0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Could you please tell me what portion(s) of my theory is not plausible according to observations that form the basis of the theory of “The Big Bang“ and why?
All energy is made up of different forms of light.
Pure light, by definition is pure energy that has no wavelength or frequency and is not moving because it has no darkness to move through, before time, matter, or math exist.
...before time, matter, or math exist....The Big Bang Theory mentions a minute singularity in which all of the energy in the universe once was contained. Both are concepts that can not be mathematically theorized or scientifically perceived.
It is true that science's ability to describe the physical conditions at an infinitely dense point becomes meaningless. However it is meaningless to talk about 'before' the big bang as time is bound up with space, so time (at least in terms of our universe) only began to tick at the big bang. Efforts to avoid the infinite numbers that occur in mathematical models of black holes & the big bang are one of the major stumbling blocks in physics today, but each advance has to built on the solid foundations of proven science.
not all energy is light (even 'light' is a narrow band [visible to our eyes] of the electromagnetic spectrum). The energy that causes nuclear reactions for example is a separate 'force'. In fact there are four of these fundamental forces observed in nature:
1. Gravity - This force acts between all mass in the universe and it has infinite range.2. Electromagnetic - This acts between electrically charged particles. Electricity, magnetism, and light are all produced by this force and it also has infinite range.3. The Strong Force - This force binds neutrons and protons together in the cores of atoms and is a short range force.4. Weak Force - This causes Beta decay (the conversion of a neutron to a proton, an electron and an antineutrino) and various particles (the "strange" ones) are formed by strong interactions but decay via weak interactions (that's what's strange about "strangeness"). Like the strong force, the weak force is also short range.The weak and electromagnetic interactions have been unified under electroweak theory (Glashow, Weinberg, and Salaam were awarded the Nobel Prize for this in 1979). Grand unification theories attempt to treat both strong and electroweak interactions under the same mathematical structure; attempts to include gravitation in this picture have not yet been successful.
It is true that science's ability to describe the physical conditions at an infinitely dense point becomes meaningless. However it is meaningless to talk about 'before' the big bang as time is bound up with space, so time (at least in terms of our universe) only began to tick at the big bang.
The big bang is not a stretch of Gods imagination. If anything, it's a stretch of our own.
How can science be built on a solid foundation when there is so much ignorance involved (so many unanswered questions).
If you could let go of your bias long enough to consider what I wrote, I explained why light behaves as particle/wave.
But who says God is as what we seem to hypothesize him being? How do we know our vision of God is the correct analogy?
That said I am struggling to understand why you would, having shown your level of understanding start inventing new ways of explaining fairly everyday phenomenon. Making confused suggestions about a new reason why planets and other celestial bodies spin is not going further support for your theory. My advice is stick to the areas of physics that are still in some doubt.
You are also going to have trouble substantiating many of your statements with the current observable evidence, as:Light gravitates towards mass, not other light.
From my original postFree energy, being infinite in mass, creates the fabric of the universe through which light ( photons ) travel. This energy must be infinite in mass, so that every point in the universe intersects every point in the universe at every point in the universe, to create our hologram reality. How else would you be able to observe the entire universe from any point in the universe?
From my original postThis stretching of the free energy caused the free energy to become a weak energy. This weak energy is detected as the faint background radiation that evenly fills the entire universe.The free energy orbits the confined energy at the speed of light, producing what is observed as the electron ( cloud ) around the nucleus of atoms.What you detect as electrons, is actually the point of concentration of this free energy attracted to the confined energy. This point of concentration of the free energy appears to be weak because it is stretched throughout the universe. this energy is actually equal to the amount of confined energy it surrounds.
Science has many good foundations to build upon (within its limitations).
Can you show me where science has adequately proven why planets and black holes rotate?
I am speaking of light as defined in my theory, which includes electron clouds around atoms.
Science also is putting forth their own concepts in an attempt to answer these questions...I believe my concept makes more sense.
how did enough matter survive to create all of the matter in the universe?, and where is this missing energy ( dark energy, dark matter )?
Photons as small packets of energy spreading throughout the universe could not accomplish [transfer of information from all points in the universe].
...as [light] speeds to light speed...
Quote from: WunderingTruth on 12/11/2009 03:43:04How can science be built on a solid foundation when there is so much ignorance involved (so many unanswered questions).I would have to challenge the statement that ignorance is the same thing as having lots of unanswered questions. For a start, ignorance is implies that very little useful work can continue until a more complete understanding is not forthcoming. Be this measure our current set of physical models of nature are anything but ignorant. The fact that we can solve all sorts of technological problems and make amazingly accurate predictions of the outcomes of incredibly complex systems does not strike me as poor foundation on which to build our understanding.QuoteIf you could let go of your bias long enough to consider what I wrote, I explained why light behaves as particle/wave.My apologies. I tried not to be biased, but being short of time I did scan read your original post when answering. I now see I was too quick to assume you had not explored the current scientific research and have a fair grasp of the theories that tie our universe together.That said I am struggling to understand why you would, having shown your level of understanding start inventing new ways of explaining fairly everyday phenomenon. Making confused suggestions about a new reason why planets and other celestial bodies spin is not going further support for your theory. My advice is stick to the areas of physics that are still in some doubt.You are also going to have trouble substantiating many of your statements with the current observable evidence, as:Light gravitates towards mass, not other light.There is NO evidence that the dimensions of space are somehow 'knitted-together' "free" energy [again, sorry if I have misunderstood your ideas, but I think that's what you're saying]. Although, interestingly particle theories based on the mathematics of symmetry-breaking (superstrings, being one) do predict that particles could be the points of multi-dimensional space wrapped up tightly on themselves - sort of the inverse of your idea.Any energy that is infinite by nature (as you suggest your 'free energy' is, would be unsustainable without forming a singularity.Quote from: Mr. Scientist on 13/11/2009 09:33:58But who says God is as what we seem to hypothesize him being? How do we know our vision of God is the correct analogy?Our own vision of 'God' is what we individually understand the word to mean, no more, no less. I don't see the point in arguing over semantics. At the end of the day, if a creator is real, no human analogy is going to be correct.The one who is imagining the (imaginable?) is also the body which imagins the imaginer. But who imagines the the imaginer and the imaginee? - But who imagines Him/Her?
The one who is imagining the (imaginable?) is also the body which imagins the imaginer. But who imagines the the imaginer and the imaginee? - But who imagines Him/Her?
Quote from: Mr. Scientist on 13/11/2009 12:31:54The one who is imagining the (imaginable?) is also the body which imagins the imaginer. But who imagines the the imaginer and the imaginee? - But who imagines Him/Her?Eh? A little help? .... Anyone?
These limitations are what? Please explain.
Black hole conserve the rotation of their parent star.
Electrons are matter not light. Claiming otherwise is counter to physics
Do you want to play by the rules of 'science' or not? If your concepts make more sense than current theories can you use scientific language (ultimately including maths) to support them?
I think the maths of symmetry breaking has something to say about this too, as more matter was created during the earliest period after the big bang. I may be right in thinking neutrinos as theorised to represent much of so called dark energy. [It's a long time since I looked at this stuff though!]
Light can ONLY travel at light speed.
Going to turn this into a religious thread? []God gets a bad rep. because of Christians. If you want to find God don't Go to church. Look into the hearts of the people the world has sh1t on. You'll more than likely find God in prison in the hearts of people the world has pissed off, patiently waiting to reveal himself in his wrath against the self righteous.
Mr ScientistGod is in his own dimension where there is no time, space, or matter. He has no beginning. He has no end. Just as we as individuals dwell in our own imagination, which God created, God also dwells in his own imagination. nobody had to create God's imagination.Satan gained access to our imagination when Adam acknowledged him in disobeying God.When Jesus had a near death experience on the cross, God entered the heart of Jesus by the spirit of Elijah who had never died.When Jesus died on Masada at 80yrs old, as the last Hasmonean King of Israel, God entered the hearts of the righteous. Through the eyes of the righteous he has been observing the evil and the good.When the righteous see God, they will become like him for they will see him as he is.Quote from: WunderingTruth on 14/11/2009 12:09:09Going to turn this into a religious thread? []God gets a bad rep. because of Christians. If you want to find God don't Go to church. Look into the hearts of the people the world has sh1t on. You'll more than likely find God in prison in the hearts of people the world has pissed off, patiently waiting to reveal himself in his wrath against the self righteous. God's " Truth " is hidden within the lies.God is hiding in the darkness within the children of light.God's " Truth " is about to be revealed.There is soon to be a war between The Children of Light and The Children of Darkness.This is when Satan will be cast out of the imaginations of the righteous and into the earth. The war between Satan and his angels, and Michael and his angels takes place in the imaginations of men after " The Truth " is revealed.