• Cosmology
  • Black Holes Do Not Exist, claims Mersini-Houghton

You pose a very good question. Why is up, up and why is down, down? And where did all of this angular momentum come from anyway.

"...how do the models differ to our observation, when the exchange of signs is 1 to 1? Isn't the deeper question why the universe appears 'handed' in the first place? "

That is a deeper question, but the deeper one still is why the huge difference in gravity and charge forces? It has to do the the difference between the size of matter as the radius of hydrogen, which is down, and the radius of the universe, which of course is up.

Although a single hydrogen atom is perfectly happy all alone in the universe, the parity and symmetry of action means that creation involved pairs of hydrogen atoms with complementary spin and emission of pairs Rydberg photons. The matter time universal decay represents the Rydberg bond as an exchange of that Rydberg particle between the electron and proton, the inner solution. Likewise, the coherent exchanges of those Rydberg photons with the universe represents the outer quadrupolar solution called gravity.

Tom,

I suppose you are stuck on the surface.

Regards,

John M

Steve,

"A contracting universe is consistent with attracting forces"

Attracting forces are consistent with a contracting universe, which is why Einstein felt compelled to add the cosmological constant.

"However, the objects also absorb light and radiation from the universe and so it is more appropriate to say that the objects bond to the universe by exchanging matter with the universe"

Yes, but keep in mind that light can travel upwards of 13 billion lightyears, bypassing innumerable galaxies, while mass will fall into the local galaxy. So light bonds over a much bigger radius than anything more complex.

The consequence is different horizon lines and spheres of attraction. Now if the universe is infinite, then all these points would be stabilized by equal attraction in all directions. Neutrality and infinity are opposite sides of the same coin.

Regards,

John M

I hope so, John. Being pulled in infinite directions doesn't sound pleasant to me.

...and so the bonding of objects by exchanging light with the universe occurs on the order of the universe while the bonding of charge occurs on the order of the Bohr radius of hydrogen.

"Yes, but keep in mind that light can travel upwards of 13 billion lightyears, bypassing innumerable galaxies, while mass will fall into the local galaxy. So light bonds over a much bigger radius than anything more complex."

The concept that there is an inner solution and an outer solution to the Schrödinger equation is quite alluring. The outer solution always involves pairs of atoms and represents a gravity bonding action that is only 1 part in 1e39th power of the inner solution's charge force. It is a little more complicated than this in reality, but what the heck. Such a simple idea has a lot of appeal.

Note that when an object gravitationally collapses, it heats up by compressing electron and proton charge states and emits that energy as heat. What if it were really the emission of light as heat that were really driving gravity compression? Every gravity bond represents a large number of quanta of gravity force, a much greater density of states than charge force by far, something like 1e39 greater density of states. When you start taking factorials, these numbers get really large, so entropies get big.

The entropy increase due to light emission from gravitational states would then be huge. Entropy driving gravity...that's an idea...

Tom,

So you agree gravity can't be an infinite falling inward? Wouldn't this apply at the galactic scales as well, with what doesn't get radiated out throughout the process, is ejected out the poles?

Regards,

John M

Steve,

That's about how I see it, with energy driving entropy.

Regards,

John M

John,

I agree with the mathematician and physicist Ludwig Faddeev that mathematics "close physics" as physics "closed chemistry" (Ludwig Faddeev an interview «Uravneniye zlogo duha»/ «The equation of the evil spirit»). I agree, but mathematics must first solve the problem of the ontological justification of mathematics as a fundamental system of signs. This problem is more than a hundred years and it is not even included in "The Millennium Problems" of Clay Mathematics Institute.

Sincerely,

And so the loss of energy driving order. Which is why the past is ordered and the future is where the energy goes.

Vladimir,

Math is an ordering, but is order ever fully closed?

Regards,

John M

Keeping in mind that entropy is loss of working energy in a system, which conserved, is being radiated away. Since the function of a system is to create order, the result is a stabilized quantity of energy. Which still being energy in a larger dynamic, is degraded, releasing more eenrgy and creating more dense forms of order, etc. Eventually the lost/radiated energy becomes so diffuse, that it also reaches a state of stability and thus order, so the process of consolidation starts over again.

John,

Mathematics should look for its ontological foundation. This was well demonstrated by Edmund Husserl in "Origin of Geometry". N. Burbaki in "Architecture of Mathematics" is a good idea of the generating (maternal) structures. Mathematicians and physicists

should look for a single "general framework structure" for fundamental sign systems - Mathematics and Physics. This generalizing structure with the ontological justification is not only "Oigin of geometry", but also for the fundamental knowledge in general.

"ONTO-LOG-ia" - is the key to such structure. "LOGos" - this is the order and ordering. In "Time Reborn" by Lee Smolin - "the Meta-Law" . But not a «big bang». "Explosions" do not create any order in the Cosmos or the Mother Earth.

Sincerely,

Vladimir

"So you agree gravity can't be an infinite falling inward?"

Where in the universe is "inward?"

Tom,

"Where in the universe is "inward?""

"gravity is toward the center of mass"

Regards,

John M

Vladimir,

Keep in mind that physical form is a degree of stasis and mathematical form is an expression of stasis. 1+1=2 posits the dynamical process of addition to arrive at the answer.

While we, from our relatively top down perspective, tend to view mathematical order as eternal, ie. platonic form, it does necessarily arise from that dynamical basis. There is no form to the void.

As such processes tend to be cyclical feedback loops, etc, so to do enduring mathematical principles necessarily exist within a self re-enforcing structure.

Regards,

John M

Your instincts are quite good even though you do struggle with math.

