Science > Physics > Expanding The Micro-Universe, Contracting The Macro-Universe
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"G. L. Bradford" |
| Date: |
12 Sep 2007 03:40:56 AM |
| Object: |
Expanding The Micro-Universe, Contracting The Macro-Universe |
Because of my last paragraph here, thought I would separate this from
"More on the Big Bang" into a new thread.
"Jim Black" <tramspap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
(snip)
Now the supernova observations indicate that the expansion is speeding up,
and thus that there is a tension in the universe today. We don't know
what
its nature is, and we don't know whether it's a real tension or just the
effect of a cosmological constant on Einstein's field equations. But it
doesn't appear to be large enough to cause your turnaround. It's
conceivable that it was much larger in the past, and the standard Big Bang
model itself requires a very large tension at the time of inflation.
But to claim there was no Big Bang, then you have to explain where the
CMBR
came from, why it has a near-perfect blackbody spectrum, why the universe
is mostly hydrogen and helium given that stars convert these to more
massive elements, why the night sky is dark, etc. If you can explain
these
things as well as the standard Big Bang model does, then more power to
you.
But just arguing that nature likes oscillations wouldn't have even passed
muster in Lemaitre's time; we know enough about the physics governing the
geometry of the universe that we can do better than mere guessing.
--
Jim E. Black
Before you start any of this, particular giving a time to a Big Bang, give
your explanation of time. Describe time itself. Define it. Then go back to
the age of the universe. You're going to run into very deep trouble between
your explanation of time itself and your assigning an [absolute age in time]
to the universe.
If there were a [light time] distance to the speed of light constant, c,
in the macro-universe it would be the distance from local anywhere to the
non-locally farthest (never changing, never evolving, reduced to a
cosmological constant of zero time) horizon there is to the macro-universe.
In particle accelerators they are trying to approach that same non-local
horizon via a totally different route and method. A version of a black hole
shortcut. But of course they are never going to make it all the way either.
They too are going to run into very deep trouble between their very
explanation of time itself and their assigning an [absolute age in time] to
the universe.
It's seen as Big Crunch / Big Bang. If the [early universe] picture is
actually a distant non-local horizon constant, then the final universe
picture is the interior part of all [local] black holes inside their event
horizons...altogether throughout the entire Universe of simultaneous 'now'
('0') universes being an eternal Big Crunch [naked singularity] juxtapose
to an eternal horizon constant of a non-local Big Bang / early universe
picture.
So no we don't know enough about the physics governing the geometry of the
universe that we can do better than mere guessing because theorists flat
refuse to even think about the possibility of a cancellation being in being
showing up in their particle accelerations within the bottles (so to speak)
of their particle accelerators expanding the micro-universe and contracting
the macro-universe. They think expanding the macro-universe and contracting
the micro-universe only, PERIOD! A solid continuance of utterly fixed always
one way [one-dimensional] thinking.
GLB
.
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Expanding The Micro-Universe, Contracting The Macro-Universe |
12 Sep 2007 04:47:10 AM |
|
|
"G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:L9udnTyJy85yOHrbnZ2dnUVZ_sqinZ2d@insightbb.com...
Because of my last paragraph here, thought I would separate this from
"More on the Big Bang" into a new thread.
"Jim Black" <tramspap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
(snip)
Now the supernova observations indicate that the expansion is speeding
up,
and thus that there is a tension in the universe today. We don't know
what
its nature is, and we don't know whether it's a real tension or just the
effect of a cosmological constant on Einstein's field equations. But it
doesn't appear to be large enough to cause your turnaround. It's
conceivable that it was much larger in the past, and the standard Big
Bang
model itself requires a very large tension at the time of inflation.
But to claim there was no Big Bang, then you have to explain where the
CMBR
came from, why it has a near-perfect blackbody spectrum, why the universe
is mostly hydrogen and helium given that stars convert these to more
massive elements, why the night sky is dark, etc. If you can explain
these
things as well as the standard Big Bang model does, then more power to
you.
But just arguing that nature likes oscillations wouldn't have even passed
muster in Lemaitre's time; we know enough about the physics governing the
geometry of the universe that we can do better than mere guessing.
