Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 107

Thread: Universe Spheres made of Spheres to predict Gravitational Constant

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    this is a link to a post ...
    That 'spiraling light' post is irrelevant to the paper. Planck evidence for a closed Universe and a possible crisis for cosmology is about a closed universe where light goes in "straight lines" in a curved spacetime until it gets back to its origin. A 2D analogy is an ant walking around the surface of a sphere or torus until it gets back to its starting place.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,976
    As far as I can tell, some of these questions are not relevant. I tried answering them, but I don't know why you are putting such artificial limits on how science should be done. Only do what has been done. I don't care if the increments are one. I am proposing islands of stability, which skips over a lot of numbers. I don't know why the islands of stability are what they are, but they seem to go up with a pattern like a series.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,976
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    This is new (Published: 04 November 2019) and not verified research. The title set by the reporter or editor does not really reflect what the paper actually says.
    Read Planck evidence for a closed Universe and a possible crisis for cosmology. There is no "sphere" or "spherical" in the paper because these are cosmologists not a science reporter. Cosmologists know that a closed universe does not mean a spherical universe. Closed means is that any path will eventually return to its origin. For example this happens in a torus (doughnut shape). A sphere is the simplest closed shape but one thing we have learned is that universe tends not to be simple .
    I have a hard time believing that the reporters did not talk to the scientists. How hard would that be? I would think the scientists would have specifically said, they were really looking at a sphere, but the professors may have said, well that is too speculative for the science publication, don't include it. Only say what you know in the paper.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,890
    Copernicus,

    Please see your inbox for infraction notes...then provide direct answers to all questions as so far.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    I showed you the equation..
    This is not what you wrote before and what I asked you about. I wrote: Dirac and Eddington's work is irrelevant to this thread: Dirac large numbers hypothesis. This thread is not about large, dimensionless numbers. These are the large, dimensionless numbers in the hypothesis.

    You wrote: My numbers start with a small dimensionless number of "1" and ends with a large dimensionless number on the order of 10^500,..

    Thus I asked you how you got those large, dimensionless numbers from physical quantities as in the work you cited.
    IF06: Please state the physical quantities that you used to get your large numbers as in Eddington, Dirac and other published work, Copernicus.

    An answer could be "I misstated what large dimensionless numbers I get. I have an unrelated equation that gives a large dimensionless number". Then I will point out that the Dirac large numbers hypothesis is
    The Dirac large numbers hypothesis (LNH) is an observation made by Paul Dirac in 1937 relating ratios of size scales in the Universe to that of force scales. The ratios constitute very large, dimensionless numbers: some 40 orders of magnitude in the present cosmological epoch.
    My emphasis added. E.g. Weyl took a "radius" of the universe and divided it by the radius of a hypothetical particle.
    We can make up an infinite number equations using physical constants that give large dimensionless numbers. The hypothesis is not about collections of physical constants.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    As far as I can tell, some of these questions are not relevant. ..
    They are relevant:
    IF01 is that there exists a theory that includes the structure of the universe - the subject of your ATM idea! Do you know what it is? If not say so. Otherwise state its name.
    IF02 is about the mainstream physics you are using which is extremely relevant! You should know what that physics is and easily answer the question on spin angular momentum.
    IF03b is a request for your justification for seemingly ignoring half the universe (fermions) in what is supposed to be cosmology.
    IF04 is that you made an unclear assertion about mainstream physics (spin) and so I asked for a clear explanation and sources to support the assertion.
    IF05 is a request for the derivation for an integral that gives pi from your ATM idea when you state it is part of your ATM idea. You must have a derivation or it is just one of an infinite number of equations for pi!

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    I have a hard time believing that the reporters did not talk to the scientists...
    The titles of news articles are usually written by editors who write them to sell the news! They are can be exaggerated and can reflect what a reporter gets wrong or dumbs down for the audience. Sceince reporters report science from published papers so contacting the authors is not mandatory.

    New Research Suggests that the Universe is a Sphere and Not Flat After All is probably an editor reflecting an reporter's simplification for the readers. A closed universe does not mean a spherical universe (that is just the simplest closed shape). There is nothing in the article from the authors so that reporter may not have contacted them. There is no spherical universe in the paper.

