PDA

View Full Version : The Universe A, C, B



RussT
2006-Jan-10, 11:00 AM
THE UNIVERSE A, C, B


Everything in the Universe is formed through processes, including the Universe itself, so the following is, IMHO, a coherent process by process of how our Universe came to be the way it is today. Obviously, you will be the judge of how coherent it is. (I will say right up front, I don’t currently have an answer for the CMBR yet, but, Tim Thompson and others, PLEASE don’t ‘throw this in the trash’, just because of that. I do believe there is an answer, so save that for the last thing to consider, if you can!)

A description of the Universe that I found in one of Tim’s posts.


[By Tim Thompson in baut forum

Easier I think, to write the equations like this, as ASCII allows, see a real picture on the Wikipedia page:

R(ab) - (1/2)Rg(ab) + Lg(ab) = 8*pi*T(ab)

Now, R(ab) is the Ricci tensor, and describes the curvature of space time. R is a Ricci scalar, which also describes curvature. g(ab) is a metric tensor, which describes the geometry of space time. L is the cosmological constant, inserted later by Einstein to prevent the universe from collapsing, since it was thought to be static at the time. This takes care of everything on the left side of the equation. Notice that it's all geometry & curvature, nothing else.

On the right side, we have only T(ab), the stress-energy tensor (which is also called the energy-momentum tensor). Everything having to do with mass, matter, or energy in any form goes here, inside T(ab).
The expansion of the universe can be more easily seen here as generally a result of stuff that happens on the left side, where matter & energy are irrelevant. That's where the cosmological constant is. The original expansion of the universe is a property of R(ab) (from which R is derived), or g(ab). This implies that the addition of matter or energy is not responsible. One hypothesis for explaining the accelerated expansion of the universe is to blame it on the cosmological constant, which becomes more effective, as galaxy clusters get farther apart.





Quote 'Chandra Furthers Understanding About Dark Energy
May 18, 2004 - A mysterious force, which astronomers call "Dark Energy", seems to be speeding up the expansion of the Universe. New observations from the Chandra X-Ray Observatory have independently confirmed this expansion by measuring the distances to galaxy clusters. It seems that the expansion of the Universe was slowing down after the Big Bang until 6 billion years ago; at that point the force of this dark energy took over and expansion began to speed up. The big mystery still remains... what is dark energy? ' end quote.


With the above two statements I am going to attempt to show a very plausible (To Me, and Hopefully You) model for how the Universe came to be the way it is today and this will incorporate String “M” Theory into it, including the answer to gravity that everyone is looking for! So, please read this to the end (Just try to get the whole picture) and see if you feel that this fits our expanding universe.

The Universe A, C = B.

There are 3 processes that made/make the universe what it is today.

In Tim’s Equation above A is the original expansion, the Hubble Constant.
C is the Cosmological Constant, and A and C are both on the left side of the equation (Empty Space).
B is the Matter/Energy, and is on the right side of the equation.

“A”, the original Hubble Constant expansion is what came first, and it is “M” Theories 11 dimensional structure of the universe. Now, when Michael Duff was originally working in 11 dimensions (Before String Theory and “M” Theory merged), his 11 dimensional theory was called “Super Gravity”. Then Lisa Randall came up with this…

NARRATOR: Randall tried to calculate how gravity could leak from our membrane Universe into empty space, but she couldn't make it work. Then she heard the theory that there might be another membrane in the eleventh dimension. Now she had a really strange thought. What if gravity wasn't leaking from our Universe but to it? What if it came from that other universe? On that membrane, or brane, gravity would be as strong as the other forces, but by the time it reached us it would only be a faint signal. Now when she reworked her calculations everything fitted exactly. End.

Now, what is the most likely way “Super Gravity” could be leaking into the strings and membranes of our universe? That’s right…from a black hole. But, not ‘our’ black holes (yet), we haven’t even got to the “B” in Tim’s equation!
I do not think our universe is “in” a black hole, the galaxies wouldn’t be
Racing toward the horizon, but I'm not going to go into a big explanation here (I will for anyone who wants to).

I am suggesting that, a Super Massive Black Hole in the Universe level “Above” our’s, spews 11 dimensional darkness, with “Super Gravity” leaking into and therefore embedded in the strings and membranes that make our Universe (Conservation problem solved).
This is actually no more speculative than the Big Bang, and hopefully, by the time I’m done, you will see how this all fits together as neatly as I see it!

