THE BIG BANG
IN STILL TRYING TO FINISH the nearly interminably gossipy ''BIG BANG''
by Simon Singh (recommended to those who want to read about Science while
learning nearly nothing about science) I've come to realize that I
can more articulately state my questions [slash] objections to the BIG BANG
theory, as it is currently constructed.
I note a couple of relevant phenomenon first: The fact that there is a
''preferred zero velocity'' at which vector one experiences the MINIMUM of
virtual particle creation; at differing velocities, more and more particle
pairs appear [then disappear in mutual annihilation; I note the energy/mass
equivalency; I note the failure of astronomers to be able to identify any
direction ''from which the big bang came from''.
I also consider the idea that the SPACE between the galaxies (which is
increasing) is what ''causes'' the red shift, and not any actual motion of
the galaxies themselves.
Finally, I consider the statement that the uncertainty represented in
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is the thing from which a cosmic event
-- the creation of the universe -- would come from.
I find it FAR more believable to interpret these observations and calculations
and phenomenon as indicators of a CONTINUOUS (though random) creation of
energy/matter and that this continuous creation may be that thing which is
interpretted as the Cosmic Microwave Background; that such continuous creation
would allow for an ever-expanding universe -- yet one in which the night sky is
never filled with solid white light from all the stars because of there shining
for a long time.
I find it hard to believe that such an event is singular and isolated,
thinking instead that the distribution of these creation events may account
for the so-called ''large-scale structure'' distribution we observe of the
visible stars.
I note all this because I have not yet been convinced of the....
ARGHHH!!!
!!!!!
In the full week since I started this single item post I've come to realize
a most direct and IMPORTANT summation:
Physicists are looking at the Red Shift Limit from the wrong side.
Instead of looking at the Red Shit Limit [''RSL''] as something that happens
''way out there, light years away from 'here','' the RSL should be seen as an
ESSENTIAL part of what makes up a particle, for if there was no RSL, every
particle would have to be able to project its [the particle's] presence {influence}
for an infinite distance -- which would imply NO SPEED OF LIGHT LIMITATION.
[There would also be phenomenological problems of ''keeping things separate''
as this would imply the elimination of TIME itself!
(To those of you who are string theorists -- you've got to figure out a way
for your strings to be ''tied'' at the RSL ***and*** at the position of the
particle.)
For each individual particle to scream out ''I exist'' it does so in the manner
of the VIRTUAL PARTICLES mentioned above. (The particles that come into existence
when not in ''the preferred frame of reference'' that are above the background
level otherwise {when in the preferred frame of reference} would not be sensed.)
In other words, every particle ***IS A VIRTUAL PARTICLE*** with respect to
the rest of the --MOVING AWAY-- universe, and that that is the essential nature
of being a particle.
My assumption/conclusion is that a particle would not be able to exist without
the existence of a RSL.
I believe this will lead to a conclusive statement -- one way or the other
-- as to whether the universe must be infinite or if a finite universe is
''permitted''.
I have not yet figured out this next bit....
=====
MAJOR UPDATE:
[Delimited by the ''====='' marks.]
This has an important consequence: Physicists have to stop thinking of the
Red Shift Limit as something ''way out there'' and think of it as something
essential to defining a particle.
Most interestingly, this concurs well with the idea of ''expanding space''
instead of ''galaxies racing away from each other'' and it means that THERE
IS NO WAY TO TELL IF THE RED SHIFT LIMIT ACTUALLY REPRESENTS ''time=0'' in
the history of the universe versus the idea that there could be MANY a''big bangs''
and that much of the mass that we see is mass from earlier ''micro-bangs''
scattered all over the place.
DEAD: THE HIGGS PARTICLE
This theory MORE ELEGANTLY AND SIMPLY EXPLAINS THE EXTRA MASS IN THE UNIVERSE
WITHOUT RESORTING TO THE INELEGANT ''INFLATION'' PERIOD and the counter-intuitive
Higgs particle.
The theory would be this: There are many micro-bangs going on all the time,
and the mass that we see is the culmination of all these creation events and
that the Red Shift Limit is a limit required for particles to have a finite
mass/energy.
