#561428 - 07/23/12 10:18 PM
Re: The First Flash cosmological model
[Re: John C. Sanders]
|
Registered: 07/20/10
Posts: 1338
Loc: Colorado
|
Let's try an example. Lets imagine a craft in completely empty space. If the craft moves around an arbitrarily defined point, that point becomes a center of rotation even though nothing is there to make it so. An "object" is not physical unless or until it retains qualities of form and mass. Why would we see nonphysical objects after creation? You wouldn't be able to perceive objects like that anyway if such things did currently exist. With all of your points deposing scriptural viability, do you really think that an infinite God would fail to inspire viable truth despite such problems? I get the sense that you perceive God to be finite in nature. Do you believe that our planet earth was created six thousand years ago and that the universe is also six thousand years old? Am I the only one who rejects some of the current theories dealing with the universe? I find your selections for pointing out error to be very... odd. The few things I find to be closer to proofs than theories in physics, you reject. At the same time you seem to embrace the principle unfounded agendas of false science. I'm scratching head on that one. Is space made up of matter or non matter? If space is material then it must occupy space. How can space occupy space? If space is not made up of matter, then how can you differentiate space from non space?
If space is material, then what we are measuring is matter instead of space. If it is non material, then we are measuring nothing—or not measuring anything in fact. If you were a computer program, I'd define your logic loop as a runtime error. Something about word definitions is causing a glitch. If space were "non matter" I could reel out an infinite number of feet from a tape measure in any direction and never touch anything. So the non space bit is done. "How can space occupy space?" Your mind is glitching here. How can a dog be a dog? How can sugar be sweet if sweet isn't sugar? How can there be darkness if darkness is absence of light? Talk about a headache. Space is space. Matter fills space. Space is the absence of matter. If you don't believe me, test my theory with a hammer (just not on your head). Space is immaterial. If you had a magic mirror (it was a product that had different colors of sand that mixed the ocean colors) you could see how certain colors of sand had different properties from others. Space, time, and matter are like different grains of sand that coexist with different, contrasting characteristics. The idea of fundemental properties in physics existing and contrasting with each other seems to be a real issue for you and I do not fully understand why. The only place I con conceive of the existence of curved time-space is in the minds of those scientists who invented such fantasy and in the minds of their followers. Looking from a relativistic perspective, there should be six kinds of dimensional interactions; time & space, space & curvature, time & rotation, space & rotation, curvature & rotation, as well as time & curvature. Curvature relates to wavelength and curved space. Rotation deals with effects from periodicity from curved time. t:s Ratio of time changes with distance (energy density) s:w Increased distance reduces curvature t:T Rate of time slows with acceleration s:T length decreases with acceleration w:T gravitational attraction (curvature) opposes centrifugal force (angular momentum) t:w Time dilation caused by gravitation (curvature) All of these effects required by the combination of linear and curved time-space dimensions exist. Without linear and curved dimensions, how do you fully account for these things? sooner or later you have to set your feet on terra firma. How can you define terra firma in the absence of space or of the curved time-space that keeps you on the ground? LOL
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#561551 - 07/24/12 02:34 PM
Re: The First Flash cosmological model
[Re: John C. Sanders]
|
Registered: 08/03/09
Posts: 2505
Loc: California, U.S.A.
|
John C. Sanders wrote:
“Let's try an example. Lets imagine a craft in completely empty space. If the craft moves around an arbitrarily defined point, that point becomes a center of rotation even though nothing is there to make it so. An "object" is not physical unless or until it retains qualities of form and mass.”
How can a dimensional object move in empty space? The presence of any material object will fill the vacuum of empty space with its presence. There is no need to create space out of empty space to make room for a physical object.
“With all of your points deposing scriptural viability, do you really think that an infinite God would fail to inspire viable truth despite such problems? I get the sense that you perceive God to be finite in nature.”
You seem to equate the Bible with God. Revelation is progressive. If progressive, then it follows that the original revelations needed some corrections. This is why Jesus said to his opponents: “Moses said … but I say …” A good example is: David said “blessed are those who dash your little ones against the rocks,” but Jesus said: “Love your enemies.”
“Space is space.”
Would any dictionary accept your definition of space?
“Matter fills space.”
Yes, and matter also fills vacuum. Are you equating space with vacuum?
“Space is the absence of matter.”
If space is the absence of matter, and vacuum is the absence of matter, then should we dispense with space and stick with vacuum only.
Furthermore, if space is the absence of matter, and space is a synonym for vacuum, then how can we say that space is subject to measurements. Can science measure the size and length of vacuum?
If space is material, it can be measured; but if is it immaterial, then I do not see how it can be subject to measurement.
