Commander Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) All matter gravitate towards the Rest of the Matter in the Universe and moves towards the Gravitational Force Center of the Universe. At this Center the Mass of the matter becomes zero as it comes to a dead stop but gets pulled apart gravitationally by the Rest of the Matter and gets decimated. This is similar to the Big Bang Process most Scientists are familiar with but a Continuous Bang Process which goes on decimating every matter reaching there. At an interval of One Universal Time Unit [Average] every matter will be at the Center and it is Equality of Matter. You, me and every Particle within us and every bit of matter on Earth, Space, Sun, Moon and even Black holes are not exception to this Process and over Billions of say Light Years of the order of which is the Average Universal Time Unit this cycle will happen. Big Bang is Continuously on. The entire Mass of the Matter gets decimated into the most fundamental purest form of Energy which is omni directionally exploded and what is normally described after a Big Bang befalls this Energy Stream. All matter is transparent to this Energy stream which can cut through them all and as it speeds through space it gains mass and can transform into Fundamental Particles, Such massed particles and atoms and bodies made from them [All fundamental Forces including Gravity starts acting over them - thermo nuclear and Electrochemical reactions etc] . Thereby the matter goes through Events and Experiences in its participation and interaction with the rest of the Universe until it gravitates back to its Origin. That Big Bang Process can not be created anywhere else other than the Center Of the Universe. Other Blasts, Explosions including Nuclear, Star Action, and every other conceivable phenomena do release Energy and Force but none of these can convert mass into that Purest Energy Stream coming out of the Bang ! Edited February 10, 2015 by Commander -2
Mordred Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 The universe BB model was not an explosion nor does the universe has a center. It is a rapid expansion of space. Not a kinetic type explosion. Here is some material please read the misconceptions of the big bang Lineweaver and Davies in particular. Misconceptions (Useful articles to answer various Cosmology Misconceptions) http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/: A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf:Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446:"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808:"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf:"Misconceptions about the Big bang" also Lineweaver and Davies The balloon analogy is also handy
Commander Posted February 11, 2015 Author Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) The universe BB model was not an explosion nor does the universe has a center. It is a rapid expansion of space. Not a kinetic type explosion. Here is some material please read the misconceptions of the big bang Lineweaver and Davies in particular. Misconceptions (Useful articles to answer various Cosmology Misconceptions) http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/: A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion What the Balloon Analogy is intended to describe: (1) The universe is expanding OUTSIDE of systems that are gravitationally bound, or bound by other local forces (e.g. strong and weak forces) That is, things the size of a local cluster of galaxies and smaller (like, the Milky Way, Earth, you, me, atoms, and so forth), do NOT expand. (2) The expansion has no center, and everything is moving away from everything else, with things farther from each other receding faster from each other than things closer together. Doesn't seem to be meaningful : What I have stated in my Model looks more believable than this Balloon Analogy. Edited February 11, 2015 by Commander
swansont Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 What I have stated in my Model looks more believable than this Balloon Analogy. "Believable", in science, means you have made predictions that can be experimentally confirmed. A model means you can make these kinds of predictions. So far I don't see either, and you need to do this.
Strange Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 What the Balloon Analogy is intended to describe: (1) The universe is expanding OUTSIDE of systems that are gravitationally bound, or bound by other local forces (e.g. strong and weak forces) That is, things the size of a local cluster of galaxies and smaller (like, the Milky Way, Earth, you, me, atoms, and so forth), do NOT expand. (2) The expansion has no center, and everything is moving away from everything else, with things farther from each other receding faster from each other than things closer together. Doesn't seem to be meaningful : Can you explain what aspects of that you do not find to be meaningful, then perhaps we can explain ti to you in more detail. Note that (2) is just a straightforward consequence of geometry: you can verify it with a few drawings of dots on paper. But if you want examples of things that don't seem to be meaningful: the Mass of the matter becomes zero gets pulled apart gravitationally by the Rest of the Matter and gets decimated the most fundamental purest form of Energy All matter is transparent to this Energy stream as it speeds through space it gains mass Is there any evidence for any of that?
