Re: The Big Bang's Little Problem
guskz_at_hotmail.com
Date: 03/28/05
- Next message: PD: "Re: Fastest Time"
- Previous message: Einsteinhoax: "Are Unified Field Theories Justified?"
- In reply to: jonathan: "Re: The Big Bang's Little Problem"
- Next in thread: Uncle Al: "Re: The Big Bang's Little Problem"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 28 Mar 2005 06:51:33 -0800
jonathan wrote:
> <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
OK
for your condensating clouds they believe in the big crunch then
another bang.
for you bloom(growth) of flowers velocity is but a "matter" of
perception.
-consider the bang instead of high velocity as a slow velocity thus
slow growth from the seed (big bang).
(some believe the seed is from another tunnel/vortex, greeks as godly
unisex, scriptures as a god's mind in lonely insanity giving birth to
reality)
- consider the branches(perhaps tunnels/vortex to other seeds) & roots
similar, semetrical and feeding from only "one" same soil/atmostphere
thus perhaps the bang blooms into a tunnel who's branches(action)
perhaps curve(warp) back (why in 3d volume of space? and in a 4d time
span?) to it's roots (location of reaction) to feed(travel) off the
void (air pockets) left from the explosion(the blooming). The void
bubbles perhaps formed by reaction law, turbulance of explosion
(growth) and perhaps the bubbles are mass as well as the resonating
insulaton diaphram at the center of the bang's singularity(seed)?
>
>
> >
> > - 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: PD: "Re: Fastest Time"
- Previous message: Einsteinhoax: "Are Unified Field Theories Justified?"
- In reply to: jonathan: "Re: The Big Bang's Little Problem"
- Next in thread: Uncle Al: "Re: The Big Bang's Little Problem"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