“Space is immaterial.”
But you believe that we can measure space! Am I wrong?
“Rotation deals with effects from periodicity from curved time.”
How can anyone bend something which exists only in our minds? Can you envision the existence of time apart from the sequence of events? Do you really believe that God said: I am about to act, therefore I must create time to make room for such events?
I suggest that events make room for time the way the presence of matter make room for space. The sequence of events force us to imagine that time is real when in fact it is simply the relationship between one event and another. We believe that we are measuring time, when in fact we are dealing with intellectual concepts.
“Without linear and curved dimensions, how do you fully account for these things?”
I have no need to account for what happens in the minds of scientists. The bending of light is not evidence that time can be bent as well.
“How can you define terra firma in the absence of space or of the curved time-space that keeps you on the ground? LOL”
The sequence of events keeps me from crashing on the freeway. You did define space as the absence of matter. What keeps me safe on the freeway is not the absence of matter, but my awareness of both the sequence of events and the presence of matter in front and behind me as I drive.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#561696 - 07/24/12 11:36 PM
Re: The First Flash cosmological model
[Re: John C. Sanders]
|
Registered: 07/20/10
Posts: 1338
Loc: Colorado
|
I'm starting to find several web sites openly confessinng now that group velocity times phase velocity always equals c^2. The group velocity is always less than the speed of light, we like to think of that this is because the EM wave is ping-ponging back and forth as it travels down the guide. Note that group velocity x phase velocity = c2. This was not always the case. It took me years of searching to find actual evidence in physics supporting my conjecture that the c^2 value in the mass energy equation was from light having both linear and curved dimensions that multiplied each other as time-space expanded. My conjecture came from the days squared equation from 2 Peter 3:8, in which I saw some kind of one to one ratio connecting the speed of light with Earth's rotation. Finding Roger Penrose's "spinor's times light null rays = twistors" made me all the more furious to find a genuine connection. Now that I'm getting alittle popularity and equational cloat, these sites start to pop up as if this stuff was always common knowledge. There was a time when I was making these professions, that physicists, engineers, and science students would openly mock my claims on online forums. (primarily that linear and curved forms of light's speed equated c^2) Now it's changed where phase velocity is looked upon as a useless property of light, and that my claims are just timesquarish pseudoscience, written like new age rubbish that mixes pieces of genuine physics with spiritual techobabel. Phase velocity is an almost useless piece of information you'll find in waveguide mathematics; here you multiply frequency times guide wavelength, and come up with a number that exceeds the speed of light! But this isn't the case. I actually found a great treasure trove of physics secrets in my faith to confirm very precise dimensional properties defining the speed of light.
Edited by John C. Sanders (07/24/12 11:47 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#561799 - 07/25/12 06:48 PM
Re: The First Flash cosmological model
[Re: John C. Sanders]
|
Registered: 07/20/10
Posts: 1338
Loc: Colorado
|
We concur that a vacuum is devoid of matter. The question becomes, is space that has matter in it still a vacuum? We are defining a volume of space. When matter is in a defined volume of space, that space is no longer a vacuum. But is the space itself a vacuum? If your just looking at portions of that defined area that is still free of matter, those smaller volumes of space are still a vacuum.
Can any defined area of space be entirely filled with matter? I seriously doubt it. Perhaps all of the mass energy of the entire universe could be compressed enough to completely fill a singularity of space. The result would be zero dimensions, and very high energy at that point.
What's this nonsense that a vacuum isn't space?
Yes, empty space is dimensional. Could it be measured without mass-energy? No. So, the more mass-energy you have, the more space you can measure. The dimensions in vacuum are the same as the dimensions of the mass-energy used to measure space. It's a relativistic measurement.
What is this "space outside of our minds" bit? If it's a choice between matter or space being real vs imaginary, space wins it because there is far less matter than space, and even densely packed matter is mostly empty space.
Matter is more likely just an exotic geometry of space in time. All of those things that you would like to claim to be imaginary are more likely the ingredients that create matter.
Can a dimensionless entity have real existence? "Real" would be genuine properties of reality. The holiday "4th of July" does not exist in dimensions. It's a mental concept. Does this dimensionless mental concept have genuine properties of reality? Yes it does, oddly enough.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#561872 - 07/26/12 10:50 AM
Re: The First Flash cosmological model
[Re: John C. Sanders]
|
Registered: 08/03/09
Posts: 2505
Loc: California, U.S.A.
|
John C. Sanders wrote:
“We concur that a vacuum is devoid of matter. The question becomes, is space that has matter in it still a vacuum?”