Thermodynamics is a great tool since in principle, it depends on just two things; the density of states and the occupation of those states. In principle, thermo does not depend on the nature of the underlying action, gravity or charge. That is, until you you get into thermo's sibling, statistical mechanics.

In statistical mechanics, partition functions are key and depend on a precise counting of states that statistically ties to the generic entropy and free energy of thermo. This is where a quantum gravity like matter time is very useful because quantum gravity allows science to now precisely count the states of a black hole, ECO, or boson star and therefore make some sense out of those objects with the powerful thermo tools of this universe, a true gravity partition function.

"Keeping in mind that entropy is loss of working energy in a system, which conserved, is being radiated away. Since the function of a system is to create order, the result is a stabilized quantity of energy."

Just a few minor tweaks with this. Entropy is simply a metric that tells us about the absolute number of possible states, w, of a closed static system, S = kB ln(w). It is the change in entropy between two systems that tells us that all action necessarily results in increasing entropy or randomness--the famous arrow of time. Therefore it is the huge entropy increase of the gravitational partition function that fuels the entropy decrease and therefore increasing order of the charge force partition function and the arrow of time.

Generally speaking, energy conservation is a very useful principle for matter waves as mass. However, matter waves as amplitude and phase are mostly pure bosons and in a closed universe can dephase and lose coherence and apparently lose energy as well over time. This is actually the driving principle of the contracting matter time universe, with its decreasing states and increasing order pointing the arrow of time.

Think of injecting a pulse of coherent light into a sphere of perfectly reflecting walls. Even without energy losses, the pulse will still dephase over time with each successive reflection and slowly spread into a uniform average pulse energy of this hohlraum. To an outsider, the energy is conserved as a pulse with the wavelength of the hohlraum, but to an insider, the energy of the original pulse seems to simply vanish over time.

Now allow energy loss at the reflectors as well as gain, make them 2.7/1089 K, and put them in motion collapsing at 99.9998% c. Oui la, there is our universe. We are within 0.12% of the center of this collapsing hohlraum and the residual CMB light pulse hits us 160 billion times a second from all directions.

But each successive year there are actually mdot = 0.283 ppb/yr or 45 more pulses each year and that pulse pileup from the CMB and all matter that is what determines all force. Since this is only a change in atomic time of one second every 65 proper timeyears and an increase in c of 88 km/s/Mpc, science does not yet recognize that atomic time speeds up over the proper time pulse of the universe. Right now, our mass standard, the IPK, takes the full hit and so shows an apparent decay of 2 x 0.283/yr, which of course represents an anomaly that science has not yet resolved.

Eventually science will believe in their own measurements of the decay of matter over time, for that decay is the cornerstone of the matter time universe. This is going to take a while...In the meantime, the patchwork of the big bang will live on because it still remains a quite useful artifice. There is a strange symmetry that the findings that ostensibly support the big bang support matter time as well...at least so far. Since the big bang is so patched up, it is very likely that there will be more patches applied before the edifice of this artifice collapses.

  • [deleted]

Steve,

One of the problems I have with a temporally linear model, whether expanding, or contracting, is that it leaves a rather large question of where the initial state came from.

My view of the concept of time is that our linear sequence from past to future is only half the equation. That the contextual process which creates and dissolves these unitary features is one side, while the features coming into being and dissolving are the other side. The process moves from past form to future, as form moves future to past. So there are endless feedback loops of energy and form, on all scales, with no need to explain or assume an initial state, since the very concept of beginning is simply the coming together of form and end is the dissolution of the discrete unit.

Node and network as reflections of each other.

Regards,

john M

I've been hoping to comment on some of the above threads, but..

I offer this related item..

What is the upper limit for massive stars?

This piece has some nice commentary about the Eddington limit, where the outward pressing force of the luminosity of light exceeds the gravitational attraction.

All the Best,

Jonathan

John, Well put. I agree.

Steve, You find angular momentum mysterious but there's as good an explanation as any you suggest adequately 'explained'. I cited the papers on 'intrinsic gyrokinetic' rotation in the one you read. What you call 'rabbits from a hat' are simply coherent parts of theory you're unaware of. The FLRW foundations and space plasma's are major examples. That's no criticism. The error is only to imagine the little we know is 'all the important facts'.

It's identified that 'vortex' rotation results from ALL 'motion' because if all is in the same rest frame there is no motion at all. These are the Lagrangian 'Bulk Flows'. There are then shear 'planes' or zones so, unavoidably, 'eddies'. Even a gentle 'shear zone' 50 light years across has a speed gradient causing bodies to rotate. It seems only an outdated view of space as entirely 'empty' stops some understanding. To those who've never read about Jupiter it simply 'doesn't exist'! Yet it does.

You do also seem to have a poor understanding of pure space plasma. It's NOT H or He which are 'bound', it's the free electrons positrons and protons, commonly referred to as the most abundant free electrons. Just look up the Standard 'column' Model (SPIM) at different heights including in the bow shock. ('Data' not 'theory'). Electron densities outside the atmosphere can reach 10^14/cm^-3. The longer range probe detection data confirm the finding. Even near the sun's heliospheric bow shock the Voyagers have found far higher densities then assumed. Pure plasma is ENTIRELY transparent spectroscopically, which is why we didn't find it till we went there. I agree many outside astronomy still haven't read about this so for them it 'doesn't exist'.

The 'interesting snippets' I invoke aren't 'rabbits' but filling in the many apparent gaps in your picture of the intrinsic whole, and based on data not just theory. I've started reading your papers and interesting novel approach and will revert. I don't seem to have got to the most interesting 'evidence base' sections yet but am sure I will.

Best wishes

Peter

Peter,

So these evolving processes are more galactic, than universal?

Regards,

John M