coldcreation Posted May 26, 2005 Report Share Posted May 26, 2005 The Cosmological Constant: A Fundamental Constant Attached to a New Law of Nature Underlying the postulations held by the Cold Creation theory is the mechanism inherent in space responsible for generating stability between massive bodies called the cosmological constant and denoted by the term lambda. This mechanism is operational not just between planets and stars (at Lagrange points), but also between galaxies, galactic clusters, and most likely too, between particles, atoms, molecules and so on. This pristine law of nature effectually defines what is space, and is to be regarded as one of the most fundamental physical features of our universe. Stay tuned Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UncleAl Posted May 26, 2005 Report Share Posted May 26, 2005 Unclear on the concept with delusions of competence. Education: that which discloses to the wise and disguises from the foolish their lack of understanding. Google"cosmological constant" 228,000 hits"Lagrange points" 13,700 hits"Lagrange point" 20,200 hits The proposed cosmological constant has nothing at all to do with local gravitation or anything smaller. In its most extreme extrapolated case re dark energy, that will remain true for billions of years to come. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryB Posted May 26, 2005 Report Share Posted May 26, 2005 Unclear on the concept with delusions of competence. Education: that which discloses to the wise and disguises from the foolish their lack of understanding.Great quote! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldcreation Posted May 27, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 27, 2005 Hello UncleAl, I beleive you are refering to the new cosmological constant. Einstein's had nothing to do with the repulsive acceleratory negative energy stress tensor based on the 1998 SN observations. Atomic nuclei, atoms, molecules, planetary orbits, galaxies, and clusters are observed to be very stable systems. And we have no reason to disbelieve the likelihood that the universe in its entirety is stable, and dependent on the same natural ubiquitous mechanism responsible for mediating stability on all scales: It has a name: Lambda, the cosmological constant. This is no parameter. Einstein, De Sitter and Eddington especially were very close to finding its mechanism. Cold Creation theory is built on several themes: (1) The universe may not be expanding. (2) There was no beginning to the universe, or big bang event. (3) Matter was created otherwise than in a fierce initial episode. (4) Cosmic evolution is very different than previously thought. (5) Human consciousness, creativity and imagination are inextricably attached to the laws of nature, and can be rationalized in logical and consistent physical terms. There's more... But first, what's your gig UncleAl?Don't tell me you agree with the hot big bang cold dark matter and profuse kooky energy theory, do you? In your mail you write: "The proposed cosmological constant has nothing at all to do with local gravitation or anything smaller. In its most extreme extrapolated case re dark energy, that will remain true for billions of years to come." It would be a curious 'substance,' indeed, a dark form of energy that did not affect things on all scales. Why can't Einstein's term be ubiquitous, everywhere present, an intrinsic feature of spacetime, and ultimately, inseperable from the gravitational interaction? It can be demonstrated, and it certainly will be, that you suggest is way off the mark. So too is modern cosmology's interpretation of lambda. One final note. Without a proper understanding of Einstein's enfant terrible an ultimate theory is unattainable. Furthermore, and last but not least, Lagrangian points are well known. However, there importance is perhaps less so. It can be shown how the field interaction between bodies induces stability, and how, precisely, the cosmological constant is involved in the shaping of complex gravitating systems. coldcreation later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldcreation Posted May 27, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 27, 2005 Cold CreationThe Essence of the Physical Universe and its Evolution in TimeThe Ultimate Theory Cold Creation theory is built on several themes: (1) The universe may not be expanding. (2) There was no beginning to the universe, or big bang event. (3) Matter was created otherwise than in a fierce initial episode. (4) Cosmic evolution is very different than previously thought. (5) Human consciousness, creativity and imagination are inextricably attached to the laws of nature, and can be rationalized in logical and consistent physical terms. Cold Creation theory (broadly outlined) is a wide range of statements (verbal, pictorial, topological) within a specific discourse that does have unity, a discourse whose pervasiveness is not merely the study of matter, energy, force, motion and the way they interact, but too, the study of perceptual codes, the essence of consciousness, and the operational mechanism in the foreground of all things. Our belief is that there is unity in what might be called a discourse of nature. Much of the scientific research that deals with high-energy physics, astro-particle physics and grand unification stratagem that attempt to unify the forces of nature—with the co-aspiration of uniting quantum mechanics and GR at inaccessibly high temperatures, energies and densities—have not been successful because the investigations have centered erroneously on a scorching dead-end path: the big bang. Cold Creation has placed its accent on the function of cooler-than-cool least-energy interactions and low temperature physics. A.M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UncleAl Posted May 27, 2005 Report Share Posted May 27, 2005 Cold Creation theory (broadly outlined) is a wide range of statements (verbal, pictorial, topological) within a specific discourse that does have unity, a discourse whose pervasiveness is not merely the study of matter, energy, force, motion and the way they interact, but too, the study of perceptual codes, the essence of consciousness, and the operational mechanism in the foreground of all things. Our belief is that there is unity in what might be called a discourse of nature.Bullshit. A shoddy shannonization with no mathematical basis and no empirical support. The universe doesn't care what you believe. Only self-consistent mathematics that survives empirical falsification is functional. The rest is called "religion" and it is a balloon without a skin. http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/ Googleshannonizer 163 hits Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldcreation Posted May 28, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 28, 2005 Cold CreationThe Ultimate Theory!zero religion.zero god.100% physics.100% natural.No new physics.One fundamental constant unearthed by Albert Einstein.One new law of nature that had been overlooked.Lambda = zeromaterial creation is explained without a hot dense state.redshift is not a doppler effect.To construct an ultimate theory all that is needed is GR with lambda and its proper mechanism, QM, and the laws of thermodynamics.nothing more for now, but there's plenty where that came from... PS. Cold Creation is a 350 page book...stay tunned... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted May 28, 2005 Report Share Posted May 28, 2005 Cold Creation is a 350 page book...stay tunned...Fair warning. Spamlinks get removed and the poster gets banned. If you have something to discuss that's fine. If you start pitching your book then you're outta here. We'll even discuss what's in your book if you want to discuss it to see if we can poke holes in it. No sales pitches though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldcreation Posted May 28, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 28, 2005 Fair warning. Mr. C1ay, stay cool,I have to tell you that I don't even have an agent yet. I just finished it a couple of days ago... if ever this kind of work can be finished. I think it's an ongoing process. The reason I'm on line now is to see if anyone can pock a hole in my suggestions. For now I've posted quite a few ideas. I'm still waiting for some constructive criticism. I don't my a little hostility from unknown people out there, but it's kind of easy to do that. Much more difficult it is to argur rationally about important topics, such as the cosmological constant and its implications for any theory of the cosmos. Let's see what happens. I'll give it a shot for a couple more days, then I'll find another solution for some critical input. For now, here is something to chew on: Richard S. Ellis (Caltech) has studied the ultra deep images in detail. One of the outstanding features of the ‘early’ universe is that galaxies out to redshift 7 appear to have normal stellar populations. These are not the big, bright, ultra-heavy 500 solar-mass 1st generation stars thought to have reigned at the time. Moreover, galaxies are fairly evolved. This means that those distant galaxies formed at an epoch assumed to be the dark age—detrimental evidence to big bang cosmology. Also: The fudge factor, as the term was long known, has had many looks in its nine decades of life. Everyone agrees, however, that its last facelift was a disaster. The ugly conundrum is best summarized in the language extracted from a passage of The Accelerating Universe by Mario Livio, written in a clean, forthright, propulsive style: “What exasperates the situation is the fact that…the most natural value theoretically expected for the contribution of the vacuum energy to omega is about 10 (to 123 power), while the measured value appears to be 0.6 to 0.7. Thus apparently by some mysterious process, the contribution of the virtual particles of the vacuum has been striped from its most natural value to 123 decimal places, leaving only the 124th place intact…thereby violating a basic requirement for beauty…in principle, the situation