The Beginning Universe

[pantheory]

Many of us are interested in how and why the universe began according to science. But the present model of the universe, the Big Bang, no longer addresses this question since the beginning cannot be modeled via mathematics.

Although many are not interested in the details of cosmology theory, there are only two possible types of cosmology theories that can be considered. Either the universe has always existed (came from another universe), or in one form or another is infinite, or it has existed for a finite period of time. The present model, the Big Bang Theory, proposes the latter, a finite universe about 14 billion years old.

Certain concepts must be proposed, questions asked, and answers given, if we are to understand a universe of finite age.Here are the questions and comments made by Weezer in another topic. They are questions that all could ask about the beginnings of everything:: Christians, agnostics, and atheists.

"Where did the “stuff” (matter, energy, process, etc) come from to produce the “big bang”, that , according to theory, (that eventually) evolved into consciousness and mankind?  ………..it seems more logical that consciousness, energy, spirit, god, whatever you want to call it, could “create” things, rather than vice versa.  And when you look at the endless galaxies I can't help but think there is something (a lot) “out there” (energy, force, creator?) (entities or answers) we have yet to grasp. ……” (italicized words added)

Below are the answers that I provided for these questions and comments:

As you may know, physics has nothing at all to do with evolution theory. Darwin's 'Evolution' is the theory of natural selection involving the biology of living things. The changes of the universe over time is not a process of evolution in science, but it might be called that in common language since changes occur over time. 

But in a Big Bang beginning, according to its founding concepts, there was nothing before the Big Bang. In this theory the universe is of a finite age. This means there was a beginning to it. It also might be realized that that the answers which follow  are not speculation or theory, it’s just logic.

This concept of the beginning universe involves the understanding and meaning of the word 'time' as an interval of change. So there would be no such thing as time zero. The first time and change would have been 0-1, the second change would be 1-2, the third change would be 2-3, the forth would be 3-4 etc. Time would be like a motion picture. The integers shown, 1,2,3,4 represent time-frames, which are like photos conceptually. These time photos within these intervals of changing time would be where no changes occur like a photo.

So would time zero be a beginning of time where no changes occurred? No, the beginning of time again was time 0-1, as explained above, a time interval where time first began and functioned. In the same way time zero would have no meaning to it concerning time itself since no changes would be involved. There would have been no such thing as time zero, but there would have been a time-frame zero. 

This concept simply explains that there was something that existed in the very beginning of time at time-frame zero that had the potential to change into something a little different by time frame 1. We can call the cause of this change to be the potential energy within the beginning entity. The first time again would have been the changes that occurred within the beginning entity between time frames  0 to 1.  Those that can understand the concept of potential energy can realize that the universe did not have to come from something else, or have come from nothing. And why time and potential energy are both necessary dimensions of reality, because without them nothing would ever change.

In answering the question, what existed before the universe? In common language for students first learning this concept, it has been explained as the same answer to the question, what is north of the north pole? The same answer would apply. There is no such thing as north of the north pole, and there could be no change (time) before the first change of the universe (if time is finite).

This concept does not suggest or imply that the Big Bang model is the correct theory of the universe, only that this concept must be involved for any model of the universe that proposes a finite age to it, but not one coming from something, nothing, or somewhere else, or one infinite in time and/or extension.

Space is another question. Was it always here? According to the Big Bang, and I expect most other finite universe models, space was also created in the beginning universe. Space can be simply defined as the simple distance between matter and the volume which matter and field occupies. Outside of the existence of all matter there would be no space, simply there would be no such thing as anything existing outside a finite universe.

As to the quote "... evolved into consciousness and mankind." Again this is not Darwin's evolution theory. According to modern theory of evolution consciousness evolved in animals long before humans. Levels of consciousness for an animal are related to their senses and perceptions in a woken state, and from their abstract reasoning. Any intelligent animal can have abstract reasoning, problem solving ability that is not learned. Since mankind has the greatest reasoning ability, we could say that we have a higher level of consciousness, in that our thinking, awareness, and self-awareness can be  more complex and more "deeply" involved in behavior.

From the above, looking for your comments and questions concerning the universe, biological evolution, consciousness, etc.  Questions could enable more explanations, clarify answers for the above, or ask something new if related to science. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Thank you for starting up this thread, Pantheory.

 

The beginning of the universe is a theme and a question that crops up time and again, here at Ex-Christian.net.  This is not surprising because many Christian apologists try to argue that Big Bang cosmology agrees with what the Bible says about god creating the universe from nothing.  Their arguments usually fail for the the following reasons.

 

1.  They don't actually understand the science.

2. They don't understand how science works.

3. And those that do understand these two things usually regurgitate William Lane Craig's apologetic arguments, in form or another.

 

I will not dwell on any of these three things because the science doesn't agree with scripture and WLC's arguments have been roundly refuted.  

 

But I look forward to an interesting thread and I'm pleased to offer any help that I can give.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[pantheory]

5 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Thank you for starting up this thread, Pantheory.

 

The beginning of the universe is a theme and a question that crops up time and again, here at Ex-Christian.net.  This is not surprising because many Christian apologists try to argue that Big Bang cosmology agrees with what the Bible says about god creating the universe from nothing.  Their arguments usually fail for the the following reasons.

 

1.  They don't actually understand the science.

2. They don't understand how science works.

3. And those that do understand these two things usually regurgitate William Lane Craig's apologetic arguments, in form or another.

 

I will not dwell on any of these three things because the science doesn't agree with scripture and WLC's arguments have been roundly refuted.  

 

But I look forward to an interesting thread and I'm pleased to offer any help that I can give.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

Thanks Walter,

 

Since I've been here for about 9 years now, few here are that interested in cosmology for a number of reasons other than religious beliefs. one of which is that some do not have enough knowledge of these subjects to be involved in such a dialog. and another could be that some believe mainstream cosmology is not on a solid footing.  That's why the query I am seeking is hoping for questions concerning the universe in general or its beginning, its future, biological evolution, and human consciousness to stay on the science subject stated, but I hope I could stir any science question by anyone and remain on topic.

 

You could chime in on cosmology or any other science topicor question that might pop up. I am not expecting very many questions or comments however

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Thank you, Pantheory.

 

Yes, I know that you don't place much store in mainstream cosmology, but that's not really an issue that should stop us (not just you and me, but anyone involved) from having a worthwhile discussion.  Perhaps the main thing here is not to compete, but to cooperate, so as to do the thread justice.  I propose this approach as a potentially helpful one.  What say you?

 

If I may suggest, your division of universe types into two general categories, finite age vs infinite age, is a good place to start.  Here is my current understanding of how various proposed universe models fall into these categories.  By getting this list down, when one of them crops up later on in the thread, we can then refer back and see if we are talking about a finitely old universe or an infinitely old (eternal) one.  Or, at least, we can see which one of the listed examples it most closely resembles.

