This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Would you mind writing in english? Your posts are a completely garbled mess

ALL SORTS OF THINGS !!!!!!

Oh my...Multiple exclamation marks.

'Multiple exclamation marks,' he went on, shaking his head, 'are a sure sign of a diseased mind.'
-- Terrys Pratchett (Eric)

ALL THINGS OLD ARE NEW AGAIN
Needless to say, the astronomers Burbidge were strong proponents of the expanding/collapsing universe theory. They are dead so of course the theory is resurrected as new and acceptable.

There's one curious idea that when all the matter eventually vanishes into energy - because no particle is fundamentally stable - then "space" loses meaning because distance, volume etc. is relative to the things in it, and with no things in it you can't tell whether it's big or small.

So the final collapse happens when the final particles of matter - spread very very far apart - dissapear one by one into radiation or quantum fluctuations, or whatever. Suddenly the universe is small again, and all the energy and information that ever was is concentrated on that last remaining bit of stuff that now defines the size of everything and the density of it - and it goes boom.

The same idea could extend to why the universe is expanding in the first place, because as matter turns to energy, the energy is divided to act upon the remaining matter, which pushes it further and further apart. Energy after all is not a "thing" or an entity by itself and, but a relationship of things.

Eikka - Is this something you came up with on your own or did you read it somewhere?

Eikka have you ever witnessed or do you know anyone who has ever witnessed a proton decay?

Eikka - Is this something you came up with on your own or did you read it somewhere?

I can't remember who said it or where.

Eikka have you ever witnessed or do you know anyone who has ever witnessed a proton decay?

Nope, but if it happens it's probably going to have a half-life longer than 10^34 years.

I thought we were expanding faster than gravity can collapse us?

I thought we were expanding faster than gravity can collapse us?

This is one major problem with the hypothesis.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Now, this sort of Article shows what I have been trying to explain for some time, and that the Universe that we experience has been recently shown to have the same 'boundaries' as Standard Quantum Mechanical Systems, and that this would apply to the greater universe as well as to the smaller. Why I have always used the constraint of lightspeed as a Constant is to be able to scale atoms and galaxies, electrons to globular clusters by using the time it would take to cross each, and scale one to the other. Thus the 100,000 years it would take light to cross our galaxy compared to the pico-pico seconds it takes to cross the distance of a Rubidium atom and THEN start looking at the correlations between how galaxies form (by fusion) just as atoms do, and the smaller scales will sort themselves out, all things being equal, local acts on local, yet it is a fractal iteration, and the conformal symmetry is still there, just acting themselves out at different speeds due to size difference.

Eikka have you ever witnessed or do you know anyone who has ever witnessed a proton decay?

it's happening in your skull, everytime before you post using your sock.

Oop 2 of your 30 odd socks, i see biscuit joined in also ;)

You can consider also that our present Universe also looks somewhat like what they are talking about, the 'vacuum of Space' is constantly filled with radiation from all sorts of sources, the photons going through a single centimeter of 'space' varies radically, yet it can be fairly said that there is little matter and much radiation in this Universe, by the amount of light created from the star manufacture of galaxies to the high energy cosmic rays from Quasars and other deep, high energy sources. We even know that much of the space within an atom is actually vacuum as well, and as we probe smaller and smaller we find more and more similarities, as well as finding that electrons are more akin to a cloud than a solid particle. Too many recent articles all have pointed to the same thing, sometimes I do not post because the impolitical sockpuppet team comes and buries it anyhow with their inanities and pure trollishness. My theories keep on being proven no matter how denied.

Nope, but if it happens it's probably going to have a half-life longer than 10^34 years.

Which pretty much means any one or thing with a mere half-life of 34 years, never will...
See? I can do some math...:-)

There's one curious idea that when all the matter eventually vanishes into energy - because no particle is fundamentally stable - then "space" loses meaning because distance, volume etc. is relative to the things in it, and with no things in it you can't tell whether it's big or small

Except that as energy in all its forms is bound by c, this enables in theory the determination of vector and scalar quantities, which can then be used to define 'space'.

