Origins of the universe
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: GR prediction for precession of perihelion of Mercury is not quite right
Next: There is a time limit
From: mpc755 on 27 Jun 2010 21:48 On Jun 27, 9:41�pm, bpuharic <w...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 17:53:43 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > > >"God does not play dice with the universe." > >Einstein was right about QM. > > actually he was wrong > Answer the following: A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Detectors are placed at the exits. The C-60 molecule is always detected exiting a single slit. A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits. Repeat and the C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern. A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The C-60 molecule itself occupies a very small region of the wave. The C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit in a double slit experiment. The associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available slits. When the aether displacement wave exits the slits it creates interference which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no interference. Why is a C-60 molecule always detected exiting a single slit? Because the C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit. Duh! Aether and matter are different states of the same material. The material is maether. Maether has mass. Aether and matter have mass. Aether is uncompressed maether and matter is compressed maether. Aether is displaced by matter. The aether is not at rest when displaced and 'displaces back'. The 'displacing back' is the pressure exerted by the aether. Gravity is pressure exerted by displaced aether towards matter. 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places". The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the aether's state of displacement. "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable" 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. EINSTEIN' http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2." The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy.
From: Rock Brentwood on 27 Jun 2010 22:12 On Jun 26, 5:48�pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...(a)nospam.com> wrote: > How brillig! �Have you seen the mimsy borogroves of late? �I hear they are > anti-entropic during their vegetative phase. .... which brings up the interesting (and unrelated observation) -- Carroll's story starts out with a Germanic twist, as if he had just gotten through reading too much Old English lately -- and proceeds to carry on in a fashion that seems perfectly grammatical, yet gibberish to modern English ears. The story, meanwhile, sounds *suspiciously* like Beowulf, with the Jabberwocky being Grendel. So, apparently, what Carroll did was he got through reading the original Old English version of Beowulf and started wondering how this must sound to untrained ears -- a story that is perfectly consistent and meaningful and strangely familiar, yet which seems totally incomprehensible to someone not trained to read Old English. On a related note -- *if* the Universe had a beginning a finite amount of time back, say 13.5 billion years ago, then since everything you see in the sky projects as many years back in time as it is light- years away from you, then everything in the sky at a distance of 13.5 billion light years is a DIRECT line of sight view of part of the universe at the very first moment in time. The celestial sphere at 13.5 billion light years distance is called the Cosmological Horizon. So, it's not a matter of speculation of whether or how the universe began, or what happened when it did. It is a matter of *direct observation*. The only thing right now stopping one from actually being able to see that far back is the fact that outer space was opaque up to around 13 billion years ago. So, at the distance of 13 billion light years, all you end up seeing is a vast wall of light, beyond which is an impenetrable fog of light. The threshold is called the "point of last scattering". But none of this stops the last 500 million light years from being directly visible. For there is at least one force which is long-range and cannot be shielded or obscured by anything -- gravity. The corresponding form of radiation -- gravitational radiation -- will NOT be obscured by the point of last scattering. Any receiver sensitive enough to pick up the gravitational radiation will be able to view all the way back to the Cosmological Horizon. All of this -- of course -- assumes there is a beginning. There are solutions to the Big Bang model (with non-zero cosmological constant) which go like exponential (the de Sitter solutions), never dropping down to 0; others which go like hyperbolic cosine (meaning: there is a minimal scale preceding which is a contraction).
From: mpc755 on 27 Jun 2010 23:26 On Jun 27, 10:12�pm, Rock Brentwood <federation2...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > On Jun 26, 5:48 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...(a)nospam.com> wrote: > > > How brillig! Have you seen the mimsy borogroves of late? I hear they are > > anti-entropic during their vegetative phase. > > ... which brings up the interesting (and unrelated observation) -- > Carroll's story starts out with a Germanic twist, as if he had just > gotten through reading too much Old English lately -- and proceeds to > carry on in a fashion that seems perfectly grammatical, yet gibberish > to modern English ears. The story, meanwhile, sounds *suspiciously* > like Beowulf, with the Jabberwocky being Grendel. > > So, apparently, what Carroll did was he got through reading the > original Old English version of Beowulf and started wondering how this > must sound to untrained ears -- a story that is perfectly consistent > and meaningful and strangely familiar, yet which seems totally > incomprehensible to someone not trained to read Old English. > > On a related note -- *if* the Universe had a beginning a finite amount > of time back, say 13.5 billion years ago, then since everything you > see in the sky projects as many years back in time as it is light- > years away from you, then everything in the sky at a distance of 13.5 > billion light years is a DIRECT line of sight view of part of the > universe at the very first moment in time. > > The celestial sphere at 13.5 billion light years distance is called > the Cosmological Horizon. > > So, it's not a matter of speculation of whether or how the universe > began, or what happened when it did. It is a matter of *direct > observation*. > > The only thing right now stopping one from actually being able to see > that far back is the fact that outer space was opaque up to around 13 > billion years ago. So, at the distance of 13 billion light years, all > you end up seeing is a vast wall of light, beyond which is an > impenetrable fog of light. > > The threshold is called the "point of last scattering". > > But none of this stops the last 500 million light years from being > directly visible. For there is at least one force which is long-range > and cannot be shielded or obscured by anything -- gravity. The > corresponding form of radiation -- gravitational radiation -- will NOT > be obscured by the point of last scattering. Any receiver sensitive > enough to pick up the gravitational radiation will be able to view all > the way back to the Cosmological Horizon. > > All of this -- of course -- assumes there is a beginning. There are > solutions to the Big Bang model (with non-zero cosmological constant) > which go like exponential (the de Sitter solutions), never dropping > down to 0; others which go like hyperbolic cosine (meaning: there is a > minimal scale preceding which is a contraction). The following image of a black hole is similar to what the universe is, or the local universe we exist in. http://www.feandft.com/BlackHole.jpg The 'beginning' is where aether and matter are emitted into the jet stream. Matter and aether, maether, is continually being emitted into the jet stream. It is not the Big Bang. It is the Big Ongoing. If by contraction you mean collapse then that is likely incorrect. The matter continues to expand from the emission point until it eventually 'falls over the water fall' and winds up at the disk which is the Rindler Horizon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Rindler_coordinates#Geodesics). Just as maether is continually emitted into the jet stream of a black hole, maether is continually emitted into the jet stream the universe is, or the local universe we exist in. '1st Stars' in the following image is where the pressure is great enough to cause the maether to be compressed into matter: http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html
From: Desertphile on 27 Jun 2010 23:42 On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 13:15:55 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > "I want to know how god created the universe. I want to know his > thoughts. The rest are just details." Albert EInstein Yep. And Albert was an atheist. He did not believe the gods exist. > Hypersphere cosmology was the beginning with energy created in its > surface of space. First there was inflation that stopped gravity from > bringing it all back together. Einstein's universe is closed finite > yet unbounded hypersphere cosmology. Idiot. Stop telling Einstien what he believed. > Mitch Raemsch -- http://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
From: Desertphile on 27 Jun 2010 23:44
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 14:01:34 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 26, 1:43�pm, Will in New Haven > <bill.re...(a)taylorandfrancis.com> wrote: > > On Jun 26, 4:15 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > "I want to know how God created the universe. I want to know his > > > thoughts. The rest are just details." Albert EInstein > > > > You do know that Einstein repeatedly and explicitly denied any belief > > in a personal god or in any traditional religion, don't you? > Yes. But he still believed in a god. Spinoza's god. Then why did Einstien say he was an atheist? -- http://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz |