Science Forums

# Essay: Explaining Cosmology

## Recommended Posts

Theoretical View Explaining A Relativity Based Cosmology

There are several theories that deal with several levels and aspects of how nature or the universe works. Each theory is accurate to a certain extent. It would be in my opinion more accurate to say: "Each theory is accurate for the extent of detail and complexity it is intended to deal with" compared to saying "One theory is more or less, true or correct than another theory". The theories that last the passage of time contain important predictions and postulates that stand up to scrutinized testing.

In my opinion, each layer of theory contains information that is important for making connections to other theories and thus broadening an understanding of the grander scheme. This is why I intend to cover a broad area of physics and do so in a manner that deals with concepts in a very simple and basic form. Furthermore, I also plan to blend my own speculations and theoretical views in an attempt to help explain the how's and the why's of certain concepts and problems.

Part 1

Motion

Starting with a statement that is both complex but very fundamental:

Any material is at rest (0) and also in motion (+/-) at the same time.

I use zero (0) to represent NO motion (rest) to symbolize the fact that no motion means zero direction, zero action, and thus, zero dimension.

I use + and - to represent motion to symbolize the fact that motion means 1 direction through a 1 dimensional plane. For example: An object that moves on an X axis of an ( X, Y) plane can move ONLY in the + or the - direction.

Explaining the statement: Any material is at rest (0) and also in motion (+/-) at the same time.

Example 1:

When driving in your car at exactly 100km/h you and your car are in motion relative to the road. A person on the road see's your car moving. However, at the same time, everything inside the car plus yourself is at rest. If you were to be on a perfectly smooth ride and have all your windows covered you would be the same as if you were parked.

Example 2: You are standing in a field. In the center of the field is a large boulder. The boulder is at rest.

This means, it is not moving relative to you. However at the same time the boulder is on earth, the earth is in motion around the sun so the boulder is also in motion.

The key phrase here is "at the same time". I used the phrase for grammatical reasons to bring more focus to the point. However, looking into this further what does this really mean?

For an object (a frame of reference) to contain motion, it requires another location (frame of reference) to make this claim and observation. Likewise, for an object to be at rest, it requires another location to make this claim and observation. When I say, the object is both in motion and at rest at the same time, this does not mean literally as a clock ticks. What I mean in the previous phrase is that an object has no certain state that is absolutely true (that is, absolute). That is, one can not label the state of motion of an object in a form of certainty equivalent to labeling the object orbiting earth as the moon.

When trying to wrap your mind around these subjects, it is important to note to that everything (material) is in space and can only be in space. Space means a location where distance can be found (not the phrase 'outer space'). Everything on, inside, or outside the earth resides in the term we call space. Also, distance can also mean a separation of time between two locations of space. ie; It CAN take an amount of time for something to traverse the distance (space). Or, where there is space(distance) between two locations there is an amount of time for an interaction to occur.

With all this being said, one can also see that if we think in a manner where we apply the concept of things being absolute we could say, "Material is NOT at rest (0) and also is NOT in motion (+/-) at the same time. Why? This is quite obvious when you take a moment to think about it. Ask yourself, how can an object be both moving and not moving at the same time? This implies that one can conclude that an objects motion is irelevent, relative to itself. What I mean by this is that an objects state is neither 'at rest' or 'in motion' it can only be relative to another object.

Objects that are moving relative to other objects and objects that at rest relative to to other objects share something in common. That is, they are both inertial. This means that they experience no force. Forces due to an acceleration or a de-acceleration. Inertial objects are in their natural state. They can be observed to have motion or no motion, but fundamentally it is an inertial object (like the car in example 1).

.

.

.

.

.

.

##### Share on other sites

have you ever thought that the only way to accuratly measure anything would have

to be relative to the speed of light?

##### Share on other sites

have you ever thought that the only way to accurately measure anything would have

to be relative to the speed of light?

The speed of light and the idea of the cosmic speed limit was the next part I was going to move into. The purpose of this essay was to show what exposes itself when you try and strip action and events down to a most simple process. This is in my opinion quite similar to Synergetics..

I wanted to break the concept of what things are and then get into the speed of light. I have not yet wrote this out, but I do believe this method may show how and why, with of course the support of formal scientific theory. I am doing my best to follow scientific theory to the best of my knowledge, but only, explain it in a very basic manner.

##### Share on other sites

thats a good plan in my opinion

like stephen hawkings

he explaind his percertion of the universe

simple but complex

i would like to read more

##### Share on other sites

Motion, Time, and Space

Example 1:

We can synchronize 100 clocks (timers) at a center point and call this point Center of observation at rest (C-O-R) [pronounced the core]. Next, we can send out these clocks in a circular manner (evenly distributed like the slice lines in a pizza or pie) at exact distances and velocities. Such that, each clock is a different direction from the center and all clocks are at the same distance (x value of distance) from the center and that each clock remains synchronized. At this point we can say, (in our minds) we "KNOW" all the clocks read the exact same time (t) and are at the exact same distance x from the COR. Then, each clock slows on its journey away from the core using some form of rockts and finally comes to stop at a position at 1,000,000meters away from the C-O-R. At this exact moment the clocks read t=18,000.00sec.

Note: We exclude any possibilities that the clocks are in anyway by any effect out of synchronization.

Next, you are located at the COR. According to this thought experiment, you know all the clocks read the same time. However, it is impossible for you to line up all the clocks infront of you to physically check them to make 100% sure. So, you use 100 telescopes each one is aimed and focused on one of each of the clocks and displays the image on 100 screens inside the ship that you are located at. Sure enough all the numbers read precisely the same on the screens (according to your data). Again, you are in a ship at REST located at the COR. If you decide to leave your COR position and move 1/2 of the distance towards one of the clocks something different will occur.

Because you used light that travelled from the clocks, through your telescope and onto a display to observe the clocks (light being the main importance) you were observing the light that took a value of time "t" to travel the distance "x" to your position at the COR.

Because you positioned yourself 1/2 of x distance closer to one of the clocks the light from each clock has a new distance to travel in order to reach your telescopes (located on your ship). The light from the furthest clock will take 1.5 times longer than when you were located at the COR. The clock you traveled half way towards will take 0.5 the amount of time to reach your telescopes.

Now when you look on the monitors and all the clocks read a different time.

Let's say that the clock furthest away reads 20,000seconds and the clock closest to you reads 25,000seconds. The clocks appear different now because a change in the clocks information takes different amounts of time to reach your ship. As long as you remain in this new 1/2 "x" position the furthest and closest clocks will remain 5000 seconds apart (25,000-20,000=5000).

Note: These numbers are not intended to be realistic as for considering the actual speed of light.

We know (in our minds) the clocks are actually synchronized, but when we move from the position of COR the clocks appear to not be synchronized on the display screens in the ship. So let's ask, are these 100 clocks synchronized or not? There are two answers:

1) As for the material of the clocks, each clock is the same age. For example; If we retrieve all our clocks back to our ship, they will display the same time.

:shrug: (later we will work into the exception where this is not always true)

2) According to the information from direct observation of light, each clock can 'appear' to read synchronized or different times depending on the location of the COR (Center of Observation at Rest).

Like an object that can be at both rest or in motion at the same time, the clocks can be both synchronized and out of synchronization at the same time. That is, a)if we make direction observations of information they can be both in and out of synchronization. :) if we work out the math we can learn the time each clock reads in its own location (reference frame).

So we can conclude at this point:

-Whether an object is in motion or at rest is determined by an observer and relative to an observer. (note that word is observer is only used to refer to the examples but can also be thought of as locations)

-Whether a clock is observed to be in synch with another clock is determined by an observer and relative to an observer.

##### Share on other sites

Dynamics of Motion

When objects are at rest they have zero velocity. If we align an objects trajectory to an axis (like an x axis) then, objects can be said to only move in + or - direction of this axis or dimension. Which means, matter can only have a relative velocity that is + or - within a single dimension.

However, consider the following statement:

Objects can not contain velocity, rest or a dimensional direction that is by any means absolutely true.

This means objects can not contain velocity or a dimensional direction as their natural state. To explain: An inertial object does not contain a state that is true relative to all locations in the universe. That is, relative to the universe, the inertial object is a potential state. Relative to the inertial object, the universe is a specific state.

As earlier described, when objects are observed to move relative to a specific reference frame they are observed to move in only 1 dimension when observed, and further more, in only 1 direction of that particular dimension, transforming their natural state of potential into a specific state.

If an object is observed to be in motion (one direction and dimension at a velocity) and it runs into another object it will manifest the effect of mass (the ability to interact and effect another objects natural inertial state). When the object impacts the other object it is no longer inertial and a CHANGE occurs (depending on the scale of investigation these "changes" can be instantaneous or over a period of time). When change occurs the mass of an object comes into effect.

Working from all the above and in a form that is very basic I've formed the reasoning that the types of changes I have been referring to must take the form of the following:

When an object changes from it's inertial state we can have the following three possible states of one possible frame:

1) +

2) -

3) 0

Next, we can see the 3 possible frame states and also, the 2 possible frame transformations per frame state.

Note: (The slash / represents or), (=> represents can transform into)

+ => - / 0 (in words: + can transform to - or 0)

and

- => + / 0

and

0 => + / -

We can say:

+ has 2 options

- has two options

-0 has two options

This is can be said as the 6 possible transformations of the given states when considering an interaction between 2 objects (observed from an outside 3rd reference frame).

So in other words: These are the building blocks of possibilities of transformations of change for one event. For, any observed event must require an interaction of a minimum of two objects relative to an observation frame.

( => represents transform to or change to )

1) + => -

2) + => 0

3) 0 => +

4) 0 => -

5) - => +

6) - => 0

In the following, the logical possibilities for interaction objects is displayed. This has no biased in scale of micro or macroscopic.

Examples of possibilities For {frame A} transformations:

{frame A} = [frame B]

{ + => - } = [ - => 0 ] (deflection)

{ + => 0 } = [ 0 => + ] (deflection)

{ + => - } = [ - => - ] (bond)

{ + => 0 } = [ - => 0 ] (bond)

{ + => - } = [ 0 => - ] (false)

{ - => + } = [ + => 0 ] (deflection)

{ - => 0 } = [ 0 => - ] (deflection)

{ - => + } = [ + => + ] (bond)

{ - => 0 } = [ + => 0 ] (bond)

{ - => + } = [ 0 => + ] (false)

{ 0 => + } = [ + => 0 ] (deflection)

{ 0 => - } = [ - => 0 ] (deflection)

{ 0 => + } = [ + => + ] (bond)

{ 0 => - } = [ - => - ] (bond)

{ 0 => - } = [ 0 => 0 ] (false)

{ 0 => + } = [ 0 => 0 ] (false)

##### Share on other sites

• 1 year later...

I found it interesting that through this theoretical view there is produced a chart if you will of the building blocks of interaction. This chart is exactly the same as the Elementary Particles chart in that:

1) there is 3 groups. (deflection, bond, and false)

2)The deflection group has 6 possibilities, the bond group has 6 possibilities, and the false group has 4 possibilities

3) There is the same number in total and the same number of groups and same number in each group.

The false "particles" if you will mean that they are illogical interactions. The false would represent the force carriers. Photon, Gluon, W and Z Boson.

These are the absolutely only possible as well as the total possible interactions between a pair of point particles. This list below represents the logical fundamental possibilities for the most basic existing the or reference frame consisting of two objects expressed as '+' and '-' and '0'.

{frame A} = [frame B]

{ + => - } = [ - => 0 ] (deflection)
{ + => 0 } = [ 0 => + ] (deflection)
{ + => - } = [ - => - ] (bond)
{ + => 0 } = [ - => 0 ] (bond)
{ + => - } = [ 0 => - ] (false)

{ - => + } = [ + => 0 ] (deflection)
{ - => 0 } = [ 0 => - ] (deflection)
{ - => + } = [ + => + ] (bond)
{ - => 0 } = [ + => 0 ] (bond)
{ - => + } = [ 0 => + ] (false)

{ 0 => + } = [ + => 0 ] (deflection)
{ 0 => - } = [ - => 0 ] (deflection)
{ 0 => + } = [ + => + ] (bond)
{ 0 => - } = [ - => - ] (bond)
{ 0 => - } = [ 0 => 0 ] (false)
{ 0 => + } = [ 0 => 0 ] (false)

Edited by arkain101
##### Share on other sites

• 2 weeks later...

Got the pics working properly.

##### Share on other sites

• 9 years later...

This is supposed to represent the logic involved in the expression of the 'Standard Model' in subatomic particle physics. It is all possibilities of the types of interactions that can occur with just two object (particles).

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.