pantheory

whole post ripped from the other thread on reasoning and logic - you were right it was getting confusing.

 

Your models are difficult to understand - and you must still take on board the idea of dimensional analysis when creating a model

 

force DOES NOT EQUAL GM/r^2 - as becomes clear when you stick the units in (G image from wikipedia page)

 

 

acceleration = -GMr^-2

force = Gm₁m₂r^-2

[

Acceleration = -GMr^-2; due to gravity; in this format a body is accelerated by gravity as a function of the mass of the Earth alone, for smaller bodies size in general does not change the velocity. In my equation there is no negative since gravity accordingly is a pushing force.

An object or environment travelling at 30 f/s cannot exert an accelerational force on an object travelling at the same speed. Yes if you can exert a continuous force it will accelerate - but look at a boat in a current, that boat will speed up till it approximate the current speed; it will not outrun the current unless it switches its motor on

It is not the speed of the aether that is the force of pushing gravity or the cause of mass acceleration, it is the differential aether pressure. If the aether gradually becomes less dense toward the Earth there will be a vector differential, down would be a greater vector force than the force pushing up. A pressure difference causes a change in velocity. A continuous vector pressure differential causes acceleration of a body, hence gravity.

The aether current primarily relates to the speed of light, not the acceleration of gravity. Accordingly light moving away from the Earth is slower than light moving toward the Earth, near the Earths surface, by roughly 60 ft. per second difference concerning the speed of light.

Thanks for the move of thread, it is appropriate regards, Forrest

Airbrush,

.....Also I'd like to know, does the vacuum around an event horizon create conditions that stimulate particle-antiparticles virtual particle production?

Of course black hole theory is just that, theory. We have plenty of evidence to support that there is something invisible creating a vast amount of gravity. Whether this something is a vacuous single point or something else, is still a matter of conjecture. If it were a presently unknown type of matter, it must be much denser than a neutron star because their known event horizons are relatively very small. So accordingly there may not necessarily be any vacuum surrounding a black hole.

As to virtual particle production, most models that I've seen assert that such production is plentiful. Hawking himself wrote a paper in 1975 concerning "Hawking radiation," where he proposed that both electrons and positrons were also produced as permanent particles emanating from black holes.

chinmayrshah,

I believe the article you were referring to stems from this reversing of theoretical positions by Hawking.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5452537/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/hawking-changes-his-mind-black-holes/

I don't believe there was a beginning.

We humans are the ones who seek this quest. It goes against all evidence. All that we observe is about transformation.

According to logic alone we can't rule out either of the two possibilities: whether time was infinite concerning times past, or whether time had a finite beginning.

According to the BB model, the observable galactic universe had a finite beginning in time. Most older cosmological models had a infinite extension with no beginning.

\

\

Is there a scientific explanation for the dark ages after the inflatioinary period after the BB ?

.........The early Universe was so hot and dense that it was like the conditions within a particle accelerator or nuclear reactor. As the Universe expanded it cooled, so that the average energy of its constituent particles decreased with time. All of the high energy particle and nuclear physics was over in the first 3 minutes (see the book of that name, written by Steven Weinberg in 1977). By that time all of the main constituents of the Universe had formed, including the light elements and the radiation. It is generally believed that little of note happened for the next 300,000 years or so. This period is sometimes referred to as the "Dark Ages" of the Universe.

The present Big Bang model' (BB) assertions concerning the dark ages are explained by the quote above and the link below. It must be noted that no such observations have been seen at the presently most distant observable parts of the universe. If such an era were ever discovered it would be strong evidence in favor of the BB model, if it is not found by the next round of space telescopes such as the James Webb, some might then question the theory. The dark ages cannot be seen (hence dark ages ) directly but the first stars, according to present theory, should have been different than present-day stars seen in any galaxy today. If instead all we ever see is more distant galaxies, then the BB model will seemingly be in trouble maybe within 5 years after the James Webb goes up.

http://www.astro.ubc.../cmb_intro.html

Widdekind,

.......that Quasars are not "Standard Candles", that they evolve over time, and that the more ancient Quasars were more rapidly varying, than the more recent Quasars. Since sizes are inferred, from time-scales multiplied by the speed-of-light; and, assuming that cosmological time-dilation is actually occurring; then, the more ancient Quasars were smaller, and less massive -- completely consistent, with Quasar evolution, and mass accretion.