Mordred Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) Cosmology is based on observational evidence. Not believability. All observational data shows a strong agreement with no center, no preferred direction and no preferred location. The latest Planck dataset places this to near 100% accuracy, or as close as any model gets to that accuracy they always allow for some % of error. Read this particular article as well, it was written by Brain Powell who has a PH.D in Cosmology. http://tangentspace....ocs/horizon.pdf:Inflationand the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell You'll note the same details in the Lineweaver and Davies articles Edited February 11, 2015 by Mordred
xyzt Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 That Big Bang Process can not be created anywhere else other than the Center Of the Universe. Other Blasts, Explosions including Nuclear, Star Action, and every other conceivable phenomena do release Energy and Force but none of these can convert mass into that Purest Energy Stream coming out of the Bang ! Have you considered studying instead of making up stuff? Fringe stuff, I mean. -1
Commander Posted February 12, 2015 Author Posted February 12, 2015 Can you explain what aspects of that you do not find to be meaningful, then perhaps we can explain ti to you in more detail. Note that (2) is just a straightforward consequence of geometry: you can verify it with a few drawings of dots on paper. But if you want examples of things that don't seem to be meaningful: Is there any evidence for any of that? Hi Strange and Mordred, I need a lot of Funds and support to experiment and give Evidence and perhaps an Organizational Support from CERN etc to conduct Experiments. However from my thinking and imagination I can always foresee and outline the Possibilities ! If you really want to know whether it is true just go out there and see as just how strange asked me to do ! So, in this my Model [ Walker's Model of the Universe] as I suggested there is a Constant Bang at the Originating Center of the Universe. It need not necessarily be a Blast etc but a Powerful Constant Pump from the Gravitational Force of the Whole Universe which with a Great Steady Pressure of the Order of Multi Blasts continuously. Massed matter coming to rest which is Omnidirectionally Pulled off by the rest of the matter and decimated. At this Pressure Center emanates a Steady Stream of Energy, Call it an Expansion like Balloon etc and the Emanated Pure Energy can be envisaged like a Massless Ether which expands and cuts through the rest of the matter having no effect on this Etherial Energy Balloon. But, remember this is an Ongoing Process of a High Pressure Blasting Pump because of which this Massless Etherial Energy Accelerates to very high Speed and similar to the Lorenz Transformation this Accelerating Energy gets mass [perhaps when it reaches the periphery of the Universe after reaching a very high momentum [speed cum Energy] and transforms itself to Fundamental Particles starting to be Bosons, photons, Electrons, Neutrons and Positrons etc. After this transformation the reverse process of Gravitation affecting Masses takes place and every conceivable Entity of Matter such as particles, atoms, molecules, entities, bodies, planets, stars , galaxies , black holes etc are newly formed while constantly interacting with the existing ones eventually all go back to their Origin to get Decimated and rejuvenated into Pure Etherial Energy and such a CONSTANT BIG BANG is a CONTINUOUS PROCESS ! -1
Mordred Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 You don't one essential detail. The research for a preferred location (center) has been done. None is found. More models than I can count tried having a inhomogeneous and anisotropic universe. As such this has been extensively looked into by BOSS. Planck,WMAP etc. The cosmological principle is extremely well tested. 1
Commander Posted February 12, 2015 Author Posted February 12, 2015 You don't one essential detail. The research for a preferred location (center) has been done. None is found. More models than I can count tried having a inhomogeneous and anisotropic universe. As such this has been extensively looked into by BOSS. Planck,WMAP etc. The cosmological principle is extremely well tested. What is the Cosmological Principle ? Can you give a narrative here and then we can compare ! What happens to mass and matter ? What happens to matter under Gravitational pull ? Why Electrons are supposed to be going around the nucleus Why the moon is going around the earth ? Why the earth is going around the Sun ? What is a black hole and what happens inside it ? Does the entire Black hole gravitate towards the rest of the matter of the universe or not ? We need to answer each question by the Models available !
