rethinking how the universe began

You really need to stop posting this made up nonsense in the science section and put this in the fringe sections where it belongs.
Click to expand...

There is logic as why I prefer to use the speed of light as an absolute reference, instead of a relative reference.

The "first law" of physics is connected to energy conservation. Energy and energy conservation is not relative to reference, but is absolute. Book keeping for universal energy conservation can only be done from an absolute reference, since energy is not relative. I picked C so as to not be guilty of perpetual motion magic tricks. It appears these are popular entertainment.

Here is a simple example. Say we had two rockets, with relative velocity V. One ship has mass =2M, while ship, #2 has mass=M. Although we can use either reference for relative velocity, relative reference cannot do a proper energy balance, since one reference assumption will see double the kinetic energy of the other. If ship one assume it is the ground state, which is stationary, it sees 1/2MV2 in the other ship. If the opposite is true, ship two see 1/2 (2M) V2 or double the energy. One will forever assume perpetual motion.

The speed of light is absolute, so from this C reference, you can see both finite reference, so one can do a proper energy balance. Both see the same speed of light so there is no relative reference cheating. This is approach is not popular, since it eliminates all magic tricks that take advantage of energy fudging and perpetual motion machines by using relative reference.

The hard part is trying to visualize from C, so using this absolute reference become more useful. As an analogy, picture two race cars side-by side. All of a sudden, one car develops engine problems and starts to slow. The first is the C reference and continues on. The second is analogous to mass appearing as reference becomes less than C. The mass reference begins to lag behind in both space and time as well as in cause and effect, with respect to the lead car, since the lead car will reach the finish line first and the disabled car will follow this same rough path but get there later slightly off center.
 
wellwisher said:
There is logic as why I prefer to use the speed of light as an absolute reference, instead of a relative reference.

The "first law" of physics is connected to energy conservation. Energy and energy conservation is not relative to reference, but is absolute. Book keeping for universal energy conservation can only be done from an absolute reference, since energy is not relative. I picked C so as to not be guilty of perpetual motion magic tricks. It appears these are popular entertainment.

Here is a simple example. Say we had two rockets, with relative velocity V. One ship has mass =2M, while ship, #2 has mass=M. Although we can use either reference for relative velocity, relative reference cannot do a proper energy balance, since one reference assumption will see double the kinetic energy of the other. If ship one assume it is the ground state, which is stationary, it sees 1/2MV2 in the other ship. If the opposite is true, ship two see 1/2 (2M) V2 or double the energy. One will forever assume perpetual motion.

The speed of light is absolute, so from this C reference, you can see both finite reference, so one can do a proper energy balance. Both see the same speed of light so there is no relative reference cheating. This is approach is not popular, since it eliminates all magic tricks that take advantage of energy fudging and perpetual motion machines by using relative reference.

The hard part is trying to visualize from C, so using this absolute reference become more useful. As an analogy, picture two race cars side-by side. All of a sudden, one car develops engine problems and starts to slow. The first is the C reference and continues on. The second is analogous to mass appearing as reference becomes less than C. The mass reference begins to lag behind in both space and time as well as in cause and effect, with respect to the lead car, since the lead car will reach the finish line first and the disabled car will follow this same rough path but get there later slightly off center.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with you? Learn some physics. You might want to review why everybody who knows anything about this stuff tells you to put a cork in it. It's because you can't just make this stuff up since it needs to describe real natural phenomena.
 
river said:
Yet you have not given any concrete argument against , which is telling
Click to expand...

I don't have to explain to you why it's nonsense. You're going to embrace this bullshit nonsense no matter what I say. You might consider the off topic methods you used to post it in this thread.
 
What's wrong with you? Learn some physics. You might want to review why everybody who knows anything about this stuff tells you to put a cork in it. It's because you can't just make this stuff up since it needs to describe real natural phenomena.
Click to expand...

According to you and everyone who knows anything, the speed of light is not the same in all references? According to you, it has not yet dawned on these experts to use this one reference, common to all references, as the standard (origin). According to you Mass and energy are relative to reference allowing us to violate the first law.


