A New Breakthrough Theory of the Big Bang

[joshgreen]

Your answers thus far make me wonder how current or accurate your understanding of cosmology is. However that may be just a false reading on my part.

 

A couple of points. Energy does not exist on its own. You had mentioned the universe had energy before particles in one of the posts above.

 

There are over 70 different inflation models all being equally valid to observations. Not all of them suffer the Runaway inflation problem.

 

I still do not understand how your model works

The metrics showing how your inflation comes to a halt would help. Again I assume you at least tested your idead via some form of the mathematics and did a comparision to the LCDM concordance model. After all any professional peer reviewed model follows those steps so I honestly hope you didn't simply dream up some ideas, looked for a few supportive articles and then wrote your book without checking if your ideas conform to observational evidence via the applicable mathematics. Does your book include any mathematics to properly explain your model or is it purely verbatum? If my research is correct the book is roughly 140 pages long. Seems a bit short ti me to cover your ideas fully in terms of the metrics etc involved.

 

After all the goal of your book is to teach me the buyer how your model works. In order for me to use your model to make predictions on say expansion those metrics are essential.

 

So please post the metrics on how the universe containing just energy expands rapidly stops then forms particles. and sow how many efolds occur within the time constraints of your model

-"Energy does not exist on its own."

 

This is not so even with the big bang.

 

Here's NASA's explanation of inflation: http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_infl.html

"prior to the more gradual Big Bang expansion, during which time the energy density of the universe was dominated by a cosmological constant-type of vacuum energy that later decayed to produce the matter and radiation that fill the universe today."

 

Apparently, according to the big bang, it is believed that "vacuum energy" existed before "matter and radiation that fill the universe today."

 

 

-"So please post the metrics on how the universe containing just energy, expands rapidly stops then forms particles. and sow how many efolds occur within the time constraints of your model "

 

I don't have mathematics or metrics. The part of the universe expanding and having energy (not In a form we're familiar with) is the exact same is in the big bang. The main difference is that in the v-bang the universe stops expanding. For the halt to the expansion I present (here and in my book) observational and logical evidence as to why the halt of the expansion answers more than a universe that's still expanding. This requires no more proof than the "proof" of what caused our universe to start expanding in the first place. Aside from the fact that we're here, I don't know of any evidence of why or by what power our universe started expanding into a universe. Yes, I know, we have theories of multiverse and such. But all that is unverifiable conjecture. In short, the universe stooped for the same reason it started; we don't have the answers, short of observation that suggest it. How matter came into existence is explained in detail in my book and to some degree on this forum. I'd like to post my entire theory if I could get the admin's permission (it's almost 26,000 word).

[andrewcellini]

-"Energy does not exist on its own."

 

 

This is not so even with the big bang.

energy is a property of systems and objects, not an independent substance or object.

 

is there pure charge?

Edited November 3, 2014 by andrewcellini

[joshgreen]

 

So I take it you can't show that your model better predicts the "clumpiness" of the CMB than the currently accepted theory.

 

How is it that this can be considered a breakthrough?

My model better explains why they're there.

 

But the "breakthrough" is not in this one point. My model explains a whole host of observations relatively easily that the big bang has difficulty with.

 

One thing I haven't even touched on here is the observations of a varying fine structure constant. I don't know of any explanation for this with the big bang. The v-bang does explain it -- in the book.

 

I think if my v-bang theory explains only half of what I claim, it's a breakthrough. But I think it explains a lot more, including dark matter and dark energy (neither of which I believe exist). They're illusions based on factors I don't think I've touched much on in this forum.

 

 

[Strange]

---It's simple logic. The expansion of the universe, for it to catapult all matter on in the universe, would had to have been an enormous power, far greater than anything in it. This is certainly assumed in the big bang and, this aspect of it, is no different in the v-bang.

 

"Simple logic" is of no value. Can you demonstrate, mathematically, that your model predicts the appropriate conditions?

