Crisis in the Big Bang Theory

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">He means that the sentence (and concept) in question makes no sense.</font><br /><br />Which means he can't parse (or understand) the sentence. That is a case, but by not a definition of the sentence itself. That doesn't make the intention wrong. If he says the sentence doesn't make sense it means concept is not understood (assuming that there is a concept).<br /><br /><font color="yellow">One idea is that our observable universe is a gluon (being transmitted between quarks) which is a small part of a higher fractal level.</font><br /><br />It is impossible to understand the sentence unless you understand what the words mean.<br /><br />One - this<br />idea - ideal<br />is - equals<br />that - specifying<br />our - this<br />obseverable - tangible image of<br />universe - part of the universe<br />is - of which may be<br />a gluon - a subatomic particle<br />which is a - specified as a<br />small - tiny<br />part - section<br />of - inside<br />a higher - a larger<br />fractal level - fractal with self-similiarity<br /><br />Despite breaking up the sentence to parts, it's missing what the concept states - that the subatomic particle in question is a gluon. No one here has showed that interest in gluons (similarily, the sentence is misunderstood perhaps because I haven't defined what a gluon is). Quantum physicists know they exist so I'm not just making up a particle called the gluon - it's existence is verified in particle accelerators (if you disagree with this then tell me why). Whenever the unsupported claims are on both sides, both sides bear the responsiblity of giving evidence. That means they must work smarter not dumber.<br /><br />http://images.google.com/images?q=gluon

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">yep, just more gibberish. Why this forum has gone to the dawgs....</font><br /><br />likewise...<br /><br />the dawgs? references please <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" />

 

[yevaud]

Ah. I see the problem. You're trying to express a difficult scientific concept as a <i>metaphor</i>.<br /><br />Ok, seriously. You have just said, by the strictures of good science and scientific terminology:<br /><br />The universe is an illusion (image) : one discreet portion of which is - well, <i>might be</i>, a force mediating gauge particle (which is part of QCD) that holds certain Quarks together, and expresses the color force.<br /><br />You then go on to explain how you believe that a Gluon is in reality (using the word variously) actually a discreet region where non-linear mathematics reign. And then explain that it is a region where the non-linear mathematical models therein are, in fact, regular.<br /><br />Only the very last makes any sense, since one mode of expression of non-linear mathematics - Chaos Theory, in short - is how chaotic systems work, and that there is actually a sort of regularity and order to the chaotic behavior. Another is the repeating <i>Fractal</i> patterns you find with Mandelbrot Sets.<br /><br />However, I suspect you didn't know most of that, and that you didn't quite mean what I just deconstructed for you. And so, in lieu of further explanation, the entire statement by you makes <i>no sense</i>.<br /><br />That's what he was politely trying to suggest to you. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[kmarinas86]

I totally appreciate your comments as they are very clear and perfectly describe important facets of the idea I had in mind, thank you!! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />It's hard for me to get out of the metaphors.<br /><br />The idea (metaphor) is that if a trillion galaxies are compressed together, they will form a very large object. This object may be suspected to have the same properties as quark, but on a much, much larger scale taking much longer periods of time. The quark system is both chaotic in some ways and regular in other ways. The network of galaxies would be the composition of gauge bosons of the color force, whose gravity would be a color force which is a step higher in the fractal level (where cycles involve very large motions over very large periods of time).

 

[nacnud]

Yevard, yep exactly what I meant thanks for the clarification.<br /><br />Kmar, I think I understand the rudiments of your idea but the problem is you describe it in terms that already have very precise technical meanings, meanings that are very different to your ideas.<br /><br />Your post reads like a colection of buzz words rather than a description of a novel steady state theory, it makes it very hard to follow.<br /><br />It is also a very alternative theory, one that I haven't come accross before, therefore I take it with a large dose of salt. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[kyle_baron]

