1

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Where did the energy for the big bang come from?

« on: 08/05/2017 22:47:56 »

I question the Big Bang and prefer a universe which is infinite and filled with an infinity of lesser such bangs rendering a homogenous CMBR that only appears to have been created by a single event

Why?

For several reason, one of which is honestly due to personal preference. But the better case for this position, revolves around the significant possibility that space/time is indeed flat and that position lends support to the infinite model. If that be the case, then it demands no special need for a singular big bang. The lesser case has do with my position on determinism, and as many have questioned, "What was before so what caused the Big Bang"? I prefer to take the position that in an infinite universe, there is no need for a beginning. Infinite in time, infinite in scope, and infinite in possibilities. Besides, with the choices we have, the best two are "The Big Bang" and "The Infinite Model" and I just prefer the latter.

2

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Where did the energy for the big bang come from?

« on: 08/05/2017 19:35:51 »

Calvin asked the Naked Scientists:
   Hi Chris.

I have recently discovered your show and have been enjoying your podcasts. I have a couple of closely-related questions which I have been wondering about which perhaps you can answer: (1) what existed before the big bang, and (2) where did the energy come from to set the big bang in motion?

Thanks so much for your show.

Calvin Girvin
Stephenville, Texas
What do you think?

I question the Big Bang and prefer a universe which is infinite and filled with an infinity of lesser such bangs rendering a homogenous CMBR that only appears to have been created by a single event.

                                                "Worlds without end."

3

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 08/05/2017 19:06:07 »

This is a very good page to use when playing around with the numbers.
https://rechneronline.de/spectrum/

Thanks Jeff, very good link. And you're correct, I failed to divide again by c where wavelength is (v/f). I do these calculations without the benefit of a program and often make mistakes, especially when done in haste. This link you provided should illuminate or at least reduce those mistakes so thanks again.

It would appear that I need more practice...............................

4

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 08/05/2017 17:58:35 »

I am in admiration (or perhaps it's jealousy) of your capacity for the juggling of numbers.  Adding numbers to the proportions confuses me.  How I think about proportions is a matter of shapes and moving lines doing slippy slidey stuff, where I complete all my considerations inside my head.

No need to be jealous timey, I judge your intellect to be very high indeed. And also no need to admire my juggling ability, math like many things takes practice and I just like the exercise.

Ethos - just saw your latest post.  Yes, my hypothesis does not use the Lorentz Transformations to describe light moving across space.  When I get to the stage where we are discussing the above in terms of acceleration/deceleration of gravity it will become clear why, but to say so the values of the Lorentz transformations will be needed to cross reference the alternative, and the remit of the Lorentz Transformation will be used in my model to describe the perception of time and space for m moving across space, but in a slightly altered format.   

Thanks for the "timely" reply "timey", just a little tug at humor no less, because I'll need to rest some before I can return. I really do not wish to discuss my health but I find it necessary to let you know why I may be absent for I wish not to appear in avoidance of your company. I'll return when I've regained some strength.

Hang in there my friend.....................................................

5

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 08/05/2017 16:54:00 »

Timey..........I have a thought associated with Lorentz contractions which may be of some relevance  when applied to your theory. I seem to remember you making questioning comments regarding the  accuracy of length contract at some time in the past, not sure if I'm remembering correctly about that however. At any rate, get back with me and detail what your stance is on the subject because our posture on the correctness of Lorentz contractions is vital in determining the viability of your theory. 

6

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 08/05/2017 15:34:44 »

That is the best that I could hope for and I very much appreciate your input.

Regarding the formula associated with photon energy:

Qp = hc/wavelength
Please excuse my notation, I don't have latex.
Let's use the figure (w) to represent wavelength.

Qp=hc/w

Photon energy = Planck's constant times the speed of light divided by selected wavelength.

Joules = h * c * w^-1
           = (J*s) * c * w^-1
           = (kg * m^2 /sec) * (m/sec) / (m)
           = (kg * m^2/sec^2)

For a VHF wavelength of 1 meter, just to simplify, we plug in the following values:

Qp = (6.626 E^-34 * 2.9979E^8) / 1

Photon energy of one photon at 1 meter wave length ........... (1.9864 E^-25) Joules

BTW, the (E^-25) is a simpler way of notation representing: (times 10 raised to the -25)

7

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 07/05/2017 14:45:49 »

We also need to make the maths believable.

Absolutely Colin...................I suspect the only help I can provide for timey is assistance in understanding and navigating through the math with her. This is the very reason I have asked for us to progress at a pace which will allow her to understand the math. Without the ability to grasp what the math is telling us, I think timey will fail to understand the complexity of the difficult task which stands before us. As you have noted, the math must also be believable and that believability is only achieved through the experience offered us by experiment and the confirmation we achieve when repeatability of those experiments are recorded.

8

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 07/05/2017 12:29:13 »

Remembering that f =(1/sec) and h=(kg *m^2/sec) our calculation becomes (10/sec) * (kg * m^2/sec) = 10(kg * m^2/sec^2) or 10 Joules.

I think this is what Timey is trying to do - if seconds pass at, say, twice the rate relative to our gravitational potential i.e. each is = half of our seconds, then the calculation becomes 20J (10/0.5), but, to use wavelength as the modifying factor.

Sorry for the typo, instead of the final answer being 10 Joules, my answer should have read 6.626 *10^-33 joules which I have corrected in my last post.

And yes, I think you're right about her thought on the matter. But when we construct the math to calculate these equations, we must remember that the rules of math are subject to our personal frame of reference. And for any observer, their frame will obtain accurate calculations using what they view as their familiar second, not shortened or lengthened by any measure. I'm not sure how one could mathematically overcome this and provide her with the mathematical evidence she desires.

9

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 07/05/2017 03:42:34 »

E=hf is describing the proportions of the relationship between changes of frequency in relation to Planck's h constant and results in knowing the E of the light or the mass one is calculating.

When calculating photon energy, (E=hf) is used because the photon has zero proper mass and using E=mc^2 is not applicable in that case. Knowing that the value of h is: 6.626 *10^-34 (J*s) and supposing that we have a frequency of 10 Hz we can multiply 6.626 *10^-34 by 10 resulting in 6.626 *10^-33 joules for the energy of a photon at 10 Hz frequency.

Remembering that f =(1/sec) and h=(kg *m^2/sec) our calculation becomes (10/sec) * (kg * m^2/sec) = 10(kg * m^2/sec^2) or 6.626 *10^-33Joules.

10

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 06/05/2017 23:34:37 »

Ok here you are saying that kilogram, multiplied by mass squared, divided by second squared, equals Joule

Am I to take it that because kilogram is a measure of weight and is multiplied by a value of mass in the equation, that kilogram must be a measure of g?

That assumption would be incorrect timey. The kilogram is a measure of mass and is not to be confused with a measure of weight. The notation k refers to (kilo), a thousand, and the g in this case to grams and is not referring to gravity.

The notation: (kg * m^2 * sec^-2) is the formula for the Joule. The kg in this refers to a kilogram and the m^2 denotes meters squared. And remember what I said about sec^-2. This could also be correctly written as: (Kilograms times meters squared divided by seconds squared.)

Frankly, I'm astonished that you appear to be confused by these facts. Please don't take offensive to that remark, no insult was intended.

11

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 06/05/2017 19:49:46 »

And - as  you have said, "it is true that factors can be juggled".

And BTW, the only juggling I was referring to was as following examples:

E=hf
E/h=f
E/f=h
E/hf=1

12

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 06/05/2017 18:57:59 »

I'm not sure that it can actually.  If h, being a constant, is divided by 1 second that is a constant, then E will always remain the same value.  It is the changes in frequency that are causing the value of E to differ.

Allow me to explain:

Where the Joule  = (kg * m^2 / sec^2)
and h = (kg * m^2/ sec)
if we multiply (kg * m^2/sec)
by f = (1/sec)
(kg * m^2 * sec^-1) * (sec^-1)
we arrive at (kg * m^2 * sec^-2) which equals 1 Joule

I am grateful that you will help me, and I am very sorry to hear that you are not very well.  Hope you get better soon. 

Actually timey, my health is not expected to improve but I appreciate the well wishes anyway.

13

Just Chat! / Re: Live and Learn..........

« on: 06/05/2017 18:29:51 »

After pondering the question of honesty, I am forced to make a painfully honest statement about my life: Even though I detest the liar, I have lied and will probably do it again before I die.

"I, the imperfect man."

14

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 06/05/2017 17:28:09 »

Let's start with some basics:

The formula: E=hf is a simple proportion and represents the relationship that Energy has to Planck's constant and frequency. While it is true that factors can be juggled, the individual factors; (mass, length, and time) must retain their individual integrity. Thus, all masses are calculated in kg, all lengths are calculated in meters, and all seconds are calculated in what our frame has measured as the second. The equation: (kg * m^2 * sec^-2) represents Energy of one Joule.

BTW, ........your question about (^-2) ..............allow me to elaborate.

(kg * m^2 * sec^-2) is the same as: [kg * m^2 / (sec^2)] ............it's just easier to write using ^-2.

When you see (sec^-2) it's simply means that the former figures are divided by (sec^2).

The equation: E=hf can also be written as: E=(h/sec) because frequency is (1/sec).

15

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 06/05/2017 16:38:16 »

Firstly Ethos I wish to thank you because this is exactly the type of discussion that I wish to be engaged in, where I will be learning more about the construct of mathematics no matter if my hypothesis proves to be viable or not.

I will be honored to help you timey, but I request one consideration of you to begin. I'm old and at present, very sick. Allow this discussion to proceed slowly because I'm not sure how much energy I'll be able to invest. If you would prefer, we could do this via private message or we can continue here in this thread, I'll leave it up to you.

16

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 06/05/2017 04:54:55 »

I'm sorry if I wasn't being clear enough...but in holding the gravitational shifted frequency constant by adding the necessary microseconds to the length of a second to ensure that the same number of wave cycles complete in the longer seconds of each elevation, the value by which the number of joules linearly decreases as E decreases is then due to being held relative to the longer second 'because' f is being held constant.
Therefore I think that hf can be of dimensional accuracy under the remit I propose, and this can be determined by the fact that completing the equation holding either h or f constant will result in the same value of E.

Timey,.....you can't change the value of time on one side of the equation and leave the other values for time as they were. If a kg is more or less than a kg, it's not a kg. The same goes for length and time, the equation will not be dimensionally balanced if you only change the value of time on one side.

If we rewrite the formula: (kg * m^2 *sec ^--2) = (kg * m^2 * sec^-1) * (.90 sec^-1) we have invalidated it because the value of time on one side must equal the value of time on the other.

If you are to provide evidence for your theory, you'll need to offer another equation in support of it because (E=hf) will not meet the test.

17

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 06/05/2017 00:40:19 »

E=hf, where E is the energy of the particle, h is Planck's h constant, this being a set number of joules per second, and frequency is the number of wave cycles that occur per second, where the distance between these wave cycles is known as wavelength.  The remit of the equation E=hf denotes that when f changes, E will change.

My friend, I'm not sure you understand dimensional analysis. Let's examine your simple equation: E=hf

In SI units E is measured in Joules: kg* m^2* sec^-2
In SI units h is expressed as kg * m^2 * sec^-1
and f is expressed in sec^-1

(kg * m^2 * sec^-2) = (kg * m^2 * sec^-1) * (sec^-1)

Defining this equation dimensionally correct demands that all values; kg, m, and sec, remain consistent on both sides of the equation. Allowing seconds to become shorter or longer depending upon which side of the equation they reside destroys the dimensional equivalence and undermines the accuracy of the formula.

The value of seconds must remain the same on both sides of the equation if you are to use this formula to validate your theory.

18

New Theories / Re: Does F = ma and E = mc^^2 mean F = E?

« on: 09/04/2017 15:17:19 »

It would be even more interesting to be told why our stuff actually works.

As the old saying goes: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Maybe it would be more appropriate to say: "If it isn't broke, ain't no need to fix it."

19

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 07/04/2017 23:57:13 »

Ethos - In my case this is a matter of honour not ego...
I do not have a problem if someone ridicules my posts on the basis of an informed position, but Jeff is basing his response on incorrect information that he has posted in response to my posts on his 'is there a linear vector space that can be used with gravitational fields' thread.
I never have a problem admitting my weak spots or mistakes, but I do have a problem with a person posing as an authority and ridiculing me based on an understanding of conventional physics that is incorrect.

My friend, I wasn't singling out anyone in particular.

I've been following all your threads Timey and consider you to be very knowledgeable even though you sometimes stray. But of course, we all do some of that from time to time. So please don't consider this an attack Timey, I wish to only encourage you.

I don't offer my views that often but I do like considering new thoughts our members at various times offer. And I do think you may be on to something but providing empirical evidence is going to be very difficult. You see, the problem with defining shorter or longer seconds hinges upon what you call the "standard second" and establishing this standard requires a universal point of reference. And sadly, no such universal point of reference is attainable according to current understanding.

Please don't consider this an attack my friend, I'm not here to exercise my ego. But there are a few problems you'll need to overcome if your theory is ever to succeed.

Again, I commend you on your logic and suspect you might be right. But to prove your case, you'll need to establish what you call the "universal common now", and I doubt that this is possible. And, you will also need to establish a "universal frame of reference" and that is also going to fail as well.

Do you have a thought on an experiment we could pursue that might navigate around these impediments and effectively come at your theory from a different angle?

20

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 07/04/2017 23:12:01 »

I think we would all be better served if each and everyone of us would leave our egos at the front door.................Just sayin