pantheory

You will be interested in the paper by E. L. Wright [2]. He re-examines the results of [1] and shows how the quasi-steady state model does not fit the power spectrum of the CMBR well. I do not know how Aigen Li's work fit in. I expect, but don't know that it will be a stretch to find a good fit with the power spectrum. We will have to chase up papers that cite Aigen Li.

 

References

[1] J.V. Narlikar, R.G. Vishwakarma, Amir Hajian, Tarun Souradeep, G. Burbidge and F. Hoyle. Inhomogeneities in the microwave background radiation interpreted within the framework of the quasi-steady state cosmology. The Astrophysical Journal, 585, 1.

 

[2]E. L. Wright. The WMAP1 Data and Results. 2003.

Thanks, I have looked for Wright's related paper and found this on-line version which is quite interesting. http://www.astro.ucl...ht/stdystat.htm If this is not the paper you had in mind, do you have a link to it? He has published a great number of related papers. As you said, such a proposal as Li's might be considered to be a stretch. But I believe that complete thermalization by this process would not be a stretch with the inclusion of a particulate aether, continuous proximity, and a great deal more time to thermalize, as in this proposed model.

 

I have read Wright's material on 1a supernova's, comparing his (student prepared) binned data with my own, and have perused his tutorials. The standard model chart that I use for comparison with my own model explaining away dark energy, is very similar to the one that Wright published concerning dark energy interpretations since I generally used (redrew) his graphic version which I thought was the best to explain standard model interpretations. I only live maybe 30 miles south of UCLA which I attended, and where Wright still teaches (as far as I know) since he is younger than I am

 

From your previous posting:

 

....Other problems of the steady state include explaining the abundances of the light elements. Big bang models do this very well....

In this model I generally rely on the same equations and physics as the standard model concerning the abundances of light elements although I suspect there are different physics involved. According to the standard model, hydrogen along with the light elements "condensed out" of the original very hot, dense "primordial energy," being the starting material of the universe. In the subject model, such a similar state accordingly continues to exist concerning galactic jets from active galactic nuclei (AGN's), excepting instead of pure energy it is accordingly newly created protons, electrons, mixed with disintegrated (fissioned) matter that surrounded black holes within their toruses. Also many positrons were created but few anti-protons, which in this model are relatively short-lived particles. This model also proposes fusion processes surrounding black holes and within the base of the galactic jets, as well as fission processes. The jets however could also be looked at as mostly reduced to pure energy as in the standard model version of creation, justifying the use of the same equations. Black holes in this model, are a form of condensed matter that would be the same as the concept of highly condensed field material, which you could call compressed dark matter. Being another form of matter, accordingly it would look like a compressed ball of tiny strings, if we could see the details -- with no particulate matter within it since original matter would accordingly be broken down to its elementary string constituents.

It is not just the fact that the CMBR is almost perfectly thermal and uniform that needs explaining, but also the angular power spectrum. Maybe at a push Hoyle's whiskers of iron could be used to get something resembling the CMBR, but the devil is in the detail. As far as I know, the quasi-steady state model cannot reproduce the details of the CMBR. If you know of a source that shows me wrong than please point it out.

 

Other problems of the steady state include explaining the abundances of the light elements. Big bang models do this very well.

Thanks for your comments since I realize that all of them well-represent mainstream consensus. I was quite impressed with the paper I presented concerning the CMBR and how it might be produced by "cosmic needles."

 

I too do not favor Steady State models in general. First of all I dislike them philosophically concerning an infinite universe in time, space, and matter. To me infinity is far from simple and difficult to logically justify. Being finite is difficult enough for many people to understand concerning the universe as a whole and in particular its beginning. Logic is different between individuals but for me a "finite" universe in all respects is the only possibility. The other problem I have with both models is the asserted expansion of the universe, since I believe there is a far better and simpler explanation for the observed redshifts than the recession of galaxies from each other.

 

The best that I presently can do concerning explaining the observed background radiation is by presenting this link (copied wrong above ) http://iopscience.io...f/56860.web.pdf because it is very well documented, with much supporting maths involving the related theoretical physics and I can see no fault of explanation. As I said before, I think justification for such a proposal would be even easier with the inclusion of physical entities in the ZPF such as dark-matter-like constituents, for instance, which this model requires. It would be interesting to me to see the mainstream responses to that paper. I think this paper is preferable to Hoyle's final version in that two elements are used instead of just one: iron and graphite (carbon). and that it includes many other studies and supporting papers since Hoyle's last paper. This model being presented has only a few things in common with the "older" SS models. The proposal that the universe in a general steady state condition, is one similarity of the models, and another is the continuous creation of new matter from the background field (ZPF), as first proposed by Dirac. How this model differs from Hoyle's models is that the Universe in this model is finite in all respects, and secondly that there is no expansion of the universe. So I do not favor Hoyle's models as being preferable to the standard model since my own model, first written in 1959, differs greatly from both models.

 

How the redshift is explained in this model is by a diminution of matter process. Matter must accordingly decrease in size ~1/000 part every 5 million years. In my opinion this explains the observed redshifts with equivalent merit as the expanding space model. Larger atomic/ molecular matter in the past would have accordingly produced longer wavelengths of radiation. The reason for this diminution would accordingly be that matter of all types must unwind/ rewind for its existence, according to this model. Its internal potential energy and externally expressed kinetic energy can accordingly be observed as particle spin. When such strings (since this is also a 3 dimensional string theory plus time) of field material deform to loop and self engage, we observe their spin (angular momentum) but in this model spin really means spinning. There is no other explanation for particle spin (angular momentum) that I know of concerning the standard model, so I consider particle spin as evidence that supports this model concerning the diminution of matter. The model also "requires" an additional theory of relativity in that everything in its own time frame would appear and measure exactly the same as everything comparable would in any other time frame. This is also explained mathematically.

 

respectfully, Forrest Noble

I do not think there are many scientists who are working on models of a luminiferous aether. Such an aether is not required in accepted theory and there is no experimental evidence that it exists. I don't know any modern papers on the subject myself.

 

A couple of points here I should make. Dirac's paper, Nature, 1951, vol. 168, pp. 906-907 suggests that quantum field theory (as it was understood at the time) requires an aether. However, he does not formulate this and so it is hard to really understand what he truly meant. It is not current modern thinking that an aether is required.

 

Einstein-Aether Theory is not a theory of the luminiferous aether, rather it is "general relativity plus a unit time-like vector field". Such a vector field gives a preferred direction to space-time much like the luminiferous aether would, but this is where similarity stops. Aether is also used to mean any vector field that breaks local Lorentz invariants, it is in this sort of context you will hear the term today. Just about all modern papers I know use the term aether to mean "something that breaks local Lorentz invariance" rather than some medium for propagation of light. The others talk about a gravitational aether.

 

The notion of a gravitational aether comes up from time to time in theories of quantum gravity. This is linked with dark energy and cosmology. This I would consider to be a little on the fringes, but dark energy is a current open problem cosmology. Gravitational aether is an incompressible fluid added to a geometric theory of gravity and should have observable effects that deviate from general relativity.

 

Anyway, this is a red herring and has no real bearing proving a young Earth.

I agree, I haven't seen any mainstream papers concerning a luminiferous aether (explaining EM radiation waves) in the last 30-40 years but the models of yore are still out there as well as numerous alternative (non-mainstream) proposals and papers in alternative cosmology journals and other publications. I also propose such a model. As to gravitation aether, my own model is also one of those -- so aether is mandatory for my own model for these and other reasons.

 

When talking to young-earth people (or religious people in general) I usually try to change the subject after their initial assertions, to one where I can learn something rather than just listening to what I consider to be ill-conceived justifications such as the ones above.

 

I love your postings. No axe to grind, simply edifying all concerning the facts and theories involved, providing information for learning. In my experience these qualities are very rare concerning someone with your extent of education. Thanks, Forrest

jbor: As for the ether goes, refer him to the Michelson Morley experiment. You're being bated with rubbish.

You may be unfamiliar with the very numerous modern aether theories; of course this is totally unrelated to a 6,000 year old Earth or creationism, and I agree that most of what is suggested in the above paragraph I also consider to be rubbish, but aether remains a serious theory concerning many scientists as evidenced by the many modern papers concerning its mechanics.