 

Also, the big bang did not "catapult all matter on in the universe".

 

 

If I could get permission from the moderator, or whoever is in charge here, to post my close to 26,000 word theory, I'll do it.

 

Perhaps you could start with a summary of the relevant maths?

 

 

The point is that with the v-bang this is not an issue to begin with. The heating and cooling in the v-bang that produce the CMB happened equally throughout the universe. So without being in causal contact with each other, the different regions in the universe took roughly the same course.

 

IF that were a valid explanation, then it would be equally true for the big bang. Unfortunately, it isn't. (Why would it happen equally throughout the universe without some causal connection?)

 

 

Clumpiness in my model is the same is in the big bang model

 

Can you show how that is calculated?

 

 

the size of the universe, visible or otherwise, is totally immaterial to my theory, and especially when the v-bang disagrees with the current methods of measuring the size of the universe. The only thing that's relevant to the v-bang is the fact that there is a visible part of the universe and a non-visible part.

 

How do you calculate the size of the visible part of the universe in your model?

 

And everything you say there is equally applicable to the big bang model. (Except that the big bang model can calculate the size of the visible universe.)

One thing I haven't even touched on here is the ...

 

... mathematics.

I don't have mathematics or metrics.

 

Therefore you don't have a scientific theory.

[Mordred]

The LCDM model says nothing about energy existing on its own. Study the FLRW metrics its basically GR and the ideal gas laws. All forms of energy interactd via particles including inflation the particle is the inflaton. the cosmological constant doesn't have a particle assigned yet so the consensus is via virtual particle production.

 

Never in any peer reviewed model is energy on its own.

 

 

The reason I asked for metrics on how inflation can come to a stop then start again is that no inflation model has that specific a characteristic. Inflation in most models comes slowly to a smaller rate. Our current expansion may or may not be inflation still progressing.

 

With 70+ models on inflation there can easily be tons I'm not fully up on. However none I am aware of stop then start

I stated this in another thread a model without the math isn't a model its only an idea or conjecture.

[joshgreen]

You're making a general statement about energy that's in contradiction to the NASA explanation that I already quoted: http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_infl.html

"prior to the more gradual Big Bang expansion, during which time the energy density of the universe was dominated by a cosmological constant-type of vacuum energy that later decayed to produce the matter and radiation that fill the universe today."

Do you mind explaining what vacuum energy is and how it existed before "matter and radiation that fill the universe today." You can explain it with metrics or logically, I'll accept either.

It's quite clear that a rudimentary form of energy that we're not familiar with existed in the past. I haven't heard any explanations or seen any mathematics or metrics on exactly how that energy came into being, what it is and how it decayed.

While you're at it, show me the metrics on what caused our universe to expand in the first place.

And with space between galaxies expanding but not the galaxies themselves, show me the mathematics on how the expansion is weaker than the galaxies' gravity. Aside from simple logic by some scientists (that, incidentally, make no sense whatsoever) I haven't seen anything coming close to a scientific or mathematical explanation on how galaxies are being held together despite the universe's expansion.

I'd think that with all the requests I've gotten to prove with metrics what I'm saying, someone here would have shown me some metrics that prove I'm wrong.

The big bang itself started with an observation. The metrics came later on. The v-bang is relatively new. I'm quite certain that once people sit and work out the metrics, a good part, if not all, of my theory will hold up. It certainly holds up in observation far better than anything I've seen with the big bang.
And for the record, my theory does not include inflation; it has no need for it. I think we're playing with words when we say the CMB did not originate in one place. Inflation says that the CMB got smoothed out at that early stage. It couldn't get smoothed out at a point when the universe was already 50 billion light years in diameter; and that's precisely one of things inflation is supposed to solve. I'm wondering whether you're the ones who don't get this.

So, in the v-bang, when you have the same occurrence happening simultaneously 50 billion light years away you do not need causal contact for the same results. You don't need metrics for this. It's simple physics. You can test this yourself. Call your cousin in Albania and tell him to start a fire under the exact same conditions you start one, and you should see both fires taking the exact same course. Why is this so complicated?