--
Jim E. Black
Before you start any of this, particular giving a time to a Big Bang,
give
your explanation of time. Describe time itself. Define it.
It is what a clock reads.
Then go back to the age of the universe.
You mean to the point time began.
You're going to run into very deep trouble between
your explanation of time itself and your assigning an [absolute age in
time]
to the universe.
No problem at all.
If there were a [light time] distance to the speed of light constant, c,
in the macro-universe
No one knows what prevailed at that epoch, except it is the regime where the
theory we know next to nothing about held sway - quantum gravity ie the
physics of the plank scale.
Bill
it would be the distance from local anywhere to the
non-locally farthest (never changing, never evolving, reduced to a
cosmological constant of zero time) horizon there is to the
macro-universe.
In particle accelerators they are trying to approach that same non-local
horizon via a totally different route and method. A version of a black
hole
shortcut. But of course they are never going to make it all the way
either.
They too are going to run into very deep trouble between their very
explanation of time itself and their assigning an [absolute age in time]
to
the universe.
It's seen as Big Crunch / Big Bang. If the [early universe] picture is
actually a distant non-local horizon constant, then the final universe
picture is the interior part of all [local] black holes inside their event
horizons...altogether throughout the entire Universe of simultaneous 'now'
('0') universes being an eternal Big Crunch [naked singularity] juxtapose
to an eternal horizon constant of a non-local Big Bang / early universe
picture.
So no we don't know enough about the physics governing the geometry of
the
universe that we can do better than mere guessing because theorists flat
refuse to even think about the possibility of a cancellation being in
being
showing up in their particle accelerations within the bottles (so to
speak)
of their particle accelerators expanding the micro-universe and
contracting
the macro-universe. They think expanding the macro-universe and
contracting
the micro-universe only, PERIOD! A solid continuance of utterly fixed
always
one way [one-dimensional] thinking.
GLB
.
|
|
|
| User: "G. L. Bradford" |
|
| Title: Re: Expanding The Micro-Universe, Contracting The Macro-Universe |
12 Sep 2007 05:49:19 AM |
|
|
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:yAOFi.34368$4A1.5538@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:L9udnTyJy85yOHrbnZ2dnUVZ_sqinZ2d@insightbb.com...
Because of my last paragraph here, thought I would separate this from
"More on the Big Bang" into a new thread.
"Jim Black" <tramspap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
(snip)
Now the supernova observations indicate that the expansion is speeding
up,
and thus that there is a tension in the universe today. We don't know
what
its nature is, and we don't know whether it's a real tension or just the
effect of a cosmological constant on Einstein's field equations. But it
doesn't appear to be large enough to cause your turnaround. It's
conceivable that it was much larger in the past, and the standard Big
Bang
model itself requires a very large tension at the time of inflation.
But to claim there was no Big Bang, then you have to explain where the
CMBR
came from, why it has a near-perfect blackbody spectrum, why the
universe
is mostly hydrogen and helium given that stars convert these to more
massive elements, why the night sky is dark, etc. If you can explain
these
things as well as the standard Big Bang model does, then more power to
you.
But just arguing that nature likes oscillations wouldn't have even
passed
muster in Lemaitre's time; we know enough about the physics governing
the
geometry of the universe that we can do better than mere guessing.
--
Jim E. Black
Before you start any of this, particular giving a time to a Big Bang,
give
your explanation of time. Describe time itself. Define it.
It is what a clock reads.
Then go back to the age of the universe.
You mean to the point time began.
You're going to run into very deep trouble between
your explanation of time itself and your assigning an [absolute age in
time]
to the universe.
No problem at all.
If there were a [light time] distance to the speed of light constant, c,
in the macro-universe
No one knows what prevailed at that epoch, except it is the regime where
the theory we know next to nothing about held sway - quantum gravity ie
the physics of the plank scale.
Bill
I would have had a [general rather than specific] quarrel with you until
this last. So would Einstein have had (generally speaking, as I quoted from
the last chapter of Relativity not long ago) and Godel, and just maybe
Hawking among a few possible others, to boot. But once more, only generally
speaking rather than specifically speaking. You've got them in your corner,
and me there to, all the way when it comes to specifically.
