Cause of the Big Bang

quantum wave-perhaps this would work better. I would hesitate to toss about suppositions that fly completely in the face of established theory for fear that we may live in a truly infinite number of dimensions and multiverses and this may be the one that by doing so a wild rabid gerbil may fly from my anus. Or perhaps all the subatomic particles in the universe will become suddenly stable in the form of a lovely set of very large blue/white knitted socks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Mr. Hamtastic, I concede that there are a potentially infinite number of possible cosmologies, but when you refer to established theory, that is an oxymoron isn't it?

Are you referring to General Relativity as the established theory? What about the incompatibility issue? Or is it Particle Theory? Where is the graviton? Or quantum theory? Where is the Higgs boson? Or Big Bang Theory? What caused the big bang?

There is no established unifying theory and that is what I am speculating about; a unifying force that causes mass to form, causes gravity, dark energy, dark matter, expansion, accelerating expansion and defeats entropy in a universe of energy that has always existed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Interesting. And you don't like string theory or loop theory because? I find them a bit bizarre and they tend to make me light-headed but they seem ok to me. I can roll with them, myself. An infinite sea of energy where hiccups create mass? Therefore we could all simply hiccup out of existence at any moment?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The same vain and empty boasting to cover your ignorance. What's new? None of your thought processes for a start. AN wanna cracker?

 

Right. It's serious quackery, the idea that our universe was incredibly small, way beyond what was needed to make a black hole and yet somehow expanded. It's like scientists who believe in religion, where they compartmentalise subjects so they can believe in serious science and serious quackery at the same time and see no conflicts in both points of view.

 

My sentiments too.

I can't roll with them because they have all of those extra dimensions. If you tell me that the human mind can't envision what you predict as reality, then I can't roll with you.

Not really. The amount of energy in the universe, meaning the average universal energy density sets the average amount of matter vs. background energy. The ratio of matter to energy universally is approximately constant and varies within a narrow range in Quantum Wave Cosmology.

However, the process of explaining QWC to someone who has not lived with it for several years requires a step by step communication. The quanta that stand out from the background comply with the universal ratio of matter to energy and so there is no chance of instantaneous or spontaneous symmetry breaking on the arena scale of things. It all happens in a gradual process in finite arenas of space because there are thresholds of energy density that determine the stages of the arena process and the thresholds must follow a sequence.

The key to QWC is that when mass accumulates as in a big crunch (a contraction phase) within its own arena of space, there is a threshold of maximum energy density that is reached that causes the big crunch to fail from within and send the arena into an expansion phase. The limit is called critical capacity of a big crunch and it keeps any more than a certain amount of mass from accumulating in any particular big crunch.

QWC defines a universe that has a potentially infinite amount of energy and matter in a fixed ratio, there are a potentially infinite number of finite arenas at any given time. Arenas are huge (equivalent to our known universe) temporary high energy density fluctuations on a scale equivalent to what we call our known and currently expanding universe. Ours is an arena of expansion within the greater universe that has many such arenas in various stages of contraction and expansion.

 

qw-so let me see if I got this straight. There's this sea of energy. On this sea of energy floats an infinite number of universes. These universes are either expanding or contracting due to the current energy density of the surrounding sea. So tomorrow we could find ourselves looking through telescopes and seeing a blue shift? How does energy density affect matter within these universes, or are the universes considered bits of matter, the universe's own integral laws deciding what the matter within does? Are there any laws governing this sea of energy besides the ratio of mass to energy?

 

You would be talking about the potentially infinite energy background of the greater universe.

Within the potentially infinite universe, the energy background supports a potentially infinite number of finite arenas (finite in volume and energy content).

arenas

The arenas expand or contract based on the arena phases that are controlled by various energy density thresholds and by their energy density relative to "critical capacity" which is the threshold that marks the maximum possible energy density.

Not tomorrow because our arena is still in the expansion phase. It is conceivable but unlikely that we could look out and see a galaxy or other mass moving toward us. Our arena is too young and too early in its expanding phase for a rogue galaxy from outside the arena to appear(IMHO). The blue shift view would typify the phase after our expansion has played out and our energy density is equalized with the greater universe (at the average energy density). Out there after our expansion has played out, there is an environment of equalized energy density that hosts the galactic remnants of multiple arenas that have played out. Without the ongoing expansion of the arenas due to unequalized energy density, gravity begins to take control. The remnant galaxies, matter and energy from the history of played out arenas mix and merge and form new arenas which contact (where blue shift applies). Such contracting arenas lead to the formation of new big crunches.

No, they are not considered bits of matter but there is a "turtles all of the way down" concept and discussion elsewhere that might look at the individual arenas that way, but that subject is in "higher" QWC

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

Yes, that is what I mean when I refer to energy density thresholds, and the energy density of an arena that occurs in phases. The lowest energy density occurs when the arena first forms out in the greater universe and begins contracting under the force of gravity. The highest possible energy density occurs in the core of a big crunch that has reached critical capacity.

 

I have ulternate theory reg earth formation. our earth has biological growth only and meteroids are seed of planets.outer layer or crust is bark of earth and bark is dead snik or shrinked skin only so do not have any biological symptoms.

 

jsispat. We know that apart from a crust 10 - 30 miles thick, the Earth is molten and mostly aluminium, iron, etc.

 

Are you only capable of projecting your own short comings onto other people? You have yet to show anywhere you have working knowledge of any area of physics. You claim to be competent at GR, but I've never seen you do any calculations in it to derive results. Can you provide me with a link?

If you're unable to grasp concepts and you're unable to do calculations, then you are the definition of 'ignorant' when it comes to physics. Even if you think I'm a parrot, the fact I can do physics, as defined by other physicists, shows I'm at least not ignorant.

I don't claim to be doing research into cosmology. I do claim to be correcting your misunderstandings and ignorance of mainstream cosmology. And yet you continue with this strawman.

You claim no evidence for inflation exists. I show otherwise. You claim mainstream models don't account for derivations from perfect homogeneity and isotropy. I show otherwise. You claim something about GR. I show otherwise. You then claim you knew about them all along, yet your comments and claims prove otherwise.

Your ability to say "I disagree" doesn't make you a good free thinker if the reason you disagree is ignorance. I am not attempting to discuss original research of mine in cosmology. I never have. I have never claimed to. I have repeatedly tried to correct your ignorance of sometimes even high school level physics.

And each and every thing I've corrected you on you have gone on to ignore, lie about and insult not just myself but a multitude of other people, some of whom you claim are my sock puppets, not that you have any evidence of that other than we all disagree with you. Amazingly, the more people who agree with me, the more you think I'm wrong. When all and sundry, even the cranks, agree with me (the probability issue for instance) you don't see that as "Heck, everyone says I'm wrong", you see it as "Well if the cranks agree with him, he's definitely wrong!", even though those cranks are often the people agreeing with you about the supposed incorrectness of the mainstream view.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Of course, now that I've typed more than 2 paragraphs without quoting you, you're losing interest or you're unwilling to reply because you know a lot of this criticism hits pretty damn close to the mark so it's likely you'll just mass quote this post and say "Incoherent rambling, take your medication". All the while knowing that I'm considered a coherent, knowledgeable poster here and you're considered the lonely incoherent rambling old kook who, despite years of whining, still hasn't shown even passing familiarity with any mainstream physics.

So feel free to continue with the 'LoserNumeric' and 'You're a parrot, skwork!', every time you post those without any discussion of physics you demonstrate your own ignorance, inability to discuss things and your delusions that you're contributing something. Funny how so many of your threads about mainstream physics are just "Inflation is a joke. Discuss". Can't you do anything more? And the pathetic answer is that no, you can't. Possibly that's why you're so quick to jump to name calling and nothing else. You know your postings are pathetic too.

 

AlphaNumeric. Where are your contributions? You are just behaving like a kid in a playground who can't get his way and just rehashing old nonsense you have posted. Bit of a waste of space, as usual.

 

I went there and for a small fee I can read the rest of the article.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Tell us, do you get a cut from that site?:bugeye:

 

He actually demonstrated that you are a liar.

 

Crunchy Cat. Why don't you produce evidence that I am a liar instead of just producing evidence that you are an extremely nasty person who pokes their nose into the business of others?

 

Tht1Gy! As the article points out, inflation is just an ad hoc explanation and there is no fundamental theory that explains inflation. The idea of areas of space expanding and joining together has been around for a few years but there is no evidence for it. It is acceptable to put forwards inflation as an idea but not as a theory because that would suggest that there was evidence for it instead of just a necessity for it.

 

What the fuck are you talking about?:bugeye: I was chiding a poster, who is NOT you, about possibly being on the make/spamming.

As far as 'the article' is concerned, um so fucking what?

Also, since you bring your "inflation debate" up, while I might agree with you that AN is a bit full of himself, there is one excuse for arrogance: being able to back it up. And while I've had limited encounters with AN he does seem to be able to "back it up".
I would never presume to go toe to toe with him when it comes to crunching numbers. Or anyone else for that matter, I admit that. I might challange him or someone on concepts, (I'm not right now) but if you step into his ring/domain, i.e. the hard numbers, you should play the same game, using the same rules.

 

The business of others??? Take out a bank loan, get an engineering degree and build a fucking bridge.:bugeye:
This is a non-formal debate forum, and if Crunchy Cat wants to call you a liar, [so, while childish

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

] Crunchy Cat can call you a liar.



Ps Hey Crunchy Cat, I'm just teasing you. No offence is intended.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Why would I invest the time and effort to re-perform the demonstration that AlphaNumeric already performed? He showed you to be a liar. If you don't like that then maybe it will motivate you to get your thoughts, education, positions, and behaviors straightened out.

 

Why don't you go away? Your posts fall into one of two categories. Either you are pontificating on topics of which you clearly have no knowledge and only a smattering of a relevant vocabulary, or you are bludgeoning your way through attempted character assassinations.
You are both unpleasant and ignorant. Disappear, please.