Why the current model of the universe breaks a fundamental law, that energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
What I Meant To Say Is That The Alleged "Singularity" At Center Of A Black Hole Given As An "Infinitesimally Small Dot" Is Identical In Constitution To The Neutronium Ball Of A Neutron Star And That Neutron Stars Are Made Of Embryonic Neutrons At Up To A Quintillion Times Earth Density!!
And That Physicists Cannot Calculate Temperatures Below Absolute Zero Because The Total Absence Of Electromagnetic Means Absolute Zero To Physicists!!
All Neutron Stars Develop Over The Life Of The Progenitor Star As The Progenitor Star Pulsates By Compressing And Decompressing The Core, Heat Is Extracted From The Core To The Progenitor Star's Outer Core Through The Siemen's Refrigeration Cycle Process): Compression Heating); Heat Exchanger Removal Of Heat From The Developing Neutron Star Material To The Progenitor Stars Outercore And Decompression Cooling Of The Core!!
The Key Point Here Is That A Neutron Star Progenitor Star Does "Work" That Extracts Heat From The Core That Allows The Core To Reach A Density Of Up To A Quintillion Times Earth Density And Entropy A Quintillion Times Less Than Earth Matter And A Temperature Of 3 Quintillion Adoni-Kelvin Degrees Below Absolute Zero!!
Do You Like My Novel Temperature Scale For "Compact Objects" At Three Times Their Multiple Of Earth Density Below Absolute Zero!!
Our Sun Will Leave A White Dwarf About The Volume Of Earth BUTTE With The Mass Of 200,000 Earths And A Temperature Of 3 X 200,000): 600,000 Adoni-Kelvin Degrees Below Absolute Zero Based On Its High Density And Low Entropy Given To Indicate Low Temperature!!
It's The Embryonic Neutron Neutronium Ball Of A Black Hole Of Three Or More Solar Masses That Generates The Gravity Of A Black Hole As The Embryonic Neutrons Warm Up To Absolute Zero, Float Away And Decay To Hydrogen!!
This Is How The Universe Continually Restocks Its Supply Of Hydrogen In Perpetuity!!
Can We Deduce From The Cosmic Web That Overdensity Attractors Are Crunching And That From The Discovery Of The DiPole RePeller Void In 2017 That All Voids Are Expanding??
And Can We Deduce From The Given History And Future Of Our Sun That As Matter Heats Up Gravitational Force Is Generated And That As Matter Cools The Potential Dark Energy That Was Stored In Matter As It Heated Up In A Broad Conservation Of Energy Mechanism Is Then Released In The Form Of Dark Energy Given The Following Facts??):
A): Our Sun Formed From The Collapse Of A Molecular Hydrogen-Helium Cloud At 10 Degrees Kelvin!!
B): For The Past 5 Billion Years, Our Sun Has Been Heating Up And Generating Gravity!!
C): Our Sun Will Heat Up By 6% Per Billion Years For The Next 5 Billion Years While Generating Gravity!!
D): In 5 Billion Years); We Are Given That Our Sun Will Start Cooling From 7777 Kelvin To 3000 Kelvin While Net Emitting The Stored Anti-Gravity/Dark Energy Stored Inside The Nucleon, Electron And Neutrino Indestructible Mass-Energy Vessel Permeable Hovering Sacs In The Form Of Compressed GP1 Aether Particles That Were Stored During The 10 Billion Years That Our Sun Heated Up And Generated Gravity Blowing Off Half Its Mass Leaving A White Dwarf Remnant About The Size Of Earth At 200,000 Times Earth Density!!
E): One Proof That As Matter Cools And Net Expels GP1 Aether Particles); Dark Energy Is Released Is The Red Giant Phase Of Our Sun’s Life Cycle And All Red Giant Stars!!
And If We Allow The Universe To Be Infinitely Old): Might The Overdensity Crunching Attractors Generating Both Matter Gravity And Dark Matter Gravity Reach A Point Where Matter Particles And Dark Matter Neutrino Particles Where Those Particles Can't Heat Up Any More Initiating The Transition Of The Overdensity Attractor To A DiPole RePeller Void!!
The Main Point, I'm Trying To Make Is That Overdensity Attractors Eventually Reach A Point Where They Are Longer Able To Crunch And Begin To Expand Until The Overdensity Attractor Transforms To A DiPole RePeller Void Until The Void Can No Longer Cool And Expand!!
At Which Point, The DiPole RePeller Void Begins Back Its Transition To An Overdensity Attractor Over A Quadrillion X A Quadrillion X A Quadrillion X Quadrillion Years!!
Hence): How Our Cosmic Web Will Remain A Cosmic Web In Perpetuity!!
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
It is overly presumptuous to suggest that there is any such thing as a "Universal law" when we have access to only a tiny part of the Universe over a very small time increment. This limitation is further exacerbated by the fact that we are further restricted by limitation of sensory input.
There are parts of the Universe (we assume/believe) which are so far away that light (any radiation) from them would never reach us. Even if it did, we would receive it (if we could understand it) billions of years after "they" sent it, and our reply (if "they" could understand it, would probably reach "them", long after they ceased to exist.
Hence there can be no Universal understanding about anything. We can only have guesses based on unknown assumptions, which are all subject to falsification.
Cat
There are parts of the Universe (we assume/believe) which are so far away that light (any radiation) from them would never reach us. Even if it did, we would receive it (if we could understand it) billions of years after "they" sent it, and our reply (if "they" could understand it, would probably reach "them", long after they ceased to exist.
Hence there can be no Universal understanding about anything. We can only have guesses based on unknown assumptions, which are all subject to falsification.
Cat
Last edited:
"Hence there can be no Universal understanding about anything. We can only have guesses based on unknown assumptions, which are all subject to falsification."It is overly presumptuous to suggest that there is any such thing as a "Universal law" when we have access to only a tiny part of the Universe over a very small time increment. This limitation is further exacerbated by the fact that we are further restricted by limitation of sensory input.
There are parts of the Universe (we assume/believe) which are so far away that light (any radiation) from them would never reach us. Even if it did, we would receive it (if we could understand it) billions of years after "they" sent it, and our reply (if "they" could understand it, would probably reach "them", long after they ceased to exist.
Hence there can be no Universal understanding about anything. We can only have guesses based on unknown ssumptions, which are all subject to falsification.
Cat
Cat, a cool concept but difficult to achieve it seems, at least in some areas of science. Lawrence Krauss book clearly knew that the Big Bang violated the conservation law of energy as discussed in other posts here so perhaps the Big Bang should be considered falsified, and then we have the topic of abiogenesis for the origin of life from non-living matter like discussions here, https://forums.space.com/threads/me...y-have-helped-jump-start-life-on-earth.61544/
Charles Darwin warm little pond in his 1871 and 1882 letters are very interesting to read and compare with how abiogenesis science *evolved* today (vastly different than a warm little pond where no catastrophism operated on Earth and a general law of nature postulated by Darwin for abiogenesis). The Big Bang tossing out conservation law of energy at the beginning to explain the origin of the universe we see today, does not look to be falsifiable and abiogenesis since 1871 and 1882 Charles Darwin letters that anchored this in science, does not look falsifiable either to explain the origin of life from non-living matter. Cat, you are correct, science should be falsifiable but some areas of science today appears to avoid this
What I Do In My Posts And Theories Is Apply Given Physical Universal Laws To Deduce The Truth Of Other More Popular Theories Given Certain Undeniable Factual Discoveries!!
My Main Lie Detector Instrument Is The Rule "For Every Action There Must Be An Equal And Opposite Reaction" And The Deduction From This That The "Big Bang" Perpetual Energy Accelerating Expanding Universe In Perpetuity Which Has No Given Equal Opposite Reaction Is Absurd, False And Impossible!!
Now, Though Some People Suggest That The "Big Universal Bounce/The Big Bang" Is Followed By The "Big Universal Perpetual Crunch" By Unknown Means, Also, Is A False Impossible Perpetual Energy Machine!!
BUTTE My Postulate That Gravitational Force Is The Direct Function Of Mass And The Rate At Which The Matter Particles Of The Mass Heat Up Conserves Energy Because I, Also, Postulate That As Gravity Is Generated And The Matter Particles Heat Up, Potential Dark Energy Is Stored Inside The Matter Particles Including The Dark Matter Neutrino Particles That Comes Out As The Matter Particles Cool Along With A Half-Dozen Given Physical Observed Situations That Prove My Postulate Above Beyond Reasonable Doubt!!
Sooooo): What Do You Guys Think About My Universe Wide Lie Detector Test Theory??
Also, I Failed To Mention): My Most Recent Postulate That As Overdensity Attractors Heat Up And Crunch, The Overdensity Attractors, Eventually, Reach A Point Where The Attractors Can No Longer Heat Up Anymore And Begin Their Cool Down Expansion To DiPole RePeller Voids Maintaining The Observed Cosmic Web In Perpetuity While Conserving Energy And Storing An Equal And Opposite Reaction That Comes Out Later As Matter Particles Heat Up Or Cool Down!!
While Its True That I Know Very Little About Quantum Mechanics Or The Theory Of Relativity, BUTTE I Do Trust The Experts That Say That Both Quantum Mechanics And Theory Of Relativity Have Predictive Value And That The Two Cannot Be Reconciled With Each Other!!
In Any Event): Neither Quantum Mechanics Nor The Theory Of Relativity Can "Disprove" Any Of My Postulates Because All My Postulates Conserve Energy And Are Supported By Given Verified And Proven Observational Facts!!
My Main Lie Detector Instrument Is The Rule "For Every Action There Must Be An Equal And Opposite Reaction" And The Deduction From This That The "Big Bang" Perpetual Energy Accelerating Expanding Universe In Perpetuity Which Has No Given Equal Opposite Reaction Is Absurd, False And Impossible!!
Now, Though Some People Suggest That The "Big Universal Bounce/The Big Bang" Is Followed By The "Big Universal Perpetual Crunch" By Unknown Means, Also, Is A False Impossible Perpetual Energy Machine!!
BUTTE My Postulate That Gravitational Force Is The Direct Function Of Mass And The Rate At Which The Matter Particles Of The Mass Heat Up Conserves Energy Because I, Also, Postulate That As Gravity Is Generated And The Matter Particles Heat Up, Potential Dark Energy Is Stored Inside The Matter Particles Including The Dark Matter Neutrino Particles That Comes Out As The Matter Particles Cool Along With A Half-Dozen Given Physical Observed Situations That Prove My Postulate Above Beyond Reasonable Doubt!!
Sooooo): What Do You Guys Think About My Universe Wide Lie Detector Test Theory??
Also, I Failed To Mention): My Most Recent Postulate That As Overdensity Attractors Heat Up And Crunch, The Overdensity Attractors, Eventually, Reach A Point Where The Attractors Can No Longer Heat Up Anymore And Begin Their Cool Down Expansion To DiPole RePeller Voids Maintaining The Observed Cosmic Web In Perpetuity While Conserving Energy And Storing An Equal And Opposite Reaction That Comes Out Later As Matter Particles Heat Up Or Cool Down!!
While Its True That I Know Very Little About Quantum Mechanics Or The Theory Of Relativity, BUTTE I Do Trust The Experts That Say That Both Quantum Mechanics And Theory Of Relativity Have Predictive Value And That The Two Cannot Be Reconciled With Each Other!!
In Any Event): Neither Quantum Mechanics Nor The Theory Of Relativity Can "Disprove" Any Of My Postulates Because All My Postulates Conserve Energy And Are Supported By Given Verified And Proven Observational Facts!!
Last edited:
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Once you accept that "the map is not the territory" you are accepting that we are all "fiddling whilst Rome burns" using imaginary violins and immaterial bow and reading from invisible sheet music whilst wearing blinkers.
In other words, we are no better than ants dashing around telling the world how to understand "the meaning of life". We just think that we are.
Cat
In other words, we are no better than ants dashing around telling the world how to understand "the meaning of life". We just think that we are.
