The Origin of Universe: Solving the mystery

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi Durgatosh,

 

It seems that we are getting stuck in what particular words mean to us. I have re-read your first post, and I am sorry to say your hypothesis is no clearer to me. Splitting zero is dividing zero, surely? Perhaps you hit the nail on the head when you said that you seek the "why" rather than the "what" of the Universe. The Universe I try to explain is that mainfestation I am sentiently aware of (what I observe and experience), and I therefore use observation and experience as the basis of my method. Let me emphasise that I also explicitly exclude mathematical arguments from my explanation of that infinitesimal fraction of the Universe that I claim to understand. I am an astronomer and I use classical physics (Newtonian mechanics) to figure out what it is I am looking at. I guess that you would consider that a self-imposed limitation.

 

Thank you again for inviting me to participate in this thread. I am sure we haven't run out of things to talk about.

 

Regards

Hilton

[Pluto]

Hello Hilton

 

Main stream cosmology assumes that nothing can escape a black hole and that jet are created by infalling matter.

 

I say because of the properties of plasma the internal matrix of the compacted core created the jet and drives the jet for 1000's of light years.

 

Recycling of matter is part of the process.

 

If matter does not recycle than all matter would collect in black holes.

 

 

Darn, I have to go and pick up the kids.

[durgatosh]

ColdCreation

Science is based on empirical evidence.

 

Faith is based on belief.

 

If nothing more, and until a glimmer of experimental or observational evidence in support of the concept of zero (and its whimsical spliting) expounded throughout these e-pages is produced, one can only conclude that the entire premise upon which the idea rests is based on pure faith.

 

CC, you had raised a similar question about observational evidence for my theory previously and I had replied to you (post 176). I shall reproduce the same reply here. Indeed, we are going around in circles!

Quote:

ColdCreation

I don't see anywhere in the natural world an observation that could falsify or substantiate your claims. Do you?

 

Mine is a mathematical theory about the origin of universe. It is based on the re-interpretation of zero and its relationship (equivalence) to infinity. Zero and infinity are concepts; they are the explanation to the existence of the universe. It is very difficult to produce conditions in the natural world where we can actually verify or falsify my hypothesis.

 

The reason I say this is that in order to verify my hypothesis, one has to look into a very very small scale (quantum scale of time, space, matter/energy). At that scale, the tools of observation (be it light, photons, electrons or whatever) would distort the conditions so that what we observe is not actually what happens.

 

In addition, it would be too presumptuous for us as human beings to assume that we have all the faculties of sense organs and intellect to understand everything. I have elaborated this point in the introduction of my first post under the heading "The blind men and the elephant".

 

However, if you think mathematically (and I believe this is the only way to understand reality because tools of observation distort the real picture), you will find merit in my theory.

 

Hilton

Splitting zero is dividing zero, surely?

 

"Split of zero" was a concept I formulated to explain origin from nothing (in order to get around the endless question of "where it came from". I gave up this "split of zero" concept when I realized its limitations. My understanding evolved further to the hypothesis "stability of an entity is indirectly proportional to its proximity to zero". Suddenly, everything made sense to me. Zero would then be infinitely unstable and thus impossible. Thus, the universe is a manifestation of the compulsion of zero (nothingness) to exist as an infinite range of positives and negatives.

 

Hilton

I am an astronomer and I use classical physics (Newtonian mechanics) to figure out what it is I am looking at. I guess that you would consider that a self-imposed limitation.

 

This is rather unfortunate that you have imposed these limitations. In the quest of truth and reality, we have to widen our horizons rather than narrowing them. You know the limitations of Newtonian mechanics more than me.

 

Human knowledge and capabilities are limited. Further limiting them would not be helpful in the search of truth.

 

DP

[KerryK]

I'm just wondering why Eclogite says "You see this quite brought me to a halt, for it simply is not true" in response to durgatosh's "I think it would be highly arrogant for us to think that human beings are endowed with all the possible sensory and mental faculties and these are enough to describe the wide-ranging phenomena in the universe." I'm not trying to argue otherwise here; I'm just trying to understand why you think it's not possible that there are other sensory faculties. Or, is this what you're saying? I might be misunderstanding that.

[coldcreation]

... I use classical physics (Newtonian mechanics) to figure out what it is I am looking at. I guess that you would consider that a self-imposed limitation.

 

Thank you again for inviting me to participate in this thread. I am sure we haven't run out of things to talk about.

 

Regards

Hilton

 

Interesting Hilton.

 

Are you saying that gravity may not be a curved spacetime phenomenon (as articulated by Albert Einstein in the general principle of relativity), and that Newtonian mechanics is the theory of choice when dealing with gravity, with cosmology?

 

 

I really wish we could have this discussion in another thread. Since it has nothing to do with the spliting of nothing.

 

 

How about opening a thread. It could be a place to casually discuss (not give away) some of the thoughts you've developped over the years.

 

I'm sure others would find in it something of interest. We could begin with the above question.

 

CC

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi Coldcreation,

 

Interesting Hilton.

Are you saying that gravity may not be a curved spacetime phenomenon (as articulated by Albert Einstein in the general principle of relativity), and that Newtonian mechanics is the theory of choice when dealing with gravity, with cosmology?

CC

 

Yes indeed, that is what I say. To respond also to the last post by Durgatosh, I do not consider the use of Newtonian mechanics (including Newtonian relativity) in astrophysics to be a limitation; I was merely guessing from Durgatosh's statements that he might consider it a limitation. In fact I consider it an advantage. Mathematical modelling such as Durgatosh is doing here, on the other hand, is weakened by the lack of physical constraint, and he illustrates this by arbitrarily re-defining zero to suit his model (which, sadly, is perfectly acceptable in prevailing scientific methods). As another example, Roger Penrose points out in The Emperor's New Mind that all the successful equations in physics are symmetrical in time, so we can run time forwards or backwards at will. Is that what we experience in nature? I don't think so. In all my work (mainly on the distance ladder, galactic collisional morphogenesis, and nuclear chemistry) I have found it an unneccessary impedence to use meta-mathematical models like Einstein's Special and General Relativity as points of departure. Newtonian physics are to my mind the most reliable and consistent laws available to scientists investigating macro-level phenomena, and are indeed what we still use today to map flight paths of spacecraft. These arguments are expounded at length in my book.

 

You are right, out of respect to Durgatosh we should move this discussion to another thread. Do you know how to do that? I don't think I could do it - I'm just a humble rocket scientist :hihi:.

 

Regards

Hilton

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi Pluto,

 

Main stream cosmology assumes that nothing can escape a black hole and that jet are created by infalling matter. I say because of the properties of plasma the internal matrix of the compacted core created the jet and drives the jet for 1000's of light years. Recycling of matter is part of the process.

If matter does not recycle than all matter would collect in black holes.

 

All the theories about Black Holes exist only because they ignore a vital question - is there such a thing as a real Black Hole in the first place? By definition, we cannot observe Black Holes because they do not measurably radiate, and neither we we infer them by eclipsing (they are conveniently shrouded by bright objects). It is a mathematical model that cannot be falsified, and can only be challenged on the grounds of ambiguity: We can succesfully substitute MECOs in all cases where BHs are postulated.

 

Regards

Hilton

[Buffy]

We can succesfully substitute MECOs in all cases where BHs are postulated.

According to Wikipedia:

...a MECO is just the intermediate finite mass state preceding this unique and ultimate zero mass BH state. Hence the concept of a MECO is really not in conflict with the mathematical idea of a BH. Far from it, it is an integral part of true BH formation process because both the concepts involve the same physical ingredient of bending of light in strong gravity.

Do you agree with this statement? If so, why are MECOs important? If not, why not?

 

Disclaims any knowledge of the subject,

Buffy

[Pluto]

Hello Hilton

 

I agree with you.