As far as expansion goes, in my theory, the universe had enough energy to expand once, and it stopped once it exhausted all the energy that produced matter and energy as we know it. I have no more of an explanation or metrics for why it stopped than anyone has for why it started. But the logic for why it stopped makes more sense than the logic for why it started. (Actually, there is no logic for why it started.)

 

 

"Simple logic" is of no value. Can you demonstrate, mathematically, that your model predicts the appropriate conditions?

 

Also, the big bang did not "catapult all matter on in the universe".

 

 

Perhaps you could start with a summary of the relevant maths?

 

 

IF that were a valid explanation, then it would be equally true for the big bang. Unfortunately, it isn't. (Why would it happen equally throughout the universe without some causal connection?)

 

 

Can you show how that is calculated?

 

 

How do you calculate the size of the visible part of the universe in your model?

 

And everything you say there is equally applicable to the big bang model. (Except that the big bang model can calculate the size of the visible universe.)

 

... mathematics.

 

Therefore you don't have a scientific theory.

You're making a general statement about energy that's in contradiction to the NASA explanation that I already quoted: http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_infl.html

"prior to the more gradual Big Bang expansion, during which time the energy density of the universe was dominated by a cosmological constant-type of vacuum energy that later decayed to produce the matter and radiation that fill the universe today."

Do you mind explaining what vacuum energy is and how it existed before "matter and radiation that fill the universe today." You can explain it with metrics or logically, I'll accept either.

It's quite clear that a rudimentary form of energy that we're not familiar with existed in the past. I haven't heard any explanations or seen any mathematics or metrics on exactly how that energy came into being, what it is and how it decayed.

While you're at it, show me the metrics on what caused our universe to expand in the first place.

And with space between galaxies expanding but not the galaxies themselves, show me the mathematics on how the expansion is weaker than the galaxies' gravity. Aside from simple logic by some scientists (that, incidentally, make no sense whatsoever) I haven't seen anything coming close to a scientific or mathematical explanation on how galaxies are being held together despite the universe's expansion.

I'd think that with all the requests I've gotten to prove with metrics what I'm saying, someone here would have shown me some metrics that prove I'm wrong.

The big bang itself started with an observation. The metrics came later on. The v-bang is relatively new. I'm quite certain that once people sit and work out the metrics, a good part, if not all, of my theory will hold up. It certainly holds up in observation far better than anything I've seen with the big bang.
And for the record, my theory does not include inflation; it has no need for it. I think we're playing with words when we say the CMB did not originate in one place. Inflation says that the CMB got smoothed out at that early stage. It couldn't get smoothed out at a point when the universe was already 50 billion light years in diameter; and that's precisely one of things inflation is supposed to solve. I'm wondering whether you're the ones who don't get this.

So, in the v-bang, when you have the same occurrence happening simultaneously 50 billion light years away you do not need causal contact for the same results. You don't need metrics for this. It's simple physics. You can test this yourself. Call your cousin in Albania and tell him to start a fire under the exact same conditions you start one, and you should see both fires taking the exact same course. Why is this so complicated?

As far as expansion goes, in my theory, the universe had enough energy to expand once, and it stopped once it exhausted all the energy that produced matter and energy as we know it. I have no more of an explanation or metrics for why it stopped than anyone has for why it started. But the logic for why it stopped makes more sense than the logic for why it started. (Actually, there is no logic for why it started.)

One question I've been asked here (don't remember exactly where) is do I have anything to show how the initial stage of the universe, before the big bang itself, would have been a black hole.

I'd like anyone to explain how when all the matter in the universe was focused at one point, how, contrary to everything we know today, that would NOT have produced a black hole.

