You are entitled to your own Opinion...and delusions.
How will you know its me???
You can image/picture me as you like in your own dreams.
Theory of Everything
- Thread starter sscully
- Start date
You are entitled to your own Opinion...and delusions.
How will you know its me???
You can image/picture me as you like in your own dreams.
I was promised you'd attend the ceremony ;-D Well, thanks for your time. Clearly you are also too knowledged to bother to look at the evidence beyond a cursory "HA".
True. We can never really grasp the other person's alternative ideas with the same appreciation for the connections they have with "the rest of the story".
The short answer is that there is no short answer. In my view, all particles are composed of wave energy in complex wave patterns. Particles are extremely dense patterns relative to the wave energy flowing in and out in the surrounding space. Their presence is maintained by the two wave energy components of inflow and out flow, but the presence of the particle is the complex wave packet, the standing wave pattern, that moves in response to any imbalance in the directional inflow.
Now here is the difference between measuring the particle as a wave vs. measuring it as a particle. The wave is the spherical out flow of gravitational wave energy; It is what causes the interference pattern in the two slit experiments. The particle is the wave packet itself which gives it the particle nature. Within the packet, those inflowing gravitational waves are flowing through, very slowly relative to the speed of the gravitational wave in surrounding space, because the wave energy density in the particle is very high. What is taking place in the extremely dense interior of the particle space, is that there are a huge number of wave intersections within the space, and each intersection is a momentary high density spot. Each spot acts like a tiny pin hole out which emerges a tiny spherical wave made up of the combined energy of the intersecting waves. I guess it is unlikely that someone else besides me can grasp or even contemplate the idea.
I equate the wave intersections within particles at the quantum level, with the macro level arena wave intersections that take place in the big bang arena landscape of the greater universe. Parent arenas form crunch/bangs from which emerge new arenas, and those arenas are the equivalent of the tiny spherical waves that emerge from pinhole like high density spots inside a particle at the quantum level. The difference in scale is quite significant though, and the time difference in their duration is also quite significant (a huge understatement).
The two are not directly related, but in my hobby-model, the photon particle's path is influenced by the gravitational wave energy density surrounding massive objects because light slows down when the gravitational wave energy density of the environment goes up; so the presence of a massive object like a star or a galaxy, or a great attractor for that matter, would bend the path of the light proportional to the local wave energy density that the light traverses.
The flattening we talked about is because the spherical out flow can only just keep up with the photon particle because both are going at the same speed in the forward direction. The spherically out flow, if observable from any perspective except form the that of the photon particle itself, appears as a lopsided trailing wave energy "balloon", spreading out behind and perpendicular to the particle motion. It is almost like it is trying to keep up with the particle, and it has a wave front that is flattened and much broader than the width of the particle's wave packet.
That is a good example of what I meant in the first part of this post about how we can never immediately grasp other people's alternative ideas, lol.
Yes. The gravity of the systems it interacts with form a gravitational wave energy gradient in the medium of space. Objects move through the medium in the direction of the highest source of energy density left imprinted in the medium of space.
In regard to the doppler shift assumption, maybe I should try to get up to speed with you on that. Are we talking about the cause of the raw redshift data from measurements of the spectra of galaxies in all directions, i.e. generally there is a prominent redshift in all directions, or is it the dipole effect of motion relative to he CMB "rest frame"?
The mention of the Nobel ceremony was to just facetiously add to your delusions.
And I did look at the evidence, and have already mentioned aspects of it. I just don't interpret it as you do. :shrug:
The mention of the Nobel ceremony was to just facetiously add to your delusions.
And I did look at the evidence, and have already mentioned aspects of it. I just don't interpret it as you do. :shrug:
Let me be specific then. I will start with the CMB Dipole: Do you have any problems with that plausibly being caused by gravitational redshift due to the Great Attractor?? Ignore the current theory please, and if not, please explain specifically why not.
I think your idea makes sense to me if you just envision them as purely particles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#Interference_of_individual_particles
As in the "single photon" experiment, a wave pattern arises. This is because single particles, given sufficient ability to behave randomly (aka go through all portions of the slit which will thereby gravitationally lens photons sufficiently), will cumulatively sum up into a single wave. The densest area being at the center where the least lensing occurs, with the waves losing intensity as they reach outwards. Again, I think the Big Bang holds you back because of its assumption of the cause of the redshift.
I'm a bit lost, ha sorry. I am not very familiar with gravitational waves; I read Einstein's book general relativity to understand time dilation at one point, but never looked into gravitational waves. From what I understand from the LIGO experiments, there have been null results with trying to find them at all?
