</em> shortly after the big bang.)
DEFLATING COSMOLOGY?: Cosmologists are reconsidering whether the universe really went through an intense growth spurt (yellowish region) shortly after the big bang.
Image: Illustrations by Malcolm Godwin
In Brief
- Cosmic inflation is so widely accepted that it is often taken as established fact. The idea is that the geometry and uniformity of the cosmos were established during an intense early growth spurt.
- But some of the theory’s creators, including the author, are having second thoughts. As the original theory has developed, cracks have appeared in its logical foundations.
- Highly improbable conditions are required to start inflation. Worse, inflation goes on eternally, producing infinitely many outcomes, so the theory makes no firm observational predictions.
- Scientists debate among (and within) themselves whether these troubles are teething pains or signs of a deeper rot. Various proposals are circulating for ways to fix inflation or replace it.
More In This Article
Thirty years ago Alan H. Guth, then a struggling physics postdoc at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, gave a series of seminars in which he introduced “inflation” into the lexicon of cosmology. The term refers to a brief burst of hyperaccelerated expansion that, he argued, may have occurred during the first instants after the big bang. One of these seminars took place at Harvard University, where I myself was a postdoc. I was immediately captivated by the idea, and I have been thinking about it almost every day since. Many of my colleagues working in astrophysics, gravitational physics and particle physics have been similarly engrossed. To this day the development and testing of the inflationary theory of the universe is one of the most active and successful areas of scientific investigation.
Its raison d’être is to fill a gap in the original big bang theory. The basic idea of the big bang is that the universe has been slowly expanding and cooling ever since it began some 13.7 billion years ago. This process of expansion and cooling explains many of the detailed features of the universe seen today, but with a catch: the universe had to start off with certain properties. For instance, it had to be extremely uniform, with only extremely tiny variations in the distribution of matter and energy. Also, the universe had to be geometrically flat, meaning that curves and warps in the fabric of space did not bend the paths of light rays and moving objects.
This article was originally published with the title The Inflation Debate.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
95 Comments
Add CommentThe link under Supplemental Material looks very interesting, but, alas, the URL is broken/incomplete. Could you fix it to link to the appropriate page?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere we go again first the Earth was flat now the Universe has to be flat- maybe its a lot bigger than we think. Probably about a billion times the size of our observable Universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI applaud Paul Steinhardt for presenting an honest and forthright status report on the inflationary big bang theory. As David Lindley noted in his 1993 book, The End of Physics, the inflationary big bang simply replaces a finely tuned "inflaton" field for the finely tuned conditions in the original big bang. Alan Guth invented the inflationary big bang to explain away the flatness and horizon problems, which indeed suggest the universe is a "put up job." What we need from Scientific American and the scientific community is more of what Professor Steinhardt delivers: an honest assessment of a theory's strengths and weaknesses, regardless of whether the conclusions conflict with standard scientific orthodoxy. Maybe -- heaven forbid --the universe is a put up job.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere was no Big Bang. The Universe has not expanded from nothing. The Universe has always expanded. Everything is expanding. The Earth's expanding is why we're stuck to it. We call it gravity like it's a special power, but it's just a result of the expansion. There are things in the universe far more ancient than 14 billion years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe idea of a big bang comes from the use of a rigid ruler nailed to today's size to measure the expansion going back in time. But everything expands, meaning rulers too.
Part way through this article I got the nagging suspicion that April first is a little too close. In the end I'm not sure... fascinating.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe real expalanation of the physics behind inflation is in these three papers, which also explain the presence of dark energy and dark matter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1.An advanced dynamic adaptation of Newtonian equations of gravity. Physics Essays 21: 222-228. http://dx.doi.org/10.4006/1.3027501
2. String quintessence and the formulation of advanced quantum gravity. Physics Essays 22: 364-377. http://dx.doi.org/10.4006/1.3182733
3. The formulation of harmonic quintessence and a fundamental energy equivalence equation. Physics Essays 23: 311-319 http://dx.doi.org/10.4006/1.3392799
I was recently learning about the red shift of light traveling from the center of a massive object to the surface. This is from Schwarzchild’s solution to Einstein’s general relativity equations for a spherical, non-spinning body. It comes out to be proportional to 1/(1-2M/R)^-1/2. For a glass planet of constant density, this equation becomes 1/(1 - density X 8/3 x Pi x R x R). For relatively low masses, the red shift is proportional to R. This is linear for 2M/R much less than one, but blows up when it get close to one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlugging in the values that Hubble came up with for the red shift of distant galaxies, and solving for the density required of a glass planet with a radius of 1 megaparsec giving a redshift equivalent to 70 km/second, you get a not unreasonable approximation of current guesses for the density of the universe. Why isn’t this a part of the calculation for the expansion of the universe? After all, Hubble said his discovery of red shift was “…as if the universe were expanding”. Maybe the expansion of the wave front of a photon through a non-zero density medium changes the frequency/color?
Einstein’s “Law of Relativity”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am no scientist, just an amateur Physicist, however I truly love physics, and within my understanding of what is defined as E=MC(2)… I have some doubts: There is one basic issue or missing component.
When Einstein made reference of relativity, he spoke about observing a specific event from the point of view (observation made) by an individual sitting at a position where the relativistic event took place. I will call this location A for the purposes of this discussion. Position A is therefore the position of the INITIATOR of a specific relativistic event. From the initiator’s point of view it is clear that the formula E=MC(2) makes sense. The reason for this is that the missing piece in the formula is equivalent to zero, therefore is it logically invisible for the initiator of the event. From an initiator’s point of view, nothing else impacts the relativistic E=MC(2) formula. In this case, all is good, Science remains predictable and Einstein remains correct.
However, he forgot to expand that ‘vision’ from the point of view of ‘external’ observers. To put it more clearly, Einstein is totally correct in defining the ‘local’ impact of relativity from the point of view of where a relativistic event takes place or starts. However, very simply, he forgot to go a bit further. If there was someone else observing the relativistic event (herein called observer B) from a different position (location), I then ask what are the things that would impact what observer B is seeing?
Well. In very simple terms, observer B would need to understand a few things:
1. Mass
2. %Speed of light
3. Energy
4. And something else. He would only be able to calculate an outcome from what he observes if he also takes into account his DISTANCE from the initiator, or distance from the event for which the initiator created.
There is a critical part here, and it still conforms to Einstein’s law of relativity.
There is a missing component missing in the formula to make it truly relative to everything else, not only to the initiator of the event, and this is DISTANCE.
From observer B standpoint, he will observe an event created by observer A, however, from his point of view, he also needs to take into account how far away he is from the event which observer A created so that he can appropriately calculate how the laws of relativity impact him in terms of where he is located. Assuming that observer B can only observe a certain action taking place at the speed of light, it therefore means that the further away he is from the event created by observer A will determine (mathematically) how early or late he will observe the event.
So to make Einstein’s relativity formula complete, you need to add r=distance to it. Here, therefore it now becomes easy to understand the relationship between distance and time : r and t: And it becomes clear that r and t are one and the same, therefore r and t are the same, therefore r=t.
So the actual formula is E=MRC(2)
And by inference, therefore, the definition of Time IS R=MC (2)/E
This also implies that Distance is equivalent to Mass x % Speed of light / Energy, therefore also implies that a spaceship can cross the universe in an instantaneous manner, depending on who is observing the spaceship.
There is a ‘wave type’ duality between distance and time. Here I am not sure how it works, however if you take into account the above formula the human definition of time will be directly related to the definition of distance. So here, time and distance is the same thing.
I have many sketches on this, which, from a visual perspective, simplify what I am discussing here.
In summary, Einstein was totally right. Time, and therefore Distance… is relative however, its relativity depends on distance from the relativistic event.
If you are interested I can forward sketches.
To spice up the subject, observer B would experience something very different if he decided to get closer to the event initiated by observer A. In the first stage, prior to getting close to the relativistic event, he would see TIME dilation relative to the event in front of him, but as soon as he reaches and clearly overtakes the event, if he looks back at the event created by observer A, he would see time compression. At the same time all this is happening, his own reference to his own initial location of observation would be one where his own time has slowed down relative to his initial location.
In other words, this, to me proves a number of things:
1. Distance is indeed a factor which was not taken into account
2. The multiplicity of time (relative to specific events, its creators and observers) and its mutual relationships are complex… therefore it is clear that TIME is something which can be manipulated, dependent on location of observation
3. There are multiple dimensions of observations, and depending on who is observing a specific event, the outcome will be different. It will be different in terms of TIME, and if TIME is equals Distance, it means that there could be a number of places (distances) an event will take place, and if this is so, and although there is one reality and one outcome for a specific observer, there is an infinite number of TIME/DISTANCE outcomes for different observers.
4. And finally, it therefore seems that one can predict a PHYSICAL outcome, but one cannot predict when and where it will happen as this will depend on where the observer is located.
5. However if we were able to build a framework where you can predict a specific event outcome from an infinite number of observer positions, one
6. Would be able to predict a specific location and time for the outcome of an event to everyone observing it.
7. It further implies that the speed of light limit does exist, however it only exists in relation to observer A, not to observer B. And therefore it means that the speed of light restriction is not real, as it is only real to observer A, whilst not for the remainder of INFINITE observers watching the same event from different locations. And therefore, distance from event initiation is FUNDAMENTAL in terms of defining the law of relativity.
