pantheory

I wrote my posting last night. Now in retrospect I think Diamond was probably misquoting something that was discussed in the video, that supposedly to get the abundance of light elements to come closer to what is observed, the numbers supposedly would crunch better if the universe were 8 billion years old instead of the presently asserted 13.7 Billion, but there are some known stars in our galaxy that some astronomers believe are at least 14 billion years old. My guess is that he meant to say 8 and 14 billion years, not 80 and 140 ..

Diamond, Aspects and segments of this video have been around for many decades. It was written by Eric Lerner who wrote the book The Big Bang Never Happened. I think his book was quite good. In my opinion there are many serious problems with the Big Bang model that are generally discussed in this video but there is also some sarcasm included and I think some wrongful characterizations of the model. It certainly is not just a scientific criticism. It seems to have been produced to sway the opinions of those who are unaware of the issues. By blanketly implying the Big Bang model has numerous problems, for most knowledgeable readers would be no revelation. So what are your particular concerns that might be discussed here? Also your posting #7 contains inaccurate information. If you have your own opinion or alternative sources for this info you need to post them, otherwise no one could guess where these numbers came from. It might be better to ask questions. Maybe some astronomers or theorists think some stars are 80-140 billion years old but who are they? You may have simply misunderstood. You need to clarify this

This seems like a reasonable question for speculation because I know of no consensus answer. Stars and planets with a large torus type vortexes which started their formation, can extend their gravitational influence farther outward away from the star/ planet itself because of their larger mass. By doing so it is able to capture more material in stellar or planetary vortexes which are generally traveling on the same plane. Each body it captures, its orbital motions is transferred into stellar or planetary rotation as the star or planet absorbs the matter which is orbiting it adding to the increased rotation of the central absorbing body. Mercury is close to the sun so tidal locking influences have likely slowed down its original rotation period which still might have been slower than the Earth because of its smaller size. Venus is farther out from the sun and tidal forces of gravity alone seemingly could not have caused its retrograde orbital motion. It is likely that a proto-planet collision of some kind could explain its slow retrograde rotation rate, something like a Mars sized body that is presently thought to have created our moon. The orbital axis of Uranus also seems to indicate that it iteracted with a proto-planetary body in its early history because of its greatly inclined axis of rotation relative to the plane of the solar system.

Widdekind, Yes, this would seem like one of the logical possibilities of at least a portion of the light radiated away from the surroundings of a black hole. Conceivably for redshifted than their distance would otherwise indicated. If this is so then then it might be difficult to spot the more redshifted part of the displayed spectra.

As Dr. Rocket explained, the primary definition of energy in physic is a force applied to an object over a distance which defines the increased energy that the object being acted upon, receives. The totally different concept of "a force at a distance" is simply a force and nothing more until an action takes place concerning an applied force. There have been a number of arguments in physics concerning the validity of pulling forces at a distance such as gravity and magnetism, etc. But this is an entirely different subject. You can always argue about theoretical mechanics but not definitions. You can say I don't like that normal definition of that word for xyz application because .......... But you can't ever say a definition is wrong. If you don't like the word use a different one or make up your own word/ phrase then define it.

You can disagree with theory but never definitions. The word energy has several dictionary definitions. Even in physics energy has more than one meaning. You could say that I prefer another definition of the word energy to explain reality because of XYZ reasons or you could invent another word for what you mean. But not simply to say the definition of the word energy is wrong when it is the primary definition and meaning of the word in physics. It is simply a matter of your knowledge of all the definitions, and your choice of the proper vocabulary to explain your opinion. //

You need to summarize what you are arguing for or against, and what your contentions or proposal to the contrary is. Very few will enjoy reading through this material without a simple comprehensive teaser to start with IMO.

himoura, An explosion is not what the standard model proposes. A rapid expansion of the original condition is what the standard model proposes. And is your proposal based upon the standard cosmological model? If not then there would be almost infinite other possibilities. Your complaint seems to be solely based upon the standard model. That's cool but can your proposal stand alone without complaint and on its own merits? This is a statement, but how can circumstances create order? If you believe in theistic creation then there are no circumstances involved, solely the will of a creator. If you are talking about evolution, then circumstances concerning the environment can randomly select the survival of the fittest living entities. But maybe this is contrary to your proposal? How the first life on Earth came to be, is recognized as an unknown. But as conditions change, life accordingly evolves. The fittest survive and those that cannot adapt die out. My guess is that 99% or more of all the species that have every lived on this Earth have perished because of changing conditions. Once life gets established in countess forms as it did on Earth, it would seemingly take a monumental catastrophe to wipe it all out. According to my belief and current evolutionary theory, such a monumental catastrophe has not occurred since the beginning of life here on Earth. Maybe not monumental, but many great catastrophes have happened since that time. Of course the odds of life happening again in the same way and form are close to zero. Using your own line of thought, it may have been only a winning streak that enabled life to get started, but once started life on Earth accordingly had the evolutionary capacity and resilience to continue which was supported by natural selection. It is certainly a wonder that life evolved/ got started in the first place, but less of a wonder that it survived the countless catastrophes that it had to endure thereafter -- IMHO.

Hi BJC, The original Big Bang model stated the universe started as a singularity X number of years ago. This was a model concerning the entire universe having a finite age. In this model there is just one universe, our own. A universe having a finite age involves a limited number of sequential cause and effect incidents based upon the definition of the word finite, meaning limited. It is therefore logically impossible for time or space to have existed before the beginning of the universe. You can only do so if you change how the universe began or by changing the definitions of the words finite, universe, or space. The original definition for universe was: everything in existence. If the Zero Point Field (ZPF) pre-existed the universe then time pre-existed the universe. If so then the ZPF had a different beginning than the rest of the universe, or the ZPF could be infinite concerning times past. //

ajb, I don't think Occam's Razor should be followed as the ultimate guide concerning theory, but if more consideration were given to it over the years, I believe we would be farther ahead concerning our understandings of reality.

RAJA, The question is: what was before that? The answer would involve at least one of the many hypothetical versions of the Big Bang model. There presently is no mainstream consensus concerning an answer.

I truly appreciate jest and good humor I have theory, reasoning, and I believe a valid argument. I have designed a test (not quite so easy) for this assertion if you wish to discuss it in the speculation forum, " alternative to Big Bang" thread. The same experiment would also be a test of my model of gravity. added: What, this is the speculation forum? but not my thread. Could I start explaining my model here, or do I need to save the "differences in the speed of light" for my own thread? //

This is the mainstream part of the forum or else I would assert otherwise Cheaters never prosper, or fly through any wormholes either, that I know of I agree //

md65536, It would seem that there will always be changes between any two time frames based upon the definition of a "time frame." Proton spin is at a rate (if I remember correctly) 10^22 cps, concerning showing the same face to an observer every other spin. This can also be an ideal type of time measurement device. Accordingly everything either has spin or changes its relative condition/ position defining a time interval, therefore two different time frames requires by definition that changes have taken place. s Any time frame must include the surrounding ZPF which also has ever continuous changes to it such as trillions of neutrinos passing through it every second. Changes of entropy are as valid as any other change for describing a time interval, but changes in entropy cannot be used as a measurement device concerning an exact time quantity, seemingly only an estimate of time can be made. I agree. Oscillations are one manner of counting time; Rotation/ spin is another, flow rates are another (such as a water clocks or a sand glass), pendulum swings (as in a grandfather clock) etc. Each clock device must also have a counting mechanism. The concept involved is: As matter and energy have existence, so must their state of existence continually change: hence time. Out of the mouth of babes can come the most profound questions. Your idea is not wrong. In my opinion the simplest explanation of time concerns the changes that have occurred during an interval of existence. Time and change can accordingly be equated ..

md65536, Your definition is good. Time as a length can be described as the length of an interval between two time frames in the same location. An extended definition might be: Time is a relative measurement of an interval of change that has occurred between two time frames, as calculated, or compared with the changes that have occurred within an elapsed-time measurement device and standard (such as a second, day, year, etc.). ..

