Big Bang or Big Bounce Model of the Universe?

Vern,

You are correct; however, I would not state that I had a change in views. I would like to say more like, my understanding was increased. But, I do understand how you could get that my "physics worldview" changed. I will explain.

I started doing physics independently in the year 1988, and by the year 1992, I felt that I had a good grasp of Newtonian Physics, Electrodynamics, Special Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. There was no internet in those days, so all you could do was read your physics text books, go to libraries to read journals, and read pop science magazines. Then as I was entering grad school, and was reading the "Discovery Magazine, I came across your classified ad, where you were advertising your work, "How come the Quantum." I think that I paid $15.00 and you sent me a copy in the mail.

Well, when I read that, I was very excited, because, here I was reading someone that was thinking along similar lines of reasoning that I was having at the time concerning: Quantum Mechanics, Photons, Electrons, and Nucleon Structure. And the kind of reasoning, in your work, I had not found in the physics text books and journals at the time. Not, to mention I was working on my Master's Thesis, and this helped me to defend my work, because it was somewhat unique at the time.

Now during the time from the year 1988 to the year 1997, my focus was on those Quantum Mechanical phenomena, which in my opinion at the time considered the photons, and electrons existed in this idealized empty "void" vacuum of free space; which could also be called spacetime, based on the mechanics of Special Relativity.

And, in the above empty "void" vacuum scenario, you are right, I considered that, the "mass" of Fermions (Leptons & Hadrons) at their fundamental core are photons phase-locked, spinning, and rotating in fixed orbits as "electromagnetic change."

Then, in the year 1997, I hit a road block, and I could not progress any further conceptually or mathematically with the "Photon Only" model of the Universe. I felt like I had run into a brick wall in my studies, and I felt like something was missing.

Then, in that same year 1997, I came across a book by Steven Rado - Aethro-Kinematics. This book truly opened my eyes to what the universe was really like. After digesting that book, I was kicking myself in the butt. I could not believe that I had spent all that time studying physics without considering the majority of the energy of the universe. From that point on, I stopped communicating with you, and dropped that "Photon Only" Universe way of thinking and worked tirelessly to understand everything that I could about the Aether and this Vacuum Energy that I had not considered for over ten (10) years; solely due to Michelson & Morley type experiments.

Also considering and studying the Aether, led me into General Relativity. Which in the late eighties (80's) and early nineties (90's) was considered pseudo-science; with its concepts of "black holes", "Big Bang Theories" and "Expansion of Spacetime."

But as I began to study more, these General Relativity concepts started to make more sense to me, and the acceptance of General Relativity was gaining ground at that time. These concepts you completely ignored, and in my estimation, you still continue to ignore.

Well, as we know today, these General Relativity concepts are considered mainstream, and I am glad that I made the leap when I did. God is good!!

So, now back to your original statement, "you had changed your views." I have now come to understand mass in a broader sense as it relates not only to "Electromagnetic" effects, but also in its relation to the "Aether Vacuum Energy."

And, in my opinion to build a correct model of the behavior of mass in the Universe, you have to consider the "Electromagnetism" of "Quantum Mechanics" as well as "Aether" of "Vacuum Mechanics" and this is why I stated in the above post that you have to consider the two radii of "Bosons" and "Fermions."

Electromagnetic - Quantum Mechanical Effects

Compton Wavelength and Brown Radius:

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

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


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


Aether - Vacuum Energy Mechanical Effects

Schwarzschild Radius:

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

All fermions, planets, suns/stars, and galaxies, 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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The fact I linked you to a thread where Tach, Guest and I disagree with one another (not for the first time) just passes you by, doesn't it? What you lack in understanding you make up for in conspiracy theories, right? Just like how you claim Kip Thorne stole your ideas?

Farsight thinks his work is worth at least 4 Nobel Prizes and his work is called 'Relativity +', as if he has bested Einstein. You call your work Super Principia Mathematica, as if you've bested Newton.

I hardly think you're in a position to play that card against Farsight. I will say that I find it humerous that I spend a few days off the forums and I come back to discover the two most egotistical cranks having a crank-off

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

CptBork, where is your big brother Dr. AlphaNumeric? What happened; If he can't bully people on the "Physics Playground" he wants to pick up his physics books and run home.

Are you denying the Enrico Fermi, Neutron Decay model?

This model of the neutron is found in every physics text on the planet that deals with nuclear reactions.

Conservation law for the "Neutron"

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

Even if there is a tiny mass, this is still mass; and must be treated as such. The real question is; is that tiny mass traveling at "Light Speed" or not?

See Article: Indication of Electron Neutrino Appearance from an
Accelerator-produced Off-axis Muon Neutrino Beam

If the "Neutrino" has a tiny mass that can change "flavors" then it does not travel at "Light Speed." And you will then we have to consider its relativistic effects as in the following.

\( m^{(0)}_{Neutrino}_{Final} = \frac{m^{(0)}_{Neutrino}_{Initial}}{\sqrt{1 - (\frac{v^2}{c^2_{Light}})}} \)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not, true!

I have named my work the Super Principia Mathematica, because I spent just as much time in isolation studying physics as Newton; twenty two (22) years. And Newton and I both finished our three (3) volume works by the age of forty four (44) years of age.

Also I read and studied Newton's Principia in great detail. Most people read what others said about Newton. I was so impressed with his work that my goal was to model his great work.

Nicolas Fatio de Duillier in 1692, claimed that he would one day write his own Principia. Which Fatio de Duillier never did. Why? Because it is a monumental task!!

I don't know of anyone that can as you put it "best" Newton. There is some math that Newton does in his Principia that is still not interpreted well; even after three hundred years (300) of interpretation.

 

Your time would have been spent much better trying to get a job than living off the dole while "publishing" crap.

 

So all your "I've worked for the university of Phoenix!" etc stuff was just hot air, in that you admit you haven't been involved in the physics research community. Your comment justifies what I (and others) said about your "I applied for the directorship of LIGO and was disappointed when I didn't get it" comment too. You admit you've not been in the research community and yet why were you disappointed you didn't get the job you applied for? You know you've got nothing on your CV which would provide a reason to get such a job. You don't even had a doctorate, which makes your attempts to insult CptBork for being a postgrad all the more laughable.

Such a shame you didn't read anything more modern, like anything to do with general relativity, before you wrote a book where you claimed to explain GR to people in a simple manner. Perhaps if you'd spent some time reading books covering basic physics topics covered by undergraduates you'd know what \(\mathbb{R}^{N}\) meant.

You clearly want to compare yourself with the greats of physics. The problem is your work doesn't live up to the dreams of your ego.

 

You are so laughable! Every time you, use your brain to think, or hit the keyboard and type, I can't tell, whether you are trying to express something intelligible or you are going to the "crapper" :bugeye:

For clarity, working in isolation in physics, means that I did not share any of my ideas with anyone until, I had completed my work. If you read the history of Newton, you will find that is what he did. He had to work to earn money to live; everybody does. There is no free lunch in the universe; unless you receive an inheritance or win the lottery or something of that nature!


My work and educational background: Linkedin Profile

And, I am only providing this, just in case someone reads this and chooses to believe your lies, and buy into your "Crap."

Please, do some "Physics", you are embarassing yourself!! Once again!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I'd quite like to read that (unfortunately I'm not on Linkedin). Given what you've previously said, it no doubt mentions the "University of Phoenix", and on this note I think we need a public service announcement...

In case other readers don't realize: the University of Phoenix is not a "University" in the traditional sense. It is a degree & diploma mill. Magneto_1 (i.e. Robert Louis Kemp, author of the self-published Super Principia Mathematica) has less knowledge of physics and mathematics than that which would be expected of a first year undergraduate here in the UK. To suggest that he is, or ever has been remotely connected to the academic community is a joke in itself.

He is fully aware of these facts, but attempts to project a different standing in a hope to sell more books to people who don't know better.

 

You worked at a university (which is actually a degree mill) which has little to no physics or maths group and doesn't do any research. You yourself published no papers, no conference proceedings, presented nothing at conferences, nothing.

Thus your career working at a 'university' counts for nothing in regards to somehow adding weight to your work's validity or your physics credentials. Hence my point, which was that touting how you've had such a career is utterly pointless. The fact you admit you worked in isolation only further justifies my point.

