explaining top 10 mysteries of the universe

[pantheory]

Below is a link concerning one website which proposes ten presently "unanswered questions" of the universe. Others may have different opinions concerning the top ten most important unanswered questions. This thread proposes that you ask whatever science questions that you think are still unanswered, but important. However questions such as, what is the cure for cancer? would probably not be more informative since I would probably give similar answers than what you might be able to read on-line -- where I would also get most of my mainstream answer.

 

I am a theorist for more than 50 years now. My field of expertise is cosmology, an alternative model, but I have a broad knowledge of science in general. I will probably be able to give answers to most of the major problems/questions that you might ask, whether theoretical or hypothetical.

 

Below are my answers to the top 10 proposed mysteries on this website. Some of my answers involve mainstream theory and others do not. I will not provide all the details so that if you wish me to explain an answer in further detail, just ask. All my answers accordingly will also be based upon logic.

 

http://www.toptenz.n...he-universe.php

 

10. Extraterrestrial Intelligence

I agree that the Drake Equation (with numerous possible variations) seems like a good way to predict the likelihood of extra-terrestrial life. Within our solar system outside the Earth, we may eventually find life with a kinship to life here on Earth. Depending on the details of any such life, we may conclude that life on Earth may have first evolved within comets, for instance. If so then either our proto-solar nebula had life within it or that such creation was more locally confined. If it was spread out within the whole proto-stellar nebula, it could have extended beyond the remaining pro-stellar clouds which could extend to stars in our local stellar neighborhood or far beyond. This same life extending beyond our galaxy would seem to be highly unlikely if the universe were only 13.7 billion years old. In my own cosmological model the universe is far older so this extension of life from one galaxy to another accordingly would seem more likely in my model.

 

9. The Tunguska Explosion

I think this is easily explainable as a comet collision which also is the most prevalent mainstream idea. When a comet as a "dirty snowball" enters the atmosphere the rock and dust within it would heat up and it would rapidly vaporize. If the heat would become great enough and the size of it small enough it could explode before it it the ground sending steam and dust in all radial locations. A meteor of just the right size could also explode close to the ground sending small fragments in all radial direction without leaving an impact crater.

 

8. Rare Antimatter

The question being: Why does it seem that there is more matter than anti-matter within the observable universe?

 

Explanation: We know that this is a fact here on Earth. We see little indication or evidence for anti-matter in our stellar neighborhood. If my theoretical explanation for this is true, the answer is quite simple. Matter is more stable than anti-matter. We know that matter and anti-matter form via pairs, based upon observations here on earth. We see the creation of electrons and positrons in pairs, from focused and apposing directions of gaming radiation with an impact velocity of twice the speed of light. From this interaction we see both electrons and positrons forming. Once formed we can capture both. The number of positrons captured, however, is far less than the creations recorded. This according to the standard model is because many positrons are annihilated by free electrons. Instead it may be that in some pair creations the electron remains stable, but the positron was virtual and disappeared back into the ZPF. Once captured positrons are known to be stable particles, which is not a contradiction if they are just more difficult to form in the first place.

 

Anti-protons on the other hand are proposed not to be stable at any time. Instead they would not have the same problem as positrons during creation, but would accordingly would have a relatively short half-life which protons do not seem to have. When we capture anti-protons we have found several successful ways to store them for at least a while. So far anti-protons have not been stored for longer than a few hours. Presently it is believed that this is because they interact with protons. Instead I propose that much of their disintegration is related to instability. The two successful primary storage methods have been accelerators and cold storage traps which greatly lower the surrounding temperature close to absolute zero. My own model proposes that via an accelerator two things are happening. One, that an anti-proton's velocity can be close to the speed of light which causes a time dilation, greatly reducing their rate of decay. And secondly in cold storage, the kinetic actions (temperature) of its immediate surroundings are greatly reduced, mollifying the interaction of the ZPF with the anti-protons which accordingly decreases their decay rate. Estimates in my own model vary greatly concerning the normal half-life of anti-protons. On the low end I propose that their half-life in free space in the total absence of matter, would be about 15 minutes. Fifteen minutes is also the half-life of a free neutron. At the upper limit my estimate is a half-life of about 12 million years. Even if the half-life were even longer than this, if anti-protons do have a half-life at all, this would simply explain why we see very little anti-protons in the universe.

 

We do know that anti-protons do form in and above our atmosphere by the interactions of cosmic rays with our atmosphere. Evidence of this can be seen here on Earth as well as in the radiation belt(s) above it such as in this link.

 

http://www.popsci.co...ns-around-earth

 

 

7. Consciousness

I think this is an easy question and should not be on this list. According to the standard model of biology, consciousness is defined as: being aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc. This one can be tricky because people can argue semantics here, so I will try my best to avoid this trap.

 

Being aware of your surroundings is arguably the beginning of consciousness which can be related to an animal or plants senses. Many plants and microbes are phototrophic, meaning turning toward (or away) from light. Many are chemotrophic, meaning turning toward or away from a certain chemistry. Many are senso-trophic, meaning sensitive and responding to touch. The same thing applies to all of our senses and others which other animals or plants have. All of these senses are tied to a simple or complex nervous system of sorts. The purpose of the system is to motivate the organism to either take advantage of, or avoid, exterior influences.

 

The word consciousness may be considered closely related to the nervous system as it relates to being self-aware. There are only a few animals that we can identify that have this ability. Few primates (a few baboon individuals) have this ability other than the great apes. Most great apes show evidence for their self recognition in a mirror. The only other animals that I am aware of that have this ability are in bird family including crows and Blue Jays. Some individual when place in front of a mirror will spend much time studying the image they see. When they are marked below where they can see, with an orange spot, they will do nothing at all. But when placed in a mirror angled where they can see the spot, some will begin to pick at the spot while looking in the mirror, until the spot is removed by this slow picking process. Crows have also be shown to be tool makers and inventors in a number of different circumstances. One particular parrot over a 20 year period, has learned to both speak and understand 300 different words in English. It can put together two word combinations as well, and understand the meaning. You could ask it, for instance, to go get the green triangle. It will find the green triangle amongst many other shaped and colored objects.