Now, “B”, the Matter/Energy in Tim’s equation is the second process that happens, and happens, and happens, actually, it has happened trillions of times, creating the galaxies, one at a time, approximately one day at a time. I’m trying to keep this as
Short as possible, so to see how this whole process works…
Go To >ATM > Big Bang Most Correct… Page 1.

I will put this in here, so everyone can see the number of galaxies more clearly. Atlas of The Universe… http://anzwers.org/free/universe/index.html

Which says there are 350 billion regular galaxies and 3.5 trillion dwarf galaxies
(In our visible universe). If the galaxies get here one day at a time, as my paper says, then in 1 billion years you would have 365 billion, there are the galaxies, and in 10 billion years, you would get 3.65 trillion, and there are the dwarf galaxies, and we are up to 11 billion years worth of galaxies getting here one day at a time. We may have to add some.

Here is a “Perfectly Valid” explanation for the deceleration of the original Hubble expansion of the universe!
If the original Hubble expansion is the “Empty Space” described above, adding gravity (Galaxies) to it a little at a time, would certainly slow down the expansion more and more, as more galaxies are added to it!
So, if the galaxies were being added approximately one day at a time, that means that every One billion years 365 billion galaxies would be added. The 1st 1 billion years the universe was much smaller, and Inflation is not needed because “ALL” the matter is not here yet!

So, according to the Chandra report above, apparently there were enough galaxies at about the 8 billion year mark (the universe was slowing all this time) to have significantly slowed the expansion, maybe even stopped the expansion and ‘possibly’ could have caused the universe to start contracting. I have seen several things saying they thought the universe might have had a “Hitch” in its expansion. Which could ‘possibly’ explain so many Quasars at z4 and 5?

To understand how I got to the universe starting as just the Darkness, just turn the clock backwards…go back in time, taking the galaxies away 365 billion every 1 billion years and shrinking the universe as you go. When you get down to about 100 (actually the 1st 100 galaxies in the universe), there is still a lot of “Space” left, and when you take the last 100 away (in 100 days, because that is how they got here)…”Space Will Not Shrink To Nothing”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, this is one of the things I haven’t been able to figure out (But you guy’s and Gal’s are ‘way smarter’ than I, so I have every confidence you will!)…How big the universe had to get before the galaxies started being born?
Also, I cannot tell how old or big it is, but with the expansion history and the “Hitch”, if it can be determined how long the universe might have been contracting, I’d bet that bottle of Chianti, that “YOU Guy’s and Gal’s CAN”!!!


Which brings us finally to “C”, the Cosmological Constant, in Tim’s equation.
Mainstream is calling the 70% of the dark stuff “Dark Energy” that is anti-gravity and “Makes more of itself”, which is supposed to be okay according to GR, because it is in another reference frame where conservation laws don’t have to apply (that might be okay for some cases in GR, but IMHO, not in this one). Space cannot “just make more of itself” (it is no longer considered just an empty vacuum)!


Here is a post, by Broken Symmetry, in one of his old threads.





Could matter that goes into a singularity from outside the black hole, possibly 'add' to the dark energy of the universe, which could subsequently add to the acceleration of the universe?

Conjecture 1:

Perhaps there was a point roughly 7 billion years ago (the period where astronomers have noticed the universe's expansion began to accelerate) where SMBH's started to readily and rapidly devour matter in the universe, adding to the dark energy of the universe, subsequently accelerating the expansion.

Conjecture 2: Conservation of gravitational symmetry: local asymmetry in exchange for universal symmetry

He very nearly got this right!!! But it didn’t start “all at once” about 7 billion years ago!
What was it that he didn’t quite realize here?
The whole time the galaxies were being ‘added’ to the universe (and slowly but surely, beginning to win the gravity battle), the SMBH’s (and maybe the stellar ones too), were doing their “JOB” and releasing more and more of what they “PRODUCE”, 11 Dimensional Dark Gravity (Dark Energy), until there was enough being released from all galaxies SMBH’s combined to overcome the gravity slowing the universe! This also means that the Cosmological Constant should be an “Increasing Variable”!

2 things to consider here, first, since the original Hubble expansion Dark Gravity (Dark Energy) is being released in “ONE” location, that should mean the original expansion was expanding in every direction in a linear mode, and since ‘all’ the SMBH’s would be releasing it (yes, probably via worm holes, since I don’t think they are releasing it right in the galaxy) all throughout the universe, this would cause the acceleration and “spreading” of the clusters that is observed.
Second, what is being released from the SMBH’s in the galaxies, should be slightly different than what is being released to make the universe (The Hubble Expansion), so it could be the Non-Baryonic Dark Matter. Or what both are releasing is the 95% darkness, and all the same Dark Gravity.


So, this would mean that “Singularities” Made/Make and virtually run and control our Entire Universe! Boy, here’s a “Pixie Party” waiting to happen!!!

If this is even a relatively close description of the processes that have occurred to make our universe what it is today, it was only revealed to us 9 years ago! Until 9 years ago, There was no way to know how our universe worked!

Continued below

RussT
2006-Jan-10, 11:11 AM
I fully understand, how much of this is “Intuited”, and how much of it is going to be next to impossible to “Prove”, however, because of “The Many” questions this model ‘appears’ to answer…

“A” The original Hubble Expansion
Source Identified… SMBH from the universe level above our’s, spewing from a ‘White Hole’
Substance Identified…Dark Energy = Dark Gravity embedded in the Strings and Membranes of the 11 dimensions of “M” Theory.
I believe “M” Theory even says how small the Baryonic Matter that goes into the SMBH’s is “CRUSHED” ‘down to’ when it says how small the strings are.
Also, since the strings are embedded in the dark empty space, all the "Matter" that forms, simply forms with the strings embedded in it.
Very possibly Unifying QFT and GR.
According to Lee Smolin, the biggest problem that “M” Theory has, is that it is “Background Dependent”.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin03/smolin03_index.html

So, IMHO, showing how the Gravity is leaking into the strings from an “outside” source, and putting the ‘singularities’ “INSIDE” our universe ( VS “M” Theories current adherence to the ‘Singularity’ Making the whole universe), MAKES “M” THEORY “BACKGROUND INDEPENDENT” AND UNIFY’S QFT AND “M” THEORY!!!



“B” Energy/Matter getting here a little at a time to slow the Hubble expansion
Getting here via ‘singularities’ that answer, How SMBH’s are created, and how the galaxies are born.
I believe ‘one’ of the best pieces of evidence I have for this is…”First Dark
Matter Galaxy Found”. This is exactly what would be seen after the “afterglow” of a GRB has ‘faded’ to darkness, and finally forms into the Hydrogen! (This took a “long” time in the Big Bang version), and also explains why there is no way to measure the
Baryonic Mass of a GRB afterglow!

http://www.spacetoday.net/Summary/2814
http://kencroswell.com/FirstDarkGalaxy.html

Another good piece of evidence is the “Baby” galaxies that GALEX has and is finding!

The “Best” piece of evidence though, is that for every 30 long GRB’s, there are 3 that will be 120 seconds or longer; Regular Galaxies with SMBH’s, and 27 that are 2 seconds
To 100 seconds; Dwarf Galaxies…the exact same ratio 10/1, for the Galaxies and the Dwarf Galaxies

Oh, by the way, I read somewhere, that GRB’s could not be the source for UHECR’s because they had at least 2 OOM less energy than needed, so, if GRB’s are what I’m saying they are, then they ‘could’ be the source of the UHECR’s.

“C” The Accelerated Expansion
Source Identified…All the galaxies SMBH’s spewing out of a ‘White Hole’
Substance Identified…11 dimensional Dark Gravity (Dark Energy)

With this many pieces of the puzzle fitting, IMHO, so well, I “HAVE” to come to the opinion, that 9 years ago, when GRB’s were found to be at cosmological distances, there just might have been a “Rush To Acceptance”, on just exactly what those “BAD BOYS” are!!!

I also fully understand, that “IF” this is a fairly accurate picture of the universe, that ‘Singularities’ Make the Dark Stuff and Make the Galaxies, that ‘Singularities’ actually make the Entire Universe; this leaves science in a huge quandary! “IF” this is fairly accurate, and you just ‘toss it in the trash’, and don’t try to find a way to be able to accept ‘singularities’, even though we will probably never be able to get closer than 10^-43 seconds to them, then where does that leave us???