He was prolific in his discussions and letter writing. He was head of the Royal Society, he did a great many experiments. He worked at a university which did research. He engaged in research. He published research. He presented his research at conferences (or the equivalent in his day). His work was reviewed and admired by other academics of his day. Your career in no way mirrors his, you only wish it does so you can live in a little dream world where you're the next Newton. You're not the first nut here to do something like that. Terry Giblin often commented about perhaps finding a job in a Swiss patent office.

That does nothing to negate my point. Even if you didn't want to reveal your work to other people if you're that good why get a job at a university which is a degree mill, doesn't have a department in the subjects you're interested in and which doesn't do research? Andrew Wiles, who proved Fermat's Last Theorem, worked in isolation for 7 years but still went to conferences, read journals, talked to other academics, so that he kept up to date with any new developments which he might have found useful. And he was already an expert in the area he was working on. You don't even have an undergraduate level understanding of the material your work pertains to, general relativity. You don't even have an undergraduate level understanding of vector calculus and linear algebra.

You've always been isolated from the research community because you've never been part of it and never been capable of being part of it.

Which bit did I lie about? UoP being a degree mill? It not having a physics or maths degree? It not doing research? You having no work published in peer reviewed anything?

I've spent the day doing it thanks. The fact I don't talk to you about it doesn't mean I'm not doing it. You wouldn't understand it even if I did talk to you about it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It's worse than you imagine. The link requires that you list the user as a "connection" (similar to a FaceBook "friend") before giving up the information. Robert Louis Kemp is no friend of mine, and not only doesn't understand the review article on gravitation, but seems unclear on the concept of what a review article is. See post 85 of another thread to see the faux civility of a bobbing head. The PDG annual review articles are a standard reference for English-speaking particle physicists and ignorance of them is an unconscionable flaw in the education of anyone who presumes to have an opinion on gravitons or seeks to ask a meaningful question about them.

Hear, hear.

 

AlphaNumeric (Sockpuppet 1 of Many) & RPenner (Rogue Philosopher),

also known as "Dumb" and "Dumber", however, I can't tell which one is "Dumber"; you two (2) work it out!! :bugeye:

Now, why don't both of you pull your pants up, and come down off of "Broke Back Mountain", and comment on the physics presented in the original post (OP)!

 

In considering modeling fermions and bosons in the universe, the structure of the electron is being measured in greater detail using the Attosecond:

Article and Website: Time and the Organization of the Universe

"Time organizes the universe from its beginning to the present. We measure time by the ticking (vibration) of electrons is atoms -- the atomic clock. Atoms make exquisitely reliable clocks.

Atomic clocks have ticked in the universe since shortly after it began -- in fact, for so long that we use light emitted or absorbed by atoms to measure the distance to far away galaxies and to estimate the age of the universe.

The outer electrons in most atoms complete one vibration in 100 – 1000 attoseconds. The most natural clock is hydrogen, the simplest atom. The universe began about 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ticks of a hydrogen atom ago.

The electron that ticks in the atomic clock existed even before atoms formed. Similar electrons, of equal antiquity, hold all molecules together. This includes the DNA that gives you life, the molecules that make up the chair on which you sit and the complex molecular process by which you see the computer screen.

At NRC, we work on the time scale of electron vibrations in atoms -- attoseconds. On this time scale (1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000 of a second) our life, which takes place on the second time scale, seems frozen; that is, nothing in our daily leaves appears to take place on that timescale, yet -- could we but see it, the world of atoms and molecules (including the basic building blocks of life) is teaming with activity.

At the attosecond time scale, electrons move, interact, exchange places. Like the planets moving around the sun, the slowest electrons (planets) have the largest orbits. These are the attosecond electrons. Small orbit (core) electrons can move even faster. The slow-moving electrons are responsible for the chemical bonds that hold molecules together which makes them responsible for our life. All chemical and biological reactions are mediated by these electrons."​

Attoseconds and Angstroms

The attosecond time scale is the natural time scale of electrons. Attosecond photon pulses arise because of an inter-conversion between attosecond electrons and attosecond photon pulses.

The natural space scale of the electron is the Angstroms --- 1/10,000,000,000 of a meter (or yard). Looking carefully at the interference pattern between the two parts of the electron wave you can imagine that it is possible to determine the size of the electron.

Image of electron structure below:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The Electron looks like a torus or toroid.

 

Wow, we have been discussing "Neutrinos" today, and surprise, surprise, new evidence and better confirmation of their existence.