--------------------
Just as an aside, and just for the fun of it, just how big, negatively, is
the Planck scale, Bill? I want to repeat that question possibly to give you
pause to think about just how I'm putting this -- and intending to put it:
Just how [big], how [huge / titanic], NEGATIVELY, is the Planck scale?
The question itself is very nearly just rhetorical. It's not the cold
figure, which I could probably find in thousands of places, that I'm after
in asking the question the way I'm asking it. It might sound like gibbering
idiocy but just for the hell of it try to think big, or positive, rather
than small, or negative. While you are simply trying it on for size, nothing
else, keep part of your mind concentrated inside the particle accelerator
upon literally everything you've read about what goes on there; and
especially the potentials you've read about concerning the new one being
built.
By the way, you would be -- in a certain way -- contracting the
macro-universe, or [kind of] backing it up in time if you prefer to see it
that way instead, in the process (along the way) of imaging -- imagining --
it.
GLB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Expanding The Micro-Universe, Contracting The Macro-Universe |
12 Sep 2007 08:44:26 PM |
|
|
"G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:ToCdnX5gQ8GVWXrbnZ2dnUVZ_tuonZ2d@insightbb.com...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:yAOFi.34368$4A1.5538@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:L9udnTyJy85yOHrbnZ2dnUVZ_sqinZ2d@insightbb.com...
Because of my last paragraph here, thought I would separate this from
"More on the Big Bang" into a new thread.
"Jim Black" <tramspap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
(snip)
Now the supernova observations indicate that the expansion is speeding
up,
and thus that there is a tension in the universe today. We don't know
what
its nature is, and we don't know whether it's a real tension or just
the
effect of a cosmological constant on Einstein's field equations. But
it
doesn't appear to be large enough to cause your turnaround. It's
conceivable that it was much larger in the past, and the standard Big
Bang
model itself requires a very large tension at the time of inflation.
But to claim there was no Big Bang, then you have to explain where the
CMBR
came from, why it has a near-perfect blackbody spectrum, why the
universe
is mostly hydrogen and helium given that stars convert these to more
massive elements, why the night sky is dark, etc. If you can explain
these
things as well as the standard Big Bang model does, then more power to
you.
But just arguing that nature likes oscillations wouldn't have even
passed
muster in Lemaitre's time; we know enough about the physics governing
the
geometry of the universe that we can do better than mere guessing.
--
Jim E. Black
Before you start any of this, particular giving a time to a Big Bang,
give
your explanation of time. Describe time itself. Define it.
It is what a clock reads.
Then go back to the age of the universe.
You mean to the point time began.
You're going to run into very deep trouble between
your explanation of time itself and your assigning an [absolute age in
time]
to the universe.
No problem at all.
If there were a [light time] distance to the speed of light constant,
c,
in the macro-universe
No one knows what prevailed at that epoch, except it is the regime where
the theory we know next to nothing about held sway - quantum gravity ie
the physics of the plank scale.
Bill
I would have had a [general rather than specific] quarrel with you until
this last. So would Einstein have had (generally speaking, as I quoted
from the last chapter of Relativity not long ago) and Godel, and just
maybe Hawking among a few possible others, to boot. But once more, only
generally speaking rather than specifically speaking. You've got them in
your corner, and me there to, all the way when it comes to specifically.
--------------------
Just as an aside, and just for the fun of it, just how big, negatively,
is the Planck scale, Bill?
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length
I want to repeat that question possibly to give you pause to think about
just how I'm putting this -- and intending to put it: Just how [big], how
[huge / titanic], NEGATIVELY, is the Planck scale?
I have no idea what you mean by 'Just how [big], how [huge / titanic],
NEGATIVELY, is the Planck scale?' Do you mean 1/plank scale? If so you can
do the math just as easily as me.
Bill
The question itself is very nearly just rhetorical. It's not the cold
figure, which I could probably find in thousands of places, that I'm after
in asking the question the way I'm asking it. It might sound like
gibbering idiocy but just for the hell of it try to think big, or
positive, rather than small, or negative. While you are simply trying it
on for size, nothing else, keep part of your mind concentrated inside the
particle accelerator upon literally everything you've read about what goes
on there; and especially the potentials you've read about concerning the
new one being built.
By the way, you would be -- in a certain way -- contracting the
macro-universe, or [kind of] backing it up in time if you prefer to see it
that way instead, in the process (along the way) of imaging --
imagining -- it.
GLB
.
|
|
|
| User: "G. L. Bradford" |
|
| Title: Re: Expanding The Micro-Universe, Contracting The Macro-Universe |
13 Sep 2007 02:38:12 AM |
|
|
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:_B0Gi.34547$4A1.5091@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:ToCdnX5gQ8GVWXrbnZ2dnUVZ_tuonZ2d@insightbb.com...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:yAOFi.34368$4A1.5538@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:L9udnTyJy85yOHrbnZ2dnUVZ_sqinZ2d@insightbb.com...
Because of my last paragraph here, thought I would separate this from
"More on the Big Bang" into a new thread.
"Jim Black" <tramspap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
(snip)
Now the supernova observations indicate that the expansion is speeding
up,
and thus that there is a tension in the universe today. We don't know
what
its nature is, and we don't know whether it's a real tension or just
the
effect of a cosmological constant on Einstein's field equations. But
it
doesn't appear to be large enough to cause your turnaround. It's
conceivable that it was much larger in the past, and the standard Big
Bang
model itself requires a very large tension at the time of inflation.
But to claim there was no Big Bang, then you have to explain where the
CMBR
came from, why it has a near-perfect blackbody spectrum, why the
universe
is mostly hydrogen and helium given that stars convert these to more
massive elements, why the night sky is dark, etc. If you can explain
these
things as well as the standard Big Bang model does, then more power to
you.
But just arguing that nature likes oscillations wouldn't have even
passed
muster in Lemaitre's time; we know enough about the physics governing
the
geometry of the universe that we can do better than mere guessing.
--
Jim E. Black
Before you start any of this, particular giving a time to a Big Bang,
give
your explanation of time. Describe time itself. Define it.
It is what a clock reads.
Then go back to the age of the universe.
You mean to the point time began.
You're going to run into very deep trouble between
your explanation of time itself and your assigning an [absolute age in
time]
to the universe.
No problem at all.
If there were a [light time] distance to the speed of light constant,
c,
in the macro-universe
No one knows what prevailed at that epoch, except it is the regime where
the theory we know next to nothing about held sway - quantum gravity ie
the physics of the plank scale.
Bill
I would have had a [general rather than specific] quarrel with you until
this last. So would Einstein have had (generally speaking, as I quoted
from the last chapter of Relativity not long ago) and Godel, and just
maybe Hawking among a few possible others, to boot. But once more, only
generally speaking rather than specifically speaking. You've got them in
your corner, and me there to, all the way when it comes to specifically.
--------------------
Just as an aside, and just for the fun of it, just how big, negatively,
is the Planck scale, Bill?
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length
I want to repeat that question possibly to give you pause to think about
just how I'm putting this -- and intending to put it: Just how [big], how
[huge / titanic], NEGATIVELY, is the Planck scale?
I have no idea what you mean by 'Just how [big], how [huge / titanic],
NEGATIVELY, is the Planck scale?' Do you mean 1/plank scale? If so you
can do the math just as easily as me.
Bill
The question itself is very nearly just rhetorical. It's not the cold
figure, which I could probably find in thousands of places, that I'm
after in asking the question the way I'm asking it. It might sound like
gibbering idiocy but just for the hell of it try to think big, or
positive, rather than small, or negative. While you are simply trying it
on for size, nothing else, keep part of your mind concentrated inside the
particle accelerator upon literally everything you've read about what
goes on there; and especially the potentials you've read about concerning
the new one being built.
By the way, you would be -- in a certain way -- contracting the
macro-universe, or [kind of] backing it up in time if you prefer to see
it that way instead, in the process (along the way) of imaging --
imagining -- it.
GLB
I read it Bill. You go back and read it, and think carefully upon
everything it says, item by item, by item. That scale is literally a
universal level, UNIVERSAL, a constant horizon not subject to change or
evolution in any way, though it may be subject to corrections (but that's
all!). That [one single] black hole mentioned in the article should without
fail be interior to every single local black hole in all of an infinite
Universe. It is equivalent to, convertible to, one and the same as the naked
singularity of the Big Crunch juxtaposing the Big Bang (early universe),
which the universality across the board of an infinite Universe, or the
universal level, of the Planck scale actually is.