If vacuum is devoid of matter, then how can we say that space containing matter can be labeled as vacuum?
“When matter is in a defined volume of space, that space is no longer a vacuum.”
Makes sense to me!
“But is the space itself a vacuum?”
If matter is present in said space, then we can’t label it as vacuum. If we do, this would violate the definition of space.
“If your just looking at portions of that defined area that is still free of matter, those smaller volumes of space are still a vacuum.”
Empty space cannot be partitioned. Empty space is a mental construct which has no real existence apart from matter. Vacuum is a synonym of nothing. If you have zero dollars, you cannot divide it. Zero dollars exists only in a person’s mind. It does not have real existence.
“Can any defined area of space be entirely filled with matter?”
Filled is rather an imprecise term. There are human limitations to how much matter can be compressed inside a defined area of space. Of course, God can exceed those human limits.
“Perhaps all of the mass energy of the entire universe could be compressed enough to completely fill a singularity of space. The result would be zero dimensions, and very high energy at that point.”
I don’t believe in singularities. They do not have real existence. They represent mental concepts created by physicists who are determined to avoid any reference to miracles and God’s creative power.
“What's this nonsense that a vacuum isn't space?”
Vacuum is non-space or nothing. Nothing does not possess the qualities of matter.
“Yes, empty space is dimensional.”
Yes, and the dimension is zero. Zero is a practical way of I indicating the absence of something. If something is absent, there is no way of measuring it.
“The dimensions in vacuum are the same as the dimensions of the mass-energy used to measure space.”
Vacuum has no dimensions. Vacuum is the total absence of mass and energy. Zero means nothing. If you have zero amount of lumber, for example, attempting to measure it would make no logical sense.
“If it's a choice between matter or space being real vs imaginary, space wins it because there is far less matter than space, and even densely packed matter is mostly empty space.”
Empty space means no space.
“All of those things that you would like to claim to be imaginary are more likely the ingredients that create matter.”
Ingredients do not create matter, unless you are referring to the transformation of matter into energy and vice versa. Only God can create something our of nothing.
“Can a dimensionless entity have real existence? "Real" would be genuine properties of reality. The holiday "4th of July" does not exist in dimensions. It's a mental concept. Does this dimensionless mental concept have genuine properties of reality? Yes it does, oddly enough.”
Does the 4th of July have any meaning for a savage living in the jungle of Brazil? Does this day come with bells and whistles or is it a day like any other day?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#561911 - 07/26/12 03:06 PM
Re: The First Flash cosmological model
[Re: John C. Sanders]
|
Registered: 07/20/10
Posts: 1338
Loc: Colorado
|
Ok, so now a vacuum isn't devoid of matter? Whatever... Empty space cannot be partitioned. Says you. If it can't be partitioned from areas that have matter, empty space can't exist. Well, that's not the way things work, but anyway... Vacuum is non-space or nothing. Nothing does not possess the qualities of matter. How does that disprove empty space from being a vacuum? It's the same thing. I don't agree that empty space is "non-space". Empty space is pure space without any matter in it. That's very different than "non-space" that would only serve as a zero place holder for space or matter. The dimension of non-space is zero, but that's not what space is. Zero, in higher dimensional math is a singularity by the way. Vacuum has no dimensions? LOL Yeah, I wonder how scientists manage to create a vacuum for testing the vacuum speed of light. Based on what you said, the light should instantly jump through that vacuum like as though it passed through a worm hole. *laughing* Ingredients do not create matter, unless you are referring to the transformation of matter into energy and vice versa. Only God can create something our of nothing. So God doesn't really create energy, he just manipulates into matter? NOT! I know there are those who prefer to limit God with prexisting matter. Go for it. Think what you like. I see no such limits to God. The fact that anyone observes the 4th of July has real world effects. It's a very silly example of how nonmaterial things have real world effects.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#562373 - 07/28/12 10:44 AM
Re: The First Flash cosmological model
[Re: John C. Sanders]
|
Registered: 08/03/09
Posts: 2505
Loc: California, U.S.A.
|
John C. Sanders wrote:
“Ok, so now a vacuum isn't devoid of matter? Whatever...”
I did post my answer to these comments yesterday. I wonder what happened!
I do not think that I said that a vacuum contains matter. For me vacuum and empty space are synonyms. They do not contain any matter in it. The reason is that I conceive space as a non entity or a mental construct. I admit that I could be wrong and I reserve the right to change my mind if confronted with strong evidence.
I am less willing to compromise on the issue of time. I am convinced that time is definitely a mental construct and that it has no independent existence apart from events. Time for me is simply a concept we created to establish the sequence of events.
