alternative to Big Bang model

[pantheory]

killafur,

 

Hi Kyle! Many questions that might be asked could involve both science and philosophy, but I think most questions asked will be rather easy and fast for me to answer regardless of the question. I will tell you if I consider your question/ answer to be a matter of theory, observation, logic, philosophy, etc.

 

.....If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound?

question

.

I consider this a simple question and the answer is also very easy to understand.

 

The answer to this question simply depends upon the definition for "sound" that you choose to use.

 

Here are two different definitions:

Sound: mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, traveling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 feet (331 meters) per second at sea level.

 

By this definition sound exists in the absence of any animal or human hearing it.

 

Sound: the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium. (human or animal ears)

 

By this definition sound only exists if there is an entity that perceives it.

 

http://dictionary.re...om/browse/sound

 

I consider this a question of philosophy since the answer depends upon one's perspective or word definition(s) concerning the answer.

 

.......Or, what if another intelligent species, that is way older than us, or even in another "universe" orbiting right next to us, has beat us by a million years defining it? I know it sounds crazy, but maybe that's what we need. Outside the box. Ah ha, maybe this says it better: have you ever tried to ponder these things as an animal, and not a human. I know it sounds crazy, but its amazing the limitations in perception that it can cause.

comment

 

.....What would you say was your biggest hole to your theories? Is there anything that just bothers the $#!* out of you?

I've had this theory for more than 50 years and think I've figured out every possible question that might be asked concerning the theory, and probably about most other questions I consider there are no "holes" in the theory but there are two things that I would like to see proven by observation. Either of these would add much additional strength to the model. The theory implies that all matter varies to a small extent in mass, maybe 1 part in a thousand to maybe 1 part in a million. Today's measurements of mass involve measuring large quantities of protons or electrons individually, for instance, and then taking an average of the entire mass which would vary very little. But this model implies a bigger individual variation -- but does not require it.

 

The second thing that this theory does require is a physical aether. For this we would have to discover dark matter, or Higg's particle's, or gravitons, or quantum foam, or quantum sand, or any of a hundred other theoretical particles. Next this model requires that this particulate aether would be both the carrier of EM radiation as well as the cause of gravity.

 

I would really like you to be open too. You're safe lol. I'm just curious. Mine is that if gravity is basically something that occurs to something with "mass", and space is is only a classification to an area in which our matter resides, then where did our energy come from? Is there ancient nebular type clouds? My mind can run rampant with the possibilities, but the problem is still there.

Though I can ramble forever, I'll end this one for now. Happy posting people

comment

 

Thanks for your questions Kyle. regards, Forrest

Edited July 11, 2011 by pantheory

[killafur]

Ok. So you kind of answered me lol. "Sound: mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium." The sound by definition would still exist "ex·ist -verb (used without object) 1. to be 2. to live 3. to continue to be or live." , because during observation a tree makes a sound when falling "Sound: the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium. (human or animal ears)". Just because we had not heard the sound previous, does not negate its existance. Because we are aware of the existance now only solidifies the it's existance when we weren't.

 

Apologies for my citations. I know that an apa or mla format would be proper. My damn friends finally talked me into this facebook junk. If you would like a more casual setting, feel free to hit me up on there as well. Kyle Smith Casper, Wy. I think there are a few others. I'm in a blue shirt.

[pantheory]

Ok. So you kind of answered me lol. "Sound: mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium." The sound by definition would still exist "ex·ist -verb (used without object) 1. to be 2. to live 3. to continue to be or live." , because during observation a tree makes a sound when falling "Sound: the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium. (human or animal ears)". Just because we had not heard the sound previous, does not negate its existence. Because we are aware of the existence now only solidifies the it's existence when we weren't.

 

Apologies for my citations. I know that an apa or mla format would be proper. My damn friends finally talked me into this facebook junk. If you would like a more casual setting, feel free to hit me up on there as well. Kyle Smith Casper, Wy. I think there are a few others. I'm in a blue shirt.

Ah, Casper. Going north-east from Los Angeles in southern California, when continuing north-east I usually drive through Wyoming starting at Salt Lake City then driving across 80 to Cheyenne, then I'd have to go up 25 to Casper, or just fly into Natrona Intl. Probably can't make it this year since I expect to be living in the middle east for the next couple of years in the near future.

 

To add quotes to your posting, copy it and then past it then add "[ q u o t e]" right before it and "[ / q u o t e ]" (except eliminate all spacing) immediately following it.

If I eliminate the spacing and the " " marks it looks like this:

.

right before it and

Another way to do it is to use the "quote" symbol. You will see it at the top of the posting box. It is the symbol which is the third from the right. Put your cursor under each of these symbols and you will see its function. The seventh symbol from the right are imodicons, symbolized by a happy face, for instance. Now highlight your quote and press the quote symbol above, that should do it.

 

regards, Forrest

Edited July 12, 2011 by pantheory

[killafur]

Still avoiding the answer to that eh? Lol. Its kool.

 

Thanks for the quote stuff too. Its a little like writing a program. Easy enough. A smart phone is kool, but still just slightly lacking to a desktop. Soon enough though lol

 

The more I think about it too, I'll restructure into a formal question. Can you not deny that if there is sound without someone to hear the sound, it would still exist? So just because our intelligence may not recognize the existence of something, it doesn't mean that it can't exist right? Or that it ceases to exist?

[pantheory]

Still avoiding the answer to that eh? Lol. Its kool.

 

Thanks for the quote stuff too. Its a little like writing a program. Easy enough. A smart phone is kool, but still just slightly lacking to a desktop. Soon enough though lol

 

The more I think about it too, I'll restructure into a formal question. Can you not deny that if there is sound without someone to hear the sound, it would still exist? So just because our intelligence may not recognize the existence of something, it doesn't mean that it can't exist right? Or that it ceases to exist?

Kyle, I think there's no conundrum at all to that question. If one gives any dictionary definition of "sound" that they would like, then I'll give them absolutely the correct answer to the question, according to that definition, since there can be no valid answer without an exact definition, in this case, of the word sound. Many questions like this one, become erroneously debatable because exact definitions of the words being used differ between those individuals who think they are debating.

 

cheers

Edited July 12, 2011 by pantheory

[killafur]

Touché lol

 

I will better structure my future questions when dealing with philosophy and observation. With proper definitions as well as I can state, according to my knowledge.

[pantheory]

Touché lol

 

I will better structure my future questions when dealing with philosophy and observation. With proper definitions as well as I can state, according to my knowledge.

This is informal so you can ask whatever questions you want, but I need to give my best answers presently possible if I want more questions, to keep the thread interesting. and maybe to enable the improvement by thought of my future answer(s) concerning similar questions here or elsewhere.

.

Edited July 12, 2011 by pantheory

[pantheory]

Here are a few of the 80+ predictions of the above model:

 

You heard it first here!

 

-- The age of the observable universe is many times older than has been asserted by the Bing Bang model.

 

-- The observed microwave background radiation is primarily caused by galactic EM radiation (starlight), absorbed, refracted, re-radiated, and redistributed by

....inter-galactic matter.

 

-- Distant galaxies, quasars, gamma ray bursts, and supernova will all be perceived as being incrementally larger, moving faster, and being a greater distances apart ...than they really were in their own time frame.

 

-- There is only one fundamental force that has always been the motivating dimension of reality. It is the potential energy of fermions to spin which perpetuates time.

 

-- Gravity at great distances will appear to be stronger than it really was in its own time.

 

-- The gravity of galaxies does not remain a constant force proportional to a constant "G." Instead its force decreases slowly over time within a galaxy as a galaxy ...ages.

 

-- Large gravitational vortex currents surrounding galaxies and galaxy clusters, can cause the separation of E.M. radiation at different angles by frequency, which ...could.be called a type of gravitational lensing.

 

-- At cosmological distances the speed of light (EM radiation) will appear to be increasing at greater distances and decreasing over time.

 

-- The speed of light here on Earth is not constant which can be proved by experiment.

 

-- Red-shift correlations of polar jets emitted from active galaxy cores: the farther away a galaxy from us, generally the greater the velocity of a galaxy's polar jets and ...the magnitude of its jet radiation would appear to be.

 

-- Black holes are comprised of a presently unknown type of matter and have a finite diameter and are not dimensionless points.

 

-- Some of the largest black holes "spin-off" pieces of themselves to form new black holes and subsequently the beginnings of future galaxies.