Cat
Well!!): What I Meant To Say Is That The Alleged "Infinitisimally Minute Singularity" Given At The Center Of A Black Hole Up To 100 Billion Solar Masses For "Phoenix A" SMBH Cannot Be Infinitisimally Minute In Physical Volume!!
I Suggest That The Physical Mass And Volume Of SMBH Phoenix A Inside Its Event Horizon Is Equal To The Combined Volume Of 50 Billion 2 Solar Mass Neutron Stars And That The Neutronium Ball At Center Of SMBH Phoenix A Has A Density Of Only About 1 Quintillion Times Earth Density Which Compares Nicely With The Given Density Of A Neutron Star As Between 200 Trillion Times Earth Density And 1 Quintillion Times Earth Density!!
The Key Point Here Is That Like All My Other Postulates, My Postulate , Here, Cannot Be Disproven!!
If You Don't Believe Me Try To Disprove My Postulate That The 100 Billion Solar Mass Neutronium Ball Given At The Center Of SMBH Phoenix A Is Not At 3 Quintillion Adoni-Kelvin Degrees Below Absolute Zero!!
Last edited:
The core of any compact body has greater than 60% of its surroundings in order to have a gravity sink and control its surroundings.
Adoni , don't be too quick to understand and confirm something beyond our understanding.
Although we all fall into the trap of doing so.
I would advise to keep searching far and beyond what you may think or what we think.
In other words, don't build a shell of knowledge that entraps you, or think within the circle or have tunnel vision.
Adoni , don't be too quick to understand and confirm something beyond our understanding.
Although we all fall into the trap of doing so.
I would advise to keep searching far and beyond what you may think or what we think.
In other words, don't build a shell of knowledge that entraps you, or think within the circle or have tunnel vision.
Sooooo): Smiling "Cat" Catrastrophe): Is A Smug Fatalist?? That Cannot Explain How Neutron Indestructible Permeable Mass-Energy Vessel Sacs Evolved In Our Ageless Finite In Volume Universe Over Infinite Time!! Nor How Each And Every Star Mints New Embryonic Neutrons At 600 Trillion Adoni-Kelvin Degrees Below Absolute Zero That When Warmed To Absolute Zero Decay To Pristine New Atomic Hydrogen Yielding 21 Centimeter Light Waves At 1420.4 MHz Frequency At 4.7992E-11 Kelvin!! At 0.000000000047992 Kelvin About As Close To Absolute Zero As You Can Get!!Once you accept that "the map is not the territory" you are accepting that we are all "fiddling whilst Rome burns" using imaginary violins and immaterial bow and reading from invisible sheet music whilst wearing blinkers.
In other words, we are no better than ants dashing around telling the world how to understand "the meaning of life". We just think that we are.
Cat
Last edited:
Thanks Harry!! So Nice To Hear From You, Again,
It's Not Me Nor You That Is Entrapped!! It's The 3,000,000 Physicists Of Today That Are Entrapped By Their Popular Absurd Impossible Big Bang Omnipotent "Infinitisimally Minute Singularity" Perpetual Energy "God" Which The Physicists Follow "Religiously" As The Maker Of Heaven And Earth And Of All Things Visible And Invisible, Just, 14.77 Billion Years Ago!!
You See!! There Is No Career Advancement For Budding Astrophysicists That Challenge The Misassumptions Of Modern Physicists Found In Their Text Books Or The Teachings Of Their Professors!!
What You See As "Tunnel Vision" On My Part Is Actually The End Product Of 5 Years Of Research And Theorizing Resulting In Confidence In The Provability Of All My Novel Concepts!!
The Reason That I Challenge SomeTo Disprove My Postulates Is Because My Novel Concepts Are Based On Given Facts And Since The Facts Can't Be Disputed Only My Logic Can Be Disputed Which Would Involve Reasoning On The Challenger's Part Which Very Few People Have Time To Invest Just To Frustrate Themselves With My Reasonable Logic!!
For Instance, Increases In Density Are Given To Decrease Both Entropy And Temperature!! Physicists Can't Measure Temperatures Below Absolute Zero Because The Absence Of All EM Waves Is Absolute Zero To Physicists!!
Sooooo): I Had To Invent My Own Temperature Scale For Compact Objects At 3 Times Earth Density!!
Which Is Why I Say That A Neutron Star At 200 Trillion Times Earth Density Is At 600 Trillion Adoni-Kelvin Degrees Below Absolute Zero!!
Now!! No One Is Going To Believe Me That The Neutronium Of A Neutron Star's Core Is At 600 Trillion Adoni-Kelvin Degrees Below Absolute Zero Especially When The Surface Temperature Of A Neutron Star Maybe At 1,000,000 Kelvin!!
BUTTE If Someone Was To Consider The Given Relationship Between Exponential Increases In Density Lowering Entropy And Temperature Exponentially); Then, They Might Agree With Me That The Neutronium Of Neutron Star Given At 200 Trillion Times Earth Density Is At 600 Trillion Adoni-Kelvin Degrees Below Absolute Zero!!
Last edited:
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
How well does anyone understand "the map is not the territory?
Some of us treat it like "it rains a lot" - which statement still has a lot more depth than we generally acknowledge.
Take the map (= word) LONDON. A word used millions of times a day. What is the territory (= meaning or reality?).
These six little squiggles cover a large area inhabited wholly- or part- time by millions of humans - some residing, some commuting. Their lives and activities are inferred - their occupations, their activities, their belongings, their thoughts. London is made of so much more than a place name. Then, why stop at human involvement. There is all the material content - the underground, the traffic lights, the buildings, and other living content (pets, ants, bacteria). Any of these connections may need to be followed up in different contexts. Times of epidemic, flood, crime . . . . . . . . . .
It is our nature to live through communication relative to context. If we say "we are going to London for shopping" we ignore most information/properties related to that place. Our current interest is related to context. We ignore that which is unimportant to the moment.
Of course, this is necessary. If we are going to a pop concert in London, we do not need to know the number of commuters who will arrive in each district each work day. Without such selectivity, we would be bogged down in minutiae.
