The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Evolutionary cosmology  (Read 32928 times)

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #25 on: 18/05/2009 23:16:42 »
I don't think that it needs to be speculation.  The initial collapse of a rotating black hole inside its event horizon is analysable using purely classical relativistic theory and it will take some time to happen.  The mathematicians have all rushed off to the theoretical limit and said that they can't understand it without quantum gravity instead of trying to work more slowly on what they can understand even though it is very complex.

Have you considered that as a rotating body collapses its angular momentum is conserved but its rotational energy increases (without limit if you allow things to head towards a singularity) because of the release of gravitational potential energy and this could result in the creation of a lot more particles also from the point of view of the particles that are in orbit and continually accelerating towards the velocity of light time slows down so everything is likely to start looking bigger rather than smaller if you measure things by your time and the velocity of light.

This could mean that you might be able to build a universe as big as ours inside a stellar mass black hole!  Some of the inflationary cosmologies consider the possibility that the whole universe grew from something relatively small by the release of vast quantities of potential energy as it turned into particles.
« Last Edit: 18/05/2009 23:28:07 by Soul Surfer »
 

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #26 on: 19/05/2009 12:11:44 »
I have developed an intuitive model of a quantum theory of creation. It is surprisingly easy to imagine a build-up of matter before the big bang. I have been working on this picture of 'evolutionary cosmology' for over 25 years! I just don't have the expertise to create a computer simulation model. One day my genius will be recognised I'm sure. :)

btw - I couldn't access your webpage.
« Last Edit: 19/05/2009 12:15:37 by common_sense_seeker »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #27 on: 20/05/2009 21:21:27 »
There is a problem with the Big Bang that your idea may solve. We know that in the early bang, while it was getting big, it was a black hole. The problem is; how did the universe crawl out of that black hole? I guess if we are still inside the primordial black hole, the problem goes away.

But I think it brings forth many more unsolved problems. For example; theory predicts that time may reverse inside a black hole. Our time does not seem to be reversed :)
 

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #28 on: 21/05/2009 12:23:15 »
There is a problem with the Big Bang that your idea may solve. We know that in the early bang, while it was getting big, it was a black hole. The problem is; how did the universe crawl out of that black hole? I guess if we are still inside the primordial black hole, the problem goes away.

But I think it brings forth many more unsolved problems. For example; theory predicts that time may reverse inside a black hole. Our time does not seem to be reversed :)
Where is the evidence that we emerged from a black hole?? It's all based on maths which is based on Einstein's GR, which is increasingly in doubt.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #29 on: 21/05/2009 16:28:38 »
There is a problem with the Big Bang that your idea may solve. We know that in the early bang, while it was getting big, it was a black hole. The problem is; how did the universe crawl out of that black hole? I guess if we are still inside the primordial black hole, the problem goes away.

But I think it brings forth many more unsolved problems. For example; theory predicts that time may reverse inside a black hole. Our time does not seem to be reversed :)
It could be simply a matter of Energy. If there was enough kinetic energy 'inside' your imagined 'black hole' then the black hole could still have expanded into a non-black-hole. Most of what we say about black holes involves their formation from 'conventional' material falling in whereas the BB was a non standard situation.
Until you know the quantities involved, you can't say. You could, of course, say that the quantities must have been appropriate for it to have happened. We're here now, so it must have been that way
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #30 on: 25/05/2009 13:00:57 »
Where is the evidence that we emerged from a black hole?? It's all based on maths which is based on Einstein's GR, which is increasingly in doubt.
We do not seem to enjoy the conditions that we think would prevail if we were inside the event horizon of a black hole. So I'm guessing we are not inside, so we must have escaped.
« Last Edit: 25/05/2009 13:02:48 by Vern »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #31 on: 25/05/2009 13:08:38 »
Quote from: sophiecentaur
It could be simply a matter of Energy. If there was enough kinetic energy 'inside' your imagined 'black hole' then the black hole could still have expanded into a non-black-hole. Most of what we say about black holes involves their formation from 'conventional' material falling in whereas the BB was a non standard situation.
You have found the key. :) The BB was a non-standard situation. It didn't follow our standard rules of nature.
 

