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 14:09 On May 20, 12:52 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 20, 10:36 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 20, 12:24 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 20, 6:44 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Yes you have. You compared the Big Bang to a black hole. > > > Link to where I said that? I believe you just made that up, Mitch. I take it that you are confessing you just made this up. > > Just like you made up what you thought Kip Thorne said, and you even > > made up page numbers for me to look up. Sure enough, you lied. > > > Mitch, life is going to be a whole lot easier if you stop making > > things up and then lying that other people are saying the same thing > > as you. > > > > That of > > > course is the problem. If it is it can't expand. But there are no such > > > things as black holes. They violate the motion laws. What we are > > > seeing is short of a black hole but the extreme of a red shift. > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > A singularity would have maximum if not infinite gravity. Roy Masters > points out the problem that the beginning of the universe can't be > like that. > > The solution is a Ring Big Bang that starts with space and spread out > energy. > Gerard Hooft advocated for a ring big bang at the time Stephen > Hawking said singularity. > > Mitch Raemsch
From: BURT on 20 May 2010 14:15 On May 20, 11:09 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 20, 12:52 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 20, 10:36 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 20, 12:24 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 20, 6:44 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Yes you have. You compared the Big Bang to a black hole. > > > > Link to where I said that? I believe you just made that up, Mitch. > > I take it that you are confessing you just made this up. > > > > > > Just like you made up what you thought Kip Thorne said, and you even > > > made up page numbers for me to look up. Sure enough, you lied. > > > > Mitch, life is going to be a whole lot easier if you stop making > > > things up and then lying that other people are saying the same thing > > > as you. > > > > > That of > > > > course is the problem. If it is it can't expand. But there are no such > > > > things as black holes. They violate the motion laws. What we are > > > > seeing is short of a black hole but the extreme of a red shift. > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > A singularity would have maximum if not infinite gravity. Roy Masters > > points out the problem that the beginning of the universe can't be > > like that. > > > The solution is a Ring Big Bang that starts with space and spread out > > energy. > > Gerard Hooft advocated for a ring big bang at the time Stephen > > Hawking said singularity. > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Kip Thorne made the excuse that matter does not fall faster than light in a black hole. Of course that does not solve the contradiction since matter cannot reach light speed according to SR. Black holes violate the motion laws. Mitch Raemsch
From: Thomas Heger on 20 May 2010 16:33
PD schrieb: > On May 20, 11:58 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: >> 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. > > Then I suggest you approach it like a business proposition. A nice > idea is fine, but until you have a business plan and a proof of > concept, you will not attract investors. You actually do have to get > it past the cocktail napkin stage before anyone will treat it at all > seriously. Nor will anyone help you develop the business plan -- you > have to learn how to do that yourself. > I've written some kind of book. I thought, that I've given the link here somewhere. It is a 150 page presentation on google.docs: http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 (Certainly more than a napkin) Greetings TH > It's fine to need help past a certain point, but you have to beef up > your skills enough to get it to that certain point first. > >> Greetings >> >> TH > |