Yet, "the map is not the territory" means that we forget, or ignore, much of the "reality" in the interests of context-driven conversation. This may be highly desirable in every day living, but it ignores a host of other aspects of reality - such as, perhaps, the outbreak of an epidemic, or local elections having considerable effect on the lives of inhabitants.
It is necessary that we abstract essentials, but it is also important (in many situations) that we recognise the limitations involved.
Cat
Some of us treat it like "it rains a lot" - which statement still has a lot more depth than we generally acknowledge.
Take the map (= word) LONDON. A word used millions of times a day. What is the territory (= meaning or reality?).
These six little squiggles cover a large area inhabited wholly- or part- time by millions of humans - some residing, some commuting. Their lives and activities are inferred - their occupations, their activities, their belongings, their thoughts. London is made of so much more than a place name. Then, why stop at human involvement. There is all the material content - the underground, the traffic lights, the buildings, and other living content (pets, ants, bacteria). Any of these connections may need to be followed up in different contexts. Times of epidemic, flood, crime . . . . . . . . . .
It is our nature to live through communication relative to context. If we say "we are going to London for shopping" we ignore most information/properties related to that place. Our current interest is related to context. We ignore that which is unimportant to the moment.
Of course, this is necessary. If we are going to a pop concert in London, we do not need to know the number of commuters who will arrive in each district each work day. Without such selectivity, we would be bogged down in minutiae.
Yet, "the map is not the territory" means that we forget, or ignore, much of the "reality" in the interests of context-driven conversation. This may be highly desirable in every day living, but it ignores a host of other aspects of reality - such as, perhaps, the outbreak of an epidemic, or local elections having considerable effect on the lives of inhabitants.
It is necessary that we abstract essentials, but it is also important (in many situations) that we recognise the limitations involved.
Cat
How well does anyone understand "the map is not the territory?
Some of us treat it like "it rains a lot" - which statement still has a lot more depth than we generally acknowledge.
Take the map (= word) LONDON. A word used millions of times a day. What is the territory (= meaning or reality?).
These six little squiggles cover a large area inhabited wholly- or part- time by millions of humans - some residing, some commuting. Their lives and activities are inferred - their occupations, their activities, their belongings, their thoughts. London is made of so much more than a place name. Then, why stop at human involvement. There is all the material content - the underground, the traffic lights, the buildings, and other living content (pets, ants, bacteria). Any of these connections may need to be followed up in different contexts. Times of epidemic, flood, crime . . . . . . . . . .
It is our nature to live through communication relative to context. If we say "we are going to London for shopping" we ignore most information/properties related to that place. Our current interest is related to context. We ignore that which is unimportant to the moment.
Of course, this is necessary. If we are going to a pop concert in London, we do not need to know the number of commuters who will arrive in each district each work day. Without such selectivity, we would be bogged down in minutiae.
Yet, "the map is not the territory" means that we forget, or ignore, much of the "reality" in the interests of context-driven conversation. This may be highly desirable in every day living, but it ignores a host of other aspects of reality - such as, perhaps, the outbreak of an epidemic, or local elections having considerable effect on the lives of inhabitants.
It is necessary that we abstract essentials, but it is also important (in many situations) that we recognise the limitations involved.
Cat
Monk Says To Paladin): “To Tell Would Be To Presume, To Ask Would Be To Intrude!!
Have Gun -- Will Travel
The Montebank
Season 4 Episode 15 (1960)
Richard Boone (Paladin), Lisa Lu (Hey Girl), Denver Pyle (Guest Star)
Director): Richard Boone
Drama Western
30 Minutes CC TV PG USA Parental Rating
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
My emphasis
billslugg,
Does anyone understand it, or, perhaps, is understanding actually taken to mean: inventing a cyclic argument which some may mistakenly take as having some merit?
There is only one absolute TRUTH I know of. There is not a glimmering shadow of doubt that it is ABSOLUTLY true (IMHO), and you may have noticed my overriding distaste for words like "infinite" and "absolute".
That truth is "The map is not the territory".
Inventing something, and giving it a name does not give it any "reality". A description is a verbal abstraction - difference in versions (in different languages) though the translations may be intended as equivalent. The words ARE NOT the reality they are intended to refer to.
As we all know, the BB is not open to observation or experimentation (and here I remind all of the necessity to distinguish between "the event", the BB, and subsequent BBT. We cannot even describe what we mean by BB, without resorting to imagination and guesswork.
My point is that we have no serious idea about this, yet we enter into discussions about it as if we had even the slightest knowledge, and using words invented for the purpose. Its very inception (naming) was coined with derogatory intent.
As I believe that you are aware, I have the greatest respect for your scientific standing.
This post is about General Semantics.
Cat
As a semanticist myself, via being a lifelong historian and widely read, I understand very well that I am being personally attacked with a vengeance, a malicious vengeance, here, by Cat! This post may be about General Semantics, but I understand General Semantics possibly better than Cat does, and this is pointed straight at me and anyone here and anywhere at all like me who has the imagination to realize the magic (as Einstein, Hawking, and many other "great spirits" (Einstein) have put it) in the "Cosmic All"! I have no intention of going rigid, of becoming monolithically stone-like in my usage of language and imagination, or of abandoning my pursuit of my picturing, my modeling, my "Atlanoverse". Words like "quark" and "color" and so many other words like "photon" and "entropy" and so on, came straight from wide ranging imagination, not a narrow stone-like quality of mediocrity.My emphasis
billslugg,
Does anyone understand it, or, perhaps, is understanding actually taken to mean: inventing a cyclic argument which some may mistakenly take as having some merit?
There is only one absolute TRUTH I know of. There is not a glimmering shadow of doubt that it is ABSOLUTLY true (IMHO), and you may have noticed my overriding distaste for words like "infinite" and "absolute".
That truth is "The map is not the territory".
Inventing something, and giving it a name does not give it any "reality". A description is a verbal abstraction - difference in versions (in different languages) though the translations may be intended as equivalent. The words ARE NOT the reality they are intended to refer to.
