Re: The Big Bang's Little Problem
From: jonathan (Write_at_Instead.com)
Date: 03/26/05
- Next message: Dr ***: "Re: Through a glass darkly"
- Previous message: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: origin of inertia"
- In reply to: guskz_at_hotmail.com: "Re: The Big Bang's Little Problem"
- Next in thread: guskz_at_hotmail.com: "Re: The Big Bang's Little Problem"
- Reply: guskz_at_hotmail.com: "Re: The Big Bang's Little Problem"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 11:52:49 -0500
<guskz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111836313.517152.52020@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Nick wrote:
> > If the universe started without gravity it violated the No
> > Boundary proposal. No curvature/gravity in the begining?
> >
> I'm no science expert but:
>
> - The big bang was called Chaos by the Greeks.
>
> The universe may have to be viewed differently and perhaps:
Yes it does need a new perspective. Have you considered
that the properties of living systems provide an understanding
of the physical universe? Why is it assumed that the customary
opposite frame of reference is the correct perspective?
Through complexity science, see intro link below, an ...abstract...
mathematical form of Darwinian evolution is gained. Which
allows the true source of order to be seen in a universal way.
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~quee0818/complexity/complexity.html
>
> - consider matter/substance only as a localised density of energy and
> as an amplitude of energy from a manifestation of Newton's inertia
> momentum law.
Consider matter and energy in the same way as a cloud.
Which stands poised at the critical point or phase
transition between condensation and evaporation.
A persistent storm or edge of chaos state where
systems move spontaneously to a more ordered
state and then self-tune to the optimum.
Consider the universe in the same way. As a system
at the critical point between gravity and cosmic
expansion.
When any system resides midway or at the transition
between it's static and chaotic forms then self organization
spontaneously occurs, and the system evolves to
produce new emergent properties not predictable from
the components.
It is these higher level emergent properties that produce
the self-tuning or evolving nature of any system whether
material or living. A market force for instance. The properties
that guide the universe and all order flow from the
whole, not the parts, are ethereal in character and
are most strongly seen in the highest forms of order..
.....through life and Darwin.
Not particle physics!
The physical universe is NOT understood by looking
at quarks or quasars, but by a passing cloud or a
simple bloom of flowers.
Jonathan
s
>
> - consider gravity/magnetic forces as perhaps individual
> transmission/reception frequencies where the signals move toward their
> "least" restrictive path.
>
> - consider massless light as a pertubation or resonance of vacuum
> space/ether or the smallest permissible form of energy/quantum.
>
> - consider that possibly there is no void & possibly all existance must
> remain "with-in" the big bang's energy field/bubble.
>
> - consider why 3or4 viewable dimensions why not 200.
>
> - consider there is no energy and that it's sum total = zero which they
> explain as possibly the positive & negative universe or the outcome of
> Newton's action/reaction law.
>
> - consider curvature (why 3or4 if the straight arrow of time also
> curves), gravity, boundary as possibly a transmission/reception
> manifestion of Newton's action/reaction law where the only void(s) (ant
> thus "room/space" for travel) that is formed is through Newton's laws
> on action(inertia/momentum) to which must be re-filled (curvature &
> boundary) by the reaction.
>
> - consider time(4d) = "total energy transmitted by the big bang who's
> propagation velocity(time/frequency) is limitted by the "sectional 2d"
> distance(span) created by the volume(why 3d) of the big bang's total
> energy" (All d's are inter-related).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > What about unification? If there was mass there was gravity.
> > Can't get around it.
> > But if that mass started as a singularity the gravity of
> > this universal mass would make it a black hole.
> > And black holes don't expand.
> >
> > So if there was no gravity it was only because there was
> > no mass yet - as a singularity. Mass was created spread
> > apart and flung outward. That way the gravity of mass
> > can be overcome by inflation/expansion.
> >
> > It can clearly be seen that space-time expanded outward
> > from a single point. So there was a space-time singularity
> > but there was no "mass" singularity.
> > Mitch -- Gravity is a Continuum --
>
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
- Next message: Dr ***: "Re: Through a glass darkly"
- Previous message: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: origin of inertia"
- In reply to: guskz_at_hotmail.com: "Re: The Big Bang's Little Problem"
- Next in thread: guskz_at_hotmail.com: "Re: The Big Bang's Little Problem"
- Reply: guskz_at_hotmail.com: "Re: The Big Bang's Little Problem"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
