Crisis in Cosmology

[darkbeaver]

Click above image to go to CCC2 Conference Site​

About the Alternative Cosmology Group​

The Alternative Cosmology Group (ACG) was initiated with the Open Letter on Cosmology written to the scientific community and published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004. The text of the letter is as follows:
"The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed -- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.
But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.
Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.
What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.
Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.
Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.
Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry.
Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.
Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology.
Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe."

The goals of the ACG are:

1. To facilitate the communication between scientists whose experimental and/or theoretical research will lead to better understanding of the universe
2. To generate research proposals
3. To create and publish a peer reviewed journal
4. To convene conferences on hot topics in Cosmology
5. To maintain permanent web site www.Cosmology.info, which will be a beacon of progress in the understanding of the universe

The ACG is an open society of scientists from all over the world, dedicated to the advance in cosmology and basic research. Any scientist in agreement with the Open Letter (http://cosmologystatement.org) is invited to join.

 

[darkbeaver]

Combined visible and infrared images of M104.
Infrared: NASA/JPL-Caltech/R. Kennicutt (University of Arizona), and the SINGS Team
Visible: Hubble Space Telescope/Hubble Heritage Team

Oct 17, 2008
The Sombrero Galaxy

An “accretion disk” of dark dust and gas surrounds this mighty collection of 400 billion stars. It is electrical energy that powers and shapes these features.​

M104 is probably the most spectacular representation of “lens-shaped” galaxies that has been produced by any telescope. Originally discovered by Pierre Méchain in 1781 and then added to Messier’s famous catalog in the same year, M104 remains a centerpiece of scientific investigation after more than 300 years. William Herschel independently rediscovered M104 in 1784. ​

The Sombrero Galaxy is actually much larger than what can be seen in the image above. The galaxy is surrounded by a halo of stars, dust and gas that indicate it may actually be an elliptical galaxy that contains a more robust interior configuration. Shorter time exposures reveal distinct spiral arms radiating from the center and it is referred to as a “spiral galaxy” by astronomers. M104 is surrounded by globular clusters in the hundreds – a much richer population than our own Milky Way or most other observed galactic bulges.​

Astronomers have long maintained that galaxies are clouds of hydrogen gas and intergalactic dust that have been compressed by gravity until they coalesce into glowing thermonuclear fires. In the recent past, the community has also proposed that the centers of most galaxies contain black holes of unbelievable magnitude. It is the activity of these “gravitational point sources” – some as powerful as the gravity field from 200 million stellar masses – that causes the galaxies to spin, globular clusters to spawn, tremendous jets of gamma and x-rays that span thousands of light-years to appear, and (among many other features) “radio lobes” that are larger than the galaxy out of which they discharge.​

As most conventional researchers have noted, the fact that galaxies and other celestial objects spin is attributed to the early formation of their structure. A galactic embryo is said to possess an angular momentum that increases as it begins to fall into its own gravity well. In an oft-repeated illustration of how this occurs, we can visualize an ice-skater doing a pirouette. As the skater’s arms are drawn in closer to the body, the spin-rate increases. Thus, as the galaxy begins to contract the acceleration of the cloud increases, causing spiral arms to form, a disk of material to begin surrounding the central nucleus and globules from eddy-currents within the gases to condense into stars. This all occurs because the spin in the cloud overcomes the gravitational attraction through centrifugal force, throwing material outward like a drop of paint on a spinning platter.​

The Electric Universe model does not permit the condensation of galaxies from cold, inert hydrogen and specks of zircon no bigger than an molecule. So, what are galaxies?​

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/00current.htm​

 

[darkbeaver]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]+ Play Audio[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] | + Download Audio | + Email to a friend | + Join mailing list [/FONT][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Oct. 30, 2008: During the time it takes you to read this article, something will happen high overhead that until recently many scientists didn't believe in. A magnetic portal will open, linking Earth to the sun 93 million miles away. Tons of high-energy particles may flow through the opening before it closes again, around the time you reach the end of the page.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"It's called a flux transfer event or 'FTE,'" says space physicist David Sibeck of the Goddard Space Flight Center. "Ten years ago I was pretty sure they didn't exist, but now the evidence is incontrovertible."[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Indeed, today Sibeck is telling an international assembly of space physicists at the 2008 Plasma Workshop in Huntsville, Alabama, that FTEs are not just common, but possibly twice as common as anyone had ever imagined.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Right: An artist's concept of Earth's magnetic field connecting to the sun's--a.k.a. a "flux transfer event"--with a spacecraft on hand to measure particles and fields. [/FONT]NASA - Magnetic Portals Connect Sun and Earth
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Researchers have long known that the Earth and sun must be connected. Earth's magnetosphere (the magnetic bubble that surrounds our planet) is filled with particles from the sun that arrive via the solar wind and penetrate the planet's magnetic defenses. They enter by following magnetic field lines that can be traced from terra firma all the way back to the sun's atmosphere.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"We used to think the connection was permanent and that solar wind could trickle into the near-Earth environment anytime the wind was active," says Sibeck. "We were wrong. The connections are not steady at all. They are often brief, bursty and very dynamic."[/FONT]