Now some say the universe is straight line from Big Crunch (final
universe) / Big Bang (early universe) to some ludicrous [third] future of
cold dark universe only and forever. Some, like Turok, want to claim an
endless cycling like continuous pulsing. Being infinity-minded, and very
flexible to the existence of duality, equivalency, and convertibility, I can
get reductionist to merger of the two horizons into just one absolute
constancy of the same horizon. And, Bill, I'm not even original in
visualizing such a thing. Hawking may have described it somewhat
differently, in his own fashion, but to him it's just 'en passant' stuff.
And what's more, it also stops Kurt Godel's vision and version of how time
could work under General Relativity dead cold in its tracks.
--------------------------
I'm not going to repeat here everything I've said in dozens of posts, just
a couple of things:
"A cancellation being in being...." Our own artificial capabilities to
expand the microverse -- so to bring up and out deeper and ever deeper
levels of it -- show us how and where the Universe itself cancels out any
real expansion of the macroverse (I'm now finished using the ponderous terms
I've used, "micro-universe" and "macro-universe"). Non-locally the largest
and smallest scales of universe merged to one and the same scale, and being,
relative to any and all locals, an inside-out / outside-in constant "turn"
(turnabout). Now just how the hell can I pluralize the thing into
paralleling "local" universes and multiply them to infinity micro- / macro-?
Well...you'd just have to take that matter up, fundamentally, with the
strongweak force. Not either the gravitational or the electromagnetic force,
but the strongweak force! (I won't go into it here, but something Roger
Penrose said put me onto thinking in that track of potential possibility.)
The other point:
"Light travels, or rather it expands, in the universe (light-TIME-wise)
rear end of time forward in space / front end of time backward in space."
--------------------------
GLB
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "G. L. Bradford" |
|
| Title: Re: Expanding The Micro-Universe, Contracting The Macro-Universe |
12 Sep 2007 05:59:54 AM |
|
|
"G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:ToCdnX5gQ8GVWXrbnZ2dnUVZ_tuonZ2d@insightbb.com...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:yAOFi.34368$4A1.5538@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:L9udnTyJy85yOHrbnZ2dnUVZ_sqinZ2d@insightbb.com...
Because of my last paragraph here, thought I would separate this from
"More on the Big Bang" into a new thread.
"Jim Black" <tramspap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
(snip)
Now the supernova observations indicate that the expansion is speeding
up,
and thus that there is a tension in the universe today. We don't know
what
its nature is, and we don't know whether it's a real tension or just
the
effect of a cosmological constant on Einstein's field equations. But
it
doesn't appear to be large enough to cause your turnaround. It's
conceivable that it was much larger in the past, and the standard Big
Bang
model itself requires a very large tension at the time of inflation.
But to claim there was no Big Bang, then you have to explain where the
CMBR
came from, why it has a near-perfect blackbody spectrum, why the
universe
is mostly hydrogen and helium given that stars convert these to more
massive elements, why the night sky is dark, etc. If you can explain
these
things as well as the standard Big Bang model does, then more power to
you.
But just arguing that nature likes oscillations wouldn't have even
passed
muster in Lemaitre's time; we know enough about the physics governing
the
geometry of the universe that we can do better than mere guessing.
--
Jim E. Black
Before you start any of this, particular giving a time to a Big Bang,
give
your explanation of time. Describe time itself. Define it.
It is what a clock reads.
Then go back to the age of the universe.
You mean to the point time began.
You're going to run into very deep trouble between
your explanation of time itself and your assigning an [absolute age in
time]
to the universe.
No problem at all.
If there were a [light time] distance to the speed of light constant,
c,
in the macro-universe
No one knows what prevailed at that epoch, except it is the regime where
the theory we know next to nothing about held sway - quantum gravity ie
the physics of the plank scale.
Bill
I would have had a [general rather than specific] quarrel with you until
this last. So would Einstein have had (generally speaking, as I quoted
from the last chapter of Relativity not long ago) and Godel, and just
maybe Hawking among a few possible others, to boot. But once more, only
generally speaking rather than specifically speaking. You've got them in
your corner, and me there to, all the way when it comes to specifically.
