Re: What before big bang?
From: Dale Trynor (dalet_at_nbnet.nb.ca)
Date: 09/08/04
- Next message: FrediFizzx: "Re: Lorentz Ether Theory and FTL Paradoxes"
- Previous message: Goran Dhemmeog: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- In reply to: TomGee: "Re: What before big bang?"
- Next in thread: Bilge: "Re: What before big bang?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 05:48:21 GMT
TomGee wrote:
> Dale Trynor <dalet@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message news:<waT_c.122891$Np3.5240318@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>...
>
>>TomGee wrote:
>>
>>>Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<chf9vl$bla$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>TomGee wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<ch9auv$ki3$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>TomGee wrote:
>>
>>Dale Trynor wrote:
>>TomGee, have you taken the time to review my post earlier on in this
>>thread. What did you think about it.
>>
>>
>
> Sorry for the delay in my response, Dale. I think you presented a
> good example of your point in trying to show how runners will run
> slower as they crowd into a small tunnel. I have not understood it
> completely yet but I do not disagree with your arguments in your post
> so far. It looks to me like it is very complex in its relationship to
> time, where to me, the time and motion relationship is very simple to
> understand. I think I am wrong in that, however, as I think most
> readers have not understood my ideas completely either.
>
>>
>>I promise it will be worth your wile if you truly want to understand how
>>things actually work rather than just arguing with Bjoren.
>>
>>
>
> Well, okay, I have to agree it is a waste of time talking with Bjorne,
> but I thought I would give it a go in hopes that others might be able
> to find a way to overthrow my ideas. But I see now where he and Bilge
> have professed their love for each other, and I say they deserve each
> other no less than Hitler and Mussolini did. Certainly, neither one
> deserves me.
Dale Trynor wrote:
No, I dont really agree with that, he dose after all take the time to
respond and thats something thats at least sort of nice of him as it
really is a voluntary thing. I do believe Bjorne is probably quite smart
and dose appear to know his stuff but unfortunately, and he is not
alone, they can become cranks of another sort where they become overly
conservative to the point where new ideas are not accepted on their own
merit and old ideas are accepted more on consensus rather than on their
merit. Einstein was in risk of becoming such a crank when he commented
about god not playing dice with the universe when he was confronted with
the uncertainty principle. Remember the comment about physics being
driven by its funerals, it wasn't without motivation that this was said.
But to be extra fair he did appear to be right in a few places where you
appeared to be wrong and I never took the time to respond. Cant remember
what it was now and this post will take all the time I have so I wont
get to review that earlier post now.
>
>>This is what one would predict of an event horizon observed from the
>>reverse side and if space were still expanding. Such a surface would
>>appear gravitationally repulsive however this might be a bit like saying
>>that the sky is gravitationally repulsive. An interesting point is that
>>time would run faster than anyplace else in our universe and that is
>>what one would reasonable expect of a white hole.
>>
>>
>
> I don't know that time would run faster in a white hole unless the
> matter in it would be moving very slow if at all.
No thats not how they would work its got nothing to do with if anything
is moving really. Time is faster in the same way it would be for an
observer near a black hole looking up and out into space where the
gravity is less. Also works for satellites from our earth based
observation to a much lesser extent.
I did some posts quite some time ago looking at how curvature could be
relative and I did this by examining how a satellite in orbit around a
black hole at the same level where light must also be bent so much as to
also travel in a complete orbit would look from the prospective of an
observer at that level. The 3m level. Such orbits are not very stable
and light wont make many compleat orbits before it gets lost all
together but we wont look into those and related detales here and now.
The thing is when trying to model how our astronaut could measure the
curve in the light path when the light is allowed to travel thought the
craft creates some interesting questions on how or why he should or
should not be able to observe this curvature.
Remember that its important that our craft be stabilized by gyroscopes
to make sure that any rotation is not detectable for him. This is
important because of how a satellite that is kept facing the earth must
also rotate to keep this oriantation and if it were to rotate this way
it would be able to observe the light path curve, not because the light
actually curves but because the craft were rotating ever so slowly
producing the same observation.
The hypothesis here when this sort of actual path bending is concerned
is that anything the astronaut could use to measure this curvature in
the light path must also distort anything he can measure this with. Note
here how if his meter stick becomes curved to match the light path it
will appear to our traveler that the light didn't curve at all, turning
the meter stick over only reverses the effect making it undetectable for
him no mater what he dose. Oddly enough it leads to another support for
space expansion for reasons I will avoid for now.
Now notice that for our astronaut it might actually be a flat surface
from his prospective even while its still bent to our distant outsiders
prospective. It gets interesting now because this effect might not end
here and if it continues it will start bending in the reverse direction.
Think about this, our astronaut now has his tools and references on what
a curved surface is becoming even more bent, this results in his
prospective of what was recently a flat surface to him now becoming a
curved one where he now sees a bulging curved gravitationally repulsive
white hole. Remember that the time is still faster there because its
still closer to the outside of the original black hole and so gives the
same faster rates of time from the prospective of our astronaut and for
the same reason as it dose for the observer close to a black hole
looking out into space. If you have trouble here I will review how
gravity must cause a different rate of time and do so in an intuitive
way so you will understand it after all its critical to understanding
this and occasionally people miss this critical point for whatever
reason they skipped by reading up on it or were asleep in class etc.
>
>>
>>>>I said a lot of concrete things. E.g. I explained several times how it
>>>>follows from the equations of GR that matter gets "carried along" with
>>>>the expansion of space.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>No, that's not a concrete thing.
>>
>>Remember one of my recent posts looked at an experimental proposal in
>>support of this alternative theory looked at just how this expansion
>>could be shown and noted that the masses might be considered not to have
>>moved at all depending on the observers frame of reference.
>>
>>
>
> Well, if it depends on observers ref. frames, GR would not claim to be
> describing reality. The theory of homogenous expansion does not claim
> that space itself is expanding. It simply claims that one way to
> explain why the galaxies all apppear to be moving apart and away from
> us is by successive photographs that show that as time passes, they
> move apart while maintaining the same coordinates. That is quite
> simple to understand and there is no reason why anyone would think
> that it means space itself is expanding between objects. Even if that
> assertion is true, one cannot prove it with the idea of homogeneous
> expansion.
I really dont remember if I posted my latest idea for an experiment
examining how space expansion could be actually detected and if you
could also have seen it. Do you remember a post by me looking at how two
co moving blocks would appear to move apart because they were actually
shrinking due to entering an area of space where the relative time is
slower. You need a cylindrical plaint for it to be easily observable
because on a round plaint everything tends to move together as the free
fall towords a common center swamping out the effect and a long
cylindrical plaint has the one axis where we can avoid this confusion
making it clearer to show.
To review, if we take two 1 cm cubes placed side by side and free fall
drop them into an area where the time dilation is 1/2 of ours then the
cubes will have contracted by 1/2 the original lengths of all the edges.
This only amounts to 2.5 mm measured from the centers of each cube and
for both cubes would cause them to separate by a total of 5mm but note
here that our astronaut is also using a contracted cm thats also only
1/2 as long. Note that he will insist that the cubes will have moved
apart by 1cm from his prospective and not the 5mm that we would observe.
The theory hypothesizes that this can be shown to actually be more
actual space and is not simply a shorter measure of the same space.
Note how while the rate of time was changing it will have actually
appeared like the blocks were actually moving apart.
Look closely and this will answer the above question quite well if you
understand the basis of this theory.
>
>>
>>>No, you're mistaken. I did answer it. I said, "So what was here
>>>before the BB, if not such a void? Do you concede that space was here
>>>already and did not come out with the BB? Anyone who claims otherwise
>>>[that space came out of the BB] is one who believes they can imagine
>>>such a void since they believe in the idea of a real place having
>>>nothing - not even space - in it."
>>
>>The alternative theory shows how our space appears as if its the
>>creation of space and time from our prospective, however its only a
>>relative prospective. We dont cease to be, just because black holes are
>>created in our universe.
>>
>>
>
> If it is a valid theory, it is then only one perspective, one point of
> view. All it takes to show me wrong is to show how GR claims that
> space came out of the BB. I don't think it does show that, but I
> could be wrong.
>
The big bang theory is very incomplete and worse yet many of the theorys
are in reality, crank theorys. I dont mind being called a crank myself
because I tend to feal I am one but I do get annoyed when faced with non
scientific arguments that the theory is wrong. I am to lazy to get into
it now and I could have had an entertaining post if I was ambitious.
>>
>>>>>Anyone
>>>>>who claims otherwise is one who believes they can imagine such a void,
>>>>>since they believe in the idea of a real place having nothing - not
>>>>>even space - in it.
>>
>>Actually if you could have a tunnel with a much thinner quantum vacuum
>>i.e., lesser space in it one can argue that it would behave just like a
>>worm hole, if you accept this alternative theory.
>>
>>
>
> Wormholes are like the wild theories of infinite futures and past-time
> travel, they are possibilities only which we may think about but not
> spend too much of our resources on them for r&d.
Not necessarily, I even have a suggested experimental approach to
actually testing the idea, I am not kidding. Unfortunately I cant really
see how it could be used for time travel but I could be wrong. I can
however describe why faster than light, if you dont mind the fact that
it involves speeding up the speed of light/time itself, need not result
in any sort of time travel.
>
>>
>>It would also have a faster rate of time within it relative to us in our
>>coordinate time. Of course proper time never changes just as is the case
>>with black holes etc.
>>
> Space has no time to it because time is a property of visible discrete
> matter.
Actually its a property of the quantum vacuum or whatever it is that
makes up our space. Not having anything else in it in the way of matter
or waves only raises questions on how such a thing as time could be
measured in an empty box but I dont think the properties that regulate
time disappears without any measurement tools in its presence. Why would
you think otherwise.
>
>>
>>Yes it would mean that our origin universe would have a much faster time
>>it it for the same reason that black holes have a slower time in them.
>>It can go onto greater and greater extremes without any actual limits.
>>What I am trying to say is that the more you try to reach an empty void
>>the faster the time and the more inflated in size objects become without
>>limit.
>>
> The idea of contraction and lengthening wrt to speed is non-intuitive
> and some offer the Principle of Uncertainty as a way to get past it.
>
Lorentz contraction stuff is tricky to understand thats true. Even today
I still have a gedanken that I really haven't solved that contradicts
the idea of this contraction with relative speed. Called it the tank
tread paradox.
>>
>>
>>>That's true, but they looked for an "ether wind" which does not exist.
>>> "My" ether is space itself - or, rather, the invisible particles and
>>>energies of space. We cannot detect them except indirectly, but when
>>>we create light, it propagates through these invisible particles.
>>
>>I sometimes try to avoid getting into discussion on aether theory
>>because I tend to feel its most often about semantics. A recent post by
>>me illustrates, I have a dislike of the use of the disprove of the
>>aether as a proof that the quantum vacuum dosent exist and that the same
>>MMX proved that it cannot have any contributing properties to space just
>>because it cant be used a preferred reference to gage ones motion
>>through space without any outside references. I cant decide which is
>>more misleading.
>>
>>
> There is no need to be afraid of semantics so long as one maintains a
> basis of logical rules in the argument. Semantics as a propaganda or
> advertising ploy is not undefeatable; one has only to follow current
> rules of language use and the ploy can be easily exposed.
It results in a lot of wasted bandwidth, disagreement and time.
>
>>>>
>>>>If there is a medium in which light travels, Michelson and Morley
>>>>would have detected it.
>>
>>As I said above all the MMX proved was that it cant be used as a
>>reference frame to gauge ones motion trough space without outside
>>references, its not proof that space has no properties.
>>I have seen endless stooped arguments on this.
>>
>>
>
> I agree that it is not proof that space has no properties. Space
> exists and so it should have at least one property, quality, or
> quantity.
Its got to have quite a few surprises yet to be figured out. If such
things as warp drive ever have any hope of becoming a possibility it
will be essential to understand it. Questions such as dose space have
chirality is also going to be in here somewhere. I have looked at the
possibility of something oddly similar to Uncle Al's etvous ? spell,
experiment.
Unfortunately he didn't agree about its similaritys and thats a shame
because it could have shown why his ideas might have had an even better
chance of success. Not sure how well Uncle Al's experiment would do this
but the version I looked at would have also explained the predominance
of matter over antimatter and its also testable if one could get enough
antimatter to do the experiment. Yes it requires two specimens , yes its
disproves the equivalence principle no its not inspired from him, I
dreamed it up years and years ago, long before I ever heard of Al. Will
explain it to you if you ask.
>
>>
>>>My fault, I should have added, "...as compared to matter, which is
>>>seen primarily as particles." If E=mc^2 holds true in all cases,
>>>energy and mass are interdependent, but when we speak of energy, we
>>>usually speak in terms of waves with little or no mass. When we speak
>>>of mass, we refer to particles as the smallest units of matter. I can
>>>see now I could have best not mentioned it at all, since it is not
>>>that relevant a statement to our discussion.
>>>
>>>
>>Some time ago I did a post looking at how photons in an perfectly
>>reflective box having no mass would have mass added to it by the photons
>>of light. It was odd the idea of a massless box containing no mass and
>>yet being able to show how it would have mass. The argument soon
>>illustrated why if quantum particles were in fact no different than the
>>light containing boxes that one would not be able to tell that the mass
>>of matter were obtained in the same way.
>>
>>
>
> Yes, a massless box would be quite odd. But how can you have massless
> photons unless you ovethrow E=mc^2?
>
It worked on the idea that any attempt to move the box must also move
the mirror towords the photons blue shifting them causing them to push
more, "note that I said more here because light photons will push
everywhere equally when the box is at rest", on that side of the mirror
reproducing the appearance of inertia. Gravity will give similar
results. Its to be noted that this effect won't change by making the box
smaller for the same amount and energy of photons for reasons I will
examine if you dont immediately see why.
For reference I remember reading that a square mile of sunlight provides
a push of about 5 pounds if I remember it right, so putting that much
energy in a small perfectly reflective closed box could really add up
big time. Remember the stuff about photon pressures in stars.
>>
>>Another posted pointed out that he couldn't think of anything at the sub
>>quantum level where one actually had a true rest mass.
>>
>>If anyone wants I will review it a bit more here.
>>
>>
>
> Dale, your post above provided me with a little more information about
> your ideas but I need to know how you support your ideas, especially
> if and when they conflict with the std. model or with any accepted
> theory. If you think any of my ideas do that, please feel free to
> tell me how and where.
> TomGee
I really need a decent web page.
Hope I provided enough info here but the theory is new and is really
very incomplete. For example if black holes are universe like how
universe like are they. Do they appear to contain the same amount of
mass as our universe and if not, how could they remain universe like.
How would our universe behave if it only had one stars worth of mass in
it and if you read about the importance of mass in relation to the
universe being closed or open you will get the idea. If extra mass was
created beyond the meager amount needed to simply create a black hole as
is the case in our universe with only a few stars worth of mass needed,
how dose this work. Got some clues but this is enough for tonight and we
are getting more into hypothesis now mostly because I cant really
figure out how to test them.
Dale
- Next message: FrediFizzx: "Re: Lorentz Ether Theory and FTL Paradoxes"
- Previous message: Goran Dhemmeog: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- In reply to: TomGee: "Re: What before big bang?"
- Next in thread: Bilge: "Re: What before big bang?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
