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: BURT on 19 May 2010 18:11 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. 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
From: PD on 19 May 2010 18:18 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. > > 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
From: BURT on 19 May 2010 21:24 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. 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: BURT on 20 May 2010 00:39 On May 19, 2:52 pm, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > On 5/19/2010 3:00 PM, PD wrote: > > > > > > > On May 19, 1:30 pm, BURT<macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> 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 > > Gravity is weak.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Not at its extreme. Mitch Raemsch
From: Thomas Heger on 20 May 2010 04:49
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 |