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #32 on: 11/06/2009 13:33:46 »
Quote from: sophiecentaur
It could be simply a matter of Energy. If there was enough kinetic energy 'inside' your imagined 'black hole' then the black hole could still have expanded into a non-black-hole. Most of what we say about black holes involves their formation from 'conventional' material falling in whereas the BB was a non standard situation.
You have found the key. :) The BB was a non-standard situation. It didn't follow our standard rules of nature.
Why couldn't there be a build-up of matter BEFORE the big bang? (There is no need to imagine black holes in the creation process)
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #33 on: 11/06/2009 13:54:31 »
Then we would have to build a new big bang theory. The current one has space and time beginning with the event. The concept does not make sense within the presently understood rules of nature. The new big bang theory would probably not make sense within the same constraints also. :)
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #34 on: 11/06/2009 15:34:35 »
Why couldn't there be a build-up of matter BEFORE the big bang? (There is no need to imagine black holes in the creation process)
[/quote]

  The big bang is a condition in which our entire universe is reduced to a planar surface of electrical charges. No mass exists at that time. Once a minimum radius is reached, the surface explodes and in the process produces the galaxies. Over time the galaxies will disintegrate and the charges will reform . They will contract again in the future and the next big bang will reoccur.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #35 on: 11/06/2009 16:10:05 »
If there were a build up of stuff before the big bang, that would not conform to the theory of the Primeval Atom that is the foundation of the big bang theory. So it would be a different theory. And when you are investigating a theory and you see that it does not match what has come before, you can't know what all does not match. Is it just the one exception, or are there many others?
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #36 on: 11/06/2009 17:29:55 »
Why couldn't there be a build-up of matter BEFORE the big bang? (There is no need to imagine black holes in the creation process)

  The big bang is a condition in which our entire universe is reduced to a planar surface of electrical charges. No mass exists at that time. Once a minimum radius is reached, the surface explodes and in the process produces the galaxies. Over time the galaxies will disintegrate and the charges will reform . They will contract again in the future and the next big bang will reoccur.
I think this is the way you wanted your post to come out:)
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #37 on: 11/06/2009 21:34:38 »
Then we would have to build a new big bang theory. The current one has space and time beginning with the event. The concept does not make sense within the presently understood rules of nature. The new big bang theory would probably not make sense within the same constraints also. :)

In my multi-lightspeed model, space and time existed prior to the big bang and after the big bang. The highest light speed universes are not effected by our big bang or the big bang of the lower light speed universes.
  the simultaneous explosion of all the lower light speed universes from light speed zero up to our light speed, enlarges our surface plane faster than the speed of light. Thus for awhile our entire light speed C universe is pushed by the interaction with the lower universes.
  As we move outward from the common center we reach a light speed in which at very high light speeds, the universes will not form protons and neutrons and electrons.
   All we have are photonic dot-waves which form intelligence systems independent of the big bangs.
   The big bangs destroy the intelligence of the lower universes. However intelligence from the higher universes coexist and flow into our forming universe. Therefore the life processes are all pre-ordained. Man will appear everywhere life is possible because the structure of man exists in the total intelligence of the multi-lightspeed universe.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #38 on: 11/06/2009 21:40:35 »
If there were a build up of stuff before the big bang, that would not conform to the theory of the Primeval Atom that is the foundation of the big bang theory. So it would be a different theory. And when you are investigating a theory and you see that it does not match what has come before, you can't know what all does not match. Is it just the one exception, or are there many others?

I am not sure who this response applies to.  If it is me then I have my own variation of the BB theory. In fact many different variations. In all cases however it is a multi-lightspeed big bang theory.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #39 on: 11/06/2009 21:46:32 »
If there were a build up of stuff before the big bang, that would not conform to the theory of the Primeval Atom that is the foundation of the big bang theory. So it would be a different theory. And when you are investigating a theory and you see that it does not match what has come before, you can't know what all does not match. Is it just the one exception, or are there many others?
I am not sure who this response applies to.  If it is me then I have my own variation of the BB theory. In fact many different variations. In all cases however it is a multi-lightspeed big bang theory.
Maybe you should rename it to multibang or something. :) Hawking would probably not recognize it.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #40 on: 11/06/2009 21:58:05 »
Maybe you should rename it to multibang or something. :) Hawking would probably not recognize it.

That sounds good. Many scientist do not recognize the possibility of higher intelligence in the universe. Religious people call it God. I believe in a spiritual driving creative force. Relating this spiritual driving force to religion is difficult. It is hard enough trying to understand the science of the universe. At least we have some measurement data to work with.
   I have to give up attempting to relate the religions of man to this spiritual driving force. The biggest problem is that the interactions with the driving force today is no different than thousands of years ago.
  We make holy the people of old. But their interactions then are the same as today. The only thing different is that we have become more educated.
  Yet in all honesty I cannot negate the entire light speed spectrum because it does explain a spiritual driving force which molds the life forces and in turn produces us. Who cares what Hawkings has to say on that matter!
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #41 on: 11/06/2009 23:28:48 »
I only mention Hawking because he has probably studied the big bang theory more than any other physicist. I see some signals from Hawking that he is distancing himself from Quantum Theory lately. He is predicting that the Higgs boson will not be found and suspects that it does not exist. I also suspect that it does not exist, but this probably won't prevent something being found and claimed to be the Higgs.

As far as spirits go; I like the kind that come in liquid measurements :) I suspect that there is no special attribute to humanity that enables it to any higher standing than a fruit fly. I do puzzle over what is self awareness and wonder if it is possible that a machine might one day be endowed with it.
« Last Edit: 11/06/2009 23:33:30 by Vern »
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #42 on: 12/06/2009 02:02:53 »
I only mention Hawking because he has probably studied the big bang theory more than any other physicist. I see some signals from Hawking that he is distancing himself from Quantum Theory lately. He is predicting that the Higgs boson will not be found and suspects that it does not exist. I also suspect that it does not exist, but this probably won't prevent something being found and claimed to be the Higgs.

As far as spirits go; I like the kind that come in liquid measurements :) I suspect that there is no special attribute to humanity that enables it to any higher standing than a fruit fly. I do puzzle over what is self awareness and wonder if it is possible that a machine might one day be endowed with it.

I have just been reading Quantum theory lately. I like some of the concepts. Between Bohr and Plank we have some good thoughts. The Q/3 charges I like because it enables me to split the electron into 3 parts in the neutron. Therefore I am able to calculate the magnetic moment of the neutron easily.
  As far as the Higgs blosom, I agree that they are going the wrong way. The lowest quanta has to be the dot-wave or the minimun charge/mass in the universe. In order to get a magnetic and electric field you must subdivide the charge to almost nothing.

  It is interesting to me that my high energy dot-wave has the wavelength of the normal AM broadband radio. It is interesting that  the radio stations indicate a level of electromagnetic photonic radiation.
   Longer waves come from smaller quanta of dot-waves.
 

Ethos

  • Guest
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #43 on: 12/06/2009 02:36:46 »
I do puzzle over what is self awareness and wonder if it is possible that a machine might one day be endowed with it.
I remember reading a few years ago about one of America's premier computer scientists making the remark that a future self aware computer was a forgone conclusion. His next statement was revealing; "The consequences of that probability scares me to death". Sorry, I don't remember his name.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #44 on: 12/06/2009 12:25:14 »
Quote from: Ethos
"The consequences of that probability scares me to death". Sorry, I don't remember his name.
Yeah; it scares me too. The mechanical dudes may decide that living things are polluting the universe.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #45 on: 12/06/2009 12:38:01 »
Quote from: jerrygg38
The Q/3 charges I like because it enables me to split the electron into 3 parts in the neutron. Therefore I am able to calculate the magnetic moment of the neutron easily.
The main reason I don't like the Q/3 concept is that there is no possible way to get that charge number out of a closed loop if you consider that the fine-structure constant is the ratio of the circumference to the charge. It must be in units of electron charge when seen at any distance away that is greater than the electron's radius.

Give this up and we lose the source of the nuclear forces.

Edit: For example, one closed loop gives you 1/3 charge; another gives you 2/3 charge. There is no way to do that and tie in the fine structure constant as the ratio of charge to bend radius. In fact, there is no way to tie in the fine structure constant at all.

And we also lose the concept of why it is that charge is quantized in units of electron charge.
« Last Edit: 12/06/2009 13:15:25 by Vern »
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #46 on: 12/06/2009 14:01:57 »
Quote from: jerrygg38
The Q/3 charges I like because it enables me to split the electron into 3 parts in the neutron. Therefore I am able to calculate the magnetic moment of the neutron easily.
The main reason I don't like the Q/3 concept is that there is no possible way to get that charge number out of a closed loop if you consider that the fine-structure constant is the ratio of the circumference to the charge. It must be in units of electron charge when seen at any distance away that is greater than the electron's radius.

Give this up and we lose the source of the nuclear forces.

Edit: For example, one closed loop gives you 1/3 charge; another gives you 2/3 charge. There is no way to do that and tie in the fine structure constant as the ratio of charge to bend radius. In fact, there is no way to tie in the fine structure constant at all.

And we also lose the concept of why it is that charge is quantized in units of electron charge.

My find structure constant tells me that the electron spins around the proton 137 times per cycle. At the same time it moves perpendicular as 274 half sine waves.
  Therefore

  Fine constant inverse = 137/Cosine(360/274) = 137.036

  As far as the nuclear force, we must return to Planks equations.
  The dot-waves oscillate from the plank radius to the proton radius. The oscillation is of the form of a logarithmic spiral. This becomes important at thePlank radius and not the proton radius.
  The dot-waves are tied together in this spiral. As we look at Planks equations we find that he sees charges of 11.706Q. I only see half that amount.
  In any event the proton's quarks (high energy quarks) all join together at the Plank radius. The forces are

  G M M/ Rplank^2 = M V^2 / R

  At the plank radius, the graviational force is huge. Thus the dot-waves or heavy quarks are held together by tremendous gravitational forces.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #47 on: 12/06/2009 14:07:13 »
PS to Vern:
  As far as the quantization of the charge into Q is concerned, Planks Equations have 11.706238Q. Just study his equations a little bit. They are on the Internet. There is nothing fancy about Q. I suspect that the charge of the electron and proton is on the average Q. However each electron and proton will have a distribution of charge around that value. Thus we only know that the average charge of an electron is Q.
  Quantum mechanics is in error when they specify that the charge Q is the lowest charge in the Universe. They do not subdivide the electron.
   However the charges within the photon must be very tiny amounts of Q.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #48 on: 12/06/2009 14:14:04 »
I like to consider the charge of an electron as originating at the electron's circumference. Then any smaller circumference must have a correspondingly greater charge amplitude at its surface. Take the circumference down until you get the value of the strong nuclear interaction, and you have the inner shells of the proton.

That is one of the ways to get to the shell sizes. Another way is the square of the shells.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #49 on: 12/06/2009 14:36:44 »
I like to consider the charge of an electron as originating at the electron's circumference. Then any smaller circumference must have a correspondingly greater charge amplitude at its surface. Take the circumference down until you get the value of the strong nuclear interaction, and you have the inner shells of the proton.
That is one of the ways to get to the shell sizes. Another way is the square of the shells.

 Ok.Then you use the inverse square law to calculate the force between shells. Right? I will have to study your work.

  My bipolar dot-waves could be turned into spherical planes. Thus an alternative to my oscillating dot-waves from the Plank radius to the Proton radius would be planes of dot-waves each oscillating from a particular radius to a differential radius.

  In effect an alternative to my theory in which all the dot-waves mix at the plank radius is your theory of shells.  I will have to study that because my bipolar dot-waves can make shells. The plus and minus are still in different universes but they can form shells. Alternatively in accordance with my net charge due to negative dot-waves, we can place pure negative shells in between bipolar shells.

  Therefore your structure which I now understand what you mean is applicable to my dot-wave theory. If it is a good possibility, then if I send any work out, I will have to add your name as the author of this shell theory. Are you the originator alone?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #49 on: 12/06/2009 14:36:44 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length