Something for perspective:

The consensus story peddles a theoretical big bang excuse called 'Inflation Theory', which claims to offer an ‘accounting’ of how this large-scale intergalactic structure formed from a big bang—of course, it can not .

The following are a few salient quotations from Stephen Hawking from a NewScientist magazine (5th April 2003 edition), regarding a discussion of post big bang inflation theories and proposals;

"But there is no way to test the idea, and Cambridge University cosmologist Stephen Hawking says he believes it "has serious flaws". ... he claimed inflationary models are hopelessly inconsistent and possibly irrelevant. "Even if inflation works, it won't tell us why the Universe is as it is," ... Because inflation has no defined link to what kicked off the Universe, he believes it has nothing to say about the fundamentals of physics. "It simply shifts the problem from13.7 billion years ago to the infinite past". He suggested that only "Top-down" cosmology—combing through our current observations without prejudice—will yield any final answers about the nature of the Universe."

However, in another article within the same issue, Hawking is variously paraphrased and quoted as saying;

"... But these days of certainty are no more: modern notions of gravity and quantum theory show that this approach is inadequate. "We and our models are both part of the Universe we are describing," says Hawking. "We are not angels who view the Universe from outside." This means that these physical theories are self-referential [finite-based closed thought loops] as on Godel’s Theorem, so we shouldn't be surprised if they are inconsistent or incomplete. "The theories we have so far are both inconsistent and incomplete." M theory is incomplete in a very real sense. It assumes that we can define the Universes ‘wave function’--the full quantum description of its properties--at each and every point in space. In an infinite Universe, this would require an infinite density of information. ... "What we need is a formulation of M theory that takes account of the black hole information limit," says Hawking. ... So a theory of everything may be out of reach forever. ... But Hawking is sanguine. "Godel's theory ensured there would always be a job for mathematicians," he says. "I think M theory will do the same for physicists."."

If NewScientist has accurately reported and represented Hawking’s' comments--and we have to presume that they have, then we are seeing the signs of several major shifts in Hawking's life-long pondering of the nature of our cosmos, namely;

1. Hawking has correctly identified that all theories are inevitably self-referential, and therefore self-limiting, i.e. they are implicitly finite-based and that our cosmos is clearly incompatible with such a theoretical finite-based synthesis approach, because the cosmos itself is not at all limited; therefore, how could a limited theory or model ever be a complete and consistent reflection of our unlimited actuality? Logically it is futile. Hence, he has explicitly recognised that a 'Theory of Everything', or a 'Grand Unified Theory', or a 'God Equation' is irrelevant fantasy, and consequently, our only hope now is to reconsider all of the available raw physical observations—"without prejudice".

2. Hawking is implicitly indicating that he has now given up entirely on the hopelessly inadequate notion that the cosmos could ever have formed from a point-like big bang explosion, because without 'Inflation Theory', the big bang theory is stone cold dead. Hawking has explicitly rejected the theme of inflation theory.

3. This implicitly means Hawking has entirely abandoned the notion that the cosmos ever could have formed from the detonation of a 'singularity', and is apparently doing away with that sort of notion altogether; however he is retaining the notion of singularities with regard to theoretical ‘blackholes’.

4. He is consequently thus also implicitly entirely rejecting the big bang’s interpretation of the cosmic microwave background radiation--C.M.B.R.

5. This also means he is also implicitly abandoning the standard model of 'nucleosynthesis' of matter particles and atoms, which model asserts that all such 'matter' is the product of such a big bang singularity detonation event.

6. He has now, apparently of necessity, due to his total abandonment of a big bang, turned to what he also freely admits is a presently inadequate ‘M-theory’, and it seems he is attempting to develop a potentially ‘workable’ future cosmological understanding of an infinite space using M-theory. However, he explicitly realises that the implications of blackhole singularities are entirely incompatible with M-theory in its' present form.

7. Hawking has forcefully and deliberately distanced himself (and done so directly to the science print media), as far as he possibly can, from any theoretical suggestion that a big bang is physically viable, or logically tenable as a credible description of the physical cosmos, as he presently sees it.

--

The NewScientist article states that Hawking was; "clearly in a combative mood-despite the "Stop the war" badge on this lapel—he claimed inflationary models are hopelessly inconsistent and possibly irrelevant."

It seems obvious Hawking is not wanting to be constantly associated (via mass media and documentaries etc.) with a big bang's propaganda themes, which he obviously does not subscribe to at all. In this instance he was clearly determined to make this obvious to all in a way, which could no longer be ignored, nor go unreported.

Thus he chose to use the forum of one of the most important astrophysical meetings in history (Davis meetings' release of results fro the W.M.A.P.--Microwave Anisotropy Probe--satellite's high resolution all-sky survey of the C.M.B.R, as the venue in which to make his position crystal clear regarding the big bang’s inappropriateness for understanding the WMAP data. He appears to have carefully and deliberately chosen this occasion, specifically to derail the railroading of a consensual inertia towards interpreting the W.M.A.P. satellite’s C.M.B.R. data as some sort of physical expression of an inadequate inflationary big bang model’s interpretation (thank goodness he did!).

He obviously wanted to put the brakes on that whole notion, so that we can put aside the theoretical filters, and look directly at the data itself, "without prejudice".

Given what was reported at the time of what Hawking said, logically these were some of his identifiable objectives

i.e. the man does have to plan everything he electronically ‘says’, in advance … right? So he took a lot of care, these were not loose words and stated positions, and it can hardly be argued that he is insufficiently aware of the standard notions and of cosmology and observations in general

As Hawking now rejects a finite-based big bang singularity, he has turned to the only potentially viable cosmological candidate (which he also knows and admits does not physically work at present) which does not utilise any big bang singularity or grand nucleosynthetic atomic matter 'creation'. He logically recognises that the cosmos is an infinite state, which we are directly integral to and embedded within; and that a finite-based big bang singularity is not a compatible notion with such absolute finiteless state.

As there is no other viable logical option, he finds himself forced to turn to a developmental and non-working M-theory cosmology. He realises that M-theory may never be made workable but has realised that nothing presently available within the consensus view is worthwhile, or has the potential to ever give us a logically consistent comprehension of the cosmos we observe.

In my view, the only thing which does logically work is a space with no finite.

__________________
The whole purpose of inquiry is to smash into pieces that which we think we know. Finite does not exist in any physically expressed form within our cosmos, it's a cognitive abstraction tool, but people have generally not realised this. My examination and review of observation within every scientific field is predicated upon this fundamental under-pinning principle; ‘finite’ itself is non-existent, has never existed within any physical form whatsoever in our cosmos, that finiteness and infinity are logically and actually immiscible existential states. You can have one within the cosmos, but never both. Observations make it clear that we are in an isotropically flat, open and infinitely random space. If the cosmos is observed to contain even one case of an infinity, then it contains no finiteness at all.

Regarding big-bang anti-matter cancellation claims producing the WMAP CMBR data/imagery, here is a revealing quotation excerpted from a recent book written by a well placed and informed author who is active within the field of high-energy particle physics research.

"Cosmologists now have to understand how such tiny seeds [i.e. the C.O.B.E. satellites' detection and mapping of tiny anisotropic density ripples in the C.M.B.R.] evolved into the galaxies we now see. But one thing is already clear. If the initial universe had contained widely spaced clusters of matter and antimatter, these would have left their characteristic imprint on the Cosmic Background Radiation. The tiny ripples seen by C.O.B.E. and other detectors are not compatible with separate domains of matter and antimatter that went their own ways immediately after the Big Bang. All primeval antimatter was thus exposed to contact, and therefore annihilation with matter. Annihilation would have been unavoidable, but the resultant cosmic radiation shows no signs of it. The universe we can see looks to have been eternally free of nuclear antimatter."

Gordon Frazer; ANTIMATTER -The Ultimate Mirror, Cambridge, 2000, p201.

Gordon Frazer works at the European Laboratory for Particle Physics, Geneva, Switzerland, where he is the Editor of the CERN Courier; a monthly magazine covering all aspects of particle physics. CERN is the primary European particle research organisation, and is the operator the worlds largest particle collider; the L.E.P., or Large Electron Positron collider. CERN is the facility where atomic antimatter was first artificially produced in late 1982. We really could not expect to find a more appropriate source for definitive and pertinent comment upon these issues.

There can be no reasonable doubt that the proponents of the notion that post big bang annihilation is the causal origin of the C.M.B.R. have made a logically and observationally foundationless assertion.

The overt on-going dogmatic insistence on this baseless proposition and the dismal failure of its proponents to retract and correct the record on this matter may be viewed as a particularly blatant example of ‘scientific consensus’ propaganda.

The C.M.B.R is observably not the product of anti-matter annihilation, and thus has nothing to do with a big bang cosmological model.

__________________
The whole purpose of inquiry is to smash into pieces that which we think we know. Finite does not exist in any physically expressed form within our cosmos, it's a cognitive abstraction tool, but people have generally not realised this. My examination and review of observation within every scientific field is predicated upon this fundamental under-pinning principle; ‘finite’ itself is non-existent, has never existed within any physical form whatsoever in our cosmos, that finiteness and infinity are logically and actually immiscible existential states. You can have one within the cosmos, but never both. Observations make it clear that we are in an isotropically flat, open and infinitely random space. If the cosmos is observed to contain even one case of an infinity, then it contains no finiteness at all.

