Origin of the Universe,,,,Bang or no Bang

[Little Bang]

It's just something I've been thinking about for several months. The only supporting evidence for the proton anti-proton creation was the Stanford linear accelerator experiment which I think you pointed out to me. If a collision of two beams of 10^14 and 10^25 Hz creates an electron positron pair why couldn't we use 10^17 and 10^25 to make the proton anti-proton pair? Those conditions could have existed at that early time of the universe.

 

BTW the last sentence in my previous said before the BB and I meant after.

[CraigD]

In the case of the clock on an airplane compared to one on the ground, the clock on the plane will not always be observed to have run slower. It’s a complicated moving system, because Earth rotates, and has an appreciable gravity well. Informally and in short, if the airplane flies east-west, opposite the Earth’s rotation, its clock will run faster than the ground clock, west-east, with the rotation, slower – these due to special relativistic time dilation. The higher it flies, the faster the plane’s clock runs relative to the ground’s, due to general relativistic gravitational time dilation.

The clock on the plane will run faster Craig and the rest of your argument has very little bearing on the issue.

I’m not making an argument, only reporting well-known, experimentally verified predictions of relativity.

 

The best known experiment involving precise clocks on airplanes is the Hafele-Keating experiment, performed in 1972. It’s described in many academic and popular science texts and internet sites – this hyperphysics page is a pretty good one.

 

Using commercial aircraft, the eastward trips were predicted to lose 40 ns ± 23 ns, and measured losing 59 ± 10 ns. The westward trips were predicted to gain 275 ± 21 ns, measured gaining 273 ± 7 ns.

 

It should be noted that the Kafele-Keating experiment was as much a technology experiment in atomic clocks as a physics experiment.

Craig, I don't see how the direction the airplane flies would have any appreciable effect on the time on the clock. Nor do I see how the rotation of the Earth could have any real effect on the time on the clock. The distance from the bottom of the gravity well should be the only variable with any real effect.

As I noted previously, the calculations are somewhat complicated. IMHO, readers would be better served by descriptions such as the hyperphysics link above, than my attempt at a detailed explanation.

 

A short, informal explanation is that when one flies westward, against the rotation of the Earth, one is actually moving more slowly than the surface of the Earth. Circular motion, such as a point on Earth’s rotating surface, is not an “un-accelerated frame” as described in simple examples of relativity. One can, in principle detect, ones absolute angular velocity due to the forces required to move in a circular path. Unlike constant linear velocity, constant angular velocity is not relative.

[Pluto]

G'day

 

Just thinking aloud here. Trying to get back to the subject.

 

 

If the universe was actually expanding, you would think that we would see it do so.

 

Since no observations have shown this, than I would expact no expansion.

 

In actual fact what we do see is clustering effect.

 

As we see in star clusters and galaxies and the property of matter wanting to form units.

 

As for space, space cannot be contracted or expanded.

 

Time cannot be changed.

 

The universe as a total cannot expand. How can you expand infinity?

 

As for curved space, space itself is not curved. The gravitational and electromagnetic forces create the curvature of the parts that occupy space.

 

The Big Bang as a reference to expansion refers to space-time not an actual distance.

 

 

================================================

 

Time acceleration hypothesis

Time acceleration hypothesis - Academic Publishing Wiki

 

 

Mainstream

versus

Tach

 

 

 

Space between galaxies expands

Galaxies' constituents shrink

 

Wavelengths of light expand

Galaxies' constituents shrink

 

Cosmological redshift induced by expanded space

Cosmological redshift induced by shrunken observer

 

Cosmological time dilation induced by movement of distant objects Cosmological time dilation induced by time accelerated observer

 

Galactic rotation curves are explained by cold-dark matter distribution models

Galactic rotation curves are explained by velocity-neutral radial shrinkage

 

Acceleration of the universe is explained by dark energy and a positive cosmological constant

Acceleration of galaxies is explained by angular momentum transfer from smaller to larger

 

Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric Euclidean metric

Escape from a gravitational singularity

Freedom from large gravitational wells

 

Variable coordinate speed of light

Constant coordinate speed of light

 

Big Bang

Cyclic Multiverse

 

Cosmological Principle

Fractal Geometry

 

One time

Repeatable

 

Global Thermodynamic Equilibrium at the largest scales

Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium at the largest scales

 

===========================================

 

