The Gravitational Aether

[Dubbelosix]

In fact, just had a look there to support my claim... and boom, the first result: It looks like this has been explored in theory after all http://vixra.org/pdf/1709.0390v5.pdf

[marcospolo]

Again,experimental evidence is at odds with your thinking. The very least that certain updates confirm is that the universe is definitely expanding, we are just not sure any more it is doing so at an accelerated rate. This would be in conjunction with a rotary property of a universe (which as shown again by Hoyle and Narlikar) has to decay as it linearly expands. ie. Centrifugal weakens with larger scale factor

You do not KNOW that the universe is expanding, you BELIEVE that what you are seeing, can be interpreted in a way that means the universe is expanding. 

Others believe that your interpretation is incorrect.

Because of the crazy conclusions that one must draw IF the universe began as a dot, then expanded, then somehow is now still expanding  and also accelerating, I have a strong case that says your hypothesis must be wrong.

To keep the expanding universe hypothesis, you keep inventing fudge factors by the score, to try to explain how this weird hypothesis can still work.

 

Its jest a much simpler theory that says there was no big bang, and whatever we see with red shift does not mean that the universe is accelerating away ever larger.

 

No fudge factors are required, no expensive LIGO needed, we can use our energies and money doing more worthwhile things.

[Dubbelosix]

Correct. I do not [know for sure] as in 100% sure that the universe is expanding, but based on the available evidence, there is no reason to suggest it isn't, rather than the argument against. This is a very small leap in logic you seem to fail to grasp. I don't ideas on a whim, they have to fit experimental evidence, or they will never be truly accepted. 

[Dubbelosix]

Except that the assumption that the early universe was some tiny spot that must have expanded is simply stupid.  ALL the mass of the material and all the energy of the whole universe compresses into one dot?  You are mad.  (the big-bang theory is mad, is what I mean.)

 

No the universe cannot be compressed to a point, and for the very few scientists who still believe in this out-dated model, it is called the singularity theorem.

 

If you have read my essay, you would know that I do not support this since quantum mechanics forbids it. ie. a particle cannot be confined to a region smaller than its own wavelength, thus forbidding singular regions of space. 

Edited October 22, 2018 by Dubbelosix

[marcospolo]

In fact, just had a look there to support my claim... and boom, the first result: It looks like this has been explored in theory after all http://vixra.org/pdf/1709.0390v5.pdf

Extracts from that document:

 

"Think of a tiny ball, whose center of mass stays where it is, as depicted below. Any rotation – around any axis – will be some combination of a rotation around the two other axes. Hence, we may want to think of a two-dimensional oscillation as an oscillation of a polar and azimuthal angle."

 

No, lets not think of it as a two dimensional oscillation. it spins on one axis, thats a better way to think about it, because that is what is happening. Why make it more complicated unless you wanted to make get us lost in meaningless jargon later?

 

"The point of this paper is not to make any definite statements. That would be foolish. Its objective is just to challenge the simplistic mainstream viewpoint on the reality of the wavefunction. Stating that it is a mathematical construct only without physical significance amounts to saying it has no meaning at all. That is, clearly, a non-sustainable proposition. "

 

So the experts who dreamed up the complex math that defines the fudge called a "wave function", who state categorically is a pure mathematical construct, were wrong? Its a fudge because they try to get over the problems of the apparent duality of lights properties.

(which are just  interpretations of light anyway)

 

"The interpretation that is offered here looks at amplitude waves as traveling fields. Their physical dimension may be expressed in force per mass unit, as opposed to electromagnetic waves..."

 

Except that if a wave is a traveling field, and the field is light, then you cant claim that you will not use electromagnetic waves, you want to use a

"force per mass " unit instead!   Light has NO mass,  And a 'force per mass" unit must be inertia, which requires a mass.

 

 

Edited October 22, 2018 by marcospolo

[marcospolo]

No the universe cannot be compressed to a point, and for the very few scientists who still believe in this out-dated model, it is called the singularity theorem.

 

If you have read my essay, you would know that I do not support this since quantum mechanics forbids it. ie. a particle cannot be confined to a region smaller than its own wavelength, thus forbidding singular regions of space. 

So spell it out for me... the universe did not begin with something called "the big Bang"?

 

It either did or it did not.  Saying it was the size of a golf ball, and not a dot, is still the big bang, and does not overcome the problem.

[Dubbelosix]

So spell it out for me... the universe did not begin with something called "the big Bang"?

 

It either did or it did not.  Saying it was the size of a golf ball, and not a dot, is still the big bang, and does not overcome the problem.

 

The big bang happened, that much is for certain - there are things about the standard model however, which is in question... it's been a widely held belief for quite some time that we have been accustomed to think of big bang happened not as a moment in space (from a point region) but as a moment in time (we say this because a point has no dimensions). But this is only the earliest singularity theorem, and even the creators, the late Hawking and Prof Penrose have both deviated away from those kinds of models. 

[marcospolo]

The big bang happened, that much is for certain - there are things about the standard model however, which is in question... it's been a widely held belief for quite some time that we have been accustomed to think of big bang happened not as a moment in space (from a point region) but as a moment in time (we say this because a point has no dimensions). But this is only the earliest singularity theorem, and even the creators, the late Hawking and Prof Penrose have both deviated away from those kinds of models. 

Clearly you and your mates have no idea what you believe.

 

"the big bang happened- that much is certain?  Really?  this claim comes after you say that you did not know for sure that the universe is expanding, so therefore you cant be sure it began as a big anything. No expansion, then no big bang hypothesis, that it done for.

 

 And whats this crap about "it was not a dot, (because that would be really silly, even after all those professors wrote all those books saying that it did!  )  No, it was no dot, It was a "moment in time".  This is even more stupid.  If there is nothing, and nothing is happening, then you don't have time.  Time can only be the relationship between two or more objects that have relative motion.  Time can't just hang around, by itself, in an empty universe, hoping that some stuff will happen, and start to move.

 

And even when you have stuff, objects moving, time is just the property that describes the rate of change, the difference between the objects that have little rate of change, and the objects that have a large rate of change. If you have only two objects, and nothing else, then you cant measure time.  Time compares small changes with progressively larger changes in position of objects.  Time is NOT a thing.   Dimensions between objects are not things either. You can't do Physics with dimensions, or time.  You can only do Physics with things, objects, that have properties, comparative properties. { properties like rate of change, color and density etc.}

 

One object alone in nothingness, (the singularity?) can't have properties.   It's hot... its heavy..... its red..... really?  How so?  heavy compared to what?  Hot compared to what?  red compared to what other color? There is no other color, so there is no property of color till you get at least two objects for comparison.

 

And there is no "time" till you get MORE than two objects moving relatively. One object alone in nothingness cant be "fast" or "slow"...there is no time. {also, Time that means something for the purposes of Physics, must be related to cyclic, repetitive, and consistent motion, not random, linear and unique motion.}

 

So please talk Physics, the study of real objects and their properties, and not mysticism, alchemy and numerology.

Edited October 23, 2018 by marcospolo

[marcospolo]

No we see nothing before the CMBR snapshot so the BBT is 100% conjecture proposed by an agent of the Vatican (Lamaitre)

 

What actually happened and was discovered by Christian Monks 800 years ago, after 1700 years of private mathematical developments beginning with Thales of Miletus, who was the first in a long line of Greek-Roman philosophers, and the secretive Roman Catholic Monks:

 

In 10^88 years hydrogen bonds will slowly form isolated Giant UV-Blue Stars identical to the first stars that formed after the 100 million year Dark Ages proceeding the EM era, as protons do not actually decay. Unlike in the Dark Ages, these stars will revert back to hydrogen atoms and then back into their basic elements and every once and while back into hydrogen molecules and back into stars repeatedly. But this is happening for another 10^32 years (the second Dark Age) so frequently that the balance of redshifted and blueshifted light gets all screwy once blue shifted light and evaporating black holes reverse entropy entirely anti-hydrogen becomes the dominant element b/c in a blueshifted vacuum the protons will decay, but not the anti-protons a new antimatter universe will collapse into a CMB that's even denser than the last one - with a higher percentage of Strange Quarks.

 

That's a Big Bounce and it relies on a reality that has infinite volume and more matter beyond our minuscule cosmic event horizon. The Standard Model ranks as a 6 in dimensional analysis, the 800 year old Codex contained within the Devil's Bible ranks as an e(12+) and was referred by the Knight's Templar as the Holy Grail before it was even completed as the Codex and added to the Devil's Bible. Such knowledge was offered to man by Prometheus, it was The Devil's Work, not for the sheeple, the plebs, the Opus Dei (common folk) the sheep that unknowingly served the GOATS, the secretly Satanic Men of The Cloth. The same is true today.

 

Alchemists and Spiritual Philosophers, 1700 hundred years for the Codex. Modern Chemists and physical scientists, 500 years for the Standard Model. Look at how much faster we grew, yet intelligence is no substitute for wisdom and knowledge.

Not another wacky theory !

 

The CMB tells us precisely and exactly nothing about the past.  We use conjecture, speculation and interpretation to come up with wacky ideas that we imagine may be what happened at some distant past.

 

But we have no real idea, its all just a big game for intellectuals who can't get real work or girl friends.

 

Send you Satan around, I have a few questions for him.

[marcospolo]

Actually I was using mathematical proofs & not many outside the Vatican City hierarchy who preach God by day and worship Satan by night are allowed to see the REAL devil's bible but I guarantee you, as close as axiomatic logic can be to objective fact, that if you had access to the original Codex Gigas you would find written in μάθημα, something almost identical to the e(12) in my model, which has a CMB made of "quark-gluon plasma" although fundamentally my wacky theory should hold up to scientific scrutiny.

 

Do you even have a wacky theory? Mine mathematically reproduced E=MC^2 in a novel way on accident when graphing the sphere eversions of the charge variability in the quantum gravity governing the behavior of the quantum fields, which I cannot tell you how significant that was.

So you don't have a girlfriend then by the sound of it.

 

Anyone who thinks that with nothing but the silly putty of Math, they can explain Physics or the meaning of the universe, is spending way too much time with their slide rule.  the is no such thing as mathematical PROOFS. There are only maths calculations offered as supporting a hypothesis, which could be shot down with rational thought prior to any math being required.

 

I don't have any theories. Why do I want a theory?  There are already way too many being pushed about.

 

Like the wacky idea that gives us the irrational equation E=mc2 which you seem fond of, for some unknown reason, must be something to do with your religious bent.

[marcospolo]

Has anyone explained to you what the CMB is? It's why we get static when we point our antennas at the night sky. It's a photograph of the oldest light we can detect, we'd see it if we primed our telescopes to observe the heavens 13.8 billion light years away. It's an object as real as the computer or phone or tablet you're using. It tells quite a bit about the universe when applying some critical thought to it's behavior. Though it can tell some (me) more than it can tell the layman.

Sure, people have their pet ideas  about why my TV shows 'snow" when the station goes off line, but no-one can be sure what causes it, they do what humans do when they don't know, but still want to impress a girl, they pretend they know. But unfortunately for you, girls these days are not so impressed with theoretical physics or math.  Money works best.

[marcospolo]

Although it has been on exhibition once, if it is again look for the first chapter of the first book in the Cosmas of Prague, my suspicion is that Genesis was swapped with The Holy Grail Model that in question resembles mine if you can translate the texts, which was how the Monk who spent his entire life on it could use his presumably mediocre 12 century math skills to accurately predict the days on which Easter would fall over the next few years in the last chapter of the Liber Pergrandis. My model is highly prescient. More-so than the quantum indeterminacy of the Standard Model. It has the potential to tell us everything that is, ever was, or could ever be. I am suspicious as to the truth behind why the journal of physics A rejected my letter given the aforementioned E=MC^2 coincidence. A Gestapo, potentially Illuminati housing manager. I supect of German ancestry, that had never seen me before made that "Josephson" remark shortly after I sent the letter to jpa for review...

Lets forget about physics, what do you think those old hidden books mean? What secret knowledge is the Catholic church hiding exactly?

Did someone in the dark past know something we hardly know today? Like understand the working of smaller than atom particles? How did they obtain this information? Did they read it themselves in even older hidden books? 

 

But you could be on to something, as the Standard Model is rather a mess, and a most unlikely way to explain stuff.

 

George Bush was is in the Illuminati, the NWO, is he wise or smart? Privy to some deeper hidden secret knowledge?  He hides it well.

[marcospolo]

No, a proof can be graphed and therefore they can represent the 3 dimensional world anywhere from current models of galactic super-clusters spinning round to digital simulations capable of harboring sentient life in virtuoso.

 

Actually like going from driving herds of Mammoths off cliffs with hand carved sticks to putting a man on the moon and making a city go boom!

Well, you can make a pretty graph, but the rule that says Garbage in Garbage out still applies.  With Math and enough data to play with , one can make it look any way one wishes.  math is not proof of anything. And you are also getting a "proof in mathematics", confused with a "proof for a theory in Physics".  The two have nothing in common.

 

Math is only as good in Physics as the rationality of the hypothesis.

[marcospolo]

Bush Trump and all of them are staged.

 

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015080466603;view=1up;seq=3

 

They are hiding New Jerusalem. Have you seen the progress in Dubai or Mecca lately? These cities in the UAE are the Pope's home away from home. One of the beasts in Revelations the Vatican and the UAE are, the Axis of Evil.

 

I am the other, just a Crazy Jimmy Neutron.

 

 

"All I've got is insane!" - Slipknot

Despite my ribbing you over the Zionist Einstein's pseudo scientific rubbish, I'm actually with you on the topic of the NWO, and whats going on behind the scene.

I was trying to draw you out a little about what you really think about Israel, NWO, Zionism, Illuminati or whatever they call themselves now, and I was wondering if you have gone a little too far the other way....?

[Dubbelosix]

Unfortunately for you, I never, not once stated that the universe was not expanding... you really need to grapple with directly what people have said, because you are not very good in this area. I said I am uncertain whether the universe is accelerating (but this includes a large number of respectable scientists) who think along the same way. The universe, certainly is expanding, physicists are just not sure now at what rate. 

[marcospolo]

Unfortunately for you, I never, not once stated that the universe was not expanding... you really need to grapple with directly what people have said, because you are not very good in this area. I said I am uncertain whether the universe is accelerating (but this includes a large number of respectable scientists) who think along the same way. The universe, certainly is expanding, physicists are just not sure now at what rate. 

expanding or accelerating and expanding,  the same experiment and observations are used to claim both these two scenarios. I dont see how the same evidence for expanding is somehow not applicable for accelerating.  its the same evidence.   You think its moving, but at a steady pace, but not picking up speed?  (when the idea that its slowing down is not so acceptable.... 

 

If they can say with absolute certainty thats its expanding.... but then be uncertain if its accelerating, (which was a big announcement) then I think they are just guessing about it expanding in the first place.

[GAHD]

expanding or accelerating and expanding,  the same experiment and observations are used to claim both these two scenarios. I dont see how the same evidence for expanding is somehow not applicable for accelerating.  its the same evidence.   You think its moving, but at a steady pace, but not picking up speed?  (when the idea that its slowing down is not so acceptable.... 

 

If they can say with absolute certainty thats its expanding.... but then be uncertain if its accelerating, (which was a big announcement) then I think they are just guessing about it expanding in the first place.

LOL, got a $700 telescope, a prism, a CCD and the ability to GTFO of light polluted areas? You can do a simple experiment for yourself to see what's the basis for that...and if you repeat it a couple times you'll even see what causes the issue. Gotta find standard candles and be sure they're standard candles analise some spectra lines and look at how they SHIFT vs known spectra lines. But heay I won't blame you if you don't, it's always easier to be suspicious than to go out and actually gather real data. :)

 

Math isn't numerology though. and "degree of certainty" is quite literally something that defecates all over G.I.G.O. problems.