The EEMU Hypothesis

Sci-observations

James T:

As I plan for my departure from Sciforum, I thought you might be interested in a few of my observtions:

1. Contrary to my high hopes and expectations for your forum, I have been greatly disappointed in it and the promise that I anticipated for exchanging scientific ideas.

2. The Sciforum moderators, and some administrators, seem bent on preserving their own belief systems and preserving their petty egos to the detriment of science and by not honoring an honest and meaningful exchange of new ideas that may not conform with mainstream ideas. Members seem to be continually harangued, belittled, insulted, and chided by moderators (and some other members) for their honest and meaningful attempts to contribute original, innovative, and creative thinking.

3. I have come to the conclusion that Sciforum has become adulterated and trivialized by the behavior of the moderators and their permitting of similar member behavior. Professional degradation should NOT be allowed by moderators or members, and profanity and demeaning posts should be immediately deleted, or dealt-with harshly by administrators.

I'm sure that the original intent of Sciforum was to foster an honest and beneficial exchange of ideas that would benefit the scientific community; but the forum has degraded into an unprofessional mish-mash of self-promoting 'talking-heads' that serve to be the antithesis of an otherwise original honorable intent.

I will certainly NOT recommend Sciforum to colleagues as an objective forum for advancing new knowledge in the quest for scientific truths.

Thanks for your efforts and for reading my comments.

William L. Mansker, Ph.D.
wlminex
 
wlminex said:
but the forum has degraded into an unprofessional mish-mash of self-promoting 'talking-heads'
Click to expand...
You're the guy who spammed his work everywhere and had to be told to stop. I hardly think you accusing others of being self promoting is hypocrisy free. As for unscientific, your claims are utterly unscientific.

Clearly you didn't like being told your claims were nonsense and now you're having a hissy fit, just like you whined about supposedly being treated differently when you were being treated exactly the same.
 
wlminex said:
James T:

As I plan for my departure from Sciforum, I thought you might be interested in a few of my observtions:

1. Contrary to my high hopes and expectations for your forum, I have been greatly disappointed in it and the promise that I anticipated for exchanging scientific ideas.

2. The Sciforum moderators, and some administrators, seem bent on preserving their own belief systems and preserving their petty egos to the detriment of science and by not honoring an honest and meaningful exchange of new ideas that may not conform with mainstream ideas. Members seem to be continually harangued, belittled, insulted, and chided by moderators (and some other members) for their honest and meaningful attempts to contribute original, innovative, and creative thinking.

3. I have come to the conclusion that Sciforum has become adulterated and trivialized by the behavior of the moderators and their permitting of similar member behavior. Professional degradation should NOT be allowed by moderators or members, and profanity and demeaning posts should be immediately deleted, or dealt-with harshly by administrators.

I'm sure that the original intent of Sciforum was to foster an honest and beneficial exchange of ideas that would benefit the scientific community; but the forum has degraded into an unprofessional mish-mash of self-promoting 'talking-heads' that serve to be the antithesis of an otherwise original honorable intent.

I will certainly NOT recommend Sciforum to colleagues as an objective forum for advancing new knowledge in the quest for scientific truths.

Thanks for your efforts and for reading my comments.

William L. Mansker, Ph.D.
wlminex
Click to expand...

Geeze, what a sanctimonious load of crap.:bawl:
 
I'm back . . . . . Think I'll stick to posting on this thread (mine) only . . . If anyone is interested in the details of EEMU Hypothesis, thanks for contributing constructive posts here. Please use decorum and civility. I sincerely appreciate your interest, comments, and logical reasoning. wlminex

(MOD - One-time, OFF-TOPIC comment): I observed that, during my recent 3-day ban - for 'trolling and wasting the moderators time' - there is something to be said for reading reasonable, earnest, honest posts and declining to respond to self-effacing 'scientific politics' . . . it's fairly easy to ferret-out the genuine scientists from those who think they are (genuine scientists).

BTW: Wishing all a properous and enlightening New Year!
 
Last edited:
for those who are interested . . . . a read of QW's Post #5 questions, and my response, are a good starting point for continuing discussions.