could be much worse than we think. Within the errors that are still possible in the values of the different contributions to omega, it could be that those contributions add up (God forbid!) to an omega (total) of 0.9 or 1.1, rather than 1.0. If this were the case, then even the most basic prediction of inflation in its simplest form would be jeopardized. I will ignore here such horrifying possibilities, simply hoping that nature has some mercy on us in our attempts to understand it…It is therefore not impossible that the prejudices against a dominant contribution by the cosmological constant merely reflects our present ignorance concerning where the ultimate theory is going to lead us…What does it all mean? Is it possible that we have come all this way, where in every step along the path our belief in the beauty of the universe has only been strengthened, to see it all collapse at the very end?” (Livio 2000, p. 192, 194, 195) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted May 28, 2005 Report Share Posted May 28, 2005 For now, here is something to chew on: Richard S. Ellis (Caltech) has studied the ultra deep images in detail. One of the outstanding features of the ‘early’ universe is that galaxies out to redshift 7 appear to have normal stellar populations. These are not the big, bright, ultra-heavy 500 solar-mass 1st generation stars thought to have reigned at the time. Moreover, galaxies are fairly evolved. This means that those distant galaxies formed at an epoch assumed to be the dark age—detrimental evidence to big bang cosmology. Or, maybe a big bang event did occur in a space larger than the universe as we know it. That space may have already had old star clusters and the event that we call the big bang happened in the vicinity of some of them such that they ended up in the sphere that is the universe as we know it. That would mean they predate our own universe. This might explain galaxies that were already old and dying in the early universe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldcreation Posted May 28, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 28, 2005 depending on how you fix all the parameters, lambda, omega etc. you end up with a universe between 13.7 and 15 billion years old. Your hypothesis is therefore not solid. Several predictions of the big bang model have been violated: the Friedmann models notably: it turns out a fourth was required that made the universe look like it was accelerating. That concequently is in contrast with inflation (recall: the theory was supposed to fix the problems of the big bang) which predicts a flat universe. A flat universe follows the Hubble law. As it turns out, that law is violated too. Good try though. You have potential... Oh, one other note: your proposal is not based on physical evidence when you say "Or, maybe a big bang event did occur in a space larger than the universe as we know it." The problem you overlay onto science has been around for over five decades. You have no explanation for how a universe could be surronded by something else. It's crazy if you ask me. It was in 1948 that the opposition made Friedmann, Lemaître and their hot creation its favorite targets, and is was with a precise aim that Fred Hoyle wrote as follows: An explosive creation of the Universe is not subject to analysis. It is something that must be expressed by way of an arbitrary fiat. In the case of a continuous origin of matter on the other hand the creation must obey a definite law, a law that has just the same sort of logical status as the laws of gravitation, of nuclear physics, of electricity and magnetism. [A few pages further]…we are obliged to suppose that the laws of physics as we know them today are substantially incomplete and that so far unperceived connections must exist between the physics of the ultra-small and the physics of the ultra-large. [And, the final sentence of his book]…It is true that we must not accept a theory on the basis of emotional preference but it is not an emotional preference to attempt to establish a theory that would place us in a position to obtain a complete understanding of the Universe. The stakes are high, and win or lose, are worth playing for.” (Hoyle, 1955, pp. 281, 311, 313) It was precisely this requisite for explanations that lay behind Hoyle’s entire discourse. That this should be so is clear enough. Sorry, no holes poked into the Cold Creation concept yet... A.M. aka coldcreation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldcreation Posted May 28, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 28, 2005 I'm back,Just to say that although I quoted Fred Hoyle, I do not actively support the Quasi-Steady State Cosmolgy. The occilations of an expanding / contracting universe every 40 billion years or so strike me as dubious. Though Hoyles work along with Burbidge have done more than detrimental damage to big bang models. And that is so espacially with regard to the following tenents: the origin of the CMB, the premordial creation of light elements, exotic dark matter or strange dark energy. So too has hoyle foiled the idea of black holes. aloha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted May 28, 2005 Report Share Posted May 28, 2005 depending on how you fix all the parameters, lambda, omega etc. you end up with a universe between 13.7 and 15 billion years old. Your hypothesis is therefore not solid. Oh, one other note: your proposal is not based on physical evidence when you say "Or, maybe a big bang event did occur in a space larger than the universe as we know it." The problem you overlay onto science has been around for over five decades. You have no explanation for how a universe could be surronded by something else. It's crazy if you ask me.Only our local universe is 13.7 and 15 billion years old. We cannot know what lay beyond it, if anything. I see one difference in our opinions though. I acknowledge that it may be possible for something to be beyond our hubblesphere even if we cannot know what it is. My open mindedness keeps me from declaring impossible or crazy, that which I cannot disprove could be possible. You seem to be OK with such declarations. I would certainly like to see how you could prove that it's not possible for anything to lie beyond the boudary of our hubblesphere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlameTheEx Posted May 28, 2005 Report Share Posted May 28, 2005 We have good evidence that something monumental happened about 14 billion years ago. There are apparent observations of high red shifted galaxies that should be so far away that the light arriving from them is very close to that time. They are apparently more developed than expected but the evidence is far from conclusive. I would call it suggestive. To my mind the exact nature of the event is uncertain. Perhaps it was the popular Big Bang. However I have had fun considering other possibilities. One is that it was a fairly sudden influx of new matter into the universe but not the first. In this model we start with an almost burned out universe. Most of the matter is in smaller and larger dead bodies in dead galaxies. The new matter is mostly hydrogen ready to form new stars. The observed early galaxies gained form so fast because the new matter condensed on the hulks of old galaxies. To put it another way - we have plenty of evidence that the visible matter is about 14 billion years old but we have no way of measuring the age of dark matter. That dark matter may well be in the form of ordinary matter in lumps any size greater than dust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryB Posted May 28, 2005 Report Share Posted May 28, 2005 PS. Cold Creation is a 350 page book...stay tunned...Fair warning. Spamlinks get removed and the poster gets banned. If you have something to discuss that's fine. If you start pitching your book then you're outta here. We'll even discuss what's in your book if you want to discuss it to see if we can poke holes in it. No sales pitches though. Actually Cold Creation there is an easy way around this limitation.If you look at the thread New discovery in the Strange Claims forum you will see that by putting the link to the advertisement forher book in her signature, one poster was able to effectively advertiseher book with around 100 links as opposed to just one. And she hadone of the longest running threads on this forum. So it all worked outpretty well for her. By the way, I am also one who believes that the Big Bang theory isnonsense and would welcome an alternative. However your vocabularyis a bit offputting. I get the feeling that you are more focussed ondemonstrating your knowledge than communicating it. If you usedsimpler terms more people would understand what you're talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted May 28, 2005 Report Share Posted May 28, 2005 Actually Cold Creation there is an easy way around this limitation.If you look at the thread New discovery in the Strange Claims forum you will see that by putting the link to the advertisement forher book in her signature, one poster was able to effectively advertiseher book with around 100 links as opposed to just one. And she hadone of the longest running threads on this forum. So it all worked outpretty well for her.Of course, she also posted a significant portion of the material for debate and offered to email the rest to those that wanted to go over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryB Posted May 28, 2005 Report Share Posted May 28, 2005 I'm still waiting for some constructive criticism.coldcreation, first, Welcome to Science Forums. Although I can't speak for others here, I wish you well. constructive criticism: 1) Take the time to correct spelling and typing errors it willincrease your credibility. 2) Speak as simply as possible and avoid using obscure references("Einstein's enfant terrible"?). It will increase your audience. 3) Make your posts as short as possible focussing on one pointat a time. It will be easier to respond to and discuss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.