alternative to Big Bang model

[pantheory]

Thank you. I'm curious.

 

Would you expect the scale of atoms to be twice today's scale at z=1, and at what rate would you expect macroscopic things like stars and planets scale as a function of redshift?

Although everything accordingly would have been relatively larger in the past compared to today, everything would still have the same relative scale and would have appeared and measured the same in those times.

 

At a redshift of 1 the wavelength constituents of galactic light would be twice as long, z + 1 = 2. Accordingly we are observing two facets of galactic light concerning the observed redshift. The first would be that matter was larger in diameter in the past (atomic/ molecular), and the second factor is that space (distances) would appear to have been larger in the past also since we are now using smaller yardsticks (units of measure) to measure/ compare distances. Both of these two factors have an equal influence in determining the observed redshift. To determine the changes in distances (distance scale) between then and now, one would take the square root of z + 1, which would be the square root of 2, or ~1.414 (two equal factors). So the diameter of atoms etc. then would have been 1.414 times larger then than they are now. Distances would also measure/ appear to have been larger then than they measured in their own time. Velocities in general including the speed of light, would also appear to have been faster by this same factor.

 

Since everything was relatively the same then, mass would not change but comparing it to today's units of measure you could say that mass like size in general, was comparatively larger then. Since mass is proportional to volume, as the radius (or diameter) increases in size by 1.414, the volume and mass would increase by the cube of this amount, or 2.828. So matter then (atoms and stars), compared to today, would have been 2.828 times more massive and greater in volume by this same amount. The comparative changes of time can be calculated also by using the wavelength and related frequency. A wavelength of twice as long, such as a redshift of 1, would have a frequency of half the time as today's same wave length. So accordingly comparing time, one could say that time is twice as fast today as it used to be at a redshift of one. This can be verified by supernova at a redshift of 1, which will last (be observable) twice as long as local versions of the same type 1a supernovae. This is presently called a type of time dilation.

 

Quasars have consistent patterns of brightness variation. This variation is thought to be a function of their spin velocity. Since velocity is distance traveled per unit of time, we would see distanced to have been greater then, but time to have been slower. Therefore the velocity of spin would appear the same in any time frame. This is what we see when we look at quasars brightness variations; their brightness variations are the same regardless of the redshift and distance. This is contrary to expectations of the Big Bang model and the expanding space hypotheses, but is predicted by this model.

 

http://creation.com/...2/j24_2_8-9.pdf

 

Since accordingly the fundamental scale of matter changes over time one could say that relatively speaking, everything in every time frame was the same as in every other time frame when comparing elements to their same time frame. It accordingly would not be valid to compare aspects of different time frames except for necessary calculation purposes concerning observations. In this model there are reasons and explanations why the foundation scale of reality changes over time.

 

And of course in this model the universe is not expanding and there is no dark energy for the above reasons.

.

Edited August 1, 2011 by pantheory

[swansont]

I am not saying the standard model conclusions are correct or not concerning their experiments or analysis, but they also seem to have some indications that anti-protons are not symmetrical to protons. This does not necessarily mean accordingly that they are less stable or shorter lived but this might be the implication according to the standard model. In this alternative model there are logical reasons why anti-protons are less stable based upon their configuration which is much different than the standard quark configuration.

/

Well, if you are proposing an alternative model, you are actually saying the standard model is incorrect. Two models that are based on and predict different things can't both be correct.

[pantheory]

Well, if you are proposing an alternative model, you are actually saying the standard model is incorrect. Two models that are based on and predict different things can't both be correct.

I agree, but even though I disagree with the overall standard particle theory since I have a different one, I cannot deny the possibility that they might have found evidence for anti-particle asymmetry. Of course it might be just a coincidence that this model has predicted anti-particle asymmetry and that the standard model asserts that they may have found evidence which might support it.

 

My problem with most standard models is that although I think there is a lot of great science going on, I believe many of the interpretations of what has been observed and the resultant theory, are based upon false assumptions. If this is true then some of the assertions and conclusions of practitioners using these models may also be invalid but probably not all of them

/

Edited August 1, 2011 by pantheory

[Cygnus47]

At present, there is a growing movement in support of the multiverse position. I find this view to be quite reasonable and what's beautiful about it is this: Not only does it allow for the big bang, it also allows for an infinite universe commonly referred to as the bulk. It may never be possible to prove this theory but it appeals to me non the less.....................Cygnus47

[pantheory]

At present, there is a growing movement in support of the multiverse position. I find this view to be quite reasonable and what's beautiful about it is this: Not only does it allow for the big bang, it also allows for an infinite universe commonly referred to as the bulk. It may never be possible to prove this theory but it appeals to me non the less.....................Cygnus47

I agree that the multiverse idea is growing in popularity. It is also exciting to many sci fi enthusiasts. I think the Big Bang model is totally wrong, but also disagree with the multi-verse idea since I believe it is not the simplest answer and therefore not seemingly in accord with Occam's Razor.