Fermilab experiment weighs in on neutrino mystery

"Step by step, physicists are moving closer to understanding the evolution of our universe. Neutrinos — among the most abundant particles in the universe – could have played a critical role in the unfolding of the universe right after the big bang. They are strong candidates for explaining why the big bang produced more matter than antimatter, leading to the universe as it exists today.

Scientists of the MINOS experiment at the Department of Energy’s Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory announced today the results from a search for a rare phenomenon, the transformation of muon neutrinos into electron neutrinos. If this type of neutrino transformation did not exist, neutrinos would not break the matter-antimatter symmetry, and a lot of scientists would be scratching their heads and wonder what else could have caused the dominance of matter of antimatter in our universe.

The MINOS result is consistent with and significantly constrains a measurement reported 10 days ago by the Japanese T2K experiment, which announced an indication of this type of transformation."​

Vern & CPTBork, this should be exciting news for you!

 

I notice you didn't respond to my challenge of pointing out where I actually lied. You accused me of lying and I asked you where. Why have you suddenly on silent on that matter? Instead you resort to something unbecoming of any mature person, making a homosexuality based attempt at an insult.

But since you insist, let's look at some of the 'science' you've said.

Their existence was never in question. They were confirmed decades ago. We have detected and measured them so much there was the solar neutrino problem for almost half a century! The problem was resolved by the realisation the neutrinos have mass and are able to oscillate from one flavour to another. Thus the flavour ratio is a function of distance travelled and this is why we see less solar electron-neutrinos here on Earth than we would expect if they were massless. The article you quote is about that oscillation, it says "announced today the results from a search for a rare phenomenon, the transformation of muon neutrinos into electron neutrinos". This phenomenon is known to occur, as it is the afore mentioned oscillation, but its rare to see it happen close up.

Read what the article says. The pattern is not that 'of an electron', it is not somehow a reflection on the shape of the electron, it is to do with the interference of the electron/photon beam with the orbitals of molecular Nitrogen : "The figure is for a nitrogen atom. If the attosecond pulse is generated from Nitrogen molecule, we still see the electron, but now the electron moves between the two atoms in a more complex orbit (called an orbital). Imagine the interference.". The interaction between the beam and the Nitrogen causes a new inference pattern, which tells us something about both of them but it doesn't mean the electron is toroidal in shape.

You asked Rpenner and I to talk about the science yet you seem to struggle to understand even what you decide to talk about. You really have no idea you don't understand this stuff, do you?

 

Did you not read where I stated, "new evidence and better confirmation of their existence." It is the control of the measurements, that is getting better that is important!

You are somewhat correct. And yes that is a picture of the valence electrons (orbitals) of the Nitrogen Atom. But what these "Attosecond" experiments are revealing is that each day we are moving closer and closer to being able to image fermions and bosons (electrons and photons).

Various articles of Attosecond technology and measurements:

Attosecond imaging of molecular orbitals

observing attosecond phenomena in real time: the attosecond transient recorder

The two-electron attosecond streak camera for time-resolving intra-atomic collisions

Attosecond laser pulses

Best Image so far of single electron:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Can you imagine what that image will look like in five (5) years.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

And you were wrong, not 'somewhat wrong', just wrong.

I'm able to use Google thanks. I read the article you linked to better than you did clearly.

Please provide a citation for that picture. It is an interference pattern, which is not the same as it being a picture of a single particle. All current experimental evidence is consistent with the electron being a point particle. If your picture were literally of an electron it would imply internal structure, which is inconsistent with a point particle. Don't confuse magnetic fields or interference patterns for the particle itself. You've already done that once this thread....

 

Only in your dreams!!

Once again you are wrong!!

I have presented to you papers that I have written that describe that all stable matter (Fermions & Bosons) - (leptons, hadrons, and photons) are not point particles.

Also I published:

Super Principia Mathematica - The Rage to Master Conceptual & Mathematical Physics -
Volume 3 - The General Theory of Relativity - ISBN 978-0-9841518-2-0; pages 2

"In the study of General Relativity and the motion of objects, the Super Principia will make use of the concept of an "Isolated Inertial Net Mass System Body" which is a conserved system composed of individual mass units, instead of describing the mythical point particle as a body."​

Also, Farsight has been telling you that there is no such thing as a point particle in nature. I suspect that he has been reading the "Super Principia Mathematica."

