PDA

View Full Version : T Power's cosmology ideas



T.Power
2006-Jun-25, 01:21 AM
[QUOTE=Nereid]
This is an interesting challenge, but there are subtle straw men qualities. Alternatives are discounted because the BB is based upon a specific set of rules. If the rules are wrong, in most cases, so are the interpretations of the phenomenon.

3) observations of the abundance of elements and nuclides.

My universe is infinite and does not have a beginning, so the high levels of heavy elements found in distant quasars and galaxies is a no brainer: The mean distribution does not change. The local areas that are low in heavy metals does not present a challenge, either: There must be recycling, and an obvious place for this is in galactic cores, many of which just happen to be blowing giant hydrogen bubbles. (Remember, the 2d law of thermal stuff has to be thrown out in a closed system, and whether the violation is a big bang or point exceptions in areas of high density, the results are the same.

1) the Cosmic Microwave background: It is a gaussian distribution of energy in a low frequency bandwidth. I think it is primarily a function of the electromagnetic field associated with the solar wind at terminal shock with energetic particles. There is also galactic, and cluster-wide contamination - about the only specific information is the increase in intensity toward the galactic center, and a weak stirring cause by the planets in the zodiac plane: The two primary features in the WMAP surveys. The rest is just muddy water.

4) and 2) The classification of the large scale structure is heavily biased by the rules used in interpreting the data. BB cosmologist eschew intrinsic redshifts, and also assign relativistic factors in the k-corrections. If these distance dependancies are wrong, so is the interpretation of structure. The most obvious evidence that these interpretations are wrong is the migration of 'blue' galaxies from cluster cores in the past into 'Field galaxies' at the present time, but in general, all of the power functions, patterns and geocentric peaks in galactic distributions are not due to a universe radiating from a BB center, but artifacts caused by our lack of understanding of the basic nature of light. This is mostly Einsteins fault.

5) The dark sky: Light travels through space as an electromagnetic soliton, and just as it is subject to the rules of radiation transfer passing through a crystal or any medium with a known density, it also interacts gravitationally with each and every object. Since this is also (In my interpretation) an electromagnetic effect it is NEVER perfectly elastic: redshifting is a radiation transfer event. We don't measure this locally, because it is prohibitatively small, but it is impossible for light to travel through space without an energy budget. The sky is dark because all light is eventually redshifted into oblivion. The universe is not winding into a complete state of equilibrium because massive, dense galactic cores are also converting electromagnetic energy into light elements, and about the only thing that Einstein did get right, is that it takes a lot of light to make a single proton - which incidently, is also a soliton. Waves, baby, waves.

thank the universe i found this forum, so im not going entirely mad, a truly infinite universe with no beginning and no end is a much simpler explanation than BB, i've found some material on the net regarding hawkings and the no boundary proposal, seems even he has a problem with creationism now.

Just wanted to throw this into the mix as well but excuse my nomenclature as this really is just a hobby for me, im a musician by trade but have read astrophysics up to differential equation level but im sure my choice of language still needs tidying up. I have a major problem with time being treated as an inverse dimension not a measurement of duration and gravity being treated as a force not an effect. For me a simpler explanation for the *medium* of space is energy at near zero charge, ie, energy at such long wavelengths that it is pretty much impossible to detect it, these wavelengths would be so long that they would almost approach zero, being close to a straight line, so the curve of the wavelength would be asymptotic, never quite reaching zero charge.

I would love some feedback on this idea if anybody would like to help me expand on this idea or tell me why its fundamentally flawed.

regards,
Marc

Tensor
2006-Jun-25, 02:33 AM
I have a major problem with time being treated as an inverse dimension not a measurement of duration and gravity being treated as a force not an effect.

Marc

Welcome to BAUT. :) Just want to comment on this. Why do you have a problem with time as an inverse dimension? And, while Newtonian gravity is treated as a force, in GR, it is the geometry of spacetime.

T.Power
2006-Jun-25, 04:01 AM
Welcome to BAUT. :) Just want to comment on this. Why do you have a problem with time as an inverse dimension? And, while Newtonian gravity is treated as a force, in GR, it is the geometry of spacetime.

well, i cant see the necessity for treating time as an inverse dimension. Hawking's most recent proposal calls for 2 kinds of time, imaginary and real, this again seems overly complicated and appears to be a halfway house, the problem being that the idea of time coming into existance with the universe is paradoxical as it had to start somewhere and somewhen (excuse my nomenclature) this raises more questions than it answers, if the universe can be *created* then surely from at least a philosophical perspective there has to a set of laws a priori to its creation with which it can be created? That being the case then there has always been something and there was no actual beginning. As for gravity being the geomtry of space-time, well, i cant see how time can be warped if it is not an inverse dimension and is simply a measurement of duration. But im completely open to having this stance shot down, I would just like to hear a reasonable argument as to why time HAS to be considered real. I find the concept of true infinity much simpler than creationism.

regards,
Marc

Nereid
2006-Jun-26, 01:51 PM
Let me add my welcome to you too, T. Power - welcome to BAUT! :)

I have split the posts on your idea out of the thread you originally posted to (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=42172), as your post has little to do with the OP of that thread.

BAUT is somewhat different from other internet discussion fora, and not just because we focus on astronomy and space science. We are avowedly pro-science in our approach, and this ATM (Against The Mainstream) section has some extra rules to help keep it that way. When you have a chance, perhaps you could read through our Rules For Posting To This Board (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32864), paying particular attention to the one re the ATM section?

You might also like to read through some of the other threads here in the ATM section, to get a feel for how discussion is moderated.

And do check out our other sections! Especially Astronomy (http://www.bautforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=11), Space Exploration (http://www.bautforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=44), Life in Space (http://www.bautforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=47), and Q&A (http://www.bautforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=8).

Celestial Mechanic
2006-Jun-26, 02:59 PM
T. Power:

Welcome to BAUT! One little question: what do you mean by "inverse dimension"? I've never run across that term before.

Peter Wilson
2006-Jun-29, 10:37 PM
T. Power:

Welcome to BAUT! One little question: what do you mean by "inverse dimension"? I've never run across that term before.I assume T. Power is referring to the same beef I have with the mainstream treatment of H, the Hubble constant. H is a measure of the rate-of-change in the universe, not age. But the BBT twists it into an age (t = 1/H). A rose is a rose, and is not a cloud. And a rate-of-change is rate-of-change, not age. Knowing that the human population is increasing at the rate of 1.8% per year does not tell you how old the human race is. Likewise, knowing that the universe is expanding at the rate of 0.0000000073% per year does not telll us how old it is.

Tensor
2006-Jun-30, 02:59 AM
I assume T. Power is referring to the same beef I have with the mainstream treatment of H, the Hubble constant.

I don't think so. I think he is refering to the practice of the time component being denoted as a negative. Although, this isn't really an inverse. Of couse, we can wait until he answers CM's question.