@Eikka, I don't get what you mean. Energy creates gravity even if it is not on the form of mass, and spacetime is equally warped where there is energy. This also changes the geometry and paths of energy waves accordingly. A universe with energy but without spacetime is a very different universe compared to one where you have both.

Too many recent articles all have pointed to the same thing, sometimes I do not post because the impolitical sockpuppet team comes and buries it anyhow with their inanities and pure trollishness. My theories keep on being proven no matter how denied.

Hate to break it to ya, but "you're" theories have already been previously provided by others...

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

The redshift is product of scattering of light at the vacuum fluctuations in otherwise steady-state Universe, which looks like the surface of water observed by its own waves for us. At the sufficient distance all ripples get scattered into underwater and red-shifted - but it doesn't mean, that the surface was formed there.

I think zephyr is composed entirely of protons. He will not be decaying any time soon.

Sorry for double post But yes, I know others have seen the similarities also, but it has only been with recent tech to be able to detect the things that had been unobservable before. My own thoughts have not always aligned with some of the theories, and have happily seen then be disproven, and at times have had to revise my model with new info, but usually this is just bringing a finer grain to the observed, at both ends of the scale. Still, I learn avidly and am not stuck on JUST one theory, there is plenty of space and time and energy for not only Anything to happen, but for Everything to happen. But that becomes a philosophical point that has neither as much anything.

I have been trying to explain this since the late '60s, and scientific observations, clearer and deeper as our instrumentation has gotten better, and further and further it has kept close to my original predictions of what would be found by the different fields of searching, both the micro and the macro and the fractal iterations that are created by them, there can be wide 'spaces' or 'distances' between the matching of visibly scalar iterations, thus for us studying atoms and finding Galaxies and those studying Galaxies find them forming Molecular patterns, but that scale match skips over our scale and rate of living.

Of course, this radically changes what the prevailing thought to the size of this Universe, showing that our "Big Bang' may have just been a local density fluctuation in a Much Larger medium where enough 'Energy' become 'Matter' in a local fashion, perhaps in the heart of a star, since that seems to be where much visible mass resides.

I thought we were expanding faster than gravity can collapse us?

Yes, but the expansion doesn't seem to be constant. Currently it looks like it's accelerating. While that is very opposite to a collapsing universe it does make the point that the expansion rate is variable.
It *might* reverse in the future - though there is currently no reason to think it will - but there's also no known reason to think it must not. So the question of a big rip vs a big crunch/bounce is still an unsolved one (current events heavily favoring the big rip scenario)

All the paper is saying that if we go for a big crunch then it is conceivable that there is a limit to the crunch imposed by quantum physics (i.e. that there will be a bounce rather than a crunch)

I have been trying to explain this since the late '60s, and scientific observations, clearer and deeper as our instrumentation has gotten better, and further and further it has kept close to my original predictions of what would be found by the different fields of searching, both the micro and the macro and the fractal iterations that are created by them, there can be wide 'spaces' or 'distances' between the matching of visibly scalar iterations, thus for us studying atoms and finding Galaxies and those studying Galaxies find them forming Molecular patterns, but that scale match skips over our scale and rate of living.

I, too had these thoughts in the 60s and 70s (hell, even from the 80s til now). However, I never presumed they were originally mine. I understood (and still do) I was just covering the same ground others have already...
BTW, I'm still waiting for all the flashbacks they promised...
You?

Energy creates gravity even if it is not on the form of mass, and spacetime is equally warped where there is energy.

As far as I understand, "energy" per se doesn't exist - it always manifests in the relationship of something physical, such as the relative kinetic energy between two bodies of mass receding from one another. If one body vanishes in a puff of radiation, what becomes of the kinetic energy?

Eikka, if an object disappears in a "puff of radiation" the energy is carried as momentum by the radiated particles ( photons) .

To me, what it does not exist per se is matter, as matter is just a property of Energy. Matter is just energy enclosed in a small space, which we perceive as "matter"

Radiation *is* energy.

