- Thank you received: 0
Big Bang and Alternatives
19 years 2 months ago #14293
by Thomas
Replied by Thomas on topic Reply from Thomas Smid
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Cindy</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Thomas</i>
What gravity? In a homogeneous universe the mass distribution is the same in all directions and the force of gravity cancels to zero overall.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Hi Thomas,
I thought that the amount of material in the universe is finite. Therefore, the universe has a border. In the border regions, gravity does not cancel to zero.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
First of all (as already mentioned by me in the first post on this page), the model of a finite universe is conceptually flawed as it would contradict the definition of a universe (it would be merely an object in some hypothetical 'hyper-universe').
Secondly, even in the Big-Bang theory, the universe has no borders despite being finite. Naively, with this model our universe is being compared to the surface of a balloon for instance, with all its mass distributed on this surface. Now, if you have a homogeneous mass distribution on this surface, then again all gravitational forces acting on this surface should vanish (the BB theory mistakenly assumes that gravity would actually be acting through the sphere formed by the balloon rather than on its surface).
www.physicsmyths.org.uk
www.plasmaphysics.org.uk
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Thomas</i>
What gravity? In a homogeneous universe the mass distribution is the same in all directions and the force of gravity cancels to zero overall.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Hi Thomas,
I thought that the amount of material in the universe is finite. Therefore, the universe has a border. In the border regions, gravity does not cancel to zero.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
First of all (as already mentioned by me in the first post on this page), the model of a finite universe is conceptually flawed as it would contradict the definition of a universe (it would be merely an object in some hypothetical 'hyper-universe').
Secondly, even in the Big-Bang theory, the universe has no borders despite being finite. Naively, with this model our universe is being compared to the surface of a balloon for instance, with all its mass distributed on this surface. Now, if you have a homogeneous mass distribution on this surface, then again all gravitational forces acting on this surface should vanish (the BB theory mistakenly assumes that gravity would actually be acting through the sphere formed by the balloon rather than on its surface).
www.physicsmyths.org.uk
www.plasmaphysics.org.uk
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Larry Burford
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
19 years 2 months ago #12679
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
[john hunter] "There is another explanation of the redshift - a gradual changing in Plancks constant"
Ah Ha. Planck's variable.
Ah Ha. Planck's variable.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- john hunter
- Offline
- New Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
19 years 1 month ago #12791
by john hunter
Replied by john hunter on topic Reply from john hunter
"Re; changing Plancks constant"
Ah Ha. Planck's variable.
[/quote]
Dear LB - Plancks constant could be changing in such a way that the variation isn't noticeable (apart from the redshift) so it appears constant.
This could happen if all other physical constants vary too. This explanation of the redshift (called rescaling) is actually very simple - and leads to a natural understanding of the cause of gravity.
Details in www.gravity.uk.com cosmological constant section.
J. Hunter.
Ah Ha. Planck's variable.
[/quote]
Dear LB - Plancks constant could be changing in such a way that the variation isn't noticeable (apart from the redshift) so it appears constant.
This could happen if all other physical constants vary too. This explanation of the redshift (called rescaling) is actually very simple - and leads to a natural understanding of the cause of gravity.
Details in www.gravity.uk.com cosmological constant section.
J. Hunter.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 1 month ago #12794
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
Planck's Constant is far more complex and tricky than you guys know because the time element is changable and not at all constant. The way the time element is treated by everyone is a clear mistake to me and if you use Planck's Constant you should at least consider how time effects the result. No one does so no one gets the right answer.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- cosmicsurfer
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
19 years 1 month ago #12795
by cosmicsurfer
Replied by cosmicsurfer on topic Reply from John Rickey
First copy of double post deleted at request of cosmicsurfer.
LB
LB
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- cosmicsurfer
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
19 years 1 month ago #12796
by cosmicsurfer
Replied by cosmicsurfer on topic Reply from John Rickey
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by cosmicsurfer</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Thomas</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Cindy</i>
If BB is not a right answer, then what is preventing galaxies from getting closer [to] each other under effect of gavity ?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
A repulsive force...
"What gravity? In a homogeneous universe the mass distribution is the same in all directions and the force of gravity cancels to zero overall."
www.physicsmyths.org.uk
www.plasmaphysics.org.uk
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Here is a great picture taken from Hubble of the furthest galaxy known:
**** link removed by managment for security reasons *********
"Hubble finds most distant galaxy
Last Updated Mon, 16 Feb 2004 19:01:56
SEATTLE - Scientists have found a far off galaxy they say is the farthest known object from Earth.
