Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Display:
 all posts
 member posts highlighted
 member posts only

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

kurt stocklmeir: on 6/23/17 at 17:45pm UTC, wrote spring constant of time and space is not linear - this influences a lot of...

kurt stocklmeir: on 6/10/17 at 17:45pm UTC, wrote there are not any neutrinos from the big bang it did not happen Kurt...

kurt stocklmeir: on 5/27/17 at 19:28pm UTC, wrote neutrinos are tachyons - neutrinos flying around the universe would have an...

kurt stocklmeir: on 5/24/17 at 18:15pm UTC, wrote if space is expanding and if this makes positive energy particles have a...

kurt stocklmeir: on 5/11/17 at 18:49pm UTC, wrote the surface around the universe makes a frame of reference for the universe...

Jonathan Dickau: on 4/19/17 at 17:02pm UTC, wrote I went and read your essay. And I commented there. Regards, JJD

Quantum Antigravity: on 4/18/17 at 0:48am UTC, wrote EXPERIMENTAL quantum Anti-gravity — I have made a theoretical as well as...

Graham Cookson: on 4/4/17 at 12:38pm UTC, wrote To the community, I find the current essay contest to be frustrating. The...



FQXi FORUM
June 26, 2017

CATEGORY: Cosmology [back]
TOPIC: Alternative Models of Cosmology [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Anonymous wrote on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 15:39 GMT
In cosmology, it is believed that regions of space on `opposite' sides of the universe are too far apart to have ever been causally connected. That is, they are outside each other's `particle horizon'. Consequently, it is difficult to explain the apparent similarities in their characteristics as evidenced by COBE results.

Inflation theory has been offered as a way to overcome this Horizon Problem. However, it is my intention here to show that it is not necessary to postulate Inflation in order to insure that all regions of spacetime are now, and have always been, causally connected.

In addition, this model offers an alternative explanation for the origin of the CMBR and eliminates the need to postulate an accelerating universe or Dark Energy.

Dave Rutherford

report post as inappropriate

Mark Stuckey replied on Dec. 2, 2011 @ 19:54 GMT
Using the Union2 Compilation data (Supernova Cosmology Project, http://supernova.lbl.gov/Union/figures/SCPUnion2_mu_vs_z.txt
) I find a best fit line through log(DL/Gpc) vs Log(z) gives a sum of squares error (SSE) of 1.95 with correlation 0.9955. The best fit LambdaCDM has 71% dark energy, 29% matter and Ho = 69.2 km/s/Mpc and gives SSE = 1.79. Using the best fit model in this paper (kinematically equivalent to empty model) I find SSE = 1.98 for Ho = 65.3 km/s/Mpc. Therefore, the model presented here does not produce a better fit than the best fit line while LCDM does, so the type Ia SN data favors LCDM over this model.

report post as inappropriate


Douglas William Lipp wrote on Jul. 2, 2011 @ 11:58 GMT
Hi David Rutherford,

I like your theory, but I'm no good at math.

Please consider my CIG Theory also.

CIG theory offers in a "single view of nature", and "simultaneously", the following:

Varying Cosmological Constant

Possible explanation of Virtual Particles

Combination of the Spacetime Continuum with the Mass-energy equation

Quantification of mass to a spatial quantity

Solution to Dark Matter

Solution to Dark Energy

Solution to Horizon Problem

Solution to Red Shift Anomalies

Solution to Double Slit (Young's) Wave-Particle Duality Quantum Confusion

Physical explanation as to what E=mc² actually represents

New Interpretation of Einstein's Field Equations

True reason for Hubble expansion

Fourth Law of Motion Equating Gravity to Other Forces

Possible meaning of Plancks Constant

Lipps Law of Proportionality

Offers a New Explanation of Pressure

Is Relativitivistic in nature and therefore builds upon current science

Does not rely on extra dimensions

Does not rely on speeds greater than "c" as does current inflationary theory

Combines the Fundamentals (Matter, Time, Space)

Coherently respects conservation of energy (current view of expansion of space does not)

Above all else, the theory is experimentally verifiable.

Comments are welcome and can be delivered here or to lippfamily@earthlink.net

For a hard copy, please email the author.

Once again, the author apologizes for what appears to be a paper not altogether written in scientific/academic protocol.

Enjoy the "Fun" section as well.

Please open the attached to find: "The Coney Island Green Theory".

attachments: 1_MTSFINAL15Rollover12.doc

report post as inappropriate

Sridattadev replied on Jul. 4, 2011 @ 15:57 GMT
Dear Douglas,

I enjoyed your CIG theory and it is closer to the truth in stating that matter and energy emerge from space-time itself. As you have requested

" If any of you have a simpler and better conceptual description as to why E = mc², I would be grateful if you would send me in the right direction."

please know the absolute truth which is with in every one of us and can be represented as S=BM^2 (S=Soul, B= Body, M=Mind).

For a detailed explantion of how the singualarity with in us works, please know that Conscience is the cosmological constant.

Love,

Sridattadev.

report post as inappropriate


Daniel L Burnstein wrote on Jul. 3, 2011 @ 22:41 GMT
Can someone tell me if this is the right place to post link to a theory which explores some possible consequences of space being quantum-geometrical? Seems this is the only place where someone outside the academia can hope to be taken seriously (assuming of course that the his proposed models and mathematics are not only internally consistent, but consistent with observations).

Thanks.

DLB

report post as inappropriate

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali replied on Jul. 7, 2011 @ 12:26 GMT
Dear Daniel,

Yes, you are more than welcome to post your ideas in this forum thread, for discussion.

report post as inappropriate

Boris Balkh replied on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 20:27 GMT
Today, in the international scientific community, in sciences cosmology and theoretical physics are perceived wrong inferences and conclusions, which are Imposed as fundamental theories and principles. As a consequence, thousands of scientists in the U.S.A. and around the world focus and work in the wrong direction and their efforts not give the desired positive results, only reinforce untruth about the structure of the Universe. This is unjustifiable spent scientific potential, much time and money.

I am convinced, that scientists sooner or later will find the right path, but the question arises, which I want to share with you "Why did this have to happen slowly, difficult and very expensive, then it can be quickly, easily and cheaply? ". It is therefore necessary the scientists of sciences cosmology and theoretical physics adopt model about structure of the Universe and physical laws operating there, of the short e-book "The Dualism". Please visit the

http://uploads.worldlibrary.net/uploads/pdf/20120905183454th
e_dualism_pdf.pdf

report post as inappropriate


Helder Velez wrote on Jul. 10, 2011 @ 02:27 GMT
Space expansion? yes. It is measured in relation to the atoms around us.

What if the atom can vary its dimensions thru time?

I'm pretty sure that no one presented evidence that the atom is invariant.

And yet, everybody is claiming that the universe expands.

Space expansion or matter shrinks ?

The search of a scaling model of the universe, a self-similar one or dilation, has been pursued by the scientific community since Dirac, Hoyle & Narlikar, and others without results.

A scaling model is born, derived from data, using standard physics and making no hypotheses, this model has only one parameter (H0) :

A Self-Similar Model of the Universe Unveils the Nature of Dark Energy

So, from now on I'will ask for proper evidence that the atom is invariant every-time that I hear someone to say: the universe is expanding.

Space expansion? NO.

Matter evanesces? YES.

report post as inappropriate


sridattadev wrote on Jul. 11, 2011 @ 19:31 GMT
Dear Velez,

Universal I or singularity or conscience of god is the cosmological constant.

I = Zero = Infinity

Love,

Sridattadev.

report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Jul. 13, 2011 @ 16:28 GMT
At the Planck scale we encounter also a horizon, from our macro point of view at this scle we cannot longer make measurements, for us there is no longer causality (perhaps this scale is going to be 10^48, see www.physorg.com, integral challenges physics beyond Einstein, but anyway (our) causality no longer rules here), so the same limit we meet at a large universal scale, in this way we can observe ou total observable universe as a Planck unit, where for an observer that is super macro , "his" causality no longer exists, in this way the bubble in the bubble can go on forever...

keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Aug. 4, 2011 @ 10:00 GMT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1pgz8QIiso&feature=related

"Is Everything We Know Wrong? (...) So for now the standard model remains unchanged... (...) It's the best we have. And it's so nearly a perfect fit. It's just that it could be totally wrong."

Yes the standard model of cosmology is totally wrong. It is (implicitly) based on the following premises:

Premise 1: (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

Premise 2: As photons travel, their wavelength varies with their frequency.

The second premise, which is a consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, should be abandoned. Cosmologists will have to try to deduce their science from the following couple of premises:

Premise 1: (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

Premise 2: As photons travel, their wavelength remains constant.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Ken Seto replied on Feb. 16, 2013 @ 21:33 GMT
I agree that the wavelength of an elementary source such as H-Alpha is a universal constant. The concept of universal wavelength replaces Einstein's constant light speed postulate of SR eliminates all the paradoxes of SR. Also it gives rise to a new theory of relativity called IRT and a new theory of gravity called DTG.

The paper in the following link describe a theory of everything based on the above concept:

http://www.modelmechanics.org/2012unification.pdf

Ken
Seto

report post as inappropriate


jim baker wrote on Sep. 4, 2011 @ 22:40 GMT
The mechanics of the force of gravity

attachments: Mechanics_of_the_universe.docx

report post as inappropriate


wilton.alano@gmail.com wrote on Nov. 14, 2011 @ 22:09 GMT
Once 'ex nihilo nihil fit', the cosmos fabric is necessarily infinite in time, as well as in space. Creation myths are bull shit, and our minds are full of them; jewish one or not!

The cosmos presents itself as nested construction, so, the most reasonable choice is thinking it is made of infinitely nested 'class of dimensions'.

Every macro or micro particle is infinite, sheltering an infinitely complex 'universe' (every particle of an infinite system is also infinite).

So, the 'model' is: No start, no end, no limit of any order (infiite), infinitEley NESTED'.

Cheers

report post as inappropriate


israel socratus wrote on Nov. 15, 2011 @ 05:57 GMT
The Alternative Models of Cosmology can be Vacuum.

==.

Philosophy of Science : The Models of Vacuum.

1.

A black hole is an idealized physical body ( with a mass of

three - six – ten times more than our Sun ) is a region of

spacetime from which nothing, not even light, can escape.

2.

A black body is an idealized physical body that can absorb

all incident electromagnetic radiation.

The result: from a ‘black body ‘not even light, can escape’

3.

Max Laue called ‘ Kirchhoff black body’ as ‘ Kirchhoff vacuum’

Why?

Because Vacuum is a space in which there is nothing material.

For example: according to QET then electron interacts

with vacuum he disappeared there. And therefore physicists

invented the mathematical " method of renormalization",

a method "to sweep the dust under the carpet" / Feynman./

The result: from a ‘vacuum ‘not even light, can escape’

#

My conclusion.

The ‘black body’, the ‘ black hole’ and the vacuum

can do one and the same work (completely absorb radiant

energy). It means that the ‘black body’ and the ‘ black hole’

are models of vacuum.

Another fact.

A black hole has a temperature within a few

millionths of a degree above absolute zero: T=0K.

/ Oxford. Dictionary./

And the vacuum has background cosmic temperature:

T= 2.7 K ----> T= 0K.

The background cosmic temperature (T= 2.7 K ----> T= 0K)

belongs to ‘ The Theory of Ideal Gas’ and therefore we can use

this theory for explaining ‘ The Theory of Vacuum’.

My conclusion.

The ‘black body’ and the ‘ black hole’ and

‘ The Theory of Ideal Gas’ are models of vacuum.

===.

P.S.

If the ‘black body’ and the ‘ black hole’ and the vacuum can radiate

the quantum of light and electron – then the reason is the Vacuum’s

fluctuations / transformation / polarization. And this is ‘ a song from

another opera’. Because the Vacuum’s fluctuations / transformation /

polarization explains the Origin of the Material Existence.

==.

Best wishes.

Israel Sadovnik Socratus

===.

report post as inappropriate


Mark Stuckey wrote on Dec. 2, 2011 @ 20:11 GMT
We present an alternative model of cosmology (http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3973) based on modified Regge calculus. The motivation for this modification to Regge calculus (and, thus, to general relativity) comes from our interpretation of quantum mechanics called Relational Blockworld ("Reconciling Spacetime and the Quantum: Relational Blockworld and the Quantum Liar Paradox," W.M. Stuckey, Michael Silberstein & Michael Cifone, Foundations of Physics 38, No. 4, 348 - 383 (2008), quant-ph/0510090). We find that our flat, matter-dominated cosmology model produces a fit of the Union2 Compilation data matching that of LambdaCDM. However, our model is decelerating, not accelerating, so there is no need for dark energy.

report post as inappropriate

Mark Stuckey replied on Feb. 4, 2012 @ 22:44 GMT
The arXiv paper cited above has been accepted for publication in Class. Quant. Grav.

report post as inappropriate


Victor Grauer wrote on Jun. 15, 2012 @ 16:00 GMT
My theory comes in the form of a (paradoxical) question: Is the Universe Expanding into a Black Hole?

(see attachment for details)

attachments: Is_the_Universe_Expanding_Into_a_Black_Hole.pdf

report post as inappropriate


Ray Tomes wrote on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 10:06 GMT
What I want to explain here is far away from most cosmology as presently understood. It came about through a very different set of known facts (the study of cycles), although these are not known to most people in the scientific world. However, what is put forward is quite consistent with known physics, indeed I would argue that it MUST result from known physics. It is not consistent with Big Bang...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Boris Balkh wrote on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 01:10 GMT
Today, in the international scientific community, in sciences cosmology and theoretical physics are perceived wrong inferences and conclusions, which are Imposed as fundamental theories and principles. As a consequence, thousands of scientists in the U.S.A. and around the world focus and work in the wrong direction and their efforts not give the desired positive results, only reinforce untruth about the structure of the Universe. This is unjustifiable spent scientific potential, much time and money.

I am convinced, that scientists sooner or later will find the right path, but the question arises, which I want to share with you "Why did this have to happen slowly, difficult and very expensive, then it can be quickly, easily and cheaply? ". It is therefore necessary the scientists of sciences cosmology and theoretical physics adopt model about structure of the Universe and physical laws operating there, of the short e-book "The Dualism". Please visit the

http://uploads.worldlibrary.net/uploads/pdf/2012090518345
4th

e_dualism_pdf.pdf

report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 00:11 GMT
There is a large number of Blueshifted Galaxies ie., more than about 35 ~ 40 Blueshifted Galaxies known at the time of Astronomer Edwin Hubble in 1930s. The far greater numbers of Blueshifted galaxies was confirmed by the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) observations in the year 2009. Today the known number of Blue shifted Galaxies is more than 7000 scattered all over the sky and the number is increasing day by day. In addition Quasars, UV Galaxies, X-ray, γ- Ray sources and other Blue Galaxies etc., are also Blue shifted Galaxies. Out of a 930,000 Galaxy spectra in the SDSS database, 40% are images for Galaxies; that gives to 558,000 Galaxies. There are 120,000 Quasars, 50,000 brotherhood(X-ray, γ-ray, Blue Galaxies etc.,) of quasars, 7000 blue shifted galaxies. That is more than 31.7% of available Galaxy count are Blue shifted. Just to support Bigbang theory, we are neglecting such a huge amount Blue shifted Galaxies.

How to explain the existence of such large number of blueshifted Galaxies in an expanding universe?

report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 00:17 GMT
Quasars are Blue shifted Galaxies:

Is that true?

There are 248 papers :

Go to ADS search page try searching title and abstract with keywords “Blue shifted quasars”. If you search with “and”s ie., ‘Blue and Shifted and Galaxies” [use “and” option not with “or”option] you will find 248 papers in ADS search. I did not go through all of them. You can try this link…

DYNAMIC UNIVERSE MODEL: Blue shifted quasars in ADS

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/2012/05/blue-
shifted-quasars-in-ads.html

Now I want to have a live discussion whether quasars are REDshifted or BLUEshifted?

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 12:32 GMT
Satyavarapu

Quasars are not 'blue shifted galaxies' in astronomical terms, but often emit blue as well as red shifted radiation subject to orientation of the opposing jet 'outflows'. The 'parent' galaxy to the jets is at a distance from us measured in 'redshift', because, consistently, systems further away (so also further in the past) are increasingly redshifted.

The distance correlation is based on an assumption for the cosmological constant or 'rate of expansion' of the universe. I for one do not subscribe to the most mainstream view on this as the evidence is based on space being entirely 'empty nothingness' so having no effect on wavelength of em emissions over time or distance (see my essay - at 7th).

Blue shifted em waves are normally emissions not the emitting matter itself moving towards us. Some are, but far less than the emissions. Galaxy Zoo is a good source of survey data.

But back to quasars. I have a slightly different analysis of them which is more consistent with wider observation that the old mainstream view, and explaining a number of anomalies. You can find it in my last years essay (also 7th in the community list) or in more detail with a bigger picture (and nice pictures) here; http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016 which shows how they fit precisely with a dynamic but cyclic model.

I hope that helps.

Best wishes.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 19, 2013 @ 10:16 GMT
Peter

I did not see your post , orelse I would have replied it long ago...

I am showing below that two quasars are blue shifted...

see :

http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8826339039574834163
#editor/target=post;postID=3764090022352257683;onPublishedMe
nu=overview;onClosedMenu=overview;postNum=22;src=postname

or...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Robert L. DeMelo wrote on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 03:52 GMT
An alternative model for all of cosmology exits in self-similar fractal scale-invariant cosmology between quantum and macroscopic cosmology, or simply fractal scale cosmology. The term for this field of research is more specific and can be considered a branch, or sub-field, of the more generic field of fractal cosmology which includes fractal patterns in matter distributions between all...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Israel Perez wrote on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 07:22 GMT
Hi all

I have a question about cosmology, I would be grateful if anyone, preferably a cosmologist, could answer it and perhaps make some comments about it.

I have studied the foundations of cosmology and as far as I understand the so called concordance model of cosmology (popularly known as the big bang model) is based on a strong principle, namely: space expands as function of time. This simple assumption can account for the cosmological redshift and the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation which are considered two of the most important experimental evidences favoring this model (of course the abundance of the elements and the distribution of galaxies are important too, but not fundamental as space expansion). The idea of space expansion led astronomers and physicists (Lemaitre, et al.) in the 1930s to propose the idea of the universe having a beginning in the past. The Big Bang and the stationary models both assumed space expansion as a fundamental ingredient and without it they wouldn't be able to explain Hubble's law and more specifically the cosmological redshift. Hence, the key in any of these models is the mechanism used to make light to change its wavelength as it travels long distances. I think that my point has been clear, if space is not really expanding the whole concordance model won't be able to explain cosmological phenomena and the whole edifice of modern cosmology would fall. Do you agree on this?

If so, do you know any other alternative model (where space expansion is not considered) to account for the cosmological redshift and the CMB?

Cheers

Israel

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 12:35 GMT
Israel Perez wrote: "I have a question about cosmology, I would be grateful if anyone, preferably a cosmologist, could answer it... (...) ...do you know any other alternative model (where space expansion is not considered) to account for the cosmological redshift..."

You expect a cosmologist to answer this question and automatically become an unperson?

Halton Arp Victim Of Rational Scientific Society

George Orwell: "Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not exist : he had never existed."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Israel Perez replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 22:56 GMT
Hi Pentcho

Thanks for the links. I'am aware of the controversy with Halton Arp. Unfortunately, the second link didn't work.