“The Inflation Debate” by Paul J. Steinhardt (Scientific American, April 2011) poses the questions, “Is the theory at the heart of modern cosmology deeply flawed?” Scientists debate “…whether [its] troubles are teething pains or signs of a deeper root. Various proposals are circulating for ways to fix inflation or replace it.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe revolutionary SO-FLINE-BEC model (1975-2008) offers definitive evidence for a resounding “yes” to the first question, while offering definitive solutions to anomalies as “a way to fix inflation and/or replace it.
Two Major Differences Between the Big Bang Theory and the Revolutionary SO-FLINE-BEC Model of Universal Origins and Evolution:
1. The Big Bang Theory is structured with illogical speculation; the new model is structured with sound logic based on known historical and newly discovered facts.
2. The Big Bang can offer no definitive solution to any anomaly: planetary or universal; the new model offers pathways to definitive solutions to all relevant anomalies: planetary and universal.
Like a finished jigsaw puzzle, the SO-FLINE-BEC model reveals the beauty and continuity of the ongoing creations of our expanding cyclic Universe in which everything is interlocked with everything else.
Science is now at the Copernican-type crossroads: definitive reasons to change course vs. traditional reasons not to change.
There is some logic in “The Case Against Inflation” and big bang.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd that is certainly not the only one!
Here is my own logic, which by the way is much simpler (copy and paste into your browser):
http://gravimotion.info/gravity-frequency.html
In The Inflation Debate of April 2011, Dr. Steinhardt appears to exhibit indefensible philosophical misgivings about various cosmological hypotheses which are reminiscent of Einstein's famous objections to quantum mechanics. "The Abyss of Infinity"? Why should it bother anyone if there are other universes that are more amicable or less amicable towards life than our own? "A theory that predicts everything predicts nothing"? No, if it predicts our universe to be one among infinitely many what is the problem? The point is, if a theory predicts even one universe like ours, it fits the observations. Why insist that our universe be "comfortably normal"? To use his coin analogy, why be concerned if we are one penny among many, or if life in a 'quarter universe' is more or less likely? We only 'need' our one penny. What if it turns out that lack of distinguishing observables means that we can never even in principle solve all the mysteries of our cosmological origins? That would doubtless be disappointing for cosmologists, but the universe or multiverse would go on just the same, including our penny. Fortunately we appear to be nowhere near reaching that point, and can look forward to many more interesting discussions on this topic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPaul Steinhardt is the first theorist I have seen in a long time who is getting closer to an answer instead of more lost. He is right that the universe was smoothed in a contracting phase. But the universe is not cyclic. Yes, it is possible to have contraction without cycles. Hint: spacetime is discrete and quantum mechanical.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is absolutely fascinating. I am an amateur scientist type and this had never occurred to me. So if observer B travels toward observer A, the event is traveling faster than light from B's perspective. Does this imply nothing can go faster than twice the speed of light?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWouldn't the observed CMB signal have been smoothed by the accumulated dispersal effects of spacetime expansion since inception?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIsn't the presumption of an initial singularity simply an interpolation of observed expansion? Is there any direct evidence for any initial size of the universe?
For example, could the inception event simply have been the release of the energy contained by a hypermassive black hole of some discrete radius? The resulting expansion would have produced a locally discrete 'universal' spacetime... In this case, would any inflationary period be necessary to produce observed effects?
laurob,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEinstein's theory of relativity is off the subject of cosmological inflation, but I thought I would reply anyway.
Everything you are discussing has already been accounted for in special relativity from the very beginning by Einstein himself. Not only that, but others thought of the very same ideas before Einstein beginning in the 1880s (see Lorentz, Voigt, Larmor, Poincare, FitzGerald). So you are about one and a quarter centuries late.
If I understand you correctly, you seem to be focusing on the time delay resulting from the light traveling from an event in an inertial frame of reference to many different observers in one or more other inertial reference frames. This is irrelevant to relativity. The time delay can be accounted for (e.g. we would have to account for that time delay when adjusting the clocks in the GPS satellites). To understand the basic concepts of relativity, you have forget about that time delay and make some basic assumption.
The primary concept in the theory of special relativity is the relations between different inertial reference frames. This is important because the theory of relativity is completely dependent on its two postulates: (1) physical laws are the same in EVERY inertial frame of reference [i.e. dependent on the motion of the source], and (2) the speed of light in a vacuum is the same in ALL inertial frames of reference [i.e. independent of the motion of the source]. This fact about the speed of light is the basis for all relativistic calculations.
In a nutshell, an inertial frame of reference is everything that is traveling at the same constant velocity relative to each other (not accelerating). For example, a person on a moving train is in the same inertial frame of reference as the train, but the train station is in a different inertial frame of reference.
From the two postulates the simultaneity of events, length contraction, time dilation, and the relativity of momentum, work, and energy (i.e. E=MC^2) can all be accounted for when observed from different inertial frames of reference.
The calculations can easily be adjusted for the time delay resulting from the light traveling from an event to any observer. This adjustment is easy because the speed of light in a vacuum is always the same regardless of the motion of the source of light or the observer.
[Note: General relativity extends this to account for acceleration (i.e. non-inertial frames of reference).]
Re: "Various proposals are circulating for ways to fix inflation or replace it."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBritish physicist Sir Fred Hoyle, allegedly in preference to his pet steady-state theory of the universe, wrote the following assessment:
"...[I]n a single big bang there are no targets at all, because the whole universe takes place in the explosion. There is nothing for the expanding
universe to hit against and after sufficient expansion, the whole affair should go dead. However, we actually have a universe of continuing activity instead of one that is uniform and inert." [1984. The big bang under attack. SCIENCE DIGEST, May, p. 8]
What if the speed of light is not the fastest that can be traveled but instead it is the fastest that can be measured. What if dark energy is collapsing in at the speed of light one collapsing rotating sphere on top of another? The reference frame would be at the equator because it is rotating. Energy traveling in positive expanding time faster than the speed of light would have the ability to circumnavigate on the inside of a collapsing sphere and catch up to itself. The more energy it has the higher up the sphere it would travel latitude wise creating wavelengths. The higher up latitude wise the higher the frequency. M equals E divided by c squared can be taken literally. Energy traveling faster than the speed of a collapsing timeframe is able to divide time up slowing its personal clock down and creating a quantified state in our first generation space. It is like creating a slinky of energy on its side. The teeth of the slinky, is energy and the space is divided time. Energy traveling fast enough can create a slinky heading into positive time and fold back around and create a slinky in negative time. A slinky inside of a slinky creating E divided by c squared equals M.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNoToe,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's an interesting interpretation of EPRL/FK spin foam model. I never thought of it quite like that. I'm taking it that your different latitudes are interpreted as different quantizations of graviton propagators.
Can you elaborate more? I am not able to add a consistent interpretation of graviton scattering to your visual metaphor.
Hey Cramer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes climbing up a collapsing sphere with positive energy latitude wise catching up to itself in one moment of time creates quanta. It does not create gravity until energy is able to create quanta at the top of the sphere and have enough energy to come out of the top of the sphere just under the next moment collapsing into the just created quanta as it self perpetuates. This creates an electron and is why an electron acts like a fly wheel as it absorbs or expels energy. An electron is able to travel both on the inside of a collapsing sphere and the outside. It has gravity because it takes more than one moment of time for an electron to exist. This puts an electron in a time delay with positive expanding time and dimension. It is why an electron has a negative force compared to positive time and is another form of encapsulation. An electron was finally made from a progression of wavelengths radio to gamma rays. Smash a positron and an electron and you get two or more gamma rays. It is why I do not believe in a single big bang. I believe a young universe went through a progression of coil and recoil as each collapsing and expansion gained in strength. Sorry I had to write this in a hurry I can explain more if you wish.
I guess I read your first comment too quickly. It does not sound like the EPRL/FK spin foam model. There are no known particles in that model, such as electrons. The model only has gravitons, which, of course, are hypothetical.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am a little confused about the electron part. Why an electron? Is this just an example for all particles? How is the electron created? At what energy does it acquire mass? 0.51 MeV?
What is the name of your theory? Any math to it? Or is it only a thought experiment? Has it been published? Or is it online anywhere?
@ Cosmoknot
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour comment makes no sense at all.
@ Eureka999
They mean that spacetime is flat, not that the universe is flat. It refers to the curvature of spacetime.
Hey Cramer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI call it my Yang Yin theory for obvious reasons, it has not been published. I have combined other theories and observations. I give different prospective on what established equations mean. All theories are thought experiments until proven otherwise. I have posted on the scienceform.com the people there are really rude. I think they are rude because they were not able to comprehend what I was trying to say. I know it’s my fault I am a poor articulator but I am will to answer any questions the best way I can.
I believe all entities have a chain of events that lead to their existence and accumulation of energy. I start with infinity of potential energy, which leads to collapsing dark energy. Dark energy creates coil, expansion, recoil. This action creates two dimensions of time positive expanding time and negative collapsing time. The difference between negative time and positive time creates space. Space gives energy time to gain momentum in each new coil and recoil event. Each coil and expansion and recoil event gains in energy and is able to produce a universe filled with radio waves, then microwaves, then infrared, gamma rays at the high end of the spectrum. The next in line is the production of electrons. All entities evolve it is highly unlikely that any entity for no reason would have the energy to crunch down and then the energy to explode out and produce a universe without a chain of events leading to its build up of energy.
I believe a universe filled with electrons has all the qualities that can lead into the last big bang event that produced this universe and end the question, where did it all come from?
