Re: Big Bang Busted in Science Classes for High Schools

From: mike parker (mina5998_at_geusnet.com)
Date: 06/12/04 

Date: 11 Jun 2004 18:14:47 -0700

Dale Trynor <dalet@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message news:<40B85F07.A7ABB9F5@nbnet.nb.ca>...
> "Shrikantha S. Shastry" wrote:
>
> > nightbat <nightbat@home.ffni.com> wrote in message news:<40B610F9.4EAFAF64@home.ffni.com>...
> > > nightbat wrote
> > >
> > > "Shrikantha S. Shastry" wrote:
> > >
> > > > nightbat, your explaining away of singularity within your "real
> > > > universe", as in the present day physics, is in the reverse. For, it
> > > > is the singularity which merely appears as the universe. As such,
> > > > singularity also negates the universe remaining unaffected.
> > > >
> > > > S S Shastry
> > >
> > > nightbat
> > >
> > > As our lines become less the basic truth of directed dialogue
> > > remains, energy. My resolution is for clarification of physics paradox
> > > and affirmation of the beauty of energy's transform ability which
> > > provides for singularity and the Universe in which it resides. Energy
> > > doesn't appear, for it is, and only transforms itself into forms of
> > > distinct states whether human optic and instrument perceivable or not.
> > > As the Dr. Pasteur factor scientifically indicated, there is always more
> > > then meets the eye.
> > >
> > >
> > > the nightbat
> >
> > Exactly, nightbat, there is always more than meets the eye. And so,
> > your explaining away of singularity within your "real" universe as in
> > present day physics, is at best simplistic. The story is entirely
> > different as stated in my earlier posts, schocking if understood.
> >
> > BTW, nightbat, if energy or the universe is real, tell me about its
> > origin
>
> Dale Trynor wrote:
> Hi S S Shastry. While I don't think you have played much attention to my earlier post in this
> thread and you certainly don't seam to play much attention to any arguments against your belief
> and or any opinions given by nightbat, the alternative theory that I promote will also at least
> in part answer some of these questions.
>
> Because objects can be used to generate energy as they fall from an area of greater potential
> such as a mountain top one can at least in principle argue that if the extra energy were used to
> create more mass that you could at least in principle also have more atoms of hydrogen at the
> bottom of a mountain than at its top. This is of course assuming you could somehow efficiently
> convert this extra energy into extra hydrogen atoms giving us a literal extra amount of mass
> from the prospective of our ground observers.
> Now remember where I said that in this alternative theory, that gravitational time dilation
> could be shown to contract matter and do this in such a way that one ends up with measuring more
> space, such as longer orbits around such things as neutron stars and black holes that this will
> result in models where the creation of more space is also reasonable when such objects were
> originally formed. This is obviously all incomplete, as for example, one still needs some mass
> to start the process that will lead to questions of where the most original mass first came
> from. Then also the problem that even doubling the amount of mass that goes into even the
> largest black holes should still not be nearly enough mass to create another universe equivalent
> to our own. However this alternative theory is still rather young.
>
> For this theory to be valid creates the possibility that while in the neutron or quark star
> phase where momentum energy as well as temperatures are great enough for collisions to result in
> equivalent amounts of both matter and antimatter one can find reasonable arguments where the
> amount of mass dose indeed increase beyond the original amount that went into the creation of
> such objects.
> When they convert to black holes the amount of time dilation going to infinity must also be
> balanced by an equally infinitely expanded space.
>
> > and nature. Or, from where energy has originated with wave
> > particle duality? Why wave particle duality at all in your "real"
> > universe?
>
> Such duality would require an equal amount of antimatter and look up CP violation for more on
> this subject. Note how one cant get collisions where antimatter and matter are created where the
> two are not equally balanced. Note that while Uncle Al doesn't agree very much with my little
> extra hypothesis on this subject, or at least not on where it sort of resembles his etvous
> experiment, as for example both depend on chirality, only here its effects are dependent on the
> atomic scale only and that both result in equivalence principle violations however there are
> still a few major differences and one want to keep this brief so I wont get into it. I have
> hypothesized a residual antigravity that works where an equivalent amount of antimatter is
> concerned , to allow a gravitational way for the two types of energy and matter to have become
> separated, so that one can explain our present parity violations as not violations at all
> because of any of the effects we measure here are mirrored in the antimatter universe and so