 

-- The gravitational forces of central galactic black holes create most of the matter of the galaxy (protons, electrons, etc.) from the ZPF, that is used to create the ...stars of the galaxy.

Edited July 12, 2011 by pantheory

[pantheory]

Here are a few more of the 80+ predictions of the above model:

 

You heard it first here!

 

Here's more predictions:

 

 

-- Galaxies of all ages are generally distributed everywhere throughout the universe. WE will find the oldest galaxies both in our neighborhood and also at the greatest ...distances.

 

-- The Milky Way Galaxy is expanding at a rate similar to the currently estimated Hubble expansion rate.

 

-- The red-shifts of observed galaxies appear to be quantified in a digital rather than an analog fashion. The prediction is that these observations are due to the ....ffact that.galaxies are generally distributed in Bubble or web-like structures.

 

-- The Great Wall is only a small arc of a much larger ring structure of galaxies.

Edited July 13, 2011 by pantheory

[pantheory]

Here are more predictions of the above model:

 

You heard it first here!

 

 

-- The farther away we look, the larger distances and space will falsely appear to be. Generally the farther away a galaxy, the faster its orbital motion of its galactic disc as well as its orbital motion within a galaxy cluster will appear to be. The basis of this prediction is a presently unknown condition of an unknown type of relativity.

 

-- Galactic black holes are created first. We can see them as naked quasars. In time they produce that matter which forms into the stars which will surround it. Most Galaxies will generally expand from their birth until their demise.

 

-- An average galactic cycle is about 60 billion years long.

 

-- Old “star-vacant” galaxies: According to the Pan Theory the universe would be much older than is presently believed. Accordingly, many galaxies have burned out and their outer stellar remnants would have already left the galaxy, many no longer being held together tightly be gravity. The core of the galaxy would have expanded to the size of a small galaxy, and its outer stars wondered off into intergalactic space.

 

-- Many small “hot spots” in the cosmic microwave background will be found to be distant fully-formed galaxies not just the beginnings of stars or galaxies which is the current theory according to the Big Bang model.

Edited July 14, 2011 by pantheory

[pantheory]

Here are more predictions of the above model:

 

You heard it first here!

 

-- Some galactic polar jets are truly super-luminous relative to the galaxy and the central black hole which produces them which would not be just a condition of relativity.

 

-- The large holes in the micro-wave background discovered in 2007 & 2009 will be discovered to coincide with large voids of galaxies known to exist in the same locations. The resultant cold spots in the microwave background would accordingly be the result of the absence of matter within the associated large voids, contrary to the Big Bang explanation of the CMBR.

 

-- Galactic Polar Jets being ejected from active galactic nuclei/cores (AGN) can be analyzed to determine the amount of material being ejected, primarily in the form of protons and electrons. The mass of galactic polar jets will be found to be far greater than that which could be explained by material orbiting the black hole within its taurus. This would imply that the gravitational force of the black hole is creating new matter which represents more than half the matter being emitted by the polar jets.

 

-- New matter is being created by AGN in the form of hydrogen which fuses into helium in the galactic jets. Electrons and positrons are also created in this matter. Other light elements are created by fission processes related to the inner taurus, some of these fissioned elements are emitter in these polar jets.

Edited July 16, 2011 by pantheory

[pantheory]

Here are more predictions of the above model:

 

You heard it first here!

 

 

-- Anti-protons are not long-lived particles with half-lives of less than a million years.

 

-- Spinning looped particles back to back can logically explain the mechanics of a Bose-Einstein condensate.

 

-- Everything that exists can be explained logically.

 

-- In space the relative motion of all matter decelerates in the direction of the body's greatest velocity relative to the surrounding aether field, considering the ....field.as stationary. This is not contrary to Newton's first law of motion since the aether applies an external force of resistance to the motion of the body.

.

Edited July 16, 2011 by pantheory

[pantheory]

Here are more predictions of the above model:

 

You heard it first here!

 

-- Stellar fission processes are instrumental in creating the abundance of light elements.

 

-- More than half the sun's heat is created by gravity, therefore the lifetime of the sun as well as stars in general, will be much longer than present theory allows. Some stars then would be much older than is presently thought. The evidence for this is the lack of electron neutrinos (about 1/3 the quantity) that should exist if fusion were the sole source of solar radiation.