So, since you say that you will "only" believe that the electron has structure, if I provide as you put it,

Coherent Electron Scattering Captured by an Attosecond Quantum Stroboscope

Abstract:

We demonstrate a quantum stroboscope based on a sequence of identical attosecond pulses that are used
to release electrons into a strong infrared (IR) laser field exactly once per laser cycle. The resulting
electron momentum distributions are recorded as a function of time delay between the IR laser and the
attosecond pulse train using a velocity map imaging spectrometer. Because our train of attosecond pulses
creates a train of identical electron wave packets, a single ionization event can be studied stroboscopically.
This technique has enabled us to image the coherent electron scattering that takes place when the IR field
is sufficiently strong to reverse the initial direction of the electron motion causing it to rescatter from its
parent ion.​

I accept all apologies, with "WOW!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You mean you SELF-"published". Meaning that you paid out of your own pocket and you sold none. Exactly like John Duffus: ego-crap.

 

Did I not correct you on it? You even said I was correct in my correction. Come on now, if you're going to try to brush over the past at least wait till you're in a different thread!

I asked you for a source for the picture. The fact you're written stuff which disagrees with the mainstream has absolutely nothing to do with my request for a source and a justification for your claim it is a picture of an electron. Who took that picture? What experiment were they doing? What did they think it was?

Farsight has been saying that for 4~5 years at least. Is your ego so large you have to try to take credit for every thought someone else has had which you've also had at a later date? Farsight wrote his book before you wrote yours so you simply are pulling claims out of your backside.

Actually, I find it hard to believe you can be that stupid and egotistical. Are you just trying to troll as much as possible, because the claim is so stupid it must be a deliberate attempt to try and wind me up.

Did you read what the abstract said? It says "The resulting electron momentum distributions are recorded as a function of time delay between the IR laser and the attosecond pulse train using a velocity map imaging spectrometer". It isn't a picture of an electron, its a distribution of a property of the electron as a function of some parameters. You've done precisely what I cautioned against. I said : "Don't confuse magnetic fields or interference patterns for the particle itself. You've already done that once this thread.... " and you've gone and done precisely that.

I have nothing to apologise for. You were incorrect, again, making precisely the mistake I warned you to try to avoid. And as Tach has pointed out, your 'published work' wasn't in a peer reviewed journal or conference proceedings, it was self published. You had to pay to get it into print. That doesn't count as 'published' in the researcher sense and presenting it as such is dishonest. You tried to make fun of CptBork for only being a grad student and that he should keep studying but he's got stuff published in peer reviewed journals, unlike yourself.

I really really hope you're someone who is a little ignorant and misguided and you've decided to 'play the fool' after your work was demolished, so now you play up your ignorance and make deliberately over the top stupid statements (like the above one about Farsight). The alternative is you really believe what comes out of your mouth and in that case your view of yourself and your work is so completely warped it is mind boggling. I never thought I'd say this but your delusional ego even eclipses Farsight.

 

Ignorance must be "Bliss"!!

See Article: Coherent Electron Scattering Captured by an Attosecond Quantum Stroboscope

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Have you read the list of references cited in Farsight's book (Relativity +). He lists my paper/works as one of his references. He was honest for once. And he only did this because, I did not make it known that I was still around.

Ignorance must be "Bliss"!!

In that paper they are clearly stating, " Because our train of attosecond pulses creates a train of identical electron wave packets, a single ionization event can be studied stroboscopically. This technique has enabled us to image the coherent electron scattering" What about "coherent electron" are you missing!!


When you look at yourself in the mirror, do you see yourself, or what you want to see?? You seem to do this a lot. But that is ok; because I actually find that a lot of physicists do this. Even, if evidence does not agree with their preferred theory. A lot of physicists will look scientific evidence right smack in the face, and say, "I don't see that." This is similar to saying that "Pink Elephants do Fly, and I don't care what you think!!" This is not a healthy way to do physics.

I believe that physics should be based on the facts of nature, and not on the way you envision nature to behave. And when I use the term facts, I am referring to theoretical mathematical evidence as well as experimental evidence. And ever since the twentieth (20) century mathematical facts has been able to preempt a strike on experimental facts. Ever since twentieth (20) century experimental facts has trailed behind mathematical theorizing facts.