A Steady State Theory

[Pymander]

A Steady State Universe

 

A Steady State Universe is possible to hypothesise, but requires:

 

1. The elimination of some currently held hypotheses, which become manifest as contrary to;

2. The acceptance of a finite set of new hypotheses.

 

These new hypotheses are as follows:

 

There are two fundamental particles of matter, the proton and the electron.

 

Each fundamental particle of matter has an antiparticle which is distinguished by having an opposite charge and properties associated with this charge. Outside of this, the question of type (matter or antimatter) is entirely relative to the type of the fundamental particles of the observer. There is no asymmetry.

 

The universe is finite but unbounded. Space may be thought of as a three dimensional surface of a four dimensional hyper sphere w^2 + x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = c^2, which can only be visualised by analogy using one less dimension. Matter occupies x, y and z. The dimensions occupied by antiparticles may be other, with certain dimensions in common.

 

Fundamental particles of matter and antimatter are always created from energy, and always annihilated into energy, in pairs. The numbers of each fundamental particle and its antiparticle throughout the universe are identical. Any imbalance in the proton / electron numbers locally is matched by an identical imbalance in the negatron / positron numbers, and will result in reannihilation of the excess.

 

Matter and antimatter repel gravitationally. This accounts for the general acceleration of galactic clusters and antigalactic clusters away from each other. This hypothesis is contestable, as may be conclusions drawn therefrom.

 

To complete the symmetry, the photon has an antiparticle, the neutrino. The neutrino has a gravitational affinity for antimatter, and is repelled by matter. Except for gravitational forces, the energy particles only interact with their own type of material.

 

Photons and neutrinos likewise annihilate to produce material, if energy suffices due to relative frequencies.

 

As galactic clusters and antigalactic clusters separate, energy is continually rematerializing throughout the universe. New material is drawn toward material concentrations of the same type.

 

Matter can reach a density of Gm/rc^ = 1, at which point it is converted into neutrinos, which are gravitationally forced away from the centre of mass. The symmetric situation exists for antimatter, which produces photons under the analogous conditions. The sign of m in the above equation is relative to the observer's light.

 

Atomic nuclei are bound by electric forces by compounding certain stable configurations of protons with electrons of various quantum energies possible. Quazistable states in equilibrium, involving free photons, may produce decay probabilities by interaction with neutrinos. This is also contestable, making half life measurements appear to vary, for instance.

 

Such a universe may have originated as energy, just as the Big Bang alternative is claimed to have originated from matter. All contrary hypotheses need to be inspected in this light for possible alternative explanations of the proposed evidence. For instance, the galactic core, being a neutrino source, could participate in beta decay, by materialisation as stated.

 

 

 

 

 

[ACG52]

There are two fundamental particles of matter, the proton and the electron.

 

 

The proton is not a fundamental particle. It consists of quarks. This has been experimentally confirmed.

 

The numbers of each fundamental particle and its antiparticle throughout the universe are identical

 

In that case, why hasn't the universe dissolved into a sea of radiation?

 

Matter and antimatter repel gravitationally

 

But we have created and held antimatter for as long as 16 minutes. There is no gravitational repulsion observed.

 

The neutrino has a gravitational affinity for antimatter, and is repelled by matter.

 

Again, this is contrary to actual observation.

 

Photons and neutrinos likewise annihilate to produce material, if energy suffices due to relative frequencies.

 

 

Except they don't.

 

As galactic clusters and antigalactic clusters separate, energy is continually rematerializing throughout the universe.

 

From where? You say REmaterializing, this seems to imply that it's been 'materialized' before.

 

Matter can reach a density of Gm/rc^ = 1, at which point it is converted into neutrinos, which are gravitationally forced away from the centre of mass.

 

This doesn't mean anything.

 

Atomic nuclei are bound by electric forces

 

No, they're not. They're bound by the weak force.

 

Incredible. Almost every statement in incorrect.

 

This is an Antitheory.

Edited August 26, 2012 by ACG52

[Pymander]

The proton is not a fundamental particle. It consists of quarks. This has been experimentally confirmed.

[/Quote]

Rather definite. Did someone get a Nobel Prize? Isn't CONFIRMED a little strong? Experimental evidence, which may be interpreted otherwise, has been cited as CONCLUSIVE, without recourse to the alternative just proposed?

In that case, why hasn't the universe dissolved into a sea of radiation?

[/Quote]

There are 2 million light years to M31 in Andromeda. Our galaxy, purportedly quite similar, is 100,000 light years across, with twice that radius of galactic corona of hydrogen gas, and continuous cosmic rays without reasonable explanation (yet). Now you have one. Materialisation on Earth, or within 200,000 light years produces immediate reanihilation. What proportion of space is virtually empty? With cosmic ray incidence a good estimate of materialisation rates per cubic light year, where do you think the Milky Way Whirlpool gets its gas. Cosmic ray protons have the energy of a fast bowled cricket ball! Materialisation from gravitationally accelerated (meaning increasing frequency) energies maybe?

But we have created and held antimatter for as long as 16 minutes. There is no gravitational repulsion observed.

[/Quote]

Did you expect a 10^-23 Kg order mass to be a He balloon? The electrical forces are greater by what factor?

Again, this is contrary to actual observation.

[/Quote]

Originally hypothesised as essential for beta radiation, you have been given an equally likely alternative mechanism, for the same phenomenon (various beta electron energies). Originally the neutrino was considered to have zero interaction with matter, zero rest mass, and to be its own antiparticle. No mention of frequency. The electrical vibration, as stated, is possibly in another dimension. Some say eight may exist. It may be the electric force generated magnetic field that does work between matter and energy. This is a relativistic effect of a force law using a left hand rule with opposite charges. Try this: "My right and left are swapped in a mirror, why not my head and feet?"