I guess the point is that we don't know. Was everything at a point? or did the universe start out already "inflated"? The current idea seems to be that it started from a point, but it doesn't have to have. One of the ideas is that somehow two higher dimensional spaces collided, and that this provided some huge energy across all of our space. Another idea is that a black hole formed, and we are on the inside with inverted spacial coordinates.

We have no way to know how small the universe was when it started expanding. Personally, I don't assume it was a point, but I don't rule it out either. I have no experience with physics at energies and densities that high.[/b][/quote]
I am very late to this several weeks old thread and apologies for tilling the old posts, but this struck me as particularly remarkable.

I see a moderator (antoniseb), whom I expect is a professional, highly informed and experienced individual and scientist, supporting a non-observed and untestable theoretical 'event', but using yet another theoretical non-observed and untestable proposition to do so … i.e. "somehow two higher dimensional spaces collided". :angry:

How is this even further bizarre notion a support for a pre-big bang existential status, or any answer/insight regarding the question posed, to which the moderator was thus responding?

Is it therefore unexpected that there is contemptuousness for a BB view when this is the actually characteristic response and the cutting-edge of 'insight' which a BB model provides us after 50 years of continuous development? <_<

It was however prefaced with, "I guess the point is that we don't know.", and that is of course the relevant fact.


(please excuse my sharp sense of scepticism and total lack of respect for such theories antoniseb, to me they are no more substantial than other works of creative fiction)

__________________
The whole purpose of inquiry is to smash into pieces that which we think we know. Finite does not exist in any physically expressed form within our cosmos, it's a cognitive abstraction tool, but people have generally not realised this. My examination and review of observation within every scientific field is predicated upon this fundamental under-pinning principle; ‘finite’ itself is non-existent, has never existed within any physical form whatsoever in our cosmos, that finiteness and infinity are logically and actually immiscible existential states. You can have one within the cosmos, but never both. Observations make it clear that we are in an isotropically flat, open and infinitely random space. If the cosmos is observed to contain even one case of an infinity, then it contains no finiteness at all.

First, finiteness_does_not_exist, welcome to the UT forum.

Second, you assume too much of the moderators if you think we are all professional astronomers. I am a software developer with an interest in Astronomy.

Third, this is just a request, but would you please shorten your signature?

Finally:
You can be mad (noting your emoticon) all you like but the fact is that *I* did not write supporting this idea. The piece you quoted me in was specifically saying that we *DO NOT KNOW* and I threw out a couple of the more common alternative expalantions that DO NOT REQUIRE the universe to have begun as a single point. I do not support any idea about what happened before the big bang. Please read carefully before you take offense.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Hi antoniseb,

Thank you for the welcome to UT, I’ve been a periodic lurker here, off and on for some time.

The emoticon is a poorly defined thing at the best of times. I've read a flood of such 'explanations' in Journalistic and 'science' writings, and these become more prevalent and degenerative with the years. I seem to have lost patience with such suggestions. Basically, I can’t see how any serious thinking person could buy into it but I did note above that you’ve prefaced your reply with, "I guess the point is that we don't know." (if you read carefully)

I think that is the much more important and telling thing to be clear on, rather than to suggest the even worse.

__________________
The whole purpose of inquiry is to smash into pieces that which we think we know. Finite does not exist in any physically expressed form within our cosmos, it's a cognitive abstraction tool, but people have generally not realised this. My examination and review of observation within every scientific field is predicated upon this fundamental under-pinning principle; ‘finite’ itself is non-existent, has never existed within any physical form whatsoever in our cosmos, that finiteness and infinity are logically and actually immiscible existential states. You can have one within the cosmos, but never both. Observations make it clear that we are in an isotropically flat, open and infinitely random space. If the cosmos is observed to contain even one case of an infinity, then it contains no finiteness at all.

You've certainly entered this thread with a big bang finiteness_does_not_exist!

Let me tackle your posts one by one.Allow me to re-cast this: "finiteness_does_not_exist's story peddles an excuse about an 'Inflation Theory' and its (lack of) accounting for the large-scale intergalactic structure of the universe—of course, [finiteness' claim] does not [address the 'accounting']."

What DOES finiteness_does_not_exist actually claim? Well, let's examine his (her?) post, shall we?So we have a recitation of the reported views of Stephen Hawking, in the popular press (we do NOT have any references to peer-reviewed journal papers). May we count this as an appeal to authority?more of the same.
Whoa! finiteness_does_not_exist suddenly went from the informal views of one esteemed scientist on the BBT to "all theories"! He also plunged headlong into what seems to be a favourite topic of Hyginus - metaphysics. Finally, he raised an issue familiar to students of the philosophy of science ... one which was laid to rest many, many decades ago (i.e. that it is possible to have 'theory free' observational data). Both these topics may be of great interest, but they are also clearly OT.
This may (or may not) be an accurate summary of Hawking's thinking ... but why is it relevant (to this thread)?

No matter how great an individual's contributions to physics may have been, surely their views carry no more or less weight wrt new areas (beyond that of their great contribution) than anyone else's? Surely we must examine the BBT on its merits (internal consistency, consistency with good theories that overlap its domain, consistency with good obsevational and experimental results)? The extent to which 'inflation' is a key part of the BBT must also pass these three tests.
More about Hawking; also a repetition of the popular misconception about the BBT containing a 'detonation of a singularity' (ditto re singularities and BHs) - finiteness_does_not_exist, we have addressed this several times already in this thread; please take the time and trouble to read the whole thread; if you have anything new on this point, please add it.Hawking III. Also a claim that needs more than finiteness_does_not_exist's bald assertion - in which of Hawking's papers did he show that the good observational data on the CMBR are inconsistent with the BBT?
Same as point 4, above.
And what has this got to do with the BBT?
Please provide references to Hawking 'directly' demonstrating that the BBT is 'a credible description of the physical cosmos', in 'the science print media'
Date? Venue? Transcript of his remarks?? Other presentations at this meeting?
[The rest of finiteness_does_not_exist's post is irrelevant to this thread]
And where have you published your view (so we may all read it)? Would you care to share with us what the reviewers said (I presume you published it in something like ApJ)?

The thread title is, “Mass Exodus From Big Bang Begins”, is it not?

This man has routinely been wheeled-out and used as an intellectual authority figure, an implied 'support' for Big Bang notions, within practically every popular English-speaking cosmological program directed toward the general public, within the past 10 years (i.e. the BB consensus propaganda). It's peachy to have him trotted out to say a few computer generated token grab phrases, when it suits the producer to make allusions to big bang cosmological 'support' to the public, but when Hawking makes an explicit personal point of setting the record straight in public and before peers, with his own carefully selected words (and as that quote points out, he was "clearly in a combative mood" when he made those pointed remarks), regarding the worth and relevance of a big bang cosmology and inflationary theory, his stark personal “exodus” from the BB camp is glossed-over and basically down-played/ignored.

Highly relevant to the thread's title and it's content themes, it's just not what some want to hear, perhaps? Not unexpected.

By the way, he's currently pursuing what is essentially, an evolved Steady State cosmology.

__________________
The whole purpose of inquiry is to smash into pieces that which we think we know. Finite does not exist in any physically expressed form within our cosmos, it's a cognitive abstraction tool, but people have generally not realised this. My examination and review of observation within every scientific field is predicated upon this fundamental under-pinning principle; ‘finite’ itself is non-existent, has never existed within any physical form whatsoever in our cosmos, that finiteness and infinity are logically and actually immiscible existential states. You can have one within the cosmos, but never both. Observations make it clear that we are in an isotropically flat, open and infinitely random space. If the cosmos is observed to contain even one case of an infinity, then it contains no finiteness at all.

On to finiteness_does_not_exist's second postPlease help us out here finiteness_does_not_exist; what are these claims, and where may we read more about them?What this reads like is a step in a broader discussion - the extent to which the good data from WMAP are consistent with one particular hypothesis on the origin of the ripples.

A quick look through the WMAP website turns up the following Peiris et al paper (caution, the link is to a ~>4MB PDF file): FIRST YEAR WILKINSON MICROWAVE ANISOTROPY PROBE - OBSERVATIONS: IMPLICATIONS FOR INFLATION. A quick skim through this paper, and ... no references to antimatter or annihilation! Which is not at all surprising, since the Peiris et al paper merely sets out to show how the WMAP data constrain certain inflationary models. To see the extent to which the particular model Frazer appears to be talking about is constrained, we need to go to papers on that particular model - can you give us references please Mr finiteness?Again, is this an appeal to authority?Or perhaps There can be no reasonable doubt that finiteness_does_not_exist's notion that post big bang annihilation [...] is [a] logically and observationally foundationless assertion ... is an assertion that relies entirely upon an appeal to authority.Whoa! Once more finiteness_does_not_exist has gone from a narrow critique of but one aspect of but one model of inflation to a sweeping generalisation about an entire field (observational cosmology), or perhaps several (astrophysics, high energy physics, ...).

A little more rigour, if you please finiteness_does_not_exist!Did I see you use the word 'logically' finiteness_does_not_exist? Would you care, please, to show how the second half of this sentence follows - logically - from the first?

The thread title is, “Mass Exodus From Big Bang Begins”, is it not?

This man has routinely been wheeled-out and used as an intellectual authority figure, an implied 'support' for Big Bang notions, within practically every popular English-speaking cosmological program directed toward the general public, within the past 10 years (i.e. the BB consensus propaganda). It's peachy to have him trotted out to say a few computer generated token grab phrases, when it suits the producer to make allusions to big bang cosmological 'support' to the public, but when Hawking makes an explicit personal point of setting the record straight in public and before peers, with his own carefully selected words (and as that quote points out, he was "clearly in a combative mood" when he made those pointed remarks), regarding the worth and relevance of a big bang cosmology and inflationary theory, his stark personal “exodus” from the BB camp is glossed-over and basically down-played/ignored.

Highly relevant to the thread's title and it's content themes, it's just not what some want to hear, perhaps? Not unexpected.

By the way, he's currently pursuing what is essentially, an evolved Steady State cosmology. [/b][/quote]
Thank you finiteness.

May I conclude that your case is largely (entirely?) one of 'authority'? That you wish us to consider (only) the weight of the 'authorities' trotted out in favour of one or another view?

BTW, what do you think about the idea that this thread is misplaced? How much of the content is the presentation of, and discussion on, an 'alternative theory'? Wouldn't we be better off re-casting the material as questions about the BBT (and their answers)?

:blink:

You're requesting the reference ... again?

Please have another look at the original post Mr. Nereid as it has already been given to you, but here it is again:

Gordon Frazer; ANTIMATTER -The Ultimate Mirror, Cambridge, 2000, p201.

Yes, of course it is pertaining a broader discussion, the book which it was excerpted from is referenced within the initial post. The reference was provided so that people who are actually interested (and not just protesting or quibbling because it is merely contrary to popular supposition), could read that conclusion within its actual full discussion context.

:blink: <scratches head>

Ok, I'm prepared to give this a go. The first part of the sentence refers to the referenced quote of Gordon Frazer's (given above), from which the second part logically follows. Not too difficult, however, since you have hacked up the post so comprehensively it's not surprising you did not read it within the given context, or else that it escaped you.

You are of course playing games if you are suggesting the WMAP data has not been selectively interpreted within the BBT as a "confirmation" of a fireball afterglow (which was the previous allusion) etc, or as an anti-matter annihilation product.

Yet Gordon Frazer is effectively stating such a suggestion is observationally absurd and not supportable - it's a delusion.

Do you have a problem with a specialist within that relevant field stating what is observationally apparent or that his 'authority' is somehow questionable upon your say so (which you also paint as my 'appeal')? Or is it because it does not suit your taste?

You appear to be suggesting that Frazer's measured statement of observational fact should be discounted/ignored?

I see it as it was intended, a reality check on BBT's exuberant and inappropriate theorising. I appologise that it's rather contrary.

__________________
The whole purpose of inquiry is to smash into pieces that which we think we know. Finite does not exist in any physically expressed form within our cosmos, it's a cognitive abstraction tool, but people have generally not realised this. My examination and review of observation within every scientific field is predicated upon this fundamental under-pinning principle; ‘finite’ itself is non-existent, has never existed within any physical form whatsoever in our cosmos, that finiteness and infinity are logically and actually immiscible existential states. You can have one within the cosmos, but never both. Observations make it clear that we are in an isotropically flat, open and infinitely random space. If the cosmos is observed to contain even one case of an infinity, then it contains no finiteness at all.

You presume too much.

__________________
The whole purpose of inquiry is to smash into pieces that which we think we know. Finite does not exist in any physically expressed form within our cosmos, it's a cognitive abstraction tool, but people have generally not realised this. My examination and review of observation within every scientific field is predicated upon this fundamental under-pinning principle; ‘finite’ itself is non-existent, has never existed within any physical form whatsoever in our cosmos, that finiteness and infinity are logically and actually immiscible existential states. You can have one within the cosmos, but never both. Observations make it clear that we are in an isotropically flat, open and infinitely random space. If the cosmos is observed to contain even one case of an infinity, then it contains no finiteness at all.

Non sequitor; i.e., your conculsion does not follow logically from your evidence. In all Big Bang theories, the anisotropies in the CMBR are a result of a disconnection between matter & radiation, when the protons & electrons recombined into neutral hydrogen. So, the anisotropies represent variations in matter & energy density at that era of recombination, as it is called. The ripples are not supposed to have anything to do with matter/antimatter annihilation, so the observation that they do not is in fact perfectly consistent with a Big Bang origin for the ripples.

Apologies; I forgot you're new.

When I say 'reference', I mean reference to a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal, covering a field relevant to the topic at hand. I shall try to remember to put the full phrase in each time from now on.

In this case I want to know if you can point us to papers in journals such as ApJ that lay out the 'matter-antimatter annihilation leads to observed ripples in the CMBR' models (I expect there will be many, not just one ... models, that is; as well as papers). The quote from Frazer suggests (nothing more) that he is not the author of any such papers.Well, I was asking you to back up your assertions with the original sources, not a book.

Since the WMAP (and COBE, and ACBAR, and BOOMERANG, and ...) data is in the public domain, anyone can perform analyses on it ... they may also crunch the numbers to show that the data are consistent (or not) with one of thousands of models within the BBT ... all you appear to be asserting is that one person claims that one model is inconsistent with the data.He may have stated this ... but your quotes from his book don't make that case. And even if he did say it, it seems he's talking about only one model (as you have the book, could you please tell us if he gives references to papers that are the source of these models?)My problem is with any claim based solely on an appeal to 'authority' - I am asking you to provide more than an appeal to authority - where are the papers, so I can read them for myself?Well, may I set the record straight then?

I am suggesting that, no matter who Frazer is, I want to read the peer-reviewed papers which lead him to conclude what he did.

Now let’s get this straight first Nereid, I’m not the one making the fantastic claims, it's the Big Bang proponents who are. I’m only pointing out the total lack of any evidenciary support for those theoretical claims and assertions, as is proper and warrented.

It’s up to the proponents (apparently yourself?) to establish that half of the cosmos was once anti-matter and that this unobserved non-existent antimatter was partitioned from normal matter in the (theoretical) early universe, when experiment and logic both indicate these two would have been generated in immediate intimate proximity to each other, at extremely high densities.

Matter and anti-matter are known experimentally to be strongly attractive in close proximity, so:

1. Why should these (theoretically 'generated') particles partition and separate (again, only in theory) into vastly distanced and discrete domains of matter and antimatter, when experimental generation of matter and antimatter particles are observed to always occur within the most intimate proximity to their other pair's half? And how is it that such separation can occur with such early BBT matter densities and net dispersion vectors away from a singularity (again, theoretical)?

2. What was the physical mechanism of this (theoretical) partitioning, of (theoretical) antimatter from matter?

3. While you are at it, could you please credibly explain why there is zero evidence of such residual partitioned anti-matter within the observational cosmos today. Where is the staggering illumination of the CMBR cosmos by pods and clumps of an antimatter universe of matter, in the past, or even still, annihilating with the normal matter universe?

(and please, let's have it in plain English rather than in an obscurational fog of jargon ... I'm rather dull of intellect and need it in clear terms)

--

There is of course no such observational evidence, and it's a theoretical delusion to suggest, or insist this has actually occurred (not to mention such separation is absurd from an experimental perspective), when observed CMBR uniformity shows it has obviously not occurred at all.

The big bang’s CMBR claims are clearly drastically wrong, and furthermore, are not even the least convincing from a purely theoretical logic perspective, based upon what is observed of antimatter-matter propensities and interaction.

So the big bang is making yet another fantastic observationally unsupported theoretical claim with zero observational evidence to support or insist on such a claim. It's theory gone mad and Gordon Frazer is simply pointing this out as a heads-up reality-check.

But of course, the BBT continues to ignore this and holds to the mere claim that the CMBR is a resultant of a post big bang annihilation ‘event’, in the profound absence of observational support for such an anti-matter to matter generation asymmetry. However, a lack of observational evidence and lack of testability has never dissuaded or attenuated BBT true believer’s theoretical proclivities and fantasy in the past, so why start now. Every chain breaks at it’s weakest link, but the BBT story doesn’t seem to have any strong ones.

--

So then, rather than playing your game Nereid, of finding you some satisfactory theoretical ‘models’, when Frazer is talking about the state of observations, how's about I post the final paragraph of Gordon Frazer’s book and then you can attempt to post references to papers (within the Journals you mentioned) establishing the observational evidence that the big bang’s fantastic claims are unambiguously supported by any actual astronomical observations—not just within mere models.

--

“THE SEARCH FOR COSMIC ANTIMATTER

When it blasted off from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center on 2 June 1998, the Space Shuttle ‘Discovery’ had on board the 2-ton Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS), the first major particle physics experiment to go into orbit around the earth. This ten-day precursor study provided valuable experience before redeploying AMS on one of the great scientific projects for the twenty-first century, the International Space Station. The objective of AMS will be to look for nuclear cosmic antimatter. From its orbital vantage point, the high technology AMS detector will carefully monitor the composition of cosmic rays high above the protective screen of the Earths atmosphere. If it does find nuclear cosmic antimatter, it will help dispel the conundrum of a creation which has apparently contrived to hide half of itself [it’s most energetically reactive and thus visible half]. Although therefore welcome, such a positive result will nevertheless clash with the negative evidence for antimatter among all the cosmic signals trawled so far from the depths of the visible universe. Our understanding of cosmology and the origin of the universe would require a major rethink, a Copernican revolution for the twenty-first century.” - Gordon Frazer; ANTIMATTER -The Ultimate Mirror, Cambridge, 2000, p207.

(my emphasis)

--

Initial AMS flight:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_..._...&db_key=PHY

Upgraded AMS to be launched to ISS orbit on 15th Oct 2005:
http://ams.cern.ch/AMS/ams_homepage.html

What is AMS:
http://cyclo.mit.edu/~bmonreal/

Observational evidence for cosmic nuclear baryon asymmetry remains zero:
http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~morey/ba.../devidence.html

As you can see within the final link given, there is nil observational evidence, thus far, of cosmic nuclear anti-matter. Thus the on-going baseless fantastic claims of the big bang, that the CMBR is a result of mass anti-matter annihilation, is completely unsupported by a single actual observation.

Why should anyone accept such blind-sided and fantastic claims of big bang cosmological theory?

__________________
The whole purpose of inquiry is to smash into pieces that which we think we know. Finite does not exist in any physically expressed form within our cosmos, it's a cognitive abstraction tool, but people have generally not realised this. My examination and review of observation within every scientific field is predicated upon this fundamental under-pinning principle; ‘finite’ itself is non-existent, has never existed within any physical form whatsoever in our cosmos, that finiteness and infinity are logically and actually immiscible existential states. You can have one within the cosmos, but never both. Observations make it clear that we are in an isotropically flat, open and infinitely random space. If the cosmos is observed to contain even one case of an infinity, then it contains no finiteness at all.

This is a pointless set of questions. There is no mainstream Big Bang theory that makes any such claims.

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

This is a pointless set of questions. There is no mainstream Big Bang theory that makes any such claims. [/b][/quote]

In response to your incorrect suggestion that generic big bang theory does not suggest separation of nuclear matter and antimatter, I did a quick Google on the words, “Separation of matter and anti-matter in the big bang”, then selected the first item in the search results and it’s a PowerPoint (first year) astronomy lecture presentation entitled - “Astronomy 1010”

astro1.panet.utoledo.edu/~anatoly/astr1010/materials/lect24_04.ppt

Please note that my post to which you replied, concerns nuclear antimatter, i.e. a much later time in the generic BBT theoretical chronology, and not to particle antimatter, which is a much earlier theoretical happening within the generic BBT chronology of events, and thus is not part of the theoretically observable sequence of BBT events. The theoretical nuclear antimatter separation, if it ever occurred that is (for which, as pointed out, there is zero observational evidence) did occur during the period which is considered observable, within the CMBR = "BBT evidence" idealism's chonology.

--

Here is a quotation from the fourth link in that same Google results listing:

“ … Another big question is why the universe seems to contain only matter and no antimatter. Although physicists have some theories about how this matter-antimatter asymmetry came about, the details of these theories don't quite work. If antimatter fell up, however, there could be equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the universe, but they would stay separated because of the gravitational repulsion between them.

"There's a potential to solve some real problems in cosmology if our theory of gravity is incorrect in ways that would be determined by my proposed experiment," Phillips said. "If you started out with even a tiny separation between matter and antimatter during the Big Bang that began the universe, gravitational repulsion would amplify and maintain the separation to keep all the matter and antimatter from annihilating."

Phillips proposes to begin his experiment by making antimatter, specifically "antihydrogen" from its building blocks, antiprotons and positrons. To make these antiparticles, he plans to use a large particle accelerator at CERN or Fermilab. …”

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2000/06...matter602.html

-

(Notice the discussion is of cosmic nuclear >matter | antimatter< separation in the generic BBT cosmological proposal)

And of course, due to the nil observational support for such post big-bang matter-antimatter separation evident in the CMBR, then CP violation is heralded as the next Messiah for BB theory. But of course, it's not referred to as an electron-positron pair for nothing, and the suggestion that you can obtain the electron sans the positron, during BB particle-pair generation (in the "Particle Era" within that first link…) is but one more nonsense within the list of BBT absurdities we are asked to swallow … all for the sake of a mere interpretive theoretical paradigm.

I think I’ll pass.

--

@ Nereid, yes the matter-antimatter “bit” is something worth being “hung up” on, as it is supposed to be precisely half the observed cosmos, but curiously, that 50% is 100% missing (unless the basic nature of antimatter has been misunderstood, due to preceding memes …).

__________________
The whole purpose of inquiry is to smash into pieces that which we think we know. Finite does not exist in any physically expressed form within our cosmos, it's a cognitive abstraction tool, but people have generally not realised this. My examination and review of observation within every scientific field is predicated upon this fundamental under-pinning principle; ‘finite’ itself is non-existent, has never existed within any physical form whatsoever in our cosmos, that finiteness and infinity are logically and actually immiscible existential states. You can have one within the cosmos, but never both. Observations make it clear that we are in an isotropically flat, open and infinitely random space. If the cosmos is observed to contain even one case of an infinity, then it contains no finiteness at all.

I'm still trying to figure out what a "dimension" even is, let alone if any physically exist beyond words and abstractions. Nice mystical word, but what does it actually refer to, and why do some clever people feel so clear on what they are, that they seem to have become afflicted with a state of belief in about 10, or more ... within this very cosmos? ...

(the emoticons can not convey … so I'll leave them out)

__________________
The whole purpose of inquiry is to smash into pieces that which we think we know. Finite does not exist in any physically expressed form within our cosmos, it's a cognitive abstraction tool, but people have generally not realised this. My examination and review of observation within every scientific field is predicated upon this fundamental under-pinning principle; ‘finite’ itself is non-existent, has never existed within any physical form whatsoever in our cosmos, that finiteness and infinity are logically and actually immiscible existential states. You can have one within the cosmos, but never both. Observations make it clear that we are in an isotropically flat, open and infinitely random space. If the cosmos is observed to contain even one case of an infinity, then it contains no finiteness at all.

A friendly suggestion if I may FDNE, try to dig a bit deeper.

For example, PPT document you cited seems to me to be a fairly straight-forward summary, but I couldn't find anything in it which relates to what seems to be getting you so upset.

(I'm having some trouble recreating your search; the fourth Google link on the search I did - using your key words - was a 1999 article from Scientific American, and your Duke News link was dead (when I clicked on it). I did find this Duke News page - is it the same?)

In any case, CP violation has now been reasonably well supported by good observational results (the "B-factories" I mentioned earlier, among others), so the ~1 billion to 1 ratio of photons to baryons in the Universe is consistent with the matter-antimatter asymmetry (and likely with the CP violation, when the details have been worked out).

Also, the anti-hydrogen tests Phillips talked about (in 2000) will likely take place in the next couple of years (along with others, on the matter-antimatter asymmetry) - see the most recent edition of Scientific American for more details.And here's where the disconnect may be ... it's been several decades since anyone seriously thought antimatter "is supposed to be precisely half the observed cosmos" - not since about the time Sakharov first proposed CP violation (this CERN Courier article gives a brief summary).

I deliberately did not "dig deeper" with that one Nereid, as it was not warrented, the PPT file lays out that there are two theoretical eras of annihilation, which are integrally implied in the generic BBT, the initial (and conveniently non-observable, as it occurs outside the visible universe) particulate mutual annihilation, then the second (and potentially observable … if it had occurred) nuclear annihilation event, leading to the CMBR, which astronomical feature records no such nuclear event having taken place (except theoretically) in the birth of the observable cosmos. That PPT doc simply highlights that a two era annihilation stage exists in the BBT, and it was done in that shallow way in order to reply to the assertion, of a previous poster, that there's no such annihilation separation implied within the generic BBT; which is quite false (indeed, the very fact that it wasn’t observed at all in the deep cosmos and CMBR, but definitely should have been present within a BBT cosmos, was the very motive behind Sakharov’s CP Violation proposal, in the first instance).

Your link to the CERN article is interesting; lots of speculations, a rather good simplified review of the diverse theories and models being fitted to the peculiar observational fact that there is no nuclear antimatter within the visible universe (and does so from Sakharov forward, due to the no-show of such antimatter, which is requisite to the BBT notion).

It also has a long stream of referrals to ‘possibly’, ‘maybe’ and ‘experimental hints’, but still no actual evidence and observation that a positron can be generated without an electron (and indeed, vise-versa). The same applies to nuclear matter-antimatter. Without that actual evidence there is no evidence at all that CP violation is in the arena of cosmic interpretive relevance. It does however remain the potential 'Messiah' that the BBT hopes will come save it ... some day.

This is not to say that I am not terrifically interested in such experimental work, results, and implications, it's very interesting for me, but so far, I don’t see it has yet produced anything actually observationally solid which supports or alleviates the basic BBT antimatter problem(s) and paradox(s) in any way.

__________________
The whole purpose of inquiry is to smash into pieces that which we think we know. Finite does not exist in any physically expressed form within our cosmos, it's a cognitive abstraction tool, but people have generally not realised this. My examination and review of observation within every scientific field is predicated upon this fundamental under-pinning principle; ‘finite’ itself is non-existent, has never existed within any physical form whatsoever in our cosmos, that finiteness and infinity are logically and actually immiscible existential states. You can have one within the cosmos, but never both. Observations make it clear that we are in an isotropically flat, open and infinitely random space. If the cosmos is observed to contain even one case of an infinity, then it contains no finiteness at all.

@ Nereid, quick reply, excerpted from the link you gave:
http://www.desy.de/desy-th/workshop2004/da...haposhnikov.pdf

--

From page 10, where the font is 42 point, bold red, and says: -

“Today we know exactly 42 different ways to create baryons in the Universe!”

(note the slightly optimistic use of the word know)

Here is just a few of that list of 42:

--

3. Baryogenesis from primordial black holes

(found some of these have we?)

4. String scale baryogenesis

(so strings are actually not just theoretical then?)

14. String mediated EW baryogenesis

(same)

16. Inflationary baryogenesis

(inflation theory invented to support BB theory, spins off yet another theory … terrific! ... we're really building something here!)

22. Baryogenesis from long cosmic strings

(not just strings, these are long strings … but still a pipe-dream)

23. Baryogenesis from short cosmic strings

(and the shorter ones, because they are more cute, for general theoretical decoration)

24. Baryogenesis from collapsing loops

(oh, we’ve spotted these too! … tremendous!)

33. Baryogenesis through quantum gravity

(could some one please explain what gravity actually is … and differentiate the nature of the quantum aspect of it, as well, please?)

35. Monopole baryogenesis

(PAM Dirac will be chuffed! … monopoles finally discovered!)

37. Gravitino induced baryogenesis

(hey, are you sure gravitinos exist? … correct me if I’m wrong, but they are purely theoretical)

39. Baryogenesis in large extra dimensions

(ah! more theoretical abstractions to ‘support’ the preceding abstractions)

40. Baryogenesis by brane collision

(my brane is colliding with an unprecedented number of dimensions of abstraction, right now …)

--

And those are just a few of the list of ...

“Today we know exactly 42 different ways to create baryons in the Universe!”

Yeah, right ... reality-check sorely needed, Mr Mikhail Shaposhnikov.

I excerpted just a few of the more obvious wild claims in that list of “42” different ways to create baryons, so why should a person buy into any of this stuff, when it has zero observational support and ‘exists’ only in theory?

Why is it these wholly theoretical propositions are presented as known?

Nereid, posting links like the one above does not assist the BBT case. As said a few posts earlier, I’ll pass on those sorts of non-observational works of creative fiction. I have better things to do than to ponder the implications of what is thus far, actually known to not exist at all. Give me observation, not models and theories, pretentiously presented as an understanding, or a path to understanding the physical cosmos.

Is that too much to ask of theorists? That their models and claims be relevant to observations? It seems to me the primary difficulty in understanding observation is just such creative fiction. I’m rather old fashioned, I hold the quaint view that theory is the low-status necessary-evil which dwells in the closet of Mr. and Mrs. Observation; but instead, the necessary-evil has become the unnecessary-evil, and is not lurking in the closet, but instead, is counter-productively interfering with the running of Mr. and Mrs. Observation’s household, on a daily basis.

--

From another of your links: http://background.uchicago.edu/~whu/interm...termediate.html

"...With the discovery of sound waves in the CMB, we have entered a new era of precision cosmology in which we can begin to talk with certainty about the origin of structure and the content of matter and energy in the universe. ..."

What will people make of the naivety of such claims in 50 to 100 years? Anyone want to imbibe a carafe of Phlogiston wine, whilst we ponder such grand theoretical revelations?

__________________
The whole purpose of inquiry is to smash into pieces that which we think we know. Finite does not exist in any physically expressed form within our cosmos, it's a cognitive abstraction tool, but people have generally not realised this. My examination and review of observation within every scientific field is predicated upon this fundamental under-pinning principle; ‘finite’ itself is non-existent, has never existed within any physical form whatsoever in our cosmos, that finiteness and infinity are logically and actually immiscible existential states. You can have one within the cosmos, but never both. Observations make it clear that we are in an isotropically flat, open and infinitely random space. If the cosmos is observed to contain even one case of an infinity, then it contains no finiteness at all.

Yes, I quite agree, infinity includes the part(s) we think of abstractly as ‘finite’, so I’ll clarify.

1. finite is not physically real in any form
2. humanity doesn’t explicitly realise this
3. We do however automatically think finite is ‘real’ when we think in any objectively abstract way.

i.e. We are actually mentally creating the ‘finiteness’ which we think exists, within our minds in the very act of any objectively abstract examination of the cosmos via thinking about it’s elements as ‘separate’ and individual entities.

To put it more directly and clearly to you (if I can);

There is no physical expression of finite, actually, which of course implies there’s no actual physical discontinuity between any of our mentally abstracted ‘objects’ of thought, which objects we are accustomed to automatically abstracting during objective thinking, without even being explicitly aware or awake to the implications, that such objective ‘finiteness’ is of course an abstracted by-product of the thinking process.

Consider that for a bit.

--

There’s the ‘virtual particle’ object, and another ‘virtual particle’ object right beside it, but these ‘two’ are actually occurring within the one continuous space substance which is ‘waving’, in different locations, and different times like a locally oscillating point, but within a lossless and resistanceless cosmic gel. i.e. the ‘virtual particle’ object is just the wave of anisotropy (and gradients of anisotropy) in the finiteless space (like a gel).

Same for the ‘electron’ object, and another ‘electron’ object which it repulses, due to the anisotropy between them, yet the anisotropy repulsion between them implies they are of one directly connected ‘waving’ space itself.

Same applies to the ‘atom’ object, and the other ‘atom’ object(s) of the crystalline unit-cell, or molecular network which is really one, and not many.

It’s only the ‘many’ within human cerebral objective process of mind.

Then there’s the ‘star’ object, which resides in the ‘galaxy’ object, but these two are of course one.

Then there’s a ‘galaxy’ object, and another ‘galaxy’ object, in mutual orbit, but again, the ‘waving’ space anisotropy which they represent, and the gradient of that anisotropy between them, which causes them to orbit, reveals they are actually one, and not two systems.

Then there is the ‘supercluster’ object, and another ‘supercluster’ object, but again, these are not separate, and are interacting in network of anisotropy of waving space.

Then there’s the ‘great-void’ object, which of course it a objective way of saying there’s nothing there, but it’s ‘defined’ by the surrounding network of ‘supercluster’ objects, which again further ‘defines’ the never ending expanse of … bubbles of nothing (the non-waving state) in the space ‘gelo’ … and it still has no discontinuity anywhere between the ‘objects’ automatically abstracted, defined and recognised as ‘separate’ by thought, at any scale.

The cosmos literally has no physical finiteness to it. Only the thinker knows of such ‘finiteness’, it’s only expression within the entire cosmos is within his/her head.

--

Thus, the whole objective thought process requires and implies an automatic and not explicitly noticed generation of discontinuity where there is none, creating mentally separate ‘objects’, or else we could not even begin to observe and reason objectively and use logic.

In other words, human objective thinking necessitates the routine invention of ‘finite’, and discrete, especially defined ‘objects’, each with discrete classified properties. The object changes, according to where you decide to draw the boundaries (which is itself an ultimately subjective procedure, thus the defined ‘object’ is founded in subjective ‘boundary’ choices of the thinker).

That’s the problem we haven’t grasped, namely;

We are routinely using a finite-based abstraction tool (objective thought), to attempt to comprehend that in which finite has no actual physical place, whatsoever.

Thus, such a finite-based objective mind observer/thinker has no appropriate means to scientifically comprehend the finitelessness, at neither the smallest measurable scale of finitelessness, nor at the largest measurable scale. The very act of measurement, although vital and practical, is itself also an introduction of defined objective boundaries, which thought can think ‘finitely’ with, but where there is actually no boundary.

When this rather simple but subtle “Principle of Finitelessness” is comprehended by the ‘thinker in objects’, who then realises that finite is really a deep integral illusion of objectivity, in a similar way that Doppler shift is a deep integral frequency-shift illusion in the observation of relatively moving light emitters with respect to the observer.

And likewise, the illusion can be very useful, once you understand its mechanism.

Finitelessness is the physical actual and the human thinker can utilise this change of perspective as a cognitively applied basis for scientific examination of the finiteless ‘virtual particle’ (and what it implies for ‘force’, which is the gradient between the anisotropy point-like centers), and also for the directly connected finiteless CMBR as being just one.

… and of course, the observer being just one with it all.

i.e. the observer’s very sub-atomic particles are also just the concentrated wavy anisotropy and associated anisotropy gradient interactions within space—within and without, we are one as well. We are actually nothing other than space ‘waving’.

Thus this ‘finite’ is seen as nothing more as a ubiquitous and unnecessary mental illusion, which always accompanies any objective thought of any ‘thinker’ object, and has been profoundly distorting our perception of existence all along.

The big bang theory is essentially the grandest of all such expressions of objective ‘finite’ creation within thought, but finite-based things are not related to actuality.



--

Try not to pick it to pieces in objective thought (or in reply), just let it sit there, and consider it … infinitely.

__________________
The whole purpose of inquiry is to smash into pieces that which we think we know. Finite does not exist in any physically expressed form within our cosmos, it's a cognitive abstraction tool, but people have generally not realised this. My examination and review of observation within every scientific field is predicated upon this fundamental under-pinning principle; ‘finite’ itself is non-existent, has never existed within any physical form whatsoever in our cosmos, that finiteness and infinity are logically and actually immiscible existential states. You can have one within the cosmos, but never both. Observations make it clear that we are in an isotropically flat, open and infinitely random space. If the cosmos is observed to contain even one case of an infinity, then it contains no finiteness at all.

Not sure I followed all of your last post, fdne. Are you saying that when you get down to Planck distances, objects have no physical existence? Like a photon's wave vs particle duality?
And following from that, you say that I agree that the apparently solid objects that we perceive are constructed from nebulous particles of uncertain position and momentum and are 99.999 etc. % empty space. But that doesn't mean that we can't treat a chair as if it is a chair, or a planet as if it is a planet. The act of observing a chair or a planet does not have the same effect as observing the wave-function collapse of a photon.

Or have I got the wrong end of your stick?

__________________
Spike
:)

Oh yes, I see your logical difficulty with that, but yes, I am saying the "99.999 etc. % empty space", is in fact 100 % space. There's no 0.001% 'matter', it is all space, it's just that 99.999% of that space has little wave motion, but the 0.001% is 'waving' intensely, at the speed of light.

This space has a property of infinite impedance at v=c.

Infinite impedance = what we refer to as 'solid matter', but it is really just space oscillating in an out, losslessly, at v=c.

(such as in the case of a virtual 'particle')

Thus, there is literally no finite, or discontinuity between matter and space, as matter is space.

And thus the 'forces' are actually one, namely, inversely related density and mass of space (its local anisotropy) gradient between the point-like centers of this oscillating 0.001% of space. Near space stretches and compresses elastically with each v=c oscillation cycle, thus the attraction then repulsion (plus polarisation), which we have labelled a ‘force’.

(i.e Dirac’s monopole is in fact this oscillating virtual particle)

We have so far just thought there are 'four separate forces', but they are just one force (induced by local space anisotropy), but with a spectrum of physical expressions which change with the scale of the observation.

It’s this fluctuation of space itself which is producing the, "...nebulous particles of uncertain position and momentum ...".

Unified enough?

Ask yourself, what could be more unified than such a space?

--

Thus, the confused human brain asking questions about 'matter', 'mass' and 'forces', is actually constructed of an anisotropic finiteless space. Matter (and gravity, yada-yada) are just the failed earlier concepts, and the 'dark matter' is the mass of the finiteless space itself, or rather, its measurable anisotropy being expressed.

i.e. this mass of surrounding anisotropically distributed space, is the cause of the galaxy acceleration above the mass of the 'matter' within the galaxy itself.

Is this finiteless physical unity enough to be interesting?

__________________
The whole purpose of inquiry is to smash into pieces that which we think we know. Finite does not exist in any physically expressed form within our cosmos, it's a cognitive abstraction tool, but people have generally not realised this. My examination and review of observation within every scientific field is predicated upon this fundamental under-pinning principle; ‘finite’ itself is non-existent, has never existed within any physical form whatsoever in our cosmos, that finiteness and infinity are logically and actually immiscible existential states. You can have one within the cosmos, but never both. Observations make it clear that we are in an isotropically flat, open and infinitely random space. If the cosmos is observed to contain even one case of an infinity, then it contains no finiteness at all.

Hi 400lbG,

Hopefully my clarification written for Sp1ke above, will answer some things.

I would say though, that it is not physically possible to have more than one infinity ... or else you would have no infinity at all—you would only have a thinkers finite abstractions of objects instead, and the thinker pretending these are actually ‘infinities’.

However, there is the thought abstraction of theoretical ‘limited infinities’ etc., such as the proposition of an infinite subset of all odd integers, or else all even integers. Obviously I regard such thought abstractions as these, as irrelevant to the physical cosmos itself, where space is one, and thus actually indivisible into the abstract ‘infinities’ of the objective thinker.

i.e. ‘two’ is a thought conception, which can not physically exist within a finiteless space. It only exists within our limited and necessarily deliberately limiting cognitive abstractions.

This is why infinity is unwanted in math, as all parameters have to be limited to an abstract ‘finiteness’, in order to be logically manipulated to produce the logical and observably correct, though limited result. Any infinite result is also rather useless, so these are ignored, even though this is the result which is actually telling you something ultimate … and then the logically acceptable limited results are applied ... to an actual infinity. :blink:

You see the difficulty here I expect.

The limited calculation and implied limited result may look tremendously logical on paper to the objective ‘thinker’, who probably thinks the abstraction looks terrific (and is), but could a limit-based result be applicable to limitlessness? … or is it only applicable to just limited scale observations?

This is of course the same sort of reason that Newtonian mechanics works logically and acceptably in terms of precision within a limited solar system scale of observation and context, but becomes increasingly inadequate as scale of observation increases to the galactic-cluster scale. Other less limited and also much less obvious factors impinge, making Newtonian calculation too lacking in applicable details and thus too imprecise as scale increases to multi-megaparsec observations.

Then we have the rational MOND-type adjustment, in order to account for the even less obvious dark matter effect, at such larger scales with more detailed observations (btw, finiteless space fits basic requirements of MOND adjustment).

Is it then surprising that a limited and limiting mental abstraction of more than ONE existing (which is the tree we have been collectively barking up for the whole of the modern era), is going to fail to account for the unity and direct and intimate connection of everything we observe, at all possible scales?

The basic thought problem we collectively face now, is that we are not explicitly aware of this automatic ad-hoc ‘on-the-fly’ cognitive invention of a limited 'separateness' of all things—i.e. of discrete ‘objects’—and the very implications of routinely thinking like this within the very process of objective reasoning. Any thinker/observer is thus forced (due to not realising this implication of the illusion of ‘two’ i.e. of more than oneness being able to exist—physically, for real—within our cosmos) into interpreting the limitlessness, via a profoundly entrenched and limiting means of reasoning.

Now, what happens if we say to ourselves; “Nope, ‘two’ is an illusion, created by my mind's objective abstraction processing—I am now fully awake to this inescapable implication of objective thinking—so, instead, I’ll interpret everything as one … one space … no matter, no forces, no objects ... just space doing different things … then I’ll work out what the fundamental properties of what such space must logically be, in order for it to be doing what I see it routinely does. What sort of finiteless space would achieve all this?

(i.e. material 'solidness', photons, electrons, charge, 'mass', spin, indistinct polarities, anti-matter, CDM, constant C, CMBR, 'forces', orbital mechanics ... yada-yada ...).

That is what I have been doing.

Thus I re-examine the phenomena of every scale from this literal physical “Principle of Finitelessness”, as I see only this could be a path to comprehending an actual physical unity. Which means—ONE—and not '2'.

People tend to get distracted away from this fact of what unity literally means, oneness, due to all the preceding finite-based theorising about a so-called UTE, or “unified" state(s). <_<

What might one say to that? Is this approach prospectively interesting?

__________________
The whole purpose of inquiry is to smash into pieces that which we think we know. Finite does not exist in any physically expressed form within our cosmos, it's a cognitive abstraction tool, but people have generally not realised this. My examination and review of observation within every scientific field is predicated upon this fundamental under-pinning principle; ‘finite’ itself is non-existent, has never existed within any physical form whatsoever in our cosmos, that finiteness and infinity are logically and actually immiscible existential states. You can have one within the cosmos, but never both. Observations make it clear that we are in an isotropically flat, open and infinitely random space. If the cosmos is observed to contain even one case of an infinity, then it contains no finiteness at all.

Rousejohnny;
Fully agree. That's why we need to keep going forward with our best science.

Nereid & Dave_F;
It's all good. I continue to enjoy your posts.

finiteness_does_not_exist;
Agree. One infinity. 'Infinites' is another mental abstract. But it is these abstracts that we need to understand and accept collectively for a chair to be a chair.
I suspect that our mathematics may be incomplete without consideration of this fact. At least working with limited subsets of 'infinites' could get us closer to our goals.
I think the 'oneness' is philosophically correct and much easier to understand than where it goes from there. ie: breaking it all down to definable terms us thinkers can comprehend and actually use. It's that understanding that I believe is the ultimate goal of science, and it should keep us occupied for a healthy long eternity.

__________________
<span style='color:green'>&quot;The boldness of asking deep questions may require unforseen flexibility if we are to accept the answers&quot;
~ Brian Greene</span>

Great things can be accomplished by those who are willing to defy the belief that it can't be done.
~ 400poundgorilla

Yes, but I'm not speaking of a philosophy though, I'm speaking of the practical, concerning a finiteless space's fundamental observably expressed properties, or rather, it's implied physical properties, which cause the physical behaviours and qualities we see (charge, polarisation, repulsion, G, m, c, e, E, p, ... the whole lot); which properties can be actually logically deduced, with care and examination of observations.

(i.e. as Hawking said, "our only hope now is to reconsider all of the available raw physical observations—without prejudice". He gained a lot of intellectual credit with me when he said all of what he said.)

I don't see this at all as something to be re-broken down into new bits, quite the reverse. The need is the other direction, for current 'bits' to be seen as they really are, a profound literal physical state of one.

Thus the interpreter of observation (does not matter what observation it is, nor what field it occurs in) disciplines their mind to purposefully look at all 'things' in this entirely different way, to the way they are accustomed to, rather than simply re-defining where the boundaries of classification are to be put, which is what the objective finite-based process always prefers to do, and then to re-juggling these new boundaries into another finite-based theory. But instead, to refuse this easy cop-out of just inventing new boundaries, where there are actually none physically at all, and to instead think only in terms of what does this observation mean, how can I understand it, if there is only physical space and nothing else, but to consider the changes which occur in that space, and what this physically does to space itself, to create these observations I see, or see reported.

Thus to re-interpret every possible observation, past, present and future, and review all of the necessary implications of these observations, logically and rigorously—without relent—until you can understand the set of physical requirements which could allow this physical space to do what it is seen to do.

That's what I am talking about. That’s what I want to know. That’s what I want to communicate. I don’t want any more bits, which just grow more false bits and false boundaries.

I want no bits whatever in the understanding which emerges. Is that a philosophy? For me it isn't, it's just what I do, because that is the only means I can see which has a hope of understanding a state of one, of all physical existence—genuine physical unification.

For me it’s just the practical scientific necessity, which we have to face up to, being spelt out.

__________________
The whole purpose of inquiry is to smash into pieces that which we think we know. Finite does not exist in any physically expressed form within our cosmos, it's a cognitive abstraction tool, but people have generally not realised this. My examination and review of observation within every scientific field is predicated upon this fundamental under-pinning principle; ‘finite’ itself is non-existent, has never existed within any physical form whatsoever in our cosmos, that finiteness and infinity are logically and actually immiscible existential states. You can have one within the cosmos, but never both. Observations make it clear that we are in an isotropically flat, open and infinitely random space. If the cosmos is observed to contain even one case of an infinity, then it contains no finiteness at all.

Hi FDNE,

I think that you've made a good effort in this last post at trying to explain what you mean. I'm not certain that this particular thread is that meaningful a place for you trying to explain it, so I suggest that perhaps we should start a new thread to allow you to explain (or develop) this approach of yours.

To me, the biggest obstacle you need to overcome is that at the moment there is not a very good analytical vocabulary to describe the components of measurement and observation using your model. It may be that in some things are not finite, but the 21 cm wavelength from neutral Hydrogen is 21 cm, not infinite. The temperature of the CMB is 2.7K, not infinite.

It may well be that a proton as we see it is both largely in one place, but through quantum uncertainty, or via its gravitational influence, manifest to some minor degree throughout the universe, but it still has a mass of about 2x10^-22 grams (not infinite). And even if it may be, in part everywhere in the universe, there is certainly a small place where it seems to mostly be, and we need vocabulary in your system to describe such a place, and its extent (FWHM?).

I look forward to seeing more from you on this, and am interested to know how much you've already developed your ideas.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Hi FDNE,

I think that you've made a good effort in this last post at trying to explain what you mean. I'm not certain that this particular thread is that meaningful a place for you trying to explain it, so I suggest that perhaps we should start a new thread to allow you to explain (or develop) this approach of yours.

To me, the biggest obstacle you need to overcome is that at the moment there is not a very good analytical vocabulary to describe the components of measurement and observation using your model. It may be that in some things are not finite, but the 21 cm wavelength from neutral Hydrogen is 21 cm, not infinite. The temperature of the CMB is 2.7K, not infinite.

It may well be that a proton as we see it is both largely in one place, but through quantum uncertainty, or via its gravitational influence, manifest to some minor degree throughout the universe, but it still has a mass of about 2x10^-22 grams (not infinite). And even if it may be, in part everywhere in the universe, there is certainly a small place where it seems to mostly be, and we need vocabulary in your system to describe such a place, and its extent (FWHM?).

I look forward to seeing more from you on this, and am interested to know how much you've already developed your ideas. [/b][/quote]

I might add that the speed of light is not infinite, nor the radius of an electron infinite, nor is Planck's constant infinite, but these are properties of a finiteless space (as is the 21 cm line). In other words, what does any measurement mean in absolute terms in a finiteless space?

Clearly in absolute terms, it has no meaning whatsoever, as there is then no absolute reference point, against which to measure anything or to scale anything, but in relative terms, compared to other measurements, 21 cm is full of relative physical meaning—and the same applies to all natural constants.

--

I agree with you about this discussion’s location, and was even considering asking you or another to perhaps split this preceding discussion from the BBT thread, as I would not like to continue such discussion, sans this preceding Q&A at the beginning of it.

And yes, the "analytical vocabulary" as you put it, is by far the greatest hurdle in communicating these notions unambiguously to another, and also the prime reason I do not, or have not engaged in such open discussion about it to date (and don’t know how far I will engage in this here, but perhaps it is worth going into some).

So perhaps we can explore it a little, as a separate topic, if you can split this part of the thread into a new topic?

One is essentially doing away with any notion of ‘matter’ existing, in any form and throwing the whole notion of matter out the window (but not space itself, i.e. having a ‘solid phase’), which is problematic enough for most people’s grasp. And doing the same to any defined or discrete separate ‘forces’, though I greatly simplify 'force' and provide the physical basis of what all force is, so that becomes fairly easy to comprehend.

-

This comes down to just space, and nothing else.

But an ultimately lossless space (thus does not resist movement through it, until you reach v=c where upon it exhibits a property of infinite impedance and can not admit any further acceleration, but instead, will force any further energy input to be reflected at 180 degrees to its original vector.

This infinite impedance is why ‘particles’, which are really nothing other than moving space, seem to have this emergent property of ‘solidness’. Even though light from which an electron can form has no solidness for the light is not pulsating the local space at v=c, it just passes through it at v=c. That’s the difference between solid and non-solid space, and would thus be ultimately why you exist as a material organism, because the infinite impedance quality at v=c, allows this solidity of a very small amount of space, into what we have called ‘particles’. When space is not oscillating at v=c it is resistanceless, and acceleration can occur in the form of tension and compression of space.

This is space with real and logically intelligible physical properties, which properties can support the existence of overlapping standing sine waveforms within it—which waves represent the uneven distribution of space within the wider space itself. Thus hard and point-like ‘objects’ which we measure occur, but these are just the intensely waving (lossless) standing anisotropy’s within a mostly low amplitude, rippling resistanceless space background which we have called the 'quantum vacuum'.

So this is of course not easy to get at verbally, but I’ll try to be clear and hope it’s not too difficult to follow in one attempt if you go over it slowly from paragraph to paragraph (without a doubt some people will get snagged on certain statements or omissions – sorry, but this is somewhat unavoidable).

Thus, in the end, I found the term "+/- anisotropy" (of space itself) to be the simplest, most literal and clearest possible term to physically describe what this seemingly 'solid matter' would be within such a finiteless space, namely, a lossless, rapidly-pulsating standing-wave which stretches and compresses space itself … in … then out … at v=c ... literally a plus then minus anisotropy within a physical space.

(i.e. an oscillation of space's mass and elastic density, and space being elastic, equates to a stretch then a compression ... continuously... )

But when you look at space at the very largest cosmic scale of space, space is not anisotropic, its decidedly isotropic.

Space is only anisotropic at smaller more limited scales of observation, but progressively becomes genuinely isotropic in its physical distribution, as the observation scale gets larger. Thus ultimately, this is a true Euclidean space at the cosmic scale of finitelessness, but behaves in increasing non-Euclidean ways (non-flat, becoming gradated, which gradation we have termed 'force'), the smaller the scale of space that is examined (such as an atom).

Thus, at the smallest scale, you find the steepest localised anisotropic gradients in the distribution of space itself, nested within this wider isotropic space. The much steeper anisotropic gradient eventually becomes the 'strong force' as we go still smaller and finer in scale. So force is one within this space and graduates from isotropic space to anisotropic space, from large to small scale (respectively), from isotropic space distribution which is Euclidean, to sharply anisotropic space distribution, which is sharply non-Euclidean the smaller you go.

Gravity is the very shallow part of this exponential anisotropic gradient within space’s density and mass distribution (which are inversely related), and the ‘strong-force’ is the very steepest part. At the very largest scale, gravity cancels itself (due to its infinite extent) and the average space distribution density is the same at every point at this scale, so space is isotropic one G has self-cancelled, and there’s no residual weak force of G felt from beyond this radius, from the infinite cumulative mass beyond it.

You have no doubt realised, from the above, that space is of course the repository of all mass, though we can not detect this space mass if it is fully isotropic, for it’s attraction is then omni-directional.

We can only feel the effect of space’s mass, when space itself has become unevenly distributed. This is the physical reason for gravitational lensing of light, because space becomes increasingly non-Euclidean as it’s distribution moves away from isotropy.

Thus mass is space, it is nothing other than space, but space which is full of waves, and the waves have induced local anisotropy, via their clustered presence. Space itself is the source of ‘missing mass’.

Where there is space anisotropy, G is implied to be present in proportion, and where there is G, m will always be present, even though it is not baryonic or non-baryonic mass, but is simply the product of a non-isotropic distribution of the local space.

We have been looking for a particle, but finiteless space predicts there won’t be any responsible for this observationally evidently present excess mass’s effect upon galaxies, as this mass effect is related to the gradient within the space anisotropy, which is producing this observationally invisible (non-emitting) mass. If you could take away the anisotropic gradient (which is what G is), and the m “dark matter” will evaporate with it.

Is it any surprise there’s so much of it observationally ‘missing’ if space is the source of all mass?

It’s this exponential change in anisotropic gradient within space's localised distribution, which produces the spectrum of effects which we have traditionally split into four forces, when in fact it is really just the same anisotropy, in all cases, but with four broad expressions of dynamic effects, which vary with the local gradient’s steepness, when compared to the flat, isotropic, large-scale space.

Thus all 'force' translates most simply to an anisotropic gradient—the net result of the presence of sharp, local anisotropies within space itself, at smaller and smaller scales.

When you descend to the scale of the particle, there is an added complication. The complications have so far been called 'quantum effects', due to the +/- anisotropy’s rapid and continuous cyclic change from tension in space, to compression in space, as this induces an oscillating gradient, the steeper and closer the gradient gets to the standing wave’s wavelength, plus this compression to tension cycle introduces relative polarity changes in space, from attraction to repulsion in each cycle of the sine wave, not to mention the effects of mutual orbiting of anisotropies, and the further dynamic effects of what we have called ‘spin’, within composite particles.

Thus dynamics will change dramatically with small scales approaching the wavelength of the +/- anisotropy itself, even though the force type and origin has not altered whatever. It is still the very same force, with a steeper gradient and is only altered in expression, via the v=c pulsation effect upon the surrounding elastic space, pulling and pushing upon itself (at v=c). This is the very physical nature of the scale transition, from a ‘dark-matter’ adjusted relativistic mechanics, to classical mechanics, to quantum mechanics, with shrinking scales of observation, but the force and the mechanics remain the same between all scales.

UNITY—is thus achieved via the principle of finitelessness.

The anisotropic gradient in space is the physical cause of what we have called 'forces', at whatever scale of observation, be it 10^-15 m, or 10^25 m. The anisotropic gradient in space—of space—is the cause of all physical dynamics but the gradient is induced in what would otherwise have been a perfectly isotropic space, due to the presence within space itself, of highly localised clumps and clusters of innumerable oscillating +/- anisotropies, which are all literally connected to each other—directly and intimately—and likewise, connected to the isotropic scale of space via this gradient of uneven distribution of space within itself, which we have so far called ‘gravity’.

The fundamental building block of what we call material ‘solids’ is the ‘virtual particle’, which is none other than the very simplest possible form of a +/- anisotropic space oscillating pulsation, in an infinitely elastic and lossless space, with infinite impedance at v=c.

The key to physically understanding quantum dynamics is to be found in the description and detailed understanding of this very simple structure, and what it does to the local anisotropic gradient in space immediately surrounding it.

Below is what the standing wave +/- anisotropy does to space, near to it, each and every v=c sine wave cycle:

compression of space (attraction) … extension of space(repulsion) …
compression of space (attraction) … extension of space(repulsion) …
compression of space (attraction) … extension of space(repulsion) …

… ad-infinitum …

Once started it never stops, for space is lossless. It can only change relative wavelengths via interaction with other +/-anisotropies. These rapidly oscillating structures can be any wavelength, from (for example, ~10^-15 m, to 10^-10 m).

Now think about what a singular oscillating +/- anisotropy will do to space’s local distribution as it oscillates at v=c …

Then, think about more than one of these virtual particles, of several of these, overlapping and over-printing (spherically in 3D), at differing wavelengths. What does this do to this space itself, in and around them, as they do this within each other, continually.

In other words, not only are these anisotropic ‘centers’ in space directly connected, they all overlap and over-print, and constructively and destructively interact—continuously, in every sense of that word.

This is the very physical nature of the quantum vacuum ‘background’ of finiteless space, and this is what accounts for the implied randomness, and the actual randomness we observe at the quantum scale—this over-printing of +/- anisotropies is the physical cause of it.

Let’s take it one step further, toward particles proper:

When two of these +/- anisotropies, of the appropriate (same) wavelength, combine in mutual bi-polar orbit, at 90 degrees to each other’s orbital average vector (i.e. the outer one orbiting around the others poles), you will get a stable ‘electron’, with what appears to be a 720 degree spin, per sine wave cycle!

If the wavelength of each +/- anisotropy is not the same, or not the appropriate length(s), the electron will soon decay at a time (rate), determined by how much the different wavelengths are incompatible with the stability of mutual standing polar orbits of these two +/- anisotropies, about each other. This is mechanically why the decay time varies for each individual electron (but is the same for the average electron half-life), and why stable electrons can have only 511 MeV, as different energy implies an unbalanced wavelength for that structure, which thus can not last more than a few mutual orbits, before wobbling itself into structural decay. It is this mutual interaction of the +/- anisotropy of space itself, which makes it both solid (due to infinite impedence), elastically scattering (due to space being infinitely elastic), yet unavoidably indistinct(because it is still a space pulsation after all, so how could it ever be distinct as an ‘object’?).

i.e. as one of the +/- anisotropy pulses space outward within its individual cycle (creating tension within its area, but compression in the space surrounding this tension), the second +/- anisotropy in mutual orbit is pulling space into itself (creating the opposite of space compression within its area, but also resulting tension in the space surrounding it) in exactly opposite phase to the first.

This equal but opposite pulsation of space, is what is holding the electron together, as a structure (particle). This out-of-phase relationship is another precondition for them to reach a stable mutual orbit, in the first instance, as their individual cyclic pulses must be opposite, or else a mutual orbit in the form of an electron is not going to form, or will rapidly become unstable, depending on the degree of phase difference, and any mutual dynamic damping.

Now think about what happens to space in and around them as they do this, continuously. The pulse of each anisotropy cycle has two aspects:

1. Tension of space within its wavelength, but compression in the immediately surrounding space.

This equates to a surrounding REPULSION gradient in space – A QUANTISED ELECTRIC 'CHARGE'

2. compression of space within its wavelength, but tension in the immediately surrounding space.

This equates to a surrounding ATTRACTION gradient – THIS IS 'MAGNETISM'


Thus, all the so-called separate ‘forces’ are logically accounted for, and all were due to different expressions of a common anisotropy gradient mechanism, caused by space’s own self-interactions.


--

I hope this basic description lays down a comprehension of what I am referring to and the context for comprehension of what a finiteless space implies, for the properties and behaviours of space itself, and how it self-interacts at all levels.

Is it a prospective approach?

(hope I have removed typos etc)

__________________
The whole purpose of inquiry is to smash into pieces that which we think we know. Finite does not exist in any physically expressed form within our cosmos, it's a cognitive abstraction tool, but people have generally not realised this. My examination and review of observation within every scientific field is predicated upon this fundamental under-pinning principle; ‘finite’ itself is non-existent, has never existed within any physical form whatsoever in our cosmos, that finiteness and infinity are logically and actually immiscible existential states. You can have one within the cosmos, but never both. Observations make it clear that we are in an isotropically flat, open and infinitely random space. If the cosmos is observed to contain even one case of an infinity, then it contains no finiteness at all.

FDNE, I am a dim bulb powered by few thoughts, but your description of anisotropic space oscillating pulsations lit me up. One of my few ideas is that the 'finiteless' universe is an expanding field which continues to expand within itself, creating pressure on itself. Within the field spinning regions are created which absorb the expansion energy of the field. Within these regions, the field (space) does not appear to expand, giving all observers (created by and within these regions) the impression of space-time (an acceleration, a difference, a sense of motion). So space-time is our finite measurement of what is essentially infinite, our sense of a gravitational 'attraction' caused by the absorption of energy by spinning regions, and history is the story of the continual absorption and release of energy between spinning regions - regions of 'gravitational mass' - and the surrounding expanding space. I.E., anisotropic space oscillating pulsations, the foundation for a theory which unifies gravity with the other 'forces': expanding space creates matter out of itself by its own pressure within its own field.

I said I wouldn't bother this forum any more but it seems somebody with technical ability is explaining what I can't.

I have split this topic from the Exodus from the Big Bang thread. I may have been sloppy about which posts belonged in which thread, but mostly took every post by FDNE and comments specifically mentioning him in the first few lines and put them here. Hopefully this has not too badly disrupted the conted of either thread.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak