|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#301
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message ... I thought concentrated mass caused the pressure/density to reduce - you know like it does near the Sun and the Earth. Please explain the difference. I thought this point had been made crystal clear, having delineated it several times already. No I think you have written what you think happens, but not explained WHY it works this way. Again, the expansion of space from the BB is the inverse of gravitation, constituting a dipole relationship between outflow and inflow. Inflow into gravitating masses is the reverse of outflow from the BB event. H.C.Warren says the same thing in his thesis, where he writes, "If gravitational processes are seen as the converse of Big Bang processes, then in combination nature reveals a dipole character." I love this - in semantic terms this says If assertion THEN converse Brilliant - can I do my own? If this theory is right then the rightness of this theory is self evident Ah, it's not as good as Warren's. ;-( |
#302
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message ... From OG: Let's try this again. . . I thought this point had been made crystal clear, having delineated it several times already. Again, the expansion of space from the BB is the inverse of gravitation, constituting a dipole relationship between outflow and inflow. So the expansion of the universe ADDS density to space. Good, This is good because this means that the space between stars has had its density continuously restored since the BB - is this why Wolter called it CBB? This answers the question that got lost earlier about why the pressure remained high in the space between stars. Yes, the inflow due to gravity is exactly matched by the increase of density due to the expansion of the universe - yup, that matches the quote "the expansion of space from the BB is the inverse of gravitation," Is that better? |
#303
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message ... From OG: Let's try this again. . . I thought this point had been made crystal clear, having delineated it several times already. Again, the expansion of space from the BB is the inverse of gravitation, constituting a dipole relationship between outflow and inflow. So the expansion of the universe ADDS density to space. Good, This is good because this means that the space between stars has had its density continuously restored since the BB - is this why Wolter called it CBB? This answers the question that got lost earlier about why the pressure remained high in the space between stars. Yes, the inflow due to gravity is exactly matched by the increase of density due to the expansion of the universe - yup, that matches the quote "the expansion of space from the BB is the inverse of gravitation," Is that better? |
#304
|
|||
|
|||
From OG:
So the expansion of the universe ADDS density to space. Good, This is good because this means that the space between stars has had its density continuously restored since the BB - is this why Wolter called it CBB? This answers the question that got lost earlier about why the pressure remained high in the space between stars. Owen, I just about wep' a tear at what you just said. You are *the* first person in my experience who has ever *got it* on that point... dunno what to say, it's a milestone, a watershed. Hell, maybe a Rubicon. Yes, that's what the CBB model is all about. A continuously-running 'Engine', a hypermassive, continuously exploding Singularity perpetually replenishes the 'stuff' of space and maintains its pressure. tt's the centerpiece of Wolter's model, which he called the Primal Particle (or PP). It lies out beyond the sphere of our visible cosmos (the 'known universe'), which has decoupled from the BB point. From our perspective here 'inside' our decoupled sphere, our perception is that there was a 'singular BB' and that it happened "everywhere at once" within our sphere. Yet from the 'outside' frame, we see a larger, overarching Process at work, like in the freon cycle with its central compressor. The moment Wolter recognized the spatial medium as a super energy-dense standing wave field, the next question begged what manner of 'Engine' and 'master oscillator' could there be, capable of driving and sustaining so energetic a field? String theory imputes some sort of vibratory underpinning to space, but remains mute on the 'Engine' driving it. Yes, the inflow due to gravity is exactly matched by the increase of density due to the expansion of the universe - yup, that matches the quote "the expansion of space from the BB is the inverse of gravitation," Is that better? Excellent beyond words, Owen. If you believe in the standard BB model (not to mention the CBB), you literally have half the question of gravitation solved. Only one simple modification to the equation is needed: replace the "void" with the spatial medium. The spatial medium is not the regid-lattice, immobile 'ether' of Lorentz, Einstein and the old theorists, but is the dynamic, fully-flowing, expansible-compressible, sub-Planck fluid of space. The old theorists had no concept of its enormous energy density or its hydrostatic pressure. The very term 'ether' bespoke that which is spiritous, tenuous and insubstantial compared to matter. Einstein was right to finally throw out the old 'ether'. But in so doing, he threw out the baby with the bathwater. Instead of letting the old ether evolve naturally to reveal the real medium, the "void" was enshrined. And the rest, as they say, is history. In terms of energy density, it is matter that is ephemeral and tenuous, hence the oft-used 'dustbunny' moniker. I've gotta mark down today as the day another person actually 'got' the CBB idea along with the dipole nature of the BB process and gravitation. Sincerest Congradulations. Bill |
