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 17 May 2010 13:53 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
From: BURT on 17 May 2010 14:43 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. What we want a better understanding of is the Absolute Beginning of the universe. Mitch Raemsch
From: PD on 17 May 2010 14:45 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
From: G. L. Bradford on 17 May 2010 15:51 "Thomas Heger" <ttt_heg(a)web.de> wrote in message news:85dcquFs5qU1(a)mid.individual.net... > G. L. Bradford schrieb: >> >> "Thomas Heger" <ttt_heg(a)web.de> wrote in message >> news:85d4ttF9biU1(a)mid.individual.net... >>> Sam Wormley schrieb: >>>> On 5/17/10 1:07 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>> One argument against big-bang cosmology is, that objects with very >>>>> different redshift seem to influence each other. But that cannot >>>>> happen, >>>>> if the big-bang model would be correct, because this relates redshift >>>>> to >>>>> age and younger events cannot have an impact on older ones. >>>> >>>> That's a pretty nasty misunderstanding you got there, Heger. >>> >>> You think so? Isn't the Hubble law, that the velocity would increase >>> with distance? >>> Since more distant means longer time to travel for light, we see earlier >>> events further away. If you link redshift to distance and that to age, >>> than nearer events happened later and have lower redshift. But the >>> direction of influence goes from earlier to later and not in the >>> opposite direction. >>> If now stars or galaxies with different redshift influence each other, >>> that cannot happen at different times. Or maybe at different times, but >>> the direction has to be from past to future. But later events cannot >>> influence earlier ones, because they have happened already. >>> If now objects with different redshift have an influence on each other, >>> that has to happen in a causal order. Hence you cannot attribute >>> redshift to age and not to distance. This because only objects in >>> relative vicinity would (could) influence each other. This would very >>> much invalidate one of the main assumptions of the big-bang cosmology. >>> >>> Greetings >>> >>> TH >> >> ========================= >> >> At its increased velocity relative to the observer and instrumentation a >> particle decays earlier than the physicist observes it to decay, thus >> appearing to have stretched time. The time to observation of the decay (a >> non-local event) took longer due to a somewhat milder equivalent of a >> black hole existing, not the event of the decay itself (a local event). >> Light even at the constant speed of c taking longer to escape a relative >> deflation of a relatively malleable space but in the end escaping. >> > > I don't see the relevance of particle physics in the realm of galaxies. > And I can't find a connection to the question considered. So, please, > explain, what you have in mind. > My statement was, that redshift cannot be attributed to distance according > to Hubble's 'law', because galaxies with different redshift seem to > influence each other. So, they cannot be too far away from each other, > because otherwise their effect on each other would be negligible. > > TH ============================== The variable (relative) geometry of SPACE-time doesn't care whether one is talking micro- or macro-verse. There is simply no difference except relative differences. And there is no such thing as NEGLIGIBLE effect when it comes to gravity's singularity (Singularity) (singularities) (field(s)) (well(s)) (hole(s)) (plane(s)) (universal reach(es)). The gravity of an infinite Universe would never be 'local'. It would be 'non-local'. Every 'local' singularity (every 'local' universe) of an infinity of locals being its constituent makeup, thus impervious to the [Big Rip] of its infinity (rather the Big Crunch / Big Bang 'Singularity' beyond its own [distantly down and in] Planck horizon being impervious to itself [distantly up and out]). Not that we wouldn't observe complex entangling intra-active effects -- relatively speaking -- of such naked (infinite) 'Singularity'. What is "distance" when it comes to gravity's 'singularity' / the singularity of gravity (the universality of gravity)? A variable (relative) geometry of SPACE-time. A relatively malleable space. GLB =============================
From: Thomas Heger on 17 May 2010 17:43
