Theory of Everything going no where fast!

The non amateur stuff. Hawking, black holes, that sort of thing

Moderators: joe, Brian, Guy Fennimore

davep
Posts: 2814
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 11:07 am
Location: South Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by davep »

jck100 wrote:An example of 50/50 would be the earth orbits the sun or the sun orbits the earth. It is not the example itself but the fact that if one is correct then the other must be wrong.
50/50 assumes only two options so I'm still not quite sure what you're driving at here. If we take your analogy, where you seem to be suggesting that all hypotheses are equal, then the Earth orbiting the Sun and the Sun orbiting the Earth aren't the only hypotheses available are they?

Then again, all hypotheses aren't created equal -- are they?
jck100 wrote:A previous universe assumed initially must then be compatable with every step the solution takes towards a complete answer to how that previous universe was there in the first place, so it is not intended as an unanswered question.
My apologies, I'm not sure how to parse that paragraph. Could you expand on this a little?
jck100 wrote:I had every reason to assume a previous universe in order to start from scratch but without any other considerations it is easier to show this when the solution provides the same destruction of this universe to corellate the same scenario for comparison.
I think part of my confusion is that you started out in this thread talking about "considerations" and you still keep saying it without giving it any context. Perhaps you could explain your terms and give what you're saying a little more context?
jck100 wrote:As far as the other forum is concerned things deteriated from the start where no one was willing to accept a consideration but simply wanted to promote mainstream theories as correct in as much as anything else was of little value.
I'd be interested in evaluating this for myself. Like I asked earlier, which forum was it?
jck100 wrote:I consider this perspective of great value in a comparitive sense that gives a different perspective that no one has to accept.
So it's more a "what if" than a serious attempt to propose an alternate hypothesis?
jck100 wrote:I may be the only one who thinks this so I am merely asking if things are any different on this forum.
I suspect that you'll find, on many forums, people tend to appreciate clear and concise explanations which, if they make extraordinary claims, offer extraordinary evidence. That seems fair don't you think?
brian livesey
Posts: 5442
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Location: Lancashire
Contact:

Riddle on riddle..

Post by brian livesey »

Then there's Steiner's "Inverted vortex" cosmos. :shock:
brian
jck100
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:11 am
Location: Cardiff
Contact:

Post by jck100 »

Dave,

Asked what 50/50 meant is open to a matter of opinion.

My opinion would be where logic would favour either/or with anything else whatever one wanted to persue.

So when the question is was space constant everywhere and at all times or not that would be considered a 50/50 to me.

If you consider this point: Science cannot use a previous universe in the same space as this because it cannot obtain information at big bang never mind before then. However stating that there was no time or space before then is tantamount to the same thing, it cannot be right that science can make that statement.

Naturally you will be able to point out what science does and it will make sense but it does not stay that way. This ability to avoid any need to be correct on the assumption anything wrong will be corrected means that that is all there is.

I am able to consider what would have happened given a previous universe and if that led nowhere then fair enough but to me it has not led nowhere. I see no way that space could not have been constant.

The other thing I was able to do is test science in a way science will not be able to do, that is to the limit.

With every reason to consider space a constant I then applied the physics were the same everywhere and the same amount of mass/energy would be required in space before big bang.

That is the consideration I talk about.

It is not this consideration that matters but what then follows.

The universe can be destroyed in a giant black hole and a singularity as big bang predicts can implode to provide the burst of energy detected.

With that energy and simply using logc the one thing missing was gravity, logic pointed to that energy being gravity particles. With the energy particles accelerating and expanding they would soon all be far removed from each other leading to the logic that they would need to accelerate in opposite directions towards each other so that any two could fuse.

Still this is the consideration, the problem now is this is particle gravity.

Undaunted I kept it simple and right away roughly the 65% dark energy would be about what percentage of that gravity would need to be free flowing. Then as two particles would be the building block for the hydrogen atom that must continue till today so that would require another percentage of matter that can relate to dark matter.

If dark energy is particle gravity then it is no longer a requirement to destroy 100% of this universe in the same way to create another big bang, as the free flowing energy is exactly the same as the recycled matter as the same energy particles then a big bang would simply appear as 100% of the same energy source.

No one has considered the fact that not all the energy at big bang needed to be from big bang if energy in that form was already here.

With particles required for differentials that would leave gravity decreasing all the time so it must be replaced. That is where the black holes reducing mass to a singularity can in fact recycle some of the energy at the singularity to the outside of the universe expanding it.

If the energy at big bang was particle then the fundamental particles of the standard model ( over 300,000 years later than big bang ) would be composites of that energy.

I am looking at those fundamental particles and considering the electron again may not be the same electron at each discrete level, who can say it is not another different electron determined.

With strikes on atoms required for dynamics and first cause of any movement certain particles may be the result of gravity particles striking. Even the Higgs boson may be this in some way.

This is all very basic but hopefully you can see how simply using this logic how I am able to complete a solution that is compatable.

Now when it is required to fit in exactly with GR and Quantum theories it wont do that, basically it is considering GR and Uncertainty as not correct. I mean I do not expect anyone to use this and then because these theories do not agree simply write them off, that is not the case at all and that is fair as that is established science and I apreciate that.

In fact I hope that I at least am making it clear what my solution is based on and what I need to do to provide evidence is what I am working towards.

I do not see the threat, I am searching for reasons why the results I have agree with dark energy and dark matter and black holes etc and is adamant curved space and uncertainty do not agree.

To be continually be confronted with explanations that include spacetime equations do not help answer my questions.

As you can appreciate, hopefully, the other forum got out of hand and now both sides are not exactly open to listening to anything but simply punch out their side.

Still if you wish to see this turmoil then it is the BBC Question and Answer boards that many threads of mine can be seen. Many posts are punctuated by remarks that refect the debating abilities of some members. Many do make considered answers but it appears unless I agree this is frustrating to them also, I might say I am frustrated but not because of any need for them to agree, they do not seem to realise the answers are exactly what I am questioning so repeating those ansers do not help.

If my consideration has no merit then that is fine, all I want is some answers as to why everything is not as it should be as far as the logic is concerned.

I di not have this problem before as I tried like everyone else to follow what science was able to put forward in the hope of understanding it better but now from my perspective it looks flawed and for the life of me I am trying to find out why.

best wishes from john
If I have seen further than others it is because I moved the giants out of the way.
joe
Site Admin
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Location: Greenwich, London
Contact:

Post by joe »

John,

I am finding it very difficult to follow much of what you are saying (my fault, I'm sure) but if I can take it one step at a time, can you tell me how your idea of matter/energy/a universe existing before the Big Bang differs from many of the current ideas and theories of multiverses and baby universes? These theories seem to "stand up" within current knowledge of GR and QM although we obviously could not observe them because they would be outside our universe, i.e. the Big Bang was effectively the beginning of space and time for us even if there was another universe "before". I'm still not sure what is bothering you.
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.
brian livesey
Posts: 5442
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Location: Lancashire
Contact:

Pull the other one..

Post by brian livesey »

Steiner's what? :wink:
brian
joe
Site Admin
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Location: Greenwich, London
Contact:

Re: Pull the other one..

Post by joe »

brian livesey wrote:Steiner's what? :wink:
Hi Brian,

Something a wee bit more constructive would be appreciated. I'm struggling over this :? .
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.
jck100
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:11 am
Location: Cardiff
Contact:

Post by jck100 »

Hi Joe,

The specific points that bother me are:

The fundamental particles cannot be anything than composites of the energy at big bang.

The energy at big bang must fuse to form the building blocks for the hydrogen atom.

This energy cannot all have turned to mass so this process of building hydogen atoms must be ongoing.

This energy cannot have accelerated and expanded in one direction as it does not allow for fusion.

If this energy accelerated and expanded in opposite directions in a closed universe towards itself that would cause the fusion.

This energy must exist in space and be a differential.

This leads to particle gravity rather than GR.

Gravity particles striking atoms in all directions would cause the electron to be difficult to determine, it would also be difficult to know exactly what has been detected at the atomic level if this were the case.

A single gravity energy particle would have no mass because mass would be caused by strikes by other gravity particles rather than the Higgs boson.

Particle gravity would also be first cause of movement making Newtons Force an observed force.

What bothers me is if gravity is these particles then where does that leave science?

john
jck
If I have seen further than others it is because I moved the giants out of the way.
davep
Posts: 2814
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 11:07 am
Location: South Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by davep »

jck100 wrote:What bothers me is if gravity is these particles then where does that leave science?
In exactly the same place as it's always been.
jck100
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:11 am
Location: Cardiff
Contact:

Post by jck100 »

davep,

Exactly.

Science plods along because no matter what is wrong the idea is that it will be put right when there is a need.

This leaves the modern world, where information travels faster than science can correct it, with a growing unrest that science is really only a store of information based on what might be correct.

Naturally everyone uses what is thought as a basic grounding but in general the theoretical mathematical solutions are a minority field of study and the days of Newton using real apples seems a distant memory.

Somehow this view gets translated into saying science has got everything wrong when that would be highly unlikely, I work on assumptions that science has got most things right.

If the physics are not the same everywhere I have wasted my time, if the big bang scenario is not fundamentally correct I have wasted my time. My solution requires dark matter and dark energy to be correct so how I could imply that I think science has verything wrong I have no idea.

Gravity is gravity and as long as it is understood everyone will be better off. I have seen the problems with particle gravity and I am working on how these problems are resolved in my solution in a more scientifically acceptable mode. That is a lot of work.

john
jck
If I have seen further than others it is because I moved the giants out of the way.
davep
Posts: 2814
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 11:07 am
Location: South Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by davep »

jck100 wrote:Naturally everyone uses what is thought as a basic grounding but in general the theoretical mathematical solutions are a minority field of study and the days of Newton using real apples seems a distant memory.
Correct me if I'm wrong but Newton used "theoretical mathematical solutions" rather than apples.
jck100 wrote:My solution requires dark matter and dark energy to be correct so how I could imply that I think science has verything wrong I have no idea.
Did I say you'd implied that?
Post Reply