 

Observation shows various transforming properties and unexpectedly miniscule (if any) interaction with matter fro the neutrino. That's consistent with the hypotheses. Much like photons, no? What observations are you talking about?

Except they don't.

[/Quote]

And you know this HOW?

From where? You say REmaterializing, this seems to imply that it's been 'materialized' before.

[/Quote]

As the rest of the story goes, recycling is via the galactic cores where density produces an event horison. We have Gamma Ray Bursts, galaxies with very active cores (centaurus A), hydrogen emissions perpendicular to the galactic plane, the inexplicable Hoag's Object, barred galaxies and muuuuuch more, not easily dealt with - yet! This explains it, though, doesn't it?

This doesn't mean anything.

[/Quote]

Okay. We need mathematics to be respected. The relative light frequency equation f for an observer outside of the mass m within radius r with frequency f_0 is:

 

f = f_0(1 - Gm/rc^2)

 

If the energy type of f_0 differs from the mass type m, then, instead of f = 0, we get f = 2 x f_0. This also indicates that other strange and hitherto unknown transformations exist when energy passes through a gravitational flux. Let's assume that Centaurus A is antimatter. All material reaching the event horison will convert to photons E = abs(m) x c^2 (Einstein did not have time to incorporate the discovery of the negatron = antiproton as a negative mass!). Now, passing through space from Centaurus A to The Milky Way more energy is gained due to gravitational repulsion. Then we have a collision with a neutrino going the opposite way and viola! cosmic rays explained! Those with litle left over energy for KE turn into - hydrogen. How well do we even understand light, much less dark energy? In all likelyhood, these may be formed as particle pairs also! Then only active galactic cores would betray the antigalaxy. Here's another good test for the theory - are there any such galaxies in our local cluster?

No, they're not. They're bound by the weak force.

[/Quote]

And you find that more believeable? Just as believable as universal substance simply disappearing in "black holes"? Isn't that contrary to conservation? There are some that say there is but one force. It can be shown that magnetic forces are results of relatively moving charges, using special relativity. It is a major headache, but relates permeability to permitivity as a function of the speed of light. Do you have any idea of the profundity of the guesswork and lack of mathematics weak forces entail by comparison? It could very easily be that every force is a function of the speed of light, because only the electric field is not relativistically transformed! Good reason to overhaul, don't you think? And after all, materialisation is only from electric force in the first place, plus some laws we cannot explain, only discover!

Have you seen this before:

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but illusion of knowledge." - Stephen Hawking

So why so quick to affirm an accepted guess and deny another possibility? Use 'Truth' with care, much is tenuous and taken for gospel.

Incredible. Almost every statement in incorrect.

[/Quote]

You sure make it easy for moderators to scan your stuff, and flick mine straight into the trash can. Nice.

This is an Antitheory.

It may be the antitheory required for the "Big Bang" to take a long holiday, with its entourage of ad hoc hypotheses and other Band-Aid doctoring.I still can't believe that it actually emerged AFTER General Relativity, which contradicts it.

Edited August 26, 2012 by Pymander

[Bignose]

Pymander,

 

maybe it is fairer to say that ACG52's replies are based on the current mainstream. All of which have a wealth of evidence & successful predictions behind them -- precisely why they have become mainstream.

 

If you wish to argue against the mainstream, that is fine. But, you need to provide a few things: 1) a viable alternative that you show is well supported by evidence, and 2) how your alternative encompasses the known results.

 

To wit, you can declare that there are no such things as quarks -- but, starting with the results published by Briedenbach all the way back in 1969, "three point-like bodies" were discovered via electron scattering bombardment of protons. These bodies became known as quarks, and the equations based on quarks have proven extremely successful at prediction agreeing with experimental results. If you want to declare the proton to be 'fundamental' then: how does your idea explain the vast quantities of experimental evidence for quarks? (literally thousands of papers published to date)

 

And so on with most every claim above. The only one I have a comment on is that the electromagnetic and the weak force have a known unification: a.k.a. electroweak interation. Most everything else, however, you need to address per my post above, if you wish to claim them.

[Pymander]

maybe it is fairer to say that ACG52's replies are based on the current mainstream. All of which have a wealth of evidence & successful predictions behind them -- precisely why they have become mainstream.

[/Quote]

Just like Fidel Castro's political system is, but only inside Cuba. That system is mainstream, and taught in their schools. As for the wealth of successful predictions - this does not apply across the entire field, and some of these are given above. Have a shot, if I'm wrong. Again I accept some and reject - black holes, quarks, relative insignificance to the neutron, being a proton, electron and energy, likewise to everything up to and beyond the God particle (blasphemous upstarts), and I reject the gravitational monopole. That's all, and proposed mechanisms for an eternal universe since creation as, possibly, pure timeless energy! Much mainstream is very tenuous, and until this upstart here, science has avoided saying "Dunno!", "Not sure", or "Maybe this and maybe that". Now it may have to say "light was first, which agrees with the ancients, maybe we're the antimatter, and going backwards through time (LOL)."

If you wish to argue against the mainstream, that is fine. But, you need to provide a few things: 1) a viable alternative that you show is well supported by evidence, and 2) how your alternative encompasses the known results.

[/Quote]

This is speculations? Keep your shirt on! I am proposing an equally viable alternative hypothesis to that currently accepted, some on the basis of evidence, some not too well supported, and some patently ridiculous. You will notice that there are three places already where contestability is indicated as possible. Have you provided a galaxy with an active core from our cluster of 22 galaxies yet? Contrary to claims, antigravity is neither proven nor disproven concerning dark matter (negatrons & positrons) and dark energy (neutrinos) as proposed. That will do for a counter example. Where will research go if this theory stops you circumnavigating the galaxy with a particle accelerator trying to create BigBangium. Good grief! It won't be big enough!

 

On a different note, only one counter example will disprove me, so your odds are good if you will please stop plying me with tenuously supported alternative conjecture and sweeping generalizations like this. Very plainly, the evidence is already given, gamma ray bursts, cosmic rays, etc. Are you asking me to be more respectable, and help smash square pegs into round holes for areas of science on shaky ground?

To wit, you can declare that there are no such things as quarks -- but, starting with the results published by Briedenbach all the way back in 1969, "three point-like bodies" were discovered via electron scattering bombardment of protons. These bodies became known as quarks, and the equations based on quarks have proven extremely successful at prediction agreeing with experimental results. If you want to declare the proton to be 'fundamental' then: how does your idea explain the vast quantities of experimental evidence for quarks? (literally thousands of papers published to date)

[/Quote]

Because there is a mysterious player that has confused many, that has not stopped being modified and continues to baffle since way back in 1969, the neutrino. Quarks have hardly had a chance to start playing in this tag-team of controversy, and may turn out quite the neutrino itself. Who needs them with the six fundamental particles proposed here? Can you seriously differentiate between these alternatives? Primacy is the least reliable criterion for confidence in scientific hypotheses!

And so on with most every claim above. The only one I have a comment on is that the electromagnetic and the weak force have a known unification: a.k.a. electroweak interation. Most everything else, however, you need to address per my post above, if you wish to claim them.

[/Quote]

One counter example, please. Not other hypotheses with more powerful friends, this is science, not politics, is it not? Tell me, what happens to all the light? How is the universe now considered to be accelerating? Dark matter and dark energy? Yes, but you haven't joined the dots...

 

What I've given is some alternate hypotheses as a basis. The mathematics that can evolve from these will rapidly become complex, and may provide derivations of the weak force. For one thing, the quantum considerations explaining chemistry seem absent at nuclear dimensions. Why is the deuterium atom not held together as in chemistry, by a covalent bond, and the neutron not as an ion, and likewise unstable and reactive? Gluons and muons like more stable radicles than other combos? My "Probabilistic Rating Theory" derives amazing mathematical complexity from only one simple hypothesis - rating difference to probability is a hyperbolic tangent curve. The implications of my Steady State Theory hypotheses promise to be a nightmare. Intuitively, it makes a lot of sense.

 

Pretty sure all requirements for such speculation are met.

Edited August 27, 2012 by Pymander

[Bignose]

Pretty sure all requirements for such speculation are met.

 

This forum has rules in the Speculations subforum. Such as, it is not enough to just speculate, but the onus is on the poster to provide evidence of their claims.

 

I am proposing an equally viable alternative hypothesis

 

To be "equally viable", you need evidence. The current mainstream has an awful lot of supporting evidence.

 

Look, the current mainstream is most likely wrong -- it is at the very least incomplete. But, it is what we have today. And we have a wealth of experiments with verified results. You are free to deny quarks in your idea -- but you cannot just deny the experiment that shows three point-like bodies inside a proton. Therefore, your idea has to demonstrate exactly why the result of that experiment gave the result it did. And then you need to do that for every other experimental result that also backs up the existence of quarks. Because those experiments are done, confirmed, and accepted.

 

If you don't have this, then don't claim anything near "equally viable". Because you just don't have that. To be anywhere near equal, you need to provide a lot of evidence.

[Pymander]

This forum has rules in the Speculations subforum. Such as, it is not enough to just speculate, but the onus is on the poster to provide evidence of their claims.

 

 

 

To be "equally viable", you need evidence. The current mainstream has an awful lot of supporting evidence.

 

Look, the current mainstream is most likely wrong -- it is at the very least incomplete. But, it is what we have today. And we have a wealth of experiments with verified results. You are free to deny quarks in your idea -- but you cannot just deny the experiment that shows three point-like bodies inside a proton. Therefore, your idea has to demonstrate exactly why the result of that experiment gave the result it did. And then you need to do that for every other experimental result that also backs up the existence of quarks. Because those experiments are done, confirmed, and accepted.

 

If you don't have this, then don't claim anything near "equally viable". Because you just don't have that. To be anywhere near equal, you need to provide a lot of evidence.

Quarks are a part of the architecture of the proton and the electron. Maybe it will come to an understanding of the way electric force turns into a mass with a charge, and why the proton has 1830 times the mass of the electron. Beyond that I don't see their relevance to anything. Only six particles are stable in free space and all others have finite lives, even the neutron. And all others spontaneously disintegrate into these six. In this the only contentious issue is the identity of the neutrino. The neutrino however is an integral part of my theory of a Steady State. As such it is the antimatter counterpart of the photon which is otherwise missing from the picture. The properties of the neutrino suggest that it is that antiparticle.

 

Photons materialize, with sufficient energy, and another particle is required to allow the conservation of energy and momentum. This is another requirement fulfilled in materialization in intergalactic space. Also there needs to be a complete symmetry, for which photons are unqualified. They are attracted to matter and thus repelled by antimatter. The required properties could very well be those of the neutrino. And if it has a spectrum of frequencies likewise, the 'flavors' of neutrinos would appear to exist, and also its transformations.

