How Roy Masters tried to disprove the Big Bang
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Twins Paradox doesn't add up with light
Next: Terra incognita, Sacred ground, Mysterious territory.
From: PD on 20 May 2010 09:44 On May 20, 3:49 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > PD schrieb: > > > > > On May 18, 2:07 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > > >> Even if I can't present some usable model about this, it would be > >> certainly worth to explore such an idea, because it could lead to a > >> better understanding and in that progress to better models. > > > Unfortunately for you, no. > > Ideas like what you are floating are not viable until they become even > > the barest of usable models. Ideas are a dime a gross. Models are a > > dime a dozen. Theories that can be tested are worth their weight in > > salt. Theories that have been tested and appear so far to work are > > worth their weight in gold. > > As to your defense that you are not equipped to build a model because > > you are not a mathematician. One does not have to be a mathematician > > to have mathematical skills, and skills are both ancillary and > > required for practice in physics. Likewise, competency in physics is > > necessary for an architect, though an architect need not be a > > physicist, and competency in organic chemistry is necessary for a > > doctor, though a doctor need not be an organic chemist. > > I'm afraid, Thomas, that there really is no short cut, and there is a > > strong limitation on the contributions to physics by hobbyists for > > this reason. If you are interested enough in your own ideas to see > > them furthered, then you will be motivated to acquire some of the > > skills needed to accomplish that. Take that as a word of > > ENcouragement, not of DIScouragement. > > Thanks PD for encouragement. > Even if I can't formulate it mathematical now, I can describe the idea > in words: > You know the Sierpinski triangle? That is a two dimensional fractal > pattern. Now take a triangle and treat it as a vertical cross section of > a cone. Than apply feedback. That goes in the scheme of a vortex. That > has a rotation around the axis of that cone and let the cone advance by > one step for each 'round-trip'. > The feedback stems from rotation, that turn in opposite direction and > each is represented by a quaternion, that are inverses to each other. > Each quaternion represents a tetrahedron and we have two, that point in > opposite direction. They build a sphere, that they touch from the > inside. This has a frequency associated - due to feedback, that is > inverse to its size, of what we have a large varity. > This build a fractal pattern, if different sizes are superimposed. This > is my assumption about some kind of fundamental mechanism we find in nature. > > TH Sorry, this doesn't help. I'm going to need the math.
From: PD on 20 May 2010 09:44 On May 19, 8:24 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 19, 3:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 19, 5:11 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 19, 2:53 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 19, 4:08 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 19, 1:00 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 19, 1:30 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 17, 11:45 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 17, 1:43 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 17, 10:53 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 4, 4:27 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 4, 2:04 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 4, 12:45 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem Mr. Masters has pointed out is the gravity of the first > > > > > > > > > > > > > matter must keep it from expanding. Gerard Hooft shows the solution to > > > > > > > > > > > > > this problem set out by Roy Masters. Hooft proposed a ring Big Bang > > > > > > > > > > > > > where energy is created spread out and expansion of the universe > > > > > > > > > > > > > overcomes its original gravity. Edward Witten also proposes an > > > > > > > > > > > > > original spread out energy but for him it was string. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > > Real physicists do not care what some radio guru with no remaining > > > > > > > > > > > > brain cells says about science. > > > > > > > > > > > > Still the challenge requires resolution. > > > > > > > > > > > No, I don't think so, Mitch. > > > > > > > > > > There are people that challenge that smoking is bad for your health. > > > > > > > > > > Does this challenge require resolution? > > > > > > > > > > There are people that believe the Earth is 6600 years old. Does this > > > > > > > > > > challenge require resolution? > > > > > > > > > > There are people that challenge that metals are made of atoms? Does > > > > > > > > > > this challenge require resolution? > > > > > > > > > > > One of the key ingredients to intelligence is knowing which challenges > > > > > > > > > > are worth completely ignoring. > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > This challenge is worth debating as it can lead science to a place of > > > > > > > > > better understanding. > > > > > > > > > As I said, just because it's a challenge does not make it worth > > > > > > > > debating. > > > > > > > > > > What we want a better understanding of is the > > > > > > > > > Absolute Beginning of the universe. > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > "The problem in physics is to find the problem." Richard Feynmann > > > > > > > And knowing which things are not problems. > > > > > > > > How then does the universe expand against infinite gravity of a > > > > > > > metterial singularity? > > > > > > > What infinite gravity? The gravity outside even a black hole's event > > > > > > horizon isn't infinite. > > > > > > > > This question is worth debating. > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > The sigularity is infinite gravity even according to Stephen Hawking. > > > > > But that's at the singularity. The universe isn't expanding at the > > > > singularity. It's expanding outside the event horizon. > > > > But the singlarity is the entire mass of the universe and must expand > > > against that gravity. > > > What? No. The big bang is not a black hole. Different things entirely. > > Then stop comparing them. I haven't. > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > "GR predicts its own downfall by predicting singularities." > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > I- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: Thomas Heger on 20 May 2010 11:19 PD schrieb: > On May 20, 3:49 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: >> PD schrieb: >> You know the Sierpinski triangle? That is a two dimensional fractal >> pattern. Now take a triangle and treat it as a vertical cross section of >> a cone. Than apply feedback. That goes in the scheme of a