Quasars are not exactly standard candles but the periodicity of their pulses of brightness are regular, predictable and consistent. There is also a correlation between quasar brightness and distance, the farther away a quasar the more likely that it will be brighter and the surrounding galaxy larger, also contrary to the standard model. The farthest quasar to date appears to be the brightest with the largest profile of heavy elements ever observed. The problem is that the periodicity does not change with distance. The most distant quasar's frequency of light pulses and EM light curves are the same as the closest ones, violating not only General Relativity but also the expansion of space model, and therefore might contradict the present interpretation of redshifts as well as the Big Bang model.

Quasars become brighter and more numerous the further out we look ....

http://www.setterfie...lDiscussion.htm

http://www.time.com/...,843526,00.html

http://cas.sdss.org/...es/galaxies.asp

Green Xenon,

The negative parts of your lifestyle would be too much fat-food intake and too much sugar intake. Also you would be consuming too many calories for your system to handle since you would have no fat to store it. This would not be a big problem if your body did not metabolize much of it, but if it were metablized the calories must be spent by energy or heat. You would probably sweat excessively and might run a higher than normal temperature. Although you accordingly wouldn't do cardio-vascular exercises specifically, you do get a lot of it with body building exercises. Although not overweight your arteries would seemingly clog up at a faster rate than if you were simply overweight since these fats/ cholesterols would circulate at higher concentrations for a longer period of time. If you were lucky this might mean that you would then metabolize less. Also sugar produces a large quantity of oxidants which would accelerate aging and weaken your immune system.

My guess is that your life might be shortened by roughly 15- 20 years on such a regimen, something like a grossly overweight person, or a person of average height, maybe 60 pounds overweight, that smokes.

Yes, I am well aware of all the known valid alternatives, but I was interested in whether any of the other alternatives, as proposed by Marmet, have been through the peer-review process. As I understand it, some of Marmet's ideas are "fringe" and have not been accepted by the mainstream.

In my brief search I could see no mainstream papers by Marmet concerning cosmology. His cosmological material that I could find seem to have been self published. Paul Marmet was professor and later department head of physics at Laval University, QuŽbec, for over 20 years. He said "it is difficult to get published in mainstream journals ..... if your proposal is entirely contrary to the mainstream model, regardless of your credentials, affiliations or prior publications."

http://www.uow.edu.a...pubs/04jse.html

As to the quasar issue, how can their periodicity be used as a standard candle? Are the processes that cause them regular enough for us be able to calculate their time-dilation?

From what I have read, light and brightness periods/ profiles of quasars are quite similar/ regular. That at the farthest distances as well as those close by, there is a similar periodicity, as well as light and brightness profiles, and the frequency of light pulses. Quasars have a strong correlation to the galaxy that surrounds them as do the blackholes which they stem from. The bigger the galaxy the larger the theorized black hole and longer the period of rotation, as well as the length and brightness regularity of the quasar. But General Relativity is thought to predict time dilation of quasars as it did for type 1a supernova, so that what has been observed and confirmed concerning quasars, is thought by some to be a strong contradiction of both General Relativity and the Big Bang model.

http://news.discover...nt-quasars.html

ArXiv.org - On time dilation in quasar light curves, Mike Hawkins -- http://www.physorg.c...s190027752.html

Discovery News - No Time Dilation for Distant Quasars? http://news.discover...nt-quasars.html

New Scientist - Time waits for no quasar - even though it should.

http://www.newscient...-it-should.html

PhysOrg.com - Discovery that quasars don't show time dilation mystifies astronomers.

http://www.google.co...biw=911&bih=399

SpeedFreek,

......any published, peer-reviewed sources for alternatives to cosmological redshift?

There are many alternative explanations for redshifts that are well-known in cosmology. Tired light and Gravitational redshifts are maybe the most well known of these. Tired light is maybe the oldest but the old version of it does not explain the time dilation of supernova but more modern versions have been proposed since then such as this one as well as many others.

http://www.mendeley.com/research/an-alternative-explanation-for-cosmological-redshift/

The diminution of matter was first proposed by Hoyle Narlikar in the early 60's. Larger atoms in the past would have produced longer wavelengths of EM radiation. Particle interactions over great distances is another explanation.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.2885v2.pdf

Dirac proposed the expansion of space and expanding matter to explain redshifts.

Gravitational redshifts (Einstein redshifts) / Compton redshifts etc. etc. etc.

The problem with most such models including the mainstream expansion of space proposal, is that they make no other predictions. Presently the biggest contradiction to the expansion of space idea is that quasar light is not time dilated. This is not a problem for some other redshift explanations. Only the expansion of space idea would seem to be consistent with the Big Bang model.

Going to the moon was science fiction 50 years ago. Maybe we should be paying a little more attention to these visionaries. And just because we understand a concept to be the simplest does not render it as fact. Consider the arrangement of galaxies, not as simple as one might prefer it to be. Also, there is quite a bit of experimental proof in support of the big bang and very little left in support of the steady state model. And it appears that string theory is headed in the direction of a model supported by the multiverse position. Science is about repeatable experiment and Occam's Razor, while an acceptable concept, is not always applicable........................Cygnus47

Hawking is a big supporter of the multi-verse idea and there is much interest in his theoretical ideas.

The known arrangement of galaxies seems undesirable/ or unexplainable based upon the Big Bang model. Other theoretical models, however, might explain these web configurations far better than the standard model. Reality only seems simple once you understand how it works. Until that time, many aspects of reality will seem to be quite complicated or illogical. There are a number of Steady State models, Hoyle's models are simply the best well known of such models. There are many cosmological models that only theorist know about, and many others that few if any theorists even have heard of. Multi-verse models and most steady state models, are infinite models concerning times past.

To me infinite models are not philosophically appealing.

/

Michel123456,

...........IIUC (if I understand correctly) the standard model enumerates 18 elementary particles and 13 antiparticles not counting the hypothetical ones.

From what we know there are primarily only two stable free ranging particles that entirely dominate the observable universe. These are the atomic fermions protons and electrons. Neutrons exist withing atoms but only last about 11 minutes when outside nuclei. Although a few of the other particles are presently believed to have a funtion, non have longevity other than electron neutrinos, and photons are in a class of there own. I think the standard model places too much importance concerning particles that last a couple of billionths of a second or less. I think these might even be called something different other than particles. We have virtual particles that seem of little consequence, why not "ephemeral particles" which would simply be one step above virtual particles but a step below long lived particles, and atomic particles in particular.

At present, there is a growing movement in support of the multiverse position. I find this view to be quite reasonable and what's beautiful about it is this: Not only does it allow for the big bang, it also allows for an infinite universe commonly referred to as the bulk. It may never be possible to prove this theory but it appeals to me non the less.....................Cygnus47

I agree that the multiverse idea is growing in popularity. It is also exciting to many sci fi enthusiasts. I think the Big Bang model is totally wrong, but also disagree with the multi-verse idea since I believe it is not the simplest answer and therefore not seemingly in accord with Occam's Razor.

/

md65536,

....I don't know of any examples in science of where logical soundness is shunned, so I must disagree with the OP.

thanks md65536, I like your logic and I cannot identify any part of it as being false excepting for your memory concerning the above statement. Quantum Theory, in my opinion, is almost entirely devoid of logic -- or one might say that logic is no longer a big time player in this field. I also think the idea of warped space (GR) is devoid of logic to the extent that the evidence of today was not available in Einstein's time -- in that today we have enough evidence to say concerning the observable universe -- that it appears to be flat. So, in my opinion, the logic of the micro-world , Quantum theory, and the logic of the macro-world (GR) have no chance of ever agreeing withe each other if they both are entirely wrong. What both are missing, I believe, is the acceptance of a background particle field such as dark matter, positrons, Higg's particles, quantum foam, quantum sand, field strings, etc. etc. etc. A background field (ZPF) full of these entities would bring back an aether of some kind which would vastly charge these theories, making it not only greatly simpler, but also totally logical, in my opinion.

I agree Daedalus,

Time is motion but maybe more accurately could be described as "change." Since motion can be solely relative motion, and fluctuating energy levels certainly represent change. I also agree with you that traveling backward in time is impossible based upon our concept of time. You cannot undo what has already happened. But that's why we are in the speculation forum because there are other explanations of time depending on which field of physics you are discussing. That's why everyone does not agree. There are a number of ideas concerning what the essence of time is, even though in truth the best definitions might simply be an interval of motion or change.

Here we can apply logic. Our premise is that we have only one Universe (one particle in BBT and in Pan theory) and that at some instant in the past, this first element of the Universe came into existence.

From the proposition concerned with before the beginning, "... at some instant in the past" refers to a time frame before the beginning of time, or changes before the first changes. This is not logically possible. According to the standard model and my model the first entity never came into existence. This idea again implies that there was a time before the beginning of time. Instead the beginning of time should be logically defined by the first changes in the beginning entity. Nothing could have pre-existed the first entity. It is logically impossible for the first entity to have had a cause based upon the definitions for the words finite, infinite, and universe (meaning everything in existence).

It is like looking at the sea and supposing an instant in the past when there was only one wave that gave birth to all the waves we see today at the surface of all the oceans. Was there a time when all the new born oceans were perfectly flat? I suppose mathematically the probability exists. Logic says it is completely impossible. The waves of all the oceans oscillate constantly around a state of equilibrium they never reach all at the same time.

I agree there was never a time of a placid ocean or a time when the first entity was not in motion. For all time there have been changes, and at the beginning of time the beginning entity existed, and there was no such a thing as a time before that.

So, even in the case of the sum of energy of the universe being zero, why do we have to suppose that in the distant past the Universe was in a zero state? It is something we have put ourselves in our minds, it is not something that we would logically expect.

Here again I think we are following the same logical path. According to the standard version of the standard BB model, as well as the Pan Theory, The beginning entity had its first motions which can define time, but it was not in a zero state concerning potential energy. In the Pan Theory it was in exactly the same state as it presently is excepting that there was only one simple entity. Accordingly all fundamental particle must unwind and rewind. In the BB model the beginning entity was primed energy-wise to go "bang," and to consider anything before that first change in this BB entity also would have no meaning to it. Of course there are other versions of this model that do consider a before the beginning BB. Most of these versions could be called an infinite universe or infinite multi-verse(s), again lacking causality. The religious version of creation would also be an infinite, non-causal model since god is accordingly infinite and he would have had no cause for his existence. The model whereby our universe was spontaneously created by the ZPF is also an infinite, non-causal model because there is no explanation concerning the beginning cause of the field. If there was such a proposal, then what came before that? Only in a finite model concerning time can one finally stop asking the question "what came before that?"

But Pan - Marq is correct, an object moving at the same speed as your ether will feel no force. Terminal velocity due to gravity would be the velocity of the ether - this is clearly not the case - if it was we could all have fun jumping from planes without parachutes.