--------------------
Just as an aside, and just for the fun of it, just how big, negatively,
is the Planck scale, Bill? I want to repeat that question possibly to give
you pause to think about just how I'm putting this -- and intending to put
it: Just how [big], how [huge / titanic], NEGATIVELY, is the Planck scale?
The question itself is very nearly just rhetorical. It's not the cold
figure, which I could probably find in thousands of places, that I'm after
in asking the question the way I'm asking it. It might sound like
gibbering idiocy but just for the hell of it try to think big, or
positive, rather than small, or negative. While you are simply trying it
on for size, nothing else, keep part of your mind concentrated inside the
particle accelerator upon literally everything you've read about what goes
on there; and especially the potentials you've read about concerning the
new one being built.
By the way, you would be -- in a certain way -- contracting the
macro-universe, or [kind of] backing it up in time if you prefer to see it
that way instead, in the process (along the way) of imaging --
imagining -- it.
GLB
I completely the hidden dimension that is hidden only because so many
totally forget about it. The dimension of the observer, or you, doing all
this. Just where are you, the observer, standing in the picture? Place
yourself knowing you can't place yourself EXACTLY / PRECISELY in exactly
what you are doing but have to place yourself as the observer in some
parallel track to the picture.
GLB
.
|
|
|
| User: "G. L. Bradford" |
|
| Title: Re: Expanding The Micro-Universe, Contracting The Macro-Universe |
12 Sep 2007 06:08:04 AM |
|
|
"G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:TY-dnXWFzscfW3rbnZ2dnUVZ_tqtnZ2d@insightbb.com...
"G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:ToCdnX5gQ8GVWXrbnZ2dnUVZ_tuonZ2d@insightbb.com...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:yAOFi.34368$4A1.5538@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:L9udnTyJy85yOHrbnZ2dnUVZ_sqinZ2d@insightbb.com...
Because of my last paragraph here, thought I would separate this from
"More on the Big Bang" into a new thread.
"Jim Black" <tramspap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
(snip)
Now the supernova observations indicate that the expansion is speeding
up,
and thus that there is a tension in the universe today. We don't know
what
its nature is, and we don't know whether it's a real tension or just
the
effect of a cosmological constant on Einstein's field equations. But
it
doesn't appear to be large enough to cause your turnaround. It's
conceivable that it was much larger in the past, and the standard Big
Bang
model itself requires a very large tension at the time of inflation.
But to claim there was no Big Bang, then you have to explain where the
CMBR
came from, why it has a near-perfect blackbody spectrum, why the
universe
is mostly hydrogen and helium given that stars convert these to more
massive elements, why the night sky is dark, etc. If you can explain
these
things as well as the standard Big Bang model does, then more power to
you.
But just arguing that nature likes oscillations wouldn't have even
passed
muster in Lemaitre's time; we know enough about the physics governing
the
geometry of the universe that we can do better than mere guessing.
--
Jim E. Black
Before you start any of this, particular giving a time to a Big Bang,
give
your explanation of time. Describe time itself. Define it.
It is what a clock reads.
Then go back to the age of the universe.
You mean to the point time began.
You're going to run into very deep trouble between
your explanation of time itself and your assigning an [absolute age in
time]
to the universe.
No problem at all.
If there were a [light time] distance to the speed of light constant,
c,
in the macro-universe
No one knows what prevailed at that epoch, except it is the regime where
the theory we know next to nothing about held sway - quantum gravity ie
the physics of the plank scale.
Bill
I would have had a [general rather than specific] quarrel with you until
this last. So would Einstein have had (generally speaking, as I quoted
from the last chapter of Relativity not long ago) and Godel, and just
maybe Hawking among a few possible others, to boot. But once more, only
generally speaking rather than specifically speaking. You've got them in
your corner, and me there to, all the way when it comes to specifically.
--------------------
Just as an aside, and just for the fun of it, just how big, negatively,
is the Planck scale, Bill? I want to repeat that question possibly to
give you pause to think about just how I'm putting this -- and intending
to put it: Just how [big], how [huge / titanic], NEGATIVELY, is the
Planck scale?
