Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

a reply to: ErosA433

The big bang was the creation and expansion OF space.

From what?

To simply say "We do not know" is no more admitting defeat than someone who invokes a plot twisting Deus Ex Machina to solve problems they never really bothered to try and solve.

I'm trying to understand this rather than declare victory or defeat. I think "What went bang?" is a reasonable question.

It used to be that the universe is the result of the small dense point exploding and expanding. I think I was viewed as a troublemaker and dismissed by my science teachers for asking silly questions such as what exploded? Why did it explode? How long did it take for the heating to cause it to explode?

I don't know if those questions are even relevant to the theory anymore so I'm just trying to get involved here to try to get this.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation
Well that is really the concept, its why i try and state it over and over again.

What went BANG was space itself.

The universe didn't basically start out as all energy squidged up in one place. It started out as all space and energy squidged up in one place. What people commonly do is think about something exploding and thing "it must be like that" When the model and theory do not say that at all.

It says that the Bang part was space itself expanding rapidly. Inflation was an idea where the expansion OF space exceeds the speed of light. By doing this the local frames of reference remain causally linked (do not relatively break the speed of light) but the expansion of the universe makes it appear super luminal.

The point is, the theory and model states that the part that went bang, or exploded, was spacial dimension itself, matter condensed out of the energy contained.

Why? Open Question
How long id it take heating to cause it to explode? : A question that relies on too many assumptions about the cause to be truly a relevant question.

I have recently heard a theory that blew my mind. It was stated that when you enter space, the light from Suns and stars can't be seen. You can see the Earth and planets and other solid objects though. This solves several problems. Why is starlight still so intense, after travelling over such a far distance? It may be that in space, light can only be perceived when striking something. With nothing to bounce off of, light can't be seen emanating from stars. This also implies that its the lensing effect of a planet's atmosphere that reconstitutes light over a distance. This model radically changes how we perceive light and effects over distance. This would mean that the Sun and starlight we see may not actually be old. There is no light-year. There is no time delay. Does the very vacuum of space have strange effects on light? Only through a prism can light be perceived. I also believe that our Sun is exothermically powered. It actually draws from an unlimited supply of Zero-point vacuum energy. This explains why the Sun has DARK spots. If powered internally, light would always appear from within. Our Sun is hollow.

a reply to: Oannes

You can see light from stars and the sun from space.

a reply to: ErosA433

Why? Open Question
How long id it take heating to cause it to explode? : A question that relies on too many assumptions about the cause to be truly a relevant question.

Is heating still considered to be the cause? If not, are there other suspects?

If it is believed to be from heating I would consider the time to be extremely relevant myself. Not the actual amount of time but rather that there would be a time period at all. I can't conceive a heating process that would be infinite in duration coming to an end. If not infinitely old then at what point in time and why would it begin?

Let me just break down that post for you

originally posted by: Oannes
It was stated that when you enter space, the light from Suns and stars can't be seen. You can see the Earth and planets and other solid objects though.

Light is not observed until it intersects something, this is nothing new and how light behaves in mainstream physics.

This solves several problems.

Doesn't really solve anything, because what the theory stated was exactly what mainstream physics states.

Why is starlight still so intense, after travelling over such a far distance? It may be that in space, light can only be perceived when striking something. With nothing to bounce off of, light can't be seen emanating from stars.

See above, not all star light has the same intensity, and it has been shown that for two stars of the same size and type, the star the further away will appear less bight in accordance with the inverse square law.

This also implies that its the lensing effect of a planet's atmosphere that reconstitutes light over a distance. This model radically changes how we perceive light and effects over distance.

It doesn't radically change anything see two points above.

This would mean that the Sun and starlight we see may not actually be old. There is no light-year. There is no time delay. Does the very vacuum of space have strange effects on light? Only through a prism can light be perceived.

We know that photos do have 'age' and don't travel instantaneously. We can fire a pulsed laser at the moon, and observe the time delay as the photos travel to the moon, bounce off (a reflector plate left behind by the US) and be detected by a receiving sensor.

The same can be done with Radio Waves, which you can do, sending a radio pulse at say... mercury, observing the reflection and using it to figure out the orbital period. 7ish mins there and 7 ish mins back.

I also believe that our Sun is exothermically powered. It actually draws from an unlimited supply of Zero-point vacuum energy. This explains why the Sun has DARK spots. If powered internally, light would always appear from within. Our Sun is hollow.

