Origin of the universe.

On 2006-12-30 16:03:10 +0000, "malibu" said:

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
On 2006-12-30 15:33:09 +0000, "malibu" said:

A quantity of matter, presumably virtual pairs that have
been given enough energy to continue to exist (how?),
if large enough, will suck itself together with enough
force to become a Black Hole, independently of
anything else in space?

Stellar remnants
--
Explain.

Why? Are you incapable of doing your own research?

No, scratch that - you obviously are.

--

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to
persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

Carl Sagan


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On 2006-12-30 15:58:47 +0000, "malibu" said:

At least Ken is providing some kind of source
for this; an outside impetus that pressures his 'strings'
together. Even if the source is unidentified, at least he isn't
completely working in a vacuum.
Like you. Or is it 'from' a vacuum, in your case?

Ken does try and explain things. Unlike you.
--

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to
persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

Carl Sagan


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
On 2006-12-30 16:03:10 +0000, "malibu" said:

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
On 2006-12-30 15:33:09 +0000, "malibu" said:

A quantity of matter, presumably virtual pairs that have
been given enough energy to continue to exist (how?),
if large enough, will suck itself together with enough
force to become a Black Hole, independently of
anything else in space?

Stellar remnants
--
Explain.

Why? Are you incapable of doing your own research?

No, scratch that - you obviously are.

Believe what you want.

Gravitational collapse into a Black Hole is
an idea stemming from thinking matter sucks.
It does not. It absorbs incoming energy to run
its electrons. Research your ass. It has a hole, too.
And it doesn't suck- it blows.

Read and believe or think.
I guess you can do the
former but not the latter.

Duck.

John
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john

On 2006-12-30 18:44:05 +0000, "malibu" said:

Gravitational collapse into a Black Hole is
an idea stemming from thinking matter sucks.
It does not. It absorbs incoming energy to run
its electrons. Research your ass. It has a hole, too.
And it doesn't suck- it blows.

Read and believe or think.
I guess you can do the
former but not the latter.

Duck.


You have a truly perverse idea of modern physics.

--

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to
persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

Carl Sagan


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

kenseto wrote:

Model Mechanics supposes that a stationary substance, called the 'E-Matrix',
occupies all of pure-space (void) in our Universe. Subsequently, we
perceive the E-Matrix as space. The E-Matrix, in turn, is composed of
'E-Strings', which are very thin three-dimensional elastic objects, of
diameter estimated at 10^-33 cm. The length of an E-String is not defined.
Away from matter, the E-Strings are oriented randomly in all directions.
This means that a slice of the E-Matrix in any direction will look the same.
Near matter, the E-Strings are more organized: some emanate from the matter,
and the number of these passing through a unit area followed the well-known
inverse square law of physics. The E-Strings repel each other. This means
that there is an unknown outside force that is compacting them together.
The repulsive force and the compacting force are in equilibrium. This state
of the E-Matrix allows massive matter particles to move freely within it.

Ken Seto




Okay, it would seem that this idea (hardly a theory or even a working
hypothesis) ASSUMES the existence of something, which contain
ARBITRARILY dimensioned randomly-oriented objects, that repel each other
and require an UNSPECIFIED external compacting force.

Seems like a lot of underlying, untestable assumptions compared to the
current theory based on GR and demonstrated space-time curvature.

In sci.physics.relativity, Scott Miller

wrote
on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 16:51:11 -0500
:
kenseto wrote:

Model Mechanics supposes that a stationary substance, called the 'E-Matrix',
occupies all of pure-space (void) in our Universe. Subsequently, we
perceive the E-Matrix as space. The E-Matrix, in turn, is composed of
'E-Strings', which are very thin three-dimensional elastic objects, of
diameter estimated at 10^-33 cm. The length of an E-String is not defined.
Away from matter, the E-Strings are oriented randomly in all directions.
This means that a slice of the E-Matrix in any direction will look the same.
Near matter, the E-Strings are more organized: some emanate from the matter,
and the number of these passing through a unit area followed the well-known
inverse square law of physics. The E-Strings repel each other. This means
that there is an unknown outside force that is compacting them together.
The repulsive force and the compacting force are in equilibrium. This state
of the E-Matrix allows massive matter particles to move freely within it.

