. This scenario has already been described in detail in the Cyclic Phantom Energy Cosmology (arXiv:hep-th/0610213). Brane domination may be relevant to the bounce, too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem of endlessly increasing entropy is resolved since each causal patch contracts essentially empty of matter and entropy.
Moreover, Bojowald's argument against an eternal (multi)universe is in agreement with the theorem of Borde, Guth and Vilenkin: In inflationary models the past is incomplete.
Loop quantum gravity, like string theory, is completely speculative. Anyone interested in quantum gravity as an explanation of cosmic evolution should first obtain a viable theory of quantum gravity. A truly viable theory would predict particle masses. Once some of those masses are predicted and verified, then it would make sense to apply the theory to the universe as a whole. That's what Einstein did--in the case of GR, he first found a theory that explained a known physical observation, and only then tried to use the theory to shed light on other physical phenomena.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have always believed that the universe is eternal, somehow, and that when the current expansion runs out of steam, motion will reverse itself and the universe will then contract to that point at which it implodes and starts all over again. Over and over for time, forever, eternity
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not a physicist, or mathematician, only a lowly electrical engineer, and long time reader. I liked the balloon analogy. Recent articles have suggested that our space time has a direction associated with time. Why not a big flip, instead of a bounce. Imagine two universes, with a different direction to time/entropy on each side of the balloon. In ours, the lowest energy state is the heat death, and the other the mono-block. Once the system reaches this state, the arrow of time flips, and the process begins again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisnt to SCIAM at editors@sciam.com almost a year ago on the 25th of October, to summarize : gravity is repulsive not attractive and works like a kind of Coand� effect . To this I would like to add that space is another form of matter and the speed of light ,although in absolute being probably infinite, is slowed down when going thru space...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Gravity is thought of as a field similar to a magnetic field, that is objects within it are attracted to each other by means of some exchange caused by a yet undiscovered "graviton" quantum. This field is assumed to be present in all of space, it is also thought to be spacetime, and matter interaction within it some kind of warping agent. But this model requires some form of exchange without friction or loss and as of today doesn't fit in a grand theory with all the other forces.
My observation is that gravity is not a field where objects are attracted to each other, rather they are pushed against each other. That is space is not empty but is a quite elastic medium with a positive pressure. This positive pressure is in all directions against the smallest form of matter. This system will appear to behave in the same way as an "attraction driven" field, the principle is simple: if you have three objects of same mass in a line and separated by respectively different distances, the object in the middle will "fall" toward the nearest one because in a positive pressure system there is more pressure between the farthest object and the one in the middle, compared to the pressure between the closest and the one in the middle. To illustrate, since nature likes to repeat itself, one can use a two dimensionnal model: that is the surface of water in a bathtub with some soap bubbles. One can then observe what I described above, and then that eventually all the bubbles migrate toward the edges, accelerating as they get closer. This system is simply reaching equilibrium just like our universe: objects are accelerating because the pressure between their origin and their present day position is bigger than the pressure remaining between them and the edges(whatever that may be) of what contains the universe . One could calculate how far away is that frontier, and how big is the vessel. But the same force allows objects to maintain their integrity locally, that is matter is not reduced to its most basic unit and pushed towards the edges in the form of a mist. Then the elasticity factor of this medium and the total size of the universe could be calculated from this."
Gravity: repulsive or attractive? (actually a bit like the Coandà effect)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI sent the following to editors@sciam.com on October 25th. 2007
"Gravity is thought of as a field similar to a magnetic field, that is objects within it are attracted to each other by means of some exchange caused by a yet undiscovered "graviton" quantum. This field is assumed to be present in all of space, it is also thought to be spacetime, and matter interaction within it some kind of warping agent. But this model requires some form of exchange without friction or loss and as of today doesn't fit in a grand theory with all the other forces.
My observation is that gravity is not a field where objects are attracted to each other, rather they are pushed against each other. That is space is not empty but is a quite elastic medium with a positive pressure. This positive pressure is in all directions against the smallest unit of matter. This system appears to behave in the same way as an "attraction driven" field, the principle is simple: if you have three objects of same mass in a line and separated by respectively different distances, the object in the middle will "fall" toward the nearest one because in a positive pressure system there is more pressure between the farthest object and the one in the middle, compared to the pressure between the closest and the one in the middle. To illustrate, since nature likes to repeat itself, one can use a two dimensionnal model: that is the surface of water in a bathtub with some soap bubbles. One can observe what I described above, and then that eventually all the bubbles migrate toward the edges, accelerating as they get closer. This system is simply reaching equilibrium just like our universe: objects are accelerating because the pressure between their origin and their present day position is bigger than the pressure remaining between them and the edges(whatever that may be) of what contains the universe . One could calculate how far away is that frontier, and how big is the vessel. But the same force allows objects to maintain their integrity locally, that is matter is not reduced to its most basic unit and pushed towards the edges in the form of a mist. Thus the elasticity factor of this medium and the total size of the universe could be calculated from this."
I would llike to add to this that I now think space is just another form of matter and that the speed of light is probably by nature infinite, but it is slowed down when going thru space.
Does this rule out the possibility of a black hole containing a singularity?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGravity as a positive pressure in space does not fit well with what I know. What does it push against? Blowing air into a tire which has a large hole in it does not allow pressure to build. What holds the gravity in the container of space allowing it to build pressure? Is not the universe expanding? How does an expanding universe hold gravity causing pressure? If gravity was a positive pressure in space, would it not be comparable on all sides of an object?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGravity is a force about which we truely know very little. They key to understanding gravity is the key to the next giant leap in knowledge of the universe.
I think the concept of gravity is the next unexplored area which should have considerable concentration.
If gravity is pressure, when the big bang or big bounce or whatever started the universe occured, would it not then be directional. Would not gravity be flowing in the direction of the expansion? Gravity seems to be non-directional when compared to the expansion of the universe. Gravity attracts objects in any direction. This does not fit with the therory of pressure as I know it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt does fit with the concept of gravity as a force. The idea of gravitry as an independant force as opposed to a state has merit. A force can be discovered and controlled.
new user
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat if our idea of gravity is all wrong? What if gravity is really the force exerted on mass by space? What if mass actually repells itself but the force of space on mass pushes it together. What if space were like a liquid, disordered and continuous; and matter was like a solid. grainy and ordered? What if "dark matter" and "dark energy" are simply facets of space; that dark matter is space and dark energy is its interaction with matter? What if the current expansion of the universe is because of the repulsive nature of matter with other matter? Since space is "no-thing", then wouldn't our only understanding of it come from it's chaos vs. matter's order? I believe that this would explain the rise of electromagnatism as having positive and negative, and also that negative attracts positive. These are all crude questions that I'm sure others have asked. What, if any, responses can be found out there?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have a hunch that the universe may follow the equation X superindex (1/X), this is an asintotic curve; when the expansion ends, the contraction is endless, as universe when crushing approaches speed of light and time becomes infinite as well as density. Salut i força al canut
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"What if space were like a liquid, disordered and continuous; and matter was like a solid. grainy and ordered?" (pandas0629). This concept does not mesh well with the concept of applying quantum principals to gravity (which the article calls the theory of Loop Quantum Gravity). The concept of space/time units (atoms) are so appealing. However, Gravity still is not fully explained. Is Gravity the attractive force which holds the space/time units together comparable to the forces which hold the units of atoms/quarks/etc together? Or is it some other concept (hopefully force) not yet postulated?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnderstanding gravity is the most likely area for a break though theory unifying the concepts of the laws of the universe.
Gravity may be a generic concept for a collection of forces much the same way years ago that both strong and weak nuclear forces were not seperated in the early stages of developing theory. It is all very interesting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe SciAms goal is to make science understandable to the literate reader who may not be a scientist or is a scientist in another field or specialty. I am afraid that goal was not attained in Martin Bojowalds article. In what follows, I will confine my remarks to what is observationally factual and what is strongly inferentially factual.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat first disquiets me is the following sentence; At such extremes, gravity acted as a repulsive force, causing space to expand; as densities moderated, gravity switched to being the attractive force we all know. Inertia has kept the expansion going to the present day. This statement is incomprehensible without mention anywhere in his article of the most important advance in cosmology in the last decade: the observation that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. Knowing this makes plausible that there would be a period, early in expansion but after inflation, that gravity would dominate, slowing the rate of expansion but ever less as the universe grew and the antigravitational force of dark energy began to grow. Finally, it would dominate to produce the acceleration we now observe. In the period when the two opposing forces were about equal in magnitude, the universe would be in a quasi inertial state, where the large units of mass (galactic clusters, for example) would be separating at constant velocity. Although Bojowald does talk of accelerating expansion, he is clearly talking about inflation, referring to cosmic inflation in an early period of acceleration .
My second complaint is linked to the first. He writes; One possible scenario is that the initial high-density state arose when a preexisting universe collapsed under the attractive force of gravity. Recursive models are not new and suffer from the flaw that the bangs and the crunches are not symmetrical. Although the Big Bang was very smooth due to inflation in an extremely early phase, the crunch if due to gravitational collapse would be very lumpy in its final stages leading to an imperfect bounce. But a more serious criticism that precludes any bounces is again accelerating expansion of the universe: current knowledge does not permit gravitational collapse which, at least for now, dooms any recursive model.
Robert G. Hughes, Jr., Houston
I believe SciAm’s goal is to make science understandable to the literate reader who may not be a scientist or is a scientist in another field or specialty. I am afraid that goal was not attained in Martin Bojowald’s article. In what follows, I will confine my remarks to what is observationally factual and what is strongly inferentially factual.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat first disquiets me is the following sentence; “At such extremes, gravity acted as a repulsive force, causing space to expand; as densities moderated, gravity switched to being the attractive force we all know. Inertia has kept the expansion going to the present day.” This statement is incomprehensible without mention anywhere in his article of the most important advance in cosmology in the last decade: the observation that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. Knowing this makes plausible that there would be a period, early in expansion but after inflation, that gravity would dominate, slowing the rate of expansion but ever less as the universe grew and the antigravitational force of dark energy began to grow. Finally, it would dominate to produce the acceleration we now observe. In the period when the two opposing forces were about equal in magnitude, the universe would be in a quasi inertial state, where the large units of mass (galactic clusters, for example) would be separating at constant velocity. Although Bojowald does talk of accelerating expansion, he is clearly talking about inflation, referring to “cosmic inflation” in “an early period of acceleration”.
My second complaint is linked to the first. He writes; “One possible scenario is that the initial high-density state arose when a preexisting universe collapsed under the attractive force of gravity.” Recursive models are not new and suffer from the flaw that the “bangs” and the “crunches” are not symmetrical. Although the Big Bang was very smooth due to inflation in an extremely early phase, the crunch if due to gravitational collapse would be very lumpy in its final stages leading to an imperfect bounce. But a more serious criticism that precludes any bounces is again accelerating expansion of the universe: current knowledge does not permit gravitational collapse which, at least for now, dooms any recursive model.
Robert G. Hughes, Jr., Houston
I believe SciAm’s goal is to make science understandable to the literate reader who may not be a scientist or is a scientist in another field or specialty. I am afraid that goal was not attained in Martin Bojowald’s article. In what follows, I will confine my remarks to what is observationally factual and what is strongly inferentially factual.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat first disquiets me is the following sentence; “At such extremes, gravity acted as a repulsive force, causing space to expand; as densities moderated, gravity switched to being the attractive force we all know. Inertia has kept the expansion going to the present day.” This statement is incomprehensible without mention anywhere in his article of the most important advance in cosmology in the last decade: the observation that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. Knowing this makes plausible that there would be a period, early in expansion but after inflation, that gravity would dominate, slowing the rate of expansion but ever less as the universe grew and the antigravitational force of dark energy began to grow. Finally, it would dominate to produce the acceleration we now observe. In the period when the two opposing forces were about equal in magnitude, the universe would be in a quasi inertial state, where the large units of mass (galactic clusters, for example) would be separating at constant velocity. Although Bojowald does talk of accelerating expansion, he is clearly talking about inflation, referring to “cosmic inflation” in “an early period of acceleration”.
My second complaint is linked to the first. He writes; “One possible scenario is that the initial high-density state arose when a preexisting universe collapsed under the attractive force of gravity.” Recursive models are not new and suffer from the flaw that the “bangs” and the “crunches” are not symmetrical. Although the Big Bang was very smooth due to inflation in an extremely early phase, the crunch if due to gravitational collapse would be very lumpy in its final stages leading to an imperfect bounce. But a more serious criticism that precludes any bounces is again accelerating expansion of the universe: current knowledge does not permit gravitational collapse which, at least for now, dooms any recursive model.
Robert G. Hughes, Jr., Houston
I believe SciAm’s goal is to make science understandable to the literate reader who may not be a scientist or is a scientist in another field or specialty. I am afraid that goal was not attained in Martin Bojowald’s article. In what follows, I will confine my remarks to what is observationally factual and what is strongly inferentially factual.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat first disquiets me is the following sentence; “At such extremes, gravity acted as a repulsive force, causing space to expand; as densities moderated, gravity switched to being the attractive force we all know. Inertia has kept the expansion going to the present day.” This statement is incomprehensible without mention anywhere in his article of the most important advance in cosmology in the last decade: the observation that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. Knowing this makes plausible that there would be a period, early in expansion but after inflation, that gravity would dominate, slowing the rate of expansion but ever less as the universe grew and the antigravitational force of dark energy began to grow. Finally, it would dominate to produce the acceleration we now observe. In the period when the two opposing forces were about equal in magnitude, the universe would be in a quasi inertial state, where the large units of mass (galactic clusters, for example) would be separating at constant velocity. Although Bojowald does talk of accelerating expansion, he is clearly talking about inflation, referring to “cosmic inflation” in “an early period of acceleration”.
My second complaint is linked to the first. He writes; “One possible scenario is that the initial high-density state arose when a preexisting universe collapsed under the attractive force of gravity.” Recursive models are not new and suffer from the flaw that the “bangs” and the “crunches” are not symmetrical. Although the Big Bang was very smooth due to inflation in an extremely early phase, the crunch if due to gravitational collapse would be very lumpy in its final stages leading to an imperfect bounce. But a more serious criticism that precludes any bounces is again accelerating expansion of the universe: current knowledge does not permit gravitational collapse which, at least for now, dooms any recursive model.
