|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
I would like to find that a critical capacity is a Black Hole - our Observable Universe has a critical density like in Black Hole.
I would like to prove that Dark Energy is not from nothing but it is an energy supplied into our Observable Universe from an outside space. The potential gravitational energy in the space is attractive and kinetic energy in the rest mass particle is repulsive. It will support the ISU I think. |
|
|||
|
In a quick summary then, how does the ISU/EEP idea account for five key cosmological observations?
1) Olbers' paradox: what do sight-lines end on? 2) Hubble relationship, including that traced by high-z 1a SNe: expansion of spacetime (just like the LCDM models?) 3) the CMB: thermalisation of early stars (for the BB spectrum); the angular power spectrum is not explained 4) primordial abundance of light nuclides: should be soley H; existence of primordial D, 3He and 4He is not explained 5) large-scale structure: same as LCDM models (gravity dominated hierarchical structure formation), except that there is no CDM (so the details of the large-scale structure are not explained). Oh, and there are no numbers, so no quantitative matching is possible. What did I get wrong? |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Unfortunately I won’t be able to jot off an answer off the top of my head because several of these “observations” I am unfamiliar with. That means it will take some time and time is a commodity in ATM. PM me or email me if there are any comments in the interim. If anyone would like to assist me in developing a response they could explain the issue for some or all of the observations and email me. What am I supposed to be trying to explain? Please close the thread while I get busy. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
My answer to all five is that I don’t know. But I will go on to say that nothing in the content of my posts leads me to believe that those observations pose a problem. They are the kind of questions that will need to be addressed but it is too early for my particular cosmology to address them. I’ve mentioned before that my cosmology is being built from the bottom up and so far, the only science that I have violated as far as I know is the “taboo” on speculation. To address that objection I have defined “responsible” speculation and how it is part of the bottom up process that is behind my posts. What “responsible” speculation? 1. There is a “before and beyond” the big bang, i.e. preconditions that caused the big bang. 2. There is a unifying particle that has not yet been observed. 3. That particle would have to have some particular characteristics in order for it to be behind the missing physics necessary to explain the “pre-existing cause” of the big bang. I have done a good bottom up analysis of such a particle, and I have described a greater universe that is consistent with such a particle and that could explain the “preconditions” the lead to the big bang if such a particle existed. It is the key content of my posts that should be addressed and shown to be incompatible with science. Key content in my posts and in those descriptions include these characteristics of such a particle: 1. They are the tiniest possible increment of energy; a quantum of energy. 2. They are self-contained perpetual energy “machines” that pulse by expanding and contracting. 3. The expansion and contraction provides the power behind all of the energy in the universe. 4. They are indestructible and have always existed. 5. They make up the energy density of space. 6. Energy density fluctuates as the “energy to matter to energy” process plays out in small “arenas” like our expanding universe; our finite observable universe is expanding within a greater universe that is potentially infinite. 7. Matter forms from the energy density of space as expansion occurs, and matter is “negated” back to energy in the form of individual unifying particles under the force of gravity in a big crunch. Matter can only exist within a certain range of energy density. When the energy density gets too low gravity defeats expansion and crunches form and when the energy density gets to high (due to gravity) matter is negated back to energy which then defeats gravity and bursts back into expansion. 8. Matter forms in this order: Protons first, electrons form around protons, and electrons emit photons. All other matter and observable particles form later under high energy circumstances that require the forces within stars or when matter is accelerated. All of the characteristics of the undiscovered unifying particle and the fluctuating energy density of space that characterizes their existence combine to defeat the entropy predicted by BBT. |
|
||||
|
The ISU Dialogues, Part Three -- Things ATMers Forget (or Never Learn in the First Place)
The three of us looked up from our coffee cups to discover that the "Infinite Reach of Gravity" thread has reopened. CM: "Where were we? Yes, we were going to get back to discussing post #2 after our sidebar on his 'computation' of the number of EEPs in the proton and neutron." BH: "He doesn't appear to accept your refutation." DB: "In fact he's pretty much stuck his fingers in his ears and gone 'la-la-la-la-la'." CM: "Doesn't matter. But I'm not ready right now to go back to post #2. I want to speak more generally about some of the ATM theories we've seen that posit some as-yet more fundamental particles below our current set of fundamental particles. You see there are certain things that ATMers forget about particles and how to build them up." BH: "Or never learn in the first place!" CM: "True, true. So let's begin. The first thing that theories such as Bogie's ISU and its EEPs and Sylwester Kornowski's theory with its 'eterions' and 'higgsons' forget is angular momentum--spin in other words. Neither of these theories says anything at all about the spins of their fundamental particles and how these particles are to be put together to yield the observed spins of the fundamental particles that we do observe." DB: "Could the spin of the composite be due to orbital angular momentum of the components?" CM: "Not entirely, because orbital angular momentum can only be integral. To get a half-integral total momentum you must have an odd number of fermions. You cannot build a fermion from bosons alone." DB: "Then Bogie's EEPs must be fermions." BH: "But he claims millions and even billions in the electron and proton. How is it that these particles have the minimum possible angular momentum? How is it that all of the orbital and spin angular momentum from all those particles magically almost cancel?" CM: "That's a severe problem. Here's another thing that ATMers forget or never learn in the first place: charges. No composite can have a charge that no component has. If you could somehow put together a bound state of a neutrino and an anti-neutrino the resulting composite will still be neutral. This is something that neither Sylwester Kornowski nor Bogie could satisfactorily answer. CM: "Of course we can put together neutral composites out of charged components, such as color-neutral nucleons and electrically-neutral atoms and molecules. CM: "One more thing these 'theorists' forget is just what force holds their 'fundamental' particles together to form the particles that we actually observe? Almost without exception they never propose a credible force for binding their particles together. At best we get numerology such as Bogie's post #20." BH: "Speaking of that post, something's been troubling me about it." CM: "What?" BH: "Well, in his little 'story' all these billions and only that one precise number of billions of EEPs form a proton. Somehow that proton magically acquires a positive charge and attracts a number of EEPs that will fit on its surface. This number of EEPs in the hundreds of millions and no other number of EEPs magically acquires a negative charge. Now what prevents that electron from attracting other EEPs to its surface, and forming a much smaller positively charged particle, and what prevents that particle from attracting enough particles to its surface, and, well you get the idea?" CM: "Indeed, that is probably the fatal flaw of this theory. And that brings me to one last thing ATMers forget: the neutron is not a bound state of the proton and electron. Just because the neutron decays into these particles and an electron anti-neutrino does not imply that they were all contained within the neutron. CM: "In the earliest days of nuclear physics when only the proton and electron were known a lot of hand-waving went into explaining how electrons could be confined to the nucleus and yet could also form the outer shell structure of atomic and molecular physics. This problem went away with the discovery of the neutron, but some people, such as Eddington, never accepted this. And many ATMers make the same mistake." CM: "Maybe it's time to refill our cups. I don't know how much longer this thread will stay open." To be continued ...
__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it. The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Spin results from the fluid like flow of the EEPs a corriolas effect. Take a cork in a whirlpool, it has a regular spin because of the water flow. From the point of view of the cork it is stationary. The cork does not "experience" spin. Particles do not "experience" spin. Because we are an outside observer we do not see the flow of the EEPs. We do see the particle and to us it is spinning. Take an elephant examining its trunk, it sees skin. The elephant does NOT see the spin of its particles but they do spin. From the elephants limited point of view its trunk is very stable. We have electron microscopes and we can only get down to electrons. So we see spin but can not see down to the level of flow. From the electron microscopes limited point of view it sees spin. If it was possible to look further down in size the particle would not spin. It is floating in a sea of EEPs and is very stable. What you would see is the vortex like spin of the flow of EEPs. Cheers Mike ![]()
__________________
"Nature is obliged to let reality determine its laws, whereas mathematics is under no such constraint." Last edited by Michael Noonan; 28-May-2007 at 07:18 AM. Reason: Spelling and missed two words |
|
||||
|
Quote:
It is fitting that you bring these things up because the bottom up approach needs to address all observed physics. That is no small mission however and it is a mission that must be addressed one “bottom up” step at a time. We need to go from hydrogen atoms at rest to the hydrogen atom environment that begins to exist as photons are emitted to heat things up and to start stirring the peaceful hydrogen environment. That will come and I will start a thread to address spin and further calculations aimed at quantification but that is beyond where I now stand in the bottom up process. But first, your coffee group is not demonstrating the depth of understanding of the “Bogie idea” necessary to serve as the quintessential panel yet, though I have confidence that with a little participation I can raise their level of awareness. First there is the “La-la-la” comment that is just wrong. The fact is there are three things wrong with that conclusion. I acknowledged as I put those calculations together that I had unit of measure issues and that input from the community would require a second round of calculations. Secondly, CM’s last paragraphs: Quote:
Now back to the depth of understand of the coffee group. The coffee group is probably well qualified to understand and form conclusions. But the issue of “charges” as stated in the Dialog Part Three indicates that the group does not appreciate the energy differential caused by vacated space. They don’t appreciate the swarming of the vacated space by the EEPs that make up the EDS. They don’t appreciate the perfect boundary of the completed surface of the proton, and they don’t appreciate how the energy differential surrounding the proton is perpetuated by the sloughing off of excess energy in the form of photons. Charges and how charges are formed is far from the “fatal flaw” that the coffee group concluded. There is also the statement in Dialog Three about, “what prevents that [smaller group of EEPs] from attracting enough particles to its surface, and, well you get the idea”. EEPs are not particles in the same sense that proton, electrons and photons are particles. EEPs are individual energy packets that occupy space. EEPs are the tiny self-contained pulsing quantum energy density fluctuations that make up the energy density of space (EDS) and that combine to form all particles and matter that exist and that provide the power source behind all of the energy of the universe. Particles of matter form from the EDS when they combine through synchronization. Synchronization only occurs when the EDS is in that narrow range that accommodates matter formation. The comment from the coffee group about what prevents smaller positive particles to from and attract particles to their surfaces misses the point that they do exactly that. They do that until the surface is a complete boundary that has no niches remaining that can be filled by the attracted (swarming) EEPs. That is when the proton surface is complete and the election forms around the completed proton. Then there are the groups statements that “the neutron is not a bound state, and about the “outer shell structure” in regard to molecular physics. In the bottom up approach neutrons don’t from directly from the EDS. Neutrons are not considered a “bound state”. Under the gravitational field within a hydrogen star (or any star in later periods of star formation) the electron of a hydrogen atom is forced into the surface of the proton. Once the proton surface is compromised in this manor it accommodates the EEPs that comprise the electron and it re-stabilizes with different surface characteristics and its surrounding low energy density is gone so it no longer attracts EEPs and it will not form or attract an electron. As for how much longer this thread will stay open, by my calculations it is due to close on June 5th. |
|
|||||||||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Meanwhile, what does your "bottoms up" theorizing say about quarks? You really should consider it, because there is a huge collection of known hadronic states with known masses, charges, strangeness, charm, beauty, angular momentum, parity, etc. That will need explaining. You can't just skip ahead to the hydrogen atom, you've got to explain this stuff first as best you can.
__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it. The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high. |