PDA

View Full Version : A different look at the big bang theory(Continuation and reply to your answers)



Mint8
2011-Apr-10, 07:58 AM
Many questions have been asked, so, I will try to answer them all together, but to start with I would like to mention three quotes
;- a) Its far better to reject something that one understands then to accept something that one does not understand. b) The entire Universe is based on absolute logic, only one has to find it. c) The logic of mathematics is blind logic its best used to prove open logic. Basically, I have projected three ideas that have not gone down well with you. 1) The Universe started with an Implosion. 2) The acceleration of Time creates Space. 3) Light does not move, its static. First of all you seem to understand the balloon analogy, which I confess I cannot. You say the Universe is not expanding into anything, but yet it is expanding, because it is everything. Then what is generating Space is someone blowing the Balloon of the Universe. Perhaps you can imagine such a scene, I cannot and I also remember reading about a Scientist saying that we may have to add some sort of an outer space in the model into which the Universe is expanding, because even He could not imagine what you can. Let us see if you can understand this: - Put all the matter in the Universe together, that is, all Galaxies together, so that there is no Intergalactic Space and Galaxies crushed together so there is no inner galactic Space, even electrons into protons to form neutrons, entire matter becomes neutrons, the neutrons are further crushed together, so that there is no space between them. When there is no space, Time comes to a standstill, then all we have is one Gigantic Neutron, which cannot be crushed further to a small point because it would require time and time has stopped. If you can do this exercise, all energy in the Universe into matter, all matter combined together to form One Gigantic Mass that will be the size of the initial Universe. Within this gigantic neutron or Super Black Hole, Time started moving, as it moved it created Space, its acceleration created more and more space and this space was filled with the Gigantic Neutron Imploding into Energy. This Energy condensed into matter, matter formed into protons and electrons, so on and so forth, but the main point to note is that We are still in that Neutron and the real size of the Universe remains the same and will always remain the same, only the Acceleration of Time is creating Space. If you can believe that acceleration of Time creates and expands Space (as per the submarine analogy) you can understand my idea of the Universe. If you have understood this concept you are welcome to reject it, but if you use your commonsense, don’t you think this is a better idea then Universe coming out of nothing or from something as small as an atom.
On the second point, Time creates Space: - Let me put it this way. D= v*t if v=1 and t=1 then d=1 if v=1 and t=1000 then d=1000 if v=1 and t=186000 then d=186000 or if v=1 and t=300000 then d=300000 v= c and as long as this is 1 its t that decides distance/Space whether it be in seconds or miles or kilometers. Any method of measuring time or distance is immaterial d=t as long as you start with the Number 1, decimals and fractions will not do. I believe that decimals and fractions mainly help us to get over the limitations of our measuring system. So far we have only worked out our temperature down to 1”Kelvin, but we still use kilometers, miles or minutes or seconds etc. to make other measurements which cannot be considered a Universal form of measurement, different civilizations can have different forms of measurements. To overcome this difficulty, we need to go down to the absolute minimum value of each and give it a whole number of 1 (one) which cannot be broken down any further. This absolute minimum value can only be got right at the very beginning of the Universe or Big Bang. Even if temperatures went upto billions of degrees within a minute fraction of Time, it would still have to start from 1 (one) and then go up. That point where it was one everything else was also one i.e. D=1, t=1, v=1 E=1, m=1 c=1 every type of measurement had to be one from there on the numbers increased exponentially except for c=1 which remained constant. “0” will not do because the whole thing collapses into “0” or nothing. Coming back to Light or “c” , its this number one which was there initially, is what I am talking about, for convenience sake let’s call it BASIC ONE without attaching any term to it. If you still do not understand, please read my submarine analogy again. Instead of speed of 10 m/ph. make it one and time instead of 1000hrs substitute 300000 seconds. The main point is that time creates distance/Space. You would say it goes against that famous Einstein’s equation – E=mc2 Well I would say you can either use E=mt2 or E=md2 or E=m*d*t or E=mac2 where ac stands for the apparent speed of Light. This speed would be different very near a Black Hole or when the Universe was younger, but since it is very difficult to quantify expansion of Space with Time it would be best to use the term Apparent speed of Light and continue as we have been doing with the understanding that actually Light has no speed.
Third point : Light does not move. To give an example: suppose you are in an exceptionally smooth running train going through a tunnel, as the train hurtles through the tunnel, the tunnel seems to be hurtling past at the same speed as the train in the opposite direction, the faster the train, faster the tunnel seems to be moving past the train, but the tunnel is not moving at all, only the train is moving, as you well know. If you treat the train as Time and the tunnel as Light, you will begin to understand what I am trying to get at. The movement of Time creates an illusion of light moving. Secondly, you know if you go towards Light or move away at whatever speed, the apparent speed of Light remains constant, does this not show Light does not move. Take any fixed object on Earth, say the Eiffel Tower, if you move away from it or towards it, it will remain constant, but you will say nothing can move faster then Light or Light move any faster, correct, but I ask why? Let me take you back to the train analogy, suppose a person in the first compartment throws an object out of the window, an observer in the second compartment will see it moving past slowly, because it still has the momentum of the train, but by the time it falls to the ground, say before the last compartment, an observer in this compartment will see it moving at the same speed as the tunnel, now the object cannot move any faster, its reached its ground state, that is why I wrote earlier the faster you move the slower you get, this was with reference to Light and you cannot go faster then the apparent speed of Light. About speed of Light being effected as it apparently moves through different mediums, our E.T.C. is moving at the apparent speed of Light and it is our own observations that are effected. Simply put, reverse our E.T.C. as the speed of Light and the answers would still be the same.
OKLO: I do not understand what your point is; some two billion years ago Uranium broke up naturally that is all, it does not seem to have anything to do with Time.
Gamma rays and Radio Waves move at the same apparent speed of light, the only difference is in their energy levels. When I talk of Light, I thought it was understood that I meant the entire spectrum of electromagnetic radiation.
Just as in the Macro Cosmos Time started moving with the Big Bang, so, also in the Micro Cosmos Time starts moving after Light which has a speed of Basic One and E.T.C. of Basic One. In this case, I propose that E.T.C. increases with mass, any particle with next higher mass, say a neutrino, would have an E.T.C. of two and the next three and so on and so forth. From the electron to the proton there would be a big jump in the E.T.C. because of the vast difference in their mass, keeping neutron aside, the E.T.C. of the nucleus of the atoms will keep on increasing as we go down the Periodic Table. Except for Fission and Fusion the nucleus does not take part in any reaction, after this molecules and compounds come into play, which as you know are formed by the sharing of electrons. Hereafter, we enter the realm of chemistry and their E.T.C. is virtually the same as ours.
Someone mentioned that electron is a lepton. So what if it is. There is no dispute regarding what goes into the making of Protons or Neutrons, the issue is :- 1) Why a Neutron left alone by itself gets converted into a Proton and Electron by giving off some energy and 2) Why neutrons are essential in the nucleus above Hydrogen. I will simply add here that because of the fluctuating 3 poles in the Neutron it is at a higher energy level then a Proton and by giving out an electron and some energy it forms into a more stable Proton at a lower energy level. Secondly, in the nucleus it needs other Protons and Neutrons attached to it, to dampen the fluctuation of its Poles.
The 2/3rd negative charge and two 1/3rd positive charge concept does not adequately explain why the Neutron breaks up, it seems to be sufficiently stable with no compulsion to break up. Secondly, its requirement in lower elements is fine, but why so many excess Neutrons in higher elements e.g. Au, Ag, Pb etc.
Regarding matter and antimatter, recently there was a small article in the newspapers that said satellites had noticed some antimatter particles escaping from Earth, if they were attracted to matter, they should have been coming towards the Earth, not away from the Earth. In any case let the scientists working on antimatter give a definitive answer to this question, whenever they can.
Finally, a gentleman gave a very kind advice that I should not have put too many new ideas in one article, well actually that had been my intention to start with, that’s why I split my ideas into two parts. The first part was basically to do with Implosion, Time creating Space, and Light being static and second part was going to be “The Evolution of the Universe” which will also be somewhat different from the standard model, but there were so many ideas pent up inside me over the years that they just spilled out. For instance the three Pole idea in Neutrons and Protons, I worked out in the 1960’s before I had even heard of Strong Nuclear Force or Residue Strong Force. According to me the Nucleus of an atom is bound together by Electro-Magnetic Forces, in fact I was building up to Gravitational Force on a large scale also being due to Electro-Magnetic Force, but I got diverted to something else and never got back to it, so, at the moment I am not committing myself to this idea. To work out any new concept, it takes lot of time, thought and study. I find I am especially hampered in my study, because anyone who comes out with facts/data invariably puts in his own thoughts as to why things are happening in the manner they are doing and this confuses one. To give an example Hubble wrote that distant Galaxies were fleeing from us and the further they were the faster they were fleeing . This word fleeing has created utter confusion, because it presumes that we are standing still and only these far away Galaxies are fleeing. A simple question arises, are the Galaxies going back into the Big Bang. This is ridiculous. The facts are:-
1) We are at one end of the Universe, because every object in the Universe is behind us in time.
2) The so called Fleeing Galaxies are almost at the beginning of the Universe.
3) In which ever direction you turn your telescope you will find these so called Fleeing Galaxies.
4) Space is expanding at a faster rate now then before.
Do I need to say anymore. Mostly what I have written is based on these facts, but had Hubble used term ‘moving apart’ instead of ‘Fleeing’ maybe others would have worked this out long before me.
Now, I shall not be answering any more questions as I will be preparing for my next article, ‘The Evolution Of The Universe’, but if anyone wishes to give me advice or suggestions, they will be most welcome.