The sun doesn't have holes, it has 'less bright' spots. They appear to be black or very dark due to the dynamic range of our photometry. They are not holes that look into the star, they are where magnetif field lines break the surface and disrupt the photosphere. They are less bright because these regions are less hot. It is a hole the doesn't go very far down. You can image the inner part of a sunspot quite easily. The issue is that you have to massively over expose the rest of the image, because the difference between the dark part and the light part is greater than the limits of the ccd and even photographic film.

Question, if the sun is hollow? where do all the neutrinos come from?

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Does the Lamb Shift incorporate 'nothing' into its equations/calculations?

It refers to vaccuum energy, something which you said doesn't exist. So to answer your question, from my perspective where vacuum energy exists and s not "nothing" then no, the use of vacuum energy is not "nothing".

From your perspective, I don't know. That's why I asked how you made sense out of it while denying vacuum energy exists.

Yes I have qualms about the terms and you should to. The term vacuum is suppose to signify nothing. What exists throughout space? Fields right, Em and gravity (and blah blah blah maaaaybe higgs) and the quantum particle fields, which are really the EM field right, because they can turn completely into radiation?

Ok so why say, a term originally used to refer to the lack of all energy, 'vacuum', to then say that it is the 'lack of all energy' (Nothing), that is now responsible for 'the creation of energy', and we will call this vacuum energy. IT IS ABSURD and DISHONEST, and other bad things.

So more likely, what they call or refer to as vacuum energy, is energy from, one or many or all of the fields that exist throughout space.

So I am saying, if energy is detected, energy exists. I am saying it is 'schemy', seemingly alteriorly motivated, to refer to it as (a proper translation) 'the energy which comes from nothingness'.

The easiest way to explain this is we learned more originally we thought space was a near perfect vacuum nothing going on except an occasional photon going through.What happened is we then learned about QM and it changed a perception of the vacuum of space so its not so much a definition problem as it was an understanding problem. As with alot of definitions in science ther change as are understanding changes.Yeah i guess science does need to be more careful about terms used but the problem is there is no central body to sa this is what were going to call this. Often it is left up to the scientists who first proposed it.If he choose to use the term vacuum energy than well thats it really.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: ErosA433
Well, the properties you describe are properties of space. The big bang was the creation and expansion OF space. This is commonly misunderstood as we have lots of our own ideas of how things explode and expand IN space, but the very idea of space itself expanding is a little alien to most.

Before the big bang, well given that space didn't actually exist, thus everything with spacial properties didn't exist either.

No it was not the creation of space. We just went over this, space is energy, energy cannot be created. And if now you are referring to space as nothingness, nothingness can also not be created.

The idea of space expanding is only alien to most because most were taught or assumed or intuited that the black stuff between the stars and big rocks was nothingness. It is not so alien when it is known that that black stuff is an energetic medium which is interconnected to all other energetic/material phenomenon.

Your right nothingness cannot be created.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: ImaFungi

Actually Vacuum implies a lack of particles. A volume that is devoid of matter. fields are just fine.

Ok so it should be no surprise that 'Vacuum fluctuations' and ' vacuum energy' exist, because fields exist all throughout space, and thats what everything is made of and connected to, and it is all moving, and carrying forces, so it would be strange if the fundamental most micro constituents of the everythingness did not vibrate.

So, is vacuum energy, a result of EM field and gravity field and higgs field and quark field and electron field interacting? Or in different cases its different combinations of those to different degrees? And its all just lumped under the name Vacuum energy?

Ok i was trying to figure out a good way to explain this but it requires you to understand space-time. This has its own properties for example energy can be swapped for time. Space can be bent it can also be created and finally it can never be truly empty. Quantum fluctuations (QF) occur in the vacuum, which is the absence of matter and energy but still a part of space-time. "Nothing" would exclude space-time as a structure as well. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that in a quantum system the position and momentum of objects, and their energy at the time of observation cannot be known exactly. Heres the math for the equation dp*dx >= h_bar/r and dEdt >=h_bar/2 .basically dp = uncertainty in momentum, dx = uncertainty in position, dE = uncertainty in energy and dt = uncertainty in time. h_bar is planck's constant over 2*pi which is on the order of 10^-34 J-s.