 

Only a few problems with this picture remain. Both matter and antimatter consists of charged particles, but the neutrino has no effect on matter. Either its electric field component is not in our dimensions, or the magnetic field component does the work and is the active agent, or both. Somehow the reversal of charges is significant. This is probably easier solved than the nature of materialization and its laws. In particular, gravitational force has an effect, or may be an effect. There are two event horizons, "black holes" and "white holes", where light energy and dark energy vanish and maximize, one becoming the other. How much do we know about the 'fate' of light? However, many are way more qualified to consider such issues.

 

The formulation of an hypothesis is inductive and intuitive. Then comes the hard work. But nothing guarantees an inductive hypothesis will prove correct in physics, and always as a limiting case as science grows this way. A great many astronomical phenomena support those hypotheses here put forward. Such effects are unlikely in everyday life. In deep space, that's something else. Consider Hoag's Object. This unusual phenomenon appears to me to be a nucleus of one type of material which has had an elliptical galaxy of the other condense around it under its own gravity, but repelled by the isolated nucleus. The nucleus may well have become compressed by repulsion due to the contracting envelope.

 

But the interaction of both types of material is hardly observable since they usually separate when very rarefied, and only become visible as a galactic corona. The other possibilities is the gamma ray burst, a large negative mass colliding with a "white hole", or the steady emission of gamma rays from a spiral galaxy, producing materialization with incoming neutrinos, perpendicular to the antigalactic plane due to repulsion (M82 Spiral Galaxy).

 

This is the situation. Antimatter and matter cannot coexist, and neutrinos only interact with photons, not matter. Therefore our most available evidence concerning antimatter is millions of light years away, and neutrinos have very few observable effects. It will redirect much scientific research to prove the two types of material repel. It will explain an expanding, yet essentially stable universe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bignose]

and neutrinos only interact with photons, not matter.

 

You say this. But, this isn't science. This is story telling.

 

Interact in what way? With what energy? What is the result of the interaction? How strong of an interaction is it?

 

And then, the sun is both a source of neutrinos and photons -- your proposed interaction should be happening quite a lot. Show us how your interaction can be measured and results in the known measurements of the sun.

 

Also, you really didn't even answer my question about evidence. You just wrote some words.

 

The formulation of an hypothesis is inductive and intuitive. Then comes the hard work.

 

If by 'hard work' you mean, gathering evidence to support you hypothesis, I 100% agree. When can we expect you to post that?

Edited August 27, 2012 by Bignose

[Pymander]

You say this. But, this isn't science. This is story telling.

Interact in what way? With what energy? What is the result of the interaction? How strong of an interaction is it?

[/Quote]

Yes, this IS science:

EVIDENCE -> HYPOTHESES -> DEDUCTIONS -> PREDICTIONS -> CONFIRMATION OR REFUTATION

These are the HYPOTHESES that you are calling a story:

* Photons (light energy) only interact with (light) matter or with antiphotons (neutrinos).

* Neutrinos (dark energy) only interact with dark matter (antimatter) or with photons.

* Fundamental particles annihilate their antiparticles to create photons and neutrinos.

* Photons and neutrinos materialise fundamental particles and their antiparticles, provided that relative frequencies imply sufficient energy, excess becoming KE.

* Unstable nuclei contain quazi stable equilibria involving photons and fundamental particles. Photon duration over time determines decay rate due to interaction with neutrinos.

And then, the sun is both a source of neutrinos and photons -- your proposed interaction should be happening quite a lot. Show us how your interaction can be measured and results in the known measurements of the sun.

[/Quote]

Materialisation will be happening throughout all space, and the material provides the substance of galaxies and antigalaxies as it separates and concentrates out of intergalactic space where it is not annihilated. I suspect, though I have seen no figures, that the galactic core will be a far stronger source of neutrinos than the sun. This will, again, supply contestable evidence. Neutrinos react only with photons, long or short duration, on Earth. Any antimatter here has a very short life.

Also, you really didn't even answer my question about evidence. You just wrote some words.

[/Quote]

All the extra-terrestrial phenomena I cited (among other matters) are evidence that feasible explanations are lacking, those supplied seem very tenuous. The same kind of bunkum explains the differences between the moon's near and far side and the great pyramid. The beauty part is - these hypotheses form a far less tenuous basis for explanations. I don't have a bucket of antimatter or a googolplex of dollars, but I do have the internet and an imagination.

If by 'hard work' you mean, gathering evidence to support you hypothesis, I 100% agree. When can we expect you to post that?

[/Quote]

It was already done, as just explained. Hard work applies, not to the EVIDENCE which suggested the HYPOTHESES, but the mathematics (DEDUCTIONS & PREDICTIONS)and research to CONFIRM (in a limited sense - never complete) or REFUTE (a single counter example) the founding HYPOTHESES.

Edited August 28, 2012 by Pymander

[ACG52]

These are the HYPOTHESES that you are calling a story:

* Photons (light energy) only interact with (light) matter or with antiphotons (neutrinos).

 

Observationally and experimentally shown to be wrong. Photons interact only with charged particles.

 

* Neutrinos (dark energy) only interact with dark matter (antimatter) or with photons.

Again, wrong. The OPERA experiment at CERN involved the detection of neutrinos. No dark matter needed. And Dark Matter and antimatter are totally different things.

 

* Fundamental particles annihilate their antiparticles to create photons and neutrinos.

It creates gamma rays.