When I first came to BAUT, I was full of visions of grandeur, as I’m sure most with an ATM are, but I have come to realize, that nothing is going to happen quickly, no matter what, and proof of anything is going to be a long and arduous road! A road I really can’t even go down, because I have emphysema and only have probably 4 or 5 years and the last 2 won’t be pretty. I’m not on oxygen yet, but it won’t be long. (I am not on medication, so my mind is fine, can’t go there).
I also now realize, that understanding the universe and how it works is paramount, and that receiving any credit for coming up with this (if correct), is a very low priority. I guess we will just have to see if any or all of this is used without giving credit where credit would obviously be due.

RussT
www.icreateditfirst.com

The Universe 2 The Universe 2.doc 45,568 bytes Tue May 02 22:25:51 BST 2006
S=G
_______________
_____________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

bigsplit
2006-Jan-10, 12:59 PM
A few questions:

What is super gravity, how does it spill?


Has the watermelon always been there?


Is the balloon blowing up the apple?


Are the apples attracted to or repelled by the watermelon?

RussT
2006-Jan-10, 11:03 PM
A few questions:

What is super gravity, how does it spill?


Has the watermelon always been there?


Is th balloon blowing up the apple?

Is the apple attracted to or repelled by the watermelon?


[Has the watermelon always been there?

Very good questions!

[What is super gravity, how does it spill?]

Super Gravity is simply the name that Michael Duff gave his original 11 dimensional theory. All it really is, is the extra gravity needed to explain either the 95% Dark Energy or the 70% Dark Energy and 25% Dark Matter, which ever applies the most correctly.
Just like Lisa Randall found when doing the equations, it didn't seem to leak out into space, but when she did it the other way...leaking to us, it fitted perfectly!
It doesn't really 'spill'. To be honest, I had always thought that if a 'White Hole' existed, it should explode to release whatever, but the more I thought about 'what a black hole might 'produce', the more I thought that would be a continuous production, and shouldn't 'keep' exploding to release whatever. So, the wormhole leads to the White Hole that continually releases (spews) 11 dimenional 'space'.

[Has the watermelon always been there?]

That is obviously very difficult to 'Intuit', however I will say this..."IF" we can figure out (Because of 'our' expansion history and the "HITCH" if correct), that our universe is around 15 to 20 billion years old, then it would seem that the galaxy and SMBH inside the watermelon that is making our universe is a pretty 'Young' galaxy and the watermelon should be "ALOT OLDER".

[is the balloon blowing up the watermelon?]

I'm not sure where you are getting the ballon from, just the balloon anology always refered to I guess.
But, all the apples are expanding for all the same reasons our universe is expanding.

[Is the apple attracted to or repelled by the watermelon?]

I believe the wormhole would keep them seperated.

[Has the watermelon always been there?]

I truly don't know.

Thanks for the questions, hope this helps.

RussT
S=G

Tim Thompson
2006-Jan-11, 08:34 PM
I will read over & reply, but not today. However, meantime, a suggestion. Read the vbcode page (http://www.bautforum.com/misc.php?do=bbcode). You can use this to format long pages. There are ways to ...


Indent

And there are ways to ...


Quote

And there are way to ...

Get really crazy

If it's worth posting, it's worth taking the time to format. It's a lot easier to read posts with quotes and passages and stuff in it if it is formatted for the eye.

RussT
2006-Jan-11, 11:40 PM
I will read over & reply, but not today. However, meantime, a suggestion. Read the vbcode page (http://www.bautforum.com/misc.php?do=bbcode). You can use this to format long pages. There are ways to ...


Indent

And there are ways to ...



And there are way to ...

Get really crazy

If it's worth posting, it's worth taking the time to format. It's a lot easier to read posts with quotes and passages and stuff in it if it is formatted for the eye.

So sorry about the formating, actually it took me about a week to to write this in a Word Doc on my puter and then when I copy and pasted it on the forum, I did have to do quite a bit of reformating.
At least in my regular posts I have been able to learn how to

Tim things,
Thanks for that Tim!

I also sincerely hope that you will take enough time on the above to at least have a clear picture of what I am saying.

Thank You

RussT

RussT
2006-Jan-16, 01:11 AM
Tim Thompson;

I have tried everything I can think of to Ident properly and 'nothing' has
worked!

Using the space bar to move the first word in the first couple of paragraghs did, but wouldn't thereafter.