As we all know, the BB is not open to observation or experimentation (and here I remind all of the necessity to distinguish between "the event", the BB, and subsequent BBT. We cannot even describe what we mean by BB, without resorting to imagination and guesswork.
My point is that we have no serious idea about this, yet we enter into discussions about it as if we had even the slightest knowledge, and using words invented for the purpose. Its very inception (naming) was coined with derogatory intent.
As I believe that you are aware, I have the greatest respect for your scientific standing.
This post is about General Semantics.
Cat
Last edited:
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Lest there be any confusion . . . . . . . . .
My emphasis.
en.wikipedia.org
Cat
My emphasis.
Fred Hoyle - Wikipedia
Cat
Thanks for the pointers. I'll read later. My lady of more than fifty years has things for her mule (of concentration, that is) to do in anticipation of family coming to visit.Lest there be any confusion . . . . . . . . .
My emphasis.
Fred Hoyle - Wikipedia
Cat
Thanks to that B2FH paper and my own seeing the strong force as the quantum gravitational strong force (g(1 (unity)), I realized my "monopole moment singularity" in the union of the electromagnetic force and the weak force to the "electroweak" force. I looked it up and it is the microcosmic "Higgs boson"!
This just wouldn't let me sleep and it is all Cat's fault . . . in the best sense! Thanks Cat, for that B2FH paper and macrocosmic stellar nucleosynthesis. Whether you think it or not, whether you anger me or not, I do pay attention. Thanks again, Cat. Now I can get some sleep, virtually a nap, before we have to go the airport and pick up some family.
This just wouldn't let me sleep and it is all Cat's fault . . . in the best sense! Thanks Cat, for that B2FH paper and macrocosmic stellar nucleosynthesis. Whether you think it or not, whether you anger me or not, I do pay attention. Thanks again, Cat. Now I can get some sleep, virtually a nap, before we have to go the airport and pick up some family.
Last edited:
I made one big mistake considering fbb2 0 (null unity) | 1 (unity) . . . and parity. It's quantum gravitational strong force (g(0) (null unity)) and NOT (g(1) (unity))!
It is FRACTAL chunky coarse grain detail level hyper-spatial zoom universe rather than FLATLAND level smooth blur!
It is FRACTAL chunky coarse grain detail level hyper-spatial zoom universe rather than FLATLAND level smooth blur!
Last edited:
Mistakes are good.
Use them as steppingstones.
Just keep moving forward.
Steady State
Big Bang Theory
Both have floors with holes through them.
Since we cannot create or destroy matter or energy.
We can study the changes from one to another in a never-ending story.
You cannot place an age to the universe.
But!
You can look at cycles and date the stages.
Use them as steppingstones.
Just keep moving forward.
Steady State
Big Bang Theory
Both have floors with holes through them.
Since we cannot create or destroy matter or energy.
We can study the changes from one to another in a never-ending story.
You cannot place an age to the universe.
But!
You can look at cycles and date the stages.
Why the current model of the universe breaks a fundamental law, that energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
The arrow of time is often defined in the universe as the ever-increasing entropy. The reason for this is that an hour earlier, there was even lower entropy, and the day before yesterday, there was even less entropy. Going back over 13 billion years, the universe was in an even lower entropy state at the singularity. At the singularity, the universe was in the lowest entropy state. Some physicists stop there and say that this is the beginning of the universe, but others like to go even further back in time, before the big bang and even before the singularity. After all, energy cannot be created or destroyed. So the current cosmology of the universe, the big bang theory, which physicists say is the beginning, breaks a fundamental law of the universe, the law of conservation of energy, which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
The universe that doesn’t break this law is called a Cyclic Universe.
This strange theory is by physicist Sir Roger Penrose and entails that the universe has went through many big bangs, not just one, from the infinite past. Though, Penrose is not the father of a Cyclic Universe. Such a universe is also called an Ekpytotic universe. The original ekpyrotic model was introduced by Justin Khoury, Burt Ovrut, Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok in 2001.
Steinhardt created the name based on the Ancient Greek word ekpyrosis (ἐκπύρωσις, “conflagration”), which refers to a Stoic cosmological model in which the universe is caught in an eternal cycle of fiery birth, cooling and rebirth. This reminds me of the Chinese philosophy Yin and Yang.
One of these Ekpytoic universes is called CCC theory. The three key things of Conformal Cyclic Cosmology are conformal geometry, Hawking Radiation, and Hawking Points.
Hawking Points are evidence of a previous universe located in the Cosmic Microwave Background, which could be remnant signals from Supermassive Black holes from a previous aeon.
Hawking Radiation is the radiation from those supermassive black holes that evaporated.
Conformal geometry is well… strange.
According to Penrose, as the universe increases in size, it enters a conformal phase where its size becomes irrelevant. Essentially, big and small lose their meaning. This allows the radiation from black holes that evaporated in the previous aeon to interact, forming quantum fluctuations that lead to a new “beginning” and a big bang. This is the same universe, and according to Roger, this process will repeat itself infinitely in the future. Penrose provides evidence of prior aeons, which he calls Hawking Points, so this theory is not just derived from his arse.
Penrose enjoys to use this painting by Escher to try and convey what conformal geometry would look like. As you can see in this painting, the top bats may appear big but as you peer down, they are the same size or shape for the matter, meaning the energy that evaporated from the black holes can now interact as they’re close enough to do so rather than being dissipated opposed to being far out like in the Heat Death hypothesis. As in Heat Death, the energy would be so far out due to the ever increasing expansion of the universe but in the conformal phase, the universe is small again because the universe has expanded so ridiculously large that it ‘’forgets’’ its size, therefore we’re back at the singularity.
In this strange bubbly animation, this is quantum foam, the very things that started the big bang. The current model of the big bang contradicts the fundamental law of the conservation of energy by stating that there was a beginning. This outright breaks this fundamental law. You cannot have a beginning because energy cannot be created nor destroyed. A beginning means that energy was created. In fact, a catholic priest founded the big bang to support Creationism, hence there is an beginning.