 

[darkbeaver]

​

picture of the day archive subject index

Ionized star-forming region RCW120. Credit: ESO/APEX/DSS2/SuperCosmos

Nov 19, 2008
So Hot You're Cool, So Cool You're Hot

Clouds of ionized gas and dust in space are not heated up by gravity, they are compressed by electrical forces and emit synchrotron radiation.​

A recent press release from the European Southern Observatory explains that this image shows “an expanding bubble of ionized gas,” shown here in red. The bubble is assumed to be generated by the ultraviolet radiation from a central star. It has caused a “shock wave” that “sweeps up a layer of the surrounding cold interstellar gas and cosmic dust. This layer becomes unstable and collapses under its own gravity into dense clumps…, where new stars are born.” The gas and dust has a temperature only 23 degrees above absolute zero (23K). This temperature is determined by the submillimeter wavelengths of the radiation, shown here in blue, and the assumption that the radiation is produced by thermal processes.

Anyone who is familiar with plasma will immediately recognize that “if it’s ionized, it ain’t gas.” And if it ain’t gas, a shock wave is not likely to trigger gravitational instability and collapse. The filaments and knots indicate the “pinch” activity of the much greater electromagnetic forces of Birkeland currents.

The roughly concentric and radial filaments prompt one to suspect that we are looking “down the barrel” of an interstellar Birkeland “cable,” which is pinching down in an hourglass form to create and to power the central star. The instabilities are not those of gravitation, which have never been shown convincingly to cause collapse. They are plasma instabilities, which have been shown in lab demonstrations not only to pull in material and to compress it but also to set it spinning. (Removing and imparting spin at exactly the right times in exactly the right amounts is an insurmountable obstacle in theories of gravitational collapse.)

From a plasma perspective, the temperature is also open to question. Consensus astronomy talks a lot about unobservable things like dark matter and dark energy, but it talks hardly at all about observable synchrotron radiation, which is what most celestial radiation is. Thermal radiation is produced by random collisions of atoms, and its “peak” wavelength is a measure of the temperature of the atoms. Synchrotron radiation is produced by electrons moving along a magnetic field.

Moving electrons are also known as an electric current, and a current moving along a magnetic field—a “field-aligned current”—is also known as a Birkeland current. It’s therefore not surprising that a universe composed almost exclusively of plasma, which organizes itself into Birkeland currents, should principally emit synchrotron radiation. Of course, synchrotron radiation gives no indication of temperature: indeed, since it comes from a non-random process, “temperature” is not even defined.

By Mel Acheson


​

​

Authors David Talbott and Wallace Thornhill introduce the reader to an age of planetary instability and earthshaking electrical events in ancient times. If their hypothesis is correct, it could not fail to alter many paths of scientific investigation.

​

Professor of engineering Donald Scott systematically unravels the myths of the "Big Bang" cosmology, and he does so without resorting to black holes, dark matter, dark energy, neutron stars, magnetic "reconnection", or any other fictions needed to prop up a failed theory.


​

​

 

[socratus]

Matter and “dark matter"
Fact and Speculation.
=========.
1.
Fact.
The detected material mass of the matter in the Universe is so small
(the average density of all substance in the Universe is approximately
p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that it cannot “ close “ the Universe and therefore
our Universe as whole is “ open”, endless.
But what to do with the infinite Universe the physicists don't know.
The concept of infinite/ eternal means nothing
to a scientists. They do not understand how they could
draw any real, concrete conclusions from this characteristic.
A notions of "more", "less", "equally, "similar" could not
be conformed to a word infinity or eternity.
The Infinity/Eternity is something, that has no borders,
has no discontinuity; it could not be compared to anything.
Considering so, scientists came to conclusion that the
infinity/eternity defies to a physical and mathematical definition
and cannot be considered in real processes.
Therefore they have proclaimed the strict requirement
(on a level of censor of the law):
« If we want that the theory would be correct,
the infinity/eternity should be eliminated ».
Thus they direct all their mathematical abilities,
all intellectual energy to the elimination of infinity.
Therefore they invented an abstract "dark matter" and " dark energy".
They say: " 90% or more of the matter in the Universe is unseen.
And nobody knows what it is.
2.
Speculation.
Unknown “dark matter “ it is matter which makes up the difference
between observed massof a galaxies and calculated mass……
which….will …” close “ ….the Universe, as …….
as……the astrophysicists want.
3.
The Dark Matter is another official dogma of our astronomy.
/ V. H. Vergon. /
==============..

Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
http://www.socratus.com
http://www.wbabin.net
http://www.wbabin.net/comments/sadovnik.htm
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/sadovnik.pdf

 

[darkbeaver]

Thanks for the links.

 

[socratus]

What is first law of Universe: Gravity or Vacuum?
=============..
At first of everything, the Universe is Infinite Vacuum
in the state of T=0K. Why? Because it is visual fact.

The Universe as whole is Kingdom of Coldness.
Now the physicists think that this Kingdom of Coldness
in a state of T=2,7K ( after big bang).
But this state is limited and temporary.
Why it is limited and temporary ?
Because in the Universe astronomers found enormous spaces
without any material mass or energy it means these spaces in state
T=0K. Only mass and energy can warm up the Kingdom of Coldness.
But the detected material mass of the matter in the Universe is so small
(the average density of all substance in the Universe is approximately
p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that it cannot “ close “ the Universe and therefore
the Universe is “ open”, endless and this small mass can warm up the
Kingdom of Coldness only in it some limited and local points.
Therefore astrophysicists search for “ dark matter” because it will save
The “ law of gravitation “ as a first law of the Universe and it will
warm up the Kingdom of Coldness.
#
The cosmological constant of Universe is zero or near to it.
This physical quantity cannot “ close” the Universe therefore
the Universe is endless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
#
If somebody belief in “ big bang” he must take in calculation
that T=2,7K expands and therefore T=2,7K is temporary
parameter and with time it will go to T=0K.
#
Sakharov's induced gravity: a modern perspective
Authors: Matt Visser (Washington University in Saint Louis)
(Submitted on 19 Apr 2002)
Abstract: Sakharov's 1967 notion of ``induced gravity'' is currently
enjoying a significant resurgence. The basic idea, originally presented
in a very brief 3-page paper with a total of 4 formulas, is that gravit
is not ``fundamental'' in the sense of particle physics. Instead it was
argued that gravity (general relativity) emerges from quantum field
theory in roughly the same sense that hydrodynamics or continuum
elasticity theory emerges from molecular physics. In this article I will
translate the key ideas into modern language, and explain the various
versions of Sakharov's idea currently on the market.

Sakharov's induced gravity: a modern perspective
--Matt Visser
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0204062
#
When the next revolution rocks physics,
chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum, that endless
infinite void.
http://discovermagazine.com/topics/space
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything
#
" The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex? "
/ Paul Dirac ./
#
"Now we know that the vacuum can have all sorts of wonderful effects
over an enormous range of scales, from the microscopic to the cosmic,"
/ Peter Milonni.
from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico./
#
Etc.
==============..
In my opinion it is impossible to use Gravitation Laws to
Universe as a whole. The Newton/ Einstein's Gravitation
Laws are correct only in the local parts of Vacuum.
The Universe / Vacuum, as a whole, is endless.
The Nothingness/ Vacuum is the Origin of the Universe.

Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
===========.

 

[AmberEyes]

Wow.... you have thoroughly confused one of the few people on this board who probably knows anything about the subject. Good job! ^^ I'm so lost as to what the articles are trying to claim... so much.. bad science... my brain is asploding with stupid....gah.

Well, it was a good giggle.

 

[socratus]

The physical education.

