Big Bang Busted in Science Classes for High Schools

From Painius:

So i submit that perhaps our great
"uncle" actually *did* solve the puzzle,
but rather than put himself in a position
to be further sainthooded by science, he
decided to let a future brainiac have the
glory.

OR... Einstein *never* found the answer
because the over- adoring public
admiration and attention served to give
him a mental block that would not allow
him to be further idolized for having
solved the unification riddle.

We'll never know.

Considering the soul-wrenching consternation he dsplayed over his
"greatest blunder" involving the cosmological constant, a reversal of
the 'no medium' doctrine would be admission to a much bigger "blunder".
Yet Wolter totally believed the wry old elf, in his GR
'curvature' equations, gave us all the math we'll need; they will
extrapolate directly to the flowing-space model without modification.

As you say, it's a very big leap to go
from void space to flowing space. Such
"leaps of faith" are exceedingly rare in
science.

Actually (IMHO) the "derailment" in physics began with the M-M null
result _correctly_ indicating absence of a static, immobile medium.
M-M was not designed to look for a VERTICAL flow, which
is entirely consistent with a flowing, entrained medium. The
"derailment" became complete with Uncle A's laying down the 'no medium'
premise as bedrock doctrine, no doubt influenced by the prior M-M
interpretation. Had he considered a vertically-flowing, entrained medium
instead of the old static 'aether', the course of physics might've been
rdaically different and our understanding of gravity would've come as
easily as falling off a log. Heh.

And yet more scientists will have to
make the jump before they will actually
even *begin* to see..

Well, they really needn't go any further than to jump on a bath scale
and consider what the readout is actually indicating.. matter's
resistance to the flow of space.

...it seems to me to be simpler to see it
as space being absorbed by each atom
as it creates the nuclear forces. I see no
need for the flow of space to have to
return to its "origin" much like the flow of electricity inside a
battery cell. Therefore i cannot picture a need for the SCO.

This is essentially what Lindner, Warren, Shifner et al have done. They
just accept gravity for what it appears to be and behaves as, without
need for further embellishment or elaboration on the 'roach motel'
issue.

Did Wolter supply more detail as to why
space needs to be pressurized and why
it must return to the center rather than
just to be attracted by the atoms of
matter and absorbed by them?

His CBB model with its central 'Engine' or Primal Particle was already
in place *before* he recognized the flowing-space mechanism of gravity..
which became integral to, and a sidebar of the CBB model.
In his final months he became greatly vexed by the
'roach motel' issue. Then i found some books on the work of Bohm and
Pribram and their work involving holographics and quantum nonlocality
and gave them to him. With nonlocality being a proven transfer
mechanism, he immediately saw the 'roach motel' as being one and the
same "Place" where the spatial medium goes and from whence the Big Bang
issues forth. This was covered in much greater depth a coupla times
before, explaining his need for the SCO, 'non-plurality' as the natural
extension of nonlocality, and the nonlocal transfer from the
'singularity' at the core of every atomic nucleus back to the Singuarity
at the core of the Primal Particle.
To Nightbat: in a nutshell, Wolter did believe in a
*dimensonless* singularity; this 'dimensionless-ness' of ALL
singularities precludes their being plural; therefore there is only the
_state of singularity_ , the 'ground state' of being, from which emerges
the creation of space itself. Continuously and perpetually. With that,
the little guy was finally happy and at peace with his model, and closed
it. oc

nightbat wrote

Bill Sheppard wrote:

From Painius:

So i submit that perhaps our great
"uncle" actually *did* solve the puzzle,
but rather than put himself in a position
to be further sainthooded by science, he
decided to let a future brainiac have the
glory.

OR... Einstein *never* found the answer
because the over- adoring public
admiration and attention served to give
him a mental block that would not allow
him to be further idolized for having
solved the unification riddle.

We'll never know.

Considering the soul-wrenching consternation he dsplayed over his
"greatest blunder" involving the cosmological constant, a reversal of
the 'no medium' doctrine would be admission to a much bigger "blunder".
Yet Wolter totally believed the wry old elf, in his GR
'curvature' equations, gave us all the math we'll need; they will
extrapolate directly to the flowing-space model without modification.

As you say, it's a very big leap to go
from void space to flowing space. Such
"leaps of faith" are exceedingly rare in
science.

Actually (IMHO) the "derailment" in physics began with the M-M null
result _correctly_ indicating absence of a static, immobile medium.
M-M was not designed to look for a VERTICAL flow, which
is entirely consistent with a flowing, entrained medium. The
"derailment" became complete with Uncle A's laying down the 'no medium'
premise as bedrock doctrine, no doubt influenced by the prior M-M
interpretation. Had he considered a vertically-flowing, entrained medium
instead of the old static 'aether', the course of physics might've been
rdaically different and our understanding of gravity would've come as
easily as falling off a log. Heh.

And yet more scientists will have to
make the jump before they will actually
even *begin* to see..

Well, they really needn't go any further than to jump on a bath scale
and consider what the readout is actually indicating.. matter's
resistance to the flow of space.

...it seems to me to be simpler to see it
as space being absorbed by each atom
as it creates the nuclear forces. I see no
need for the flow of space to have to
return to its "origin" much like the flow of electricity inside a
battery cell. Therefore i cannot picture a need for the SCO.

This is essentially what Lindner, Warren, Shifner et al have done. They
just accept gravity for what it appears to be and behaves as, without
need for further embellishment or elaboration on the 'roach motel'
issue.

Did Wolter supply more detail as to why
space needs to be pressurized and why
it must return to the center rather than
just to be attracted by the atoms of
matter and absorbed by them?

His CBB model with its central 'Engine' or Primal Particle was already
in place *before* he recognized the flowing-space mechanism of gravity..
which became integral to, and a sidebar of the CBB model.
In his final months he became greatly vexed by the
'roach motel' issue. Then i found some books on the work of Bohm and
Pribram and their work involving holographics and quantum nonlocality
and gave them to him. With nonlocality being a proven transfer
mechanism, he immediately saw the 'roach motel' as being one and the
same "Place" where the spatial medium goes and from whence the Big Bang
issues forth. This was covered in much greater depth a coupla times
before, explaining his need for the SCO, 'non-plurality' as the natural
extension of nonlocality, and the nonlocal transfer from the
'singularity' at the core of every atomic nucleus back to the Singuarity
at the core of the Primal Particle.
To Nightbat: in a nutshell, Wolter did believe in a
*dimensonless* singularity; this 'dimensionless-ness' of ALL
singularities precludes their being plural; therefore there is only the
_state of singularity_ , the 'ground state' of being, from which emerges
the creation of space itself. Continuously and perpetually. With that,
the little guy was finally happy and at peace with his model, and closed
it. oc

nightbat

Oc, Paine, per Poe, be careful what doors you are attempting to
open, for once opened the cat is out of the bag.

Your discussion is very on target but I caution do you really want to
put to rest the roach motel or define and resolve finally the ghostly
space vacuum zero aether understanding? I have indicated that when the
baby GUT formulation is publicly displayed, as Paine has stated, the
poor brainiac authority status will be bestowed on and include them
being lofty elevated and of the warned E curse of credit.

The classical aether of pre SP-R was thought Maxwell-Lorentz
mathematical formulated basically mechanical macro physical based not
the true full encompassing physics or of later electromagnetic quantum
understanding which Dr. Einstein did not choose to embrace due to the
Planck length reality and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle pointing
mathematics. To base a universe understanding stemming from the premise
of the invisible quantum in light of the null result of the MM
experiment and uncertainty seemed counter logical to Einstein's attempt
at unified field macro gravitation attempt.

The positive fruition of further understanding of the electromagnetic
nature of the fields and physical transfer ability of energy to matter
and vice versa affirmed the quantum basis of energy of which Dr.
Einstein reluctantly ushered in. It is this further present quantum or
micro energy state of Nature that is still not quite fully understood by
all and presents the resolution enigma of fundamental field unity. The
back is on the clock as Big E would say and prevents all direct scrutiny
except to mathematical and theoretical detecting per collision effects
and inferring quantum states down to 10*33 and beyond.

Despite the Nature basis of the sub micro quantum and because of the
null MM result it was that the man made working applied inertial
coordinate systems were not effected by the ghostly non detectable
aether so for all intensive purposes it was expedient. Not that it was
proved non existent but obsolete or unnecessary for purposes of being
taken into account.

One can build a house or structure not on rock bed or by a dormant
volcano, however, the push comes to shove when under not built on
foundation Nature based frame and the ground begins to shake and the
silent volcano comes 100-1000 year alive, then the disregard of all
Nature viable is not relative or correct. Relativity is man made not
first case Nature formulated. It basically is applicable and works for
all normal gravity based frames within our local coordinate systems and
detectable distant ones. The observed metric gravity nature is by non
falsification default correct but the affine or left handiness is not
proofed to date impossible.

See:http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomfr...F13%2F12%2F016

Oc, Paine, I can't tell you enough the importance of the space flow
energy/matter principle and how it relates to the full gravity field
unified understanding. I differ with Wolter's model only in the need for
a supposed return to a cosmic large background, around the bend, toroid
like engine. Not that I disregard its theoretical basis just that it is
not necessary for universal internal unified field understanding. The
what's beyond the observable Universe or outer limits is where the
Wolter model is possibly immensely encompassing and way beyond the scope
of the standard model. And then on the other hand his understandings may
have been just directed towards a central theorized deduced single
cosmic engine and not the intrinsic fields themselves like mine.

By your directed Wolter model basing all flow towards the atom nucleus
it overlooks the potential for combined and overlapping field dynamics
finer propensity of the quantum energy background field flow to mediate
towards attempt at equilibrium apart from point backup macro singularity
creating high energy strong force, weak, or electromagnetic field
effects. The true cause and effect then of the observed weak gravity
force is the attempt return to default undisturbed uniform momentum
state of the however present non uniform fields themselves. The proofed
indestructibility of energy and its pointing curve towards quantum
ground base state precludes without equal and overriding non chaotic
neutralizing force or operator. In the absence of same the universe is
destined to remain in chaos and renormalization mode under first case
rule.

One good note, the boys over in sci.physics,
alt.sci.physics.new-theories, and sci.physics.relativity are now finally
beginning to reconsider the state of the zero mechanical aether from the
E and company discarded classical state to the invisible true quantum
based sub micro electro Nature flow one.

later, Oc and Paine
the nightbat

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...

Yet Wolter totally believed the wry old elf, in his GR
'curvature' equations, gave us all the math we'll need; they will
extrapolate directly to the flowing-space model without modification.

"The inclusion of the word "all" is unfortunate"
- Bill Sheppard -

From jb:

"The inclusion of the word "all" is
unfortunate"

Yeah, yeah. That quote, as you are well aware, is lifted from the
context of 'gravity wave' polarization.
The context referred to here, as you are well aware, is
GR's 'curvature' metric, the equations of which are sufficient to
extrapolate to flowing space without modification or addition. Too bad
you don't understand context, or choose to ignore it.
But then, you have the same problem with analogies, don't
you? oc

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
From jb:

"The inclusion of the word "all" is
unfortunate"

Yeah, yeah. That quote, as you are well aware, is lifted from the
context of 'gravity wave' polarization.
The context referred to here, as you are well aware, is
GR's 'curvature' metric, the equations of which are sufficient to
extrapolate to flowing space without modification or addition. Too bad
you don't understand context, or choose to ignore it.
But then, you have the same problem with analogies, don't
you? oc

Everyone should have problems with analogies. Analogies can help people to
"visualize" concepts, but they can/should not be used as "proof" of concept.

Analogies can help people to "visualize"
concepts, but they can/should not be
used as "proof" of concept.

Agreed, absolutely.
But Mr. jb will deliberately and disingenuously insinuate
an analogy is meant literally (remember the centrifugal pump analogy,
jb?). OR, he honestly does not grasp analogies, for which he is excused.
Doh.

From Mr.Shastry:

And so, when singularity is real its
universe has to be illusory.

This 'illusory' nature of the universe actualy springs from the
Vedic/Hindu belief in reincarnation. To escape the wheel of rebirth and
return permanently to the 'Real' domain, the sensory world is subjugated
and shunned as the 'illusory' or inferior state. Thru any of various
yogic disciplines, the devotee hopes to escape the illusion and regain
union with Atman or Oversoul.
A more mature version of the ancient belief is to
recognize the 'illusion' as very real with all its myriad adventures,
odysseys and iliads, joys and travails. The illusion (or dustbunny) is
just as real as the one substrate or Singuarity from which it springs,
and meant to be experienced to the fullest.

All singularities point to the same
singularity which is the basis of the
universe.

Here, your commentary dovetails perfectly with G.Wolter's
'non-plurality' or Law of One, in which the dimensionless 'singularity'
at the core of every atomic nucleus connects nonlocally with the
Singularity at the core of the Universe (the Primal Particle 'Engine'
that powers and sustains the universe. It is simultaneously the source
of the Continuous BB {CBB} and the 'intake' of the continuous 'Big
Crunch').

...it may be surprising to know that
singularity alone exists and nothing else. For, the universe appears
'on' and
disappears 'at' this singularity...

Again, this parallels the CBB model. Space is an unbroken continuum
exploding forth from the spinning Singularity at the core of the Primal
Particle to the outermost expansion of the 'donut', finally to be
re-ingested back thru the _poles_ of the Singularity, re-exploded
equatorially ad infinitum forever, like a perpetually-running gas
turbine. The 'donut' form outlines this continuous, flowing Process. It
is the most primal form in nature, displaying two hemispheres and a
common equator rotating on a polar axis, common to all rotating systems.
Meanwhile the sphere of our visible cosmos would be on the
scale of a marble embedded in a breakfast donut, somewhere in the
periphery of the donut. And since the 'Donut' is an unbroken
continuum/expansion of the Singularity itself, it can truly be said that
we, dustbunny and all, reside *inside* the Singularity, inside the BB
itself.
In this, Wolter's CBB model and Mr.Shastry seem to be in
pretty close agreement.
Now Nightbat will probably find issue here, but Wolter
deemed space a vast and incredibly rich information field, full of
immanifest potential, virtually a 'pre-sentience' that ultimately drives
biological evolution to its ultimate expression-- an upright biped
pondering its cosmic origin.
Mr.Shastry imputes 'consciousness' to the Singularity (or
to the state of singularity). Wolter said that if the Primal Particle
had voice and could speak, it could rightly proclaim "I am the Alpha and
Omega, the beginning and the end." This was his concept of God, and part
of what got him kicked out of the Mormon church. The other part was
saying that God can be perceived directly, without need for an
intermediary (meaning the church heirarchy). oc

nightbat wrote

Bill Sheppard wrote:

From Mr.Shastry:


Snip Philosophy and religious doodles

Bill
Now Nightbat will probably find issue here, but Wolter
deemed space a vast and incredibly rich information field, full of
immanifest potential, virtually a 'pre-sentience' that ultimately drives
biological evolution to its ultimate expression-- an upright biped
pondering its cosmic origin.
Mr.Shastry imputes 'consciousness' to the Singularity (or
to the state of singularity). Wolter said that if the Primal Particle
had voice and could speak, it could rightly proclaim "I am the Alpha and
Omega, the beginning and the end." This was his concept of God, and part
of what got him kicked out of the Mormon church. The other part was
saying that God can be perceived directly, without need for an
intermediary (meaning the church heirarchy). oc

nightbat

I humbly respect and do not take issue with philosophy or
religious issues, only however, when they are mixed in or attempted to
be defined as physics or cosmology. If both your Wolter's and Mr.
Shastry deducements claim conscience or consciousness attributes to
physics formulations or classical point singularity understanding the
result or basis will be null. No doubt if you try to mix physics with
Mormon religion you will also most likely get kicked out of said
religious organization.

Science is based on proofed postulates and testing not religious
beliefs. A model that provides for the understanding behind its macro or
micro quantum basis is within the purview of physics and cosmology not
wishful thinking. As soon as you start applying human based attributes
you're bound to exit science and enter sci-fi, religious based, or
fantasy mental derived premise.

Are all theoretical based models therefore null in proper applied
component derivations, no, but their implication of the sum particular
components as reflecting then the truth total inference as a must or
given is not always correct. And when that human total inference attempt
tries to conform or be subjected to ancient religious beliefs it many
times leads to unjustified or incorrect intertwined mixing and null
total premise.

Oc, I have explained, Mr. Shastry's illusory universe premise is null.
His also basing human or total conscience on classical zero singularity
mathematical abstract basis is also null. If and when Mr. Shastry can
get past his bias understandings and mixing perhaps logical dialog and
fundamental physics and cosmology subject can be properly discussed and
even deeper non intuitive theoretical formulations finally grasped on
his part.


the nightbat

From Nightbat:

I humbly respect and do not take issue
with philosophy or religious issues, only
however, when they are mixed in or
attempted to be defined as physics or
cosmology.

You're quite right, Night. Religion and physics don't generally mix,
like oil and water. That's assuming we're talking about the
fundamentalist concept of "God" as the personal, vindictive 'sky god'
with a long white beard, meting out individual rewards and punishments.
But it'd be worthwhile to review Uncle Albert's take on
the matter, as he was a deeply _spiritual_ individual (as opposed to
religious in the fundamentalist sense). He harbored a great awe and
reverance for the cosmos, and to him, 'universe', natural law, and 'God'
were melded and synonymous. See-
http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/einstein.htm
Of course he was classed as agnostic or even atheist by
fundamentalist standards (frames of referance again).

Likewise Stephen Hawking has similar views. See-
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...w/hawking.html

And Hawking is even a bit more brash than Uncle Albert in his views,
asserting his aspiration "to know the mind of God."

So in context, Shastry's and Wolter's views on 'Singularity' and such
are not so outlandish. Nor is Bert's 'anthropomorphic' cosmos, in which
biological evolution is driven by the universe's imperative to "see
itself".
And one might even cut 'Darla' some slack in her fanciful
idea of a "living, breathing universe". It does parallel the ancient
Vedic writers' "in-breath and out-breath of Brahma" and the modern
'BigBang-Big Crunch'. oc

nightbat wrote

Bill Sheppard wrote:

From Nightbat:

I humbly respect and do not take issue
with philosophy or religious issues, only
however, when they are mixed in or
attempted to be defined as physics or
cosmology.

You're quite right, Night. Religion and physics don't generally mix,
like oil and water. That's assuming we're talking about the
fundamentalist concept of "God" as the personal, vindictive 'sky god'
with a long white beard, meting out individual rewards and punishments.
But it'd be worthwhile to review Uncle Albert's take on
the matter, as he was a deeply _spiritual_ individual (as opposed to
religious in the fundamentalist sense). He harbored a great awe and
reverance for the cosmos, and to him, 'universe', natural law, and 'God'
were melded and synonymous. See-
http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/einstein.htm
Of course he was classed as agnostic or even atheist by
fundamentalist standards (frames of referance again).

Likewise Stephen Hawking has similar views. See-
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...w/hawking.html

And Hawking is even a bit more brash than Uncle Albert in his views,
asserting his aspiration "to know the mind of God."

So in context, Shastry's and Wolter's views on 'Singularity' and such
are not so outlandish. Nor is Bert's 'anthropomorphic' cosmos, in which
biological evolution is driven by the universe's imperative to "see
itself".
And one might even cut 'Darla' some slack in her fanciful
idea of a "living, breathing universe". It does parallel the ancient
Vedic writers' "in-breath and out-breath of Brahma" and the modern
'BigBang-Big Crunch'. oc

nightbat

Yes oc, I'm familiar with the myriad of fundamental and
religious groups and have had heated discussions especially with
Mohammed followers who at first took serious issue with my indications
of reduced unified field to base energy. They accused nightbat of
blasphemy and indicating the indestructibility of mathematical proofed
energy cannot be linked to God or their Deity one and the same as that
made of a lower creature such as man. But I indicated that only what I
speak of is unified physics and their natural or religious connections
is for their own separate dedusements to make or accept. The elders
checked their reverent ancient writings and found nightbat indications
not in opposition put actually in accord with their most secretive
guarded respected scripts. Of that he who made or makes the night into
day.

I can't tell you oc, of my run ins with philosophical or religious
oriented folks wanting more and more answers to their beliefs or
understandings and what does my findings or equation mean to them and
the meaning of truth. I kindly remind them it is physics and nightbat
not the messiah or Buddha reincarnated. You know the search for the
unified field theory is utmost in theoretical mathematical physicist and
cosmological scientists researchers agenda.

Also I have explained the resolution for classical zero point
singularity to Mr. Shastry who apparently still does not grasp the
importance of its nightbat relay to him. That he refers singularity to
conscience is not within the purview of physics or cosmos investigation
but his own entwined understanding. True logic is non denominational nor
reserved for the assumed wise. It is simple truth once iterated
understood by the searching clear of heart and mind. Those that cling to
their own bias or pre assumed doctrines can never see the truth for what
it is, truth. It stands alone and the test of time, and reveals a more
all encumbering intrinsic knowledge not in favor of any particular one
or group, but for all.

And it is that of what I refer to in your friend Wolter's indicated
space flow principle which is in my model for gravitational unified
field dynamics. That the present non mass or macro physical undetectable
energy flow is not only towards the nucleus (matter), as he may have
limited but profoundly grasped, but into the micro sub quantum base
field as duality of frames and understanding. It is the invisible
defaulted and pointing ground base energy field that the causation of
gravity force or effect searched for, is resolution. All four force
fields and/or effects are a direct link to attempt at renormalization in
a disturbed present non uniform momentum field. This ultra fine plastic
energy based quantum field is not penetrable to higher energy or mass in
non uniform higher spin or angular velocity. Yet supporting of their
energy and mass in point condensed buoyancy and wave form as they
attempt constant renormalization process.

Thought experiment: What supports a plastic inflated beach ball on the
surface of the water or pool and prevents its disbursement into the
medium? It is the air tight bladder and water proof plastic inflatable
ball outer skin surface substance and compressed air within in unison
that permits its equalization and displaced buoyancy. The reverse is
true for non uniform energy/mass to space vacuum. The immense ultra fine
in degree uniform plastic electro skin nature surface of the vacuum
under pressure permits the buoyancy of higher energy and condensed
matter as the reverse Earth observed beach ball. Without outside force
or operator there is no hope for present disturbed fields to completely
unify because of the amount of energy required to place the system in
total uniform motion. Therefore the actuality of chaotic system and non
destructibility of energy provides for under first case rule continuance
of bodies in at times equalized but still relative highly disturbed
university motion ad infinitum. The deduced space curvature (gravity
effect) however is always towards the micro base ground field permitting
backup formation and fields of collective point, group, or wave
energy/mass duality state as it attempts wave, group, or life particle
return to neutral ground under the quickest possible means or route of
least resistance and equalization. The greater the unneutralized
attractive accreditation of charge or particles the greater ability to
return to neutral skin ground unity conversely however tendency to
increase of energy or mass point buildup as localized sub micro to micro
virtual and into real or space mass condensed bodies. If you covered
yourself fully in neutral insulating substance like rubber, and became
in contact with a charged conductor, the highly charged positive
electric source, and depending on its amperage and voltage ratio, would
timely skim the entire shell rubber surface looking for a pin hole
opening towards equalized greater ground (You) to discharge itself. The
electric charge is not human, biologically, or deity alive but highly
electro charged live and it is just following the natural tendency to
renormalize to equalized closest base ground. Dr.Tesla would call this
understood always live disturbed field potential charge privately,
Spirit, and anyone who equates base Nature to deity is permitted but not
in physics or cosmology. And this only if it makes your day, or you find
like Tesla, or in Barry Manilow's song, that the Spirit moves you.

later oc,
the nightbat