Ken Seto




Okay, it would seem that this idea (hardly a theory or even a working
hypothesis) ASSUMES the existence of something, which contain
ARBITRARILY dimensioned randomly-oriented objects, that repel each other
and require an UNSPECIFIED external compacting force.

Seems like a lot of underlying, untestable assumptions compared to the
current theory based on GR and demonstrated space-time curvature.

There's some peculiarities in the current GR theory that
make me nervous.

[1] "Dark matter". This one's relatively minor as one can
easily assume chunks of ice, rock, or gas running around,
as much as need be consistent with the hypothesis that
no one can see it. If there's enough of the matter
running around, of course, it will block out certain
light wavelengths and we can detect it -- such as the
Horsehead Nebula. One might also postulate free-roaming
black holes -- and such have also been observed, AFAIK.
(There are of course black holes near to stars, sucking
the gas therefrom and causing hot X-rays; Cygnus X-1 is
probably the best known thereof.)

[2] "Dark energy". This is so much phlogiston to me,
though one might make a case that there's energy one cannot
detect as it's very low frequency radiation, or very high
frequency radiation, and of course Earth-based telescopes
have our atmosphere to contend with, blocking various
wavelengths. However, I can't say I'm all that competent
to critique it; it just makes me nervous, especially since
the disparity is reported to be about 70% dark energy,
25% dark matter, 5% lit matter, if memory serves. That's
an awful lot of unobservable energy though there was the
report of two galaxies colliding validating dark energy.
But I'm still nervous.

[3] Acceleration of Hubble. This frankly makes no sense;
how can the Universe accelerate its velocity? Or is it
slowing down as things get nearer to the Earth? That might
make sense but I'd have to look. Einstein assumed a static
cosmological constant in his theories but that was before
Hubble discovered the red shift.

[4] Matter-Antimatter disparity. Admittedly, this may be
far outside GR's competence anyway (it's more a QM thing),
and maybe it's just a random flip in the time between
the actual birth of the Universe and 10^-44 or so seconds
afterwards. God only knows -- and I doubt He/She/It/They
will bother to tell us directly; we'll just have to figure
it out on our own. :-)

[5] The GR/QM dichotomy. Why haven't these merged yet?
I'm not sure replacing Schroedinger with Dirac counts here. :-)

Granted, Newton's theory is even less well-equipped to
explain all this than Einstein's; I'm not going to give up
on GR just yet, especially since my knowledge on tensors
is very limited as well.

And then there's Mr. Seto's ideas. You might look at
his experimental description; the precision therein is
extremely lacking. Hafele and Keating, for example,
at least give an estimate of what they expect during the
clock trips (including measurement error bars) -- and the
observed results are in agreement therewith.

Mr. Seto merely mentions that he expects the delta-T's to
be "greater than zero", but with no estimates as to how much.
Hopefully he'll fix that in his 2007 variant of his experiment. :-)

--
#191,
Linux sucks efficiently, but Windows just blows around
a lot of hot air and vapor.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

malibu wrote:
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
On 2006-12-30 16:03:10 +0000, "malibu" said:

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
On 2006-12-30 15:33:09 +0000, "malibu" said:

A quantity of matter, presumably virtual pairs that have
been given enough energy to continue to exist (how?),
if large enough, will suck itself together with enough
force to become a Black Hole, independently of
anything else in space?

Stellar remnants
--
Explain.

Why? Are you incapable of doing your own research?

No, scratch that - you obviously are.

Believe what you want.

Gravitational collapse into a Black Hole is
an idea stemming from thinking matter sucks.
It does not. It absorbs incoming energy to run
its electrons. Research your ass. It has a hole, too.
And it doesn't suck- it blows.

Read and believe or think.
I guess you can do the
former but not the latter.

Duck.

John
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john

I can't help but wonder where you were "educated".

On 2006-12-31 00:47:00 +0000, "Eric Gisse" said:


John
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john

I can't help but wonder where you were "educated".

Sesame street
--

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to
persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

Carl Sagan


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
On 2006-12-30 18:44:05 +0000, "malibu" said:

Gravitational collapse into a Black Hole is
an idea stemming from thinking matter sucks.
It does not. It absorbs incoming energy to run
its electrons. Research your ass. It has a hole, too.
And it doesn't suck- it blows.

Read and believe or think.
I guess you can do the
former but not the latter.

Duck.


