PDA

View Full Version here: : Notes about the Universe: article for discussion


Alex_R
18-02-2012, 12:15 PM
This article contrasts the theories of the Big Bang and accelerating expansion of the universe. It can also be found at the following link: http://author-point-of-view.blogspot.com/2012/02/notes-about-universe.html (http://author-point-of-view.blogspot.com/2012/02/notes-about-universe.html). Getting comments on it would be highly appreciated.

Respectfully, the author.



Introduction



In this article, a model of the universe based on two hypotheses and one interpretation is offered:


- clause about sole character and two forms of existence of everything;

- concept, alternative to Big Bang;

- elementary version of gravity


The inspiring event to start sharing reasoning on the topic happened to be reading the paragraph of work “The Accidental Universe” in Harper’s Magazine (http://harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720 (http://harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720), Dec. 2011). There, string theory was mentioned based on vibrations as specific kind of phenomenon of fluctuations. The author of present article has been encouraged by this fact as he used the very phenomenon, but in its wide meaning, in his considerations.


However, the article’s presumptions and conclusions divert from both string theory and the widespread expert theories of scientific research of the universe. In particular, they contrast the theses of the multiverse, of the accelerating expansion of the universe, and others supporting the Big Bang.


In wrapping up the introduction, the author would like to air a question, which could presumably put the legitimacy of the multiverse concept in doubt. To be precise: if there are relations between the real existence of our universe and us (people), those who think about it while belonging to it, then we should not have an opportunity to think about other universes due to our non-belonging to them.




Discussion



As the departing point, the ancient philosophical phrase that everything gets reflected in all as everything is part of all is engaged. For modeling, the material objects’ feature of having their own oscillation forms and being in various modes of oscillation in general is used as the specially conditioned reflection on the universe. Further, the universe is viewed as consisting of a universal fluctuating substance as a system.


Following are the special conditions:

1. the only possible substance, in the nature of primary energy, (there is no “dark matter”, no “dark energy”, no any other kind of substance), oscillates;

2. the primary energy (further “PrimoEnergy”) can be in two states: original and concentrated (changed);

3. material objects and phenomena are varieties of PrimoEnergy’s concentrated state for which, contrary to its original one, behavioral limitations instantaneously appear once the effect of concentration takes place;

4. oscillations of PrimoEnergy in the universe occur around particular localities (in respect to mechanical systems such places are nodal points);

5. black holes serve as nodal points for the oscillating universe;

Some of the topics that are suggested for dialog about the mentioned above:

a) explanation of the increasing speeds of cosmic objects that move apart without employing the thesis about the expanding universe and the Big Bang;

http://www.gwnastro.ca/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/cool.png scientific micro-level studies, which include the physics of weak forces, as descriptions of variable phases of PrimoEnergy’s transition from its primary into its concentrated form;


Astrophysicists’ modern observations of the cosmos propose a description of black holes as formations in which “everything, including light, disappears”. If the wording “everything disappears” is revised to “nothing happens spatially” then black holes might obviously be imagined as some nodal points of oscillations characterized by complete stillness in their vicinities.




http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZE0DUKc8fTg/Ty2a6Ol5lyI/AAAAAAAAABA/rMRlLka130Y/s320/Picture.png (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZE0DUKc8fTg/Ty2a6Ol5lyI/AAAAAAAAABA/rMRlLka130Y/s1600/Picture.png)


For a simple example, consider the system of oscillating rod. It is not difficult to notice that spatial changes do not occur in the narrowly localized regions (nodal points symbolized by fat circles on the schematic above). The marked regions, typical for mechanical systems, suit black holes’ behaviour quite well in the view that everything that gets in close proximity to their centres stands still.

In respect to scientific research, these regions have to correspond to the description of being inaccessible because astrophysicists’ observations of them are conducted via the registration of waves including light. Waves are understood herein as the limited by speed transfer of change of materialized formations’ state via original PrimoEnergy. Taking this into account, the absence of waves’ registration in the directions from black holes seems possible and natural due to the motionlessness of the latters. This is to say that black holes as regions where there are no changes should not be sources of emanation. (As another example of non-emitting objects, the clamped-style materialized entities that, according to the author’s view, are supposed to exist in the state of assumed minimal lull could probably serve. This minimal lull should be such that the clamped stuff does not have an opportunity to produce and release waves. Such formations (http://physicsworld....icle/news/48273 (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/48273)) are detected by the microlensing method and are regarded by science to be in the range of so-called “dark matter”. Besides, perhaps the given by scientific observatories pictures of deep space showing alternation of brightness-emitting and absolutely black zones (http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-16477774 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16477774)) also become comprehensible: the bright zones radiate because of active processes there, but it is impossible to register something via the waves from the black zones owing to the absence of materialized formations in them).

The even more significant fact stemming from the nature of oscillation of any system is that some of its points, for example, B and C (see same schematic above), have to always be viewed from point A as constantly moving away from each other. This is because the speed of point C is always in phase with point B and permanently exceeds point B’s speed. Such permanency in relationships is explained by the feature of oscillating movement when some zones of the system continually and in the same direction travel larger distances compared to other zones depending on their positions relative to nodal points and places of maximum amplitudes. This phenomenon, in general, clarifies why there are space objects registered from certain spot of an oscillating system (for example from planet Earth) as having augmenting speeds and at the same time constantly distancing from one another. In other words, this is not continuous distancing, but only fluctuations.

Sequentially to such an explanation, the overall statement of nonexistence of the universe’s expansion is suggested. Then, it is thought it would be logical to also say that the Big Bang did not occur: with the absence of expansion of the universe, viewed as a self-sustaining system, apparently there is no critical necessity for such an event. That is, everything, having the original PrimoEnergy for a basis, was created as permanently wavering, yet not as a result of the Big Bang. Besides, it is no longer required as well to introduce some extra terms of “dark matter” and “dark energy” types and concepts, according to which the first one is obliged to stretch the universe, but the second – to hold it together. The reason for this non-necessity lies in the uniqueness of the fluctuation feature embodying in it both the capacities of stretching and keeping motion boundaries.

When talking about oscillations of PrimoEnergy, viewed as the only substance of the universe, it should be relevant to note that many cultures during virtually all of the history of mankind had and still bear definitions similar to that of the proposed original PrimoEnergy reflected in terms like “aura”, “QI energy”, “kundalini”, and many others.

In addition to the observations, perceptions, and ideas of the preceding and modern generations, the functionality of the original substance is further offered. In practical terms, it is regarded that PrimoEnergy converts a portion of itself from original into concentrated form in the process of its global fluctuations. At the same time, the possible variations of transformation conditions, probably, determine the variety of the material world’s forms. It is envisaged that the conversion invokes the origination of properties like mass, volume, charge, and gravitation with characteristics known as the material world’s laws which determine behavioural limitations. All at once, it is regarded that the original PrimoEnergy does not obey behavioral limits, yet has to function in line with: “all is equally accessible everywhere to everything, but only until the moment when the primary substance gets changed in the process of the localized concentration of some part of its own”.

In respect to behavioral limitations, the justification of the lately presumed registration of the Higgs boson as an attempt of scientific intrusion into the initial conversion phase (where the principle of uncertainty prevails) is considered to be relevant. Sequentially, the other, progressively discovered by scientists, fundamental particles could signify the more shaped formations belonging to the following after initial one phases and taking part in creating myriads of higher-level materialized structures.

Moreover, deliberating in general terms about gravitation, the following might become one of its simplest interpretations originating from the hypothesis of the materialized entity as a concentration of something uniformly primary. If the PrimoEnergy is imagined as a flexible fabric then the process of its localization, or compression in limited localities, is regarded as leading to generating stretching within areas between the fabric’s condensed zones. Keeping in mind the above envisaging, the mysterious force that holds everything in space together could possibly be “elasticity” of PrimoEnergy.

Sequential to this proposal, materialized formations are regarded to be surrounded by the original substance being in a state of elastic pull that gets diminished the further it is from the object’s center. Given this, for example, there should be equilibriums of elastic influence within the section found to be situated in between some quite distant from each other arbitrary entities (and outside their centered zones of effective stretching). This means that a random object that happened to be at that section could move indeed without experiencing any influence until it would reach one of the elastic zones.

By analogy with fabric, it is obvious that the more PrimoEnergy is compressed the more palpable the mutual pull by the localizations gets. Similarly, the further apart the objects of local compression are, the feebler the effect of elastic stretching becomes.

Interestingly, this description seems to correspond quite well to the familiar formula:

F = G x (M1 x M2) / R2, where R – the distance between localities, M1 and M2 – measures of concentration, while G – PrimoEnergy’s elasticity.

This is cut off due to the character limit here. Please follow the link provided above for the full text.

xelasnave
19-02-2012, 10:44 AM
You made the following statement...........

When talking about oscillations of PrimoEnergy, viewed as the only substance of the universe, it should be relevant to note that many cultures during virtually all of the history of mankind had and still bear definitions similar to that of the proposed original PrimoEnergy reflected in terms like “aura”, “QI energy”, “kundalini”, and many others.

Science does not rely on hearsay.

With respect presenting your beliefs as science does little for anyone.

alex:):):)

avandonk
20-02-2012, 10:39 AM
Que?


Bert

Alex_R
20-02-2012, 10:46 AM
I entirely agree with you in terms of your Science note.

As for the article itself, well it’s not exactly scientific, yet rather simplified philosophical. That is actually why I used the conditional tense throughout. And, perhaps, that is why it might be hard to read - to combine the well-known physics/mechanics with even more known philosophical views and to present the mixture as the new approach or the new angle to look at the most significant issue for mankind - it took me lots of careful thinking and tongue twisting.

By the way, I did not dare to propose at first the full version of the article that also contained the chapter of my fancies on humans’ destiny. Yet, as I didn’t receive harsh comments so far, I dare to do so now. It can be found at the same place: http://author-point-of-view.blogspot.com/2012/02/notes-about-universe-and-life.html (http://author-point-of-view.blogspot.com/2012/02/notes-about-universe-and-life.html).

Regards

xelasnave
20-02-2012, 07:57 PM
You have an idea, presumably an original idea as far as you are aware, you have spent time upon it and everything seems to fit I suspect.

Perhaps present the idea in its simplest form.

I gather you envisage the presence of energy in the Universe and I am sure that is what science suggests so how is your idea different to where we are now?
Can you fit your idea within the laws of thermo dynamics for example???

Anyways keep at it who knows where it will lead you.

If you wish to add to the world of science or philosophy read up on what you can..black holes dark matter big bang etc etc and be aware of where science and philosophy seperate.....

you need to know what "they" know first so study hard and continue to refine your ideas guided by the rules of science and phillosophy depending on what box you wish to place your idea.

Good luck:thumbsup:.


alex:):):)

NereidT
21-02-2012, 09:33 AM
I have a question, which also serves as something of a comment.

In your document, you use terms such as "primary energy", "oscillates", and "concentrated state" (there are many more, this is just a sample). So far as I can tell, none of these terms is defined in a way that makes a connection with textbook physics (indeed, even references to contemporary cosmology and astrophysics - such as "the increasing speeds of cosmic objects" or "black holes" - are not explained, nor are any references to primary sources given).

Yet contemporary cosmology and astrophysics is inextricably linked to, and builds on, textbook physics. Today's physics is fundamentally quantitative, and has arguably been so since the time of Newton and Galileo. Words used in physics often look like ordinary, everyday words - think of "energy", "work", and "wave", for example - but they in fact differ, in many ways (of course, some physics terms have very little apparent commonality with everyday words, think of "field equation", for example). One consequence of these differences: it is not at all obvious how ideas developed in everyday English relate to physics, unless those ideas have been carefully examined, and a mapping (that may not be the best word) to textbook physics terms produced.

To over-simplify, if you'd like to develop your idea to the point where it can be discussed as a possible explanation of the billions (trillions?) of (quantitative) astronomical observations that have been published, you will need to first re-write it in the language of modern physics.

How far along are you with this re-writing?

Dave2042
21-02-2012, 10:22 AM
I'd be even more specific.

A physical theory is a set of equations relating the behaviour of defined observable quantities. Words are all very well if they are defining the observables or explaining aspects of the equations, but it's the equations and observables that constitute the theory, not the words.

Sorry to rain on the author's parade, but my quick look at this tells me that it is all just words, and consequently not a physical theory at all.

It might be worthwhile philosophy, though I doubt it. I ultimately defer to a philosopher to make that judgement, however I would observe that since the rise of modern science and in the face of the power of physical theories, philosophers tend to leave explaining how the physical world works to scientists and stick to stuff like ethics and epistemology.

Barrykgerdes
22-02-2012, 11:46 AM
There are much better theories presented in "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" and the reading is far more entertaining.

Where do we get these one post wonders with funny theories from.

Barry

bartman
22-02-2012, 12:28 PM
:lol: Barry!
:thumbsup:

avandonk
24-02-2012, 10:06 AM
From totally uneducated nutters! They are no more delusional than the religious nutters as as their beliefs are based on words of self deception put up as dogma. They are mostly based on simple circular arguments that only a moron would believe.

The words we physicists use have a totally different definition than what ordinary daily use means with exactly the same words. Here lies the real problem as it is totally due to syntax and context.

Bert