The reason there is different generations of quarks, leptons and bosons is because there is different generations of time. If you are anyone else is interested I can explain the rest of my theory. I like to rewrite it. It seems I get better at explaining it each new time I write it. I welcome all questions and debates
From the point of view of the big bang, and not ours as observers, what expands is not space, but matter. Space depends on the interaction of matter. And matter travels in every direction from the big bang at the speed of light, which is constant. Ref. Geometry of Very High Velocities, http://metrocosmos.blogspot.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI found Paul Steinhardt’s “The Inflation Debate” in the April 2011 issue refreshing. I completely agree that the cyclic model solves a number of problems that plague inflationary cosmology. However, I would go further and suggest that an “evolutionary” cyclic model would also solve another perplexing problem- the so-called ‘fine-tuning’ problem regarding cosmic parameters. If cosmic parameters undergo a process of ‘parametric mutagenesis’ as the result of thermodynamic pressures which accumulate transcyclic- the ‘fine-tuning’ of the parameters found in our current cosmic cycle can be readily explained. Of course this would require the abandonment of the idea that the initial expansion began from a singularity (there are no singularities in the universe- then or now). Expansion of the universe from a singularity eliminates any possibility of evolutionary continuity between cosmic cycles, especially if the process is dependent on random, quantum fluctuations (which I contend it is not).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn order to maintain a measure of intercyclic continuity it is necessary that there should not be appreciable variation in initial thermodynamic conditions from one cycle to the next. This can not be accomplished if the gravitational force is the only force in operation at the moment of each cycle’s ‘big bang’. In my book: “The Short Range Antigravitational Force and the Hierarchically Stratified Space-time Geometry in 12 Dimensions” I propose the existence of an antigravitational force which operates only at subplanck length distances. It is the unstable relationship between this force and the gravitational force that makes the universe inherently unstable, and which produces the thermodynamic conditions that drive the cyclic process. The transcyclic, evolving relationship between these two fundamental forces resulting from incremental variation in their range and strength, as well their evolutionary production of the derived forces (the electromagnetic, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force during our current cycle for example) is responsible for the transcyclic changes (as adaptations) in initial thermodynamic conditions.
It may also be possible that there is more than one set of initial thermodynamic conditions which reflects the complexity of the relationship between the three types of matter ( baryonic, dark matter, and dark energy) which are believed to exist in our universe. If these three types of matter coexist in a hierarchical relationship of space-time structure, with matter-type, dependent variations in dimensional number and cosmic parameters, then it is possible that each type of matter may have initiated expansion at a different initial temperature (reflecting a variation in planck temperature for each type). This might suggest that the dark energy and dark matter strata could have expanded (or ‘inflated’) substantially before the universe cooled enough for the baryonic matter stratum to initiate expansion. In any case, any cosmological theory which will succeed inflationary cosmology must account for the complex relationship between these three types of matter, as well as explain the complexity of cosmic parameters without resorting to purely random processes.
How many angels can dance on a pinhead? Big Bang, inflation, dark energy and dark matter are all THEORIES (not discoveries as the popular media persist in calling them)to try to explain what we observe(or think we observe). Lacking a Wayback machine and a dark matter/energy detector, I suspect most of these theories will be found to be flawed, if not totally wrong. But it sure is fun to talk about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNoToe,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour definition of a "thought experiment" is more board than mine. Examples of thought experiments are the Twin Paradox and Shroedinger's Cat. Thought experiments are not theories, no more than any type of experiment is a theory. Thought experiments are an attempt to bring logical or intuitive reasoning to a theory.
I at least need to see some simple Newtonian math, otherwise any discussion of your theory would just degenerate to semantical confusion and debates. A good example is your use of the phrase "collapsing energy." How does energy collapse? I can understand collapsing space (such as that caused by gravity), but not collapsing energy. Energy is typically transferred or transformed (e.g. E=mc^2).
I also need to start with the basics. Your first comment seems to be a vision of some type of quantum field theory. This must be made clear before moving on to apply it to any cosmological models.
Lastly, if you want people to discuss your theory with you, you should attempt to address their questions. I previously asked you some questions about the electrons in your universe that went unanswered. Do you mean all of space is filled with virtual electrons and positrons that quickly annihilate each other? If so, you should discuss them as virtual, rather than invent your own new nomenclature that includes terms such as "collapsing dark energy." It is fine to invent new names, but the definitions must be made clear; and they should not replace names that already exist to describe the exact same thing.
Pvaldesmarin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf that were true, it means that Earth is at the center of the Universe, exactly where the big bang occurred. It also means that our particle accelerators don't make sense. To get a particle to move closer to the speed of light, we have to add a lot more energy. The LHC is 14 TeV. The next largest is the Tevatron at 2 TeV. In other words, for matter to reach the speed of light, infinite energy is required.
The inflation theory at the heart of modern cosmology is flawed. But we love to ignore the defects, and we love to invent new models instead of explaining all the defects. For example, the expanding universe is not really expanding. This is because photons have gravity. As photons separate, as they travel great distances, gravity between them reduces their energy. This fact explains Hubble’s law, which means that the universe in not really expanding.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe inflationary scenario contradicts general relativity which considers an adiabatic expansion of the universe. The entropy density can change but the total entropy not. The mistake was to consider the adiabatic condition as dQ=TdS=0, as separate from the first law dU=dQ-pdV, where dQ is the increment in heat, dU the change in the internal energy, and -pdV the work done by compression.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCramer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet me ask you this, where did the singularity of generic matter get its force to crunch down and then expel itself? Did gravity preexist before time and space as well? Did degeneracy pressure exist in the generic matter of a singularity for it to big bang?
It took the energy of the last big bang to create expanding time and space. So you are saying energy can expand with time and space but cannot collapse with time and space?
Can you clarify your question about quantum field theory?
I believe a chain of events leading to the creation of this universe would be a universe filled with electrons. Electrons in zones spinning together could create super accelerated electromagnetic fields, along with degeneracy pressure electrons can be pulled in and expelled out as positrons.
Electrons acquire mass when its original energy traveled through time at 0.511 MeV times c squared.
I believe there is a misconception between the macro world we live in and the atomic and subatomic micro world. In the micro world speeds reach well beyond the speed of light doing so energy begins to fill up its own personal universal moment by dividing space and time.
The forces that crunched the big bang singularity are the same forces I say started the chain of events leading to a universe filled with electrons. The difference is I believe there is an infinite amount of singularities. Following the laws of motions once a collapsing force begins it won’t stop unless acted upon by another force. The collapsing force has not stopped and exists today. It defines what a moment is. A collapsing moment is in itself a dimension of time. If it were rotating as it collapsed it would explain why orbiting entities of matter are traveling faster than should be.
Because the origin of dark matter is not known or what it is I simply explain what it is in my theory. In fact I can easily explain the four fundamental forces in this theory can the big bang theory?
Cramer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs you can read in http://metrocosmos.blogspot.com, most of your statements are correct. The Earth –and precisely you as an observer– is at the center of the universe, because you are the only being existing in the present, while everything else belongs to the near or remote past from your point of view. The big bang happened some 14 billion years ago, not in Earth, but at the whole periphery whose center is you. And sure, for matter to reach the speed of light infinite energy was required. Matter’s expansion explains gravity.
NoToe,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I stated before (or at least implied), I do not want to discuss cosmology theories such as the big bang.
Energy expanding or collapsing with space is different. Again, this has to do with semantics. To me, energy is not expanding or collapsing, it is spacetime that is expanding and collapsing. Energy density of spacetime could be decreasing/increasing with spacetime expanding/collapsing. Some theories give energy density as constant. Energy density is different than energy (different units, obviously).
I simply meant to ask if your theory/theories include a quantum field theory. I essentially mean: do you have a framework for describing physical attributes at each point in space and time? And it would be a quantum theory because you said it was in your last comment. This might describe how a gravity wave travels through and interacts with space.
There is no experimental proof that anything moves faster than light through space in the sense that information can move faster than light. Space can expand faster than light. There is also the Compton Electron, but from what I understand that is controversial. Particles such as electrons moving through a dielectric medium such as water also do not count (that's kinda cheating since light has been made to stand still).
No experimental proof also includes electrons in an atomic orbital (probability density function). Even when electrons "instanteously" jump from one energy state to another, it can not be said that this done faster than the speed of light. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle appears to prohibit this from being known. So do you think it is possible to prove that "in the [subatomic] world speeds reach beyond the speed of light?"
Also, do you believe this would violate the special theory of relativity, which says the electron mass would be infinite at the speed of light? Or do you say that this theory only applies to the "macro world?"
And again you keep referring to a "universe filled with electrons." Are these virtual electrons? If not, why can't they be detected? Please use the correct nomenclature, or I will have to discontinue this discussion due to the difficulty of understanding what your trying to say.
I don't know what your definition of "moment" is, since you are referring to time, force, and rotation in the same context.
You haven't explained what dark matter is or the four fundamental forces. Have you ever consider writing a paper and putting it on the web? This going back and forth in a piecemeal process in not working.
Pvaldesmarin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said, "because you are the only being existing in the present."
Are you talking about metaphysical solipsism? Or are you just trying to say information can not travel faster than the speed of light ("everything else belongs to the past")?
So, again, in more simple terms, do you believe in the special theory of relativity? From what you are saying, I would guess the answer is no.
Do you believe that space is expanding? Or that matter is flying apart through space?
You said, "whole periphery whose center is you."
So you are only talking about the observable universe? Because I believe there is more than the observable universe; and we are most likely not at the center. This might have something to do with dark flow. Our observable universe might be flowing toward the center of the the entire universe (at least our universe as created by our big bang).
I do not plan to read your blog until I can make more sense out of your statements.
Cramer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI’m starting to like you, come on you’re in an inflation debate about the universe and you don’t want to talk about the big bang. You choose your arguments wisely which may or may not be commendable. It takes energy to create an action. To exist is an action. For time to exist there must be an action.
