Origins Of The Universe.

"My knowledge"?

You mean stuff you don't know?

Why don't you stick to a subject like art appreciation, where everybodies opinion holds the same weight? That way, you don't have to deal with any facts.

From some of your postings, yeah, stuff you know, I do not know.

Shame you have absolutely no knowledge of art, the art world and/or the appreciation there of.

Due to many commitments let me apologise for this delayed, quick and dirty response,

Agreed, And I have it we have mathematics to thank for most of what we have been able to sort out..

I wholeheartedly agree with you that physical laws still apply as they do locally as they do beyond a theoretical Event Horizon, and as you suggest via relativity considerations, I reason as our locality is compressed inwards and towards the core, the event horizon will always remain at a relative distance..

Cheers,

Pete..

G'day

The classical event horizon is a theory. Since we have not seen an event horizon I think its a mistake to add facts to it.

Trapping horizons is another issue, where compact matter creates strong EM fields preventing EMR from escaping in some areas as a property of quantum dynamics.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.3518
Quantum Information Paradox: Real or Fictitious?

Authors: Abhas Mitra
(Submitted on 18 Nov 2009)

Agreed, BUT- I have a but..

Before I get into that though - that's why I referred to it as theoretical event horizon, although my second mention to an event horizon being theoretical was admittedly omitted, Err~sorry about that..

Now let me get back to that but,

Lets say each and every galaxy were a compression point and all mass was simply being compressed by the rest of the Universes Expansion..

If we consider our locality and as to how most distances remain relative, and yet as our locality is compressed inward to the Galaxies core or BH, all local and I stress local velocities and distances would seem to remain relative, but should we consider distances beyond our galaxy, our observable expanding universe would seem to be limited, suggesting a somewhat of a young universe, if it were not for other physical clues contradicting this conclusion.. Further more since repeating Red-shifting measurements we have discovered the implied expansion is accelerating..

Oh and here's the best part... when we measure Blue-Shifting and in particular towards the direction of the compression, I postulate Blue-Shifting is compounded by two factors, one being - as mass nears the compression point all distances as they are compressed or close in, still remain relative to local "c" as the speed of light would slow relative to "c" compared to a locality not experiencing the same degree of compression as yet..
Second if we are also with a momentum towards the same compression point we would need to be aware that electromagnetic waves originating from a locality preceding us may be transmitting "compressed" or Blue-shifted wavelengths and amplitudes, plus our localities velocity may be approaching already near the speed of light.. ergo the preceding region or area simply can not be detected in a normal manner..

I am exhausted and I need sleep so I am not sure If I have made myself clear or not as to how a compounded blue-shift may have to be considered.. I may follow up if need be tomorrow if time allows..

so cheers for now,

Pete..

Harry,

Mainstream to this day still seems to refer to an unexplained force "Attractive Force", where I don't, Another prevalent reference still persisting today is references to zero or less mass or energy where I don't for good reason, simply because mainstreams current oversight violates what is practically possible to both points..

A while back I tried to explain here why "Attractive force" should be removed from all text books, and in doing so would force all of mainstream to reconsider all physics that makes casual references to it, which I concede at this point in time is quite a significant chunk of mainstream physics needing massive revisions..

Needless to say I have failed to point out just how critical these oversights are and whats more the moderator of this forum even deemed it fitting that a temporary ban on me was in order..

Anyway,
Here's an example of an attractive inference which I hope brings to light current mainstream reasoning and what is entailed if one considers a bigger picture a picture as I prefer to involve myself to in understanding how each and every reference to attraction, including a magnets field and its over looked momentum is in fact possible, Some time ago I even had a self proclaimed Uni professor or teacher here insisting a magnetic field was with no momentum to it.. I guess Force and Motion constructs at the time must have completely slipped from the mind..

Anyway here's an analogy that separates reasoning as in "those with very little data" from "those who hold much more data" ergo considering more details and a much more accurate reference to a what some would refer to as a "attractive force expressed by some hole" mind you in today's climate both inferences are acceptable..

A passenger jet is flying high above as per usual, when one of its doors fails, and along with it a good portion of the hull is compromised, for a few seconds everything seems to be attracted to the opening, and as passengers speak or refer back to the event - Just like mainstream currently does with regards to attractive force - the hole is referred to as sucking, attracting much like as if Gravity has gone amok where the Hole attracts everything towards it as if the hole was with a magical attractive force to it..

Now most here should be well aware that jets fly around with compressed air within the cabins, pressurised around to the same compression or pressure one would expect at sea level, and because the atmosphere well above sea level is not as dense, so when a hull of a jet is compromised everything within the cabin will end up briefly being repulsed to where there is very little presented repulsion via the lower density "potential" beyond the Hole presented by the Atmosphere at high altitudes..

Having said that when ever mainstream makes reference to some attractive force, my mind tries to understand what is actually being referred to as one would in the future - Rather than what current mainstream are currently still practicing today, and I reason there will come a time mainstream will just have to concede if it is to advance in leaps and bounds..

Harry, every single density to me is treated to be a relative solid and or a compression point if its density is greater than its immediate environment, and this reasoning has come from me treating all mass and densities as originating from a single body of Energy and from there I have devised how Energy is able to present as a Near vacuum right through to a near Solid so I reason all possible densities are via a ratio of PE and KE, and here's the thing, a density that is with a ratio of very little PE to KE "such as a NEAR-Vacuum" is able to compress a density that is with a high ratio of PE to KE "A Particle.".

Here's something to ponder over as proof, how is it that a particle exists contained within a NEAR-Vacuum?

Treating all mass as various densities and or to be with various ratios of PE to KE gives me "I reason" a clearer understanding why attractive force simply is wrong..

I have run out of time for now..

But before I post, I ask two things and that is to consider how does any implied "attractive force" or implied attraction eventuate if one is to base it purely on Force and Motion Constructs?

And the other thing - Once all energy and or mass has been divided up and placed to else leaving nothing to divide and place to else, is it practically possible to refer to this nothing or implied less than nothing in a proper practical sense as something practical? what about if one comes by an equation making references to less than zero mass or energy? Is such a reference given serious considerations as to its validity?

I hazard to guess, my mentioning this will help sort out a lot of garbage being published out there..

Cheers,

Peter J Schoen..

G'day Laidback

I like your logic laidback

You said

Maybe reading up on cyclic universe and the various paper swritten on the subject. I could select some but the journey of seeking and getting the gist of it is more important.

Condensed Matter astrophysics 2010

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+2010+...r/0/1/0/all/0/1

and

Cyclic Universe
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+Cycli...e/0/1/0/all/0/1


How matter is compacted and how matter is ejected from such compaction allows for the transition of phases matter to energy and energy to matter. Matter does not lock up into one phase and stay there for eternity.

Quit the bollocks Harry. You know diddly-squat-zilch about any of the underpinning astrophysical rationale involved in the link-fest you present.

Go get a job flipping burgers (if you qualify), and generally hose off.

G'day

Thank you foghorn for your input.

To understand the universe one must understand the complexity and sometimes papers do not do the trick.

This link has alot of pictures for those that like pictures.


Galaxy Clusters
http://casswww.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/Clusters.html

University of California, San Diego
Center for Astrophysics & Space Sciences


We live in the Modern Era and ye some mothers do have them. That's life.

Here's the thing - What if harry has read only a portion of the hundreds of papers provide in those two links - mind you we are ignoring many of the other links provided in the past by harry, and how about you? What have you read in the Past? I am sorry but so far it seems from what you have to convey thus far equates to the following quote

NOW..
Who do you think presents as if they have more knowledge ergo the tools to sort out the BS if we are to go by Yours or Harry's Posts?

Who out of You and Harry do you think demonstrates they could Separate two sets of data or two different jigsaw puzzles placed in one heap, where one jigsaw puzzle models the universe accurately whilst the other a mixed big of religious crap that has the pieces even contradict its other pieces?

You charge harry to know diddly-squat-zilch, but so far Harry at least has provide references that are in line with this thread, you on the other hand seem to always have entered into whatever thread with much of the above load of rubbish!

Information that has nothing to do with the subject at hand, in fact "AGAIN" they just ooze with words that are highly likely to come from some religious nut who is hell bent in the pursuit in quashing the truth about the universe, so let me kindly advise you if youre not some religious nut, then please consider changing your posts content so they at the minimum present they are posted by someone with a little more credibility than some 4th grader..

Having said that and going on the bases of your past Posts contents - even a response at a kindergarten level is A~OK as long as the subject matter is conveyed, and I am sure Harry and others would agree with me on this, so feel free to convey your thoughts on the subject, but please without the personal attacks and or inferences, put simply try attacking the postulates rather than the messenger of the postulates..

My moneys on another Troll will join in..

Cheers Harry,

Pete..

G'day

Wow!!!!! Laidback

After many years in forums you get used to the baby comments in cyber space. Thats's life you cannot change it.

I just got emailed these two links from a close friend after discussions of Event Horizon and quantum transition phases. The two scientists are into this work.

Please do not think that I read all the papers. I would be lucky to read 5 % if that and read as many ABS just to get the gist of it.

Do I understand it? No! not 100% may be 10%

In the last 3 years the information has exploded and the new ideas in astrophyisics and cosmology have not reached the common man.


Tetsuo Hatsuda
http://aps.arxiv.org/find/hep-ph/1/au:+Hat...T/0/1/0/all/0/1

and

Fukushima Kenji http://aps.arxiv.org/find/hep-ph/1/au:+Fuk...K/0/1/0/all/0/1

Harrycostas! thanks for the updates
and links man!



[Moderator: Banned]

This post has been edited by rpenner on Jun 6 2010, 08:59 PM

G'day Faery

Thank you for the thanks.

I just finished reading this paper on otflows from compact objects. It just amazing how much info is on this subject.


http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.4821
Outflows from accreting super-spinars

Authors: Cosimo Bambi, Tomohiro Harada, Rohta Takahashi, Naoki Yoshida
(Submitted on 25 Mar 2010 (v1), last revised 28 Apr 2010 (this version, v2))

[Moderator: Banned]

This post has been edited by rpenner on Jun 6 2010, 09:00 PM