As far as I understand, "energy" per se doesn't exist - it always manifests in the relationship of something physical, such as the relative kinetic energy between two bodies of mass receding from one another.

Or approaching one another...

If one body vanishes in a puff of radiation, what becomes of the kinetic energy?

If I understand correctly, the radiative particles will stay carry it.

Actually, @Whyde, this is an interesting question.

Consider carefully: the amount of kinetic energy a body has varies with its velocity.

But velocity is relative.

So in one frame of reference a given body has enormous kinetic energy, but in another it has none.

This is what @Eikka is thinking of.

But radiation always moves at the speed of light- for both gravity and EM radiation, anyway- in all frames. What varies from frame to frame is its momentum; this is obvious from the fact that its frequency varies from frame to frame.

Energy is conserved in a consistent frame, but is not conserved across frames. It is asymmetric with respect to velocity.

You'll enjoy thinking your way through that, I think.

I have been trying to explain this since the late '60s, and scientific observations, clearer and deeper as our instrumentation.....

I, too had these thoughts in the 60s and 70s (hell, even from the 80s til now). However, I never presumed they were originally mine. I understood (and still do) I was just covering the same ground others have already...
BTW, I'm still waiting for all the flashbacks they promised...
You?

Please correct me, but I think A. E. considered a cyclic nature of the universe in the 1920's and Richard Tolman came up up with a similar idea involving entropy...that each cycle would be different due to increase in entropy...or something like that. However it does go back much further. An oscillating universe was considered as far back as approx 1000 BC although, of course, the ideas were much different then (Cosmic Egg etc). One wonders just how far back it really does go, Ha!

Actually, @Whyde, this is an interesting question.

Think I'm stickin with my thought.
Given that c is a radius and volume of a sphere = 4/3x3.14xr^3, in one second the volume of that kinetic energy is now spread over (shared) is just shy of 27 quadrillion cubic miles...

That's a lot of disapation.

Please correct me, but I think A. E. considered a cyclic nature of the universe in the 1920's

Not too informed on that, but am more interested in his thoughts on shape (quasi-spherical)

d Richard Tolman came up up with a similar idea involving entropy...that each cycle would be different due to increase in entropy...or something like that.

Would make sense in that each iteration would carry different information... Not so sure on entropy increases, tho...

However it does go back much further. An oscillating universe was considered as far back as approx 1000 BC although, of course, the ideas were much different then (Cosmic Egg etc). One wonders just how far back it really does go, Ha!

Don't forget the Ombron...:-)
Most systems of a physical nature tend to have a loopback built in...

I thought we were expanding faster than gravity can collapse us?

Yep, that's called the Big Bind.

Actually, @Whyde, this is an interesting question.

Think I'm stickin with my thought.
Given that c is a radius and volume of a sphere = 4/3x3.14xr^3, in one second the volume of that kinetic energy is now spread over (shared) is just shy of 27 quadrillion cubic miles...

That's a lot of disapation.

Actually if all the energy is released in a single pulse it won't be spread through the volume but across the surface area.

That's 4πr² which is 3767 km².

@aapo I don't think we can get through to him. I wrote him something in Serbian using Google translate that was just intelligible but full of the same kind of errors to illustrate and it just went right over his head. Oh, here's the thread; at the bottom. http://phys.org/n...pse.html

I'm 99% he's translating that from Serbian.

I'd have figured he was posting from a remote cabin in Wyoming or something.

ello

I thought we were expanding faster than gravity can collapse us?

Yep, that's called the Big Bind.

nope those 2 cornseeds that popped into pocorn in your skull, That is where the bang happened, as quickly as it banged, it shrunk and bound the 2 seeds into one, sigh... no there's only one in that hollow skull of yours.

( Sorry for my poor english ). Scientists think and speak only about stars, black holes, galaxies etc. They cannot have power to think about the empty space that contain all these. Empty space is supreme. Empty space is omnipresence. Empty space is omnipotence. Empty space omniscience. Empty space is the ALMIGHTY.

. Scientists think and speak only about stars, black holes, galaxies etc. They cannot have power to think about the empty space that contain all these.

1) your post makes no sense (just calling something 'allmighty' doesn't *mean* anything)
2) you may have heard about this thing called Relativity. It very much deals with the 'empty space'
3) you may have heard about this thing calledvaccuum fluctuations (or more precisely: quantum fluctuations). It also very much deals with the 'empty space'

So before you accuse scientists about not thinking about something here's a hint: FIRST try to find out what they actually think (by reading their stuff). Otherwise you're just showing off your lack of education.

@antialias_physorg yep, and besides I think there's a lot of people that might have issue with a/the almighty being 'empty'....sorry, I just couldn't resist that one, Ha!

Mimath and Physorg, I have a curveball on that, if you want to go philosophical and religious you can consider the question "How can 'God' know Everything unless It/S/He IS Everything?" and all that entails.

But yes, the idea of actual Infinite time and space, in All Directions has indeed been around for a very long time, I just enjoy pointing out how the whole Big Bang thing is taking quite the beating and how much clearer it is to see the fractal iterations the farther we are able to see, both on the Macro-Cosmic and Micro-Quantum levels, and then when you pause to think on how similar galaxies and atoms are, and then stop to look around you, and consider everything around you is composed of tiny, (to us) galaxies frozen in space and yet moving extremely fast within itself and is, Itself composed mostly of vacuum! And if atoms are galaxies, look at how huge the universe is from That perspective on top of our own gives you an idea of what 'Infinite' Really means.

[Actually if all the energy is released in a single pulse it won't be spread through the volume but across the surface area.
That's 4Ď�r² which is 3767 km².

Which doesn't sound as much as the volume...:-)
I'm still thinking, so -
Wouldn't that energy dissipate as it travels? (Leaving little "droplets", as it were, of itself as it moves outward? Or maybe, since the surface area is increasing, THAT is the disipative mechanism...
Or how bout a combo of BOTH...

But yes, the idea of actual Infinite time and space, in All Directions has indeed been around for a very long time, I just enjoy pointing out how the whole Big Bang thing is taking quite the beating and how much clearer it is to see the fractal iterations the farther we are able to see, both on the Macro-Cosmic and Micro-Quantum levels, and then when you pause to think on how similar galaxies and atoms are, and then stop to look around you, and consider everything around you is composed of tiny, (to us) galaxies frozen in space and yet moving extremely fast within itself and is, Itself composed mostly of vacuum! And if atoms are galaxies, look at how huge the universe is from That perspective on top of our own gives you an idea of what 'Infinite' Really means.

Not sure if you're waiting for flashbacks, but you definitely participated in being "Experienced"...:-)

Wouldn't that energy dissipate as it travels? (Leaving little "droplets", as it were, of itself as it moves outward?

No, but

Or maybe, since the surface area is increasing, THAT is the disipative mechanism...

Yes, that's precisely it. It's why the intensity falls off as the square of distance: the surface area of the sphere increases as the square of the radius, but the energy remains constant (in a consistent frame).

Wouldn't that energy dissipate as it travels? (Leaving little "droplets", as it were, of itself as it moves outward?

No, but

Or maybe, since the surface area is increasing, THAT is the disipative mechanism...

Yes, that's precisely it. It's why the intensity falls off as the square of distance: the surface area of the sphere increases as the square of the radius, but the energy remains constant (in a consistent frame).

Thanks! I got it now...

( Sorry for my poor english ). Scientists think and speak only about stars, black holes, galaxies etc. They cannot have power to think about the empty space that contain all these. Empty space is supreme. Empty space is omnipresence. Empty space is omnipotence. Empty space omniscience. Empty space is the ALMIGHTY.

Empty space is just what everything else wants to fill....

And if atoms are galaxies, look at how huge the universe is from That perspective on top of our own gives you an idea of what 'Infinite' Really means.

I think infinite really means you're forgetting the uncertainty principle if you're talking about a single point in spacetime.

The only real qualitative difference between the big bang and virtual particle pair production is the energy density. This process goes on continuously but at the big bang it occurred in such a small space that there was enough energy exchange to produce real particles.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Your attitude about what I wrote, shows that today's call scientists, like you, really contaminated 'new scientific knowledge

Anyone who deals in absolutes (like you) is a complete idiot and knows nothing about science. No one like that has ever made any contribution to science (or insight in general). They're a complete waste of bandwith.

Go and 'intuit' your stuff and see how far you get with it. Make a prediction based on your intuition that science hasn't made yet so we can test it. A QUANTITATIVE prediction. Fuzzy nonsense doesn't count (because fuzzy statements aren't useful for anything).

Put some numbers to your intuitive process. I dare you. I double dare you.

Otherwise just STFU and go away to some religious site where they're all for intuition.

Now, it is no wonder that you do not understand anything, except what you learned by heart

I learned, I applied, I even invented some of my own, and I can SHOW that it works. What have you got?

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Big bang is just another popular myth loudly proclaimed by Babylonian shamans. I doubt that there is а physical law not violated by this myth.The reason is simple as usual. There is no consequence bigger than its cause because of information barrier. In this physical world things are organized top down. The more complex and intelligent creators create less complex and intelligent creations. Тhe opposite is not possible because the informational barrier. Therefore an intelligent being can not create a physical system that contain more complex organized information than the information embedded in it.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

3) you may have heard about this thing calledvaccuum fluctuations (or more precisely: quantum fluctuations). It also very much deals with the 'empty space'

I'm thinking quantum refers to something that's quantized, like a pure audio tone. Real particles in their ground state are quantized because they contain a quantized amount of energy. Virtual particles can have any energy up to the energy required to make a quantized particle. Anything left over after raising the particle to its quantized energy level, if any, is radiated as a photon. So essentially virtual particles are photons out of phase with each other by 180 deg. Referring to them as quantum fluctuations seems like a misnomer - essentially they are sub-quantum fluctuations. So I wouldn't buy the term more precisely. Only a semantic problem though.

Actually a quantum fluctuation would be more like raising a particle to a higher energy level, or resonating a musical instrument at a higher frequency. Nit picking people are always out there I know. <:)

nikola_milovic_378 seems to be on a pseudo sideways-religious-biocenttric ( the like, I have in the past, been unfortunate enough to encounter.

Phys1...@nm378 seems to be on a sideways-pseudo-religious-biocentric slant here...slobodno stvaranje volje-creation by free will given by divinities [I think]. Years ago I was unfortunate enough to encounter a group purporting '...by understanding ourselves we can create from the divinely free will given to us within the rules of spiritual guides...' Yeah, I didn't understand it either! I was almost thrown into 'hell's damnation', or at least an equivalent for suggesting a scientific approach is unbiased. To say that I made a quick exit is an understatement, Ha!

nikola_milovic_378 seems to be on a pseudo sideways-religious-biocenttric ( the like, I have in the past, been unfortunate enough to encounter.

Please ignore as I submitted in error.

3) you may have heard about this thing calledvaccuum fluctuations (or more precisely: quantum fluctuations). It also very much deals with the 'empty space'

I'm thinking quantum refers to something that's quantized, like a pure audio tone.

That's not a very good analogy, nor, if you're referring to MIDI quantization, is it at all accurate. In MIDI, quantization refers to the timing and length of notes, not to their frequencies. The analogy is bad because tones are not quantized; they can have any frequency (as far as we know).

Small (and I mean subatomic) things simply behave in a manner that is fundamentally different from the way things in everyday life do. Your intuition is based on classical mechanics, and it will fail if you try to apply it to quantum mechanics.

[contd]

[contd]

Real particles in their ground state are quantized because they contain a quantized amount of energy.

Hmmm, no, that's not really accurate. They're quantized because many of their parameters cannot be represented continuously; they can only have certain values. For example, spin angular momentum is quantized; it can only be in half-units or units. There's no thirds, nor 0.768523s, or anything but multiples of one-half.