    Shape of the universe: study could force us to rethink everything we know about the cosmos is written by an author of the paper who does not state that their data shows the universe can only be spherical. Eleonora Di Valentino uses a sphere as an example. As I said, cosmologists certainly know that a sphere is not the only closed geometry.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,976
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    They are relevant:
    IF01 is that there exists a theory that includes the structure of the universe - the subject of your ATM idea! Do you know what it is? If not say so. Otherwise state its name.
    I think you are referring to the LamdaCDM model. But I thought your first question was, what is the study of the universe called, so I said cosmology.
    IF02 is about the mainstream physics you are using which is extremely relevant! You should know what that physics is and easily answer the question on spin angular momentum.
    In mainstream physics it is the composite spin of elementary particles, which I believe is not fully understood what it is because the components don't add up.
    IF03b is a request for your justification for seemingly ignoring half the universe (fermions) in what is supposed to be cosmology.
    I don't understand why you are saying I am ignoring fermions. I started with a particle, that perhaps there are 10^90 in one fermion.
    IF04 is that you made an unclear assertion about mainstream physics (spin) and so I asked for a clear explanation and sources to support the assertion.
    What is the unclear assertion?
    IF05 is a request for the derivation for an integral that gives pi from your ATM idea when you state it is part of your ATM idea. You must have a derivation or it is just one of an infinite number of equations for pi!
    I will go through the derivation, but I might have to wait a day or so, I thought I explained its derivation for you, but you couldn't follow my reasoning. This is what i answered.
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    I will try to explain the equation. I start with a universe that is spherical that is made of spheres. Lets say we have a sphere that has radius of 10 spheres, if we try to pack an eleventh layer to make the radius 11, then we introduce defects since packing around a sphere cannot be perfect. The amount of defects from the 10th to the 11th layer is 4pi*(11^2-10^2) if one adds up all those defects created in a sphere, when packing shells of spheres, the total amount of defects adds up to 4pi(r^2+r) which is the outside radius. This is very similar to the holographic principle. The calculation is very simple and I describe it here. http://vixra.org/pdf/1601.0103v1.pdf . Now I don't believe that the universe is packed with hollow spheres, I believe that the defects congregate and that is what forms matter in the universe, and the areas that we consider to be the vacuum are virtually perfectly packed in a cuboctahedron structure. But I do believe that the defects were caused by gravity always trying to pull everything into a spherical form. In our universe there are approximately 10^81 matter particles, so perfection is actually the rule because there would be 10^122 perfectly packed spheres, and 10^81 imperfectly packed spheres.
    Now in a spinning universe, spinning on 3 axes, every point, equidistant from the center would be moving at the same velocity. All I did with the equation, was add up the imperfections at each layer, and multiplied it by the Lorentz factor for how far that layer was from the center. So if a layer was 50 percent from the center of my universe to the edge of my universe, the Lorentz factor would be If half way was between the 10th and 11th layer, then that Lorentz factor would be multiplied time 4pi*(11^2-10^2). I added up all the layers to find out that the due to the Lorentz factor even if the total defects ended up being a number "X", the mass and energy actually added up to pi time "X". It was very simple math and physics.
    and
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    What I have been looking for is islands of stability in the construction of everything. Now obviously when I was calculating an equilibrium density with kinetic and potential energy, that creates stability. But why would there be a stability at [6.57014*10^{40}[/tex]. I can say I don't really know why the azimuthal quantum numbers are what they are, but I don't see why there can't be something like that for quantum gravity. I do know that when I was calculating the amount of defective space created when packing spheres on a spherical shell added up to this comes from the equation , I'm pretty sure this is related. to the azimuthal quantum numbers.
    So I thought I was answering your questions.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,976
    I thought I should paint the picture of the spinning universe a little more. The universe is a sphere that is spinning on 3 axes. Its radius is about 3.018 billion light years, but because the light is pulled on, in a spiral, that it actually travels times farther than the radius, so the radius looks 4.55032*3.018 billion light years in radius. Which is about 13.75 billion light years.
    One will notice that the equation below, for calculating the discontinuities, results in a universe that decreases in density proportionally from the distance from the center. This in contradiction of a uniform density universe. Which I struggled with. What I think happens is that due to the unstable nature of a universe rotating on 3 axes, this creates turbulent flow inside the universe, which creates what we see as galaxies. Otherwise, if the universe was spinning on one axis, the flow would probably be more laminar, and not create any eddies/galaxies. Since the velocity of this spinning universe is slow at the center and increases proportional to the distance from the center, there is much more energy for eddy formation in the distances farther out from the center. Therefore, much of the matter, hydrogen, closer to the center of the universe, is not visible. A way to see hydrogen in cold, intergalactic space, may provide a glimpse of the higher density closer to the center, rather than closer to the edge of the universe.