 

So is self awareness consciousness? Some would argue based upon the definition above, that animals that are self-aware also have a conciousness awareness of their surroundings and therefore possess consciousness. Others would argue that consciousness is more akin to self analysis which would seem to be strictly human, but in my opinion not too far away from the abilities of other great apes. Bottom line is that I think an understanding of the meaning of consciousness is not difficult.

 

6. Dark Matter / Dark Energy

The question is, what constitutes dark matter and dark energy? The simple answer, according to my model, is that neither are real. Both involve a misunderstanding of reality. As to dark matter, there are a number of known constituents such as atom particles, hydrogen, and intergalactic and interstellar matter in its different forms. There are other entities both known and theorized such as black holes both small and stellar sized, along with brown dwarf an white dwarf stars that are too distant to observe. Other hypothetical entities are mochos, so-called wimps, etc. If the model of General Relativity is wrong then we simply do not need so much dark matter to explain the rotation rates of spiral galaxies or galaxies in a cluster. A new mathematical model seemingly will not do it alone, however. The reason for this statement is that we have seen two seemingly identical appearing spiral galaxies, which based upon analysis seem to be the same size, mass, seemingly an equivalent central black hole, equivalent stellar ages, stellar make-up and distributions, etc. Upon close analysis over a period of time we can come to the conclusion that their relative stellar rotation rates are very different. To resolve this they conclude they must put a lot more dark matter into the simulation of one as apposed to the other. This is strong evidence that there is something there that formulations alone cannot resolve.

 

Besides those entities mentioned there is evidence that much radiation such a gamma-radiation orbits galaxies. This can be an extra push concerning exterior stellar velocities. If the universe is greatly older than the standard model, then a plentiful amount of brown dwarfs, white and black dwarf stars, stars cooling off, and galactic matter, etc. that could not been seen surrounding the galaxy. These collectively concerning an older universe might explain the missing dark matter.

 

Along with many of the other possibilities I also ascribe to a pushing gravity aether model of gravity. In this model dark matter is not really matter, it is much smaller. Something like photons which are accordingly mass-less at rest. In such a model gravity is explained by currents of this aether. The model works like this: the matter of the galaxy radiates away field material (the ZPF/ aether) in the form of EM radiation and de Broglie waves. The result is that surrounding matter there is a lower pressure of the field than when you go outside the galaxy. It would be like an eggbeater in a mixing bowl. Although the level of liquid around the mixing blades is at a lower lever than the outside of the bowl there is a continuous backflow toward the blades. This backflow accordingly explains gravity via a pushing force. The most well know of these models can be seen in the link below, to get a general idea of the many models that have been proposed.

 

http://en.wikipedia...._of_gravitation

 

In my model the vortex motions of pushing gravity explains the dark matter question as being particulates of the aether that are generally mass-less some of which go down to quantum size at the Planck scale of 10^-35 m. At the solar system level there is little vortex motion (non-linear gravitational motion) excepting close to the sun and the largest bodies of the solar system, which accordingly is the same thing in GR, which there is called the dragging of space-time.

 

OK this is my explanation of dark matter. The prediction is that we will never discover enough massive particles to explain it. But this model of gravity easily explains it. I have also reformulated the model of gravity which you can see on page 2 of Speculations here, called Pushing Gravity.

 

As to Dark Energy, my model simply says that they are simply using the wrong formulation to measure the distance to type 1a supernova as well as galaxies. They accordingly are not off by a long shot no more than ~11% . My reformulation of distance to replace the Hubble formula can be seen here. This accordingly explains the interpretation of dark energy, as simply a miscalculation.

 

5. Time

The meaning of time and space are both extremely simple according to my own model. Both can be explained by the simplest of definitions alone.

Time is an interval of change that involves motion. And Space is the volume occupied by matter and field (the ZPF). Space can be a volume, area, or distance between matter or field. It is an extension of matter that does not extent beyond the field (the ZPF). That is all that there is to it. Quantum Theory includes many ideas and theoretical proposals that accordingly must go beyond a simple explanation and understandings. Some theoretical physicists think that time is such a complicated concept that a whole book was written to explain our short-fall of understanding just to explain what is needed so that someday in the future, a valid theory of time can be proposed. The name of maybe the most renown of these books is called "From Eternity to Here," maybe a catchy title -- which I think explains some of the problems which today's physics face concerning a theory of time. Link below:

 

http://www.sciencene...by_Sean_Carroll

 

But accordingly these are just theoretically created problems which do not exist in the much simpler reality of the universe.

 

4. The Beginning of the universe

Ultimately we will never know the true answer to this question according to science but there are almost countless hypothesis to choose from. The original version of the Big Bang model, proposes first a singularity of some kind and then a Big Bang to answer this question. Other versions propose cycles of Big Bang Big Crunch cycles. Still other versions propose that the universe began as a large fluctuation in the ZPF. Still other versions of the standard model propose that our universe is one of many or an infinite amount that formed from Bubble-like fluctuations in another universe in an infinite cycle.

 

There are a great number of other infinite-universe models concerning alternative non-mainstream models also. The most well-known are the Steady-State models proposed by Hoyle and company, a number of Plasma Cosmology models, Halton Arp's model of black hole evolution, and numerous infinite-universe aether models. Infinite models do not have to explain a beginning of the universe because there would be no beginning or origin to explain. Religious explanations are simple: god(s) accordingly created the universe.

 

My own model/ theory is of a much older universe which is vastly older than the standard model, but still finite concerning past time, the quantity of matter, and the extension of space.

 

The link to it is here.

 

3. End of the Universe

This, like the proposed beginning of the universe, is entirely theoretical.

 

In the standard model the universe will die a heat death because accordingly the universe is expanding. The proposed expansion is based upon an assumption, not just observations. The assumption is that galaxies are moving away from us via the expansion of space (or by some other similar interpretation). This "moving away" accordingly explains the observed redshifts of galaxies. Instead in my own model the redshift of galaxies is explained by the diminution of matter which just gives the appearance that space is expanding. The are both the same relative condition. Space is expanding relative to the size of matter. So my model is a steady state model concerning the observable universe and the universe will continue on as it presently is, with local evolution, but steady state concerning the general appearance of it -- therefore there would be no heat-death of the universe. An explanation of why matter is becoming smaller involves an unwinding process explained at the above link (pantheory.com) via a hypothesis explained from pages 9 through 25.

 

2. Multiple Universes

The simple answer is that there aren't any (according to my model ). According to this model and also I think O'camm's Razor, the existence of multi-verses is not the simplest explanation for the origin of our own universe. One of the first to propose multiple universes was Stephen Hawking. From his book, it seemed to me that he had a problem with the cause of the Big Bang (BB). He did not like the idea of a singularity where physics and the related mathematics "broke down."

 

Other than mathematical, there were big theoretical advantages to this original version. The beginning entity accordingly had the internal potential energy to change and be the cause of Inflation and to lead to the universe the way we now observe it. It also had the theoretical advantage to explain time and space as advancing along with Inflation, without requiring a time before that since according to Einstein's model and his quote, both space and time must be tied to the existence of matter. His quote was:

When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter.

(Albert Einstein)

 

This, I think, is a big hypothetical advantage of the original version of the BB model which the multi-verse models seemingly do not have -- an explanation concerning an original cause. The only disadvantage to this version, that I know of, was the mathematical break down.

 

My own model involves a beginning particle that was very simple (totally unlike a BB singularity), and which evolved very slowly over hundreds of billions of years into the ZPF, and from there a finite universe is simply explained via the math formulations of gravity and other supporting theoretical physics, again pages 9 through 25 at pantheory.com. and in the Pan Gravity and other sections; see table of contents pages 1F and 1G.

 

1. Grand Unification Theory

The question is, what is the mathematical model that can unify all the forces of nature into one? There is also a simple answer to this question if one considers that there are no forces of nature to unify in the first place.

 

An example is that Einstein proposed that the force of gravity is not really a fundamental force at all but can be explained by the "warpage of space." My own model explains gravity via aether mechanics of a pushing gravity, as described above. I also explain magnetism by a different form of the same aether mechanics which is also a pushing force based upon a difference in field pressure concerning the surrounding aether.

 

Aether: Modern aether models very greatly so definitions also vary greatly. For a particulate aether model defined: any model that proposes particulates of some type being a major constituent of the ZPF. For this definition proposals such as dark matter particles, Higg's particles, gravitons, quantum sand, quantum foam, field strings all fit this definition. A luminiferous aether is an aether model that also proposes that the aether is the "carrier" of EM radiation. Other aether models propose that the aether is composed of energy. Such an energy aether model also proposes to explain dark energy as a aether force. Most of the models of aether mentioned, are mainstream models. Of course many of such models do not choose to call their model an aether model, which they do not have to

since aether can be defined in different ways.

 

As to the atomic, forces such as the Weak Force and the Strong Interaction, they both involve mechanical connections within the nucleus, according to this model. It was observed in the 1970's that the Strong force closely resembles Hook's equations concerning a stretched spring. From this I concluded at that time theoretically, that the fundamental string structure of matter involves a configuration that resembles a spring-like string of particles that can engage each other when in very close proximity. This accordingly explains the nuclear forces as not being fundamental or "a priori" forces, but simply mechanical engagements resisting separation. The explanation of the resistance of the Strong Force resisting the separation of a proton, accordingly involves a resistance of the spring structure of a proton to stretching, and its eventual breaking. This breaking would accordingly be the breaking of the umbilicals that hold the string of particles together which accordingly occurs in accelerator collisions. This is a simple 3 physical dimensional string theory model, quarks and gluons accordingly do not exist.

 

That's about it. Remember you can ask any questions of science that you would like to ask, and I will do my best to answer your questions

Edited October 5, 2011 by pantheory

[pantheory]

According to Lee Smolin, the author of the book "the Trouble with Physics," there are five major problems and quandaries in Theoretical Physics today.

 

Here they are along with the reasons why they simply may be just problems with our present theories and not real problems at all.

1. The problem of quantum gravity:

 

Combine general relativity and quantum theory into a single theory that can claim to be the complete theory of nature.

(all quotes from link at bottom of posting)

 

If both theories are totally wrong then there is nothing that would need combining. General Relativity proposes that space curves according to Reimann geometry which is the basis for both his General Relativity (GR) equations and the cosmological equations of the Big Bang model. Observations as far distant as we can observe indicate the space totally appears to be flat and not curved. GR cannot predict the rotation rate of stars within galaxies nor can it predict the rotation rate of galaxies in a cluster. This is why dark matter was conceived, as an ad hoc explanation.

 

Quantum gravity is a proposal the a particle, the graviton, carries the force of gravity, and therefore is the cause of it. This is a theoretical basis of the standard particle model which is consistent with Quantum Mechanical. There is no evidence of any kind that such a particle that carries a force exists.

 

It would seem to be far more likely that both of these theories are either partially of totally wrong. Even if one of the two model was wrong any combined theory logically would necessarily be wrong.

 

2. The foundational problems of quantum mechanics:

 

Resolve the problems in the foundations of quantum mechanics, either by making sense of the theory as it stands or by inventing a new theory that does make sense.

One issue with understanding quantum physics is what the underlying physical mechanism involved is. There are many interpretations in quantum physics - the classic Copenhagen interpretation, Hugh Everette II's controversial Many Worlds Interpretation, and even more controversial ones such as the Participatory Anthropic Principle. The question that comes up in these interpretations revolves around what actually causes the collapse of the quantum wavefunction. (The puzzle of the curious aspect of human consciousness's role in resolving these questions is related in Quantum Enigma.) Most modern physicists who work with quantum field theory no longer consider these questions of interpretation to be relevant. The principle of decoherence is, to many, the explanation - interaction with the environment causes the quantum collapse. Even more significantly, physicists are able to solve the equations, perform experiments, and practice physics without resolving the questions of what exactly is happening at a fundamental level, and so most physicists don't want to get near these bizarre questions with a 20 foot pole.

If there are particulates in the ZPF as proposed by many theories and hypothesis, such as dark matter, Higg's particles, field strings, gravitons, quantum sand, quantum foam, etc. they would not be accepted in Quantum Mechanics which proposes that there are no particulates in the ZPF, that it is simply an energy field. Such an aether field particulate model could change the whole construct of QM.

 

If so then the entire basis for QM could be wrong and may someday be replaced.

 

3. The unification of particles and forces:

 

Determine whether or not the various particles and forces can be unified in a theory that explains them all as manifestations of a single, fundamental entity.

This is where it is all headed and the only valid fundamental quest, in my opinion, in all of theoretical physics: that a single fundamental particle is accordingly the basis for the entire universe and everything in it. And this entity has a single mechanical internal mechanical force. Everything in reality accordingly consists of just this one thing which can explain reality and all observations. -- see pantheory.com for the related theory. Nothing at all is complicated.

 

Problem 4: The Fine Tuning Problem:

 

........the question becomes why our universe has properties that seem to be so finely tuned to allow for the existence of life. This question is called the fine-tuning problem and has promoted some physicists to turn to the anthropic principle of explanation, which dictates that our universe has the properties it does because if it had different properties, we wouldn't be here to ask the question. (A major thrust of Smolin's book is the criticism of this viewpoint as an explanation of the properties.)

The Fine Tuning Problem is a problem with two theories; one of these theories is also based upon the other. The first theory is Einstein's Cosmological model which is based upon GR, and the second theory is the Big Bang Theory. If the Big Bang model is incorrect there probably would be no fine tuning problem. This problem seems to be strictly a BB problem that is unrelated to most other cosmological models that either assert a much older universe, or one that is infinite in age.

 

The fine tuning problem explained: in an expanding BB universe gravity would react too quickly in the beginning times resulting in a universe that would appear to be completely different from the observable universe of today. To get around this problem an ad hoc hypothesis was invented such that if the universe expanded super-luminally (faster than light) gravity would not have had a chance to take effect until the universe was in place. This hypothesis was considered to have problems with it but many different versions of it were proposed trying to overcome the theoretical problems. There is no present consensus concerning which, if any of these models validly explains observable reality, but there is a consensus that such an inflation explanation of some kind is needed.

 

http://curious.astro....php?number=387

 

Problem 5: The Problem of Cosmological Mysteries:

 

The universe still has a number of mysteries, but the ones that most vex physicists are dark matter and dark energy. This type of matter and energy is detected by its gravitational influences, but can't be observed directly, so physicists are still trying to figure out what they are. Still, some physicists have proposed alternative explanations for these gravitational influences, which do not require new forms of matter and energy, but these alternatives are unpopular to most physicists.

Although alternative explanations of dark matter and dark energy which propose that one or the other are not real, have been unpopular with most physicists. So much so that both have been "adopted" into the standard BB model called the Lambda Cold Dark matter model and a Nobel Prize granted. I predict that someday it will be recognized that both are just hypothesis of the day which can better be explained by far "simpler" explanations and physics.

 

See the posting above to explain the theoretical details which accordingly otherwise explain and accordingly dispose of the need for both dark matter and dark energy.

 

http://physics.about...iveproblems.htm

//

Edited October 10, 2011 by pantheory

[Moontanman]

Biggest mystery... "Where is everybody?"

[pantheory]

Thanks Moontanman,

 

Yeah, things have been pretty slow lately here in the Speculation Forum, especially here on my thread

[pantheory]

Cosmological Conundrums: Explaining "problems" of the Big Bang model (BB)

 

Although I believe the BB model is the wrong model of cosmology I wish to explain/ give my opinions of some of today's criticisms of the model. Some I think are valid and others not.

 

Since scientists first proposed the Big Bang theory, many people have questioned and criticized the model. Here's a rundown on some of the most common criticisms of the big bang theory:

 

-- It accordingly violates the first law of thermodynamics, which says you can't create or destroy matter or energy. Critics claim that the big bang theory suggests the universe began out of nothing.

Proponents of the big bang theory say that such criticism is unwarranted for two reasons. The first is that the big bang doesn't address the creation of the universe, but rather the evolution of it. The other reason is that since the laws of science break down as you approach the creation of the universe, there's no reason to believe the first law of thermodynamics would apply.

 

I do also not consider this to be a valid criticism. The original version of the BB asserted the BB had the potential energy within it to create what we see today. There accordingly was no such thing as a time before that, so accordingly the BB entity was the beginning of time and did not come from something else. I think this is still the mainstream consensus.

 

-- Some critics say that the formation of stars and galaxies violates entropy which suggests systems of change become less organized over time.

 

One argument against this interpretation: if one views the early universe as completely homogeneous and isotropic, then the current universe shows signs of obeying the law of entropy.

 

I think this argument is bogus however. Even according to the BB model which I think is entirely wrong, the beginning universe certainly would seem to have been less organized than the observable universe.

 

Instead a better argument, I believe, is this:

 

The problem with the argument I believe is that there are many definitions of the word entropy. Maybe the most proper formal definition is: (Physics / General Physics) a thermodynamic quantity that changes in a reversible process by an amount equal to the heat absorbed or emitted divided by the temperature in degrees Kelvin. It is measured in joules per kelvin. This explanation relates to the dissipation of temperature over time and is unrelated to order and disorder.

 

--Some argue that scientists have misinterpreted evidence like the redshift of galactic bodies.

This I think is a totally valid criticism. There is much evidence to support the idea that redshifts of galaxies can be correlated with their distance but this does not mean that the universe is expanding. The interpretation that the universe is expanding is solely based a single assumption. The assumption is that the galactic redshifts are Doppler shifts and that galaxies are moving away from us. There is no evidence to support this.

 

-- Others astrophysicists and cosmologists argue that the cosmic microwave background radiation is solely the temperature of galactic and intergalactic space and has nothing to do with a BB beginning.

There is evidence to support assertion.

 

-- Some cite the absence of exotic cosmic bodies that should have been the product of the big bang according to the theory, such as primordial black holes, magnetic monopoles, BB neutrinos everywhere, etc.

This would seem to be a valid criticism for those versions of the model which predict there entities.

 

--The early inflationary period of the big bang appears to violate the rule that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.

Proponents have a few different responses to this criticism. One is that at the start of the big bang, the theory of relativity didn't apply. As a result, there was no issue with traveling faster than the speed of light.

 

One response to this criticism is that space itself can expand faster than the speed of light, as space falls outside the domain of the theory of gravity. I think this as a valid retort if space does expand, which I think is false.

 

Maybe a better response is that the speed of light is based upon the pre-existence of the ZPF. Without the ZPF there may not be a limit for the speed of light.

 

Of course if the BB model is wrong then there was no Inflation and none of these explanations would be valid or,

 

There are several alternative models that attempt to explain the development of the universe, though none of them have as wide an acceptance as the big bang theory. Instead the great number of BB versions make up more than 95-99% presented by cosmologists.

 

Not even my own model has much of a following

 

http://science.howst...ang-theory7.htm

Edited October 15, 2011 by pantheory

[Daedalus]

Couldn't we explain the "perceived" acceleration of the expansion of the universe as the speed of light decreasing over time as you have suggested in your book? In other words... if the speed of light was getting slower, then we would see this as an acceleration of the expansion of space. Also, couldn't this concept be applied to both Pantheory and to the Big Bang theory? If applied to the Big Bang, wouldn't that mean that light had a higher speed limit which could possible describe inflation? I'm not really sure either way. I just thought I would throw that out there. I also have enjoyed reading you book. I find your explanations for observed phenomena very interesting : )

Edited October 15, 2011 by Daedalus

[pantheory]

Couldn't we explain the "perceived" acceleration of the expansion of the universe as the speed of light decreasing over time as you have suggested in your book? In other words... if the speed of light was getting slower, then we would see this as an acceleration of the expansion of space. Also, couldn't this concept be applied to both Pantheory and to the Big Bang theory? If applied to the Big Bang, wouldn't that mean that light had a higher speed limit which could possible describe inflation? I'm not really sure either way. I just thought I would throw that out there. I also have enjoyed reading you book. I find your explanations for observed phenomena very interesting : )

Thanks Daedalus,

 

....if the speed of light was getting (relatively) slower, then we would see this as an acceleration of the expansion of space

parenthesis added

 

You are right. Including the diminution of matter, this is the way that it would appear to us.

 

According to my explanation of Dark Energy is that the distances to type 1a supernova, where Z is less than .6, that type 1a supernova (galaxies, etc.) are closer than the Hubble formula could allow. This is not just my opinion but the opinion of almost all of today's cosmologist and the basis for the Dark Energy hypothesis. Instead in my model the explanation for Dark Energy is far simpler, the Hubble formula is incomplete and Dark Energy simply does not exist. Accordingly the Hubble is an incomplete formula concerning type 1a supernova and galactic distances. The correct distance formulation accordingly can be seen here in the related technical paper which states that Dark Energy does not exist, even though the Nobel Prize was just given for its asserted discovery. This addendum to the formula relates to the relative change of velocities including the speed of light.

 

Most versions of the Inflation hypothesis propose the almost instantaneous expansion of the universe following its beginning, conceivably gazillions of times faster than the speed of light -- which seemingly would be unrelated to my proposal.

Edited October 15, 2011 by pantheory

[Daedalus]

Most versions of the Inflation hypothesis propose the almost instantaneous expansion of the universe following its beginning, conceivably gazillions of times faster than the speed of light -- which seemingly would be unrelated to my proposal.

 

That makes sense. Also, this would indeed increase the age of the universe according to your model because if inflation was correct, then this extreme expansion would shorten the "age" of the universe dramatically. This would mean that your model would predict stars / galaxies that are much older than the Big Bang prediction for the age of the universe. Is there evidence which shows such cosmological entities as being older than what the BB predicts?

[pantheory]

That makes sense. Also, this would indeed increase the age of the universe according to your model because if inflation was correct, then this extreme expansion would shorten the "age" of the universe dramatically. This would mean that your model would predict stars / galaxies that are much older than the Big Bang prediction for the age of the universe. Is there evidence which shows such cosmological entities as being older than what the BB predicts?

Yes there are indications of older stars and galaxies. But if there was clear indisputable evidence then the BB model would have already changed.

 

http://physicsworld....icle/news/19553

http://www.eso.org/p...c/news/eso0106/

http://www.nature.co...s070508-13.html

 

There are also a number of distant elliptical galaxies which by their redshifts are 9-11 billion years distant, which appear to be at least as old as the Milky Way that is believed to be 12 billion years old now. If so these galaxies if they now exist could be 24 billion years old. My prediction is that as far back as we will ever be able to look after the James Webb goes up, that we will continue to see old appearing galaxies at the farthest distances and in the same proportions that we presently can see with the Hubble space telescope, and also in our own galactic neighborhood.

 

If nuclear fission within stars occurs to a greater extent than we presently believe, then our present methods of age dating stars could be greatly inaccurate or totally wrong, especially the oldest stars with the heaviest elements. All of present day theories have necessarily been designed to fit together and to be collectively consistent and mutually reinforcing. If/ when the BB model is replaced, I believe most all related theory will change shortly thereafter.

 

http://en.wikibooks....ion_and_Fission

//

Edited October 15, 2011 by pantheory

[Realitycheck]

So if quarks and gluons don't exist, then what exactly are they producing in today's colliders? One would expect that they at least knew what they were working with.

[pantheory]

So if quarks and gluons don't exist, then what exactly are they producing in today's colliders? One would expect that they at least knew what they were working with.

As you might recall in quark theory, quarks and gluons cannot exist separate from matter particles. This is accordingly why quarks or gluons could never be studied on their own. Instead what they are observing in these collisions which they call quark jets, are string like entities. My own model is a simple type of string theory, with only 3 physical dimensions and no quarks, just vibrating string-like entities. Quark theory accordingly is just a valuable mathematical construct to help explain particle interactions but quarks and gluons accordingly do not exist.

//

Edited October 15, 2011 by pantheory

[Realitycheck]

So these scientists that spend all of this money creating these streams of quark gluon plasma under extremely high temperature and pressure, designing and employing the use of complex detectors meant to capture and analyze the results of these collisions, that spend countless hours sifting through the enormous amounts of data produced by all of these collisions, these people that actually do all of the work, you're saying that they don't know what they're working with, don't know what they're doing?

 

If we were just talking about gluons/bosons, I might pay more attention, but its not that simple.

[pantheory]

So these scientists that spend all of this money creating these streams of quark gluon plasma under extremely high temperature and pressure, designing and employing the use of complex detectors meant to capture and analyze the results of these collisions....

Quark or gluons separate from matter do not exist according to the standard model. Many now believe that what are called quark jets actually contain quarks. Others believe these are energy jets that produce virtual particles unrelated to quarks. 'There is no definitive evidence.

 

...that spend countless hours sifting through the enormous amounts of data produced by all of these collisions, these people that actually do all of the work, you're saying that they don't know what they're working with. .....

String theory is very different from particle theory and if strings are real then the researchers don't know what they are working with. This statement is correct.

 

To suggest that they "don't know what they're doing?" I think would be a stretch of the imagination. More accurately I would say they do not understand the results they are observing.

 

If we were just talking about gluons/bosons, I might pay more attention, but its not that simple.

Bosons as a force carrying particle also does not exist in this model. The whole idea that particles carry pulling forces does not make sense in this model.

//

Edited October 15, 2011 by pantheory

[pantheory]

One of the biggest problems with the Big Bang model explanation of the microwave background radiation concerns some very large cold spots in it. If the CMBR is the remnant radiation from the BB era why would there be vast cold spots in it?

 

Although large voids are known in the universe, a void would have to be exceptionally vast to explain the cold spot, perhaps 1000 times larger in volume than expected typical voids. It would be 6 billion–10 billion light years away and nearly one billion light years across, and would be perhaps even more improbable to occur in the large scale structure than the WMAP cold spot would be in the primordial CMB.

 

A simple answer to this question is that these cold spots are large voids of galaxies which observations seem to support, where there is much less radiation from surrounding galaxies and therefore these volumes have a lower temperature within inter-galactic space. This explanation would suggest that the microwave background is the intergalactic temperatures of intergalactic space produced by galactic radiation and totally unrelated to any Big Bang beginning.

 

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

Edited October 25, 2011 by pantheory

[joshwudz]

 

 

7. Consciousness

I think this is an easy question and should not be on this list. According to the standard model of biology, consciousness is defined as: being aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc. This one can be tricky because people can argue semantics here, so I will try my best to avoid this trap.

 

Being aware of your surroundings is arguably the beginning of consciousness which can be related to an animal or plants senses. Many plants and microbes are phototrophic, meaning turning toward (or away) from light. Many are chemotrophic, meaning turning toward or away from a certain chemistry. Many are senso-trophic, meaning sensitive and responding to touch. The same thing applies to all of our senses and others which other animals or plants have. All of these senses are tied to a simple or complex nervous system of sorts. The purpose of the system is to motivate the organism to either take advantage of, or avoid, exterior influences.

 

The word consciousness may be considered closely related to the nervous system as it relates to being self-aware. There are only a few animals that we can identify that have this ability. Few primates (a few baboon individuals) have this ability other than the great apes. Most great apes show evidence for their self recognition in a mirror. The only other animals that I am aware of that have this ability are in bird family including crows and Blue Jays. Some individual when place in front of a mirror will spend much time studying the image they see. When they are marked below where they can see, with an orange spot, they will do nothing at all. But when placed in a mirror angled where they can see the spot, some will begin to pick at the spot while looking in the mirror, until the spot is removed by this slow picking process. Crows have also be shown to be tool makers and inventors in a number of different circumstances. One particular parrot over a 20 year period, has learned to both speak and understand 300 different words in English. It can put together two word combinations as well, and understand the meaning. You could ask it, for instance, to go get the green triangle. It will find the green triangle amongst many other shaped and colored objects.

 

So is self awareness consciousness? Some would argue based upon the definition above, that animals that are self-aware also have a conciousness awareness of their surroundings and therefore possess consciousness. Others would argue that consciousness is more akin to self analysis which would seem to be strictly human, but in my opinion not too far away from the abilities of other great apes. Bottom line is that I think an understanding of the meaning of consciousness is not difficult.

 

 

 

it doesnt mean define the word consciousness it means what exactly is it n how it and your mind and perception works. there are a lot of questions that cant be answered about this

[qsa]

1. all couplings values and their relations and origin. That includes computing the behavior at all energies (and distances-up to edge of the universe if there is one(CC)). and if there is a physical cut-off or not.

 

2. the theory must predict particles with their masses explained.Inculding light and its clear interaction picture with matter.

 

3. What is charge exactly and how does the value come about.

 

4. the origin of Spin and entanglment.

 

5. how do particles behave in flight, like the double slit experiment.

 

6. The real source of the effect of relativity. That is of course includes what is Space and time. and what is vacuum made of.

 

7. the relation between all of the above.

 

8. the origin and the fate of the universe or(universes)

 

But Most of all what is existance made of, if not a mathematical imperative.

[pantheory]

1. all couplings values and their relations and origin. That includes computing the behavior at all energies (and distances-up to edge of the universe if there is one(CC)). and if there is a physical cut-off or not.

My own model explains coupling values in terms of mechanical field interactions involving vortexes of Zero Point Field particulates down to Planck length sizes, which move from high pressure to low pressure areas. This I use to explain both gravity and magnetism. Since Maxwell's equations were formulated based upon an aether I also ascribe to these same equations. As to galactic distances I have reformulated the Hubble formula to explain type 1a supernova accordingly without the need for dark energy. In this model there is a physical edge to the universe‎, to the existence of matter and field. The form of the universe accordingly is generally spherical. In this model matter is physically held together by pressures of the surrounding ZPF. Only field particulates can accordingly exist at the edge of the universe. Matter would disintegrate and light waves could not exist anywhere near these vastly distant boundaries.

2. the theory must predict particles with their masses explained. Inculding light and its clear interaction picture with matter.

Mass is explained as something very simple which is determined by the actions of gravity on an object, which accordingly are the pressures of the ZPF.

3. What is charge exactly and how does the value come about.

Charge accordingly is vortex based concerning individual particles determined by particle spin and the configuration of the field vortex that the particles creates.

 

4. the origin of Spin and entanglement.

The origin of spin is that particles must accordingly unwind/ rewind which is the cause of particle spin. Entanglement accordingly also has a simple basis. Entangled photons are accordingly within the same circular or spherical wave or exactly the same physical characteristics. Accordingly EM radiation consists both of photon particulates and physical waves of particulates that they "surf" within the ZPF, AKA an aether. On the other hand electrons put in very close proximity send out physical waves that effect each other such as electrons within the same atomic shell. One has spin up and the other spin down. When these electrons are sent out in different directions they will remain in the same spin state since they accordingly have a gyro behavior as they spin and so one will have a spin up and the other will have spin down, even miles apart. But this accordingly has the mechanical cause explained.

 

5. how do particles behave in flight, like the double slit experiment.

Again the double slit experiment is very easy to explain in this model. When a single photon/ electron is sent through a single slit with the other slit also open, accordingly the physic wave produced passes through both slits interfering with each other on the other side as well as directing the particulates whether photon or electron.

6. The real source of the effect of relativity. That is of course includes what is Space and time. and what is vacuum made of.

Special relativity accordingly is solely based upon relative motion as explained by Lorenz Transforms. Accordingly there is a particulate aether something like dark matter but with vastly smaller particulates. Space is the volume that matter and field occupies. Time is an interval of change that can be measured by a measurement device called a clock, which is analogous to particle spin. Particle spin is perpetuated by a mechanical force within particles that necessitate them to unwind and rewind, while concurrently becoming smaller. Density of the universe is maintained by the creation of new matter surrounding galactic black holes. The ZPF vacuum is made up of a single particulate with its energies of relative motion and wave carrying characteristics. Energy accordingly is strictly a function of relative motion, via force times distance equals energy. EM radiation are physical waves within the aether/ AKA the Zero Point Field.

7. the relation between all of the above.

All of the above are accordingly related since all matter and field are comprised of a single particulate, and most relate to vortexes within the particulate aether.

 

8. the origin and the fate of the universe or(universes)

The universe accordingly started as a single entity like the BB model, but this particulate slowly unwound/ rewound into two, three, four, five, six, etc. identical particulates which eventually became the ZPF. From the ZPF black holes are created. And the gravitational effect surrounding black holes creates atomic particles and from these particles stars are created, and then fusion and fission creates the rest of reality. The universe accordingly is not expanding and redshifts are explained by larger matter in the past producing longer EM radiation. The universe accordingly is in a steady state condition, galactic cycles are roughly 60 billion years long, and accordingly there is no reason why the universe will ever change. The universe is accordingly now trillions of years in age. We are accordingly both lost in space as well as lost in time.

But Most of all what is existence made of, if not a mathematical imperative.

 

There accordingly is only one single fundamental particle that makes up both field particulates and matter particles. There accordingly are no forces of nature. Magnetism and gravity are explained by relative motion and/ or vortex motions within the field based upon flows of particulates from high to lower pressure volumes. As to the nuclear forces, the Strong Force is based upon physical connections of strings of particulates which comprise all particles, and which resist separation. The Weak Force and Strong Interaction are accordingly based upon physical connections of neutrons and protons within the nucleus which also physically resist separation. Mathematics can often be a good analog of reality, but accordingly never a perfect analog since in most or all cases there will always be exceptions based upon unusual circumstances. Accordingly both the macro-world at galactic scales, and the micro-world at quantum scales, must involve tolerances and can be calculated based upon probabilities.

 

The entire model can be seen at pantheory.org

 

it doesnt mean define the word consciousness it means what exactly is it n how it and your mind and perception works. there are a lot of questions that cant be answered about this

 

In my own related model the definition of conciousness explains what conciousness really is. Accordingly if we could agree on a comprehensive definition and explanation of it we could agree upon what consciousness really is and what it entails. I gave you my definition and explanation of it above. Of course some may consider/ believe in additional or alternative explanations of consciousness which I have either not included, mentioned, or even considered

Edited February 25, 2012 by pantheory

[qsa]

pantheory,

 

I went through your website and found nothing as to how couplings arise and why they take on their values. As a matter of fact your statement in the book in the gravity sectionThe gravitational constant G has been calculated to be ....

 

is wrong, it is an experimental value and not calculated. What about the mass of the electron .0005485799 where does it come from. mind you it is also experimantal, no known theory has produced it so far.

 

When I was a fresh graduate and started working in a scientific institute , I used to spend my lunch hour at the library. They had this journal called Speculation in science and technology(google), and you get the craziest ideas about explaining everything in physics in an unconvetional ways. That was really fun. But they were mostly mechanical systems with all kinds of circles and lines and pressure this and pull that sort of words. that was 30 years ago. I think the journal went bust and was bought by The foundation of Physics journal. They still publish unconventional theories but in the fringe class.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 25, 2012 by qsa

[pantheory]

qsa,

 

I went through your website and found nothing as to how couplings arise and why they take on their values. As a matter of fact your statement in the book in the gravity section. The gravitational constant G has been calculated to be ....

My meaning here was that the gravitational constant G was determined based upon experimental measurement, to be .......... I will change/ clarify this is the text, thanks. As to the couplings aspect, you are also correct. I do not use the word couplings in the text but do generally discuss how these values accordingly come about, but do not propose numerical values concerning the proposed mechanics.

 

What about the mass of the electron .0005485799 where does it come from. mind you it is also experimental, no known theory has produced it so far.

Mass is accordingly explained via my explanation of gravity. Accordingly the ZPF applies applies an external radial inward pushing force/ pressure to all matter which we quantify as the gravitational constant G. The force between matter would accordingly be less since matter would absorb some of the field vectors. The larger the matter the greater the difference of field pressure between matter in close proximity. This accordingly explains gravity. When matter is put on a scale (force measurement device) a weight is measured. This weight is accordingly converted into mass via our definition of mass and calculation. As to electron mass, the size and form of its individual field vortex produced by particle spin, accordingly determines how much field vectors it can absorb which is the determinate of its mass.

 

When I was a fresh graduate and started working in a scientific institute , I used to spend my lunch hour at the library. They had this journal called Speculation in science and technology(google), and you get the craziest ideas about explaining everything in physics in an unconventional ways. That was really fun. But they were mostly mechanical systems with all kinds of circles and lines and pressure this and pull that sort of words. that was 30 years ago. I think the journal went bust and was bought by The foundation of Physics journal. They still publish unconventional theories but in the fringe class.

That sounds really cool. Since my entire theory is mechanical, I would like to turn some of those minds loose concerning analysis of my model, as you have already started doing. I think I will try to find that Journal, if it still exists, as a possible publisher for some of my material

 

By the way, thanks for looking at my theory and presenting valid criticism How about your continued criticisms, editorial or otherwise. I would appreciate it.

Edited February 25, 2012 by pantheory

[JustinW]

I have a question that really isn't specific at all. The way I see it, the fabric of space time consists of the void. There hasn't been any particles connected to this void but we do know that there is an ultimate pressure. Could it be this pressure that makes up the fabric of space-time? The vacuum has pressure and wave length fluxuation, can this construct the thing we know as the fabric of space? We know that this fabric of space is warped by gravity. Once gravity gets too much for this fabric to handle, we then get what's called a black hole, from which gravity has punched through the fabric. Can this be a sound hypothesis for the fabric of space? And is there any science that contradicts this hypothesis so far? If black holes are just that, holes in the fabric of space, then what is on the other side of that hole? My first assumption would be a perfect vacuum. The very thing that is needed to support our universe. Is there not any means to test the pressures at different parts of our observable? Why can't we test the different pressures at different volumes of gravity to get a better understanding of the void and it's pressure? My meaning of the void is the locations where matter doesn't take up space. From outerspace down to the empty space inside of atoms. Just some Q&A. I could probably come up with more, but I think this is enough dumbass for me to show for the time being.

Edited March 1, 2012 by JustinW

[JohnStu]

One thing I want to add to enhance the definition of gravity is that: the gravity affecting planets in the real world (not on paper) is sum of multiple forces. There is gravity yes, then there is magnetism force involved. If moon was south pole iron right now it would behave completely different than now. And, yes additional tiny forces add up to the resultant sum, which is gravity.

[doG]

One thing I want to add to enhance the definition of gravity is that: the gravity affecting planets in the real world (not on paper) is sum of multiple forces. There is gravity yes, then there is magnetism force involved. If moon was south pole iron right now it would behave completely different than now. And, yes additional tiny forces add up to the resultant sum, which is gravity.

Another claim with no support? Do you happen to realize that some planets like Venus and Mars have no magnetic field at all?

 

A hammer and a feather fall at the same rate on the moon.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6926891572259784994

Is the hammer getting a magnetic assist to keep up with the feather here?

Edited March 2, 2012 by doG

[JohnStu]

Another claim with no support? Do you happen to realize that some planets like Venus and Mars have no magnetic field at all? A hammer and a feather fall at the same rate on the moon.

 

 

I happen to know, not realize. And I also know that Venus and Mars do have magnets in them, just no strong magnetic field on the surface, or really weak. yes a hammer and a feather fall at the same rate on the moon, but if the moon was a giant magnet, hammer would fall much faster than the feather. The gravity formula for planetory motion is for these planest in the solar system, not ambiguious cases. They are also used to calculate cycles and orbit, and gravity from them from a long distance. Any object nearby uses a different formula that involves intergal. That's what I read 3 years ago somewhere on Wikipedia.

[doG]

And I also know that Venus and Mars do have magnets in them, just no strong magnetic field on the surface, or really weak.

So your are saying this collection of planetary data from NASA is wrong then? I challenge you to support your revelatory claim.

[pantheory]

I have a question that really isn't specific at all. The way I see it, the fabric of space time consists of the void. There hasn't been any particles connected to this void but we do know that there is an ultimate pressure. Could it be this pressure that makes up the fabric of space-time? The vacuum has pressure and wave length fluxuation, can this construct the thing we know as the fabric of space? We know that this fabric of space is warped by gravity. Once gravity gets too much for this fabric to handle, we then get what's called a black hole, from which gravity has punched through the fabric. Can this be a sound hypothesis for the fabric of space? And is there any science that contradicts this hypothesis so far? If black holes are just that, holes in the fabric of space, then what is on the other side of that hole? My first assumption would be a perfect vacuum. The very thing that is needed to support our universe. Is there not any means to test the pressures at different parts of our observable? Why can't we test the different pressures at different volumes of gravity to get a better understanding of the void and it's pressure? My meaning of the void is the locations where matter doesn't take up space. From outerspace down to the empty space inside of atoms. Just some Q&A. I could probably come up with more, but I think this is enough dumbass for me to show for the time being.

Thanks for the question Justin.

 

The ZPF vacuum, according to my model, is full of long (compared to their width) coiled spring-like strings of particulates, some going down to a Planck length or maybe even smaller. According to this model, these particulates are what make up what is presently called the fabric of space-time. These particulates bounce back and forth having energy of motion similar to a compressed gas.

 

Black holes in this model are simply a highly compressed form of these particulates, much more dense than a neutron star but similar in its characteristics of spin and vibration. Black holes accordingly are of finite size and density, and the opposite of a vacuous void as proposed by many black hole models. In this model (my model), the pressure of the vacuum on matter is exactly the universal gravitational constant G, which has been determined by experiment but is presently unrecognized as the pressure of the vacuum.

 

The basis for these answers have been based on my theory of gravity as well as my theory of black holes and their make-up.

Edited March 10, 2012 by pantheory