"The Universe Was Not Created By A Big Bang" -Say Several of the World's Leading Cosmologists

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by azzllin

 

What does or would this mean for the LHC experiment

One of the major hopes of the LHC is to prove M-Theory(membrane theory) by finding missing gravity and proving gravitons. If we can show that there is gravity missing from a collision then it would strongly support M-Theory's hypothesis that gravity is so weak because it "leaks" into hyperdimensional space onto a brane.

Isn't gravity a product of electro-magnetism?

Why must we seperate the two?

reply to post by zetamafia911


There is another explanation that I am adhering too regarding the Origins of the Universe outside the concept of the big bang, and that is the one based on a Virtual Reality system supported by Brian Whitworth and Tom Campbell

Mathematician: Brian Whitworth: "The Physical World as a Virtual Reality"
arxiv.org...

Physicist: Thomas Campbell: “My Big Toe”
books.google.com...

The concept that this reality system is actually a virtual reality system with a recursive feedback interface fits within my paradigm of precognitive dreams; non-localized memory of previous lives and explains just about everything odd that happens in strange physics.

My theory suggests this reality is the product of "Dreaming" ergo the link to Déjà vu, (Already Seen) as actually being Déjà Rêvé (Already Dreamed) based on many dreams I have had that one day unexplainable have come true.

The Virtual Reality model also explains this if we look at the programming language as being organized thought in the form of dream reality packets that render during run-time.

The big-bang is actually the big-bootup...

[edit on 27-1-2010 by YouAreDreaming]

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Gravity is a result of the curvature of spacetime. To this date, no unified theory of gravity with the other three unified forces (EM, SN, WN) has been achieved.

The problem is quantum mechanics dictates that there MUST be a field, or force carrying particle for EVERYTHING, including gravity, hence the theoretical "graviton".

Hope that helped..

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Gravity is a result of the curvature of spacetime. To this date, no unified theory of gravity with the other three unified forces (EM, SN, WN) has been achieved.

The problem is quantum mechanics dictates that there MUST be a field, or force carrying particle for EVERYTHING, including gravity, hence the theoretical "graviton".

Hope that helped..

First of all *time* is a human concept and does not physically exist, much less be a dimension. Second how can you bend space? That is absolute nonsense!

Gravity is an electro-magnetic force that either attracts or repels objects together. I personally think its a repelling force! The center of gravity within our hollow planet pushes(repells) everything away from earth while the gravity of the sun repells everything from it so in essence everything on the planet is kept on the planet.

You guys can laugh at me all you want, but I bet some people with a top secret clearance working in underground laboratories already know this.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07



WOW, I am a little shocked at your obtuse reply there my friend. No need to get like that.

First off, gravity is NOT caused by EM forces, this has been proven via Einstein. Gravity is simply the result of a mass bending spacetime. And YES, TIME does exist. Time is NOT a human concept, it is simply the measurement of the movement of matter, nothing more, nothing less.

Space is included and co-existent with time because one can not exist without the other, again, as described by the theory of relativity. Although I am curious as to how you came to your apparently so certain conclusions, may I see the mathematics behind it? If you wish to prove me and countless others wrong I would be interested, however I do not think you can.


EDIT to add: Now if you wish to share how you have managed to unify the electro-nuclear force with gravity I would be pleased to look at your theory (as would every physicist in the world).

[edit on 1/27/2010 by jkrog08]

This is an intersting theory. The problem i have with it is that the crux of their argument relies on M-theory being correct.

As many of you know String/M-theory has been hampered as of late. Its stuck in a never ending quagmire of peer review, dismissal and resurgence.

The Plank Telescope may provide better answers, but i still see no way for it to validate either string or m-theory.

The energy densities of a quark gluon plasma almost require that the universe began as tiny and then inflated and we are pretty sure that QGP gave birth to the first hadrons. I think we should look more in the direction of experimental physics for our answers to the Big question.

Theoreticle models are great but until they are testible they are nothing more than a philosophy and a mathematical construct on the drawing boards of theoreticle physicist and mathematicians.

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

WOW, I am a little shocked at your obtuse reply there my friend. No need to get like that.

First off, gravity is NOT caused by EM forces, this has been proven via Einstein. Gravity is simply the result of a mass bending spacetime. And YES, TIME does exist. Time is NOT a human concept, it is simply the measurement of the movement of matter, nothing more, nothing less.

What do you mean by "measurement of the movement of matter"?

I don't understand this at a practical level!

Originally posted by jkrog08
EDIT to add: Now if you wish to share how you have managed to unify the electro-nuclear force with gravity I would be pleased to look at your theory (as would every physicist in the world).

[edit on 1/27/2010 by jkrog08]

Its not my theory, its actually vernon maxwell's original theory:

Maxwell's Quaternion Equations

by Col Tom Bearden.

Maxwell's original theory was published as:

James Clerk Maxwell, "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field", Royal Society Transactions, Vol. CLV, 1865, p 459.


Here's what Barrett --- a nationally known electrodynamicist and one of the co-founders of ultrawideband radar --- has to say about Maxwell's theory:

"In the case of electromagnetism, the theory was first simplified before being frozen. Maxwell expressed electromagnetism in the algebra of quaternions and made the electromagnetic potential the centerpiece of his theory. In 1881 Heaviside replaced the electromagnetic potential field by force fields as the centerpiece of electromagnetic theory. According to him, the electromagnetic potential field was arbitrary and needed to be "assassinated" (sic). A few years later there was a great debate between Heaviside and Tate about the relative merits of vector analysis and quaternions. The result was the realization that there was no need for the greater physical insights provided by quaternions if the theory was purely local, and vector analysis became commonplace.