vortex. That >> has a rotation around the axis of that cone and let the cone advance by >> one step for each 'round-trip'. >> The feedback stems from rotation, that turn in opposite direction and >> each is represented by a quaternion, that are inverses to each other. >> Each quaternion represents a tetrahedron and we have two, that point in >> opposite direction. They build a sphere, that they touch from the >> inside. This has a frequency associated - due to feedback, that is >> inverse to its size, of what we have a large varity. >> This build a fractal pattern, if different sizes are superimposed. This >> is my assumption about some kind of fundamental mechanism we find in nature. >> >> TH > > Sorry, this doesn't help. I'm going to need the math. There are a number of problems to be solved. One is, that this a different concept than current ones. I can connect the described system to various known phenomena. But the explanation is always different. This is like reinventing physics and that is too much for a single person. It is based on the idea of a continuum with discontinuities. There the term 'spacetime' denotes something continuous and real, what is remotely like ether ideas. This could have structure, that we can observe. The first things to 'sacrifice' are particles (besides the big-bang), because they would not really fit into that picture. Particles in my picture denote certain structures or patterns. Since they are build on the same footing as radiation, but timelike stable, I can transform them into radiation again, if the timeline is changed. This is a rather strange assumption, but I think, I can justify this. I can show developed systems of this kind, that seem to work. About fractals I recommend the book of Benoit Mandelbrot http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fractal-Geometry-Nature-Benoit-Mandelbrot/dp/0716711869 Or the website of R. Oldershaw http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/ About the math I recommend the book of Peter Rowlands http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/6544.html and Jonathan Scott's http://pws.prserv.net/jonathan_scott/physics/cfv.pdf Greetings TH
From: PD on 20 May 2010 12:34 On May 20, 10:19 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > PD schrieb: > > > > > On May 20, 3:49 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > >> PD schrieb: > >> You know the Sierpinski triangle? That is a two dimensional fractal > >> pattern. Now take a triangle and treat it as a vertical cross section of > >> a cone. Than apply feedback. That goes in the scheme of a vortex. That > >> has a rotation around the axis of that cone and let the cone advance by > >> one step for each 'round-trip'. > >> The feedback stems from rotation, that turn in opposite direction and > >> each is represented by a quaternion, that are inverses to each other. > >> Each quaternion represents a tetrahedron and we have two, that point in > >> opposite direction. They build a sphere, that they touch from the > >> inside. This has a frequency associated - due to feedback, that is > >> inverse to its size, of what we have a large varity. > >> This build a fractal pattern, if different sizes are superimposed. This > >> is my assumption about some kind of fundamental mechanism we find in nature. > > >> TH > > > Sorry, this doesn't help. I'm going to need the math. > > There are a number of problems to be solved. One is, that this a > different concept than current ones. I can connect the described system > to various known phenomena. But the explanation is always different. > This is like reinventing physics and that is too much for a single person.. I disagree. There are a number of people who have done the work you say is impossible for one person to do. You just perhaps need to apply yourself harder and learn some of the skills you are lacking, rather than just pleading for help promoting a half-baked idea. > It is based on the idea of a continuum with discontinuities. There the > term 'spacetime' denotes something continuous and real, what is remotely > like ether ideas. This could have structure, that we can observe. > > The first things to 'sacrifice' are particles (besides the big-bang), > because they would not really fit into that picture. Particles in my > picture denote certain structures or patterns. Since they are build on > the same footing as radiation, but timelike stable, I can transform them > into radiation again, if the timeline is changed. This is a rather > strange assumption, but I think, I can justify this. > > I can show developed systems of this kind, that seem to work. > About fractals I recommend the book of Benoit Mandelbrothttp://www.amazon..co.uk/Fractal-Geometry-Nature-Benoit-Mandelbrot/dp/... > Or the website of R. Oldershawhttp://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/ > > About the math I recommend the book of Peter Rowlandshttp://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/6544.html > and > Jonathan Scott'shttp://pws.prserv.net/jonathan_scott/physics/cfv.pdf > > Greetings > TH
From: Thomas Heger on 20 May 2010 12:58
PD schrieb: > On May 20, 10:19 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: >> PD schrieb: >> >> >> >>> On May 20, 3:49 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: >>>> PD schrieb: >>>> You know the Sierpinski triangle? That is a two dimensional fractal >>>> pattern. Now take a triangle and treat it as a vertical cross section of >>>> a cone. Than apply feedback. That goes in the scheme of a vortex. That >>>> has a rotation around the axis of that cone and let the cone advance by >>>> one step for each 'round-trip'. >>>> The feedback stems from rotation, that turn in opposite direction and >>>> each is represented by a quaternion, that are inverses to each other. >>>> Each quaternion represents a tetrahedron and we have two, that point in >>>> opposite direction. They build a sphere, that they touch from the >>>> inside. This has a frequency associated - due to feedback, that is >>>> inverse to its size, of what we have a large varity. >>>> This build a fractal pattern, if different sizes are superimposed. This >>>> is my assumption about some kind of fundamental mechanism we find in nature. >>>> TH >>> Sorry, this doesn't help. I'm going to need the math. >> There are a number of problems to be solved. One is, that this a >> different concept than current ones. I can connect the described system >> to various known phenomena. But the explanation is always different. >> This is like reinventing physics and that is too much for a single person. > > I disagree. There are a number of people who have done the work you > say is impossible for one person to do. You just perhaps need to apply > yourself harder and learn some of the skills you are lacking, rather > than just pleading for help promoting a half-baked idea. > Well, I guess You are right. I had the idea, that this concept might be of general interest, so I wanted to show what I've got until now. Greetings TH |