The question itself is very nearly just rhetorical. It's not the cold
figure, which I could probably find in thousands of places, that I'm
after in asking the question the way I'm asking it. It might sound like
gibbering idiocy but just for the hell of it try to think big, or
positive, rather than small, or negative. While you are simply trying it
on for size, nothing else, keep part of your mind concentrated inside the
particle accelerator upon literally everything you've read about what
goes on there; and especially the potentials you've read about concerning
the new one being built.
By the way, you would be -- in a certain way -- contracting the
macro-universe, or [kind of] backing it up in time if you prefer to see
it that way instead, in the process (along the way) of imaging --
imagining -- it.
GLB
I completely the hidden dimension that is hidden only because so many
totally forget about it. The dimension of the observer, or you, doing all
this. Just where are you, the observer, standing in the picture? Place
yourself knowing you can't place yourself EXACTLY / PRECISELY in exactly
what you are doing but have to place yourself as the observer in some
parallel track to the picture.
GLB
Geez, why can't I get it all into one? Some parallel -- PRECISELY
OPPOSED -- position so to develop sense of motion in the picture.
GLB
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "dedanoe" |
|
| Title: Re: Expanding The Micro-Universe, Contracting The Macro-Universe |
12 Sep 2007 06:36:50 AM |
|
|
On Sep 12, 10:40 am, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...@insightbb.com> wrote:
Because of my last paragraph here, thought I would separate this from
"More on the Big Bang" into a new thread.
"Jim Black" <trams...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
(snip)
Now the supernova observations indicate that the expansion is speeding up,
and thus that there is a tension in the universe today. We don't know
what
its nature is, and we don't know whether it's a real tension or just the
effect of a cosmological constant on Einstein's field equations. But it
doesn't appear to be large enough to cause your turnaround. It's
conceivable that it was much larger in the past, and the standard Big Bang
model itself requires a very large tension at the time of inflation.
But to claim there was no Big Bang, then you have to explain where the
CMBR
came from, why it has a near-perfect blackbody spectrum, why the universe
is mostly hydrogen and helium given that stars convert these to more
massive elements, why the night sky is dark, etc. If you can explain
these
things as well as the standard Big Bang model does, then more power to
you.
But just arguing that nature likes oscillations wouldn't have even passed
muster in Lemaitre's time; we know enough about the physics governing the
geometry of the universe that we can do better than mere guessing.
--
Jim E. Black
Before you start any of this, particular giving a time to a Big Bang, give
your explanation of time. Describe time itself. Define it. Then go back to
the age of the universe. You're going to run into very deep trouble between
your explanation of time itself and your assigning an [absolute age in time]
to the universe.
If there were a [light time] distance to the speed of light constant, c,
in the macro-universe it would be the distance from local anywhere to the
non-locally farthest (never changing, never evolving, reduced to a
cosmological constant of zero time) horizon there is to the macro-universe.
In particle accelerators they are trying to approach that same non-local
horizon via a totally different route and method. A version of a black hole
shortcut. But of course they are never going to make it all the way either.
They too are going to run into very deep trouble between their very
explanation of time itself and their assigning an [absolute age in time] to
the universe.
It's seen as Big Crunch / Big Bang. If the [early universe] picture is
actually a distant non-local horizon constant, then the final universe
picture is the interior part of all [local] black holes inside their event
horizons...altogether throughout the entire Universe of simultaneous 'now'
('0') universes being an eternal Big Crunch [naked singularity] juxtapose
to an eternal horizon constant of a non-local Big Bang / early universe
picture.
So no we don't know enough about the physics governing the geometry of the
universe that we can do better than mere guessing because theorists flat
refuse to even think about the possibility of a cancellation being in being
showing up in their particle accelerations within the bottles (so to speak)
of their particle accelerators expanding the micro-universe and contracting
the macro-universe. They think expanding the macro-universe and contracting
the micro-universe only, PERIOD! A solid continuance of utterly fixed always
one way [one-dimensional] thinking.
GLB- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
i haven't read your post but anyway i just want to tell you this: Big
Bang is the period of pregnancy (nine months). before the Big Bang
there was a Gang Bang. thnx
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