The vast applications of electromagnetic theory since then were made using vector analysis. Although generations of very effective students were trained using vector analysis, more might be learned physically by returning, if not to quaternions, to other mathematical formulations in certain well-defined circumstances. As examples, since the time when the theoretical design of electromagnetism was frozen, gauge theory has been invented and brought to maturity and topology and geometry have been introduced to field theory. Although most persons view their subject matter through the filter of the mathematical tools in which they are trained, the best mathematical techniques for a specific analysis depend upon the best match between the algebraic logic and the underpinning physical dynamics of a theoretical system." [Terence W. Barrett and Dale M. Grimes, Preface, p. vii-viii, in Advanced Electromagnetism: Foundations, Theory and Applications, Terence W. Barrett and Dale M. Grimes (eds.), World Scientific, Singapore, 1995.]

The physics they teach today are quite pathetic, don't you agree?

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

What do you mean by "measurement of the movement of matter"?

I simply mean that time is the measurement of the movement of matter through space. An example would be the movement of Earth through the solar system. Without movement there would be no time, our reality would be static, instead of dynamic, which it is.

Its not my theory, its actually vernon maxwell's original theory:

Yea, well that is nothing more then a theory, which lacks the credibility of many, many other theories, which preclude Maxwell's.

The physics they teach today are quite pathetic, don't you agree?

No, I don't. The physics they teach today (as a cosmology major) is factual and backed up by mathematical evidence, as well as future tests to confirm these very high tech postulates.

What many don't understand is that we are right now at a point in physics where we have never been before, thus it will take some time to prove, but it will be proven one way or the other.

The point is this; The physics of today are the cutting edge of the human mind, when one looks and researches the facts then one will see that it isn't physics that is limited or wrong, just the understanding of said physics.

From the same source:

The 1873 edition of A Treatise on Electricity & Magnetism contains the 20 Quaternion Equations that later were rewritten --- censored --- by Oliver Heaviside, et al.. These equations reconcile relativity with modern quantum physics and help to explain "free energy" and anti-gravity.

NO WONDER ITS ALL BEEN SENSORED, it has to do with FREE ENERGY and ANTI-GRAVITY!!! The greys and reptillians want that technology for themselves and are not about to share it, at least not for the masses.

Go get your top secret clearance...

Isn't the human species a strange breed of primate, in that they always want a kangaroo court with LIFE in the stocks, and to be judged by the human species in the name of Science, according to the rules laid down by the primates of Earth???

Perhaps we should establish a new reality ???

"LIFE according to the laws of the little species on Earth, who have coveted the title of MAN."

Come on those of Earth "look outside the Box" for a change and put your self importance aside, for just one second…

The view is much different from Outside, than it is from the Inside or Centre which has No size, No shape, and certainly has No knowledge of the Outside.

What we experience (the environment or this little universe) is much, much different than What (Not who) produces it.


[edit on 27-1-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]

reply to post by jkrog08


jkrog08:

I ve been very excited about Brane theory for some time now, read a very little of I believe its Linda Randall.

I am curious as to what you mean when you mentioned :

What many don't understand is that we are right now at a point in physics where we have never been before, thus it will take some time to prove, but it will be proven one way or the other.

What is this point in physics that we are at? Does this have to do with Brane theory or perhaps just some hinge point between paradigms? Also - why is it inevitable that it would be proven? Surely there is a chance that it (I assume Brane theory) would or could be proven wrong (otherwise it would be already fully accepted)?

reply to post by liquidself



Hey, M-Theory excites me too.

What I meant by "we are at a point like never before" was that we have reached a point in our science where the things we are trying to explain and have so far found out are so far advanced that we have a lot of catching up to do.

We are trying to explain things stranger than a lot of sci-fi movies, things some can't even comprehend, and things that we may never actually see ourselves.

When I said "one way or another we will know" I meant that very soon the LHC experiments should prove or disprove M-Theory, along with a lot of other theoretical physics postulates. We just now are starting to have the technology to at least test some of these theories.

reply to post by jkrog08



BTW, When are the LHC experiments starting??? seems like it will never start. Hopefully before the end of 2010.

reply to post by Maddogkull



Actually they have already been doing some low energy tests. While it has been plagued with problems I am confident it will be fixed.

facts as we understand them.


Universe had to have a start "big bang" well? yes it did.. BUT!

as i know you are going to say what made the universe then?


one thing i find odd and im sure many overlook this is how humans and life work.

here is a little test for the people who wish to try and understand what it is..

WHY

reply to post by jkrog08


I asked for a rational explanation.
I don't think I got what I asked for though.

I would be acting foolish if I said I was surprised

This whole discussion has made me more aware of my intuition; the "Knowing without knowing for sure" kinda feeling, as I've always felt that the Big Bang theory is as much BS as is the Creation story in the bible. It's convenient for our linear thinking, but that's about it.

A cycle of compression and expansion just "feels" much more likely to me, and there could be many of them simultaneously, in different phases of the cycle, indeed like almost everything else we observe in nature.

Cool thread, great posts.

HI all at ATS, after taking a back seat for several months, ive decided to jump on board...the threads are great, a real pleasure to know i,m not alone reguarding my views on certain aspects.

if a big bang created the universe, than it would be one of the proofs that we live in a virtual world .... that wouldnt mean you dont exist, but that would mean that the world actually doesnt exist

matrix



[edit on 31-1-2010 by Faiol]

You know, Isaac Asimov discussed this in one of his NON-fiction books years ago. (I mean the OP)

www.fantasticfiction.co.uk...

If it wasnt that one it was one very much like it. How the hell did he know?
He was a chemist for god's sake.