There was no beginning as this breaks the law of conservation of energy, energy merely changes from one form to another. The universe has no beginning or death and this saves the the law of conservation of energy from being broken. Some rules are meant to be broken but not the law of conservation of energy.
So the universe is not 13.8 billion years old. It is more than trillions of years old. It’s infinite.
Hawking Points in the Cosmic Microwave Background. This is the evidence that Penrose provides. These are remnant signals from supermassive blackholes from a previous aeon. He calls previous universes aeons because it is the same universe.
Here’s a wee diagram here showing how the conformal rescaling would occur. As you can see the crossover into the new aeon is not a different universe at all but rather the exactly same universe. And due to the conformal phase, the universe doesn’t understand what size is therefore all the energy is able to interact.
If we look at this epic diagram of a black hole, Hawking Radiation is emitted. This won’t occur until the dark ages of the universe which will be in an extremely long time from now.
Essentially, the universe will be very dark hence the dark era of the universe which will be in “n > 101 . The current model of the universe will state that this is the end of the universe. But Penrose’s conformal phase allows the left over radiation that evaporated from those black holes & can now interact once more and eventually over time, quantum fluctuation will arise again.
So, now that the “squashing down” the future conformal boundary to a conformally regular hypersurface.
The result is a new solution to Einstein’s equations, which Penrose takes to represent the entire universe, and which is composed of a sequence of sectors that Penrose calls “aeons”. So we’re now at the singularity. This is not to say that the big bang never occurred, it certainly did, but it is a event in the history and in the future just like any other event in the universe.
In the aeon we’re in now, when the universe cools down in the dark era, the same will occur again. Penrose states that this has occurred into the infinite past and will continue into the infinite future. Why? Because Cosmic Cyclic Cosmology does not break the law of conservation of energy since the universe is not having a creation. A creation would ultimately and utterly break this law. I’m confident that Penrose’s cosmology will replace the current model and there’s nothing wrong with that, that’s what science is all about, evidence replaces the old obsolete big bang theory and then we move on.
So the universe is not only 13.8 billion years old, it is trillions upon trillions of years old; even surpassing sextillion years old.
A universe without a beginning or ending.
This may be difficult to grasp but it could be entirely nature. After all, in quantum physics, weird stuff occur all the time, stuff that’s beyond common sense; there’s a thing called retrocausality where effect precedes cause.
Time runs left to right in this Feynman diagram of electron–positron annihilation. When interpreted to include retrocausality, the electron (marked e−) was not destroyed, instead becoming the positron (e+) and moving backward in time.
So, it should not be surprising that the universe did not have a beginning and has always existed forever. The Principle of Plenitude could be used to further grasp this notion. The principle asserts that the universe contains all possible forms of existence.
Due to this weirdness in QM, a non-causal universe may just be natural after all, beginnings and endings are concepts and somewhat illusions. If we die, we will certainly lose our minds, but our bodies go back where it came from. A star dies but then if it goes supernova, it’s not dead, it transforms into something else; elements, elements that eventually made us. So, it seems that this ongoing of transformation, birth, death, is a fundamental feature of the universe. A cyclic universe is a universe which follows an infinite self-sustaining cycle. In the 1930s, even Einstein came up with the idea that the universe could go through an infinite cycle of Big Bangs and Big Crunches way before the likes of Penrose and others did. The expansion of our universe could have been caused by the collapse of a previous universe — it sort of bounced back from the contraction of the universe before it. You could say our universe was reborn from the death of the universe before it. If this is true, then our Big Bang was not a unique event; it was one insignificant bang among an infinite number of other bangs.
So we have a different form of a cyclic universe which is the big bounce. The big bounce universe is a bit different to Penrose’s Cosmic Cyclic Cosmology because the universe doesn’t collapse onto itself, rather it evades Heat Death through conformal geometry and the energy left over from the supermassive black holes gives rise to it. Apart from that, the big bounce is similar.
In Penrose’s unique cosmology, the universe is a great cycler, constantly recycling the universe’s content for ever and ever and ever.
CCC and the Fermi paradox
In 2015, Gurzadyan and Penrose also discussed the Fermi paradox, the apparent contradiction between the lack of evidence but high probability estimates for the existence of extra-terrestrial civilizations. Within conformal cyclic cosmology, the cosmic microwave background provides the possibility of information transfer from one aeon to another, including of intelligent signals within the information panspermia concept.
Cycles in nature: Did you notice?
From hurricanes, tornadoes, bicycles, circadian rhythms, galaxies, literal rubbish recycling, wheels, seasons; the carbon cycle, rain; and many other cycles in nature!
So the universe does indeed like to cycle! The universe is a cyclic universe even down here on Earth. Isn’t this amazing?
At the beginning of this article, we pondered about elements recycling from that fundamental law we talked about, elements that enjoy to transfer their energies; cycle their energies. With all of these things as aforementioned, you can now see that Sir Roger Penrose could be on to something with his CCC theory. I’m confident that one day Roger’s cyclic cosmology could replace the current cosmology, but in the meantime, Heat Death still is in the game and may be the ultimate fate of the universe.
I hope you enjoyed this article as much as I did. This article is for a script that will be used for an upcoming video on this particular subject.
let’s recap.
This suggests that the universe had no beginning. And instead, always has existed without cause. it’s very hard to grasp but it could be entirely possible that this is just how the universe works. It also says that the universe is eternal. Maybe you’ve already read this article. Maybe that’s why dejavu occurs?
- The Universe goes through cycles of Big Bangs.
- Radiation from Supermassive Black Holes is used as evidence of a previous aeon , so called Hawking Points.
- The Universe forgets its size -changes to conformal geometry.
- Due to the conformal phase, the Hawking Radiation is able to interact as essentially the Universe is very small in this unique phase, so will not die of heat death.
