Quote:

Originally Posted by Bjoern That's o.k. with me. I'll list the questions which are most important to me:

The response that you feel had nothing to do with the question was, “…the expansion of energy in space, and … the “force” you say does not exist is actually the pressure of the energy density of space.”

If we say that the separation over time of mass in space (notably galaxies) is due to the expansion of space then we can say that energy in space is inflating proportionately across the entire expanse, and matter is going with the expansion. Except that the mere presence of matter adds gravity. Gravity only works on the matter in the expanding energy filled space. Expansion of matter in space due to the pressure of the energy in space is resisted by gravity that works on matter but has no effect on the expansion of energy in space.

Then I said, “Gravity on a large scale diminishes by 75% each time the distance between objects doubles. So if the expansion radius doubles, gravity declines by 75%. Therefore for every increase in the size of the expanding energy density, there will be a greater proportional decline in the strength of the gravitational field.”

The 75% reduction in the strength of the gravitation field between objects when the distance between them doubles is derived from the old equation that says gravity is proportional to the mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the masses.

In order to explain the observed movement of objects in space, both the gravity component and the expansion component of that movement must be considered.

The effect of the expansion component is greater than the effect of the gravity component. It doesn’t matter what the rate of expansion is, if expansion exists it separates objects proportionally. If the expansion component doubles the distance between objects, the force of gravity is diminished by 75%, i.e. the inverse of the square of the distance. If distance between two objects of equal mass was 10 units before expansion, and 20 units after expansion, the force of gravity between them before expansion is 1/(10^2) or 1/100. After expansion the force of gravity between them is 1/(20^2) or 1/400. 1/400 is a 75% reduction from 1/100.

So when the radius of expansion doubles, the force of gravity is reduced by 75%.

With that restated, can you tell me why it has nothing to do with your question?

One of the biggest problem with your idea is that it contains lots of entirely unfounded assertions (contradicting on the whole essentially every field of physics which exists) - but I haven't seen you presenting even the tiniest shred of evidence for any of them so far...


I've never seen the concept of "energy density of space" in QM. Do you perhaps mean the "vacuum energy" / "zero-point energy" of Quantum Field Theory? What you wrote below seems to affirm that. If yes, please try to use these terms instead - that causes less misunderstandings. If no, please clarify.

Is undetectable, but able to form matter? If these (and the claim that it does not gravitate) are the only things you can say to describe it, then that sounds like a magical gimmick to me, not like physics. Essentially, you are claiming that "something" exists there which has the property to create mass, and then you call that something "energy" - without ever explaining what this "something" has to do with the usual concept of energy, and hence without having a reason for calling it an energy. Add to that the fact that your "energy" behaves apparently differently from all types of energy known, and you really are in big trouble.

If you now reply that the dark energy of standard physics is also such a "magical gimmick", you ignore that this dark energy is described quantitatively by physics (and its properties are the same as "usual" energy), and hence one is able to test this idea. In other words, dark energy of standard physics is detectable - although only by indirect methods.

Then you ignore that all energy has mass (E=mc^2, remember?), and hence gravitates. If you want to claim that this equation does not apply to your T1 energy, that's simply special pleading - you have no basis at all for assuming that.

The circumstances under which that happens have been studied in particle accelerators for decades now. The results look not at all like what you propose. For starters, every production of matter from energy observed so far conserved electrical charge.

I prefer circumstantial evidence to no evidence at all - so please present it.

In general, they aren't.

That's the equation of state for your T1 energy? Or do you want to claim that this equation is valid for every type of energy?

Thanks, I'll look at that.

__________________
The universe is big. Really big. It may seem like a long way to the corner chemist, but compared to the universe, that's peanuts. (Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

A pressure is not a force. Please learn some basic physics.


Proportional to what?


The decline in the strength is not proportional to the increase of the size. Are you sure you know what "proportional" means?


What do you mean with these two components, specifically? Velocities? Accelerations? Forces? Or what are you talking about?


Well, that's again exactly the claim which I asked you to explain. And neither in your old posts nor in this new one, you have explained why that should be the case.


Again: proportional to what? What does it mean to say that "expansion separates objects proportionally"?


All correct. But how does a calculation showing how gravity decreases show that the expansion is somehow "stronger" than gravity? In order to say that, you first have to explain what force is associated with the expansion (and again: a pressure is not the same as a force!), and then you have to quantify how this force changes when distance changes (doubles). And only then can you compare gravity with expansion and say that one is "greater" than the other. So far, what you are doing is comparing apples to oranges!

For starters, you could define what you meant with "components" above.

__________________
The universe is big. Really big. It may seem like a long way to the corner chemist, but compared to the universe, that's peanuts. (Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bjoern One of the biggest problem with your idea is that it contains lots of entirely unfounded assertions (contradicting on the whole essentially every field of physics which exists) - but I haven't seen you presenting even the tiniest shred of evidence for any of them so far...

Yes, you are getting up to speed with where I am at in developing my case. The EEP and the ISU are Ideas that need to be reviewed by you and anything left standing is yet to be determined.
I can’t help using words that have particular meanings in some other body of work. I acknowledge that the way I use those words may differ. It seems unreasonable for you to require me to adopt and defend words and their usages in quantum physics when I don’t understand how the usage differs and don’t understand quantum physics. But I will do my best to use their terms when I am referring specifically to their work.

A very knowledgeable person, as I perceive you to be, would be better able to work with me using the words in a general sense and not in a specifically applied discipline that I don’t claim to be basing anything on.

I don’t think you are trying to show how uninformed I am, and then by showing that go on to conclude or imply that my ideas are wrong. But if that is where you are coming from I can’t believe you would waste so much time making a point that I concede from the start .
I am in trouble, but if I may, I will come up with a different word for this “so called” magical energy. Bogie-energy? Phantom energy? Wait, what about calling it proto-energy or p-energy for short? That could mean primordial energy too.

When I ask what you mean with a term, that surely is not intended for showing that you are uninformed what that term means in standard physics - it simply means that I don't understand what you mean with that term. And I really would appreciate it if you either didn't use terms from standard physics with new meanings at all, or if you clarified right from the start that you use a different meaning, and clearly defined that meaning.

Apparently you missed my main point here: why do you call this "stuff" an "energy" at all? It does not seem to behave like any known energy type in many ways (it does not gravitate, it is not detectable, ...).

__________________
The universe is big. Really big. It may seem like a long way to the corner chemist, but compared to the universe, that's peanuts. (Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

If I know that I am using a term in a way that differs from the standard physics I will either define it in the way that I am using it or I will make up a new word . The problem is that I don't know when I am doing that. I am calling on you to understand the non-scientific usage, meaning if it is clearly improper usage you might to try to figure out what I mean and put it in scientific terms. I assume there really are the correct words and if I don't know them, and you know my usage is wrong, tell me the right words. If it is truly a concept that has no current words to explain it I will suggest a word and see if we can agree.

Let's not spend too much time determining that we can't communicate.

Forgetting the fact that the concept is not mainstream and is against BBT and GR, do you or do you not have any idea what I mean by primordial energy in space that is expanding from a very tiny origination ~13.7 billion years ago?

Forgetting that the concept in BBT says that this tiny originating entity was infinitely dense matter with no volume, or a singularity, can you in you mind envision that I am proposing that this entity was a precursor to matter, and that matter formed from it instead of being in it at the start.

I know you are aware that I am talking about an alternative to BBT and I don't think GR applies to a cosmology in which space pre-exited. I am proposing that this originating entity, before it started to expand, actually originated in the core of a big crunch. Let me know if you understand that is where I am coming from and if you want to continue helping me knowing that.

So, Bogie, in the interests of clear communication, why not use an entirely new word (instead of energy) for a key term in your ATM idea ('aslkduhf', say)?

And while we're at it, why not substitute "mass-energy" for 'matter' in your desciption? If you did that, your idea would at least have the benefit - at the word salad level - of not being immediately inconsistent with GR in regimes where it has, in fact, been tested.

Otherwise, if you continue to
a) present no quantification,
b) no 'consistency case' (with either GR or QM),
c) no clarifications on how your key terms differ from standard usage,
d) ...

it is either incredibly easy to show your idea has no legs (e.g. it can't possibly be consistent with GR or QM, in regimes where both have been extensively tested, and passed all such tests), or impossible, even in principle, to show that your idea has any relationship with any experimental or observational results!

Nereid, let me ask you the same question I asked Bjoern.

Forgetting the fact that the concept is not mainstream and is against BBT and GR, do you or do you not have any idea what I mean by primordial energy in space that is expanding from a very tiny origination ~13.7 billion years ago?

Forgetting that the concept in BBT says that this tiny originating entity was infinitely dense matter with no volume, or a singularity, can you in you mind envision that I am proposing that this entity was a precursor to matter, and that matter formed from it instead of being in it at the start.

I know you are aware that I am talking about an alternative to BBT and I don't think GR applies to a cosmology in which space pre-exited. I am proposing that this originating entity, before it started to expand, actually originated in the core of a big crunch. Let me know if you understand that is where I am coming from and if you want to continue helping me knowing that.

Not a clue ... to me it's a confusing set of words that has no meaningful relationship to anything that is within the scope of this forum.A) It's rather difficult to 'forget' something as gross a distortion of modern cosmology as that!

B) And no, what you propose seems (to me) to be just a jumble of terms that seem almost deliberately designed to confuse rather than clarify.And this is one of those self-defeating parts (so it seems to me) ... without clarity on the continuity (space both pre-exists and 'is' what the mass-energy of the universe determines it to be, without any apparent attempt to resolve the fatal inconsistency; or, putting it more technically, GR is background-dependent, your idea is background-independent - i.e. the same deep inconsistency as between GR and QM, without the benefit of either).So, why call it 'matter'? 'energy'? why talk about a 'ball'? about 'density', 'expand' 'originate' (as in 'time'?), 'core'? (and so on), when, apparently, you don't mean any of these things at all!

Put it another way: if all these key terms have meanings similar to terms which are spelled the same way, in physics, then your idea is inconsistent with (most parts of) modern physics.

If these key terms have quite different, but undefined, meanings, then even you cannot demonstrate even internal consistency (how could you, the key terms are undefined).

But beyond all that, there is nothing in this idea, that I've seen so far, that could, even in principle, be tested ... unless and until you constrain the definitions of the key terms.

Neried. Don't you think you are being a little insincere?

You can stand firm on your view and you can be supported by a vast net of peers, but can you say you are sincere in denying that you understand, "Forgetting the fact that the concept is not mainstream and is against BBT and GR, do you or do you not have any idea what I mean by primordial energy in space that is expanding from a very tiny origination ~13.7 billion years ago?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid So, Bogie, in the interests of clear communication, why not use an entirely new word (instead of energy) for a key term in your ATM idea ('aslkduhf', say)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid Not a clue ... to me it's a confusing set of words that has no meaningful relationship to anything that is within the scope of this forum.A) It's rather difficult to 'forget' something as gross a distortion of modern cosmology as that!

Such clear rhetoric is rare among intelligent people who have the high ground. I wouldn’t normally imagine someone denying the obvious would have been so literate in disregard for the obvious.

The obvious is that matter is composed of energy.


It is a self inflicted argumentum ad hominem, or ad hominem, for me to say that the use of the words “matter”, “composed”, and “energy” can’t be used in a meaningful sentence by an avowed dunce like me.

For others to say it is to attack the person and not the use of words. I think some blue shirts at BAUT have made a New Years resolution to upgrade the ATM section by increasing the level of avowed astonishment at the stupidity of the uninformed like me.

The ISU and the EEP are “alternative” ideas and that makes them against the mainstream. That is what this forum is about.

I know it is difficult for anyone to discuss ideas with me in an environment where I am so liberally derided by the important people on the board. Who would want to step forward and appear to be a class with me after such clear rejection by those with influence? I don’t expect anyone to step forward. I will simply get my ideas into words and go on developing my bottom up approach.

My disclaimer is here ----à http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=891014&postcount=246

In my post about The Energy Background of the ISU I pointed out that the ISU is all about energy.

I have been roundly criticized by BAUT posters and moderators because I am not using the term “energy” properly. Here is an example of the critique:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid So, Bogie, in the interests of clear communication, why not use an entirely new word (instead of energy) for a key term in your ATM idea ('aslkduhf', say)?

You can see what I am dealing with here at BAUT.

But instead of folding up my tent and going home, which anyone but a dunce like me would do under such a frontal attack from the power elite, I will try to comply with the suggestion.

The implication is that GR and QM are the best science can offer, “in fact been tested”, and my idea violates them both and so therefore has been proved wrong before the paint dries.

That sounds like a fallacy.

In my ideas I use the term “energy” within the definition of science if that definition includes the high school phrase, “The ability to cause change”. In my post about the Quantum I wrote: “In the ISU, there is a tiny amount of energy that can be described as the smallest increment of energy that can have any meaningful impact on the universe. A meaningful impact is described as anything that can cause a change in matter, no matter how small the change. That amount of energy is called the elementary energy particle (EEP) and is the quanta of energy (E).”

I would like to know if the critique by BAUT Moderation of my use of the word energy is well founded, or am I on safe scientific ground to use it as I have in my ATM idea about an elementary energy particle?