 

-- Both individual Protons and electrons vary in mass, roughly as much as 1/000 part. This prediction is directly implied by the underlying "string theory."

 

-- During particle pair creation, antiparticles form with more difficulty and often spin-out before becoming a stable particles. Normal particles form with greater ease and therefore are more plentiful and remain, while their anti-particle companion "spins-out" of existence to return to being a non-spinning field strings

Edited July 18, 2011 by pantheory

[pantheory]

..........does your model explain the power spectrum of the CMBR? The peaks contain physical information and suggest we live in a (near) flat Universe which went through an inflationary period. Unless your model allows for other interpretations?

In my recent readings concerning the CMBR, they have observed "ripples" in the CMBR in the form of continuous slight increases and decreases in temperature on a somewhat regular basis. The mainstream interpretation is that minor fluctuations during the Inflation era have expanded into the variation we see today.

 

This does not seem to be the only likely interpretation. It is well known that the universe is made up of galactic bubbles/ webs surrounding large voids. If the related CMBR heat was produced instead by galaxies, a 360 degree pan of the sky at the same distance would seemingly produce the same pattern of heat that they are now observing. The polarization CMBR pattern observed could likewise be explained/

 

It is also now known that large voids result in as much as a 45% less heat reduction concerning the CMBR temperature than its surrounding volumes. This would seem to be a strong indicator that the heat of the CMBR is the redistribution of galactic heat, since in the relative absence of galaxies we observe less heat concerning background radiation.

 

http://en.wikipedia....i/CMB_cold_spot

.

Edited July 19, 2011 by pantheory

[pantheory]

Here are more predictions of the above model:

 

You heard it first here!

 

 

-- De Broglie waves are waves which all spinning particles create in the surrounding field as they alternate their axis of rotation.

 

-- Magnetic fields of galaxies generally become stronger with age as current theory predicts, however contrary to current models, distant large galaxies will appear to have larger magnetic fields than their closer galaxies having a similar appearance. This is based upon a presently unknown type of distance relativity.

 

-- The density of matter in the observable universe in any time frame would accordingly be generally constant.

 

-- Both the Sun and the Earth would have originally had stronger magnetic fields as well as all of the other planets in our solar system.

Edited July 23, 2011 by pantheory

[Ophiolite]

 

-- Both the Sun and the Earth would have originally had stronger magnetic fields as well as all of the other planets in our solar system.

This is one of scores of papers dealing with the intensity of the Earth's magnetic field that demonstrates that field strength was the same or less in the past. You would be correct to accuse me of cherry picking: I have selected research that yields the greatest field strength from the range of values claimed within that research. Despite this attempt to select material that seems to support your prediction, it fails to do so.

 

So one of your predictions has fallen at the first hurdle. This surely reduces the likelihood that your hypothesis is valid?

[pantheory]

Thanks for your reply, Ophiolite.

 

The reason this stronger magnetism is a prediction of this model is that the entire theory of magnetism of this model as a whole is much different from the standard model.

 

The theory behind this prediction is that accordingly both stellar and planetary magnetism is based upon several factors. The first has to do with the density of the atmosphere, the second relates to its rotation rate, and a third is the strength of plasma radiation from the sun. But geo-magnetism accordingly is unrelated to the Earth's iron core. Instead when the sun, as well as all stars, originated it had a very large torus of inflowing matter that was the original source of the sun's matter. Both its atmospheric density as well as its spin rate were greater in the past. This, according to this model, would have produced a greater degree of stellar magnetism. The Earth, for the same reasons, would accordingly have had greater magnetism during its origin. Its spin rate and atmosphere would have been denser/ greater due to its higher temperatures and increased heavy material in its atmosphere. This theory is also contrary to the dynamo model whereby the Earth's inner iron core is accordingly the source of Geomagnetism.

 

The link you presented relates to observation of rock material of maybe 3.5 billion years ago and less. The times of the sun's and Earth's origin date back 5 to 4.5 billion years respectively. So maybe the first 500 million years of their lives, accordingly the sun and Earth accordingly would have had stronger magnetic fields than it does in the present day. The mechanics of the theory are that for the Earth, ionized clouds move over the water producing continuous weak westerly currents of electricity in the oceans and lakes. These currents in the waters produce magnetic currents of influence in both the water and in the adjacent air. These magnetic currents move at right angles to the electrical current flow. This accordingly is the Source of Geomagnetism.

 

Although totally scientific, the paper concerning the link, involves much speculation, extrapolations based upon the present dynamo magnetic model of the Earth.

 

Other evidence for the model that I have proposed is that Venus, Mars, and the Earth all probably have an iron core. Venus with its very thick atmosphere, but little rotational spin, has hardly any detectable magnetic field. Mars, with probably a substantial a spin rate similar to our own but with a very sparse atmosphere, has little detectable magnetic field. The detectable magnetic influences on Mars surface material generally run East and West as apposed to North and South for the Earth. The reason for this, according to the proposed model, is that Mars has seasons where there is an atmospheric flow during the Martian summer where carbon dioxide and water vapor through winds, flow from south to north over the land, and in the winter the wind blows the other way returning carbon dioxide and water vapor back to the south pole. So accordingly the flow of the ionized atmosphere form south to north creates east-west magnetic markings on the land surface. This is contrary to the present dynamo theory concerning the Earth, planetary, and stellar magnetism models. If one looks at magnetic influences on Uranus and Neptune one also can see how the dynamo model fails to explain what has been observed.

Edited July 23, 2011 by pantheory

[pantheory]

Ophiolite,

 

Despite this attempt to select material that seems to support your prediction, it fails to do so.

Thanks for trying to find confirming papers I also found similar papers as the one you posted. As all might realize, it is very difficult to determine the strength of magnetic fields in past epochs. The reason why it is a prediction of this model is because it is different from what would be expected by the present dynamo model of planetary magnetism. If at some time this model were found to be valid, it would point a finger in the direction of both a different cause of planetary magnetism, but also it could seemingly support the parent cosmological model which predicted it.

 

So one of your predictions has fallen at the first hurdle. This surely reduces the likelihood that your hypothesis is valid?

Of course I agree that the implications of the paper are contrary to the prediction, but I do not think the evidence presented disproves anything since data interpretations as stated, were based upon the dynamo model of gravity.

 

Of course if our planet had little orbital spin to start with for whatever reason like Venus, and if the collision of the Mars-sized body that theoretically created the moon also was the source of the Earth's present orbital spin, then up until this collision the Earth would not accordingly have had much if any magnetic field like Venus.

Edited July 27, 2011 by pantheory

[michel123456]

The Pan Theory: Brief Summary

 

This cosmological model being discussed here might be classified under the cosmology category called "Scaling Theory" (also called scale changing theory, rescaling theory etc.) The idea of scaling theory in general is that the scale(s) of reality in general changes over time whether uniformly or otherwise. Such models in general seemingly cannot be disproved based upon their scale changing proposal alone. The first such proposal was made by Paul Dirac in the late 1920's when galactic redshifts were first discovered. His proposal was that both matter and space expand over time. The second generally known Scaling theory was proposed by Hoyle/ Narlikar in the mid 1960's whereby atomic diameters were proposed to be reducing over time (electrons moving closer to the nucleus). If atomic diameters were larger in the past then the resulting EM radiation that they would have produced would have been longer, explaining the observed galactic redshifts. The subject Scaling Theory model could also be called a Diminution of Matter theory. If matter was very slowly becoming smaller, as in this model, space would only appear to be expanding like it is now proposed, but instead the universe as a whole would generally not be expanding, instead matter would be getting smaller. This model being presented here is unique among scaling theories in that it explains why scales slowly but steadily change over time as briefly discussed below.

 