This is a matter of the forces pushing up would be less than the forces pushing down. So within maybe a hundred miles up down to the surface, you are looking at about the same force differential aether pressure (less dense surrounding matter). The aether accordingly accelerates into the Earth but not very vast since its velocity is only about 30 feet per second. Apply a continuous downward vector differential force to an object and it will accelerate downward.

Even on speculations you cannot get away with "a continuous force of 32 ft. per second" - feet per second (distance.time^-1) is a speed or a velocity, and not a force (mass.distance.time^-2). Dimensional analysis is always useful when making formula/equations

You are correct of course, 30 ft. per second is a speed and not a force. The force is F = (G) M/r² ,where G is the universal gravitational constant, M is the mass of the Earth, and r is the distance from the center of the Earth. This force continuously applied by the downward vector differential pressure of the aether accordingly causes the acceleration of gravity. Any further questions on this subject I will transfer to my "alternative to the Big Bang" thread so that I can more fully elaborate. This is a logic thread whereby I led the thread astray based upon my comment that I thought the speed of light was not constant on Earth in a vacuum. This stray comment led from the "logical" concept/ proposal that "everything is relative."

Æther

I love this topic...how can I just leave it, even though we're in a logic thread? I would have to point out a flaw, though, in the idea that gravity is caused by an aether moving at 30ft/s. How would this account for the ~32 ft/s² acceleration due to earth's gravity? Terminal velocity would then be only 30 ft/s.

I could say the speed of the aether pushing downward is moving at the Earth's surface at a speed of 32 ft. per second. However since I cannot prove the correlation of speed of the aether to the acceleration of gravity, according to my theory, I can only estimate the speed of the inflowing aether field to one significant figure which would be simply 30 ft. per second. The estimated tolerance would be 16 ft. per second, so the expected range for this speed would be between 14 ft. per second to 46 ft. per second. According to the correlation with the acceleration velocity, there accordingly is a vector force pushing down which accedes the vector force pushing up by a difference of 32 ft. per second. Apply a continuous force of 32 ft. per second to a moving body, it will accelerated at a rate of 32 ft. per second per second.

/

I'm afraid I do have issues with the concept of a complete universe with a finite past. I don't believe in the spontaneous creation of forces, physical laws, matter or really--anything.

I also do not believe in spontaneous creation. I believe that a beginning entity could not logically or possibly have had a cause for its existence -- and also no possibility of spontaneous creation for anything. We are exactly on the same page but I think you may be missing the logical concept that neither a finite nor an infinite universe could possibly have had a cause based upon the definition of the words themselves: finite, infinite, and universe (meaning everything in existence).

I just tried a search for an older argument between causality and spontaneity, but only found meanderings on free will (a concept to which I also do not prescribe). (Meanderings--a good read, but not truly pertinent) Perhaps it's a matter for another thread, but I'd wager that any process described as spontaneous simply has a cause that's difficult to pinpoint. I prescribe exclusively to causality, the idea that every effect is preceded by a cause. I really have no basis for this belief, except for overwhelming anecdotal evidence... My point is, though, that if time and motion did not exist prior to our universe, it could not have become present without cause. Because of this, I vehemently believe in the (inaccurately named) multiverse, and that our known universe was caused by some action in the surrounding area acting on a universal medium.

Neither one of us believes in the possibility of spontaneous creation. Nor do I believe that if the ZPF pre-existed our universe, or that if it did that it could create anything of permanence. Now I'm rambling

On to the topic of the relativity of the speed of light. Hmm...how to word this without going into my universal medium idea... Well, ok, you're only concerned with variations due to gravitational/inertial fields? The effect of huge masses on light is currently called 'gravitation lensing', I believe.

It is called gravitational lensing when it results in some kind of focus resulting in amplification of the image. When not it also appears as a gravitational redshift, or simply the bending of light via gravity.

In any other lens, contact with the surface, or transition from one medium to another is the source of curvature of light. If gravity does form a lens at super-intense levels of gravity, it stands to reason that a lesser effect would be present at lower gravity. Considering a gravitational field has no edge, but rather is a gradient, its edge is the entirety of its presence, and so must bend or otherwise affect light everywhere that it has effects. It seems to me, though, that the effect would be the same as the light travels up or down, and the differences in measurement would only be seen at different altitudes (if gravitational lensing is really an accurate description of gravity's effect on light).

This was an inappropriate comment of mine since it is an aside from the logic theme of the thread, so I will be brief in my reply. My own gravity model proposes that gravity is caused by an inflowing aether -- a pushing force. The estimated velocity of this inward pushing of this aether was about 30 feet per second, a 60 feet per second differential speed up vs. down. This was the direction that Michelson Morley never looked. Such a small difference in the speed of light (60 feet per second) also was not possible to detect with their equipment, concerning the motion of an aether. I pretty much know how to conduct such an experiment today. It might take a few hundred thousand dollars for me to conduct this experiment, but maybe less if I could rent or borrow some of the equipment. So for further detail of the experiment you could ask me on the "alternative to the Big Bang theory" thread or PM me

Your comments concerning logic do not fail, in my opinion

Marqq,

concerning logical concepts

C: The universe was not created, but always existed, and can never be destroyed.

 

Do you see how this explanation is simpler, because it doesn't require an exception to the laws of thermodynamics? (I must admit, the 2nd law seems to counter this conclusion....ergo, if entropy always increases, how could anything ordered exist after an infinite amount of time? Of course, in infinite entropy, order forms by random chance....maybe...idk)

I agree that the logic does not fail in this assertion but there is one logical facet concerning your statement C. that you may not have considered. A universe that has always existed can still be finite concerning past time. Some might consider this idea a play on words but I consider it a matter of logic and conceivably the most important concept to understand the beginning of the universe if it was finite concerning times past:

"Always" in this context means "for all times past" but it does not necessarily mean infinite times past. A beginning entity could not possibly have been created concerning logic. One must first grasp the understanding of the word "finite" concerning time. It means that there was no such thing as time before the beginning of the universe. The definition being used for universe is: everything that exists. So the first entity could not logically have had a cause, nor could it have come from nothing. The first change in this entity was the beginning of time. To consider a time before this is a contradiction of logic. Similar logic applies to an infinite universe, whereby the universe could have had no creation or cause. This is not an assertion, it is simply logic. One of the keys to understanding both concepts relates to the embolden definition of the word "universe" above. If you have problems with either concept ask questions or make comments

Concerning the speed of light being relative to the motion of a background field and the related concept presented, I must concede this is alternative theory and for this thread the concept should have been explained differently. "Everything is relative" would still seem to be acceptable since the speed of light is relative to the background gravitational field that contains it such as a distant galaxy with a redshift greater than 1. Such a statement would seem to be consistent with General Relativity.

As to entropy and the universe, it would seem that both gravity and the chemistry of life seem to operate contrary to the principles of entropy.

Marqq,

Lots of good comments.

One of the motivators for this thread was that I think logic is used very little concerning modern theories, Quantum Theory has been my prime example but the BB model I think also fails with logic. Maybe if the system of logic were better developed and understood it might be more respected by theorists. I do not think that logic should stifle theory development, only that explanations of the mathematics should use all effort trying to logically explain it. Such explanations such as the double slit experiment concerning a single photon or electron, going through two slits at the same time and then interfering with itself -- I think is a prime example of theoretical folly devoid of logic. Instead there are very simple logical explanations that I think are much more logical and probable. I will expand my answer tomorrow

We know that light from distant galaxies is redshifted and that this redshift increases approximately linearly with distance. This can be interpreted as due to a Doppler shift or an expansion of space, as in current doctrine – the Big Bang pardigm. Other explanations for the redshift have been proposed, but so far not found acceptance.

(bold added)

Good comments Rolando. I believe other conceivable explanations for the observed redshifts are no longer considered at all since they would be inconsistent with the Big Bang model.

We also know that within the solar system, within galaxies, within galaxy clusters and superclusters, there is no such expansion. Also on a larger scale, there are no indications of an overall expansion except for the redshift (time dialtion in ligtht).

I think this is an observational problem with the BB model.

The Big Bang paradigm has to rely on a set of fudge factors such as dark matter, dark energy, size evolution of galaxies etc. in order to be brought into agreement with observations.

I agree and consider these fudge factors as being comparable to Ptolemy's epicycles and based upon both wrong underlying assumptions of the model and wrong formulations of the model.

What is the currently most accepted model for the Universe? http://www.astro.ucl...aq.html#bestfit

 

 

Angular size test on the expansion of the universe. http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0525

 

 

A way out of the dark age in cosmology http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.2529

 

 

Is the Universe really expanding? http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.2485

 

Quantitative Comparison of Redshift Mechanisms http://www.marmet.or.../mechanisms.pdf

Well, if you are proposing an alternative model, you are actually saying the standard model is incorrect. Two models that are based on and predict different things can't both be correct.

I agree, but even though I disagree with the overall standard particle theory since I have a different one, I cannot deny the possibility that they might have found evidence for anti-particle asymmetry. Of course it might be just a coincidence that this model has predicted anti-particle asymmetry and that the standard model asserts that they may have found evidence which might support it.

My problem with most standard models is that although I think there is a lot of great science going on, I believe many of the interpretations of what has been observed and the resultant theory, are based upon false assumptions. If this is true then some of the assertions and conclusions of practitioners using these models may also be invalid but probably not all of them

/

Thank you. I'm curious.

 

Would you expect the scale of atoms to be twice today's scale at z=1, and at what rate would you expect macroscopic things like stars and planets scale as a function of redshift?

Although everything accordingly would have been relatively larger in the past compared to today, everything would still have the same relative scale and would have appeared and measured the same in those times.

At a redshift of 1 the wavelength constituents of galactic light would be twice as long, z + 1 = 2. Accordingly we are observing two facets of galactic light concerning the observed redshift. The first would be that matter was larger in diameter in the past (atomic/ molecular), and the second factor is that space (distances) would appear to have been larger in the past also since we are now using smaller yardsticks (units of measure) to measure/ compare distances. Both of these two factors have an equal influence in determining the observed redshift. To determine the changes in distances (distance scale) between then and now, one would take the square root of z + 1, which would be the square root of 2, or ~1.414 (two equal factors). So the diameter of atoms etc. then would have been 1.414 times larger then than they are now. Distances would also measure/ appear to have been larger then than they measured in their own time. Velocities in general including the speed of light, would also appear to have been faster by this same factor.

Since everything was relatively the same then, mass would not change but comparing it to today's units of measure you could say that mass like size in general, was comparatively larger then. Since mass is proportional to volume, as the radius (or diameter) increases in size by 1.414, the volume and mass would increase by the cube of this amount, or 2.828. So matter then (atoms and stars), compared to today, would have been 2.828 times more massive and greater in volume by this same amount. The comparative changes of time can be calculated also by using the wavelength and related frequency. A wavelength of twice as long, such as a redshift of 1, would have a frequency of half the time as today's same wave length. So accordingly comparing time, one could say that time is twice as fast today as it used to be at a redshift of one. This can be verified by supernova at a redshift of 1, which will last (be observable) twice as long as local versions of the same type 1a supernovae. This is presently called a type of time dilation.

