Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Modified Raychauduri Equation With Poincare Symmetry And Non-Conservation


  • Please log in to reply
115 replies to this topic

#86 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1156 posts

Posted 24 June 2017 - 09:41 AM

Please see later amendment to my post, with findings from 2013. 

 

There is something even more recent, (2016) from the same place:

 

The universe is not spinning or stretched in any particular direction, according to the most stringent test yet.

 

“We have put this assumption to its most exacting examination yet, testing for a huge variety of spinning and stretching universes that have never been considered before. When we compare these predictions to the Planck satellite's latest measurements, we find overwhelming evidence that the universe is the same in all directions.”


  • exchemist likes this

#87 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1156 posts

Posted 24 June 2017 - 09:44 AM

For added interest me and Hawking have realized this holds importance for the Mach principle

 

 

 

"me and Hawking" :roll:  :roll:  :roll:

 

Besides the poor English usage, what really stands out is the narcissism.



#88 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1156 posts

Posted 24 June 2017 - 09:46 AM

It's horrible when you read Hawkings later paper that explains its rotation would have resulted 10^-4 arcs (since the big bang) was the same kind of thinking Ocean was doing, thereby stating it was incompatible.

 

 

What is incompatible here is Hawkings understanding which seems to have continued four years later. Hawkings paper I conclude, is actually wrong then. I was weary of stating this, but yeah, its starting to make sense to me that Hawkings model will not allow a fast primordial spin because he does not assume such a case of an exponentially decaying spin.

 

 

Yeah, right.



#89 Super Polymath

Super Polymath

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1528 posts

Posted 24 June 2017 - 09:47 AM

Dark matter + Dark energy = An incomplete model.

#90 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2898 posts

Posted 24 June 2017 - 09:49 AM

There is something even more recent, (2016) from the same place:

 

The universe is not spinning or stretched in any particular direction, according to the most stringent test yet.

 

“We have put this assumption to its most exacting examination yet, testing for a huge variety of spinning and stretching universes that have never been considered before. When we compare these predictions to the Planck satellite's latest measurements, we find overwhelming evidence that the universe is the same in all directions.”

Thanks, even better. So now at last we are tapping into the most recent investigations of rotation of the universe. And so far the observational evidence appears to be still negative. 

 

One would think that anyone proposing a rotating universe model ought to be referring to findings such as these and addressing them at the outset. 


Edited by exchemist, 24 June 2017 - 09:50 AM.


#91 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1156 posts

Posted 24 June 2017 - 09:49 AM

Dark matter + Dark energy = An incomplete model.

 

 

The truest statement in this thread, SP.



#92 Super Polymath

Super Polymath

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1528 posts

Posted 24 June 2017 - 09:50 AM

I thought we were on the same page 006.

What do you think about superluminal special relativity for scales beyond our observation?

#93 Super Polymath

Super Polymath

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1528 posts

Posted 24 June 2017 - 09:51 AM

Because we both agreed on the universe being limited to the same physics as black holes. So why not use black hole spin & do your savvy math thing?

#94 Super Polymath

Super Polymath

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1528 posts

Posted 24 June 2017 - 09:54 AM

You might have to decode some of the math in the links I posted on page 14 though.

Seriously, Nobel prize, all yours.

Edited by Super Polymath, 24 June 2017 - 09:54 AM.


#95 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1156 posts

Posted 24 June 2017 - 09:59 AM

Thanks, even better. So now at last we are tapping into the most recent investigations of rotation of the universe. And so far the observational evidence appears to be still negative. 

 

One would think that anyone proposing a rotating universe model ought to be referring to findings such as these and addressing them at the outset. 

 

Yes, but that does not and should not prevent anyone from speculating about a rotating universe, and several well qualified people have done so.

 

Here you will find a well-written unpretentious paper that I enjoyed reading because of the logical way it is written and mathematically presented. As good as this paper is, the author freely admits there is no evidence to support his theory.

I think the idea is worth one thread and maybe a dozen posts, then move on.

 

What irks me about 006 is his manner of spamming the forum with his self-centered posting style and the way he dismisses anyone that disagrees with him with an imperial hand wave. Now he is even dismissing Hawking!

 

What a laugh!



#96 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2898 posts

Posted 24 June 2017 - 10:30 AM

Yes, but that does not and should not prevent anyone from speculating about a rotating universe, and several well qualified people have done so.

 

Here you will find a well-written unpretentious paper that I enjoyed reading because of the logical way it is written and mathematically presented. As good as this paper is, the author freely admits there is no evidence to support his theory.

I think the idea is worth one thread and maybe a dozen posts, then move on.

 

What irks me about 006 is his manner of spamming the forum with his self-centered posting style and the way he dismisses anyone that disagrees with him with an imperial hand wave. Now he is even dismissing Hawking!

 

What a laugh!

I know what you mean. If he could just slow down his responses and combine them into a few properly argued contributions it would help. This stream of consciousness blogging style makes it almost impossible to follow an argument.

 

Suffice it to say there will be reasons why he needs an outlet such as this website for his ideas.... 


  • OceanBreeze likes this

#97 Super Polymath

Super Polymath

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1528 posts

Posted 24 June 2017 - 10:42 AM

I don't need any tachyon systems in my universe. I only mused it would have been an interesting alternative solution to a background temperature in which it is a residual Cherenkov radiation. But in all due respect, I believe in big bang and I believe the background temperatures is the result of a pre-big bang phase into post big bang phase.

Oh, well okay then.

I think you're wrong.
  • OceanBreeze likes this

#98 Super Polymath

Super Polymath

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1528 posts

Posted 24 June 2017 - 10:45 AM

I don't believe time begins or ends or that matter is anything more than reality & non-existence spiraling around one another (& that's what gravity is, causality).

#99 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1156 posts

Posted 24 June 2017 - 10:47 AM

Lead author Daniela Saadeh from University College London added: “You can never rule it out completely, but we now calculate the odds that the universe prefers one direction over another at just 1 in 121,000. We’re very glad that our work vindicates what most cosmologists assume. For now, cosmology is safe.”

 

 

 

Really? Cosmology is safe? In the same sentence it was just stated you can never rule it out. This is not the statement of scientists who feel confident in their claims..

 

 

 

Wow, so you really do not have a clue how science is done. I am not surprised.

 

Scientists generally do not go about their work via a process of falsification, although a good theory must be falsifiable. What makes a good theory is how well it makes testable predictions; testable by observing the world around us. For example, the theory of evolution is falsifiable; all one needs to do is find the fossil remains of a pre-Cambrian mouse! However, you will not find any scientists actively engaged is such a search. All that matters is that the theory is falsifiable and that it does agree with the available evidence. There is no need to absolutely rule out the possibility of a pre-Cambrian mouse to be able to say the TOE is a good theory!

 

Likewise, we do not need to absolutely rule out the possibility of a rotating universe to say that the BBT is a good theory. If you want to replace the current cosmology (Big Bang, expanding universe and cosmological constant) with your rotating model, it is incumbent on you to show that your theory is a better match with observations, and you have not even tried to do that. In fact, you handwave away all evidence to the contrary. All you have done is force fed us a steady diet of mostly indecipherable mathematical gibberish.

 

I could do the exact same thing by replacing the cosmological constant and dark energy with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and make it every bit as mathematically correct as your rotating universe and also every bit as not-in-accord with observation.

 

Face it, the rotating universe thing has been done before and by people far more qualified than you, and it has not stood up to scrutiny.

 

But I just realized that, by arguing with you, I give your ideas more attention than they deserve. Carry on with your nonsense, I will pay no further attention to it.



#100 Super Polymath

Super Polymath

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1528 posts

Posted 24 June 2017 - 11:03 AM

But would your then & now ratio work if I wanted to go with the timeless tachyon model thing & base dark flow off the spin of black holes to apply my theory to account for DM & DE?

 

Because both our models use the rotation in general right, it's going to be mathematically really similar I'd think. 



#101 Super Polymath

Super Polymath

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1528 posts

Posted 24 June 2017 - 11:07 AM

You're doing it backwards.

Basically, you inflate a black hole to the thermodynamic volume & density of the current universe (which we get 1/18th of based on the CMB), increasing angular velocity exponentially (using special relativity beyond the speed of light for the singularity of a black hole equal to the one in the BBT - way beneath the Planck length b/c this is a black hole with the mass of the entire CMBR - & also when the black hole inflates to a volume greater than the particle horizon) & you give black hole spin as a variable x, you solve for x in 006's ratio; & 006's then & now ratio is by default transformed to accommodate dark flow by replicating that Lambda CDM ratio.

So that's what 006 can do, & confirm I'd imagine. Or I could do if I understood some of the terms in his then & now ratio.

...which should be within varied approximations of observational data on SMBH spin...
 

Just try it for me, please. 



#102 Super Polymath

Super Polymath

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1528 posts

Posted 24 June 2017 - 11:24 AM

Look, there are bit of things that don't make sense in what you want me to look at.

 

You say something like ''to current universe, angular rotation increases exponentially.''

 

 

No, from the "singularity", to the CMBR, to the current universe you get three frames with different rotation velocity. The middle one, the CMB, has subluminal rotation, the singularity & the current universe would have superluminal rotation velocity - which is why you use some funky new math for special relativity. The spin of the current universe is superluminal because the cosmos as a sphere does rotations faster than a particle of light can cross from one side of the sphere to the other, the singularity's spin is superluminal because it's circumference is so much smaller than a photon's that it is also experiencing superluminal time dilation as it rotates.