As for time dilation

 

New light clock concept explains time dilation in special relativity

New light clock concept explains time dilation in special relativity

 

 

Time dilation

Time Dilation

[Mike C]

Maybe someone can correct me; But, isn't entropy primarily from conductive heat and isn't Mike 'warm to cold' also conductive heat. Where energy by connection (conduit) is transfered. In space, heat transfer is from radiation from matter, having nothing in similarity. Radiation or energy flows...period... whether long or short waves lengths (cold to hot, if absorbed/spent) into and through very cold space. No hot to cold involved. For equilibrium to be achieved wouldn't that mean that all matter was capable of only the same emittance of energy of a single wavelength, which IMO could never be achieved in any theory, which continually is producing the ultimate source of energy, the stars.

 

Hi Jackson

I see you are back on this site.

The entropy question of the FS (formerly SSU) universe, is not worthy of discussion because of the overall enormous content of stars and cold matter.

If there are any questions about this, it pales in comparison to the BBT.

 

Mike; Regeneration from existing matter, or that matter itself is limited to the total elements available (the total always the same) is embedded in both BBT and SSU. The differences are in a beginning or end and by implication a set starting point or an eternal existence. SSU, really IMO, simplifies the process w/o need for exotic explanations. Shape of the U, would be best served through proving SSU, where gravity becomes a factor and where total explanation, will likely be understood in years to come.

 

The BBT does not comply to the Conservation of Matter and its origin from zero time is ludicrous.

I have thought about this 'super gravity origin' and have concluded that the 'strong force' must be it. My 'Theory of Everthing' explains why this force does not exist.

Besides, the SF is created in the stars and therefore, cannot precede the star formations.

 

Hoyle's SSU or the ones before under the same eternal principles differ no more or less than the Religious 15th century 'spontaneous' or who ever you attribute BBT to. There are additionally 8 or ten modern days theory for understanding the Universe, couple on this thread, which are simply complicated of basic SSU or BBT...

 

Note that I have changed from a SSU (Hoyles universe) to a 'Flat Space' (FS) concept which is more descriptive of my promotion.

The key here is the change from the EoS to the 'Expansion of the Light (photons) waves (pulses).

 

Mike C

[Zythryn]

The entropy question of the FS (formerly SSU) universe, is not worthy of discussion because of the overall enormous content of stars and cold matter.

 

Translation: Because my own theory breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics I don't want to discuss it;)

 

Mike, you can't say 'part' of your universe follows the 2nd LOT, so it is unimportant that some parts don't follow it.

[Little Bang]

Mike, if there was a BB then when t = 0, there would not have been any gravity.

[Pluto]

G'day

 

 

It is simply amazing how the Big Bang is supported by ad hoc ideas.

 

How can you have zero gravity than suddenly in a few hundred million years create over 100 billion galaxies?

 

 

Do you know how much time and money has gone into supporting the BBT.

[Little Bang]

As soon as T > 0 then gravity turns on and somewhere in the next 2 to 2.5 X 10^8 years the protons and anti-protons get created and the annihilation war between them create the electrons and positrons. That idea may not make any sense to you but it does to me.

 

And there were not 100 billion galaxies formed over the next few hundred million years, but more like a billion years.

 

You speak about time and money on the BBT. It's about one millionth of one percent of the money spent on the standard model.

 

This is also a cyclic universe because it will collapse and do it again.

[Pluto]

Hello LB

 

You said

 

As soon as T > 0 then gravity turns on and somewhere in the next 2 to 2.5 X 10^8 years the protons and anti-protons get created and the annihilation war between them create the electrons and positrons. That idea may not make any sense to you but it does to me.

 

Mate how can this make sense? Its an ad hoc idea to make something work.

We do know that degenerate matter exists in compact cores of stars and the so called black hole that recycles matter via jets expelling matter out.

 

And there were not 100 billion galaxies formed over the next few hundred million years, but more like a billion years.

 

Well if you take 13.7 Gyrs as the age and deep field is 13.2 about,your left with 500 million years.

 

Just google for deep field images.

 

Regardless, even 20 billion not even 40 billion would be enough time to form the super clusters of clusters of galaxies.

 

 

You speak about time and money on the BBT. It's about one millionth of one percent of the money spent on the standard model.

 

Lots of money in what ever book you open.

 

This is also a cyclic universe because it will collapse and do it again.

 

Cyclic universe meaning the parts of the universe and not as a total.

[CraigD]

Addressing, in no particular order, several apparent misconceptions concerning generally accepted scientific terms and data…

If the universe was actually expanding, you would think that we would see it do so.

 

Since no observations have shown this, than I would expact no expansion.

 

In actual fact what we do see is clustering effect.

That distant galaxies appear to be receding from one another – known as Hubble's law - has been observed since roughly 1920, and is critical data for which all cosmological theories must account. Although there exists many theories to account for this observation other than the most widely accepted Lambda-CDM model, some of which (for example “Tired light” theories) propose that the observed expansion is an illusion due to some not-yet-understood property of light or space, it’s simply incorrect to deny that these observations have been made.

The BBT does not comply to the Conservation of Matter and its origin from zero time is ludicrous.

As has been pointed out on the many occasions that Mike C has repeated this peculiar claim, the principle of conservation of mass has long been supplanted by the principle of conservation of mass-energy. Precise experimental observations of the conversion of mass to energy and energy to mass are commonplace in scientific devices such as particle accelerators, and the obvious conversion of mass to energy is an important everyday source of energy, in the form of nuclear fission power plants.

 

As a matter of word use, that an idea is “ludicrous” (meaning “laughed at”) isn’t of much scientific importance. Some people laugh at the idea that the Earth is round, not flat, while others laugh at people who believe the earth if flat. It’s possible, especially with the help of the internet, to find a community of people who laugh at nearly any idea.

I have thought about this 'super gravity origin' and have concluded that the 'strong force' must be it. My 'Theory of Everthing' explains why this force does not exist.

Besides, the SF is created in the stars and therefore, cannot precede the star formations.

I’m unsure from the first two quoted sentences if Mike is claiming that the strong force is gravity, or does not exist. However, the claim that the strong force is “created in stars” is simply wrong by any usual use of the terms “strong force” and “star”.

 

The strong force, (more precisely termed the strong interaction) is a term of the standard model of particle physics. It refers to the interaction between fundamental particles that have a characteristic known as color charge (which should not be confused with either ordinary color, or electric charge) via a force carrying particle (in the standard model force carrying particles are called bosons) know as the gluon. One of the most common examples of the strong interaction is the binding together of protons (each of which consist of 3 fundimental particles with color charge, 2 up and 1 down quarks) in an atomic nuclei, despite protons being strongly repelled by the electromagnetic interaction.

 

The strong force is present in nearly all ordinary matter, both in and not in stars. The Big Bang model (see this pretty graphical timeline) describes a “quark epoch” occurring between about [math]10^{-12}[/math] and [math]10^{-6}[/math] seconds after the bang known in which the universe was filled with a “quark-gluon plasma”, essentially a single gigantic sub-atomic particle, before these fundamental particle formed into the familiar trio of quarks comprising protons and neutrons, and less familiar trios of antiquarks to form antiprotons and antineutrons. According to the BB model, The QGP formed earlier, at the beginning of the electroweak epoch about [math]10^{-36}[/math] seconds after the bang.

[Mike C]

Translation: Because my own theory breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics I don't want to discuss it;)

 

Mike, you can't say 'part' of your universe follows the 2nd LOT, so it is unimportant that some parts don't follow it.

 

The second Law deals with heat transfer.

So in the universe, heat is being transferred to all the space particles, star dust and molecules.

With the size of the universe and its various content, do you think this is a solveable problem?

Even though my FS universe has an infinite lifespan, the Conservation Laws confirm its existence.

 

On the other hand, can you cite one law that the BBT complies with?

This question can be addressed to all the other BBT suporters.

 

Thank you for any replies.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

Mike, if there was a BB then when t = 0, there would not have been any gravity.

 

That is what I have said. I just came to the conclusion that the 'super gravity' most probably is the SF.

 

The SG concept is in the Zeilik book 'Astronomy - The Evolving Universe.

I noticed this book was endorsed by Ned Wright of Cal Tech when I visited his site a while back.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

Addressing, in no particular order, several apparent misconceptions concerning generally accepted scientific terms and data…

That distant galaxies appear to be receding from one another – known as Hubble's law - has been observed since roughly 1920, and is critical data for which all cosmological theories must account. Although there exists many theories to account for this observation other than the most widely accepted Lambda-CDM model, some of which (for example “Tired light” theories) propose that the observed expansion is an illusion due to some not-yet-understood property of light or space, it’s simply incorrect to deny that these observations have been made.As has been pointed out on the many occasions that Mike C has repeated this peculiar claim, the principle of conservation of mass has long been supplanted by the principle of conservation of mass-energy. Precise experimental observations of the conversion of mass to energy and energy to mass are commonplace in scientific devices such as particle accelerators, and the obvious conversion of mass to energy is an important everyday source of energy, in the form of nuclear fission power plants.

 

As a matter of word use, that an idea is “ludicrous” (meaning “laughed at”) isn’t of much scientific importance. Some people laugh at the idea that the Earth is round, not flat, while others laugh at people who believe the earth if flat. It’s possible, especially with the help of the internet, to find a community of people who laugh at nearly any idea.I’m unsure from the first two quoted sentences if Mike is claiming that the strong force is gravity, or does not exist. However, the claim that the strong force is “created in stars” is simply wrong by any usual use of the terms “strong force” and “star”.

 

The strong force, (more precisely termed the strong interaction) is a term of the standard model of particle physics. It refers to the interaction between fundamental particles that have a characteristic known as color charge (which should not be confused with either ordinary color, or electric charge) via a force carrying particle (in the standard model force carrying particles are called bosons) know as the gluon. One of the most common examples of the strong interaction is the binding together of protons (each of which consist of 3 fundimental particles with color charge, 2 up and 1 down quarks) in an atomic nuclei, despite protons being strongly repelled by the electromagnetic interaction.

 

The strong force is present in nearly all ordinary matter, both in and not in stars. The Big Bang model (see this pretty graphical timeline) describes a “quark epoch” occurring between about [math]10^{-12}[/math] and [math]10^{-6}[/math] seconds after the bang known in which the universe was filled with a “quark-gluon plasma”, essentially a single gigantic sub-atomic particle, before these fundamental particle formed into the familiar trio of quarks comprising protons and neutrons, and less familiar trios of antiquarks to form antiprotons and antineutrons. According to the BB model, The QGP formed earlier, at the beginning of the electroweak epoch about [math]10^{-36}[/math] seconds after the bang.

 

Craig:

 

The Laws of Conservation of Matter, Energy,Momentum and Charge is thoroughly researched in experiments.

This was before the nuclear research accelerators were created.

After all the nuclear work done, the only thing they discovered was the Quark theory.

These quarks do 'not' exist in a 'free' state. So IMO, they do no exist.

Even the neutrons do not exist in a free state either.

So, the only particles that compose the universe are the electrons and the protons.

 

The stars fuse the 2 basic particles into the more complex elements.

Once the 2 elements exceed the neutron to proton ratio of 3 to 2, the matter decays to the original 2 particles that also decay to the helium nucleus (alpha nucleon).

 

So I do not see what this nuclear research is trying to accomplish?

All the available energy in nature (about 95-98% comes from the stars.

 

The rest from the nuclear reactors may accouint for one percent. The balance from other sources.

So I ignore the nuclear source that does not have any involvement in the cosmology sector.

 

Regarding the cosmological redshift, I provided a more realistic source for the CRS and that is the Expansion of the Light Waves (photons).

 

The M-M interferometry experiments have refuted the space as a cuase of these CRS's.

You can also include the Arp RS Anomaly that also refutes the role of space as the cause.

 

All the information you have provided is common knowledge of the current science establishment and I am familiar with it.

That evdence is of human derived research (post 1950) and in support of the human derived BBT.

 

Mike C

[jackson33]

Hi Jackson

I see you are back on this site.

The entropy question of the FS (formerly SSU) universe, is not worthy of discussion because of the overall enormous content of stars and cold matter.

If there are any questions about this, it pales in comparison to the BBT.

 

The BBT does not comply to the Conservation of Matter and its origin from zero time is ludicrous.

I have thought about this 'super gravity origin' and have concluded that the 'strong force' must be it. My 'Theory of Everthing' explains why this force does not exist.

Besides, the SF is created in the stars and therefore, cannot precede the star formations.

 

Note that I have changed from a SSU (Hoyles universe) to a 'Flat Space' (FS) concept which is more descriptive of my promotion.

The key here is the change from the EoS to the 'Expansion of the Light (photons) waves (pulses).

 

Mike C

 

Mike; Really never left this site, checking in now and then to read several posters current thoughts, you included...

 

Entropy, is one of the arguments opposing any form of eternal Universe, also figuring into an end...freeze/heat death. If it were true, then an eternal U would not be possible, think its very important. My point of discussion is/was, solar energy (IMO more like 99.999 percent of all produced energy, comparable to our solar system) cannot be the reflected heat given CRB or that those involved particles have no means to disperse heat to begin with. Heat in space does not flow to explain either, but exits the U or possibly drifts into an eternal U, so dispersed by concentration it has no measurable effect....IMO.

 

On 'tired light' or a decline in wave lengths to a point of non-existence, I'll hold my opinion for now, but I don't agree and for much the same reason I argue observable waves offering Universal Expansion...Red/Blue appearance.

 

Still think your best angle would be under STEADY STATE, but then you are getting a little exotic, which is why I oppose explanations of BBT...

[Pluto]

Greetings from the land of ozzzzzz

 

 

CraigD said

 

That distant galaxies appear to be receding from one another – known as Hubble's law - has been observed since roughly 1920, and is critical data for which all cosmological theories must account. Although there exists many theories to account for this observation other than the most widely accepted Lambda-CDM model, some of which (for example “Tired light” theories) propose that the observed expansion is an illusion due to some not-yet-understood property of light or space, it’s simply incorrect to deny that these observations have been made.

 

Now apply science to it.

 

Prove it, show me the evidence, show me the images.

 

I do not want to see MATHS or ad hoc ideas supporting it

 

You also said:

 

The strong force is present in nearly all ordinary matter, both in and not in stars. The Big Bang model (see this pretty graphical timeline) describes a “quark epoch” occurring between about and seconds after the bang known in which the universe was filled with a “quark-gluon plasma”, essentially a single gigantic sub-atomic particle, before these fundamental particle formed into the familiar trio of quarks comprising protons and neutrons, and less familiar trios of antiquarks to form antiprotons and antineutrons. According to the BB model, The QGP formed earlier, at the beginning of the electroweak epoch about seconds after the bang.

 

Theoretically quark-gluon plasma exists in the cores of compacted degenerate matter such as quark stars and the so called black holes.

 

But! your post implies it to the big bang and therfore it must have occured throughout the universe at the same time. If you know anything about plasma matter, you cannot bottle it and than Bang at the same time.

 

But! I do agree that theoretcally quark-gluon plasma does form part of a recycling process and that its properties are able to form jets via Z-pinch and eject the quark-gluon matter that reforms normal matter as we know it.

[Little Bang]

Would someone tell me if the Stanford linear accelerator experiment that collided two EM beams creating an electron anti-electron pair has any meaning and if so where were the intermediate quarks. The fact that they turned EM into matter apparently has no relationship to a way of creating protons because obviously protons must be made of quarks and who in his right mind would dare to suggest the standard model wrong.

[Pluto]

Hello All

 

Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

 

The info that will come out of this centre will solve many issues about the structure of the atom and the ability to compact matter beyond the Neutron matrix. So far some think that the ultimate compaction is a Neutron Core and that Neutron repulsiion stops further compaction.

 

If we get to know for a fact that Quarks can be compacted, it opens the door to understanding compact cores and black holes.

 

Neutrons can be compacted to 10^17 Kg/m3

 

Quarks theoretical 10^18 to 10^23 composites

 

Than you have the very theoretical Preon particles able to be compacted to 10^35 about making it the ultimate.

 

 

STANFORD LINEAR ACCELERATOR CENTER

http://www.lp01.infn.it/poster/slac/ARDB_LP_2001.pdf

 

The Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

The Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

 

 

 

Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

 

 

Secrets of the Universe Fourfold Faster: Sun Modular Datacenter to Help Decipher Big Bang Theory

The Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) is a U.S. Department of Energy research laboratory on the campus of Stanford University, in Menlo Park, California. It operates state-of-the-art experimental facilities for physics and radiation research. Many breakthroughs have come from this lab, including three Nobel prizes in physics and one in chemistry.

 

To support its scientific research, the lab operates a large computing center with thousands of processors and more than 4 petabytes of stored data. The lab is also part of a massive computing grid supporting worldwide physics experiments. Ongoing programs require continual increases in computing and storage resources to meet the needs of a growing collection of experimental data.

 

 

and so on