Robert G. Hughes, Jr., Houston
I believe SciAm’s goal is to make science understandable to the literate reader who may not be a scientist or is a scientist in another field or specialty. I am afraid that goal was not attained in Martin Bojowald’s article. In what follows, I will confine my remarks to what is observationally factual and what is strongly inferentially factual.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat first disquiets me is the following sentence; “At such extremes, gravity acted as a repulsive force, causing space to expand; as densities moderated, gravity switched to being the attractive force we all know. Inertia has kept the expansion going to the present day.” This statement is incomprehensible without mention anywhere in his article of the most important advance in cosmology in the last decade: the observation that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. Knowing this makes plausible that there would be a period, early in expansion but after inflation, that gravity would dominate, slowing the rate of expansion but ever less as the universe grew and the antigravitational force of dark energy began to grow. Finally, it would dominate to produce the acceleration we now observe. In the period when the two opposing forces were about equal in magnitude, the universe would be in a quasi inertial state, where the large units of mass (galactic clusters, for example) would be separating at constant velocity. Although Bojowald does talk of accelerating expansion, he is clearly talking about inflation, referring to “cosmic inflation” in “an early period of acceleration”.
My second complaint is linked to the first. He writes; “One possible scenario is that the initial high-density state arose when a preexisting universe collapsed under the attractive force of gravity.” Recursive models are not new and suffer from the flaw that the “bangs” and the “crunches” are not symmetrical. Although the Big Bang was very smooth due to inflation in an extremely early phase, the crunch if due to gravitational collapse would be very lumpy in its final stages leading to an imperfect bounce. But a more serious criticism that precludes any bounces is again accelerating expansion of the universe: current knowledge does not permit gravitational collapse which, at least for now, dooms any recursive model.
Robert G. Hughes, Jr., Houston
Im twelve and I know that bouncing and banging are two very different things, I also know that both guesses are wrong. It was God who made the universe and it took him only a week to make. He was being creative. No banging or bouncing only ***imaginating***... That's what I think...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhy do all these questions and answers have to be so complicated ? i think the more simple something is the better. also the universe does end and it is apart of something bigger . something is always made of something else , i think
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour reasoning about Newton's law is correct. Robert Franklin, Los Angeles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour comment about Newton's law is correct.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdown the brane
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMartin Bojowald is correct that space is made of quantum particles and that traditional physics does not recognize the fluidity of space.
Yet Martin also fails to imagine just how fluid space might be.
Black hole mass not only 'drains' matter and energy from our universe, it also drains space itself.
Gravity is the flow of space into mass.
In the beginning, our four dimensional universe of space (3 dimensions) and in verse time (one dimension) exploded from higher dimension (as in 'brane') at maximum temperature. At maximum temperature, all is (repulsive) energy. As energy exceeds space by spacetime constant (c2), the universe inflates beyond the speed of light.
Yet even as the universe inflates, it cools; and 'holes' in space develop as energy 'condenses' into mass as matter; first by nuclear, then by electromagnetic energy.
As mass gravity increases, mass attraction counters energy repulsion (levity), and the expansion of the universe slows to its minimal velocity.
Yet as mass further compacts, fusion returns mass and gravity to energy and levity. Thus universal expansion again and further accelerates even as space itself 'thins'.
A black hole is naked mass that drains matter and energy and space from our universe.
Matter is quantum mass bound by energy. Nuclear and electromagnetic energy filters matter even as space drains down the brane.
Gravity is the flow of space into mass.
Peace
rwj
rwjefferson states "Gravity is the flow of space into mass." He states that "Nuclear and electromagnetic energy filters matter even as space drains down the brane. " What causes the flow? Is it a force? what makes the flow happen? When I jump and then gravity brings me down how is space flowing into mass? Am I not mass flowing to mass within our brane? where does space enter into that equation? The brane is our dimensional universe and the bulk are the remaining dimensions. Even if dark matter may truely be the brane flowing into the bulk that does not explain gravity as we experience it. Isn't Gravity is more than just space flowing into mass? Or is it? Maybe there are properties of space about which we do not yet understand. It seems that gravity must be more. Maybe gravity is a term we are using for a collection of different forces which we do not yet understand. The explaination provided by rwjefferson is not yet complete.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow interesting!
In limited answer to Frank's questions:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease forgive. I am not a patent clerk.
I can only offer poor analogies and even worse poetry.
Float 'vacuum' hose nozzles in the atmosphere. Place like poles of magnets at the nozzles (eg. North). Pressure differential causes the atmosphere to flow toward the nozzles. This flow carries the nozzles toward each other. Yet at a critical point, the electromagnetic force keeps the nozzles from touching.
Label the 'vacuum hose' 'mass'; the magnets 'electromagnetic energy' the 'nozzles' 'matter'. Label the 'atmosphere' 'space' and the 'flow' 'gravity'.
The flow of space and time carries me weightless towards center of mass. Yet I feel force of 1 G by gravity and inertia. The electromagnetic force of me and chair and earth as matter easily holds the mass of me against the current of spacetime into earth. Yet even still, I do not feel the flow of space and time toward sun or galaxy center or even greatest attractor.
Pressure differential is a universal force of nature. It moves continents around the earth; blood through our veins and clouds across the sky. Why not also planets across the heavens?
That we do not fully understand the source or mechanism of spacetime pressure differential does not mean we cannot observe and measure its effects on mass.
At least to me, gravity as the force of pressure differential is much easier to understand and explain than gravity as the force of warped space.
Peace
rwj
Prof. Khory asked me to convey these comments to Scientific American:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy comments center around a single point. It is the case that either Ambjorn, Loll and Jurkiewicz work is another formulation of Mohamed El Naschie’s theory using computer simulation then they should have mentioned him and said so or it is a completely new theory reaching the same conclusion as El Naschie and then they should also have said so.
In a nutshell, and avoiding too much technical jargon the relationship between the two theories are as follows. Repeating any process again and again to come near to an end state is called iteration. Constructing a Cantor set by deleting the middle third of a line segment again and again is also an iteration. The amusing fact is that you could iterate anything and end with a Cantor set. You could iterate snakes or frogs and the limit set would be a Cantor set. El Naschie used a beautiful trick. He started from the end, namely the Cantor limit set. That way he could ignore all the highly complicated nonlinear equations leading to this set. In the language of nonlinear dynamics, he started from a universality akin to that of Mitchell Feigenbaum. I suspect El Naschie learned this trick from the well known Russian/French topologist Alexei Sossinksy who published the idea in a 1999 book Editions du Seuil-Paris, France. In fact El Naschie used the same illustration of Sossinksy in his 2002 paper Quantum loops and fat Cantor sets in transfinite high energy physics which can be found on Elsevier’s Science Direct. He combined it with Feigenbaum’s period doubling and modified it to knots doubling ramifying at a Cantor set in his Fig. 7 of his highly cited paper Elementary prerequisites for E-infinity (Recommended background readings in nonlinear dynamics, geometry and topology), 2006 again on Elsevier’s Science Direct. Then came a crucial point for the connection with the old work of Ambjorn on triangulation and Regge calculus. In his paper VAK, vacuum fluctuation and the mass spectrum of high energy particle physics, 2003 Science Direct, El Naschie gives the connection to the Klein modular curve triangular tiling. In Fig. 2 of this paper he considered both the approximate solution using Klein’s original curve and the exact transfinite solution using Klein’s compactified curve. Here comes the connection to Ambjorn’s work who at that time was not working with Renate Loll who was busy with loop quantum gravity and super strings. Ambjorn starts from an approximate solution corresponding to the non-compactified Klein original curve. Subsequently he feeds his approximately correct equation and his approximately correct geometry into a highly efficient computer. In a sense, and loosely speaking, the computer iterates the equation, at just the geometry and fractalises it until it converges slowly but surely to the exact solution of El Naschie. This effect was illustrated by many calculations many years ago by El Naschie to show that his result and the old classical Ambjorn result are related. As I have already said at that time Ambjorn did not make any reference to fractal spacetime or modeling spacetime using Cantor sets. In fact I know of many papers in which El Naschie refers to Ambjorn’s work on triangulation and indirectly drawing his attention to the fact that this is essentially a computerized fractal spacetime theory. I was only many years later that Ambjorn teamed up with R. Loll and Jurkiewicz and worked together in Utrecht, a well known Centre of Excellence. To our knowledge however only their Scientific American article was formulated in the language of El Naschie’s Cantor sets and Nottale and Ord’s fractal spacetime. By contrast the mathematics, or more accurately, the computer simulation remains the same. Of course they employed now a far more efficient modern computing but the procedure is essentially the same if we disregard their arguments about causality and the arrow of time. Many have commented about salient aspects of this work. However nothing is more surprising and revealing as a recent paper of Prof. L. Marek-Crnjac A Feynman path integral-like method for deriving the four dimensionality of spacetime from first principles, 2008 available on Science Direct. Prof. Crnjac derives the exact dimensionality 4.02 using El Naschie’s theory without a computer. I was cheered by the fact that a group calling themselves E-infinity fans posed on this site on 11.01/08 at 08.21 p.m. a rather clearly written comment attesting to the same things which I have explained here. The result 4.02 is one of the most remarkable results ever published in theoretical physics for the following reason. Ambjorn used a highly accurate numerical simulation. If 4.02 is the topological dimension of spacetime, he could have increased the accuracy and easily reached 4.0000000. This is so because any deviation from four dimensionality must be enormously small. 0.02 is not a small number compared to four. Consequently this is not a topological dimension. Second this is not the Hausdorff dimension of quantum spacetime. The exact Hausdorff dimension of quantum spacetime was calculated many years ago by Prof. S. Al Athel, the then Minister of Science & Technology of Saudi Arabia as well as Prof. Mohamed El Naschie and many others of their co-workers. Never the less 4.02 is an exact result with a definite meaning consistent with El Naschie’s theory and could be obtained only in two ways. Either by a theory which does not have a trace of continuity in it like the Cantorian theory of El Naschie or alternatively by a superbly refined computer simulation such as that published in Scientific American by Ambjorn and his co-workers. In a sense my nutshell has exploded beyond the nut and became almost a short article but my hope is that I could contribute constructively to this controversy.
Andrei Khory
I truly appreciate the reply by rwjefferson. In his reply he states "The flow of space and time carries me weightless towards center of mass. Yet I feel force of 1 G by gravity and inertia." This statement postulates that when I jump and gravity brings me down, it is the flow of space and time which carries me back to the ground. The flow of space and time therefore flows at a measurable rate. The rate at which space and time flows is not constant depending upon the size of the mass toward which it flows, i.e. the rate of flow is different on earth than on mars, since the force of gravity is different on each planet. By calculating the difference in the rates of flow and the size of the mass to which it flows, one can calculate the variable rate that mass has on the acceleration of space and time. This leads to interesting possibilities of theory. Nevertheless, it does not seem that this can be correct. There must be something more at work. If space and time flow toward mass then why do not the planets draw closer together? Are space and time being regenerated to replace the space and time being drawn towards the sun and planets? Where does the space and time end once drawn to the planet? Does it bounce off and reverse its direction? If so could we not observe it, measure it or harness it? Does it just stop? If so then what happens to the space time? Does it just accumulate? Gravity must have more properties than the flow of space and time toward mass. The universe is expanding. The flow of space and time toward mass is not intuitively obvious in this context.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf space and time flow toward mass then are space/time atoms analgous to beads in a jar. If one is in the jar surrounded by beads and jumps up off the bottom of the jar, do the beads then push him back down to the floor of the jar. if one jumps high enough to escape the jar then the beads can no longer push him down? for example a rocket leaving earth's garvity. does this mean that there are more space/time atoms (Units) near a mass. Are space/time units uniform in size and configuration? If space/time units are uniform then are there are less of them the farther you travel from a mass? Is there less time the farther you are away from a mass? Is there less space the farther you are away from a mass? Is space/time concentrated by a mass? If so what does that mean? do we consume time faster when we are next ot a mass than if we were farther away from a mass?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll very interesting
In response to [b]Frank's[/b] kind posts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" …why do not the planets draw closer together?"
Planets do indeed "draw closer together". Luna (our moon) was created when Gaia (Earth mark I) and Theia (a mars sized planet) drew just a little too close together.
"Are space and time being regenerated to replace the space and time being drawn towards the sun and planets?"
I confess I do not know all answers. However, if you look at the "foamy" structure of our universe, it seems plausible that there is something at the centers that "blows" those "foamy bubbles" – other big bangs?
Thus I am not convinced that observation supports "bounce" or "beads" over "bangs" and "quantum fluid".
"Where does the space and time end once drawn to the planet?"
Alas and again, I can only speculate. If spacetime does indeed arise from higher dimension, it seems likely (at least to me) spacetime might simply be draining back.
"The universe is expanding. The flow of space and time toward mass is not intuitively obvious in this context."
This seems to be another instance where Physics Authority (dogma) seems to overlook the (at least to me) obvious. Energy is in verse (equal and opposite) mass by spacetime constant (e=mc2 in their tongue).
By simple observation:
The natural state of mass is rest.
The natural state of energy is maximum velocity.
Mass is attraction (gravity - lower pressure).
Energy (all energy - not just "dark energy") is repulsion (levity - higher pressure).
The universe is currently converting mass into energy in stars as black holes consume spacetime.
This predicts "thinned" spacetime and increasing repulsion and acceleration of the expansion of the universe.
Consider the observed reaction of the electromagnetic fluid of atmosphere to the low pressure of a hurricane. As distance to the eye decreases, barometric pressure decreases.
I would simply predict an equivalent reaction of the quantum fluid of space to the super-massive black hole at galaxy center.
Imagine an electromagnetic fluid vortex spinning at supersonic velocity. Sound simply cannot escape the eye wall of that super-tornado.
Imagine a quantum fluid vortex spinning above light velocity. Light simply cannot escape the event horizon of that black hole.
Even if only and at least to me, this makes so much more sense than "A black hole is space warped around itself".
I confess I simply do not believe in the spooky force of warp. I confess I believe, simply and only, in actual observation.
Peace
rwj
Thank you for your response rwjefferson. It is both enlightening and interesting. The article entitled GRAVITY: STRENGTH IN WEAKNESS, CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, September 23, 2008, by Michelle Thaller (csmonitor.com) suggests that some people have postulated that gravity is spread among more than just our 4 dimensions. They postulate that gravity spreads into the bulk as well as our brane. If so, it appears that this postulate does not fit well with the theory that gravity is the pressure of space/time flowing to mass. How does that fit into the scheme of the theory that gravity is the flow of space/time into mass? What is the current theory in this light?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWithout disagreeing with Andrei Khory on any point of his admirable explanation of El Naschie’s work, I would just like to fill in some details and expand some points. First J. Ambjorn wrote two books as long ago as 1977 – Quantum Geometry, published by Cambridge Press and the second one – The geometry of dynamical triangulation, published by Springer. The Scientific American paper is mainly a polishing of what is in these two books couched in the fractal spacetime and Cantor sets general philosophy and terminology of Mohamed El Naschie, Garnet Ord and Laurent Nottale. For instance the inequality given in the Springer book on page 53 and denoted equation 3.35 could be made to an equality leading to El Naschie’s Hausdorff dimension 4.2360679. The very same result is found using the non-commutative geometry of French Field Medalist Alan Connes. On page 506 of Connes’ book – Non-commutative geometry, published by Academic Press in 1990, he gave at the bottom of the page an equation for a dimension in terms of a Lambda naught. Setting the Lambda equal the Hausdorff dimension of a random triadic Cantor set one finds the Hausdorff dimension 4.236067977. This all confirms El Naschie’s view point that 4.02 is neither the topological nor the ordinary Hausdorff dimension of fractal spacetime.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI apologize for the length of my comments in such an historic week. In his Editorial El Naschie said that America has elected science and scientific thinking when they elected Barak Obama as their President.
I respectfully request Noyes, Prof. Andrei Khory, and rhughes if they might add to the discussion between rwjefferson and myself concerning gravity. I am sure each of you has a view of gravity that will be fascinating.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you
I would not predict any difference whether our universe of four dimensions is draining back into a brane of five or a bulk of ten.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn further understanding of galaxies as relative quantum hurricanes and lowering spacetime pressure around the eye wall – I mean the event horizon; please consider this:
A jet plane at constant inertia (power setting) demonstrates increasing velocity as fluid pressure lowers. (Jets fly faster at higher altitudes). This predicts an increase in star velocity around galaxies.
Thank you again for your kind support.
As I said, I recognize I am not even qualified as patent clerk.
Peace
rwj
Not a physicist, mathematician, engineer, nor a barber...just a retired cop and I'd like to offer my theory for the creation of our cluster of galaxies. I call it The Big Slam.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've read here someone comment that nature tends to repeat itself. With that thought in mind, let's look at nature. Within our cluster of galaxies we see dramatic effects caused by gravity. Planets are in orbit around stars. Stars are in orbit around black holes. Someone not too long ago found that in the center of each galaxy there appears to be a Super Massive Black Hole. The name, Super Massive, is a little off. For now, let's call the Super Massive Black Holes, "Rising Level 1" black holes. They are RL1 because they are on our immediate plane so to speak. Thanks to you brilliant people we have seen that in nature galaxies tend to collide with one another forming new galaxies.
I believe that our cluster of galaxies are in orbit around a larger black hole, one I like to call a Rising Level 2 Black Hole. Our RL2 black hole's gravity is causing the acceleration of some galaxies within our cluster as they move closer to the RL2 and our cluster of galaxies are not exactly expanding, but rather are in orbit.
Like galaxies formed by RL1 black holes, so are clusters of galaxies formed by RL2 black holes. The RL2 clusters are in orbit around RL3s and so on and so on. This leads way to some very old life out there, which too is fun to think about.
Wouldn't it make sense that with nature tending to repeat itself, like galaxies crashing into each other, then clusters of galaxies slam into each other from time to time? I think this is what formed our cluster of galaxies. Isn't this much more simple and consistent with nature as we know it?
Thank you for taking the time to read my comment.
Fred the Former Fuzz
If Gravity is the flow of space/time units toward mass then why does an object on earth in sealed contatiner still experience the effects of gravity? The obvious reply is that the units of space/time are so small that they travel through the atoms of the container and apply force to its contents. If so, then don't they also travel though the atoms of the object inside the container? How do they apply force to the object inside the container if they travel through it? If they travel through an object then by what method do they exert force on it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf they travel through the atoms creating the container then do they not also travel through the atoms of the earth to its center? Once they reach the center of a mass then where do they go? Do they accumulate? Every mass has a certain amount of gravity. In the center of any mass, large or small, (such as our bodies) do the space/time units leave the brane into the bulk? If space/time units just stop when reaching the center of a mass then do they continue to exist at that place? If space time units do not stop then where do they go? If once they reach the center of the earth do they travel on to another location? If so would they not exert a force on a object in the direction of their new travel comparable to the force of gravity?
It seams to me that gravity can not be just the travel of space/time atoms toward mass.
The big bounce idea is an interesting one and obviously with some merit. I think that scientists should consider the idea that the universe may have formed from a "preexisting" cosmos. It becomes the background for universes to develop and would not rule out either a big bounce or a big bang. I have outlined a model for this and it is in my book "CONNECT with Planet Earth".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbut how does it relate to m-theory?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFascinating theory indeed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjess
www.internet-anonymity.net.tc
[b]Frank:[/b]
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGravitons are not the same as 'atoms' in the classical sense. Please consider gravitons as 'quantum atoms'. Gravitons are infinitesimal in size; classical atoms made of quarks are a magnitude greater in size.
The diameter of the holes in spacetime (mass) isolated by strong nuclear force (quarks) might be only slightly larger than the diameter of individual gravitons. After all, gravity is a very, very weak force.
Very few gravitons might be affected by the mass of the container. Most would flow unimpeded into the mass of earth.
That no one knows where matter and energy (and spacetime) goes when it enters a (quantum size) black hole in our universe does not mean it is not lost to our universe.
No matter the understanding of the actual mechanism, please consider the following predictions of flow of spacetime into mass and energy as repulsion.
Observation:
A ship that that encounters a headwind is blown off predicted course.
Prediction:
A spaceship that encounters a cosmic headwind will be blown off course (as predicted by warp of space).
Observation:
Pioneer and Voyager spaceships do not follow the course predicted by spooky force of warp. The courses of Pioneer and Voyager spaceships follow an anomalous course as if impeded by a cosmic headwind.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080229-spacecraft-anomaly.html
Observation:
Light shows property of repulsion.
Experiment:
Focus a beam of light on the moon.
Prediction:
If photons are neutral, the beam will focus as predicted by Newton.
If photons carry force of mass-gravity (attraction), the beam will be even more tightly focused than predicted.
If photons carry force of energy-levity (repulsion), the beam will diverge.
Observation:
Even focused coherent (laser) beams diverge by 2.5 km on the moon's surface.
This observation is consistent with the prediction that photons carry force of levity (repulsion).
http://www.osa-opn.org/Blog/post/2008/03/Image-of-the-near-side-of-the-moon-taken-by-the-Clementine-mission.aspx
Prediction:
If photons carry force of levity (repulsion), a mirror will react with measurable displacement to a beam of light.
Experiment:
Project photons against a mirror.
Observation:
Energy (light) exerts a measurable force as pressure against mirror.
I would indeed appreciate if someone with Physics Authority might simply explain these contradictions to scientific dogma.
Peace
rwj
Is quantum theory not just incompatible with the picture of a four( or 10 or 11 or 26)-dimensional "monolithic" universe. The only things we are fairly sure of, are data gathered during recent past decades. According to quantum theory, the remote past (billions of years ago ) can only be "determined" with a certain very small probability; All this talk about the origin of the universe is in quantum terms pure nonsense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUNIFIED FIELD = NULLIFIED FIELD
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a proposal for cosmologists who are in the line of thought with Alan Guth, who says that a universe without a beginning is like a universe without an explanation.
Since the gravitational field has negative energy and compensates the positive energy of the other three fields, rendering a universe with zero total energy, and since gravity is curved spacetime, wouldn't that imply that the very first deunification of the fundamental forces is indeed the very birth of spacetime, that is, of the universe?
It has been determined the last two moments of separation between the forces: first, the decay of the so called grand unified field into the strong nuclear field and the electroweak field, and, shortly after, the decay of the electroweak field into the weak nuclear field and the electromagnetic field. But it is always assumed that the separation between gravity and the grand unified field took place a little earlier, within a preexisting universe, and with a truly unified field taking time and space to exist and then to decay, ignoring the fact that gravity as such (already separated) is the structure of spacetime.
The truly unified field must be a nullification of all energy, without any space or time whatsoever. It is the absolute nothing. But, since this is a perfectly symmetric state and has no time to exist, it immediately decays into something, that is, everything. And all of this without creating energy from nothing.
I suppose that the mathematics behind this idea can be worked out, rendering at last a truly ex nihilo cosmos.
Looking forward for some answers,
Ernesto Gvz Santana
Mexico City
Though I am far from an expert, didn't Hawking suggest the force behind the slowing and eventual reversal of the universe's expansion was black holes? As black holes collide, they begin to "suck" in the universe until it begins to reverse itself. That would be consistent with the bounce theory, no?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf gravity is the flow of space/time units toward mass then when space/time units reach the center of the mass toward which they are flowing what happens? Do they just stop? Do they travel somewhere else? do they convert into someother thing? It does not seem that gravity can be the flow of space/time units toward mass.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGravitons however are not space/time units. If gravitons are numerous enough to push me towards the ground as the earth spins, the momentum of which would throw me into outerspace without their affect, then there must be a tremendous number of them. There must be such huge numbers that their force pushes on each of the parts of the atoms within my body. Since the atoms of my body, and the individual parts of each atom, are so small, there is not much area upon which they can apply force. It is postulated that Gravitons are even smaller than quarks because we have yet to detect them. Therefore it must take a great many gravitons to push upon even the smallest part of the atoms in my body. This implies that gravitons must be closely packed together inorder for enough of them to impact the parts of the atoms of my body. Since they are so small and so tightly packed they must be distributed through all matter, my body and the earth. How does such a tightly packed unit push on an object through which it spreads? It must not be stationary. If it were stationary then an object saturated by it would not experience the energy transfer of the push towards the earth. The staturation level should be the greater on the ground than one inch off the ground. It may be that each mass attracts as many gravitons as it can hold. If so, then there is a limit on how many gravitons a mass can attract and hold. There must be a ratio or a predetermined formula for how many gravitons a measured amount of mass can hold. If so, then when I jump the gravitons saturating my body are disturbed by the force of my lift and try to restore themselves to their prior state of greater compaction pushing me towards the earth. It seems that gravity is the flow of gravitons toward mass not space time units. Gravitons seeking the maximum compaction which the mass can hold causes the force of gravity. If I am in the way of the gravitons seeking the maximum concentration for the mass (earth) then I experience the force of the gravitons flowing toward the greater mass. Why gravitons are attracted to mass the becomes the question. Any answers?
rosey444
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCurrent observation indicates that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating, not slowing.
This raises the question - "How did a big bounce create the extra energy to prevent another contraction and bounce?"
Peace
rwj
In response to Frank in Illinois at 09:47 AM on 11/21/08
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPredictions that acceleration as gravity is warp of space are contradicted again and again by observation and simple algebra.
Observations are consistent with spacetime as relative quantum fluid.
I was amazed that a recent Discovery Channel program on Einstein actually showed an animation of a man jumping off a building and being carried toward earth by the flow of spacetime. Yet the narrating physicists still did not recognize the truth in the animation; still continued talking about gravity as spooky warp of spacetime.
f (as i)=ma demonstrates force (as inertia) as acceleration
e=mc2, m=e/c2 demonstrates energy is the inverse (equal and opposite) of mass by spacetime constant.
This is not the same force as acceleration.
Simple algebra demonstrates inverse force (as gravity) as acceleration of spacetime.
f (as g)=(e/c2)a,
g=(e/c2)a
gravity is acceleration of spacetime.
Newton did not imagine space or time as fluid.
Einstein did not imagine space as fluid.
Again I would suggest mass is simply a 'hole' in spacetime.
That we do not know where mass and energy and spacetime goes when it enters a black hole does not change the observation that it is gone from our universe.
Again I would suggest that spacetime might simply return to where it was before it exploded with the big bang.
I would simply suggest that velocity of mass is propagated by quantum relative space as is velocity of energy.
Observation of spacecraft and galaxies and the universe is consistent with spacetime 'draining' through mass.
Observation of light is consistent with all energy being 'repulsive'.
I am still waiting for an Advanced Physicist to demonstrate different.
Peace
rwj
The attraction of gravitons toward mass diminishes with distance from the mass. For example, the force of gravity is less the farther one rises off the surface of the earth until the force of gravity is negligible and one is weightless. Therefore, the urge of gravitons to flow toward a mass diminishes with distance. Whatever property causes gravitons to flow toward mass is distance sensitive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisElectro-Magnetism is distance sensitive. Are the mechanisms of transfer comparable? If one were to create mass from energy in space where gravitons are fewer, how long before enough gravitons accumulate near enough to the mass to create the effects of gravity?
If gravitons are attracted to mass as presumed then that attraction could be varied, controlled, affected if we gain an understanding of how they function.
It seems that the vibrating strings, circles, “y”s and strands which appear to be the basic building blocks, aggregate in certain states of existence and fail to aggregate in other states of existence. Is it the manner in which they vibrate which is determinative of their properties and their reulting desire to aggregate? Or is it the shape, size, configuration, color or some other factor which determines their properties and desitre to aggregate? In any event, gravitons seem to be attracted to mass.
Gravitons are not the same as space/time units. All particles and all energy are interchangeable. (E=MC2) Are energy and mass different configurations of the same universal strings or are strings of mass different than strings of energy or is energy a different state than mass and therefore does not have strings?
Spave/time units are postulated to be a foamy cell like phenomenon. Is it made of the same Strings? Is it ,for example, a lattice of strings with emptyness between the gaps? If all the universe were made of the same thing (strings in different states and therefore with different properties) there is a symmetry to existance. It could then be said that all matter, mass, all energy and all the universe is one giant glob of viberating strings in motion.
In the series of movies called “The Matrix” at some point in time, the main character no longer sees the images of people and objects while in the matrix. He begins to see them as a stream of numbers in a computer program. Can we now see ourselves, the world, and the universe not as objects and space but as a complex assortment of vibrating strings in motion?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRWJefferson and any others interested:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have authored a unified theory of energy which explains gravity and all other forces. It explains the universe and the forces within it. It is too long to post here. I will send it to anyone who requests it. I know it is presumptuous to author such a paper and even more so to think that anyone would want to read it, however, with humility, I make this offer in case someone has interest. If you wish to read it please email me at: fbyers@fhblaw.com.
Thank you.
daniel shen is gay
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, im gay
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow does one reconcile the bouncing universe with the law of conservation of mass/energy?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow does one reconcile the "bouncing universe" with the law of conservation of mass/energy? It looks like a perpetual motion machine!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not necessarily using the classical definition of graviton. I am using the term graviton to represent the quantum-mediated units of space/time as I would use the term molecule to represent the electromagnetic-mediated units of atmosphere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat has been postulated by Physics Authority is designed to support the warped fabric of space hypothesis.
It is not widely publicized, but in by 3Dland, Physics dogma holds the vortex of a bathtub drain is warped water wrapped around itself.
Consider a hyper-tornado. At its center is an area of ultra-low pressure. Around this area is a vortex spinning at velocity greater than speed of sound. Within this event-horizon, not even sound can escape.
So it is with a black hole and light.
Peace
rwj
Rather than Big Bounce, I think a Waxing & Waning universe is what you are talking about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are wrong when you claim that our sun will end in a supernova. A supernova requires a much greater mass than our sun possesses. I don't know anything about the rest of the stuff you talk about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh wow heh finally i am 26 years old. and something i thought up when i was 16 is concidered theory.... Jeez i guess i need to say something. or someone else will figure it out 1st.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps i should tell you Space and time are two differnt things at one point in the timeline of the universe. (pre big bang Space-time does not exist) only space, time,and Gravity. gravity Being Gravitons the smallest particle of matter.