The fabric of space-time, to use the common analogy, is composed of threads of space and time woven together, such that space and time work together as a unit. What would happen, if we theoretically separated these threads of space and time, so each could act, independently. We could create effects, that would appear to violate the speed of light, although the speed of light would not be violated.

If we could move in space without time, we can move vast distances in what appears to be zero time. This might be like a white hole appearing on the other side of the universe, connected to a black hole close to us. If we could move forward in time, but without distance, we could form the singularity of the BB, before distance is defined; evolving toward the boom. Say we move in time without distance while moving in distance without time, independently, but connected due to a convergence. That means vast distances converge, in zero time, at a point, where only time appears to move forward.
 
wellwisher said:
According to you and everyone who knows anything, the speed of light is not the same in all references?
Click to expand...

No one claims this. The speed of light is a function of the interaction between the electric and magnetic fields, and emerges from the electromagnetic wave equation. Since the laws of physics, a category that includes Maxwell's electrodynamics, are invariant under Lorentz boosts, all inertial frames of reference measure the same speed of light. In non-inertial frames, the issue becomes more complicated. The correct method to measure the speed of light in a non-inertial frame is with proper speed, the derivative of the proper distance travelled with respect to the proper time. The proper speed of light is always c.

According to you, it has not yet dawned on these experts to use this one reference, common to all references, as the standard (origin).
Click to expand...

An "origin" is a point in a coordinate system in which x⁰ = x¹ = x² = x³ = 0. It doesn't make sense to use the speed of light as an "origin" as the two concepts simply have nothing to do with each other.

According to you Mass and energy are relative to reference allowing us to violate the first law.
Click to expand...

The first part of this statement is correct, the second is not. The energy of a system is absolutely a frame-dependent quantity, that's true even in non-relativistic physics. In Newtonian mechanics, kinetic energy is given by p²/2m. So, as the velocity of a body increases, as does its kinetic energy. If a frame O is co-moving with point p, then a frame O' moving relative to O with a velocity v will obviously measure p as having a velocity v. Therefore, the energy of a body co-moving with p will vary in the two frames. The problem is that you have a misconceived understanding of the conservation of energy, which simply states that the energy of a closed system remains constant in time. Two frames of reference may measure different values for the kinetic energy of an object, but the time derivative of that quantity remains zero. In fact, in general, the quantity of energy is definable only up to an additive constant. For example, the potential energy of a system subject to a conservative force F is U = ∫ F(x) dx, which will result in a constant of integration C in the answer. So, physically, the only concept that matters is differences in energy measured in one frame of reference. By comparing energy measurements in different frames, you end up confusing yourself.
 
MarkM125 said:
No one claims this. The speed of light is a function of the interaction between the electric and magnetic fields, and emerges from the electromagnetic wave equation. Since the laws of physics, a category that includes Maxwell's electrodynamics, are invariant under Lorentz boosts, all inertial frames of reference measure the same speed of light. In non-inertial frames, the issue becomes more complicated. The correct method to measure the speed of light in a non-inertial frame is with proper speed, the derivative of the proper distance travelled with respect to the proper time. The proper speed of light is always c.



An "origin" is a point in a coordinate system in which x⁰ = x¹ = x² = x³ = 0. It doesn't make sense to use the speed of light as an "origin" as the two concepts simply have nothing to do with each other.



The first part of this statement is correct, the second is not. The energy of a system is absolutely a frame-dependent quantity, that's true even in non-relativistic physics. In Newtonian mechanics, kinetic energy is given by p²/2m. So, as the velocity of a body increases, as does its kinetic energy. If a frame O is co-moving with point p, then a frame O' moving relative to O with a velocity v will obviously measure p as having a velocity v. Therefore, the energy of a body co-moving with p will vary in the two frames. The problem is that you have a misconceived understanding of the conservation of energy, which simply states that the energy of a closed system remains constant in time. Two frames of reference may measure different values for the kinetic energy of an object, but the time derivative of that quantity remains zero. In fact, in general, the quantity of energy is definable only up to an additive constant. For example, the potential energy of a system subject to a conservative force F is U = ∫ F(x) dx, which will result in a constant of integration C in the answer. So, physically, the only concept that matters is differences in energy measured in one frame of reference. By comparing energy measurements in different frames, you end up confusing yourself.
Click to expand...

Just a clarification. The proper speed of light is infinite and the proper time for light is 0. That's why we measure the local coordinate speed of light in the local proper frame where the measurement is made. IE: Anywhere a local measurement is made in the universe. The measurement is an invariant spacetime event and is predicted to be

dr/dt=1 [c=1] radial

The remote coordinate speed of light is a frame dependent remote measurement.

dr/dt=1-2M/r [c=1]

None of these cranks are going to get that since it's going to conflict with what they think. I must have written that down for Farsight 10 times along with everybody else who thinks the speed of light, measured in the local proper frame [where the measurement is made] is a variable. They all have a self imposed learning disability. None of them understand the concept of invariance. If they did it would ruin their troll.
 
brucep said:
Just a clarification. The proper speed of light is infinite and the proper time for light is 0. That's why we measure the local coordinate speed of light in the local proper frame where the measurement is made. IE: Anywhere a local measurement is made in the universe.
Click to expand...

The proper speed of light is the local proper distance traveled by the light as measured by an inertial frame or the instantaneous rest frame of an accelerated observer divided by the elapsed proper time. Therefore, it amounts to nothing more than a measurement of the local speed of light, which is guaranteed to be c, as local regions approximate Minkowski space. What you call the "local coordinate speed" is the proper speed, and the "remote coordinate speed" is usually just referred to as the coordinate speed. As you correctly noted, the coordinate speed of light is variable, as we can define any coordinate system we choose in which the speed of light can have any value we like. More specifically, the "local proper velocity" of an object at a point p is the four-velocity of the object in the tangent space at p. The magnitude of this is the proper speed.

Of course, everything you write is correct, but I disagree with your use of terminology.
 
arauca said:
Recently, scientists on the Planck team announced finding certain large-scale features on the CMB sky that they cannot explain. One of them: a large cold spot, which corresponds to an anomalously large area of high density.

What does this mean? To discuss the findings, The Kavli Foundation held a discussion with three key members on the team. One important question: Will the theory for how the universe began need to be modified, amended or even fundamentally changed?

"[T]he theory of inflation predicts that today's universe should appear uniform at the largest scales in all directions," says George Efstathiou, professor of Astrophysics at the University of Cambridge and director of the Kavli Institute for Cosmology at Cambridge (KICC). "That uniformity should also characterize the distribution of fluctuations at the largest scales within the CMB. But these anomalies, which Planck confirmed, such as the cold spot, suggest that this isn't the case."

Efstathiou has been involved in the Planck mission since it was first proposed to the European Space Agency in 1993. "[T]his is very strange," he says. "And I think that if there really is anything to this, you have to question how that fits in with inflation.... It's really puzzling."

Says Anthony Lasenby, a member of the Planck Core Team and professor of astrophysics and cosmology at Cambridge and Deputy Director of KICC: "[This] data is really putting pressure on some alternative inflation models.... Inflation actually may have been more limited in scope than previously theorized."

Says Krzysztof Gorski, a Planck Collaboration scientist and senior research scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, CA: "Perhaps we may still eliminate these anomalies with more precise analysis; on the other hand, they may open the door to something much more grand—a reinvestigation of how the whole structure of the universe should be."


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-07-discoveries-planck-rethinking-universe-began.html#jCp
Click to expand...

Yes, very interesting! At last, the simplistic Big Bang mathematics model will be redundant. This research fits with another thread on modeling the known universe not from 'nothing', but a transformation of something that already exists. (Such as a bubble or void appearing within a 'sea of energy' with some of the spinning energy from the outside 'erupting' within it to create our familiar protons and neutrons).

At last..
 
CSS , you mentioned the bubble theory , interesting

I watched a program , I think it was on the SCI-channel about this " discovery " yet I find it a derivative of a sort from Cosmic Plasma theory and Birkeland currents , where these "bubbles " so called , are really the result of the above mentioned
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top