Jamotron
2011-Apr-10, 08:14 AM
I also remember reading about a Scientist saying that we may have to add some sort of an outer space in the model into which the Universe is expanding, because even He could not imagine what you can.If the almighty Scientist can't understand it, I guess you might as well not even try.

Strange
2011-Apr-10, 08:17 AM
How it can be an "Implosion" if everything is moving apart?

captain swoop
2011-Apr-10, 09:13 AM
Now, I shall not be answering any more questions as I will be preparing for my next article, ‘The Evolution Of The Universe’, but if anyone wishes to give me advice or suggestions, they will be most welcome.
Mint8 Please take some time to read the rules for posting to the Forum. You are obliged to answer relavent questions in a timely manner.
If you don't want to answer questions then this thread will be closed. It is not a place for you to develop your ideas

Shaula
2011-Apr-10, 10:21 AM
The reason for the high number of neutrons in larger atoms is fairly well understood in terms of EM and Strong forces.

Moon rockets are attracted to the Earth. Why do you think that they can escape it? Same reason antimatter (or anything for that matter) can.

Analogies don't really cut it. Can you answer the simple first question that trips up most ATM ideas? What does your model predict that is different from current models and what observations have been made or could be made to support your ideas? Your messing around with equations and setting one number to one to 'prove' time's influence is an exercise in futility. If I set time to one then hey! the other variable determines everything...

WayneFrancis
2011-Apr-11, 02:19 AM
...
Now, I shall not be answering any more questions as I will be preparing for my next article, ‘The Evolution Of The Universe’, but if anyone wishes to give me advice or suggestions, they will be most welcome.

Ok ...ATM thread closed as you won't be answering any more questions. Thanks for the drive by.

If light didn't move then seeing the sun and every other object in the universe would be impossible to see. There are a bunch of logical inconsistencies with Mint8's claims and I'll never get the 5 minutes back that I spent reading them.

Tensor
2011-Apr-11, 03:49 PM
....where ac stands for the apparent speed of Light. This speed would be different very near a Black Hole or when the Universe was younger, but since it is very difficult to quantify expansion of Space with Time it would be best to use the term Apparent speed of Light and continue as we have been doing with the understanding that actually Light has no speed...
OKLO: I do not understand what your point is; some two billion years ago Uranium broke up naturally that is all, it does not seem to have anything to do with Time.


But Oklo has everything to do with fine structure constant. The amount and type of daughter product are dependent on the fine structure constant. Part of that constant is c. The daughter elements found at Oklo are the same as daughter elements found currently. This indicates that the fine structure constant, and thus c, was the same 2 billion years ago. Which disproves your contention that c was different when the universe was younger.

Strange
2011-Apr-11, 03:59 PM
According to me the Nucleus of an atom is bound together by Electro-Magnetic Forces

What evidence do you have for that claim?

pzkpfw
2011-Apr-11, 07:31 PM
Now, I shall not be answering any more questions as I will be preparing for my next article, ‘The Evolution Of The Universe’, but if anyone wishes to give me advice or suggestions, they will be most welcome.

You appear to have had your 30 days on this topic. If you can explain why this new thread is different to your previous one, please report this post and supply that information.

Secondly, you do not get to choose not to answer questions here. BAUT does not exist as a place for you to advertise your personal ideas. It's a discussion forum.

That goes for your next article too; if you post it and don't actively discuss it (answering questions) you will be infracted.