 

Infinitely Old Universe models

 

Bondi, Gold and Hoyle's original Steady State model.

Khoury, Ovrut, Steinhardt and Turok's Ekpyrotic model.

Smolin's Fecund Universe model.

Susskin's String Theory Landscape model.

Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology model.

Any past-eternal inflationary multiverse models.

Any past-eternal cyclic models.

 

Finitely Old Universe models

 

Guth and Linde's original Inflationary model.

Any subsequent Inflationary model. (There are many)

Any Inflationary model employing the BGV past singularity cut-off.

Any Quasi-Steady State model that requires a point of origin.

 

One further point.  If it's accepted that as we go further and further back in time, the temperature of the universe rises, these ultra-high temperatures are considered by some theorists to 'wipe the slate clean'.  Here they mean that traces or indicators of any previous universes are wiped away.  So, we could be living in an infinitely-old cyclic universe and not know it.  The eternally-repeated 'turnover' event between one cycle and another in an infinitely-old cyclic universe would look exactly the same as the beginning event of a finitely-old universe.  Both feature ultra-high temperatures and ultra-high densities.  So, we could be living in either sort and never be able to discern which.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter. 

 

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

Yeah, that's all fine. Let the posters choose.

 

As a starter, if you would like, you could pick the standard model, and I could tell you what's wrong with it via mostly links.. Or you could pick any of the models you have listed and I could tell you what's wrong with them via links and my comments.

 

All here have been Christians, so I'm equally interested in comments by anyone about evolution theory, and consciousness theory. Both are part of the opening post and query by Weezer;  I would equally like to talk about these theories also.   In a broader sense I'm interested in any science question or comment about any science subject in this thread -- a broader sense of the word universe.  But for this I will probably have to start another thread for science subjects in general.

[pantheory]

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

......One further point.  If it's accepted that as we go further and further back in time, the temperature of the universe rises, these ultra-high temperatures are considered by some theorists to 'wipe the slate clean'.  Here they mean that traces or indicators of any previous universes are wiped away.  So, we could be living in an infinitely-old cyclic universe and not know it.  The eternally-repeated 'turnover' event between one cycle and another in an infinitely-old cyclic universe would look exactly the same as the beginning event of a finitely-old universe.  Both feature ultra-high temperatures and ultra-high densities.  So, we could be living in either sort and never be able to discern which.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter. 

 

 

Yes, according to the Big Bang model they assert the universe was progressively hotter in the past. The fact is that the temperatures surrounding galaxies appear to increase proportional to galactic redshifts. From this, theory takes over and they assume the universe had to be hotter and denser in the  past. Of course there is not direct evidence for this since there could be other reasons such as an optical illusion that redshifts themselves change the spectrum surrounding distant galaxies.

 

Infinite cycles of expansion cannot be ruled out, but this assumes that the universe is expanding in the first place, and as you may know, there are other explanations for redshifts.

 

btw, we may be the only ones in this thread so we must stop posting if argument begins and wait for others, if any are interested.

[walterpthefirst]

 

 

4 hours ago, pantheory said:

Yeah, that's all fine. Let the posters choose.

 

As a starter, if you would like, you could pick the standard model, and I could tell you what's wrong with it via mostly links.. Or you could pick any of the models you have listed and I could tell you what's wrong with them via links and my comments.

 

All here have been Christians, so I'm equally interested in comments by anyone about evolution theory, and consciousness theory, both are part of the opening post and query by Weezer;  I would equally like to talk about these theories also.   In a broader sense I'm interested in any science question or comment about any science subject in this thread -- a broader sense of the word universe.  But for this I will probably have to start another thread for science subjects in general.

 

From the above, looking for your comments and questions concerning the universe, biological evolution, consciousness, etc.  Questions could enable more explanations, clarify answers for the above, or ask something new if related to science. 

 

 

 

Now I'm confused, Pantheory.

 

From the sentence above that you emboldened I thought the purpose of this thread was to answer questions from others members and to explain and to clarify on points they ask about.  

 

But if you are going to be pointing out what you think is wrong about various cosmological models, how is that explaining and clarifying?

 

Can you please explain and clarify what this thread is really about?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[pantheory]

59 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

 

 

From the above, looking for your comments and questions concerning the universe, biological evolution, consciousness, etc.  Questions could enable more explanations, clarify answers for the above, or ask something new if related to science. 

 

 

 

Now I'm confused, Pantheory.

 

From the sentence above that you emboldened I thought the purpose of this thread was to answer questions from others members and to explain and to clarify on points they ask about.  

 

But if you are going to be pointing out what you think is wrong about various cosmological models, how is that explaining and clarifying?

 

Can you please explain and clarify what this thread is really about?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

You're right. I would be explaining what I believe to be the answers, both the pros and cons concerning any cosmology they might ask about, according to links and my comments. This would also apply to theories of consciousness.  But not to the theory of evolution since there is little wrong with it IMO. If anyone asks about it, I would just answer their questions according to mainstream theory.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, pantheory said:

 

You're right. I would be explaining what I believe to be the answers, both the pros and cons concerning any cosmology they might ask about, according to links and my comments. This would also apply to theories of consciousness.  But not to the theory of evolution since there is little wrong with it IMO. If anyone asks about it, I would just answer their questions according to mainstream theory.

 

 

 

Ah, then I can't really participate in this thread Pantheory.

 

That's because you have very sharply defined ideas about what is right and what is wrong in cosmology.

 

Whereas I have adopted a wait-and-see, noncommittal approach.

 

So, I must withdraw my earlier offer and leave this thread to you.

 

I hope this doesn't bother you, but I don't see any other option that I can reasonably take.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[pantheory]

37 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Ah, then I can't really participate in this thread Pantheory.

 

That's because you have very sharply defined ideas about what is right and what is wrong in cosmology.

 

Whereas I have adopted a wait-and-see, noncommittal approach.

 

So, I must withdraw my earlier offer and leave this thread to you.

 

I hope this doesn't bother you, but I don't see any other option that I can reasonably take.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

Thanks Walter. The Wait-and-see policy is cool, and is becoming,or will become more popular as time progresses.  I can hardly progress further with my own theories until what I have predicted,  concerning the James Webb and Long-Baseline radio scope arrays, is observed farther back in time.

 

If anyone else comments here, you could always chime in if you think I'm being too one sided (the cons) in my comments.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

The concepts you are mentioning are completely over my head.  So I would likely have little to add to the discussion.

[pantheory]

13 hours ago, Weezer said:

The concepts you are mentioning are completely over my head.  So I would likely have little to add to the discussion.

 

Just read the concept of time and space in the OP. It's logic only. If you can conceive another way that a finite universe could have started then explain it. This was the concept behind the original BB model, and it is the same concept behind my own model. The two concepts involved are the beginnings of time and space. If they don't make sense to you then maybe they won't make sense to anyone else. Many have struggled with these concepts concerning the BB model -- that both time and space began with the BB beginning. In accord with this Einstein said: 

 

“When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter.”

