• [deleted]

In cosmology, it is believed that regions of space on `opposite' sides of the universe are too far apart to have ever been causally connected. That is, they are outside each other's `particle horizon'. Consequently, it is difficult to explain the apparent similarities in their characteristics as evidenced by COBE results.

Inflation theory has been offered as a way to overcome this Horizon Problem. However, it is my intention here to show that it is not necessary to postulate Inflation in order to insure that all regions of spacetime are now, and have always been, causally connected.

In addition, this model offers an alternative explanation for the origin of the CMBR and eliminates the need to postulate an accelerating universe or Dark Energy.

Dave Rutherford

    4 months later
    • [deleted]

    Hi David Rutherford,

    I like your theory, but I'm no good at math.

    Please consider my CIG Theory also.

    CIG theory offers in a "single view of nature", and "simultaneously", the following:

    Varying Cosmological Constant

    Possible explanation of Virtual Particles

    Combination of the Spacetime Continuum with the Mass-energy equation

    Quantification of mass to a spatial quantity

    Solution to Dark Matter

    Solution to Dark Energy

    Solution to Horizon Problem

    Solution to Red Shift Anomalies

    Solution to Double Slit (Young's) Wave-Particle Duality Quantum Confusion

    Physical explanation as to what E=mc² actually represents

    New Interpretation of Einstein's Field Equations

    True reason for Hubble expansion

    Fourth Law of Motion Equating Gravity to Other Forces

    Possible meaning of Plancks Constant

    Lipps Law of Proportionality

    Offers a New Explanation of Pressure

    Is Relativitivistic in nature and therefore builds upon current science

    Does not rely on extra dimensions

    Does not rely on speeds greater than "c" as does current inflationary theory

    Combines the Fundamentals (Matter, Time, Space)

    Coherently respects conservation of energy (current view of expansion of space does not)

    Above all else, the theory is experimentally verifiable.

    Comments are welcome and can be delivered here or to lippfamily@earthlink.net

    For a hard copy, please email the author.

    Once again, the author apologizes for what appears to be a paper not altogether written in scientific/academic protocol.

    Enjoy the "Fun" section as well.

    Please open the attached to find: "The Coney Island Green Theory".Attachment #1: 1_MTSFINAL15Rollover12.doc

      Can someone tell me if this is the right place to post link to a theory which explores some possible consequences of space being quantum-geometrical? Seems this is the only place where someone outside the academia can hope to be taken seriously (assuming of course that the his proposed models and mathematics are not only internally consistent, but consistent with observations).

      Thanks.

      DLB

        • [deleted]

        Dear Douglas,

        I enjoyed your CIG theory and it is closer to the truth in stating that matter and energy emerge from space-time itself. As you have requested

        " If any of you have a simpler and better conceptual description as to why E = mc², I would be grateful if you would send me in the right direction."

        please know the absolute truth which is with in every one of us and can be represented as S=BM^2 (S=Soul, B= Body, M=Mind).

        For a detailed explantion of how the singualarity with in us works, please know that Conscience is the cosmological constant.

        Love,

        Sridattadev.

        Dear Daniel,

        Yes, you are more than welcome to post your ideas in this forum thread, for discussion.

        • [deleted]

        Space expansion? yes. It is measured in relation to the atoms around us.

        What if the atom can vary its dimensions thru time?

        I'm pretty sure that no one presented evidence that the atom is invariant.

        And yet, everybody is claiming that the universe expands.

        Space expansion or matter shrinks ?

        The search of a scaling model of the universe, a self-similar one or dilation, has been pursued by the scientific community since Dirac, Hoyle & Narlikar, and others without results.

        A scaling model is born, derived from data, using standard physics and making no hypotheses, this model has only one parameter (H0) :

        A Self-Similar Model of the Universe Unveils the Nature of Dark Energy

        So, from now on I'will ask for proper evidence that the atom is invariant every-time that I hear someone to say: the universe is expanding.

        Space expansion? NO.

        Matter evanesces? YES.

        • [deleted]

        Dear Velez,

        Universal I or singularity or conscience of god is the cosmological constant.

        I = Zero = Infinity

        Love,

        Sridattadev.

        At the Planck scale we encounter also a horizon, from our macro point of view at this scle we cannot longer make measurements, for us there is no longer causality (perhaps this scale is going to be 10^48, see www.physorg.com, integral challenges physics beyond Einstein, but anyway (our) causality no longer rules here), so the same limit we meet at a large universal scale, in this way we can observe ou total observable universe as a Planck unit, where for an observer that is super macro , "his" causality no longer exists, in this way the bubble in the bubble can go on forever...

        keep on thinking free

        Wilhelmus

        22 days later
        • [deleted]

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1pgz8QIiso&feature=related

        "Is Everything We Know Wrong? (...) So for now the standard model remains unchanged... (...) It's the best we have. And it's so nearly a perfect fit. It's just that it could be totally wrong."

        Yes the standard model of cosmology is totally wrong. It is (implicitly) based on the following premises:

        Premise 1: (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

        Premise 2: As photons travel, their wavelength varies with their frequency.

        The second premise, which is a consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, should be abandoned. Cosmologists will have to try to deduce their science from the following couple of premises:

        Premise 1: (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

        Premise 2: As photons travel, their wavelength remains constant.

        Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

          a month later
          2 months later
          • [deleted]

          Once 'ex nihilo nihil fit', the cosmos fabric is necessarily infinite in time, as well as in space. Creation myths are bull shit, and our minds are full of them; jewish one or not!

          The cosmos presents itself as nested construction, so, the most reasonable choice is thinking it is made of infinitely nested 'class of dimensions'.

          Every macro or micro particle is infinite, sheltering an infinitely complex 'universe' (every particle of an infinite system is also infinite).

          So, the 'model' is: No start, no end, no limit of any order (infiite), infinitEley NESTED'.

          Cheers

          The Alternative Models of Cosmology can be Vacuum.

          ==.

          Philosophy of Science : The Models of Vacuum.

          1.

          A black hole is an idealized physical body ( with a mass of

          three - six - ten times more than our Sun ) is a region of

          spacetime from which nothing, not even light, can escape.

          2.

          A black body is an idealized physical body that can absorb

          all incident electromagnetic radiation.

          The result: from a 'black body 'not even light, can escape'

          3.

          Max Laue called ' Kirchhoff black body' as ' Kirchhoff vacuum'

          Why?

          Because Vacuum is a space in which there is nothing material.

          For example: according to QET then electron interacts

          with vacuum he disappeared there. And therefore physicists

          invented the mathematical " method of renormalization",

          a method "to sweep the dust under the carpet" / Feynman./

          The result: from a 'vacuum 'not even light, can escape'

          #

          My conclusion.

          The 'black body', the ' black hole' and the vacuum

          can do one and the same work (completely absorb radiant

          energy). It means that the 'black body' and the ' black hole'

          are models of vacuum.

          Another fact.

          A black hole has a temperature within a few

          millionths of a degree above absolute zero: T=0K.

          / Oxford. Dictionary./

          And the vacuum has background cosmic temperature:

          T= 2.7 K ----> T= 0K.

          The background cosmic temperature (T= 2.7 K ----> T= 0K)

          belongs to ' The Theory of Ideal Gas' and therefore we can use

          this theory for explaining ' The Theory of Vacuum'.

          My conclusion.

          The 'black body' and the ' black hole' and

          ' The Theory of Ideal Gas' are models of vacuum.

          ===.

          P.S.

          If the 'black body' and the ' black hole' and the vacuum can radiate

          the quantum of light and electron - then the reason is the Vacuum's

          fluctuations / transformation / polarization. And this is ' a song from

          another opera'. Because the Vacuum's fluctuations / transformation /

          polarization explains the Origin of the Material Existence.

          ==.

          Best wishes.

          Israel Sadovnik Socratus

          ===.

          18 days later
          • [deleted]

          Using the Union2 Compilation data (Supernova Cosmology Project, http://supernova.lbl.gov/Union/figures/SCPUnion2_mu_vs_z.txt) I find a best fit line through log(DL/Gpc) vs Log(z) gives a sum of squares error (SSE) of 1.95 with correlation 0.9955. The best fit LambdaCDM has 71% dark energy, 29% matter and Ho = 69.2 km/s/Mpc and gives SSE = 1.79. Using the best fit model in this paper (kinematically equivalent to empty model) I find SSE = 1.98 for Ho = 65.3 km/s/Mpc. Therefore, the model presented here does not produce a better fit than the best fit line while LCDM does, so the type Ia SN data favors LCDM over this model.

          • [deleted]

          We present an alternative model of cosmology (http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3973) based on modified Regge calculus. The motivation for this modification to Regge calculus (and, thus, to general relativity) comes from our interpretation of quantum mechanics called Relational Blockworld ("Reconciling Spacetime and the Quantum: Relational Blockworld and the Quantum Liar Paradox," W.M. Stuckey, Michael Silberstein & Michael Cifone, Foundations of Physics 38, No. 4, 348 - 383 (2008), quant-ph/0510090). We find that our flat, matter-dominated cosmology model produces a fit of the Union2 Compilation data matching that of LambdaCDM. However, our model is decelerating, not accelerating, so there is no need for dark energy.

            2 months later
            • [deleted]

            The arXiv paper cited above has been accepted for publication in Class. Quant. Grav.

            4 months later
            3 months later
            • [deleted]

            What I want to explain here is far away from most cosmology as presently understood. It came about through a very different set of known facts (the study of cycles), although these are not known to most people in the scientific world. However, what is put forward is quite consistent with known physics, indeed I would argue that it MUST result from known physics. It is not consistent with Big Bang Theory, because it suggests that the Universe is vastly more ancient than that. I call it The Harmonics Theory, and it can most easily be understood as arising from a single simple axiom:

            "The Universe consists of a standing wave which develops harmonically related standing waves and each of these does the same."

            This axiom is consistent with any field equations such as Maxwell's equations, Quantum Mechanics or Relativity. The fact that each wave produces harmonics is strongly related to non-linear wave equations. I would argue that the ultimate wave equations of the Universe must be non-linear. If they were linear then we would have no senses, because light would pass through our eyes without interaction, and the same for all other senses.

            The consequences of this axiom are what makes it interesting. A single fundamental wave, let us call it frequency 1, loses energy gradually to waves of frequency 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... and then each of these does the same. This means that frequency 2 loses energy to 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 ... and 3 loses energy to 6, 9, 12, 15 ... while 4 loses energy to 8, 12, 16 ... and 5 to 10, 15 .. and 6 to 12, 18 ... and so on.

            It is immediately evident that some frequencies such as 12 are produced in many ways while others such as primes are produced in 1 or few ways.

            When calculations are done to high order (I have done to about 10^53) it is found that there are certain patterns that almost repeat, and certain orders of magnitude where especially strong harmonics of the original wave form. The first of these especially strong harmonics is 34560 and others tend to be near powers of that number or at about powers of 10^4.5 which is found to correspond quite well to the observed spacing (spacing is naturally inversely related to frequency) of the sequence:

            observable universe, galaxies, stars, planets, moons, .... cells, atoms, nucleons.

            Within each of the levels of very strong structure there are secondary strong structures typically at ratio of 12, 24, 28, or 20 above and below the strongest one of that level. So the outer planets are the dominant structure but the inner planets are spaced at 1/28 of the distances from the Sun. Likewise, spiral galaxies are dominant, but satellite galaxies are spaced at 1/12 of the distance between spirals.

            At all levels of structure there are observable tendency towards quanta or periodicity. At some levels of the structure, both the wave spacings and cycle periods are observable, giving strong support to the existence of standing wave structures: (matching cycles periods in years to wavelengths in light years is correct because the waves propagate with the velocity of light)

            a. The megawalls of galaxies are at a spacing of 588 million light years according to present estimates of the Hubble constant. A cycle of 586 million years is found in geology according to Afanasiev, geology professor at Moscow University.

            b. Cycles with periods 11.1, 9.6, 8.88, 5.92, 4.44 years are commonly reported according to Edward R Dewey who founded the Foundation for the Study of Cycles. My own analysis of nearby stars shows that they more commonly are spaced at distances in light years near these same figures.

            c. The spacing of outer planets indicate waves of 80 and 160 light minutes and such periods are found in many solar phenomena. This period is also indicated by galaxy cores and other phenomena throughout the universe. See papers by Kotov.

            For more details, background and graphics please see:

            Harmonics Theory - The Physics and Maths

            7 days later

            Today, in the international scientific community, in sciences cosmology and theoretical physics are perceived wrong inferences and conclusions, which are Imposed as fundamental theories and principles. As a consequence, thousands of scientists in the U.S.A. and around the world focus and work in the wrong direction and their efforts not give the desired positive results, only reinforce untruth about the structure of the Universe. This is unjustifiable spent scientific potential, much time and money.

            I am convinced, that scientists sooner or later will find the right path, but the question arises, which I want to share with you "Why did this have to happen slowly, difficult and very expensive, then it can be quickly, easily and cheaply? ". It is therefore necessary the scientists of sciences cosmology and theoretical physics adopt model about structure of the Universe and physical laws operating there, of the short e-book "The Dualism". Please visit the

            http://uploads.worldlibrary.net/uploads/pdf/20120905183454the_dualism_pdf.pdf

            • [deleted]

            Today, in the international scientific community, in sciences cosmology and theoretical physics are perceived wrong inferences and conclusions, which are Imposed as fundamental theories and principles. As a consequence, thousands of scientists in the U.S.A. and around the world focus and work in the wrong direction and their efforts not give the desired positive results, only reinforce untruth about the structure of the Universe. This is unjustifiable spent scientific potential, much time and money.

            I am convinced, that scientists sooner or later will find the right path, but the question arises, which I want to share with you "Why did this have to happen slowly, difficult and very expensive, then it can be quickly, easily and cheaply? ". It is therefore necessary the scientists of sciences cosmology and theoretical physics adopt model about structure of the Universe and physical laws operating there, of the short e-book "The Dualism". Please visit the

            http://uploads.worldlibrary.net/uploads/pdf/20120905183454th

            e_dualism_pdf.pdf

            a month later

            There is a large number of Blueshifted Galaxies ie., more than about 35 ~ 40 Blueshifted Galaxies known at the time of Astronomer Edwin Hubble in 1930s. The far greater numbers of Blueshifted galaxies was confirmed by the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) observations in the year 2009. Today the known number of Blue shifted Galaxies is more than 7000 scattered all over the sky and the number is increasing day by day. In addition Quasars, UV Galaxies, X-ray, γ- Ray sources and other Blue Galaxies etc., are also Blue shifted Galaxies. Out of a 930,000 Galaxy spectra in the SDSS database, 40% are images for Galaxies; that gives to 558,000 Galaxies. There are 120,000 Quasars, 50,000 brotherhood(X-ray, γ-ray, Blue Galaxies etc.,) of quasars, 7000 blue shifted galaxies. That is more than 31.7% of available Galaxy count are Blue shifted. Just to support Bigbang theory, we are neglecting such a huge amount Blue shifted Galaxies.

            How to explain the existence of such large number of blueshifted Galaxies in an expanding universe?