I wish i could goto collage to prove it with mathmatics but its just the man keeping me down :P
Big Bang, Big Boom, Popa Pump........... Love It !!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe universe is expanding, the universe is contracting, perhaps at the same time ? are the particles of the universe vibrating at a decelerating frequency to the point where the opposite occurs and vice versa ?, thus creating a new begining and a new end at random points in the same mass.......
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnce upon a time, 20 billions of years ago, all matter
(all elementary particles and all quarks and their
girlfriends- antiparticles and antiquarks, all kinds of waves:
electromagnetic, gravitational, muons… gluons field ….. etc.)
was assembled in a “single point”.
What had surrounded the “single point”?
The answer is : EMPTINESS- NOTHING….!!!
Ok!
But why does everyone speak about EMPTINESS- NOTHING
in common phrases rather than in specific, concrete terms?
I wonder why nobody has written down this EMPTINESS- NOTHING
by the form of a physical formula ? You see, every schoolboy knows that
is possible to express the EMPTINESS- NOTHING condition
by the formula T=0K.
#
Once there was a “Big Bang”.
But in what space had the Big Bang taken place
and in what space was the matter of the Big Bang distributed?
Not in T=0K?
It is clear, that only in EMPTINESS, NOTHING, only in T=0K.
#
Now consider that the Universe, as an absolute frame of reference is
in a condition of T = 2,7K (rests relic radiation of the Big Bang ).
But, the relic radiation is extended and in the future will change
and its temperature will decrease. What temperature can this radiation
reach? Not T=0K?
Hence, if we go into the past or into the present or into the future,
we can not escape from EMPTINESS- NOTHING: T=0K.
2.
Detected material mass of the matter in the Universe is so small
(the average density of all substance in the Universe is
approximately p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that the gravitation law
doesn't work. The Newton/ Einstein's gravitation laws are correct
only in the local parts of Vacuum. The Universe / Vacuum as a
whole is endless. But when this Infinity comes nobody knows
what to do with the infinity. Our tiny minds cannot get a handle
on its size, so we try to give it shapes and boundaries, all of
which is folly. Therefore was invented "dark matter" and
another abstract, ineffective objects.
But to our happiness the Infinite Vacuum has one physical
parameter- the temperature. The temperature of the Infinite
Vacuum is concrete, real fact. It is T=0K.
3.
About the theory of “Big Bang” is written many thick
(very thick) books. But nobody writes about the
reason of the “Big Bang”. Nobody knows it.
I know.
The action, when the God compresses all Universe
into his palm, we have named " a singular point".
And action, when the God opens his palm,
we have named the "Big Bang".
============ . .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
http://www.socratus.com
http://www.wbabin.net
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=2548
================..
Black hole and Big bang.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this============== ....
1.
A black hole is a theoretical region of space in which the
gravitational field is so powerful that nothing can escape.
2.
Hawking Radiation theorizes that black holes do not,
in fact, absorb all matter absolutely; they give off some
return matter.
3.
Once upon a time, 20 billions of years ago, all matter
(all elementary particles and all quarks and their
girlfriends- antiparticles and antiquarks, all kinds of
waves: electromagnetic, gravitational, muons…
gluons field ….. etc.) – was assembled in a ‘single point ‘
The reason of this unity is gravitational force.
4.
How does this ‘single point ‘ created if the matter
can escape from any strong gravitational force?
============ . .
#
Do you know the reason why all the present universe
collapse in a Big Bang to an origin ?
#
The reason is.
The action, when the God compresses all Universe
into his palm, we have named " a singular point".
And action, when the God opens his palm,
we have named the "Big Bang".
And do you know what God do with his other hand?
No?
I also don’t know. Why?
Because this knowledge is prohibit by Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
====================== . .
============================= . .
Matter and ‘dark matter.’
Fact and Speculation.
=========.
1.
Fact.
The detected material mass of the matter in the Universe is so small
(the average density of all substance in the Universe is approximately
p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that it cannot ‘close’ the Universe and therefore
our Universe as whole is ‘open’, endless.
But what to do with the infinite Universe the physicists don't know.
The concept of infinite/ eternal means nothing
to a scientists. They do not understand how they could
draw any real, concrete conclusions from this characteristic.
A notions of ‘more, less, equally, similar’ could not
be conformed to a word infinity or eternity.
The Infinity/Eternity is something, that has no borders,
has no discontinuity; it could not be compared to anything.
Considering so, scientists came to conclusion that the
infinity/eternity defies to a physical and mathematical definition
and cannot be considered in real processes.
Therefore they have proclaimed the strict requirement
(on a level of censor of the law):
« If we want that the theory would be correct,
the infinity/eternity should be eliminated ».
Thus they direct all their mathematical abilities,
all intellectual energy to the elimination of infinity.
Therefore they invented an abstract ‘dark matter and dark energy’.
They say: ‘ 90% or more of the matter in the Universe is unseen.’
And nobody knows what it is.
2.
Speculation.
Unknown ‘dark matter ‘ it is matter which makes up the difference
between observed mass of a galaxies and calculated mass……
which….will …’close ‘ ….the Universe, as …….
as……the astrophysicists want.
========================== . .
#
God has to be a real fool to think
that the >99% Hidden Universe
has no control of his <1% Visible Universe. And if he
knew this then he would not be a god but a physicist.
And if he was a smart physicist he would be laughing
at just how much less than 1% a universe really needs
to appear really real.
/ O'no. /
#.
The Dark Matter is another official dogma of our astronomy.
/ V. H. Vergon. /
#
Dark energy, this mysterious stuff in the vacuum of space
which makes the universe want to accelerate, is the basis
for standard cosmology today because it explains much
of what we see.
/ Research by Dr David Wiltshire, from
New Zealand's University of Canterbury /.
#
Dark Energy may be Vacuum
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-01/uoc-dem011607.php
============ . .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=2548
http://www.socratus.com
http://www.wbabin.net/comments/sadovnik.htm
http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Scientists&tab1=Display&id=1372
========== . ===========
.
i agree with wagnert but i think there were previous universe`s and soon to be universes also i also think that the earth started out as a big lump of nothing and as gases and chemical reactions started occuring in Outer Space that they made what we now call earth and all the millions of possible planets in the universe. i also beleve that there are "extraterristle"(dont care if i didnt spell it right im only 12) life in the milky way and god knows where else were just a little speck on the universe`s billboard.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDuring the inflationary period of the Big Bang (BB) space itself inflated from a point as small as a proton and the stuff that would become protons and such rapidly expanded in size as well. Physicists run this progression backwards and proclaim that the proton-sized universe must have been incredibly hot and dense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot so. Remember that space itself is shrinking as we roll back the BB inflationary period, all yardsticks are shrinking, and an observer in the middle of the process would see that due to physical laws actually changing the universe disappears. All the stars and galaxies in the night sky would collapse to a single point that would be incredibly blue shifted as we rush towards it. Even as we get to this tiny little blue point it shrinks away leaving us alone in a very cold and dark universe.
Effectively this observer is seeing the universe become colder and more orderly, which is low entropy. After the Big Rip (BR) at the end of time when dark energy causes the runaway expansion of the universe, we also end up in a low entropy situation because an observer the size of a quark or a neutrino would see nothing else. The universe is opaque because everything is so far away light doesn't arrive from other stuff. Pre-BB and post-BR, both low entropy, very lonely universes.
We should probably just dispose of trying to think about "expansion" and "contraction" because those terms only unnecessarily confuse the situation. What an observer actually sees are physical laws and constants apparently changing around him or her, creating the appearance of scale change. Our present universe may be as high entropy as things can get, if we understand that the entropy of living creatures and supercomputers has to be defined much differently than the entropy of a volume of gas. The new definition must encompass information as basically a form of potential energy.
An easy way to mathematically quantize spacetime is to understand that irrational numbers like pi (3.14159. . .and phi 1.61803. . .or the fine structure constant 1/137 are derived from the geometry of a flat universe. In warped space these constants may change, even become rational numbers (or not, maybe space quantization at the Planck scale forbids that.) At small scales the local space of a micro-state may not be flat and "flatness" may just be an alternative mathematical way of expressing the foaminess of empty space at extremely small scales.
We are at the center of the universe we can see and can empirically verify. We are the only "observers" in sight.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTitle: Grand Unification Through A Quantum Theory Of Gravity Auther: Andrew J. Hendricks
Comments: 2 pages
Subj-class: Space Physics
Please allow me to begin with a short digression about an author of one of my childhood
science books, explaining how some early scientists didn't believe in the presence of oxygen
because they couldn't see it, what would chemistry be today if oxygen had never been
acknowledged? The most brilliant people in the world haven't been able to unify the forces,
certainly not for lack of intelligence, it was because they always began with insufficient information. A permanent structure can not be completed without a solid foundation,
change is inevitable, but just how much change will surprise you.
We know that groups of molecules and energy under the right conditions create what we
know as a critical mass and explode outwards in all directions. These explosions can and
have occurred on many different scales, the vast size of some may be hard to comprehend,
creating many different sizes and shapes of existing molecules and their basic components,
energy and mass all traveling outwards from the initiating force, creating pressure from the
inside of the event pushing outward. Utilizing the law of inertia, the outside of the
expanding particulate would want to stay at rest. The particulate closest to the center of the
event pushing on all existing particulate creating different pressures, graduating stronger at
points closer to the center, to weaker at the outer edge of the expanding events. These
explosions create asymmetrical particulate much smaller than what we know as "atomic
structures" also creating residual pressure, these smaller particles (field particles) make up
most of the known universe in what is thought of as the void of outer space, all in
pressurized contact with each of its surrounding particles.
Field particles transmit all wave lengths of energy, consistent with a rack of billiard balls
transmitting energy almost instantaneously, except in a omni-directional manner. Energy
can not travel as waves though nothing.
Energy cannot be destroyed or created, only its form altered, I found this statement to be
very interesting, it involves energy changing form. Energy could not decide what to create
next, therefore another source must dictate the outcome. That source is non spherical or an
asymmetrical mass or particle, interrupting the directional flow of energy through field
particles. As energy waves circumfluent larger, surrounded, non spherical particles, some of
the energy must be placed into a feedback loop, continually orbiting indefinitely around an
inner particle or particles as long as there is an energy feed or until the particle or particles
change shape, canceling the energy system. If the same energy were to travel around a
spherical shape, all energy would reach the back at the same time canceling the potential
orbiting of energy. The direction energy travels and orbit frequency is dictated by the shape and size of the surrounding particles and the shape of the surrounded particle or particles.
It is the direction that the orbiting energy travels that dictates the outcome of the energy
creating a quantum form as mass. Different shaped particles coalesce in different densities
forming different elements, the same shape particles coalescing in the same manner every
time to create the same element.
The manner in which particles coalesce is created by energy orbits traveling in opposite directions at the point of approach and the finite frequency of the orbiting energy, as the two particles or masses meet the energy at the point of approach will try to assume one another's orbits, creating a weakness in the static barrier at the point of approach allowing field pressure from opposing sides to push the two structures together, the two separate orbits of energy becoming one, excess energy being cast away. In the opposite effect, if the two particles or masses had orbiting energy traveling in the same direction at the point of approach, the energy would be projected back towards approaching structures creating a repulsive effect. This explains the basic principles of molecular cohesion and magnetism.
With molecular cohesion proceeding from micro to macro the same principle is still in effect,
with the energy system being relative to the size of the mass and the redistributed pressure
from the displacement of surrounding smaller field particles also energy release from the
mass and surrounding energy sources. it is the redistributed pressure that facilitates orbit in
masses. Gravity is similar to the sum of factors in an equation. Gravity is not an elemental
force, it is an outcome of circumstances created by the pressurized particle field.
In masses different shaped particles coalesce in different densities and decay at different
rates, facilitating the regulation of energy release. If the outside of the mass is too dense for
the trapped energy on the inside to be released and the pressure from the field particulate
collapsed the outer surface, an explosive force would be necessary to stabilize the event and
the process begins again.
Has anyone here seen this video?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV6aQbnHSRo
Coincidence?
omg, my previous post looks like spam.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's a short film about the Big Bang.
K
Einstein had the answers but he died before he could finish the math. E=MC 2 is also MC 2=E. When atoms in stars decompose into photon particles the photons re-assemble back into atoms (dark matter). It is a never ending cycle. What Edwin Hubble observed is slowing of light over long distances creating a false Doppler shift. The universe is swirling at random. Once enough matter collects, it becomes a new star restarting the cycle. None of it gets so big as to consume everything. Alfred Herman Schrader
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe big quest has been, where does gravity come from ? Well, I found it - the graviton particle. It creates gravity & inertia by simply bumping into things. All atoms have graviton particles in orbit around them. Some of the graviton orbits are incredibly large. Gravitons move at velocities in excess of 10,000 times the speed of light and yes I know what Einstein said, that nothing can go faster than light. Everyone said nothing can go faster than the speed of sound also..Alfred Herman Schrader
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe it's akin to the effects of compression in a nuclear bomb. I might be entirely wrong as I am not a PhD. But isn't it the forced implosion that gives the nuclear bomb its initial burst of power?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" implosion that reached a point of maximum density and then reversed" This is not a begining of the universe.It's like fa man became skinny and the fat again.The begining of the universe will be known when we find where the information in the universe came from.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" a catastrophic implosion that reached a point of maximum density and then reversed" This is not a begining of the universe but something like a fat man became skinny and then fat again.We don't know nothing about where the information in the unverse came from and that's what makes any theory useless.Nothing would move in the universe if this theory was correct.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisis it possible that our universe came from a pulsar? Does pulsar has the characteristic like what einstein's relativity theory is trying to implicate?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs it possible that a particle attraction is being caused by magnetic fields and not by gravity?
I believe that everything is connected, man has much things to learn, and God will provide the knowledge and wisdom! If we just believe!
Coz we all know that our SUN and mother EARTH are not permanent. This could be our chance to seek for refuge and find another world for the continuing existence of our kind.
With hopes and dreams to explore the universe, we should ask first permission from its CREATOR.
:)
http://www.stresscure.com/hrn/einstein.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thischeck it out!!! Very inspiring article.
