Thanks Joe,

I will get around to reading your essay.

Regards and thanks for your simplicity!

Akinbo

Dear SNP Gupta,

Thanks for your comments. As I mentioned in the essay, there are people that do not agree with any aspect of the Big Bang theory and the essay is not really directed at them. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to note if your Dynamical Universe Model supports the existence of infinity, i.e. eternal existence and an infinite size. Hopefully, I will find an answer when I get to reading your essay soon and comment.

Best regards,

Akinbo

    Dear Ojo,

    Thank you for the reply. In Dynamic Universe model, Universe size will be FINITE, But the space where Universe is there, can be infinite, no limitation

    Hope you will read my essay also

    Best

    =snp.gupta

    Dear Aki9mbo Ojo

    I invite you and every physicist to read my work "TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I'm not a physicist.

    How people interested in "Time" could feel about related things to the subject.

    1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.

    2) They usually enjoy this wander of their searches around it.

    3) For millenniums this wander has been shared by a lot of creative people around the world.

    4) What if suddenly, something considered quasi impossible to be found or discovered such as "Time" definition and experimental meaning confronts them?

    5) Their reaction would be like, something unbelievable,... a kind of disappointment, probably interpreted as a loss of wander.....

    6) ....worst than that, if we say that what was found or discovered wasn't a viable theory, but a proved fact.

    7) Then it would become offensive to be part of the millenary problem solution, instead of being a reason for happiness and satisfaction.

    8) The reader approach to the news would be paradoxically adverse.

    9) Instead, I think it should be a nice welcome to discovery, to be received with opened arms and considered to be read with full attention.

    11)Time "existence" is exclusive as a "measuring system", its physical existence can't be proved by science, as the "time system" is. Experimentally "time" is "movement", we can prove that, showing that with clocks we measure "constant and uniform" movement and not "the so called Time".

    12)The original "time manuscript" has 23 pages, my manuscript in this contest has only 9 pages.

    I share this brief with people interested in "time" and with physicists who have been in sore need of this issue for the last 50 or 60 years.

    Héctor

    Hi Ojo,

    I remember you from the last essay contest... you shared my hatred of infinity:)

    Anyway, you said "All life forms evolved gradually according to Darwin's theory, rather than immediately." But what are your thoughts about the telescoping/accelerating nature of evolutionary processes? Ray Kurzweil points out that evolutionary processes go quicker with each new capability they develop. He says, "So the first step in biological evolution, the evolution of DNA -- actually it was RNA came first -- took billions of years, but then evolution used that information-processing backbone to bring on the next stage. So the Cambrian Explosion, when all the body plans of the animals were evolved, took only 10 million years. It was 200 times faster. And then evolution used those body plans to evolve higher cognitive functions, and biological evolution kept accelerating. It's an inherent nature of an evolutionary process." Do you agree with this view?

    Please check out my essay, and if you're interested please check out my independent film "Digital Physics" on iTunes, Vimeo, or Amazon Prime. It's all about the finite! :)

    Thanks!

    Jon

      Hi Jon,

      The accelerating nature of evolutionary processes sounds an interesting view that may find some of the missing pieces in the jig-saw puzzle.

      I will certainly find time to check your essay soon and comment.

      Regards,

      Akinbo

      Akinbo,

      Welcome to the party. I'll give you credit for being willing to challenge established beliefs. For whatever it is worth, all modern measurements of the cosmos indicate that space is flat. And this is a puzzle that is not resolved. You propose the simplest solution and Occam's razor is on your side.

      Having said that, you want to treat the observable universe as an expanding Black Hole. Your presumption is that the Bing Bang occurred at a single point and that the Hubble Bubble has expanded from that point. From our perspective, this seems to be what we see ... i.e., we look in all directions and see distant galaxies moving away from us .....

      The problem with this is that it goes against the belief that we are not at the center of the universe ... the assumption by cosmologists is that if you were at the edge of our Hubble Bubble and looked out into space, you would also see distant galaxies moving away. In addition, such an observer would see a different set of galaxies moving away that were not in the over-lap of the two Hubble Bubbles ... so as the Hubble Bubble expands, there is more mass in our OBSERVABLE universe although not in our Hubble Bubble plus all the other Hubble Bubbles.