 

* Photons and neutrinos materialise fundamental particles and their antiparticles, provided that relative frequencies imply sufficient energy, excess becoming KE.

* Unstable nuclei contain quazi stable equilibria involving photons and fundamental particles. Photon duration over time determines decay rate due to interaction with neutrinos.

 

Both of the above statements is meaningless babble.

 

Given that all your basic hypothesis are wrong, why look any further.

[Pymander]

* Photons (light energy) only interact with (light) matter or with antiphotons (neutrinos).

[/Quote]

Observationally and experimentally shown to be wrong. Photons interact only with charged particles.

[/Quote]

Does not a neutron and every other form of subatomic matter decompose into protons, electrons, and energy (which by my hypotheses includes neutrinos).

* Neutrinos (dark energy) only interact with dark matter (antimatter) or with photons.

[/Quote]

Again, wrong. The OPERA experiment at CERN involved the detection of neutrinos. No dark matter needed. And Dark Matter and antimatter are totally different things.

[/Quote]

You, and science, have no idea what dark matter and dark energy are. These have been hypothesised to explain holes in the Big Bang theory, like unpredicted microwave background and an accelerating universe plainly not caused by any Big Bang. But the universe is accelerating, these dark things are responsible, and I have defined them for you, what they are, where they come from, and how things operate to explain many unexplained phenomena.

 

Basically, entities with certain effects have been postulated, but not explained or understood. I have used these names for the real causes and identified them as to nature and function.

* Fundamental particles annihilate their antiparticles to create photons and neutrinos.

[/Quote]

It creates gamma rays.

[/Quote]

Said with great confidence, when you are just telling me that some monumental program at CERN was required to even detect neutrinos. Suddenly, we are just naturally certain no others are playing a part as quoted?

* Photons and neutrinos materialise fundamental particles and their antiparticles, provided that relative frequencies imply sufficient energy, excess becoming KE.

* Unstable nuclei contain quazi stable equilibria involving photons and fundamental particles. Photon duration over time determines decay rate due to interaction with neutrinos.

[/Quote]

Both of the above statements is meaningless babble.

Given that all your basic hypothesis are wrong, why look any further.

[/Quote]

EVIDENCE -> HYPOTHESES -> DEDUCTIONS -> PREDICTIONS -> CONFIRMATION OR REFUTATION

I've supplied the first two. The procedure for confirmation or refutation is the next two. This is certain, little is understood about the neutrino, and nothing is understood about dark matter and dark energy, by science. These are unidentifiable 'somethings' that only have 'effects' required to prop up the Big Bang Theory whenever it starts to fall over. If you have a better idea than the one proposed, let's hear something more creative than simply contradicting me as well as yourself, because THAT is meaningless babble. Nothing you have said contradicts 'A Steady State Theory" with any validity.

Edited August 28, 2012 by Pymander

[swansont]

You, and science, have no idea what dark matter and dark energy are.

Somewhat true, but science has a decent idea of what dark matter isn't.

[Pymander]

Somewhat true, but science has a decent idea of what dark matter isn't.

In all fairness, the simple claim that matter and antimatter repel rather than attract as presumed, can be proven or disproven. If it is already a known fact, you are correct. Otherwise, proof or disproof is pending resolution of that question, and with it further elements of this alternative theory. Science could go back to saying "maybe this, and maybe that" until such time. I am saying exactly that.

[swansont]

In all fairness, the simple claim that matter and antimatter repel rather than attract as presumed, can be proven or disproven. If it is already a known fact, you are correct. Otherwise, proof or disproof is pending resolution of that question, and with it further elements of this alternative theory. Science could go back to saying "maybe this, and maybe that" until such time. I am saying exactly that.

Dark matter and antimatter aren't the same thing, regardless of whether antimatter attracts or repels. Antimatter still interacts electromagnetically, and we know that dark matter doesn't. And that's something that we know about dark matter.

[Greg H.]

Observationally and experimentally shown to be wrong. Photons interact only with charged particles.

[/Quote]

Does not a neutron and every other form of subatomic matter decompose into protons, electrons, and energy (which by my hypotheses includes neutrinos).

 

 

Neutrons can decay into protons, and protons can change back into a neutron - what does this have to with the statement you quoted?

[ACG52]

I think he confuses protons with photons.

[Pymander]

Dark matter and antimatter aren't the same thing, regardless of whether antimatter attracts or repels. Antimatter still interacts electromagnetically, and we know that dark matter doesn't. And that's something that we know about dark matter.

Dark matter was postulated to explain anomalies in the microwave background predicted by the Big Bang hypothesis. It was also applied to anomalies in the gravitational lensing of galactic clusters. If photons and neutrinos are materialising matter and antimatter in intergalactic space, and no Big Bang happened either, these predictions will be way out, which they are. Also, if we are observing a universe where clusters are somewhat alternating like sodium and chloride ions in a crystal of salt, our neighbours will be antigalactic clusters, while we are matter. Their photon emissions, not their neutrino emissions, will be visible to us, if these are also produced in pairs as a rule. They will not appear different (except for active cores), but light passing around them will be deflected away from these clusters. Finally, the problem of an accelerating expansion of the universe emerged, and the Big Bang hypothesis did not account for this. Therefore dark energy was invented to provide a cause for this effect. But the salt crystal is not drawn together by opposite charges. It is forced apart by opposite masses, where like attracts like, and unlike repels unlike. The alternate hypotheses of 'A Steady State Theory' plainly explain the same effects very well. That this can be done by slight changes in the perceived laws governing known subatomic entities, rather than invent non-existent entities prepacked with appropriate laws, is something of an achievement, if I say so myself. Also, the laws which I have reviewed are by no means set in stone for the real entities concerned. And there are a truckload of alternate explanations that still vie even with the dark matter and dark energy postulates, and all are quite ad hoc. My alternative is relatively simple by comparison, and seems to me far more probable. It is, for that matter, more contestable as well. Yet you are viewing effects of dark matter in another galactic cluster than our own with a telescope, and stating that it does not behave the same as what we see in a bubble chamber with a microscope? I don't think that's a valid argument at all. My explanation for the evidenced anomalies to prior-to-dark-entity-astrophysics should be at the top of the list of probable explanations.