— Albert Einstein

 

This means that there was no time, space, or gravity before the beginning of the universe according to Einstein. My explanation supposedly explains the reason why this would be true logically IMHO.

 

In any event, you mentioned a cyclical universe which can't be ruled out, but it would require both the expansion and contraction of space or its galaxies if it were valid. Many believe this could happen but there is no evidence that the contraction of space has ever happened in the past so that would be a limiting factor of the model. In my view space is simply the distance between matter and it cannot do anything. If this is true then there would be another reason for galactic redshifts. Even though there may be evidence for this, it would certainly be a hypothesis rather than a theory since few cosmologists have ever seriously considered another reason for galactic redshifts.

 

Before the declaration of dark energy, cyclical universe models were considered a possibility by many. But when they declared the accelerated expansion of the universe, nearly all believers of a cyclical universe lost their faith   However, I think the mainstream belief and subsequent adoption of both dark energy and dark matter into the BB model were in error. 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Interesting, but not something I want to spend much time on.  Now that I have put the christian god and religion behind, what we already have is more importan to me than where it came from.

[pantheory]

2 hours ago, Weezer said:

Interesting, but not something I want to spend much time on.  Now that I have put the christian god and religion behind, what we already have is more important to me than where it came from.

 

Got it,   Cheers 

[Sexton Blake]

The big bang is an idea and nothing more.

 

It has no possible origin and relies on fudges like inflation, dark energy, etc.

 

Disproving it:

 

If the universe is expanding, then run time backwards in your mind and the universe will get ever smaller and denser. Black holes will start to form everywhere while the universe is still a fair size and grow ever bigger till there is nothing else. Now run time forwards again and nothing changes because black holes don't expand.

 

Dark energy we are expected to believe (magically) appeared several billion years ago and now makes up some 2/3 (68%) of the universe, meaning that most of the universe had nothing to do with the so called big bang.

 

We are expected to believe that dark energy is pushing whole galaxies apart when we are told that small galaxies grew to their present size by collisions, so forming larger galaxies, like the Andromeda galaxy and out own which have been heading towards each other for 10 to 12 billion years, despite this imaginary dark energy. We have endless photos of galaxies on their way to colliding, colliding, and after they have collided. How can this be with dark energy?

 

Spacetime annoys me. The term was made up by mathematicians to help with their calculations but has since become an actual material which warps and causes gravity, etc. But if the universe has expanded from a point to its present size, is more spacetime magically being created since it is not becoming ever less dense? And how?

 

The universe will not rebound because it is not cyclic. The present density is about 9 protons per cubic meter, so better than any vacuum we can produce on Earth and we are told getting ever less dense. If the universe did not collapse at any earlier time in its life when the universe was much denser than now, why will it collapse now when there is no cause for it to happen.

 

The visible universe by definition is what we can see now, hoping that it is still there after all the billions of years. To claim that it is 92 billion light years in diameter is just imagination run wild.

 

The redshift is the claim for an expanding universe but we have no films of galaxies moving, and no hard evidence. What we do know is that while gravity cannot slow down photons, it can redshift them by taking energy from them, and as we live in a universe full of gravity sources (stars, etc), photons will be redshifted as they travel, often for billions of years, in a way that can be mistaken for recession, and the longer they travel, the more redshifted they will be.

 

Infra red can be redshifted to (next door) microwaves and when that redshift is greater than light, then we get the haze we see for the so called CMB. We do not see any great temperatures predicted for the early universe which somehow cooled down do fast, when the heat has nowhere to go, while the heat of millions of degrees can sometimes remain in intergalactic clouds.

 

In 1926, Eddington gave the temperature of space as 3K from starlight alone. It took big bangers decades to reach that and then 2.7K.

 

There is the totally ridiculous claim that originally there were a billion universes of anti-matter and a billion and one universes of matter and when the smoke cleared from annihilation, all that was left was our one universe of matter. But add one kilogram of anti-matter to one kilogram of matter and you get a 43 megaton explosion. Such an explosion as claimed would make the so called big bang look like a damp squib and all the remaining matter would be moving away from each other at close to light speed from such an explosion. There would be no universe.

 

Is the universe eternal? It does seem to have had simpler origins when we look back in time but has beaten big bang predictions with both galaxies and super massive black holes being found to both exist far, far earlier than predicted. And there is the problem with black holes. Ignoring ridiculous Hawking Radiation, can they break down somehow. I think it possible that their polar jets do come from inside but I may be wrong.

 

Could the universe have literally come from nothing? +1 and -1 equals nothing as +trillion and -trillion equals nothing. All that matters is that both sides balance out. Thinking of gravity as anti-energy, both sides could balance out there, but we don't know what matter really is other than almost all empty space and given the appearance of solidity by charges that repel. If all the charges balance out, is that more evidence that everything may have come from nothing?

 

We don't even know what gravity is. On Earth you drop something and it falls straight down, probably due to the dragging effect of our atmosphere. In space, gravity seems to pull in an unknown direction, so even with black holes, things circle inwards rather than falling in, in a straight line. Gravity also causes moons, planets, stars and even galaxies to rotate and to orbit, so does gravity work through a dimension we do not know about?

 

The real problem is like with religious people who think everything came from god/gods, so problem solved; too many cosmologists think everything came from the big bang, so problem solved. Too few give any thought to how things really started and as some say, why there is something rather than nothing.

 

 

 

[pantheory]

13 hours ago, Sexton Blake said:

The big bang is an idea and nothing more.

 

It has no possible origin and relies on fudges like inflation, dark energy, etc.

 

Disproving it:

 

If the universe is expanding, then run time backwards in your mind and the universe will get ever smaller and denser. Black holes will start to form everywhere while the universe is still a fair size and grow ever bigger till there is nothing else. Now run time forwards again and nothing changes because black holes don't expand.

 

Dark energy we are expected to believe (magically) appeared several billion years ago and now makes up some 2/3 (68%) of the universe, meaning that most of the universe had nothing to do with the so called big bang.

 

We are expected to believe that dark energy is pushing whole galaxies apart when we are told that small galaxies grew to their present size by collisions, so forming larger galaxies, like the Andromeda galaxy and out own which have been heading towards each other for 10 to 12 billion years, despite this imaginary dark energy. We have endless photos of galaxies on their way to colliding, colliding, and after they have collided. How can this be with dark energy?

 

Spacetime annoys me. The term was made up by mathematicians to help with their calculations but has since become an actual material which warps and causes gravity, etc. But if the universe has expanded from a point to its present size, is more spacetime magically being created since it is not becoming ever less dense? And how?

 

The universe will not rebound because it is not cyclic. The present density is about 9 protons per cubic meter, so better than any vacuum we can produce on Earth and we are told getting ever less dense. If the universe did not collapse at any earlier time in its life when the universe was much denser than now, why will it collapse now when there is no cause for it to happen.

 

The visible universe by definition is what we can see now, hoping that it is still there after all the billions of years. To claim that it is 92 billion light years in diameter is just imagination run wild.

 

The redshift is the claim for an expanding universe but we have no films of galaxies moving, and no hard evidence. What we do know is that while gravity cannot slow down photons, it can redshift them by taking energy from them, and as we live in a universe full of gravity sources (stars, etc), photons will be redshifted as they travel, often for billions of years, in a way that can be mistaken for recession, and the longer they travel, the more redshifted they will be.

 

Infra red can be redshifted to (next door) microwaves and when that redshift is greater than light, then we get the haze we see for the so called CMB. We do not see any great temperatures predicted for the early universe which somehow cooled down do fast, when the heat has nowhere to go, while the heat of millions of degrees can sometimes remain in intergalactic clouds.

 

In 1926, Eddington gave the temperature of space as 3K from starlight alone. It took big bangers decades to reach that and then 2.7K.

 

There is the totally ridiculous claim that originally there were a billion universes of anti-matter and a billion and one universes of matter and when the smoke cleared from annihilation, all that was left was our one universe of matter. But add one kilogram of anti-matter to one kilogram of matter and you get a 43 megaton explosion. Such an explosion as claimed would make the so called big bang look like a damp squib and all the remaining matter would be moving away from each other at close to light speed from such an explosion. There would be no universe.

 

Is the universe eternal? It does seem to have had simpler origins when we look back in time but has beaten big bang predictions with both galaxies and super massive black holes being found to both exist far, far earlier than predicted. And there is the problem with black holes. Ignoring ridiculous Hawking Radiation, can they break down somehow. I think it possible that their polar jets do come from inside but I may be wrong.

 

Could the universe have literally come from nothing? +1 and -1 equals nothing as +trillion and -trillion equals nothing. All that matters is that both sides balance out. Thinking of gravity as anti-energy, both sides could balance out there, but we don't know what matter really is other than almost all empty space and given the appearance of solidity by charges that repel. If all the charges balance out, is that more evidence that everything may have come from nothing?

 

We don't even know what gravity is. On Earth you drop something and it falls straight down, probably due to the dragging effect of our atmosphere. In space, gravity seems to pull in an unknown direction, so even with black holes, things circle inwards rather than falling in, in a straight line. Gravity also causes moons, planets, stars and even galaxies to rotate and to orbit, so does gravity work through a dimension we do not know about?

 

https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=7ONCj-kAAAAJ&citation_for_view=7ONCj-kAAAAJ:d1gkVwhDpl0C.

 

 

Great posting above   I agree with almost everything you've said. I explain many of the same Big Bang problems in my own theory. It's pretty amazing that you've been a member here for so long and we've never discussed cosmology. I've had my own cosmology theory for over six decades now and I've never believed in the Big Bang theory. My own theory is a book more than 300 pages long now and online free (link below): It has changed very little during this time, just added more detail. This thread is about a logical explanation for the beginning of a finite universe, with similar ideas to the initial BB model, where both time and space did not exist before the beginning of the universe. It is the same explanation given in my own cosmology.

 

I will go over your reply item for item in quotes:

 

"The big bang is an idea and nothing more. It has no possible origin and relies on fudges like inflation, dark energy, etc."

 

I agree that the BB model is purely speculation and that it has many fudges in it such as dark matter, dark energy, Inflation, and the quintessential proposition of an expanding universe.

 

"Disproving it:" 

 

"If the universe is expanding, then run time backwards in your mind and the universe will get ever smaller and denser. Black holes will start to form everywhere while the universe is still a fair size and grow ever bigger till there is nothing else. Now run time forwards again and nothing changes because black holes don't expand."

 

Yes, this is a bod argument. I and a colleague wrote a paper concerning many of the other major problems with the BB model which you can read, link below:

 

https://www.pantheory.org/Technical-Papers.pdf

 

"Dark energy we are expected to believe (magically) appeared several billion years ago and now makes up some 2/3 (68%) of the universe, meaning that most of the universe had nothing to do with the so called big bang."

 

"We are expected to believe that dark energy is pushing whole galaxies apart when we are told that small galaxies grew to their present size by collisions, so forming larger galaxies, like the Andromeda galaxy and out own which have been heading towards each other for 10 to 12 billion years, despite this imaginary dark energy. We have endless photos of galaxies on their way to colliding, colliding, and after they have collided. How can this be with dark energy?"

 

According to my related paper concerning our four-year long research study of observation data of type 1a supernovae, we concluded that they invented dark energy because calculated distances at a redshift of z=.6 indicated that galaxies at that distance (about 6 billion light years away) was off by about 10%. Instead of concluding the possibility that the Hubble distance formula, based upon an expanding universe, could be off by that 10%, they instead concluded that 2/3rds of the entire universe must be made up of an unknown entity which they called dark energy. More than ten years later we had much more data to work with, so we were able to derived a new distance formula that calculated the distances observed, and if correct explained away dark energy as a likely fantasy.

 

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/18af/86eb09dbf86df826906392e2eb4c9f876d8d.pdf

 

"Spacetime annoys me. The term was made up by mathematicians to help with their calculations but has since become an actual material which warps and causes gravity, etc. But if the universe has expanded from a point to its present size, is more spacetime magically being created since it is not becoming ever less dense? And how?"

 

The word spacetime has meaning since there is no reference points in space that are not changing. To measure distances and locations accurately over time, time is needed within the equations.  Everything is moving relative to everything else including us. Einstein threw time into his equations to account for these relative-motion changes over time. And his equations work. But the combined word space-time is nebulous since space and time must be separately defined. But in an expanding space scenario, changes can be calculated whether space is expanding or not, even if there is another reason for galactic redshifts.

 

As to the warpage of spacetime, Einstein originally explained it in a very different way than it is presently being explained. Einstein developed his own aether theory which he developed after General Relativity. It was based upon a flowing aether medium surrounding matter to explain his equations, and the so-called warpage of space-time which was the semantics of others. Hardly anyone knows of Einstein's aether theorits, and that his space-time involves a flowing aether rather than warping.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_aether_theory

 

"The universe will not rebound because it is not cyclic. The present density is about 9 protons per cubic meter, so better than any vacuum we can produce on Earth and we are told getting ever less dense. If the universe did not collapse at any earlier time in its life when the universe was much denser than now, why will it collapse now when there is no cause for it to happen."

 

This is a good argument. Dark energy even would add to the validity if dark energy were real, which it's not based upon our study.

 

"The visible universe by definition is what we can see now, hoping that it is still there after all the billions of years. To claim that it is 92 billion light years in diameter is just imagination run wild."

 

These calculations are based upon the expansion of space. If that is not true then of course this calculation of the diameter of the universe would also not be valid.

 

"The redshift is the claim for an expanding universe but we have no films of galaxies moving, and no hard evidence. What we do know is that while gravity cannot slow down photons, it can redshift them by taking energy from them, and as we live in a universe full of gravity sources (stars, etc), photons will be redshifted as they travel, often for billions of years, in a way that can be mistaken for recession, and the longer they travel, the more redshifted they will be."

 

Yes, the redshift hypothesis of expanding space is quintessential to the BB theory. If this hypothesis is wrong, then the BB model is simply wrong at its core. 

 

"In 1926, Eddington gave the temperature of space as 3K from starlight alone. It took big bangers decades to reach that and then 2.7K."

 

This is true. Very few theorists know of this fact, that independent of theory, Eddington predicted the temperature of space at 3k before the BB model was proposed. The first BB predictions of the microwave background was 50K made by Gamow about 1950. Later it was said to be a BB prediction, which it was not. Steady-Staters made the same claim that it was simply the temperature of space via the heat from galaxies, and of far redshifted galaxies. The problem for Steady staters was not the temperature of the CMBR, but its great uniformity which seemed better suited to the BB model at the time.

 

"Is the universe eternal? It does seem to have had simpler origins when we look back in time but has beaten big bang predictions with both galaxies and super massive black holes being found to both exist far, far earlier than predicted. And there is the problem with black holes. Ignoring ridiculous Hawking Radiation, can they break down somehow. I think it possible that their polar jets do come from inside but I may be wrong."

 

Yes, I think your speculation is correct. Realize that most stellar black holes do not have polar jets, and most galactic black holes such as our own galaxy, do not have observable galactic jets. Hawing radiation of stellar black holes, even if valid, would not be large according to his calculations, which also may not be valid. Some galactic black holes are known to have huge jets, some of which we now know are quasars. And large radio galaxies which are the same thing from a different angle. A few stellar black holes and so-called neutron stars also have easily visible jets. Some of these we see as pulsars.

 

"Could the universe have literally come from nothing? +1 and -1 equals nothing as +trillion and -trillion equals nothing. All that matters is that both sides balance out. Thinking of gravity as anti-energy, both sides could balance out there, but we don't know what matter really is other than almost all empty space and given the appearance of solidity by charges that repel. If all the charges balance out, is that more evidence that everything may have come from nothing? "

 

Hawking and others proposed a universe coming from the zero-point-field (ZPF) but the ZPF is said to have more energy than the rest of the universe combined, maybe the furthest thing from nothing that exists.

 

The point of the entire opening post is to explain the beginning of a finite universe without something else creating it.

 

"We don't even know what gravity is. On Earth you drop something and it falls straight down, probably due to the dragging effect of our atmosphere. In space, gravity seems to pull in an unknown direction, so even with black holes, things circle inwards rather than falling in, in a straight line. Gravity also causes moons, planets, stars and even galaxies to rotate and to orbit, so does gravity work through a dimension we do not know about?"

 

As stated before, Einstein's gravity equations do well to predict the fine detail of gravity, but to explain gravity via science rather than theoretical physics, he proposed his aether theories, which are based upon flowing aether to explain gravity. Newton also made an aether proposal of gravity in his second edition of Optiks. Gravity can be explained simply in all its aspect via pushing gravity models like Newton proposed.

 

".......so does gravity work through a dimension we do not know about?"

No, pushing gravity is a very simple model which requires nothing unusual.

 

Sexton, you forgot to mention dark matter. Below is my paper proposing the non-existence of  dark matter. The paper makes exact predictions of spiral galaxies based solely upon the observable galactic matter for a great many random spiral galaxies. Something that dark matter can't even come close to doing. It also explains observation anomalies observed in galaxy clusters, totally explainable based upon dark matter modeling.

 

https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=7ONCj-kAAAAJ&citation_for_view=7ONCj-kAAAAJ:d1gkVwhDpl0C

 

"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

 

Simply because nothing is not a possible state of reality.

 

Here's my online book called the Pan Theory:   http://www.pantheory.org/

--------------------

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Sexton Blake]

The Hubble Constant:

 

A megaparsec is 3,260,000 light years.

 

Taking it that the edge of the universe is 13.8 billion light years away from us, that means it is 4,233 megaparsecs away.

 

The speed of light is 186,282 mps so divide that by 4,233 and you get 44 mps or 70.811 kms per second for the Hubble Constant, which is better than the 68 to 74 kms generally given.

 

Type 1a supernovae are not set in stone:

 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/type-1a-supernovas-cosmic-candle-mystery

 

A dwarf star gets a sudden injection of mass, something large falling into it or there is ample material in nearby space to add to the explosion, or darken it, or it is spinning faster so can hold more mass or whatever.

 

Yes, calculations aside, spacetime is the old aether theory, where it is some kind of actual material. That bugs me.

 

While the gravity of a star would blueshift a photon coming towards it and redshift the same one moving away from it, so pretty much balancing out, as it passes, there is no other gravity to balance it out, so a redshift.

 

Gravitational lensing producing other images of distant galaxies, etc should mean that those displaced images should have slightly different redshifts. I have seen no measurements of them.

 

I prefer to believe that it is the stellar atmospheres causing light to refract, and Jupiter, having a dense atmosphere, could do the same.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_ixkOI4k8c

 

Hot air mirages refract light on Earth, but impossible to show gravity doing it.

 

I am not sure how the universe came about but it would have been from the bottom up, the most simplest stuff first so that I don't see a problem with uniformity except where you have a very violent beginning, as in the BB, so inflation is needed.

 

Unlike neutron stars, black holes have very little magnetic fields, so not really enough for polar jets.

 

I see the inside of a black hole as a sphere of ultra dense material spinning at as close to light speed as possible and possibly standing waves could build up in this unbelievably dense stuff so there is a slight distortion at the equator and poles and gravity takes a moment to catch up and for a moment, the tiniest amount of material is beyond the event horizon at the poles and instantly becomes ultra high energy particles moving away at near light speed.

 

Hawking Radiation I ignore as even if true, it takes so ridiculously long, it is of no use.

 

I know that people like Krause think of space as being full of energy but I see it as literally nothing, defined by what gravity, energy and matter occupies it. On Earth, things are different and I think that there are so many smaller things we cannot detect, and they make and unmake particles we can detect, so particles appear and disappear.

 

Matter is strange. As said: "A hydrogen atom is about 99.9999999999996% empty space. Put another way, if a hydrogen atom were the size of the earth, the proton at its center would be about 200 meters (600 feet) across."

 

Even protons and neutrons have a lot of empty space in them. Why so much empty space? Even the universe itself is an almost perfect vacuum.

 

What are charges? Not just plain energy or they would all quickly neutralise each other out of existence. There does seem to be something solid there, and yet, why does matter and anti-matter explode so violently when put together as they lose all energy?

