InfiniteNow Posted January 28, 2007 Report Share Posted January 28, 2007 :D The seventh listing in the references section. Yeah, I'm really really really slow sometimes. :Guns::doh::dogwalk: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Costas Posted January 29, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2007 Hello All Hello coldcreation, I must thank you for making me more enthusiastic. Re link[astro-ph/0401420] Redshift of photons penetrating a hot plasma A new interaction, plasma redshift, is derived, which is important only when photons penetrate a hot, sparse electron plasma. The derivation of plasma redshift is based entirely on conventional axioms of physics. When photons penetrate a cold and dense plasma, they lose energy through ionization and excitation, Compton scattering on the individual electrons, and Raman scattering on the plasma frequency. But in sparse hot plasma, such as in the solar corona, the photons lose energy also in plasma redshift. The energy loss per electron in the plasma redshift is about equal to the product of the photon's energy and one half of the Compton cross-section per electron. In quiescent solar corona, this heating starts in the transition zone to the corona and is a major fraction of the coronal heating. Plasma redshift contributes also to the heating of the interstellar plasma, the galactic corona, and the intergalactic plasma. Plasma redshift explains the solar redshifts, the redshifts of the galactic corona, the cosmological redshifts, the cosmic microwave background, and the X-ray background. The plasma redshift explains the observed magnitude-redshift relation for supernovae SNe Ia without the big bang, dark matter, or dark energy. There is no cosmic time dilation. The universe is not expanding. The plasma redshift, when compared with experiments, shows that the photons' classical gravitational redshifts are reversed as the photons move from the Sun to the Earth. This is a quantum mechanical effect. As seen from the Earth, a repulsion force acts on the photons. This means that there is no need for Einstein's Lambda term. The universe is quasi-static, infinite, and everlasting. Fantastic link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlipString Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 I know string theory's on the rails now, as skeptical physicists say "but where's the proof?" Well, it's on its way, and it could be sooner than you think. :) String theory does have its problems, but they'll soon be corrected. M-theory was a brilliant expansion of string theory by Ed Witten which consolidated the 5 previous string theories into one comprehensive theory which now included membranes. However, because it relies on closed loop strings to explain gravity (which can escape our brane accounting for gravity's weakness) it relies on parallel branes in awkward positions "leaking" gravity to us in order to work properly which is not very intellectually satisfying. Being an astronomer in a wheelchair with lots of time to think, I spent many thousands of hours running simulations on my "mental model" of the universe I had been developing since age 8. After incorporating M-theory into this model, I was able to explain our universe from before start to finish. Some of those simulations included colliding membranes together in order to create new universes. During those simulations, I realized that dark matter could be explained by the vibrations imparted to each brane from the collision itself. Like two bubbles that bounce into each other, the branes would wobble back and forth, creating a spider's web network of dark matter throughout each brane after the collision where the branes vibrate the most. However, this would mean that the brane itself is what transmits the gravitational force, not closed loop strings. The more I thought about it, the more I realized that gravity is the curvature of our brane due to vibrations of strings of matter. The higher the frequency of an open string of matter, the more tightly it would pull its ends together, curving our brane and creating gravity. At the instant of the collision, any virtual strings in the process of creation would be vibrated into pairs of real strings- quarks and electrons, each pair has one partner that would spin "up" and the other "down" creating all the matter in the universe (as about 4% of the brane was in the process of creating virtual strings at the instant of collision.) This explains why all types of matter and energy come with two types of spin! This Membrane Theory of Gravity would also explain dark energy, as the collision of branes would first cause the brane to contract at the big splash, and over time, those vibrations would relax, causing the brane to expand back out towards its original size as it did. It would expand the most in the empty (starless) regions of space first (as we have observed), as these regions are furthest from the dark matter brane vibrations created in the big splash. This acceleration should follow a curved path (an arc) as the acceleration starts slowly, becomes most rapid in the middle, and then slows down again as the brane expands back out to its original size. This matches the preliminary results from measurements of dark energy so far. (Listen to the NPR story about the study. I can't post links yet, but go to storyId=5149972 on npr.org) If this study is confirmed, it will verify M-theory with my modifications. This modification can also explain the creation of our universe without physics breaking down as it currently does. The collision and its effects would all occur and propogate at close to the speed of light, and according to the laws of physcs, which never break down (unlike in the big bang model!) This way, we can create a universe consistent with the laws of physics, and explain dark matter and energy at the same time! The universe would have contracted to several billion light years accross, much larger than a singularity, and with no need to fudge the numbers with an inflationary theory. I wrote all of this down with illustrations in my book: SlipString Drive: String Theory, Gravity, and "Faster Than Light" Travel. The method of travel mentioned obeys relativity, and works similarly to a wormhole, but is much more practical, but that's not what I'm here to talk about. More information is available at SlipString.com. I would love to hear your feedback on these ideas, and would be happy to answer any questions you have about them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Costas Posted January 30, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 Hello Slipstring It's good to have an imagination. Have you looked at how the parts of the universe work before you work out TOTAL body. As for dark matter, please explain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlipString Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 Hello Slipstring It's good to have an imagination. Have you looked at how the parts of the universe work before you work out TOTAL body. As for dark matter, please explain. Thanks, yes. Pure mathematics has its benefits, but it often takes a leap of intuition to make the big discoveries. Einstein did some of his best work using "thought experiments," and I've found it a very useful tool. Yes, I have a decent background in standard physics, but I've found string theory to have the most potential, and it seems a much more realistic model than one using point particles. (Not to mention that current theory has no idea what "banged" or how it "banged.") Quantum noize generating disturbances in spacetime itself using string theory is enough to generate everything we have observed in the universe. First, it generates tiny Planck-length D-Branes, which, due to the vaccum around them and quantum noize within them are stretched and grow to enormous sizes. Eventually, two such branes would collide, producing the effects I described in my previous post. Because gravity would now be defined as the curvature of our membrane due to the vibrations of open strings of matter, dark matter would have been generated in the collision of membranes that created our universe. When the branes collided, it would be similar to two soap bubbles (filled with bubble soap) bouncing into each other and wobbiling back and forth with vibrations resonating throughout the structure like a 3D spider's web. Because a membrane is so thin, it would be extremely compressed where it vibrates, and that curvature of spacetime is dark matter. Unlike the bubble soap I mentioned which is incredibly dense (relatively speaking) the brane vibrations would last extraordinarily long and compress the brane to a great degree due to the extremely thin nature of the brane and it's stupendously large size. The gases of this new young universe would be attracted to this lattice of brane vibrations, causing those gas clouds to collapse into the first stars and galaxies much more rapidly than current theory explains (and as we have observed.) The "dark matter" brane vibrations would, over time, be converted into "dark energy" as these vibrations relax over time, pushing the universe apart at an increasing rate as described earlier. I did a rough calculation, and came up with a maximum membrane size (radius) of 526 trillion light years before the collision, which is where it should end up when it completely relaxes. This should be so, because gravity's weakness should be directly proportional to the size of our brane. A string of matter's gravity vibrations could have had an effect as strong as the electromagnetic force when our brane was originally created at the Planck length. As our brane expanded, individual strings of matter stayed the same size, leaving a smaller and smaller percentage of its surface area for strings of matter to vibrate against! Hmmm.. Testable predictions... What's next? :shade: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlipString Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 Oh, and I forgot to mention that this model also explains quantum entanglement (and probably everything else, but one thing at a time...) As the pair of virtual strings are entangled when they are disturbed into creation by quantum noize, when the big splash brane collision vibrates each pair of strings into a pair of quarks, etc., each pair will be entangled as they were "born" from the same disturbance of opposite-wave strings. They split apart due to their electromagnetic vibrations, and combine with other quarks to form the first protons and neutrons. This also explains why quantum entanglement is linked to gravity. (To Escape from quantum wierdness put the petal to the metal, Science Vol 309 16 September 2005 p. 1801) sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5742/1801a?