Even modern physicists and philosophers believe that the idea of an endless universe predates them, believing that the universe is undergoing a cycle of birth, death, and rebirth (Big Bang, Big Crunch, Big Bang) which is more or less similar to some religious ideas as well. In Hinduism and Buddhism, the term “wheel of time” is a term that refers to the notion that time is cyclical, consisting of repeating ages that are considered to be cyclical over time. As with the idea of a cyclical universe, there is also something similar to the idea of a samsara in Hindu, Buddhist and Jain philosophy. The word “Samsara” is translated from Sanskrit as “continuous flow” and it refers to the cycle of birth, death and rebirth (rebirth is also called reincarnation in Buddhism).
As per Hindu philosophy, the universe was created by Brahman (the Big Bang), the life of the universe is maintained by Vishnu, and the universe will at some point be destroyed by Shiva (the Big Crunch). There is no end to this process as it continues for eternity. The continuous creation and destruction of the universe as represented by the outward and inward breath of the cosmic giant Maha Vishnu, a supreme god beyond the comprehension of a human, is depicted in a number of stories found in the Puranas, an ancient collection of Hindu texts. In Hindu cosmology, each universe exists for over 4 trillion years.
And interestingly enough, Chinese philosophical concept that describes opposite but interconnected forces. In Chinese cosmology, the universe creates itself out of a primary chaos of material energy, organized into the cycles of yin and yang and formed into objects and lives.
So there you have it, the universe may very well be forever.
Check out my YouTube channel at
youtube.com/spaceponder for more interesting ponderings.
This is hugely interesting information, although Im hardly qualified to understand it all.
Nevertheless, I gather when you say our Universe is thought to be 13.8 billion years old, you mean by our current models of understanding it ?
Thanks!
Cycles of Big Bangs in my opinion is only a reason to keep the term Big Bang.
It is more complicated than just Big Bang
It is more complicated than just Big Bang
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Harry Costas
Harry,
I totally agree with that. ]
Remember, Fred Hoyle intended the term "Big Bang" to be derogatory when he invented it on that BBC radio program. The intention, seemingly, was to discredit the BB in favour of Hoyle’s favoured “Steady State” theory.
However, BBT has a lot to commend it - once you get past the incredibly short ("infinitely"? short) time interval which seems to be necessitated by the "infinitely"? high temperatures and "infinitely"? high densities required by the singularity. Once you leave science behind, and allow division by zero, you are mistaking inappropriate words for reality. [Vide General Semantics].
As I have suggested frequently, there is an horrendous mistake which leads to this fiction. If the Universe is expanding, as it appears to be (except in some locations, where gravity reverses expansion) then, if you travel backwards in time, then the Universe can be imagined as contracting - not only that, but contracting all the way back to something infinitely small, infinitely hot and infinitely dense. Not only that, but this contraction is extrapolated retrograde in a regular manner - according to the Hubble "constant" - except that, of course, the Hubble constant is not constant.
Is it even scientifically valid to engage in such a retrograde extrapolation?????
Vide Big Crunch - Wikipedia from which
QUOTE
The Big Crunch is a hypothetical scenario for the ultimate fate of the universe, in which the expansion of the universe eventually reverses and the universe recollapses, ultimately causing the cosmic scale factor to reach zero, an event potentially followed by a reformation of the universe starting with another Big Bang. The vast majority of evidence indicates that this hypothesis is not correct.
QUOTE My emphasis. Blue Wiki items not included as emphasis.
How would you judge the smashing of an invaluable urn or any breakable object. ?
Would sticking the pieces together again offer any practical information on the origin of the event? Even if the process were possible for the Universe, would it provide any relevant information.?
Do we have even the faintest implications of the presence of dark matter/energy?
Any ad hoc fudges here?
Note that if the Big Crunch were possible, it would favour cyclic possibilities.
The graph below (Hubble) seems to indicate negative recessional velocities in the event of increasing numbers of galaxies nearer to the (graph) origin and onset of a/the big crunch
**********
Compare Hubble's original graph. It is now mistakenly shown as a straight line. Remember inflation? However, the coming together of local galaxies, vide Andromeda, is not included. The data showing contraction is conveniently forgotten. It should be shown in a scientific manner, such that the closest distances being shown as related to attraction overcoming expansion. As galaxies approach closer together, why does not closer proximity correspond to slower expansion - becoming contraction - as we see with Andromeda Galaxy and some other members of the Local Group.
Why does not the graph of increasing proximity (or decreasing expansion when reversing the process) not reflect the effects of such galaxies as Andromeda? Oh, yes. I forgot that, when you invent arbitrary "fudge factors", you don't have to account for them on reversal? The approaching galaxies are just ignored Look at some older graphs. I understand that the graph below originates from Hubble himself/
View: https://imgur.com/a/zdbFJY6#HSjwhcT
Yellow caption indicates that nearby galaxies can be moving towards us.
Note that they indicate negative recessional (i.e., approaching) velocities.
And how do you treat dark matter and dark energy, when you extrapolate the Hubble graph back to the "origin"? No pun intended.
If one is being scientific, should not an alternative mechanism close to the origin be remembered and taken into account? Do we forget it when latent heat needs consideration, or do we produce phase diagrams to account for observations?
Let us remember the observation, that, when cooling a gas (e.g., steam) the temperature decreases. But there is a point (temperature) where the temperature stops decreasing. Further removal of heat does not cause temperature decrease. It goes to removing latent heat and condensation occurs. Our "Law" which states that (at constant pressure) decrease in temperature causes decreasing volume is "invalid", unless we change the graph to allow for latent heat. It might be interesting to recall the assumptions required by the Gas Laws. One is that there are no interactions between particles. Ring any bells? If some particles are called "Andromeda particles", and disobey our "Law", just ignore it, or, better still, invent "dark heat laws".
Note. At temperatures much higher than boiling point, some heat (energy of steam molecules) can be removed without causing condensation. Close to the boiling point, there is not enough such energy to stop the molecules 'clumping together' and condensing. If latent heat were not to be considered, our "Law" would fail. Condensation would cause water molecules to be removed from the gas phase.
In brief, the graph is stated to be Hubble's and does recognize approaching galaxies (the more credit to him). Is there not sufficient modern data to show a division between approaching and receding galaxies? Bearing in mind the above, how would this situation change if there were to be a massive retrograde accumulation closer to the graph origin?