Please note that I am NOT a mathematician . . . just a lowly (acc/some) geologist . . . . I AM a believer in the Scientific Method and I use it continuously in my research and in my work. This thread discusses an alternative "hypothesis" . . . NOT a theory (yet!) that is based solely on MY 'interpretation' of current observations and others' hypotheses regarding cosmological phenomena. I have no rigorous (i.e., mathematical) "proofs" for the speculative hypothesis that I present here, but I have tried to insert as much quanitative info as I have gleaned - from known observations and estimates for currently-accepted 'values' - to enable some one of the 'maths persuasion' to more rigorously evaluate and comment-on the hypothesis - if they are so inclined.

Thanks for your constructive criticism and comments.

wlminex
 
Last edited:
Here are some definitions used in the EEMU Hypothesis:

Definitions and Assumptions (as used in EEMU Hypothesis)

Definitions

c = speed of light; upper limit in the material, observable universe (MR; Material Reality); lower limit in SQR (Subquantal Reality) (dark energy/matter). Wikipedia: The speed of light in vacuum, usually denoted by c, is a physical constant important in many areas of physics. Its value is 299,792,458 metres per second.

Dark Energy = superluminal (tachyonic) energy matrix; equivalent to SQR in EEMU Hypothesis. Wikipedia: dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to accelerate the expansion of the universe.

Dark Mass = superluminal (tachyonic) proto-mass; includes quarks, gluons, dark matter, and possible strings and branes. Wikipedia: Dark matter is matter that is undetectable by its emitted radiation, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects.

E=mc^2 = Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence relationship; applicable to the observable GR universe. Wikipedia: mass–energy equivalence is the concept that the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. In this concept, mass is a property of all energy, and energy is a property of all mass, and the two properties are connected by a constant.

Ed=md + CMBR = Direct mass-energy equivalence relationship; applicable to SQR; Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) is residual from the conversion of Ed --> md

Gluon = attractive energy field that binds quarks. Wikipedia: Gluons are elementary particles which act as the exchange particles (or gauge bosons) for the color force between quarks, analogous to the exchange of photons in the electromagnetic force between two charged particles

Mass = (m) Observable, detectible subatomic and atomic particles (baryons); components of material reality (MR) in EEMU Hypothesis. Wikipedia: In physics, mass, more specifically inertial mass, can be defined as a quantitative measure of an object's resistance to the change of its speed.

MR = Material Reality in the EEMU Hypothesis; synonymous with the observable universe

Pre-existent Universe = Dark energy-dark mass universe that preceded and is coeval with the observable, material universe space-time fabric, from which and into which, MR is continually evolving via the SQR --> MR transition.

QGP = Quark-Gluon Plasma Wikipedia: A quark–gluon plasma (QGP) or quark soup is a phase of quantum chromodynamics (QCD) which exists at extremely high temperature and/or density. This phase consists of asymptotically free quarks and gluons.

Quark = quantum mass component of virtual particles (VP) and mass (MR) (neutrons and protons). Wikipedia: A quark is an elementary particle and a fundamental constituent of matter. Quarks combine to form composite particles called hadrons, the most stable of which are protons and neutrons, the components of atomic nuclei.

SQR = Subquantal Reality in the EEMU Hypothesis; synonymous (?) with dark energy and Quark-Gluon Plasma (QGP).

Tachyon = a superluminal entity (energy or mass) that vibrates or propagates at speeds greater than c; typically in SQR, dark energy (Ed) or dark mass (md). Wikipedia: A tachyon is a hypothetical subatomic particle that always moves faster than light. In the language of special relativity, a tachyon would be a particle with space-like four-momentum and imaginary proper time.

VP = Virtual Particle = An intermediate quantum state between the SQR MR transition. Wikipedia: A particle that exists for a limited time and space. The energy and momentum of a virtual particle are uncertain according to the uncertainty principle. The degree of uncertainty of each is inversely proportional to time duration (for energy) or to position span (for momentum).
 
Last edited:
REPOSTED FROM PREVIOUS THREAD . . . . more germaine to this topic . . wlminex

Doing some surfing re: dark energy . . . looked at this link:

http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics...s-dark-energy/

It is really interesting to note NASA's speculation (see figure narrative) that sometime in the universe history, 'dark energy' began "pulling-apart" the universe.

Of course it's only my OOB speculation . . . . but instead of a BB (Standard Model) . . .could not a 'pre-existing' universe condition - comprised only of dark energy (and perhaps also dark matter) . . . have "pulled" the material universe into existence? In other words, the 'dark energy' is not expanding the universe via 'pushing' everything apart (aka AE's cosmolgical constant). . . but simply continuing to 'pull' (at a continually increasing rate of acceleration) the universe into a continuing evolution? Might be an argument here for 'no eventual end' to the material universe?

Regards,
wlminex
 
Last edited:
. . . NOTE . . . my last speculation about dark energy presupposes a pre-existent universe (see definitions) comprised of only dark energy (equivalent to QGP or my SQR). Dark energy may be superluminal (that's why we can't yet detect it, directly). I visualize dark energy as transcending (mechanism?) to more substantial mass precursors (quarks, gluons, etc.) via a very large total energy (of SQR) decrease, and thereby to VPs, then to MR, by an equilibrium evaporative process (EEMU = SQR --> MR). A current estimate for dark energy density is ~10^120 ergs/cc [citation needed]. My estimate of current 'mass' (MR) energy density is ~ 10 ^60 ergs/cc (via E=mc^2). EEMU speculates that this energy differential (for the transition SQR --> MR) is represented by CMBR (and perhaps cosmic rays). Pushing my 'speculation' a little further, I opine that the SQR (dark energy) --> MR transition initiates at > c (superluminal) in SQR and that when the process completes, MR is then contsrained to < c behavior. The transition process is inferred (by me) to follow a E --> m relationship (not unlike AE's E=mc^2) . . . but in which the "c^2" constant is either nonexistent - or different - due to the superluminal context of SQR.

BTW: I need a willing mathematician to numerically evaluate EEMU and help me define the speculative parameters.
 
Last edited:
(From previous Post): "The transition process is inferred (by me) to follow a E --> m relationship (not unlike AE's E=mc^2) . . . but in which the "c^2" constant is either nonexistent - or different - due to the superluminal context of SQR."

. . . . like . . . speculation here . . . perhaps E=mv^2 (where v>c) . . . or E=(-m)v^2 . . . (where E equivalence to negative mass x v^2) . . . . negative (=> dark energy, or => dark mass) ??

Granted . . . max velocity in MR is limited to c . . . . but v(may be)>c in SQR?
 
Last edited:
1/10/12 wlminex Note: Copied from my post on another (Physics & Math) Sciforum. An attempt to put the EEMU Hypothesis into current discussion context. "Names" are changed, thus . . . but process is identical. [Bracketed shows EEMU correlations]

↗ Gravity
QGP (dark energy) ↔ VP (dark mass) ↔ (temporary+permanent) 'mass' + residual QGP
↘ CMBR

QGP = Quark-Gluon Plasma
VP = Virtual Particle
CMBR = Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation

(Note: Gravity and CMBR should be above and below 'mass' respectively . . . not too good at putting graphics into text)

Added to this post: [SQR <--> VP --> MR + CMBR] (EEMU Correlations)
 
Last edited:
How can it be tested? I don't mean in a practical sense with your current resources (since I don't know them), I mean given free rein over suitable devices and grad students.

Is there a particular aspect of the universe which you feel is better described in EEMU than competing theories? What is it, and how could it be observed?
 
michael_taylor said:
How can it be tested? I don't mean in a practical sense with your current resources (since I don't know them), I mean given free rein over suitable devices and grad students.

Is there a particular aspect of the universe which you feel is better described in EEMU than competing theories? What is it, and how could it be observed?
Click to expand...

MT: Good questions!

1) How can it be tested?

Probably can't, with our currrent resources and standard modeling preferences. EEMU is simply a hypothetical reinterpretation (mine) based on existing historic observations, inferences, and intuitive insight. 'Testing' is the next step in the scientific method. A constructive mathematical evaluation would be a good starting point, but I'm not a mathematician (no advanced math resources). Also, physical testing would require measurement and detection tools that we have not (yet) developed. Grad student participation and research would be a great resouce, but the Standard Model overwhelms most intuitive, alternative thinking (i.e., try to get research funding for OOB research!).

2) Is there a particular aspect of the universe which you feel is better described in EEMU than competing theories?

Yes - that aspect of the current Standard Model that "requires" a Big Bang (BB) origin. EEMU visualizes a continuous creation process (egads! . . . remember when?) through which the material (observable) universe (MR) evolves from a pre-existant, all-pervasive extremely high-energy condition (SQR; perhaps dark energy, QGP). The MR evolution process might also be generally visualized as a condensation (of matter) from the pre-existant condition - kind of like a 'sweating-out' of matter, generally speaking.