There was no need for God to create a separate entity named time to make room for events. I do not believe either that God is outside of time. How can God be outside a mental construct? God has always existed, and it follows that his actions and thinking bore a relationship to each other on a sequential basis.
“If it can't be partitioned from areas that have matter, empty space can't exist.”
Right! Empty space probably, like time, has no real existence from matter; in which case, as I suggested above, empty space would be equivalent to vacuum.
By the way, I doubt that vacuum exists anywhere in the universe. Help me on this: Can scientists produce perfect vacuum in the laboratory?
Vacuum is probably non-space or nothing. Nothing does not possess the qualities of matter.
“I don't agree that empty space is "non-space". Empty space is pure space without any matter in it.”
I am having a hard time visualizing the existence of empty space. Nature abhors vacuum, and I believe that nature abhors empty space as well.
Do you really believe that God created empty space before creating matter?
Can scientists measure empty space? Has anyone seen empty space anywhere? Is there scientific evidence for the existence of empty space?
“The dimension of non-space is zero, but that's not what space is. Zero, in higher dimensional math is a singularity by the way.”
I don’t believe in singularities. They were invented by scientists who do not allow for the activities of a Creator when they study physics.
“Vacuum has no dimensions?”
What are the dimensions of vacuum? Does vacuum come in different sizes?
“I wonder how scientists manage to create a vacuum for testing the vacuum speed of light.”
Perfect, 100 percent vacuum? I need evidence of this!Pardon my ignorance!
“Based on what you said, the light should instantly jump through that vacuum like as though it passed through a worm hole.”
Are you sure scientists are dealing with perfect, 100 percent vacuum?
“It's a very silly example of how nonmaterial things have real world effects.”
Ideas have impact on the real world. Thoughts can transform life in the universe, but they are harmless without the intervention of free beings.
They cannot possess independent existence outside the mind of sentient beings, which means that they do probably exist in some form inside the mind of humans, angels, and God.
God can see them, while we have not been able to detect and identify them yet.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#562979 - 07/30/12 03:37 AM
Re: The First Flash cosmological model
[Re: John C. Sanders]
|
Registered: 07/20/10
Posts: 1338
Loc: Colorado
|
I watched Dr. Keith Wanser's DVD "The Relevance" today and found it very insightful. I didn't find an online video of it, but there is this audio clip. http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=11606133015He mentions a need for a "magic key" that converts standard model time periods into Biblical ones. I beleive my model has the potential to be that key. I've thus sent Dr. Wanser the following email; Greetings Dr. Wanser. My name is John Sanders, and I am currently aspiring to join the ranks of creation physicists. The purpose of this email is to present a model currently in development and to possibly glean support/constructive criticism. I recently watched your "Relevance" lecture and realized that my work with the First Flash cosmological model entails signature components of that "magic bullet" you refered to in the lecture. The problem is that I am still working to further develop the physical foundations that define why this dimensional effect must exist. I will try to explain as quickly and concisely as I can. The First Flash model purports that the visible universe is actually composed of two sets of four dimensional time-space that are perceptually "folded" into one. This eight dimensional membrane (of six spacial and two temporal dimensions) exponentially expands at a rate of days squared, relative to Earth. Well, that was a mouthful, and it doesn't give any of the reasons for why this should be. I'm going to start with illustrating some of the calculation effects, and then present some of the reasons that physically suggest such a model. The most accurately purported age measurements of the universe are claimed to be derived from Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe data gleaned from cosmic microwave background radiation. In 2008, the age calculation was 13,730,000,000 years. Since the CMBR is emmited from the light horizon, light any further away is receding faster than the speed light travels in four dimensions. But if the universe were actually expanding in eight dimensions (two being of equal time dimensions), the age calculation would represent a squared value of the time dimension that we normally equate from. I am claiming that this second time dimension is folded along side normal time, and relates to periodicity of light's phase velocity. The fact that light's phase velocity times it's group velocity will always equal c^2, hints that there is more to light's dual velocities than is commonly considered. The days squared value interweaves a relativistic rotational perspective of the observer with linear distances in which light travels at group velocity. So, let's suppose the 1,373x10^10 yr value is in squared time, and needs converted to days before a kind of Lorentz transform can be corrected into a true time measurement. Multiplying by 365.25 generates a value of 5.015x10^12 square days. This would then be 2,239,393.333 group velocity days times 2,239,393.333 phase velocity days. Converting these values to years equals 6131.1248 group velocity days times 6131.1248 phase velocity days. This vaue gleaned from 2008 points to a creation year of 4124 B.C. If there were any possible truth to this, then WMAP age measurements would have to change in the ten million year range after each biannual measurement, or the concept is dead in the water. The measurements do actually change by that amount. 