 

This link below shows some of these many modern papers concerning aether. I provided this link because it is a summary but certainly not all inclusive. The most recent paper listed was in 1995 and there are many more recent.

 

http://www.mountainm...au/aetherqr.htm

Alternatives to natural selection, The O.P.: How new species are/ can be created:

 

pwagen ....I've tried to think of something, but really can't. While my brother suggested selective selection (he explained it by having 2 banana flies and mating them until you get a fly with the traits you want), that requires an external force which controls it all. But it's not something that, to my knowledge, happens "in the wild". So if anyone can think of any such process, I'd be grateful.

 

But then again, I guess the natural in natural selection says it all...

There are at least two other known players that assist in genetic flow and species determination. The first one involves something called "epi-genetic speciation," also having other names, and the second agent is called "cross genetic flow," also having other names to it. These two are not exactly in competition with natural selection but certainly play some part in genetic flow and speciation in general but ultimately involve natural selection to continue the existence or improvements of new species. I will briefly explain the details of each:

 

Both of these processes are a type of instant speciation. There are several other known and possible agents for speciation (more speculative) that I won't discuss.

 

First concerning epi-genetic speciation: It involves external agents like radiation, many types of chemicals, whether natural or organic via food, ingested, inhaled, puncture wounds, etc., or internal errant excretion processes. All organisms have two systems concerning there genetic character. One is called its gene structure each of which contains long stands of DNA. And secondly their epi-genetic system, which determines which DNA strands of particular genes are active and which are not (turned on or off). For all organisms most DNA strands concerning potentially active strands, are inactive (turned off). Through epi-genetic changes conceivably a new species could be created by a single individual, usually a female (in plants or animals) when sex is involved. Either by radiation or by eating a foreign food/ material for instance or random processes, the ovarian DNA might be changed by foreign or internal agents in rare cases. In such cases if a change in the genes themselves (long stands of DNA where there is a change in turning DNA on or off) occur by chance, some offspring may not be able to breed with the main stock and will only be able to bread with their brothers and sisters which have the same epi-genetic characteristics. This epi-genetic change(s) may also cause an individual to look different so that in one generation speciation has occurred. It is theory in that it has never been observed in nature but it is fact in that such changes have occurred in the lab primarily through radiation. Some epi-genetic speciation is also thought to involve Lemarckism which has been discussed above.

 

The other agent of speciation is called cross genetic flow, which also concerns a one-step process of speciation. In its most common form it involves viruses or bacteria getting into the DNA of animals (or plants) from their blood stream into their ovaries of testes. Accordingly before an animal is born and during the time of their development. If an genetic invasion happens during this formative time then the ovaries or testes will have genetic variations that can be greatly replicated in the animals reproductive organs. The animals themselves most often will be normal physically but its offspring may only be fertile concerning mating with some of its brothers or sisters respectively and may not be able to reproduce with the parent stock of animals. Again in one generation a new species might be created in this way with greatly different characteristics. The new species does not have to be better adapted, it only needs to be able to eat and reproduce with its own kind and then it will survive as a new species. All of these occurrences are rare in nature but we are aware of both viral and bacterial stands of DNA in our own genetics concerning all humans. These DNA strands do not have to be active but they change the folding of our DNA which determines which DNA sequences in our genome are turned on and off -- so without at least some of them, we would not be the same.

 

The same processes described above for animals also apply to plants. There are a great many things about evolution that we still do not know or understand but you can believe that natural selection will probably never be replaced as the dominant player concerning speciation.

My quote bottom paragraph posting #16:

 

SHB: It's not that these entities (space, time, gravity) must have been created at the beginning of the universe, it's that they would have no meaning in and of themselves, like in another universe for instance, in the absence of matter or field. This is the most common understanding of the standard model as well as this model being presented. The concept of "before the beginning" of the universe (if "universe" means everything that ever has existed) is also a logical contradiction

BJC,

 

On reflection concerning my last posting, I think Barbour when using the words "static universe" means not expanding or contracting. If this is his perspective then it is contrary to the standard model but in-line with own thinking and cosmological model

 

...Of interest is his derivation (reduction to) General & Special Relativity...

I'll have to check that out.

 

....he describes why light has a certain velocity...

Also his perspectives/ hypothesis/ theory on this matter would be cool to check out.