    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,976
    Calculating the total mass and energy of a rotating universe that is rotating on three axes.
    To develop the equation



    It was shown that


    This is the calculation of adding up defect space in a universe that packs a shell of spheres around another shell of spheres. The amount of defects turns out to be equivalent to slightly more than the surface area of the sphere, with a universe with radius n spheres, the amount of defects created would be
    If instead of calculating the amount of spheres we wanted to add up all the mass and energy of this rotating sphere we could integrate the rest mass at each layer and the energy of motion of each layer.
    The radius of this universe is n
    The velocity of each layer is proportional to x/n
    The rest mass difference between each layer is proportional to ((x^2)-(x-1)^2)/n^2
    The Lorentz factor for each layer is 1/(1-(x/n)^2)^.5
    If I multiply the velocity of each layer, times the rest mass difference of each layer times the Lorentz factor at each layer and sum -n to n
    I end up with the following equation, which is equal to pi

    I apologize, I thought I had the correct equation in my paper, but somehow must have inserted the wrong equation of
    Last edited by Copernicus; 2019-Nov-17 at 02:42 PM. Reason: Replaced mass with velocity
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,976
    I don't know if this has any bearing on Dirac's Large number hypothesis, but he thought perhaps the Gravitational constant was proportional to time, but in the Spinning Sphere Theory, the density of matter varies inversely with the distance from the center of the sphere. Not knowing that the density varies, would make it look like G would vary in some universe building scenarios.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340

    Question What are the QM particles (photons , electrons, etc.) to which you are applying spin

    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    I think you are referring to the LamdaCDM model....
    No - I am referring to the only theory that exists that includes the structure of the universe. Hint - this is not QM. The definition of the wave function is a function listing the possible positions or momenta of particles. etc.
    IF01: What is the theory that includes the structure of the universe, Copernicus?

    IF2 is sort of answered but shows that you are using mainstream science that you do not fully understand. If you read Spin angular momentum, you will find that this is the intrinsic spin of all quantum particles. There are fermions (half integer spins) and bosons (integer spins.). It is not a "composite spin". It is understood (theory has existed for almost 100 years). The components add up - a system of 2 fermions has an integer spin, etc.

    IF02a: What are the QM particles (photons , electrons, etc.) to which you are applying the spin angular momentum of QM particles, Copernicus
    N.B. Applying it to a idea of an imaginary particle with "10^90 in one fermion" is obviously wrong. Spins subtract and add. That particle has a spin of between 0 and 10^90! It is can be a fermion or boson. It is not any known fermion and in any case you have no fermions in your ATM idea (see below).

    You are ignoring fermions. This is the spin angular momentum of QM particles. The QM particles with half integer spins are fermions. You ignore QM particles with half integer spins. Thus you ignore fermions. Your cosmology only has bosons and is not our universe. You need to justify this.
    IF03b: Why are you ignoring half of spin angular momentum (such as the spin of electrons) by starting with 1 and incrementing by 1, Copernicus?

    You unclear assertion is in my question and the relied to post:
    IF04: Please give a more complete, science based explanation of "which is our point there is no spin that can be associated with one point since there is no reference to a difference", Copernicus
    There is no "reference to a difference" for QM spin so you seem to be saying that the basis of your ATM idea is wrong (which starts by associating spin with points, i.e. not spin angular momentum) and thus your ATM idea is wrong , which makes this thread very irrelevant!

    A couple of posts about what you believe and that do not derive your equation are irrelevant. The answer to IF05 will be from your existing derivation and easy to quote but I will wait.
    IF05: Please start with your "universe that is spherical that is made of spheres" and give a clear, step by step derivation of that equation, Copernicus. Otherwise I remain correct, it is an irrelevant integral that gives pi as do an infinite number of mathematical functions.

    IF06: Please state the physical quantities that you used to get your large numbers as in Eddington, Dirac and other published work, Copernicus.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Nov-17 at 08:19 PM.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340

    Question What is the mainstream size of the universe

    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    I thought I should paint the picture of the spinning universe a little more. ...
    What looks like an incorrect prediction from your ATM idea so:
    IF07: What is the mainstream size of the universe, Copernicus? Or what is your empirical evidence supporting this "about 13.75 billion light years" size?
    The mainstream age of our expanding universe is 13.82 billion years. A static universe would have a size of 13.82 billion light years making your ATM idea wrong. The expanding mainstream universe is bigger than that. But this is only the observable universe. WMAP and Planck give that the mainstream universe is either flat or has a low curvature. A flat universe suggests an infinite universe. A low curvature is a universe many times bigger than the observable universe.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    Calculating the total mass and energy of a rotating universe that is rotating on three axes....
    What I read is a mathematical derivation of an equation for pi which if correct is not a surprise when looking at a system of spheres. This is textbook mathematics of the packing of spheres. Rater than doing the work again (and risk getting it wrong), you should cite it. It is many years since I learned this as part of my solid state physics courses but there are plenty of sources, e.g. start withSphere packing.