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&volume=309&firstpage=1801&resourcetype=HWCIT All matter and energy in our universe are connected to each other through our brane. The strings are physically connected to the brane, and their gravitational vibrations curve our brane. Quantum information could only be transmitted or linked if the "particles" themselves were connected or linked in some way, as strings would be through our brane. All matter in the universe—and even light itself, which vibrates in only two gravity dimensions and one higher dimension is moving through our brane, constantly in touch with it. No other theory can yet explain why quantum entanglement would be linked to gravity! I explain quite a few other phenomena, but let's tackle one at a time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldcreation Posted January 31, 2007 Report Share Posted January 31, 2007 ...snip...All matter and energy in our universe are connected to each other through our brane. The strings are physically connected to the brane, and their gravitational vibrations curve our brane. Quantum information could only be transmitted or linked if the "particles" themselves were connected or linked in some way, as strings would be through our brane. All matter in the universe—and even light itself, which vibrates in only two gravity dimensions and one higher dimension is moving through our brane, constantly in touch with it. No other theory can yet explain why quantum entanglement would be linked to gravity! I explain quite a few other phenomena, but let's tackle one at a time :cup: This is all very interesting SlipString, but concretely, how do you explain the workings of phenomena that are observable in this universe: galaxy formation (barred galxies in particular), formation of the large-scale structures, the observed thermal blackbody spectrum in the millimeter wavelength at around 2.7 K, the cosmological redshift z and deviation from linearity thereof at high-z (see SNe Ia, 1998) and finally the abundance of light nuclei, particularly helium which constitutes about 24% of the abundance. (Next, you can tell us about those that may or may not be observable in your universe). I'll check out your website to see if anything empirical surfaces there. Coldcreation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlipString Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 This is all very interesting SlipString, but concretely, how do you explain the workings of phenomena that are observable in this universe: galaxy formation (barred galxies in particular), formation of the large-scale structures, the observed thermal blackbody spectrum in the millimeter wavelength at around 2.7 K, the cosmological redshift z and deviation from linearity thereof at high-z (see SNe Ia, 1998) and finally the abundance of light nuclei, particularly helium which constitutes about 24% of the abundance. (Next, you can tell us about those that may or may not be observable in your universe). I'll check out your website to see if anything empirical surfaces there. Coldcreation The rest of M-theory is left unchanged, only the method of transmission of gravity has been altered in my version, but it's force is identical as are the laws of physics. I'd better start with the 24% Helium abundance. The energy required to create an electron is much less than the energy required to create a positron, and the same relationship applies to all other types of matter and their antimatter partners. the ratio of matter to antimatter in the splash should be directly proportional to the amount of energy required to create that matter and antimatter as it was vibrated into existence according to the laws of physics, and not magically "banged" into existence. The same ratio applies to the amount of energy required to create matter. As it takes four times the amount of energy to create a Helium atom than it does to create a Hydrogen atom, we would expect to see one fourth the amount of helium created in the big splash collision than we do hydrogen. And guess what? It fits! This same ratio applies to all other matter created in the splash (which fits as well). The splash also created a hot cloud of subatomic strings as it imparted energy to each pair of virtual strings, and at the same time