      There is another question concerning gravity ... according to GR we do not sense mass that is outside of our light cone. But orbit calculations are performed using the ACTUAL position of objects rather than the APPARENT positions based upon light-speed. I would have to ask similar questions regarding any mass that is outside of our Hubble Bubble.

      BTW, do not confuse the Schwarzschild Radius with the size of the entity inside the BH.

      In any event, you have argued the point as well as possible I think.

      BTW, I have already scored your essay. You were one bombed within a few hours of your essay being posted, so I righted the wrong. These people are so petty.

      Good Luck and Best Regards,

      Gary Simpson

        Thanks for your comments Gary.

        I can't recall mentioning Black hole in my essay. The concept of 'Schwarzschild radius' preceded General relativity and black holes. But I get your meaning. My addition to the discussion can be the 'Schwarzschild mass'. In the equation, 2GM/rc2 = 1, the ability to vary does not reside only with the radius, and the model temperatures of the Big bang and the other evidence I presented support this. In case you are familiar with the Big bang model, do you have contrary evidence concerning the universe's matter content?

        I have been overworked of late but things getting less stressful so will find time to read, comment and rate your essay in the coming week.

        Best regards,

        Akinbo

        The Scalar Theory of Everything suggest another model:

        this is simple video

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjhieYgYoM0

        this is paper with math

        https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0603

        You might also see:

        http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1648/0603140v1.pdf

        Hodge

          That's :

          https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0603/0603140v1.pdf

          and

          http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1648

          hodge

          Thanks John for stopping by.

          If I read correctly I gather from STOE that the temperature of the universe has always been around 2.7K and the matter content is constant, the matter balance being maintained by Sinks and Sources. In other words, the universe was never of Planck temperature 1032K. Do I read correctly?

          Generally, STOE appears interesting but leaves me puzzling about the nucleosynthesis calendar of the Big Bang since this relies on a reducing temperature in the early era.

          Then does STOE advocate that matter can be created and destroyed, i.e. created from nothing and extinguished to nothing?

          All the best,

          Akinbo

          *I will stop by your essay soon and make comments. A little problem with the speed of my internet at the moment.

          Akinbo:

          Yes. The model is that the universe started at 0 K with the first Source. It oscillates around 2.7 K. Nucleosynthsis is from the center of spiral galaxies outward in distance and the energy density (\rho) is maximal at the center. Matter and energy is created continuously as you suggest is indicated by the data. The nothing to nothing seems better than the Big Bang from nothing to what? birth without death of the Big Bang or from nothing to nothing like life. This could also suggest the stuff of our universe comes from another universe (say a 2 D one) and goes to another universe (say a 4 D one).

          You have made some interesting calculations supporting the idea there must be creation of matter into our universe.

          Akinbo

          Your comment stared me thinking. The center of spiral galaxies (Sources) may be at the plank temperature. It could model the disintigration and re-radiation of black holes and the readiation from the center.

          Hodge

          Well...earth is both shrinking in mass and expanding in force, and so that makes measurement a little tricky. That is why the Hubble red shift is interpreted incorrectly in my view.

          Looking back in time to the early galaxies is complicated because atomic time is not constant although decay time is. Decay time is what determines time's arrow and is also what defines the universe time pulse. Atomic time, the time of atoms, is really only constant in the epoch in which it is measured.

          Akinbo

          I read Rydin's sit and sent him a email.

          Thanks for the reference.

          Hodge

          Dear Akinbo Ojo,

          ............... Your words..........

          ......................... Nice essay rich in astrophysical facts. You may want to check this website (http://home.earthlink.net/~rarydin/critique.html) for additional facts to improve your theory. ..............Reply...................

          I will do, and tell you ASAP....

          ............... Your words..........

          .........................I found your paper interesting and will rate it very well. ..............Reply...................