I referred to dark energy as collapsing spheres of negative time and dimension. The key is dimension. I believe the big bang theory states the blast or expansion force exceeded the speed of light. What I believe is happening is negative time and dimension and positive time and dimension is bypassing each other. Negative time and dimension is collapsing in a spiral event while positive time is expanding out in a spiral event.
Negative time and dimension is collapsing in at the speed of light one encapsulation after another. The void from where it collapses in from is increasing in size. This is why positive time and dimension is continually expanding.
Energy traveling as fast or faster than a collapsing sphere of negative time and dimension will create its own personal dimension in positive expanding time and dimension. This will be observed as a packet of energy. Negative time and dimension now has to pass through the packet of energy in each new moment in the form it was created. This creates perpetual motion.
A universe filled with electrons is only one chain in a chain of events that lead to the production of strong electromagnetic fields where heavier matter was formed. This created gravitational forces great enough to crunch the newly formed matter down. With degenerative pressure the last big bang accrued.
I do not believe once energy has created a packet the packet itself can exceed the speed of light with out great cause and affect.
I have a copyright on my theory and I am looking for a publisher at this moment. I’m looking to write it in this manner so others like yourself could point out my flaws in how I am presenting my thoughts. You have helped and I thank you.
Hi NoToe are you on crack?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are always people like you on sites like these. You say your little snippy phrases but don’t actually add any intellectual insight. It’s pretty sad.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCramer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, I’m saying that “information can not travel faster than the speed of light.”
Yes, I “do believe in the special theory of relativity.”
Yes, I “do believe that space is expanding,” but as a consequence of matter’s expansion.
In fact, “matter is flying apart”, not “through space”, but from the big bang and in the perspective of the big bang.
When I say, "whole periphery whose center is you," I’m saying that the sphere that is referred pertains to the whole universe, the observable universe as well as the unobservable universe, but to the universe derived from the big bang, where high radiation wholly obscures the primeval universe where the big bang is hidden at its center, covering from our eyes probably more than half the universe.
I don’t agree with you that “our observable universe might be flowing toward the center of the entire universe (at least our universe as created by our big bang).”
The clue to understand my argumentation is related to the main paradox of cosmology. Since the universe had its origin in the big bang, which was a single timeless and space-less point, how is it possible that this peculiar point can be identified with the periphery of a sphere which encompasses the whole universe in whose center you exists as an observer?
My answer has to do with the contraction of FitzGerald, whose equation is L’ = L √1-v²/c² where L is the length of the receding body, v is its receding velocity, and c is the speed of light. I say that in order to keep symmetry, in the same degree as the object that recedes from the observer close to the speed of light, according to said contraction, becomes shorter to him in their common axis, the object’s traverse plane to this axis must become reciprocally lengthened, so this equation is one of the three dimensions of an extension or volume, which is V = LHW, and where V is volume, H is height, and W is width. When the contraction becomes zero because the receding velocity of the object is that of the speed of light, then the product of the other two dimensions –height and width– becomes infinite.
Finally, I would highly recommend you to read my essay.
Pvaldesmarin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said, "Yes, I do believe that space is expanding, but as a consequence of matter's expansion."
So, you believe matter is dragging along space due to the gravitomagnetism of frame-dragging? I actually believe the opposite.
You don't believe dark flow exists or only what is causing it?
I don't believe the Earth is at the center of the universe and also don't believe in what you say is the main paradox of cosmology. If this is a real paradox to practicing cosmologists, can you provide a reference (maybe I am just misunderstanding your point)?
Why do you refer to the Lorentz contraction as the FitzGerald contraction? I don't agree that height and width increase with velocity. Never heard of that. Do you have a source that shows others who believe this or is this your own personal belief?
NoToe,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess I was not completely clear. I meant to say that I did not want to discuss cosmology with you. First things first: your ideas on quantum gravity and general relativity.
I look forward to seeing your publication.
Quantum gravity and general relativity is easily unified in my theory because each moment of time is a collapsing dimension. It starts out large and reduces to Planck constant and then to Planck reduced constant. There is already an ADD model the difference is I believe it reduces to Planck constant and reduced constant. Time is already curved and rotating as it collapses in. Gravity just intensifies it because matter takes up more than one moment of time to exist in each new moment of positive expanding time and dimension. This can be observed in Gravitational red shift.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are many observations that point to the invisible line between positive and negative time and dimensions. A magnet proves these two universal forces exist. A magnet is a magnet because all the electrons are spinning and orbiting roughly in the same direction. An equator of a rotating sphere is traveling through time and space faster than its axis. At fast enough speeds because of special relativity a rotating equator’s personal clock will run slower compared to the axis on a sphere. The axis, pull into negative time faster than the equator revealing the two dominant forces in the universe, expanding and collapsing time and dimensions.
When I get published I’ll give you a signed copy.
Cramer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen I say that space is expanding, but as a consequence of matter’s expansion, I mean that time and space not only depend on the interaction of matter, but that they do not exist prior to matter and energy. Time is the rate at which energy is transferred between matter (particles or bodies) in the causal relationship, i.e., in a process, while space is the place configured by interacting matter in that process. Since this is not the place to expose complex ideas, I invite you to further read this argumentation in my essay published in http://structureforceandscale.blogspot.com.
Dark flow does not exist. What id does exist is matter traveling away the big bang at light speed, which causes gravity to exist.
The Earth is the center of the universe from the point of view of the Earth. Antares is the center of the universe from the point of view of Antares. Andromeda is the center of the universe from the point of view of Andromeda. All of them exist at their own present time while everything else exist for them in their past.
As I see it, said paradox is the principal paradox of cosmology, in spite that it is not accepted by anyone yet. That is the reason why I publish my work I blogs and not in journals. For me if it is regarded the main paradox or not is not the problem, considering that nowadays cosmology has been developing within the narrow paradigm of the general theory of relativity, and everyone knows that a new paradigm is needed as cosmological problems are piling up as result of new observations and research.
FitzGerald formulated his equation a decade before Lorentz did, but both can be used, since they are similar for the purpose that concerns us. That height and width increase with velocity is a corollary I added to Fitzgerald contraction (or Lorentz’s) just on account of symmetry and reciprocity.
@NoToe
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour incoherent ramblings make absolutely no sense. Your theory is complete nonsense
Bewertow,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is not an argument it is a snippy phrase. My theory is incoherent to you because you cannot make sense out of it. Explain what is disagreeable to you and why or forever be known as Mr. Snippy.
Your theory is incoherent because it is incoherent. You are rambling. You just randomly mash concepts together because you think it sounds intelligent. But really, it is absolute nonsense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI seriously doubt that you have any physics background at all. Most likely you read an article on Wikipedia and now you think that you're an expert.
Re: Quantum Gaps in Big Bang Theory, April 11, 2011
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPaul J. Steinhardt says, "A theory that predicts everything predicts nothing", but does not explain why.
If a statement actually says something, then you should be able to imagine how the world would be different if it is false. Is the cat on the rug or not? We can easily imagine either. That means, whether true or false, the statement is meaningful -- it predicts what we will see if it is true.
Empirical confirmation is unnecessary. We need merely imagine an empirical state of affairs contrary to what is being said. Back in the 1930s it was not possible to verify the assertion, “There are mountains on the far side of the moon.” But it was easy to imagine the far side with and without mountains. Whether true or false, assertion was meaningful and empirical.
Creationism is an example of an assertion that is not a theory. Essentially it claims everything that exists was created by an intelligent designer. Whatever we may discover about the world is merely another example of the ID’s whim. It is not possible to even imagine a discovery that could not be attributed to his whim. Creationism cannot be disproved because it says nothing about the world.
Returning to cosmology, I can easily imagine a universe in which everything that is possible happens somewhere. And just as easily imagine one in which it does not. If you want an example of the difference between them: in one I am unique and in the other not. That means the statement is ultimately empirical -- it predicts something.
What I have been trying to do for the last thirty years is solve the greatest puzzle of all time. I have been doing this studying from the greatest minds of all time. The problem is a person can get overwhelmed with all the information that is involved with solving the problem “The origin of the universe.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat I am trying to do with my thought process is stick to basic reoccurring patterns which should make it easier to explain and solve. The fine tuning I would need the help of people who are way smarter.
The reoccurring patterns are spheres, connected spheres, corkscrew events. Scattering, crystallization, eccentricity and chaos I am not concerned with, too much information.
Can the basic principles of this universe be created from these three patterns? I believe they can.
The past does not self disintegrate as time moves into the future. Forces and entities move into each new moment but are not felt or observed in the moments left behind. An explanation is it is left behind in another dimension. Because the past is not observed trailing off as it disappears in moments left behind I conclude the separation between one moment and the next is the speed of light. This changes the speed of light to the fastest that can be measured. If each moment left behind is left in another dimension then each new moment enters a new dimension as time heads into the future.
Because it is observed the universe is expanding and gravitational forces are collapsing then so are the dimensions of time. Time expands into a larger dimension in each new moment as the past collapses in the dimensions left behind.
I read a lot of things, I write poems too and all the words come from the dictionary.
Do you really have anything to say Mr. Snippy? Anybody can say what you are saying trying to make them appear intelligent. I don’t care how I appear I just care about the puzzle. Do you believe in the Big Bang, if so why?
Gary62 [11] and carlofab [45], the article is correct:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA theory that predicts everything predicts nothing.
It is like replacing a universe generation mechanism with an all powerful being which can not only do everything, but does everything.
