Steady State Universe

[Mike T]

MY VERSION OF A SSU

 

It is infinitely old. There was no beginning or end.

However, the formed structures like galaxies, stars and photons, go through a recycling process. The matter content itself, does not because it complies to the 'Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy’. It would also comply with the other conservation laws.

It compliers with all the problems the current ‘big bang universe’ does not explain like the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment that refutes the existence of a spatial ether as a carrier of the light waves.

 

It portrays space is flat. No expansion or contraction. Hence no need for General Relativity.

 

The redshift of the current galactic observations is the product of the light waves expanding. This also complies with the Halton Arp redshift anomaly that the BB’ers refute.

 

The CMBR is the product of a state of 'thermal equilibrium’ of all the radiations and interstellar particle radiations. It complies to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that states that all closed systems will redistribute their heat from the hot to the cold areas until a uniform temperature is reached.

 

Although space is infinite, the matter content is finite. There is sufficient matter content to prevent the loss of heat energy at its edges. This, then is a closed system.

 

Any comments?

 

Mike T

[gagsrcool]

Hi,

 

Nice theory, Mike T. Interesting one. But can you explain the phenomenon of gravity without general relativity?

[Xyph]

It compliers with all the problems the current ‘big bang universe’ does not explain like the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment that refutes the existence of a spatial ether as a carrier of the light waves.

That ceased to be a problem a long time ago.

 

 

The matter content itself, does not because it complies to the 'Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy’. It would also comply with the other conservation laws.

I'm quite certain that there is no such law. Energy (or it's equivalent in matter) is conserved, but matter itself is not. Energy can produce matter, and vice versa.

 

 

There is sufficient matter content to prevent the loss of heat energy at its edges.

That's silly. Unless you have a shell of some form of 100% reflective exotic matter - or matter at the edges of the universe has some utterly bizarre gravitational properties that bends all outgoing light through acute angles back into the material universe - radiation will gradually leak outwards and the universe will eventually become a cold, energetic wasteland.

 

 

In any case, what further experiments do you suggest to verify your (somewhat unlikely, it seems) hypothesis?

[Mike T]

gagsrcool quote

Nice theory, Mike T. Interesting one. But can you explain the phenomenon of gravity without general relativity?

 

Reply

The gravitational constant existed before GR. GR deals with ‘space curvature’ and makes tiny tweaks or corrections that I say are not necessary with a ‘flat space concept’. Einstein himself admitted that he made a mistake with his introduction of ‘Lambda’ to counter the effects of a gravitational collapse. He was wrong here also because gravity is neutralized by ‘linear momentum’ which prevents gravitational collapse.

It just so happens that matter is structured that way. Even the extremely strong coulomb force cannot collapse the hydrogen atom because of the interaction between the magnetic fields that prevent this.

 

Xyph quote

(MT wrote)

It compliers with all the problems the current ‘big bang universe’ does not explain like the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment that refutes the existence of a spatial ether as a carrier of the light waves.

 

Xyph quote

That ceased to be a problem a long time ago.

 

Reply

Explain?

 

MT wrote:

The matter content itself, does not because it complies to the 'Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy’. It would also comply with the other conservation laws.

 

X quote

I'm quite certain that there is no such law. Energy (or it's equivalent in matter) is conserved, but matter itself is not. Energy can produce matter, and vice versa.

 

 

 

reply

My definition of matter and energy is that matter ‘always existed’ as the law states. Energy is an effect of the intrinsic forces within that create all motions.

My opinion is the energy cannot create matter but just an effect..

Your quote is made by the Big Bang idea of creation out of nothing which the BB promotes.

 

 

MT wrote:

There is sufficient matter content to prevent the loss of heat energy at its edges.

 

X quote

That's silly. Unless you have a shell of some form of 100% reflective exotic matter - or matter at the edges of the universe has some utterly bizarre gravitational properties that bends all outgoing light through acute angles back into the material universe - radiation will gradually leak outwards and the universe will eventually become a cold, energetic wasteland.

In any case, what further experiments do you suggest to verify your (somewhat unlikely, it seems) hypothesis?

 

reply

As I have said, space is infinite but the matter content is limited to a calculated size. But regardless of the size, the photons at the border would continue to expand to infinite lengths and oblivion and return to the electric field as components in a tranquil state.

