Post by: DarkKnight on 06/12/2022 16:05:37
Why does the Universe require any ''bangs'' when spaces potential to conserve energy could form a quantum mainframe that was constructed of zero point conserved energy?True. TRUE.If we could accept an "edit" to the details of the Big Bang TheoryThat's like accepting an edit to 2+2=4 to 2+3=4. A simple change, but the mathematics don't work anymore. You are free to still believe that 2+3=4 because it makes you feel happy, but it isn't a valid theory. You are also utterly free to ignore where people point out where 2+3=4 doesn't work and continue asserting it, and even asking if anything is wrong with it.
That is why I hypothesize out here on the "lighter side", and I don't call my rantings a theory; they are ideas for discussion.
165953,166043,
ham.jpg (23.49 kB . 595x352 - viewed 1548 times)Food for thought Uni.jpg (16.69 kB . 365x332 - viewed 1479 times)
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 06/12/2022 19:08:44
To address that part of the issue from my layman level perspective, a Big Bang type of event seems to be a good explanation for the expansion of the observable universe.
Why does the Universe require any ''bangs'' ...
Post by: DarkKnight on 07/12/2022 12:47:38
Receding objects best explains an extension of observable space . The Hubble red shift is based on visible matter , not space. The Big Bang is somewhat an incomplete theory with several fundamental errors .To address that part of the issue from my layman level perspective, a Big Bang type of event seems to be a good explanation for the expansion of the observable universe.
Why does the Universe require any ''bangs'' ...
This misleading information unfortunately gives the student the wrong perception of physics and astronomy.
Post by: Kryptid on 08/12/2022 04:45:22
Receding objects best explains an extension of observable space .
If by "receding" you mean "moving away from us physically through space", then that is incorrect because it would require distant galaxies to travel faster than light. That is forbidden by special relativity.
The Hubble red shift is based on visible matter , not space.
It's based on the red-shifting of photons as they travel through expanding space.
The Big Bang is somewhat an incomplete theory with several fundamental errors .
Although this is technically true, what fundamental errors do you specifically think it has?
This misleading information unfortunately gives the student the wrong perception of physics and astronomy.
What's misleading?
Post by: DarkKnight on 08/12/2022 05:32:45
Although this is technically true, what fundamental errors do you specifically think it has?
The BB magically manifests a high temperature , dense state , would be my main objection . The first principle of evidence should always be in determining if the evidence is relative to the subject or the evidence has another meaning(s) . One should never automatically assume that the alledged evidence proves something to be true because evidence can be viewed in different contexts by the observer. It is important we are clear in our minds what the evidence is relative to, or this can lead to false facts entering the education system .
Reliable first principle information and reliable evidence is imperative for building a factual underlying basis of any subject. Without this first principle, any subject is open to ridicule and expression of disapproval .The reliability of proceding information that is derived from principle information , can be considered in being only as reliable as the principle information . If strict disciplines of how we view principle information is not adhered too , then again proceding information may not be factual information .
Post by: Origin on 08/12/2022 13:33:28
The BB magically manifests a high temperature , dense state , would be my main objection .I'm not sure what your objection is. There are multiple lines of reasoning to indicate the early universe was in a very hot and dense state. If your objection is that we don't know why the universe started off that way, then you are moving out of the realm of science into philosophy. For instance the science of general relativity tells us that mass warps space time. Why does mass warp space time? That is not a science question that is a philosophical question.
Post by: DarkKnight on 08/12/2022 14:41:11
There is multiple reasoning that the early universe started off in a low temperature , low density , sparse state .The BB magically manifests a high temperature , dense state , would be my main objection .I'm not sure what your objection is. There are multiple lines of reasoning to indicate the early universe was in a very hot and dense state. If your objection is that we don't know why the universe started off that way, then you are moving out of the realm of science into philosophy. For instance the science of general relativity tells us that mass warps space time. Why does mass warp space time? That is not a science question that is a philosophical question.
Space-time is a math model, perhaps you mean something else?
Post by: Kryptid on 08/12/2022 15:32:45
The BB magically manifests a high temperature , dense state , would be my main objection .
I don't see how that's magical.
The first principle of evidence should always be in determining if the evidence is relative to the subject or the evidence has another meaning(s) . One should never automatically assume that the alledged evidence proves something to be true because evidence can be viewed in different contexts by the observer. It is important we are clear in our minds what the evidence is relative to, or this can lead to false facts entering the education system .
Reliable first principle information and reliable evidence is imperative for building a factual underlying basis of any subject. Without this first principle, any subject is open to ridicule and expression of disapproval .The reliability of proceding information that is derived from principle information , can be considered in being only as reliable as the principle information . If strict disciplines of how we view principle information is not adhered too , then again proceding information may not be factual information .
I can't make sense of this. Evidence isn't a relative thing.
There is multiple reasoning that the early universe started off in a low temperature , low density , sparse state .
That doesn't mesh with the evidence.
Space-time is a math model
Space-time is an actual thing.
Post by: DarkKnight on 08/12/2022 15:40:09
Space-time is an actual thing.
Science deny the existence of any sort of aether , isn't your reply contradictive ?
Post by: Kryptid on 08/12/2022 15:40:41
Science deny the existence of any sort of aether , isn't your reply contradictive ?
Space-time isn't aether.
Post by: Origin on 08/12/2022 15:58:05
There is multiple reasoning that the early universe started off in a low temperature , low density , sparse state .Do you have a source for this idea or any evidence for this?
Post by: paul cotter on 08/12/2022 16:24:34
Post by: DarkKnight on 08/12/2022 20:09:13
Science deny the existence of any sort of aether , isn't your reply contradictive ?
Space-time isn't aether.
Then what do you suggest is curving that Origin asked about ?
Post by: DarkKnight on 08/12/2022 20:14:20
My brain is the source of this new information and physics discourse demonstrates the truth of this compared to a magically manifested dense state . The dense state could not occur without previously being a sparse, low density state .There is multiple reasoning that the early universe started off in a low temperature , low density , sparse state .Do you have a source for this idea or any evidence for this?
Ψ→A(x) is the operator that allows for all motion , including gravity and orbiting bodies within a xyzt quantum mainframe .
A(x) is also the field line and space-time ''fabric'' tensor .
Any light or bodies entering an A(x') operator space , becomes ''frozen'' in time , the wave function collapses and is conserved by the operator .
Post by: Kryptid on 08/12/2022 20:49:36
Then what do you suggest is curving that Origin asked about ?
Space-time.
My brain is the source of this new information
Ideas that a brain comes up with are only as good as the information giving to it to work with.
The dense state could not occur without previously being a sparse, low density state .
Citation needed.
Post by: DarkKnight on 08/12/2022 20:54:30
Space-time.
Space-time is a mathematical model , are you saying the only curvature that exists is one that only exists drawn on paper ?
Post by: Kryptid on 08/12/2022 21:04:31
Space-time is a mathematical model
No, it's an actual thing. I already said that before.
Post by: DarkKnight on 08/12/2022 21:06:40
Which implies a physical substance that can be curved relative to flat space . I propose this substance is conserved zero point energy that is within the x-ray range of light .Space-time is a mathematical model
No, it's an actual thing. I already said that before.
Post by: Kryptid on 08/12/2022 21:09:36
Which implies a physical substance that can be curved relative to flat space
It need not be a "substance".
I propose this substance is conserved zero point energy that is within the x-ray region of light .
If that was true, we'd all be dead because we would be constantly exposed to x-rays.
Post by: DarkKnight on 08/12/2022 21:17:19
If that was true, we'd all be dead because we would be constantly exposed to x-rays.
These are really weak x-rays with a very low density , so weak that it passes through all matter as matter moves .
In the curvature of space-time , this point energy is attracted to mass because of the A(x) operator and can be displaced to curve vectors of the space-time ''fabric'' . Of course the space-time energy has maximum inertia and can easily snap back into position once the curvature force has passed .
I can't see how science can explain space-time curvature as being an actual thing without providing the operator and physical substance .
Post by: Kryptid on 08/12/2022 21:19:04
I can't see how science can explain space-time curvature as being an actual thing without providing the operator and physical substance .
It's an actual thing because it's been detected.
Post by: DarkKnight on 08/12/2022 21:25:20
Are you referring to Ligo ? If so then yes , Ligo detected a space-time ''fabric'' wave . Note that I do not associate Ligo with a gravitational wave detection because gravity is the operator A(x) , a linear function in every direction . However , Ligo may have detected the earths EM field fluctuating , I hold my judgement .I can't see how science can explain space-time curvature as being an actual thing without providing the operator and physical substance .
It's an actual thing because it's been detected.
Post by: Kryptid on 08/12/2022 21:28:41
Are you referring to Ligo ?
Among other things, like time dilation, orbital precession and length contraction.
Note that I do not associate Ligo with a gravitational wave detection
Not surprising, given your science-denialism nature. Do you even know how LIGO works and why, exactly, those gravitational wave detection events were considered a success? General relativity made specific predictions of what a gravitational wave signature would look like. LIGO was set up to look for those specific signatures. Then it found them.
However , Ligo may have detected the earths EM field fluctuating
No, it didn't, because that's not how LIGO works.
Post by: DarkKnight on 08/12/2022 21:52:17
Ligo uses a laser doesn't it and a laser disruption was detected ?Are you referring to Ligo ?
Among other things, like time dilation, orbital precession and length contraction.Note that I do not associate Ligo with a gravitational wave detection
Not surprising, given your science-denialism nature. Do you even know how LIGO works and why, exactly, those gravitational wave detection events were considered a success? General relativity made specific predictions of what a gravitational wave signature would look like. LIGO was set up to look for those specific signatures. Then it found them.However , Ligo may have detected the earths EM field fluctuating
No, it didn't, because that's not how LIGO works.
If that is the case then other things could be viewed as the cause of disruption such as the Earths EM field . I doubt that science could of fully shielded the apparatus from bounded EM fields because the apparatus itself even has a bounded EM field .
Anyway , if you can't draw it , you don't understand it , here is my interpretation of space-time curvature .
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: Kryptid on 08/12/2022 22:57:33
Ligo uses a laser doesn't it and a laser disruption was detected ?
It's more complicated than that.
If that is the case then other things could be viewed as the cause of disruption such as the Earths EM field .
No. LIGO had two lasers placed at ninety degree angles to each other. There was a reason for that, one specific to hunting for gravitational waves. You might want to look it up.
I doubt that science could of fully shielded the apparatus from bounded EM fields
It didn't have to be. Again, look up what it had two lasers positioned the way it did.
Post by: DarkKnight on 09/12/2022 09:17:55
Ligo uses a laser doesn't it and a laser disruption was detected ?
It's more complicated than that.If that is the case then other things could be viewed as the cause of disruption such as the Earths EM field .
No. LIGO had two lasers placed at ninety degree angles to each other. There was a reason for that, one specific to hunting for gravitational waves. You might want to look it up.I doubt that science could of fully shielded the apparatus from bounded EM fields
It didn't have to be. Again, look up what it had two lasers positioned the way it did.
Quote
Figure 1. The light path through a Michelson interferometer. The two light rays with a common source combine at the half-silvered mirror to reach the detector. They may either interfere constructively (strengthening in intensity) if their light waves arrive in phase, or interfere destructively (weakening in intensity) if they arrive out of phase, depending on the exact distances between the three mirrors
I would not trust this experiment personally . I have looked it up again and it looks no better than the last time I viewed it . You have to consider the Eigenstate of the mirrors and whether this state is passive and/or reducting .