It took about 13 billion years for the galaxy's light to reach Earth. The galaxy first emitted the light when the universe was 750 million years old, astronomers said.
The new object appears as two thin red streaks inside the circled area (Image by Jean-Paul Kneib, Richard Ellis and NASA/ESA)
The international team discovered the distant galaxy thanks to the high resolution of the Hubble Space Telescope. Observations from W. M. Keck Telescopes in Hawaii confirmed the findings."
**** link removed by managment for security reasons *********
"Cosmological inflation: Starobinsky (1981)Inflation Inflation ËËANTIGRAVITATION Guth (1981)in inflation energy is positive and pressure is negative. Gravitational force becomes repulsive at distances comparable to the horizon. Horizon is the distance at which space--time becomes curved space-time in inflation. beyond the horizon observers receed at a supersuper--luminal speed(lightcones are `tiltedL)vacuum fluctuations get amplified in inflation."
66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=gal...ULnZY&icp=1&.intl=us
"Mass Shielding
In Newton's gravitation, density is always finite inside a spherical mass M but is taken to be zero outside M. This is another way of saying that M is a constant. Brillouin, however, shows that the field E of mass M always has a negative mass so that when seen from a distance, apparent mass MA is the sum of its actual mass M and negative field mass Mf...."
www.coolissues.com:8080/gravitation/Relativistic/ncosm2.htm
A picture tells a thousand words. Yet we cannot step back far enough to see what is really going on. It might be that the entire viewplane is part of a huge arm to a superuniverse. But, we only see the light traveling through a medium of space at a constant speed (light cones TILT and FTL, OR does light slow down?)for 13 billion years that shows a balanced view of many galactic clusters. Now, if the universe has rotation which I believe that it does [because at all scales you find rotation due to positive and negative reverse spin from 4d time +- interactions] then a field of resonant energy would envelope the entire universe. Our universe is not infinite in size or dimension, but most likely it always existed as a homogenous structure of a greater multi-dimensional universe.
John
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Thomas</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Cindy</i>
If BB is not a right answer, then what is preventing galaxies from getting closer [to] each other under effect of gavity ?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
A repulsive force...
"What gravity? In a homogeneous universe the mass distribution is the same in all directions and the force of gravity cancels to zero overall."
www.physicsmyths.org.uk
www.plasmaphysics.org.uk
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Here is a great picture taken from Hubble of the furthest galaxy known:
**** link removed by managment for security reasons *********
"Hubble finds most distant galaxy
Last Updated Mon, 16 Feb 2004 19:01:56
SEATTLE - Scientists have found a far off galaxy they say is the farthest known object from Earth.
It took about 13 billion years for the galaxy's light to reach Earth. The galaxy first emitted the light when the universe was 750 million years old, astronomers said.
The new object appears as two thin red streaks inside the circled area (Image by Jean-Paul Kneib, Richard Ellis and NASA/ESA)
The international team discovered the distant galaxy thanks to the high resolution of the Hubble Space Telescope. Observations from W. M. Keck Telescopes in Hawaii confirmed the findings."
**** link removed by managment for security reasons *********
"Cosmological inflation: Starobinsky (1981)Inflation Inflation ËËANTIGRAVITATION Guth (1981)in inflation energy is positive and pressure is negative. Gravitational force becomes repulsive at distances comparable to the horizon. Horizon is the distance at which space--time becomes curved space-time in inflation. beyond the horizon observers receed at a supersuper--luminal speed(lightcones are `tiltedL)vacuum fluctuations get amplified in inflation."
66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=gal...ULnZY&icp=1&.intl=us
"Mass Shielding
In Newton's gravitation, density is always finite inside a spherical mass M but is taken to be zero outside M. This is another way of saying that M is a constant. Brillouin, however, shows that the field E of mass M always has a negative mass so that when seen from a distance, apparent mass MA is the sum of its actual mass M and negative field mass Mf...."
www.coolissues.com:8080/gravitation/Relativistic/ncosm2.htm
A picture tells a thousand words. Yet we cannot step back far enough to see what is really going on. It might be that the entire viewplane is part of a huge arm to a superuniverse. But, we only see the light traveling through a medium of space at a constant speed (light cones TILT and FTL, OR does light slow down?)for 13 billion years that shows a balanced view of many galactic clusters. Now, if the universe has rotation which I believe that it does [because at all scales you find rotation due to positive and negative reverse spin from 4d time +- interactions] then a field of resonant energy would envelope the entire universe. Our universe is not infinite in size or dimension, but most likely it always existed as a homogenous structure of a greater multi-dimensional universe.
John
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.267 seconds