The ending of these photons are always being replaced with ‘new photons’ created in the new star formations. This is an ongoing everlasting process of a SSU.

(See my post on the EoLW’s)

 

Mike T

[swansont]

Even the extremely strong coulomb force cannot collapse the hydrogen atom because of the interaction between the magnetic fields that prevent this.

 

 

No, the magnetic force has nothing to do with the non-collapse of the atom.

[Mike T]

No, the magnetic force has nothing to do with the non-collapse of the atom.

 

reply

Are you telling me that the electron and the proton do not have magnetic fields surrounding them? This is nonsense.

Whenever the electron moves, it generates a magnetic field. This is also true of the proton. However, I believe the proton has 'synchronous spin' that is generated by the electrons motion around the proton. This spin also generates a MF.

The two fields have the fields circulating in the same direction (between the particles) to repel each other. This contributes an added repulsion to the electrons 'linear momentum' to stabilize the HA in the ground state, IMHO.

 

Mike T

[[Tycho?]]

reply

Are you telling me that the electron and the proton do not have magnetic fields surrounding them? This is nonsense.

Whenever the electron moves' date=' it generates a magnetic field. This is also true of the proton. However, I believe the proton has 'synchronous spin' that is generated by the electrons motion around the proton. This spin also generates a MF.

The two fields have the fields circulating in the same direction (between the particles) to repel each other. This contributes an added repulsion to the electrons 'linear momentum' to stabilize the HA in the ground state, IMHO.

 

Mike T[/quote']

 

If electromagnetic forces were the only ones at play there would be no atoms- they would have already collapsed/exploded. Its other forces which allow atoms to actually stay together.

[swansont]

reply

Are you telling me that the electron and the proton do not have magnetic fields surrounding them? This is nonsense.

 

Good thing that's not what I said, then. What I said was they have nothing to do with the non-collapse of the atom.

 

Believe what you want, but science requires evidence. Got any?

[Mike T]

Tycho quote

If electromagnetic forces were the only ones at play there would be no atoms- they would have already collapsed/exploded. Its other forces which allow atoms to actually stay together.

 

reply

What forces?

The composition of the hydrogen atom involves the EM forces only. IMO, there are no others.

 

Mike T

[Mike T]

Swanson quote

Good thing that's not what I said, then. What I said was they have nothing to do with the non-collapse of the atom.

 

Believe what you want, but science requires evidence. Got any?

 

reply

I rely on basic physics like the interaction between charged particles. There is both an interaction of the coulomb force and the magnetic force to stabilize the HA in the ground state. The 'right and left' hand rules of EM interactions tell me this. This involves the positive and negative currents of both particles.

I came to this conclusion by 'visualizing' the nature of the HA as a Bohr planetary binary.

 

I know establishment science has adopted the Schroedinger orbital concepts but that does not eliminate the Bohr model IMHO.

 

Mike T

[sunspot]

The Bohr or planetary model of the atom is appropriate for the hydrogen atom and maybe helium, but after that the orbital shapes change into the P-orbitals. These shapes are more like an asteroid with a close approach to the sun and then a long sweeping journey back into space. The d-orbitals begin to break down the planetary model due to donuts shapes, where the center of the doughnut remains a fixed distance from the nucleus or sun. I am not aware of any such phenomena in our solar system, although that does not preclude their existance. The EM force can explain all the shapes with magnetic addition playing a pivotal role. Without the magnetic addition, all the atoms would look like the Bohr atom and chemistry as we know it would not be the same.

[Mike T]

Sunspot

 

Since I am mainly interested in the HA which is the predominant constituent in the Universe, the remainder of the elements and their uses in chemistry are not of interest to me accept on some occasions.

 

I believe the SSU is the most realistic without the problems the BBU has. The most important of all is the nature of the beginning that sounds like a 'creation theory'.

 

Mike T

[Severian]

How do you stop the universe collapsing under gravity?

 

Also, what is the 'recycling process' and how does it evade the second law of thermodynamics?

[gagsrcool]

Reply

The gravitational constant existed before GR. GR deals with ‘space curvature’ and makes tiny tweaks or corrections that I say are not necessary with a ‘flat space concept’. Einstein himself admitted that he made a mistake with his introduction of ‘Lambda’ to counter the effects of a gravitational collapse. He was wrong here also because gravity is neutralized by ‘linear momentum’ which prevents gravitational collapse.

 

Hi,

 

But I would like to remind you that theories about the cosmological constant have indeed be revived. Reason?

Well first why did he tell that he had made an error when he had introduced the cosmological constant? That was because he believed in the steady state therory, even though there was nothing like that at that time and strongly opposed the Big Bang theory and the statement that the Universe is expanding. But his field equations somehow could only hold good IF the universe was in motion, or in other words expansion or contraction(it was expansion and proved by Hubble which is not related to this post). So, for that, he introduced the cosmological constant which gave the constancy for the universe and matter. But later took it back, because it too supported the theory.

Now it has been revived by scientists because, it is indeed a true statement and presents the approximate shape of the Universe, i.e. whether it is closed or open. A value above the constant gives that it is open, below, closed.

 

gagsrcool

[swansont]

Well first why did he tell that he had made an error when he had introduced the cosmological constant? That was because he believed in the steady state therory' date=' even though there was nothing like that at that time and strongly opposed the Big Bang theory and the statement that the Universe is expanding.[/quote']

 

Einstein came up with the term before Hubble's observations that led to the realization that the universe was expanding, which then led to the Big Bang theory being developed. There was nothing to oppose steady-state at the time, and that was the default idea. When the expansion was discovered, that was when he called it his biggest blunder.

[Red_Ninja]

It is infinitely old. There was no beginning or end.

 

OK, but that ought to give you a problem with entropy. If the Universe is infinitely old then every line of sight in the sky would end on a star and the entire sky would be as hot as the sun. Want to try and 'cheat' and imagine there's some intervening matter ? Doesn't make any difference. Infinite time will heat it up just the same.

 

The matter content itself, does not because it complies to the 'Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy’. It would also comply with the other conservation laws.

 

The Universe is the ultimate free lunch, creating matter and gravitational potential equally. I think I remember reading that all the energy in the universe adds up to zero.

 

It compliers with all the problems the current ‘big bang universe’ does not explain like the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment that refutes the existence of a spatial ether as a carrier of the light waves.

 

I believe light waves are magenetic and electrical waves propagating eachother through a vacuum. Once this was figured out it didn't take long to realise that ether didn't exist. Was it Maxwell conjectured the correct nature of light first ? Can't remember just now.

 

The redshift of the current galactic observations is the product of the light waves expanding. This also complies with the Halton Arp redshift anomaly that the BB’ers refute.

 

Does it explain why the rate of expansion is proportional to distance ? And if it does then does it also explain why in the future they will vanish beyond a horizon, just leaving a fading afterglow ? All the same, a blind alley.

 

Although space is infinite, the matter content is finite. There is sufficient matter content to prevent the loss of heat energy at its edges. This, then is a closed system.

 

Anything that is finite is arbitrarily close to zero when compared to something infinite. If there is infinitely more space than matter then the universe would be virtually infinitely dilute. Which doesn't seem to fit what you see when you look up at night.

[[Tycho?]]

Tycho quote

If electromagnetic forces were the only ones at play there would be no atoms- they would have already collapsed/exploded. Its other forces which allow atoms to actually stay together.

 

reply

What forces?

The composition of the hydrogen atom involves the EM forces only. IMO' date=' there are no others.

 

Mike T[/quote']

 

Well your opinion is going to have to explain exactly how atoms stay together then.

 

If EM forces were the only ones acting on an atom there would be no atoms. Protons in atomic nuclei would blow themselves apart due to their positive charges. The strong nuclear force keeps things together.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_force

[Mike T]

Severian quote

How do you stop the universe collapsing under gravity?

Also, what is the 'recycling process' and how does it evade the second law of thermodynamics?

 

reply

I explained that 'linesr momentum nerutralizes gravity. This is according to Newtons 'First Law of Motion'. How else can you explain all the current structures that ore observed out there in space? The current orbits of the bodies are a vector product of gravity and momentum.

I said the recycling process of the stars is the product of new star condensations that result in new light pulses and the subsequent evaporation (stars) and the neutron star decays as the end result to return back to HA's.

