Maroun Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) This post was cancelled Edited November 30, 2012 by Maroun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 A collection of random equation, a few citations to wikipedia and some rambling about religion and ethnicity. Nice... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 ! Moderator Note Moved to speculations - please take a moment to read the specific rules of that forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maroun Posted November 30, 2012 Author Share Posted November 30, 2012 Please don't be a big mouth, the paper might be too complicated. Understand the article, it is simpler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Please don't be a big mouth, the paper might be too complicated. Understand the article, it is simpler. No one's being a bigmouth here, Maroun. People noted your math (if it can be called that) is making no sense. The connection you are making to religion doesn't help your case either. Your equations are lacking, much, and they don't serve to remotely prove what you claim they should prove. Maybe you should take a step back and explain your theory again, this time deriving all the equations properly so we can see what it is you're trying to do. Physics doesn't speak English, it speaks math, especially when evidence is required. And this: I learned physics in high school, and I studied the fundamental laws that managethe nature by a number of excellent teachers, although, no one informed me anything regards the mechanics of the universe, as well as no body lent me a hand to explore the technicalities of the cosmos. Is quite evident. So, let us help you learn how the mechanics of theories is done, by starting with a properly drafted derivation -- without all the fluff semi-racial religion-related dribble. It's irrelevant. ~mooey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maroun Posted November 30, 2012 Author Share Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) I don't think you even read the article, it's FULL of math. Don't just throw words at me, this article is SCIENTIFIC. Religion, ethnicity, or whatever is NOT part of my theory of the universe. I just mentioned them because I'm proud of them, they are part of my identity! READ the article, then, after you understand it, READ the paper Edited November 30, 2012 by Maroun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maroun Posted November 30, 2012 Author Share Posted November 30, 2012 What does the Lambda-CDM model say about the initial mass-energy of the universe and what does Maroun say? We were hoping to find the quantity of the initial mass of the cosmos through "Einstein's radius of the universe": r = (constant#r) / ( d ^ 1/2 ) … (1) (constant#r) = c / ( 4 pi G ) ^ 1/2 r: Einstein's radius of the universe d: Density of the space of the universe c: The speed of light constant G: The Newtonian gravitational constant pi = 3.14159 and by favoring a sphere universe, the volume of the universe ( V ) is given by the formula: V = 4/3 pi r^3 … (2) Finally, we get the final result by applying the formula: m = V d … (3) m: The mass-energy of the universe Cosmology substitutes Planck length as the initial radius of the universe ( r0 ) in eq #1, remember that r0 = 10^-35 m. As a result d0 = 10^97 kg/m^3 And V0 = 10^-105 m^3 This makes m0 = 10^-8 kg, or a consequence equals Planck mass So the outcome of m0: The initial mass of the universe from Einstein's radius of the universe is wrong and makes no sense because the quantity 10^-8 kg is too big for the subatomic scale universe, but we get correct results by applying the current radius of the universe ( r2 ) which approximately equals around 10^25 m. Substituting r2 in eq #1 gives a final mass of m2 = 10^52 kg. m2: The estimated total mass-energy of the observable universe Anyway, I did the clean work in physics and cosmology, and I found a formula that applies at the subatomic and the large scale at the same time, a formula that sets m0 and m2 in one theory that can be called the theory of everything. In contrast with the Lambda-CDM, my theory works everywhere and at any moment. Maroun's equations share the same results with the modern theories on the large scale universe, but we know that the Lambda-CDM fails in the subatomic scale. I found out that: m2 = 10^52 kg. m0 = 10^-38 kg. This is by using my discovery of the general formula of the universe. m = constant ( t ^ 3 ) ^ 1/2 constant = c^3 / G * (1/t2)^1/2 t: Time which is determined through the interval [ t0, t2 ] t2: The instant age of the universe at this moment according to the big bang theory t0: Planck time constant Remember that r0 = c t0 - What is the amount of energy released in the Big Bang? I value Dr. Gerald Schroeder opinion, and I keep in mind that the Jews are the first masters of the Bible after God: when a Jewish master explains science, you will understand that cosmology does not contradict the Bible. I hope this was good introduction ! Maroun complete picture of the universe & the equations of all times (a solution for the initial state of the universe). Maroun general formula of the cosmos unifies the subatomic universe with the large scale. Through my equations, where I consider the law of conservation of energy, you can calculate the quantity of the total observable mass-energy of the universe at any moment (this includes dark matter and dark energy). The universe has a constant amount of total mass-energy (EC) that is equal to the total observable mass-energy at this moment (which is known as the "age of the universe"). It is true that the universe has a constant amount of mass-energy, but virtually, the physical quantities of the observable universe are changing and here I introduce a set of equations to estimate them. Sincerely, Essam Maroun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Religion, ethnicity, or whatever is NOT part of my theory of the universe. I just mentioned them because I'm proud of them, they are part of my identity! Great, but they have no place here or in any scientific article you write. In fact, they put me off pretty quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 I've noticed that when posters defend their ideas by putting the word scientific in CAPS, there's not much to defend. Another tip off is being 'full of math'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Wow, how childish is it to blank out your OP just because it got criticized? How can someone claim it's SCIENTIFIC and then act like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 It's just a slight pity than nobody quoted it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringer Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 I know, now I'm curious. I really want to see what was said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 It's just a slight pity than nobody quoted it. I know, now I'm curious. I really want to see what was said. There, I merged this thread with another copy of the original we had. What was blanked is now in post #7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maroun Posted December 1, 2012 Author Share Posted December 1, 2012 I just noticed that you don't know how to read, if you know how to read then you better read the article so you can tell whether it is scientific or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 What does the Lambda-CDM model say about the initial mass-energy of the universe and what does Maroun say? We were hoping to find the quantity of the initial mass of the cosmos through "Einstein's radius of the universe": r = (constant#r) / ( d ^ 1/2 ) … (1) (constant#r) = c / ( 4 pi G ) ^ 1/2 r: Einstein's radius of the universe d: Density of the space of the universe c: The speed of light constant G: The Newtonian gravitational constant pi = 3.14159 and by favoring a sphere universe, the volume of the universe ( V ) is given by the formula: V = 4/3 pi r^3 … (2) Finally, we get the final result by applying the formula: m = V d … (3) m: The mass-energy of the universe Cosmology substitutes Planck length as the initial radius of the universe ( r0 ) in eq #1, remember that r0 = 10^-35 m. As a result d0 = 10^97 kg/m^3 And V0 = 10^-105 m^3 This makes m0 = 10^-8 kg, or a consequence equals Planck mass So the outcome of m0: The initial mass of the universe from Einstein's radius of the universe is wrong and makes no sense because the quantity 10^-8 kg is too big for the subatomic scale universe, but we get correct results by applying the current radius of the universe ( r2 ) which approximately equals around 10^25 m. Substituting r2 in eq #1 gives a final mass of m2 = 10^52 kg. m2: The estimated total mass-energy of the observable universe Anyway, I did the clean work in physics and cosmology, and I found a formula that applies at the subatomic and the large scale at the same time, a formula that sets m0 and m2 in one theory that can be called the theory of everything. In contrast with the Lambda-CDM, my theory works everywhere and at any moment. Maroun's equations share the same results with the modern theories on the large scale universe, but we know that the Lambda-CDM fails in the subatomic scale. I found out that: m2 = 10^52 kg. m0 = 10^-38 kg. This is by using my discovery of the general formula of the universe. m = constant ( t ^ 3 ) ^ 1/2 constant = c^3 / G * (1/t2)^1/2 t: Time which is determined through the interval [ t0, t2 ] t2: The instant age of the universe at this moment according to the big bang theory t0: Planck time constant Remember that r0 = c t0 - What is the amount of energy released in the Big Bang? I value Dr. Gerald Schroeder opinion, and I keep in mind that the Jews are the first masters of the Bible after God: when a Jewish master explains science, you will understand that cosmology does not contradict the Bible. I hope this was good introduction ! Maroun complete picture of the universe & the equations of all times (a solution for the initial state of the universe). Maroun general formula of the cosmos unifies the subatomic universe with the large scale. Through my equations, where I consider the law of conservation of energy, you can calculate the quantity of the total observable mass-energy of the universe at any moment (this includes dark matter and dark energy). The universe has a constant amount of total mass-energy (EC) that is equal to the total observable mass-energy at this moment (which is known as the "age of the universe"). It is true that the universe has a constant amount of mass-energy, but virtually, the physical quantities of the observable universe are changing and here I introduce a set of equations to estimate them. Sincerely, Essam Maroun "if you know how to read then you better read the article so you can tell whether it is scientific or not. " I can. It's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danny burton Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 (edited) Physics doesn't speak English, it speaks math, especially when evidence is required. ~mooey Had to lol. How is maths any use at all in providing evidence in physics, unless their mutual consistency is absolute? If you are not ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that maths has an ABSOLUTE consistency with physics, you cannot rely on math as proof or evidence of ANYTHING in physics. It's impossible to be so certain they will match up so exactly if you belive maths/number theory is only a human invention. It is IMPOSSIBLE for them to match up so precisely without being intimately, and fundamentally connected. But if the mutual consistency IS absolute.... where does that leave the mainstream's refusal to accept the fundamental connections? Edited December 2, 2012 by danny burton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 We represent the universe with physics via mathematics... I don't understand what your point is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now