G. L. Bradford schrieb: > > "Thomas Heger" <ttt_heg(a)web.de> wrote in message > news:85dcquFs5qU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> G. L. Bradford schrieb: >>> >>> "Thomas Heger" <ttt_heg(a)web.de> wrote in message >>> news:85d4ttF9biU1(a)mid.individual.net... >>>> Sam Wormley schrieb: >>>>> On 5/17/10 1:07 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>> One argument against big-bang cosmology is, that objects with very >>>>>> different redshift seem to influence each other. But that cannot >>>>>> happen, >>>>>> if the big-bang model would be correct, because this relates >>>>>> redshift to >>>>>> age and younger events cannot have an impact on older ones. >>>>> >>>>> That's a pretty nasty misunderstanding you got there, Heger. >>>> >>>> You think so? Isn't the Hubble law, that the velocity would increase >>>> with distance? >>>> Since more distant means longer time to travel for light, we see >>>> earlier events further away. If you link redshift to distance and >>>> that to age, than nearer events happened later and have lower >>>> redshift. But the direction of influence goes from earlier to later >>>> and not in the opposite direction. >>>> If now stars or galaxies with different redshift influence each >>>> other, that cannot happen at different times. Or maybe at different >>>> times, but the direction has to be from past to future. But later >>>> events cannot influence earlier ones, because they have happened >>>> already. >>>> If now objects with different redshift have an influence on each >>>> other, that has to happen in a causal order. Hence you cannot >>>> attribute redshift to age and not to distance. This because only >>>> objects in relative vicinity would (could) influence each other. >>>> This would very much invalidate one of the main assumptions of the >>>> big-bang cosmology. >>>> >>>> Greetings >>>> >>>> TH >>> >>> ========================= >>> >>> At its increased velocity relative to the observer and >>> instrumentation a particle decays earlier than the physicist observes >>> it to decay, thus appearing to have stretched time. The time to >>> observation of the decay (a non-local event) took longer due to a >>> somewhat milder equivalent of a black hole existing, not the event of >>> the decay itself (a local event). Light even at the constant speed of >>> c taking longer to escape a relative deflation of a relatively >>> malleable space but in the end escaping. >>> >> >> I don't see the relevance of particle physics in the realm of >> galaxies. And I can't find a connection to the question considered. >> So, please, explain, what you have in mind. >> My statement was, that redshift cannot be attributed to distance >> according to Hubble's 'law', because galaxies with different redshift >> seem to influence each other. So, they cannot be too far away from >> each other, because otherwise their effect on each other would be >> negligible. >> >> TH > > ============================== > > The variable (relative) geometry of SPACE-time doesn't care whether one > is talking micro- or macro-verse. There is simply no difference except > relative differences. And there is no such thing as NEGLIGIBLE effect > when it comes to gravity's singularity (Singularity) (singularities) > (field(s)) (well(s)) (hole(s)) (plane(s)) (universal reach(es)). > > The gravity of an infinite Universe would never be 'local'. It would be > 'non-local'. Every 'local' singularity (every 'local' universe) of an > infinity of locals being its constituent makeup, thus impervious to the > [Big Rip] of its infinity (rather the Big Crunch / Big Bang > 'Singularity' beyond its own [distantly down and in] Planck horizon > being impervious to itself [distantly up and out]). Not that we wouldn't > observe complex entangling intra-active effects -- relatively speaking > -- of such naked (infinite) 'Singularity'. > > What is "distance" when it comes to gravity's 'singularity' / the > singularity of gravity (the universality of gravity)? A variable > (relative) geometry of SPACE-time. A relatively malleable space. > Singularities are a dubious concept by itself. We think about the Earth gravitational field as if the mass is concentrated in a point. But we know, that the mass isn't. And the gravitational field -or the effect that things fall in the direction of that point- is not concentrated to a point neither. Then why could we assume pointlike singularities in the first place? Something may look like that, but we most certainly make a fault with such an assumption. What happens is the impression of movement and that looks distorted to us, because it appears to happen in a region, that seems to be too small (a 'black hole'). But isn't relativity a theory of spacetime, where time could be to some extend exchanged with time if we perform a coordinate transformation. So, in such regions this seems to happen and the observed space looks too small, because the timelike axis is pointing in a 'wrong' direction (away from ours). But if we would perform such a coordinate shift, the space would expand again and in such a region everything would look as usual, except that the Earth would just vanish in a black hole. Hence 'space' denotes the impression an observer would have, that is moving along his worldline and not what we perceive as such. We have our own impression, but that is special to us. So distance has to be measured relative to the observer in question (from an assumed distant point and not from Earth) and with the appropriate timelike axis (the one measured locally at that point). Greetings TH |