If you are referring to the 'entropy' of the 2nd law, I also said that the photons expand to infinite lengths and to oblivion. The new star formations create new photons that replace the expanded photons to their end and oblivion. This conforms to the 'conservation of energy' in a closed system.

 

gags quote

Now it has been revived by scientists because, it is indeed a true statement and presents the approximate shape of the Universe, i.e. whether it is closed or open. A value above the constant gives that it is open, below, closed.

 

reply

I believe Freedman introcuced the various different types of universes.

The major queustion here is why did Einstein think his universe would collaose?

I think he realized that a curved space would also 'erode linear momentum' which would then cause a gravitational collapse. His 'curvature of space' violates the 'conservation of momentum'.

The 'dark matter' in the galactic clusters proves that these structures do not collapse even when enhanced 10x the gravity effects.

 

Swanson quote

Einstein came up with the term before Hubble's observations that led to the realization that the universe was expanding, which then led to the Big Bang theory being developed. There was nothing to oppose steady-state at the time, and that was the default idea. When the expansion was discovered, that was when he called it his biggest blunder.

 

reply

Yes. He realized then that Lamda was not needed. But as I have explained above, he was wrong in his assumption that there would be a gravitational collapse.

 

Ninja

Will reply to you tomorrow

 

Tycho quote

Well your opinion is going to have to explain exactly how atoms stay together then.

If EM forces were the only ones acting on an atom there would be no atoms. Protons in atomic nuclei would blow themselves apart due to their positive charges. The strong nuclear force keeps things together.

 

reply

IMHO, the strong force does not exist. It does not exist in containing the HA as the permanent basic matter structure. If the SF does not exist here and the neutron does not exist in a 'free state', then why does the neutron decay. If the SF mysteriously appears when star formation is in progress and does not keep the neutron from decaying, then there must be another bindinf force in the nuclei. That binding force is an electrin sandwiched between two protons by the coulomb force and an added spin to this combination which would enhance this binding with a magnetic force is my opinion of the nuclei binding in the deuteron nucleus (deuterium atom) of the HA isotope that is a stable element but vary rare.

When the neutrons are liberated, the magnetic component separates the proton and the electron because of the action of the magnetic field spins in these isolated conditions where the other protons MF is removed.

 

Mike T

[swansont]

']Well your opinion is going to have to explain exactly how atoms stay together then.

 

If EM forces were the only ones acting on an atom there would be no atoms. Protons in atomic nuclei would blow themselves apart due to their positive charges. The strong nuclear force keeps things together.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_force

 

 

But this is moot for hydrogen (H-1).

[Mike T]

Ninja quote

Originally Posted by Mike T It is infinitely old. There was no beginning or end.

 

OK, but that ought to give you a problem with entropy. If the Universe is infinitely old then every line of sight in the sky would end on a star and the entire sky would be as hot as the sun. Want to try and 'cheat' and imagine there's some intervening matter ? Doesn't make any difference. Infinite time will heat it up just the same.

 

reply

I explained the entropy problem above. I said the light pulses will expand to infinite lengths and subsequent oblivion. Entropy is supposed to be a measure of ‘disorder’ so when you look up into the sky, you see order. Occasional collisions are not common which would qualify as disorder.

 

Ninja Quote:

The Universe is the ultimate free lunch, creating matter and gravitational potential equally. I think I remember reading that all the energy in the universe adds up to zero.

 

reply

The ‘inflation theory’ is un-provable. Since the BB does not exist, the IT is null and void.

 

Ninja Quote:

I believe light waves are magenetic and electrical waves propagating eachother through a vacuum. Once this was figured out it didn't take long to realise that ether didn't exist. Was it Maxwell conjectured the correct nature of light first ? Can't remember just now.

 

reply

Maxwell supplied the mathematics that unified the electric and magnetic components and independently determined the velocity of light which then gave him credibility for his formulations.

Faraday established the interaction of the EM nature of electricity.

Planck transformed the continuous light waves to ‘pulses’ and Bohr explained how the HA radiates these pulses.

 

Ninja Quote:

Does it explain why the rate of expansion is proportional to distance ? And if it does then does it also explain why in the future they will vanish beyond a horizon, just leaving a fading afterglow ? All the same, a blind alley.