/

Edited August 7, 2011 by pantheory

[Cygnus47]

I agree that the multiverse idea is growing in popularity. It is also exciting to many sci fi enthusiasts. I think the Big Bang model is totally wrong, but also disagree with the multi-verse idea since I believe it is not the simplest answer and therefore not seemingly in accord with Occam's Razor.

Going to the moon was science fiction 50 years ago. Maybe we should be paying a little more attention to these visionaries. And just because we understand a concept to be the simplest does not render it as fact. Consider the arrangement of galaxies, not as simple as one might prefer it to be. Also, there is quite a bit of experimental proof in support of the big bang and very little left in support of the steady state model. And it appears that string theory is headed in the direction of a model supported by the multiverse position. Science is about repeatable experiment and Occam's Razor, while an acceptable concept, is not always applicable........................Cygnus47

[pantheory]

Going to the moon was science fiction 50 years ago. Maybe we should be paying a little more attention to these visionaries. And just because we understand a concept to be the simplest does not render it as fact. Consider the arrangement of galaxies, not as simple as one might prefer it to be. Also, there is quite a bit of experimental proof in support of the big bang and very little left in support of the steady state model. And it appears that string theory is headed in the direction of a model supported by the multiverse position. Science is about repeatable experiment and Occam's Razor, while an acceptable concept, is not always applicable........................Cygnus47

Hawking is a big supporter of the multi-verse idea and there is much interest in his theoretical ideas.

 

The known arrangement of galaxies seems undesirable/ or unexplainable based upon the Big Bang model. Other theoretical models, however, might explain these web configurations far better than the standard model. Reality only seems simple once you understand how it works. Until that time, many aspects of reality will seem to be quite complicated or illogical. There are a number of Steady State models, Hoyle's models are simply the best well known of such models. There are many cosmological models that only theorist know about, and many others that few if any theorists even have heard of. Multi-verse models and most steady state models, are infinite models concerning times past.

 

To me infinite models are not philosophically appealing.

/

Edited August 7, 2011 by pantheory

[imatfaal]

imatfaal, on 4 August 2011 - 01:29 PM, said:

 

But Pan - Marq is correct, an object moving at the same speed as your ether will feel no force. Terminal velocity due to gravity would be the velocity of the ether - this is clearly not the case - if it was we could all have fun jumping from planes without parachutes.

This is a matter of the forces pushing up would be less than the forces pushing down. So within maybe a hundred miles up down to the surface, you are looking at about the same force differential aether pressure (less dense surrounding matter). The aether accordingly accelerates into the Earth but not very vast since its velocity is only about 30 feet per second. Apply a continuous downward vector differential force to an object and it will accelerate downward.

 

Quote

 

Even on speculations you cannot get away with "a continuous force of 32 ft. per second" - feet per second (distance.time^-1) is a speed or a velocity, and not a force (mass.distance.time^-2). Dimensional analysis is always useful when making formula/equations

 

You are correct of course, 30 ft. per second is a speed and not a force. The force is F = (G) M/r² ,where G is the universal gravitational constant, M is the mass of the Earth, and r is the distance from the center of the Earth. This force continuously applied by the downward vector differential pressure of the aether accordingly causes the acceleration of gravity. Any further questions on this subject I will transfer to my "alternative to the Big Bang" thread so that I can more fully elaborate. This is a logic thread whereby I led the thread astray based upon my comment that I thought the speed of light was not constant on Earth in a vacuum. This stray comment led from the "logical" concept/ proposal that "everything is relative."

 

whole post ripped from the other thread on reasoning and logic - you were right it was getting confusing.

 

Your models are difficult to understand - and you must still take on board the idea of dimensional analysis when creating a model

The force is F = (G) M/r² ,where G is the universal gravitational constant, M is the mass of the Earth, and r is the distance from the center of the Earth.

 

force DOES NOT EQUAL GM/r^2 - as becomes clear when you stick the units in (G image from wikipedia page)

 

 

acceleration = -GMr^-2

force = Gm₁m₂r^-2

 

This is a matter of the forces pushing up would be less than the forces pushing down. So within maybe a hundred miles up down to the surface, you are looking at about the same force differential aether pressure (less dense surrounding matter). The aether accordingly accelerates into the Earth but not very vast since its velocity is only about 30 feet per second. Apply a continuous downward vector differential force to an object and it will accelerate downward.

 

An object or environment travelling at 30 f/s cannot exert an accelerational force on an object travelling at the same speed. Yes if you can exert a continuous force it will accelerate - but look at a boat in a current, that boat will speed up till it approximate the current speed; it will not outrun the current unless it switches its motor on

[pantheory]

whole post ripped from the other thread on reasoning and logic - you were right it was getting confusing.

 

Your models are difficult to understand - and you must still take on board the idea of dimensional analysis when creating a model

 

force DOES NOT EQUAL GM/r^2 - as becomes clear when you stick the units in (G image from wikipedia page)

 

 

acceleration = -GMr^-2

force = Gm₁m₂r^-2

[

Acceleration = -GMr^-2; due to gravity; in this format a body is accelerated by gravity as a function of the mass of the Earth alone, for smaller bodies size in general does not change the velocity. In my equation there is no negative since gravity accordingly is a pushing force.

 

An object or environment travelling at 30 f/s cannot exert an accelerational force on an object travelling at the same speed. Yes if you can exert a continuous force it will accelerate - but look at a boat in a current, that boat will speed up till it approximate the current speed; it will not outrun the current unless it switches its motor on

It is not the speed of the aether that is the force of pushing gravity or the cause of mass acceleration, it is the differential aether pressure. If the aether gradually becomes less dense toward the Earth there will be a vector differential, down would be a greater vector force than the force pushing up. A pressure difference causes a change in velocity. A continuous vector pressure differential causes acceleration of a body, hence gravity.

 

The aether current primarily relates to the speed of light, not the acceleration of gravity. Accordingly light moving away from the Earth is slower than light moving toward the Earth, near the Earths surface, by roughly 60 ft. per second difference concerning the speed of light.

 

Thanks for the move of thread, it is appropriate regards, Forrest

Edited August 8, 2011 by pantheory

[Cygnus47]

 

 

The aether current primarily relates to the speed of light, not the acceleration of gravity. Accordingly light moving away from the Earth is slower than light moving toward the Earth, near the Earths surface, by roughly 60 ft. per second

 

 

I believe it has been firmly established that the speed of light, within the vacuum of space, never varies from the measured 186,282 miles/sec. Where do you get your figures for this 60 ft./sec. difference?

[pantheory]

I believe it has been firmly established that the speed of light, within the vacuum of space, never varies from the measured 186,282 miles/sec. Where do you get your figures for this 60 ft./sec. difference?

 

Hi Cygnus47,

 

Michelson, Morley and others have tested the hypothesis that an aether does not travel relative to the surface of the Earth within the accuracy of their equipment. I am presenting my own cosmological model concerning the speed of light and gravity here in the speculation forum, so I'm sure you realize that my proposals and assertions are unproven I do however, have a experimental design how this assertion can be tested. There is now available equipment to test this small difference. It might cost a few quid, however, to borrow or rent the equipment. So I'm presently putting together the coin.

 

In my model all matter produces EM radiation based upon its temperature, the greater the temperature the greater the radiation. According to this model the radiation has two constituents, one are waves in an aether, the other facet are particulate type bundles in a string light aether which we call photons. Max Plank coined the term bundles of particulates which he called quanta.

As aether waves move away from matter they are take "surfers" with them called photons. As these waves an phones of field material are radiated from matter they leave behind them a lower pressure in the aether. The aether field accordingly backflows into this lower pressure area surrounding matter. This is a pushing force of gravity. There have been many such pushing models of gravity over the years. So in this model the aether flows into surface of the Earth at a velocity of about 30 ft. per second. The up versus down difference would be about 60 ft. per second.

 

Michelson and Morley and others that followed them, could not find the aether or a difference in the speed of light for two reasons, one accordingly was that their equipment was not designed to be able to look up vs down, and secondly their equipment was not precise enough to measure this very small difference. The 60 ft. per second plus and minus about 30 ft. per second difference is primarily based upon two considerations, if the difference were less than 30 ft. per second then the present atomic clocks could not measure the difference. If the differential speed was greater than 90 feet per second, then I believe this difference would have already been detected.

[Cygnus47]

Hi Cygnus47,

 

Michelson, Morley and others have tested the hypothesis that an aether does not travel relative to the surface of the Earth within the accuracy of their equipment. I am presenting my own cosmological model concerning the speed of light and gravity here in the speculation forum, so I'm sure you realize that my proposals and assertions are unproven

 

Quite alright my friend. I was just wondering if you had made any measurements yourself and how you came up with these figures. Years ago, I myself became interested in an aether theory and have since, partially abandoned it for lack of any new data which may stand in support of it. I have long wondered if we scientists give too much credit to the notion of substance. By this I mean, the solidness of matter. We all know that the matter we observe is little more than empty space with something strange at the center. Today, it's been narrowed down to just a few strange things we call quarks which we have, not yet been able to observe directly. Nevertheless, the evidence is strong that they exist. I've mentioned these subjects to advance a thought experiment for us pantheory.

 

 

Because matter is little more than localized orbital energy flux, not too different than something akin to a spinning vortex, let's suggest that matter is nothing more than the changing shape of space itself. Today, string theory is coming close to this notion but I personally don't think they've made that total leap as yet. If in fact, matter does not exit as we understand it but in reality is nothing more than the changing shape of dimensions, then an aether theory might become more palatable.

 

Just a thought my friend. Keep up your efforts and if you perfect an experiment that offers evidence for your speculations, I'd be very interested in their results..............................Cygnus47

Edited August 9, 2011 by Cygnus47

[pantheory]

Quite alright my friend. I was just wondering if you had made any measurements yourself and how you came up with these figures. Years ago, I myself became interested in an aether theory and have since, partially abandoned it for lack of any new data which may stand in support of it. I have long wondered if we scientists give too much credit to the notion of substance. By this I mean, the solidness of matter. We all know that the matter we observe is little more than empty space with something strange at the center.

Hi Cygnus47; As to the solidness of matter concerning a particulate ZPF, which classically would be called and aether, as the nucleus of an atom spins in an aether model it creates a vortex of aether in and surrounding the atom. Based upon this vortex it is much more difficult for slower moving particles to traverse the aether. Matter accordingly would be much more solid because of this.

 

Today, it's been narrowed down to just a few strange things we call quarks which we have, not yet been able to observe directly. Nevertheless, the evidence is strong that they exist. I've mentioned these subjects to advance a thought experiment for us pantheory.

A thought experiment sounds like fun , what do you have in mind?

 

This model is a string theory, a simple one with just 3 dimensions plus time. Quarks and Gluons don't exist in this model. The founder of the system of quarks and gluons, Murry Gell-Mann, originally stated that quarks were a convenient mathematical constructs, but were not real particles. This is also what I believe. Later he was convinced that they were real. Instead this model has strings of fundamental particles, whereby thousands in a looped string of particles would make up a simple electron.

 

Because matter is little more than localized orbital energy flux, not too different than something akin to a spinning vortex,

Very similar to the way that I look at it excepting in this model there is no such thing as pure energy. Energy is simply force time distance concerning matter, and EM radiation are real waves in the aether. Accordingly there are no other kinds of energy.

 

let's suggest that matter is nothing more than the changing shape of space itself.

Space in this model is only the distance between matter and field particles. Space accordingly has no independent existence. In this model everything in reality is very simple and can be readily explained to most people. Math, in this model, is not a mirror of reality. It is just a tool to help make predictions. One of the best and simple mathematical models of reality, is the inverse square law of magnetism, gravity, and light.

 

Today, string theory is coming close to this notion but I personally don't think they've made that total leap as yet. If in fact, matter does not exit as we understand it but in reality is nothing more than the changing shape of dimensions, then an aether theory might become more palatable.

Makes sense. Today we have many theories related to an aether. One hundred years ago all these hypothesis would be called aether theory. One of the original definitions of aether are a ZPF that contains physical entities. Today's models are dark matter, gravitons, Higg's particles, quantum strings, quantum foam, quantum sand, and many others. Since the word aether is no longer popular they don't use it, but the today's definition of aether is simply space containing presently unknown particulates. A luminiferous aether is an aether that is also the carrier of light waves. This model is a luminiferous aether model.

 

Just a thought my friend. Keep up your efforts and if you perfect an experiment that offers evidence for your speculations, I'd be very interested in their results..............................Cygnus47

The speed-of-light experiment that I proposed, if proven, would drastically change physics if an aether were proven, especially a luminiferous aether like this model is. My book and papers can be found at pantheory.com //// Keep the questions coming, best regards, Forrest Noble

Edited August 9, 2011 by pantheory

[pantheory]

Cygnus47, This is a re-write of my posting #61 for the purpose of clarification:

 

Michelson & Morley, and others later, tested the hypothesis that a luminiferous aether traveled at a speed different from the motion of the Earth around the sun, within the accuracy of their equipment. They did not find the aether and received the Nobel Prize for not finding it. Here in the Speculation Forum I am presenting my own cosmological model concerning both the speed of light and the source of gravity as it relates to an aether. I'm sure you realize that my proposals and assertions are unproven I do however, have an experimental design concerning how my assertions might be tested. There is now available equipment to test my small asserted difference in the speed of light, up vs. down. It is based upon using two very precise atomic clocks, something like those clocks we use for the global positioning satellite GPS system, measuring time in parts per billion. It might cost a few quid, however, to borrow or rent the equipment. So I'm presently putting together the coin.

 

The theory: All matter produces EM radiation based upon its temperature, the higher the temperature the greater the radiation. According to this model being proposed, radiation has two different constituents, one is waves in a physical aether, and the other facet are string-like bundles of this aether material which we call photons. Max Plank coined the term "bundles" of particulates which he called "quanta."

 

Accordingly as aether waves (EM radiation) move away from matter they carry "surfers" with them (quanta) which we now call photons. As these waves and photons are radiated away from matter they leave behind a lower pressure volume in the aether since the waves and photons were created from aether field material. Accordingly as a consequence, aether continuously back-flows into this lower-pressure volume that surrounds matter. The result of this aether back-flow is the pushing force of gravity. There have been many such aether pushing models of gravity over hundreds of years. So in this model the aether flows into the surface of the Earth toward its center, at a velocity of about 30 ft. per second (not very fast). The up versus down difference in the speed of light would accordingly be about 60 ft. per second.

 

Michelson and Morley, and others that followed them, could not find the aether or a difference in the speed of light accordingly for two reasons, one was that their equipment was not designed to be able to look up vs down, and secondly their equipment was not precise enough to measure this very small difference of speed, asserted to be about 60 ft. per second plus and minus about 30 ft. per second difference. This difference in speed is accordingly based upon two considerations, if the difference in speed were less than 30 ft. per second then the present atomic clocks could not measure a smaller difference. If the differential speed was greater than 90 feet per second, then I believe this difference would have already been detected.

(end of correction posting #61)

 

This is one of the few threads that I didn't edit after writing it, resulting in a number of typos that made some of the reading not understandable , hence this correction

Edited August 10, 2011 by pantheory

[pantheory]

Some other predictions of this model

 

-- The inner planets of the solar system, up to the asteroid belt, originally formed from pre-existing liquids, gases, and solids made molten from heat conducted outward within the accretion disc of the proto-sun. The outer planets would have accordingly been formed from large volumes of colder liquids and gasses which first orbited and subsequently condensed upon pre-existing solids. As the proto-sun created water, it expanded away from the star with other liquids as the proto-star greatly heated up. These new molten solids, liquids, and gases would have enabled rapid planetary formation by reducing the carom effects resulting from collisions of solid materials without atmospheric friction.

 

This prediction also leads to the hypothesis that the asteroid belt material was not originally hot enough for the asteroid material to be molten but still too hot for gas or liquid to readily condense on their surfaces of the smaller bodies to assist in the formation of planetary sized bodies. Accordingly the result would have been much fragmentation.

 

-- De Broglie waves are waves which all spinning particles create in the surrounding aether field as they alternate their axis of rotation. These waves are radiated away from the particle as aether waves. All spinning particles create these waves which cannot be explained adequately using standard particle theory, but such waves must exist in the Pan Theory and many other aether theories. In this case if they did not exist is would disprove the Pan Theory field model of elementary particles which would necessarily generate a vortex surrounding any spinning particle or entity in a physical field of minuscule particles.

 

-- The observable universe is not expanding in general; instead matter is progressively getting smaller. This prediction follows directly from the Pan Theory of Relativity, the foundation of the model

 

-- Current estimates of the mass contained in most galaxies, as well as the observable universe as a whole, would be greatly overestimated by more than 90% because of the false hypotheses of dark matter and dark energy. This statement is based upon current formulations used to calculate galactic, as well as galaxy-cluster masses.

