Re: Dark Matter, Gravity, and the Creation of the Universe - A New Look.
From: Franz Heymann (notfranz.heymann_at_btopenworld.com)
Date: 01/01/05
- Next message: Franz Heymann: "Re: Virtual Particles and Light Duality principle"
- Previous message: Sue...: "Re: Sue: the smallest reflection?"
- In reply to: John L Aldridge: "Dark Matter, Gravity, and the Creation of the Universe – A New Look."
- Next in thread: Uncle Al: "Re: Dark Matter, Gravity, and the Creation of the Universe Q?= A New Look."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 19:56:51 +0000 (UTC)
"John L Aldridge" <info@targetcentre.com> wrote in message
news:b2f99091.0501010427.536a05f5@posting.google.com...
> First wriiten in November 2002
>
> The problem with explaining this theory is knowing where to begin,
> because as you will find, the theory incorporates some of the great
> mysteries of the Universe, in what I believe can be defined in one
> working model.
> Let us start at a fraction of a second after the creation of the
> Universe - the actual creation and the effect that it has on this
> theory I will deal with later.
That fraction of a second of which you speak had better be very small,
if you have anything new to say. The development of the Universe is
pretty well understood from about 10^-12 seconds after the bang
itself.
> After the first wave of the creation,
> we have all the energy of the universe concentrated in a space
smaller
> than our Sun, a quantity of energy that goes towards infinity.
You are almost certainly wrong. There are those who say that the
universe is one big free lunch. Do remember that gravitational
potential energy is negative
> There is nothing that has existed after this event that can even
come close
> to comparison; even the most horrendous black hole is but a grain of
> sand in a seemingly endless ocean in comparison.
> The matter that is expelled into the void
There never was any "matter expelled into a void" as you so biblically
put it. Matter just caused space itself to expand.
> during our "fraction of a
> second" consists of particles that I have defined simply as
> base-particles.
You are d few decades too late for this. The details of almost all of
these "base particles" are known already.
> These particles are the original building bricks of
> all forms of matter that is yet to come.
> Before going further, I wish to postulate a modification to "The
> Theory of Finite Probability".
Probabilities are always finite. In fact, they are always less than
or equal to 1.
> When we begin to deal with numbers of
> enormous size (N.E.S.) - the creation of the Universe is a good
> example - the possibility to calculate the probability of an action
> goes towards infinity,
Balls. Alpher, Bethe and Gamow were able to calculate the expected
relative abundances of the light elements quite accurately by using
only standard techniques.
[snip]
I got bored with all that verbosity, so I snipped it when I noticed
the cpmplete absence of any quantitative work
You should do more than acquaint yourself with pop science if you want
to spout about scientific matters.
Franz
- Next message: Franz Heymann: "Re: Virtual Particles and Light Duality principle"
- Previous message: Sue...: "Re: Sue: the smallest reflection?"
- In reply to: John L Aldridge: "Dark Matter, Gravity, and the Creation of the Universe – A New Look."
- Next in thread: Uncle Al: "Re: Dark Matter, Gravity, and the Creation of the Universe Q?= A New Look."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