 

reply

Nonsense. The EoLW’s would create the same result as the BB space expansion. When the LW’s expand to infrared, they are no longer visible to the ‘naked eye’ so we only see the visible portion. This also explains the Olbers Paradox.

Telescopes are required to see all the other radiations.

 

Ninja Quote:

Anything that is finite is arbitrarily close to zero when compared to something infinite. If there is infinitely more space than matter then the universe would be virtually infinitely dilute. Which doesn't seem to fit what you see when you look up at night.

 

reply

The EM fields which are composed of ‘virtual particles’ would be the only matter(?) in

empty space since these fields are considered to extend to infinite distances. This is what the current theory of the fields is taught. If there is no matter, then the fields would not exist except to reach out to infinite distances. These, of course would be very weak and dispersed fields in empty space.

 

Mike T

[Mike T]

To All

 

Can you believe this?

 

I have been using the Laws of Conservation of Mattert and Energy,the Michelson-Morley experiment that refutes the space as an ether and the Halton Arp redshift anomaly as an added observation to refute space as a

carrier of the light pulses and

 

The Moderator has moved my postings to a Speculation concept?

 

What do you guys think?

 

Mike T

[swansont]

The Moderator has moved my postings to a Speculation concept?

 

What do you guys think?

 

Mike T

 

 

"What took so long?"

 

Hey' date=' you asked the question. But this [i']is[/i] speculation, and I requested that it be moved. From your very first post, which is dismissing several well-established principles of physics, how can you characterize this any other way?

[Mike T]

Swanson

 

My posts are based on the laws of physics and exoeriments that have been proven beyonf a doubt.

The examples I gave on the above post are real science based realities.

 

On the other hand, the BB is 'fiction' beyonf a doubt because there is no real science for its support. The galactic redshift observations by Slipher, Hubble and Humason are used as its foundation. The fact that the Doppler implication had to be changed to an 'expansion of space' is an example of the subjective thinking to comply to a Lemaitre idea of an expanding universe which is also subjective..

And when the CMBR is supposed to be the 'clincher' evidence, that is ludicrous because a 'thermal equilibrium' temperature is more realistic that complies to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

 

The above is what I call 'flimsy' evidence for a scientific BB concept.

Yet this type of universe is embraced as gospel.

 

Mike T

[KaiduOrkhon]

...the heart-foundation of Einstein's Unified Field Theory is a (previously unknown repelling) force which Einstein discovered within and extracted from his General Theory Of Relativity. That is the same theory that revealed and introduced us to the 4th Dimension.

 

Einstein called this previously unknown force 'the Cosmological Constant'. When he spoke of it in his Unified Field equations he designated it with the Greek sign 'Lambda', which resembles an inverted capital 'V', like this: /\ .The non-mathematical definition of Einstein's 'Lambda' or 'Cosmological Constant':

'A previously unrecognized Universal Repelling Force, originating in all Matter and projecting across space at the velocity of light'.

 

Einstein's cosmological constant force does not eliminate or ignore the concept of gravitational attraction (the concept of a pulling force), but rather joins it. The repelling force and the impelling force are found co-existentially, side by side. The impelling force of gravity binds the universe together. The cosmologically constant repelling force of Lambda is Einstein's answer to Newton's candidly asked, previously unanswered question of why a universe full of impelling bodies doesn't collapse on itself.

 

60 Billion McDONALD'S Customers Have The Right To Know That Their Strongest Beef Is Four Dimensional (refer, FDA required list of ingredients).

 

Lambda. ^ The Cosmological Constant.

A repelling force acting across space out of material bodies; proportionate in strength and intensity to the mass value of its material source (particle/charge).

 

At a personal meeting with Hubble and others, Einstein was persuaded by the prevailing purveyors of what came to be universally considered - and mirthfully called - the big bang theory; to consider the *Cosmological Constant a mistake on his part; *said to be a repelling force acting exactly like and with gravity; except in the opposite direction. Preventing the collapse of a universe of impelling (mutually attracting) bodies.

 

At the unexpected discovery that the spatial universe is expanding (Silpher, 1927; Hubble 1931). Einstein's Cosmological Constant Force was dismissed as superfluous.