The more I study the more I know.
The more I know the more ideas I have.
The more ideas I have the more they abstract.
The more they abstract the less I know the truth.
=====.
Some years ago I told with young physicist (!!!).
He said very confidently: ” You cannot be physicist (!)
if you cannot understand the beauty of Minkowski
mathematics.(!!!)
======.
It seems that he is right, because physicists must know
mathematics very well. The problem is that nobody
knows what is real physical meaning of “ 4-D negative
space continuum.” in the Nature. SRT is correct theory
but Minkowski space continuum is abstract. And together
they are paradoxical. More than 100 years we live with
this paradox. Nobody confuses.
==========.
During our conversation I understand that this young physicist
is strong and clever man and he want to reach success. And
I think he will do it. So, in the future he will create new
D/ M-spaces or new symmetries or discover new particles.
And one day he will be a professor and will teach new
generation ( your son or your daughter) in order that they also
have possibility to create new D/ M-spaces or new symmetries
or discover new particles. But if in the beginning the abstract
ideas were put into the fundament of physics then ……..
we can create new and new theories for 1000 years but
the result will be the same - paradoxical.
Our small Orwell’s world.
=============…
What is our intellect ?
1.
We don't know what we are talking about"
/ Nobel laureate David Gross referring to the current state of string theory ./
2.
It is important to realize that in physics today,
we have no knowledge of what energy is.
We do not have a picture that energy comes in little
blobs of a definite amount. ”
(Feynman. 1987)
3.
When asked which interpretation of QM he favored,
Feynman replied: "Shut up and calculate."
4.
when I was first learning quantum mechanics as a graduate student
at Harvard, a mere 30 years after the birth of the subject.
"You'll never get a PhD if you allow yourself to be distracted
by such frivolities," they kept advising me, "so get back to serious
business and produce some results."
"Shut up," in other words, "and calculate."
And so I did, and probably turned out much the better for it.
/ N. David Mermin /
5.
The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex?
Paul Dirac .
6.
“ Young man, in mathematics you don't understand things,
you just get used to them.”
/ John von Neumann ./
7.
Since the mathematical physicists have taken over,
theoretical physics has gone to pot.
The bizarre concepts generated out of the over use and
misinterpretation of mathematics would be funny if it were not
for the tragedy of the waste in time,
manpower, money, and the resulting misdirection.
/ Richard Feynman./
8.
" I feel that we do not have definite physical concepts at all
if we just apply working mathematical rules;
that's not what the physicist should be satisfied with."
/Dirac /
9.
In his 1997 book ” The End of Certainty” Nobel Laureate
Ilya Prigogine wrote:
"The more we know about our universe, the more difficult
it becomes to believe in determinism."
And “ The quantum paradox is real nightmare for classic mind ”
10.
In his book ” Quantum theory “ ( published in 2002 )
John Polkinghorne wrote:
“Quantum theory is certainly strange and surprising,…”
/ chapter 6, part “ Quantum hype”, page 92 /
11.
Etc……..………………….
#
What is our intellect ?
We can see this practically :
after “ big bang “ all Galaxies run away from us.
#
This is our normal intellect in our normal Orwell’s farm.
======================..
Conclusion from some article:
"One of the best kept secrets of science is that physicists
have lost their grip on reality."
=================..
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.

 

[darkbeaver]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]NEWS ITEM[/FONT]
20 May 2008
Electric Galaxies
http://www.holoscience.com.au
“The conformist propensity of social institutions is not the only reason that erroneous theories persevere. However, once embedded within a culture, ideas exhibit an uncanny inertia, as if obeying Newton’s law to keep on going forever until acted upon by an external force.” —Henry Zemel.

"One fact that strikes everyone is the spiral shape of some nebulae; it is encountered much too often for us to believe that it is due to chance. It is easy to understand how incomplete any theory of cosmogony which ignores this fact must be. None of the theories accounts for it satisfactorily, and the explanation I myself once gave, in a kind of toy theory, is no better than the others. Consequently, we come up against a big question mark." — Henri Poincaré, at the conclusion of the preface to his book, Hypothèses Cosmogoniques.

Comment: The expectation of surprise has become a hallmark of astronomy. It is symptomatic of the non-predictive nature of astrophysical theory based on the big bang and gravitational cosmology. Successful prediction is the principal test of a good theory, not surprises.

In the Electric Universe, the lynchpin of big bang theory — the equation of redshift of stellar spectra with velocity of recession — is shown empirically to be false. The inability of astrophysicists to accept the manifest evidence of intrinsic redshift (a high-redshift quasar in front of a low redshift galaxy should be blatant enough) may be due to a reluctance to admit that modern physics has no explanation for the phenomenon of mass in matter and therefore cannot explain how subatomic particles like the proton and electron might exhibit the lower mass required to produce lower energy spectra (redshift). Observations of connections between high- and low-redshift objects requires that the redshift is intrinsic to the matter in distant quasars and galaxies and cannot be due to some modification of the light on its journey to Earth. It calls into question our understanding of quantum theory because it has been discovered that the redshift of quasars and companion galaxies is quantized!

Quantum theory has no real explanation, it is merely a set of rules that match some limited real world observations. On that basis it is a very shaky pillar to support cosmology. Quantum theory is thought to apply exclusively to the submicroscopic realm of atoms and subatomic particles. But that is not so. Redshift has been observed to be quantized across entire galaxies — no galaxy has been found in transition from one redshift to another.

Intrinsic redshift of quasars and galaxies means an end to the big bang. Instead of being seen “when the universe was much younger,” highly redshifted objects are merely young, nearby and faint. Observations show that quasars are “born” from the nucleus of active galaxies. They initially move very fast away from their parent, usually roughly along the spin axis. As they grow older they grow brighter and seem to slow down as they gain in mass and evolve into companion galaxies. This gain in massiveness points to a process whereby normal matter can pass through a number of small quantized increases in mass, which gives rise to the observed quantized decreases in redshift. This discovery points the way, at last, to an understanding of the phenomenon of mass.

The "stirred up" gas in highly redshifted objects can be simply understood as being due to unruly youthfulness and electrical hyperactivity. It has nothing to do with an imaginary early epoch of galactic collisions. In fact, “galactic collisions” are a recently popular catch-all to try to explain the formation of spiral galaxies and many of their anomalous features. Collisions are as unlikely and unnecessary as they are forbidden in an Electric Universe. The following exceptional example clearly favors the Electric Universe explanation. One simple electrical model fits all galaxies naturally.

http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/Hoag's object.jpg
>> “A nearly perfect ring of hot, blue stars pinwheels about the yellow nucleus of an unusual galaxy known as Hoag's Object. This image from NASA's Hubble Space Telescope captures a face-on view of the galaxy's ring of stars. The entire galaxy is about 120,000 light-years wide, which is slightly larger than our Milky Way Galaxy. Ring-shaped galaxies can form in several different ways. One possible scenario is through a collision with another galaxy. Sometimes the second galaxy speeds through the first, leaving a ‘splash’ of star formation. But in Hoag's Object there is no sign of the second galaxy, which leads to the suspicion that the blue ring of stars may be the shredded remains of a galaxy that passed nearby. Some astronomers estimate that the encounter occurred about 2 to 3 billion years ago.” — Image Credit: NASA and The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA) Acknowledgment: Ray A. Lucas (STScI/AURA)

Comment: In stark contrast to standard ad hoc attempts to explain Hoag’s object in terms of a collision, the Electric Universe can point to a simple explanation, which fits neatly the plasma cosmology model of formation of galaxies in a magnetic pinch at the intersection of cosmic Birkeland current filaments. Hoag’s object shows the detailed features of the ‘penumbra’ of a plasma focus discharge.

 

[socratus]

The Universe is Infinite Vacuum.
===========..
The Physics is first of all Vacuum.
Does Iinfinity Vacuum have any physical parameters?
Yes. Vacuum is :T=0K. Vacuum is the empty space
between milliards of billions Galaxies.
* * *
Once upon a time, 20 billions of years ago, all matter
(all elementary particles and all quarks and
their girlfriends- antiparticles and antiquarks,
all kinds of waves: electromagnetic, gravitational,
muons gluons field .. etc.) was assembled in a single point.

It is interesting to think about what had surrounded the single
point. The answer is : EMPTINESS- NOTHING.!!!
Ok!
But why does everyone speak about EMPTINESS- NOTHING in
common phrases rather than in specific, concrete terms?
I wonder why nobody has written down this EMPTINESS- NOTHING in
the form of a physical formula ? You see, every schoolboy knows that
is possible to express the EMPTINESS- NOTHING condition
by the formula T=0K.
* * *
Once there was a Big Bang.
But in what space had the Big Bang taken place
and in what space was the matter of the Big Bang distributed?
Not in T=0K?
It is clear, that there is only EMPTINESS, NOTHING, in T=0K.
Now consider that the Universe, as an absolute frame of reference is
in a condition of T = 2,7K (rests relic radiation of the Big
Bang ). But, the relic radiation is extended and in the future will
change and decrease. What temperature can this radiation reach?
Not T=0K?
Hence, if we go into the past or into the present or into the future,
we can not escape from EMPTINESS- NOTHING T=0K.
Therefore it is necessary to begin to think from T=0K.
============ =======.
About the theory of the Big Bang is written
the thick (very thick) books.
But anywhere do not write about the reason of the Big Bang.
Anybody does not know it.
I know.
Action, when the God opens his palm,
have named the "Big Bang".
And action, when the God compresses his palm,
have named " a single point".
============ ========= ======.

Now it is consider that Newton / Einstein’s laws
of gravitation are the first laws of Universe.
============
1.
Newton was a clever man therefore when he discovered his
" law of gravitation" he quickly understood that
soon or later the all matter in the Universe had to gather
in the " singular point".
And because this effect does not happen in the Nature,
Newton , being very religious man , thought that only God’s
power did not give the matter to gather in a " singular point".
2.
And then atheistic time came. They decided :
As God does not exist, so the all matter in Universe
must gather in a " singular point".
============ ====
I don’t agree that Newton / Einstein’s laws
of gravitation are the first laws of Universe.
Why?
1.
Take simple atom: proton and electron,( small distances).
Nobody interests in gravitation interaction between
proton and electron . There is not any theory about
gravitation interaction between proton and electron .
Everybody interests only in electrical ( nuclear)
interaction between them.
It means that Newton / Einstein’s laws of gravitation
are local and limited.
This law in the small ( nuclear) distance does not work.
2.
Take Universe ( cosmic distances).
There is not theory about gravitation interaction between
galaxy A. and galaxy Z. We don’t need it.
Why? For example.
Let’s imagine of all apple- trees on our Earth
as a galaxy, and apples as stars.
Nobody will interest in the interaction between
an apple- tree in New York ( galaxy A.) and
an apple- tree (cherry-tree) in Varanasi (galaxy Z.).
It means that Newton / Einstein’s laws of gravitation
are local and limited.
This law in the big cosmic distance does not work.
3.
Detected material mass of the matter in the Universe is so small
(the average density of all substance in the Universe is
approximately p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that it is not able to isolate all
cosmic space in sphere. It mean that Universe (Vacuum) is infinite.
=========
My conclusion: Newton / Einstein’s laws of gravitation
cannot be " The first law of Universe."
=======…
Questions from article:
http://www.physorg.com/news141317146.html

1.
what happened BEFORE the big bang,
2.
whether there was a "before."
3.
what may have happened in a "pre-big bang."
4.
"What banged? Where did it come from?"
5.
"Is ours the only universe? If so, how did it come to exist?"
6.
What are :
“the big bounce," "the multiverse," "the cyclic theory,"
"parallel worlds," even "soap bubbles."………
7.
What is: "Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang."
8.
……
particle smasher might discover extra dimensions
…
What are the extra dimensions: 4-D...etc ?
9.
“ shadow”……
travel between parallel universes ………..( !!! )
and cast a "shadow" that scientists might be able to detect. ……..
The shadow might take…….
=========================..
Many questions and the answer is one: T=0K.
!!!
==============================…
#
When the next revolution rocks physics,
chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum, that endless
infinite void.
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything

http://discovermagazine.com/topics/space
==============..
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.

 

[socratus]

My speculation.

Everything began from Infinite Energetic Vacuum: T=0K.
Somehow, the energy is extracted from the Vacuum
(the Energetic Dirac Soup) and turned into particles.
The Materialistic World gets its finite being
from an Infinite Energetic Being – Vacuum: T=0K.


To understand this ‘speculation’ we must know:
1. What is Vacuum: T=0K ?
2. Which virtual particles can exist in Vacuum?
3. How can virtual particles turn into real particles?
======== .
Until now the physicists ignore the Vacuum Energy T=0K
because it is the Zero Point Energy for our measuring devices.
Because the Absolute Zero Point Energy is border for our
measuring devices.
Can this fact be enough reason to stop our investigation?
==========..
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
#
When the next revolution rocks physics,
chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum, that endless
infinite void.
http://discovermagazine.com/topics/space
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything
================ . .
Please, have patience and wait “when the next revolution rocks physics.”
==========..

 

[socratus]

Lao Tzu and Physics.
============== . .
#
Dao generates the One,
The One generates the Two,
The Two generates the Three.
The Three generates all things.
All things have darkness at their back
and strive towards the light,
and the flowing power gives them harmony.
/ Tao Te Ching, Chapter 42, Lao Tzu /
============= . .
Comment.
1.
In the beginning was Vacuum/ Dao.
The Vacuum/ Dao is not died space but according to
Quantum theory it is Energetic space : T=0K.
2.
Dao generates the One.
It means:
The Energetic (Infinite/Eternal) Vacuum space generates
energetic virtual particles- frozen light quanta..
They are in rest/ potential condition and written by formulas:
C/D = pi, E = Mc^2, R/N = k, h = 0, i^2 = -1.
They can change its rest/potential condition and become active.
We call this active Energetic particle Electron: e^2= ahc
3.
The One generates the Two.
It means:
The Ones (frozen light quanta and Electron) create Proton.
4.
The Two generates the Three.
It means:
As result of interaction between Electron and Proton
the atom was created.
5.
The Three generates all things.
It means:
The atoms create all things.
6.
All things have darkness at their back
and strive towards the light,
and the flowing power gives them harmony.
It means:
The Quantum of Light is hidden in everything.
But as the ‘Bhagavad Gita’ says:
Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form.
They do not know My transcendental nature and
My supreme dominion over all that be.
/ Chapter 9. Text 11./
========== . .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=2548
http://www.wbabin.net/comments/sadovnik.htm
http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Scientists&tab1=Display&id=1372
===================== . .

 

[darkbeaver]

Cosmology in Crisis—Again! Cosmology in Crisis—Again!
by Wallace Thornhill

May 24, 2009

Nothing comes from nothing. Nothing ever could.
- from The Sound of Music.​

>> The only place in the universe where we find the big bang.
Picture credit: New Scientist
[Click to enlarge] It seems the toughest thing for scientists to grasp - that a cherished paradigm like the big bang can be wrong. The latest crisis was reported in Physorg.com on May 5th: "Study plunges standard Theory of Cosmology into Crisis." The study of dwarf companion galaxies of the Milky Way support the view that a "modified Newton dynamic" [MOND] must be adopted. “This conclusion has far-reaching consequences for fundamental physics in general, and also for cosmological theories.” One of the researchers involved said, “it is conceivable that we have completely failed to comprehend the actual physics underlying the force of gravity.”

In my news of April 21st I wrote, “we are so far from understanding gravity that we don't know the right questions to ask.” There I proposed "Electrically Modified Newtonian Dynamics," or "E-MOND," as the solution for solar system stability. However, the problem involving the dwarf companion galaxies is more fundamental to cosmology. The first problem in physics is to choose the correct concepts to apply to our observations. That determines which physical laws to apply. But that's not the end of it. We must remain aware that all laws are man-made and provisional - they are subject to modification on appeal. Historically, cosmologists have denied that electricity has any relevance in space. They have refused to consider how the laws of plasma physics might apply to their otherwise incomprehensible observations. Provisionality is a formalism to mask dogma.

Richard Feynman, lecturing his students on how to look for a new law in physics, said, “First you guess. Don't laugh; this is the most important step. Then you compute the consequences. Compare the consequences to experience. If it disagrees with experience, the guess is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn't matter how beautiful your guess is or how smart you are or what your name is. If it disagrees with experience, it's wrong. That's all there is to it.”

Sounds simple? Perhaps that is why we see so many proposals for new laws of physics in the mad scramble for a Nobel Prize. But the emphasis is all wrong. It encourages wild guesswork and burgeoning complexity. Complexity facilitates endless "twiddling of knobs" to match new "experience." Theories become practically unfalsifiable and unscientific - as witness, "string theory." Underlying the guesswork in cosmology is the paradigm of the big bang. A paradigm is a system of belief that tends to be taken completely for granted. The guesswork is limited to modifications that don't disturb the conviction. Questioning the established paradigm is resisted. The case of "the modern Galileo," Halton Arp, is a classic example where the big bang "disagrees with experience" - and the experience is declared to be wrong. Feynman could usefully have added that it doesn't matter how many people believe a theory, “If it disagrees with experience, it's wrong. That's all there is to it.”

Cosmology is in crisis because from the very outset the "big bang" was not science! The big bang invokes a miraculous creation of the universe from nothing. It is a misguided attempt to manufacture a creation story to complement, or compete with, the bib

 

[socratus]

Is the Universe Euclidean or Einsteinium ?

1.
In general the Universe is flat space.
The masses in the Universe are very few.
The distances between stars are very far.
What this means is that if you go into space far from massive bodies
and locate three ships far apart in a giant triangle, the angles of the
triangle will add up to 180 degrees, just as Euclid states in plane geometry.

2.
But Einstein ( GRT ) and others thought that the Universe was circle space.

Question.
Is the Universe ( as whole ) cold flat Euclidean space
or cold Einsteinium circle space ?
=============== . .
Comment.
#
Sado, all trajectories are curved( Einsteinium ) but may appear
straight( Euclidean ) over short enough distances.

Rybo
=========== .

Sadovnik.
1.
"An implication of Einstein's theory of general relativity is that
Euclidean geometry is a good approximation to the properties
of physical space only if the gravitational field is not too strong"

Thus, if you meet with a strong gravitational field,
Euclidean geometry breaks down.
2.
The masses in the Universe are very few.
The distances between stars are very far.
So, most time quantum of light must go straight and
only meeting a rare star his trajectory will break down.
3.
The cold Euclidean space is Origen.
The Einsteinium space is Secondary.
The cold Euclidean space is Origen and it is Vacuum.
The Einsteinium space is Secondary and it is Gravity space.

Not the reverse.
======================== . .

Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
======== . .

 

[Niflmir]

ITT: ignorance becomes premise to support some individuals's crushed egos.

 

[socratus]

God as a Scientist !!!

The masses in the Universe are very few.
The distances between stars are very far.
About 99% of the matter in the Universe is unseen.
Nobody knows what it is.
But God using his > 99% Hidden mass of the Universe
take control over the < 1% Visible mass of the Universe.
He is a smart physicist and mathematician .
He smiles and laughs when others say:
‘ The formulas are cleverer than men’.
========== . .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.

 

[darkbeaver]

Everything is accounted for. Is mass the same as matter? No it isn't.

 

[coldstream]

"The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed -- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples.

I read a book called 'The Big Bang Never Happened' several years ago which also pointed out in detail the gaping holes in Big Bang theory. It also drew up a thesis as to how speculative cosmology like this has a high correpondence to the social conditions in which it was developed.

The inflation theory, which completely undermined the accepted physical properties of light, was developed in the hyper inflationary economic period of the 1980s. In a broader sense other developments in cosmology, notably superstring and multidimensionl theory, have occurred in periods that have seen a growing loss of homogenaity and trust in the supernatural and of faith in general.

The author's postulate was that there in an direct relationship between the conception of a infinite universe, one of continual creation, and the vibrancy and optimism of the society of which it is a part.

Oswald Spengler in a broader way, made the same observations in'Decline of the West' of the condition of science in a declining civilization. He predicted that science would lose its confidence and practicality in its empiricism.. and utility.. and manifest boundless belief systems as a replacement for a fragmented religious sensibility.

Hence we have cosmology, the pinnacle of science, now represented in the concepts of unprovable and utterly unuselful concepts like superstrings, and the deeply pessimistic and terminal prospect of an entropic universe of the Big Bang.

 

[socratus]

God and the Universe. !!!

God and the Universe. !!!
#
Once upon a time, 20 billions of years ago, all matter
(all elementary particles and all quarks and their
girlfriends- antiparticles and antiquarks, all kinds of
waves: electromagnetic, gravitational, muons…
gluons field ….. etc.) – was assembled in a ‘single point ’.
And after there was a ‘ Big Bang’.
The scientists wrote very thick books about this theory.
But nobody wrote the reason of the ‘ Big Bang ’ because
nobody knows it.
I know the reason.
The action, when the God compresses all Universe
into his palm, we have named ‘a singular point’.
And action, when the God opens his palm,
we have named the ‘a Big Bang ’.
============ ==============.
The Catholic Church adopted the theory of Big Bang
as a good proof of God existing. And Pope Pius XII
declared this in 1951.
http://discovermagazine.com/2004/feb/cover/
#
The masses in the Universe are very few.
The distances between stars are very far.
About 99% of the matter in the Universe is unseen.
Nobody knows what it is.
But God using his > 99% Hidden mass of the Universe
take control over the < 1% Visible mass of the Universe.
He is a smart physicist and mathematician .
He smiles and laughs when others say:
‘ The formulas are cleverer than men’.
========== . .
#
How can God using 99% Hidden matter
take control over 1% of the Visible matter?
Here is the scheme.

THE GENESIS. (scheme.)
1.
In the beginning was Vacuum some kind of
Infinite/ Eternal Energy Space: T = 0K.
2.
According to Quantum Theory this Infinite Energy Space create
‘ virtual energetic particles – frozen light quanta’. They are in
‘ rest ’/ potential condition and have following physical parameters:
C/D=pi , E=Mc^2, R/N=k , h = 0 , i^2=-1 .
3.
Moving Quantum of Light is a Photon.

Planck: h =E/t h = 1, c=1.
Einstein: h =kb h =1, c =1.
4.
Working Quantum of Light/ Photon is an Electron.

Goudsmit-Uhlenbeck: h(bar) = h/2pi , c>1.
E = hf,
Sommerfeld: e^2 = hca (Electron).
The Lorentz transformations.
5.
Star formation:
e- -> k -> He II -> He I -> rotating He –> plasma reaction -
- -> thermonuclear reaction: ( P. Kapitza , L. Landau,
E.L. Andronikashvili theories ),
( Theories of superconductivity and superfluidity.).
a) hf > kT
b) hf = kT
c) kT > hf
6.
As result of Star formation Proton was created.
p ( Proton)
7.
Evolution of interaction between Electron and Proton:
a) electromagnetic,
b) nuclear,
c) biological.
8.
Laws:
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy.
b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / law.
c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ law.
9.
Testing:
a) Theory - Dualism of Consciousness
(consciousness / subconsciousness.)
b) Personal practice. – Parapsychology. (Meditation.)
============ . .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=2548
http://www.wbabin.net/comments/sadovnik.htm
http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Scientists&tab1=Display&id=1372
========== . =========== .
#
I want to know how God created this world.
I am not interested in this or that phenomenon,
in the spectrum of this or that element.
I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.
/Einstein/
#