[peppercorn]

I did know of a chap who claimed to be a theoretical botanist, but I think that was just a line he used to chat-up ladies.

 [] [] I bet that worked like a charm!


Ron, what do you mean by outside the universe?

[JP]

My business card reads,

Dr. JP
Defender of the Orthodoxy

[Ron Hughes]

Ok pepper, our electrons have a diameter something like vern's. The electrons that could have created our Universe are trillions of times larger than our Universe. Our Universe is part of this other Universe except our clocks run trillions and trillions of times faster than their clocks. Universes created by our electrons or protons would have clocks that run trillions( a googolplex ) of times faster than ours.

jp, the mainstream claims the Universe has no center because space and time were created at the BB therefore nothing could exist outside our space/time.

[JP]

jp, the mainstream claims the Universe has no center because space and time were created at the BB therefore nothing could exist outside our space/time.

But that's just what I keep telling you isn't true.  Mainstream physical theories (unless you consider string theory or other theories-of-everything mainstream) describe things within our universe.  They don't try to describe what might or might not exist outside of it. 

You're attacking a straw man here.

[Ron Hughes]

Whatever jp, who cares. It's not pertinent to the issue.

[JP]

It's part of your argument against "mainstream" science, even if it's not the main point.  How is it not pertinent that it's fallacious?  []

[Geezer]

Whatever jp, who cares. It's not pertinent to the issue.

Ron,

I'd remind you that you raised the point. If it's not pertinent, why did you even raise it in the first place?

[SuperPrincipia]

Ron Hughes, I really appreciate you staying focused on the topic. You have asked a very good question, however,  I am not aware of anyone that can answer this with definite answers. But just for fun, I will be brief, and even now I am hesitant to post. I have written a book on "The General Theory of Relativity" and General Relativity addresses the "Big Bang" model to some degree. Now in my book I chose only to focus on what we can calculate based on current models of cosmology and what we are measuring with the WMAP experiments. And these calculations do not address what happened before the big bang or even right after the big bang.

The mainstream has theorized that time and space began at the BB. That assumes nothing exists outside our Universe. Since we know nothing about where the energy came from to create our Universe, and it had to come from someplace, we can't claim to know anything past the fact that something supplied that energy. Since we know that certain collisions of EM creates matter why wouldn't we think the energy was electromagnetic in nature?

Mainstream uses an inflationary model proposed by Alan Guth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology [nofollow])
And even in the inflationary model we can only go back so far; and can't go all the way back to the origin of the beginning. With our mathematical models we can go back to ~10^-43 seconds. Earlier than this there is currently no math model. We can theorize what happened before this time, but it would only be a theory, because mathematically we can't go back further than the ~10^-43 seconds.

Ok pepper, our electrons have a diameter something like vern's. The electrons that could have created our Universe are trillions of times larger than our Universe.

That which I call the Vernon Brown Electromagnetic Radius does predict that the electron spatially is very large relative to the spatial size or Electromagnetic Radius of the proton. However, mainstream models predict that these particles were created very much later in time than the big bang. The universe would have to have cooled down after the big bang for Leptons and Hadrons to form.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang [nofollow]


Theoretical picture of when Leptons and Hadrons formed
http://www.southernmaineastronomers.org/Images/meetingPhotos/BigBang.jpg [nofollow]

Theoretical picture of when galaxies formed
http://firstgalaxies.ucolick.org/timeline.html [nofollow]

I am no expert in early big theory, but in my book the equations are there, that open the door for new ways of thinking about these concepts and making the calculations!

Best to you, and once again thanks for keeping a perspective for topic.

[Geezer]

Enough already.

The next poster who uses "mainstream" as a pejorative directed at those who happen to disagree with their pet theory, or who is using TNS as an opportunity for free publicity for some commercial venture (e.g. a book) will, at the very least, cause this topic to be locked.

If you have a theory that you can support with some evidence, please post it.

Fair warning.

[SuperPrincipia]

Geezer, Jealousy is not becoming!

[Geezer]

You're right. Verdigris is nasty stuff.

[Ron Hughes]

Wow, how impressive. I'm quite certain that I can shout about the virtues of the standard model anyplace on this forum. The standard model a THEORY that had to invent the Higgs, graviton and virtual particles in order to make itself acceptable. A THEORY that doesn't have a clue as to what makes up the electron. A Theory that can't explain mass, or gravity or inertia. You can kick me out geezer because if we can't discuss alternative ideas then I don't need to be associated with this forum anyway. The truth is not here nor will it ever be.

[Geezer]

Ron,

I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm all for exploring alternative models because I think we still have an enormous amount to learn.

I just don't think it's in any way productive to disparage the work of those who have gone before by trying to put them in a box with  prejudicial connotations. A new theory should not be established on the failing of a prior theory. It should be established on its own merits.

Personally, I happen to believe that all matter is a manifestation of energy that is somehow encapsulated in space (which may not be very different from String Theory), but, as I'm not capable of proving any of that, I can only hope that others with the right skills will unravel the problem.

Shout at the establishment if you must, but you might find it more satisfactory to collaborate - just my opinion.

However, TNS does have some rules. Please try to abide by them.

[imatfaal]

Ron - the standard model did predict various quarks and the τ-neutrino - all of which have been experimentally verified.  the standard model is not a single theory - but a group of theories, some more tenuous than others.  proof of one theory by disparaging another is no proof at all. 

[Ron Hughes]

You a right but using that success to tell me I'm wrong is also not proof.