Big Bang or Big Bounce Model of the Universe?

Got any other narrative you'd like to invent?

I saw your posts. You provided no model, no derivation, no logic, no postulates, nothing but more assertions. The fact you don't realise just how far short of the scientific method you're falling illustrates my point about you going nowhere, despite people having explained it to you multiple times.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Dude, the way that you are addressing these statements using the term "you" in your sentences is getting under my skin. You are making these statements like you are telling me something, or informing me about something as if I am unaware!!

When Quantum_Wave, responded his statements, it did not sound like he was instructing me, or that he was trying to come off more knowledgeable than I. He just responded without using the word "You" in his statements; except where appropriately, questioning what I meant.

I know that you have read my book the Super Principia Mathematica - The General Theory of Relativity, where these "Black Hole" concepts are clearly stated. Which you will say, I am in possession, but I have not read it!! Before you make that statement, that would be B_LL S_IT!!

So, to make the above statement, you have finally gotten under my skin.

You, have absolutely no clue about what gravity is really about. Your words make it sound like you are somehow an authority on gravitation; which based on me reading your book, and reading your post; you are not! This is because you have to understand math to fully comprehend what Gravity is! Which you don't or you would be claiming other ideas listed in Super Principia Mathematica - The General Theory of Relativity, as your own.

Once again, you have no idea of what you are talking about, and you are addressing these statements using the term "you" in your sentences, like you are telling me something, or informing me about something as if I am unaware!!

The idea about the "Big Bang" and "Black Holes" were considered "pseudoscience" only until about 17 years ago. Now they are considered mainstream. The "Big Bounce" is now being discussed, not because it is science fiction, but because the mathematics is starting to reveal its possibility. But, because you don't really understand the math; it is "pseudoscience" to you!

And, history has shown us that once the math starts to convince us that a "pseudoscience" concept is possible. Then physicists and scientist start to look for its evidence. I predict that the evidence for the "Big Bounce" will be discovered in the next five (5) years to seven (7) years.

--------------------------------------------------------

Farsight, let me tell you what I am noticing about you, in which AlphanNumeric, is totally correct in his assessment of your desire to be worshiped as a genius.

In your book, "Relativity +" you reference my paper on the "Quantization of Electromagnetic Change" and Vernon Brown's work on photons becoming electrons; and I know that these works were the inspiration of the inventions in your mind for photons going in circles, so to speak. But you fail to mention this in any of your subsequent postings.

When, I wrote the papers that I did which are your inspirations, I clearly stated that Vernon Brown was my inspiration, and this is what is called being honest. I did not have to do that. But, my fear was that in the future, someone would say; hey Vern Brown, had that Idea first.

Nor did you see him, Vernon Brown, trying to pass my concepts off as his own. He promotes my work on his website; he does not have to do that. This means that Vernon Brown is an honest person. And is comfortable with his, own ideas, and respects the ideas of others. And history will reward him for his honesty.

You, on the other hand are dishonest. And history and people will condemn you for it.

This is what you do. You get an idea and inspiration from Scientist (A), then go and find where Scientist (B) said something similar, but was not your inspiration for the idea. Then you go all over town telling everyone about your great new idea; and how Scientist (B) wrote about it. This is dishonest!! And you will not be successful in your physics career doing that. Like a thief, you think that people, don't see what you are doing. But, from my observation all, and I mean all thieves, eventually get caught!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Quantum_Wave,

I have to agree with AlphaNumeric on this one. Sorry, but I think that he is right.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sorry AN, you are not talking about my thread because we both know, in fact everyone here knows you wouldn't spend five minutes reading it but you would spend an hour belittling what you make believe it says. The quality of a person shows through into their on-line activity and we can tell from your activity how people around you off line must act and think about you. You are a sad example of a professional, everyone knows it, and you will bluster until a pal comes along to bail you out.

 

I find it amazing that you don't see the hypocrisy of this post. You are a complete fraud with no understanding of the mathematics of general relativity.

You and Farsight are incredibly similar - both desperate to project an image of understanding and both completely lacking. Hell, you've both self-published funny books!

 

Guest254, Sockpuppet 3 of 23

By the way, I actually liked the book; RELATIVITY+, by John Duffield.

I found this book, RELATIVITY+: The Theory of Everything, by John Duffield to be a delightful physics book; and after reading the introduction as to why this book was written, it made me read even more, the author states,

“If you selected a hundred people at random and tested their technical and scientific knowledge, I think the average score would be lower than that of a comparable group from fifty years ago. Yes we’re more specialists these days, and some things are more difficult to understand. But it seems there’s more people around who just don’t understand the basics, who have only the vaguest concept of how things work. They wouldn’t know where to start if their car broke down. It’s like there’s a low-rise, low-brow tide that doesn’t feel healthy, that slowly, insidiously, is getting worse. Something must be done, I said to myself. And if you want something doing, you’ve got to do it yourself.”

And that is what this author has done in this book; he set out to describe the complicated physics of “Special Relativity” and “General Relativity/Cosmology”, and makes it fun, palatable, and understandable for the layperson.

The author takes on challenges to explain what is, Space, Energy, Time, and Charge based on the current understanding of physics, and with a minimum amount of history. I am sure there will be some that would want more of the history and math. But I appreciated the minimum history and limited mathematics, which was compensated with clear explanation of the physics. For example Energy is described, by the author, which states,

“In barest essence energy is a volume of stressed space.”

And for an explanation of charge, the author writes,

“Charge is curl, charge is twist. The electromagnetic field is a region of twisted space, and if we move through it we perceive a turning action which we then identify as a magnetic field.”

The author also brings in some topological quantum field theory concepts like the Möbius strip, Möbius toroid, and knot theory. The latter began with Kelvin's knots in 1867 and is becoming very appealing to mainstream mathematical physicists today, because it can be used to describe standard model particle entities. The author states,

“The electron is a trivial knot, a turn and a twist. The proton is a trefoil knot, three turns and a twist. The neutron is a proton plus a twist and two turns. The neutrino is a turn, a mere running loop, and muon, and tau neutrinos have more loops, as do the muon and tau themselves. The antiparticles are mirror-images knots that go the other way, and the unstable particles are not knots, so they always come undone”

Everyone, who studies physics questions time, and what is it? The author has an interesting explanation for “Time” and explains time in this manner,

“Time exists like heat exists. It’s real because it does things to us. But just like heat it’s a derived effect of motion. If the universe consisted of two objects and two objects alone, separated by some distance, we could hold a concept of space. But if those objects don’t move, we can't hold a concept of time. When those objects do move, then and only then can we conceive of time, for it’s not space and time that are cofounded, it’s motion and time that are cofounded.”

The author claims that no “past” or a “future” time exists; only “present” time exists in the universe. The concept of clock time that we measure with the ticks of our clocks is derived from motion, is a concept that has been surfacing in discussions of physics for the last fifty (50) years, and is starting to be debated in big bang cosmology.

As you read, you can tell that the author really wants to get across to you that he really understands what space is? And is very passionate about describing space is! I like to think of what the author describes in his book as, “space being proportional to energy”, as “spacetime being proportional to energy.” But in my opinion these two terms are too trivial to argue here, because it is the fluid nature and the impedance of space or spacetime that is being described is what I liked.

I did not agree with everything in the book, but I agreed with enough of the book, that I consider it a very good read; and I really enjoyed the book. The author John Duffield has presented very complicated physics concepts in a very engaging way. This book will definitely encourage the layperson that likes science and physics to want to look deeper into physics. Laypersons that read this book will walk away with enough understanding of modern physics that they could comfortably talk to their much more educated physicists’ friends, because they read RELATIVITY+: The Theory of Everything, by John Duffield.

 

Eh, "birds of a feather flock together", you two posers should collaborate on the next "masterpiece" by Kemp and Duffus.

 

Tach, Sockpuppet 4 of 23

If you were easier to get along with, you would be invited to join the "Flock!!"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You two have it covered.

 

More, Evidence that the "Dark Energy" may behave differently on very large distance scales. And more evidence for a "Big Bounce" theory!

Wired Science Article: Clumpiness of Distant Universe Surprises Astronomers

The universe appears to be clumpier than astronomers expected, according to the largest galaxy survey to date. The extra clumps could call for a redesign of the standard model of cosmology, and maybe a new understanding of how gravity works.

“Maybe on very large scales, Einstein’s general relativity is slightly wrong,” said cosmologist Shaun Thomas of University College London, lead author of a new paper in Physical Review Letters. “This potentially could be one of the first signs that something peculiar is going on.”

.........

The clumpiness of the universe is expected to vary by about 1 percent from one spot to another on these length scales. The new analysis saw a universe that varies by nearly double that amount. It’s still basically smooth, but much clumpier than current cosmological models predict.

The result could mean cosmologists need to reassess their understanding of dark energy, the mysterious force that drives the universe outward at an ever-increasing rate. Dark energy itself is supposed to be almost perfectly smooth, but clumps of dark energy could draw clumps of visible matter around them.

The extra lumps could also mean dark energy doesn’t exist at all. Instead, gravity could behave differently on very large scales than it does on smaller scales, meaning Einstein’s theory of general relativity needs an overhaul.

“General relativity has proved right time and time again, but it’s been tested over the same scales,” Thomas said. “These are new scales, so it could be that something breaks down. And then you need some new theory.”​

Actual Article on arXiv: Excess Clustering on Large Scales in the MegaZ DR7 Photometric Redshift Survey

We observe a large excess of power in the statistical clustering of Luminous Red Galaxies in the photometric SDSS galaxy sample called MegaZ DR7. This is seen over the lowest multipoles in the angular power spectra C_{\ell} in four equally spaced redshift bins between 0.45 < z < 0.65. However, it is most prominent in the highest redshift band at ~ 4 sigma and it emerges at an effective scale k ~ 0.01 h Mpc^{-1}. Given that MegaZ DR7 is the largest cosmic volume galaxy survey to date (3.3 (Gpc h^{-1})^3) this implies an anomaly on the largest physical scales probed by galaxies. Alternatively, this signature could be a consequence of it appearing at the most systematically susceptible redshift. There are several explanations for this excess power that range from systematics to new physics. This could have important consequences for the next generation of galaxy surveys or the LCDM model. We test the survey, data and excess power, as well as possible origins.​

 

blame the devil . This is the first I heard of the big bounce . Every interesting . I like the sound of oscillation. It has a string vibrating kind of feel to it .

 

Following new developments and advancements brought about by new technology is what leads to changes in the consensus model. It evolves as long as it can remain the consensus and it occasionally changes drastically as a wider perspective of the universe becomes available.

These findings along with other periodic updates to our understanding always get incorporated into the model after peer review and a gestation period and often there is publicity in the popular media as those changes are taking place within the scientific community.

Cosmologists have begun grappling with the greater universe view as new findings help define the parameters of dark energy and dark matter. There might be a major model change coming that vastly expands our conception of the universe and demotes our observable Hubble volume of space to the status of one case of expansion that is causally connected to one Big Bang event in a greater universe that is characterized by such events.

Watch all six episode here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bGx3UB-Slg. You will be introduced to:
Dr Laura Mersini-Houghton, University of North Carolina, who is using String Theory mathematics to define a cosmology that addresses observations like the void in the CMBR, unexplained motion or Dark Flow, and odd temperatures to predict the presence of neighboring universes. Those neighbors could turn out to be neighboring arenas of expansion caused by their own individual big bangs. [Edit: a link on the void and one on dark flow http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/12/is-the-massive-cold-spot-a-sign.html, http://www.medical-answers.org/hd/index.php?t=Laura Mersini, “In 2007, Mersini-Houghton claimed that the observed CMB cold spot was "the unmistakable imprint of another universe beyond the edge of our own", just as she and her collaborator had predicted in her theory 8 months earlier.”]

 

You shouldn't be so sensitive, you used "you" in your OP.

As above. Let's try to stick to the science and the topic in hand.

Again as above.

Ditto. Let's stick to the big bang and big bounce.

Oh yes I do.

Gravity is simple enough for a child to understand. Sadly it's often people who like to be seen as an "authority" who don't like the idea of something being simple.

No you don't. Au contraire, you can fully understand the math and have so little comprehension that you assert that gravity is all down to a seething mass of gravitons.

I don't claim other people's ideas as my own.

No, it's "pseudoscience" because there is no supporting evidence. This isn't the case with the big bang. Hubble's law dates back to 1929. It began with the evidence.

That's the wrong approach. Mathematics doesn't convince a scientist, evidence does.

If you have some reason for this, fine, go ahead and tell us about it.

He isn't. My desire is to do my bit for physics.

Not so. The idea isn’t mine, I read about it in the Williamson / van der Mark paper Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology? and The nature of the electron by Qiu-Hong Hu.

I think Vern deserves a lot of credit. He's been saying electrons etc are made of light for a long time, and it's a crying shame that he's been largely ignored whilst unsupported hypotheses are presented as fact. But I came across Vern about six months after I'd picked up the photons going round in circles idea.

He's a good bloke is Vern.

Not me.

You're kidding yourself. Try reading The Same Elephant where I refer to all the people and papers I read, talk about "my ideas" as regurgitated-reheat synthesis, and say it's unfair that all these people contribute so much and get no publicity or recognition.

Now can we get back on topic please?

 

Oh, no you don't!

The Newtonian Gravitation model is simple enough. But beyond that it requires some additional mathematics and understanding, which you don't have!

You have to remember that Newton, the inventor of the Gravitational Force, claimed that he did not understand how Gravity works. He stated that his mathematics worked, in a sense that he could make predictions and would test by experimental observation, proving his gravitational force equation to be correct. However, Newton, himself claimed that the understanding for how gravity work was a bit much for him theorize.

Are you smarter than Newton?

Yes, you do. And you think that others don't see what you are doing.

Instead of trying to argue my "personal ideas" the post, was meant to start a dialogue about the concepts of whether there model is "Static", "Big Bang", or "Big Bounce" was preferred. And my goal was to present the post without my personal ideas being debated. However, you found a way to attempt to retort me; this is how I know that you were up to something.


You stated "No, it's "pseudoscience" because there is no supporting evidence." Did you not notice post #30. Here. But of course you did. You just ignored it; I want you to retort this!

I do not want to say that you have to be a Mathematician to do physics. Because you don't have to be mathematician to have fun with physics. You can do conceptual physics for fun. There are lots of people that have a hobby of physics and are not mathematicians. However, I state with absolute assurance that you will eventually run into a brick wall of understanding; and you will end up fighting with mathematicians wondering why they keep claiming to know more.

Mathematics is a language, and when you understand that language, it is able to predict things ahead of time; that you could never get to using purely conceptual understanding.

This was why Special Relativity is a revolutionary field of study. The brain teaches us the concepts that space and time to flow normally and are not affected by motion, is what the brains says; based on observing the world around you. But, the mathematics revealed that this way of viewing the universe is not correct. The brain can be fooled, but the mathematics can be verified, and therefore has preeminence.

Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, and Einstein were all mathematical physicists and did their "bit" for physics. So you have made my point! You wish to be like one of your heroes. I suggest enrolling into a college and taking some physics courses.

You, should follow his model!!

I did, but you ignored the post #30, and went after me. And this is why I went after you!

I want you to retort the articles not me!

 

Thanks for the kind words, gentlemen. I lurk many forums and seldom find kind words like that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

My main focus now is a search for any evidence that suggests that something other than electric and magnetic change exists in this universe.

I have found no such evidence and have seen none presented.

 

Vern Brown,

Your question/argument is somewhat circular and in some ways outdated. I am aware that you have been working with these concepts since the year 1991. And in 1994, I defended a Master's Thesis with similar reasoning, with a goal to expand on the idea and concept that fermions (leptons & hadrons) have at their core photons phase-locked in spinning and rotating orbits.

Then in the year 2006, John Duffield, picked up this idea and began to defend this idea in his book that was published in 2009 (Relativity + The Theory of Everything).

However, since 1991 - 1994, many have adopted this idea as physics dogma, which seems to be with you unaware; and which I will explain in brief below.

In my opinion your argument, "a search for any evidence that suggests that something other than electric and magnetic change exists in this universe. I have found no such evidence and have seen none presented", is described in the mainstream concept of "Bosons"

See wiki article: Elementary bosons

All observed elementary particles are either fermions or bosons. The observed elementary bosons are all gauge bosons: photons, W and Z bosons and gluons.

• Photons are bosons and are the force carriers of the electromagnetic field.
  
  
• W and Z bosons are the force carriers which mediate the weak force.
  
  
• Gluons are the fundamental force carriers underlying the strong force.
  
  
• In addition, the standard model postulates the existence of Higgs bosons, which give other particles their mass via the Higgs mechanism.

Finally, many approaches to quantum gravity postulate a force carrier for gravity, the graviton, which is a boson of spin 2.​

Also, it is accepted that the Hadrons (Protons and Neutrons) are comprised of Bosons and Fermions.

See wiki article: Composite bosons

Composite particles (such as hadrons, nuclei, and atoms) can be bosons or fermions depending on their constituents. More precisely, because of the relation between spin and statistics, a particle containing an even number of fermions is a boson, since it has integer spin.

Examples include the following:

• Any meson, since mesons contain one quark and one antiquark
  
  
• The nucleus of a carbon-12 atom, which contains 6 protons and 6 neutrons
  
  
• The helium-4 atom, consisting of 2 protons, 2 neutrons and 2 electrons
  
  
• The number of bosons within a composite particle made up of simple particles bound with a potential has no effect on whether it is a boson or a fermion.

Fermionic or bosonic behavior of a composite particle (or system) is only seen at large (compared to size of the system) distance. At proximity, where spatial structure begins to be important, a composite particle (or system) behaves according to its constituent makeup.​

So, in essence, it is accepted that matter and energy are made of "Bosons" or in your words "Electric & Magnetic Change"

In my opinion what is a better question and is more befitting with 21st Century physics is how can we explain the difference between the "Compton/Brown Radius" and the "Schwarzschild Radius" associated with each fermion.

General Boson or Photon Wavelength:

\( \lambda_{Photon} = \frac{h_{Planck}}{p_{Momentum}} = 2\pi {r_{Amplitude} \) \( --> m\)


Compton Wavelength and Brown Radius:

Where (N) equals to the number of Atomic or Fermions constituents

\( m_{Net} = N m_{Net_Atom}\) \( --> kg\)


\( {r_{Brown} = \frac{\lambda_{Compton}}{2\pi} = N (\frac{h_{Planck}}{{2\pi}(m_{Net}c_{Light})}) \) \( --> m\)


Schwarzschild Radius:

\( {r_{Schwarzschild} = \frac{\lambda_{Schwarzschild}}{2\pi} = \frac{2 m_{Net}G}{c^2_{Light}} \) \( --> m\)

All fermions, planets, and suns/stars should have these two radii associated with their Net Mass.

I describe these details in the book:
Super Principia Mathematica - The Rage to Master Conceptual & Mathematical Physics -
Volume 1 - The First Law of Motion (Inertial Motion) - ISBN 978-0-9841518-0-6; pages 378 - 400

Best

 

Yes; I saw that; great book, and I am aware of the theoretical arguments against the notion. I look for experimental evidence.

I think we discussed before that the neutrino particle and the higgs boson are not possible within the the nature-made-of light concept. The reason is simple. Both are primary (non-composite) particles with no charge. Not possible when charge derives from the bent path of a photon as it must in a photon-only universe.

 

Vern, you have been wrestling with this issue for twenty years (20). Do you not want to win?

I have always felt that this neutrino question was answered with the boson.

So, based on your "Neutrino" theory, answer these questions for me.

1) Are your Neutrinos "mass-less" similar to a photon, or do your Neutrinos have "mass"?

2) Do your Neutrinos travel at "Light Speed" or can they travel at speeds slower than "Light Speed"?​

Now let's consider a very basic analysis for the existence of a Neutrino.

Enrico Fermi, originally observed that a "Neutron" would spontaneously decay into a "Proton" and an "Electron"

However, when you sum up the mass of the "Proton" sum the "Electron" you do not get the mass of the "Neutron"


\( m^{(0)}_{Neutron} \not= m^{(+)}_{Proton} + m^{(-)}_{Electron} \) \( --> kg \)


Then, Wolfgang Pauli stated the law of conservation is never violated in nature; and thus it was concluded that some missing mass must exist that was not accounted for. Hence, Enrico Fermi named this missing mass the "Neutrino"

And thus the conservation law for the "Neutron" was postulated as such


\( m^{(0)}_{Neutron} = m^{(+)}_{Proton} + m^{(-)}_{Electron} + m^{(0)}_{Neutrino} \) \( --> kg \)


The above equation states that the "Neutron" has a neutral charge. The "Proton" is positively charged. And the "Electron" is negatively charged. And finally, the "Neutrino" also has a neutral charge similar to the neutron.

If the "Neutrino" travels at "Light Speed" and is "mass-less" then the above equation should be written


\( m^{(0)}_{Neutron} = m^{(+)}_{Proton} + m^{(-)}_{Electron} + \frac{{h_{Planck}}\n_{Neutrino}}{c^2_{Light}} \) \( --> kg \)


Where the frequency of the Photon Neutrino is given by (\(\n_{Neutrino} \))


Recent experimental evidence is in favor of the first equation that claims that the "Neutrino" has mass.

 

I don't care about winning or losing. I simply want to know the answer.

I know about the neutrino history; I favour the first equation, however, I can't build that kind of neutrino out of electric and magnetic change alone.

I once published an article by you in which you answered the question, "what is mass?" In it you said, "Mass is electromagnetic change." I saw somewhere in a later publication by you that you had changed your views.

 

Neutrinos don't need mass in order to carry energy away from a nuclear reaction. The only reason we think they have a (very tiny) mass is because we know they fluctuate between different flavours (electron neutrino, muon neutrino, tau neutrino) as they travel, and those masses would still be far too small to account for the mass differences observed in nuclear reactions like beta decay.