The universe accordingly started as a single simple particle and very slowly divided into strings of exactly the same particles excepting smaller. For this reason it might also be called a simple (3 dimension + time) string theory. The minimum age of the observable universe accordingly would be at least a trillion years old via this process. According to this model there is only one particle which forms strings of particles which are the foundation for all of reality. This proposed particle is presently unknown (something like dark matter, Higgs particles etc. but greatly smaller) and makes up all of reality. In this model there are no forces of nature/ pulling forces, and no pure energy. Instead Gravity, the Strong Force, the Weak force, the Strong Interaction, and the Electromagnetic force, are explained as either field interactions of these particles, or physical connections within nuclei with no a priori forces involved. There would only be one internal mechanical a priori force within these particles. This force causes them to unwind/ re-wind and slowly form strings of like particles (while becoming smaller), which can eventually be looped by self interacting forces into atomic particles (spinning loops). In their few stable looped forms they spin as fermions, perpetuating changes which define time. Space accordingly is the volume which matter and field occupies, being an extension of matter and nothing more. This theory also could be called an aether model in general, explaining both EM radiation and gravity as being simply aether field internal motions. Since according to this model there is just one single entity that makes up all of reality, called a "pan," I believe it is by far the simplest possible cosmological model that can be justified by observation. The Pan Theory is not an unknown theory. It's been around for 50 years and has been published for more than 20 years.

 

Hi Pan. Congratulations. I agree to me scaling is the answer. To me the electron is not spinning, the electron is trapped into a vortex. I am even convinced scaling is not happening slowly, scaling is happening at a wonderful speed. I am always astonished when scientists discard some of their results because "otherwise we would be collapsing and that is obviously not the case". IMHO we can be in a state of eternal collapse, why not?

 

There are very simple elements of logic that makes me think this way, symptomatically in agreement with the basis of your theory:

 

1.Time: look around you, what do you see: only the past. Only put in bold because the future you cannot observe, nor the present. If you look farther, you look more in the past. So you are surrounded by the past, your past, "your" in bold character because it is not anyone else's past. Past is relative to you and only you, and extends all around you, getting away from you at the Speed Of Light. So you have around you a kind of "aura", that we call time, made of anything else but you. This "aura" is also the field of activity of your own gravity. Which cannot be a simple coincidence.

 

2. Each mass, each particle of the entire Universe has such an "aura" around it, we call "gravitational field". I have come to the (naive) conclusion that this field is the past of the particle. Which is point 1 rephrased. IOW a particle is not only what we observe, a particle is (was) also its field. Time has that bizarre effect that allows us to observe only a part of any particle's existence.

 

3. since we know that symetry can be mathematically applied almost everywhere, the model of the expanding universe must be translatable in a reverse model where we are shrinking, without any change in existing physics.The standard model is a situation where we humans, composed of atoms and quarks, are stable, and the surroundings are expanding. Why not the contrary? When we talk about speed, we all know that everything is relative. The same must go for expansion versus diminution.

 

4.Thought experiment: making the Universe.

You take stuff blahblah and blihblih, and suddenly puff, here is the first particle of the Universe. Being unique, this particle IS the Universe: there is nothing else, only a single particle. Happy, you consider your creation, then you want to make it a little bit more complicated, and create a second particle. Here the logical problem arises, since the first particle IS the Universe, the only place you can work and make your second particle is INSIDE the Universe. And the only building block you have at disposal must be taken from the Universe. In biology we call that cellular division.

The only problem in this thought experiment is where the hell came this first particle from?

But if you forget this existential question, the mechanism of division is extremely simple. It is even compatible with the principle of conservation of energy.

 

But there must be something else we all miss. The answer to the existential question of point 4 must be that at some point, the infinitely small must connect to the infinitely large. At the image of the ouroboros, the snake who eats its tail, so must be the Universe. Brian Green touches this point when discussing the characteristics of a Black Hole by comparaison to the characteristics of an elementary particle (quoting from Memory B. Greene's Elegant Universe).

Edited July 31, 2011 by michel123456

[swansont]

Here are more predictions of the above model:

 

You heard it first here!

 

-- Anti-protons are not long-lived particles with half-lives of less than a million years.

 

Unlike many of your "predictions" this one has a hint of quantitative prediction and it can be tested. Of course, you would need to tell us what the antiproton is expected to decay into. Apex measured the antiproton half-life to be not less than 700,000 years for a decay into an electron and a photon. Other decay modes have excluded shorter times thus far.

http://www-apex.fnal.gov/results/results.html

 

Cosmic ray measurements push this limit up into the million(s) range

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiproton#Occurrence_in_nature

[pantheory]

Unlike many of your "predictions" this one has a hint of quantitative prediction and it can be tested. Of course, you would need to tell us what the antiproton is expected to decay into. Apex measured the antiproton half-life to be not less than 700,000 years for a decay into an electron and a photon. Other decay modes have excluded shorter times thus far.

http://www-apex.fnal...ts/results.html

 

Cosmic ray measurements push this limit up into the million(s) range

http://en.wikipedia....rence_in_nature

There are two ways that we presently can store anti-protons. One way is by putting it into an accelerator. In this model this velocity artificially extends the anti-protons life by re-enforcing its spin whereby it would otherwise "spin-out." "Spinning out" in this model is when a field string becomes self-engaged into a looped "entity" which causes it to spin in the field, which we call in a fermion. When it spins out it returns to the background field becoming a string-like entity once again without spin. Another storage method is via a particle trap involving radio waves and cryogenics. This process may also re-enforce the anti-protons spin and keep them from interacting with each other. The longest storage time for a single anti-proton today is no longer than a couple of weeks according to my readings. Only by theoretical assumptions can one say that the half-life has been "measured" to be not less than 700,000 years. If the theory being used is wrong, then the methods used may be wrong, and the half-life could instead be quite different. I believe if anti-protons are short-lived as this model proposes, this would seemingly be the simplest explanation why we see little anti-matter in the universe. Positrons on the other hand, according to this model, are long-lived particles.

 

This month, and for the first time, they may have hints that the anti-proton is asymmetrical to a proton. Here's a link concerning the present studies and preliminary conclusions/ evaluations.

 

http://www.symmetrym...estions-theory/

 

Theories involving cosmic rays I also believe are incorrect since I believe nearly all anti-protons that we observe on Earth are created in our own atmosphere by incoming gamma rays interacting with atmospheric particulates.

 

This prediction of antiprotons being relatively short-lived particles has been a long-time prediction of this model since 1983 if not before.

.

Hi Pan. Congratulations. I agree to me scaling is the answer. To me the electron is not spinning, the electron is trapped into a vortex.

I also theoretically assert a spinning vortex of field material (the ZPF) surrounding the nucleus but believe that electrons being fermions also create there own mini-vortex within the atomic vortex which determines their spacing within the atom. I am even convinced scaling is not happening slowly, scaling is happening at a wonderful speed.

If matter is becoming smaller, as I propose, and if this explains the observed redshifts, which I propose that it does, then this rate of diminution must happen at a very slow rate something like the cosmological constant in the BB model. I have calculated this rate of diminution to be about a 1/000 part every 500 million years. This rate of diminusion is equivalent to a cosmological constant (recession velocity) of about 72 km/sec./Mpc.

 

I am always astonished when scientists discard some of their results because "otherwise we would be collapsing and that is obviously not the case". IMHO we can be in a state of eternal collapse, why not? There are very simple elements of logic that makes me think this way, symptomatically in agreement with the basis of your theory:

 

1.Time: look around you, what do you see: only the past. Only put in bold because the future you cannot observe, nor the present. If you look farther, you look more in the past. So you are surrounded by the past, your past, "your" in bold character because it is not anyone else's past. Past is relative to you and only you, and extends all around you, getting away from you at the Speed Of Light. So you have around you a kind of "aura", that we call time, made of anything else but you. This "aura" is also the field of activity of your own gravity. Which cannot be a simple coincidence.

 

2. Each mass, each particle of the entire Universe has such an "aura" around it, we call "gravitational field". I have come to the (naive) conclusion that this field is the past of the particle. Which is point 1 rephrased. IOW a particle is not only what we observe, a particle is (was) also its field. Time has that bizarre effect that allows us to observe only a part of any particle's existence.

 

3. since we know that symetry can be mathematically applied almost everywhere, the model of the expanding universe must be translatable in a reverse model where we are shrinking, without any change in existing physics.The standard model is a situation where we humans, composed of atoms and quarks, are stable, and the surroundings are expanding. Why not the contrary? When we talk about speed, we all know that everything is relative. The same must go for expansion versus diminution.

 

4.Thought experiment: making the Universe.

 

You take stuff blahblah and blihblih, and suddenly puff, here is the first particle of the Universe.

In this model time is finite. In a model of finite time there was a beginning but no such thing as before the beginning, therefore it would accordingly be impossible for the first entity to appear from nothing. This entity accordingly would have had existence from the very beginning and the first changes in it had to be relative to itself, which accordingly could be described as time.

 

Being unique, this particle IS the Universe: there is nothing else, only a single particle. Happy, you consider your creation, then you want to make it a little bit more complicated, and create a second particle. Here the logical problem arises, since the first particle IS the Universe, the only place you can work and make your second particle is INSIDE the Universe. And the only building block you have at disposal must be taken from the Universe. In biology we call that cellular division. The only problem in this thought experiment is where the hell came this first particle from?

I follow the same logic and agree with your above paragraph. Your last question/ sentence is discussed in my above explanation. In an finite or infinite universe the beginning entity could not possibly (logically) have originated from anything or anywhere else. To do so would contradict the meanings of the words "finite" and/ or "infinite."

 

But if you forget this existential question, the mechanism of division is extremely simple. It is even compatible with the principle of conservation of energy.

I use a similar mitosis process for the increase in numbers of the first entity. I believe this is a process whereby both the diminution of matter as well as the increase in quantity/ count of field particles occurs. Stemming from this matter also accordingly increases in numbers which was first proposed by Paul Dirac and later by Fred Hoyle.

 

But there must be something else we all miss. The answer to the existential question of point 4 must be that at some point, the infinitely small must connect to the infinitely large. At the image of the ouroboros, the snake who eats its tail, so must be the Universe. Brian Green touches this point when discussing the characteristics of a Black Hole by comparaison to the characteristics of an elementary particle (quoting from Memory B. Greene's Elegant Universe).

In this model both the foundation particles of all matter get smaller as time passes with no limit, but the entire universe expands up to a limit it cannot exceed. The observable universe, however, would not generally be expanding.

Edited July 31, 2011 by pantheory

[swansont]

There are two ways that we presently can store anti-protons. One way is by putting it into an accelerator. In this model this velocity artificially extends the anti-protons life by re-enforcing its spin whereby it would otherwise "spin-out." "Spinning out" in this model is when a field string becomes self-engaged into a looped "entity" which causes it to spin in the field, which we call in a fermion. When it spins out it returns to the background field becoming a string-like entity once again without spin. Another storage method is via a particle trap involving radio waves and cryogenics. This process may also re-enforce the anti-protons spin and keep them from interacting with each other. The longest storage time for a single anti-proton today is no longer than a couple of weeks according to my readings. Only by theoretical assumptions can one say that the half-life has been "measured" to be not less than 700,000 years. If the theory being used is wrong, then the methods used may be wrong, and the half-life could instead be quite different. I believe if anti-protons are short-lived as this model proposes, this would seemingly be the simplest explanation why we see little anti-matter in the universe. Positrons on the other hand, according to this model, are long-lived particles.

 

This month, and for the first time, they may have hints that the anti-proton is asymmetrical to a proton. Here's a link concerning the present studies and preliminary conclusions/ evaluations.

 

http://www.symmetrym...estions-theory/

 

If you are constructing an entirely new model, I'm not sure how you can use experiments based on the Standard model, since you appear to be rejecting large swaths of it. Same thing for rejecting the probabilistic nature of decay. But that's the level of detail you need to have things count as a prediction.

[Iggy]

pantheory, have you related redshift to distance? How long ago would you expect z=1?

[pantheory]

pantheory, have you related redshift to distance? How long ago would you expect z=1?

My formula for distance to redshift is a little different than the Hubble formula since the formula instead is based upon this cosmological model. At a redshift of 1 the conventional distance is about 25,000 Mpc (roughly 8 billion light years in distance and time) and with this formula the distance is about 5% closer. For redshifts less than z=.6 distances calculate greater (farther away) than the Hubble formula by up to ~10%.

 

If you are constructing an entirely new model, I'm not sure how you can use experiments based on the Standard model, since you appear to be rejecting large swaths of it. Same thing for rejecting the probabilistic nature of decay. But that's the level of detail you need to have things count as a prediction.

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.

/

Edited August 1, 2011 by pantheory

[Iggy]

My formula for distance to redshift is a little different than the Hubble formula since the formula instead is based upon this cosmological model. At a redshift of 1 the convention distance is about 25,000 Mpc (roughly 8 billion light years in distance and time) and with this formula the distance is about 5% closer. For redshifts less than z=.6 distances calculate greater (farther away) than the Hubble formula by up to ~10%.

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?