But their energy can be divided among many different parameters, some of which are quantized and some of which are not. You can represent both quantized and continuous parameters in Hilbert space. It's flexible that way.

[contd]

[contd]

Virtual particles can have any energy up to the energy required to make a quantized particle. Anything left over after raising the particle to its quantized energy level, if any, is radiated as a photon.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Virtual particles can have any energy, period; and there isn't any functional difference between them and other particles, except that they're virtual. Virtual particles become actual particles if they interact with something that gives them enough energy to become actualized. There isn't some energy limit beyond which they suddenly become actual.

And they don't radiate any energy beyond the necessary energy for their actualization; they retain momentum from that energy. So if a particle collision in an accelerator creates an electron-positron pair, the excess energy might appear as photons, or it might appear as the velocity of the electron and positron.
[contd]

[contd]
And which it appears as is up to chance, with various probabilities for various configurations. Calculating those probabilities is what quantum mechanics is for.

So essentially virtual particles are photons out of phase with each other by 180 deg.

I don't see where you get that. Yes, there are virtual photons. No, all virtual particles are not photons.

Referring to them as quantum fluctuations seems like a misnomer - essentially they are sub-quantum fluctuations. So I wouldn't buy the term more precisely. Only a semantic problem though.

I don't think you've supported your thesis here.

Actually a quantum fluctuation would be more like raising a particle to a higher energy level, or resonating a musical instrument at a higher frequency.

No, not really. It's more like the vacuum expressing its fields, which even though they average to zero, have fluctuations in them that can be enough to create a particle pair briefly as long as the uncertainty is enough to permit it.

Nit picking people are always out there I know. <:)

Well, but see that's what science is all about. It's not science if you can't quantify (not quantize) it. You make measurements and then you figure out what equations can describe what you've seen, and then you try to figure out why those equations work, and make them predict something else you haven't looked at yet. Without quantifying it, there's no way to check if you're right.

It's not science if you can't quantify (not quantize) it.

Right, like infinite gravity wells on the surface of a black hole that you have quantified ?

You make measurements and then you figure out what equations can describe what you've seen

Right again, you have Partial Differential equations for which you claim to have solutions which calculate infinite gravity at the surface of BHs for which you also claim to have pictures of?

and then you try to figure out why those equations work

But you refuse to share with us the solutions to those Partial DEs which you claim can prove the existence of infinite gravity at the surface of a BH.

Without quantifying it, there's no way to check if you're right

Then Shneibo, cough up those solutions for the Partial DEs which you claim proves infinite gravity exists at the surface of finite stellar masses labeled your pictures as BHs. Have you established a website link for those pictures yet?

@Lenni, you were the one who claimed you could solve PDEs, and failed miserably when presented with some.

Now stop trying to bury it.

Reminder:
-m'' + m'n' - m'² - 2m'/r = 0
m'' + m'² - m'n' - 2m'/r = 0
e⁻²ⁿ (1 + m'r - n'r) - 1 = 0
R₂₂ sin² ϕ = 0

Source: http://www.etsu.e...esis.pdf

@Lenni, you were the one who claimed you could solve PDEs, and failed miserably when presented with some.

You're the one who stated you had PDE solutions by which YOU could prove infinite gravity, let's see them you windbag

Now stop trying to bury it.

Well, then why do you continue obfuscating posting those pics of BHs? I mean, you talk about burying stuff, you could be in for a Nobel for those pics, yet you won't publish those either.

You won't publish the Partial DEs that you claim would quantify infinite gravity on the surface of a finite mass, and you won't even share the pictures you claim to have seen by which you could prove such stellar bodies actually exist. I guess back to grade school for you, you retired old coots have plenty of time for it.

Solve 'em, @Lenni. Until then you're a liar.

Plug in a mass and get to work.

Are we still using mass as energy? In fact why are we still using mass? There are two fundamentals, the positive spherical field and the negative spherical field; all you need is a little common sense and the ability to move on.

