Jump to content

aguy2

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    578
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Neutral

About aguy2

  • Rank
    Molecule
  • Birthday 06/23/1943

Profile Information

  • Location
    Florida's Gulf coast
  • Interests
    reading, research, building sand castles
  • College Major/Degree
    social studies
  • Favorite Area of Science
    varies
  • Biography
    retired
  1. Sorry, I already proved that there was no such thing as 'zero' in the 1970s. My line of reasoning was: If 'zero'='nothing', and 'no'+'thing' = 'nothing', then there would be 'no' such 'thing' as 'zero'! aguy2
  2. My homegrown calculation of 1/35 C appears to be wildly off. Wiki is currently saying that Sol's total velocity (in relation to CMB) is only about 370 km/sec or approx. 1/840 C. aguy2 Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Although this is speculative on my part (see Is the Universe Collapsing? - 2008 11/11/08 in this forum) I think there is a reasonable possibility that, in a reduced form, the BB event/body may still be exant, and thus serve as a location for estimating relative motion. Other than that, the CMB would also serve. Yes, this is the point I was trying to make. If one changes ones temporal location (either backwards or forwards) but not ones spatual location, then to an observer you appear to be where the observer is headed if you traveled back in time, and would appear to be where the observer was, if you traveled ahead in time. Yes, in order to stay in the park, the time traveler would not only change his temporal location, but would also have to travel the same convoluted spatual path the park will. Although this is an interesting thought experiment, this does not mean to say that I consider physical time travel to be possible. I don't really think physical time travel is possible, if for no other reason than that the sub-atomic and atomic components of any physical body have quite likely been around since the very early universe, and there could very well be constraints precluding the possibility of something existing twice in the same temporal location. aguy2
  3. An 'inertial observer'? I don't either, but for some time I have suspected that 'time' and 'space' may be 'equivalent', in that within the context of a Big Bang universe their sum may be a constant. My thought experiment that presumes that traveling 'back' in time would be actually traveling 'forward' spatually seems consistant with my speculation that equivalency is not confined to mass/energy. This an aside and probably gist for another thread, but as long as we are looking at 'relative motion' I have a question concerning the relative motion of Terra (and other orbiting bodies) and the sun: Seeing as the sun is orbiting the galactic center, to an outside observer, wouldn't the orbital path of Terra be a wave? I have tried to plot the yearly path of the planet in relation to the galactic center and seem to come up with a wave that at one point does a 'loop'. IOW in relation to the center of the galaxy the planet crosses its own path once a year. I have searched the internet but can't find where any competent professional has examined or plotted both the solar and galactic orbital path. I really don't trust my own attempt to plot this path. Do you think you might be able ro help me out? aguy2
  4. Why do all the speculations concerning the possibility of 'time travel' presume a non-dynamic staring point, when there is no such thing? Any point on Terra is moving. It is rotating in relation to the planet's axis. It is orbiting our sun. Our sun is orbiting the center of the Milky Way, the Milky Way is moving closer to Andromena, and our glactic cluster as a whole is moving toward a point behind the Virgo Cluster. The total sum of these velocities might be something like 1/35 C. Wouldn't it stand to reason that if you were to travel 35 seconds into the past, you would reappear into empty space approx. 186,000 miles ahead of where you were, and if you stayed in place, 35 seconds latter you would be right back to when and where you were? aguy2
  5. aguy2

    Why?

    I have been contending that the large scale meaning and purpose of reality is what I have been calling either "Self-Creation" or, of late, "Self-Engenderment". With "Self-Engenderment" being defined as, "giving rise to itself without assistance". see http://www.self-engenderment.com aguy2
  6. in re: "Central Nervous System" Are Homo Sapiens, Sapiens central nervous systems a violation of the observed biological phenomenon of, "just enough to get by", or a texbook example of it? aguy2
  7. Martin, I appreciate the time and effort it took to respond, but could I ask for more, by asking you to critique a more detailed presentation of my cosmolgical conjectures. It is titled "Is the Universe Collapsing-2008" and is posted in the "Pseudoscience and Speculations" forum. For instance, is my speculation that the Big Bang event/body could have displayed a high degree of Angular Momentum completely out of line? aguy2
  8. in re: the shape of the universe I have a question: Temporal considerations aside, if one assumed the visible universe were "conic" and not "spherical" in shape, would the observed slight negative curvature be consistent with the "lateral expansion" of a conic shape? aguy2
  9. I would speculate, "Yes." We can't directly observe the 'arrow of time' (well, maybe we are, but are but intrepreting it as the 'spatual' velocity C), other than in our minds, and here, either by convention or some sort a psychological survival mechanism, we normally 'see' time as accumulating. I am speculating that time and space could very well be 'equivalent' forms of one another, and that if our universe consists of a single cycle of a BB/BC situation, then it is easy to see that our universe is, "running out of time", and, of course, space would be expanding. Ps. If there is a reasonable possibility that our context 'changed' from a 0 dimensional singularity to the multiple dimensions we currently observe, why isn't 'time' as expressed as 'change' known as the 1st dimension and not the 4th? The models that assume isometric expansion (the balloon analogy) have real problems. see Is the Universe Collapsing?-2008 in this forum. aguy2
  10. You seem to be speculating that once "opened up" time/space will expand indefinitely. My speculation is that our universe is a "timed" event. I just posted this year's version of my contentions in the "Pseudoscience and Speculations" forum's thread Is the Universe Collapsing?-2008. You might want to check it out. aguy2
  11. Here are 2 more debunks: "If you wish in 1 hand and s*** in the other, you know what you will get." I contend that, "You will get your wish.", that you shouldn't have done that! _________________________________________________________________ "Nice guys finish last." I contend, "Everything is true about that statement, except for the 'last' word." aguy2 Ps. Nice find big314mp. I have added the site to my favorites.
  12. in re: t=0? Are there other sound reasons, other than human convention, to presume that at the BB t had to equal 0? Semanticly at least, it seems to make sense to me that at its inception (the BB), "The universe would have had all the time it will ever have.", thus t=1. If t=1 at the BB and s=0, might not time/space be seen as 'equivalent' in that their sum is a constant? I tend to look at reality (our universe) more from a philsophical POV, but why is 'time' seen in physics as the 4th dimension? Is this just because it was the 4th dimension to be considered? There seems to be a reasonable possibility that the BB developed from a 0 dimension singularity. If a 0 dimension precursor state changes into a multi-dimensionsl state, wouldn't the arrow of time (change) be the 1st dimension and not the 4th? aguy2
  13. Hi, It is time again for my yearly update. These cosmological speculations were largely 'induced' from the philosophical paradigm/syllogism: "We and the Universe around Us are involved in an ongoing, staged process of self-engenderment or self-creation; wherein and whereby the Creator of Us and the Universe around Us is attempting to engender or create itself." see http://www.self-engenderment.com My variant of the BB/BC model presumes that the BB event/body displayed a high degree of 'angular momentum'. When this conserved AM began to be co-opted by emerging sub-atomic structures, the BB event/body partially collapsed, and as a consequence ejected 2 large polar jet/pulses. One of these jet/pulses was comprised of a remnant of un-annihilated anti-matter, and the other a remnant of matter. It is this jet/pulse that we are observing as the visible universe. My model assumes this matter and anti-matter ejection is what is being called the 'inflationary era'. The model also assumes that, although greatly reduced, the BB event/body that ejected the jet/pulses is still exant, and is the source of what is being called 'dark energy'. The model conjectures that although at first generally expanding 'isometrically', our all-matter, conic jet/pulse has since begun to lose momentum vis-a-vis the still exant BB event/body and as a consequence is ongoing an accelerating, generally 'lateral' expansion, and is becoming increasingly 'turbulent'. I am contending that this model provides reasonable solutions to many of the problems plaguing more conventional models. 1) Why isn't the visible universe seen as half matter and half anti-matter? 2) Why does the visible universe seem to be 'flat' (horizon problem)? 3) What caused the 'inflationary era'? 4) What is the source and nature of 'dark energy'? 5) Why does the visible universe seem to be expanding at an accelerating rate? I have been attempting to bring these conjectures to the attention of the professionals, so that they can be properly tested, since 2003, and it seems like every year (from an interested amateur's POV) more evidence seems to accumulate that seems to be supportive of these conjectures. Year before last it was that B-meson asymmetry does not seem to account for the complete lack of anti-matter. Last year's WMAP data seemed to see the seeds of my model's prediction of increasing 'turbulence', in a possible 'haploid' structure in the early post-inflationary era. This year's WMAP data seems supportive of my models presumption of a still exant BB event/body, while being increasingly supportive of a 'turbulent, all-matter, jet/pulse expanding laterally, due to a loss of momentum'. see http://www.http://arXiv.org/abs/0809.3734 "The flow is difficult to explain by gravitational evolution within the framework of the concordance LCDM model and may be indicative of the tilt exerted across the entire current horizon by far-away pre-inflationary inhomogeneities." aguy2
  14. Yes, but first there must be particles. Apparently there is a high likelyhood that the very early pre-inflationary universe did not have particles per se. If there are no sub-atomic particles and no classical bodies to express angular momentum, but AM is a conserved property that was present at the BB, then I am contending that it is highly likely that the pre-inflationary era displayed the conserved AM in the form of a spinning/rotating BB event/body. aguy2
  15. Neither do I. I am contending that the pre-inflationary era would display a high degree of angular momentum, and as a consequence of this angular momentum any large scale ejection of either matter or anti-matter would most likely take the form of polar jet/pulses. These twin polar jet/pulses would not themselves display spin/rotational angular momentum, although their constituent matter and anti-matter would. Can I take it that you agree that there is a good possibility that although neither leptons nor classical bodies existed in the early (pre-inflationary) universe, the angular momentum they presently display, being a conserved property, did, and this angular momentum could likely have meant that the pre-inflationary universe spun in a quantum sense, rotated in a classical sense, or both? aguy2
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.