Most standard model theories propose the speed of light is constant, according to Special and General Relativity. As to big differences in the speed of light, like wormholes etc., this is not the standard model. My expectation is that the speed of light does vary in velocity, based upon variations of gravitational fields, but probably not be much. I expect it varies a slight amount here on Earth up vs. down, but such a proposal has not been tested to such precision since the precision clocks needed to do such a test have only been around for a couple of decades. //

Cygnus47, 69 huh, You probably graduated from H.S. the same time I did, 1960? I would guess nobody else in this forum has been developing theories as long as I have, since 1959. This is the speculation forum so nobody is going to expect that you will always have an answer that is consistent with observation or your model. You can always preface the idea with something like "this idea/ model is in its beginning stages." So if or when the mood strikes just jump in and present your ideas. I don't think it could hurt I would like to invite you as my friend on this forum. Do you know how to do it? A couple people have invited me whereby I accepted, but I haven't figured out how to invite someone else yet best regards, Forrest Noble

All your reasons seem like good ones. Although most such light-arcs would fall into the black hole, some of the EM radiation will be radiated outward, reflected, or otherwise bent outward by adjacent matter enabling us to see the sometimes bright light produced within the torus. Some of this EM radiation might even orbit the black hole once or twice before being interrupted, since the torus diameter accordingly would be relatively small; but my guess is that if so such radiation would only be a small portion of the total radiation produced. //

Both models can travel down this road comfortably together Unfortunately on this note the road diverges between models see pantheory.com , (which is this model being presented here). The aether of this model is particulate (spring-like strings of fundamental particles), granted very small. An entire string length would accordingly be roughly estimated to be 10-30 meters, or smaller. This is like an aether theory of the 19th century where pure energy does not exist, only energy of motion concerning matter or these field "strings." This particular model is a steady-state model concerning the observable universe. Galaxies evolve over time but the general appearance the observable universe remains unchanged. There is a different explanation for redshifts so accordingly the observable universe is not expanding. Cygnus, why don't you put your model on the board here and then others, as well as myself, will question further details of your model

my quote your request This is the classical physics section so I cannot explain the details in this thread, but I believe that all of reality consists of just one particle with one innate mechanical force and nothing more. Accordingly there is nothing complicated in reality. You can ask questions concerning the details if you wish in the speculation forum, "alternative to the Big Bang model." It is based on my 400 hundred page book/ theory of theoretical physics and cosmology. my quote // your quote Concerning this thread I think the Kinetic Theory of Heat simply explains the "what is heat" question. No matter what the question in physics I believe the answer is relatively simple. Of course I do not know all the correct answers to everything but can give the answers (which I consider valid) according to my model.

Cygnus47, I think I understand the differences but wished to point out the similarities in that matter according to this model, involves a vortex which is aether energy of motion, and that this vortex energy (motion) of aether is what we observe to be a solid which has kinship, I think, to matter as a "localized orbital energy flux."

You can't, how shocking. You mean you propose to discard phlogiston theory? //

The idea of matter and energy being close to the same thing, would seem to date back to the 19th century when several aether vortex models of matter were presented. One of these models was quite sophisticated and most were mainstream. My own model represents matter as a spinning loop, concerning a spring-like strand of elementary particles. As these loop spin, they accordingly would produce a vortex in the aether field that surrounds them. Accordingly the vortexes would contain much more material than the spring-like strand and therefore would represent the majority of the particle mass we observe //

I think it is a matter of opinion depending on differing BH models, but my opinion is that your conjecture may be pretty close. The difference, I think, is that it may appear to be an annulus in form but instead would be a combination of small arcs of radiation that when combined together might resemble a torus.