=============================

 

My point is

 

Where does the jet originate from?

 

Internal matrix or by external falling in matter.

 

=============================

 

A jet is a jet and all jets have similar properties.

If we look at pulsars, we see the jet originating from within as a becon.

 

Main stream assumes that infalling matter creates a tornado effect, creating the jet.

[coldcreation]

...You are right, out of respect to Durgatosh we should move this discussion to another thread. Do you know how to do that? I don't think I could do it - I'm just a humble rocket scientist :hihi:.

 

Regards

Hilton

 

 

Sure, it's simple:

 

1. You click on Astronomy and Cosmology above (next to Physical Science Forum).

 

2. Then you click on New Thread (located upper left of your screen just above the block of thread subjects).

 

3. Then choose a title, write in a few key words, then you're set to write your text. Submit it (lower left of text box).

 

Generally, the first post of a new thread is like an abstract, it is an overview of what is to follow. You can begin with a large or narrow scope (e.g., about the universe in general or about MECO's). It's up to you, though, from the looks of the discussion here so far, I would tend to leave open the subject to cover a divers grouping of interelated topics (again, you choose).

 

 

Instead of transfering the questions directed towards you from this thread (mine included) it might be better just to start from scratch. Those questions will eventually pop up again. In that way you can control the discussion, the sequential order of topics (instead of starting with BH's or MECO's).

 

Editing after you have posted (to change something in your text, to add or subtract text, typo's tec) click Edit, make the change, then click Save changes below.

 

Looking forward to participating.

 

 

CC

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi Buffy,

 

Thanks for the questions.

 

Do you agree with this statement? If so, why are MECOs important? If not, why not?

 

I am guilty sometimes of forgetting that this is a public forum, I'm sorry. Pluto has been following the work that Oliver Manuel, Michael Mozina, and I have been doing for several years now, and is quite familiar with our position on Black Holes. I do not agree with the Wiki statement, because I have no reason to think that Black Holes exist as phenomenally real objects. What we see in places (like galaxy cores) where Black Holes are supposed to exist is simply a manifestation of ultra gravity, accompanied by intense radiation and brightness. A suitably compact object or collection of compact objects (like eg n-stars) could produce the same effects, in our judgement. The question is whether or not gravitational collapse of astrophysical objects can by any known physics proceed to greater than nuclear densities. Our studies (using non-relativistic physics) indicate that they would not, and Einstein argued convincingly in papers published while he was at IAS at Princeton that in terms of SRT/GRT, such arbitrary compression of matter is physically impossible. I suggest that such compact objects as would meet the gravitational and radiative parameters normally assigned to Black Holes could be classified as MECOs. Please note that "Eternally Collapsing" is taken in the same sense as that the Moon is said to be in constant free-fall, in other words that the centripetal acceleration of matter in a MECO would assymptotically approach zero.

 

I hope Durgatosh doesn't become impatient with us for digressing here, Buffy, although it could be argued that we are discussing the virtues of mathematical modelling vs empirical science. :confused:

 

Regards

Hilton :naughty:

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi everyone,

 

Done! The thread is called "Is Newtonian Mechanics an advantage or liability in astrophysics?" or something like that.

 

Thank you Coldcreation for your guidelines, and thank you also Durgatosh for patiently putting up with us here.

 

Regards

Hilton

[durgatosh]

Hi Hilton,

Much as I admire your knowledge and work, I differ from you in a few respects. As I had emphasized earlier, my quest is for the "why" of the universe whereas yours is for the "what" and "how" in the universe. Therefore, you are content with measurements and theories that would be consistent with observations.

 

The point that I am trying to make is that observations may be limited and fallacious. Wasn't it a common observation centuries ago that the sun goes around the earth. With refinements of observational techniques and careful thoughts, this geocentric universe model was abandoned. Yet, the humiliations faced by Galileo then are well-known. Our tools of observation and our sensory perceptions are limited. They can be refined to an extent. But how do you observe things that are very very small; at subatomic scale. Is it not correct that the very act of observing them alters their properties and hence an accurate observation may not be possible?

 

Hilton

Newtonian physics are to my mind the most reliable and consistent laws available to scientists investigating macro-level phenomena, and are indeed what we still use today to map flight paths of spacecraft.

 

For macro-level phenomena, yes! But what about phenomena at micro-level, a level very very small? Certainly, Newtonian physics does not describe such phenomena accurately.

 

Hilton

I hope Durgatosh doesn't become impatient with us for digressing here, Buffy, although it could be argued that we are discussing the virtues of mathematical modelling vs empirical science.

 

No Hilton, I am a very patient man. And you are certainly not digressing. One of the main issues I have attempted to discuss is the limitations of observational techniques and our sensory perceptions. Empirical science certainly has its virtues. But for explaining the "why" of the universe, I feel compelled to look and think beyond observations and empirical science.

 

The search for reality and truth of the universe should not be a domain of observation-based science alone. It requires considerable inputs from logic, mathematics and philosophy as well.

 

DP

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi Durgatosh,

 

Thank you for your post addressed to me. Of course, I agree that observation has subjective limitations of human perception (observer effects), and that we are constrained by the scope and resolution of our instruments. However, mathematical modelling or any other purely conceptual conjecture are even more limited in their reliable rendition of the "truth" because in creating them we are insulated from harsh reality. We can factor out gravitation, go backwards in time, and teleport things at infinite speed, all of which are at odds with our daily experience, and cannot be reproduced in the physical common ground in which we interact as sentient beings and which we can reasonably call reality. Notwithstanding this serious defect, there is no other way to deal with with things supposed to exist beyond the limits of observation at both micro and macro scales. In my book, I devote chapter two to the delineation of my primary assumptions, which are just that - choices about how I prefer to deal with the Universe. I cannot say that you are wrong in the choices and assumptions you make, because your hypothesis cannot be tested against our common physical reality, although I can and have questioned the mathematical consistency of what you say, especially your chosen definition of zero. My path in science is limited to what I have named the Human Consciousness Unit, an arbitrarily bounded field of study from roughly atoms (nucleons and electrons) to superclusters and walls. Beyond that at either end I fear to tread, because it seems that we are compelled to take leave of rationalism there and I simply don't want to take that route in life. Newton's laws do not properly and logically describe an atom, but then, nor does Bohr's model. Quantum mechanics, or at least significant parts of it, are patently illogical, and Dirac admitted that. The telekinetic zero-time quantum jump, superposition, and quantum spin are all absurd in a rational frame. The Copenhagen Interpretation does not allow for causal continuity from particles to the phenomenal universe that physically sustains us. For once, I find I can wholeheartedly agree with Einstein: This is nonsense.

 

Your courtesy and seeking of my opinion are much appreciated. I honestly do not believe that I am suitably qualified to assist you with the development and verification of your model. It is outside my field.

 

Kind regards

Hilton

[Pluto]

Hello Hilton

 

I posted a new topic on Plasma, I would love your opinion.

[TruthChaser]

long post is exactly the point chen... I find you too long winded... too much!

[Radar]

The Origin of Universe: Solving the mystery

 

Durgatosh Pandey

 

The only way zero can exist is as a sum of many positives and negatives. Thus the quantum theory gives support to the previously mentioned hypothesis: “The stability of a particular thing is inversely proportional to its proximity to zero.”

 

Not surprisingly, therefore, extremely small subatomic particles like electrons, quarks, photons etc are highly unstable.

 

 

Hi Durgatosh,

 

I enjoyed your thoughts but got stuck, massively on the notion of the existance of "Zero", nothing.

 

Maybe it's more of a philosophical question but it seems that you are giving a physical property to the concept of "Nothing/Zero". This does not solve your question as nothing is now something.

 

Are electrons and neutrinos highly unstable?