    The next question that this thread evokes. You have "layers of spheres" with mass and energy and propose to sum over then to get a "total mass and energy of a rotating universe". The energy is rotational. But where does the mass come from, exactly what are these spheres with mass? They cannot be physical spheres of mass in this universe because the evidence is that this universe on large scales is isotropic and homogenous. and there are not rotating spheres detected.
    IF08: Please explain what these sphere are made of to give them mass, Copernicus.

    You seem to be attempting but failing so far to reproduce mainstream cosmology measurements. That is a problem because a valid ATM idea that cannot be distinguished from the mainstream is basically useless. The mainstream has theory and data behind it. There is no reason to use a ATM idea unless it is better than the mainstream. So an informal question, Copernicus. Does your ATM idea make testable, falsifiable predications that the mainstream cannot make, e.g. should we see your spheres rotating around the center of the universe? Where is that center of the universe?
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Nov-17 at 08:53 PM.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    ...it affirms that there really was no big bang...
    Another issue with the ATM idea is this assertion. There are many lines of evidence for the Big Bang. Olbers' paradox (an infinite and eternal static universe leads to a bright night sky). Hubble's law. Data showing the universe is homogeneous and isotropic. The properties of the CMB. The variation of the CMB temperature with distance. etc.

    The rest of the thread has no evidence to support this assertion. You state that Redshifting of light would come from the transverse motion of the spinning sphere, and it would come from the gravitational redshifting. This has flaws.
    • Cosmological redshift is the redshift of light we observe from galaxies.
      These galaxies are homogenous and isotropic on cosmological scales. The large scale structure of the universe is a web of filaments, walls, voids, and nodes. There is no evidence of galaxies arranged in spheres to produce cosmological redshift (if that is possible).
    • Redshift comes from sources moving away from a detector.
      Where does this redshift from transverse motion appear in textbooks?
    • You have no derivation of Hubble's law from gravitational redshift of these spheres and it should not be possible.
      As above, the universe is measured to be homogenous and isotropic on cosmological scales. Gravitational red and blue shift needs a difference in gravitational potential, i.e. mass density that varies in such a way to give Hobble's law. But density is constant on cosmological scales.

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,976
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    No - I am referring to the only theory that exists that includes the structure of the universe. Hint - this is not QM. The definition of the wave function is a function listing the possible positions or momenta of particles. etc.
    IF01: What is the theory that includes the structure of the universe, Copernicus?
    Are you talking about the big bang.
    IF2 is sort of answered but shows that you are using mainstream science that you do not fully understand. If you read Spin angular momentum, you will find that this is the intrinsic spin of all quantum particles. There are fermions (half integer spins) and bosons (integer spins.). It is not a "composite spin". It is understood (theory has existed for almost 100 years). The components add up - a system of 2 fermions has an integer spin, etc.

    IF02a: What are the QM particles (photons , electrons, etc.) to which you are applying the spin angular momentum of QM particles, Copernicus
    N.B. Applying it to a idea of an imaginary particle with "10^90 in one fermion" is obviously wrong. Spins subtract and add. That particle has a spin of between 0 and 10^90! It is can be a fermion or boson. It is not any known fermion and in any case you have no fermions in your ATM idea (see below).
    I guess I can't answer your question because I don't know how.

    You are ignoring fermions. This is the spin angular momentum of QM particles. The QM particles with half integer spins are fermions. You ignore QM particles with half integer spins. Thus you ignore fermions. Your cosmology only has bosons and is not our universe. You need to justify this.
    IF03b: Why are you ignoring half of spin angular momentum (such as the spin of electrons) by starting with 1 and incrementing by 1, Copernicus?

    You unclear assertion is in my question and the relied to post:
    IF04: Please give a more complete, science based explanation of "which is our point there is no spin that can be associated with one point since there is no reference to a difference", Copernicus
    There is no "reference to a difference" for QM spin so you seem to be saying that the basis of your ATM idea is wrong (which starts by associating spin with points, i.e. not spin angular momentum) and thus your ATM idea is wrong , which makes this thread very irrelevant!

    A couple of posts about what you believe and that do not derive your equation are irrelevant. The answer to IF05 will be from your existing derivation and easy to quote but I will wait.
    IF05: Please start with your "universe that is spherical that is made of spheres" and give a clear, step by step derivation of that equation, Copernicus. Otherwise I remain correct, it is an irrelevant integral that gives pi as do an infinite number of mathematical functions.

    IF06: Please state the physical quantities that you used to get your large numbers as in Eddington, Dirac and other published work, Copernicus.
    I already did tell you the physical quantities for the large numbers. It is very hard to understand the questions with so much other stuff. One question per post would be helpful. I don't have a derivation of a sphere made of spheres. I am proposing it as a model, that can only be proved by predicting the gravitational constant accurately.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,976
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    What I read is a mathematical derivation of an equation for pi which if correct is not a surprise when looking at a system of spheres. This is textbook mathematics of the packing of spheres. Rater than doing the work again (and risk getting it wrong), you should cite it. It is many years since I learned this as part of my solid state physics courses but there are plenty of sources, e.g. start withSphere packing.