[Mordred]

I'm working from my phone atm but the links I posted throughout this thread already have the metrics your requesting. If you like look on my signature cosmology101. Read particle physics of the Early universe. Also there is a free textbook by Liddle. If you specifically want inflation then you need the vacuum equation of state.

 

Here is why. Particle physics tests on Earth show us that above temp 246 Gev all known particles reach thermal equilibrium. If you apply the ideal gas laws to our observable universe and reverse time. The temperature will easily exceed this value. At this point the equation of state for vacuum becomes important. The different models of inflation also uses this formula but derive modifications to it.

 

 

As far as the NASA article they state energy like ie via virtual particle production like the inflation. You need to look deeper than multimedia style articles regardless of source. Too often they are written for those with zero knowledge so they keep them as simplified as possible. Often to the point of being inaccurate.

 

As stated The metrics are in the links I posted. However they are also in the textbook I mentioned.

 

Any cosmology model must include thermodynamics. They can't be based just on distance measures. The FLRW metrics and the Einstein field equations include the ideal gas laws.

As far as your BH scenario. We do not know if the universe is finite or infinite. We know our observable universe started at a point. But we have zero data on anything outside our observable universe. As such we may never know if the universe is finite or infinite.

 

So how can we say we started at a point? We can only show the observable portion did. We cannot say the rest did.

 

There was one paper that calculated our current curvature. Our universe isn't perfectly flat. Just extremely close to it.

 

If you stopped expsansion right now and using that slight curvature then assumed a finite universe the universe would take 880 billion years to circumnavigate. Now squeeze that volume into a single point. How hot do you get to and how dense.

 

You would easily get into the Tev temperature range.

 

Keep in mind these statements can all be mathematically shown in the materials I listed.

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/

 

Here is the FLRW metric in different dimensions ,2d 3d and 4d for flat positive and negative curvature.

 

I wrote this article. References are listed.

 

Here is page 1 the first link is page 2

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry

Oops it was another thread I had posted the articles in. Anyways this article covers everything I stated above.

http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf

Should be noted if you work at it you can do neat stuff like calculate the number of photons at a specific temperature such as say the CMB or the number of neutrinos etc

See the chapters covering Bose-Einstien and Fermi-Dirac distributions

Edited November 6, 2014 by Mordred

[Strange]

The big bang itself started with an observation. The metrics came later on.

 

Nope. The theory came first and was later confirmed by observation.

 

I'm quite certain that once people sit and work out the metrics, a good part, if not all, of my theory will hold up.

 

1. How can you be certain if you are unable to do any of the relevant math to test it. Science doesn't rely on "gut instinct".

2. You haven't given anyone any reason (or enough information) to do your work for you.

 

It certainly holds up in observation far better than anything I've seen with the big bang.

 

As you have repeatedly shown that you have a pretty poor grasp of even the pop-sci versions of the big bang theory, that argument doesn't hold much water. All you are saying is that you understand something you made up better than something you have failed to understand. This is a common fault with people who make up their own theories.

 

Many of the following points just expose your ignorance of the big bang model.

 

I think we're playing with words when we say the CMB did not originate in one place.

 

Not at all. The origin of the CMB is everywhere in the universe.

 

Inflation says that the CMB got smoothed out at that early stage.

 

No. The CMB didn't exist at that early stage.

 

So, in the v-bang, when you have the same occurrence happening simultaneously 50 billion light years away you do not need causal contact for the same results.

 

As noted earlier, if that were a valid explanation, it would apply equally to the big bang model.

 

Call your cousin in Albania and tell him to start a fire under the exact same conditions you start one, and you should see both fires taking the exact same course.

 

(Ignoring the fact that the telephone means we are in causal connection ...)

 

Except they very obviously won't. He will have different types of tree than we do, the wood will be in logs of different sizes, they will have been seasoned for a different amount of time, the wind will be different, etc. So while I am standing in front of a blazing fire, he is watching a pile of damp logs with a trickle of black smoke coming out of the top.

 

The only way we could get identical fires is to spend some time in communication agreeing on what wood to burn, how long to season it, how to cut and stack it, and what weather conditions to wait for. Only by ensuring that the starting conditions are nearly identical, can we get similar results.

 

 

I'd like anyone to explain how when all the matter in the universe was focused at one point, how, contrary to everything we know today, that would NOT have produced a black hole.

There is no reason for a black hole to form. A black hole requires mass to to be concentrated in a small volume. The universe had the same density everywhere; in other words, matter was distributed evenly throughout all space, not concentrated at one point. (This might be the one part of your model that agrees with the big bang.)

 

p.s. I was going to comment on the length of your post, but it seems to be the same thing repeated. You might want to tidy that up...

Edited November 6, 2014 by Strange

[Strange]

I was listening to the radio on the way home and there was an interview with a scientist who studies fires. Interestingly, she said that no two fires are ever the same because there are so many variables.

[joshgreen]

xxx

I was listening to the radio on the way home and there was an interview with a scientist who studies fires. Interestingly, she said that no two fires are ever the same because there are so many variables.

You answer your own question and seem to present all this as a response to my almost tongue-in-cheek example about a fire in Albania. If there are so many variables, as you yourself state, of course the fires would be different. I'm talking about controlled fires where you ensure the conditions are identical; this is totally different. I find it hard to believe you even presented this as a response to anything. But thanks for the laugh.

Edited November 6, 2014 by joshgreen

[Strange]

xxx

You answer your own question and seem to present all this as a response to my almost tongue-in-cheek example about a fire in Albania. If there are so many variables, as you yourself state, of course the fires would be different. I'm talking about controlled fires where you ensure the conditions are identical; this is totally different. I find it hard to believe you even presented this as a response to anything. But thanks for the laugh.

 

 

My point (in the previous post) is that in order to ensure identical conditions, you need communication; in other words some sort of causal connection. The chances of two fires being identical by chance are very remote. The chances that every point in space has identical conditions without some causal connection is basically zero.

[joshgreen]

To STRANGE ---

 

Strange: "The origin of the CMB is everywhere in the universe"

Me: The CMB is everywhere. It's origin was everywhere during inflation. At 20 billion light years away, for example, that's not the origin of CMB. That's an area that it expanded to with the expansion of the universe. I'm surprise you don't grasp this simple concept.

Strange: "The CMB didn't exist at that early stage"

Me: Again, you're just plain wrong.
"The cosmic background radiation is radiation left over from early development of the universe,"
See http://www.universetoday.com/79777/cosmic-background-radiation/ and many other sources.

Strange: "...if that were a valid explanation, it would apply equally to the big bang model."

Me: Wrong again. In the big bang, matter was carried out along with the expansion. In a scenario where matter is created in place throughout the universe, its course would not at all be equal to that of the big bang. Let's forget that you're not showing any metrics to substantiate your claim either, but your argument doesn't even hold up logically.

Strange: "There is no reason for a black hole to form. A black hole requires mass to be concentrated in a small volume. The universe had the same density everywhere; in other words, matter was distributed evenly throughout all space, not concentrated at one point."

Me: This makes no sense at all. It's common knowledge (or belief) that at the moment before expansion all the energy/matter in the universe was concentrated at one point. Evenly distributed or not, all that energy/matter so densely concentrated would have been the equivalent of a massive black hole. Your response doesn't even begin to address this.

Edited November 6, 2014 by joshgreen

[Strange]

Me: The CMB is everywhere. It's origin was everywhere during inflation.

 

Apart from the fact that the CMB was produced long after the inflationary period, we can agree on that.

 

Me: Again, you're just plain wrong.

"The cosmic background radiation is radiation left over from early development of the universe,"

See http://www.universetoday.com/79777/cosmic-background-radiation/ and many other sources.

