# aguy2

Senior Members

578

1. ## After humans?

You are probably sitting in front of a primative form of our evolutionary replacement. aguy2
2. ## Universal Fractal Approach

dov, Here is a good site on 'fractual cosmology'. http://www.amherst.edu/~rlolders/menu.html aguy2
3. ## Undefined Time

Relative to the anti-matter co-universe as proposed in post #51 of the 'Dark Energy' thread. The model presented in post#51 of the 'Dark Energy' thread proposes a model of finite, closed, and possibly osscilating co-universes. Under these conditions time-space would have minimum and maximum values. aguy2
4. ## Undefined Time

In the current thread "Dark Energy" I presented a possible model of a non-isometric universe where the relative speed of the 'visible' universe might be determinable. Although I would value any constructive criticism of the model, for the purpose's of this thread I would like to restate the idea I presented in my original post concerning the possible cosmological equivance of time-space. If it reasonably possible that I can with a degree of validity say such things as, "the sum of matter and energy is a constant", might it be possible that the pattern displayed by matter-energy be extended to the other major constituent of reality, time-space? In other words can I say such things as "at the point of the Big Bang event, the amount of space available to the universe was at its minimum and the amount of time available to the universe was at its maximum?" aguy2
5. ## Undefined Time

What would be the universe's relative speed? I think our problem is that we are looking at different scales. On the atomic scale you are of course right about 'rest mass' and 'relative speeds', but on a cosmological scale I can still say such things as, "the sum of matter and energy is a constant", can't I? aguy2
6. ## Undefined Time

American Heritage Dictionary mass-energy equivalence: noun, the physical principle that a measured quantity of energy is equivalent to a measured quantity of mass. The equivalence is expressed by Einsteins equation E=MC2. aguy2 "There is a relatively high probability that we and the universe around us could very well be involved in an ongoing,staged process of self-creation: wherein and whereby the creator of us and the universe around us is attempting to create itself."
7. ## Dark Energy

The concept of 'dark energy' seems to be a contrivance being put forward to try to explain why the expansion of the universe seems to be accelerating. See http://www.er.doe.gov/Sub/Accomplishments/Decades_Discovery/43.html I have been developing a cosmological model that takes into account the seemingly accelerating expansion without the need for any contrived additions to the constituents of nature. Almost all cosmological models make a common presumption that the expansion of the universe is isometric. They presume that the universe is akin to a balloon being blown up, with the galactic clusters being like spots on the balloon growing further apart. This could very well not be the case. The closest phenomenon to the Big Bang in the current observable universe are being called 'hypernovas'. They seem to be the source of what up to a couple of years ago 'the great mystery of random gamma ray bursts'. They apparently are rapidly rotating giant stars that in the process of collapse eject mass in the form of high energy 'jets'. My model assumes that shortly after the BB event the universe was akin to these hypernovas in that it was rapidly rotating. Unlike these stars it was much too hot to permit the existence of even subatomic particles. When it had expanded and cooled sufficiently to permit the formation of subatomic particles, they took the form of particles and anti-particles in the ratio of 1:1. The vast majority of the particles and anti-particles annihilated one another and erupted from the proto-universe in two gigantic jets. In one of the jets a small proportion of particles survived the annihilation, and in the other an equal number of anti-particles survived. My model assumes that the jet that contained surviveing particles has become what we call the visible universe, and due in part to the possibility that the visible universe may have an anti-matter copartner. if left to its own devises the two halves of the universe shall eventually collapse (or re-collapse) to where the BB originated. In the accompanying attachments I have made a couple of crude representations of possible histories of the model. © represents the universe at its point of maximum expansion from the BB. (d) represents the possible state of the current universe, where the visible universe could be increasing in size at an accelerating rate while at the same time be collapsing toward the BB point. It might be helpful to imagine a fountain of water jetting upward. When the column of water can get no higher it expands at an accelerating rate. NASA has produced a graphic animation of what they think a 'hypernova' would look like. This could also give you a pretty good idea of what I think could have happened during the re-expansion phase of the universe. It is at http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l1/bursts.html under the subheading "Race to Gamma Ray Burst Reveals Gigantic Explosion, Death & Birth". aguy2 ps. Are the now intererstellar 'voyager' robots experiencing time substanually different than we do? "There is a relatively high probability that we and the universe around us could be involved in an ongoing, staged process of self-creation; wherein and whereby the creator of us and the universe around us is attempting to create itself."
8. ## Matter vs. Antimatter- particle destruction

They are doing this at the Cern Switzerland Particle Acellerator. They have an excellent web site at http://Http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/ aguy2 "There is a relatively high probability that we and the universe around us are involved in an ongoing, staged process of self-creation; wherein and whereby the creator of us and the universe around us is attempting to create itself."
9. ## Undefined Time

Could it be possible that time and space are equivilent? Mass and energy are equivilent: why shouldn't shouldn't this basic pattern be extended to the other major constituent of nature. It has always bothered me that it takes a great deal of energy to accelerate mass to relativistic speeds, but an atom's photons seem to leave their atomic system with the only energy loss to the system being the energy expressed as the photons frequency. If time and space were equivilent and the temporal flow were C, wouldn't it be possible that except for oscillations that we detect as wave frequency, the photons simply stop temporaly and we temporaly run into them at C? aguy2 "There is a relatively high probability that we and the universe around us are involved in an ongoing, staged process of self-creation; wherein and whereby the creator of us and the universe around is attempting to create itself."
×