    The next question that this thread evokes. You have "layers of spheres" with mass and energy and propose to sum over then to get a "total mass and energy of a rotating universe". The energy is rotational. But where does the mass come from, exactly what are these spheres with mass? They cannot be physical spheres of mass in this universe because the evidence is that this universe on large scales is isotropic and homogenous. and there are not rotating spheres detected.
    IF08: Please explain what these sphere are made of to give them mass, Copernicus.

    You seem to be attempting but failing so far to reproduce mainstream cosmology measurements. That is a problem because a valid ATM idea that cannot be distinguished from the mainstream is basically useless. The mainstream has theory and data behind it. There is no reason to use a ATM idea unless it is better than the mainstream. So an informal question, Copernicus. Does your ATM idea make testable, falsifiable predications that the mainstream cannot make, e.g. should we see your spheres rotating around the center of the universe? Where is that center of the universe?
    I do not know where mass comes from. The spheres don't move amongst each other. The imperfections move and the fields associated with the imperfections move. The testable prediction is the Gravitational constant. I don't know where the center of the universe is. I think the universe spins like the earth spins, as a solid.
    As far as sphere packing in a shell form, is my work. Somebody may have done the same before, but I have not been able to find that work if someone has done it before. Relating sphere packing of shell form and relating it to the universe is my work, I do not believe someone before me worked on this. I pointed out before, that one person and perhaps others proposed space was packed spheres in cuboctahedron structure. I think Buckminster Fuller did this, but I may have misinterpreted what he was saying.
    Last edited by Copernicus; 2019-Nov-18 at 05:46 AM.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,976
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Another issue with the ATM idea is this assertion. There are many lines of evidence for the Big Bang. Olbers' paradox (an infinite and eternal static universe leads to a bright night sky). Hubble's law. Data showing the universe is homogeneous and isotropic. The properties of the CMB. The variation of the CMB temperature with distance. etc.

    The rest of the thread has no evidence to support this assertion. You state that Redshifting of light would come from the transverse motion of the spinning sphere, and it would come from the gravitational redshifting. This has flaws.
    • Cosmological redshift is the redshift of light we observe from galaxies.
      These galaxies are homogenous and isotropic on cosmological scales. The large scale structure of the universe is a web of filaments, walls, voids, and nodes. There is no evidence of galaxies arranged in spheres to produce cosmological redshift (if that is possible).
    • Redshift comes from sources moving away from a detector.
      Where does this redshift from transverse motion appear in textbooks?
    • You have no derivation of Hubble's law from gravitational redshift of these spheres and it should not be possible.
      As above, the universe is measured to be homogenous and isotropic on cosmological scales. Gravitational red and blue shift needs a difference in gravitational potential, i.e. mass density that varies in such a way to give Hobble's law. But density is constant on cosmological scales.
    Olbers Paradox. Everything that makes it to the edge of my universe is going at nearly the speed of light and it all destroys itself, with a continual Big Bang like conditions.
    Homogenous Universe. I proposed that the Universe appears Homogenous because the higher velocities farther from the center create more eddies/galaxies. A clear prediction from my theory is that if cold hydrogen concentration,could be measured between intergalactic spaces, we would find the concentrations will not be isotropic.
    Transverse Redshift, from Wikipedia, completely transverse Redshift would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
    Gravitational Redshift, I will get the Gravitational redshift of this universe in a few days, I am back to working those crazy 13 hours shifts starting tomorrow and have to sleep. Basically, the gravitational redshift is no redshift until, the relativistic effects start taking effect. Actually, gravity at this point blue shifts the light a little and more so as one gets close to the edge of the universe. So you are right. That portion of the redshift will not help with the Hubble constant. It is the transverse redshift is the part that will contribute to the Hubble constant.
    Last edited by Copernicus; 2019-Nov-18 at 05:40 AM.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,865
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Another issue with the ATM idea is this assertion. There are many lines of evidence for the Big Bang. Olbers' paradox (an infinite and eternal static universe leads to a bright night sky). [/LIST]
    I'd just point out that there is a special case of the infinite and eternal static universe that evades Olbers' paradox, which would be a universe with a fractal distribution of matter so that as the scale increases, the density decreases. Because in that case the amount of matter goes down toward a limit of zero.
    As above, so below

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    I already did tell you the physical quantities for the large numbers. It is very hard to understand the questions with so much other stuff. One question per post would be helpful. I don't have a derivation of a sphere made of spheres. I am proposing it as a model, that can only be proved by predicting the gravitational constant accurately.
    The problem is you don't have a model that predicts the gravitational constant accurately. What you have is a model that contains a bunch of numbers you have selected, without prior justification, and combined in ways that you then apply a post-hoc justification to in order to get close to the gravitational constant. Examples include using the neutron as the size of your Planck spheres, arbitrary use of the masses and mass ratios of the proton and neutron, your use of the 'similar to Cherenkov radiation' factors etc. The whole of post three, pretty much, is an extended ad hoc justification for using the numbers you need to make things fit. Your entire argument about the testability of your theory is circular. It is not a great validation of the model that it 'predicts' a number you have spent a lot of effort tweaking and modifying the equations to give.

    Some specific issues:
    You assert that turbulence is why your prediction of decreasing density with radius is not observed. Several issues with that. One is that turbulence is dissipative. Without an ongoing injection of energy into the system turbulence tends to cascade to smaller scales quite rapidly. In fact you get quite a characteristic distribution of scale factor with log-log slope of -5/3. This is very different to what we see. Also - what is the energy source? I can only see two ways for your idea to work, both problematic. One is that somewhere near us is a source of energy that injects level large scale eddies which then cascade down. Which would mean we'd see local large scale vorticity, which we don't. The second would be for there to be a transition from non-turbulent to turbulent at some distance from us. But that would show up as a sudden drop in isotropy. Which we don't see.

    Your first equation looks to be the relationship between the spin quantum number and the quantised spin vector. How you then use it iteratively makes no sense at all.

    Your justification for E seems like pure handwavium. Please show, geometrically, what you are claiming because on the surface it looks like more numbers you need to make the idea work.

    Your sum of the energy of all spheres needs derivation from first principles. What kind of energy?

    So each proton and neutron is composed of three things that are the same size or larger than it. And what radius are you using? Compton? de Broglie? Charge distribution?

    I'm not going to be unreasonable and ask you to replicate all of modern physics in a single page or demand that you are somehow able to integrate GR, QM and your ideas right away - but it would be nice to see a simple set of axioms (and the justification for why you have adopted them) that lead to a prediction not hardwired in by the way you have worked.

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,976
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    What looks like an incorrect prediction from your ATM idea so:
    IF07: What is the mainstream size of the universe, Copernicus? Or what is your empirical evidence supporting this "about 13.75 billion light years" size?
    The mainstream age of our expanding universe is 13.82 billion years. A static universe would have a size of 13.82 billion light years making your ATM idea wrong. The expanding mainstream universe is bigger than that. But this is only the observable universe. WMAP and Planck give that the mainstream universe is either flat or has a low curvature. A flat universe suggests an infinite universe. A low curvature is a universe many times bigger than the observable universe.
    I would have thought it would be great if my universe predicted a 13.8 billion year size, but it did not. Initially my results were closer to that when I was using a critical density that was calculated using a expanding universe. The following is how I came up with the 13.75 billion light years, but I don't really think 13.82 and 13.75 are that much different considering the ambiguity in the understanding of the universe. The measurements of the Hubble constant are much more different, but at least a magnitude, than the difference between 13.75 and 13.82.

    Number of Planck Spheres on the outside of the Hubble Sphere Universe
    Cross Section of the Planck Sphere, which is the Compton Wavelength of the Neutron squared and multiplied by pi.
    The packing density of a single layer of spheres
    Mp/Mn= The mass ratio of the proton to the neutron
    Travel Distance from the center of the Universe to the outside of the Universe in meters.
    Expansion ratio of the next increment of a sphere.
    [6]

    The actual radius of the universe would then be
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,976
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    The problem is you don't have a model that predicts the gravitational constant accurately. What you have is a model that contains a bunch of numbers you have selected, without prior justification, and combined in ways that you then apply a post-hoc justification to in order to get close to the gravitational constant. Examples include using the neutron as the size of your Planck spheres, arbitrary use of the masses and mass ratios of the proton and neutron, your use of the 'similar to Cherenkov radiation' factors etc. The whole of post three, pretty much, is an extended ad hoc justification for using the numbers you need to make things fit. Your entire argument about the testability of your theory is circular. It is not a great validation of the model that it 'predicts' a number you have spent a lot of effort tweaking and modifying the equations to give.
    You are correct about this. I simply looked at what was the approximate size and mass of the Hubble Sphere, and noted that it was approximately 10^80 times more massive than a neutron, and I looked at the Planck length and noted it was 10^20 times smaller than the compton wavelength of a neutron. I thought perhaps it was more than coincidence and spent considerable time trying to figure out an equation that would generate numbers close to this and would take us down to a unit structure. If it is correct, I don't see how someone could actually derive this ratio. I do not know how String theorists think there would be 10^500 universes, but my model would predict approximately that many if I extended my equation by two more cycles. I think Steven Hawking speculated that there must be some ultimate physical equation that would cause the universe and multiverse, this is a specific quote from some article in the guardian. In Hawking’s older version of the multiverse hypothesis, there is great variety among the laws in different universes. In some gravity is stronger, in some weaker, and so on. However, physicists have come to see problems with such a heterogenous multiverse, especially if the number of universes is infinite. We work out the predictions of a given multiverse hypothesis by asking how probable our universe is according to that hypothesis. But if there is an infinite number of universes, that question becomes meaningless. And hence in his final paper, A Smooth Exit from Eternal Inflation?, Hawking and his co-writer, Thomas Hertog, formulate strict limits to the kind of universes that populate the multiverse.