Are we still using mass as energy? In fact why are we still using mass? There are two fundamentals, the positive spherical field and the negative spherical field; all you need is a little common sense and the ability to move on.

Other wise, you cannot know why you exist? Because that's the way space is shaped in this region, expect no variations. Prove me wrong against your theory, i.e. following logic.

@Lenni, you were the one who claimed you could solve PDEs, and failed miserably when presented with some.

Now stop trying to bury it.

Reminder:
-m'' + m'n' - m'² - 2m'/r =....

@Da Schneib Now, now don't be unkind, He probably likes to start from ∇²Φ=4PiKp
Which isn't in the paper you linked.

Why not understand conceptual space versus real space with these quirky holes that yield an electric field that un-stumbly follows Maxwell, nothing else; how could you measure anything else? Maybe look a little deeper, with a focus, don't even to bother to look at anything else! This Magic! What are they? Why are they? Simple phenomenon. Control these, know these, you know everything. I can create my own world, given a big enough computer. Why have we not a computer, where I say calculate best efficiencies of our planet, satisfying these requirements. Why would that require money? Would that not define real value.

How do we define any process to here, if we don't know what is here? juz say'n

Actually a quantum fluctuation would be more like raising a particle to a higher energy level, or resonating a musical instrument at a higher frequency.

No, not really. It's more like the vacuum expressing its fields, which even though they average to zero, have fluctuations in them that can be enough to create a particle pair briefly as long as the uncertainty is enough to permit it.

I don't think real particle pairs are created briefly. At least I hope not. The ground state requires an energy borrowed from the negative energy particle to the positive energy particle of e=mc^2. I'd say that's a quantized amount of energy. When you get annihilation with energy released at these energies it's like a nuclear bomb.

Actually a quantum fluctuation would be more like raising a particle to a higher energy level, or resonating a musical instrument at a higher frequency.

No, not really. It's more like the vacuum expressing its fields,...

The fields in a vacuum are expressed as continuous amounts of borrowed energies normally less than that required for real particle production. To get sufficient energy to produce real particles you need something like a lightning bolt. The vacuum does express its fields through sub-quantum fluctuations like virtual pair production. The e/m field gets its strength by reorienting virtual particles in a non-random distribution so that the virtual charge distributions don't average out to be zero. That is, more virtual pairs are produced in the north-south direction, for example, than the east-west direction, leading to a net e/m field in this direction. These are all sub-quantum fluctuations. No real particle production required.

(contd)
The vacuum really did express its fields in the big bang. All sub-quantum fluctuations restrained to one Planck volume makes lots of quantum variations in the form of real particles. If spacetime ever collapses it will eventually happen again. But note don't buy the singularity theory. There is no such thing because of the uncertainty principle.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

silly wabbit, conceptual space is not actual space. Actual space has only two entities, two diametrical spherical fields. That's it, in few combinations,

By the way, do your homework, try a tensor space for epsilon and mu, also make sense of the expansion vs this tensor space as a function over the volume. Maybe we can see better. Oh, forget Dr. E., he didn't get my memo, he did not define the time it takes for the wavelet to pass, i.e. don't change space and time, that's silly. juz say'n

...the space-time curvature gets maximal at the center of black hole, which is apparently wrong and it also contradicts the common experience: at the case of massive bodies their gravity gets maximal at their surface, not center.

I don't think space-time curvature occurs for non-relativistic body motions. Gravity is maximal at the surface because the gradient of vacuum pressure outside the body and inside is greatest there. And I think you have to go inside the event horizon to the physical edge of matter in the black hole to find it's maximum gravity.

...the space-time curvature gets maximal at the center of black hole, which is apparently wrong and it also contradicts the common experience: at the case of massive bodies their gravity gets maximal at their surface, not center.

I don't think space-time curvature occurs for non-relativistic body motions. Gravity is maximal at the surface because the gradient of vacuum pressure outside the body and inside is greatest there. And I think you have to go inside the event horizon to the physical edge of matter in the black hole to find it's maximum gravity.