It might be a nice philosophical theory - but it is not a scientific theory. If it does not have predictive power with respect to the uniqueness of what we observe, it is meaningless in this context. It does not belong to the realm of science.
If you call yourself NoToe, that means that it is very difficult to keep standing up, your toes are keeping you upright...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBUT, as long as^scientists keep believing in singulairities and Big Bangs we are aware of the fact that humanity is always sticking to ancient an non reamlistic models, yes models because everyone of us still has to produce a model that is convenient for reality as our consciousness produces it.
In my opinion there is no inflation, no Big Bang, it is the humun consciousness that observed baryonic particles 380.000 years after X etc (see my essay on : http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/913) I hope you will take the time (causal and deterministic) to read it.
best regards to all of you
and have ...
Wilhelmus
NoToe,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe commenter that you refer to as "Mr. Snippy" is correct. Your writings are incoherent. No further explanation required. You said that all your words come from a dictionary. Lookup incoherent and that should provide the explanation you want. When you jump all around and speak in undefined terminology, that is incoherent. Incoherent writing and thoughts have nothing to do with the underlying theory, but it does suggest that you have no expertise in physics.
I tried giving you some pointers, such as using terminology that is already used in physics to communicate. Another example of that is that you keep describing different dimensions of time. This makes no sense to other physicists because you seem not to be using the correct definition of dimension. Dimensions are related to the degrees of freedom of a system. In more simple terms, it is the minimum number of coordinates that is required to describe a point. For example, no matter what coordinate system we use (Cartesian, polar, etc), we need at least three parameters to describe space. For time, as we know it, only one coordinate is required. The coordinate describes all points in the past, present, and future. You refer to moments of time left behind as being in another dimension of time. Moments of time in the past are still a part of our one dimension of time. An addition dimension is not required to describe the past. Even M-theory that has 11 dimensions has only one dimension of time.
If you mean something else other than the past, you need to explain it. People can not read your mind when attempting to understand what you are writing in a few brief paragraphs. There is a 13d M-Theory proposed by Itzhak Bars of UCS that includes another dimension of time, but it has nothing to do with the past. It has to do with subatomic spacetime.
Here's some articles written by Bars. The first is a lay article published in "New Scientist" (13 Oct 2007). The articles that follow are research articles. The first one being the Physical Review D article that was referenced in the "New Scientist" article.
http://physics.usc.edu/~bars/homepage/Time_gains_an_extra_dimension.pdf
The Standard Model of Particles and Forces in the Framework of 2T-physics.
Physical Review D, Volume 74, Issue 8 (D74:085019) (20 Oct 2006)
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0606/0606045v2.pdf
Survey of two time physics.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0008/0008164v1.pdf
Gravity in 2T-Physics.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1585v5.pdf
Richardbrucebaxter,#47
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease know I’m not trying to pick a fight, but would sincerely like to know why you think this theory “predicts everything.”
Apparently you imagine it intends things like, “UCLA will and will not win the game tomorrow.” Tomorrow’s contest is a particular game that occurs at a specific time and place. Inflation theory is silent on its outcome. What it predicts is that everything possible will eventually happen somewhere. It has zero information about the outcome of any particular event.
Suppose I give you a pair of dice. If you roll them long enough, I predict you will eventually roll all 36 possible combinations. Am I predicting “everything”? Yes, in the sense that every possible combination will eventually occur. But I have no clue about the outcome of the next roll.
Like the dice, if the universe is infinite or very large and has a finite number of elements, it will eventually exhaust all possible combinations.
The mathematical part of the above argument stands on its own merits. Whether our universe behaves like that is ultimately an empirical question. To say our universe is like that does not “predict everything.”
Hey Cramer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat’s why I like you Cramer you are not Mr. Snippy. You can agree with Mr. Snippy but you put way more in to it than just worthless snippy little phrases. Thanks.
I have read M-Theory and String Theory, but not 2T-physics. I came up with the name for my theory Yang Yin theory before I read Yang-Mills Theory. That was a wow moment. I’m not saying these theories are wrong, only they did not go far enough and make their dimensions independent enough. I’m just glad to see other people are heading in this direction.
Hypothetical questions:
1: Do you think the singularity before the big bang had dimensions or not?
2: The expansion force created matter and all 4 dimensions, if antimatter annihilated matter would the dimensions still expand creating space-time following the expansion force?
Maybe you and I can work through me being so incoherent.
My expertise in physics may be limited. What I do know of it is I am not sitting on a high horse claiming a single big bang is the only scientific answer with a huge list of unsolved problems in physics. Big problems, enough to make a high horse look like a piss ant stuck in the mud.
Poems and the dictionary means words are just words until the human imaginations creates something meaningful. Theories are just theories it is ok to piggy back off other theories as long as you acknowledge it and something meaningful is created.
Incoherency is in the mind of the beholder. If theories are expressed so only a million people can understand what is being expressed amongst the fast multitude of people that exist on this planet then I say you go look it up in the dictionary. When my theory is said and done a child should be able to understand it.
Math was created by the human imagination!
Thanks for the sites Cramer.
@ NoToe
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince you admit that your expertise in physics is limited, then your theory is worthless. You should not even refer to it as a theory. It is a hypothesis, and poor one at that. These are just crazy ideas floating around in your head.
You need to have a firm grasp of very advanced mathematics at the very least in order to put together a sensible theory worth publishing. A physics bachelor degree or high school math is not enough. Wikipedia is not enough.
With all the unsolved problems in physics and lack of finding a theory that can use the four fundamental forces as a foundation then it appears advanced mathematics is not enough.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is the overall concept in physics that must be flawed. If this is the case a fix all equation is not going to solve the problem. Starting from ground zero and using basic principles that work need to be incorporated. A single big bang is not standing on solid enough ground to leave any stone unturned.
I believe reverse engineering to be an ideal place to start. I do not believe equations should be discarded because the end results are negative or lead to loops of infinity.
Science creates basic laws of physics then picks and chooses when to use them and when to ignore them.
A singularity existing before time and space implies infinity science chooses to ignore this. Infinity cannot collapse this means a single singularity collapsing before time and space is not possible. For a singularity to collapse it would have to come from an infinite amount of singularities. This means the collapsing of a singularity is not a singular event.
A singularity collapsing from an infinite amount of singularities implies the existence of three dimensions. The collapsing is a force, expanding out resisting the collapsing force is a stronger force. The reason for these forces cannot be ignored. Ignoring these two fundamental forces is the flaw in physics. The greatest mathematicians of all times together would not be able to find a unified theory of everything if these key principles are ignored.
It is like forever trying to plot the motion of the planets with the earth in the center of the universe. From the beginning the laws of physics are flawed.
The collapsing of a singularity means time itself is three dimensional. A collapsing force must follow the laws of motion. Whatever reason behind the collapsing force would always exist unless acted upon by another force, this also cannot be ignored.
An expanding force in the opposite direction of the collapsing force is three dimensional expanding time. The expanding force must be stronger than the collapsing force or forces would cancel out and cease to exist and the event would stop. The collapsing force must be a reoccurring event. This is the beginning of physics choose to ignore it and science will never find a unified theory to everything. No T.O.E.
@ NoToe
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey there NoToe, like I asked before, are you on crack?
You know I feel like I am stuck between religious and scientific fanatics. One believes what it wants the other believes only what it wants. I have equal contempt for both. Smoke that in your crack pipe Mr. Snippy it seems to be on your mind a lot which is a clear sign of addiction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet me ask you this, if there is a clear sign of progression from light elements to heavier elements and a clear sign of progression from radio waves to gamma rays why would there be a gap between these two signs of progression?
Can you answer a question like this or are you just good for rude comments?
@ NoToe
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat gap are you referring to? Your question makes absolutely no sense, just like your ideas. You are rambling and incoherent.
Who are these scientific fanatics? Are you suffering from paranoia and delusions of grandeur?
Wrong answer Mr. Snippy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you take wavelengths from radio to gamma rays and line them up with a stretched out periodic table of elements, lighter to heavier there is no gap. It needs to be filled in but no gap exists. What you are looking at is the evolution of matter.
Like the evolution of Homo sapiens there is a timeline.
The timeline for the evolution of matter starts at zero before wavelengths. At wavelengths it is c (constant). Over the periodic table of elements it starts with c to the second power, then c to the third power, then c to the forth power, c to the fifth power, c to the sixth power, c to the seventh power. At this point you have reached the event horizon of a black hole. Then it is –c to the seventh power, -c to the sixth power, -c to the fifth power, -c to the forth power, -c to the third power, -c to the second power, -c, zero
This represents the collapsing of three dimensions in positive expanding time and the collapsing of three dimensions in collapsing negative time, and the collapsing of the forth dimension relative time as energy is divided in time.
The expansion of the universe has its own arrow of time expanding in three dimensions. The forth dimension of time is relative to objects that move or do not move with expanding time. The rate at which an object moves with or does not move with the expanding force of the universe will affect its density.
Yummy grandeur taste like cotton candy! Ouch, the paranoia and delusions chipped my tooth.
Scientific fanatics smell like you Snippy. Go away now Snippy this is too much for you. You should have stuck it out and got that bachelor degree in physics.
@ NoToe
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution of matter? Powers of the speed of light in the periodic table? Collapsing dimensions of time?
What you are saying shows that you have zero understanding of physics or chemistry. It sounds like ravings of hobo in a tinfoil hat.
Seriously, I think you might be mentally unstable. What you are saying actually makes ZERO sense. Like I have previously stated, you are RAMBLING.
I am myself an employed astrophysics researcher. I know that what you are talking about is absolutely ridiculous.