contracted our brane to a much smaller size, heating this hot, dense cloud according to the laws of physics, but never getting anywhere near the size of a singularity. So, each type of matter should be created in porportion to the amount of energy it takes to create that element, which is what we observe! :P This hot cloud cools and condenses into matter in the same manner as the big bang model, only much sooner, as it started at a much larger volume. As it went through its phase change from subatomic strings to matter, it emitted a flash of light identical to that of the big bang model. From there on out, the theories are very similar, only I know what caused the whole darn thing! Also, the cosmic background radiation (which appears like the pattern of two wavy membranes colliding) would be emitted much sooner (closer to the collision itself), and not 400,000 years later. When we look at the cosmic background radiation, we may be looking at just minutes or hours after the collision, and not 400,000 years later. Satisfied? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldcreation Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 snip... From there on out, the theories are very similar, only I know what caused the whole darn thing! Also, the cosmic background radiation (which appears like the pattern of two wavy membranes colliding) would be emitted much sooner (closer to the collision itself), and not 400,000 years later. When we look at the cosmic background radiation, we may be looking at just minutes or hours after the collision, and not 400,000 years later. Satisfied? Actually, no, I'm not satisfied. But in many ways, supposedly, I'm insatiable. So far you only addressed the CMB and the helium abundance, albeit, not to my expectation. For example, what do the patterns of two wavy membranes colliding look like? The CMB? Why would that be? Redshift then would be the same interpretation as the BB theory I assume, right? So too, all the other questions, I imagine, since you did not address them, galaxy formation, etc. Your idea really only touches on the first few seconds of the BBT. It sounds like the ekpyrotic model (Steinhardt, 2001): "There are major outstanding problems with the ekpyrotic scenario. Foremost among them is that colliding branes are not understood by string theorists, and nobody knows if the scale invariant spectrum will be destroyed by the big crunch, or even what happens when two branes collide." What are the main differences with that concept? Final questions: What makes your hypothesis less metaphysical than the moment of creation (the big bang?) expected at the ouset of the standard model (near/at t = 0). Where is your evidence for the Big Splurge? If you have none, then we're back to square one: where the universe is created out of nothing, a free lunch, that somehow lost its flavor. It sounds like your idea has currency but no value (and plenty of artificial flavoring). Apparently, making noise in a crowded restaurant has become more valuable than making sense. Even when chewed thoroughly, your idea posted here so far, like superstring spaghetti less than al dente, has little to offer: exept a healthy dose of fragmentary dissent (I like that part) to wash whatever was eaten down. But it still does'nt stick on my wall. What makes your belief different from any other starve-the-beast branestorm. CC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlipString Posted February 2, 2007 Report Share Posted February 2, 2007 Buffy suggested I move the continuation of this discussion to a new topic as to not get caught between other discussions, so my next response will be up shortly under the topic "Origin of the Universe: No Bang, Splash! (New theory)" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Costas Posted February 3, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2007 Hello Slipstring Mate, like I said you do have an imagination. Just like the Big Bang, many theories ar put together by ad hoc ideas. Take two steps back and research the workings of stars to begin with before you dive into a theory that will lead you to a dead end and a waste of time. Keep smiling and live another day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pluto Posted July 9, 2007 Report Share Posted July 9, 2007 I have read the previous posts and there seems to be an idea in the making. Before I respond to the above. I will take some time to read through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pluto Posted September 3, 2007 Report Share Posted September 3, 2007 Hello All What bugs me is thinking and working with the theory that the universe just came about 13.7 Gyrs ago. I do understand its just a theory. But!! many talk about it as if it is a fact. Lets have a look at some deep field clusters. Every paper assumes that the big bang did it all and than proceed to draw conclusions from the observation and images. Chandra :: Photo Album :: Iron Spectra from Supermassive Black Holes :: 23 May 059 and 11 Gyrs Chandra Press Room :: Galaxy Clusters, Near and Far, Have a Lot in Common :: April 8, 20056 to 8 Gyrs Chandra :: Photo Album :: Submillimeter Galaxies in the Chandra Deep Field-North (SMG 123616.1+621513) :: 06 Apr 0511 Gyrs Chandra :: Photo Album :: Galaxy Clusters and Dark Energy :: 18 May 046.7 Gyrs Chandra :: Photo Album :: RDCS 1252.9-2927 :: 02 Jan 048.5Gyrs Chandra :: Photo Album :: SDSS 0836+0054, SDSS 1030+0524, and SDSS 1306+0356 :: 28 Mar 0213 Gyrs Chandra :: Photo Album :: Quasar Pair Q2345+007A,B :: 13 Mar 0211 Gyrs Chandra :: Photo Album :: PKS 1127-145 :: 06 Feb 02 Quote:The X-ray image of the quasar PKS 1127-145, a highly luminous source of X-rays and visible light about 10 billion light years from Earth, shows an enormous X-ray jet that extends at least a million light years from the quasar. The jet is likely due to the collision of a beam of high-energy electrons with microwave photons. Reading Chandra you would think that the Big Bang is reality. Chandra :: Photo Album :: PKS 0637-752 :: 26 Aug 996 Gyrs HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Hubble's Deepest View Ever of the Universe Unveils Earliest Galaxies (03/09/2004) - Release Text13.2 Grs Quote:The HUDF field contains an estimated 10,000 galaxies. In ground-based images, the patch of sky in which the galaxies reside (just one-tenth the diameter of the full Moon) is largely empty. Located in the constellation Fornax, the region is below the constellation Orion. Quote:The NICMOS sees even farther than the ACS. The NICMOS reveals the farthest galaxies ever seen, because the expanding universe has stretched their light into the near-infrared portion of the spectrum. "The NICMOS provides important additional scientific content to cosmological studies in the HUDF," says Rodger Thompson of the University of Arizona and the NICMOS Principal Investigator. The ACS uncovered galaxies that existed 800 million years after the big bang (at a redshift of 7). But the NICMOS may have spotted galaxies that lived just 400 million years after the birth of the cosmos (at a redshift of 12). Thompson must confirm the NICMOS discovery with follow-up research. Now for a galaxy to form in just 400 million years is quite an ask. For a cluster of galaxies is going to far with the question. Compare this with the evolution of our solar system and its life expectency of about 10 to 12 Gyrs. Something is wrong. Are we blind not to question? Soon we will look into deep field over 14 Gyrs. What than? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pluto Posted October 6, 2007 Report Share Posted October 6, 2007 Hello All Reading many posts I find people not understanding the theory behind the Big Bang. I do not agree with the BBT, but! that does not make me right. I'm not emotionally attached to any theory. Here are some links in support of the Big Bang, later I will post against. For now maybe discuss the supporting issues. Tango at your speed. Big Bang NucleosynthesisBig Bang Nucleosynthesis A Glimpse of the Young Milky Wayhttp://www.eso.org/public/outreach/p.../pr-19-02.html Evidence for the Big Banghttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astr....html#firstlaw Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmologyhttp://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/co...y_faq.html#XIN History of the Big Bang Theoryhttp://astrophysics.suite101.com/art...ig_bang_theory Chapter 10 Origin of the Elementshttp://www.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/tea...pdf/Chap10.pdf Mysterious iron factory in the Early Universehttp://www.mpe-garching.mpg.de/Highl...r20020708.html Phase Transitions in the Early UniversePhase Transitions THE BIG BANG:THE BIG BANG Foundations of Big Bang CosmologyWMAP Cosmology 101: Big Bang Concepts If anybody has links that can support the Big Bang, please post them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pluto Posted December 22, 2007 Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 Hello All Does anybody wish to support the BIG BANG THEORY In the last 2 years there seems to be alot of people who do not support the BBT. Why is this so?????????????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike C Posted December 25, 2007 Report Share Posted December 25, 2007 Hello All Does anybody wish to support the BIG BANG THEORY In the last 2 years there seems to be alot of people who do not support the BBT. Why is this so?????????????? Thank you Pluto for those links.Those probes that reach out to redshifts of 10+ is one reason besides others that the evidence is in opposition towards the BBT. I just wish the JWST could be launched sooner. Mike C Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pluto Posted December 26, 2007 Report Share Posted December 26, 2007 Hello MikeC There is alot of information that sheds light against the Big Bang. You are right The JWST will or may not support the BBT. Deep field images 13.2 Billion years show clusters of galaxies in a very small area now imagine the total sky. 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.