a
the universe began as solid light and quickly exceeded the Planck temperature almost everywhere.
b
Micro black holes quickly almost became an infinite sized black hole but these particles released tachyons according to my super graviton theory.
c
The difference of velocities in dark energy g-waves printed all of the hydrogen and anti hydrogen of the cmbr.
d
The micro black holes pulled by the dark energy ran into each other merging and separating anti hydrogen galaxies as the drifted further apart as smbhs.
e
All of the anti hydrogen galaxies collided with hydrogen galaxies creating high energy cosmic rays we observe today and the rest did not collide.
]]>For live updates.
]]>What do you think about this possibility.
]]>]]>
Now, according to current theories, it is estimated that trillion and trillions of years from now, the only thing remaining would be black holes and supermassive blackholes that would suck every known celestial objects into it.
Now as we all know about the Big Bang Theory, cant it be that The Big Bang Theory occurred when trillions of years back before our universe existed, there existed another universe, it too had the same ending, and when celestial objects started to be sucked into a supermassive blackhole, they collided, resulting in a huge bang know today as The Big Bang Theory. This will also mean that there might be a slight probability that certain objects did not get sucked, which would then agree with the recent finding of a star that scientists claim to be older than our universe as it might be from a previous universe.
]]>
On 2/17/2021 at 8:09 AM, OceanBreeze said:
Here is an extremely well written and informative paper that is directly related to the subject matter in this thread that I think everyone who is interested in this subject will enjoy reading and discussing
IS SPACE DISCRETE? AN INQUIRY INTO THE REALITY OF PLANCK LENGTH AND ITS PHILOSOPHICAL IMPLICATIONS, Zhen Liang
QuoteNevertheless, despite these physical manifestations championing for the legitimacy of Planck length, it is the rise of LQG theory that really places Planck length in the centerstage, making it a possible ground for a unification theory potentially. Thus, let us take a quick trip to the early days of the theory to see how Planck length achieved its paramount significance.
QuoteIn his Three Roads to Quantum Gravity14, Lee Smolin offers a brief account of the founding story and early development of LQG. Smolin’s narration provides us with a glimpse of how the Planck scale units have gained their theoretical and even physical importance. Attempting to unite general relativity with quantum mechanics, theoretical physicists strive to explain gravity at the quantum level without a recourse to any fixed background (i.e., a fixed space continuum is that on which quantum mechanics is built upon)
QuoteInspired by theorists working on QCD (quantum chromodynamics), Smolin and his colleagues, instead of working on theories that are dependent on a spacetime continuum, found their work on the assumption that space should be conceived as discrete. More radical than physicists such as Kenneth Wilson, leader of QCD, who conceive a discrete but fixed lattice of space, Smolin and contributors to LQG eliminate the dependency on background once for all, and moreover, they define space as the interrelations among a set of discrete elementary objects. That is to say: according to LQG theory, space is actually made of small chunks that are no longer divisible and each chunk of space is created by a set of relations of the most elementary objects (which are defined by them as the “loops”)
QuoteNo surprise, based on the calculations made by these physicists, each discrete piece of indivisible space is at the Planck scale. Thus, the smallest length is about the Planck length, the smallest surface is around the Planck area (the square of the Planck length), and the same extends to the three-dimensional space, Planck volume, as well. If the “proofs” of the reality of Planck length by Uncertainty Principle and black hole formation are reductio ad absurdum — assuming a smaller space and demonstrating its absurdity, Smolin and his peers are attempting a much greater task — they no longer try to just prove the reality of Planck length, rather they 13
QuoteWe will address the philosophical implications of these positions in more details later in this paper. 14 The two chapters that are most pertinent to our discussion here on the discreteness of spacetime and Planck length are Chapters 9 & 10 “How to count space” and “Knots, links and kinks”. COSMOS AND HISTORY 528 “elevate” Planck length to the status of the grounding principle of their entire theory. However, just as all roads lead to Rome, it seems that different approaches all lead to Planck length. Does this mean that the verdict has been reached on the reality of Planck length and we should celebrate the triumph of a discrete space?
https://www.cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/872/1539
This is very interesting and seems to relate to a new but very promising hypothesis of Causal Dynamical Triangulation, developed by Renate Loll, et al .
Quote
Causal dynamical triangulation (abbreviated as CDT) theorized by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, and popularized by Fotini Markopoulou and Lee Smolin, is an approach to quantum gravity that like loop quantum gravity is background independent.
This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space), but rather attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.
QuoteThere is evidence ^{[1]} that at large scales CDT approximates the familiar 4-dimensional spacetime, but shows spacetime to be 2-dimensional near the Planck scale, and reveals a fractal structure on slices of constant time. These interesting results agree with the findings of Lauscher and Reuter, who use an approach called Quantum Einstein Gravity, and with other recent theoretical work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation
I have mentioned this before, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of people familiar with this new perspective.
And a question; If spacetime is expanding, how does this affect SOL? Does light go faster than "c" as space expands, or does it take more time for light to traverse the expanded space?
Any takers?
]]>Another lesson we must understand is anything traveling faster than the speed of light in its frame will be tachyonic and travel backward in time as you approach the speed of light time speeds up and approaches infinity meaning if you are moving faster than the speed of light you are moving a negative time value. Put a number higher than the speed of light into Einstein's equations such as special relativity that will yield a negative value being i times some value of dt'.
The next lesson that must be learned is in general relativity gravitational fields can also cause time dilation in space, a strong gravitational field will warp space and as you pass through it accelerate a object giving it kinetic energy thus speeding up its time frame. This also applies to space a strong gravitational field will make space experience more time if the gravitational field's strength yields a velocity of the speed of light or above the actual object will become tachyonic or infinite for the amount of time passing this happens around black holes beyond the Schwarzschild radius.
Next we must understand larger black holes such as super massive black holes spin they have a rotation which is considered to be a Kerr black hole some of them rotate at very fast speeds near the speed of light. This has been observed by telescopes of black holes fast rotation the faster they rotate the more warped their shape is in the direction of the rotation.
By Increasing their rate of rotation the black hole can be formed into a disc this achieved by applying some force in the direction of rotation as the mass begins to concentrate around the edges of the black hole in a torus shape in the toroidal direction.
Once this is achieved spin must happen in the poloidal direction to a very high rotation of trillions of rotations per second achieving a warping of the time cones to a sideways direction creating a Tipler Cylinder along the poloidal direction of the black hole disc, beyond the event horizon of the black hole disc the length is infinite as length contraction has happened to make dx' = 0 achieving the infinite length of the Tipler cylinder.
Moving around the poloidal direction of the Black Hole disc now turned into a Temporal Paradox Device/Tipler Disc will allow reverse time travel under these conditions as closed time like curves have been created by these conditions around the disc by the mass, rotation, and infinite length of the rotating black hole disc.
This all creating a Temporal Paradox Device that has closed timelike curves along its poloidal direction which can be used for reverse time travel.
The Effects of General and Special relativity could not be infinite or zero as discussed in the (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-the-planck-length-the-smallest-length-possible.999993/) thread, which could be a mathematical artifact of relativity as pointed out and discussed by the members of the (https://www.physicsforums.com/) forums, however it is unclear whether a infinite length would be required for a Tipler Cylinder or if space is infinitely divisible such that special relativity claims is possible in frames, either way this design should work in some fashion or another whether a finite or infinite length is required for CTC into the past.
]]>
]]>
Thanks
]]>]]>
In school, we've been taught that while in space; we can float around and have no weight at all. You can float around, yes. Having no weight at all is an entirely different story.
The formula for weight is what? : Mass * Gravity.
Now if I'm to prove my point, I need to first prove that space isn't Zero-G (Zero Gravity). Let's for instance take the sun; all planets are in a orbit around it, due to? Yes, Gravity! So if for some reason you jumped out of your rocket, you won't leave the Galaxy. You'll just obtain an orbit around the sun unless you're accelerating at high levels. So this is confirmed that space has gravity. Gravity keeping the planets in orbit. However, that's only the big picture, as stars aren't the only thing giving gravity. It has been proven that anything with mass has a gravitational pull. For example, Earth. If space had Zero-Gravity, why the nincapoops (my polite way of saying '****') is the moon in a fixed orbit around Earth. Yes the gravitational pull is low, but there is always gravity in space.
Not only does this correct our learning on gravity and tell us the truth about space, it also proves that even in space, you have a weight, just extremely low. Zero-Gravity may not be the right word to describe space - so let's use Micro-Gravity instead.
Regards and hopes that you take this positively and use this to carry on your projects,
Darky.
]]>]]>
]]>
Link = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interdimensional_hypothesis
]]>https://scientificdocumentaries.com/space/cloud-cities-on-venus/
]]>Elon Musk's SpaceX Dragon capsule on a Falcon-9 rocket is about to take four "amateur astronauts" into Earth orbit.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58561621
I wonder what they will make of the black daytime space view
Ref: Google, Bing or duckduckgo: at what altitude can stars be seen in daylight (look for this forum)
Also I wonder if they will see John Glenn’s ‘Fireflies’
Ref: Google. Bing or duckduckgo: are fireflies still seen by astronauts (look for this forum)
]]>
Star disappearring seems a little far-fetched i thought, so was thinking of ways that it could or couldnt have been but have no idea where im coming from really. How likely is it? Once in a lifetime i would imagine but dont know.
It wasnt the space station as that was in the sky at the same time. The star was kind of in the path of the satellite so i thought that maybe it was reflecting light off of something, and as the angles changed the light changed path and that's what i seen? No idea.
No clouds in the sky.
What do you make of it?
]]>Join us in person for AAVSO's 110th Anniversary Annual Meeting at The Row Hotel, located just outside Boston, MA, November 5-7, 2021!
The Annual Meeting includes a reception with an opening speaker Friday night, and two full days of keynote speakers, presentations, poster research and observing section discussions, and ends with a banquet Sunday night. Also experience additional in-person perks celebrating our 110th year!
There will also be a 2-day Spectroscopy Workshop for beginner through advanced participants on November 3-4.
Don't miss our keynote speakers on the 6th and 7th:
The event seems like it would be a lot of fun! I hope I was able to share something with you as I'm new to this science forum.
Best,
Julia
]]>
"Asteroids aren't just chunks of ice and rock, but storehouses of precious metals. The asteroid belt is estimated to contain $700 quintillion worth of resources. Mining for metals won't make you richer than Bezos and Musk unless you can create your own monopoly."
]]>