Einstein was thereafter persuaded to call it 'the biggest blunder of my life'; as indeed this record takes accented note of agreement.

 

It's Still The Same Old Story, continued:

The record can only very respectfully agree with Dr. Einstein's theory; as usual; while all others have grown weary. Abandoning the Cosmological Constant to the Hubble model of an expanding - Big Bang originated-universe was indeed the biggest blunder of Einstein's life.

 

We will return to that redoubtably pensive consideration in a moment, but now this (I thought I told you never to play that song again, Sam.?) :

 

Einstein was persuaded into 'retirement' from his solo high, lonesome. While a follow-through of reinstatement awaits anyone who pursues documentation of what happens when one objectively over-rules the subjective dismissal of the abundantly proven, objective concept of expanding matter: On the *chronically myopic premise that it is 'self-apparently' not happening.

 

The Old Man is forgivable in his abandonment of his supreme theory of the union of the universal taco with the stellar burrito. dovetailing - unifying - light & gravity. Unearthing El Epitome Del Enchilada. The allegory relic so highly advertised as useless by the Big Bangologists of yesteryear and the Chalupa, popcorn and balloon vendors of today...

 

On the other hand, they aren't talking about how Einstein was back to and working on his abandoned Unified Field; to the time of his death, in May, of '55.

 

“It is well known to students of high school algebra that it is permissable to divide both sides of an equation by any quantity, provided that this quantity is not zero. However, in the course of his proof Einstein had divided both sides of one of his intermediate equations by a complicated expression, which in certain circumstances, could become zero (‘at the slightest provocation’)...

“In the case, however, when this expression becomes equal to zero, Einstein’s proof does not hold, and (mathematician) Friedmann realized that this opened a whole new world of time-dependent universes; expanding, collapsing, and pulsating ones.

“Thus Einstein’s original gravity equation was correct, and changing it was a mistake. Much later, when I was discussing cosmological problems with Einstein, he remarked that the introduction of the cosmological term was the biggest blunder he ever made in his life. But the ‘blunder’, rejected by Einstein, and the cosm ological constant denoted by the Greek letter /\, rears its ugly head again and again and again.” - George Gamow, GRAVITY, p. 270

 

The ‘ugly head’ Of The Outlawed Truth (Outlawed and uglified, ‘again, and again, and again’... ):

 

“The cosmological constant has now a secure position... Not only does it unify the gravitational and electromagnetic fields, but it renders the theory of gravitation and its relation to space-time measurement so much more illuminating and indeed self evident, that return to the earlier view is unthinkable. I would as soon think of reverting to Newtonian Theory as of dropping the cosmological constant.”

- Sir Arthur Eddington, THE EXPANDING UNIVERSE, p. 24

 

“I can see no reason to doubt that the observed recession of the spiral nebulae is due to cosmic repulsion, and it is the effect predicted (in 1919) by Relativity Theory which we were hoping to find (*and did find in the 1927 - 1931 discovery of the spatially expanding universe). Many other explanations have been proposed - some of them rather fantastic (* ‘tired light’, ‘the big bang’,’dark matter’, ‘gravitons’, ‘super strings’ ‘anti-matter’) - and there has been a great deal of discussion which seems to me rather pointless. In this, as in other developments of scientific exploration, we must recognise the limitations of our present knowledge and be prepared to consider revolutionary changes.”

- Sir Arthur Eddington, pp. 89 - 90, A TREASURY OF SCIENCE (Harlow Shapley publishers. <Asterisked - * - parenthetical insertions, by the **author>)

________________________________

 

The above series of paragraphs excerpted from "Gravity, Electricity & Magnetism are the 4th, 5th & 6th Dimensions. The non-mathematical Reinstatement of Einstein's Presently Abandoned Unified Field (Cosmological Constant - Steady State) Theory. The Big Bang Theory is Wrong (aka, 'TOTAL FIELD THEORY')", by **K. B. Robertson.

 

Thank you for reading this missive.

[JohnB]

[Derail for curiousity's sake]

If the Universe is infinitely old then every line of sight in the sky would end on a star and the entire sky would be as hot as the sun.

Since suns die and go out, would there be light in every direction? Or would the light be appearing and disappearing in time with the life cycles of the suns?

[/Derail]