    The problem is that the less variety there is among the universes, the less capable the multiverse hypothesis is of explaining fine-tuning. If there is a huge amount of variation in the laws across the multiverse, it is not so surprising that one of the universes would happen to have fine-tuned laws. But if all of the universes have exactly the same laws – as in Hawking and Hertog’s proposal – the problem returns, as we now need an explanation of why the single set of laws that govern the entire multiverse is fine-tuned."

    Maybe I am Adhoc, or maybe I am fine tuning. I really think universes all look the same from the outside. It is, what it is.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,976
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    Some specific issues:
    You assert that turbulence is why your prediction of decreasing density with radius is not observed. Several issues with that. One is that turbulence is dissipative. Without an ongoing injection of energy into the system turbulence tends to cascade to smaller scales quite rapidly. In fact you get quite a characteristic distribution of scale factor with log-log slope of -5/3. This is very different to what we see. Also - what is the energy source? I can only see two ways for your idea to work, both problematic. One is that somewhere near us is a source of energy that injects level large scale eddies which then cascade down. Which would mean we'd see local large scale vorticity, which we don't. The second would be for there to be a transition from non-turbulent to turbulent at some distance from us. But that would show up as a sudden drop in isotropy. Which we don't see.
    I don't really know where that continual energy would come from. I could speculate and say that since our universe is just part of a larger universe of 10^240 universes, which would be called the multiverse, perhaps that multiverse does not have the same way of dissipating energy, because its distances are so vast, yet the speed of light would be the same, so if the energy of our universe would dissipate, the kinetic energy of the multiverse rotation, would be slowly be absorbed by the universes within, but it would be on the order of much greater time scales than billions of years. The energy, would just be part of a gear system that would keep our universe spinning.
    I don't know how to explain a prediction for a sudden drop in turbulence.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,976
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post

    Your first equation looks to be the relationship between the spin quantum number and the quantised spin vector. How you then use it iteratively makes no sense at all.
    I have no justification for using it iteratively except for the explanation I used above for the universe appearing to be on the order of 10^80 times more massive than a neutron and a neutron having a compton wavelength 10^20 greater than the Planck length. And then trying to take that relationship down to a single sphere.

    Your justification for E seems like pure handwavium. Please show, geometrically, what you are claiming because on the surface it looks like more numbers you need to make the idea work.
    I will try to explain, but sometimes I have trouble picturing it too. If I increase the radius of a sphere by then the circumference in one direction increases by and 90 degrees the circumference also increases by I was just saying that if I say then the total distance increase would be
    I would think that the total radius of the universe would be limited by the speed of light. This is why the universe would be limited at 3.018 billion light years, because past that, the speed of light would be exceeded.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,976
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    Your sum of the energy of all spheres needs derivation from first principles. What kind of energy?
    It would be kinetic energy


    So each proton and neutron is composed of three things that are the same size or larger than it. And what radius are you using? Compton? de Broglie? Charge distribution?
    I am thinking that the proton would basically be made of 55 spheres, with 3 spheres missing. 55 would be the number of spheres in a cuboctahedron with two layers besides the center sphere. The three missing spheres would be an explanation for the 3 quarks. The spheres would, I think, be about the size of the compton wavelength of the neutron divided by the
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    ...
    My question is clear. I have explained it a couple of times. One last explanation. We have two (2) theories of physics upon which all of physics is built. One is QM which does not include the structure of the universe. The other does include the structure of the universe.
    IF01: What is the theory that includes the structure of the universe, Copernicus?

    My question is clear. I have explained it a couple of times. One last explanation. Spin angular momentum is the spin of QM particles and you know this as in the answer to IF02. You apply spin angular momentum. You must apply it to QM particles because that is what it is defined for! Thus:
    IF02a: What are the QM particles (photons , electrons, etc.) to which you are applying the spin angular momentum of QM particles, Copernicus

    IF03b: Why are you ignoring half of spin angular momentum (such as the spin of electrons) by starting with 1 and incrementing by 1, Copernicus?