FOUND: THE UNIVERSE'S MISSING MASS
The observations that show a large amount of so-called ''dark matter'' can
be very simply explained by noting that the ''missing'' matter could be matter
whose ''signal'' has not yet reached us, yet its ''signal'' [its ''influence'']
could have reached other matter as it passed by the other matter on its way
towards our position!
This is how part of such a universe would look:
The NEW PARTICLE from a recent creation event has passed two other particles
from earlier creation events, and the passage was earlier by enough time that
the force from this NEW PARTICLE could influence the positions of the older
created particles. Particles headed away from us could have enough of a head
start so as to NEVER be sensed -- at least before they passed beyond the Red
Shift Limit.
THIS could be the ''dark matter'' aka ''missing matter'' from the picture of
the [ongoing?!??] creation of our universe!
Wow!
This is fucking HUGE!!!
Note: This [''=====''' defined] section is what I was stumbling towards when
I first started this post a number of days ago!
=====
Gregg Strom
December 22-26, 2005
Palm Springs, California
USA
[Also posted as PHYSICS15.txt.]
A CHALLENGE:
To those physicists who claim that the ''multiple-universe'' scenerio
have an EXACT DEFINITION of what the definition of the word ''UNIVERSE''
is in their theory.
Regular readers of this column know that I long ago defined ''universe''
in -- what I believe to be -- the only SENSIBLE way, and that that definition
does NOT allow for so-called ''parallel-worlds'' where Carthage and the NAZIs
won, where there are multiple- and ''ghost-'' copies of yourself in universes
with minor differences (no letter ''j'') exist, where a stock would go up in
one universe (and that another stock would go down -- and that a stock market
would even exist!) and so on.
I believe I best expressed this in the April 28, 2004 BRYX News post:
In my earlier discussions of my killing of the theoretical ''Schrodinger's
Cat'', I pointed out how one of the [wrongly assumed] questions was that of
whether there existed multiple universes.
As I pointed out, a number of years ago, every single ''position''
represents an entirely different universe. Your left eye is in a different
universe from your right eye!
How can this be?
First, you have to start off with a basic definition, a definition of the
word ''universe''.
I define a single universe as ''everything that you can see'' (which -- in
terms of contemporary scientific consensus -- also includes all other
forces, forces that are assumed to all travel at the same speed-of-light).
Since the observable universe is limited by the so-called ''red-shift limit''
(which is more accurately described as ''the low frequency limit, given a
certain observation interval''), this means that the universe for the
Earth's Sun has a ''red-shift limit'' which is displaced by about 8
light-minutes from the universe of the Earth.
This also means that the universe for the moon is about 2/3 of a second
different from that of the earth, and that geosynchronous sattelites have
universes from the point on the ground (drawn through the center-of-gravity
of the spherically approximated earth) of approximately (+/-) 2/30th
(1/15th) of a light-second.
The universe for your left eye is different from your right eye by about
2/10,000,000th of a light-second.
And for the mind-blowing finale', this means that EVERY SINGLE NEURON IN YOUR
BRAIN is in a different universe!!!
But this does NOT MEAN that your body is passing through another planet in
another ''universe'' if you could only get to a ''different dimension''
somehow.
(Though it doesn't mean that such possibilities are forbidden,
either! It may very well be that our universe is one of many ''overlapping''
universes -- each defined by some basic property such as that universe's
particular speed-of-light and/or plank's constant [which may be the REASON
for the apparent constancy of the s.o.l.*] or some other fundamental
constant....)
_______________
*...and perhaps the BEST unit to describe the speed-of-light is ultimately as
''plank-distances per second''.
(Which is about 3 x 10^48 plank-distances per second....)
(Alternatively, about 3.33 x 10^-49 seconds per plank-distances....)
-
EDITORIAL COMMENT:
One of the things that I like most about the Strom/Orgy model of the universe is
that it makes location, location, location even less important than it is now.