Wavelet observed is the emitted wavelet, unchanged, you simply measure time of passage; therefore, not GR

[cont]
The curved or warped spacetime idea probably came from gravitational lensing. Basically here the vacuum energy density is greater around large bodies because matter displaces the vacuum. The lensing occurs as light moves into a medium of higher refractive index. Spacetime can be curved or warped when high speed particles disturb the normally random orientation of virtual particle pairs. The charge of virtual electrons and positrons may be re-oriented on the average to produce what appears as an e/m field as in sunspot flares and black hole jets.

[cont]
The curved or warped spacetime idea probably came from gravitational lensing. Basically here the vacuum energy density is greater around large bodies because matter displaces the vacuum. The lensing occurs as light moves into a medium of higher refractive index. Spacetime can be curved or warped when high speed particles disturb the normally random orientation of virtual particle pairs. The charge of virtual electrons and positrons may be re-oriented on the average to produce what appears as an e/m field as in sunspot flares and black hole jets.

recalibrate your epsilon mu tensors

we are looking at $hit wrong, light is a function of the source, the source's motion, the emitter, the emitters motion, the volume of space time at play, simply the effective mu epsilon as a function of the 4D tensor space, think 3D will do, since each point in time at any point is a function of history, and the entities available in the volume, and the body of the whole. There are only two emitters supplied by our space-time, everywhere. When was this validated as nonsense? 'Cause this $hit makes absolutely no sense. There is the effect of motion of all bodies as per Maxwell and the observed evidence, i.e. light as a function of the media, so the proof of epsilon mu over light years, is yet TBD. So?

So how do we get from accelerated expansion to contraction? Let me guess. As the universe cools the virtual particle generators come into sympathetic resonance. Their space requirements shrink as more and more particle pairs align themselves into a tighter configuration and begin to merge, leading to higher and higher virtual particle pair energies. In the meantime antimatter has been arranging itself into a shell configutation around the one giant black hole containing all matter by the force of gravity. See http://phys.org/n...wletter. When the shell collapses onto the black hole the big bang process restarts. This thesis ignores the fact that as virtual particle pairs increase in energy they may be forming more real particles, complicating the process as these particles enlarge the black hole and surrounding antimatter shell.

So how do we get from accelerated expansion to contraction?

When something does not make sense, you probably have an error either in theory or measurement. Can't use stupid theory to verify stupid theory. If stupid theory is giving all the wrong answers, I would not spend my time with adding unknown $hit to a stupid theory. Juz say'n

By the way c is a constant, the speed of the wavelet is not a constant!

By the way c is a constant,...

The speed of light depends on gravity. So does the frequency of atomic clocks. Amazing stuff, eh?

By the way c is a constant,...

The speed of light depends on gravity. So does the frequency of atomic clocks. Amazing stuff, eh?

Dude, you are using theory to justify theory. c is a scalar constant. Light motion is defined by a poynting vector, i.e. poorly defined. go figure

Use the direction and speed of the wavelet. Try this, the wavelet does not change, so how fast does it pass, front to back, lambda emitted divided by time to pass, i.e. period. So first the correct measure then dependencies, mu epsilon.

By the way c is a constant,...

The speed of light depends on gravity. So does the frequency of atomic clocks. Amazing stuff, eh?

Dude, you are using theory to justify theory. c is a scalar constant. Light motion is defined by a poynting vector, i.e. poorly defined. go figure

Use the direction and speed of the wavelet. Try this, the wavelet does not change, so how fast does it pass, front to back, lambda emitted divided by time to pass, i.e. period. So first the correct measure then dependencies, mu epsilon.

Note: The field, everywhere has the velocity vector of the emitter added vectorially. You can't just make $hit up!

Let's add logic, if nothing is all that is or was, then we don't exist! Space is composed two diametrical spherical fields, a lot of them, that have always existed and will always exist. I exist therefore ... Big Bounce, who cares? What is space? Think!

Think somebody did a song, "... something from nothing leaves nothing ..."

This comment has been removed by a moderator.