You have a truly perverse idea of modern physics.


No, modern physics has truly perverse ideas.
i.e. electrons use no energy to run around their
atoms and, despite being charged and turning in tight
circles at great speed, do not radiate.
For one.
Duck.

John

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:


There's some peculiarities in the current GR theory that
make me nervous.

[1] "Dark matter". This one's relatively minor as one can
easily assume chunks of ice, rock, or gas running around,
as much as need be consistent with the hypothesis that
no one can see it. If there's enough of the matter
running around, of course, it will block out certain
light wavelengths and we can detect it -- such as the
Horsehead Nebula. One might also postulate free-roaming
black holes -- and such have also been observed, AFAIK.
(There are of course black holes near to stars, sucking
the gas therefrom and causing hot X-rays; Cygnus X-1 is
probably the best known thereof.)

Dark matter is non-GR. It comes from the observation of the flatness of
velocity curves in spiral galaxies, including our own. It has been
known since the 1930s when Zwicky and others pointed it out.

As to what it is, one rules out barionic matter, such as you suggest
(ice, rock, or gas running around...). The Horsehead Nebula is not an
example of dark matter either. Black holes have been proposed and
searched for using microlensing, but nothing conclusive yet.

And, for the record...black holes do not suck anything in. Matter and
em radiation simply follow the curvature of space-time caused by their
creation - think giant, extremely steep sliding board.


[2] "Dark energy". This is so much phlogiston to me,
though one might make a case that there's energy one cannot
detect as it's very low frequency radiation, or very high
frequency radiation, and of course Earth-based telescopes
have our atmosphere to contend with, blocking various
wavelengths. However, I can't say I'm all that competent
to critique it; it just makes me nervous, especially since
the disparity is reported to be about 70% dark energy,
25% dark matter, 5% lit matter, if memory serves. That's
an awful lot of unobservable energy though there was the
report of two galaxies colliding validating dark energy.
But I'm still nervous.

[3] Acceleration of Hubble. This frankly makes no sense;
how can the Universe accelerate its velocity? Or is it
slowing down as things get nearer to the Earth? That might
make sense but I'd have to look. Einstein assumed a static
cosmological constant in his theories but that was before
Hubble discovered the red shift.

These latter two are related. Dark energy was postulated because of the
observation that led to the discovery of the acceleration of the
universe. It is the cause of that effect in current cosmology. The
acceleration is current compared to the past according to two
independent discoveries using Type Ia supernova. Dark energy has been
proposed to explain that acceleration. I am a little more comfortable
with the observational evidence of acceleration as I have tried to make
sense of it myself over and over since the initial announcement. The
solution as dark energy still leaves me a bit skeptical until it falls
out of a more correct theory of gravity than GR.


[4] Matter-Antimatter disparity. Admittedly, this may be
far outside GR's competence anyway (it's more a QM thing),
and maybe it's just a random flip in the time between
the actual birth of the Universe and 10^-44 or so seconds
afterwards. God only knows -- and I doubt He/She/It/They
will bother to tell us directly; we'll just have to figure
it out on our own. :-)

Again, a more complete theory of gravity which delves more successfully
into the quantum regime may lead to understanding here - current
theories do not.


[5] The GR/QM dichotomy. Why haven't these merged yet?
I'm not sure replacing Schroedinger with Dirac counts here. :-)

Part of the dichotomy comes from not being able to create in the
laboratory the circumstances/environment in which these two were one
thing. Until we can create testable conditions, there are a host of
possible answers.


Granted, Newton's theory is even less well-equipped to
explain all this than Einstein's; I'm not going to give up
on GR just yet, especially since my knowledge on tensors
is very limited as well.

And then there's Mr. Seto's ideas. You might look at
his experimental description; the precision therein is
extremely lacking. Hafele and Keating, for example,
at least give an estimate of what they expect during the
clock trips (including measurement error bars) -- and the
observed results are in agreement therewith.

Mr. Seto merely mentions that he expects the delta-T's to
be "greater than zero", but with no estimates as to how much.
Hopefully he'll fix that in his 2007 variant of his experiment. :-)


I am simply quibbling with his definitions. There seems to be a lot
needed to be swallowed to proceed to his conclusions. It smells a lot
like knowing the answer one wishes to arrive at and creating the
circumstances that will drive home that answer. That is not how science
operates.