EARTH-CENTRIC VIEWS of the universe were finally replaced by Sun-centric views;
the discovery of that the Milky Way is the galaxy that we are in started out as
a theory that ''almost all'' of the universe was in our single galaxy -- this was
finally replaced with a model that has the Milky Way as just one of virtually
uncountable galaxies: THIS NEW MODEL of the universe moves away from the
never-far-from-implied SINGLE POINT IN TIME AND SPACE model of creation to a view
that is much more universal, a view that creation can take place ANYWHERE and
ANYTIME.
It also saves physicists and cosmologists from specious-sounding
dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin description of so-called ''deep simplicity'' to a
more obvious (and less embarassing?) description of the world and creation.*
*NOTE: I wrote with the above editorial disgust while back
reading the pre-page-100 pages of UNDERSTANDING THE UNIVERSE [below]. I say this
now because I've just got to page 209 and the quote from THE GOD PARTICLE by
Leon Lederman: ''So Higgs is so great. Why, then, hasn't it been universally
embraced? Peter Higgs, who loaned his name to the conept (not willingly), works
on other things. Veltman, one the the Higgs architects, calls it a rug under
which we sweep our ignorance. Glahow is less kind, calling it a toilet in which
we flush away the inconsistencies of our present theories. And the other
overriding objection is that there isn't a shingle shred of experimental
evidence.''
I have as yet to read one book or one sentenced that claims that the BIG BANG
has to be an exclusionary event -- nor, more importantly, any reason why multiple
creation events have to be excluded from our model of the creation and behavior
off the universe. (Or, more accurately, ''our universes'' as described in the
excerpt [above] from the April 28, 2004 BRYX.com News....)
A FINAL NOTE:
There a many phenomenon that have been detected and explained by the [singular]
BIG BANG theory yet there persists the truism of the above paragraph: That there
exists no theory or cause requiring our universe to be created by a singular
creation event; said differently, I believe that these many other phenomenon
may be quite well explicable by a multi-micro-bang [aka ''STEADY STATE'']
theory -- but some sort of irrational allergic-type reaction seems to paralyze
today's physicists to the point of immobility when even just considering scratching
out some back-of-envelope calculations.
I hope that this NEW prejudice will abate soon: We may discover that an
overly complex structure has been created to describe functionally identical
phenomenon -- most likely caused by the abrupt end to earlier Steady State
model acceptance, an psycho- sociological transition that cannot be described
by any word less than ''brutal''.
It is past time to take a few steps back and reconsider these fundamental
questions.
-
A SECOND ''FINAL NOTE'':
THIS PROPOSAL, which is better described as the ''ORGY'' or ''multiple-bang''
unvierse theory (as opposed to the misleading ''Steady State'' nomenclature)
survives the fundamental challenge as described by Don Lincoln in UNDERSTANDING
THE UNIVERSE [below] where he says: (p.459-460)
The Big Bang cosmology is the only one that clearly agrees with the observational
evidence, as we will discuss in the following pages. Competing scientific theories
and all ancient myths, including bilical ones, have been discredited.
[BRYX NOTE: The theory presented here has NOT been discredited because it supercedes
the publication of this book!] This is not to say that the
Big Bang cosmology is without its mysteries. Details of hat the universe looked like
earlier, an dhow it go to be so smooth and homogenous [BRYX: !!!],
are still topics of research and debate. Unfortunately, the
popular press sometimes uses that debate to report sensational stories, ''The Big
Bang is Dead'' bein my particular favorite. Adherents of competing theories use
these reports to try to convince others that the scientific community is in a much
greater turmoil than it is. Biblical literalists insist that at best, the Big bang
cosmology be taught as a theory, on par with, but less true than their own Genesis-based
ideas. Such an approach is nonsense. While the Big Bang cosmology is not without its
own internal debates, no reputable scientist can dispute the evidence that the
universe was once much smaller and hotter and that it is now expanding with great
speed. [BRYX: This **is**, on the surface, exactly what we
are debating -- but not in conflict with the basic evidence as the just-quoted
sentence would imply to the casual reader: The multiple creation events proposed
would allow -- would virtually insist upon -- the earlier nature of each
creation event to be hot and to then cool; to be first local and then to expand
its sphere of influence, ''with great speed''.]
The evidence for this is simply overwhelming.[...]
I have presented what I believe to be an interesting and useful theory;
one that very well may answer a number of questions that current theory still
struggles with.
I look forward to the consideration of these ideas by others....
A MUCH BETTER BOOK:
After all my bitching about the book ''BIG BANG'' by Simon Singh
[which does little but chronologize various alleged personality defects ...
and clashes ... and gossip-mongering ... about and amongst scientists],
I am VERY happy to report that I've found a book almost diametrically
opposed to the Singh work, a book that presents SCIENCE with much less
obnoxious non-science.
That book is UNDERSTANDING THE UNVERSE by Don Lincoln
[ISBN: 981-238-705-6] a book that is HIGHLY and ENTHUSIASTICALLY recommended.
''UNDERSTANDING'' could not have come to my attention at a better time.
OOPS!
One important datum I seem to have overlooked is the apparent aging of the
galaxies within the universe; earlier galaxies having suns [/stars] burning
a higher percentage of hydrogen than our own (and local) suns/stars do. [I've
just gotta make a CHECKLIST for this stuff -- and be careful what I include as
DIRECT versus CALCULATED or ASSUMED information....]
Hmmmm....
THE IDIOCY,
BLINDNESS
THE TOP-DOWN PERSPECTIVE Of the D.I.B.A. [''Dangerous Idiot Bush
Administration''] continues to frustrate the establishment of democracy.
STARTING WITH THE PRE-CONCEPTION that a legitimate government can only
come from top-down; i.e.; from the national to the local -- continues to
impose exceptional, unwarranted costs upon the democratic process.
IF INSTEAD, the jurisdictions were local -- and the voting local --
the costs and loss-of-meaning (through dilution and ''lowest common
denominator'' effects) of long-range would NOT arise and local, easy-to-manage
and easy-to-communicate elections would build a base upon which LATER
and larger groups could be formed.
Politicians NEED ''development'' -- they need a chance to learn --
which means a chance to make mistakes -- and if they have the opportunity
to do so, to not repeat them at larger and more costly scales.
CITY/STATES ARE THE OBVIOUS and most elemental ''governmental scale'' in
much of the world (whether or not they are included within a larger ''country
scale'' or not). Next is regional and possibly semi-regional areas -- such
as states and provinces and counties until FINALLY -- after much groundword
-- dealing with a national scale begins to make sense.
-
THE U.S., right now, is in the middle of imposing the Iraq-type D.I.B.A.
mistakes upon the people of Haiti by insisting upon a NATIONAL election --
something that would make more sense if REGIONAL and LOCAL politicians had
demonstrated a record of accomplishment -- or failure.
U.S. -- and U.N. -- voting goals should be adjusted to recognize this
S.A.L. [Sensible And Liberal] scaling of elections and timing of elections....
ANOTHER STEP BACKWARDS
IN ENCOURAGING BLACK
INTELLECTUALS
ONCE AGAIN, THE TAX-BREAK INSPIRED near-monopoly of religion in the U.S.
in providing charity and emergency relief is going to ''infect'' the Black
youngsters and students with the encumberances of religion due to the large
role played by media-labeled ''Black churches'' in hurricane relief.
Just TRY to find a non-religious and non-religiously infected relief
organization to contribute to: You can't count on the United Way to be
your answer as the PALM SPRINGS United Way gives money to the HOMOPHOBIC
[because of religion] Boy Scouts -- but the LOS ANGELES United Way wisely
refuses to contribute and become accomplice to such prejudice and discrimination.
Unfortunately you won't find this ''free-from-religion'' label ADVERTISED
and/or PROMOTED ... if you want to find a religion-disinfected charity to
contribute to, you've got to DIG IN AND RESEARCH ... and D.I.B.A. [the ''Dangerous
Idiot Bush Administration''] continues to promote the entanglement of relgion
with government with its government funding for RELIGIOUS charities -- which
then -- uncharitably -- are allowed to refuse to hire Gay
people even for bureaucratic and other non-religious, non-ideological
functions!