Edited August 13, 2011 by pantheory

[pantheory]

Some other predictions of this model

 

 

-- Supernovae and gamma ray bursts will be found, according to their redshifts, at the edge of the presently observable universe, currently believed to be ~13.7 B .. ...... light years away.

 

 

-- The Big Bang model and the expansion of the universe model will be replaced within about 20 years.

 

-- A physical aether will be discovered/ or generally realized, within about 20 years.

 

 

-- Present Quantum Theory will be overthrown in about 20 years, most of the math of Quantum Mechanics will remain. The explanations will mostly all change.

 

 

Anyone can make predictions but only a theory can explain empirical justification for them.

Edited August 18, 2011 by pantheory

[Cygnus47]

Some other predictions of this model

 

 

Anyone can make predictions but only a theory can provide empirical justification for them.

Very true my friend.................Even though I once was captivated by the aether theory but have since adopted the standard model as my point of security, I still have room in my imagination to speculate on the finer points of these theories. As a side to your last post which BTW, I find very provocative, allow me to submit one possible aether scenario of my own.

 

I find the notion of a material universe to be somewhat suspect. I realize that statement may shock you along with many others but allow me to explain. The closer we look at nature and the smaller the objects we observe, the line between matter and energy starts to get very blurred. We've all become acquainted with the formula: E=Mc^2, the matter/energy equivalence formula. I personally think the distinction between the two is made way too much of. My personal view of the universe is one where matter is only; Localized orbital energy flux. So plainly spoken, I really don't see much difference between the two. Only the very small difference we see between the humid air we breath and a funnel cloud. One has no structure to it and the other has, if not solid by absolute definition, a very violent and focused shape.

 

I've made this point to preface my next one, that I see little if no difference between matter and energy. And because I view both to be virtually the same, I'll choose Energy as my point of focus. This leaves us with the question: What is Energy?

 

String theory makes great issue about numerous dimensions which have yet to be proved. But, IMHO, the greatest contribution these theories have presented is the importance they place on the shape of things. This is where I see Energy and The Shape of things coming together. In truth, Energy is the attribute of change which the law of Entropy says has a direction. That direction is the advance of time and our changing universe.

 

In a nut shell, before I bore everyone to death. If I were to invent an aether theory, I would define the aether as the changing shape of the universal field. This field is not material, it has only the attribute of Energy which is only the changing shape of space/time. Because dimensions are not material, the aether need not be either. This eliminates the need for one to establish proof of a material aether, which has to date, stymied all attempts at it's development.

 

Just my two cents.....................................Cygnus47

[pantheory]

Very true my friend.................Even though I once was captivated by the aether theory but have since adopted the standard model as my point of security, I still have room in my imagination to speculate on the finer points of these theories. As a side to your last post which BTW, I find very provocative, allow me to submit one possible aether scenario of my own.

 

I find the notion of a material universe to be somewhat suspect. I realize that statement may shock you along with many others but allow me to explain. The closer we look at nature and the smaller the objects we observe, the line between matter and energy starts to get very blurred. We've all become acquainted with the formula: E=Mc^2, the matter/energy equivalence formula. I personally think the distinction between the two is made way too much of. My personal view of the universe is one where matter is only; Localized orbital energy flux. So plainly spoken, I really don't see much difference between the two. Only the very small difference we see between the humid air we breath and a funnel cloud. One has no structure to it and the other has, if not solid by absolute definition, a very violent and focused shape.

 

I've made this point to preface my next one, that I see little if no difference between matter and energy. And because I view both to be virtually the same, I'll choose Energy as my point of focus. This leaves us with the question: What is Energy?

 

String theory makes great issue about numerous dimensions which have yet to be proved. But, IMHO, the greatest contribution these theories have presented is the importance they place on the shape of things. This is where I see Energy and The Shape of things coming together. In truth, Energy is the attribute of change which the law of Entropy says has a direction. That direction is the advance of time and our changing universe.

 

In a nut shell, before I bore everyone to death. If I were to invent an aether theory, I would define the aether as the changing shape of the universal field. This field is not material, it has only the attribute of Energy which is only the changing shape of space/time. Because dimensions are not material, the aether need not be either. This eliminates the need for one to establish proof of a material aether, which has to date, stymied all attempts at it's development.

 

Just my two cents.....................................Cygnus47

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

//

Edited August 18, 2011 by pantheory

[Cygnus47]

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

//

Understood my friend, but where we part company is what I believe your definition of this loop is. You would, as I understand it, call it a particle, a material object. I go much farther and define it as a vortex of energy, quite a different view of things than your own. From my own perspective, I consider the term; "particle" to be much too over rated. You see, I believe the so called particle is only Localized Orbital Energy Flux. This changing shape of space/time displaying to us what may look solid but in reality is only an attribute we call Energy.

[pantheory]

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."

[Cygnus47]

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."

It appears then that we may agree more than we first assumed. I think it fair to say that we both understand all particles to be nothing more than localized energy vortices. Whether it be a single proton or a large collection of matter, at the very root of it all lay these individual vortices of energy we call particles. Taking that position to it's limit, one must concede that solid matter is an allusion. If we can agree upon this fundamental idea, we can advance our speculation further. I'm pushing this concept because, if we can exclude the necessity for a material aether and settle for one composed of only energy, then I may return my attention to an aether theory. Remembering of course what I understand energy to be. Only the changing shape of a dimensionally diverse cosmos limited by the law of Entropy.

 

I suppose one could accuse me of viewing the universe as only a geometric peculiarity and to this charge I must confess. A geometric peculiarity changing with the advance of time governed by the law of Entropy. That's why it's called space/time.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Cygnus47

[pantheory]

It appears then that we may agree more than we first assumed. I think it fair to say that we both understand all particles to be nothing more than localized energy vortices. Whether it be a single proton or a large collection of matter, at the very root of it all lay these individual vortices of energy we call particles. Taking that position to it's limit, one must concede that solid matter is an allusion. If we can agree upon this fundamental idea, we can advance our speculation further.

Both models can travel down this road comfortably together

 

I'm pushing this concept because, if we can exclude the necessity for a material aether and settle for one composed of only energy, then I may return my attention to an aether theory. Remembering of course what I understand energy to be. Only the changing shape of a dimensionally diverse cosmos limited by the law of Entropy.

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."

 

I suppose one could accuse me of viewing the universe as only a geometric peculiarity and to this charge I must confess. A geometric peculiarity changing with the advance of time governed by the law of Entropy. That's why it's called space/time.

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

Edited August 19, 2011 by pantheory

[Cygnus47]

 

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

Sorry that I didn't get right back with you my friend, got company last night. And today, I'm trying to get my Dodge ready to race this weekend. As to your suggestion; Let me be clear pan........, I don't have what could be considered a coherent theory as yet. I find myself vacillating between the standard model and my first love, the aether theory that began this journey into scientific wanderings many years ago. I mentioned earlier that my contribution to this thread was, for the most part, an invention in aether speculations. And because this is your thread, I sincerely don't want to hijack it and cause consternation between us. I found your post here very interesting and although I agree for the most part, there are still things about your theory that I have problems with. Make no mistake however, I'm not here to subject you to needless scrutiny just to find fault. I do have a sincere interest in your view of things. I've found thru my 69 years on this planet that we really only learn when we listen to others.

 

Nevertheless,.....Let me say this: There are many things that I'm quite sure of and many more that I simply have not a clue about.

 

I will get back with you pan..... and discuss these questions some time to marrow. Until I have a coherent view of what I consider absolute fact, I will not pretend to have a theory. Many people will tell you about their theories when in fact, all they have is a very weak hypothesis.

 

.................................Cygnus47

[pantheory]

Sorry that I didn't get right back with you my friend, got company last night. And today, I'm trying to get my Dodge ready to race this weekend. As to your suggestion; Let me be clear pan........, I don't have what could be considered a coherent theory as yet. I find myself vacillating between the standard model and my first love, the aether theory that began this journey into scientific wanderings many years ago. I mentioned earlier that my contribution to this thread was, for the most part, an invention in aether speculations. And because this is your thread, I sincerely don't want to hijack it and cause consternation between us. I found your post here very interesting and although I agree for the most part, there are still things about your theory that I have problems with. Make no mistake however, I'm not here to subject you to needless scrutiny just to find fault. I do have a sincere interest in your view of things. I've found thru my 69 years on this planet that we really only learn when we listen to others.

 

Nevertheless,.....Let me say this: There are many things that I'm quite sure of and many more that I simply have not a clue about.

 

I will get back with you pan..... and discuss these questions some time to marrow. Until I have a coherent view of what I consider absolute fact, I will not pretend to have a theory. Many people will tell you about their theories when in fact, all they have is a very weak hypothesis.

 

.................................Cygnus47

 

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

Edited August 19, 2011 by pantheory

[pantheory]

According to this model the explanation of how the universe began is primarily based upon logic. In this way my explanation has a number of similarities with the original Big Bang explanation. The logic is as follows:

 

For such a discussion we must be using the same definitions of the words being used. For such an understanding of the beginning, all of these words must have the general definitions that I will now give. It means that for your understanding of the beginning you must understand the same definition of these words that are being used in this explanation and none other:

 

The first word defined for this understanding is "universe." The universe includes everything that exists. In this definition we are talking about an overall-universe. If there are many universe-like entities somehow in our same, or in some other spacial dimensions, then they collectively would by definition be part of the same overall-universe. If there was a spiritual world or god(s) of some kind, it/ they would still be part of the overall-universe. If there are other dimensions than the 3 physical dimensions and one of time, that we know of, then they too as well as anything they might encompass, would also be part of the overall-universe. If there was a Zero-Point-Field, space, or time outside the physical universe of matter, they would still be part of the overall-universe. Everything that is real and not imaginary accordingly would be part of the overall-universe. For the purpose of this explanation that will follow, I will use the wording overall-universe.

 

The next word defined is the word "infinite." The word infinite means without limit in at least one direction. For the purpose of this explanation that will follow the word "infinite" will mean infinite in all directions. For example infinite space would mean infinite space in all directions, a continuum. Infinite time would mean an unlimited amount of time in both the past and in the future. An infinite amount of matter would mean a never ending quantity of matter in all directions.

 

The next word defined is "finite." Finite means a limited quantity. Finite-space in this explanation would be a limited quantity of space in all directions. Finite-time would mean a limited quantity of past time; also a limited number of consecutive cause-and-effect sequences. A finite ZPF would mean a singular finite contiguous volume of the Zero Point Field.

 

Time is defined as an interval of change between two time frames. A time frame is a picture of things during an instant in time. No motion is involved.

 

Space is defined as the distance between matter and extending no farther than the Zero Point Field.

 

There is one assumed axiom involved: Something cannot come from nothing.

 

These are the definitions needed to explain the beginning. This beginning that will be explained is similar to the explanation of the beginning according to the standard (original) version of the Big Bang model since both my model and the standard version of the BB model propose a beginning for time and space.

 

We must start our explanation with "something," since according to the above axiom "nothing" could not be the beginning or start of anything.

 

So accordingly if there was a beginning of time there must have been something to start with which we could call substance -- as in my model, or in the BB model it is called an entity, as in the BB beginning entity or singularity. This something must not have changed from being anything else since if it had done so it would violate two of our definitions. It would violate our definition of the word time, since this would assert a change before the first change which would be an extension of time. It would also violate the meaning of the word "finite." Finite" in this case means a finite amount of past time. If there was anything before that then it must be included in our meaning of the word "universe" and it also would be part of the beginning. If there was something before, which there could have been in such a scenario, then what was the cause of that? This questions would lead in an infinite cycle which would result in an infinite times past without a beginning. But if there was no cause for a particular sequential past entity or causal condition, then the universe would be finite in time. It should be realized that no matter whether the overall-universe is infinite or finite concerning times past, it could not have had a cause for it for obvious reasons explained by the related definitions. For instance in Biblical creation the universe had a beginning time but the god who accordingly created it is infinite, so god must be within our definition of the overall-universe, so this would be an infinite universe model.

 

So we are back to our beginning entity that could not accordingly have had a cause, and consider that time thereafter would progress. For time to progress there is the old question concerning "a prime mover." For time to progress, our definition of time, changes of some kind must take place. Since nothing accordingly can exist outside our beginning entity, there would be nothing outside to motivate it, to cause a change of some kind in its form, since motion concerning its whole, could have no meaning (relative to what could it be moving, spinning, etc.). So we must conclude that any changes must be motivated by an internal force of some kind which could be mechanical, or energy of some kind. Accordingly from this beginning point in time the whole universe was created including the ZPF, time, and space. In the BB model all were created by the bang itself or similar explanation.

 

In my model the Zero Point Field was slowly created from this beginning, developing into spring-like stands of particles, evolving over trillions of years eventually creating what we call field pressure which accordingly created black holes, and these black holes accordingly created matter from the surrounding spring-like field material, by the torquing forces surrounding black holes.

 

In the BB model there are other versions that propose that there was a "before," concerning the Big Bang. These models propose an infinite universe concerning times past.