....He asserts that both time and motion are "our artifacts"....

Yeah, on this matter his perspective and related theory differ from my own. And both perspectives differ from the standard model understandings.

 

I suspect Entropy, in Barbour's premise, would be the ratios between the many "not-so-best matching" to the "best matching"

 

I should look at his wrings and the video since many of his ideas sound interesting.

 

regards Forrest

I have been watching solar flares for years,I am now convinced that a very small few of them break the speed off light,I will explain why.

 

Go look at the videos of solar flares and do this.

 

Draw a circle around the outside of the sun,draw another circle 186,000 miles out from that line,this is the distace the solar flare should not be able to cross in 1 second(a bit of mathmatics is needed to figure out where to place the second line as every video is a bit different but if your on this website thats no problem for us.

 

Most of the solar flare videos show flares that stay under this line BUT I have found 3 which the flares cross this line in under 1 second,it's close but they cross it,then they slow down and travel at the speed of light,so what I figured out is that they have to go faster than the speed of light for than small amount of time then slow to the speed of light.

 

It's like throwing a rock into water,it goes real fast in the air until it hits the water then falls to the bottom at a constant speed.

 

The flares are even going out this fast being pulled back by the suns huge gravity.

 

I think I have just figured something really important out,please pass this on to everybody,if I'm wrong I need to know why,please don't speculate why I'm wrong,prove it to me,I tried to disprove myself for along time now and can't, the evidence is right there on tape.

 

Thanks guys,please discuss this and let me know what you think,Greg.

I think it is a possibility and maybe in accord with all theory, but if not maybe a logical alternative hypothesis can explain it. This is how it may work if all your photo info, timing and measurement(s) are accurate:

 

As flare material is blasted out from the sun there is much matter involved with the blast which may move at a speed of let's say 5% the speed of light. The quantity of this material may be substantial. EM radiation will travel within/through this outward moving matter field which might be accompanied by its own gravitational field. The speed of the EM radiation would then be the speed of the fast moving field plus the speed of light. This leading radiation could then light up initial, invisible precursor materials to the visible blast material resulting in what you have observed, or not Assuming what you have determined as well as the related timing of it is correct, I expect that there are also other hypothesis which could explain what you have preliminary determined. I agree that if your interpretation and all else is valid, that it would seem to be an important discovery.

Hi, first post here.

 

I am not sure if this is the right place to post this, however considering what im about to post is baseless and completely not within mainstream physics I figure it should be the right sub-forum.

 

I have been having a back and forth with a creationist now for 2 days with him making some wild claims that he can prove the universe is 6000 years old using relativity, inflation period of the universe and the 'ether model'. I'm not having this back and forth with him to try and 'make him see the errors of his ways' since that is usually impossible, however I do want to leave something behind in case anyone comes across his ramblings and doesn't accept them on face value. Physics is not my strong suit by far (that is history and evolution) but nothing what this guy is saying makes sense from what I do know.

 

Here are his various thoughts on the subject.

 

I know he is wrong about this, even with my limited understanding - nothing he is saying matches up with the current model for the universe. The Ether model is old and no longer used, he thinks the inflation period lasted long enough for the milky way to form and be part of it (impossible I know), and that some how a 'universe expanding several times faster than light' makes the universe 6000 years old. However rather than trying to reason with this guy with my limited knowledge I was wondering if someone here could lend me a hand.

If you are trying to explain how reality works by reasoning with him, I wouldn't bother. He is too far down on the education ladder to understand valid explanations by anyone IMO. If you are trying to better understand this material yourself and also to be able to provide enlightenment for such conversations, there are some relatively simple cosmology primers out there as well as on-line material that can be read in maybe just a few days.

 

If you Google "ether" (aether) you will see a number of modern aether models so he may not be wrong in this statement, since considerations of a particulate aether such as the many dark matter proposals, Higg's particles, quantum foam, gravitons, field strings, etc. continue. Otherwise I see no merit at all, according to evidence or logic, in anything else that he believes as indicated above

BJC,

 

Thanks for that. Haven't heard of Barbour before but greatly like his general perspectives and the quote you presented concerning his related "enlightenments." I may have disagreement with his last two sentences, which I think is only minor compared to the gist of the whole paragraph.

 

The quantum universe is likely to be static.

I probably do not understand what he means by "static." If he means generally unchanging over hundreds of millions of years, I would generally agree.

.

Motions and the apparent passage of time may be notion but very well founded illusion."

As to this quote, although he soften the suggestion by saying "may be," this sentence seems to me as a contradiction to his other statements concerning time, where time accordingly seems to be solely the change between two instances, which is a simple concept and I think the best perspective and definition of it. Change is both measurable and understandable, and the relative dilation of time is comprehensible. For instance "unchanging things," like going backward it time, does not seem reasonable IMO. Motion is also a relative condition and as such is simple to understand, but his last sentence does not seem to fit with the whole concerning his generally enlightening perspectives IMO.

owl, can i ask a question? what do you want this standardized clock for?

Maybe not now, but seemingly in our cosmic future such a computer adjusted clock concerning "galactic meantime" or "universe meantime" will be a necessity for space colonies, star travel, etc.

ajb,

 

....If you have a genuinely good model of cosmology you will have to examine details of the CMBR within that model. The CMBR is a powerful thing that can rule in or rule out models. Unless your theory evolves into the standard model fairly quickly or can accommodate the finger print of last scattering then you will never really know if you have a good model....

Answer continued: Although I may prefer a more hypothetical primary mechanism to evenly "thermalize" the microwave background, there are accordingly facilitating factors and considerations according to this model. which could result in the even temperature distribution of the CMBR. The first factor concerns the consideration that in this model the universe is many times older than the age of the universe according to the BB model. This would allow much more time for this proposed equilibrium process to work. The second consideration is that accordingly the universe is not expanding as in the standard model or Hoyle's models. There instead is another explanation for galactic redshifts. Non-expanding volumes also provide a greater amount of time concerning the continuous proximity of matter to adjacent matter, accordingly enabling it to reach temperature equilibrium.

 

Even though I have suggested this temperature distribution mechanism as possibly being the most important mechanism, this does not discount the possibility according to this model, that Hoyle's mechanism is the most important CMBR temperature distribution and equilibrium mechanism.

 

Here is a link below to a modern analysis of Hoyle's proposal which is enhanced concerning the use of both iron and graphite as the elements of temperature distribution having blackbody absorption characteristics. According to this paper some of this intergalactic matter from supernova would be somewhat extended in form, called needles, which accordingly would have greater absorption characteristics.

 

http://www.sciencefo...9-speculations/

Killafur,

 

Hi Kyle,

 

.........Has anyone ever considered that space and gravity is older than the universe?

There are models that propose that both pre-existed the present universe. That is not the model that I am presenting however. I believe this is by far the simplest possible model that represents reality in general as it is. In time you can decide if you can think of a simpler model than this one. In this model space is the distance between matter and gravity requires an aether or dark matter in the Zero Point Field if you prefer to think of it that way. The field accordingly was the first thing created and soon thereafter matter. The field acts on matter to push it together which are accordingly the mechanics of gravity.

 

Also, I am starting to believe that time is only a unit of measure that man made up to put an ordered classification to things so we can keep track.

I believe yours is a valid perspective. Time, accordingly is an interval of change between 2 instances -- that's it. All of reality is classified by humans to help them explain reality. The way that we chose to organize it is certainly not the only way it could be logically organized.

 

Now for my big question: If I take away time from the equation, but I leave gravity and space there. Just make them there before the start. How do I fit that against any model for comparison? Most of our equations that I would be up against, have space, time, and gravity within them, and that they were made at the point of our creation.

Think about it. What would be the meaning of gravity and space without matter and field. Gravity also would seem meaningless without matter. In this model space and time cannot exist separately from matter and field. The behavior of gravity requires matter to give meaning to the word gravity. In one way or another everything that has existence is an extension of matter and field, and accordingly matter itself is created from field material. So according to this model all of these words and concepts (space, time, gravity, matter) are man-made concepts that accordingly could not exist without the field to define or create them. Without the field reality could not have existence. Without intelligence to define and organize them, these concepts and related entities would be generally meaningless.

 

It's not that these entities were created in the beginning, it's that they have no meaning separate from substance (matter and field) which had an original creation point in a model finite in time, which this is. To consider the concept of "before the beginning" is a logical contradiction

Edtharan...Because we can prove and understand the process as a mathematical construct

While there is a great deal of supporting evidence for evolution tis true, and some supporting genetic analysis involved, but math is not a good analog of evolution and probably never will be IMO.

BJC,

I was attempting to understand your post of (pantheory, on 4 July 2011 - 11:26 AM) not making any assertion of my own. What then were you trying to say:

That's the problem with theorists like myself, there material is never clear

 

What I was trying to say was that Steady State models in general do not have to include an expanding universe, such as the models of yore and my own model for instance. Such theories generally involve a constant density of matter in the universe. Most of such models are infinite models concerning time, space, and matter, but not all.

If it is true that there is a Great Void of 3.5 BILLION light years across, then the universe is not very "homogeneous and isotropic" with matter uniformly distributed. That sounds like a very uneven distribution.

Yeah you're right, not a very even distribution but theorists believe that since this only involves the observable universe, that on a larger scale that the overall homogeneity would become apparent. This brings us back to the OP question. Is there enough time in the BB model for such a structure to form? and how could it form according the the standard model? Answers to these questions according to the standard model may be more difficult to conjure and seemingly more speculative.

.

You've obviously devoted a great deal of time, effort, and thought to your Pan Theory. In my estimation this has been a monumental undertaking on your part, for which I congratulate you heartily.

 

I wonder, though, in what way your theory can better explain the orbits of the planets around our sun than the (approximate) formulations of Kepler's laws of planetary motion while, at the same time, provide a sound basis for explaining the anomalous galactic rotation curves observed by Vera Rubin and Kent Ford and the equally anomalous rotational velocities of galaxies in galaxy clusters observed and reported by Fritz Zwicky 40 years earlier (at which time he postulated the existence of "unseen matter")

Thanks for dropping by Chris. As to gravity I do have my own formulations which have modified Newtonian dynamics, called MOND. This is a unique MOND mathematical and theoretical version that unfortunately has variables which I had to include from my beginning formulation. As to calculations concerning solar system distances, I use Newtonian and Einsteinian calculations where applicable. The forces of gravity are accordingly the inverse square law of Newton but the vector inward toward the source, becomes accordingly non-linear (tangent vectors involved) at stellar and galactic scales. Einstein called it the warping of space, and my description of it is that gravity is a pushing force that works via fluid dynamics and vortex motion. The need for the variables that I use involve observed characteristics of galaxies. Two spiral galaxies, for instance, that seem to have nearly the same mass and appearance, have been shown to have differing rotation curves. In the standard model they throw more dark matter into the mix to enable differing calculations. In my calcs I change two variable to come to a similar conclusion. Neither system is good since you first need to make observations of the rotation curve to enable the calculation of it. This is ugly. It's called retrodiction, predictions after the fact. It is the system that we presently use. Essentially there are no predictions at all, only rough estimations can be initially made with the present system or my equations

 

The problem, according to the proposed model, is that the fluid dynamics/ vortex motions of the aether (or you could call it dark matter if you prefer) moves in unobservable currents that eventually funnel into the galaxy with some variation in time, meaning that gravity in inter-stellar space at the galactic scale is not constant and accordingly varies to a greater extent concerning the outer galaxy independent of the matter within the galaxy. This theory asserts that dark matter is not really matter in the classical sense but its currents and acceleration are the pushing forces of gravity itself. It is omnipresent and we observe it in the lab as the Zero Point Field. These entities will be difficult to recognize because its constituents are maybe 10^-30 m. in length where a proton is about 10^-18 m radius. These strings vary in length but accordingly on average they are roughly a trillion times smaller than a proton but larger than a Plank length ~10^-35 m. According to this model they are string-like in form but this in not classical string theory and there are no extra dimensions. Of course this aspect of the theory I consider to be hypothetical since such string-like entities or particles have not been recognized.

 

That's all for now Chris, keep the questions coming. The O.P. tells where the theoretical and hypothetical reading material is if you wish to peruse it. regards Forrest

 

Please also read Andrew Liddle, An Introduction to Modern Cosmology, 2nd Edition [Paperback], Wiley-Blackwell; 2nd Edition edition (27 Mar 2003). It is a great little book outlining the modern status of cosmology. The book does requires a little familiarity with physics, but does not require any general relativity.

I agree. Before seriously considering the merits of any alternative model one needs to have a fair understanding of the mainstream view/ theory/model. In cosmology maybe 10's of thousands of individuals have worked on the present mainstream model for more than 50 years. From this initial study, perspective, and related understandings, a basis for asking better questions and related critical thinking can better develop, which is needed (in my opinion) to better evaluate the comparative merits of any alternative model in any field of study.

Hey greenj,

 

What you meant to say was a void 3.5 G light years distance across, which is about 1/4 the radius of the visible universe which is roughly 13.5 G LY distance in any direction. Here G refers to a billion light years.

 

Your quote: "there hasn't been enough time since the big bang for such large voids to form. Now, that's a problem." I totally agree with this statement but you should realize that this statement is only opinion by itself and standard model proponents would disagree with it totally.

So, what's the answer?

Well the implied answer is that the BB model is wrong, but you can bet your booty that standard model theorists were not surprised and have come up with some logical possibilities according to the standard model. Realize this was a 2009 observation.

 

Hey you got it, V-Bang here we come, or not

 

Such quandaries concerning the standard model have been around since its beginning and it's still here, so I don't think it will quietly go away until totally contradictory observations come up. Who knows how long that will take. Most presently believe never.

Just a question...to my understanding heat is only expressed when compression occurs. Have you considered if time and space could be compressing? Consider what happens to Energy in Einstein's formula when time compresses? It is not hard math, and you will find extraordinary amounts of energy are released. I too have written a book, but about time; and find the answers you seek are easily explained by introducing the variability of time. Time and space were much bigger in the past, and compression has created a heated spinning universe...could it be?

Sounds like there is logic to your model which is a good thing From one time frame to another space and time might compare to themselves differently, but in my model every time frame would observe space and time exactly in the same manner, measure, count, and proportions as we measure them today.

 

Of course:

 

.....There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Shakespeare: Hamlet

 

In this case meaning that in my opinion it's still all up for grabs Just consider all of the proposed variations of the standard model alone

 

But in the non-standard model being discussed, time and space are very simple entities that have no other meanings to them than this: Time is simply an interval of change between two instances. And space is simply the distance between matter or a volume wholly occupied by matter and/ or field (the ZPF).

 

thanks for your question and keep them coming

Well not really against Occam's razor, but certainly not consistent with what we know about the large scale structure of the Universe. It could be possible that on very large scales the cosmological principle is not so good, it is of course not good on the galactic sale. But that is just wild speculation, based on no facts that I am aware of.

 

As you might realize, if it cannot be explained verbally in a relatively simple and logical manner, I probably will not be too fond of it concerning theory -- but then again that's just me My belief (and theory) is that on the largest scale beyond the observable universe, that the matter densities as well as the field, will eventually start to fade off gradually into nothingness but this seemingly will be forever unknowable

BJC,

Are you trying to say that the density of the universe has never changed with time? Does that imply the density at (say) +200,000 years is the same as (say) +13. billion years?

I cannot make such an assertion concerning the observable universe in this forum but I would in the Speculation Forum I know of a few observation papers over the many years that have concluded that densities vary, but such assertions in my readings over the years, are few and far between. If you have such a link to a scholarly paper concerning observations where the conclusion is otherwise, I would need to read it.

 

best regards

markearthling,

 

Cool book fast-read 1970. Looking forward to the movie. Bet it will be good!

Hi there,

This is Kyle Smith, from a few discussions down. Lame joke I know. Oh well lol. Anyhow, I just downloaded the pdf off of the website listed above, and am looking forward to studying it. Looks like I have some late nights though. Also, just wanted to say thanks for some direction, and hopefully soon I can be more up to speed enough to participate in this discussion.

 

Thanks Kyle. A lot of good questions, in my opinion, are based upon what might trouble someone concerning the standard model or any cosmological model for that matter. It's a long book and the foundation material at the beginning is hypothetical rather than theoretical since the model is aether based. The beginning is a string type theory, aether theory; the math doesn't come in till later. So consider any questions you might ask are valid and that formality is not involved. And your knowledge of the theory may not enable you to ask a better question. It may help me more than you, enabling me to better spot where theory might not be adequately explained Everything that I explain should be found in the book, but when it's not I will try to tell you first since I would consider such answers to be more speculative.

 

While reading the book, it would be better concerning any related questions that you might use wordings that anyone reading this thread might understand the question. I also will try to do the same thing since overly technical material can only entertain the very few

 

Thanks for your interest, best regards, Forrest Noble

 

BTW, I live over here on the west coast of the colonies, Los Angeles in particular

P.S. I like emoticons, happy faces and lol's in particular since I believe lightheartedness and laughing in particular is one of the keys to a happy life, or not

<br>I think I have to be a little insistent  on this. If you have  a genuinely good model of cosmology you will have to examine details of the CMBR within that model. The CMBR is a powerful thing that can rule in or rule out models. Unless your theory evolves into the standard model fairly quickly or can accommodate the finger print of last scattering then you will never really know if you have a good model. <br><br>Details of the CMBR cannot be accommodated in  the steady state model, this was really the nail in the coffin for the theory.

<br>I am presently looking toward primarily two ways that might provide evidence for this model. One  involves future sightings of the James Webb and related distant infra-red observations, to provide strong evidence against the standard model  according to the O.P. assertions. The other method concerns the dissemination and criticisms of my type 1a supernova paper that I  believe explains reality far better than the dark energy hypothesis.  I also have another explanation for redshifts which preclude the expansion of the universe that is not known to many theorists. Within just 10 years I believe one theory will become stronger and the other weaker for the above reasons.  In the interim I may choose "to fool with" highly speculative equations concerning aether conduction to at least suggest possibilities/ hypothesis concerning the uniformity of the microwave background, where presently such musings would be considered by most to be no more than speculation. The main problems with such math is that it might never be validly criticized until/ unless the nature of the aether, at least in part, is "discovered" such as discovering dark matter and its characteristics, for instance. <br><br>I know Maxwell developed the present mathematical theory of magnetism based on the aether, so maybe I should try to develop aether equations concerning "aether conduction" but also know they would lie dormant (no one would look at them) until I could prove the theory in some other way. I have proposed ideas and tests that might do this. <br><br>

You have a model of gravity that is better than general relativity? Now you have placed yourself up against one of the best tested theories we know. I am sure you can accommodate all the classical tests of GR?

<br>It is a MOND type formulation that also incorporates GR for "close" calculations. It accordingly justifies this incorporation in that GR asserts the warping of space while similarly this model incorporates similar aether vortex motions. I personally dislike the use of Riemann geometry in place of vortex/ fluid motions but its hard to argue with success <img src="http://pub.scienceforums.net/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif" class="bbc_emoticon" alt=""><br><br>In the scope of galactic scales and the rotation rates of spiral galaxies like the Milky Way, for instance, my equations are functionally no better than the present dark matter hypothesis since there are variables involved, something like throwing dark matter into the mix. It is a vortex type model but it is accompanied by verbal theory that asserts that such variables can never be fully calculated because of fluid dynamic variables that exist within the aether field, so that all calculations would be statistical in nature, involving tolerances. At galaxy scales my expectation is that in time the tolerance range will be narrowed based upon discovered "hidden variables."Note that the same explanation would apply to the ZPF (which accordingly would be the aether) and the motions of quantum particles. Both the dark matter hypothesis and my own model's calculations, have their basis in retrodiction (in my opinion) -- which I am not too fond of but accordingly theorize that gravity involves unpredictable variables at the largest scales. These variables might accordingly become less significant concerning volumes of space as large as multiple super-clusters and voids and the observable universe.<br><br><br>Don't know how I goofed up the posting with the internal script <img class="bbc_emoticon" alt="" src="http://pub.scienceforums.net/public/style_emoticons/default/mellow.gif"><br>

Well, we all need to think mathematically here. The cosmological principle translates mathematically into the statement that the 3-space is homogeneous and isotropic. (We also assume that a universe is connected).

 

If we were to lose the cosmological principle, then one would be forced to consider such things. In particular one could have "cosmologies" that are not FRW

Again I agree, but have never considered such cosmologies seriously since, in my opinion, they would be contrary to Occam's Razor, but again that may be only me

.