Mordred Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) Cosmological principle the universe has no preferred location or direction Comprises two principle terms. Homogeneous no preferred location Isotropic no preferred direction. What this means is uniformity in overall energy density/mass distribution. Now the Einstein field equations and the FLRW metric are both interchangeable. They both involve the ideal gas laws. Cosmology describes the universe as a perfect fluid. pv=nRt Each contributor (particle etc) has an equation of state. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_%28cosmology%29 in GR energy density corresponds to pressure via the stress energy tensor. [latex]T^{\mu\nu}=(\rho+p)U^{\mu}U^{\nu}+p \eta^{\mu\nu}[/latex] http://www.th.physik.uni-bonn.de/nilles/exercises/ss04/gr05.pdf http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor for the metric tensor portion above. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_tensor_(general_relativity) The full subject is too lengthy to post all the relationships. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_tensor_(general_relativity) I have numerous articles covering this under my signature for direct GR to cosmology chapter 9 covers this. http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf"Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau However this book is rather advanced. I have some simplifications in these two articles. Site Articles (Articles written by PF and Site members) http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry page 2 FLRW distance to FLRW metric http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/ these articles all cover the above the beginning chapters covering the Cosmological principle. Unfortunately the range of your questions require individual threads to properly answer each one even in narrative form What is the Cosmological Principle ? Can you give a narrative here and then we can compare ! What happens to mass and matter ? What happens to matter under Gravitational pull ? Why Electrons are supposed to be going around the nucleus Why the moon is going around the earth ? Why the earth is going around the Sun ? What is a black hole and what happens inside it ? Does the entire Black hole gravitate towards the rest of the matter of the universe or not ? We need to answer each question by the Models available ! Cosmological principle covered, Mass is resistance to inetia, you can have particles that are not matter with mass aka bosons. Elementary Matter particles are fermionic Google Pauli exclusion principle. Matter particles of the same state occupies space only one fermionic particle of the same state can occupy the same space. Any number of bosons can occupy a given volume. The entire universe is not being sucked into blackholes. Electrons go around the nucleus due to electromagnetic charge. Planets and moons is due to gravity. No one knows for sure past the event horizon. We can't measure it directly Edited February 13, 2015 by Mordred 1
Commander Posted February 23, 2015 Author Posted February 23, 2015 Hi Strange and Mordred, I need a lot of Funds and support to experiment and give Evidence and perhaps an Organizational Support from CERN etc to conduct Experiments. However from my thinking and imagination I can always foresee and outline the Possibilities ! If you really want to know whether it is true just go out there and see as just how strange asked me to do ! So, in this my Model [ Walker's Model of the Universe] as I suggested there is a Constant Bang at the Originating Center of the Universe. It need not necessarily be a Blast etc but a Powerful Constant Pump from the Gravitational Force of the Whole Universe which with a Great Steady Pressure of the Order of Multi Blasts continuously. Massed matter coming to rest which is Omnidirectionally Pulled off by the rest of the matter and decimated. At this Pressure Center emanates a Steady Stream of Energy, Call it an Expansion like Balloon etc and the Emanated Pure Energy can be envisaged like a Massless Ether which expands and cuts through the rest of the matter having no effect on this Etherial Energy Balloon. But, remember this is an Ongoing Process of a High Pressure Blasting Pump because of which this Massless Etherial Energy Accelerates to very high Speed and similar to the Lorenz Transformation this Accelerating Energy gets mass [perhaps when it reaches the periphery of the Universe after reaching a very high momentum [speed cum Energy] and transforms itself to Fundamental Particles starting to be Bosons, photons, Electrons, Neutrons and Positrons etc. After this transformation the reverse process of Gravitation affecting Masses takes place and every conceivable Entity of Matter such as particles, atoms, molecules, entities, bodies, planets, stars , galaxies , black holes etc are newly formed while constantly interacting with the existing ones eventually all go back to their Origin to get Decimated and rejuvenated into Pure Etherial Energy and such a CONSTANT BIG BANG is a CONTINUOUS PROCESS ! It should also be noted that when matter in mass-form reaches the Center of the Universe the Gravitational forces balance out and the acceleration will come to zero but not the velocity [which was accelerating so far] which might be perhaps the maximum velocity. Such will be the Bang into the Center and the decimation and conversion of mass into pure energy with equal and opposite force of collision. -1
Strange Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 Some evidence or testable predictions of this "theory" would be nice. 1
Commander Posted March 11, 2015 Author Posted March 11, 2015 (edited) Some evidence or testable predictions of this "theory" would be nice. Edited March 11, 2015 by Commander
ajb Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 This Pure Energy ...... The basic pure matter Can you explain to me carefully what pure energy is and what is pure matter?
swansont Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 Thank you and I will give whatever is possible by way of Proof and Evidence. And yet, after that somewhat long post, we're still waiting.
