 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008Dark Energy: 21st Century Version Ether
Dark matter is singularities in the form of black holes; dark energy is a distortion of expectations due to time dilation. The one-way arrow of time can be accounted for by the movement from field/area which is energy, to the consolidation to centers and ultimately a universal singularity, that becomes the new big bang, and a return to energy or field expression. The term that "dark energy is negative mass density in vacuum" is a language translation from mathematics to english. The problem is that truth has never been derived using math only, human imagination that is then transcribed using language, whether english or mathematics is the way that understanding is advanced. Since math is more rigorous it is often preferred. I began this thread to outline these ideas. I'm currently attempting to out-line these ideas in the language of mathematics using a tangent function rather than a sinusoidal function. P.C.Stelzner > Dark matter is singularities in the form of black holes; dark > energy is a distortion of expectations due to time dilation. The [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > of mathematics using a tangent function rather than a sinusoidal > function. Singularities are a violation of everything we know about atoms. Make 2 atoms fit into the same physical space that one atom takes up and stand near it to observe. What happens? It proves to you. no singularities ever! :)  SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman Spaceman, It's late here on the west coast of America, It's got to be even later where you're at! Thanks for replying, singularities are a super concentration of matter; but when you you introduce 2 atoms occupying the space of one, this is a violation of the definition of superimposistion that Heisenberg outlined. Do you agree with the concept of black holes? P.C.Stelzner > Spaceman, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > superimposistion that Heisenberg outlined. Do you agree with the > concept of black holes? I do not agree with the Einstein concept of black holes. and I really do not agree with anything that has a singularity being a cause at all. As you know 2 atoms can not occupy the same space, so what would form a singularity at all? spaceman, Two atoms combining is not the same as them being in the same place. Two hydrogen atoms become a helium atom through nuclear synthesis, though they don't occupy the same place. When electron shells consolidate with a proton, they resolve into a neutron along with the binding energy. When neutrons close they become a neutron star. This condensing continues until a black-hole is formed. A super dense ensemble of material that has gravitational characteristics so strong that even light particles cannot resist It's pull. The particles of mass, neutrons are as close together as it gets, and gravity rules. Gravity the weakest of all forces, but the most resolute! P.C.Stelzner > spaceman, > Two atoms combining is not the same as them being in the same > place. Dear Paul, They would need to be in the same space and actually in a smaller space to prove a singularity could exist at all. > Two hydrogen atoms become a helium atom through nuclear > synthesis, though they don't occupy the same place. When electron [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > gravity rules. Gravity the weakest of all forces, but the most > resolute! It is not that photons can't resist its pull, It is that electrons and anything else behind the "black" of the black hole can not vibrate to produce waves at all. The gravity is too strong for any vibration to occur at all. And the point of the 2 atoms in the same spot is that someone would have to prove they could do such for a singularity to exist at all. 2 atoms would have to completely fit in the same spot and be smaller than the original 2 volumes to begin with. and of course.. Singularities would need to have a lot more atoms than just two to create a singularity that could cause a Universe to be created. I don't even want to think abotu the number of atoms that would have to fit in this singularity joke that is being called the Big Bang cause. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman > Dark matter is singularities in the form of black holes; dark > energy is a distortion of expectations due to time dilation. The one-way [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > P.C.Stelzner No Center http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html Sam, I have read the links you supplied and I respect the work being done at UCLA. I do want to explain though: I don't advocate a center to the visible universe, only a beginning to the extant universe in the form of a big-bang. I propose that the early universe was composed of photons, the most energetic form of substance; then the universe moved towards a more matter like state, a consolidation toward centers across the total universe e.g.: Solar systems move toward suns; galaxies move toward there central dark holes, till al these accretions combine to form a total singularity that is a universal black hole. Which then becomes the new big-bang. P.C.Stelzner > Sam, > I have read the links you supplied and I respect the work being [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > P.C.Stelzner Lots of ideas are proposed Paul... but the evidence does not favor your idea. The expansion will dominate, not gravitation. > > Sam, > > I have read the links you supplied and I respect the work being [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Sam, It’s my understanding that the evidence for expansion is derived from type-1a supernova standard candles that appear dimmer than expectations using general relativity theory. But doesn’t this suppose the rate of time we perceive for that inertial frame the universe was in, when we view the supernovas, is the same as our current inertial frame? Sort of like a twin paradox, but on a grand scale of time and distance. We look back and see these standard candles, we know how bright they are so we can estimate there distance. But they are moving so fast, which we can tell by their red- shifts, which would imply that their experience of time is effected, but more importantly, our perspective of there progress would be affected. This effect would seem to necessitate that a derivate must be applied to the time rate to compensate for the apparent dilation when viewed from our inertial perspective. This derivative should account for the supernovas being further along than would otherwise be modeled. This is also fundamental to understanding why we have what appears to be a superluminal initial expansion during the beginning of the big-bang. The universe would move forward, but time would not, we would then get the view from our perspective that the universe just shot out into area with a faster that light-speed gain. P.C.Stelzner > Sam, > It’s my understanding that the evidence for expansion is [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > would then get the view from our perspective that the universe just > shot out into area with a faster that light-speed gain. If you wish to speak of science you should drop the silly time slowing bologna. This crap belongs in the relativity group where the rubber ruler and malfunctioning clock worshippers are. If you wish to use the multiple standards of relativity, go play with the brainwashed lemmings and crash into something that could care less about the time dilation bullshit like planets and stars and.... oh ya.. The entire Universe. time does not slow, only actions and reactions do. and time must keep track of that slowing using a standard single rate of time, not a mutliple bullshit rate of time. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jul 2, 11:26 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > paul...@webtv.net wrote: > > Sam, [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Original energy was dark. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.