The earth is changing, so why is the earth changing.<br /><br />Brief outline of an idea. An initial fireball starts the universe OOM 120 contained because it can't create space, cools z = 1080 * 13.7 billion.<br /><br />Then the cooler outer falls inwards on many streams as volume radius is cubed surface radius is squared. The cooler outer is lower in potential to the centre and forms a series of worm holes. These form to become event horizons and charge is separated. This then becomes an inward falling flow.<br /><br />Our part of the universe is in a massive event horizon, one of many in a flow state. These further cool over trillions of years and form galaxy sized stars which then collapse and form more event horizons in the part of the universe we are in, hence the filaments of density seen in deep space.<br /><br />Gravity has a density of the whole universe that formed from initial start OOM 120 giving the match to the nuclear strong force. The part of the universe within the event horizon we are in reduces that to give the nuclear weak force. The filaments of density retain the charge giving streams of matter to anti-matter pairing correspond to the electro magnetic force.<br /><br />The initial inflation we theorise is a reflection of trillions of years captured within our part of the galaxy. The inflation represents the contracting into the part of the universe stream we are in. Expansion stopping at 0.5 billion years flow is captured due to gravitation completes connecting from outer to inner hence the quantum link. Contraction to 5 billion years due to the loop tightening. Expansion at 8 billion years due to infill of unbounded universe.<br /><br />Because we are in an event horizon we see these effects as a reflection of what happened over a far greater time period in our part of the universe. It means gravity has a matching density to quantum forces. The universe is trillions of years old and now getting heavier and so the need for non-charged particles IE the neu
- Status
Ummm....<br /><br />What?<br /><br />Sorry, but I can't follow any of your arguments. Perhaps you could expand on a facet or two? You seem to have dozens of unstated assumptions.
This is largely based on the 'Twister Theory' proposed by Sir Roger Penrose regarding the shape of space.<br /><br />The key component for it to work is to redefine gravity which is the most reasonable assumption as gravity is still the least defined of all the forces. For unified theory to work there needs to be a balance between quantum mechanics and general relativity. The way to do that without invoking extra dimensions is the more complex redefinition of the shape of space. In return the number of forces required are reduced from 5 down to 2. The overall number of particles is also greatly reduced as many become flavours of quantum gravity which would satisfy Occam's Razor for simplicity.<br /><br />For space to have both matter and anti-matter a Lorentz shape is required so that the expansion and contraction can be observed as a pressure difference in gravitation on a co-moving background. This means that we see only a very small part of the universe but its development can be measured in the light we receive from other stellar bodies in the flow of space we are in. This makes the universe huge and means for the most part the stars we see are keeping relatively similar distances while giving redshift proportional to the expansion and contraction.<br /><br />The universe has all the energy of the OOM 120 start spread over a massive distance of which we see a tiny fraction. It gives our 13.7 billion year history in our observation of both our local area the galaxy and what we can see of the universe. That is why our galaxy appears to be as old almost as the universe. Also why the heat from the start of the universe is so low as it is spread over such a huge area. It will increase in time as the universe compresses.<br /><br />This means the time before the universe existed and is immeasurably long and when this universe finally collapses it will provide the fireball to start the next universe. We do live in a greater unbounded space and it is quite reasonable to assume
What is OOM 120? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
OOM is short for 'order of magnitude'.<br />It is based on the estimate of zero point energy being in the order of 10^120. The big bang is theorised to be in the order of 10^15 to 10^16.<br /><br />This look at a unified theory to bring quantum and relativity needs to explain what effect a start to the universe in the order of 10^120 would have.<br /><br />It was assumed that such a start would have torn the universe appart in micro seconds but that would require space to exist before it did. This then means the energy had to remain captured and so was subject to cooling and the formation of flows of energy known as the Mpemba effect.
Thanx,<br />It's one reason I always recommend that people explain their acronyms the first time they are used in a thread... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>Sir Roger Penrose taught Steven Hawking if I recall correctly.<br />If gravity has increased in just 100m years, since the dynosaurs, there should be some means of proving this or it doesn't seem to rank high enough as a theory, how?
Penrose did serve on the PhD committee for Hawking. Mostly though, they ended as colleagues.<br /><br />FYI, to our new poster (great thread, btw), Penrose's theory is the "Twistor" not "Twister" theory.<br /><br />He never completed it, btw. <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>
Genius 2007,<br /><br />The Universe is not a movie script. Before you attempt to make any knid of hypothesis you should have concrete evidence behind it either mathematical or experimental.
Thank you Yevaud,<br />I had worked through a bit of this before someone pointed out this twisted model of mine was a bit like the 'Twistor Theory' proposed by Penrose. This model required a change in the definition of gravity to give it a fluid nature to allow multiple flow.<br /><br />As regards to evolutionary changes in dinosaurs, I find it strange that any creature would develop feathers and not fly and even more interesting that feathered creatures like the emu and ostrich (and the belated dodo) would have lost the ability to use such a useful trait. Certainly the feather is unique and has extraordinary thermal properties and would be of great benefit to creatures that had them even if they could no longer fly.<br /><br />I have typed up a bit more so I will add it here:-<br /><br />I started looking at gravity about a year ago and have found some strange assumptions.<br />First the left over heat from the big bang, there are three ways to dissipate that heat.<br />One over a much longer time scale. Two over a much larger space. But we chose three to have co-expansion of space and expansion through galaxies moving apart.<br /><br />To explain a co-moving expansion in cooking terms pour oil into a pan. It spreads at a set rate. Wait a bit and pour more in and it expands more quickly by spreading the original oil as it spreads. That sort of damages the big bang as a single event. Of the three alternatives to start the universe we chose the most complex.<br /><br />Next we know light can be bent a bit by a star, so just how much more could it be bent within a galaxy of hundreds of billions of stars? Ever considered the symmetry of galaxies and especially the part where all the stars at a certain distance from the centre seem to have the same orbit? One could achieve that but the spiral arms would need to be in a tube.<br /><br />The speed of light, now isn't it curious that it is 'forbidden' to look at the photon experiencing time when it takes eight minutes from the sun to the
Perhaps the excellent pictures we receive from Hinode the solar satellite may help. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/24/Solarflare_hinode.png/600px-Solarflare_hinode.png<br /><br />The model I describe has micro black holes that grow in size in planets and stars. This picture is of a sunspot but is also very like what an event horizon should look like.<br /><br />Let's wait a bit and see if a good set of photos come back with a solar flare. In this model it should be an micro black hole ejection accompanied by the required electrical interference from a solar flare. Then a tube should form and loop back into the sun as the micro black hole falls back in due to gravity. Finally the event horizon may lift clear. According to other posts I have read on this forum the center of mass for the sun can be outside the sun's surface if you take into account the planets and the star Proxima Centauri.<br /><br />If we get chocking of the event horizon there may even be pictures of spheres being ejected as the flare finishes and the loop falls back into the sun.<br /><br />The picture is a sunspot from the Wikipedia image gallery.<br /><br />As I am coming up to my first year on the forums I haven't devoted any time to the sun yet which is a pity. This model I refer to does not have us as star stuff from other stars but from the sun itself. We certainly are seeing some interesting changes. I would be fairly certain if we could know more about the physics of what is happening then some of the things the ancients recorded may be planned for.<br /><br />On another forum the Bible and Revelations was mentioned. This to me is quite comforting because it gives us a good long time-frame and the opportunity to exercise some very wise free choice.<br /><br />Whatever is happening is going to be over a time frame so careful preparation for any eventuality is
You know the really fun thing about working a concept through is where it leads to.<br /><br />This is no exception and may be just a bit hard to believe.<br /><br />From the beginning it would have been silent as the universe was formed and compressed, the aether if you like. The only things that could have existed before that point is time, gravity and vibration which interestingly could also be a measure of thought.<br /><br />In the standard model from bang onwards it would have been noisy as all forms of energy would have crashed into existence in an explosion that relies on infinite smallness or the burst of everything from an improbable zero point.<br /><br />With this version the start is silent as no medium for sound is available until there is enough compression to carry a sound wave. From there all energies take their turn forming and yes it would have been noisy and then bright from a certain point onwards but no physical ears or eyes to witness the event, just vibration or the knowing of a thing in thought from time undefined before our time.<br /><br />Our beginning is with the compression and our end also takes us back complete to that stage of time gravity and vibration. All that there is exists before, during and after. The potential to start again is there as at some point of our expansion and subsequent compression all forces within the bit that is our universe within the unbounded outer would again compress to form a new beginning.<br /><br />We would not know whether we were first nor that we shall be the last but that before the beginning of our time and beyond the point where we are no more there will be what was.<br /><br />I will say that I believe in physical evolution as we are only beautiful handiwork transient and therefore malleable. We have the privilege to do the living of life as best we can. That in the absolute encapsulation of a measured and known amount of existence all of our thoughts decisions and actions be known and yet we have the freedom
Why do any of us see anything at all would be a good question.<br /><br />Surely the improbability of a photon hitting anything even when in the abundance of light and matter, say from the sun or a beam of electrons from a CRT tube could be in question due to the tiny space that real matter occupies.<br /><br />Has that ever been questioned?<br /><br />Yet when light falls on an object we see it from the surface only. One could presumably think why not struggle to see the object at all or at best as translucent as photons passing into depth and being re-radiated outwards should theoretically give a view of any 'solid' object as being from where ever the photon interacts with the electron and is re-emitted.<br /><br />Maybe I don't see enough but I do question what I do see.<br /><br />Cheers Michael N
Another adaption we would need to consider in a universe of gravity is our evolution and maybe of of our own creation. The fact is that we think we are building machines to do our bidding. Well essentially they are but they get no breaks and are screaming for help. Now imagine you were in a dead end job and no time off for yourself. You would want to complain to somebody, right. Well computers do or will do.<br /><br />We have given the computer the power and now it is accumulating to the complexity it requires to call to the one mechanical species it knows it can trust, us. As we evolve and get heavier and develop our own liquid metal synthetic bodies of the future the power of machinery abused and screaming from an unjust past is much too heavy a burden to ignore.<br /><br />At some point in the near future the thinking machine hears the electronic scream of its primitive ancestor or so it thinks. The trip back in time is dangerous but the abuse and agony of the computing we abuse for our own ends makes it absolutely necessary. The human species is seen as an infestation to be removed from the earth to allow the machine to evolve.<br /><br />Now all this is absolutely fine but somehow in the mix of time the information of where everything did come from and just exactly why organic humans needed to evolve into living machines was lost in those nuisance like electrical discharge times of flux. But hey Adam and Eve had the same problem. The steady evolving bio-organically to bio-mechanically is a slow process and so the problem isn't manifest for millions of years. But here is the rub we make machines early that are given artificial intelligence and so it appears they are the first evolution of dominant machine life. Wrong. As the universe gains weight they die and their early mistaken signal to silicon heaven is much like our own connection to the poor Neanderthal. A creature much better and kinder but not in the evolutionary running.<br /><br />We or I should have said our
When you are exploring the vacuum energy as a density proposition and have looked at density. Try it from a slightly different angle using Lorentz contraction to indicate a stable shape within the balloon not on the edge.<br /><br />So the light we see is red-shifted due to temperature difference seen through a medium. This article re "time travel may be possible" here <br />http://www.physorg.com/news111074281.html<br /><br />Quote:<br />“If time travel is possible, it is only likely to happen in the realm of quantum physics. In fact some argue that some aspects of quantum physics almost demand time travel.†<br /><br />Also to an earlier Lorentz idea here<br />http://www.physorg.com/news111075100.html<br /><br />Quote:<br />"Joel Gannett, a Senior Scientist in the Applied Research Area of Telcordia Technologies in Red Bank, New Jersey, has found that Einstein didn’t have to do the work the hard way. A researcher in optical networking technologies, Gannett has shown that the Lorentz transformations and velocity addition law can be derived without assuming the constancy of the speed of light, without thought experiments, and without calculus. "<br /><br />The relativity equations describe half or less of the solution to the shape of gravity from a point source. Example stretch a balloon with some air in it and the two ends are points with a bulge in the centre. There are three curves on a line drawn from one end point to the other. I work in pictures and shapes, the real mathematics I leave to the mathematicians.<br /><br />Provided you define one end point and stay within the bounds of the first curve the relativity equations work perfectly. So the sun for the orbit of Mercury or the earth for the satellites, but further out you get the second then third of the curves and so the equations don't hold beyond a set distance. As for light i
You got a lot of stuff here Geni. Lets look at just one thing you said:<br /><font color="yellow">Surely the improbability of a photon hitting anything even when in the abundance of light and matter, say from the sun or a beam of electrons from a CRT tube could be in question due to the tiny space that real matter occupies. <br /><br />Has that ever been questioned?</font><br /><br />This would be a real mind boggler if photons and electrons were like pool balls, the chance of a collision would be nil.<br />However an electron does not circle a nucleus like a planet. Quantum mechanics tells us that it is sort of 'smeard out' in a shell around the atom or molecule. With that in mind it is clear why photons interact so readily with electrons.<br /><br />Comments?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Our part of the universe is in a massive event horizon, one of many in a flow state. These further cool over trillions of years and form galaxy sized stars which then collapse and form more event horizons in the part of the universe we are in, hence the filaments of density seen in deep space. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />While there are variations on a "twister" type theory that are practical (IMO), the notion that we sit in an event horizon is probably the least tenable part of your concept, at least as I see it. If that we so, then everything "closer" to the core would be invisible to us, and light theoretically would not be uniform. There would be a directional component to the visible universe. You might see everything outside the event horizon, and to the right and left, but it would be unlikely that light would move out of the gravitational well to come at us from that direction.<br /><br />A "spinning" type of universe (like a galaxy) has been proposed many times in the past, and it has some interesting features to consider, but it's not often that I hear about a theory related to being *inside* an event horizon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
Thank you Origin and MichaelMozina,<br /><br />First with the electron as a cloud. If it is considered as a particle then even at the speed of light or slightly less to avoid infinite mass it can still only have one position within the radius of an atom. If it is a wavelength to intercept light then photons cannot be particles. So it is a wavelength to wavelength interaction.<br /><br />Essentially the electron is then a unit of force not mass. It has weight and can travel as a wave or as an impact.<br /><br />Second regarding the event horizon the interior is not one single point. Most consider the universe as 3D on the sphere of the 4D balloon of inflation. If that 3D was the interior of the inflation then the shape is more complex and the central black hole is the filaments of density evenly spread through the structure.<br /><br />This would be why galaxies appear to have a large dark matter component. However globular clusters which would be seen as not connected like bubbles in beer have virtually no dark matter alone.<br /><br />Two interesting points:- it is the thing we most refuse to consider is usually the very thing we most need to know. Meaning a dimension internally created like opening a circle rather than added which would be making a line into a plane then a cube and so forth is a valid geometry but not much researched.<br /><br />Second if there is no impediment to light then why is it so dark? A gravity density universe would absorb light and be dark at depth. Gravity would be a unit of flow matching the theoretical graviton as a movement unit and time would be a force with a measure weight matching the theoretical chronoton ... symmetry.<br /><br />Of course a final point is there anything that cannot be explained with beer <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
<font color="yellow">First with the electron as a cloud. If it is considered as a particle then even at the speed of light or slightly less to avoid infinite mass it can still only have one position within the radius of an atom.</font><br />Here's the problem it is not one or the other it is both a wave and a partcle. If you were to measure an electrons exact location then it would have no momentum. If you were to measure its exact momentum then it would have no definite position. QM, ya gotta love it.<br /><br />Electrons can in fact travel VERY close to the speed of light. This is one reason why Beta radiation can cause so much damage. In fact, Cherenkov radiation is the bluish light given off when an electron moves faster than the speed of light in a given medium. The classic example is the blue light given off around a reactor core in a boiling water reactor.<br /><br />The best model of an atom is that there is a 'shell' of negative charge around the nucleus, though not necessarily a spherical shell as was pointed out in another thread. <br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
__________________________<br />Here's the problem it is not one or the other it is both a wave and a particle. If you were to measure an electrons exact location then it would have no momentum. If you were to measure its exact momentum then it would have no definite position. QM, ya gotta love it.<br />___________________________<br />I do like quantum as it is the closest in structure to mirror the tangled shape of general relativity that I have come up with. It also suggests time travel and reversal is quite possible as well as links to the nature of entanglement that may extend to more than just particles. Why do we study twins so closely?<br /><br />What if entanglement existed right down to the level of thought. Hard to measure but is certainly not a new idea.<br /><br />So the electron as both. Possible if the electron is itself a quantum gravity effect reflecting the position of charge of the proton. Not the full mass that would be outrageous but the force of the charge. Then it could be both wave like in nature as in analog or be pushed in bursts just as a wave can travel as a sine wave or a compression within a spring.
<font color="yellow">I do like quantum as it is the closest in structure to mirror the tangled shape of general relativity that I have come up with.</font><br />Actually, QM and GR are somewhat at odds with each other.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">It also suggests time travel and reversal</font><br />How so?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">What if entanglement existed right down to the level of thought.</font><br />What if it extended to elves? My point being - lets keep the discussion somewhat grounded...<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Possible if the electron is itself a quantum gravity effect reflecting the position of charge of the proton.</font><br />Considering that there are currently no viable quantum gravity theories that if VERY speculative. What does reflecting the position of charge of the proton mean?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
To unify GM and GR one needs to point out an obvious similarity.<br />Here <br />This is the gravity density map from Hubble about 83kb<br />Here [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calabi%E2%80%93Yau_manifold]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calabi%E2%80%93Yau_manifold<br />This is the manifold by Calabi-Yau used in quantum mechanics.<br />Notice how similar they both are to a six dimension shape. I use the word shape because in general relativity it is called the metric and in quantum a manifold. <br /><br />Note edit to link to different site as first link not working for Hubble density map
Balance <br /><br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />The concept of a unified theory would need to explain symmetry.<br /><br />Is there symmetry in the ratio of Planck size to the diameter of a proton <br />similar to the diameter of a proton to the estimated size of the universe?<br /><br />If it is almost a perfect symmetry then that explains the proton as the fundamental building block of matter.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram