0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

As for Cern?Depends on if you're right, right And even if you are, you can't 'know' for sure.What about the hard radiation they use as a proof for black holes being unable to form?I'm still trying to see this one You've had some time working it through, I need it too )And thinking of it, if you are right we should find black holes rather alone?Or put it as this, if they gets created in a system of a lot of stars the 'force' is attractive.But if we find one alone, then maybe?They should be very 'small' if so as they will repulse before attract?But I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the idea, and it would most probably not constitute a 'proof'

I see from one of your posts that you believe in a static universe. Does that mean you don't trust the interpretation that distances are increasing between galaxies?

Ive been thinking a little about your idea about matter being a reduction. Maybe you can relate it to indeterminacy. Imagine that first BB, without a point, just that 'energy'. And that energy is a pressure, and a pressure should be a temperature sooner or later. A temperature though needs a 'space' to exist in as it is consisting of the 'energy' of rest mass 'jiggling' and interacting. That would place temperature as a secondary phenomena, with pressure (as we get a 'space' from it) as the first principle.So pressure, does it need a space? Can you imagine a pressure without? Or does that follow directly from the emergence of a pressure. But 'energy' then, that 'energy' that we expect to exist before that 'space' came to be? And there we can look at QM:s interpretation of the 'vacuum energy' or 'zero point energy'. You can expect it to exist in every 'empty' point of space. A space that is observer defined, not defined as an absolute. And in we have indeterminacy, that something that we extrapolate into outcomes, gaining a arrow in those rare circumstances it express itself. So is 'space' of a earlier order than matter, containing what made matter? It seems so to me?==Take 'earlier' with a big pinch of salt here, you can imagine a 'empty space' at least two ways. Assume a Black hole cleaning out a 'space' of all mass. As the BH is a singularity it does not fit the physics we use, our physics end at the event horizon, the rest pure theory, Or you can assume a 'space' with 'gravity' as a result of that 'energy' pressuring on some boundaries. Or, you might assume that 'space' doesn't need a metric (gravity) to exist, even though it to me then becomes a dimension less point. What I mean by 'dimension less point' here is that I expect it to be unmeasurable practically. and what I can't measure isn't 'there' classically, although you theoretically can give it any 'dimensions' you want, excluding the arrow. Also that has to do with how I expect a existing point inside SpaceTime to exist, it should as soon as it is in a arrow be 'four dimensional'.There are probably more ways.=And we have a problem with the arrow here, if I assume a 'empty space' is that enough for a arrow?Maybe if the space is ? one dimensional, nah, at least two dimensions is needed. One for the arrow, the other for ?? Whatever you want to define it as. Strings, loops etc. Or you include 'gravity' in which case you need a 'four dimensional space', as I do. Maybe you can assume the dimensions to fluctuate at 'different points' though, remember that distance is a meaningless concept at the origin, meaning that there are different combinations with the one we see being a 'semi stable' four dimensional continuum, including the arrow. But all of them should need the equivalent of a arrow to 'grow', as a guess. Without the arrow we're back to indeterminacy.

clip"A black hole, although denser than a neutron star, doesn't have an equivalent anti-particle form."

If you are a mathematical physicist, you might be horrified at my lack of formalism, so instead allow me to pose some questions to the readership at large (but feel free to pipe in of course!). It might be helpful if you are familiar with some simple calculus and vector analysis. You can find my derivation at http://vixra.org/abs/1203.0025 [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register] (arxiv rejected it).

Ok, I've read some of it. One equation at least so far seems to appear to be wrong.First of all, your dimensions here are suspicious. rho = E/V = 1/V sum 1/2 hbar omegaDoes this place use tex?Anyway, rho isM/V You have equalled this to Mc^2/V. Also, what was you motive for moving V outside the summation with a 1 over it? That effectively removed the volume from your equations. For instance, imagine I hadA = partial^2 psi/partial x^2and B = e^-ikx e^i omega ThusA = -sum 2m omega a*(k) BIt is customary to remove the 2m, and by doing this one does1/2m A = -sum omega a*(k)Just a quibble so far. I haven't seen that equation before in the context you have given it. the rest of the oscillator equation seems familiar.

"I am trying to boil some things down to simplicity but could easily run into some logical errors in my thinking." Nothing wrong in that. If you can make it follow logically in words there's a greater chance that your math has something to say too. As long as we expect the universe to follow a logic of some sort, 'emergence', non-linear or/and linear.If it doesn't all math can be questioned.Good point.==Rereading myself.Hmm, I wrote "Maybe if the space is ? one dimensional, nah, at least two dimensions is needed. One for the arrow, the other for ?? Whatever you want to define it as. Strings, loops etc."Why I find it hard to see it as one dimensional is that it 'jiggles', and is under tension. Both tension and jiggling presumes an arrow to do in as I see it, if you don't want the arrow to come out of the very fact that 'tension/jiggling' comes to be?But that seems to me as me lifting myself by my hair, if you see what I mean? Not logically following, if I don't presume an 'emergence' for both the arrow and the tension. But where would that 'emergence' build up? In what?0uch, string theory is hard to follow.My eyes glaze over, are you able to follow some of it?==There is one possibility more naturally, but then we're back to 'two dimensions', assuming that 'the arrow' and 'time' are two concepts, where the arrow rests in 'time'. That would make 'time' hidden to us, but allowing what we see to be 'one-dimensional'. ( And every time I wonder over that one, I end up wondering about indeterminacy

I expect this thread to grow organically And yes Mike, I wondered about that too, but??Lets pick Messengers ideas apart (ahem:) first, and see where it goes ==" If the metric is a property of space-time, and the positive energy of space-time has a positive pressure, but in order for any structures to exist within that energy they must be a decrease. Therefore, those structures would see themselves as having positive energy and positive pressure, but from the point of view of the space-time they are a decrease in energy within that positive pressure. "What you are referring to here is the notion in QM that 'space' isn't the lowest state of 'oscillation', as an assumption, Space becoming something of a 'Mexican hat' according to Brian Greene (if I remember right). And you turn it around suggesting that we, to 'space' would contain a lower state of 'energy'?----Ah! Nice visual, yes!--- Or maybe I could see it as that this concept would be wrong too, possibly? But "researchers in quantum optics have created special states of fields in which destructive quantum interference suppresses the vacuum fluctuations. These so-called squeezed vacuum states involve negative energy. More precisely, they are associated with regions of alternating positive and negative energy."And Negative Energy: From Theory to Lab. [nofollow]

Right, I checked the link. It appears to be the sixth equation in your reference. I am still a bit confused, never -- not once have I seen a density be described as [1]rather you always see it as [2]Which would mean this is not a usual density? Which still doesn't add up... for me at least. If equation 2 has dimensions of density, then equation 1 cannot? No, is there something I am missing? Am I being stupid here?

Ok I have a new criticism. You say that on page 5 that the equation of state has for a single dimension. What you really meant is that accounts for the three dimensions of space? Fair, or did I mix you up. Is this really what you meant?

Yea, that would read the density expressed in three dimensions.