Commander Posted March 11, 2015 Author Posted March 11, 2015 (edited) Can you explain to me carefully what pure energy is and what is pure matter? What is referred here as Pure Energy is the state of the Matter which has NO MASS , NO VOLUME and has Maximum possible Pressure in the Universe and the Maximum possible Temperature ! The Entire Universal Gravitational Pull causes this Pressure and Temperature and momentary loss of Volume and Mass. As more and more Energy piles on it expands and the reverse process of Energy to Massed Matter Conversion begins and the state of the matter begins to have Volume, Mass and lesser Temperature and Pressure Edited March 11, 2015 by Commander
swansont Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 Can you suggest what kind of proof can be given for a hypothesis like this ? The hypothesis has no apparent founding in physics and amounts to gibberish, so no. I can't even come close, especially since I am not willing to enter into an altered state of reality as I might have done in my college days. Though I can appreciate that if one is zonked enough this might start to seem to make sense.
Commander Posted March 11, 2015 Author Posted March 11, 2015 (edited) The hypothesis has no apparent founding in physics and amounts to gibberish, so no. I can't even come close, especially since I am not willing to enter into an altered state of reality as I might have done in my college days. Though I can appreciate that if one is zonked enough this might start to seem to make sense. You have used the word gibberish , zonked etc and earlier you used a word 'bollocks' Edited March 11, 2015 by Commander
Strange Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 You have used the word gibberish , zonked etc and earlier you used a word 'bollocks' Are you not ashamed ? You have used the words evidence, proof, hypoithesis and theory. Are you not ashamed? You might want to take a look at the "concepts of modern science" thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/88098-basic-concepts-of-modern-science/
Commander Posted March 11, 2015 Author Posted March 11, 2015 (edited) You have used the words evidence, proof, hypoithesis and theory. Are you not ashamed? You might want to take a look at the "concepts of modern science" thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/88098-basic-concepts-of-modern-science/ So, you support someone using the word 'bollocks' against me is it ? If I have friends like that I don't need Enemies ! Edited March 11, 2015 by Commander
Strange Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 So, you support someone using rhe word 'bollocks' against me is it ? No, I didn't say that. (Is it "International Misunderstanding Strange Week"?) But I think your misuse of language is almost as bad. (And there really is a good thread on what these words mean.)
swansont Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 You have used the word gibberish , zonked etc and earlier you used a word 'bollocks' Yes, I have. That is a factual statement. Did you have a point to make?
Phi for All Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 So, you support someone using the word 'bollocks' against me is it ? If I have friends like that I don't need Enemies ! Why do you insist it was used against you, personally? I've re-read that particular entry, and it's very clear it's being used to describe a specific set of ideas you posted. You are not your ideas. I don't know in what context you view the word, but it was clear that the meaning here was "rubbish". Does it seem more likely that "rubbish" describes those ideas, or that it describes you personally? It's not a definition one ascribes to people very often. But really, you should be addressing the excellent questions others have posed for you. And provide some evidence for the parts of your idea you've asserted most.
Commander Posted September 19, 2015 Author Posted September 19, 2015 The universe BB model was not an explosion nor does the universe has a center. It is a rapid expansion of space. Not a kinetic type explosion. Here is some material please read the misconceptions of the big bang Lineweaver and Davies in particular. Misconceptions (Useful articles to answer various Cosmology Misconceptions) http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/: A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf:Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446:"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808:"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf:"Misconceptions about the Big bang" also Lineweaver and Davies The balloon analogy is also handy Thank you for your vast info here and other posts too ! I will try my best to read as much as I could.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now