You sound exactly like the TimeCube guy:
http://www.timecube.com/
Carlofab,#50
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is an interesting argument you raise, and I apologise for any over assertion. To prevent further confusion, note that I am reading your argument as involving the measurement of other bubbles over time, thereby making this an empirical problem. I assume that the other bubbles are, by definition of the theory, non-observable.
Really Snippy, I hope they are not paying you a lot. Researching implies relooking or looking something over trying to discover something new. Hmm, instead of picking on homeless people I would think as an astrophysics researcher you would ask questions like where would the powers of c line up on the periodic table. Do the progressions of the power of c go beyond the known elements in the periodic table and could this lead to the discovery of dark matter? Are higher powers of c created when matter couples together? Do the higher powers of c correlate with the three generations of matter?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think you really stepped into this time Snippy with this question, Powers of the speed of light in the periodic table? Ever hear of Wave–particle duality? Do you realize you can basically measure matter photon by photon?
Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, mass does imply matter in this equation. With the progression of the power of c mass is matter in this equation.
Collapsing dimensions of time? You do realize space/time is expanding in all directions?
A three dimensional collapsing of time collapsing around everything it comes into contact with every moment defining a moment solves the EPR paradox.
The “TimeCube guy”? I bet you went online and pushed the old guy’s face in the mud huh Snippy?
You know surfing the web does not make you an astrophysicist researcher or working at a community collage as a teacher’s aid. Hey maybe it does!
I don’t know Snippy, I am smelling some low self-esteem here. I am trying to think what would be worse a preacher picking up a check who does not believe in god or astrophysicist researcher who does not believe anything new exists.
You keep pushing Snippy maybe there is something about inertia you can discover. I would rather wear a tinfoil hat than have a mind made of tinfoil.
@ NoToe
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow you just posted even more crap that is absolutely wrong. Your ideas are just plain stupid you really don't understand anything.
Since you think your wikipedia degree makes you a physicist, there is no point in arguing with you. I can't wait until you try to submit your lunatic ideas to a physics journal and get a good laugh out of the editors.
I give up. You're an idiot plain and simple.
I am sure anyone reading this has had a good laugh out of your great arguments. Your arguments are plain and simple Snippy. Sorry to see you go you have been lots of fun. To everyone else: That is how you treat an internet bully, they are weak, have low self-esteem, and have nothing intelligent to say. Bye Snippy! The science world seems to have lost its dignity. I have seen this type of mannerism amongst you all and it is condoned. You are taking a great establishment and letting the mind set of twelve year olds run it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ No Toe
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is ironic that you claim others have nothing intelligent to say considering your own stupidity
Wrong again Snippy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople like you have nothing intelligent to say. I knew you could not give up. You are the twelve year old child I speak of. Say something that means something, I don’t think you can. If you are truly an astrophysics researcher then it is no wonder we can’t connect all the dots.
Let me ask you this:
Dark Matter is needed to explain the orbital velocities of galaxies and clusters. Simply they are traveling through time and space faster than they should be.
Dark energy is needed because the galaxies and clusters in the universe are expanding away from each other faster than they should be.
Both are in reference to matter and how it moves through time and space.
Both are dealing with gravitational forces.
What is the common theme of dark matter, dark energy, gravity, and matter?
No Toe,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can't attack Bewer Tow for the same thing you are doing. Your expecting him to prove how your ideas are wrong when you refuse to prove how they are correct. The onus is on you if you want to convince people of your ideas. That's simple economics: if people believe that what you have is worthless, they are unlikely to pay very much for it. In this case, the asset used for payment is their time invested in attempting to understand your theories.
What is c^7? Is that somehow connected to c^2 in the Lorentz transformation or special relativity? I cant' figure out how that would be possible. How does c^7 related to the periodic table? I also can't make any sense out of that idea and you refuse to explain.
You then try to connect the periodic table to dark matter. This again makes no sense. Dark matter is thought to be made up of mostly nonbaryonic matter. The most significant reason for this belief is that dark matter does not emit or scatter electromagnetic radiation that can be detected. The periodic table is made up of baryonic matter (protons and neutrons). Any matter that would fit this paradigm would emit or scatter EM radiation that is strong enough to be detected.
There, I gave you another reason of why your ideas would make no sense. Why don't you explain how your statements make sense?
The time I am giving to you has never been an investment in attempting to understand your ideas. I've only been trying to help you out by politely communicating to you that you appear to be wasting your time. Even though you might be getting some short term satisfaction, you might have to pay the piper someday if you ever realize that nobody is willing to buy what you are selling.
If you have something worth selling, then maybe you should improve your selling skills and learn how to better communicate your ideas. You can begin by attempting to provide some proofs for your statements. c^7 is a mathematical term. Please provide the mathematical proof of how your c^7 was derived.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes I know, I know. And last night someone stole all my furniture and replaced it with exact duplicates!
Cosmoknot wrote:
4. Cosmoknot 11:21 AM 3/24/11
There was no Big Bang. The Universe has not expanded from nothing. The Universe has always expanded. Everything is expanding. The Earth's expanding is why we're stuck to it. We call it gravity like it's a special power, but it's just a result of the expansion. There are things in the universe far more ancient than 14 billion years.
The idea of a big bang comes from the use of a rigid ruler nailed to today's size to measure the expansion going back in time. But everything expands, meaning rulers too.
Let me answer this first. I don’t disappear when questions are asked. I am here to ask and answer questions. In my next reply I will answer why the power of c is so important and how it relates to EFE.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI will also explain why your ideology about what happened between Snippy and I is flawed.
What is the common theme of dark matter, dark energy, gravity, and matter?
Time, one way or another all have an association with time.
Dark matter is needed to produce a greater force of gravity to justify the orbital velocities of galaxies and clusters, the rate at which matter is traveling through time.
Dark energy is needed to explain why galaxies and clusters are accelerating at faster time rates away from each other.
The problem is dark matter and dark energy create two separate opposing forces both of which are universal, the expansion force of the universe and the universal force of gravity.
The unusual part is galaxies and clusters seem to be self contained units maintaining gravitational forces and orbital velocities even while a universal opposing force is exerted upon them.
My logic is to not create more pieces to the puzzle making it harder to solve.
The problem boils down to an expanding force and a collapsing force. These two problems needed to be in play for the universe to begin.
A singularity needed to have a collapsing force to collapse into itself and expand out creating this universe. The problem is the expansion force has to exceed the collapsing force in order for it to keep expanding.
This means the collapsing force needs to be an accumulative force. This would rule out a single singularity that contained all the generic matter in the universe. Instead it could have started out as a much weaker force from an infinite amount of singularities. As long as the collapsing force repeated itself the end results leading to a big bang could exist.
The collapsing force could still exist and is happening now. As each collapsing force collapses in as a sphere it pulls on more surrounding singularities. Collapsing in, each time creates a larger void to expand into. This creates a density problem in space and creates dark energy. The never ending repeating collapsing force creates the allusion of dark matter.
Galaxies and clusters are self contained unites because they use more energy as they accelerate with the expansion force, each new collapsing force has more energy. A balancing act was created in the beginning but never perfect.
The two opposing forces create gravity.
No TOE,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou seem to have a serious problem with communicating or you have a background in politics. You never answer any questions. You keep on repeating the same ideas. I asked for a mathematical proof for your derivation of c^7. You never gave it. c^7 is an exact physical quantity that is based on the exact physical constant of the speed of light in a vacuum. c is exactly 299,792,458 meters per second. It is exact because a meter is defined by the speed of light in a vacuum. If you want to primarily work in metaphysical cosmology, then don't introduce exact quantities.
I am fine with some of what you said. You seem to believe that dark energy and dark matter are two complementary elementary particles (possibly undiscovered fermions) that are associated with opposing gravitational forces. The force of dark energy expands spacetime. The force of dark matter collapses spacetime. Dark energy would most likely have a negative mass (unless it could be proved that antimatter has repulsive gravitational interactions). It is most likely that these particles would have repulsive gravitational interactions with each other. That's what I take your theory to be.
Then you go into ruling out a single singularity for an infinite number of singularities. And also some stuff about spheres, more singularities, creation of dark energy, creation of the allusion of dark matter. All this makes no sense to me. And I DO NOT want you to attempt to further explain it until you provide a derivation of c^7.
[also, look up the word ideology]
The discussion between No Toe and ourselves (all of us) is becoming a bit meaningless.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo Toe poses the one after the other hypothesis without any background (the latest dark energy etc) scientists think of these kind of "solutions" but really are not sure that it will be the truth, the same with his thinking of the Big Bang, singularities and of course INFLATION.
All this is not proven, although we think that the First Nucleosynthesis, the observations of distant supernovae and the cosmic background radiation are indications that our Universe is expanding, all right expanding.
Don't forget that the so called Inflation is placed at about 10^-38sec, all right good thinking but uncontrollable (not even with the LHC), but I think that no Toe takes it all as proven, which is not true, so here we are back on the subject INFLATION. (Eternal Inflation ?)
(but anyhow please No TOE explain the c^7)
let us keep thinking
Wilhelmus.d@orange.fr
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInflation only works as a flawed approximation because it is similar to our growth and development; as the self represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive approximation of the totality of experience by combining unconscious and conscious experience.
We can conclusively demonstrate the origination of our experience from (and in conjunction with) the center of the human body as follows:
Gravity is key to distance in/of space. Just stand up and look at your feet and the ground. This is exactly what Einstein and the modern physicists are lacking; as distance and force (or energy) have never been shown to be fundamentally equivalent.