FGJHVKMHVM
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<a href="http://paris.getgoing.no/">Paris Hotell</a>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the begining there was no thing, the nothingness began to rotate, zero point was achieved by the creation of rotation, from there to gravatational surface upon the face of the deep. So great was all of uncreation that the force of gravitation collapsed into itself like the greatest black hole of them all , then like the explussion of gamma burst from black holes all mass was extruded in whar we reffer to as the big bang. I'm supprised Stephen Hawkins didn't come up with this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the begining there was nothing, the nothingness began to rotate, zero point was achieved by the creation of rotation, from there to gravatational surface upon the face of the deep. So great was all of uncreation that the force of gravitation collapsed into itself like the greatest black hole of them all , then like the explussion of gamma burst from black holes all mass was extruded in what we refer to as the big bang. I'm supprised Stephen Hawkins didn't come up with this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNICE
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is NO GOD PARTICLE..When material goes into a "Black hole" it is reinvented in another dimension posibbly combined or connected to all or other black hole collecting "existance itself" then there would be the so called "Big bangs" possibly happening all the time in parrallel universe's Like a funnel on its side connected to another funnel on it's side with the "black hole" between them ...one side sucking "Existance"Into it depositing it into a "New existance" or "Big bang"...on the other side .This theory made perfect sense to me as the combined circle of existance and matter coming into or being "Born of nothing" Or "The creation theory"...Maybe everything is not created ..rather re-cycled...? or perhaps on many demensions and plains of existance...?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA bouncing big bang is part of the newly introduced "Twin-Tori cosmological Model". Either the big bang, or the bouncing big bang are a "deceptive appearance" in this new model. New quantum-gravity, other than loop-quantum-gravity, will reveal much more fundamental issues of the universe, which has the signature of a double torus of dark energy and dark matter. The dark energy torus is enclosing this dark matter torus and intertwines it. At this moment the new quntum-gravity for the Twin-Tori Model is stiil in a secret-state of developement. The basic papers are already published in the viXra-archive. However, a chronology of the developements and a few pre-announcement are made on the promotion website www.darkfieldnavigator.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFROM HOME RESEARCH GROUP--- Dr. Durgadas Datta has published a theory of gravitoethertons and balloon inside balloon theory in ASTRONOMY.NET in year 2002 which has been the torch bearer in modern theories of universe on particularly cyclic big bounce and ether=gravity=dark energy theory . Please read those theories in --durgadas datta face book --where links available.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRecent observation is proving balloon inside balloon theory of DURGADAS DATTA. Expansion at outer periphery is is not uniform but having kicks at some points That is due to antimatter location non uniform pull. Steady expansion is due to inflow of gravitoethertons and in addition this localised pulls causing accelerated expansion. Black hole is impossible as gravity is not pull but push of gravitoethertons. READ BALLOON INSIDE BALLOON THEORY OF DURGADAS DATTA PUBLISHED IN ASTRONOMY.NET IN YEAR 2002.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho is to say for a certainty that the universe is not respirating? After all, our science is completely dependent on the device of extrapolation. Couple that with observations that include the capturing of light from the outer regions over the last few centuries alone, and we are still guessing at best. Even the measurment of heat in space is tenuous due to the former device, and evidence slim due to the later. How do we know the universe doesn't expand and contract on such elongated time frames our puny accumulation of evidential reality remains askew? Extrapolation does not take into account the difference between fact and fiction: fiction must make sense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Einstein’s general theory of relativity says that the universe began with the big bang singularity, a moment when all the matter we see was concentrated at a single point of infinite density." This statement is incorrect. Einstein did not describe the Big Bang but in fact added the Cosmological Constant to negate his math that suggested either an expanding or contracting Universe. He later stated that adding this constant was "his biggest blunder". Even removing the Constant may also be a blunder since vacuum energy or similar force created by expansion of the vacuum may be the source of Dark Energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA cyclic universe that bounces between expansion and contraction is wishful thinking. (I am surprized that Hawkins even published this thought; even had time running backwards!!!) It is hard for humans to conceive of a one time Universe that started from essentially nothingness and expands forever as even protons are ripped apart by Dark Energy. We would like something like our current existance to last forever even if we do not.
parrallel universe
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisif we had a parallel universe
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswould it also have energy and gravity
is your dark matter and dark energy from a parallel universe?
This update is added in order is to address a recent sophisticated yet simultaneously clumsy attempt to try to discredit the Theory of the Big Bang/Big Crunch Infinite Cycle of the Universe and to render confusion in a paper and book by Stephen Hawking crony, Robert Penrose, plus some political updating:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaterialist Analysis of Theoretical Astrophysics
The Capitalist Dictatorship Deliberately Falsifies Basic Science!
Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, Wendy Freedman, Dennis
Overbye, Nicholas Wade, Brian Greene, etc. Are Exposed as Liars!
Self-Described Neo-Creationists Hawking and Kaku Are
Leading a Takeover Attempt of Theoretical Astrophysics!
Today basic medicine, science including climatology, astrophysics and even both Einstein’s Special Theory and General Theory of Relativity are brazenly and routinely falsified at the direction of genuinely Fascist elements for political/religious reasons. These scientifically fabricated and bizarre distortions are mixed in with some actual science and are passed off as “the new science” in exhaustive mesmerizing falsifications lasting for hours on NOVA, FRONTLINE, National Geographic Channel, CUNY TV, “Discovery Channel” and even the so-called “History Channel.” There is also a simultaneous attempt to create a sense of panic in order to help generate the Mass Psychology of Crisis based on falsely claimed imminent threats from space from rogue asteroids to Stephen Hawking’s alarmist claim of future invasions by inevitably hostile space aliens. See section below on UFOs and Extraterrestrial Life. In addition, the above-mentioned so-called “cosmologists” publish an endless stream of books, videos and magazine and newspaper articles, not to mention the new textbooks, to try to popularize their fiction and pass it off as good coin. The media, including the science media is simply a privatized arm of the U.S. “intelligence agency,” an actual army of legions of professional liars in every area of politics and academic discipline and includes even so-called “comedians” working in service to the capitalist dictatorship of millionaires and billionaires. The U.S. media is very similar to Blackwater, Dyncorp, Custer Battles and Triple Canopy, etc. the armed military contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, except that the media has always been privatized. Can you say Total Brainwash of the youth? Not to mention the adult population! Note that Stephen Hawking and Michio Kaku, who are leading the takeover attempt of theoretical astrophysics and “cosmology,” now both openly describe themselves as neo-creationist/”intelligent design” advocates and are campaigning through their statements to make neo-creationism the default belief taught in schools, colleges and universities! (See below.) Although Hawking simultaneously tries to deny this all his statements are contrived to lead to the same “conclusion.” The title and contents of Hawking’s book: “The Grand Design” is an example.
There is also a maximal attempt to confuse the masses in order to keep them susceptible to the constant stream of lies originating from NASA and the U.S. government. These lies include but are not limited to multiple false theories of the origin of life which include: 1.) so-called “panspermia,” 2.) evolution of life from submarine vents and now preposterously 3.) hypothetical civilizations based on arsenic (!) not phosphorus, all of which are fully disproved below. NASA first threatened to ram through a revisit of the Moon and a Mars mission before Obama under some public pressure temporarily cancelled the Moon and Mars ventures and made asteroids the first priority in order to lay the groundwork for an asteroid fear campaign to help reinforce the Mass Psychology of Crisis partially achieved by the “War on Terror,” complete with multiple U.S.-government-assisted and/or instigated mass provocations. U.S. “intelligence” has increased the number of these provocations in order to manipulate support for the Final Stage of Capitalism: Permanent War and State Terrorism! See below. There is also no possibility that a manned trip to Mars would ever return. Rocketry is a primitive form of space travel and there is no acknowledged attempt of efforts to develop the nuclear powered electromagnetic anti-gravity engine used by so-called UFOs, which are documented to have visited the Earth for Millennia. Such “space missions” along with “Supply-Side Economics” and the $4.7 trillion bank bailouts (!), are another fraudulent pretext to divert money from social spending and to decrease the U.S. living standard in accordance with Globalism, while trying simultaneously to try to boost U.S. patriotism from its nadir. The widespread academic opposition to these far-ranging falsifications of science in order to manipulate the public consciousness is never given equal time! We demand and will take some time to refute the U.S.-led capitalist dictatorship’s lies.
The Capitalist Dictatorship’s Attempt to Falsify the
Age of the Universe to Help Provide False Belief in “god”
The capitalists have tried to falsify the actual age of the Universe and the infinite cycle of a Big Bang followed by a Big Crunch, meaning a closed rather than an open Universe, because the reality of a closed Universe does not fit with the religious brainwash of a single creation and belief in a supernatural fictitious “god.” (The statecraft of capitalism’s alliance with religion and belief in “god” and other superstition is exposed further below.) The reality is that the process of contraction of the Universe began soon after the Big Bang, which began the process of expansion. The process of contraction began with the first condensations of gas after the Big Bang. At first the process of expansion was dominant, but the processes of expansion and contraction exist simultaneously from shortly after the Big Bang until finally the process of contraction becomes dominant and all galactic matter is finally drawn into Supermassive Black Holes, which today form the centers of all spiral galaxies and elliptical galaxies in the process of becoming spiral galaxies. These Supermassive Black Holes, which are growing larger continuously, finally link up all existing matter of the Universe at one spot, one huge super-maximal Black Hole known as the Singularity in the Big Crunch, at which time Critical Mass in the true and ultimate sense is reached for another Big Bang Cycle and the beginning of another Universe. This analysis clearly and conclusively demonstrates that THERE WAS NO “MOMENT OF CREATION” because all the matter for this Universe already existed in its pure nuclear form in the Singularity from a previous Big Crunch which preceded the Big Bang which began our present Universe. And the origin of matter is PROVED to be an unknowable. (See below.) This is the ONLY explanation which fits the facts! See below for comment on Roger Penrose and his recently published paper and book where he invents a highly contrived but easily disproved counter “theory” to the Big Bang Big Crunch Cycle of the Universe in order to try to discredit the cyclic nature of the Universe.
Ninety-five Percent of Matter in the Universe Exists in the Form of Energy According
To Einstein’s Formula E=mc2! Black Holes Completely Reverse that Relationship and
Solve the Equation for Mass: m=E/c2 thus Supplying the so-called “Missing Mass”!
The critical mass density required for the Big Crunch to occur is 1 x 10 to the negative 29th of a gram per cubic centimeter (approximately 5 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter), according to the calculation from the General Theory of Relativity, which predicted Black Holes. Neutrinos are now known to have mass which may be sufficient to supply the supposed “missing mass.” (See below.) But probably even more significant is the recent paper in Science, November 21, 2008, (Vol. 322, 5905:1198-1199 and 1124-1127), which shows that 95% of matter in the Universe exists in the form of energy according to Einstein’s formula E=mc2. This relationship would reverse in a Black Hole and the so-called “missing mass” would gradually appear as the contraction of the Universe allowed the energy-mass relationship to shift so that in a practical and real sense Einstein’s formula would be solved for mass: m=E/c2. Though the authors of the paper fail to draw this conclusion that is the inescapable significance of those papers. See below. The fact that the expansion and contraction of the Universe occur simultaneously is one more example of the Law of Unity of Opposites, the Second Law of Dialectical and Historical Materialism and demonstrates the correctness of the scientific philosophy of Dialectical and Historical Materialism, as opposed to the false philosophies of idealism and metaphysics, which are the only philosophies permitted to be seriously taught in U.S. colleges and universities, and which form the underlying basis for all phony “cosmological” theory! See further below!
Black Holes Rotate on an Axis and Have
Mass and a Size, which Can Be Calculated!
In addition, in the Big Crunch matter most certainly does NOT collapse to “less than the size of a single molecule,” a totally ridiculous assertion by the so-called “string theorists” (see below) designed to try to discredit the Theory of the Big Bang/Big Crunch Cycle of the Universe. The Black Hole in the center of the Milky Way Galaxy is 15 million miles in diameter—not “the size of a single molecule”! Black Holes are formed exclusively of condensed nuclear material; protons and neutrons (composed of quarks) and electrons (composed of leptons) devoid of their orbits and all motion, all collapsed together. The end point of all matter in the Big Crunch is a Single Black Hole, the so-called “Singularity.” The size of the final “Singularity” which forms prior to the Big Bang would thus be quite large because it must contain all the nuclear material in the entire Universe. All Black Holes have the same mass density, which is said to be infinite, and which vary only in actual mass depending on how many stars and how much nuclear material they contain. The only difference is the difference in mass, which is constantly increasing as matter changes from its energy form when entering a Black Hole. See above cited article in Nature, November 21, 2008. Note that while some of the information provided below may appear to be somewhat technical it is necessary for any subsequent challenges which might be made of this dialectical and historical materialist analysis. An educated reader should be able to understand most of it and follow for the most part the explanations, which have in turn vast political implications. A few key references are provided and the reader can research the area independently.
Black Holes have mass and size just as neutron stars (pulsars) also have mass!! All Black Holes, both Stellar Black Holes and Supermassive Black Holes (the result of combination of millions of solar masses) which form the center of evolving elliptical galaxies and all spiral galaxies, also rotate extremely rapidly just like neutron stars, some of which are estimated to be only 8 to 20 miles in diameter, and rotate in 1.4 milliseconds to 30 seconds! Black Holes rotate as fast or faster. All stars rotate on a central axis to some degree due to the angular momentum of gas approaching the center of the proto-star prior to the ignition of hydrogen fusion. In other words the gravitational collapse of gas in star formation is not uniform just as its opposite, an explosion such as the Big Bang is not uniform. When the radius of the star is reduced drastically in stellar collapse the angular momentum remains the same but the momentum of inertia is sharply reduced. The standard example is that of a figure skater spinning with outstretched arms who speeds up by pulling in his/her arms. Black Holes are formed from the collapse of the largest Blue Giant stars 5 to 20 or more solar masses. Neutron stars are formed from the explosion of stars with 1.35 to 2.1 solar masses in a Type II, Type Ib or Type Ic supernova explosion. The rapid rotation of Supermassive Black Holes is in fact the reason Spiral Galaxies exist in the flattened disk form they do with spiral arms—because of the huge gravitational force exerted by the rapid rotation of Supermassive Black Holes which form their galactic centers! As mentioned this fact is entirely covered up and denied by the phony NASA “scientists” on television, e.g., National Geographic TV. As the rotating Supermassive Black Hole in the galactic center gradually increases in size through accumulation/accretion of more stellar material and gas, the early elliptical galaxies, in the process of becoming a spiral galaxies, begin to flatten due to the rapid rotation of the Supermassive Black Hole in their center which causes the flattening. It should also be noted that as would be expected there exist a high number of stellar black holes in the galactic center drawn by their strong gravitational fields on their way to join the central Supermassive Black Hole. According to observations of the Chandra X-Ray Telescope released in a July 16, 2005 report there are 10,000 stellar black holes along with numerous neutron stars orbiting the Supermassive Black Hole in the center of our own Milky Way Galaxy, officially designated Sagittarius A (SGR A)! The Supermassive Black Hole at the center of the Milky Way has a mass of 3.7 million solar masses. The largest known Supermassive Black Hole in the OJ 287 Quasar contains 18 billion solar masses!
The spiral arms comprised of outlying stars are formed by the combination of the gravitational force coming from the rapidly rotating galactic center and the relative gravitational attraction of one outlying star to another based on their actual distances from one another. As the outlying stars approach neighboring stars due to gravity this leaves other areas where stars are much less concentrated giving rise to the appearance of usually 2 major spiral arms originating from each end of the central bar often found in the galactic center, as well as several minor spiral arms, all of which are actually in the process of being gradually drawn inexorably toward the galactic center. The gravitational force of the Black Hole, the mass of which is steadily increasing, gradually overcomes the outward centrifugal force caused by its rapid rotation. Central bars form after the Supermassive Black Hole in the center of a large spiral galaxy reaches a certain size and are therefore found more prevalently in more massive galaxies where the required mass is reached sooner. Central bars form when stellar orbits in a spiral galaxy become unstable and deviate from a circular path. The tiny elongations in the stars' orbits grow and become locked into place, forming a bar. The bar becomes even stronger as it locks more and more of these elongated orbits into place. Eventually a high fraction of the stars in the galaxy's inner region join the bar. The galactic center thus attracts both gas and stars. This concentration of gas at the center of spiral galaxies does result in the formation of new stars but does not represent the primary or original source of star formation, which occurs in the beginning of formation of galaxies from gravitational condensation and collapse of primordial gas clouds. The central bars draw a large amount of gas towards the galactic center, fueling this new star formation, building central bulges of stars, and feeding the Supermassive central Black Hole. The formation of a bar may be one of the last stages in the evolution of a spiral galaxy prior to its eventual total collapse entirely into its central Supermassive Black Hole.
Information Overload by NASA and U.S. Government Propagandists is used to Distract
Focus Away from the Significance and Central Role Black Holes Play in the Process
Of Contraction of the Universe which Finally Becomes Dominant in the Big Crunch!
In the interest of accuracy it is also important to mention that this information is being misused by NASA and other U.S. government propagandists to try to distract from and obscure the significance of black holes and the central role black holes play in the process of contraction of the Universe, which ultimately becomes dominant over the simultaneous process of expansion. First, it is a fact that matter generally enters a black hole through a combination of both gravitation and magnetism. Matter in the accretion disk, which spins around the black hole, can only enter the black hole after it loses its angular momentum. The inertia of the material in the accretion disk keeps it spiraling in a disk rather than falling straight into the black hole. The inertia in turn is due to the mass of the material in the disc and the gravitational field caused by the extremely rapid rotation of the black hole itself. An accretion disc is a rotating disk of gas, dust and other matter that may form around any of a variety of stars or other massive objects from protostars to white dwarfs to neutron stars to stellar black holes and Supermassive Black Holes and even quasars (see below). While the accretion disc of a young star or protostar usually contains dust which later consolidates or accretes to form planets and other objects, the accretion disk of a black hole, which may also contain stars, feeds matter directly into the black hole.
According to a report in the July 22, 2006 Nature, and another 2008 paper by F. Casse Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 50 124020 (9pp) confirming the 1973 theory of Starobinsky and Churilov, the spinning gas in an accretion disc generates its own magnetic field which powers a wind of charged particles directed away from the black hole. The wind of charged particles transfers angular momentum from the inner regions of the disk outward in a twin jet phenomenon perpendicular to the plane of the accretion disk allowing angular momentum to be conserved, meaning to remain balanced or constant. This transfer of angular momentum outward slows down the spinning gas near the center, allowing gravitation to draw matter into the black hole. The magnetic field also causes turbulence and friction to build up within the disk. The friction heats up the gas to millions of degrees, causing it to glow brilliantly in the ultraviolet and X-ray bands. In Supermassive Black Holes large jets of plasma flow away from the accretion disc perpendicular to its center at almost the speed of light. These jets of plasma travel outward along the magnetic field lines which are twisted by the rotating accretion disk. It should be noted that the material which flows outward in the jets represents only a tiny amount of material extracted from the accretion disk. (Plasma, which is found in the accretion disk closest to the black hole, is a partially ionized gas, where a certain proportion of electrons are free, not being bound to atoms or molecules, unlike the gas form of matter. This permits electrical conduction of magnetic fields. Plasma is considered the fourth state of matter in addition to solid, gas and liquid.
Redshift Measurement of Quasars puts
The Age of the Universe at 28 Billion Years!
The process where matter enters a black hole from its accretion disk may be greatly expanded during the formation of quasars where a Supermassive Black Hole at a galactic Center accretes a huge amount of matter in the order of billions of stars. When two black holes combine or a stellar black hole enters a Supermassive Black Hole in a galactic center the process causes the emission of radio waves and even visible light. When hundreds of millions to billions of stars and enormous amounts of gas first combine to create a Supermassive Black Hole in the center of a galaxy the energy released is exponentially increased and is known as a quasar. In a quasar this radiation is emitted across the entire spectrum almost equally, from X-rays to the far-infrared with a peak in the ultraviolet-optical bands, with some quasars also being strong sources of radio emission and of gamma-rays. Quasars are the most visibly luminous objects in the Universe and are also the strongest energy source in the Universe. A quasar is simply an accelerated process of formation of a Supermassive Black Hole in an early galaxy. The release of gravitational energy by matter falling towards a massive black hole in the formation of a quasar is the only process known that can produce such high power continuously, energy far greater than the fusion process which powers stars. Quasars easily outshine their host galaxies. (The light we see is from the huge superheated accretion disk, which is greatly enlarged due to the high density of matter in such galaxies. Stellar explosions such as Supernovas and gamma-ray bursts can create the same level of energy, but only for a few minutes. Gamma ray bursts are generated by hypernova, which are simply very large supernova, the collapse of a stars with masses 100 to 200 times that of the sun. Contrary to the lies designed to create confusion, which appear on the National Geographic so-called Discovery Channel “How the Universe Works” programs, not all early galaxies possessed enough mass to produce a quasar. There is no evidence for example, that the Milky Way Galaxy, as claimed by Micho Kaku & Co. was a quasar! The Supermassive Black Hole at its center is far too small! And the mass extinction on Earth 440-450 million years ago was undoubtedly NOT caused by a gamma ray burst from a hypernova, but from the continental drift of a large landmass (Gondwana) into the south polar region causing a global temperature drop, glaciation and lowering of sea level which destroyed 60% of habitats around the continental shelves at a time when all life was confined to the seas and oceans. Evidence documenting this was found in deposits in the Sahara Desert.
All observed quasar spectra have red shifts between 0.06 and 6.5. Applying Hubble's law to these red shifts, it can be shown that they are between 780 million and 28 billion light-years away, a measurement which is NOT due to gravitational lensing, although this has been reported for some extremely bright quasars. This is proof that the Universe itself is at least 28 billion years old! So the most recent “estimates” of the Hubble Constant and the actual age of the Universe by NASA, Wendy Freedman and company and the media (a privatized arm of the U.S. “intelligence community”) are obviously TOTALLY FALSE! (See below.) The process of quasar formation occurred regularly in the early Universe in the formation of galaxies with huge densely concentrated gas and stars. It should be obvious that the first galaxies to form in the Universe generally contained the highest volume and concentration of gas, which in turn created the highest concentration and densities of stars. The Supermassive Black Holes at the center of those early galaxies became quasars. Galaxies without such high densities of matter develop more along the lines of our own Milky Way Galaxy and Andromeda, for example. Formation of galaxies is still occurring but generally they do not become quasars because the volume and density of gas is insufficient. An exception is 3C 273 in the constellation Virgo which is only 33 light years away with a luminosity equal to 2 trillion times that of our sun or about 100 times the total light of the Milky Way. Their discovery by Maarten Schmidt in 1967 was early strong evidence against the totally discredited steady state theory of Fred Hoyle, and in favor of the Big Bang Theory. Blazers, incidentally are the same as quasars but have their perpendicular jets in direct alignment with our galaxy, while quasars have their jets pointed away in another direction.
As part of the escalating campaign of Big Lies, in March 2009 NASA made the totally disingenuous statement on a National Geographic Channel so-called “Naked Science” show that “while black holes are associated with galaxies we (who we?) do not yet know what that relationship is!” (!) And on May 17, 2010, Michelle Thaler of NASA disingenuously stated: “We do not know which comes first the galaxy or the Black Hole” (!) and further falsely stated that when 2 spiral galaxies collide the result is an elliptical galaxy “which does not spin!” This is another Big Lie and demonstrates a very systematized structure of lies. The truth is that the elliptical galaxy in this case is only a temporary structure. The Black Holes, which drove the 2 colliding spiral galaxies, combine and a larger spiral galaxy is formed. The motive for that feigned ignorance/Big Lie by the misnamed “intelligence community” is to try to obscure the documented reality that the matter of all galaxies is entering black holes as part of the ongoing contraction of the Universe, which begins shortly after the Big Bang and takes places simultaneously with the process of expansion and finally becomes dominant. As explained herein expansion of the Universe has slowed down enormously since the Big Bang and will be overtaken by the process of contraction until all mass in the Universe has again entered the final Black Hole, the so-called final Singularity in the Big Crunch. At that point there will be another Big Bang and another Universe will begin. In addition, NASA and other government propagandists have attempted to overemphasize the accretion disk/jet phenomenon and the huge energy produced as matter enters a black hole or quasar, almost to make it appear that black holes and quasars are “expelling” matter as much as drawing it in, virtually standing black holes on their head and falsely ascribing all sorts of false “observations” to black holes, in order to divert focus from the primary role of black holes as the mechanism or engine of contraction of the Universe and the beginning of the Big Crunch!
One example is the false claim by the fraudster, James Geach, hyped in the July 7, 2009 New York Times by the determined “intelligence community” propagandist Dennis Overbye, that black holes fueled so-called Lyman alpha “blobs,” glowing clouds of gas in the early universe. But that lie was immediately refuted with the obvious explanation that cold gas streaming into a protogalaxy would heat up and glow from the gravitational energy alone! (See: “Lyman Alpha Blobs as an Observational Signature of Cold Accretion Streams into Galaxies” by Mark Dijkstra and Abraham Loeb, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, June 5, 2009.) These fraudulent NASA/U.S. government propagandists hope that most viewers know absolutely nothing and will believe virtually anything that they are told by someone claiming to be a “scientist” or “professor” and that most people will not do their own research, or will remain at least confused and vulnerable to their next bizarre fantastical claim. That is why the information which appears here should be forwarded by email and networked in every possible way nationally and internationally in order to counter the U.S. capitalist dictatorship’s Big Lies. The objective of the capitalist dictatorship is to render the population more susceptible to their lies in every area including politics and economics, which also have little to no basis in reality. The capitalist dictatorship also resorts to the come on of “naked science” in order to try to sex-up their Big Lie propaganda in theoretical astrophysics, while simultaneously presenting some truthful “Naked Science” reports in other areas and in other National Geographic programs in order to help their Big Lies blend in.
In response to the heavy push on the so-called “History Channel,” etc. it should be noted that the Theory of the Big Bang was first proposed by Georges-Henri Lemaître, who had both a PhD in physics and was an ordained priest. Lemaître studied at the University of Leuven, the University of Cambridge, Harvard and MIT. The little read report was first published in 1927 in the Annales de la Société Scientifique de Bruxelles (Annals of the Scientific Society of Brussels) and later in Nature: G. Lemaître, The Beginning of the World from the Point of View of Quantum Theory, Nature” 127 (1931), n. 3210, pp. 706. Lemaître called it “the hypothesis of Primeval Atom” and also referred to it as "the Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of the creation," with the word “creation” obviously reflecting his religious bias. As explained above the Universe did not originate from a single point less than the size of a single molecule as falsely proposed by the string theorists, who now are pushing Lemaître. As explained above the end point of all matter in the Big Crunch is a Single Black Hole, the so-called “Singularity.” As mentioned all Black Holes have the same mass density, which is said to be infinite, and which vary only in actual mass depending on how many stars and how much nuclear material they contain. The only difference is the difference in mass, which is constantly increasing as matter changes from its energy form when entering a Black Hole according to m=E/c2, Einstein’s formula from the Special Theory solved for mass. See cited article in Nature, November 21, 2008. The Singularity contains the combined mass of all nuclear material from all stars and gas in the Universe. The designation: “Big Bang Theory” first derived from a derogatory reference to the theory of an expanding Universe by Fred Hoyle on the BBC in March 1949 over 20 years after it was first proposed. The truth as explained above and herein is that the processes of expansion and contraction of the Universe coexist from shortly after the Big Bang until finally the process of contraction becomes dominant and there is a Big Crunch followed by another Big Bang and formation of another Universe.
It is a fact that Lemaître applied Albert Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity to Cosmology, but was NOT a spearhead of religion supposedly leading physics as Lemaître is presently falsely being portrayed on the so-called “History Channel.” Lemaître also preceded Edwin Hubble in deriving what became known as Hubble’s Law and even calculated the Hubble Constant but was not able to prove the linear relation which Hubble did in 1929. Lemaître has rarely been given the credit he is due for first proposing the Big Bang Theory for 3 reasons: 1.) The theory of an expanding Universe was opposed at the time he first proposed it by Einstein and others, 2.) For political-religious reasons explained herein the capitalist dictatorship has always opposed the Big Bang Theory because the natural logic of a Big Bang implies a Big Crunch and a cyclic nature of the Universe rather than a single creation which leaves the most room for “a creator” and 3.) U.S. nationalism/jingoism, where the U.S. capitalist dictatorship always prefers that whenever possible credit be given to an American. Edwin Hubble was an American lawyer. Although Lemaître had received numerous Belgian and international scientific honors only recently have the capitalists been pushing Lemaître in order to focus on the fact that he was a priest and that his theory speaks of a moment of “creation.” The so-called “History Channel” focuses on this language in an attempt to inject the sophisticated form of neo-creationism/intelligent design also espoused by Francis Collins, Obama’s new choice for head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). See below. Both Michio Kaku and Stephen Hawking have also now identified themselves as neo-creationists/”intelligent design” advocates! See below.
The Hubble Constant is a calculation of the speed at which the Universe is expanding and is crucial in calculating the age of the Universe. Four methods have been used to estimate the Hubble Constant and age of the Universe. The most recent method employed by Allan R. Sandage, et al measures: 1.) the distances to Type 1a Supernovae explosions in distant galaxies and then 2.) confirms those measurements by comparing the relative luminosities of Cepheid variable stars as so-called “standard candles,” while Wendy Freedman’s NASA team uses Cepheid Variable stars alone, which is a lot less accurate. Freedman’s method especially is an easy method in which to either err or to deliberately falsify results as she and her NASA team have clearly done. (See below.) The typical errors in calculating the Hubble Constant include: 1.) “the universal, yet unjustified Period-Luminosity relation of Cepheid (variable stars), 2.) neglect of selection bias in magnitude-limited samples or 3.) the errors which are inherent to the adopted models, which cause most values of the Hubble Constant and corresponding estimates of the age of the Universe to be incorrect as explained in detail in the most comprehensive review which has yet been published, which also includes the Sandage team’s most recent calculation of the Hubble Constant to date of 62.3 +or–1.3, which is based on measurements to 279 galaxies: “The expansion field: the value of the Hubble Constant,” by G.A Tammann, A. Sandage and B. Reindl, Astron Astrophys Rev (2008), 8 July 2008, 15:289-331, DOI 10.1007/s00159-800-9912-y. ((Allan Sandage died on November 13, 2010.)