THAT THE BLACK CHURCHES were the center of the RACE-BASED civil liberties
activities (though now these same churches ''of love'' REGULARLY and NOTABLY
attack Equal Rights for Gay people) and that they are the center of so many
activities in that community IS CREATING YET ONE-MORE-BARRIER to clear thought
in the Black community: Few intellects are strong enough to be able to discard
the thought-free and fact-free ''faith-based'' infections spread by these
churches.
Too bad that the children couldn't be left unmolested by these mind-destroying
organizations....
McCRAP
They're running the movie ''SUPERSIZE ME'' on one of the cable channels,
and I've never seen such a piece of shit from a science standpoint.
This is the film where the ''star'' was a guy who ate nothing but McDonald's
food for a month -- with an INTENTIONAL, CLEARLY-BIASED, SCIENTIFIC-SHEEN
applied to something that was anything BUT scientific.
The ''star'' went to three doctors and got a medical evaluation of his
condition prior to the start of this project and at intervals and at the
end of the month.
During the interviews with the various doctors there was a noticable
absence of information given the doctors about his then EXTREME diet: Fed
primarily by a vegan girlfriend, he was RANKED (as in COMPARED TO OTHER PEOPLE)
as far as overall health and told that his health was ''good'' or ''excellent''.
I am forced to wonder if he would be RANKED the same way if the doctors
knew that this guy was ALREADY on an EXTREME diet; it is quite possible that
his rank would be different if the doctors were given this foreknowledge.
This information [foreknowledge] is EXTREMELY important -- especially
as the doctors were asked to PREDICT what would happen as a consequence of
going on this month of McDonald's diet:
IT WAS DISHONEST TO GO FROM ONE EXTREME DIET TO ANOTHER EXTREME DIET -- HIDE
THIS INFORMATION FROM THE DOCTORS -- AND THEN REPRESENT THEIR PREDICITIONS
AS ''INFORMED''.
Mis-information is not the way to base an ''informed'' opinion.
AS OFTEN MISLEADINGLY STATED BY OTHER DIET FASCISTS, this film insisted
that a ''Super-Sized'' soda contained ''32 teaspoons of sugar'' -- and
damn it, they just TOTALLY FORGOT to mention that DIET DRINKS have ZERO
calories and DO NOT CONTRIBUTE TO WEIGHT OR BODYFAT GAIN.
This comment was one of many ''drive-by'' comments that are wrong,
misleading or are just blatant lies.
This film deserves a RASBERRY -- except that the producers would probably
consider this a compliment because ''rasberries are a fruit -- not realizing
that it is the award given to the WORST OF THE YEAR in film....
It seems that the doctors involved in this film are also interested in
providing fraudulent dis- and mis-information.
During one section of this disinfomercial the ''star'' had elevated liver
enzymes. The ''star'' and the so-called doctor made a big deal about this
the doctor representing that ''he could not say'' that an SGOT enzyme level
of 290 or so ''would not cause'' this ''star's'' liver to give out ''in just
the next two weeks.''
Yes, this to a patient who had NO family history of liver disease and who
tested normal the previous weeks.
The doctor could very well have told this guy of the fact that people's
livers have approximately FIVE TIMES the ''blood-cleaning capacity'' above
that which the body needs and that it is the only organ in the body that is
capable of self-repair.
The ''star'' was shot having a phone call with his mother while representing
this as a serious concern.
Did he just not know? Did the producers simply not have the resources to
correct the many ''drive-by mis-information'' tid-bits?
They had plenty of money to uh, er, ''research'' and film negative information,
so this goes a long ways towards revealing the lack of integrity of the
people behind this product, this film.
The high number of ''wince'' moments in watching the lies, misrepresentations
and ''drive-by'' misinfo provide a DRAMATIC contrast to other film-makers of
this style, such as Michael Moore.
The WORST of any Moore ''truth-stretching'' or ''selective research'' comes
to just a tiny fraction of the gross distortion contained in ''SUPERSIZE ME''.
(And in the balance Michael Moore films contain FAR more facts than lies --
and I can say this even though I disagree with a substantial part of Moore's
position on gun control.)
The size of ''SUPERSIZE ME'' fraud? Well, SUPER-SIZED, naturally!!!
[22-26DECEMBER2005]
|
NEXT NEWS POSTING
PREVIOUS NEWS POSTING