Here is the complete answer and explanation to what Einstein's theory of gravity is lacking:
Space is semi-detached from touch in/as dream experience BECAUSE both inertia and gravity are balanced/equivalent at half strength/force. In outer space, there is [full] inertia, and we cannot touch (and are not touching) objects; and there is no gravity; as this means no experience of touch. Full gravity involves [constantly] touching the earth in our typical earthly experience. Accordingly, touch in dreams may or may not be experienced, and it is also at half force/strength of the tactile, gravitational force/energy while waking and standing. Indeed, we are semi-immobilized in dreams, and this is indicative of half inertia as well. Space manifests as inertial/gravitational/electromagnetic energy in/as dream experience. Full gravity involves full mobility in relation to, and in conjunction with, distance in/of space. Full gravity involves full distance in/of space. The experience of space in/as dream experience is that of the middle distance in/of space in keeping with half gravity and half inertia. Gravity and electromagnetism are key to distance in/of space.
Dreams combine and include opposites; as they fundamentally involve variable and shifting quantum mechanical phenomena/manifestations of what is essentially the same. Completeness and balance go hand-in-hand -- sameness is balanced by variability.
Hi there Frank are you on crack?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour post in 100% nonsense. What do dreams have to do with anything? Your ideas are ridiculous.
Once I thought that I woke up but I was still dreaming, scientists dream of a Theory of Everything, dream of enrolled dimensions, dream of a Big bang, dream of Inflation and try to explain their dreams by the square root of -1.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn one of my dreams I wrote an essay that is published on FQXi : http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/913, part of the contest is Reality Digital or Analog, sponsored by Scientific American.
But you never know, once Martin Luther King had a dream and now the president of the United States is...
keep on dreaming
There was no Big Bang. Gravitational contraction is balanced with electromagnetic repulsion, as I have clearly shown in my last (6 paragraph) post. I have also demonstrated quantum gravity as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have CLEARLY AND SIMPLY unified gravity and inertia, gravity and electromagnetism, balanced attraction and repulsion, and have FUNDAMENTALLY demonstrated quantum
mechanical phenomena in/as dream experience.
Reduced gravity is balanced with increased inertia.
You physicists are like boxers fighting an ultimate fighter. You do not stand a chance. Just being honest. Don't embarrass yourselves with your insults and lies.
It is much easier to be critical than correct. Are you jealous?
I am published in physics, psychology, philosophy, and psychiatry; and what were your specific criticisms again???? Maturity, effort, and seriousness -- they matter.
@ Frank
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey there Frank you seem to be an idiot. Your ideas make absolutely no sense.
An interesting paradox: the most ignorant people are often the most confident in their beliefs.
Sorry I had to help my daughter with a school project. It appears everything is not everything.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe politics is logic squeezed until something stupid comes out. This pertains more to a single big bang with all of its unanswered questions than to me.
Although your coat is not as thick you wear the same brand as Mr. Snippy or you would not feel the need to defend Snippy. I merely fed back the poison Snippy likes to dish out back to him and he did not like the taste of it. It is why he kept spitting it back out, bullies like to push but do not like to be pushed. Not as thick of a coat you are like Snippy’s alter ego.
Einstein field equations is based around a four dimensional existence and is some of the reason behind it having c^4 in the equation. Adding three more collapsing dimensions brings c^4 to c^7. Another dimension of time is not added because the 4th dimension of time is relative to the interaction between these two sets of three dimensions.
A meter is exact in a vacuum but changes under the force of gravity and the curvature of space. Matter is only an entanglement between the universal expanding force and the universal collapsing force. Atoms are able to compile these two forces within themselves and intensify them as they bond together, the same principle behind electrons and magnetism.
Like I propose with wavelengths each filling the universe as each new recoil gains in strength so did each element. Each new shell in atoms represented different generations of space where c^2 changed to c^3, c^4, c^5, c^6, c^7. Gravitational forces become weaker as the power of c increases giving way to the two predominate forces in the universe which are opposite of each other and is why opposites attract. Experiments with atoms now have only reached level c^2 maybe c^3. When these other levels are reached they will scream over and over “We have found a new exotic particle!”
Wavelengths are the stepping stones to matter to get from wavelengths to matter you have to jump from c to c^2. Now you are in motion and will stay in motion unless acted upon by another force. This is why atoms have shells and is why c becomes c^7. A meter is not the same in all circumstances.
Mass and energy is also relative! Favoring the expansion force of the universe or succumbing to the collapsing force of the universe will change how each is observed.
The universe we live in today is a mixture of c to c^7. There are still higher levels of the power of c which creates black holes.
@ NoToe
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour stupidity absolutely shocks me.
Cramer asked for a derivation and you provided more of your incoherent bull. That is NOT a derivation.
Your ideas are ridiculous. They do not make sense logically, physically, or mathematically.
whew.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan't we see and feel space and time, with the separation of energy/mass?
Richardbrucebaxter #59,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for your response.
If multiple universes are by definition not subject to empirical confirmation that is indeed a problem.
But it does not mean the theory "predicts everything."
I am acquainted with systems of mathematical logic that are too powerful because they "prove everything". Obviously you only want to prove statements that are (mathematically) true within a given system of logic. One that can prove every possible statement in the system is essentially useless.
But it escapes me how an empirical theory can "predict everything". That would be to predict "the cat is and is not on the rug at t1" (a given instant).
If as you say multiple universes are by definition not subject to verification then it is not empirical. Which raises the question of what, exactly, is it?
Whatever the case, I still do not understand how one can say that it "predicts everything".
Thanks,
The whole ideology behind science is it forever evolves in search for the truth. This simply means the truth that is adamantly/ fanatically defended today may not be the same truth tomorrow. This makes adamantly/ fanatically defending a truth until all truths are known and proven beyond a reasonable doubt contradictory to the beliefs of science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@NoToe
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you really that thick?
This has nothing to do with defending the current theories about the universe. Theories are revised if evidence shows that they are flawed.
This has to do with a crackpot babbling incoherently about higher powers of the speed of light and collapsing dimensions without showing any derivation of the ridiculous statements.
String theory, as strange as it might seem, is backed by sound mathematics. Someone said "what if matter is made of vibrating strings?" and then showed that the math behind it is consistent. Whether it is right or wrong, it is a valid theory.
Your ideas, on the other hand, sound like the ravings of a hobo in a tinfoil hat. If you do not provide a derivation of your statements from the fundamental axioms of your "theory" then it is worthless garbage.
Notoe said, "Einstein field equations is based around a four dimensional existence and is some of the reason behind it having c^4 in the equation. Adding three more collapsing dimensions brings c^4 to c^7."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisc^4 has nothing to do with the four dimensions of the Einstein field equations. The 4d Einstein field equations have long been converted to higher dimensions for many different theories. I have never seen any contain c^5 or higher; and there is no reason why they should. I gave you a clue when I said that c is an exact physical constant that is defined by units. Length is only one dimension.
c and G are fundamental constants that are not dependent on the number of dimensions. They are typically set equal to unity in the Einstein field equations by choosing different units (see geometrized unit system). [note: The quantity 8 as in 8*pi does depend on the number of dimensions.]
Regardless of the units or dimensions, c is always associated with the time coordinate of the field equations. Also, the magnitude of the four-velocity is always normalized to equal c. c^4 comes from the energy density component of stress-energy tensor. The stress-energy tensor side of the equations can be can be changed from the energy density format to either momentum density or mass density formats. c^3 or c^2, respectively, would be in the denominator of the constant term. 8*pi is actually required to link general relativity with Newton's theory of gravity. The quantity 8 would change for both Einstein's and Newton's theories if the number of dimensions were increased in such a way that effected gravity. (I believe the extra dimensions in string theory are gravity independent.)
Notoe said, "A meter is exact in a vacuum but changes under the force of gravity and the curvature of space."
If you are are measuring a length of something locally in the same inertial frame, that is not true. Nothing will change locally. The length of the object being measured will not locally contract. The the speed of light will not locally change in a gravitational field (it's still c). A meter is a defined length determined by the speed of light. The speed of light in a gravitational field will be different than c if not measured locally.
Do you actually believe lengths contract right in front of your eyes?
Notoe said, "Experiments with atoms now have only reached level c^2 maybe c^3."
Could you reference the experiments or are these experiments that you did in your garage?
Any corrections are welcomed.
I have seen c^5 in the Einstein field equations at the Planck scale, but this is still in 4d spacetime. It is simply a change in format analogous to the mass density, momentum density, or energy density formats.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlanck pressure has c^7/h*G^2, but that is simply Planck force per Planck volume, where volume is a three dimensional volume.
Yes I believe lengths contract right in front of your eyes, gravitational acceleration for one. Gravitational time dilation and frequency shift for another. For something to expand something else has to contract.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this8*pi does depend on the number of dimensions, and yes c^4 does comes from the energy density component of stress-energy tensor. All you have to do is look at the manifolds. Like I said before if it does not follow three patterns it is probably wrong, connected spheres, spheres, corkscrew events (orbits, rotations following the arrow of time).
One look at the manifold produced by String Theory and I knew it was wrong. Yes, the quantity 8 would change for both Einstein's and Newton's theories if the number of dimensions were increased in such a way that effected gravity.
I am trying to change energy and mass density and keep the manifold’s shape the same in general relativity but reduce its size. I am trying to mimic what happens in the shells of atoms. It is the mass density that creates a black hole. In order to step into this direction the energy density component of stress-energy tensor must increase.
Cramer let snippy go, climb outside the box I know you can do this you are a thinker. c is the fastest that can be measured. Once this is realized you can not look at c the same way.
I do not see c the same way it is taught; I had to let it go in order to solve the puzzle. In my view a theory of everything will not be found if the concept of c is not changed.
Mr. Snippy gave up the keys to the castle when he stated this:
( String theory, as strange as it might seem, is backed by sound mathematics. Someone said "what if matter is made of vibrating strings?" and then showed that the math behind it is consistent. Whether it is right or wrong, it is a valid theory.)
This means all theories could be wrong no matter how sound the math is. It boils down to reliable and consistent observations. I believe my theory can answer more questions than a single big bang. I just speak a different language using because and why, while science uses how and what.
I can not take you out of the garage if you don’t let go of your concept of what you believe c is. You have to think in reverse the earth is not in the center of the universe and neither is c.
@ NoToe
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou still have not produced the requested derivation. You are a rambling incoherent idiot.
I do not believe If the energy density component of stress-energy tensor went c^4 continually in all four-vectors evenly as gravity intensified a black hole would be created. Stepping into c^5, c^6, c^7 creates a spiral event and creates a separate collapsing 3 dimensional event with each step. Electrons help distribute this energy in different phases.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou know Snippy you are like a cartoon character. I see you as a fat little bagger living in a shallow little hole beneath a large cold stone. Your counter part is a black crow who sits on top of the stone and likes to feed on things it believes to be dead so it can feel more alive. You would bite your own foot because pain is all you have to offer even if it is your own.
NoToe,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLengths contracting right in front of your eyes:
Is that your interpretation of relativity or is that your own theory? There is a reason Einstein called it relativity and not absolutivity. How fast are we flying through space?
My "concept of what [I] believe c is" will not change until I learn of a better alternative concept. I have no idea of what your "concept of what you believe c is." When I see your "puzzle," the pieces are all over the floor in your "garage." I can't make much sense of it. The fact that I am even spending my time having a dialogue with you shows that I am open minded.
Let snippy go??? Do you think the commenter you refer to as "Mr. Snippy" is my teammate? We are not a team. Neither one of us simply can not make any sense of what you are talking about.
c^4 in general relativity was mathematically derived and it has nothing to do with the four dimensions of spacetime. Why can't you provide a derivation of your c^7 theory? Physics is more than just thinking up ideas. You need a mathematical model that holds up to experimental observations.
Sorry I meant Badgers although both are equally funny as long as you are not a bagger.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNoToe,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan't you step above the ad hominem attacks and provide a derivation? Why should you care if BewerTow is attacking you if your ideas have any merit? If you provided some details, maybe some people could make some sense of what your saying. Instead, you prefer to speak in riddles.
Dr. Steinhardt: My arguement against "Inflation", as pertains to the Big Bang, is that a primary tenet in Physics is that the Speed of Light is a constant, and a maximum velocity in the Universe, which theoretically cannot be achieved or exceeded by any mass. If it happened once, why not a second time.... etc. The obvious response is: Yes, but the laws have changed since then.... Have they??? I'd also like to see a Scientific American article re "infinite mass" of mega-stellar mass Black Holes. If there are billions of such Black Holes, and each of has a singularity of "infinite mass",..... Perhaps we need to define a new "infinity" term. Thank you!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHGarey2011,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you understand that the Big Bang is (or was) not an explosion of matter through space? It is spacetime, itself, expanding. The speed of light is the maximum speed that everything (information, energy, matter) can travel through space. There is no speed limit in general relativity regarding spacetime, itself. Also, during inflation matter did not exist (unless you count virtual quarks, which you can say are failed attempts in the creation of matter from energy).
Everything outside our own Hubble volume is also speeding away from us at greater than the speed of light. From our own local point of view, time at the horizon of the Hubble volume has stopped and inflation would appear to still be occurring. So this answers your question, "If it happened once, why not a second time...?" How do we know it is still not happening? From the local observer's perspective, could it ever be observed? Wouldn't a local observer always have an cosmological event horizon? And this is just a black hole in reverse.
There is also nothing special about the cosmological event horizon. At the event horizon, everything appears no different, analogous to our own horizon on Earth that the Sun rises and sets at.
Your second comment about "infinite mass" of "mega-stellar mass black holes" is also in error. It's not an "infinite mass." It's an infinite density. That's a finite mass within a zero volume. However, the zero volume is only relative to our own spacetime. Is is really zero volume, or is it just inflation in reverse (i.e. deflation)? If it is inflation in reverse, would there be any mass? Maybe there would be only energy. It would only have gravity due to the event horizon. That is, it just has gravity to us, outside the event horizon. The loss of gravity is just unable to catch up to us because spacetime is collapsing faster than the speed of light and time does not exist relative to us (time as stopped at the event horizon). That is, if light can not reach us from a black hole, then neither can gravity (or the lack of gravity).
Inflation only resembles our real growth from/at the center of the human body. I will prove this now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe following will clearly demonstrate the origination of our experience as a [linked] center of body experience.
In outer space, there is [full] inertia, and we cannot touch (and are not touching) objects; and there is no gravity; as this means no experience of touch. Full gravity involves [constantly] touching the earth in our typical earthly experience. Accordingly, touch and
gravity in dreams may or may not be experienced, and they are also at half force/strength of the tactile, gravitational force/energy while waking and standing. Indeed, we are semi-immobilized/semi-mobile in dreams; and this is indicative of half inertia and half gravity as well. The writer, by the way, has experienced gravity in dreams at half strength/force of that while waking/standing.
Space manifests as inertial/gravitational/electromagnetic energy
in/as dream experience. Full gravity involves full mobility in relation to, and in conjunction with, distance in/of space. Full gravity involves full distance in/of space. The experience of space
in/as dream experience is that of the middle distance in/of space in keeping with half gravity and half inertia. Gravity, inertia, and electromagnetism are key to distance in/of space. Note that vision begins invisibly inside the eye/body. Gravity, invisible and visible, is key to distance in/of space. Note the experience of colors in dreams.
Inertia is resistance to acceleration. Space is semi-detached from touch in/as dream experience because both inertia and gravity are balanced and equivalent at half strength/force.
Importantly, the reduction in gravity is balanced with a proportionate/equivalent increase in inertia in dreams.
1) Balanced attraction and repulsion.
2) Equivalent and balanced gravity and inertia.
3) Space manifesting as the middle distance in/of space.
4) Reduced gravity is equivalently balanced with proportionately increased inertia, so that MIDDLE force/energy is equivalent with MIDDLE distance in/of space.
Hopefully, Scientific American magazine will have this a its front page article in the next issue. I have much more on all of this. I have fundamentally unified physics by demonstating space manifesting as electromagnetic/inertial/gravitational energy/force.
But wouldn't the garage be a closed system? I guess it depends if the door is open or not. Good post!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is no riddle that you and snippy have lost this debate. Your concept of reality is full of loop holes and contradictions. I told you that the 3 dimensional expansion of the universe is independent and holds its own entropy in the arrow of time. You didn’t agree now it seems you do agree. Matter as it travels with or not with the expansion force of the universe has its own entropy and its own arrow of time. It is the very reason relativity exists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour holy grail that you adamantly/ fanatically defend to no end is the constant speed of light. Yet you admit the expansion speed of the universe (space/time) can travel faster than the speed of light. You cry nothing can travel faster than the speed of light because information would be lost, but dark energy and dark matter needs to exist to explain orbital speeds of galaxies and clusters. It is dark because its information can not be observed or it is lost.
My Yang Yin theory is a riddle to you because everything is a riddle to you, gravity, magnetism, electromagnetism, waveforms, weak force, strong force, a charge. The list goes on and on. You have nothing to stand on and act as if you have everything.
Not only is physics flawed the manner in which the problems of physics is sought is flawed. Like I stated elsewhere a successful business when facing problems it needs to solve will call in people who are keen in imagination. These people sit around and brainstorm and all ideas are written down no matter how far fetched they sound. After the brainstorming is done these ideas are passed down to the engineers and mathematicians to see if any of the ideas are plausible.
It is done in this manner because engineers and advanced mathematicians usually lack in simple logic and common sense while imaginative thoughts elude them. It is the price they pay for devoting all their brain power in one area. It is like focusing on one sense and losing other senses.
I don’t believe a scientific institution exists that has two singularities big enough to except my theory it will turn physics upside down. I don’t care and am publishing my theory regardless. If anyone is interested go to Amozon.com and ask for The Yang Yin, the origin of the universe, the theory of everything.
Look up orbital decay from gravitational radiation Cramer and ask why – c^5 and in reverse what does that have to do with the formation of atoms. The space that exists today is not the same space that existed in the creation of matter it is a problem of density.
NoToe,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've lost what debate? I have only said that I don't know what you are talking about and wanted further explanation that you refuse to give.
Are you telling me that I actually do understand what you are talking about. Sorry, I do not. You are also claiming I said things that I did not say. I never said anything about the orbital speeds of galaxies or information being lost.
That's a ridiculous generalization you made about engineers and advanced mathematicians lacking logic.
It is not me that you need to convince of your theories. I am not an astrophysicist or a cosmologist. I hope you get your Yang Yin theory published. That doesn't mean it will be ever be peer reviewed, but at least you can reference it when trying to explain it, instead of just hurling ad hominems. Insulting people will not help you. It should not matter if people insult you. They are not the ones with the Theory of Yang Yin. I have no theory, I am just trying to understand. However, I do have opinions of what makes sense to me and what doesn't. You are also arrogant (or lack confidence) if you believe you know what I know and don't know.
So infinite expansion as a theory is a remarkably elegant pile of slop is what we're saying. Isn't it? ISN'T IT?!?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this