 

Energy I was told as a kid is the ability to do work, but gravity seems to be the opposite, the ability to stop work, so is it the opposite? Energy without any energy as it "sucks energy from energy". But there is also the possibility that as the EMS runs from gamma rays to radio waves, maybe much further along it runs to gravity waves, as gravity is so like energy, travelling at the same speed, etc.

 

Throw a ball in space and unless a force acts on it, it will travel forever at the same speed and in the same direction. So with gravity. A solar system starts off as an accretion disk and slowly "big lumps" appear and the debris mostly thins out and vanishes. So the planets and moons, etc are set in their paths and will continue in them forever unless another force acts on them. The same with a galaxy. So what need of dark matter to move them into or hold them on paths they are already on?

 

I will have a look at your work and links later. It is gone 4am here.

 

I am English and left the country 18 years ago as it nears no resemblance to the country I grew up in, whereas Spain does. And better weather too.

[pantheory]

On 4/8/2022 at 7:11 PM, Sexton Blake said:

The Hubble Constant:

 

A megaparsec is 3,260,000 light years.

 

Taking it that the edge of the universe is 13.8 billion light years away from us, that means it is 4,233 megaparsecs away.

 

The speed of light is 186,282 mps so divide that by 4,233 and you get 44 mps or 70.811 kms per second for the Hubble Constant, which is better than the 68 to 74 kms generally given.

 

Type 1a supernovae are not set in stone:

 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/type-1a-supernovas-cosmic-candle-mystery

 

A dwarf star gets a sudden injection of mass, something large falling into it or there is ample material in nearby space to add to the explosion, or darken it, or it is spinning faster so can hold more mass or whatever.

 

Yes, calculations aside, spacetime is the old aether theory, where it is some kind of actual material. That bugs me.

 

While the gravity of a star would blueshift a photon coming towards it and redshift the same one moving away from it, so pretty much balancing out, as it passes, there is no other gravity to balance it out, so a redshift.

 

Gravitational lensing producing other images of distant galaxies, etc should mean that those displaced images should have slightly different redshifts. I have seen no measurements of them.

 

I prefer to believe that it is the stellar atmospheres causing light to refract, and Jupiter, having a dense atmosphere, could do the same.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_ixkOI4k8c

 

Hot air mirages refract light on Earth, but impossible to show gravity doing it.

 

I am not sure how the universe came about but it would have been from the bottom up, the most simplest stuff first so that I don't see a problem with uniformity except where you have a very violent beginning, as in the BB, so inflation is needed.

 

Unlike neutron stars, black holes have very little magnetic fields, so not really enough for polar jets.

 

I see the inside of a black hole as a sphere of ultra dense material spinning at as close to light speed as possible and possibly standing waves could build up in this unbelievably dense stuff so there is a slight distortion at the equator and poles and gravity takes a moment to catch up and for a moment, the tiniest amount of material is beyond the event horizon at the poles and instantly becomes ultra high energy particles moving away at near light speed.

 

Hawking Radiation I ignore as even if true, it takes so ridiculously long, it is of no use.

 

I know that people like Krause think of space as being full of energy but I see it as literally nothing, defined by what gravity, energy and matter occupies it. On Earth, things are different and I think that there are so many smaller things we cannot detect, and they make and unmake particles we can detect, so particles appear and disappear.

 

Matter is strange. As said: "A hydrogen atom is about 99.9999999999996% empty space. Put another way, if a hydrogen atom were the size of the earth, the proton at its center would be about 200 meters (600 feet) across."

 

Even protons and neutrons have a lot of empty space in them. Why so much empty space? Even the universe itself is an almost perfect vacuum.

 

What are charges? Not just plain energy or they would all quickly neutralise each other out of existence. There does seem to be something solid there, and yet, why does matter and anti-matter explode so violently when put together as they lose all energy?

 

Energy I was told as a kid is the ability to do work, but gravity seems to be the opposite, the ability to stop work, so is it the opposite? Energy without any energy as it "sucks energy from energy". But there is also the possibility that as the EMS runs from gamma rays to radio waves, maybe much further along it runs to gravity waves, as gravity is so like energy, travelling at the same speed, etc.

 

Throw a ball in space and unless a force acts on it, it will travel forever at the same speed and in the same direction. So with gravity. A solar system starts off as an accretion disk and slowly "big lumps" appear and the debris mostly thins out and vanishes. So the planets and moons, etc are set in their paths and will continue in them forever unless another force acts on them. The same with a galaxy. So what need of dark matter to move them into or hold them on paths they are already on?

 

I will have a look at your work and links later. It is gone 4am here.

 

I am English and left the country 18 years ago as it nears no resemblance to the country I grew up in, whereas Spain does. And better weather too.

 

Hi Sexton,

 

As I said before, I agree with almost everything you believe. But there are some differences which i will discuss, OK?

 

"Yes, calculations aside, spacetime is the old aether theory, where it is some kind of actual material. That bugs me."

 

No, they are generally unrelated IMO, but there are some similarities. The concept of Spacetime is based upon the equations of General Relativity. a point in space mathematically explained by a point in time, simple. Aether theory is the explanation that there is a background field. We know that it exists for certain since we have been observing it constantly every day since the late 1920's. We call it the Zero Point Field, or Zero Point Energy, We know for sure it is an energy field, but whether it is also physical is a matter of theory. Some believe it is physical, and others believe it is pure energy without there being anything physical to it.  Energy without something physical to create the observed energy should bother you IMO. Pure energy is a joke IMO. EM radiation is supposedly pure energy. The energy of what? Photons are a myth IMO. Instead we have waves of the aether medium which have many variation of frequencies.

 

Waves of energy withing the aether travel at the speed of light, but no entity like photons are involved. The waves are made up of aether particulates vastly smaller that what we call photons. Both Newton and Einstein proposed later in their carriers that light was a particulate medium consisting of aether. In physics energy equals the force applied, time the distance traveled equals,  the energy of something that the force was applied to. That something is the wave-energy within the aether.

 

"While the gravity of a star would blueshift a photon coming towards it and redshift the same one moving away from it, so pretty much balancing out, as it passes, there is no other gravity to balance it out, so a redshift."

 

Redshifts and blueshifts are observable and provable concepts in physics . Consider the sound of a train whistle coming toward you, and one gong away from you. The former has a much higher frequency, and the latter, a lower frequency. The whistle tone of a train standing still is about half way between the two.

 

As to gravity: 

 

Isaac Newton proposed his own theory of pushing gravity via an aether in his Third Edition of Optic(1st ed. 1704; 2nd ed. 1718): Newton said:      “Is not this medium much rarer within the dense bodies of the Sun, stars, planets and comets, than in the empty celestial space between them? And in passing
from them to great distances, doth it not grow denser and denser perpetually, and thereby cause the gravity of those great bodies towards one another, and of their parts towards the bodies; every body endeavoring to go from the denser parts of the medium towards the rarer?"

 

This is the explanation of a different aether density as the motivator of matter toward each other. The reason for the density difference may vary from one pushing gravity theory to another. 

 

Einstein proposed that objects aren't pulled by massive objects, but rather pushed down by the aether above them. According to General Relativity, matter not only changes the fabric within space itself, but also changes the rate of time as well, collectively known as space-time via his General Relativity and aether theory.

 

"Gravitational lensing producing other images of distant galaxies, etc should mean that those displaced images should have slightly different redshifts. I have seen no measurements of them."

 

Yes, this is a good insight. Galaxies are distorted in  their appearance by lensing, usually their EM spectrum is stretched and their redshifts would be meaningless concerning their distances. But their distances can be estimated based upon the extent of lensing, and the relative position and redshfit of the lensing galaxy.

 

'I am not sure how the universe came about but it would have been from the bottom up, the most simplest stuff first so that I don't see a problem with uniformity except where you have a very violent beginning, as in the BB, so inflation is needed."

 

Yup, the simplest stuff first for sure for a beginning universe, But Inflation is needed for the bogus BB model.

 

Some stellar black holes spin very fast so for that reason they would have a strong magnetic field and polar jets. There are not that many of them known but they do exist.

 

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/chandra-relativistic-jets-stellar-mass-black-hole-08491.html

 

"Even protons and neutrons have a lot of empty space in them. Why so much empty space? Even the universe itself is an almost perfect vacuum."

 

Yes, the standard model proposse a lot of space within protons, the space between quarks.

 

My own model proposes even more space within nucleons since quarks would not exist.

 

[Sexton Blake]

I prefer photons because they are discrete bundles of energy where you alter wavelength, you alter frequency (so a set amount pf energy).

 

What is to hold a wave together? Why can it not just drift apart?

 

The observed energy we see comes from stars, whether 8 light minutes ago or 8 billion years ago. And of course less if emitted from something nearby, like heat energy.

 

"aether particulates"? Would that be like an electric current travelling through matter, so a definite difference as it travels through space and through various different mediums. Light takes twice as long going through glass but that is only because it travels twice as far.

 

I dislike the train whistle example because it is nothing like space.

 

As to gravity, dogma has it that the sun equally holds Mercury, 36 million miles from the sun, Neptune 2.8 billion miles from the sun and the Oort Cloud, 6 trillion miles from the sun, all in one plane.

 

We are told that if you throw something in space, it will continue travelling in a straight line away forever, unless acted up on.

 

Other than Pluto because of a collision, the rest of the planets orbit in the same plane and the same distance as they have for over 4 billion years, set by their positions in the original accretion disk which created the solar system. We are told that if the sun suddenly vanished, they would all head off in different tangents out of the solar system. But would they? Or would they behave like the sun was still there and their orbits gradually widen over cosmic time as gravity does not work in straight lines, as we know from the way large things in space naturally rotate and orbit.

 

Long ago on a forum, someone who had not given it enough thought proposed that it was not gravity but atmospheric pressure that kept everything down on Earth. I pointed out to him that if you put something in a vacuum chamber and pumped out all the air, it should then float.

 

I am still of the view that space is literally nothing, so if expansion were true, then there would be no problem with the universe expanding forever.

 

Mirages are distorted by hot air too, and galaxies are full of hot stars. “gravitational lensing is a rare occurrence because it requires an almost perfect alignment of a distant galaxy with an intervening one". That would be so it goes through a certain dense part of the galaxy. That is like light passing close enough to the sun to be bent, or is it refracted?

 

The problem with magnetic fields of black holes is that they come from outside and not inside:

 

https://www.space.com/39051-astronomers-measure-black-hole-magnetic-field.html

 

So maybe debris among the accretion disk? It is only with neutron stars that we can have ridiculously powerful magnetic fields.

 

As I understand it, just one percent of the mass of protons and neutrons are from quarks. The rest is....not always there, we are told.

 

As I have said to others, nothing should be beyond question, not even science, and parroting what you have been told helps no one. Even if we get it wrong, it does make us think about such things and maybe one day come up with something better?

 

BTW, how do I attach pictures larger than 18.88 kb?

[pantheory]

4 hours ago, Sexton Blake said:

I prefer photons because they are discrete bundles of energy where you alter wavelength, you alter frequency (so a set amount pf energy).

 

What is to hold a wave together? Why can it not just drift apart?

 

The observed energy we see comes from stars, whether 8 light minutes ago or 8 billion years ago. And of course less if emitted from something nearby, like heat energy.

 

"aether particulates"? Would that be like an electric current travelling through matter, so a definite difference as it travels through space and through various different mediums. Light takes twice as long going through glass but that is only because it travels twice as far.

 

I dislike the train whistle example because it is nothing like space.

 

As to gravity, dogma has it that the sun equally holds Mercury, 36 million miles from the sun, Neptune 2.8 billion miles from the sun and the Oort Cloud, 6 trillion miles from the sun, all in one plane.

 

We are told that if you throw something in space, it will continue travelling in a straight line away forever, unless acted up on.

 

Other than Pluto because of a collision, the rest of the planets orbit in the same plane and the same distance as they have for over 4 billion years, set by their positions in the original accretion disk which created the solar system. We are told that if the sun suddenly vanished, they would all head off in different tangents out of the solar system. But would they? Or would they behave like the sun was still there and their orbits gradually widen over cosmic time?

 

Long ago on a forum, someone who had not given it enough thought proposed that it was not gravity but atmospheric pressure that kept everything down on Earth. I pointed out to him that if you put something in a vacuum chamber and pumped out all the air, it should then float.

 

I am still of the view that space is literally nothing, so if expansion were true, then there would be no problem with the universe expanding forever.

 

Mirages are distorted by hot air too, and galaxies are full of hot stars. “gravitational lensing is a rare occurrence because it requires an almost perfect alignment of a distant galaxy with an intervening one". That would be so it goes through a certain dense part of the galaxy. That is like light passing close enough to the sun to be bent, or is it refracted?

 

The problem with magnetic fields of black holes is that they come from outside and not inside:

 

https://www.space.com/39051-astronomers-measure-black-hole-magnetic-field.html

 

So maybe debris among the accretion disk? It is only with neutron stars that we can have ridiculously powerful magnetic fields.

 

As I understand it, just one percent of the mass of protons and neutrons are from quarks. The rest is....not always there, we are told.

 

As I have said to others, nothing should be beyond question, not even science, and parroting what you have been told helps no one. Even if we get it wrong, it does make us think about such things and maybe one day come up with something better?

 

"I prefer photons because they are discrete bundles of energy where you alter wavelength, you alter frequency (so a set amount pf energy). What is to hold a wave together? Why can it not just drift apart?"

 

Although they are traveling bundles of energy, they are not discrete. Photons as individual particles do not exist. Like ocean waves, the energy that travels as a single wave does not contain the same water. Only its energy it traveling.  EM radiation is the same. These wave pulses are emitted from atomic electrons when dropping to a lower energy orbital shell. This is done in a pulsing manner, with a frequency depending upon the atomic element. Just the energy of an EM wave travels at the speed of light, not the aether elements within each wave. This understanding explains away many of the problems of Quantum Mechanics relating to light, as well as logically explaining the double-slit experiment.

 

"aether particulates"? Would that be like an electric current traveling through matter, so a definite difference as it travels through space and through various different mediums. Light takes twice as long going through glass but that is only because it travels twice as far."

 

Yes, you are correct. Electric current flow through a wire is the same. It's not individual electrons that travel at the speed of light. Like light, it's the light-speed flow of aether energy rather than the speed of individual electrons within the current.  Aether particulates would be like en ocean of the simplest possible particulates. Like an ocean, each element moves little in comparison to the waves of energy that can travel through it.

 

"I dislike the train whistle example because it is nothing like space."

 

You're right, but I think the train-whistle analogy of redshift blueshift is easy to understand, It's not the waves themselves that change. It's our perception of them based upon relative motion, by our eyes and ears.

 

"We are told that if you throw something in space, it will continue traveling in a straight line away forever, unless acted up on."

 

Yes, this is Newton's first law of motion. The wording of the law is that "if something is put into motion in a straight line, it will remain in that straight line at a constant speed unless acted upon by a force."

 

This law has not been contradicted IMO, but if there is an aether, then this object well be raveling through it and would have some resistance to its direction and speed. A real-world unrecognized example of this was called the Pioneer anomaly. Even if this anomaly were valid it wouldn't contradict this law since the intervening force would be the resistance force of the aether.

 

"As to gravity, dogma has it that the sun equally holds Mercury, 36 million miles from the sun, Neptune 2.8 billion miles from the sun and the Oort Cloud, 6 trillion miles from the sun, all in one plane."

 

The same formation plane relates to the beginnings of the solar system and the disc of matter that eventually formed the planets. Gravity generally holds planets in their existing orbits in the original stellar plane that it originally had. It was the planetary vortex and aether-flow of stellar formation that created the plane of the solar system, but it was gravity that kept this form after planetary formation.

 

 

..."We are told that if the sun suddenly vanished, they would all (planets and moons) head off in different tangents out of the solar system. But would they? Or would they behave like the sun was still there and their orbits gradually widen over cosmic time? "

 

Of course the sun could not suddenly disappear. It could explode for some unknown reason, which would devastate the entire solar system, or It could implode for some unknown reason, but if so its gravitation influence would still be there if mass where not lost in the process. But hypothetically if by magic somehow,   the sun were to suddenly disappear, It would take about 5 1/2 hours for the sun's gravitation field to collapse out to the orbital distance of Pluto, but only about 8 1/2 minutes out to  the Earth's orbital distance -- all at about the speed of light.  As you said, once this gravitational influence was gone, the planets would almost immediately move off in space in a tangent to their orbit, generally keeping the same velocity but linear rather than orbital. 

 

"Long ago on a forum, someone who had not given it enough thought proposed that it was not gravity but atmospheric pressure that kept everything down on Earth. I pointed out to him that if you put something in a vacuum chamber and pumped out all the air, it should then float."

 

That belief is a total fantasy unrelated to reality. Life on Earth needs an atmosphere of some kind, an outside force to hold us together whether it be gasses like our atmosphere, or water like our oceans. Without an atmosphere, our internal blood pressure would cause our blood to explode from our orifices. On Earth this pressure is 14.7 pounds per cubit inch.  This external pressure increased as we go deeper in the ocean, for instance.

 

The gravitational mass of matter is related to its quantity. In pushing gravity models the atmosphere-like aether pressure everywhere in the observable universe is  6.6743015 × 10 −11 Newtons This is Newton’s gravitation constant minus unneeded calculation dimensions. As matter aggregates, so does the collective aether pressure upon it, and therefore the gravitational pressure, pushing down upon it.  Yea, your right -- no floating in a vacuum on Earth, that silly boy

 

"I am still of the view that space is literally nothing"

 

I totally agree. Space is no more than the distance between matter and the volume it collectively occupies. Rene Decarte called space an extension of matter.

 

", so if expansion were true, then there would be no problem with the universe expanding forever." 

 

Excepting for the mistaken idea of dark energy that supposedly could increase or decrease the unreal expansion or contraction of the universe -- whenever

 

That is like light passing close enough to the sun to be bent, or is it refracted?"

 

Not refraction, light is bent by gravity because light is energy waves within the aether and the aether is bent by gravity.  In pushing-gravity models, for instance, light consists of waves in the Zero Point Field, AKA the aether. As light moves tangent to a galaxy, the aether moves inward and light is within the aether.  Light can be refracted from a stars 'atmosphere but this refraction would not be linear so there would be no angle to it, we would only see it  as a refraction array.

 

"The problem with magnetic fields of black holes is that they come from outside and not inside:

 

https://www.space.com/39051-astronomers-measure-black-hole-magnetic-field.html

 

So maybe debris among the accretion disk? It is only with neutron stars that we can have ridiculously powerful magnetic fields.

As I understand it, just one percent of the mass of protons and neutrons are from quarks. The rest is....not always there, we are told."

 

Magnetism and gravity are similar in their causes and effects. Matter crates a low pressure aether field surrounding it that other close matter is pushed into. In a different way, magnetic material produces a low pressure aether field surrounding it that other close magnetic material can be pushed into. For theoretical reasons, also because of aether flow, magnetism can also be a repelling force.  According to the theory that I ascribe to, neither are true forces, or related to true forces.

 

Magnetic influences are caused by a large difference between the relative motion of gas, to the solids and liquids. In a neutron star, for example, it is the friction and ionization of a solid matter core (neutrons and particulate matter) to a gaseous and/or debris laden atmosphere. The faster the core spins, the more friction there would be with the atmosphere, the more ionization of these gases and debris, the grater the resultant magnetic field would become.

 

"As I have said to others, nothing should be beyond question, not even science, and parroting what you have been told helps no one. Even if we get it wrong, it does make us think about such things and maybe one day come up with something better?"

 

I agree, very nice !!

 

[pantheory]

On 4/10/2022 at 7:53 AM, Sexton Blake said:

 

........BTW, how do I attach pictures larger than 18.88 kb?

 

There are a great many ways to do this, but I think the easiest way is simply to reduce the size of the picture// image. I usually copy and paste pictures into Word, then reduce the size by first clicking on it, then reducing it there mechanically; then copy and paste the smaller picture from Word to wherever you want It. If there are verbal or extraneous parts of the picture that are not needed, you can remove those parts easily in InfanView. After changing the picture there, copy the new image there then past it where needed. There are a great many other methods; here are some others.

 

https://www.online-tech-tips.com/computer-tips/how-to-reduce-the-file-size-of-an-image-or-picture/