    IF04: Please give a more complete, science based explanation of "which is our point there is no spin that can be associated with one point since there is no reference to a difference", Copernicus

    IF05: Please start with your "universe that is spherical that is made of spheres" and give a clear, step by step derivation of that equation, Copernicus. Otherwise I remain correct, it is an irrelevant integral that gives pi as do an infinite number of mathematical functions.

    IF06: Please state the physical quantities that you used to get your large numbers as in Eddington, Dirac and other published work, Copernicus.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    I do not know where mass comes from. ....
    So the answer to IF08 sis that your ATM idea cannot give whet you state - a "total mass and energy of a rotating universe" because you have no mass in your ATM idea! That makes the idea even more wrong than just an invalid application of QM because this universe has mass!

    It is not "Somebody may have done the same before". There are centuries of mathematics on the packing of spheres that you are ignoring and so not finding a possible definitive and mathematically correct source. Mathematicians have gone through probably every configuration of spheres in those centuries, e.g. Sphere packing in a sphere.

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    Olbers Paradox. ...
    "I proposed" guesses in reply to my post.
    Olbers' Paradox is about stars. Every line of sight in an infinite, eternal static universe ends in a star thus the night sky will be bright. The night sky is not bright . A resolution to this is an expanding universe.

    What do "homogeneity" and "isotropy" mean? (in cosmology)

    The transverse Doppler effect exists for light sources orbiting a detector but your ATM idea is not every galaxy in the universe orbiting the Earth ! You must know that we detect cosmological redshift from millions of galaxies from local ones to ones billions of light years away. These galaxies are not in orbit around the Earth. Look up peculiar velocities of galaxies. There are blue shifted galaxies. The Andromeda galaxy will collide with the Milky Way.

    Gravitational Redshift: You should already have a derivation of cosmological redshift in your ATM idea so it should be a question of just quoting that derivation. That would not take long. A formal question in anticipation of your answer:
    IF09: Please quote your derivation of cosmological redshift (Hubble's law) from your ATM idea, Copernicus.

    The rest of the post is wrong. Relativistic effects always take effect. Relativistic Doppler effects happen even for v << c. Gravitational red and blue shifts happen even for low differences in gravitational potential. Measurement is the limit on the effects. In general SR effects are measurable for v close to c. Gravitational red and blue shifts are measurable here on Earth for relatively small differences in gravitational potential.

    From memory, it is possible to fake cosmological redshift by arranging matter in the universe to give Hubble's law. The problem for your idea is that this is not your mass distribution (in fact you have o mass in your ATM idea!).

    "Hubble constant" is almost irrelevant. If you somehow come up with one of the values we have for Hubble's constant, that says nothing about whether your universe is expanding or not. You have to derive Hubble's law from your ATM idea to match our universe.

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    ...
    IF07: What is the mainstream size of the universe, Copernicus? Or what is your empirical evidence supporting this "about 13.75 (now 3) billion light years" size?

    Your "T = 13.745514 billion light years" gives your universe a radius of ~3 billion light years. You have just debunked your ATM idea as you will realize when you answer IF07.

    An error: Planck has nothing to do with your idea so "Planck Spheres" makes your idea wrong. A Planck sphere would have a Planck length as a radius. You have an imaginary sphere that you arbitrarily set to a "Compton Wavelength of the Neutron squared and multiplied by pi" "Cross Section". Compton wavelength of a neutron = 1.31959091E-15 m. Planck length = 1.616255(18)E−35 m. Thus 20 OOM difference.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Nov-18 at 09:29 PM.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,976
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    My question is clear. I have explained it a couple of times. One last explanation. We have two (2) theories of physics upon which all of physics is built. One is QM which does not include the structure of the universe. The other does include the structure of the universe.
    IF01: What is the theory that includes the structure of the universe, Copernicus?
    So you are referring to general relativity. I have no beef with general relativity.

    My question is clear. I have explained it a couple of times. One last explanation. Spin angular momentum is the spin of QM particles and you know this as in the answer to IF02. You apply spin angular momentum. You must apply it to QM particles because that is what it is defined for! Thus:
    IF02a: What are the QM particles (photons , electrons, etc.) to which you are applying the spin angular momentum of QM particles, Copernicus
    and I say, why can't it be applied in the start of theory for quantumgravity? I do not follow your reasoning for exclusion from gravity.

    IF03b: Why are you ignoring half of spin angular momentum (such as the spin of electrons) by starting with 1 and incrementing by 1, Copernicus?
    I can't answer your question, I don't understand what your point is at all. Is it some small technicality?

    I pretty sure I went through it step by step, although I probably erred, but it is the best I can do for now.
    I went through this already, I can't answer it to your satisfaction.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •