C
Charles Sven

  • Joined Jan 17, 2020
  • Greetings My name is Charles Sven:

    The basic problem with cosmology is that physics cannot account for our existence; the creation of our universe.

    What obscures that event is the reworking of Einstein's equations by Wilhem de Sitter, Alexander Friedman, and Georges Lemaître.

    What should raise a powerful red flag that their work obscures understanding is -- Friedman's 1923 notation - he writes "This brings to mind what Hindu mythology has to say about cycles of existence, and it also becomes possible to speak about the " creation of the world from nothing,"

    As if that wasn't enough we have Georges Lemaître's published comments in a 1931 letter to Nature magazine where he says IF! "If the world has begun with a single quantum," - HIS IF! becomes that singleton forming in de Sitters 1917 expanding space and according to - Friedman's Hindu myth -- out of nothing

    --- So much for reworked Einstein's general relativity.

    All I did was examine all we know about the closest thing to a singleton that we find on Earth --- the atom.

    And following Richard Feynman's method of attach; start from scratch - just use his most important tool -described by Einstein -in Einstein's 1921 address to science " the truth of physics and other natural sciences can only be established through observations or experiments."

    The result is this essay describing the physics of Dark Energy, - how we physically observe its existence, and describe the mechanical conversion of dark energy into atoms - This puts us at the time of the big bang physically observing the creation of our Universe with 3D physics. Mystery of creation solved!

  • Greetings Peter Jackson:

    I'm glad that you find that we have so much in common.

    My desire was to explore cosmology and keep my descriptions

    as clear as possible.

    Regards

    Charles

  • Greetings Marcovici:

    I apologize that my post is somewhat complex due to the number of basic common 3D physic elements not found in general cosmology that make up my presentation. I suggest that it might take several readings to keep all parts in perspective.

    This paper is a explosive expansion of the first chapter extracted from my book - The Big Bang Book: How, Where, & When Demonstrated available at Amazon. You might find this book easier to follow all the various parts along with the reference materials therein.

    I think that the links mentioned by you do not include the all the basic common 3D physics that I use and consequently come to different understandings.

  • Greetings Professor Paul Davies:

    Without a clear picture of creation then perhaps your last statement is prescient.

    "...one arrives at a startling eschatological conclusion: not only is the fate of the universe undecided, it is actually undecidable."

    Consider a picture of creation based on common 3D physics without resorting to mathematical assumptions as a Richard Feynman study as presented in my essay- Common 3D Physics Depicts Universe Emerging From Chaos.

    Regards

    Charles Sven

  • Greetings Professor Nathan Harshman:

    I agree with your notations of bias regarding dark energy as noted:

    "Meanwhile, dark matter and dark energy remain unsolved problems; they persist as formless gaps in the scales of the universe, shadowed by the bias of our attention."

    That bias of attention is based on decades of unconnected discoveries combined with many mathematical assumptions made at the beginning of the 20th century.

    It is currently proposed that any evidence describing the Big Bang is beyond science's reach and yet this essay of mine entered January 18th Common 3D Physics Depicts Universe Emerging From Chaos presents a plausible explanation with plenty of current replicable evidence viewed and connected without bias. Check it out.

    Regards

    Charles Sven

  • Professors Wolpert and Kinney:

    I'm pleased to read your summation of the possible weakness of math ending with:

    "Following in that spirit of weakening assumptions, here we have aimed to demonstrate the potential fruitfulness of weakening the assumption that mathematics itself is fully deterministic. We believe that this reveals a rich landscape of novel results and subtleties, many still waiting to be uncovered."

    Current common 3D physics observed without resorting to mathematical assumptions as a Richard Feynman study is all one needs to understand creation. See my essay entered January 18th.- Common 3D Physics Depicts Universe Emerging From Chaos.

    Regards

    Charles Sven

  • Dear Sabine Hossenfelder:

    You note in the beginning of your essay that:

    "Physicists use mathematics simply because it is useful. Reality may not be math, but it surely can be well described by math."

    I must submit that math can and does obstruct -

    especially when that math describes things not observed in real life that becomes the basis of physics - as in de Sitter's expanding space - Friedman's creation of the world from nothing - and Lemaître notation - "If the world has begun with a single quantum..." these all obscure applicable common 3D physics hiding the physics of the Big Bang.

    It is proposed that any evidence describing the Big Bang is beyond science's reach and yet this essay of mine entered January 18th Common 3D Physics Depicts Universe Emerging From Chaos presents a plausible explanation with plenty of current replicable evidence describing 'Reality.' Check it out.

    Regards

    Charles Sven

  • Greetings Israel Perez

    To respond to your last paragraph: "... that mathematical beauty is not enough to tell the whole story, and to achieve a solid knowledge we should work out a physical understanding. The history of physics has shown that physical understanding is crucial to make headway in this field; otherwise we might continue lost in math and measurements."

    I must submit that math can and does obstruct -

    especially when that math describes things not observed in real life that becomes the basis of physics - as in de Sitter's expanding space - Friedman's creation of the world from nothing - and Lemaître notation - "If the world has begun with a single quantum..." these all obscure applicable common 3D physics hiding the physics of the Big Bang.

    It is proposed that any evidence describing the Big Bang is beyond science's reach and yet this essay of mine entered January 18th Common 3D Physics Depicts Universe Emerging From Chaos presents a plausible explanation with plenty of current replicable evidence describing 'Reality.' Check it out.

    Regards

    Charles Sven

    • Greetings Scott Guthery

      ADAPT MATHEMATICS TO SCIENCE,NOT SCIENCE TO MATHEMATICS

      From your last paragraph:

      "...the disconnect between the current output of the research mathematics community and the needs of the physical science community."

      I must submit that math can and does obstruct -

      especially when that math describes things not observed in real life that becomes the basis of physics - as in de Sitter's expanding space - Friedman's creation of the world from nothing - and Lemaître notation - "If the world has begun with a single quantum..." these all obscure applicable common 3D physics hiding the physics of the Big Bang.

      It is proposed that any evidence describing the Big Bang is beyond science's reach and yet this essay of mine entered January 18th"Common 3D Physics Depicts Universe Emerging From Chaos" presents a plausible explanation with plenty of current replicable evidence describing 'Reality.' Check it out.

      Regards

      Charles Sven

    • Dear Professor Mueller :

      I like your views on the question of Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability:

      Our only limitation is data; if we have the data then the proof is possible. If the data is not available then the proof is uncomputable. The undecidability question becomes whether or not we have all the data. Finally, unless we are clairvoyant we have no observational data about the future, consequently any prediction made is a projection of history and subject to falsification.

      Just giving a name to something is not data. Richard Feynman: The Difference Between Knowing the Name of Something and Knowing Something.

      A nonanswer may be proof that the data does not exist or one does not have all the data or that the data is unrecognized.

      It is proposed that any evidence describing the Big Bang is beyond science's reach and yet this essay [entered January 18th below] "Common 3D Physics Depicts Universe Emerging From Chaos" presents a plausible description with plenty of replicable evidence.

      Respectfully,

      Charles Sven

      • Greetings Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich :

        My work, using only common 3d physics, is the beginning description of Chaotic Dark Energy's [energy a substance equivalent to matter noted by Einstein] power role in the propagation of light photons which I describe and trace back and explain how our Universe's atoms were created, unexplained by any theory up to now.

        This first step opens up the door to deeper introspection of the nature of Chaotic Dark Energy.

      • Presenting your position with formulas are scientific metaphysical dogmatism equal to the layman's religion without some physics and this essay lacks a conclusion.

        • Very astute in this essay are the identification of science problems and the corrective procedures necessary. It is just that they are buried in such long paragraphs that dilute their significance.

          • Essay Abstract

            The most important thing is what Richard Feynman told us: "All things are made of atoms." We have had our observational senses enhanced by invention of microscope and telescopes, allowing us to seek answers to the deepest questions of today: including how was our Universe created and what is Physics of Chaotic Dark Energy? Today, unsupported by physics, is our poor cosmological concept that our Universe's atoms were created from a 'singleton' popping out of 'nothing' and consequently not well received. That indicates that we need to study atoms for a better explanation. Here assembled is a number of pertinent facts when properly arranged, allows us to understand atoms and how 'physics' of dark energy was employed before, during, and after Big Bang. Assembling some of these 13.8 billion year old spherical atoms into a match, when struck, emit light photons instantaneously at 186,282 miles per second, indicating that some energy must drive atom's orbiting electrons at light speed. We note that a very tiny gram's worth of ancient uranium atoms when properly configured for Fission; redirects its power source during a 'chain reaction' and destroys a city. Both atomic processes, fission and fusion, redirects power in star's atoms. Where is this tremendous redirected power coming from? The best consideration is Chaotic Dark Energy running prior to Big Bang, converged and created matter just like at Stanford Labs where a tiny amount of atomic matter was created by smashing massive energy beams in '97. Based on all above, plus more, we find that creation of our Universe was constructed out of Chaotic Dark Energy -vast, powerful, and timeless, existing prior to the Big Bang and continues to exist based on all the atoms in stars shinning in all the galaxies in our Universe. Science finds the tools Philosophy seeks the craftsman

            Author Bio

            I am an Observational and Theoretical Cosmologist pursuing independent research for the last 20 years that included some 22 conference presentations listed at my web site: www.allnewuniverse.com/public-talks/ and am the author of The Big Bang Book: How, Where, & When Demonstrated available at: https://www.amazon.com/Big-Bang-Book-Where-Demonstrated/dp/0967035317

            Download Essay PDF File