Both. Sorry, I am a conceptual thinker and am not using the precise terminology. The cosmological redshift, which is currently attributed to a doppler shift due to expansion of space, is one of the question marks. The second redshift is the CMB dipole which we assume to be caused by relative motion. Both of these things I evidence as the result of gravity from the Great Attractor. The CMB dipole shows the "local" redshift which is due to the Great Attractor. The overall evidence also sheds light on how the Great Attractor also produces the cosmological redshift, which is much harder to appreciate at first. But the first step is recognizing that the CMB dipole has 4 spots as the result of an outside galaxy of galaxies, as I describe in my posts #78 and #79. This proves that the CMB dipole is caused by gravity instead of relative motion.
Great stuff. All you need to convince now are all those rather Idiotic lamebrains like the people at NASA, JPL, ESA, LHC, MIT, and those other dumb jokers like Sean Carroll, Guth, Hawking, Thorne, Steinhardt, Tegmark and all them other fools that have been unable to see the light that you have seen and are sharing with all of us.
You do know that "Proof" is not applicable as far as scientific theories go, don't you?
You do know that scientific theories just grown in certainty don't you?
The best I can do for you is that in a sliding scale of quackery, along with the three others on this forum that have claimed a ToE, I can only slip you in at number four.
You won't let me walk you through it, again ignoring my question, so just move along, mate. Your opinion is for you to have, but if you aren't going to bother to step back and look without just immediate dismissal, then why are you even talking to me?
The fact of the matter is,[ which you seem to ignore] is that maybe you need to step back, disassociate yourself with this hypothesis, and look at everything objectively.
Especially the reminder about "proof"
We are going in different directions on the wave-particle. Your link and mention of envisioning them as purely particles is iffy. The Wiki brings up two point that apply here. One is that particles, even when sent through the experiments one at a time still act as if they have wave characteristics even though they each are detected as individual particles. The locations on the measurement still show the interference patterns, meaning there is a wave influence. Two, the issue of quantum mechanics with superposition. My model is about mechanics way below our ability to observe. I should have mentioned earlier that my model is based on the Hidden Variables interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. That is why I talk about a foundational level of continuous wave action that takes place undetected in the quantum realm on scales quite small relative to the particles and effects we can observe.
I have been familiarizing myself with what GR predicts in that regard, and have posted about the conservation of energy and momentum involved. In GR, the gravitational waves are relatively insignificant when compared to the gravitational effect of the curvature of spacetime, but in my model I replace spacetime with the energy density in the medium of space, so gravitational waves are much more significant in my hobby-model.
As far as the precise terminology, you will have a problem that I don't have, because you plan to talk to the scientific community, and I am simply speculating while the scientific community does the science work. I say what I mean if someone asks, but you will have to say it in terms that are theory specific if you are proposing modifications and additions to theory.
The distinction you make between gravity and relative motion seems like the two sides of the same coin, so I know I am missing your point.
To help you separate the two...assume everything is stationary with respect to everything else, peculiar motion is ~0. Meaning, relative motion is 0. In that system, the Great Attractor would still gravitationally redshift the light coming to Earth from the CMB precisely as the CMB dipole shows; redshifted towards the GA--meaning light moving from the direction of the GA to Earth is redshifted--and blueshifted away from the GA--meaning light moving towards the GA that arrives at Earth is blueshifted. That is what I am getting it; the CMB dipole is caused by gravity. Does that make sense? Of course motions are not zero, but they are so low compared to the GA's gravitational redshift that they are insignificant.
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/C/Cosmic+Microwave+Background+Dipole
If you read their description there, notice they attribute the redshifting due to motion (doppler effect). This is what current theory thinks, and where my theory begins to deviate.
Last edited:
Again, that is your opinion, and I am free to mine. It is not your duty to save me from myself. You still haven't bothered to answer my question, so its clear you have no interest in even trying to see what I have to say. So, again, then why are you even talking to me?
Yep, you are free to your opinion as well as I am to mine. But I see it as rather common sense to do as I suggest, and step back, disassociate yourself and look at the bigger picture.
I don't need you to "walk me through it" I have already seen you walk origin through, yet still ignore his opinions.
With regards to me talking to you...You post a thread on a forum, it is open for all to comment on. You do not pick and chose who you want.
Just as I have now mentioned in another thread, alternative models from people are a dime a dozen. There are many out there. Your's is just one.
People also have the right to believe in Impossible conspiracy theories like 9/11 and Faked Moon landings, but all it does is focus other people's opinions on their actual state of mind.
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
"Weak Interaction. Weak interaction is said to cause radioactive decay and fusion. However, the Cascading Universe theory makes it clear exactly what radioactivity is, once we recognize that it is a result of cosmological activity. This is the process of turning energy in the system (unobservable mass) back into observable mass, some of which escapes the gravity of the system. In higher mass systems such as an element that is high on the periodic table, the system will produce more mass due to its relatively larger gravitational field. Therefore, “instability” of such systems is a function of the density of the nucleus which in turn produces more mass from the light it collects."
No. Nuclei are that are stable are held together by a delicate balance of EM, electroweak, and strong nuclear forces. The neutron itself is only quasi stable outside of an atom, decaying into a proton, an electron, and an electron neutrino in about 14 minutes, 42 seconds, on average. The proton is the most stable component, with a measured decay rate that is greater than the age of the universe, on average. String theory predicts the proton should also decay, but this has not been observed by experiment.
But where's our animatronic poster's opinion? Krash661, please tell the poster what you think of the Cascading universe theory. Be nice; I know you will.
No. Nuclei are that are stable are held together by a delicate balance of EM, electroweak, and strong nuclear forces. The neutron itself is only quasi stable outside of an atom, decaying into a proton, an electron, and an electron neutrino in about 14 minutes, 42 seconds, on average. The proton is the most stable component, with a measured decay rate that is greater than the age of the universe, on average. String theory predicts the proton should also decay, but this has not been observed by experiment.
But where's our animatronic poster's opinion? Krash661, please tell the poster what you think of the Cascading universe theory. Be nice; I know you will.
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
"Weak Interaction. Weak interaction is said to cause radioactive decay and fusion. However, the Cascading Universe theory makes it clear exactly what radioactivity is, once we recognize that it is a result of cosmological activity. This is the process of turning energy in the system (unobservable mass) back into observable mass, some of which escapes the gravity of the system. In higher mass systems such as an element that is high on the periodic table, the system will produce more mass due to its relatively larger gravitational field. Therefore, “instability” of such systems is a function of the density of the nucleus which in turn produces more mass from the light it collects."
No. Nuclei are that are stable are held together by a delicate balance of EM, electroweak, and strong nuclear forces. The neutron itself is only quasi stable outside of an atom, decaying into a proton, an electron, and an electron neutrino in about 14 minutes, 42 seconds, on average. The proton is the most stable component, with a measured decay rate that is greater than the age of the universe, on average. String theory predicts the proton should also decay, but this has not been observed by experiment.
But where's our animatronic poster's opinion? Krash661, please tell the poster what you think of the Cascading universe theory. Be nice; I know you will.
No. Nuclei are that are stable are held together by a delicate balance of EM, electroweak, and strong nuclear forces. The neutron itself is only quasi stable outside of an atom, decaying into a proton, an electron, and an electron neutrino in about 14 minutes, 42 seconds, on average. The proton is the most stable component, with a measured decay rate that is greater than the age of the universe, on average. String theory predicts the proton should also decay, but this has not been observed by experiment.
But where's our animatronic poster's opinion? Krash661, please tell the poster what you think of the Cascading universe theory. Be nice; I know you will.
Being Alternative is OK, if it was correct, or if it was supported by any evidence.
sscully is our new Alternative wizz kid on the block......
Alternative rubbish coming thick and fast, and all good for the old belly laugh.
Stay tuned quantum wave, he'll be informing you next, he is getting it all peer reviewed
[nudge, nudge, wink, wink]
Beaconator
Valued Senior Member
This right here stands out to me. In order for light to move through any and every medium it requires an "infow and outflow" from every atom between where it originates and where it ends. Between the inflow and outflow it becomes an aspect of the individual atoms mass, which allows for as you say two "spherical waves" to be identified under an interference pattern and overall spherical wave pattern to be seen between it and a gravitational body.
Still I see momentum being the main component light and the only component capable of distributing momentum between gravitational bodies.
That is interesting, and the motion of our group of galaxies toward the great attractor would be gravitational acceleration. That motion relative to the CMB "rest frame" would make the CMB appear hotter in the direction of motion and cooler in the opposite direction. If we were to adjust for that motion to get an at rest value, then there would be less anisotropy in the readings, I would think. The redshift in the light from distant galaxies though is generally similar in all directions, to my understanding. I'll have to do some more research on the effect of the GA.
But as you may know, I have a hobby-model that attributes the widest angle anisotropy in the CMB temperature readings to the preconditions to the Big Bang that I hypothesize. That being two parent big bang arenas expanding until they intersect, whereupon their galactic material would form a big crunch/big bang, that then produced our very own home arena (our observable universe). The wide angle anisotropy in my model is a result of the directional inflow of energy into our expanding arena from the parent arenas.
Now, now, Paddoboy, I'm not going there. He is thinking for himself, and will face the same hurdles that everyone faces with alternative ideas. If he comes to one he can't get over, it will be "back to the drawing board". I will agree with you that the peer review process he would face would not be pleasant.Being Alternative is OK, if it was correct, or if it was supported by any evidence.
sscully is our new Alternative wizz kid on the block......
Alternative rubbish coming thick and fast, and all good for the old belly laugh.
Stay tuned quantum wave, he'll be informing you next, he is getting it all peer reviewed