 

Inflation ended after about 10-32 seconds. The microwave background emerged 380,000 years later.

http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_timeline.html

 

Me: This makes no sense at all. It's common knowledge (or belief) that at the moment before expansion all the energy/matter in the universe was concentrated in point. Evenly distributed or not, all that energy/matter so densely concentrated would have been the equivalent of a massive black hole. Your response doesn't even begin to address this.

 

Try the explanation from an expert then: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/universe.html

 

I'm talking about controlled fires where you ensure the conditions are identical

 

And how do you do that without communication?

[joshgreen]

 

My point (in the previous post) is that in order to ensure identical conditions, you need communication; in other words some sort of causal connection. The chances of two fires being identical by chance are very remote. The chances that every point in space has identical conditions without some causal connection is basically zero.

x

 

Apart from the fact that the CMB was produced long after the inflationary period, we can agree on that.

 

 

Inflation ended after about 10-32 seconds. The microwave background emerged 380,000 years later.

http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_timeline.html

 

 

Try the explanation from an expert then: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/universe.html

 

 

And how do you do that without communication?

There is no communication between the fires. Whatever other communication your talking about has no bearing the experiment. You being on the phone with someone is not the communication we're talking about. Communication between the "systems" that are producing the heat is the key -- there is no such communication here.

 

Edited November 6, 2014 by joshgreen

[Strange]

Plain wrong. Start fires in two identical vaults with the exact same material, and exact same fuel, without outside influence, and you will get the exact same fire.

 

Or: Put two identical cups of water in two identical microwaves for the same amount of time and they water will have the same temp.

 

How do you arrange for the two fires or cups of water & microwaves to be identical without communication?

 

The universe had no "outside" influence -- there is no "outside" of our universe. If you claim there is show me the proof -- metrics, mathematics, whatever you have.

 

Why would I claim such a thing? I thought you were the one claiming that matter magically came from somewhere outside the universe.

 

Anyway, I give up. You have no model that can be tested, things are just "obvious" or "logical", so you are clearly not interested in science. I think it is sad that you are not interested in using this as a learning opportunity. I'll leave you to your ignorance.

[joshgreen]

 

My point (in the previous post) is that in order to ensure identical conditions, you need communication; in other words some sort of causal connection. The chances of two fires being identical by chance are very remote. The chances that every point in space has identical conditions without some causal connection is basically zero.

There is no communication between the fires. Whatever other communication your talking about has no bearing on the experiment. You being on the phone with someone is not the communication we're talking about. Communication between the "systems" that are producing the heat is the key -- there is no such communication here.

 

 

How do you arrange for the two fires or cups of water & microwaves to be identical without communication?

 

 

Why would I claim such a thing? I thought you were the one claiming that matter magically came from somewhere outside the universe.

 

Anyway, I give up. You have no model that can be tested, things are just "obvious" or "logical", so you are clearly not interested in science. I think it is sad that you are not interested in using this as a learning opportunity. I'll leave you to your ignorance.

Without logic there is no science. You're pretty much misstating and misinterpreting much of what I say, and I'm spending too much time trying to unravel what your saying and addressing things that I never said or very obviously did not intend to say. There really is not much point in this type of conversation. If you want to eliminate logic and things that are obvious to the senses, we only wind up talking complete nonsense. Logic MUST be part of science. I've never heard of anyone trying to eliminate logic from a conversation.

 

Edited November 6, 2014 by joshgreen

[Strange]

There is no communication between the fires. Whatever other communication your talking about has no bearing on the experiment. You being on the phone with someone is not the communication we're talking about. Communication between the "systems" that are producing the heat is the key -- there is no such communication here.

 

How do you arrange for the two fires or cups of water & microwaves to be identical without communication?

 

 

Without logic there is no science.

 

True. But what you mean by "logic" is "it makes sense to me". Logic is a branch of mathematics and you seem to be unwilling to use any form of mathematics.

[joshgreen]

 

How do you arrange for the two fires or cups of water & microwaves to be identical without communication?

 

 

True. But what you mean by "logic" is "it makes sense to me". Logic is a branch of mathematics and you seem to be unwilling to use any form of mathematics.

In other words, anything you don't comprehend is not logical but must only "makes sense" to the person explaining it. OK, I can understand that.

 

You're right that logic is A BRANCH of science. But logic is not always necessarily connected to mathematics, and certainly doesn't always need to be backed up by mathematics. Many scientific discoveries came out of pure logic and the mathematics, if any, came later. Logic comes before mathematics. Mathematics often only comes in to verify what seems logical, and sometimes is only needed for those who don't comprehend the logic.

 

[Strange]

How do you arrange for the two fires or cups of water & microwaves to be identical without communication?

[Phi for All]

"Logic" seems to suffer the same misuse as "theory" does.

[joshgreen]

How do you arrange for the two fires or cups of water & microwaves to be identical without communication?

You buy two microwaves with the same specs from the same manufacturer that regulate the temps inside to be the same, and you put in the same size cups of the same material filled with water. Show me the mathematics that show the results will not be the same.

 

If you even question whether the results will be the same, it shows not only faulty logic on your part but also you're being short on a simple connection to reality. Physics is not for you.

 

The causal connection between the two systems that are heated does not exist, neither here nor in a universe where fluctuating particles come into the universe (as they do today) throughout the cosmos.

 

The universe itself, that spews these particles, is like the microwaves in the example. They are the setup, not the objects being heated. The objects that get heated in both case, in the nuclear collisions in the universe and in the cups of water in the microwaves, are not in causal contact with each other. Yet the results will be the same in the separately heated cups or particles collisions.

 

Show me mathematically how in both cases the results will not be the same. (This is a rhetorical request. I don't expect you are capable of proving your claims mathematically or otherwise.)

 

I have this strange feeling you don't even comprehend this comparison, let alone give any sensible support for your views.

 

[ACG52]

 

 

Show me the mathematics that show the results will not be the same.

Show us the mathematics that show the results will be the same.

[Strange]

You buy two microwaves with the same specs from the same manufacturer that regulate the temps inside to be the same, and you put in the same size cups of the same material filled with water.

 

That s exactly what is meant by "causally connected". They came from the same place. The same person wrote the specs. The size of the cups was specified in advance. And so on.

 

If they were not causally connected then there would be no connection between them. One would be a microwave and the other would be a dumper truck.

 

 

Show me the mathematics that show the results will not be the same.

 

Sorry, you are the one making claims here. It is up to you to support your idea. You can look up the appropriate maths in any relevant text book. Or ask questions in the relevant parts of the forum.

 

 

I don't expect you are capable of proving your claims mathematically or otherwise.

 

Oh the irony.

 

This from the guy who has no maths and doesn't understand the theory he is attempting to replace.

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

 

 

joshgreen,

The personal attacks such as in your last post stop now.

 

In addition, this is the Speculations forum, and it has some rules. For example, it says:

If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can.

As far as I can see, you came up with this analogy (and you also started the thread), so, in the discussion who has to show the maths, it is you.

 

Everyone,

I often get the feeling that there is some miscommunication in threads like this, and it would be helpful if people (both sides) made an effort to explain things a little more. It can sometimes be very refreshing to read what the other side means with terms like "the same". (For example, do you mean every atom behaves the same, or at bulk scale you observe the same?). Please do not respond to this example. Instead, read the thread, and see if there may be some miscommunication that needs to be cleared up.

 

Do not respond to this moderator note at all. If you have any issues with it, use the report button below.

[swansont]

 

Show me mathematically how in both cases the results will not be the same. (This is a rhetorical request. I don't expect you are capable of proving your claims mathematically or otherwise.)

 

 

Simple. There will be noise. Random (white) noise in the power will integrate to a random walk in energy deposited. Thus the total energy deposited in two systems at a given time will random walk away from each other.

 

But I think the larger picture is why would the nominal power be the same in the first place? And what is the mechanism for regulating the temperatures?