          Thank you for the nice words and complements.

          ............... Your words..........

          ......................... The only thing I disagree is your statement that, "... we know now that Dark matter is not found experimentally,..." ..............Reply...................

          Yes we should go be experimental results.... If something fails on experiment then what is the use.

          ............... Your words..........

          .........................- Anytime outlying stars are found to be moving at high speeds yet not escaping it is because of dark matter. ..............Reply...................

          NO No no sir, See my no dark matter paper.

          There are three factors of star circular velocity calculations.

          1. Heavy Galaxy center densemass

          2. Other stars in the Galaxy ..... that is all the other stars except the one you are calculating the velocity

          3. Out-side Galaxies

          You have to calculate the simultaneous effect of all these together to calculate these velocities.

          Just taking Galaxy center as single huge mass will not be sufficient as in a TWO body problem solution.

          ............... Your words..........

          .........................- Anytime you observe bending and slowing of light grazing the surface of large celestial objects like sun, it is due to the gravitationally enhanced density of dark matter around those objects. ..............Reply...................

          No No No sir, It is the combined effect of all the forces on the Photon. Not only by just sun, but the other planets, other stars and outer Galaxies also.

          It is UGF the universal Gravitational Force. This UGF acts on each mass, which is the resultant vector of all the forces of attraction of other masses on that mass at that time. It is time and place varying force.

          It will happen at all the stars all the time, not just on a solar eclipse day...

          Please check my Paper on VLBI, the Very long Baseline Interferometry.

          ............... Your words..........

          ......................... - Anytime you perform a Michelson-Morley experiment and obtain a null result, it is a result of an earth-bound matter-medium called dark matter. ..............Reply...................

          Wrong inference please

          ............... Your words..........

          .........................- Anytime you observe variation of light speed with altitude, it is a result of variation of dark matter density with altitude. ..............Reply...................

          I never heard any such experiment, in which light speed varied with altitude. Please give some details. It is against Einstein's Special theory of relativity, which says velocity of light is constant.

          ............... Your words..........

          .........................So if researchers look where they should rather than gaze inside deep holes in the ground they would see abundant evidence for dark matter. ..............Reply...................

          You can device some other experiment and show the world about it....

          .........................

          .........................

          Have look at this part also just for your information please.....

          You take the attraction between a boy and girl in their youth in human society. They love each other, marry and give birth to children. The couple work for children, their upkeep, education and their health etc. Everybody does this. Enjoy the old age and go away, it is natural.......

          But if anyone (male or female) sits peacefully & silently and think a little, one understand that this whole thing is "MAYA" as said in Hindu philosophy. It is all nothing but some kind of magic that forces one to this work (MAYA). All these are ties and handcuffs making one as prisoner to do this family work and REPRODUCTION.

          So the immediate thinking comes to our thinker, is why should I do all these work. I will resign and sit back and do nothing. As because, it is not profitable to anyone, why should anyone do anything about this REPRODUCTION, which involves large amount of work, which is not beneficial..............

          Now the question comes who gets benefit and who is forcing us to do all these REPRODUCTION? Who wants us to do all these things? It is probably the GOD or the Mother Nature. They created the ATTRACTION between boy and girl. Not only in humans, but in other animals also had these instincts. So the God and Mother Nature are FORCING even the Universe to REPRODUCE. They know perfectly well nothing is permanent in this Universe .....!!!!!!

          Best regards,

          =snp.gupta

          Hi Akinbo

          you are looking for your time, for obvious false theories. It is better that your vast point in the right direction. There are a lot of arbitrariness in the Big Bang theory, and so in your essay.

          For example: Why, Schwarzschild relationship (M=rc^ 2 /2G). Why not simply (M = Mc = rc ^ 2 / G). Why: "Multiplying both sides of ρ by volume, (4πr ^3/3)." You take for certain that the universe is a ball. But the universe is not the ball, but is a product of immanent relationships (relational approach). If you would just try to understand my table FQXi 2015 essay, would see how they relate Planck mass and length, without the need of introducing the term "Planck epoch". BTW, can you answer my question on YouTube, to which I received no response:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-medYaqVak

          Branko Zivlak One year before

          Great lesson! Now I know where the mistake is. How does he know that "scaling factor" is differentiable? It is not.

          So, my explanation in the essay:"matter dominant Universe" and "radiation dominant Universe" coexist in every point in time.

          Your commitment and efforts in science is evident, not only in this essay. So I gave a rating higher than the value of the essay.

          Why is T (CMB) = 2.74 can be found here: viXra:1602.0095

          Regards,

          Branko

          9 days later

          Dear Akinbo Ojo,

          Very good to see you again! Please do me the honor of reading and commenting on my essay.

          A critical comment above discusses your essay on the assumption you say is probably wrong, but nearest to truth. My opinion is that the assumption is almost certainly true, but that current models are probably wrong. I have a friend who has redone and extended the Oppenheimer-Snyder 'dustball' calculations, and I'm working to get him to attempt my own 'Big Bang' model based on his results.

          I was unaware that the universe is growing in mass. Does this is take into account (as I would expect) the increased negative energy of gravitational potential?

          You begin with the problem of the Big Bang singularity. It is only a problem if the universe began as a 'point' object. If it began as an extended object (a field) sufficiently dense that it's negative gravitational potential was equal to its positive mass energy, then we have the "free lunch" model which Feynman and a number of other decent physicists suggest. In this case the total energy of the universe was zero and I personally find that pleasing. As you note, it differs from "get rich quick"! As the field expanded, space and time were born. Per Einstein: "There is no space absent field". Vishwakarma, a previous FQXi entrant, uses this as postulate in his arXiv:1605.09236 "Einstein and Beyond" which you might enjoy.

          Regardless of Penrose and Hawking, I'm not convinced that GR implies infinite singularities nor infinite densities. You ask "Can a state without matter have mass?" Yes, if it is a substantial field with mass equivalence. And Schiller has derived GR from the assumption of a maximum force relationship. This is the model I wish to explore with my friend. By the way, his extension of Oppenheimer-Snyder implies that the Schwarzschild radius ( r =2GM/c**2 ) is always inside the matter! The significance of this is that the solution that much of GR is based on is the "exterior" solution in the vacuum outside of matter. So if he is right, the very definition of 'exterior solution' fails to be physically met. [Really builds your confidence, doesn't it!] You might see how this plays into your model.

          Your point about the "balanced on a knife edge" matter density, from birth to date, is something I believe my model addresses, but I'm not sure yet.

          I was unaware of the claim that, for the continents to fit together like a jigsaw puzzle, the earth would have had to be ~60% of its present radius. Wow! if true. That would seem to be vary supportive of your case.

          And thank you for the numerical data and interpretation of its relevance. I will keep your essay for reference. You've given me much food for thought.

          My best wishes for you, my friend,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Thanks for your comments Edwin.

            Regarding, "... the universe is growing in mass. Does this is take into account (as I would expect) the increased negative energy of gravitational potential?"

            The answer is Yes. If Omega, 邃ヲ = 2GM/rc2, and astronomical observations suggest this approximates one, since G and c are more or less constants, when the radius, r increases there is no where else for the mass, M to go but up. Increase in radius is equivalent to an increase in negative energy of gravitational potential.

            If we extrapolate from now to the past and 邃ヲ remains one, the 'point' at the origin will be "nothing", and not an object of infinite density.

            Best regards,

            Akinbo

            Akinbo,

            I see the links I posted above (Mar 6) are dead. Just in case; they're here;

            Cosmic redshift without accelerating expansion; Video

            Cyclic Model; HJ. Vol.36 No 6. 2013 pp.633-676.

            The paper has a mass of excellent evidence, currently anomalous but which the model coherently brings together for the first time (extending Dicke/Peebles & Penrose etc but without the limitations). Do comment, on these and my comments above.

            But I'm also here for a purpose. I hadn't rated your essay yet so it's about to get a boost. Best of luck in the run in.

            Peter