Now the universe is governed by probabilities for example the the fluctuation that created the universe it happened and didnt happen. But to us in the universe were in all that matters is the one that did happen. Everything is governed by probability which is represented as waves, and thus it becomes hard to localize things or observe more than one thing. Now let me touch on vacuum energy think of it this way instead. Think of it as a dividing line between positive energy states (our space-time) and negative energy states. Remember we cant have 0 energy but in order for space to seem like it it plays a game energy will rise above our dividing line then go below it this creates the illusion of zero energy. So we have a particle that moves into (our spacetime) then goes back into a negative energy state this is caused by energy and its lower limit the entire universe is always trying to reach its lowest energy state which is zero. Unfortunately we know this cant happen because energy just cant be destroyed.Now energy is waves they have a high point and a low point when this energy reaches its high point we have a particle remember einstein's equation energy and mass are the same. When it reaches its low point the particle no longer exists this isnt fluctuations in a specific field this is energy . Like a photon can be a wave or a particle its called duality energy is the same way its a wave but when observed we can see a particle but only when the energy is high enough. Does that make sense??

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: ErosA433

Why? Open Question
How long id it take heating to cause it to explode? : A question that relies on too many assumptions about the cause to be truly a relevant question.

Is heating still considered to be the cause? If not, are there other suspects?

If it is believed to be from heating I would consider the time to be extremely relevant myself. Not the actual amount of time but rather that there would be a time period at all. I can't conceive a heating process that would be infinite in duration coming to an end. If not infinitely old then at what point in time and why would it begin?

Im not sure heating was ever considered the cause it was always an effect. However as i stated earlier alot of physicists are shying away from the big bang because observation tells us something is wrong with the theory. Foe example the uniformity of temperature in the universe cannot be explained by the big bang this is why QM takes over and explains it using inflation which does account for the uniformity.

a reply to: dragonridr

Im not sure heating was ever considered the cause it was always an effect.

If that's the case I wish someone would have told my teachers.

Foe example the uniformity of temperature in the universe cannot be explained by the big bang this is why QM takes over and explains it using inflation which does account for the uniformity.

And that leads to the questions; Inflation of what and why?

a reply to: dragonridr

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that in a quantum system the position and momentum of objects, and their energy at the time of observation cannot be known exactly. Heres the math for the equation dp*dx >= h_bar/r and dEdt >=h_bar/2 .basically dp = uncertainty in momentum, dx = uncertainty in position, dE = uncertainty in energy and dt = uncertainty in time. h_bar is planck's constant over 2*pi which is on the order of 10^-34 J-s.

I showed you before, this has no meaning in the creation or Big Bang.
Inflation helps correcting errors in Big Bang theory but is still irrelevant as can not correct something that never happened.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: dragonridr

Im not sure heating was ever considered the cause it was always an effect.

If that's the case I wish someone would have told my teachers.

Foe example the uniformity of temperature in the universe cannot be explained by the big bang this is why QM takes over and explains it using inflation which does account for the uniformity.

And that leads to the questions; Inflation of what and why?

The MS science will tell you the space itself is what inflated and it happened because of fluctuations.

I ask... energy fluctuation where and when if there was no space and no time before Big Magic ?

a reply to: dragonridr

Ok so now that we know the term vacuum, no longer is what we thought it was (when we thought it was nothing), now what is it said vacuum is? Is it now critically known and understood that when one uses the term 'vacuum', they are referring to Gravity field, EM field, Quark field, Electron field, and Higgs field?

originally posted by: dragonridr

Ok i was trying to figure out a good way to explain this but it requires you to understand space-time. This has its own properties for example energy can be swapped for time. Space can be bent it can also be created and finally it can never be truly empty. Quantum fluctuations (QF) occur in the vacuum, which is the absence of matter and energy but still a part of space-time. "Nothing" would exclude space-time as a structure as well. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that in a quantum system the position and momentum of objects, and their energy at the time of observation cannot be known exactly. Heres the math for the equation dp*dx >= h_bar/r and dEdt >=h_bar/2 .basically dp = uncertainty in momentum, dx = uncertainty in position, dE = uncertainty in energy and dt = uncertainty in time. h_bar is planck's constant over 2*pi which is on the order of 10^-34 J-s.

Space can be created, but not from nothing, energy must be coming from something/somewhere to create the space (the space which is not nothing right, the space which is an energetic medium). Can you briefly and generally explain what you mean by energy can be swapped for time?

Now the universe is governed by probabilities for example the the fluctuation that created the universe it happened and didnt happen. But to us in the universe were in all that matters is the one that did happen. Everything is governed by probability which is represented as waves, and thus it becomes hard to localize things or observe more than one thing.

No, the universe is governed by its tautological existence. Your understanding of the universe is governed on probabilities. You constantly mix this fact up. You take the model to be the truth, its not, its a crude map, used to predict and approximate current levels of knowledge. Because our models depend on the impossibility/uncertainty of us knowing a particles location and velocity at the same time, does not mean a particle in reality and truth, does not always have an exact relative location and velocity. You talk in circles the same nonsense, I used to and even now become infuriated by your lack of willful critical thinking, but now I am confident if I just take a deep breathe and patiently respond, I can prove everything you are saying that is wrong, wrong. And I have been doing that, and will continue.

Now let me touch on vacuum energy think of it this way instead. Think of it as a dividing line between positive energy states (our space-time) and negative energy states. Remember we cant have 0 energy but in order for space to seem like it it plays a game energy will rise above our dividing line then go below it this creates the illusion of zero energy. So we have a particle that moves into (our spacetime) then goes back into a negative energy state this is caused by energy and its lower limit the entire universe is always trying to reach its lowest energy state which is zero. Unfortunately we know this cant happen because energy just cant be destroyed.Now energy is waves they have a high point and a low point when this energy reaches its high point we have a particle remember einstein's equation energy and mass are the same. When it reaches its low point the particle no longer exists this isnt fluctuations in a specific field this is energy . Like a photon can be a wave or a particle its called duality energy is the same way its a wave but when observed we can see a particle but only when the energy is high enough. Does that make sense??

Positive energy states (out space -time)... ok, what is a negative energy state? 'In order for space to seem like it is 0 energy, it rises above our dividing line, then go below it this creates the illusion of zero energy' ... can you explain this a little better? If the universe is closed and eternal, which it might be, there is no such thing as lowest energy state, and there is no such thing as zero, there is just a finite quantity of energy, that is transforming.

Ok, fluctuations in a specific field, so an electron only exists at its highest point, so is constantly not exist and existing back and forth, and all particles are? Why? What does that mean? No this does not make sense, not because I am not able to understand truth, but because you havent explained your comprehension of truth clearly.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: dragonridr

Ok so now that we know the term vacuum, no longer is what we thought it was (when we thought it was nothing), now what is it said vacuum is? Is it not critically known and understood that when one uses the term 'vacuum', they are referring to Gravity field, EM field, Quark field, Electron field, and Higgs field?

Physics redefined a vacuum as the lowest possible energy state of a given area. Simple way to be all inclusive yet brief.

a reply to: KrzYma

I ask... energy fluctuation where and when if there was no space

That question does not logically follow from the statement:

The MS science will tell you the space itself is what inflated

I did ask what inflated and why but that is in the context of the point that the big bang didn't/may not have(?) happened.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: dragonridr

Ok so now that we know the term vacuum, no longer is what we thought it was (when we thought it was nothing), now what is it said vacuum is? Is it not critically known and understood that when one uses the term 'vacuum', they are referring to Gravity field, EM field, Quark field, Electron field, and Higgs field?

Physics redefined a vacuum as the lowest possible energy state of a given area. Simple way to be all inclusive yet brief.

Ok so if earth is the given area, where is the vacuum of/in/on earth? Its when people say 'atoms are mostly empty space', its really maybe equal or more so, pockets of meta material, which is low dense regions of 'field space', that exist in all atoms and between all atoms? And very dense objects are just stronger/denser bonds of atoms and molecules so there is less low density region between them right?

In real dense objects are the atoms themselves more dense? In the way that people say between the nucleus and electron there is so much empty space, and even in the nucleus there is empty space (?), in really dense objects is even the atom, nucleus to electron ratio more dense?

This view, and seemingly likely truth, gives greater understanding and meaning maybe to the nature of electron orbital geometries, and how they arrange as they are in their orientations based on the field disruptions surrounding them.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: KrzYma

I ask... energy fluctuation where and when if there was no space

That question does not logically follow from the statement:

The MS science will tell you the space itself is what inflated

I did ask what inflated and why but that is in the context of the point that the big bang didn't/may not have(?) happened.

no, question how something from nothing can be created is not logically following the statement space itself inflated because it has fluctuations.
This was the second question, question is, is ∆E ∆T ≥ h valid in a system without E and T and of course h ??

Remember what planck's constant is
www.youtube.com...

remember, no radiation before big bang no constant for that, so no, no Big Bang from nothing !!

a reply to: KrzYma

Simple point I'm making.

The MS science will tell you the space itself is what inflated

does not say

there was no space and no time before Big Magic ?