This value of the Hubble Constant corresponds to an age of the Universe of approximately 13.7 billion years, which should be sufficient to permit the Big Crunch. However even this method of calculation of the Hubble Constant, which as exhaustively explained and documented by Allan Sandage et al, is fraught with potential errors cited above, which Sandage takes account of and systematically avoids. As mentioned above Wendy Freedman and Co. on the other hand use only Cepheid variable stars in their “calculations” and deliberately include faulty (fraudulent) data in their calculations as explained to this writer personally by Allan Sandage, therefore making Freedman & Co.’s method of determination of the Hubble Constant even easier to falsify. Such data is systematically excluded by Sandage, et al., as explained above. In response to the withering but suppressed critique by Sandage et al, known primarily only to other astrophysicists who follow these matters, Freedman has published a slew of pathetic papers addressing such topics as “correction of errors involving optical extragalactic background light (EBL), sampling-induced errors, magnitude errors, and random and optimal sampling,” etc. where she always comes up with ridiculously high (fraudulent) values for the Hubble Constant. Fraudulent data was necessary for Freedman & Co. to reinvent the entirely fictitious so-called “dark energy,” Einstein’s “Cosmological Constant,” (“My greatest blunder!” See below), which is declared to be “the opposite of gravity” and which has no scientific explanation whatsoever, but is falsely proffered as “the reason” the capitalist dictatorship and its media (and textbook) propagandists now falsely state that the expansion of the Universe has unexplainably “speeded up,” a “finding” which violates all previous findings not to mention all known rules of physics including the General Theory of Relativity! In other words this finding is totally invented, totally fabricated, a Big Lie to end all Big Lies! All designed to achieve the political-religious-propagandistic objective of a single “genesis.” See below. Legitimate opposing viewpoints are simply ignored and in practice not permitted to be heard! How jolly!
Regarding the most recent results given above for the Hubble Constant, this writer would still prefer to accept Sandage’s previous calculation of 55 +or-5, which has been repeatedly established in papers from 1975, 1982, 1986, 1990 and 1995, although it may certainly be possible that the 62.3 +or-1.3 value is the most accurate and it is certainly can be argued that 55 +or-5 is not that far removed from the new figure. The reason for this caution is that Allan Sandage was 82 years old at publication and although he was 100% intellectually intact and in control of all of his faculties his name is listed second in the above paper indicating that he himself may not have collected the data used in the calculation giving 62.3 +or-1.3 for the Hubble Constant. This writer has not spoken or corresponded with the other members of his team, as this writer has, with Allan Sandage. Sandages’s team also often includes A. Saha who was not included in the above paper, so this writer can not rule out alteration of the raw data to give a falsely high Hubble Constant by certain personnel who might be bribed by the NASA forces in charge of the Key Project, which was set up determined to achieve a certain result come hell or high water. This issue is important enough to the capitalist dictatorship so that they would leave no stone unturned to tweak the results in their direction for reasons explained further below. In addition, we are reminded that the Redshift of some quasars actually puts the age of the Universe at 28 billion years! See above. Because of this fact and previous calculations of the age of the oldest stars which are in a similar range, it can not be ruled out that the computer program used for collecting light data from stars from modern telescopes in the “Key Project” may have been written in such a way as to deliberately give false values in order to increase the Hubble Constant and thereby reduce the age of the Universe as calculated by the “standard candles” method.
The U.S. so-called “intelligence community” organized the so-called “Key Project” in order to cover up the cyclic nature of the Universe from Big Bang to Big Crunch. The Hubble Space Telescope (HST) was built primarily for the “Key Project.” This is an important point. The capitalist dictatorship chose Wendy Freedman to lead the project rather than the obvious choice, Allan Sandage, the legendary, most preeminent and world-renowned astrophysicist as well as the number one authority on the Hubble Constant along with his internationally renowned group of astrophysicist colleagues. See above. The reason was that Sandage’s studies up to that point had shown the Universe to be “between 14 and 18 billion years old, depending on what is assumed about the mass of the Universe.” This corresponds to a Hubble Constant, which he and colleagues had repeatedly calculated to be 55 +or-5 as cited above. An older age and smaller Hubble Constant, of course, would mean that the Universe contained easily enough matter to permit the Big Crunch, which is the key point the capitalist propagandists want to discredit because that would rule out a single creation and make the existence of a god, for which there is no scientific evidence whatsoever, even more unlikely! This is the actual statecraft behind the “Key Project.” (See further below.)
Freedman’s initial claim that the Universe was only 8 billion years old was obviously fraudulent, as have been all of her subsequent “estimations.” All of Freedman’s estimations of the age of the Universe and the Hubble Constant have been designed to try to fraudulently invalidate (!) the Big Bang, the Big Crunch especially and the cyclic nature of the Universe in particular. The preposterous claim of an 8 billion year age is a direct attack on the Big Bang, which has been verified worldwide. In her initial unrestrained enthusiasm to falsify and misinterpret her own data (see above) Freedman forgot about the 1.) Red shift discovered by Edwin Hubble (see below) and 2.) the detection of the cosmic microwave background radiation, which is the residual effect of the Big Bang both of which exist as irrefutable evidence for the Big Bang origin of the Universe! In January 2003 Freedman was made the Director of the Carnegie Observatories located in Pasadena, California where Allan Sandage works thereby placing her above him as a maneuver to make her fraudulent estimates of the Hubble Constant appear more authoritative in the public eye!
Note that even AFTER the 1965 discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation by Penzias and Wilson and its confirmation by the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite in 1989 that its measurement produced a curve precisely matching a Planck curve, which most scientists have accepted as proof that the radiation is indeed from the beginning of the universe, the capitalist dictatorship has still made efforts to continue to try to deny the existence of the Big Bang, even publishing books with 466 pages (!) attacking the Big Bang such as the 1991 rubbish: “The Big Bang Never Happened” (!) by the totally discredited Eric Lerner. Anyone using simple inductive reasoning would immediately begin to smell a rat! Since the capitalist dictatorship and its media have not been able to refute the Big Bang they have now focused all their efforts in trying to refute the Big Crunch. The capitalist dictatorship has a long history of political meddling and sabotage in virtually all fields of scientific and medical research and a history of using scientific advances against the masses in order to control them and also to reduce the population according to their own perceived needs, e.g. from Bio-warfare to Bio-fuels (through enforced starvation, falsely portrayed as seeking “energy independence” and “clean energy.”).
NASA Propagandists Have Now Concocted the Fraudulent “theory of the
Big Rip” In Order to Try to Counter the Reality of the Big Crunch and
The Information which Appears Here now Found All Over the Internet!
NASA in a new propaganda blitz using their standard Big Lie technique in order to try to refute the information, which appears here and all over the Internet, has pushed back hard with the totally discredited claims on the National Geographic Channel beginning in March 2009 that 1.) “dark matter” forms a supposed “filamentous superstructure” of the universe from the very beginning of the Big Bang until the present 2.) the fictitious “dark energy” will supposedly eventually “become so strong” that it will overcome all 4 primary forces including the strong force, which holds quarks and gluons together to form protons, neutrons and other particles, so that that the entire Universe will then supposedly “fly apart ripping apart galaxies, stars, planets and eventually every speck of matter in a fantastical end to time” in what the fraudulent propagandist Robert Caldwell describes as “the Big Rip.” This is also known as the theory of the flat universe. There is no “filamentous superstructure of the universe held together by dark matter.” And phantasmagorical images of galactic superclusters do NOT prove the existence of a “filamentous superstructure” and are simply a photographic effect due to the enormous luminosity of such dense accumulations of stars. As mentioned above the great wall of galaxies is not due to a “dark matter superstructure” but is simply due to the irregularities in the Big Bang explosion, which was not uniform as in any explosion. Such brainwash already appears in the astrophysics textbooks of the capitalist dictatorship! We recommend that it be exposed as a Big Lie whenever and wherever it is encountered.
The capitalist cosmologists/propagandists have demonstrated that they can not coherently reply to any of the arguments advanced in this Materialist Analysis of Theoretical Astrophysics except through contrived, feigned ignorance, information overload and MORE totally outrageous, bizarre Big Lies, which require a religious-like faith (in the case of dark energy and dark matter, for example ) to actually believe them—their overall objective in the first place as explained here. So do not be intimidated by the doctoral degrees which they award themselves or the exalted positions held by these above-mentioned frauds in order to try to legitimize their lies and to try to control and monopolize this field as they try to do with all others. These false propagandists/ “cosmologists” keep up a truly relentless barrage of lies in the major media and even physics journals and on TV with a never ending stream of phantasmagoric images blending and cascading one into another to try to help prove their scripted Big Lies, for example, the existence of “dark matter,” which they laughably claim is so dominant that it forms the “superstructure of the universe” but which they supposedly have only been able to detect as “two tiny pulses of heat deposited over the course of two years...” New York Times, December 18, 2009, a frankly pathetic false “finding” which the article admits is “no proof” but “tantalizing” (?) an adjective carefully chosen to try to make it appear as if everyone were are all rooting to try to prove their Big Lie. The reality is that there is no “dark matter.” Claims on the National Geographic Discovery Channel and elsewhere in April-May 2010 that “gravitational lensing and cosmological expansion rates” have “confirmed” its existence are totally fabricated! Gravity, not dark matter, is responsible for ALL gravitational lensing and that is where it gets its name. And there is NO “large halo of unseen matter (an oxymoron!) extending beyond the visible stars.” But according to Michio Kaku & Co., “Dark matter is in a struggle with dark energy and dark energy wins in the end in the Big Rip!” Not a WORD about gravity! And according to Michio Kaku and the NASA propagandists, eventually stars will all simply “blink out and the universe will be dark…again!? The age of stars will be over!” Kaku just makes it up in a jumble as he goes along. Anything for his cause! But what is his cause? See below.
It can also be predicted that the capitalist dictatorship will take over the science, if they have not already done so, of the new Large Hadron Collider, the world’s largest and highest energy particle accelerator in Geneva, Switzerland, when it finally goes on line in order to try to continue to concoct the existence of “dark matter” and “dark energy” as well as the “Higgs Boson,” the so-called “god particle,” which is reputed to be “the particle which may impart mass to all other particles after the Big Bang.” The Higgs Boson is a hypothetical massive scalar elementary particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model in particle physics. At present there are NO known elementary scalar particles in nature. There are numerous Higgsless models, which do not depend on the Higgs Boson or Higgs Field. The top contender presently is the Three-Site Higgsless model. Whether or not the Higgs Boson exists or does not exist, its importance has been completely overstated in any case, in order that in the event of its discovery the media may falsely claim to have “proved” the existence of “god!” In any case, the Higgs Boson has absolutely nothing to do with “god” and no reputable physicist has ever made such a claim. The capitalist dictatorship is desperate and reeeediculous! So do not be intimidated by their Big Lies.
Through brazen false arguments and bizarre false analogies these phony “cosmologists” who control the airways and media, have even attempted to up the ante and generate maximum confusion by trying to brainwash people into believing that the laws of physics and theoretical astrophysics, such as the Laws of Quantum Mechanics, the Special Theory of Relativity and General Theory of Relativity, etc. are “not immutable” and are in a process of “constant evolution” supposedly like species of animals in Charles Darwin’s “The Evolution of Species.” The laws of physical science are thus directly compared to the evolution of species of animals! Einstein therefore supposedly only has “temporary relevance” giving virtually every kind of science fiction a basis in “reality.” (See: “Beyond Einstein,” Discover Magazine, April 2010). Einstein is also falsely quoted as believing in god: “learning to read the laws of physics is like reading the mind of god.” See comprehensive section on Einstein below.
The author of the Discover Magazine article moreover disingenuously announces: “physicists should not spin any theories that require the existence of things such as multiverses, that cannot be disproved.” This carefully contrived statement implies that because “multiverses,” etc. supposedly cannot be disproved these fraudsters do not have to actually PROVE any piece of science fiction currently being passed off as “science.” They imply that is the duty of genuine theoretical physicists to disprove every false theory used to bombard the public domain by the misnamed, so-called “intelligence community” led by heavily hyped characters such as Michio Kaku or Stephen Hawking. The Materialist Analysis of Theoretical Astrophysics disproves their primary concoctions and it is a rule of the Court that a witness caught in one lie in testimony does not merit any further credibility by the Jury. This is especially true in science where it is clear that, above all else, Kaku, & Co., are straining at the leash to inject confusion into basic physics and are forced to tell many lies in order to try to achieve their objectives. Their motives to create confusion are explained above. The title of the Discover Magazine article was incidentally borrowed from the very title of a 1987 book by “intelligence community” fraudster, Michio Kaku, wherein Kaku tried to popularize so-called “String Theory,” concocted in the effort to try to supplant Quantum Mechanics. See below. It should be noted that Kaku, who hides his specious, bogus so-called “Beyond Einstein science,” behind a phony slick and unctuously triumphal presentation, is equally at home passing off science fiction e.g. “parallel universes, time warps, time travel and the tenth dimension” as science as he is relentlessly fabricating false theories designed to compete with and supplant the natural laws of physics and to confuse as many people as possible behind a mantle of genuinely false knowledge. Based on only ONE non-cyclic Big Bang, Michio Kaku’s “String Theory” is thus a back door to Creationism! Michio Kaku now openly describes himself as a neo-creationist! See below.
There is no such thing as “Dark Energy”. And there was no “inflationary epoch” in the Big Bang, which supposedly “caused the Universe to expand faster than the speed of light.” It did not! The so-called “Theory of Inflation” which attempts to supplant entirely the standard model of the Big Bang with “dark energy” AKA “vacuum energy” is also a total fraud! (See below) Nor has the Universe suddenly increased its rate of expansion as falsely claimed by these frauds as supposed “proof of its existence.” Just the opposite! The rate of expansion of the Universe has continued to slow since the Big Bang! All previous observations have indicated that is the case! While the Red Shifts of the most distant galaxies do indicate they are receding much more rapidly than closer galaxies this is because their light originated closer to the time of the Big Bang when the expansion rate was greater, but that is not the situation today. It should therefore be noted that although we may be able to receive light from galaxies which started its journey near the beginning of star formation and galactic formation, that light does not portray the reality at this point in time of the galaxy which was the source of that light. The reality is that today most of the Universe is undoubtedly relatively uniform in its development today except where, for example, there are huge clouds of gas from super novae explosions or where there are huge accumulations of matter such as the Great Wall of galaxies, the latter of which formed due to the irregularities which occurred in the Big Bang just as in any other explosion. In other words the light from our own galaxy, the Milky Way, would appear to an observer from the most distant galaxies to be receding at the same rate that their light is receding from our own galaxy! This should be a no-brainer but is rarely if ever mentioned. The only viewpoint which is ever mentioned is from the Earth as if it were the center of creation. Which it is not!