2003 1.369x10^10 yrs +/- 100 million 2006 1.370x10^10 yrs +/- 100 million 2008 1.373x10^10 yrs +/- 100 million 2010 1.375x10^10 yrs +/- 100 million 2012 1.376x10^10 yrs +/- 100 million I haven't found anyone else even bringing up an issue about this, and I'm wondering why. Here's where I am founding this concept. In Roger Penrose's Twistor Theory, equal quanta of spin and linear motion of light are combined to equal a twistor of twisted time-space geometry. He developed this idea of quantifying and unifying linear and angular momentum for the purpose of bridging properties of quantum mechanics with General Relativity. I then noted his premise of net spin created from a field of spinors. I considered that there should also be a net linear effect from an equal field of null lines. The combination would then be a twistor field of twisted time-space. Seeing a possible connection with light's two velocities, I pondered if these two velocities represent linear and curved dimensions within which light travels in at an equal balance. But my idea led to another very strange path. If a vector has magnitude, direction and spin, it's actually a phasor. Combining spin with linear motion also creates an archimedean spiral pattern. But for each cycle of rotation to have a constant rate would require exponential acceleration. Going back to the net fields conjecture, I considered Earth's rotation as perhaps the net spin of Earth's spinor field. That would mean that Earth would also have a null line field with a light day radius, in relation to a single day of rotation. I considered a possibility of light blue shifting from objects, if they moved beyond a light day from Earth. This crazy idea led me to discover a secret "Pioneer Anomally." It was at least a secret to me. I recognise that my ideas and explanations for them are very weak and poorly developed. The foundations for this model have been improving. I did also test the days squared equation on the time warp anomaly (finding a 60% time dilation between two pulsars). I tested the effects of the pulsar distances in this days squared equation and ended up with the same time dilation rate. I finally resolved to write a program to save me from the hassle of all of the comparative calculations. I've since posted it online to be freely downloaded. http://sourceforge.net/projects/timedilation/ Here's some other links dealing with this model; G.A.U. (Genesis Aged Universe Facebook group) http://www.facebook.com/search/results.php?q=keith%20wanser&init=quick&tas=0.31771343811118585#!/groups/113712938640104/ First Flash cosmological model forum http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/379524/1/The_First_Flash_cosmological_m.html Please feel free to tell me what you think, and or ask questions. I'm trying to find physicists who are willing to polish what I've found, or who are at least willing to point out what needs correction. Thank you for your time. Secerely, John C. Sanders
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#563332 - 07/31/12 12:21 PM
Re: The First Flash cosmological model
[Re: John C. Sanders]
|
Registered: 07/20/10
Posts: 1338
Loc: Colorado
|
That question really breaks down to a war over glossary term meanings and ammendments. His unification of time-space with momentum space is how phase space is defined. Those added degrees of dimensions alter perceptions of reality in both fronts, shifting relativity to relative locality. Nic, in the conversations I've had with both you and fccool this would be the same as shifting "space" from being real to an imaginary mental construct. Thus, Smolin has already shifted things into your area of thinking but not in the exact same terms of revised terminology. My model also makes some very odd conversions in time-space consistancies, expanding it to a realm that I had commonly called "phasic time-space." I try avoiding that terminology because I discovered that it just confuses people all the more. The war over whether something is real/illusionary breaks down to definitions and observed consistency. Following general definitions for space and time, my model will also make the claim that such dimensions are illusionary constructs. But what I've done with definitions is expanded the depth and meaning to time and space with a complete system of two four dimensional forms of time-space folded together. I am currently working to translate my dimensions from linear and phase velocity into 8-Dimensional Minkowski Space, where linear dimensions are real numbers and curved dimensions are imaginary (combining to become complex numbers). What we perceive to be "real" can easily be peeled apart or suddenly folded together because our perception of reality is a composite from two different things. Sorry, I'm getting off track with my own work. Nic My question is: What would happen to that curvature of space-time and curved momentum space if we were to agree that space and time exist only in our minds? Would they continue to exist in the real world? I am just wondering! Using the common definitions for space and time while agreeing that these perceptions be illusionary (in the phase space model) would do the same thing to to curved dimensions. They would also be illusions relative to common definitions. It's the unification of global effects in reality that causes this deviation. This was why I kept posting my equations for time-space dimensions, to show the equational relativity existing between each one and that each dimension is really just a variable defined by the other seven. Thus all eight are only defined to exist by relativity to all of the others. One could rewrite my system where space and time are not the values used. I prefer my system because it is concise and simpler than using other systems that I am less familiar with. Looking at matter and momentum for example. Since most of the universe is low density, it is simpler to look at "space" as a foundation rather than matter. But at some point I will need to more deeply introduce the effects of matter density. When I do so, I may find myself shifting from space and time terms to matter and momentum.
Edited by John C. Sanders (07/31/12 12:29 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#563499 - 08/01/12 10:45 AM
Re: The First Flash cosmological model
[Re: John C. Sanders]
|
Registered: 08/03/09
Posts: 2505
Loc: California, U.S.A.
|
John,
You said:
“Since most of the universe is low density, it is simpler to look at "space" as a foundation rather than matter. But at some point I will need to more deeply introduce the effects of matter density. When I do so, I may find myself shifting from space and time terms to matter and momentum.”
I understand. This could be similar to our habit of referring to sunset and sunrise, when in fact the sun never sets nor does it rise. It is our planet which rotates over its own axis. Talking about reality is sometimes more cumbersome and complex than using fiction.
My suspicion is that there is nothing beyond matter and its differential density. If this is the case, then all this talk about space, time, vacuum, and the curvature of space-time might be pure fiction. I am still wondering whether pure, 100 percent vacuum does exist anywhere in or outside our universe.
My guess is that our universe includes everything which has real existence, which probably means that there is nothing outside of its limits, if such limits exist.
By the way, what is your view of energy? Is it material? If it is not material, then how come it tends to dissipate as it moves away from its source?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#563525 - 08/01/12 02:15 PM
Re: The First Flash cosmological model
[Re: John C. Sanders]
|
Registered: 07/20/10
Posts: 1338
Loc: Colorado
|
I've never tried pinning down energy, as to whether it is material or not. I perceive that energy dissipates relative to an inverse square law of relative time. That of course spills into my metric where everything exists in terms of linear and curved dimensions, including energy.
I would have to rewrite my values defining energy. For something to be material, it must consist of matter.
Energy seems to work the other way around, where all matter consists of energy, but not all energy is matter.
Total energy is potential energy (PE) + kinetic energy (KE) + rest mass energy (ME). Rest mass energy is the part that pertains directly to matter.
The idea of fitting all forms of energy under a single roof of matter isn't very plausible.
Looking at the mass energy equation, the calculation looks more like you must determine how much energy is within a specified quantity of time-space dimensions to discern mass.
The math in physics very clearly shows how matter is an effect from energy density. Turning the tables is possible, but not pretty.
With my MUV=E I summized that ME=(M^2UV)/(M+U+V),KE=(MU^2V)/(M+U+V), and PE=(MUV^2)/(M+U+V).
Fitting in Planck's constant (h) into things made it simpler yet.
ME=Mh/(TM+TU+TV), KE=Uh/(TM+TU+TV), and PE=Vh/(TM+TU+TV) where (T) is periodicity.
What this reveals is that when periodicity is infinite, the total energy will be zero.
I am unsure what the ramifications are from this.
Edited by John C. Sanders (08/01/12 02:29 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#565423 - 08/10/12 10:07 AM
Re: The First Flash cosmological model
[Re: John C. Sanders]
|
Registered: 07/20/10
Posts: 1338
Loc: Colorado
|
Nic Can the universe really expand without the creation of new light sources? The universe continues to expand from the light that originated its creation. At some point, that light will expand away faster than it travels toward us. At that point, the early effects of the "Big Rip" would start. Instead of the idea that light could be stretched to nothing, consider what would happen if light's wavelength was wider than the visible universe? And then consider if light has a part to play with gravitation. This gets very complicated, but the idea is that if the universe starts expanding too quickly apart, the four fields of physics start decaying (em, w & s nuclear, and gravitation). I suspect this will happen on the "day of the Lord" and that such an event may happen 10-25 years from now, but that's a conjecture.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#566128 - 08/13/12 04:36 PM
Re: The First Flash cosmological model
[Re: John C. Sanders]
|
Registered: 07/20/10
Posts: 1338
Loc: Colorado
|
Mr. Scott Florence from NASA just sent this; Thanks and sorry it's taken me such a long time to respond, I usually manage to much sooner than this.
And I have a few questions first, is this a cosmological model to add on to the existing one? Or to start thinking from scratch? And are these literally additional space time dimensions? If so, are they those we experience daily or small like theories such as string theory predicts? Or are they mathematical models using them, but it's not literally additional dimensions? I haven't replied yet. Explaining the dimensional aspects correctly is very critical.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#566347 - 08/15/12 12:26 AM
Re: The First Flash cosmological model
[Re: John C. Sanders]
|
Registered: 07/20/10
Posts: 1338
Loc: Colorado
|
Nic My question was based on the assumption that the theory of the expansion of the universe and the Big Bang were not real but rather resting on science fiction. My model works with time-space expansion, thus, working with a premise opposing that view would conflict with the point of my forum. Nic I wonder whether you could respond to my question assuming that we have a static universe which does no expand, except when the Creator is busy adding a few galaxies to it. Well, your original question was "can the universe really expand witout new light sources?" Saying "really" exposes a predisposed skepticism. That point raises the question why you are asking this. My reply disputing the predesposed supposition reveals a truth to my speculation. The purpose seemed to be a hope that I would follow a line of thought that deviates from my model. The progressional creation of galaxies would succeed in continuing the appearance of expansion, but additional time-space would also be required, or the mass-density of the universe would only increase, leading the entire universe to collapse into a black hole singularity. (And, yes, I realize that you reject the existence of black holes too.) Nic If I am correct, then the idea of light waves expanding to the size of the universe and more would be mere fiction instead of factual reality. All you've said is that if I'm right your wrong. Point of fact remains that light wavelength stretches as it travels through space. If you've discovered a way to disprove Maxwell's equations or that electromagnetic radiation fails to obey an inverse square law, please feel free to share it. Nic Would the speed of light decrease before the total dissipation of light rays? If there were only one source of light in the universe and the energy of said source were exhausted, would darkness exist of would there simply an absence of light? Would the universe freeze if there were suddenly nothing subject to freezing? Only light's group velocity truly slows down, and that's when traveling in a medium. "dissipation" (i.e. increased empty space) would increase group velocity to maximum =c and decrease phase velocity to the minimum =c. I'm not understanding how the energy in emmited light becomes "exhaused". Energy doesn't go away. All that happens is its density, relative to expanding space and time, lessens. I'm not even understanding your freezing argument.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#566387 - 08/15/12 09:38 AM
Re: The First Flash cosmological model
[Re: John C. Sanders]
|
Registered: 07/20/10
Posts: 1338
Loc: Colorado
|
I meant to say "your reply" in post #566347 in the comment; My reply disputing the predesposed supposition reveals a truth to my speculation.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#566396 - 08/15/12 10:40 AM
Re: The First Flash cosmological model
[Re: John C. Sanders]
|
Registered: 08/03/09
Posts: 2505
Loc: California, U.S.A.
|
John C. Sanders wrote:
“Well, your original question was "can the universe really expand witout new light sources?" Saying "really" exposes a predisposed skepticism. That point raises the question why you are asking this.”
I am asking this because the Big Bang, Black Holes, and Singularities don’t make logical sense to me, and I am inclined towards the Steady State theory developed by Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold, Hermann Bondi and others as an alternative to the Big Bang theory.
I am suspecting that new matter is being created on a regular basis simply because we have a Creator. In 1993, Fred Hoyle, Geoffrey Burbidge, and Jayant V. Narlikar came out with a slightly modified theory called Quasi-steady state cosmology (QSS) which suggests pockets of creation occurring over time within the universe, sometimes referred to as minibangs, mini-creation events, or little bangs.
I am aware that most scientists still believe in the Big Bang model, but this can change. Most scientists were opposed to the plate tectonics theory until one day the scientific community embraced the idea without reservations.
My personal predilection is for a theory that allows creation to have taken place in the distant past which continues without much interruption at the present simply because we have a Creator who cannot sit still without doing what he does best: creating.
“The purpose seemed to be a hope that I would follow a line of thought that deviates from my model.”
I am not asking you to abandon you model, but to simply react to my questions if you can spare the time.
"The progressional creation of galaxies would succeed in continuing the appearance of expansion, but additional time-space would also be required, or the mass-density of the universe would only increase, leading the entire universe to collapse into a black hole singularity."
This would be true only if we assume that time-space are real entities which can exist independently of matter and energy. My suspicion is that space-time is a mental construct we have designed for practical purposes but without a factual basis in reality. Of course, I suspect that Black Holes and Singularities do not exist except in the mind of scientists.
“Point of fact remains that light wavelength stretches as it travels through space. If you've discovered a way to disprove Maxwell's equations or that electromagnetic radiation fails to obey an inverse square law, please feel free to share it.”
I wish I could, but perhaps you or others can!
“I'm not understanding how the energy in emmited light becomes "exhaused".”
What I was thinking is the fact that light rays seem to fade as it moves away from its original source. This seems to suggest that at some point it must dissipate into nothingness.
“Energy doesn't go away. All that happens is its density, relative to expanding space and time, lessens.”
Yes, but at some distant point its density must be equal to zero.
“I'm not even understanding your freezing argument.”
I am inclined to think that for freezing to take place, there must exist some matter subject to freezing. I doubt that freezing can exist in a perfect vacuum. Of course I could be wrong1
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#568187 - 08/24/12 06:30 AM
Re: The First Flash cosmological model
[Re: John C. Sanders]
|
Registered: 07/20/10
Posts: 1338
Loc: Colorado
|
jcs: “I'm not understanding how the energy in emmited light becomes "exhaused".”
nic: What I was thinking is the fact that light rays seem to fade as it moves away from its original source. This seems to suggest that at some point it must dissipate into nothingness.
jcs: “Energy doesn't go away. All that happens is its density, relative to expanding space and time, lessens.”
nic: Yes, but at some distant point its density must be equal to zero.
I suppose light (at greater distances than the light horizon) effectively ceases to exist within the visable universe. If there is indeed a critical dimension (beyond which energy ceases to exist), that dimension is exponentially expanding. That ever changing "length" property would then be the root cause of all inverse square laws governing the four force laws in nature. There's your explanation for Maxwell's work, in a very oversimplified statement. So Nic, if dimensions are illusionary fields generated by the presence of matter, what consistency would you propose matter has independent of dimensions?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#568411 - 08/25/12 06:59 AM
Re: The First Flash cosmological model
[Re: John C. Sanders]
|
Registered: 07/20/10
Posts: 1338
Loc: Colorado
|
Thank you for your clarification. Actually, what you've said may fit in with quantum theory (speaking of energy/matter quanta).
The interesting part here, is that even if matter is a priniple cause of dimensions, advanced mathematics permits one to view reality interchangably between all known variables.
This interchangability is the ultimate goal of field unification and the true, hidden success to all known sciences. The more factors one many deduce and interchange, the more powerful the model.
Nic, I am starting to like some of the ideas your presenting, even though I'm not killing off my dimensional equations. Think of it this way; in the game of Battleship, there are ships and pegs suspended in defined geometry. The geometry is an arbitrarily defined perspective of the observer. The ships are matter, and the varied color of pegs loosely match how my four forms of time-space dimensions work. The pegs may not be actual ships, but they paint a quantitative picture defining what things are and what they may, or may not be.
In the same way, time-space dimensions may not actually be materialistic in nature, but such properties may be used to paint pictures of how reality contains matter/energy.
Edited by John C. Sanders (08/25/12 07:03 AM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#569025 - 08/28/12 03:57 PM
Re: The First Flash cosmological model
[Re: John C. Sanders]
|
Registered: 08/03/09
Posts: 2505
Loc: California, U.S.A.
|
John,
You wrote: “Nic, I am starting to like some of the ideas your presenting, even though I'm not killing off my dimensional equations.”
Mathematical equations are a powerful took and should not be ignored. I am wondering, though, whether said formulas do have the final say in solving rather complex problems. It’s been a long time since I took college math and statistics, but isn’t it true that some equations have multiple solutions?
This reminds me of what took place when I was in high school. Our math teacher warned us that we would have a test the next time we met, but I forgot to study. The next day, I panicked when the teacher gave us a theorem to solve.
I was ready for an F, but struggled through the problem and submitted my work to the teacher. She looked over my paper over and over again and finally said: “The way you solved the theorem is not how I explained it to you, but I have to admit that your answer is correct. I’ll give you an A.”
So my question is: When a person discovers a unique way of solving a math problem, does this mean that it represents the only way of interpreting reality? Just wondering!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#569166 - 08/29/12 03:31 PM
Re: The First Flash cosmological model
[Re: John C. Sanders]
|
Registered: 07/20/10
Posts: 1338
Loc: Colorado
|
I just made a significant discovery break through. I've been talking of a model that has homogeneous expansion and spin. On the spin component, I started searching for information on spin in empty space and discovered a better term called "torsion fields". At that point I started searching for homogeneous torsion fields and found this gem. http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0506033.pdf Einstein-Cartan theory in cosmology
In the following it is shown that inflation can be explained without introducing additional fields but considering a spacetime with torsion. And there are many, many other proposed models very similar to this one, using homogeneous torsion fields. It seems my model closely resembles the newer forms of the Einstein-Cartan theory. This includes elements of of the Kerr-Newman metric (a spinning black hole). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Cartan_theory
Edited by John C. Sanders (08/29/12 03:37 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Registered: 04/07/00
Posts: 8079
|
5303 Members
106 Forums
42463 Topics
562172 Posts
Max Online: 4163 @ 03/31/12 01:09 PM
|
|
Previous Topic
Index