Quasars have consistent patterns of brightness variation. This variation is thought to be a function of their spin velocity. Since velocity is distance traveled per unit of time, we would see distanced to have been greater then, but time to have been slower. Therefore the velocity of spin would appear the same in any time frame. This is what we see when we look at quasars brightness variations; their brightness variations are the same regardless of the redshift and distance. This is contrary to expectations of the Big Bang model and the expanding space hypotheses, but is predicted by this model.

http://creation.com/...2/j24_2_8-9.pdf

Since accordingly the fundamental scale of matter changes over time one could say that relatively speaking, everything in every time frame was the same as in every other time frame when comparing elements to their same time frame. It accordingly would not be valid to compare aspects of different time frames except for necessary calculation purposes concerning observations. In this model there are reasons and explanations why the foundation scale of reality changes over time.

And of course in this model the universe is not expanding and there is no dark energy for the above reasons.

.

pantheory, have you related redshift to distance? How long ago would you expect z=1?

My formula for distance to redshift is a little different than the Hubble formula since the formula instead is based upon this cosmological model. At a redshift of 1 the conventional distance is about 25,000 Mpc (roughly 8 billion light years in distance and time) and with this formula the distance is about 5% closer. For redshifts less than z=.6 distances calculate greater (farther away) than the Hubble formula by up to ~10%.

If you are constructing an entirely new model, I'm not sure how you can use experiments based on the Standard model, since you appear to be rejecting large swaths of it. Same thing for rejecting the probabilistic nature of decay. But that's the level of detail you need to have things count as a prediction.

I am not saying the standard model conclusions are correct or not concerning their experiments or analysis, but they also seem to have some indications that anti-protons are not symmetrical to protons. This does not necessarily mean accordingly that they are less stable or shorter lived but this might be the implication according to the standard model. In this alternative model there are logical reasons why anti-protons are less stable based upon their configuration which is much different than the standard quark configuration.

/

This is a tendency and not an absolute and therefore lacks the rigour we should expect from formal logic. It has no place in your proposed expansion of formal verbal logic.

re: Occam's Razor.

I agree and consider it as a tool of logic rather than as an absolute principle, as are some of the other "principles" listed. Such "tools" would need to be categorized using some fancy names for each group

re: something from nothing

This is apparently valid for the current expression of the universe. We have no particular reason to assume it is applicable to the origin of the universe. Stipulating that it it does would be misleading and wrong.

I think this is a solid principle. For something to come from nothing or for something to turn into nothing violates the first law of thermodynamics: matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. If the universe were finite concerning past time, the beginning of the universe must have had no external cause otherwise such a cause would defy the meaning of the word "finite." (where universe would mean everything in existence)

re: Everything is relative

The speed of light is absolute. You even made implicit mention of this point.

I agree. At the present time we believe the speed of light in a vacuum is absolute/ constant. I believe our present ideas and theory are wrong in that the speed of light is relative to the background field ( the ZPF). For this principle of logic to be correct I would have to prove what I am saying. I have proposed a somewhat expensive experiment to prove what I believe to be true. I must both fund and conduct the experiment. In my model the speed of light accordingly varies by about 60 feet per second at the surface of the Earth, up vs. down. Until proven this principle of logic would not be considered valid, but it could be tested.

re: the universe had no external cause if finite

Logical fallacy arising from the use of two different definitions of universe.

I do not understand your criticism. There is only one definition and meaning for the word universe being used, which is stated in parenthesis.

Sorry, I don't feel you have said anything new or interesting, or even correct.

That's OK. Maybe my explanations will add some clarification

.

michel123456,

....So I guess indeed a single one entity can have more than 1 characteristic, although at first sight, logic tells me the real 1 elementary particle, if exists, should have only 1 characteristic. I am really balanced.

I agree with your logic. In my model the beginning single entity only had the single characteristic of substance, with a single internal unwinding force that perpetuates time and ultimately is the source of particle spin. Accordingly nothing else exists in the entire universe but one fundamental particle with one internal force. To discuss further details of this might be better accomplished in the "alternative to BB thread." To continue discussing the logic or lack thereof concerning theories in general is the purpose of this thread.

We seem to have a lot of parallel thinking

.