Re: Entropy and the "big bang"

PD wrote:
> TomGee wrote:
> > PD wrote:
> > > TomGee wrote:
> > > > PD wrote:
> > > > > TomGee wrote:
> > > > > > PD wrote:
> > > > > > > TomGee wrote:
> > > > > > > > PD wrote:
> > > > > > > > > TomGee wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > PD wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > TomGee wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > PD wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > TomGee wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know what you mean by that, Wormley. If you're asking if it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > has attractive or repulsive gravitation, I opt for repulsive because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that explains how DM could keep galaxies together and also explains the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > higher speeds of the outer stars in some galaxies.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Higher speeds mean higher centripetal accelerations. The stars are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > traveling in orbits. Centripetal acceleration is defined as a=v^2/r.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus, the higher speeds of the outer stars mean higher centripetal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > accelerations. Which direction, in your model, does this acceleration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > point? And, following that question, in which direction would the force
> > > > > > > > > > > > > responsible for that acceleration point?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > What does all that have to do with repulsive or attractive DM?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you answer it, we'll be able to say something about the origin of
> > > > > > > the force, don't you think?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > No, I think not. It is only another one of your obstructionist
> > > > > > tactics.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No answer, PD?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Still no answer, PD?
> > > > >
> > > > > No, I think not. It is only another one of your obstructionist tactics.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Heh heh. It don't work that way, PD. I have no reason to use
> > > > obstructionist tactics for my own ideas. You have to use them 'cause
> > > > you have no real arguments against them.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I will repeat the question however. Since the higher speeds of the
> > > > > stars in their orbit about the galaxy is the effect that DM is
> > > > > purported to explain, then what is the direction of the higher
> > > > > centripetal acceleration that is associated with the effect that DM is
> > > > > purported to explain? And then what is the direction of the force that
> > > > > is the cause of the acceleration that is associated with the effect
> > > > > that is purported to explain? That is, if DM is responsible for this
> > > > > causal force, what direction does it apply this force upon the stars.
> > > > > Surely your understanding of DM's effect on the stars is deep enough to
> > > > > at least tell the *direction* of the influence.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Surely. But as I said, it's your turn to do something I asked you to
> > > > do.
> > >
> > > No sir. I asked you seven questions about *your* theory. You have yet
> > > to answer them. I'm not interested in justifying the conventional
> > > theory to you.
> > >
> > >
> > I answered the questions pertaining to the topic. The others were not
> > relevant. Reword them explaining their relevance if you want an
> > answer.
>
> Nah. If you don't want to answer them, you won't.
>
> >
> > I have no need for you to justify "conventional theory", esp. since you
> > have no clue what that is judging by your unsupported claims. I merely
> > want to know the explanation for your belief that DM is attractive and
> > not repulsive. BTW, I found another dolt who claims DM is attractive,
> > but he too fails to say why he thinks that is so. The problem with
> > believing the force is an attractive force is two-fold: One, an
> > attractive force does not explain the observed effects, and two, how
> > can negative mass have positive energy?
>
> Nah, your problem is you don't read anything that would explain why
> those "problems" are not problems. I'm not going to solve your problem
> for you.
>
>
SNIP
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I am reading your essay, by the way, almost done with it. I would love
> > > > > to post it in pieces, with full attribution to you of course and with
> > > > > your permission, so we could examine it in detail here. Do I have your
> > > > > permission to do that?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > No. You may quote brief passages from it for the purpose of better
> > > > understanding their meanings or to state agreement or disagreement with
> > > > any particular issue or statements I discuss therein, but I must insist
> > > > that it would be a great inconvenience for readers for anyone to post
> > > > it just for the sake of posting the whole essay. A seventy-page essay
> > > > is too long for the purpose and goals of these science ngs and that
> > > > would be a violation of copyright. Feel free to discuss any claims I
> > > > make therein in a particular thread, if you like, though you can see
> > > > that they too tend to get overly long soon enough. Remember that I
> > > > have already posted many of the ideas about not only the title issue
> > > > but others as well.
> > >
> > > I said I would post it *in pieces*. Specifically, a piece at a time. Do
> > > I have your permission to do so? I'm going to assume yes unless you
> > > tell me no.
> > >
> > >
> > I already told you no. What part of that do you not understand? It is
> > copyrighted and registered as such, and the limitations of its use are
> > stated on the Dedication Page, in case you have not read it. It is for
> > sale, as I have explained to you previously, and if you publish it in
> > any way other than I have stated in the copyright notice, you will
> > cause me the loss of money I can make from those who wish to buy it,
> > now and in the future. If you do not understand the limitations I am
> > placing on you and that the law places on you wrt copyright
> > violations, I suggest you consult a copyright attorney to help you with
> > that. I assumed you knew all that since you said you were afraid to
> > quote your sources for fear of being sued.
>
> OK, then. So you don't want pieces of your model excerpted here for the
> purposes of discussion, and you won't answer questions about your model
> here (or at least you will only answer questions that *you* deem are
> relevant), and you won't cite any references that comprise support for
> your model.
>
>
No, not so. You said you wanted to post it "in pieces" which to me
means you would post the entire essay verbatim chapter by chapter or
page by page. You can post any issue I bring up and explain your
thoughts about it whether you agree or disagree, as you have been
doing. You may, for example, disagree with my claim that space and
time are not inseparable as AE believed, and post your arguments as to
why you agree with AE and not with my supporting arguments of my claim.
To do that does not require posting all my work. I have over the
years posted parts of my essay in several science ngs in order to make
my ideas clear or to better explain my meaning of a position I take. I
did that to stimulate discussion of my interests where I am willing to
be shown incorrect about some part or another of any issue I discuss in
my essay.
>
>
> Sounds like you want to make a lot of noise about your *having* a
> model, but without the risk of submitting your model for scrutiny.
>
>
It's unfair for you to say such a thing after all the time and effort I
have spent in responding to your replies and anyone else's replies to
my ideas for nigh on ten years now.
>
>
> As long as you're going to take that approach, I'm not going to take
> you seriously any further.
>
>
> > > > > > > > SNIP
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > OK, so let me see if I have this right. You have said that the motion
> > > > > of the DM is like an unrolling carpet. So where the DM carpet is
> > > > > "unrolled", if you will, then DM is no longer repelling ordinary
> > > > > matter, and where it is still "unrolling" then DM does repel ordinary
> > > > > matter.
> > > > >
> > > > Nope. DM has the energy of its motion due to the expansion of the
> > > > universe while it's unrolling and in such a case its energy of motion
> > > > would more likely be a repulsive force than an attractive force.
> > >
> > > But the point I'm trying to get clear is whether, where DM is already
> > > unrolled, there is still a repulsive force on ordinary matter?
> > >
> > >
> > No.
>
> OK, so then this would imply -- would it not? -- that in your model,
> there are regions of the universe that are no longer expanding,
>
>
No. That's too much of an inference from the simple statement that DM
that has no more impetus from the BB cannot exert a force of any kind
onto RM. The fact that the expansion rate is increasing refutes the
idea that there are regions that are no longer expanding. It is
intuitive to think that the expansion caused by an explosion will wear
off eventually but will show no sign of that while it rate of expansion
is increasing!
>
>
> there is no longer a repulsive force acting on ordinary matter, only
> the attractive force that ordinary matter exerts on itself
> gravitationally. And this would be observable, by mapping the expansion
> rates of the universe using the data we have collected, would it not?
>
>
No. In regions where the expansion process is ongoing, it is not
observable because it has not occurred there yet. This idea is simply
based on observations that show galaxies are moving away from each
other via the process of the expansion of space. If space were
expanding as some believe and as my model contends it is not space but
the medium of DM which is expanding, the space within the galaxies
would expand at the same rate, but they don't so if the distance
between galaxies is expanding but not the distance between the bodies
in them, my claim of DM being actively repulsive, due to its motion,
between galaxies but not at close proximity to or within galaxies, is
an attempt to explain the conflicting observations.

My analogy of an "unrolling carpet" only explains that one part of the
observations and does not get into the details of the unrolling. E.g.,
how can there be any "unrolled carpet" only apparently within or close
to galaxies since the space within them does not seem to be expanding?
The unrolling carpet cannot help here because now it is a situation
where only the distance between galaxies seems to be expanding at an
increasing rate. Gravitational attraction of RM is given as the reason
why bodies within galaxies have come to resist the expansion of space.
RM, then, having positive energy plus the energy of its motion
[E=mc^2+(energy of motion)] resists successfully the expansion power of
DM that has only the energy due to its motion and is able to clump up
into galaxies and maintain its dominance over DM for the most part.
The carpet has unrolled within galaxies but continues to unroll in the
space between them.

If it is so that the creation of RM is a function of positive energy
interactions with DM, that may explain the lopsided ratio of DM to RM.

.

Quantcast