> conserve parity alto with its required reverse gravity. This hypothesis works on the idea that
> gravity is chiral with a left and right and if gravity turns out to be a quantum vacuum effect,
> it would also mean that its also chiral.
>
> >
> >
> > S S Shastry
>
> Regarding your obsession with singularities I have figured out some gendankens looking at the
> relationships with Mach's principle where the entire universe seams to share its mass with even
> a single atom in a particle acceleration to prevent any sort of faster than light effects. It
> may prove to be another dimension that ignores distances where the quantum vacuum behaves like
> tiny little links in a chain that's infinitely long and is attached to the entire universe
> somehow. If this were the case then each link would not need to be very massive and yet because
> of its linkages by some sort of quantum entanglement where its an inertial entanglement instead
> of an indeterministic information one, would cause even single atoms to behave as if they were a
> part of the entire universe. Note here some of the predicted estimates for this quantum vacuum
> as it sometimes rather surprisingly extreme. This would take the form of ever increasing mass on
> a particle as it gets closer to light speed and can never go over that speed.
> The thing is that if this hypothesis were true then this part of space could indeed behave just
> like a singularity in some ways and everything gets tied together somehow.
>
> My best gendanken on this looked at a hypothetical space ship traveling near light speed and
> that cannot be slowed down, dragging an anchor attached to an infinitely strong cable by a black
> hole where the speed of light is only 1/2 as much. Note that the anchor must drag on the entire
> black hole no mater how small the anchor is to prevent a local faster than light effect i.e.,
> the entire black hole ends up sharing its inertia with space ship. This gets even easier to
> relate to Mach's principle when one concludes that our universe is actually a black hole even if
> it doesn't look that way to us up close observers.
>
>
> But note how this alternative theory dose requires that all black holes be at least somewhat
> universe like and while its not going to prove that our universe is actually a black hole it is
> very suggestive of this. The thing you need to take notice of here is that if we are within a
> black hole nested inside of another older universe note how this will increase the chances of
> older advanced civilizations also having come and gone and perhaps even to have hypothetically
> migrated to our universe. The thing is to ask just how advanced could any civilization have ever
> become and the question gets more and more interesting giving one lots of interesting
> speculations even to the point of alternative religions if you want to go that far with it. I
> could say why on this but the post is already long enough.
> Dale
  Dale: If you want to put limitations on what is then you are putting
a wall around your mind. For one light is not the fastest energy in
the so-called universe,Second-everything that is known comes from an
energy level that is only three dimensional.Dale there are a whole
lotta dimensions of energy that are too many to count,or in reality
there is only one true dimension that incompases them all. Wouldn't it
be nice to have a thought and that idea was.That is to be able to be
on an energy level where there is no motion.Now when there is an idea
that idea is everywhere.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "General Relativity Examined"
    ... of the effective mass of the rest of the ... universe)) at a special mean orbital radius to ... conserve total energy. ... proposition of a universal gravitation theory, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • entropy and bio-evo
    ... entirety of energy and mass includes every system know to human ... You and I both know there is more to the universe than veritable ... Energy is not merely CAUSED BY mass. ... Energy is MOTION. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: entropy and bio-evo
    ... > entirety of energy and mass includes every system know to human ... > Energy is not merely CAUSED BY mass. ... > the fact that no system exists in the universe unto itself alone, ... Energy is MOTION. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Big Bang Busted in Science Classes for High Schools
    ... > Because objects can be used to generate energy as they fall from an area of greater potential ... > create more mass that you could at least in principle also have more atoms of hydrogen at the ... > largest black holes should still not be nearly enough mass to create another universe equivalent ... > the entire black hole ends up sharing its inertia with space ship. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: MATTER AND ANTIMATTER
    ... Hawking postulate 1. ... > of energy are available for proportionally brief periods of time. ... > may be dragged within the black hole. ... > mass and energy of the free particle. ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading