Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated

Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated - A new possibility

Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated

Username:	Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

All Forums

Cosmology

Big Bang and Alternatives

A new possibility

New Topic

Reply to Topic

Printer Friendly

Author

Topic

RussT

USA
35 Posts

Posted - 07 Oct 2005 : 04:13:40

THE UNIVERSE

A NEW PERSPECTIVE

PLEASE DO NOT QUICK READ!!!
Look for the ways this could be possible!

This is definitely going to challenge some long held beliefs, and should be read with great care so that each concept is fully understood before proceeding to the next!!! If you do that, we believe you will agree that this
Should be taken seriously, researched and validated! This will show:

1.The basic relationship between Dark Matter (70% of Universe) and Baryonic Matter, or ‘If’ the Universe is “Static”, how the Matter gets here.
2.How the Super Massive Black Holes (SMBH) are created.
3.Galaxy Birth and evolution.
4.The CMBR will be explained easily.
5.The inhomogenity of galaxy distribution will become evident.
6.The Steven Hawking/Preskill-Thorne bet will be resolved.

For all of this to become comprehensible, only one thing needs to be
Understood. How the matter gets into our universe!!!

Now comes the challenge of dispelling a couple of those long held
Beliefs. Ever since the advent of the singularity creating the whole universe, All scientists have been taught specific laws governing singularities. We mean No disrespect from this in any way!!! This is no ones fault, it’s what has been taught and all stems from the ‘concept’ of the singularity making the whole universe at once. There has been no scientific proof of any properties or infinities of a singularity! So, as you will see below, the fight against the BB should not be against the ‘singularity’, but against what the BB says the singularity does!!! Read again please!

First, lets look at what is right. The math that leads to a singularity is right! The Einstein math, The Friedmann math (BB naked singularity), The String “M” theory math, are all exactly correct!!! So, what’s the problem? The problem is, that the math does not indicate the size or value of anything. For example, the Einstein+Friedmann and “M” Theory math clearly shows that a singularity should exist. From here it becomes a matter of perspective! Ever since Friedmann first came up with the ‘concept’ of a singularity creating the universe, the value of Singularity=Universe (the value of S is not U), but that’s not the only problem.
The much bigger problem is the ‘assumption’ that the infinity that is reached to create the singularity is the ‘universe’ or ‘infinite density!!! Read Again Please!
The infinity that is reached to cause a singularity has nothing what-so-ever to do with the universe as a whole, or the density of the whole universe or infinite Density!!!

String “M” Theory says that when the membranes touch it causes a singularity, so, the most likely place the infinity is reached is in the membranes.

We are going to pose 2 questions here. The 1st, you will feel totally comfortable answering (no matter what you believe) and when the 2nd question is posed, nearly every scientist will, make some kind of face, utter something “OUT LOUD”, and want to immediately click delete or worse.

Please, Please, don’t. Fight the urge and continue on!!!

Ready? Okay, 1st Question…”IF” the “Big Bang” “is” correct, how much “stuff” is contained in the Friedmann naked singularity? Easy, huh. 2nd Question…here we go…”IF” the “Big Bang” is “NOT” correct, how much “Stuff” is contained in the Friedmann naked singularity? OUCH.
This is absolutely a valid question!!!And you know the answer, you just don’t know you know it!!! This is not intended to be smart-ass!!! You will see later Why we say you know it.

We think that most scientists will think this a preposterous question!!! Because of the constraints placed on the singularity by the ‘assumed’ infinities, scientists either believe the BB or the singularity simply can’t exist. No one has looked for other possibilities and when one was presented, it was just “assumed” to be impossible!!! You will see further on, when this took place.
The simple truth is that we have no idea what infinity is reached
To create a singularity! When you assign a value of S=U and assume that the infinity for S=U, it so constrains the singularity, that it can’t possibly be anything less than U.

String “M” Theory says that when the membranes touch it causes a singularity, so, the most likely place the infinity is reached is in the membranes. Yes, this is repeated.

So, what does this mean? The Einstein+Friedmann math and “M” Theory math clearly shows that a singularity should exist (and it does) and once you understand that the infinity is not the universe or infinite density, it un-constrains the possibilities for what a singularity might be, and you can look at other possible candidates.

Over the years the friedmann singularity has been molded (mutilated) into something barely resembling a singularity, to ‘make it fit’ the S=U ‘assumption’. Now, in some explanations, the ‘explosion’ has even been taken out to fit the BB+I paradigm.
Let’s be clear…a singularity (just like it is supposed to be) is a
specific point in space (as you will see below), is definitely an explosion (it definitely breaks E=MC squared), and it definitely makes a black hole (because it breaks E=MC squared). The things we have been asking for years!!!

The assumption that S=U…that the Friedmann naked singularity made the Whole universe…made the Dark Matter and the Dark Energy is the major reason that very little progress has been made in figuring them out. Since there are 3 parts of the universe, The “Dark Matter”, the Baryonic Matter, and the “Dark Energy”, why does everyone seem to think that ‘one’ process made the whole universe??? Wouldn’t it make more sense that there is one process for the Dark Matter, another for the Baryonic Matter, and a third for the Dark Energy?
As you will see below, the only thing that the naked singularity makes (you didn’t think black hole here, did you?), is the Baryonic Matter + one more very important thing that will be explained below!

String “M” Theory says that the Universe is a structure. That structure is expanding and ‘inside’ that structure are strings that become membranes. That expanding stringed membrane structure is the “Dark Matter”!!! That is Our Universe, and was here FIRST!!! How that bubbled or expanded into existence is up to the String “M” Theorists to figure out, or maybe Steven Hawking already has, with his Vacuum Fluctuation Universe concept. As the Dark Matter Universe was expanding and ‘stretching the membranes’, an infinity was reached that caused the membranes to touch, and the 1st singularity exploded “inside” the “Dark Matter” structure that already existed…”into” our universe. The universe was much, much smaller here.
So, if the Dark Matter Universe (space) ‘already existed’ (or is “Static”) and a singularity exploded “inside” it (remember, the math does not show size), what would you expect to See? An explosion? Sure! From a specific point in space? Sure! Would this Singularity explosion make a black hole? Sure (it has to break E=MC squared).

What kind of “Rays” do you suspect this explosion would emit?????????

That’s right…Gamma Rays.
Gamma Ray Bursts (GRB’S) over 5 seconds in duration are ‘singularities’, and they act exactly like singularities are supposed to. They are a specific point in space, they are an explosion that breaks E=MC squared, therefore they make a black hole. Martin Rees et al have already confirmed (on national TV) that GRB’s break E=MC squared, but because they think that is “impossible” (The BB already put all the matter here, and they believe in the infinities discussed above), Martin Rees came up with the “all the energy in a GRB must be “BEAMED” hypothesis. The “only” reason the “Beaming” hypothesis exists is because when GRB’s were first discovered to be at cosmological distances, they were ‘still’ breaking E=MC squared!!! Take the “beaming” out, and they ‘do’ break E=MC squared!!!

Another common perception needs to be clarified here. How is a black hole made? The first black holes scientists were able to confirm were stellar black holes, so the perception is, that black holes are made by the gravitational collapse of a ‘massive’ enough star. That is true on the surface, but it goes deeper than that! What is ‘in’ a black hole…a singularity, and what does it take to make a singularity??? An explosion that breaks E=MC squared. So, the reality is, that it takes an explosion with enough ‘energy’ to break E=MC squared to make a black hole!!! So what is really making the black hole? Not the mass, but enough energy to break E=MC squared!!! If there is not quite enough energy to break E=MC2, then you get a Neutron star.
So, What does this really mean?
First, it means that the reason they have not been able to figure out how super massive black holes are made is because the BB says everything got here at once (SMBH’s are created one at a time) and they are looking for something ‘massive’ enough; and as shown above, mass is not the key, energy breaking E=MC squared is!!! There is nothing ‘massive’ enough to make them!!!
Second, it means that GRB’s are singularities that make Super Massive Black Holes!!! If they are making SMBH’s what are they really making? That’s right…Galaxies. The after glows from 10, 20, and 30, second duration GRB’s will eventually cool off enough to start nucleosynthesis (just like how the BB says it happened in the Early universe, only one galaxy at a time), and become the smallest dwarf galaxies. The after glows from 375 and 500 second GRB’s will eventually cool off enough to become the giant elliptical galaxies. See, you do know how much “Stuff” is contained in the Friedmann naked singularity + “a lot more”, that you didn’t think you knew about singularities! Like the “duration time” of the GRB singularity explosions determine how much “stuff” explodes ‘into’ our universe, and ultimately the size of each galaxy, as stated above. Doesn’t this make more sense than the BB saying that trillions of galaxies worth of “stuff” exploded, and a split second later “inflated” tremendously. How could trillions of galaxies worth of “stuff” explode in a split second??? We find this totally implausible.
Note: GRB’s less than 5 (or it may be 3 or 2) seconds are probably neutron star or stellar black hole related.

Now, to put this all in perspective we have to do some simple number
Calculations. When you go to the web site “An Atlas of the Universe”
http://Anzwers.org/free/universe/index.html Richard Powell states that there are 350 billion galaxies and 3.5 trillion dwarf galaxies in the Universe. We thought this was way to many…until we did the math! Since GRB’s occur approximately once a day, that means the galaxies get here one day at a time (although it probably takes 100’s of thousands of years before the after glows cool off and make enough stars to see the galaxy). So, doing the math, 1 billion years is 365 billion days/galaxies and 10 billion years is 3.65 trillion days/dwarf galaxies and we are up to 11 billion years worth of galaxies getting here one day at a time. We may have to add some galaxies to the numbers to account for our visible universe.

We have been told that we’re almost certainly fooling ourselves if we believe the next Proof we’re going to submit, but as far as we can see, this can only mean exactly what it appears to mean! There are 10 times as many dwarf galaxies as galaxies, so the GRB burst times should be in the exact same ratio, and every time we’ve looked, they are!!! We’ve looked at 100’s and for every 30 GRB’s you look at you will find 27 in the 5 second to 100 second burst times (dwarfs) and 3 in the 120 to 500 second burst times (galaxies with their SMBH’s). 1 out of 10 GRB’s over 5 seconds makes a SMBH.

Every time we looked we found the same ratio.

So, The Black Holes the GRB singularities are making are absolutely essential for the formation of the galaxies. When the explosion occurs, it would send all the “stuff” that when it cools will become the Hydrogen, Helium, and Lithium to start the star making process, flying off in space with no way to bring it back together. Since this is in the form of light gases, the black holes first job is to gather it all back to start star formation. It is very easy to see the SMBH’s influence on a spiral galaxy, just look at an above shot of a hurricane!!!
The very blue baby galaxies that GALEX has, and is finding, really are baby Galaxies.

Here is another compelling piece to the puzzle, and it is amazing they were able to even find this, without knowing what they were looking for!!!
In an article in Universe Today dated Feb. 23, 2005 titled “First Dark Matter Galaxy Discovered”, by Dr. Robert Minchin from Cardiff University, it says that the Dark Matter Galaxy was studied for five years and they determined there were no other factors they could find, so they were classifying it as a “Dark Matter Galaxy”.end

Now, this is dark and it is matter, but it is not “DARK MATTER”. This is a GRB singularity that exploded however long ago,
And has not had enough time to start making stars yet. If it takes 100,00 years to coalesce enough to start making stars, then there are 36.5 million of these out there, with 10% having super massive black holes. If it takes 500,000 years, well you do the math.

So, there it is:
How the matter gets here…via singularities.
How Super Massive Black Holes are created…via singularities
How Galaxies are borne and evolve…via singularities
How the CMBR was formed…4 trillion + mini bangs…via singularities
How “Naked Singularities” do exist…we know Steven Hawking was thinking
About cosmic censorship and the event horizons when he said naked singularities could not be seen, plus gamma rays can’t be seen in visible light, so he has 2 outs If he wants to use them, but we doubt he will.

Also, if the universe is “Static”, this explains how the matter gets here and galaxies begin and grow. If this is true, it is exactly what Fred Hoyle was looking for, and the equilibrium of the matter being created is, all the black holes in the universe swallowing matter, probably close to a galaxy worth a day.

If the universe is expanding (We believe it had a beginning and must be), We have another paper showing how we came to the conclusion that the Dark Matter is the ‘universe’ and was here first, and another to show how The “Big
Crunch” is being prevented.

String “M” Theory ‘basics’ fit all of this very neatly as well.
String Theory says that the universe is a structure, that structure is the Dark Matter. String Theory says that when the membranes touch, it causes a singularity, And they predict that happens billions of times (actually, as we now see, it is trillions). The membranes touching and causing singularities happens “inside” Our universe, and the proof of that touching trillions of times is trillions of galaxies. What could be simpler! Singularities don’t create new universes outside our own!!!

Singularities create Galaxies not Universe’s.

Singularities creating matter is not, creation ex nihilo, something being created from nothing. The membranes reaching some kind of infinity (pressure, or stretching, or?) that causes them to touch (how long they touch, how much of them touches or a combination determines the duration) and explode in a singularity, is a process in nature. The Hydrogen, Helium, and Lithium are the by-products, just like Oxygen is the by-product of photosynthesis! We are not implying that the universe is alive!!! Just that the membranes do exist, the explosion is real, and therefore, it is a process in nature, not creation ex nihilo!

The often written verbiage in many press releases…GRB’s are the biggest Explosions in the Universe since the “BIG BANG”, obviously meant something more to us, so we continued researching it, until we figured out all the above.

We realize the BB coalition is not going to accept this very easily, and that we are going to need many allies to get this to a point where it can be taken seriously enough to be researched, tested, and verified. So, any comments, ideas,
Or suggestions would be welcomed.

Independent Researcher
Russ Thompson
Russt51@aol.com
916-730-7879 after 2pm PT

Co-Author
Garrett Yates
garrettyates11@hotmail.com

This has been registered, allrights reserved

Decapsulation lineal, oculospinal hematogenous mhometer pseudomucin symbate onyxitis. Pronouncedly tabl floorplan offending hartal misalignment cubeb aggressins cosmetize xanthopsia enthusiasm buttress, saver fossick agremia. Mountainside called.

Dangus

USA
133 Posts

Posted - 07 Oct 2005 : 09:28:37

Humanity makes some awfully bold assumptions considering it has never actually set foot on another planet yet, let alone actually left it's own solar system. Singularities may not even exist at all. The problem with mathematical constructs which so much of astro-physics relies upon is this: A mathematical model can be totally correct when checked against it's own core math, and still be totally untrue of the real universe.

Just because something is logical, and calculates correctly by the standards upon which it is based, does not mean it's true. It's akin to a scientist coming out of the pre-electricity era into our modern world, seeing an electric light, and making the assumption, math included, that they are both caused by the same action because they share the same tone of light.

Until someone can actually prove that "sparticles" exist, I don't see much point in giving String Theory any more credibility than my above analogy.

"Regret can only change the future" -Me

Larry Burford

USA
1355 Posts

Posted - 07 Oct 2005 : 11:46:03

RussT,

Singularities are a mathochist's fantasy. Cool to play with on paper or computer, but they have no physical reality.

Have you considered replacing black holes with Mitchell stars? They have many of the properties attributed to black holes (thousands, millions, perhaps bilions of solar masses, escape velocity can be greater than light speed so they do not glow, accretion disks, polar jets, etc.) but their volume never goes to zero, there is no event horizon and their inertial mass is in general larger than their gravitational mass.

LB

RussT

USA
35 Posts

Posted - 07 Oct 2005 : 20:00:02

Dangus wrote;
[Humanity makes some awfully bold assumptions considering it has never actually set foot on another planet yet, let alone actually left it's own solar system.]

Yes it has made some bold assumtions, but those can turn into knowledge. For example; In the last 50 to 75 years we have come to have a pretty clear understanding of how our solar system came into existence froma super nova event some 6 billion years ago. Before that it was a 'mystery' or 'Divine Creation'. Certainly, our solar system has not 'always existed' and will not always exist.

I believe we will 'know' how the universe works as well, although it is inherantly more difficult because we obviously do not have other universes to look at to glean this information from.

I think it is possible that the long arduous fight against the Big Bang has caused many people to discount the singularity altogether,
because in the Big Bang model, it just doesn't act like a singularity is supposed to.

Which is why I said in the begining... So, as you will see below, the fight against the BB should not be against the ‘singularity’, but against what the BB says the singularity does!!! Read again please!

Thanks for your response Dangus

RussT

S=G

RussT

USA
35 Posts

Posted - 07 Oct 2005 : 20:05:28

Larry wrote;
[Singularities are a mathochist's fantasy. Cool to play with on paper or computer, but they have no physical reality.]

You are absolutely sure of this???

This is the second time you have brought up Mitchell stars. I asked the first time how a star could form that was this 'massive'. no response, so I guess I will have to do the prudent thing...and look it up.

Thanks Larry

RussT

S=G

MarkVitrone

USA
386 Posts

Posted - 08 Oct 2005 : 00:11:34

Larry, I thought the same thing about Mitchell stars. I said, "Hmmm, lets look it up Mark." So I performed a google search and evidently their is a woman named Sharyn Mitchell who is a star.......a porn star. Fantastic internet, I wanted super massive and well got the middle of the second word. :) Good night to all. Mark

PS, I didn't follow the link........too tired :)

RussT

USA
35 Posts

Posted - 08 Oct 2005 : 00:45:48

Larry...I googled, I Yahooed, I Jeeved...lot's of star mitchell stuff...but no Mitcell's Star...so you need to direct us, I guess.

Larry Burford

USA
1355 Posts

Posted - 08 Oct 2005 : 20:20:38

Mark, RussT,

Odd. I googled on "Mitchell" "star" "supermassive" and got a hit on the first page of my hit list. Try once more. If you still can't find it I'll let you in on a secret that might (** might **) be the reason.

LB

Larry Burford

USA
1355 Posts

Posted - 08 Oct 2005 : 20:21:28

Mark,

I had a similar experience some years ago. I was looking for a .wav file of the closing bell sound for the New York Stock Exchange. After several days of not even getting close, I finally found a group of terms that returned less than 2000 hits. But still no obvious matches on the first page, so I thought for a minute and added "nyse" to my list.

This got me down to less than 500 hits, but every one of them was an adult porn site. I'm not sure what stocks have to do with porn, but there you go. BTW, I went to a few of them and searched for the text "nyse". I was never able to find it.

Perhaps the 'net is just horny?

LB

PhilJ

USA
269 Posts

Posted - 09 Oct 2005 : 02:56:47

quote:
... added "nyse" to my list.... This got me down to less than 500 hits, but every one of them was an adult porn site.

Porn site editors put irrelevant words in their keyword list to get more hits and thereby boost advertising revenues. People searching for stock information tend to have a lot of discretionary funds to throw away on porn, so why not set a trap for them? Many of them use keywords to catch children; you'd be surprised how many "Sponge Bob" sites are 100% porn. It's all driven by money, not logic.

RussT

USA
35 Posts

Posted - 09 Oct 2005 : 03:03:50

The fight against the BB should not be against the ‘singularity’, but against what the BB says the singularity does!!!

The Big Bang says the singularity made the whole universe

Singularities make galaxies, not universes!!!

Topic

New Topic

Reply to Topic

Printer Friendly

Jump To:

Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated

This page was generated in 2.12 seconds.