#305
|
|||
|
|||
From OG:
So the expansion of the universe ADDS density to space. Good, This is good because this means that the space between stars has had its density continuously restored since the BB - is this why Wolter called it CBB? This answers the question that got lost earlier about why the pressure remained high in the space between stars. Owen, I just about wep' a tear at what you just said. You are *the* first person in my experience who has ever *got it* on that point... dunno what to say, it's a milestone, a watershed. Hell, maybe a Rubicon. Yes, that's what the CBB model is all about. A continuously-running 'Engine', a hypermassive, continuously exploding Singularity perpetually replenishes the 'stuff' of space and maintains its pressure. tt's the centerpiece of Wolter's model, which he called the Primal Particle (or PP). It lies out beyond the sphere of our visible cosmos (the 'known universe'), which has decoupled from the BB point. From our perspective here 'inside' our decoupled sphere, our perception is that there was a 'singular BB' and that it happened "everywhere at once" within our sphere. Yet from the 'outside' frame, we see a larger, overarching Process at work, like in the freon cycle with its central compressor. The moment Wolter recognized the spatial medium as a super energy-dense standing wave field, the next question begged what manner of 'Engine' and 'master oscillator' could there be, capable of driving and sustaining so energetic a field? String theory imputes some sort of vibratory underpinning to space, but remains mute on the 'Engine' driving it. Yes, the inflow due to gravity is exactly matched by the increase of density due to the expansion of the universe - yup, that matches the quote "the expansion of space from the BB is the inverse of gravitation," Is that better? Excellent beyond words, Owen. If you believe in the standard BB model (not to mention the CBB), you literally have half the question of gravitation solved. Only one simple modification to the equation is needed: replace the "void" with the spatial medium. The spatial medium is not the regid-lattice, immobile 'ether' of Lorentz, Einstein and the old theorists, but is the dynamic, fully-flowing, expansible-compressible, sub-Planck fluid of space. The old theorists had no concept of its enormous energy density or its hydrostatic pressure. The very term 'ether' bespoke that which is spiritous, tenuous and insubstantial compared to matter. Einstein was right to finally throw out the old 'ether'. But in so doing, he threw out the baby with the bathwater. Instead of letting the old ether evolve naturally to reveal the real medium, the "void" was enshrined. And the rest, as they say, is history. In terms of energy density, it is matter that is ephemeral and tenuous, hence the oft-used 'dustbunny' moniker. I've gotta mark down today as the day another person actually 'got' the CBB idea along with the dipole nature of the BB process and gravitation. Sincerest Congradulations. Bill |
#306
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message ... From OG: So the expansion of the universe ADDS density to space. Good, This is good because this means that the space between stars has had its density continuously restored since the BB - is this why Wolter called it CBB? This answers the question that got lost earlier about why the pressure remained high in the space between stars. Owen, I just about wep' a tear at what you just said. You are *the* first person in my experience who has ever *got it* on that point... dunno what to say, it's a milestone, a watershed. Hell, maybe a Rubicon. Don't forget that just because I can describe the model, it doesn't mean that I believe it. I'll read the rest of your stuff. - no doubt there'll be more questions, but here's one for now. Why did you say that the density of free space was greater in the past? You said that the higher density in the past explained the SN1a observations, but now you're saying that the density wasn't higher in the past. Not ANOTHER typo? |
#307
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message ... From OG: So the expansion of the universe ADDS density to space. Good, This is good because this means that the space between stars has had its density continuously restored since the BB - is this why Wolter called it CBB? This answers the question that got lost earlier about why the pressure remained high in the space between stars. Owen, I just about wep' a tear at what you just said. You are *the* first person in my experience who has ever *got it* on that point... dunno what to say, it's a milestone, a watershed. Hell, maybe a Rubicon. Don't forget that just because I can describe the model, it doesn't mean that I believe it. I'll read the rest of your stuff. - no doubt there'll be more questions, but here's one for now. Why did you say that the density of free space was greater in the past? You said that the higher density in the past explained the SN1a observations, but now you're saying that the density wasn't higher in the past. Not ANOTHER typo? |
#308
|
|||
|
|||
Don't forget that just because I can describe the model, it doesn't mean that I believe it. Aw, shucks. Why did you say that the density of free space was greater in the past? You said that the higher density in the past explained the SN1a observations.. In any explosion, the most precipitous density-drop and expansion rate occurs in the first instant, then levels off gradually to flatilne. The so-called 'inflation' spike is necessary in the *absence* of an initial, precipitous density-drop to try to resolve the horizon problem. It stands to reason the most distant SN1a are lying in denser space, and their light has dimmed during propagation into less-dense space. You don't like the sound analogy, but try sending a sound beam straight up, and see if it gains or loses amplitude as it propagates into thinner and thinner air. ...but now you're saying that the density wasn't higher in the past. Duh. Where'd i say that ? No doubt there'll be more questions. No way, Jose. No more questions until *you* address each one of those 4 'Mainline Issues' you keep evading. You may do it in a new thread, as I am exiting this thread as of now. See you there. Toodle-oo oc |
#309
|
|||
|
|||
Don't forget that just because I can describe the model, it doesn't mean that I believe it. Aw, shucks. Why did you say that the density of free space was greater in the past? You said that the higher density in the past explained the SN1a observations.. In any explosion, the most precipitous density-drop and expansion rate occurs in the first instant, then levels off gradually to flatilne. The so-called 'inflation' spike is necessary in the *absence* of an initial, precipitous density-drop to try to resolve the horizon problem. It stands to reason the most distant SN1a are lying in denser space, and their light has dimmed during propagation into less-dense space. You don't like the sound analogy, but try sending a sound beam straight up, and see if it gains or loses amplitude as it propagates into thinner and thinner air. ...but now you're saying that the density wasn't higher in the past. Duh. Where'd i say that ? No doubt there'll be more questions. No way, Jose. No more questions until *you* address each one of those 4 'Mainline Issues' you keep evading. You may do it in a new thread, as I am exiting this thread as of now. See you there. Toodle-oo oc |
#310
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message ... Why did you say that the density of free space was greater in the past? You said that the higher density in the past explained the SN1a observations.. In any explosion, the most precipitous density-drop and expansion rate occurs in the first instant, then levels off gradually to flatilne. The so-called 'inflation' spike is necessary in the *absence* of an initial, precipitous density-drop to try to resolve the horizon problem. It stands to reason the most distant SN1a are lying in denser space, and their light has dimmed during propagation into less-dense space. You don't like the sound analogy, but try sending a sound beam straight up, and see if it gains or loses amplitude as it propagates into thinner and thinner air. ...but now you're saying that the density wasn't higher in the past. Duh. Where'd i say that ? Maybe in your bit that said "a hypermassive, continuously exploding Singularity perpetually replenishes the 'stuff' of space and maintains its pressure" Or is this "perpetual feature" something that only started later on. You claim to have a theory, it seems to me that you are making it up as you go along. For example - "The so-called 'inflation' spike is necessary in the *absence* of an initial, precipitous density-drop to try to resolve the horizon problem" You don't explain WHY this is necessary - you don't explain why it is important that there was an initial density drop. If there was a density drop it means that cycle didn't work at the beginning and suddenly started working later on! Some 'universal' theory this proves to be. also- "It stands to reason the most distant SN1a are lying in denser space," It only "stands to reason" that you have to introduce this to explain the phenomenon. Would you like me to come up with a feasible explanation for this on the basis of a FS model ? - I probably could without too much difficulty - after all, I feel like I've actually given more explanation for phenomena than you have in this thread. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Information to Can Leave A Black Hole | flamestar | Science | 2 | December 12th 03 11:12 PM |
information can leave a black hole | James Briggs | Science | 0 | December 6th 03 01:15 AM |
Chandra 'Hears' A Black Hole | Ron Baalke | Misc | 30 | October 4th 03 06:22 PM |
Black hole mass-sigma correlation | Hans Aberg | Research | 44 | October 1st 03 11:39 PM |
Universe Born in Black Hole Explosion? | Klaatu | Amateur Astronomy | 12 | September 21st 03 12:12 AM |