'
Cat
Harry,
I totally agree with that. ]
Remember, Fred Hoyle intended the term "Big Bang" to be derogatory when he invented it on that BBC radio program. The intention, seemingly, was to discredit the BB in favour of Hoyle’s favoured “Steady State” theory.
However, BBT has a lot to commend it - once you get past the incredibly short ("infinitely"? short) time interval which seems to be necessitated by the "infinitely"? high temperatures and "infinitely"? high densities required by the singularity. Once you leave science behind, and allow division by zero, you are mistaking inappropriate words for reality. [Vide General Semantics].
As I have suggested frequently, there is an horrendous mistake which leads to this fiction. If the Universe is expanding, as it appears to be (except in some locations, where gravity reverses expansion) then, if you travel backwards in time, then the Universe can be imagined as contracting - not only that, but contracting all the way back to something infinitely small, infinitely hot and infinitely dense. Not only that, but this contraction is extrapolated retrograde in a regular manner - according to the Hubble "constant" - except that, of course, the Hubble constant is not constant.
Is it even scientifically valid to engage in such a retrograde extrapolation?????
Vide Big Crunch - Wikipedia from which
QUOTE
The Big Crunch is a hypothetical scenario for the ultimate fate of the universe, in which the expansion of the universe eventually reverses and the universe recollapses, ultimately causing the cosmic scale factor to reach zero, an event potentially followed by a reformation of the universe starting with another Big Bang. The vast majority of evidence indicates that this hypothesis is not correct.
QUOTE My emphasis. Blue Wiki items not included as emphasis.
How would you judge the smashing of an invaluable urn or any breakable object. ?
Would sticking the pieces together again offer any practical information on the origin of the event? Even if the process were possible for the Universe, would it provide any relevant information.?
Do we have even the faintest implications of the presence of dark matter/energy?
Any ad hoc fudges here?
Note that if the Big Crunch were possible, it would favour cyclic possibilities.
The graph below (Hubble) seems to indicate negative recessional velocities in the event of increasing numbers of galaxies nearer to the (graph) origin and onset of a/the big crunch
**********
Compare Hubble's original graph. It is now mistakenly shown as a straight line. Remember inflation? However, the coming together of local galaxies, vide Andromeda, is not included. The data showing contraction is conveniently forgotten. It should be shown in a scientific manner, such that the closest distances being shown as related to attraction overcoming expansion. As galaxies approach closer together, why does not closer proximity correspond to slower expansion - becoming contraction - as we see with Andromeda Galaxy and some other members of the Local Group.
Why does not the graph of increasing proximity (or decreasing expansion when reversing the process) not reflect the effects of such galaxies as Andromeda? Oh, yes. I forgot that, when you invent arbitrary "fudge factors", you don't have to account for them on reversal? The approaching galaxies are just ignored Look at some older graphs. I understand that the graph below originates from Hubble himself/
View: https://imgur.com/a/zdbFJY6#HSjwhcT
Yellow caption indicates that nearby galaxies can be moving towards us.
Note that they indicate negative recessional (i.e., approaching) velocities.
And how do you treat dark matter and dark energy, when you extrapolate the Hubble graph back to the "origin"? No pun intended.
If one is being scientific, should not an alternative mechanism close to the origin be remembered and taken into account? Do we forget it when latent heat needs consideration, or do we produce phase diagrams to account for observations?
Let us remember the observation, that, when cooling a gas (e.g., steam) the temperature decreases. But there is a point (temperature) where the temperature stops decreasing. Further removal of heat does not cause temperature decrease. It goes to removing latent heat and condensation occurs. Our "Law" which states that (at constant pressure) decrease in temperature causes decreasing volume is "invalid", unless we change the graph to allow for latent heat. It might be interesting to recall the assumptions required by the Gas Laws. One is that there are no interactions between particles. Ring any bells? If some particles are called "Andromeda particles", and disobey our "Law", just ignore it, or, better still, invent "dark heat laws".
Note. At temperatures much higher than boiling point, some heat (energy of steam molecules) can be removed without causing condensation. Close to the boiling point, there is not enough such energy to stop the molecules 'clumping together' and condensing. If latent heat were not to be considered, our "Law" would fail. Condensation would cause water molecules to be removed from the gas phase.
In brief, the graph is stated to be Hubble's and does recognize approaching galaxies (the more credit to him). Is there not sufficient modern data to show a division between approaching and receding galaxies? Bearing in mind the above, how would this situation change if there were to be a massive retrograde accumulation closer to the graph origin?
'
Cat
Last edited:
Hello to one and all.
Contraction and expansion are part of the cyclic process.
The spiral observed in galaxies are created by the powerful jets that expel compact matter droplets away from the core, these jets can remain stable for thousands of years eg M87 100 ,000 years our Milkyway 7,000 Lt years.
In elliptical galaxies the matter within the jet disperses forming and elliptical form.
100 billion years may take the cycle. Whatever expels (expansion) eventually contracts back to the core.
Hey! I could be wrong in what I say.
[Submitted on 5 Jun 2023]
Contraction and expansion are part of the cyclic process.
The spiral observed in galaxies are created by the powerful jets that expel compact matter droplets away from the core, these jets can remain stable for thousands of years eg M87 100 ,000 years our Milkyway 7,000 Lt years.
In elliptical galaxies the matter within the jet disperses forming and elliptical form.
100 billion years may take the cycle. Whatever expels (expansion) eventually contracts back to the core.
Hey! I could be wrong in what I say.
[Submitted on 5 Jun 2023]
Probing the Heart of Active Narrow-line Seyfert 1 Galaxies with VERA Wideband Polarimetry
Mieko Takamura, Kazuhiro Hada, Mareki Honma, Tomoaki Oyama, Aya Yamauchi, Syunsaku Suzuki, Yoshiaki Hagiwara, Monica Orienti, Filippo D'Ammando, Jongho Park, Minchul Kam, Akihiro DoiSimilar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason
- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 189
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
-
-
-
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.- Started by Starstruck
- Replies: 12
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram