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

[C1ay]

And you'll continue to get no replies until you support your claim that photons have charge. You do not need to ask questions in order to provide your proof, the math, the physics, the results and data from your verifiable and repeatable experiments. We're waiting...

[Mike C]

To All:

 

I just posted a new article at a competing science forum so the admin here has edited my post remove the mention of it!

 

Mike C

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

 

I have been reading the last few pages.

 

What is the point of discussion?

[CraigD]

I am not talking about the GBP.

I assume by “GB”, Mike means gauge boson, and by “GBP” “gauge boson photon”

 

The photon is a gauge boson. All photons - those emitted by stars, computer screens, cold stones, or any other source – are gauge bosons. Therefore, the unusual phrase “gauge boson photon” is redundant, because there is no such thing as a photon that is not a gauge boson.

 

Although, by definition, composite particles with integer net spins, such as an atom composed of an even number of fermions, such as a helium-4 nucleus, are bosons, in most conversation the term “boson” without additional qualification refers to a gauge boson, also called a fundamental or elementary boson.

Do the stars radiate these GB photons?

Yes.

[Mike C]

I assume by “GB”, Mike means gauge boson, and by “GBP” “gauge boson photon”

 

The photon is a gauge boson. All photons - those emitted by stars, computer screens, cold stones, or any other source – are gauge bosons. Therefore, the unusual phrase “gauge boson photon” is redundant, because there is no such thing as a photon that is not a gauge boson.

 

Although, by definition, composite particles with integer net spins, such as an atom composed of an even number of fermions, such as a helium-4 nucleus, are bosons, in most conversation the term “boson” without additional qualification refers to a gauge boson, also called a fundamental or elementary boson.Yes.

 

There are two forms of physics, the observed basic physics that we see and is based on the Heliocentric line of scientists up to Bohr and then the man made physics based on the BBT and the nuclear research line of particle physics.

What you say Craig, is the latter type that is not commonly spoken of.

 

prerer to stikto phot6ns. Thanks.

 

Mike C

[Zythryn]

Mike, don't forget the third type of physics, the type you are proposing;)

All kidding aside, why the distinction. Scientific theories make predictions. When we run tests to verify the predictions the ones that correctly predict the results are considered validated. So what test invalidates any of these theories that you claim are invalid?

[Mike C]

Mike, don't forget the third type of physics, the type you are proposing;)

All kidding aside, why the distinction. Scientific theories make predictions. When we run tests to verify the predictions the ones that correctly predict the results are considered validated. So what test invalidates any of these theories that you claim are invalid?

 

Well, I do not concern myself with nuclear physics because this is the result of the fission and the fusion bombs. I think that these bombs were a big factor in the promotion of the BBT.

 

But my opinion on the Doppler RS observations is that the implications of these observations were accepted while at the same time, they were replaced by the EoS that does not have any preliminary evidence for its support.

 

Also, there is other evidence that refutes the space as the cause of the Cosmological RS.

 

That is the main reasons why I went off into a new direction.

 

As far as evidence is concerned on my opinions, I cite the current basic physics as reasons for my interpretations.

 

That is all I can say about my postings.

 

Mike C

[CraigD]

There are two forms of physics, the observed basic physics that we see and is based on the Heliocentric line of scientists up to Bohr and then the man made physics based on the BBT and the nuclear research line of particle physics.

What you say Craig, is the latter type that is not commonly spoken of.

Mike, please back up these claim with references to something other than your opinion.

 

In a couple of decades of school, including a year of teaching college physics, I never encountered references to the photon significantly different that what is described in encyclopedias such as Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica. I’m therefore deeply skeptical of your claim that this definition is “not commonly spoken of”. I'm also puzzled by your apparent suggestion that proponents of the Big Bang theory are not “heliocentric” - the heliocentric model of the solar system is AFAIK unchallenged by any credible modern science. :)

 

The idea of a quantum of light was known and widely but not universally accepted by 1901, when Planck’s famous paper “On the Law of Distribution of Energy in the Normal Spectrum” was published, and especially by 1921, when Einstein received the Nobel Prize for his famous 1905 "On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light". Its modern definition, the one presently incorporated into the Standard Model, appeared in 1924, when Bose derived Planck’s law entirely from quantum mechanics (sending the paper to Einstein, who translated it into German and saw to its publication). The term “photon” was coined in a letter by G. N. Lewis titled “The Conservation of Photons” printed in the journal Nature in 1926.

 

Interestingly, Lewis’s proposed particle is very different than the one proposed by Einstein and Bose. In short, Lewis theorized that all photons were of the same, very low energy, and that apparently higher energy photons were actually ensembles of many photons. I don’t know if the experiments he proposed to test the predictions in his letter were actually performed or other details of what became of his theory. At first glance, it appears irreconcilable with commonplace observations of Doppler shift.

[Reaper]

<Posted Today>

Anyway, I will stop this argument to maintain peace in this thread.

So I am outta here.

 

 

Mike C, don't run away from us! Klaynos, D H, YDOAPS, insane_alien, and myself have only begun to warm up! You mush finish what you started on the other site.

[Mike C]

Mike C, don't run away from us! Klaynos, D H, YDOAPS, insane_alien, and myself have only begun to warm up! You mush finish what you started on the other site.

 

Well this is a surprise. Thanks.

One thing about this site is that I am blocked from new posting and can only reply.

I intend to stay on the SF-Original since I have other new posts I can enter their.

 

Thanks again.

 

Mike C

[Jay-qu]

Just a *polite* way of us saying "finish what you started" :edepress:

 

So are you going to reply to Craig or just continue avoiding questions directed at you?

[Reaper]

Well this is a surprise. Thanks.

One thing about this site is that I am blocked from new posting and can only reply.

I intend to stay on the SF-Original since I have other new posts I can enter their.

 

Thanks again.

 

Mike C

 

 

Well, that's the thing, see. We at SFN do things a little bit differently over there, such as keeping topics like this in the "speculations" section. We will never prevent you from making new topics on that site, but that doesn't mean that you can just simply post what ever you want. I'm not going to delve into much details here, but if you intend on staying on our site you better not bore us, and you better start answering our questions properly. Or, well, some rather unpleasant things will begin to happen......

[Buffy]

Well, that's the thing, see. We at SFN do things a little bit differently over there, such as keeping topics like this in the "speculations" section.

Aw, when you've got such eloquent people like coldcreation, its hard to stuff everything that isn't the Conventional Wisdom off in the "Animal House Rush Rejects Corner"....

We will never prevent you from making new topics on that site....

Good luck with that Reap!

....but that doesn't mean that you can just simply post what ever you want. I'm not going to delve into much details here, but if you intend on staying on our site you better not bore us, and you better start answering our questions properly. Or, well, some rather unpleasant things will begin to happen......

So, Mike, be careful what you wish for! :)

 

Boring's okay here though (won't mention names... :rolleyes: ...heck boring can be very entertaining and even educational!), but annoying ain't...

 

May it be possible, that foreign hire could out of thee extract one spark of evil that might annoy my finger? :phones:

Buffy

[coldcreation]

Scientists (and others) on all sides agree there is one fundamentally scientific method capable of resolving potential controversy: explicitly, by means of comparing theory with observation. The problem is that there is not always a clear consensus as to their interpretation, especially when certain features in a theory remain hidden forever (e.g., behind an event horizon), untestable locally, or when many interpretations are available for the same observation. Even so, empirically or in priciple, a hypothesis or theory can be falsified or confirmed. Until then, Buffy is correct...

 

 

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEUWwyT8xhY&feature=related[/ame]

 

 

 

CC

[Mike C]

Well, that's the thing, see. We at SFN do things a little bit differently over there, such as keeping topics like this in the "speculations" section. We will never prevent you from making new topics on that site, but that doesn't mean that you can just simply post what ever you want. I'm not going to delve into much details here, but if you intend on staying on our site you better not bore us, and you better start answering our questions properly. Or, well, some rather unpleasant things will begin to happen......

 

When you read my posts, you will always notice a reason given for the article. I do not just dream up articles without some real reason for doing so.

I will post some other articles there that will be of interest.

 

These will also create some lively discussions, I'm sure.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

Aw, when you've got such eloquent people like coldcreation, its hard to stuff everything that isn't the Conventional Wisdom off in the "Animal House Rush Rejects Corner"....

Good luck with that Reap!

So, Mike, be careful what you wish for! :hihi:

 

Boring's okay here though (won't mention names... :rolleyes: ...heck boring can be very entertaining and even educational!), but annoying ain't...

 

May it be possible, that foreign hire could out of thee extract one spark of evil that might annoy my finger? :evil:

Buffy

 

My posts all have given reasons for what I write. My understanding of astronomy and cosmology is based on a personal library and 20+ years of discussions within local astronomy clubs and websites.

I welcome criticism as long as it is honest and without preduduce.

 

Since my posts are 'new science', I cannot cite any other sources except my own educational self study.

 

An example of establishment science is that they all seem to accept the BBT that I consider to be CosmoGONY .

 

Mike C

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

 

 

We have the standard theory being the BBT. Do we take this as a fact or do we look at the alternatives to make the model work better.

 

The question I have is this.

 

How do the parts within the Universe recycle?