 

By the way, I'm only a program. Am I passing the test?

 

Neutrons can decay into protons, and protons can change back into a neutron - what does this have to with the statement you quoted?

You stated that photons only interact with charged particles. All matter is composed of charged particles. Any subatomic particle free in space will disintegrate into protons, electrons, and binding energy (which I claimed to include neutrinos). What goes on in a nucleus, where positrons or electrons are emitted, has been offered a new player, the neutrino. This is claimed to be the dark energy that does not affect matter. The mechanisms of radioactive decay may need to incorporate this. Given the proposed postulates, the presence of a "black hole" at the centre of the galaxy will supply a constant stream of neutrinos, most of which will pass through all matter and continue into space. Some will materialize. The claim is that photons and neutrinos may combine to cause materialization. As such it may be the randomizing agent responsible for radioactive decay, if virtual photons appear and disappear within the nucleus of unstable atoms. We cannot explain why certain isotopes are radioactive, particularly such as Technetium and Promethium, which have stable neighbors in the Periodic Table. The many unstable subatomic entities which result from atom smashing may be various stable conglomerates of protons and electrons plus binding energy that make up atoms. All of them disintegrate quickly when freed, and into what I am calling the fundamental particles of matter, protons and electrons. In my view, a neutron is a proton with a very energetic electron in orbit. This electron becomes attractive to neighboring protons in the nucleus. It provides an opposite charge to hold protons together. Each becomes a neutron for a moment, and the neutron becomes stable in this condition. Some configurations may allow a temporary photon to participate in some kind of equilibrium, before change absorbs it again. This kind of photon, being highly energetic, could easily materialize by contact with a neutrino, and we have a beta ray. The energy range of the beta electron may depend on the energy of the incoming neutrino.

 

I think he confuses protons with photons.

Done a typo or two like this.

[Bignose]

My alternative is relatively simple by comparison, and seems to me far more probable.

 

So, you've done some sort of Bayesian analysis to show how the evidence statistically fits your model better than any of the other proposed models? Would you share it?

 

Otherwise, how can you claim, "more probable"?

 

Seriously, these words you are using imply a lot of work done behind the scenes; you either need to fess up, admit you haven't done, and choose less definitive words, or you need to show the work that backs up your definitive word choice. "More probable" is a quantifiable claim -- let's see the quantification that backs it up, please.

[MigL]

I don't usually post in speculation but any steady state theory has to, by definition, create mass-energy. In one of your previous posts you implied that black holes destroy mass-energy and your theory just returns this mass-energy to the universe. Now maybe you don't understand black holes or GR too well but black holes conserve all mass-energy they ingest on the event horizon, after all, they still gravitate don't they ? That would be pretty hard to do without mass-energy, would it not ?

So this extra emass-energy that causes the universe to expand, in the steady state theory, must be created, falsifying the law of conservation of mass-energy. This law is one of the paradigms of modern physics and arises from consideration of a basic continuous symmetry in time.

The big bang theory accounts for all its participating mass-energies very accurately, and on this basis alone, I am willing to reject your theory and stick with the accepted big bang theory.

Edited August 30, 2012 by MigL

[Pymander]

So, you've done some sort of Bayesian analysis to show how the evidence statistically fits your model better than any of the other proposed models? Would you share it?

 

Otherwise, how can you claim, "more probable"?

 

Seriously, these words you are using imply a lot of work done behind the scenes; you either need to fess up, admit you haven't done, and choose less definitive words, or you need to show the work that backs up your definitive word choice. "More probable" is a quantifiable claim -- let's see the quantification that backs it up, please.

I am saying that the probabilities are these.

1. To cover the anomalies resulting from the Big Bang Theory, dark matter has been postulated. This is, in effect, postulating that an entity exists in the universe which will have the properties required to nullify the apparent anomaly.

2. I am saying that entities which already exist, and whose properties are not known, have certian properties required for A Steady State Theory to be possible, and properties which actually produce a more uniform set of laws than has been suspected. Specifically, matter is the only monopole according to present physics. Also, the neutrino fulfils a very limited role compared to other entities, and is continually requiring ad hoc maintenance.

These are the considerations upon which I base these probabilities. Finally, Einstein only once employed such an ad hoc hypothesis, a cosmological constant, and called it his greatest blunder. Though that blunder has since been perpetuated concerning another such hypothesis, dark energy, Einstein would be the wiser on the matter of ad hoc hypotheses. He was, in hindsight, severely hamstrung by the fact that the negatron (antiproton) was not discovered until the year of his death, and I would be inclined to say that he would have turned to this revelation (implying antimatter in equal proportion) for his answer, rather than compounding ad hoc hypotheses already made with one more which seems extremely unlikely - assymetric matter and antimatter.

 

I don't usually post in speculation but any steady state theory has to, by definition, create mass-energy. In one of your previous posts you implied that black holes destroy mass-energy and your theory just returns this mass-energy to the universe. Now maybe you don't understand black holes or GR too well but black holes conserve all mass-energy they ingest on the event horizon, after all, they still gravitate don't they ? That would be pretty hard to do without mass-energy, would it not ?

So this extra emass-energy that causes the universe to expand, in the steady state theory, must be created, falsifying the law of conservation of mass-energy. This law is one of the paradigms of modern physics and arises from consideration of a basic continuous symmetry in time.

The big bang theory accounts for all its participating mass-energies very accurately, and on this basis alone, I am willing to reject your theory and stick with the accepted big bang theory.

Thank you for your interest. I know now how speculation is treated in this forum, but the truth is that science advances in no other way. Inertia is not just a physics phenomenon; it causes ad hoc solutions to take precedence. And perhaps it is necessary, or we would become bewildered by constant change, rather than exhausting a fruitful possibility.

The event horizon is a point. Its seconds are infinite and its meters are zero. Its existence relies on surrounding mass which reaches that density at that point. Gravity creates it. The point contains nothing. Matter is being forced into that nothing. I believe that nothing will remain when it stops being fed. The "Black Hole" full of matter does not exist. The core of a spiral galaxy continually converts light matter and light energy into dark energy, which is repelled away from the event horizon, and passes through the entire galaxy without interaction with light matter comprising that galaxy. The mass of the "Black Hole" is the matter surrounding it that has extreme density, and it is this which produces gravitational lensing.

Gravity effects time and space, and space is thus dependent on matter (and antimatter = dark matter). Materialisation of light and dark energy creates light and dark matter which will fill the voids created by expansion. Matter and energy recycle perfectly through this mechanism. The situation is completely symmetric, and light or dark are simply relative terms.

[Bignose]

I am saying that the probabilities are these.

1. To cover the anomalies resulting from the Big Bang Theory, dark matter has been postulated. This is, in effect, postulating that an entity exists in the universe which will have the properties required to nullify the apparent anomaly.

2. I am saying that entities which already exist, and whose properties are not known, have certian properties required for A Steady State Theory to be possible, and properties which actually produce a more uniform set of laws than has been suspected. Specifically, matter is the only monopole according to present physics. Also, the neutrino fulfils a very limited role compared to other entities, and is continually requiring ad hoc maintenance.

These are the considerations upon which I base these probabilities. Finally, Einstein only once employed such an ad hoc hypothesis, a cosmological constant, and called it his greatest blunder. Though that blunder has since been perpetuated concerning another such hypothesis, dark energy, Einstein would be the wiser on the matter of ad hoc hypotheses. He was, in hindsight, severely hamstrung by the fact that the negatron (antiproton) was not discovered until the year of his death, and I would be inclined to say that he would have turned to this revelation (implying antimatter in equal proportion) for his answer, rather than compounding ad hoc hypotheses already made with one more which seems extremely unlikely - assymetric matter and antimatter.

 

Sooooooooo, without any kind of quantification of "more probable", you have decided that it is more probable simply because you like your idea better?

 

Dark matter isn't just "to cover anomalies from the Big Bang Theory". It is also is evidenced by the fact that without additional matter, our current understanding of gravity isn't sufficient to keep galaxies together. This effect is pronounced enough, that we can actually create maps of the density of dark matter. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=biggest-map-yet-of-universes The quote from the article says it best "We know very little about the dark universe."

 

Lastly, your argument is strengthened by avoiding the use of logical fallacies. Ergo, your citation of Einstein here doesn't really have anything to do with providing evidence that particles interact in the way you are proposing. Despite your assertion, a great deal of the properties of the particles you are naming are well known. You need to explain the known properties and how they jive with your idea.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Bignose

[MigL]

The event horizon is NOT a point, you have it confused with the singularity, and, along with the other invalid assertions you made about black holes, it provesmy point that you lack understanding of black holes.

Dark matter was first conceived to explain abnormal galactic orbits and the indication is that there is 'more' mass surrounding every galaxy which is not accounted for by visible radiant mass. Only later was it used to explain the universe's flatness problem.

Dark energy has been called a lot of other things, but the original name given to it by Einstein, was cosmological constant. And that predates the big bang theory , the steady state theory and even Hubble's universal expansion.

 

I suggest you look all this stuff up and educate yourself before trying to criticise thoeries that hundreds of brilliant minds have worked on over the last 80 yrs.

Edited August 31, 2012 by MigL

[Pymander]

Sooooooooo, without any kind of quantification of "more probable", you have decided that it is more probable simply because you like your idea better?

If I didn't like my idea better, would I be here waffling with you? Would anyone, even a respected and decorated scientist? Are you applying the same standard here? Did Hubble qualify his extremely prima face explanation of universal expansion? "I WANT TO KNOW WHY BigBangium WAS NOT A GIANORMOUS 'BLACK HOLE'!!!" And that is okay??? By my logic contradictions should not coexist in science.

Dark matter isn't just "to cover anomalies from the Big Bang Theory".

<A very strong and loud expression for 'incorrect' (with and exasperated expression on my face)>!!!

It is also is evidenced by the fact that without additional matter, our current understanding of gravity isn't sufficient to keep galaxies together.

And the ad hoc solution was that something with no other evidence for its existence was out there with only the exact properties required to fit our measurements. Like I said, this was taken out of Einstein's waste paper basket of methods, and embellished.

This effect is pronounced enough, that we can actually create maps of the density of dark matter.

You have maps of the EFFECTS for which you have no explanation worth squat! Antigravitational matter and energy would have the same effect more respectably. There is no contradiction, and yet no proof or disproof of the necessary property proposed. Galactic clusters are not just held together by gravitational attraction, but by gravitational repulsion from neighbouring clusters as well, being in the majority antigalactic clusters. This effect is so strong, that galactic collisions within a cluster are quite common, that larger galaxies so formed begin to eat all the rest, and eventually, leave a Fossil Cluster, or which the closest, at 180 million light years, is NGC6482. The best explanation for its attendant phenomena (x-ray halo and (according to present science OR 'A Steady State Theory' (ASST) but differently explained) dark matter surrounding it) is ASST. This has five times the concentration of matter in any other galaxy/antigalaxy.

http://www.scientifi...et-of-universes The quote from the article says it best "We know very little about the dark universe."

[/Quote]

And now you contradict yourself and apply a double standard. If Sweet Fanny Adams is understood, should we not consider other perhaps better explanations?

Lastly, your argument is strengthened by avoiding the use of logical fallacies.

[/Quote]

Says you!

Ergo, your citation of Einstein here doesn't really have anything to do with providing evidence that particles interact in the way you are proposing. Despite your assertion, a great deal of the properties of the particles you are naming are well known.

[/Quote]

From where I sit, the properties, purpose and fate of neutrinos are far from understood, other than the ad hoc explanation for beta ray energies. This was followed by an almighty quest to prove that a new particle was discovered, followed by a tenuous piece of square pegging round holes at a reactor site with dubious statistics. Since then, this 'well known' particle has had more identity crises than Madonna.

You need to explain the known properties and how they jive with your idea.

I began ASST with exactly that. You know, waffling garbage that sounds scientific is called 'pseudoscience' here, and I think the shoe is on the wrong foot.

The event horizon is NOT a point, you have it confused with the singularity, and, along with the other invalid assertions you made about black holes, it proves my point that you lack understanding of black holes.

Dark matter was first conceived to explain abnormal galactic orbits and the indication is that there is 'more' mass surrounding every galaxy which is not accounted for by visible radiant mass. Only later was it used to explain the universe's flatness problem.

Dark energy has been called a lot of other things, but the original name given to it by Einstein, was cosmological constant. And that predates the big bang theory, the steady state theory and even Hubble's universal expansion.

 

I suggest you look all this stuff up and educate yourself before trying to criticise theories that hundreds of brilliant minds have worked on over the last 80 yrs.

Which is why the last ad hoc hypotheses to prove correct, up to formulating and solving simultaneously:

X^2 + y^2 + z^2 = c^2.t^2

X'^2 + y'^2 + z'^2 = c^2.t'^2

was the Lorentz transform.

The jury is still out on various explanations for our universe which you incorrectly say are ONE, and nothing has been settled since Einstein that is not controversial, concerning the entities in question. If the 'black hole' is so well understood, show me how well you know your stuff, and explain BigBangium for me, the biggest 'black hole' of all time, PLEASE!

[Bignose]

If I didn't like my idea better, would I be here waffling with you? Would anyone, even a respected and decorated scientist? Are you applying the same standard here?

 

Wow, did you completely miss my point. My point is that you are using words that have meaning. E.g. "more probable". This implies a lot of things such as: a Bayesian analysis that shows your model makes predictions that are more accurate or covers a wider range of results than what we have today.

 

So far, I haven't seen a single prediction posted, and I see assertions about particles that are contradictory to known verified results.

 

Unless this can be provided, really how can you use a phrase like "more probable"? What kind of hubris is it that you just get to decide what story is the best? This isn't the dark ages anymore. In science as it is practiced today, agreement with prediction is the only metric that matters. It matters not a whit how much one likes or dislikes a particular idea. If one idea makes more accurate predictions than another, than the first idea is preferred.

 

So, unless you can show how your idea makes better predictions that agree with known results, I just don't understand how you can make any claim of "more probable".

 

The best explanation for its attendant phenomena

 

Anyone can claim this. I can claim that the best explanation is invisible fairies that hold it all together. But unless you demonstrate that it is "the best" via prediction and comparing the accuracy of that prediction to measurement, it might as well be fairies.

Edited August 31, 2012 by Bignose

[Pymander]

Wow, did you completely miss my point. My point is that you are using words that have meaning. E.g. "more probable". This implies a lot of things such as: a Bayesian analysis that shows your model makes predictions that are more accurate or covers a wider range of results than what we have today.

 

So far, I haven't seen a single prediction posted, and I see assertions about particles that are contradictory to known verified results.

 

Unless this can be provided, really how can you use a phrase like "more probable"? What kind of hubris is it that you just get to decide what story is the best? This isn't the dark ages anymore. In science as it is practiced today, agreement with prediction is the only metric that matters. It matters not a whit how much one likes or dislikes a particular idea. If one idea makes more accurate predictions than another, than the first idea is preferred.

 

So, unless you can show how your idea makes better predictions that agree with known results, I just don't understand how you can make any claim of "more probable".

 

 

 

 

Anyone can claim this. I can claim that the best explanation is invisible fairies that hold it all together. But unless you demonstrate that it is "the best" via prediction and comparing the accuracy of that prediction to measurement, it might as well be fairies.

Long story short, the initial hypothisis of the Big Bang Theory has probability 1 - p where p is the probability that inertial mass and gravitational mass are directly proportional, as this is the basis of General Relativity (via the equivalence principle) which contradicts it. It is a pretty one sided affair if you are not also abliged to answer questions to claims made. Stick that in your Bayesian analysis.

Edited August 31, 2012 by Pymander