The Universe is not open! Just like the Earth itself the spatial curvature of the Universe is NOT FLAT! It is CLOSED! In reality there are no “multiple universes,” which “pop out of Black Holes” or by any other explanation. A Universe arises ONLY from a Big Bang! Although mass is infinite in a Black Hole (see above), Critical Mass does not exist! Critical Mass is attained only in the Final Singularity, when all matter in the Universe comes together in one spot in the Big Crunch prior to the Big Bang. The point when Critical Mass is reached is the point when a Big Bang occurs! See above. This is why the Large Hadron Collider cannot reproduce either the Big Bang or even a Black Hole. The reason for this is that even a Black Hole can form only when a Blue Giant star of sufficient mass collapses. This can not occur in the Large Hadron Collidor no matter how high the energies attained or how “large” the collidor itself may be claimed to be!!
Stephen Hawking’s claimed existence of “exploding miniature Black Holes,” which “permit particles to leak out in a quantum process” (!), eventually causing Black Holes to “EVAPORATE” (!), due to the pretentiously designated, so-called: “Hawking Evaporation,” or to “finally explode entirely” is based on fraudulent “String Theory” related mathematics and is baseless nonsense. Note that so-called “Hawking radiation” has NEVER BEEN OBSERVED and is ENTIRELY FICTITIOUS! Hawking’s wild claims were based on the fact that on a visit to the USSR in 1974 the Soviet physicist Alexander Starobinsky told Hawking that according to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, rotating black holes should create and emit particles. (!) Oh? But the truth is that in a Black Hole or “Singularity” the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and ALL LAWS OF PHYSICS DO NOT APPLY and DO NOT EVEN EXIST! Starobinsky WOULD have known that fundamental fact and it cannot be ruled out that in the middle of the Cold War he may have recognized that Hawking was such a nut-job ego tripper that he would fall for virtually anything in order to make a big splash for himself in physics. And the question immediately arises, if Starobinsky really thought he had made such a profound discovery why didn’t he come out with it himself? In any case there is no radiation whatsoever of any type emitted from any Black Hole itself! Nevertheless, such absurd and ridiculous claims are given credence in the media and given a heavy push on the phony “science” magazines and TV shows mentioned above and on websites which permit NO COMMENT!
It was also announced on the highly discredited “Naked Science” National Geographic (Discovery) Channel with NO PROOF WHATSOEVER and with no legitimate counter-arguments ever permitted, the totally bizarre claim that Michio Kaku’s “String Theory” is “the best explanation of the origin of the Universe,” which it most certainly is NOT! On that program Hawking and “String Theorists” absurdly stated: “the Big Bang occurred when gravity weakened” (!) because “after the Big Bang gravity (supposedly) entered the 7 to 9 extra dimensions (in “String Theory”) and was weakened.” Duh! Such rubbish! (!) Finally, after presenting one concoction after another for almost an hour falsely dressed up as “science,” the April 20, 2010 “Naked Science” program (which is to be repeated!), apparently in a pathetic attempt to try to save face and keep some semblance of credibility among the growing majority of those who see through their lies, concluded with the unexpected disclaimer: “There is only one catch! There is no proof for any of this!” Right! But since then there have been no more disclaimers of these relentlessly pushed Big Lies! Parenthesis added.
There is also no “time travel” in a practical sense either despite the phenomena of time dilation described in Einstein’s Special Theory and gravitational time dilation described in Einstein’s General Theory, which was actually confirmed in the Pound-Rebka experiment. And there are no “wormholes.” These fraudsters intone Einstein’s name by falsely claiming that there are “two valid solutions” to the General Theory of Relativity which contain “wormholes.” This is a Big Lie! Neither “solution” cited is actually valid! The first type falsely postulated, the “Schwarzchild wormhole,” which they also falsely designate with the label “Einstein-Rosen bridges” (!?), depends on a Black Hole, “which has no charge and no angular momentum!” But ALL Black Holes rotate and thus have angular momentum! (See above.) The second type, the so-called “traversable wormholes,” would require the existence of “exotic (non-baryonic) matter,” which does NOT exist and which itself would violate energy conditions specified in the General Theory and would require changing space-time topology and would require regions of negative energy, which also do not actually exist in the known Universe. At best this is all mathematical imaginings of those who want to be “the next Einstein.” Einstein himself realized that his later mathematical attempts to formulate a Grand Unified Theory were simply incorrect and were not leading in the right direction. In addition, there are no “strings.” “String Theory” is a mathematical attempt to try to refute, compete with and supplant, NOT EXPLAIN, the Theory of Quantum Mechanics, the foundations of particle physics which were established during the first half of the twentieth century by Max Planck, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Albert Einstein, etc.! See below for the most likely ready solution to the Grand Unified Theory.
On July 22, 2010 on the so-called “History Channel” Michio Kaku brazenly also falsified the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle! That principle states simply that pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, cannot simultaneously be known to arbitrary precision. The more precisely one property is measured, the less precisely the other can be measured. In other words, the more you know the position of a particle, the less you can know about its velocity, and the more you know about the velocity of a particle, the less you can know about its instantaneous position. In his false presentation of “parallel universes,’ which also involved countless other falsifications of basic physics, Kaku stated that Heisenberg stated that one particle can be in two positions simultaneously! Heisenberg never ever even suggested that!
Recent Findings Document that the Mass of the Universe
Increases as Matter Enters a Black Hole and the Final Singularity!
This Finding Totally Refutes Infinite Expansion of the Universe
And “String Theory!” The Fact That Neutrinos Have Mass Also
Provides Further Basis For the Big Crunch!”
The false claim that there is supposedly insufficient matter in the Universe to permit the Big Crunch to take place is entirely refuted by 2 discoveries. Perhaps even more significant than the work on neutrinos discussed below is the paper published on November 21, 2008 in Science. More than 99% of the visible mass of the Universe is made up of protons and neutrons. Recent calculations of the mass of the nucleus found that matter, which is composed of protons and neutrons, which are in turn are composed of quarks held together with gluons by the strong force, normally exists as 95% energy, according to the formula from Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity: E=mc2! This provides further confirmation for the Big Crunch! Why? The reason, not drawn as a conclusion by the authors of the paper, is that in a Black Hole and moreover in the final Black Hole, the “Singularity,” that relationship would be 100% reversed, with all matter existing in the form of mass: m=E/c2. The mass of the Universe would therefore increase according to these findings as matter enters a Black Hole as energy shifts to its mass equivalent! (Science, November 21, 2008, Vol. 322, 5905:1198-1199 and 1124-1127. Obviously this is the precise opposite of what occurs in a nuclear explosion where matter is converted entirely to energy according to the equation E=mc2. On the other hand such tidbit reports as “Excess Particles From Space may Hint at Dark Matter,” (Science, Vol. 322, 5905:1173) are only red herrings meant to titillate, to keep attention diverted away from focusing on key findings of genuine significance. There is no such thing as “dark matter.” In another important point, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does NOT prevent the Big Crunch because 1.) the energy of the Universe is entirely converted to mass in Black Holes and the Final Singularity in accordance with Einstein’s equation solved for mass: m=E/c2 and 2.) ALL laws of physics break down and do not apply in a Black Hole! There is no exception for the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The discovery that neutrinos have mass also provides a further basis for the Big Crunch. This fact was first reported on July 1, 1998 by a collaboration of 120 U.S. and Japanese physicists at the Neutrino 98 meeting in Takayama, Japan and submitted to Physical Review Letters. (By Super-Kamiokande Collaboration (Y. Fukuda et al.) Phys.Rev.Lett.81:1562-1567,1998.) Neutrinos have sufficient weight to allow the Big Crunch! The experiment measured the differences in mass of the three types of neutrinos to be 0.1 eV or greater. The group reported that the simplest interpretation of the solar and atmospheric results is that the heaviest neutrino has a mass of 0.1 eV. However, they reported that since oscillations between the 3 types of neutrinos depend only on the differences in mass it is possible that the masses of all three neutrinos are fully 1 eV or greater, but that it is the mass differences which are much smaller. (They allow for the “possibility.” How nice! They know that the majority of physicists do not simply automatically accept the interpretation which is first proffered.)
This makes the most sense and is of course suppressed for political reasons. (See below.) If the mass of the neutrino is 1 eV that would mean that neutrinos account for more mass in the Universe than all of the protons and neutrons put together easily supplying the supposed “missing matter” necessary for the Big Crunch. As mentioned the critical mass density required for the Big Crunch to occur is 1 x 10 to the negative 29th of a gram per cubic centimeter (approximately 5 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter), according to the calculation from the General Theory of Relativity. In addition, the fact that neutrinos have mass also provides the basis for the Grand Unified Theory which links the gravitational force described in the General Theory of Relativity with the strong and the weak forces and electromagnetism described in the Theory of Quantum Mechanics. Einstein struggled and failed to formulate this theory, but it has already been shown that at high enough energies electromagnetism and the weak force are the same force known as the electroweak force. It is theorized that if energies are increased even further and neutrinos acquire mass, which has now been fully documented, all the known forces will reduce to the same force thus providing the basis for the Grand Unified Theory. This high energy level existed only during the very early expansion of the Universe known as the Planck Epoch, which existed up to 10 to the negative 43rd seconds after the Big Bang, where the four fundamental forces — electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force and gravitation — all had the same strength. After that point the energy level decreased and gravity separated from the other 3 fundamental forces and with the condensation of matter into the elementary particles (quarks, leptons, and gauge bosons) formed the so-called Standard Model of today’s Universe. These facts, while available, are de-emphasized by the capitalist dictatorship propaganda machine with the false claim that “no one—not even Einstein—has been able formulate the Grand Uni
I think the idea of a singularity universe is not only wrong butt imposable. I never conceived of this big bounce theory until this morning. I thought it was my first big discovery and contribution to the scientific community. Imagine to my surprise that it was not a new theory after.I do not claim to be some super educated Einstein prodigy, but I always believed in my unique way of looking at things. For example, in order to appreciate the proposed theory of a big bounce universe you must, I feel, think of this. s' symbolized figure of infinity must be in-visioned as a three dimensional shape. now take this image into your mind and put it into motion. Then try to imagine it spinning on all axis incredibly fast. Finally, expand and collapse it rapidly. That I feel best describes a big bounce universe in my mind. Sorry I can not present documented proof of my credentials as a scholar and scientific professor, but at least, please, consider my hypothesis. I would like nothing more in life but acceptance into the scientific community.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry but I did not intend to rebut any one comment, but instead voice my own opinion, and I also have one correction to my statement. It was Hoyles infinity suggestion that I was referring to. Also I would like to submit my original statement I made before discovering that this was a previously thought of theory. (following immediately)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have come up this morning with what I think to be a revolutionary new theory of relativity what I call "the big bounce theory". One I think one day will prove the origins of everything we know and more. [ 8 ] take the infinity symbol and look at it very objectively and apreciatively. At the center or the crossing point is what we now call "the great expansion". The missing link is the simple and obvious view I have linked to this. Instead of asking why, I have asked why not. The universe was never truely one singularity, although it was very close. before the big bounce out was the big bounce in.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry if it doesn't make much sense now but it's all still coming to me.
the outside points of the big bounce were points where all matter deconstructs itself and in sense iron is turned back into helium. it is at that point when the universe must seem imagonally cold (or slow). The matter can become no thinner begins to collect into itself and so the big bounce begins top fall back into itself until its rebirth of another bounce. as all matter begins back towards one undefinable point it gets faster and faster. (imagine this: many vehicles set about in a circle are racing towards one point. Well at first glance on paper you would say they are going to combine into one point, but. If you were to run this experiment in real time you would see this not to be true. they would actually bounce off this single point and shatter into many many pieces.).
excuse me I must take some time now to recollect my thoughts I feel I am rambling. I guess my question is this, is this theory true I feel very adimentlty strong that it is. it must be. (sorry for my grammer, english is not my strong point.
Im sorry if im rebuttaling any information that was previously stated. But to say an elastic band being stretched and spun like the universe expanding and rotating on axis. The center being cold (deep space) trapping all light and what ever materials it has gravitational pull, all being pulled in towards the center just to be flung back out into space like the after affects of what we call the Big Bang Theory. But does the big bounce have an expansion limit, or is in infinite? Something we will not be able to measure. Just like seeds being pulled back down into the soil by gravity towards just to be regrown. When the bounce starts a new rotation after the universe has expanded to its limit does it then recollect the materials and redistribute it igniting new kinds of materials? Or does it just keep expanding until the pull in the center of the universe (or Black Hole) has no more magnetic pull on its counterpart? Causing a Sun to burn out because the cease of friction from the blast outward.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is all speculation to this topic and may just be nonsense from a curious by-stander.
Okay think on it this way:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we say that the universe is actually singular energy oscillating from positive to negative, in order to create a differential (mass), in reality everything is one blanket energy field. Your car is your brain etc etc. The appearance of mass, separation/definition is created via the oscillation and at differing frequencies.
If in truth all is one blanket field, and that field seems to contain the energy that is consciousness as in ‘us’. Then shouldn’t we say that as all is one entity in truth, then the field can’t ‘contain’ consciousness, it must be itself conscious!?
If the ‘infinite’ were to be conscious,as Einstein noted infinity being an unknowable state as it can’t ultimately be quantified. Then the conscious element would simply have to blow a ‘void’ into the ‘All’ in order to facilitate itself, why?
Because conscious is tied to time-space as it achieved via a feed back loop of re-cognised thought. In its infinite state, all is in the same non place, there can be no separation definition/feed back; therefore an infinite conscious entity would be forced to blow time-space bubbles in order to facilitate the said apparent conscious element.
And as the infinite consciousness is infinite ‘All’, and it has to think (feed back) in order to be, it will then have to think itself, and therefore it will have to forget itself, in order to re-member itself.
But then if the conscious aspect ever joined with the infinite aspect, then that would render the conscious aspect as ‘all’, which means that it couldn’t feed back, all would be in the same non place, so it would lose consciousness (sleep). Opposingly, if the conscious aspect tries to view the infinite all you ever see is an ever expanding space, which is finite.
I am trying to describe how opposites contradict annihilate each other, implode and explode.
So if the ‘All’ is conscious and it forces a finite time-space bubble into being, all that bubble would be is a fragmentation of the All, a forgetting in order to facilitate the conscious element, and when remembered, the same paradox would kick in.
That the mind can’t think as it is All, so the ever hungry finite ever re-cognising conscious aspect tries to re-cognise it’s infinite opposite and BANG! It punches a new time-space vent… it bounces….
Note here that there is no way that opposite aspects can ever join, consciousness is finite and so tide to time-space and the infinite can never be quantified and so it can’t ever manifest. The paradox is actually the key not the problem, it perpetuates!