Re: Timetable & Gravitational forces of Big Bang perplexing?


tomgee wrote:
guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
tomgee wrote:
From: tomgee <tyropress@xxxxxxxxx> - change nickname
To: "g...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <g...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
a) The 0 to 300,000 year after the Bang for energy to form into
gluons/electrons/plasma "seems" abnormally small?

To say "0" is to mean that the forming began instantly when the BB
occurred.

The explosion began at 0, the forming they say began 300,000 wrt our
relation which still exist with singularity although deceleration
(which of course disrupts our time clock measures) due to
thermodynamics is involved.


For that to be a valid assumption requires some support as
to how that could possibly happen and why. Otherwise, we can assume
that some time after the BB began, matter began to form. Unless
someone can show why it started to form at "0", it is only an opinion.

The explosion only at 0.

Yes, that was my point.

The reason this is relevant is because I think that the primeval soup
of energy sent out initially by the BB was Dark Matter.

DM has mass, but it is negative mass (Gamow) that exists motionless
when no external force is acting upon it. Being negative mass, it has
only "negative energy" as opposed to what we would call "positive
energy".

Some theories suggest the needs of a negative Universe (as opposed to
dark matter).

Never heard of that. What are those theories based upon? Are their
arguments based on logic or empirical evidence, or are they just based
on the opinion that anything is possible?

It's plastered all over the web. Some believe there is an exacte
Universe to our Universe but negative.
Other suggest a Negative Universe from inside Black Holes.

As well Steven Hawkings had suggested that Black Holes may lead to
other Universes (branches/tunnels) but he doesn't suggest a Negative
Universe to ours. Recently he has also stated that he changed his mind
and now believes all information (matter/structure) is preserved after
in enters into a Black Hole (perhaps he believes it may explode back
later on in the same way/structure???) but I think everything returns
to its master and is destroyed and crunched into a singularity of pure
energy.


Either way Newton's LAW demands a reaction to every action, that action
is the explosion and the reaction is either negative dark matter or a
negative universe (the sum total = ZERO).

While it has no energy of motion of its own, it can be
affected by external force, specifically the impetus produced upon it
by the BB. In such a case, something had to occur that changed DM into
+mass/energy after the BB. The 300k year figure is supported by the
calculations of time passage according to our own time frames of
reference, and as such, it is not all that relevant, but it does serve
as a starting point for the basis of theory.

The idea that soon after the BB, matter began to form from what we have
traditionally called "pure energy" does not fit into what we call
"physics facts". According to AE, we cannot have pure energy as it
must have some matter in it in order for it to have energy.

It's possible the very inital equation for E=mc^2 must submit to the
TENSOR laws (still theory) and for does in the very same equation the
intial mass is replaceable by what physics calls a MOMENT (someway
similar to Plancks constant (smallest multiple dimensional unit) but in
this case it's a MOMENT of time (smallest multiple time unit....it's
multiple is what we call mass ....same as the multiple of density (x
volume = multiple) is mass therefore the initial density (smallest unit
of density) is perhaps both a unit of Planck and MOMENT of time ...or
both are one in the same (Panck and Moment that is and are simply the
inverse of each other ...same as wavelength (dimension) versus
frequency(time) w = 1/f ).

The rest below is tooo longgg to read sorryyyyy.

SNIP
>
For the sake of simplicity we'll call the Big Bang's energy: "RAYS"

1. According to rules for Time Paradox and Relativity, time had no
meaning for the "RAYS" wrt to each other (same speed but angled away
from each other like rays of star light which is similar to say two
twins moving the same speed but at different directions(angles) wrt to
each other) but these "RAYS" had meaning wrt to their origin (the
singularity)?

Why should they have been "RAYS" instead of the way light propagates,
spherically? Explain what process would cause that.

Interesting....PERHAPS:

"Mathematically speaking the more space (volume) created the more the
density must weaken (energy = inverse of density) thus we cannot CREATE
more ENERGY than what the BIG BANG PRODUCED (the logic is the ENERGY
is "instantaneous and NOT continuous) thus the more the RAYS disperse
from the singularity the more by mathematical laws the individual
ENERGY must reduced in order to disperse the larger volume it needs to
occupy???? ) "

An Explosion produces photons and photons are considered RAYS of light
(sunlight)

Light rays consist of great quantities of photons, thus a single photon
cannot be considered to be a "ray" of light. Light rays do not exist
naturally because light always propagates in a spherical fashion from
its source. They are caused by interferences by objects that form
light into rays.

I didn't know that. So your saying sun rays don't exist in space and
are formed through interference with Earth's atmosphere?


However, you have touched upon one of my arguments about modern
science's contradictions about photon theory. Physicists claim light
is created from a source as spherical em waves and as particles. Light
is both wave and particle, then, in all cases. That is called the
paradox of the dual nature of light. There are no real explanations
for it - that's why it is a paradox, a self-contradictory statement.

I have explained away the paradox, however, in my proposal that light
propagates as em energy through the media of DM in space, where it
collides through DM particles that are converted into real matter (RM)
at the point of contact into visible light. It is not possible to
explain the dual nature of light in any other way than that which
resolves the contradiction in it, as my idea does.

and according to our rules of dimensional spaces the further
you move from a central location (singularity or sun) the more space
accumates between the RAYS....if you wish to accumulate these VOID
spaces with more light then you would be suggesting the CREATION (out
of nowhere) of MORE photons into this space

I have posted that argument several times in these ngs previous to
today in asking where do the additional photons needed to fill in the
gaps between other photons that are created as the em wave expands?
The only answer received was that a theory of probability is applicable
as a viable explanation for that. Of course, they gave no explanation
as to how it can be applied to this particular case, so they lost on
that issue. My idea won out, but no one wants to admit that, so they
have remained silent and gone on with their lives as if the paradox
still exists.

ORRRR perhaps the thermal
density (Thermodynamics) is reduced per incident RAY to form a
continuous SPHERICAL propagation as you call it thus the thermal
density of individual photons weakens with distance from the
singularity but the total thermal density remains the same (meaning
simply disperses itself to fill the void to form a spherical
propagation instead of rays).

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Timetable & Gravitational forces of Big Bang perplexing?
    ... relation which still exist with singularity although deceleration ... of energy sent out initially by the BB was Dark Matter. ... meaning for the "RAYS" wrt to each other (same speed but angled away ... An Explosion produces photons and photons are considered RAYS of light ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Timetable & Gravitational forces of Big Bang perplexing?
    ... For the sake of simplicity we'll call the Big Bang's energy: "RAYS" ... twins moving the same speed but at different directionswrt to ... We still have in common the singularity as the yard stick ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Timetable & Gravitational forces of Big Bang perplexing?
    ... For the sake of simplicity we'll call the Big Bang's energy: "RAYS" ... twins moving the same speed but at different directionswrt to ... We still have in common the singularity as the yard stick ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Timetable & Gravitational forces of Big Bang perplexing?
    ... relation which still exist with singularity although deceleration ... of energy sent out initially by the BB was Dark Matter. ... a gas rushes to fill a vacuum and is in fact "sucked" into it, ... with air in it is compressed to as much as the container can bear ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Singularity free solutions [was Re: How can I become an expert anti-relativist?]
    ... > this is known as the weak energy condition. ... state violates the dark energy condition, ... you probably meant "if the universe accelerates". ... There are no singularity theorems "with ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)