Dear Avtar,

Your model of the universe at first sight solves one problem of the so called standard model, the infinite energy contained in the Big Bang. But I think it only shifts the infinity problem.

Even if your quantity M0 is finite, it is contained in a volume of size zero in the beginning, no matter if you call it potential energy or something else. Besides the approximation of kinetic energy by a purely radial motion is an oversimplification. To describe the universe as a sphere in the classical sense with a radius changing with time does by no means agree with our experience. The curvature radius of space, as proposed by Einstein, was perpendicular to every of the three spatial directions.

In spite of my criticism I hope that your essay will stimulate further discussion. It can help to get a better understanding of the question of energy content of the universe.

Best regards,

Ernst

Dear Earnst:

Thanks for reading my paper and offering thoughtful comments. Below is a response to your comments:

Comment: "Even if your quantity M0 is finite, it is contained in a volume of size zero in the beginning, no matter if you call it potential energy or something else. "

Response:

In the limit as the volume goes to zero, mass m also goes to zero converting to radiant energy radiated to space via fully evaporating the mass. Hence, there is no singularity in the limit to zero volume.

Comment: "Besides the approximation of kinetic energy by a purely radial motion is an oversimplification. To describe the universe as a sphere in the classical sense with a radius changing with time does by no means agree with our experience. The curvature radius of space, as proposed by Einstein, was perpendicular to every of the three spatial directions."

Response:

As your paper shows, spherical symmetric gravitational collapse is used to show a final equilibrium state of finite density. In my paper, the spherical radial expansion is shown to predict the observed far-field supernova expansion; hence what is the basis for your statement that it "does by no means agree with our experience." Further, Einstein's general relativity theory fails to predict the observed accelerated expansion without a non-zero cosmological constant fudge factor. Also, it fails to predict the observed flat radial velocities of stars in galaxies without dark matter. Hence, general relativity is not the proper benchmark for deciding the galactic or universe expansion geometrics. GNMUE, on the other hand, predicts both fairly successfully. Hence, leaving all prejudices for the general relativity, GNMUE better predicts the observed experience data for the universe as well as galactic expansion without the unverifiable assumptions of dark matter or dark energy.

Regards

Avtar

  • [deleted]

  • Post #23

Dear Avtar

i would be grateful if you read my posts to Philip Gibbs essay

    Dear Yuri:

    I read your post and responded as a new post to Phil Gibbs essay. Please respond to my post.

    Thanks

    Avtar

    • [deleted]

    • Post #25

    Dr. Avtar Singh

    Copying a quote that I believe was attributed to you in Vesselin Petkov's blog:

    "We have unambiguous experimental evidence that gravity is not a force - falling bodies DO NOT RESIST their (apparent) acceleration, which proves that no gravitational force is accelerating them downwards; a force would exist only if the bodies resisted their fall (the force would be needed to overcome that resistance).

    I don't recall reading this in your essay or postings. Did you say this and if so, what unambiguous evidence? Objects don't fall at infinite speed, so, I wonder about the meaning of the quote. If it was not your words, then please disregard this. Thank you.

    James

      Dear James:

      No, the above statement is not mine but in Vesselin's paper.

      I do not agree with this statement as discussed in my blogs under Vesselin's posing. I am including them here for your convenience:

      ----

      Hi Vesselin:

      I enjoyed reading your paper and agree with your conclusion: "...quantum gravity as quantization of gravitational interaction is Impossible.."

      However, I do not completely agree with your reason that gravity is not an interactive force just because general relativity says so. Since general relativity has failed to predict 96% (dark energy and dark matter) of the universe and has been paralyzed with the Big Bang singularity, it can hardly be acclaimed as a universal theory and it would be not only be premature but also incorrect to declare the Newtonian interaction as non-existent. Also, I have demonstrated in my posted paper - " From Absurd to Elegant Universe", that integrating the missing physics of spontaneous decay of particles with Newtonian gravitational energy plus specific relativity, the ills of general relativity can be cured and observed expansion of the universe and galaxies as well as quantum/classical behaviors can be predicted without any singularities. This approach also resolves quantum mysteries and explains inner workings of quantum mechanics eliminating the need for quantum gravity.

      I would greatly appreciate your comments on my posted paper -" From Absurd to Elegant Universe".

      Best Regards

      Avtar Singh

      --------

      Hi Vesselin:

      Thank you for your comments.

      If you read my paper, you will know that my model has been vindicated by several sets of data from quantum to galactic to cosmic scale observations. Hence, you cannot prejudge it to be wrong just based on the isolated example of falling bodies. Then again, you are discounting all the numerous well-known data that supports Newtonian gravity model including the solar system motion.

      Moreover, if there was no resistance to motion provided by mass inertia, the experienced acceleration of falling bodies would be infinite (due to zero mass inertia) and not limited to a constant gravitational acceleration.

      I would welcome your reading and commenting on my paper.

      Regards and best of Luck

      Avtar

      ---------

      9 days later

      Avtar

      Red shift emerges as a dark energy function, so expansion is reducing, apart from locally at one end of the 'axis' of the CMBR anisotropy where it seems an 'active universal nucleus' may be accreting and emitting, in the same way as an AGN.

      Yes, the 9 page limit prevented discussion, but I touched on it in the end notes. The main paper on recycling model is still in review, but an early coceptial webarchived paper on some elements is here; http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016

      The cycle is clearly calculable temporally by the great peak of AGN and quasar activity at ~z=1.7, (~6bn yrs) previously screened by the stellar locus. From the secular evolution pattern that emerges we can estimate the Milky Way as in ~middle age. (The estimated age of the sun supports this).

      Some stellar mass remains in the oblate spheroidal dark matter halo from the previous iteration, so just the odd rare far older star is implied. The 14 hypervelicity stellar ejections on the toroid axis are also then explained, along with far too many other phenomena to go through here, but do look up my recent post to Hutchinson's essay blog on falsification.

      Recycling is purely a phase of the eternal universe. It is very 'green'!. The evidence is all there and clear once we know what to look for. A solution to the re-ionization problem also emerges with all the other rationalisations.

      The model is not yet perfect or complete by any means. We must all be prepared to evolve our ideas for sure. do you agree?

      Best wishes.

      Peter

      4 days later

      • [deleted]

      • Post #28

      Dr. Singh,

      Thank you for the kind comments on my paper.

      I am not intimately familiar with some of the subjects within your paper (although I did notice some formulaic similarities), and so your first equation (1) threw me for a loop. I was very much under the impression that a particle at rest in it's own inertial frame had a rest mass of m0 such that it has no momentum as you note. I was not aware that there was any theory which allowed for a portion of this rest mass to be changed (as by your mass delta or TE) within that rest frame, even through a conversion to energy. I am sure that this is just a product of my lack of understanding Hawking radiation. Can you recommend some references for me to catch up? Perhaps a certain section of Reference 8?

      Regards,

      Jeff Baugher

        • [deleted]

        • Post #29

        Dr. Singh,

        I think I am understanding the basic premise of your essay, which is an intriguing concept but leaves me with some questions for you.

        It seems your hypothesis for dark energy (accelerating expansion) is that mass in the universe is spontaneously being converted into kinetic energy of the remaining mass. While I can see the attraction of accounting for extra kinetic energy from a known source (baryonic mass) instead of vacuum energy, I don't understand how this would cause the kinetic energy of remaining mass clumps to increase. I note that in Einstein's dentition of GR, all energy (even kinetic) curves spacetime, so the local curvature should not be affected by the transformation to TE.

        As the mass is being converted, why would the accelerating expansion increase? Since empirical evidence shows that the positive acceleration started uniformly across the universe (and so should not be causally connected from one point to another), it would seem that there must be something intrinsic to physics at each point which would cause the mass to start converting to kinetic energy. If so, any idea what would cause this?

        In addition, can you state how you view your Fig.2 in relation to the cosmological principle and to the scarcity of baryonic matter? Doesn't equation (5) depict mass as a point?

        I do note that this contest and forum is for exploring fundamental ideas so please take my questions as being from ignorance of your concept and not from a position of criticism. Perhaps my questions will cause others to re-examine their own preconceived concepts.

        Last but not least, many of the essays in this contest are philosophical or vague, meaning they are difficult to form any convincing counter opinion for a third party. Even if I am initially unsure of your hypothesis, your boldness in laying out a specific mathematical argument from well known equations should be something we all aspire to.

        Regards,

        Jeff Baugher

        • [deleted]

        • Post #30

        Here is what is missing. At the backward extrapolation of the motions of the universe, the mass, energy and space were all one in matter and through the decay of mass and energy creating the monopole gravitational wave, space itself and each piece of mass and energy still decay from potential to kinetic energy via decay into space itself, the monopole gravitational wave. The laws of physics continue ti be generated locally as mass and energy continuously give off the gravitational wave. Concerning other mysteries, an action has been completely overlooked, when two or more gravitational waves collide they create an action of wavefront formation, constructive wave interference but there is a reaction to wavefront formation, that reaction is gravitation, aligning waves inturn align the sources that generate the waves. Time space and gravity are actions of this process of mass and energy becoming space, the aether, the gravitational wavefront.

        Sincerely,

        C. Michael Turner

        • [deleted]

        • Post #31

        Dear Avtar,

        All unknown actions can be revealed by two assumptions

        1). All mass and energy decay into the monopole gravitational wave. See 1993 Nobel Prize in physics

        2). The Huygens Principle is the Huygens law. The Reaction to wavefront formation is the same as gravitation.

        Two hidden processes, create the actions of time, space, dark energy(F=MxA) and dark matter(space itself constructively interfering), among others such as black hole evaporation.

        Sincerely

        C. Michael Turner

        Hi Jeff:

        Thanks for reading and commenting on my paper. The following are responses to your questions:

        Your Question 1: "..... I don't understand how this would cause the kinetic energy of remaining mass clumps to increase. I note that in Einstein's dentition of GR, all energy (even kinetic) curves spacetime, so the local curvature should not be affected by the transformation to TE."

        Answer: To understand this concept, imagine a photon being emitted from a stationary atom. Before emission, the photon rest mass is M0=E/C2. Soon after its emission from rest, it accelerates to attain a speed close to the speed of light via converting or losing its mass. Since, there is no external force accelerating the photon to the speed of light, its gain in kinetic energy comes from the conversion of its rest mass to KE. GR lacks or is deficient in this physics, hence it suffers from the singularity at r=0 and is unable to predict the dark energy required for the observed accelerated expansion. GR needs a fudge factor - nonzero Cosmological Constant to mock this missing physics and this fudging was the Einstein's Biggest Blunder. GNMUE model in my paper provides this missing physics from GR and QM. Integrating the missing physics resolves their singularities and paradoxes.

        Your Question 2: "...As the mass is being converted, why would the accelerating expansion increase?"

        Answer: I clarify and explain this in my paper (see Figure 3):

        "It is important to point out that GNM based RUE provides a relativistic expansion model of the universe, while the LHM represents an empirical fit to the observed Hubble expansion data from the near field galaxies. When compared to the recent far-field Supernova data, LHM leads to the apparent conclusion that the universe expansion is accelerating. However, such a conclusion is merely an artifact of the over-extrapolation (V>C) of the linear expansion assumed by the LHM in the distant universe. It is shown later in the paper that the observed non-linear expansion from the far-field data is naturally predicted by the RUE vindicating the fact that the universe expansion in the far field is relativistic and not linear as predicted by LHM."

        Your Question 3: "...can you state how you view your Fig.2 in relation to the cosmological principle and to the scarcity of baryonic matter? Doesn't equation (5) depict mass as a point?"

        Answer: I am attaching a complete derivation of equation (5) as a pdf file below. It assumes that mass is spherically distributed over the entire universe. The scarcity of baryonic matter is evidenced by its conversion to the equivalent KE which is misinterpreted as Dark Energy because of its unknown source in the standard cosmology. Dark matter is another such mis-concept prevalent in modern cosmology that is shown to be the artifact of the missing physics.

        Finally thanks for picking up and realizing the deeper theme of my paper to present to the forum not just a philosophy or list of what is wrong but actually offer a real physical/mathematical solution to what is missing and paralyzing physics and cosmology today. I hope there are more scientists on this forum that could think universally and see outside of their current boxes of GR, QM, or prevailing incomplete theories.

        As I show in my paper, many of the current standard cosmology assumptions and mis-concepts (big-bang, cosmic time, inflation, nucleo-synthesis, dark matter, dark, energy, particles/strings, anti-matter, multiverses, multi-dimensions etc.) aren't even needed when the missing physics is properly considered. It is tragic that the physics/cosmology community and world are wasting so much of their talent, time, and money pursuing only unneeded assumptions or non-physical mathematical concepts (particles/strings) that are not real but only superficial artifacts of the missing fundamental physics. I would welcome your and others' ideas as to how to raise awareness of the science community to the missing physics rather than beating the dead horse of standard cosmology.

        What is ironic and generally lacking in the forum papers is the presentation of a complete approach wherein instead of merely identifying the wrong assumptions, the right assumptions are presented and proven against universal observations to show their correctness. Without such a wholesome approach, this exercise is no more than firing shots in empty air.

        Best Regards,

        Avtar SinghAttachment #1: 1_Gravitation_Potential_Derivation__Excerpts_from_my_book.pdf

        5 days later

        Avtar

        As per your post on my blog (2nd August-I have been on holiday), my comments would be as follows:

        1 There is no constancy of light speed in GR (1st para Introduction).

        2 I doubt if c should be in that famous equation (and many others), this being a function of substituting light speed, incorrectly, in the expression of time (see my post in my 11/7 19.33). Another way of putting this: why should the speed of light have anything to do with it? (1st para section 2)

        3 There can be no such physical effect as time dilation, because the concept of time has no corresponding physical existence. It is purely an extrinsic measuring system which calibrates the rate at which change is occurring. (section 2).

        4 Space does not physically exist, it is the corollary of 'not-space', ie objects, particles, or whatever term one wants to use. In other words, only that which has physical 'presence' exists, and then it is a matter as to which one selects and the prevailing circumstances, as to what 'constitutes' space (ie the consequence) in that context. And everything deemed to be physical must have 'presence', something cannot be deemed to exist, or have/be a physical effect but then 'mysteriously' have no 'presence'. Another way of putting this is, any detected alteration in 'space' is actually an alteration in some thing. The underlying assumption in relativity is that when matter is caused to alter speed it also alters dimension. (section 2).

        5 There is no uncertainty in what physically exists, but this is not a function of 'relativistic effects'. It is how physical reality occurs, ie it must have a definitive and discrete physical existence as at any given point in time. The issue is establishing what constitutes that, and then what it was in any given circumstance (which is highly likely to be impossible, such is the rate at which alteration to a physically existent state occurs). (section 6).

        6 Action can only involve physically existent states which are immediately spatially adjacent, as at any given point in time. Physical effects cannot 'jump' a circumstance. Then it can only be those physically existent states which immediately preceded the physical state being considered which are the potential source of the alteration, there can be no 'jumping' in the sequence. (But again the issue is, given what constitutes a physically existent state, the level of differentiation is too detailed to be detectectable). (section 6)

        7 In respect of anything, it can only be in one physically existent state at a time, otherwise existence cannot occur, and then alter. (section 6).

        8 However, leaving aside these 'technicalities', the real question is: physically, what is gravity, mass, energy, etc? Their existence and the relationships between them may or may not be depicted by the equations, but what is the corresponding physical reality which substantiates these concepts? Only by establishing this can we establish what is happening.

        Paul

        Dear Avtar

        In response to your request for a comment on your essay, I would go slightly further than you have indicated in your essay and view the notion of a multiverse as being absurd - effectively giving up on physics and going for all out fantasy. Like George Ellis, I would disagree with your premise of dismissing GR by using a Newtonian gravitational potential. HOWEVER, a significant inconsistency in the standard interpretation of the cosmological constant in GR is readily apparent in a supposed 'constant' in a theory defined by the 'relative' - not exactly hidden from sight! The obvious physics question in a theory called Relativity should be to ask, constant relative to what? The answer is the term next to it in Einstein's field equations, namely the metric. In a FRW cosmology, the metric is parameterised by the radial scale factor R of the universe, g(R), which for a closed S3 universe is the radius R in a notional 4th dimension outside of the space that doesn't really exist. The cosmological term L is mathematically required to be constant relative to variations in the metric g(R) *within* the space, which means that it can also be parameterised by the notional 'extra dimensional' parameter R. In fact, interpreting GR as a physics theory and not just as a piece of maths, requires L(R) as it is a cosmological term denoting the global effect of radiation pressure against the physical space (see section 3 of my paper). This totally changes the game with respect to the failings of a cosmological 'constant' in the standard cosmology, and your equation (11) L(R) =3H2C2 would have the correct radial scaling for a radiation pressure effect which scales as 1/R4.

        In GR both mass and energy have gravitational attraction, but the radiation pressure effect at the global level of a closed S3 cosmology would have an expansionary effect that cancels, or nullifies, some of the gravitational attraction of radiation. So I am left wondering just how much of the results of your model are due to using the right sort of radial dependence for the cosmological term L(R). It can also be noted that in a local version of GR, the gravitational coupling constant would also depend upon the radial scale factor of the universe G(R). With 2 of the 3 constants having such a radial dependence, this would seem to imply that the speed of light in a local theory would also has a radial scale factor dependence c(R). In which case, the reliability of observational data interpreted through a GR model of 'constants' is questionable. This might explain a number of the features of the 'absurd universe' and the way to resolve them as being to view GR as a *physical* theory and not as a mathematical map totally bereft of the physical territory it is supposed to be describing.

        The 9 page limit and lack of freely accessible reference means that I cannot see how the issues of QT are resolved in your model.

        Regards

        Michael

          Dear Michael:

          Thanks for your time in reviewing my paper and providing thoughtful comments.

          While undoubtedly GR has been proven to be a successful theory for explaining (as George Ellis pointed out) Solar System level observations, the fact remains that it lacks some major physics that paralyzes it with the black hole singularity and two major unexplained paradoxes - dark energy and dark matter. In spite of its flagrant successes against selected set of data, it fails to explain 96% (dark energy and dark matter) of the universe. Hence, I would buy into yours and George's arguments in favor of GR if this major deficiency of GR is removed which prohibits it from being only a 4% universal theory. My paper demonstrates that while the Newtonian theory alone may not explain the cosmic observations, when combined with the missing physics of spontaneous mass-energy conversion, it does a great job in predicting the observed galactic and universe accelerated expansions without any black hole singularities. Such a wide ranging proof and evidence for the proposed GNMUE model in my paper are hard to ignore merely to hold the GR as a superior theory on its past 4% track record. Obviously, as you have suggested a lot more work has to be done to fix GR to remove its deficiencies to claim it as a superior theory from cosmological point of view.

          Secondly, the - "...the right sort of radial dependence for the cosmological term L(R)" comes from the mechanistic physics of the spontaneous decay as described in my paper. I would welcome GR experts to integrate this physics into GR and demonstrate that it can explain the 96% of the missing universe (dark energy and dark matter) without a singularity at R=0. Only then, one could claim the validity of GR from the universal or cosmological point of view. Until then, there is no evidence - " .... to view GR as a *physical* theory" And also, until then GNMUE is a demonstrated model correctly predicting the observed universal behavior in spite of the fact that it is based on Newtonian gravitational potential.

          I am attaching the following two files to provide additional information from references [15] and [18] of my paper to show how GNM resolves the quantum paradoxes and explains its inner working:

          [15] A. Singh, The Hidden Factor: An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology and Universal Reality, AuthorHouse, 2003. (Chapter 4,6,7 and 8)

          [18] A. Singh, Quantum Non-Locality Explained by Theory of Relativity, Physics Essays Vol. 19 No. 1, 2007.

          I would greatly appreciate your comments on these references.

          Best of Luck & Regards

          Avtar SinghAttachment #1: QM_Nonlocality_Physics_Essays_Paper_Final_Version_03singh1.pdfAttachment #2: Book_Manuscript_Chap_467_and_8__9412.pdf

          6 days later

          • [deleted]

          • Post #36

          "Space and time are relative entities. There is no absolute time or synchronicity in the universe, which has no absolute beginning, evolution, or ending. The apparent flow of time is a relative reality (an illusion) of the fixed (V

            • [deleted]

            • Post #37

            I have different opinion

            Big Bang; Present; Big Crunch

            c=10^30; c=10^10; c=10^-10

            G=10^22; G=10^-8; G=10^-28

            h=10^-28; h=10^-28; h=10^-28

            alfa =10^-3; 1/ 137; 1

            e=0,1 ; e=e ; e=12

            • [deleted]

            • Post #38

            Appendix 4 Solution of cosmological constant problem

            Theory: Cosmological constant is 10^94 g/sm^3

            Practice: Cosmological constant is 10^-28 g/sm^3

            Planck constant h=10^-28 g x sm^2/sec in 2D space embedding in 3D space

            Only right value is experimental value.

            • [deleted]

            • Post #39

            Sorry

            correction Big Bang G=10^-12

            Yuri:

            I respect your opinion. However, you need to demonstrate its physical validity via comparison against cosmic and galactic expansion data. Until then, it is only an opinion. Also, does this opinion resolve the current paradoxes of physics/cosmology, QM, GR, singularities? Please demonstrate how.

            Thanks

            Avtar