Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by RajeshTrivedi, Sep 27, 2016.
Gravity is just space rotational force.
Gravity is ordered space
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
GR has stood all tests thrown at it at this stage and stands supreme among our two prime gravitational theories.
While certainly not knowing the mechanism and the how and why, the theory along with other accepted cosmological theories, makes correct predictions.
As per the god and our past friend expletive deleted, you seem to me to want to project your god of the gaps, in those areas of cosmology that are still a mystery to us. That's not very scientific to say the least.
Yes, what you propose in this "stretching" aspect of space is a misinterpretation of the expansion of spacetime.......
All I see again, is another effort, similar to the two previously mentioned, to try and invalidate and deride accepted mainstream science.
As both the other two have been informed, and also yourself, that will not happen on a science forum such as this or any other, that are open to any Tom, Dick and Harry, with whatever agenda each carries.
As of yet we are not sure about the infinite or finite nature of the Universe, as per data from WMAP and other probes, and while your fabricated nonsensical "stretchable energy field" wallows in this forum, and soon to be assigned to oblivion, the accepted evidenced backed BB theory, can explain the first particle/quark.
At and just post BB the four known forces were united in what is called the "Superforce": As temperatures and pressures immediatley started to drop, the "Superforce" started to decouple, gravity first.
This created phase transitions and a false vacuum, and the excesses of energy went into creating our first fundamentals.
Hypothetical certainly, but a reasonable explanation partly based on current knowledge.
I'm right with you on an infinite universe, but reading from there in your post, you readily conclude that the stretchable energy field filled all that infinite space. I'm still okay with you there except for you say "at the start". You quickly fall back on the "don't ask me how" when you mention the start, time, and motion.
I'm thinking that those issues go away if you were to forget about there being a start, and consider it to be logical to conclude that there was no start. If the infinite universe has always existed, and if there has always been the energy field, and all the quarks, and the rest of the contents of the energy field, in a continuous state of relative motion, then the "don't ask me how" goes away, and the "always existed" comes into play.
Would you consider that premise?
It will be appropriate to define t = 0, and for this case that is the point when first particle formed, as the relative motion and thus the change appeared from thereon.
If someone asks me where the infinite field came from, then I have no answer.
Just the thought: if you have infinite energy field travelling at c, then there is no relative motion, all photons will appear standstill or worse there is no frame, now as soon as first particle appeared, the relative motion started and that could be taken as t = 0. Infact I am considering motion/origin from c to slow down, in case of BB it is standstill to c. BB has to clarify why motion clamped at c, which it does not, in infinite energy field this can be made as a safe assumption.
My proposal can explain all the observations as on date, and it predicts beyond GR...
Predictions beyond GR.
1. Gravitational constant G is variable. I can state that if two simultaneous experiments are conducted for G, one setup facing sun and another diametrically opposite, G will be different.
2. CMB spectrum around any other planet will be different. However minute difference.
3. No Black Hole can form via Neutron Star mass accretion process.
Some comPlex observations can also be easily explained where GR cannot even venture.
1. Proton radius puzzle: can be easily explained under this. Muon is heavier than electron and will orbit closer to proton, thus leading to higher G, causing minute gravitational compaction of proton.
2. Instability of higher atomic number atoms.
Of course it can! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! [tic mode on]
Schmelzer also claimed that. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Huh the joy of public science forum's where any Joe Blow, can claim what he likes. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So why not write up another paper then and see what happens? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Instead of typing such irrelevant and irritating post, I would welcome if you could find some logical fault or throw some challenge to what I am proposing.
Instead of side stepping such relevant issues, perhaps you need to be aware of what you yourself claimed......
And that is just after a quick glance.....
The second load of unsupported nonsense.....
The CMBR has been measured and shown to be uniform, with very slight variations where galactic formation took place.....
More unsupported rubbish. Do you have a citation or link supporting that please.
And yet you are still here? And the world is ignoring your brilliance? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Your god of the gaps? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I have not side stepped anything.
1. I stated that CMB shall be different on any other planet where proximate stretching would be different as compared to Earth.
2. Under my proposal a Black Hole cannot form via the Neutron Star accretion route. How can I get citation for this? This is what I am proposing in contrast with prevalent theory.
You raised no other valid objection.
Yes you have.
Your "stretching" hypothetical is nonsense: Spacetime expands, although in the vicinity of Earth or any other planet, that expansion will be nullified due to gravity from local scale mass/energy densities.
Invalidate the accepted mechanism, and I'll entertain your hypothetical.
Yes I did.......
explained by existing theory thus
Super force, temperature, massive BB singularity, pressure....all prior to formation of fundamental particle?
Any theory which attempts to explain the origin will have some assumptions, and mind you I was just careful about origin aspect as conveyed to 'Quantum wave'.
Cosmology and the Beginning of Time
The Instant of Creation
Given Hubble's Law, and the fact that the universe is expanding, we can imagine running the clock backwards, allowing space to shrink, until all of the galaxies are on top of one another. If we did that, we would find that the universe would heat up until stars and galaxies would be vaporized into their constituent atoms, which would all collect into a single point of unimaginably hot, dense matter and energy. From this simple consideration, we imagine that the universe began in such a hot, dense fireball, which we call the Big Bang. Did the universe really begin this way? We can never really know for sure, but we can predict some things we should see today, if the Big Bang actually happened. Astronomers have found that a lot of the predictions do hold up to experimental tests, so the theory is widely accepted now, but there are a lot of unanswered questions that we are still searching for the answers to.
The amazing fact is that we can trace the Big Bang back to its earliest moments, at least as far back as 10-10 s, and possibly as far back as 10-43s! This is an incredibly short time, and we can truthfully say that we can trace the evolution of the universe back to the first instant of creation. In so doing, we are probing not just the very earliest universe, but also the highest energy particle physics, so that particle physicists and astronomers are working on two aspects of the same puzzle.
Assuming that the Big Bang actually happened, what would the early moments of the universe be like? The figure below, from the text, shows an overview of all of time and space, which you can refer back to as we discuss the different eras of the past.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Eras of the Big BangThe eras of the universe, from the time of the Big Bang, are listed below. We will discuss each in turn.
Planck Era (All four known forces are unified.)
GUT (Grand Unified Theory) Era (Gravity "freezes out" and becomes distinct.)
Electroweak Era (The nuclear strong force "freezes out" and becomes distinct.)
Particle Era (particles begin to form)
Era of Nucleosynthesis (nuclear fusion creates Helium, and tiny amount of heavier elements)
Era of Nuclei (electrons are not yet bound to nuclei)
Era of Atoms (electrons recombine to form neutral atoms, and the first stars are born)
Era of Galaxies (Galaxies begin to form, leading up to the present)
The earliest eras were very short lasting, and very high energy. The first few eras are when the laws of physics were considerably different than they are know, but we can still predict some of the behavior. Let's look at each era in more detail:
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!The Planck Era is prior to 10-43 s after the Big Bang, when we believe that the four basic forces of nature, 1) gravity, 2) nuclear strong force, 3) nuclear weak force, and 4) electromagnetic force were combined into a single "super" force. The idea is somewhat like the different phases of water (ice, liquid, and vapor), which are all aspects of the same thing. You can imagine that at certain pressure and temperature there might be conditions in which these three phases of water become a single phase, no longer distinct. Physicists believe that we will eventually find a theory that succeeds in combining all four of these fundamental forces, but at present there is no such theory. (We have names for such a theory, however: supersymmetry, superstrings, or supergravity.) So we really do not know what the universe was like in the Planck Era. Some superstring theories call for spacetime to have 11 dimensions during this time.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!The GUT Era is when three of the four fundamental forces are combined, but gravity has become distinct. There are a class of theories called Grand Unified Theories (GUTs) that attempt to describe all forces except gravity in a single framework. The leading type are so-called string theories, and some are partially successful, but there are further details to be worked out. Theorists would say that in the GUT Era the gravity force "froze out" of the universe. The GUT Era lasted from 10-43 s to 10-38 s. Near the end of this era, grand unified theories predict that the universe cooled to the point that the nuclear strong force began to freeze out, leaving three fundamental forces: gravity, the strong force, and the still combined electroweak force. This "phase transition" released a huge amount of energy, causing space to undergo a rapid inflation. In a mere 10-36 s, pieces of our universe the size of an atomic nucleus might have grown to the size of our solar system. We will later discuss observations of the universe that seem to require such extreme inflation. Note that this inflation is very very large compared to the speed of light, but again, space itself is what is expanding, so it does not have to obey the speed limit of the speed of light.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!During this era, only the electromagnetic and nuclear weak forces are still combined. The temperature of the universe at this stage is more than 1015 K, and there are no ordinary particles yet, just photons and pure energy. We do have a complete theory that can be used to understand the universe at the end of this era. By the time of 10-10 s, the temperature cools below 1015 K, and finally, the last of the fundamental forces, electromagnetic and nuclear weak forces, become distinct. We have also done particle physics experiments at energies corresponding to a temperature of 1015 K, so we can probe the Big Bang conditions experimentally from 10-10 s onward.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!When the four fundamental forces were finally distinct, ordinary particles could start to form. However, both matter and anti-matter were formed in almost equal numbers, created out of the energetic photons present at that time. Once both types of matter were formed, a particle would not go very far before it met up with its anti-particle and annihilated to become pure energy again. During this era, particles continually were created and destroyed until, by 0.001 s (one millisecond), the universe had expanded and cooled far enough (to 1012 K) that creation and destruction of this kind ended. For some reason, the universe created slightly more matter particles than anti-matter particles. If the numbers had been exactly the same, the particles would eventually annihilate entirely and there would be only photons in the universe. This slight asymmetry for matter (1 billion and 1 protons for each 1 billion anti-protons) left us with all of the baryonic matter that we find today.
Era of Nucleosynthesis
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!When the universe was only 1 millisecond old, nuclei were hot enough and dense enough to fuse to create heavier elements, but it was so dense that the nuclei broke apart again as soon as they formed. This fusion and breakup continued until about 3 minutes after the Big Bang, when the universe cooled enough (109 K) that fusion ended. At this point, 75% of baryonic matter was in the form of hydrogen, 25% in the form of helium, and trace amounts were in the form of other atoms, mostly lithium. One of the great successes of the Big Bang theory is that it predicts just the right amount of these different forms of matter. At the end of the Era of Nucleosynthesis, the universe contained the "primordial" mix of hydrogen, helium, and lithium that went into making the first stars. All heavier elements have been created by fusion inside of stars and during supernova explosions.
Era of Nuclei
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!During the next 500,000 years, the universe was too hot to form neutral atoms, and all of the particles were in the form of atomic nuclei (hydrogen, helium and a few lithium nuclei) and free electrons. As long as the universe was made up of these fully ionized particles, it was a largely featureless ball of hot plasma that could not condense to form galaxies or stars. During this time, the particles and photons (light) were locked into an equilibrium in which the photons could not escape. Finally, after 500,000 years, the universe cooled to 3000 K, and hydrogen and helium nuclei began to capture the free electrons. At this stage, photons could not react with the electrons except in narrow energy ranges, so most of the gas became transparent and the photons were free at last to stream out of the plasma and cross the universe.
It is these photons that we see today as the cosmic microwave background, which we will discuss shortly.
more at link
Pl do not divert the thread objective. There is a civil way to find objection in any proposal. Raise the objection in my alternative proposal, pl do not flood the thread with irrelevant.
Fair call and polite...nice.
I don't like the big bang model personally.
It would be great to have another thread to discuss it between the laymen here.
It is presented as the only model which I don't like for a start.
Anyways I will let the discussion get back to the matters covered in or raised as a consequence of the op.
You posted the following.....
Obviously you do not understand how matter evolved, and as your own hypothetical nonsense, fails to account for it by your own words, I was simply supplying the info to inform you.
Something I suggest you think about seriously, and that is if you wish to propose an alternative hypothetical, then first know the incumbent theory, which obviously you don't.
Of course all necessary links, citations and references will be supplied by me when necessary.
Pl do not make such sweeping statements, these are provocative utterances and tit for tat will result into further mud.
You are diverting, this thread is not the right place to discuss BB, about origin I made a passing and careful observation on 'Quantum wave' post. My objective here is to discuss gravity, not the origin aspect as such.
Posting what BB or GR says is not the objection, take up any observation and say it cannot be explained by my proposal, that's the fair argument. You are just in a hurry to damn everything with hand waving.
And by the way if you read what you have posted, then you will realize the caution there too. It states "assuming big bang actually happened.." Then build upon that.
Like I said, if you see fit to propose and support an alternative theory, then you should know the incumbent. Obviously again, by your own words, your hypothetical can not explain the first fundamental.
The incumbent theory can. And GR and the BB fitting together and supporting each other, will certainly be used when necessary to invalidate any alternative proposal that you obviously are not able to fully support.
Again, the BB is the overwhelming supported theory on the evolution of the universe/spacetime from a hot dense state. It also fits hand in glove with GR and our particle model.
An example of your confusion follows
NB: You were asked over at cosmoquest and redpenned for not answering questions directly and avoiding the issue and delaying.
You seem to be doing that here...................
BTW, your continued use of the word stretching of space could be construed with expansion of spacetime [please note, spacetime]
And there also amongst some of your attempts at explaining your hypothetical, other rather unusual use of words for recognised scientific models and jargon.
It would certainly help if you stuck with the conventional terms.
So in your consideration of the premise that the universe has always existed, and has always looked very much like it does now on a grand scale, you prefer to work with a start time at t=0, with no explanation for preconditions to the existence of the energy field, and no explanation for how the "first" particles could have formed. That seems incomplete, and in place of any preconditions you leave "something from nothing", and "God did it", on the table. Do you have a preference between those two explanations for the existence of the universe?
From that can I take the understanding that the energy field, without particles, has always existed, or is that also an "I don't know"?
You are speculating about many things, why not speculate about the things you don't know to fill in the "as yet" unknowns, and offer us a complete view of the cosmology, including speculations about the as yet unknowns?
Separate names with a comma.