At Rest with our Hubble view

IOW eram should withdraw the misdemeanor charge of non-sequitur and just raise it to felony "posting pseudoscience"? Go figure. :scratchin:

:itold:

Even though you don't even know basic math and science. Go figure. :scratchin:

As if asking questions about something you have no knowledge of serves as a appropriate model. :shrug:

Well we can raise that to a 2nd degree charge of pseudoscience, if that makes you feel better.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Have it your way.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Number of total views, to take a minute and elaborate, is one of the few statistics we have about our threads, beyond who posted what, and how many posts there have been.

My topics often attract little interest in the general population, and so the post count is low relative to some of the social topics, but my "views" count is generally high. I gauge interest by watching the views count because there are so many lurkers who watch but don't post.

And views count; the owners of an open public forum are interested in selling ads, and the advertisers are interested in the views and clicks at a forum, so a thread originator who attracts lots of both is an asset according to the business plan

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(25381).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In that case, the charge of pseudoscience executes and warrant issues.

Step away from the abacus and place your hands behind your back.

You have the right to remain silent . . .

Anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of scientific opinion . . .

You have the right to assistance of technical counsel. . .

If you can't afford a tutor, one will be appointed for you . . .

Not to worry. You've been in an intellectual prison for quite some time now. This is about the same, but it comes with slop and an orange jumper.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You're presuming an interest, when really some bot is hitting on some random phrase like ". . .and the universe was hot, date of the epoch was 13.695 BYA . . " and posting to the link to some nefarious site in some former Russian satellite state . . .:shrug:

 

Somewhat true, but let me make your posts go away for awhile so I don't have to look at your version of "truth".

 

Yes, denial is just a button click away . . .

 

Picking up on convergence discussion with Farsight

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I can't blame Farsight for dropping out of our discussion here. If you can't visualize the convergenge or it violates your sensibilities to think about it, it is best to not continue the discussion. If you want to have a personal view of the cause of the big bang, you have to go beyond existing mainstream views.

Doing so is not denial of mainstream views, it is lack of satisfactory answers to three basic questions: 1) What caused the big bang, 2) What causes the presence of particles and objects, and 3) What is the mechanism of gravity, which now seems to have to be a quantum answer? Don't want to discuss it with me because I have no apparent credentials, fine, but if you can't answer those questions and don't spend your time looking at where science is going to try to answer them, you are not really a science enthusiast.

(25429 tot. views)

 

Yes once Farsight's pseudoscience was called, he had little recourse but to slink away and haunt some other thread.:runaway:

When properly presented, a scientific fact requires little or no visualization, since the thoughtful presenter takes care to elucidate meaning by providing the background laws and principles in concise math, plus any tabulated data, charts or illustrations as may be necessary to present a cogent description of physical phenomena relevant to the case at hand.

With a few exceptions, "cause of the Big Bang" is not a topic of science, but one of speculation. It's far beyond the science and math capabilities of the cranks here and for them nothing more than a platform for drivel, word salad, hot air, pseudoscience and rant.
:soapbox:

See above. The mainstream view is that this is all speculation.

1) "cause" of the Big Bang is moot under the premise that time was created in the Big Bang.
2) "cause" of particles and objects (matter) is associated with the abundance of energy from which primordial matter apparently condensed.
3) the "mechanism of gravity" is (a) in most practical problems, Newton's Law of Gravitation, which can be compared to the "mechanism" of the static electric field--which is NOT an endorsement of aether, but proof against it and (2) in a very few practical applications (satellite-earth time sync problems, such as GPS) General Relativity accounts for the fine grained temporal differences. Another example is precision calibration of time standards by NIST. Note, Newton obviously did not account for time dilation since he couldn't have possibly known about it. But he covered all of the bases for the primitive technology of his era, and, with Leibnitz, shares the honor of having invented differential calculus. I often wonder how the untrained cranks feel, realizing that they are centuries behind in math, then trying to pretend they have the most profound matters of science in the palms of their hands. :shrug:

As long as you continue to disavow science you are hardly in a position to call the kettle black. :itold:

 

That's like saying the medium is radiation, which kills aether dead as a doornail.

What boundary?

Yet without space no fields are plausible

Anyone who has to invent words to compensate for ideas that have no correspondence in conventional wisdom is living a delusion of grandeur, unless they actually happen to be a genius which is clearly not the case here.

. . . speaking of delusions :crazy:

:wtf:

 

In regard to the continuing explanation of my so called model under question, the convergence of two or more parent arenas is how new big bangs are initiated, and how new big bang arenas come to exist from the combined remnants of a portion of each parent arena. Entire galaxies, black holes and all, are swirled into the big crunch at the center of gravity of the lens shaped overlap space. The process of building a big crunch that is sufficient to cause a big bang is lengthy in the low density far reaches of space associated with the expanding parent arenas, but gravity interrupts and overcomes the separation momentum of the converging galaxies and the big crunch gradually approaches critical capacity.

Before the convergence, separation momentum exceeds gravitational attraction within each parent arena as the distances between galaxies gets greater and greater, at an accelerating rate.

At the point of convergence and in the lens shapped overlap space, galactic rendezvous occur as separation momentum is interrupted by gravitational attraction. The redshift observed from within each parent arena would gradually indicate that something has changed in that direction, and within the lens shaped overlap space a blue shift would be apparent.

The remaining portions of each parent arena that escape the big crunch continue to "expand" away under their own separation momentum, only to be incorporated in some future distant big crunch where their energy will be recycled and refreshed into a different low entropy crunch/bang.

(25596 tot. views)

 

Just to reiterate a point that you have made many times. This is not science. It is just your so called model and your hobby. I just thought I would mention that because you sometimes start talking about your so called model as if it were real. Not that anybody would actually mistake it for science. But just in case it is best to put up your standard disclaimer.

 

True.

Correct, and thank you for understanding that. It is hypothses that compose my SO CALLED model. Every time I say "so called model", I am acknowledging that, and reminding everyone that I don't pretend to be DOING science, I am talking about ideas the science does not yet have the answers for: What caused the Big Bang, what causes the presence of matter, and what are the quantum mechanics of gravity.

 

Gravity = Essence = Pepeptual Recyclings of Eistence as Fermions and Bosons

Thats a little like asking why can physical/energy not be created nor destroyed, or why is our finite physical/energy Universe a perpetual motion machine, or........?

,

Matter = associative/convergent properties, factors elements whatever of physical/energy Universe.

And this may boil-out entropically to a large, least energy/frequency( longest wave ) photon, that has no reason in of itself to recollapse as fermionic matter.

So, we may infer that what keeps the eternally perpetuation of Universe, is the mass-attractive, associatively convergent( >IN< ) properties of gravity aka gravitational spacetime eternally existent on the outer perimeter of EMRadiation's existence.

Why and how does convergent >IN< occur is the question. Well let me take a crack-at-it by first putting aside motion or what is moving let me offer some geometrical thoughts.

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/plates/figs/plate08z.html

But also, putting aside the link above, see later more complex scenario below for those daring enough to ponder geometry more complex than a triangle.

So, I offer the most simplest of concepts that actually involves and enclosure of space, albeit, a 2D space.

What if at minimum, we had zn integrated set of three angles( 3-viewpoints/3-points-of-view ). I see that as an imbalance i.e. 3 is odd number set.

Sort of like two up quarks and one down quark of a baryonic hadron. There exists this imbalance/asymmetry(?) that is eternally chasing its own tail to arrive at balance/equilibrium. Yet this can never happen, because of the nature of the triangle being a self-stablizing unit of three diagonals/stabilizers.

With a short-lived( very unstable ) meson( two quarks ) we have appear to have less stable version of only twoness. But be clear here, I'm only using quarks as and example. The 3 viewpointed triangle as perhaps the minimal gravitational spacetime, is a differrent scenario.

Anyway, to keep these simple version simple, I will leave it there.

Below is a more complex scenario that involves both a set of 24 triangle-based viewpoints and 24 square-based viewpoints integrated as whole integrated set.

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/plates/figs/plate08z.html

What may not be stated in the above link is the relation of 8 closed triangles and 12 radial lines-- total 24 lines-of-relationship ---as found with the Vector Equlibrium( VE ) aka Fullers operating system of Universe.

This VE, in its toy-like transformable mode, l transforms into many exotic shapes and I ask others to only consider one of them as follows;

EM double sine-wave = two electric peaks and valleys--- amplitude--v^--> ---and two magnetic peaks and valleys( amplitude--V^--> )traveling in same overall direction, the that are at 90 planes to to each other if I understand correctly and the VE transform into this geometric configuration.

What most do not realize is, that there is balance of 6 lines-of-relationship in each triangle wave in the Euclidean double sine wave formed by the jitterbug,

however, what is not seen/observed from the beginning is that each square has and additional one or two gravitational lines-of-relationship, that are not part of the 24 patterned set. It would take 6 lines-of-relationship diagonals to stablize the 6 squares of the VE and then we have 30 lines-of-relationship and then the pattern is that of a the more stable icosahedron and in its proper orientation more spherical than the VE/cubo-octahedron.

r6

 

Not much help r6. BTW, the second link was the same as the first.

FYI, the path that I have taken to answer those three questions in my so called model is generally found in the content of my past threads. This current thread, now pending removal from P&M and to Alt Theories, is now being used to present a more or less step by step restatement and update to the previous content, incorporating the ideas of the gravitational profile of an arena and the imprint that profile leaves in the background wave energy density of the parent arenas, and therefore which is incorporated in our own big bang arena as it expands into the space that they occupied as they matured. I think that idea is consistent with the anomalies in the CMB data, and that the >60 wide angle anomoly is consistent with the parent arena concept.

It will be quite boring except for the fun and flames that will accompany the word salad.

 

Before you can have a model, you have to have something to model. That something has to be real, or you just have a model of a passing thought. But there's more. In order to have a model you have to do modeling, which is not like modeling clay or creating pointillistic designs that you think look plausible. All you've done so far is to hijack the word "model" and prefix it with your caveat emptor "so called". This is a no-go.

. . . where you hope the better informed folks browsing the science threads will get sucked into your aether screed,

i.e.,is now covered in smoke and surrounded by mirrors, or so it seems. . . (ignore the man behind the curtain!),

Let me just show you this fine old Edsel I have over here . . .

And there you have it, the essence of screed.
:soapbox:

Like magic, without even that good ole 2.7K to bog us down in details, another mystery is solved because I said so.

Folks, you heard it first on Sci. Problem solved. Presto change-o abra cadabra shish kum bah. *poof* Can I get an Amen! :itold:

IOW I am really trolling my own thread. :mufc:

Anybody wanna play Stick Me In The Eye?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

oke: Hey no fair! You got to get stuck in the eye last time! My turn! :bawl:

 

One thing about an unmoderated science/alternative science forum is that is lets people show who they are and what they think. I am a layman science enthusiast who hypothesizes about answers to questions that science cannot yet answer. The thread is open to all sides of the discussion, including self proclaimed professionals that have never started a thread about an idea, ignore the stated intent and content of a thread, and flame in more and more disparaging ways to show how creative and thoughtful they are.

... the discussion with Farsight and others who agree that there had to be preconditions to our big bang, and who, by so agreeing are acknowledging preexisting space and time, are not as willing as I am to venture into hypothesizing in the open forum about what those preconditions might be. Many have peers in the scientific community to consider, and some think that by talking much about preconditions they will be flamed and ridiculed. I don't think that any reputable science professional would do that, but then I am a layman and don't know the mind or motivations of the peer relationships and competition.

I just want to take a minute and describe the universe on a grand scale as I hypothesis it to be in my so called model, because the big bang arenas, adjacent parent arenas that expand like ours and therefore must ultimately converge in preexisting space, would be common events across the entire arena landscape.

When I mention two parent arenas it seems strange if the idea of a multiple big bang arena universe is new to you. The questions of why two parents, and where did they come form, and infinite regression and turtles all the way down, all take some time to get use to if you care to think about it at all. But convergence is just a stage in the big bang arena process that I call arena action.

All across the greater universe there are a potentially infinite number of arenas in all stages, from formation to maturity, at any point in time. The process may be said to start with the convergence of parent arenas, and end with the process of a mature arena becoming a party to such a convergence, and I elaborate on the arena process in between as I describe my so called model. The cause of the big bang is part of that process.

At the same time, I discuss a foundational level where the action is entirely quantum, and because quantum mechanics does not yet have a quantum theory of gravity, I hypothesize about the quantum level, particles composed of energy in quantum increments, and quantum gravity in layman terms. These are just ideas for discussion while we wait for the scientific community to reach an internally consistent consensus on the answers to the three questions; what caused the big bang, what causes the presence of matter, and what causes gravity.

(25935 tot. views)

 

The tangible meets the intangible. Nice work to both of you.

 

quantum_wave

What caused the Big Bang?-we have no clue and never will have a clue, it is literally not possible to know as it lies outside of the Universe.

What causes the presence of matter? The presence of energy. Matter is to energy what steam(actually water plasma)is to water, different forms of the same thing. Matter is a condensed form of energy, energy is an expanded form of matter.

What causes gravity? The distortion of spacetime by mass. There is no real reason to expect that gravity is quantum, it seems to simply be a characteristic of space which contains matter. The Higg's Bosun gives particles mass(evidently), in any event that mass distorts local spacetime, distorted local spacetime IS gravity.

All these are well evidenced and internally consistent, it just doesn't satisfy your admittedly uninformed concept of what should be. Science is learning to accept what the evidence shows, not speculating on things the evidence has already eliminated as possibilities.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Perhaps why we try to only speculate upon ideas which have opposing translations of evidence.