I also reinterpret the source of CMBR, ascribing it, again, to a continuously-forming product of the SQR --> MR process (Ref. EEMU narrative and graphics). The Standard Model attributes CMBR as a vestige of the original BB. In EEMU, the 'rate' of CMBR production is proportional to the 'rate' of SQR --> MR, thus, it is more or less a constant value that corresponds to the
measured (observed) ~ 2.7 deg K - the mode of CMBR production is the primary difference.

3) What is it, and how could it be observed?

A rigorous mathematical treatment of the CMBR continuous production option, involving simple Gibb's Free Energy calculations. From this one could logically get a handle on the SQR --> MR process and make similar calculations for SQR 'component' interactions. Energy-balance and mass-balance calculations for the SQR --> MR process should be relatively simple.

Direct detection of SQR is likely a few R&D generations away. In EEMU, I suggest magnetic resonance detectors. The extremely high frequency/energy aspects of the hypothsized SQR may be indirectly 'detected' using such a tool to look for ordered (predictable)magnetic harmonics induced by SQR interactions.

Thanks for your questions Michael . . . hope my responses are worthwhile.

Regards,

Bill Mansker
 
I've been trying to post a graphic visualization of the EEMU Hypothesis. It is in an album on my profile page . . . have a look there if you don't get it here . . .
 
picture.php


Here 'tis . . . . thanks for your view and comments . . . .
 
You do realise $$E=mc^{2}$$ isn't always true, right? It's only true for particles at rest. And for virtual particles it's not even true then! An over reliance on plastering the one and only equation you know from physics (every hack knows $$E=mc^{2}$$ and thinks its absolutely definitely always bang on) is a big red flag next to your work. You mention things like "A rigorous mathematical treatment of the CMBR continuous production option, involving simple Gibb's Free Energy calculations. From this one could logically get a handle on the SQR --> MR process and make similar calculations for SQR 'component' interactions. Energy-balance and mass-balance calculations for the SQR --> MR process should be relatively simple."

Let's see your mathematics.
 
AN: I bring in E = mc^2 and a working equivalence of mass and energy in the observed universe. I use other (similar) equations elsewherer in the model . . . .I am not the mathematician (perhaps you ARE?) . . . just the observational scientist (albeit, geologist). THIS IS AN HYPOTHESIS . . . I am "suggesting" avenues for further investigation of the HYPOTHESIS in order to evaluate it's viability. A primary 'math' is easy . . . . estimate of total SQR energy is based on numerous sources (that I cannot recall - but can find again) basically theoretical physics narratives re: QGP) is about 10^120 ergs. That, minus the estimated (again numerous sources) total energy of the observable universe (based on estimated mass and mass densities and using AE's famous equation, calculates to somewhere bewteen 10^60 and 10^75 ergs. According to EEMU, the "difference" MAY be ascribed to CMBR (continuously 'created' in the ongoimg EEMU process - not a BB remnant!), cosmic rays, and other yet undiscovered/detected 'stuff'. Basically . . . . SQR --> MR + CMBR + ? is the EEMU hypothetical process.

Since this is a "work-in-progress", I expect that some, if not many, of your questions may be anwserable in time . . . . . I will assist in those answers if I live long enough! . . . But, someone ELSE will have to provide the math "proofs" . . if indeed they exist!
 
Last edited:
I would appreciate some constructive feedback on the following:

Can one reinterpret the CMB Standard Model representation (i.e., left-over thermal relict of BB) as an ongoing, continuous process in which the 'process' generates CMB at a (fairly) uniform rate? In other words, is CMB possibly a uniform thermodynamic process that is continuing as the material universe evolves, rather than simply a vestige of BB 'cooling' as the universe expands? . . . Yes . . . . I KNOW . . . this suggestion smacks of "continuous creation" which has been out-of-favor for many years . . . .Thanks for your comments . . . please keep the math to a minimum . . . looking for logical and intuitive visualizations/thoughts!
 
(A little humor here) When evaluating my EEMU ideas and visualizations . . . . think about:

"Zwicky's radical ideas and pugnacious personality brought him into frequent conflict with his colleagues at Caltech. They considered him crazy and he considered them stupid."

—Freeman Dyson
 
Last edited:
This thread is simply a monologue, which would be more appropriate in someone's blog.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top