I did put the two quotes in properly, but do not know what elese to do at this point:confused: :(

Tim Thompson
2006-Jan-18, 05:56 AM
I have tried everything I can think of to Ident properly and 'nothing' has worked!
Well, I thought that the vb code page (http://www.bautforum.com/misc.php?do=bbcode) was clear enough. So, do this ...


This text will be indented

and you get this ...


This text will be indented

Do this ...

Red

and you get this ...

Red

And so forth. I am just copying instructions from the vb code page, is it that hard to follow?

RussT
2006-Jan-18, 09:26 AM
Tim;

As I said...'nothing', including
this text works!!!

It moves the first line up a line and then really looks funky and would be way harder to read. If I
the whole paragragh, it indents all the lines!!!

I am sure it is because I copy and pasted it out of a word document.

I have seperated everything as much as possible to make it as easy to read as possible, so will you read it as it is please???

RussT
2006-Feb-13, 11:58 PM
Originally Posted by Ken G
It sounds like Einstein's concept of an aether was quite a bit different than the conventional view before Michelson-Morley. But you won't get dark matter from it, the properties of dark matter cannot be attributed to space itself (or we would not need both dark matter and dark energy).



KenG, you have a unique ability of being able to define things down to the crux of the matter!

[It sounds like Einstein's concept of an aether was quite a bit different than the conventional view before Michelson-Morley.]

And so it appears that Albert will once again be proven to be correct!



But you won't get dark matter from it, the properties of dark matter cannot be attributed to space itself (or we would not need both dark matter and dark energy).

KenG, I moved this here because, if you start at post #1, you can see an explanation for how this can be exactly the opppsite of your statement above!

The simple explanation is that the 'aether' Einstein is talking about is the "Production" of "Dark Energy" ie. Dark Empty Space with the Extra Gravity (Dark Matter) embedded in it, per "M" Theory.

To realize this, you just need to see that "M" Theory is to GR as GR is to Newtonian physics.

To realize that "M" Theory is correct, They, You, We, just need to understand
one very simple thing!

The event(s) that occur for the "Energy" to come into existence, that create as a by product, the Hydrogen, Helium, and Lithium, did NOT happen all at once. In other words, saying that all the energy got here at once is what is keeping "M" Theory from working.

Nereid
2006-Mar-05, 03:45 PM
There seem to be quite a number of misunderstandings (of various theories of physics) in this idea, or perhaps misapplications.

In the OP, RussT takes a GR equation (provided by Tim Thompson, in a different thread), and proceeds to throw in words from popularisations of Super Gravity and M/String-Theory. No math, no equations.

Without the math, how can the idea be discussed? There are only two ways that I can see - ensure consistency in the use of terms, and phenomenology (crudely, what one could one - in principle - observe, based on this idea, that is different from what mainstream theories would predict). Here is an example:
a Super Massive Black Hole in the Universe level “Above” our’s, spews 11 dimensional darkness, with “Super Gravity” leaking into and therefore embedded in the strings and membranes that make our Universe (Conservation problem solved).Most, perhaps all, the terms here (SMBH, Universe, 11-dimensional darkness, leaking, embedded, strings, membranes, conservation) look familiar, but seem to be used with meanings (quite) different from the narrow, technical ones of the theory (or theories) from which they come (or, if you prefer, in which they are used).

Here is an example of a misunderstanding:
To understand how I got to the universe starting as just the Darkness, just turn the clock backwards…go back in time, taking the galaxies away 365 billion every 1 billion years and shrinking the universe as you go. When you get down to about 100 (actually the 1st 100 galaxies in the universe), there is still a lot of “Space” left, and when you take the last 100 away (in 100 days, because that is how they got here)…”Space Will Not Shrink To Nothing”!On the one hand, GR as a theory which has a solution, when applied to the universe, that includes expanding space-time seems to be in play; on the other, the relationship between the matter content of such a universe and its expansion has been removed (perhaps due to a misunderstanding of the GR equation?).

On phenomenology, this may be a good place to start:
‘Singularities’ Make the Dark Stuff and Make the Galaxies, that ‘Singularities’ actually make the Entire Universewhere 'Singularities' are manifest as GRBs.

Elsewhere in this ATM section RussT has expanded on this 'GRBs create galaxies' idea. This particular claim has the advantage of at least some quantification.