kyle, that's interesting. but there is a "but," of course, to my enthusiasm for this: <br /><br />space itself is derived from the expansion and is one and the same with time. there is no spacetime pre-BB. <br /><br />I don't believe that space is derived from the expansion of the BB. I think that it's a distortion of GR. To believe that the BB can some how manufacture space (from within an infinite density), and add it to an existing space (w/ no time) is hard for me to believe. I understand the baloon concept of space with the dots on it representing galaxies, and each galaxy moving away from the other, and that appears to correspond to observations. Or the BB could simply be an explosion of<br />energy + time, expanding into an existing (multi-dimensional) infinite space. I agree that there is no space time pre-BB.<br /><br />and nothing existed that is defined by laws of this universe; it is divorced from all connection with anything here. even mentioning e=mc2 or + and - have no context or meaning in this vein. <br /><br />How can you be so sure of this? There must have been some pre- existing conditions to start the whole process.<br /><br />and, if you think about it, your 2 infinite sized space branes are of another immutable and infinite condition, unable to come together. linear thinking in terms of coming together to meet --that no longer applies. there is no bringing together, cleaving, mutating, merging, subtracting from, an infinite state. <br /><br />Multi-dimensions exist within the same space, according to string theory. I'm saying, multi-dimensional (infinite) space branes also exist within the same space. I don't believe in an infinite-density, quantum-singularity. That just tells me that the math, or theory breaks down. Sometimes, you have to pick and choose what to believe in each theory. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="orange"><br />How can you be so sure of this? There must have been some pre- existing conditions to start the whole process. <br /></font><br />science is not accountable for pre-BB. that is the back door. you can have the BB all day and never be accountable for it's impetus because no time or space pre-existed BB. you have to have faith in prayer that BB happened from a zero energy state. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">Multi-dimensions exist within the same space, according to string theory. I'm saying, multi-dimensional (infinite) space branes also exist within the same space. I don't believe in an infinite-density, quantum-singularity. That just tells me that the math, or theory breaks down. Sometimes, you have to pick and choose what to believe in each theory. </font><br />i don't believe in the singularity state either. it is not related to anything tenable. you <i>do</i> have to pick and choose belief. it <i>all</i> boils down to faith. string theory is highly metaphysical --a religion like any other.

 

[hayagreeva]

THE SCIENCE OF COSMOLOGY AND VEDAS: INTER- LINKS<br />VIDYARDHI NANDURI*<br />ABSTRACT<br />The Cosmic Puzzle attracts Scientists, Philosophers and all mankind in several disciplines in search of divinity of the Human Being and Nature. The present day cosmology has advanced through Explorers, satellites and Galactic probes. Many Noble Scientists have advanced through these fields of science: Astronomy, Astrophysics and Cosmogony to Cosmology, Plasma Physics, Electromagnetic Fields and imaging techniques covering up to 10^16 Light years (LY). In comparison, the center of Milky-way Galaxy is a spiral within 27,000 LY from Sun. The present day concepts appear to cover the Universe only in parts.<br />Nobel Laureate Alfven (1984,1992) has opened-up a dialogue in search of new insights through various Philosophies. This search opens up new frontiers in many inter-disciplinary areas of science that help even science to progress. Vedic knowledge of the cosmic universe inspires many Philosophers of repute and all mankind from a different perspective:<br /> “PURNAM ADAH PURNAM IDAM PURNAT PURNAM UDACHYATE PURNASYA PURNAM ADHARAYA (ADAYA) PURNAM EVA AVASISHYATE”. This statement signifies (1) the Cosmic universe is complete energy, (2) out of the northern part emerged a lower Southern Cosmos and (3) the present observational universe is an envelope emerged out of this southern cosmos. The Milky Way galaxy is a part of this material cover. The time-phase relation is attributed through “cosmic junctions” under a cosmic process. The mysterious nature of “cosmos and cosmic function” may become evident if the search is directed to understand the basic attributes of Nature through critical junctions i.e. galactic group junctions, aligned cosmic flow-fields and neutral processes that form the “core cosmic route”.<br /><br />This approach raises few questions: <br />Is It a Reflecting Cosmos? Is it a Field Dominant Cosmos? Is it a Flow Dominant Glowing Universe? or all in a COSMOS complex?<b></b>

 

[yevaud]

Ok, and this is now three times in a very short period of time.<br /><br />I say one last time: cease posting this in science threads. There are two forums available for you to post this in: Phenomena and Free Space. Either would be more than acceptable. Posting this here is not.<br /><br />Thank you. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>