Re: What before big bang?
From: truegridtz (marko_at_hal-pc.org)
Date: 09/01/04
- Next message: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: What's up with gravity wave detection?"
- In reply to: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: What before big bang?"
- Next in thread: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: What before big bang?"
- Reply: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: What before big bang?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 05:58:54 -0500
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:ch3tr5$d2s$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
> truegridtz wrote:
> > "Albert Einstein" <dadaismo@tin.it> wrote in message
> > news:iG7Zc.178539$OR2.8434846@news3.tin.it...
> >
> BF: This is about a short as I could make it and hopefully it makes
sense. I have trouble reading it myself.
>
> > As I see it the ultimate in science (relativity) proves that the
universe
> > was created.
>
> General Relativity is the best theory we have up to know - but
> essentially everyone agrees that for very small times, it breaks down
> due to quantum effects,
There is always the problem of the "observer." Since we have but one basic
observation point (possibly the term is "world event") we cannot be sure
exactly what we see. Matter is in motion, internally.
and in order to describe these first times, we
> need a theory of Quantum Gravity. It may well turn out that then that
> the universe *had* no beginning.
I do not subscribe to what might be termed quantum theory. I see
overwhelming evidence that everything is EMR. So it assembles in basic
packages, call them quantum. I strongly suspect that what is perceived
through science is highly flawed because many observations are flawed, thus
results and extrapolations are flawed.
Science is trying to fit all the evidence together into a unified theory. A
lot of the evidence is not what it appears to be. Much of it is
mathematical representation that has little resemblance to reality.
For some, still speculative, ideas,
> look here:
>
<http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=00042F0D-1A
0E-1085-94F483414B7F0000>
>
>
> > No matter what type of theory is set forth pertaining to a beginning of
our
> > existence, there must have been the propagation medium present
beforehand
> > for anything to work.
>
> Huh? Could you please explain that logic further?
As I see it, the "writing on the wall" says that EMR traveling through
free space is traveling through a propagation network that is "bent" by
gravity. The bending is only a mathematical and geometric observation.
What is actually happening is probably quite different than a bending.
Relativity, in a geometric sense, is mostly rotation through 90 degrees or
somewhere in between. What is actually happening is most uncertain.
The propagation medium is what is called free space. It has properties that
are necessary for matter to operate as it does. The "writing on the wall"
strong suggests (from my perspective) that matter does not inherently have
all of the qualities of space-time. What matter reacts to is a quality
(qualities) of free space. It must have been present in the beginning.
Whatever massive material event happened (that appears to be steadily
expanding) , call it the Big Bang, must have had an already existant free
space. Once again, (assuming that there is some scientific explanation for
the presence of the initial quantity of matter in the beginning) the matter
itself did not and does not generate the qualities of free space.
It is conceivable to me that the generation of matter in the beginning could
have been an electromagnetic event that literally generated matter. It is
conceivable that light and velocity were spontaneously generated and then
matter formed due to some type of interaction. Even so, the properties of
free space would have to be present the mass-energy conversions to take
effect. Who knows, maybe someone stuck a match in a room of of mirrors
inside a black hole. Maybe that's what the damned ape did. Playing with a
cigarette lighter. Kabooom. Mabey it was an anti-cigarette
lighter......anyhow....
The qualities of free space (as far as I know) are homogeneous through the
universe no matter what the quantity of matter in the vacinity (surely there
is some exception to this at the edge of reality, wherever that might be, if
there is such a place). Yes, the matter in the vacinity changes the free
space, but the free space itself is the same every where. From this it
seems logical to conclude that the qualities of free space were not
generated at the moment of the beginning. These qualites were already
present. Someone put free space in operation. In fact, a universe this
complex could not have generated itself. The whole theory of evolution is
patently absurd.
My point is that science is used to generate arguements in behalf of a
godless beginning of existence. I say that the highest science (which
describes accurately the nature of free space) makes it obvious that what
ever evolutionary model is set forth requires an already existant free
space.
Gravity, mass, energy, space-time are all predicated on events occuring in
relation to the ether. Mass increases with velocity. Electrons are moving
at high velocities in (from our perspective) circular orbitals. The
gravitational effect of matter seems to be due to the mass of the atom
interacting with free space. The mass of the electrons and vibrating
protons and neutrons is due to the interaction of their velocities with free
space. This gives them their mass. It is a system that we percieve as
material existence. It could all be EMR.
Light has mass. Light has velocity. Light's path is changed as
gravitational fields change the nature of free space, the medium through
which light propagates. Light is EMR and has the properties of matter.
All EMR travels at c, even the fields in a 120V 60Hz line transformer.
Light is EMR and has mass. This relationship strongly suggests that all
material existence is EMR in forms that we cannot understand because we are
wasting so much time on all this quark and quantum theory. It is good for
what it is good for, but it will never get us where we need to go.
We need to prove or disprove whether electrons and all other forms of matter
are small (or mabey huge and dimensionally distorted) circular and
self-sufficent webs of light.
Light travels at "c" because this is the standard propagaton velocity
(from our perspective, from our reference point). The redshift is due to
the gravitational effect upon the propagation medium, the ether. Gravity
itself appears to be as result of mass interacting with free space.
>
>
> > EMR propagates through some type of universal format.
>
> Ever heard of the Michelson-Morley experiment?
Yes, amazing, but ineffective. It may have worked, but due to factors that
had a cancelling effect there was no drift (for lack of the proper term)
detected for planet earth.
>
>
> > The "ether" surely exists or there would not be a reference point called
> > "c". MH
>
> "c" is not a reference *point*. What do you mean?
"Point" here means a place in the theory that is a reliable constant. Not a
geometric point, a reference point. A point of reference. A place in the
theory that has a definable quantity. Relativity is based on "c" being
constant. AE said that there was no proof of this, the value of "c". It
was chosen to be the constant, but it does work out in the equations. It is
the maximum theoretical obtainable velocity in mass-energy conversion. It
can also be mesured, so it seems to be a reliable constant.
If anyone made it through this, thanks for reading it. If I read everything
three times I could see what I was trying to say. I hope that it is
basically sound according to theory. Comments are welcome, if they aren't
based on tons of geometry. Regards, Mark
>
>
> Bye,
> Bjoern
- Next message: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: What's up with gravity wave detection?"
- In reply to: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: What before big bang?"
- Next in thread: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: What before big bang?"
- Reply: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: What before big bang?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
