Prev: EINSTEINIANA, SPEED OF LIGHT AND NEWTON THE VILLAIN
Next: Revised Eddington theory of gravity produces universe without a BigBang singularity
From: Osher Doctorow on 17 Jul 2010 03:49
From Osher Doctorow

If every physical object has an equal tendency to expand or contract,
or in other words P(expansion) = P(attraction) = 1/2 where P( ) is
"probability of", then should not the Universe be chaotic?

No, but with qualifications. What if contraction GENERATES mass?
What if expansion GENERATES waves/fields? Since physical objects
have both wave and particle, or field and particle aspects, their
expansion and contraction are in fact in a certain state of
equilibrium or equality in terms of probability 1/2.

Why, then, do we observe an expanding Universe and even an
accelerating Universe? We actually observe both an expanding and a
contracting Universe. The latter occurs in black holes and
gravitational collapse and in the formation of stars. The former
arguably can no longer be regarded as purely "non-physical space or
spacetime", since even vacuum is now regarded as a "substance". We
are literally looking at a picture of expansion, which has the
property of "separating" or "diverging" in an intuitive sense. We
would also see such a picture in a smaller scale if we look at
repulsion of protons versus other protons, or electrons versus other
electrons for example. And when we "look" at black holes, we are
looking at a picture of contraction, anywhere in the Universe, as also
happens when we look at any mass - mass as a cluster or condensate of
particles that is contractive (gravitationally, for example) only in a
different degree from black holes!

Osher Doctorow
From: Osher Doctorow on 17 Jul 2010 12:11
From Osher Doctorow

Let us define:

1) A CONTRACTOR is an object that has a tendency to contract.
2) An EXPANDER is an object that has a tendency to expand.
3) An ATTRACTOR is an object that has a tendency to attract.
4) A REPELLER is an object that has a tendency to repel or toward
repulsion.

It appears as minimal principles that:

5) CONTRACTOR = ATTRACTOR
6) EXPANDER = REPELLER

Can we identify a MASS as an object that is an ATTRACTOR and a wave or
field as an object that is a REPELLER? From the previous post, it
appeared to be correct, but there are some indications that it is more
complicated. Here are some complications:

7) A "virtual boson" appears to first expand and then contract.

8) Masses arguably attract waves/fields (sun vs passing light waves)

9) Supernovae and explosions (which are expansive) may be generated by
"over-contraction".

10) Protons repel each other, electrons repel each other, but protons
attract electrons and vice versa, and they are all involved under the
same "type" of interaction (electromagnetic, electrostatic).

11) The Universe not only accelerates but decelerates and presumably
at times remains constant in its expansion.

So these indications need to be explored more before deciding how mass
and wave/fields relate to expansion and contraction.

Osher Doctorow

From: Osher Doctorow on 17 Jul 2010 12:42
From Osher Doctorow

"Mass" should also be extended to "particle(s)" which may be
"massless". I will continue to use either terminology if no
confusion is likely.

A Noncommutative Algebra of Attraction and Repulsion (respectively A
and R) appears to be of the following type, where the symbol -->
indicates "leads to", and the symbol --> --> indicates "leads to in
the long term":

1) R + R --> R
2) A + A --> R
3) R + A --> A
4) A + R --> A
5) R --> --> A
6) A --> --> R

We could represent these alternatively as = instead of --> and = =
instead of --> -->, although I will use the previous terminology for
the present.

Osher Doctorow
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: EINSTEINIANA, SPEED OF LIGHT AND NEWTON THE VILLAIN
Next: Revised Eddington theory of gravity produces universe without a BigBang singularity