Regards

Israel

report post as inappropriate

Nainan K. Varghese replied on Nov. 13, 2014 @ 16:16 GMT
Kindly see a small essay on CMB Radiation at http://vixra.org/abs/1404.0056

Nainan

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 11:26 GMT
Israel,

Yes. And it's actually worse than that. The Concordance model (If an 'observational' cosmologist view will do) was just the 'closest approximation' that could be agreed. It's highly inconsistent with current findings, including CMBR anisotropies.

You refer to; "the mechanism used to make light .. change its wavelength as it travels long distances." Unbelievably No! According...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Israel Perez replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 23:26 GMT
Dear Peter

Thanks for your reply. Indeed, that's why cosmologists called it "concordance", so far this model represents what most cosmologists agree on. As you rightly point out there are still several anomalies that seriously challenge the model. No theory is perfect, they all have anomalies, so we should understand that finding an explanation of the universe is not an easy task. As far as I know this is the best available description of cosmological phenomena and despite certain inconsistencies cosmologists will hold the model until a more powerful one appears on the scene.

I'll take a look at your documents but it'll take some time to give you a reply since the material is considerable. I'll let you know as soon as possible.

Best Regards

Israel

report post as inappropriate


Ken Seto wrote on Feb. 16, 2013 @ 21:43 GMT
The paper in the following link describes a new theory on the origin of our universe.

http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011universe.pdf

Also please visit my website for more papers on my theory:

http://www.modelmechanics.org/

Ken Seto

report post as inappropriate


Yuri Danoyan wrote on Feb. 17, 2013 @ 03:57 GMT
Welcome to http://vixra.org/

report post as inappropriate


Ken Seto wrote on Feb. 18, 2013 @ 16:02 GMT
A New Theory on the Origin of Our Universe

A new physical model of our Universe, called Model Mechanics, has been formulated. The current state of our Universe as interpreted by Model Mechanics is as follows: Space isoccupied by a stationary, structured and elastic light-conducting medium called the EMatrix.A mass-bearing particle called the S-Particle is the only fundamental particle...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 11, 2013 @ 07:55 GMT
Isn't a stationary light-conducting matrix at variance with Michelson 1881 and Michelson and Morley 1887?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


mutasim wrote on May. 13, 2013 @ 22:24 GMT
hi

I am interested in astronomy ,and I knew from some sources that there are about 7000 blueshifted galaxies,but another source said that the number is only 100.

so if possible if any one is an expert in this field please tell me which number is correct.

best regards

report post as inappropriate


Stuart Marongwe wrote on Sep. 10, 2013 @ 16:21 GMT
INTRODUCING NEXUS: A QUANTUM THEORY OF SPACE-TIME, GRAVITY AND THE QUANTUM VACUUM

Hie

It is well known that it is notoriously difficult to quantize gravity. I have proposed an alternative approach to Quantum Gravity which has provided answers to fundamental questions such as Dark Matter and Dark Energy without resorting to exotic particles and hitherto unknown scalar fields. You can download my paper from this website www.scirp.org/journal/ijaa and provide a constructive critique

Best regards

Stuart Marongwe

report post as inappropriate

Stuart Marongwe replied on Sep. 12, 2013 @ 07:15 GMT
MOND ACCELERATION DERIVED FROM NEXUS

Here is something that is bound to raise your eyebrows. If you read the published version of my paper you will find that I derive Hubbles law from Nexus in form v=H/k which is the induced constant rotational velocity by a graviton (Dark Matter).H is the Hubble constant and k is graviton wave vector in the nth quantum state. it can also be expressed as v=H/nK where K is the ground state wavevector K=H/c and c=speed of light.

Therefore the acceleration induced by a graviton in the nth state on a test particle is v^2xk or H^2/nK. Thus the highest induced acceleration is by the ground state graviton where n=1. This is H^2/K = Hc ~ MOND acceleration.

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 10, 2013 @ 18:00 GMT
Mutasim, (& Stuart)

There are ~7000 blueshifted galaxies, most in two groups nearby and around a plane tilted wrt the Milky Way. Ave velocity is 200km/s, highest 8000km/s. Many are quite small (satellites). There are many more with a blushifted half (rotating towards us).

The full list can be found on the JPL's NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED). A good analysis from 2009 is here; Blogspot; Fitted Planes.

The peculiar pattern is consistent with the predictions of a cyclic cosmological model which also predicts the CMB peculiar anisotropies, just confirmed by Planck, described in a model of 'discrete fields' (DFM) and in my essay here three years ago (2020 vision). Similar cyclic cosmologies have been suggested by Dicke, Peebles, Einstein, Penrose and Turok among others, many which the findings support, resolving the 'pre Big Bang' problem.

Stuart,

I'll try to find some time for a quick look and comment. Do check out and cemment on my well supported essay this year revealing an apparently powerful QM aspect of the DFM. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/category/31419?sort=communit
y 'The IQbit'.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Stuart Marongwe replied on Sep. 10, 2013 @ 19:27 GMT
I am checking it now. Its good to share different views of reality.

Stuart

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 12, 2013 @ 09:49 GMT
Stuart,

You'll see I find manipulating symbols only approximates nature so use a very different dynamic geometrical approach to model how reality evolves. I can't then comment on your formulations, but it's more interesting to see where we've ended up from the very different routes taken. I liked your paper and found some broad areas of agreement, though also differences to...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Michael Helland wrote on Sep. 19, 2013 @ 23:45 GMT
Can two electrons exchange a photon at unlimited distances?

This paper examines what the universe would look like if there was a distance limit to the quantum electrodynamic absorption and emission of photons.

It uses Hubble's limit as the limit and the results are a very plausible alternate history of the universe.

http://monadpad.com/bigbang.pdf

report post as inappropriate


Richard Lewis wrote on Oct. 5, 2013 @ 14:17 GMT
I would like to propose an alternative model of the origin and evolution of the universe. It starts from the assumption that the universe is finite with a spacetime boundary. In the Big Bang model we implicitly assume the existence of a time boundary. The general theory of relativity introduces the concept of spacetime so that time and space do not have a separate independent existence. This...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Richard Lewis replied on Oct. 5, 2013 @ 14:29 GMT
The website link in the previous post did not work:

This one does:

Universe

report post as inappropriate

Richard Lewis replied on Nov. 6, 2013 @ 17:06 GMT
The document is also available at:

The evolution of the universe

Richard

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Nov. 6, 2013 @ 18:47 GMT
Richard,

I may reply more fully later as I have myself being fooling around with this idea.

You said, "...Changes in spacetime curvature can lead to matter formation with the total energy of the universe remaining at zero".

One of my proposals is that the matter-energy content of the universe has been increasing with its radius. Since increase in radius translates to reducing spacetime curvature which you propose can lead to matter formation this appears to agree with my thinking.

You did not consider another guide to our cosmological beginnings which is thermodynamics. If the second law applies, then in the beginning entropy must be zero, which also agrees with your model's "in which energy density tends to zero as time tends to zero". In agreement with the third law, temperature too will be zero at time zero even if hot immediately thereafter.

Lastly, if you add an infinitesimal drop or fluctuation in energy to a system at absolute zero, i.e. T = 0, what could happen considering the thermodynamic equation dS = dE/T?

My calculation indicates an initial temperature 1032K in accord with the Big bang model and an increase in entropy to an equilibrium value which seems to tend towards infinity.

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate


Richard Lewis wrote on Nov. 20, 2013 @ 08:23 GMT
Inflation, Dark matter and Dark energy has been added as a new section to the paper:

The evolution of the universe

The section describes how these adaptations to the big bang model are treated in the Spacetime Boundary model.

Richard

report post as inappropriate

Richard Lewis replied on Nov. 27, 2013 @ 13:55 GMT
The acceleration of the expansion of the universe is explained in the context of the Spacetime Boundary model of the universe.

The evolution of the universe

Also, given the existence of a spacetime boundary it brings with it the possibility of identifying the centre of the universe and the position of our galaxy in the universe.

Richard

report post as inappropriate


Hasmukh K. Tank wrote on Mar. 13, 2014 @ 08:55 GMT
Dear Friends,

Your authentic comments, and suggestions on my attemt titled: Seven possible alternative interpretations of the 'cosmological red shift' (Attached with this post)will be highly valuable for our arriving at correct understanding of the cosmos.

Hasmukh K. Tank

attachments: 1403.0005v1.pdf_Seven_Possible_Alternative_Interpretations_of_Cosmological_Red_Shift.pdf

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Apr. 11, 2014 @ 08:49 GMT
Most sensitive dark matter detector reaches critical phase. I'm predicting that high energy particles will be detected coming from dark matter annihilation at the center of the earth, other planets and sun as well as beyond.

Dark matter hunt: US LUX experiment reaches critical phase

Also, I'm predicting that astrophysical neutrinos are also created from dark matter annihilation in a similar way to cosmic radiation.

Exotic Space Particles Slam into Buried South Pole Detector

Cosmic rays themselves are a mystery. The most energetic among them are thought to originate in the same processes that spawn astrophysical neutrinos. Yet because cosmic rays (which, despite the name, are actually high-energy particles) are charged, they travel curved paths, shaped by magnetic fields, through the universe. As a result, they do not preserve information about where they came from. Studying neutrinos is a way to try to understand the origin of high-energy cosmic rays, which are somehow sped up to nearly light-speed in some sort of cosmic particle accelerator. Just how this happens is an open question that shows just how much we do not know about the most violent processes in the universe. “This is the biggest mystery of our century,” says Toshihiro Fujii, a cosmic-ray researcher at the University of Chicago’s Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics. Fujii was not involved in IceCube, but says its findings will aid his goal of understanding cosmic rays.

report post as inappropriate


John C Hodge wrote on May. 7, 2014 @ 19:17 GMT
Israel Perez and Peter Jackson from Feb. 5, 2013

Yes. It’s called the STOE.

The Scalar Theory of Everything (STOE) is a self-consistent model that was derived from considerations of galaxies and galaxy clusters. The STOE explains many mysterious phenomena from diverse observational disciplines. The STOE is simpler and more encompassing than other models. An important part of the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on May. 7, 2014 @ 21:14 GMT
John,

Yes, and DFM; recursive quantum gauge theories. The EPR paradox is resolved classically (though those too close to Bells theorem can't see it yet) as my essay shows. The Gluck essay also gives an interesting fresh perspective of it.

I've just read Hasmukh Tank's essay and it is quite excellent and almost completely consistent. Not complete by any means but exploring new aspects. The initial model of discrete field dynamics we as well outlined in my 2011 essay 2020 vision, estimating that it WON'T be recognised until at least ~2020. It's on track!

My last 2 essays explore different angles. Essentially it's fractal yin yang helical wave/particle corropondese all the way down. It pulls together the amplituhedron, string theory dimensions, Feynman-Weinburg QG, Chaos theory, Godel n-value logic etc etc, though not so as any of the faithful disciples of each would immediately recognise it! Unification is just it's immediate effect.

Very well spotted. Here's hoping for some 2020 vision soon. Theoretical intellectual inertia is beyond my worse nightmares. So much for the Scientific Method of assessment. Physics seems more 'belief' based than religion!

Anyone who can see any new angles or links please do jump in.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Angus McCoss wrote on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 17:12 GMT
Dynamic Dimensionality

Zeeya, Fellows, I write as a keen tenderfoot in your fascinating discussions,

Alternatively... imagine the nascent Universe which, at its point of inception, has zero dimensions. Next imagine an initial extremely rapid early expansion (inflation?) of that point universe (singularity), through a closed unit interval [0,1] fractional dimensionality, into a...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 19:19 GMT
Hi Angus,

This sounds like something I'd enjoy discussing with you, having considered similar approaches before. You might want to look up Rainbow Gravity, Quantum Einstein gravity, and CDT, to see what some other folks have done in this vein. I will follow up on this question, and your paper, after the essay contest rating period has ended.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Aug. 23, 2014 @ 08:50 GMT
The crisis in the fundamental physics, including cosmology - the "crisis of interpretation and representation" (T.Romanovskaya), the "crisis of understanding" (K.Kopeykin), it is the crisis of the philosophical foundations, especially in understanding of space and time.

The way to overcome the crisis - is a further deepening of the Geometry, but rather in the "origin of Geometry"...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Blair Macdonald wrote on Sep. 22, 2014 @ 09:21 GMT
Hello,

I have no direct business with cosmology, but I have a deep interest in fractal geometry and have recently made discoveries about their properties that are seem to only point to and have direct business with QM and cosmology.

Yesterday I published my findings.

I heard Max Tegmark mention this forum and am hoping it is the right place to introduce different...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Sep. 22, 2014 @ 10:44 GMT
Blair,

It is interesting that you describe this as acceleration, when according to theory, it is deceleration from that initial expansion of the early universe. Now if it is actually an optical effect, compounding on itself, then your perception of an outward acceleration would be more valid. Also there would be no need for dark energy to explain why that deceleration flattened out, as it gets closer to our location.

Suffice to say, we are getting into crackpot territory here, if the thought police catch up to us.

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 22, 2014 @ 17:15 GMT
Blair,

Interesting model. Much compatible fractal theory exists which you don't cite. A few with close similarities (but also different conclusions) are Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, The 'Amplituhedron', Quantum Gauge theories etc. See also my essays and discussions here and also Bill McHarris's of last year.

Your link was dead, a common problem here as the system is very fussy about addresses and repeated colons etc. This one should work; https://www.academia.edu/8415112/Fractal_Geomet
ry...etc.

I invoke a fractal 'Helical' hierarchy and spread function consistent with Helmholtz vortices and experimental quantum optics. In terms of cosmology I disagree with your conclusions and derive a cyclic model more consistent than the 'Big Bang', which is ever less supported anyway. Infinite accelerative expansion is also problematic, but then trees also have a cycle, and I note you correctly identify some of the theoretical problems (though far from all).

I hope you don't expect too many to actually read your paper. That's not always how it's done in these parts (or it seems anywhere really!) But I do hope you may read mine and also question or comment. This Penrose video is interesting, incorporating an analogy of your hypothesis (and closer one of mine). Penrose CCC video..

You'll find most of mine with yours here; Academia.edu./link].

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Oct. 3, 2014 @ 12:28 GMT
The house in general and Peter, John M, Steve and Tom in particular,

I still need help on this CMBR. We, i.e. Peter, John M and I just had some discussion on the 'Black hole' thread but I think it would be more appropriate to discuss here and not distract on the black hole topic.

For such an important evidence as CMBR it would appear we are not yet clear about certain things. I...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Oct. 3, 2014 @ 12:49 GMT
As I dig deeper I now realize the last word has not been heard about the CMBR. See .. I guess the origin of CMBR is not a closed case afterall.

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Oct. 3, 2014 @ 12:51 GMT
The link was ripped off One physicist’s radical reinterpretation of the cosmic microwave background.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 3, 2014 @ 18:45 GMT
Akinbo,

The data and interpretive flaws Fahr found seem irrefutable but where his solution invoked 'scattering photons off photons' it departed from those or any logical foundations I know. That's a shame because with the one small logical addition that "clouds of particles can move" his scattering off matter would work just fine on it's own. The axiom is; 'c is localised wherever it...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 7, 2014 @ 10:39 GMT
Steve,

Bulk diffuse plasma shocks moving wrt each other is fundamental astrophysics, and I specify 'fermion' pairs as electron/positron pairs, which with free protons constitute 'pure plasma'. I agree 'earth bound' plasma conventions are a little different (I too have studies plasmas as well as optics and am a member of the APS Plasma Physics group) so can't be directly transferred....

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Oct. 8, 2014 @ 06:46 GMT
Oh, this is crazy. Plasmas on earth are the same as astrophysical plasmas...these are the plasmas that I know. The DFM plasma seems to behave differently and so I am not sure what a dfm plasma is like.

Of course plasmas have a different refractive index and therefore lower speed of light. All materials do. Plasmas also have reflectivity and color and luminosity. When light reemerges from...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 8, 2014 @ 12:31 GMT
Steve,

Thanks for clarifying what you believe. It did sound a little like you were trying to lecture me on 'facts', but I'm sure you understand too much to make that error. Your agreement with Lord Thompson that very little needs 'fixing' was worrying but I believe all opinion should have proponents, and I agree your last line, which is far closer to my hypothesis then you...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Oct. 9, 2014 @ 01:34 GMT
You seem to be suggesting that a window (made of dfm plasma or anything transparent) in our galaxy or any window at any velocity further red shifts the frequency of the light from an origin galaxy to a destiny galaxy, which is simply not true. The destiny galaxy will measure the same velocity or z for the origin galaxy light whether or not the light from the origin galaxy light goes through a window of any transparent material or dfm plasma at any velocity.

Your say that your dfm plasma has enough invisible and undetectable mass to account for dark matter, which is an invisible and undetectable mass...is this explanation progress?

Your mantra is that DFM plasma is consistent with all observations, but you can say that qualitatively of any model. Your need to show how the predictions of your model are quantitatively consistent with observations that do not have other explanations. Thus far, you have not done that.

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 9, 2014 @ 11:10 GMT
Steve,

A logical explanation of 'superluminal jets' is "quantitatively consistent with observations that do not have other explanations". As is 'kinetic decoupling', dwarf spheroid formation, the recovery of Snell's Law at the near'far field transition and the dozens of other predictions. But I agree if you ignore all those and assume that refractive index is frame invariant then the model...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Oct. 10, 2014 @ 13:55 GMT
You state that light undergoes a red or blue shift passing through a window of transparent matter. Since this is demonstrably not true, that falsifies your approach. I don’t know why you substituted lense for window, since lenses throw more complication into the DFM plasma. Lets stick with DFM plasma as a window.

”I do NOT then suggest some 'red shift' just due to 'passing through' a...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Oct. 10, 2014 @ 14:17 GMT
This has been an interesting exercise for me since you obviously passionately believe in your DFM plasma and pose many contrasting viewpoints.

I really do not like to use invisible and undetectable matter to explain observations since once you go down that road, you can “predict” any action after the fact since that is what strings and multiverses and black holes and religions are all about.

Note that despite the fact that I believe in the large body of evidence for the Lorentz invariance of c, in the contracting universe, c is not constant and increases very slowly over time by mdot = 0.283 ppb/yr, butthis does not violate Lorentz invariance. The acceleration of light, mdot*c = +88 km/s/Mpc, corresponds to a contraction rate of -9.6%/Byr for the matter time universe and is the universal acceleration that determines both charge and gravity forces in this epoch.

The current expansion rate is 7.6%/Byr and simply depends on new Hubble and inflation constants. Forces in space time have there own separate sets of constants but in matter time, forces come from the contraction rate of the universe.

So in a contracting universe, the variation in c with time does mean that looking back in time is just like looking back through a graded index lense. All of our past universe appears progressively magnified by our current assumption of a constant c. So your DFM plasma does seem to do a similar thing, which is intriguing. A galaxy of the distant past will appear larger and brighter than it actually is in that rest frame.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 10, 2014 @ 15:00 GMT
Steve,

If I'm wrong wrong attributing the above post to you I apologise as it's rather less scientifically based or consistent than yours.

I make clear; "I do NOT then suggest some 'red shift' just due to 'passing through'.." some transparent dielectric medium, ..but the response was;

"You state that light undergoes a red or blue shift passing through a window of transparent...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


John Prytz wrote on Nov. 10, 2014 @ 11:46 GMT
DARK ENERGY AND EXPANDING SPACE

The expansion rate of the cosmos is apparently accelerating which is contrary to not only common sense but what generations of cosmologists would have bet the family farm on; a decelerating cosmos is what any sane astronomer would have predicted. So something is screwy somewhere, but there are so many problems with an accelerating Universe and what drives...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Nov. 10, 2014 @ 18:39 GMT
Since I have time to spare and nothing else to blog about at the moment...

"However, nobody has the foggiest idea what exactly ‘Dark Matter’... actually are. Neither has actually been detected, either out there, or in the laboratory down here – obviously"

Not true, sir. What earth-bound matter medium do you think prevented Michelson and Morley from observing earth motion...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

John Prytz replied on Nov. 11, 2014 @ 12:00 GMT
Greetings Akinbo,

Regarding Dark Matter, I understand that there are theoretical ideas about what it might be, WIMPS and MACHOS and such, but no Dark Matter has yet to be placed on the slab in the lab and put under the microscope. I find the idea that Dark Matter still has physicists 'in the dark', some 80 years after it was first postulated or required to explain rotational anomalies in...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Nov. 11, 2014 @ 14:15 GMT
Well...have I got a universe for you! Matter time is a contracting universe and in a contracting universe, there is another term, a matter decay term, in the mass-energy equivalence and the virial theorem that explains galaxy rotation without dark matter.

It sounds like you already have a universe in mind, though. What are your axioms? Does matter exist? Time? What is your action equation? Is space still the infinitely divisible nothing that it is now?

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 11, 2014 @ 19:53 GMT
Steve,

You questioned fermion density in dark plasma coupling. An important new paper carries an interesting proof consistent with that model, extending it to be consistent in general terms with the full DFM hypothesis with 'dark fermions'. It's an MNRAS paper but also web archived;

Dark matter in the SO(5) × U(1) gauge-Higgs unification. I'd be interested in your views on it.

On the compatible helical dynamic interactions, this short Stanford report on findings follows up e+/e- pair production from high energy light and photon-photon interactions varying with relative helicity. Fascinating stuff! They both do show my foundations are quite solid, if certainly not familiar to most.

Helcity relation in GAMMA-GAMMA COLLIDERS.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Nov. 14, 2014 @ 13:17 GMT
Akinbo,

The above links for Steve may also help alleviate your own expressed doubts about some aspects I described.

If you're still low on electricity apparently it's really only magnetism! But the suggestion that Doppler shift is the same as rigid body contraction is nonsense!

Video

Fermilab staff web post.

Wikipedia.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Nov. 14, 2014 @ 15:13 GMT
Peter,

I visited the links you posted. Too full of equations, so I got lost...

I also read the post and the Wikipedia entry you linked. Those were more familiar territory.

I asked you a question about Lorentz factor and you said you were too busy to answer. However, when you became less busy you still didn't answer.

What is your equation for Lorentz factor?

What is the 'v' if it is also present in your equation?

I am happy at least that you deny rigid body contraction. But that same factor is what determines time dilation and mass increase with velocity, which you seem to agree to (from our recent electron mass increase discussion). If Lorentz factor is in your Doppler equation, can you write it out?

If the thread can still be found, it would seem better if we can continue from where we were discussing.

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Nov. 14, 2014 @ 21:16 GMT
Akinbo,

Sorry, 'v' is relative velocity between inertial systems which are constituted by any matter which can be assigned a 'centre of mass' rest frame. That takes in about everything, but we can define the spatial limits of each as Maxwell's near/far field transition zone, (TZ) physically formed by the '2-fluid plasma' around all matter 'moving' in it's surrounds, which we know as...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


John Prytz wrote on Nov. 12, 2014 @ 12:52 GMT
A PARALLEL ANALOGY BETWEEN SUPERNOVAE & COSMOLOGY

Parts of the current standard model of the origin of our Universe (the Big Bang event) violate nearly every principle of physics there is – from causality to the conservation laws. There’s got to be a better answer. Fortunately there are cosmological alternatives (not detailed here) including perhaps my own variation on the theme (which...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


John Prytz wrote on Nov. 12, 2014 @ 13:01 GMT
THE BIG BANG’S METAPHYSICAL BAGGAGE

The Big Bang event is the leading scientific cosmological theory when it comes to explaining the origin and evolution of life, the Universe and simply everything. While the Big Bang event is the leading candidate and the standard model, it’s not the only one. That’s fortunate, because while a fair bit of once theoretical now verified observational...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


John Prytz wrote on Nov. 24, 2014 @ 13:10 GMT
OUR EXPANDING UNIVERSE: IN SPACE OR BY SPACE?

You will frequently encounter in astronomical and cosmological texts the idea that space or space-time is a thing, a flexible membrane type of thing that can influence the motion of objects, in fact carry the flotsam and jetsam of the Universe around. This flexi-space is increasing over time, expanding, and by carrying the bits and pieces that...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Nov. 24, 2014 @ 16:15 GMT
"Unfortunately, space is not a thing..."

Says who? A simulation called John Prytz? I challenge you to prove your statement. IMHO, Sir Newton and I should be able to convince you otherwise.

"My basic premise here is that if space itself is expanding, then space itself is a thing". Correct. It is expanding. IMHO, Edwin Hubble and I should be able to convince...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 25, 2014 @ 09:57 GMT
Akinbo,

http://www.aip.de/~lie/Lectures/Michelsonkeller.e.htm
l may tell you that Albert Abraham Michelson performed the decisive experiment already in 1881 in Potsdam near Berlin (because Berlin was too noisy).

A. Abraham M. was not just born in the Prussian province Posen where the language was German but he also visited Berlin, Heidelberg, and Paris during his sabbatical.

When he didn't agree with Einstein's SR, he did perhaps not agree with the given argument about observed aberration.

You wrote: "Replace light with sound and you also get a null and void result."

Is this correct?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Nov. 25, 2014 @ 13:05 GMT
Akinbo,

Space is a not-thing, just an abstract mental concept that we deem useful as a sort of container in which we place real things, like stars and galaxies.

I call space a not-thing because space has no structure and it has no substance. You cannot detect space with any of your sensory apparatus - you cannot see space; you cannot hear space; you cannot touch space; you cannot taste space; you cannot smell space. Space has no properties like mass and colour and associated things that you associate with things.

Not even instrumentation that augments your senses can detect with any greater accuracy or in any greater detail any properties that space could potentially have.

You cannot create space. There isn't even a theoretical equation that could tell you how, in principle, to create space. That makes sense if space is a not-thing.

It is stated that space has a property we call "dark energy". Space expands because of the anti-gravity or repulsive nature of dark energy which creates more space which in turn creates more dark energy which creates more space which creates more dark energy, and so on and so on until infinity. It should be clear that this scenario is in total violation to those conservation laws you had to learn in high school. If space is a thing and space is expanding then you are getting a free lunch - something for nothing.

Finally, there is no observational test that can distinguish between matter (like galaxies) expanding in space, being carried piggyback style by space, or expanding through the nothingness of existing space.

Thus I conclude that space has all the reality of Wednesday.

John Prytz

report post as inappropriate


John Prytz wrote on Nov. 27, 2014 @ 11:29 GMT
MORE ABOUT DARK ENERGY AND THE EXPANSION OF SPACE-AS-A-THING

Why is the modern standard model of cosmology a pseudo-science? Basically because it is advocating something akin to a perpetual motion machine - even worse. A standard pseudo-scientific perpetual motion machine operates at 100% efficiency. Energy input equals energy output and energy output is recycled back into energy input....

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Nov. 28, 2014 @ 20:27 GMT
SPACE, AN UNSUNG PARTICIPANT IN THE UNIVERSE?

"I wish we could derive the rest of the phenomena of nature by the same kind of reasoning from mechanical principles; for I am induced by many reasons to suspect that they may all depend upon certain forces by which the particles of bodies, by some causes hitherto unknown, are either mutually impelled towards each other, and cohere in...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

John Prytz replied on Nov. 29, 2014 @ 13:24 GMT
Akinbo,

I still fail to see why the shape of orbits, centripetal/centrifugal forces, laws of motion, angular momentum, etc. REQUIRE space to have substance and structure. Most of the parameters in your equations are things, like energy, gravity, mass etc. but I fail to spot anything in your equations that stands for space. Your essay would be far more credible if you could give an equation for the creation of space-as-a-thing. I'll be looking forward to that equation that says Space = XYZ where X, Y, and Z are things of structure and substance.

John Prytz

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Nov. 29, 2014 @ 17:56 GMT
John Prytz,

I agree space is difficult to "see" directly. Were this not the case the historical dispute starting from ancient times, to Newton-Leibniz would not have persisted this long. A very stubborn persistence.

Firstly, the fundamental meaning of 'substance' is not liquid, solid or gas but something that can act and be acted upon is substance.

Ref: "…it is clear...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

John Prytz replied on Nov. 30, 2014 @ 12:44 GMT
Akinbo,

Actually I note in your earlier (28 November) post about "Space, an unsung participant in the universe?" that much of your discussion revolves around motion. IMHO, you can have motion through absolute nothingness (the not-thing that is space) just as you can have motion through things (like oceans and atmospheres). So I fail to see how motion distinguishes space-as-a-thing from...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Nov. 29, 2014 @ 01:11 GMT
It makes far more sense that the Object universe, what is, is not expanding but merely continuously recycling itself. What is being observed expanding then is the Image reality created from processing of received EM radiation. Radiation that persisted in the environment, after the configurations of objects forming events, from which it scattered, ceased to be.So the Object universe is not all...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 29, 2014 @ 03:26 GMT
What about a microscopic version of an old style washing machine paddle which mixes things up one way and then the other? That has a chance a churning up something, if its there to be churned.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Dec. 5, 2014 @ 14:38 GMT
Georgina,

Any motion at all wrt the local ISM rest frame, linear as well as angular, creates twin vortices (fermion pairs), with density increase subject to speed. Thus a rock rapidly nearing the sun or an ionosphere becomes a comet.

But John's view may be none the less valid if we properly discern condensed 'matter' from the dark energy condensate, which doesn't itself couple with EM (unlike 'ether'). All particles are on the sum of their spin states. John's 'no-thing' is fine as long as 'thing' is constrained to condensed matter (which does not produce the Casimir force).

Momentum is conserved, so the 'spin is continuous not reversing. But if you observe a particle simplified to a sphere spinning clockwise (electron), then observe it from the rear, what spin does it have?

To also comply with conservation laws; focussing energy to local vortices (which then DO couple with EM fluctuations as we know) leaves a condensate density gradient around it. (The process is quite well approximated by QED and QCD).

Are such cross-discipline coherent descriptions becoming more intuitive? Does anything leap out which they don't immediately appear to offer resolutions for?

Best regards

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 5, 2014 @ 20:52 GMT
Hi Peter,

Paragraph 1. Your conjecture? or accepted theory?

2.You wrote "But John's view may be none the less valid if we properly discern condensed 'matter' from the dark energy condensate, which doesn't itself couple with EM (unlike 'ether')." You refer to John's view, what view would that be? He has written copious amounts,expressing numerous points of view on many different...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


John Prytz wrote on Nov. 29, 2014 @ 12:34 GMT
COSMOLOGY: IN THE BEGINNING, AND AFTERWARDS TOO

Gravity rules the cosmos. You can’t come to terms with the origins, evolutions and ultimate fates associated with cosmology or astrophysics without understanding gravity and the theory of relativity. Quantum theory also has to apply to cosmology (and astrophysics) any time you run across micro phenomena where quantum effects need to be...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Darius M wrote on Nov. 30, 2014 @ 17:25 GMT
Theory of Everything based on Kant and German idealism:

http://www.academia.edu/8991727/Phenomenal_World_as


_an_Output_of_Cognitive_Quantum_Grid_Theory_of_Everything_us


ing_Leibniz_Kant_and_German_Idealism

report post as inappropriate


John Prytz wrote on Dec. 1, 2014 @ 12:28 GMT
COSMOLOGY AND THE MULTIPLE YOU

The quantum mantra revolves around the theory that in physics, anything not forbidden is compulsory - given enough time and/or space. While there is nothing forbidden about an identical twin(s) of yourself existing elsewhere in the cosmos, how compulsory that is depends on what sort of cosmological model you adopt.

You are unique, aren't you? There...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


John Prytz wrote on Dec. 2, 2014 @ 12:30 GMT
THE BRANES AND THE BULK AND THE BULK OF THE BRANES: THE BRANE NEW WORLD OF BRANEWORLDS

For millennia, New Age devotees have related observations of nebulous exotic entities from apparently alternative realities like Parallel Universes that have made a crossover into our reality. Rational people suggest that’s just so much bovine fertilizer. Or is it? Perhaps theoretical physics and String...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


John Prytz wrote on Dec. 3, 2014 @ 12:56 GMT
AN INFINITE COSMOS: ISSUES ARISING

The nature of, the size, the shape and the duration of our Universe has been speculated and debated upon ever since humans gazed in wonder at the night sky. Though ideas have waxed and waned, and though modern cosmology is more focused than ever on actual observations, speculations, well that’s still the case today. My take, albeit slightly more...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


John Prytz wrote on Dec. 7, 2014 @ 12:45 GMT
OUR UNIVERSE AS A COSMIC FISH TANK

The Big Bang origin-of-our-Universe event was not the be-all-and-end-all of things. The Big Bang event was but a minor event in the larger cosmic scheme of things. If the elementary particles that comprise your mind and body could talk, what a tale of eternity they would tell!

THE SETTINGS

Setting Number One - Time is infinite in scope....

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Lyle wayne Moss wrote on Dec. 9, 2014 @ 04:03 GMT
Akinbo,

If gravity acts similar to an electromagnetic wave, like light, wouldn't gravity then be subject to similar restrictions that light is subject to.? I'm thinking that there should be some kind of limitation to the "amount of gravity" that could saturate a particular piece of real space...?

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Dec. 9, 2014 @ 14:37 GMT
Lyle,

Gravity is a force and not a wave in my own reasoning. So I would rather your statement was, "If gravitational waves acts similar to an electromagnetic wave, like light, wouldn't gravitational waves then be subject to similar restrictions that light is subject to.?"

If that rephrasing is correct, I would agree. Since theoretically, both waves have the same speed, c, one could infer that they are waves of the same kind belonging to different parts of the spectrum. Just as radio waves and X-rays are inferred to be waves of the same kind but belonging to different parts of the spectrum.

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

John Prytz replied on Dec. 10, 2014 @ 12:05 GMT
Akinbo,

A wave can have quite a punch behind it. A sonic boom (sound wave) can shatter glass and the human voice can shatter a wine glass and didn't those trumpets bring down the walls of Jericho! A tsunami can beat the heck out of infrastructure, and even a surf wave can send you to the hospital!

And I should point out that the standard model of particle physics makes a clear distinction between a graviton and a photon. Any standard physics text will illustrate that there are four forces, not three. There would be only three forces if you're right that gravity and EM were one and the same. Perhaps you should point out the error of their ways - "their" meaning particle physicists.

John Prytz

report post as inappropriate


John Prytz wrote on Dec. 10, 2014 @ 13:29 GMT
MULTI-ROADS TO THE MULTIVERSE

If Mother Nature can create one Universe (ours), Mother Nature can create more than one universe – a Multiverse! The concept of a Multiverse, that there exists more than one universe, that is our Universe – perhaps an infinite number of them existing sequentially in time, or at one go in space, maybe both, is one of the hottest topics in current...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


John Prytz wrote on Dec. 11, 2014 @ 11:59 GMT
SPACE IS NOT A THING: SUMMATION

Premise: Space is NOT a thing. Space has no structure or substance. Space is a mental concept of the human mind that we use to picture the imaginary container real stuff resides in. I find no credibility in the alternative, that space-is-a-thing with structure and substance. Why?

Every experiment has failed to show evidence for space-as-a-thing....

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 12, 2014 @ 01:43 GMT
Too many questions to address in one go John. One or two questions at a time would be sufficient in a single post.

"Anyone who advocates that space-is-a-thing has to wear the burden of proof on their shoulders and provide at least some solid slab-in-the-lab evidence. Either that or they should cease prattling on about it.............." John Prytz.

Unfortunately you are not...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 12, 2014 @ 04:34 GMT
John, I have a question for you. Is there any region of the visible universe devoid of absolutely everything including background cosmic radiation? The inside of black holes are not providing any sensory data whereby to produce a representation of what is there.A hole in the data produces a hole in the processed image reality. So I won't accept that as proof of nothingness in underlying reality. Where else is there there the apparent utter nothingness of space that you demand?

report post as inappropriate

John Prytz replied on Dec. 12, 2014 @ 12:17 GMT
Georgina,

Absolutely. There is a massive amount of the visible Universe that is devoid of absolutely everything. The space between photons that comprise the cosmic microwave background radiation. The space between photons in general. The space between gravitons. The space between any and all of the things that comprise the standard model of particle physics. The space between electrons in 'orbit' around a nucleus. There has to be those regions that are devoid of everything in order for actual things, like photons, to move around. Nothing could be clearer.

John Prytz

report post as inappropriate


John Prytz wrote on Dec. 12, 2014 @ 12:11 GMT
PROOF THAT SPACE IS NOT A THING

If space were a thing, then nothing could move. A state of nothingness has to exist, along with a state of some things (the standard model of particle physics and resulting emergent stuff like atoms, molecules and human beings), in order for those some things to get from Point A to Point B unhindered. If space were a thing then the some things part and parcel of the standard model would be akin to 100 people jammed into a standard elevator (or lift), or say 200 people crammed onto a what would have to be defined as a crowded bus. You couldn't move from the back of the elevator to the front; from the back of the bus to the front door of the bus. There's no state of nothingness for the people at the back to move through. You can only move because there is some nothingness for you to move into or shove other stuff into to make room for you. If space is a thing then there is no nothingness at all in the Universe; the Universe is entirely full of stuff (the standard model plus space-as-a-thing) and no motion is possible.

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Dec. 12, 2014 @ 13:02 GMT
How do things move on your digital screen since there are pixels jamming up the whole screen? Surely, if a Simulator made of flesh and blood can simulate motion, how much more old, imaginative and wise Mother Nature.

report post as inappropriate

John Prytz replied on Dec. 12, 2014 @ 14:27 GMT
Akinbo,

What is actually impacting on your digital monitor or TV screen? Electrons! The electrons cannot be cheek-by-jowl (i.e. - no space between them) since electrons have a negative charge and negative charges repel. Thus, there must be some degree of space between the electrons that are impacting on your digital screen! Thus the stream of electrons can move around without getting in each others way and thus you get a moving picture or image.

If you magnify the pixels or dots that make up the images on your newspaper, you'll see spaces between them. In any event those dots are molecules of ink composed of atoms composed in turn of electrons, neutrons and protons and there is empty space between them.

John Prytz

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 12, 2014 @ 21:31 GMT
John Prytz, the question is not whether there is space or not but is the space utterly empty.Can a space be utterly empty? A superfluid would also allow things to be separated and move through it without resistance. If it provides no sensory data whereby to detect it may appear to be a nothingness. However its presence allows explanation of such forces as gravity, magnetism and charge.Importantly not taking the observed effect (apparent deformation of space-time) to be the cause and repudiating the idea of those disembodied fields.

report post as inappropriate


John Prytz wrote on Dec. 14, 2014 @ 13:03 GMT
SECOND PROOF THAT SPACE IS NOT A THING

Energy, hence matter, comes in discrete packets called quanta (hence quantum mechanics or physics). You can have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. packets of energy, but not 1.9 or 4.7 or 2.5 packets of energy. Question: if energy is not a continuous thing, but a discontinuous thing with required breaks between those discontinuous packets, what lies between those energy packets; between one quanta energy packet and the next? The answer has to be absolutely nothing.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Dec. 18, 2014 @ 11:27 GMT
John,

It's clear that space can have 0 'condensed 'matter', but you've not shown any evidence the condensate doesn't also exist. John Bell called that syndrome a 'failure of imagination', perhaps unfairly as we must first 'try before 'failing' and many may not even have tried.

Those who look find the evidence for a condensate overwhelming, and the anomalies and paradoxes resolved to be extensive. The anomalies may include you and I. A very simple coherent mathematical and physical adjustment to rationalise our view of nature is here;

Short Krauss video inc. Nobel Prize work.

You might also look up the solid evidence for the proposed Unruh effect. Writing vast reams is fine, but I found that time spent researching is 100 times as valuable. I know that's a bit of a 'professional' view, but I do strongly recommend the method, which also informs the output!

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate


John Prytz wrote on Dec. 14, 2014 @ 13:05 GMT
THIRD PROOF THAT SPACE IS NOT A THING

Cosmologists tell us that at the time of the Big Bang event the cosmos started out within a volume less than that occupied by that of a pinhead. Now I don't personally swallow that cock-and-bull tale for a nanosecond, but let's take them for sake of argument at their word - that the Big Bang was a quantum event. The question is, how do you cram the cosmos down to that size?

Even if roughly 75% of the cosmos has been created after that Big Bang event (i.e. - dark energy) that still leaves roughly 25% of the cosmos (5% matter plus 20% dark matter) that was present and accounted for at the time of the Big Bang. That's still a lot of stuff to occupy a volume of a pinhead. So in order to squeeze roughly 25% of our cosmos down into a volume less than that of a pinhead must require there to be an awful lot of nothingness in which to cram that 25% down into! Nothingness would have to account for 99.9999% of the cosmic volume in order to get something-ness down to pinhead size.

It's also interesting to read that when breaking up the cosmos into bits, you get roughly 5% matter, 20% dark matter and 75% dark energy. 0% is allocated to space itself - funny 'bout that. Recall that dark energy does not equal space. Dark energy creates additional space (creates nothing from something) and in turn space creates more dark energy (nothing creates something). IMHO cosmologists proposing this read too much science-fantasy and/or they like to smoke the good stuff!

report post as inappropriate


John Prytz wrote on Dec. 17, 2014 @ 13:13 GMT
MY TOP ASTRONOMICAL ANOMALIES: A LIST

The Universe is filled with mystery. There are a myriad of things that are, but shouldn't be, or probably shouldn't be. Adequate explanations are not only lacking, but even the wildest possible theoretical explanations are rather thin on the ground. There often tends to be a massive divide between observation and theory. These anomalies run the range...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Keith Jason Carlock wrote on Dec. 18, 2014 @ 00:40 GMT
Hello,

I'm new to this site and am not completely sure of the rules.

I really admire the holographic principle but, according to my theories, invisibility and holography are inverse forms of the same thing; if you turned one inside-out or outside-in, you'll have the other.

I think a complete principle would be an invisible/holographic principle of the universe. Two sides of the same coin.

Please check out my facebook group and read the "about" section first.

I act a little off-topic in my group, sometimes, but I try to keep members and myself entertained. I don't post anything pornographic, I just post music and act like an idiot.

Facebook group: Invisibility (adaptive camouflage) and Holodeck (virtual immersion) Theory

This is the url: https://www.facebook.com/groups/229849683808284/

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 18, 2014 @ 02:07 GMT
Hi there Kieth,

there used to be a list of rules including not using bad language, personal criticism , advertising or excessively lengthy posts. I tried to finds the rules for you but couldn't find them. Any way its really just courtesy to others. Also comments posted are meant to relate to the topic or introductory article for that page but that is only loosely adhered to. Links are supposed to be made using the format found by clicking the link help page link, found under reply to this thread. People post comments or ideas, as you have, and others read and sometimes respond. No guarantees.Welcome.

report post as inappropriate


John Prytz wrote on Dec. 18, 2014 @ 11:02 GMT
COSMOLOGY: THE STATE OF THE UNIVERSE

The answer to life, the Universe and everything isn't really “42”. Okay, so here are the real answers (well, my answers anyway) to life, the Universe and everything cosmic! Over the past 2000+ years, three undeniable trends have emerged in our on-going studies of life, the Universe and everything. It’s probably worth while keeping these in mind...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


David Pinyana wrote on Jan. 6, 2016 @ 02:21 GMT
May we consider SCALE FACTOR in the classic dynamical laws?

"Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) is a theory that proposes a modification of Newton's laws to account for observed properties of galaxies. Created in 1983 by Israeli physicist Mordehai Milgrom, the theory's original motivation was to explain the fact that the velocities of stars in galaxies were observed to be larger than...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 6, 2016 @ 08:04 GMT
I have inserted the gravitation in the equation of matter energy.E=mc²+ml² with the spherons like particles of gravitation.Gravitational forces are so weak ....at quantum scale.

report post as inappropriate

David Pinyana replied on Jan. 17, 2016 @ 12:13 GMT
That is good !

And what do you think about to include the SCALE FACTOR to Newton-Einstein equations.

MOND, TEVES, Scale Relativity consider this option !

There are other studies or theories in this direction ?

report post as inappropriate

David Pinyana replied on Jan. 23, 2016 @ 19:15 GMT
May Gravity "constant" (G) vary with scale factor ?

report post as inappropriate


Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Jan. 14, 2016 @ 18:37 GMT
Big Bang Cosmology is now officialy dead, see files attached.

attachments: 1_Cosmology_of_Einsteins_NOW.pdf, UDE_Cosmology_Without_Higgs_Boson_and_Without_Graviton.pdf

report post as inappropriate


Branko L Zivlak wrote on Jan. 15, 2016 @ 22:35 GMT
Amrit

I read it. It is remarkable!

Regards,

Branko

report post as inappropriate


David Pinyana wrote on Jan. 17, 2016 @ 12:32 GMT
What about FRACTAL COSMOLOGY ?

Please, read this paper from one of the best specialist on fractal cosmology (40 years working on it):

A Fractal Universe? (Robert L. Oldershaw, 2002, A Fractal Universe?)

ABSTRACT: From subatomic particles to superclusters of galaxies, nature has a nested hierarchical organization. There are also suggestive hints that self-similarity, the idea...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 25, 2016 @ 09:27 GMT
Hello,in fact if wesee the serie of uniqueness relativelly speaking, we have so a kind of foto for this serie giving a road of understanding unifying the cosmological scale and the quantum scale.The central sphères become relevant.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 25, 2016 @ 09:41 GMT
If all the central quantum spherical volumes are linked in a dance of rotations around the central universal spherical volume.It becomes relevant when the number is finite for the serie of uniqueness(probably created at this hypothetical electromagnetic Big Bang.A gravitational Big Bang seems more rational.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 25, 2016 @ 10:00 GMT
These central sphères are instantaneously connected with these gravitational particles implying an universal kind of newtonian gravitational aether of spherons.The sphere of gravitation is more important than the photonic sphere.The age of our universe is it really 13,7 billions years?

report post as inappropriate


Mike Holden wrote on Apr. 2, 2016 @ 13:26 GMT
A couple of years ago, after writing an article on a new way of looking at Gravitational and Electrical interactions, I came across the idea of negative mass, I know many people have toyed with this concept, but looking at it in, I think, a new way I wrote the article at mike-holden.org.uk/negmas. This article traces the evolution of the Universe from a Big Bang, when equal numbers of positive and negative mass particle came into existence, to the present day, when only positive mass seems to exist. If anyone would like to look at it I would appreciate your comments.

report post as inappropriate

Mike Holden replied on Apr. 3, 2016 @ 11:32 GMT
Aplologies: The proper address is www.mike-holden.org.uk/negmas.html

report post as inappropriate


David Pinyana wrote on Apr. 17, 2016 @ 16:14 GMT
Please, read following book concerning Scale relativity, Fractal Space-time and Emergence:

http://www.amazon.com/Fractal-Rainbow-Beyond-Unive
rse-English/dp/1519376146/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&q
id=1460909354&sr=1-1-fkmr0&keywords=David+Piñana

Attached abstract article:

"A book that could revolutionize the future of Cosmological Physics: Aristotle, Newton, Einstein, …" The author presents a vision of the Universe from a totally different point of view, and in a disclosure way, and very easy to understand. It is a journey from the smallest (the dimension of Planck) to the largest (Our Universe boundary). And he also shows, in a clear way, which may be behind these limits. The new proposals on Scale Landscape and Scale Relativity raised in this book could be a breakthrough in the current "state of the art" of the cosmology, showing a new outlook for a better understanding of the Universe. This book will change our view about some common concepts (Energy, Matter, Time, Vacuum ...) and also about other “unusual” concepts (Dark Matter and Energy, Quantum Fluctuations, Uncertainty Principle, Wave-Particle Duality,...), based on recent studies and theories (Emergence, Fractal, Scale Relativity, Holography, String-Branes, Quantum Gravity, …). Required reading for both: physics-cosmological experts, to explore an innovative proposal, as well as general public, that just would like to learn more about the Universe from a different and original point of view.

I would like to discuss it with people interested !

report post as inappropriate

David Pinyana replied on Apr. 17, 2016 @ 16:16 GMT
Article attached

report post as inappropriate


David Pinyana wrote on Apr. 17, 2016 @ 16:19 GMT
Attachment added !

report post as inappropriate


David Pinyana wrote on Apr. 17, 2016 @ 16:27 GMT
Attachment added (< 1MW). Please, delete previous 2 failed attachments !

attachments: LANDSCAPE_V.1_I_foro_1_MG.pdf

report post as inappropriate


Mike Holden wrote on Apr. 18, 2016 @ 14:42 GMT
To David Pinyana.

I have just read the LANDSCAPE pdf.

I cannot comment on much of the content but, regarding the discussion on the velocities of stars in a galaxy, you may be interested in my article at www.mike-holden.org.uk/stagal.html

Regards.

report post as inappropriate


David Pinyana wrote on Apr. 19, 2016 @ 14:34 GMT
What do you mean by Disc Galaxy ?

Are these velocities actually measured ? and your calculus actually confirmed ?

Why you do not consider:

The Dynamic Laws of Physics (and Universal Gravitation) have varied over time, and even Einstein had already proposed that they still has to evolve:

ARISTOTLE: F = m.v

NEWTON: F = m.a

EINSTEIN. E = m.c2

MOND: F = m.a.(A/A0)

FRACTAL RAINBOW: F = f (scale) = m.a.(scale factor)

Or better G (Gravity Constant) vary with the scale/distance due to fractal space-time:

G = f ( Scale/distance factor)

i think it offer a large and easy solution to this Orbital velocity of stars in a galaxy

report post as inappropriate

Mike Holden replied on Apr. 28, 2016 @ 10:49 GMT
By disc galaxy I mean a spiral as opposed to an elliptical or irregular galaxy. Although it is an approximation, I use the example of a disc to simplify the calculation.

For measured velocities see the Rotation Curve diagram at the beginning of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve

or

www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/rotation_cu
rves.htm

The laws of gravitation (value of G) may well have changed over time. This makes the evolution of the Universe more complicated but opens up more interesting possibilities.

The mass of the universe may have increased over time too. I suggest this in my article on Mass and Charge at www.mike-holden.org.uk/mascha.html (In the section on Inertia about 90% of the way through the article).



I would be interested see your easy solution to the Orbital velocity of stars in a galaxy.

Kind regards,

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 28, 2016 @ 12:32 GMT
Hello to both of you Mr Holden and Mr Pinyana,

It is very interesting these extrapolations about the scales.I liked the appraoch at 10^-35m and more far with the infra...The gravitation seems there but I beleive strongly that this quantumgravity is a different force than our stanard model.Gravitons are bosons and Under the special relativity,heat and thermo and electromagnetic forces.If gravitation is different ,so the gravitons aren't possible.Perhaps it could be relevant to analyse near this zero absolute for the bridge.The fine structure constant also seems not sufficient.Perhaps simply that the mechanic is universally newtonian.The motions of particles so become keys.Dark matter,BH must be inserted , superimposed to our standard model in fact.The quantum uniquenss is like a relative foto of our universe and its cosmological sphères.The number seems finite for the serie of uniqueness from the centralspherical singulrity, stable gravitationally speaking^,primordialif I can say.Best Regards from belgium.

report post as inappropriate


Mike Holden wrote on Apr. 30, 2016 @ 10:50 GMT
To David Pinyana,

Thank you for your comments.

I have updated my article at www.mike-holden.org.uk/stagal.html to address your concerns about the use of the word 'disc'.

report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Aug. 27, 2016 @ 13:32 GMT
EARLY COSMIC DENSITIES AS MOTHER NATURE’S THORN IN THE FLESH OF COSMOLOGISTS

We all know Mother Nature’s gradualist ways and have coined phrases for them: “Rome was not built in a day”; “a journey of a thousand miles starts with a step”, “little drops of water make a mighty ocean”, etc. Unfortunately, some cosmologists would prefer that the universe...

view entire post


attachments: Cover.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Aug. 27, 2016 @ 13:46 GMT
(missing part continued)

...

report post as inappropriate


Lee Bloomquist wrote on Sep. 24, 2016 @ 00:51 GMT
Causality is associated with time. The problem with time is that in a lot of equations it can go backward or forward. However, the attached presents a uni-directional model of proper time-- modeled as a stream of clock times supporting "informorphisms."

Information flow between parts of the Universe then occurs by means of the "infomorphisms" supported in each instance of proper time.

In general, an infomorphism is a transmission of information between the parts of a distributed system.

The model is here.

report post as inappropriate


Jurandyr Arone Maues wrote on Nov. 30, 2016 @ 22:43 GMT
COSMOLOGY : WHAT THE SPACE - TIME IS MADE OF ?

The beauty of Cosmology relies on its generosity : you are always in very good company even when you are totally wrong.

Jurandyr Arone Maués – Mechanical Engineer – Pontifícia Universidade Católica Rio de Janeiro, 1976.

Contacts : + 55 11 971602339 – mauesj@gmail.com

Defined for the unrivalled genius of Albert...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Dec. 1, 2016 @ 08:53 GMT
Happy to see you on this wonderful Platform Mr Maues,

Best Regards

report post as inappropriate


Jurandyr Arone Maues wrote on Nov. 30, 2016 @ 22:46 GMT
COSMOLOGY OF THE INFINVERSES

The beauty of Cosmology relies on its generosity : you are always in very good company even when you are totally wrong.

Physics is divided in 04 categories :

- Conceptual

- Theoretic

- Experimental

- Observational

This document is a conceptual document.

To become a Theory somebody must write it in Math....

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Dec. 1, 2016 @ 10:44 GMT
Hi ,

I see several corrélations with works of Prof.Max Tegmark andhis Multiverses.I have even explainedhere on fqxi that perhaps he could create the multispheres in considering the mathematical extrapolations.The mathematical singuarities can show us several roads where the physicallaws are changed.That said we return always to this uniquenss when we consider the whole.It is always this bridge between the physicality and this infinity which can imply confusions when we interpret this said physicality.The finite systems and the infinities and the infinity like the constants must be always rational and relative.

In all case I liked your ideas general.Congratulations and thanks for sharing.Best Regards

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Dec. 6, 2016 @ 15:04 GMT
We can unify G h and c,we can also make convergences between the mathematical singularities,the Mtheory and strings with the main primordial field in 1D.The gravitational aether with my 3D Sphères could be correlated with this main promordial field at the difference that we have a 3D and that space does not exist ,only matter and energy exist.The extradimensions could converge.I consider a pure...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Dec. 22, 2016 @ 01:02 GMT
Fundamental questions addressed by Dynamic Universe Model

This Model is new Cosmological model fundamentally and mathematically different from Bigbang, Steady state model etc. I am giving below its Foundational points, Present Day unsolved problems, which can’t be solved by other prominent models, New Satellite Mass reduction technology and publications (Four Books published).

Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model:

-No Isotropy

-No Homogeneity

-No Space-time continuum

-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

-No singularities

-No collisions between bodies

-No blackholes

-No warm holes

-No Bigbang

-No repulsion between distant Galaxies

-Non-empty Universe

-No imaginary or negative time axis

-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

-No many mini Bigbangs

-No Missing Mass / Dark matter

-No Dark energy

-No Bigbang generated CMB detected

-No Multi-verses

This Dynamic Universe Model is a singularity free and body-body collision free n-body problem solution based on Universal gravitational force acting on each and every body with some mass. It is a simple many body system solution. Its many predictions came true like existence Blueshifted Galaxies in the universe. Its prediction that there is no dark-matter was experimentally proved later. It successfully published solutions to vast variety of present day scientific problems using Its SITA simulations. Other simulations like SAVITRI and SUBBARAO were published. These other simulations addressed many other different problems like multiple bending of light etc.

Here Cartesian co-ordinates did not give any problem. I used them upto 10^55 meters, Two three times larger than our visible universe. I can not recollect the numbers exactly. This approach solves many present day unsolved problems like

report post as inappropriate


Graham Walker Cookson wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 12:38 GMT
To the community,

I find the current essay contest to be frustrating. The rating process has major flaws. It is good that 219 essays have been submitted. I was hoping to be a part of a forum of interesting people with different ideas. However, the process has been disappointing. It seems, at times, to be more of a beauty pageant than a forum.

In my essay Our Emergent Universe, I propose a completely new philosophical structure of reality. It is called Binary Reflective Field Theory. I think it solves many anomalies of modern physics, supports other unusual phenomena and acts as a framework to tie many different ideas together. Due to the ‘beauty pageant’ format of the contest, it will not be discussed or judged. Sorry if it sound like ‘sour grapes’, however it is my observation. Graham Cookson

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Apr. 19, 2017 @ 17:02 GMT
I went and read your essay.

And I commented there.

Regards, JJD

report post as inappropriate


kurt stocklmeir wrote on May. 11, 2017 @ 18:49 GMT
the surface around the universe makes a frame of reference for the universe things are not relative to the surface

Kurt Stocklmeir

report post as inappropriate


kurt stocklmeir wrote on May. 24, 2017 @ 18:15 GMT
if space is expanding and if this makes positive energy particles have a decrease of energy negative energy particles will have an increase of energy

Kurt Stocklmeir

report post as inappropriate


kurt stocklmeir wrote on May. 27, 2017 @ 19:28 GMT
neutrinos are tachyons - neutrinos flying around the universe would have an increase of energy if space is expanding and if this makes positive energy particles have a decrease of energy - neutrinos do not have an increase of energy when they are flying around the universe - space is not expanding

Kurt Stocklmeir

report post as inappropriate


kurt stocklmeir wrote on Jun. 10, 2017 @ 17:45 GMT
there are not any neutrinos from the big bang it did not happen

Kurt Stocklmeir

report post as inappropriate


kurt stocklmeir wrote on Jun. 23, 2017 @ 17:45 GMT
spring constant of time and space is not linear - this influences a lot of things like shape of time and space - because spring constant of time and space is not linear shape of time and space not linear for mass density and distance - as mass of star increases it is more hard to make shape of time and space change shape not linear - this is a little like a spring that has not linear spring constant - as spring expands it gets more hard to expand spring not linear - as distance from mass increases it is more simple to make shape of time and space change not linear - when there is a big distance from mass shape of time and space is more simple to change not linear - shape of time and space creates forces - these forces change not linear associated with mass density and distance - shape of time and space changes not linear different from 1/rr - forces created by shape of time and space not linear different from 1/rr - if shape of time and space creates gravity not linear decrease of gravity as distance increases from mass - this is different from 1/rr

Kurt Stocklmeir

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.