What before big bang?

71 views
Skip to first unread message

Albert Einstein

unread,
Aug 31, 2004, 7:17:34 PM8/31/04
to
Could be there something before big bang?
No space, no time. But what?

Is this kind of subject, something that concern cosmology or philosophy or
both of them?


bye
Albert


Sam Wormley

unread,
Aug 31, 2004, 7:59:51 PM8/31/04
to

If you can test a theory, its not science.

Message has been deleted

Paul Stowe

unread,
Aug 31, 2004, 8:09:06 PM8/31/04
to

^- Freudian Slip... :}

Typical SWormley

Paul Stowe

Old Man

unread,
Aug 31, 2004, 8:49:41 PM8/31/04
to

"Albert Einstein" <dada...@tin.it> wrote in message
news:iG7Zc.178539$OR2.8...@news3.tin.it...

Is this "before" empirically falsifiable ? Can "before" be tested by
experiment ?
If not, it isn't physics. Note that, "sci.philosophy" is a contradiction in
terms.

[Old Man]


Physics Cop

unread,
Aug 31, 2004, 9:38:08 PM8/31/04
to

"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:413510F...@mchsi.com...

Idiot.


dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)

unread,
Aug 31, 2004, 10:09:06 PM8/31/04
to
Dear Old Man:

"Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:X9WdndaOIv0...@prairiewave.com...
...


> If not, it isn't physics. Note that, "sci.philosophy" is a contradiction
> in
> terms.

As is psi.philosophy! To know something without discussing it ad
nauseum...

David A. Smith


dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)

unread,
Aug 31, 2004, 10:11:35 PM8/31/04
to
Dear Albert Einstein:

"Albert Einstein" <dada...@tin.it> wrote in message
news:iG7Zc.178539$OR2.8...@news3.tin.it...

> Could be there something before big bang?
> No space, no time. But what?

One set of solutions to GR has the Big Bang "adjacent" the the event
horizon of a black hole in a super-Universe.

> Is this kind of subject, something that concern cosmology or philosophy
> or
> both of them?

Or simply a waste of time. As others have said, it is not falsifiable.

David A. Smith


Marcus Wellpoth

unread,
Aug 31, 2004, 10:13:01 PM8/31/04
to
Physics Cop wrote:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You definitely picked the wrong one.
mw

Dale Trynor

unread,
Aug 31, 2004, 10:23:55 PM8/31/04
to

Dale Trynor wrote:
I am reasonably sure Sam must have meant, if you " can't " test a
theory, its not science. It must have been a typo where he forgot the "t".

As for what came before the big bang, well its another universe having a
much faster time than us and where we are a black hole to their
prospective, if the alternative theory I have been posting on is correct.

The theory depends on showing how a slower relative time results in
contraction of everything and anything one could measure with and how
this will become indistinguishable from more actual distance and or
space. In this alternative theory the orbits around a black hole will
reach a minimum and from then on only become longer relative to an
traveling observer.
Dale

Sam Wormley

unread,
Aug 31, 2004, 11:18:28 PM8/31/04
to

Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>
> Albert Einstein wrote:
>
>> Could be there something before big bang?
>> No space, no time. But what?
>>
>> Is this kind of subject, something that concern cosmology or
>> philosophy or
>> both of them?
>
>

> If you can['t] test a theory, its not science.
>

At least some readers knew what I intended to write.

Kees Roos

unread,
Sep 1, 2004, 12:30:17 AM9/1/04
to
Your question is equivalent to questions like:
- Is there anything north of the north pole?
- Is there a speed slower than standstill?
- Can anything be closer to me than me myself?
--
Regards, Kees Roos

"Albert Einstein" <dada...@tin.it> schreef in bericht
news:iG7Zc.178539$OR2.8...@news3.tin.it...

truegridtz

unread,
Sep 1, 2004, 2:19:40 AM9/1/04
to

"Albert Einstein" <dada...@tin.it> wrote in message
news:iG7Zc.178539$OR2.8...@news3.tin.it...

At risk of being chewed out by the quiz kid patrol I will post this. (no
geometry bombs please)

As I see it the ultimate in science (relativity) proves that the universe
was created.

No matter what type of theory is set forth pertaining to a beginning of our
existence, there must have been the propagation medium present beforehand
for anything to work. EMR propagates through some type of universal format.

The "ether" surely exists or there would not be a reference point called
"c". MH


>
>
>
>


Bjoern Feuerbacher

unread,
Sep 1, 2004, 3:25:52 AM9/1/04
to

Yes. And this typo gave me a good laugh. ;-)


Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher

unread,
Sep 1, 2004, 3:30:45 AM9/1/04
to
truegridtz wrote:
> "Albert Einstein" <dada...@tin.it> wrote in message
> news:iG7Zc.178539$OR2.8...@news3.tin.it...
>

[snip]

> As I see it the ultimate in science (relativity) proves that the universe
> was created.

General Relativity is the best theory we have up to know - but
essentially everyone agrees that for very small times, it breaks down
due to quantum effects, and in order to describe these first times, we
need a theory of Quantum Gravity. It may well turn out that then that
the universe *had* no beginning. For some, still speculative, ideas,
look here:
<http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=00042F0D-1A0E-1085-94F483414B7F0000>


> No matter what type of theory is set forth pertaining to a beginning of our
> existence, there must have been the propagation medium present beforehand
> for anything to work.

Huh? Could you please explain that logic further?


> EMR propagates through some type of universal format.

Ever heard of the Michelson-Morley experiment?


> The "ether" surely exists or there would not be a reference point called
> "c". MH

"c" is not a reference *point*. What do you mean?


Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher

unread,
Sep 1, 2004, 3:31:35 AM9/1/04
to
Albert Einstein wrote:
> Could be there something before big bang?
> No space, no time. But what?

We don't know yet. Here are some, so far speculative, ideas:
<http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=00042F0D-1A0E-1085-94F483414B7F0000>


> Is this kind of subject, something that concern cosmology or philosophy or
> both of them?

Both, I would say.

Bye,
Bjoern

will e

unread,
Sep 1, 2004, 4:15:22 AM9/1/04
to

"Albert Einstein" <dada...@tin.it> wrote in message
news:iG7Zc.178539$OR2.8...@news3.tin.it...
> Could be there something before big bang?
> No space, no time. But what?
>

God and Potential energy.

> Is this kind of subject, something that concern cosmology or philosophy or
> both of them?

Religion. Will E.

Martin Hogbin

unread,
Sep 1, 2004, 4:30:17 AM9/1/04
to

"Albert Einstein" <dada...@tin.it> wrote in message news:iG7Zc.178539$OR2.8...@news3.tin.it...

> Could be there something before big bang?

Everybody stood well back. [Eddie Izzard]

Martin Hogbin


truegridtz

unread,
Sep 1, 2004, 6:58:54 AM9/1/04
to

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:ch3tr5$d2s$1...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...

> truegridtz wrote:
> > "Albert Einstein" <dada...@tin.it> wrote in message
> > news:iG7Zc.178539$OR2.8...@news3.tin.it...
> >
> BF: This is about a short as I could make it and hopefully it makes
sense. I have trouble reading it myself.

>
> > As I see it the ultimate in science (relativity) proves that the
universe
> > was created.
>
> General Relativity is the best theory we have up to know - but
> essentially everyone agrees that for very small times, it breaks down
> due to quantum effects,

There is always the problem of the "observer." Since we have but one basic
observation point (possibly the term is "world event") we cannot be sure
exactly what we see. Matter is in motion, internally.


and in order to describe these first times, we
> need a theory of Quantum Gravity. It may well turn out that then that
> the universe *had* no beginning.

I do not subscribe to what might be termed quantum theory. I see
overwhelming evidence that everything is EMR. So it assembles in basic
packages, call them quantum. I strongly suspect that what is perceived
through science is highly flawed because many observations are flawed, thus
results and extrapolations are flawed.

Science is trying to fit all the evidence together into a unified theory. A
lot of the evidence is not what it appears to be. Much of it is
mathematical representation that has little resemblance to reality.


For some, still speculative, ideas,
> look here:
>
<http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=00042F0D-1A
0E-1085-94F483414B7F0000>
>
>
> > No matter what type of theory is set forth pertaining to a beginning of
our
> > existence, there must have been the propagation medium present
beforehand
> > for anything to work.
>
> Huh? Could you please explain that logic further?

As I see it, the "writing on the wall" says that EMR traveling through
free space is traveling through a propagation network that is "bent" by
gravity. The bending is only a mathematical and geometric observation.
What is actually happening is probably quite different than a bending.

Relativity, in a geometric sense, is mostly rotation through 90 degrees or
somewhere in between. What is actually happening is most uncertain.

The propagation medium is what is called free space. It has properties that
are necessary for matter to operate as it does. The "writing on the wall"
strong suggests (from my perspective) that matter does not inherently have
all of the qualities of space-time. What matter reacts to is a quality
(qualities) of free space. It must have been present in the beginning.
Whatever massive material event happened (that appears to be steadily
expanding) , call it the Big Bang, must have had an already existant free
space. Once again, (assuming that there is some scientific explanation for
the presence of the initial quantity of matter in the beginning) the matter
itself did not and does not generate the qualities of free space.

It is conceivable to me that the generation of matter in the beginning could
have been an electromagnetic event that literally generated matter. It is
conceivable that light and velocity were spontaneously generated and then
matter formed due to some type of interaction. Even so, the properties of
free space would have to be present the mass-energy conversions to take
effect. Who knows, maybe someone stuck a match in a room of of mirrors
inside a black hole. Maybe that's what the damned ape did. Playing with a
cigarette lighter. Kabooom. Mabey it was an anti-cigarette
lighter......anyhow....


The qualities of free space (as far as I know) are homogeneous through the
universe no matter what the quantity of matter in the vacinity (surely there
is some exception to this at the edge of reality, wherever that might be, if
there is such a place). Yes, the matter in the vacinity changes the free
space, but the free space itself is the same every where. From this it
seems logical to conclude that the qualities of free space were not
generated at the moment of the beginning. These qualites were already
present. Someone put free space in operation. In fact, a universe this
complex could not have generated itself. The whole theory of evolution is
patently absurd.

My point is that science is used to generate arguements in behalf of a
godless beginning of existence. I say that the highest science (which
describes accurately the nature of free space) makes it obvious that what
ever evolutionary model is set forth requires an already existant free
space.

Gravity, mass, energy, space-time are all predicated on events occuring in
relation to the ether. Mass increases with velocity. Electrons are moving
at high velocities in (from our perspective) circular orbitals. The
gravitational effect of matter seems to be due to the mass of the atom
interacting with free space. The mass of the electrons and vibrating
protons and neutrons is due to the interaction of their velocities with free
space. This gives them their mass. It is a system that we percieve as
material existence. It could all be EMR.

Light has mass. Light has velocity. Light's path is changed as
gravitational fields change the nature of free space, the medium through
which light propagates. Light is EMR and has the properties of matter.

All EMR travels at c, even the fields in a 120V 60Hz line transformer.

Light is EMR and has mass. This relationship strongly suggests that all
material existence is EMR in forms that we cannot understand because we are
wasting so much time on all this quark and quantum theory. It is good for
what it is good for, but it will never get us where we need to go.

We need to prove or disprove whether electrons and all other forms of matter
are small (or mabey huge and dimensionally distorted) circular and
self-sufficent webs of light.

Light travels at "c" because this is the standard propagaton velocity
(from our perspective, from our reference point). The redshift is due to
the gravitational effect upon the propagation medium, the ether. Gravity
itself appears to be as result of mass interacting with free space.


>
>
> > EMR propagates through some type of universal format.
>
> Ever heard of the Michelson-Morley experiment?

Yes, amazing, but ineffective. It may have worked, but due to factors that
had a cancelling effect there was no drift (for lack of the proper term)
detected for planet earth.


>
>
> > The "ether" surely exists or there would not be a reference point called
> > "c". MH
>
> "c" is not a reference *point*. What do you mean?

"Point" here means a place in the theory that is a reliable constant. Not a
geometric point, a reference point. A point of reference. A place in the
theory that has a definable quantity. Relativity is based on "c" being
constant. AE said that there was no proof of this, the value of "c". It
was chosen to be the constant, but it does work out in the equations. It is
the maximum theoretical obtainable velocity in mass-energy conversion. It
can also be mesured, so it seems to be a reliable constant.

If anyone made it through this, thanks for reading it. If I read everything
three times I could see what I was trying to say. I hope that it is
basically sound according to theory. Comments are welcome, if they aren't
based on tons of geometry. Regards, Mark
>
>
> Bye,
> Bjoern


Greg Gerardin

unread,
Sep 1, 2004, 7:36:44 AM9/1/04
to
check the bogdanov's theory. it's extremely controversial and taboo but
strikingly brilliant (very intuitive).


...
am I banned?


"Albert Einstein" <dada...@tin.it> a écrit dans le message de
news:iG7Zc.178539$OR2.8...@news3.tin.it...

Eric Gisse

unread,
Sep 1, 2004, 9:01:31 AM9/1/04
to


I like the choice of topology that results in the universe creating
itself. Speculative is the right word :)

It is a real mind-fuck, but it has a nice symmetry with there being no
net energy in the universe...

Bjoern Feuerbacher

unread,
Sep 1, 2004, 8:45:52 AM9/1/04
to
Greg Gerardin wrote:
> check the bogdanov's theory. it's extremely controversial and taboo but
> strikingly brilliant (very intuitive).

You might want to look at this page...
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanov.html>
I am not as knowledgeable in topology, differential geometry etc.
as Baez, but judging from the things I *do* understand about the
discussion, Baez is right: the Bogdanovs do indeed speak gibberish.


> ...
> am I banned?

It would be news to me that one can get banned from sci.physics
(or do you mean sci.physics.relativity?).


[snip]


Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher

unread,
Sep 1, 2004, 9:15:54 AM9/1/04
to
truegridtz wrote:
> "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
> news:ch3tr5$d2s$1...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
>
>>truegridtz wrote:
>>
>>>"Albert Einstein" <dada...@tin.it> wrote in message
>>>news:iG7Zc.178539$OR2.8...@news3.tin.it...
>>>
>>
>BF: This is about a short as I could make it and hopefully it makes
>sense. I have trouble reading it myself.

We'll see.


>>>As I see it the ultimate in science (relativity) proves that the
>>universe was created.
>>
>>General Relativity is the best theory we have up to know - but
>>essentially everyone agrees that for very small times, it breaks down
>>due to quantum effects,
>
>
> There is always the problem of the "observer." Since we have but one basic
> observation point (possibly the term is "world event") we cannot be sure
> exactly what we see. Matter is in motion, internally.

Sorry, I don't see what that has to do with my argument above.

>>and in order to describe these first times, we
>>need a theory of Quantum Gravity. It may well turn out that then that
>>the universe *had* no beginning.
>
>
> I do not subscribe to what might be termed quantum theory.

*big sigh* Why not? And why does every piece of evidence we have
so far agree with it, in some cases even to an accurary of 12
significant digits?

> I see overwhelming evidence that everything is EMR.

Please present that evidence. For starters, you could explain how
electrons can be EMR.


> So it assembles in basic packages, call them quantum.

How does EMR "assemble" in packages?


> I strongly suspect that what is perceived
> through science is highly flawed because many observations are flawed,
> thus results and extrapolations are flawed.

Which observations are flawed, and what is your evidence for that?


> Science is trying to fit all the evidence together into a unified theory.
> A lot of the evidence is not what it appears to be.

For example?


> Much of it is
> mathematical representation that has little resemblance to reality.

Evidence is not mathematical representation.


Have you looked there?


>>>No matter what type of theory is set forth pertaining to a beginning of
>>>our
>>>existence, there must have been the propagation medium present
>>>beforehand for anything to work.
>>
>>Huh? Could you please explain that logic further?

I don't see anything below where you explain why a "propagation medium"
had to be there "beforehand for anything to work".

> As I see it, the "writing on the wall"

What do you mean?


> says that EMR traveling through
> free space is traveling through a propagation network that is "bent" by
> gravity.

Huh? What do you mean by "propagation network"?


> The bending is only a mathematical and geometric observation.

Well, since bending *is* something geometrical, that's not surprising,
isn't it?


> What is actually happening is probably quite different than a bending.

If you can reproduce the predictions of General relativity without
the assumption of curved spacetime, feel free to do so.

> Relativity, in a geometric sense, is mostly rotation through 90 degrees
> or somewhere in between.

I have no clue what you mean here.


> What is actually happening is most uncertain.

Not at all.


> The propagation medium is what is called free space. It has properties that
> are necessary for matter to operate as it does.

For example?


> The "writing on the wall"
> strong suggests (from my perspective) that matter does not inherently have
> all of the qualities of space-time.

I have no clue what you mean by "matter has (or has not) qualities of
space-time".


> What matter reacts to is a quality (qualities) of free space.

Huh


> It must have been present in the beginning.

*What* must have been present there, and why?


> Whatever massive material event happened (that appears to be steadily

> expanding), call it the Big Bang,

The Big Bang is not "steadily expanding", and it even makes no sense
to say that a "massive material event happened that is steadily
expanding". Events don't expand.


> must have had an already existant free space.

Why?


> Once again, (assuming that there is some scientific explanation for
> the presence of the initial quantity of matter in the beginning)

See the link above for some ideas, as I said.


> the matter
> itself did not and does not generate the qualities of free space.

Well, I know of no one who says that "matter generates the qualities
of free space". Probably because it is totally unclear what you *mean*
with "the qualities of free space".


> It is conceivable to me that the generation of matter in the beginning could
> have been an electromagnetic event that literally generated matter.

What is an "electromagnetic event", and how can it generate matter?


> It is
> conceivable that light and velocity were spontaneously generated

Contradicts conservation of energy, don't you think?

And, BTW, velocity of what?


> and then matter formed due to some type of interaction.

That's marvelously vague, congratulations!


> Even so, the properties of
> free space would have to be present the mass-energy conversions to take
> effect.

What "properties of free space" do you mean?


> Who knows, maybe someone stuck a match in a room of of mirrors
> inside a black hole.

A black hole has nothing to do with the BB.


> Maybe that's what the damned ape did. Playing with a
> cigarette lighter. Kabooom. Mabey it was an anti-cigarette
> lighter......anyhow....

What ape? Sorry, I don't get the joke.

> The qualities of free space (as far as I know) are homogeneous through the
> universe no matter what the quantity of matter in the vacinity (surely there
> is some exception to this at the edge of reality, wherever that might be, if
> there is such a place). Yes, the matter in the vacinity changes the free
> space, but the free space itself is the same every where.

Err, if it is changed, how can it be the same?


> From this it
> seems logical to conclude that the qualities of free space were not
> generated at the moment of the beginning.

How does that follow?


> These qualites were already
> present. Someone put free space in operation. In fact, a universe this
> complex could not have generated itself.

Why not?


> The whole theory of evolution is patently absurd.

*even bigger sigh*

Please go to www.talkorigins.org and read *all* of the articles there.
That will keep you busy for some days...

> My point is that science is used to generate arguements in behalf of a
> godless beginning of existence.

Science deals only with natural explanations, since supernatural events
can't be studied with the methology of science. And science found such
natural explanations for a lot of things which were previously
considered to be the work of god(s). If you have a problem with that,
then apparently your faith is rather weak.


> I say that the highest science (which
> describes accurately the nature of free space) makes it obvious that what
> ever evolutionary model is set forth requires an already existant free
> space.

What "highest science" is that which achieves such marvelous things?


> Gravity, mass, energy, space-time are all predicated on events occuring in
> relation to the ether.

Unsupported, baseless assertion.


> Mass increases with velocity.

Yes, indeed. Nice that we agree on that.


> Electrons are moving
> at high velocities in (from our perspective) circular orbitals.

Wrong. If they would do that, they would radiate off electromagnetic
radiation, and spiral into the nucleus.


> The
> gravitational effect of matter seems to be due to the mass of the atom
> interacting with free space.

Again, marvelously vague.


> The mass of the electrons and vibrating protons and neutrons

What is vibrating there?


> is due to the interaction of their velocities with free
> space.

Still marvelously vague.


> This gives them their mass. It is a system that we percieve as
> material existence. It could all be EMR.

How?


> Light has mass.
<http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html>


> Light has velocity.

Finally something we can again agree upon.


> Light's path is changed as
> gravitational fields change the nature of free space, the medium through
> which light propagates. Light is EMR and has the properties of matter.

What properties of matter does light have? For starters, it has neither
rest mass nor charge.


> All EMR travels at c, even the fields in a 120V 60Hz line transformer.

Fields in a transformer are not radiation.

> Light is EMR and has mass.

Wrong. See above.


> This relationship strongly suggests that all
> material existence is EMR

Why?


> in forms that we cannot understand because we are
> wasting so much time on all this quark and quantum theory.

Hint: these theories are the best theories we have, were tested hundreds
of thousands of times, and have never given a wrong prediction. Just
dumb luck, eh?


> It is good for
> what it is good for, but it will never get us where we need to go.

Unsupported, baseless assertion.


> We need to prove or disprove whether electrons and all other forms of matter
> are small

We know quite well that electrons are small (smaller than about 10^(-18)
m). That is shown by scattering experiments, which are based on
electrodynamics.


> (or mabey huge and dimensionally distorted) circular and
> self-sufficent webs of light.

Where would their charge, rest mass and magnetic moment then come from?

> Light travels at "c" because this is the standard propagaton velocity
> (from our perspective, from our reference point).

Would that be different from other reference points? From which, why,
and how do you know?


> The redshift is due to
> the gravitational effect upon the propagation medium, the ether.

Yet another unsupported assertion.


> Gravity
> itself appears to be as result of mass interacting with free space.

Still marvelously vague.

>>>EMR propagates through some type of universal format.
>>
>>Ever heard of the Michelson-Morley experiment?
>
>
> Yes, amazing, but ineffective. It may have worked, but due to factors that
> had a cancelling effect there was no drift (for lack of the proper term)
> detected for planet earth.

What cancelling factors are these?

>>>The "ether" surely exists or there would not be a reference point called
>>>"c". MH
>>
>>"c" is not a reference *point*. What do you mean?
>
>

> "Point" here means a place in the theory that is a reliable constant Not a


> geometric point, a reference point. A point of reference. A place in the
> theory that has a definable quantity. Relativity is based on "c" being
> constant.

You might try being more precise. Constant with respect to what? Do you
know the answer to that question?


> AE said that there was no proof of this, the value of "c". It
> was chosen to be the constant, but it does work out in the equations.

Huh?


> It is
> the maximum theoretical obtainable velocity in mass-energy conversion.
> It can also be mesured, so it seems to be a reliable constant.

So, why does the existence of this "reference point" imply the existence
of an ether?


> If anyone made it through this, thanks for reading it. If I read everything
> three times I could see what I was trying to say. I hope that it is
> basically sound according to theory.

Sorry, but it consisted mainly of unsupported assertions, plain denial
of well-established theories, some totally vague statements, and some
misrepresentations of what science actually says.


> Comments are welcome, if they aren't based on tons of geometry.
> Regards, Mark

What's your problem with geometry?


Bye,
Bjoern

robert j. kolker

unread,
Sep 1, 2004, 9:36:27 AM9/1/04
to

Kees Roos wrote:

> Your question is equivalent to questions like:
> - Is there anything north of the north pole?
> - Is there a speed slower than standstill?
> - Can anything be closer to me than me myself?

No, no and no.

Bob Kolker

robert j. kolker

unread,
Sep 1, 2004, 9:37:30 AM9/1/04
to

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

> Huh? Could you please explain that logic further?

Nihi ex nihil fit. Nothing comes from nothing.

Bob Kolker


Greg Gerardin

unread,
Sep 1, 2004, 10:12:08 AM9/1/04
to

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> a écrit dans le
message de news:ch4ga0$ftl$1...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...

> Greg Gerardin wrote:
> > check the bogdanov's theory. it's extremely controversial and taboo but
> > strikingly brilliant (very intuitive).
>
> You might want to look at this page...
> <http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanov.html>
> I am not as knowledgeable in topology, differential geometry etc.
> as Baez, but judging from the things I *do* understand about the
> discussion, Baez is right: the Bogdanovs do indeed speak gibberish.

hello Bjoern!
I know that page, and I know a lot about the whole "affair". To be sincere,
I came here (sci.physics / sci.physics.research) because the Bogdanov talk
about this newsgroup in their book (Baez being a moderator of .research).

I've read their book (Avant le Big Band... i don't know if it has been
translated in english) 2 weeks ago. I was *so excited* about their theory
that I wanted to know more about it and about the controversy. So I read
most of the discussion between Baez and the Bogdanov, and I read a lot of
other discussions on other forums. I've also read some articles on the
subject (on the theory and on the controversy). And I made my own point of
view. I know nothing about physics, right, but I have a good intuition and
mostly I have managed to get a clear view of what went on, who said what,
who backs them, etc... And what came out of this is quite different than
what Baez says on his website.

The Bogdanov are indeed backed by eminent specialists . They do indeed
understand topology other theories very well, etc. The problem is : type
"Bogdanov" in google. First entry : Baez's website.

....
That's sad. But that's how the world goes: misunderstanding, envy, lies...
:-/

> > am I banned?
>
> It would be news to me that one can get banned from sci.physics
> (or do you mean sci.physics.relativity?).

I was joking! ;)

See you,
Greg

Bjoern Feuerbacher

unread,
Sep 1, 2004, 12:49:28 PM9/1/04
to

By whom?


> They do indeed
> understand topology other theories very well, etc. The problem is : type
> "Bogdanov" in google. First entry : Baez's website.
>
> ....
> That's sad. But that's how the world goes: misunderstanding, envy, lies...
> :-/

As I said: judging from what I know about those topics, Baez' comments
are right on the mark. Even if they indeed understand these topics,
they are obviously not able to explain them in a way understandable by
(most) other scientists.

[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern


truegridtz

unread,
Sep 1, 2004, 1:26:46 PM9/1/04
to
You said pertaining to "c": "You might try being more precise. Constant

with respect to what? Do you
> know the answer to that question?"

"c" is constant no matter what the velocity of the observer.


The space-time alterations due to velocity are all automatically adjusted so
that "c" is perceived to be the same.

You also said: " Please present that evidence. For starters, you could


explain how
electrons can be EMR."

I am not saying that they are. I am saying that they could be. I don't
know what the actual waveform would be. I see considerable evidence that
most everything in the atomic world is EMR.

What happens when light travels in a circle? It would continually
accelerate toward the center wouldn't it? IOW there would be a factor
involved that is not seen in rectilinear motion.

My position is that science is closed minded. Piling up evidence is not
going to lead to a useful application of present knowledge. Sooner or later
the nature of gravity will be discovered.

I have little doubt that whoever first generates the gravitational field
will do it with a specific EM waveform. I cannot prove this. Whoever does
this will not arrive at the understanding by piling up more quarks and other
such evidence.


Relativity is a continuously adjustable multi-dimensional feedback system.
Evidence concerning this universal system keeps piling up through the years,
but there seems to be little effort to see what it all leads to.

It is obvious to me that it points to EMR as being the prevailing component,
if not the only one.


Virtually everything has electromagnetic qualities. EM is the common
factor. It seems logical to look at the nature of gravity through EM.

I don't see why you, and probably most, think that laboratory evidence is
all that matters. Sure, science is based on fact (or what is perceived to
be fact), but there is also the important element of interpreting the
evidence and theorizing about what it could mean.

AE taught us that things aren't always as they appear. Newtonian mechanics
was not the whole story. This lesson should not be forgotten.

IOW, don't be so quick to assume that what we perceive is what is really
there. These manifestations that appear in laboratories could easily be
something far different than what they appear to be.

When the Hubble went into operation it was stated that 70% of all that we
believed about the universe was proved to be false.

I don't know what else to say. I can see where you are situated (to a
certain extent), but I don't see why you are so committed to remaining
there.

I don't mean to be rude, but judging from your reactions, I would say you
know very little about relativity. Much of what I said was basic theory.
You don't seem to recognize it.

Perhaps you are so involved with current laboratory evidence that you can't
see it.

You said: " What properties of matter does light have? For starters, it has


neither
> rest mass nor charge."

E=MCsquared: The energy of a photon is its mass times C. Rest mass of
light?

You don't understand the redshift? You don't understand that the light
changes direction when in the vicinity of a large mass? These effects are
attributed to the properties of free space.

This is what amazes me. Relativity theory is used as a computation tool,
but the actual understanding of it seems to be relegated and ignored. It is
a partial explaination of how material reality operates.

You said :

" Fields in a transformer are not radiation."

Yes they are. The propagation velocity of any electromagnetic field is "c".

I don't mean to be rude, you haven't been rude to me. I suppose we are in
two different worlds and yours is the most common one.

I welcome any replies you may have, but I don't know how to answer them.
There is obviously a very wide communication gap. Many of your questions
make sense. Many of my statements are basically out of order on a
scientific basis.

For example: "> So it assembles in basic packages, call them quantum.


>
> How does EMR "assemble" in packages?"

With very poor context I was trying to say that the means whereby particles
come into existence could be a purely EM event. My basic perspective is
that little effort is put forth in physics to understand more about EM
propagation. I'm sorry, I don't have the words.........physics is stuck in
the mud in a certain way.

Since there is insufficient focus on the EM evidence there is consequently
little or no effort to explore the possibility that what is perceived to one
thing is really something else: The possibility that what is perceived as
particles is really a form of EM.

There is overwhelming (as I see it) evidence that the relativistic effects
(I am at a loss of words) of reality are causing, perpetuating, and
accommodating EM waveforms that have yet to be identified. Nobody seems to
entertain the possibility that much of what is detected is explainable with
(as yet unknown) knowledge about EMR..

I strongly suspect that the answer lays hidden within the relationships of
the Theory of Relativity. I wouldn't be surprised if the answer was hidden
in plain view.

The one thing that most students in enginerring and physics don't understand
is the basic theoretical relationships upon which things are based. They
work the equations and get the answers, but they never really understand
what the equations really mean. Einstein built upon Maxwell and others.
Building upon Einstein is a unique chore because of the contiuously changing
complexities.


Sincerely, Mark


"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message

news:ch4i2a$g5k$1...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...

Dale Trynor

unread,
Sep 1, 2004, 2:40:50 PM9/1/04
to
Greg Gerardin wrote:

> "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> a écrit dans le
> message de news:ch4ga0$ftl$1...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
>
>>Greg Gerardin wrote:
>>
>>>check the bogdanov's theory. it's extremely controversial and taboo but
>>>strikingly brilliant (very intuitive).
>>
>>You might want to look at this page...
>><http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanov.html>
>>I am not as knowledgeable in topology, differential geometry etc.
>>as Baez, but judging from the things I *do* understand about the
>>discussion, Baez is right: the Bogdanovs do indeed speak gibberish.
>
>
> hello Bjoern!
> I know that page, and I know a lot about the whole "affair". To be sincere,
> I came here (sci.physics / sci.physics.research) because the Bogdanov talk
> about this newsgroup in their book (Baez being a moderator of .research).

Dale Trynor wrote:
The mechanism for space time creation has been posted here for over a
year and its simplistic and easily understood.
Its subject to empirical tests and the gedanken I use to illustrate how
and why has been constantly ignored and you know who you are.

Could say more and it will be important when one wants to study human
behavior especially when it comes to objectivity and the acceptance of
new ideas. It reminds me of children putting their fingers in their ears
and going la la la. What they cant refute they ignore.

Basically what the theory examine is the idea that gravity or rather the
time dilation or rather slower relative time thats caused by it, will
contract matter and that includes anything one can measure either
distances or volume with. The theory later on hypothesizes that this is
actually is more space and not simply a shorter measure of the same space.

What this results in is a way of showing how not only neutron stars but
black holes must expand the space around them and it goes to extreme
with black holes.

Well if one can show how black holes become expanded in space in such a
way that they must become universe like and one even gets the same
predictions as given for inflation theory when a black hole was created
isn't it a bit of a stretch to say that our universe was created
differently and that we are a special very special creation.

If your mind is not fossilized I will repost the basic gedanken that
allows mathematical testing as well as some of my more recent proposed
experiments that could also be used to support this theory.

Dale

>
> I've read their book (Avant le Big Band... i don't know if it has been
> translated in english) 2 weeks ago. I was *so excited* about their theory

[snip]

Spaceman

unread,
Sep 1, 2004, 6:54:58 PM9/1/04
to

"truegridtz" <ma...@hal-pc.org> wrote in message news:4135681f$0$450$a726...@news.hal-pc.org...
} As I see it the ultimate in science (relativity) <snipped>

<LOL>
what you say is very funny.
thanks
and BTW...
Relativity is not the ultimate in science,
You should try to break such brainwahsing before it is too late
for you to understand the simplicity of reality.


truegridtz

unread,
Sep 1, 2004, 7:22:14 PM9/1/04
to
You have obviously devoted your mind to becoming an expert smartass. You
are very good at it. If there is one thing that you certainly understand it
is simplicity. You are funny too, in a very simple way. The children of
the video game. You are truly a curse to human destiny. I shutter to think
what your generation will produce. Surely it will have BIG SIMPLE BUTTONS
on it. MH
"Spaceman" <Spac...@realspaceman.com> wrote in message
news:6rsZc.220473$8_6.79732@attbi_s04...

Spaceman

unread,
Sep 1, 2004, 7:38:42 PM9/1/04
to
So you are already too brainwashed?
Poor thing..
Sorry to even try to break that problem you have.
I wish it were a simple button to stop brainwahsing such as yours.
But of course, it takes millions of simple things to do such.
and you won't even accept one of them more than likely in your condition.


"truegridtz" <ma...@hal-pc.org> wrote in message news:413657c0$0$446$a726...@news.hal-pc.org...

Bill Hobba

unread,
Sep 1, 2004, 8:45:54 PM9/1/04
to

"truegridtz" <ma...@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
news:413604f4$0$446$a726...@news.hal-pc.org...

> You said pertaining to "c": "You might try being more precise. Constant
> with respect to what? Do you
> > know the answer to that question?"
>
> "c" is constant no matter what the velocity of the observer.
>
>
> The space-time alterations due to velocity are all automatically adjusted
so
> that "c" is perceived to be the same.
>
> You also said: " Please present that evidence. For starters, you could
> explain how
> electrons can be EMR."
>
> I am not saying that they are. I am saying that they could be. I don't
> know what the actual waveform would be. I see considerable evidence that
> most everything in the atomic world is EMR.

First please explain to me what you think EMR is?

EMR are solutions to Maxwells free field equations which generally take the
form of waves. Now, for starters, please explain, without QM, how waves can
be particles? And if you introduce QM then things become much more
difficult.

>
> What happens when light travels in a circle?
>

How is it possible for light travel in a circle?

> It would continually
> accelerate toward the center wouldn't it? IOW there would be a factor
> involved that is not seen in rectilinear motion.
>
> My position is that science is closed minded. Piling up evidence is not
> going to lead to a useful application of present knowledge. Sooner or
later
> the nature of gravity will be discovered.

The nature of gravity has been discovered - it is space-time curvature

>
> I have little doubt that whoever first generates the gravitational field
> will do it with a specific EM waveform. I cannot prove this. Whoever
does
> this will not arrive at the understanding by piling up more quarks and
other
> such evidence.
>
>
> Relativity is a continuously adjustable multi-dimensional feedback system.
> Evidence concerning this universal system keeps piling up through the
years,
> but there seems to be little effort to see what it all leads to.

Please tell me the book you learnt relativity from.

>
> It is obvious to me that it points to EMR as being the prevailing
component,
> if not the only one.
>

I strongly suspect you do not even know what EMR is.

>
>
> Virtually everything has electromagnetic qualities. EM is the common
> factor. It seems logical to look at the nature of gravity through EM.
>

First, the weak interaction in not EM - although they unify at high enough
energy but that is another issue. Second gravity has properties not
explainable in terms of EM; EM only affects electric charge but gravity also
affects neutral objects such as neutrinos.

>
> I don't see why you, and probably most, think that laboratory evidence is
> all that matters. Sure, science is based on fact (or what is perceived to
> be fact), but there is also the important element of interpreting the
> evidence and theorizing about what it could mean.

Of course - but what you have written does not conform to known
experimentally verified facts.

>
> AE taught us that things aren't always as they appear. Newtonian
mechanics
> was not the whole story. This lesson should not be forgotten.
>
> IOW, don't be so quick to assume that what we perceive is what is really
> there. These manifestations that appear in laboratories could easily be
> something far different than what they appear to be.
>
> When the Hubble went into operation it was stated that 70% of all that we
> believed about the universe was proved to be false.
>
> I don't know what else to say. I can see where you are situated (to a
> certain extent), but I don't see why you are so committed to remaining
> there.
>
> I don't mean to be rude, but judging from your reactions, I would say you
> know very little about relativity.

From other posts I know Bjoern Feuerbacher is well acquainted with
relativity. However I suspect you are not.

> Much of what I said was basic theory.
> You don't seem to recognize it.
>

Light does not travel in circles.

>
> Perhaps you are so involved with current laboratory evidence that you
can't
> see it.
>
> You said: " What properties of matter does light have? For starters, it
has
> neither
> > rest mass nor charge."
>
> E=MCsquared: The energy of a photon is its mass times C. Rest mass of
> light?

Light has no rest mass which is the reason it travels at c. Do you even
understand what rest mass is?

The reason you do not have the words is that physics is written in the
language of mathematics, a language I suspect you are not familiar with.

>
> Since there is insufficient focus on the EM evidence there is
consequently
> little or no effort to explore the possibility that what is perceived to
one
> thing is really something else: The possibility that what is perceived as
> particles is really a form of EM.
>
> There is overwhelming (as I see it) evidence that the relativistic effects
> (I am at a loss of words)

If you are lost for words why not try the math?

> of reality are causing, perpetuating, and
> accommodating EM waveforms that have yet to be identified. Nobody seems
to
> entertain the possibility that much of what is detected is explainable
with
> (as yet unknown) knowledge about EMR..

Yes they do - for example Kaluza-Klein theories that link gravity and EM are
still an active area of investigation see
http://astro.uwaterloo.ca/~wesson/.

>
> I strongly suspect that the answer lays hidden within the relationships of
> the Theory of Relativity. I wouldn't be surprised if the answer was
hidden
> in plain view.
>
> The one thing that most students in enginerring and physics don't
understand
> is the basic theoretical relationships upon which things are based. They
> work the equations and get the answers, but they never really understand
> what the equations really mean. Einstein built upon Maxwell and others.
> Building upon Einstein is a unique chore because of the contiuously
changing
> complexities.

Please see the following to understand what theoretical physics really
requires: http://modeling.la.asu.edu/R&E/SecretsGenius.pdf.

Bill

Edward Green

unread,
Sep 2, 2004, 12:01:20 AM9/2/04
to
"Albert Einstein" <dada...@tin.it> wrote in message news:<iG7Zc.178539$OR2.8...@news3.tin.it>...

> Could be there something before big bang?


> No space, no time. But what?

In the Big Bang model, there is no "before".

In some other model which contained the Big Bang model or a reasonable
facsimile thereof, there might be some meaning attachable to the words
"before the Big Bang".

As to "testable" or "falsifiable" or all that other good jazz, I think
the point is overstated. There isn't a sharp cut-off -- except in a
model which stated firmly that there are no observable consequences to
anything which prior to the Big Bang in any sense we may assign to the
words -- but note that that itself is a model. So whether the
question is utterly meaningless, or only incredibly vague, depends on
whether we want to reserve the target phrase to a particular model, or
to similar looking things in similar looking models -- the way we
would if the GR model of the object known as a black hole were shown
to lose touch with reality -- the things which look very much like the
objects predicted in GR -- but which are then shown to deviate from GR
-- would still be called black holes out of the sense that the name
now labels the physical object which looks a lot like but is not
precisely a realization of the GR solution -- and the same may be said
of the Big Bang.



> Is this kind of subject, something that concern cosmology or philosophy or
> both of them?

I happen to be of the view that physics is part of philosophy -- the
mother field, unfortunately, being largely in a pre-paradigm stage.
What we call it, however, is unimportant: like art, we should simply
recognize cogent reasoning about experience when we see it. What
other people call "philosophy" in a pejorative sense, I prefer to
label "bad philosophy". And there's reems of it.

xxein

unread,
Sep 2, 2004, 12:36:34 AM9/2/04
to
"Albert Einstein" <dada...@tin.it> wrote in message news:<iG7Zc.178539$OR2.8...@news3.tin.it>...
> Could be there something before big bang?
> No space, no time. But what?
>
> Is this kind of subject, something that concern cosmology or philosophy or
> both of them?
>
>
> bye
> Albert

xxein: What IS space? What IS time? What IS the big bang?

It's not what it's called. It's what it IS!!!

Alfred Einstead

unread,
Sep 2, 2004, 12:49:12 AM9/2/04
to
"Albert Einstein" <dada...@tin.it> wrote:
> Could be there something before big bang?

Not if "before", itself, along with everything else related to
time, was created with the Big Bang. Then before before, there
was no before... which means there was no "was" either, because
"was" means is + before. So, actually, it should read: "before
oefore there no before". And, since there no before, before
before, then "before" isn't there either. So, it should
actually read: "there no". Since space was created with the
Big Bang ... oops, I mean since space creat with the Big Bang
(can't use -ed either, since -ed means before), then there
was no "there" either ... or (to say it correctly)
"no '' either" (using ' quotes for embedded " quotes so as
not to cause undue confusion...)

Bjoern Feuerbacher

unread,
Sep 2, 2004, 4:17:21 AM9/2/04
to
truegridtz wrote:
> You said pertaining to "c": "You might try being more precise. Constant
> with respect to what? Do you know the answer to that question?"
>
>
> "c" is constant no matter what the velocity of the observer.

Right.

> The space-time alterations due to velocity are all automatically adjusted so
> that "c" is perceived to be the same.

"space-time alterations" is a strange way to express this, but
essentially this is right.


> You also said: " Please present that evidence. For starters, you could
> explain how electrons can be EMR."
>
> I am not saying that they are. I am saying that they could be.

*sigh* Don't play word games.

Please explain how electrons *could be* EMR.


> I don't know what the actual waveform would be.

What do you mean by "waveform"?


> I see considerable evidence that
> most everything in the atomic world is EMR.

What is this evidence?


> What happens when light travels in a circle?

How should that happen?


> It would continually
> accelerate toward the center wouldn't it?

Yes. But where should the force needed for that come from?


> IOW there would be a factor
> involved that is not seen in rectilinear motion.
>
> My position is that science is closed minded.

Have you ever read a scientific journal? Have you ever looked at the
proposals science makes to explain the natural world?

My position is that crackpots are close minded. They wish to return
to a Newtonian, mechanistic world view, and can't accept that this
is not possible.


> Piling up evidence is not
> going to lead to a useful application of present knowledge.

The point of science is not to find applications of knowledge. That
would be the point of engineering.


> Sooner or later the nature of gravity will be discovered.

Why do you think that General Relativity does not describe the nature
of gravity?


> I have little doubt that whoever first generates the gravitational field
> will do it with a specific EM waveform. I cannot prove this.

Well, then why do you have little doubt about that?


> Whoever does
> this will not arrive at the understanding by piling up more quarks and
> other such evidence.

How do you know?

> Relativity is a continuously adjustable multi-dimensional feedback system.

Huh? What is "adjustable" in relativity?


> Evidence concerning this universal system keeps piling up through the years,
> but there seems to be little effort to see what it all leads to.
> It is obvious to me that it points to EMR as being the prevailing component,
> if not the only one.

Would you please explain what evidence points to this?

> Virtually everything has electromagnetic qualities.

Neutrinos haven't.

OTOH, *everything* has "gravitational" factors - everything reacts to
gravitational forces.


> EM is the common
> factor. It seems logical to look at the nature of gravity through EM.

According to my argument above, we should look at the nature of EM
through gravity.

Hint: people tried this for decades (in both ways). It simply does not work.


> I don't see why you, and probably most, think that laboratory evidence is
> all that matters. Sure, science is based on fact (or what is perceived to
> be fact), but there is also the important element of interpreting the
> evidence and theorizing about what it could mean.

Did I ever dispute that?


> AE taught us that things aren't always as they appear. Newtonian mechanics
> was not the whole story. This lesson should not be forgotten.

And it isn't. Why do you think it is?


> IOW, don't be so quick to assume that what we perceive is what is really
> there.

I don't. Why do you think I do?


> These manifestations that appear in laboratories could easily be
> something far different than what they appear to be.

If you have another theory which explains the evidence as well as the
ones we have, feel free to provide it. OTOH, if you only have "there
could be something wrong with our theories, I feel intuitively that
they can't be right", then you are not doing science.


> When the Hubble went into operation it was stated that 70% of all that we
> believed about the universe was proved to be false.

Quote, please.

> I don't know what else to say. I can see where you are situated (to a
> certain extent), but I don't see why you are so committed to remaining
> there.

I doubt that you can see where I am situated. For starters, some of the
thoughts you ascribe to me above and below are totally false.


> I don't mean to be rude, but judging from your reactions, I would say you
> know very little about relativity.

ROTFL!!!

As you show shortly below (rest mass), you yourself know only very
little about relativity.


> Much of what I said was basic theory.
> You don't seem to recognize it.

Err, maybe, just maybe, the fault may lie on *your* side? You have a
*very* strange way to phrase relativity. And you have several
misunderstandings about it.


> Perhaps you are so involved with current laboratory evidence that you can't
> see it.

Hint: I work in theoretical physics, not in laboratory science. And I
have even *taught* relativity so some people already.


> You said: " What properties of matter does light have? For starters, it has
> neither rest mass nor charge."
>
>
> E=MCsquared: The energy of a photon is its mass times C. Rest mass of
> light?

*sigh* And *you* want to lecture *me* on relativity? You don't even know
what "rest mass" means!!! Try reading this:
<http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html>

Light has no rest mass. If you don't understand or accept this, you
don't understand relativity, plain and simple.


And I notice that you ignored my argument above that light has no charge.


> You don't understand the redshift?

Huh? What makes you think so? I understand it perfectly. Much better
than you, Mr. "redshift is due to the gravitational effect upon the

propagation medium, the ether".

> You don't understand that the light
> changes direction when in the vicinity of a large mass?

Again, why on earth do you think so? I understand that perfectly well.


> These effects are attributed to the properties of free space.

These effects are attributed to the properties of space *curved* by the
presence of a mass in the vicinity.

> This is what amazes me. Relativity theory is used as a computation tool,
> but the actual understanding of it seems to be relegated and ignored.

Why do you think so?


> It is a partial explaination of how material reality operates.
>
> You said :
>
> "Fields in a transformer are not radiation."
>
> Yes they are.

No, they aren't. Thanks for demonstrating yet again that you don't know
what you are talking about.


> The propagation velocity of any electromagnetic field is "c".

Fields don't propagate. Only waves propagate. Thanks for demonstrating
yet again that you don't know what you are talking about.


> I don't mean to be rude, you haven't been rude to me. I suppose we are in
> two different worlds and yours is the most common one.

Yours is the one of the people who don't understand physics. Yes, that is
rude, but from your comments above, it is a simple fact that you don't
understand physics.


> I welcome any replies you may have, but I don't know how to answer them.
> There is obviously a very wide communication gap. Many of your questions
> make sense. Many of my statements are basically out of order on a
> scientific basis.

For starters, you could explain why you think that EMR is the basis
for everything, and how an electron could consist of EMR.

> For example: "> So it assembles in basic packages, call them quantum.
>
>>How does EMR "assemble" in packages?"
>
>
> With very poor context I was trying to say that the means whereby particles
> come into existence could be a purely EM event.

What is an "EM event"?

And what about neutrinos? They have no electric or magnetic properties,
so how do they come into existence?


> My basic perspective is
> that little effort is put forth in physics to understand more about EM
> propagation.

Why do you think there is anything left to understand there?


> I'm sorry, I don't have the words.........physics is stuck in
> the mud in a certain way.

Why do you think so?

> Since there is insufficient focus on the EM evidence

What evidence is that?


> there is consequently
> little or no effort to explore the possibility that what is perceived to one
> thing is really something else: The possibility that what is perceived as
> particles is really a form of EM.

Say, do you think that everytime someone who knows little science makes
a proposal how the world could be, scientists have to jump and examine
this idea at once?

If you have *evidence* for the idea that particles are a form of EMR
(other than your vague argument that essentially everything "seems to
have electromagnetic qualities", which is wrong anyway), feel free to
provide it.


> There is overwhelming (as I see it) evidence that the relativistic effects
> (I am at a loss of words)

That is a nice sign that your ideas are rather callow.


> of reality are causing, perpetuating, and
> accommodating EM waveforms that have yet to be identified.

What evidence is this?


> Nobody seems to
> entertain the possibility that much of what is detected is explainable
> with (as yet unknown) knowledge about EMR..

Because there is no evidence at all that there *is* any unknown
knowledge about EMR.

The theory we have today for describing electromagnetic phenomena
(Quantum Electrodynamics) is able to make predictions which agree with
the experimental tests up to an accuracy of twelve (!!!) significant
digits. How could that be if there is any significant "unknown
knowledge" about EMR?

> I strongly suspect that the answer lays hidden within the relationships of
> the Theory of Relativity. I wouldn't be surprised if the answer was hidden
> in plain view.
>
> The one thing that most students in enginerring and physics don't understand
> is the basic theoretical relationships upon which things are based. They
> work the equations and get the answers, but they never really understand
> what the equations really mean.

So you think that *you* know better what the equations really mean than
all those hundreds of thousands of students? You might try to look up
the terms "arrogance" and "overestimation of one's own capabilities".
You also might try reading this:
<http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html>


[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher

unread,
Sep 2, 2004, 4:32:12 AM9/2/04
to
Bill Hobba wrote:

[snip]


> Second gravity has properties not
> explainable in terms of EM; EM only affects electric charge but gravity also
> affects neutral objects such as neutrinos.

The theory says that it should, but is there actually any experimental
evidence that neutrinos are affected by gravity? I doubt it.

(please note that I don't claim that neutrinos aren't affected by gravity!)

[snip]


> From other posts I know Bjoern Feuerbacher is well acquainted with
> relativity.

Thanks. :-)

[snip]


[snip]


>>Nobody seems to
>>entertain the possibility that much of what is detected is explainable
>>with (as yet unknown) knowledge about EMR..
>
>
> Yes they do - for example Kaluza-Klein theories that link gravity and EM are
> still an active area of investigation see
> http://astro.uwaterloo.ca/~wesson/.

Interesting, I did not know that!

How do they deal with the unification of the electromagnetic and the
weak force?

[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern

TomGee

unread,
Sep 2, 2004, 8:00:20 AM9/2/04
to
"Albert Einstein" <dada...@tin.it> wrote in message news:<iG7Zc.178539$OR2.8...@news3.tin.it>...
> Could be there something before big bang?
> No space, no time. But what?
>
>
Barring the validity of any steady state theory, I like to think that
the BB emptied out into absolute space. Abs. space is defined as
"space devoid of anything in it". Some speculate (this is all
speculation, of course) that the BB emptied out its contents - which
included space - into a so-called Great Void, an area of "nothingness"
which exists beyond the edges of our universe. It is impossible for
humans to imagine such a void, although some claim they can indeed
imagine it.

It makes more sense to me to think that abs. space is what lies beyond
our universe, but to what extent is unimaginable. Our universe is
located in an area which was before the BB part of this absolute
space. This means that other universes may exist in abs. space just
like ours does.

This means, also, that space existed before the BB and it was not
spewed out with the other contents of the singularity, or whatever was
the source of the BB. It's too fanciful for me to think that space
came out with the primordial soup; it seems more likely that the BB
exploded in abs. space wherein its source existed, and wherever its
contents have traveled through, that is our universe. Thus, that
space is no longer an abs. space, but it is a formerly abs. space
which is now the space of our universe.


>
>
> Is this kind of subject, something that concern cosmology or philosophy or
> both of them?
>
>

Because several ideas have been proffered as to the events of the BB,
such as the Inflationary Period, in order to account for some of the
anomalies evident with a simple BB, it is and should be an item of
interest for all physicists even though we can never know the real
truth of it.

I feel quite at ease with the way I see things, as above, and I don't
lose any sleep over such unfalsifiable ideas.
TomGee

Bjoern Feuerbacher

unread,
Sep 2, 2004, 8:12:32 AM9/2/04
to
TomGee wrote:
> "Albert Einstein" <dada...@tin.it> wrote in message news:<iG7Zc.178539$OR2.8...@news3.tin.it>...
>
>>Could be there something before big bang?
>>No space, no time. But what?
>>
>>
>
> Barring the validity of any steady state theory, I like to think that
> the BB emptied out into absolute space.

Please tell us how that agrees with the actual equations of General
Relativity.


> Abs. space is defined as "space devoid of anything in it".

Even vacuum fluctuations? How would that be possible?


> Some speculate (this is all
> speculation, of course) that the BB emptied out its contents

You talk here as if the BB were a container which could be emptied out.
That does not make sense.


>- which
> included space - into a so-called Great Void, an area of "nothingness"
> which exists beyond the edges of our universe.

Err, according to the BBT, our universe has no edges, and it makes no
sense to talk about "beyond the universe".


> It is impossible for
> humans to imagine such a void, although some claim they can indeed
> imagine it.

Who?


> It makes more sense to me to think that abs. space is what lies beyond
> our universe, but to what extent is unimaginable.

What is the big difference between your "absolute space, devoid of
everything" and "an area of nothingness"?


> Our universe is
> located in an area which was before the BB part of this absolute
> space. This means that other universes may exist in abs. space just
> like ours does.

So you think the universe has boundaries?


[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern

Greg Gerardin

unread,
Sep 2, 2004, 10:08:33 AM9/2/04
to

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> a écrit dans le
message de news:ch4uip$ibs$1...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...

[snip]

> > The Bogdanov are indeed backed by eminent specialists .
>
> By whom?

I prefer not to enter that debate! I can't talk for them and as I can't
proove anything of what they say. I feel they have very good ideas in their
theory, and I that's fine with me. As I told you I gathered a lot of infos
and made my own point of view. You should do the same if you're interested.
;)


> > They do indeed
> > understand topology other theories very well, etc. The problem is :
type
> > "Bogdanov" in google. First entry : Baez's website.
> >
> > ....
> > That's sad. But that's how the world goes: misunderstanding, envy,
lies...
> > :-/
>
> As I said: judging from what I know about those topics, Baez' comments
> are right on the mark. Even if they indeed understand these topics,
> they are obviously not able to explain them in a way understandable by
> (most) other scientists.

You're right, a lot a people have made that comment. They might have done
errors in their explainations. Someone (one of those physicists who back
them) said about their theory that it was like a very good book with a good
plot, but with a lot of orthography errors in it.

ciao,
Greg


Bjoern Feuerbacher

unread,
Sep 2, 2004, 10:09:51 AM9/2/04
to
Greg Gerardin wrote:
> "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> a écrit dans le
> message de news:ch4uip$ibs$1...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>>The Bogdanov are indeed backed by eminent specialists .
>>
>>By whom?
>
>
> I prefer not to enter that debate! I can't talk for them and as I can't
> proove anything of what they say. I feel they have very good ideas in their
> theory, and I that's fine with me. As I told you I gathered a lot of infos
> and made my own point of view. You should do the same if you're interested.
> ;)

And you don't think that by telling me the names of some of those "eminent
specialists", you could help me gathering this info?


[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern

Greg Gerardin

unread,
Sep 2, 2004, 12:18:26 PM9/2/04
to

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> a écrit dans le
message de news:ch79je$6hd$2...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...

i'll bring the book tomorrow and i'll give you the names, you lazy boy!
;)

>
> [snip]
>
> Bye,
> Bjoern


TomGee

unread,
Sep 2, 2004, 5:44:59 PM9/2/04
to
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<ch72nf$5do$1...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...

> TomGee wrote:
> >
> > Barring the validity of any steady state theory, I like to think that
> > the BB emptied out into absolute space.
>
> Please tell us how that agrees with the actual equations of General
> Relativity.
>
>
I don't know, but then I don't know if they disagree either.

>
>
> > Abs. space is defined as "space devoid of anything in it".
>
> Even vacuum fluctuations? How would that be possible?
>
>
Yes, I too have wondered how vacuum fluctuations could be possible.

>
>
> > Some speculate (this is all
> > speculation, of course) that the BB emptied out its contents
>
> You talk here as if the BB were a container which could be emptied out.
> That does not make sense.
>
>
Well, you're the one who said that, not me.

>
>
> >- which
> > included space - into a so-called Great Void, an area of "nothingness"
> > which exists beyond the edges of our universe.
>
> Err, according to the BBT, our universe has no edges, and it makes no
> sense to talk about "beyond the universe".
>
>
I don't know that the BBT says that at all, but you can believe that
if you so wish.

>
>
> > It is impossible for
> > humans to imagine such a void, although some claim they can indeed
> > imagine it.
>
> Who?
>
>
Well, can't you imagine such a void?

>
>
> > It makes more sense to me to think that abs. space is what lies beyond
> > our universe, but to what extent is unimaginable.
>
> What is the big difference between your "absolute space, devoid of
> everything" and "an area of nothingness"?
>
>
Not much, really, except that 1., my abs. space precludes the
necessity of the notion that space did not exist before the BB but
instead came out of it. I think 2., that the "area of nothingness"
phrase was invented in trying to show that there was nothing - not
even space - before the BB. To me, that would mean that our U. is
unique, and I try to shy away from egocentric illusions.

Today, we know that space is not empty; that it is filled with
invisible matter that makes up a much larger portion of our U. than
does visible matter. I believe this matter is the medium for light,
and that particles do not actually move through the U., it is the wave
force of energy which moves through the sea of invisible particles and
transform them into visible particles creating the phenomenon we call
light. Abs. space, being devoid of anything in it, would not have
even light in it. The BB spewed out the makings of light and
everything else we know of our U., into abs. space.


>
>
> > Our universe is
> > located in an area which was before the BB part of this absolute
> > space. This means that other universes may exist in abs. space just
> > like ours does.
>
> So you think the universe has boundaries?
>
>

Of course, going by my ideas about the Universe. The BB has always
had edges as it expands into abs. space. If we had a remarkable
flashlight that could shoot a beam of light to the edge of space, we
would see the edge quite distinct from the abs. space just beyond the
area to where our U. has so far expanded. The flashlight would light
up the media sea of particles by transforming them into light, but
since there is nothing in abs. space for the creation of light, the
light from the flashlight would stop at the edge of our Universe.
TomGee
p.s. I know this is a lot of new information for anyone to get all at
once, but please don't blow your head apart. I promise it gets easier
from now on.

Bill Hobba

unread,
Sep 2, 2004, 6:04:24 PM9/2/04
to

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:ch6lqb$2ft$2...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...

> Bill Hobba wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> > Second gravity has properties not
> > explainable in terms of EM; EM only affects electric charge but gravity
also
> > affects neutral objects such as neutrinos.
>
> The theory says that it should, but is there actually any experimental
> evidence that neutrinos are affected by gravity? I doubt it.
>
> (please note that I don't claim that neutrinos aren't affected by
gravity!)

Read somewhere about experiments that showed they obey the equivalence
principle to an accuracy of 1%. Did a quick internet search and found an
analysis of such - see http://www.prl.res.in/~utpal/paprh5.pdf.

Thanks
Bill

Dale Trynor

unread,
Sep 3, 2004, 1:56:03 AM9/3/04
to
TomGee wrote:
> Bjoern Feuerbacher <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<ch72nf$5do$1...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
>
>>TomGee wrote:
>>
>>>Barring the validity of any steady state theory, I like to think that
>>>the BB emptied out into absolute space.

[snip]

>>So you think the universe has boundaries?
>>
>>
>
> Of course, going by my ideas about the Universe. The BB has always
> had edges as it expands into abs. space. If we had a remarkable
> flashlight that could shoot a beam of light to the edge of space, we
> would see the edge quite distinct from the abs. space just beyond the
> area to where our U. has so far expanded. The flashlight would light
> up the media sea of particles by transforming them into light, but
> since there is nothing in abs. space for the creation of light, the
> light from the flashlight would stop at the edge of our Universe.
> TomGee
> p.s. I know this is a lot of new information for anyone to get all at
> once, but please don't blow your head apart. I promise it gets easier
> from now on.

Dale Trynor wrote:
Tom, I have the feeling I haven't done a very good job of explaining
this alternative theory, otherwise you would have seen how well it
answerers just about all of your questions.
I dont have a lot of time tonight so just to get you thinking about why
matter should contract under the effects of gravity here is partially re
edited re posting of the gedanken I usually use to get people thinking
about this question.

A lump of contracted matter wont tell you much just sitting in one place
so to illustrate why matter must contract I have found it works best to
do this with moving objects ,here is how.
Using gravitational lens's and the Shapiro delay or effect
allows one to remain outside and do ones measuring and this is easy to
do as an analogy to the polvalt in barn gedanken used to teach
relativity, do a google if you dont remember it or the Shapiro effect.

The modified analogy to
the pole-valt in barn gedanken is changed so that it to also include a
black hole inside the barn along with its time dilating effects note its
similarity to the Shapiro effect mentioned above.
Now lets use some ridiculously simple math where we have a time dilation
of 300,000,000 times and a barn of only 1 meter long, we have chosen
these numbers because it easy to see that it takes 1 second for light to
travel to the out door of our barn. Shapiro delay is this sort of a
delay that deals with how gravity will slow the speed of light. Dont get
confused here I know it also bends the path but trust me it slows the
light by an additional amount and is more than if you just made the path
longer by putting a bend in its path. Hope we wont need to go into too
much detail here as I am trying to keep this very simple and clear.

Ok so now ask yourself what would happen if our relativistic rod were to
enter the barn at the same time as our light pulse and yes lets make
sure the rod is still longer than the barn even with its Lorentz
contraction taken into account so that we can more clearly show the two
are not really related.
Now we know the rod cannot travel faster than the light and we know the
light must take one second to exit the opposite door so we can easily
show that the rod will also take slightly longer than 1 second to exit.
I dont want to review the detales for the pole-valt in barn gedanken as
you should google it but one dose need to remember the extra time needed
to close the first door and the time delays required for the different
observers at both ends however in this gedanken one has almost a whole
second to talk back and forth and agree that booth doors were briefly
closed with the longer rod was wholly inside the barn.

Now its rather obvious that we have managed to squeeze a longer rod
inside the barn and we did this with a well established and tested idea
of physics. Now the hard part showing how our rod will have been able to
actually measure more space within the barn as well. Its more tricky
unfortunately and if you want to do this it helps if you will prevent
our traveling rod from gaining any extra speed relative to its
prospective of the black hole so that you can avoid dealing with all
this Lorentz stuff as it not only effects how we measure the rod but how
the rod measures remaining distances etc.


Another quick and simple analogy is where you have runners that on
entering a
tunnel suddenly slow to a walk, note how they would appear to become
closer together allowing more of them to fit within the tunnel before
they start to exit from the other end. Now note that because we have
done this by using a slower time that in their frame of reference they
never slowed down at all but are still running to their prospective.
Doing this with time allows one to show how they will measure the
remaining tunnel to be longer.

Similar analogys can be made of light entering a glass rod where its
speed is 1/2 its original value and you can show how a 1 meter long
pulse would be contained in a 1/2 meter long rod before it starts to
exit the other end.

Making these types of associations with how time is directly related to
space in a literal sense allows one to make farther predictions on the
quantum vacuum in those relationships.

This theory amongst other things leads to explaining how black holes
will have a minimal
orbit that on passing all other orbits will have become longer to the
prospective of a traveler. It results in showing how black hole
formations give the same predictions as those given for inflation theory
if you could be an observer inside of one when it formed. It also
hypothesizes white holes and shows how even iron can be returned to
hydrogen again so you can have fun with what appears like some second
law of thermodynamics violation, questions.

Tom, after you take your time to think about this I will have more to
say on just how those other predictions work as well as a bunch more
that I don't have time for now. I should remind you again that if you
dont know about and or remember the detales of the the Shapiro effect,
gravitational time dilation, or about the pole vault "" question on
spelling pole
-vault, here is probably vrong" in barn gedanken it would help if you
looked them up for a quick review otherwise you wont get this theory at
all and everything else would as a result be a waste of our time unless
you want me to review them for you here.
Dale

Bjoern Feuerbacher

unread,
Sep 3, 2004, 4:35:08 AM9/3/04
to
Bill Hobba wrote:
> "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
> news:ch6lqb$2ft$2...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
>
>>Bill Hobba wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>
>>
>>>Second gravity has properties not
>>>explainable in terms of EM; EM only affects electric charge but gravity
>
> also
>
>>>affects neutral objects such as neutrinos.
>>
>>The theory says that it should, but is there actually any experimental
>>evidence that neutrinos are affected by gravity? I doubt it.
>>
>>(please note that I don't claim that neutrinos aren't affected by
>
> gravity!)
>
> Read somewhere about experiments that showed they obey the equivalence
> principle to an accuracy of 1%. Did a quick internet search and found an
> analysis of such - see http://www.prl.res.in/~utpal/paprh5.pdf.

Hey, that's really interesting! Many thanks!


[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher

unread,
Sep 3, 2004, 4:45:19 AM9/3/04
to
TomGee wrote:
> Bjoern Feuerbacher <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<ch72nf$5do$1...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
>
>>TomGee wrote:
>>
>>>Barring the validity of any steady state theory, I like to think that
>>>the BB emptied out into absolute space.
>>
>>Please tell us how that agrees with the actual equations of General
>>Relativity.
>>
>>
>
> I don't know, but then I don't know if they disagree either.

If you don't know the mass behind the BBT, then you have no basis for
making zp alternative interpretations of it.


>>>Abs. space is defined as "space devoid of anything in it".
>>
>>Even vacuum fluctuations? How would that be possible?
>>
>>
>
> Yes, I too have wondered how vacuum fluctuations could be possible.

*sigh* Evasion noted.

Answer my question: how could a space without vacuum fluctuations be
possible?

That vacuum fluctations *have* to exist is a prediction from QFT - do
you want to claim that that theory is wrong? If yes, with what do you
suggest to replace it?

>>>Some speculate (this is all
>>>speculation, of course) that the BB emptied out its contents
>>
>>You talk here as if the BB were a container which could be emptied out.
>>That does not make sense.
>>
>>
>
> Well, you're the one who said that, not me.

You talk about "contents" of the BB, and that the BB "empties out". Both
makes no sense.


>>>- which
>>>included space - into a so-called Great Void, an area of "nothingness"
>>>which exists beyond the edges of our universe.
>>
>>Err, according to the BBT, our universe has no edges, and it makes no
>>sense to talk about "beyond the universe".
>>
>>
>
> I don't know that the BBT says that at all,

Then you are quite ignorant of it. That follows directly from the
cosmological postulate. Do you at least know that?


> but you can believe that if you so wish.

Try reading a basic textbook on the BBT.


>>>It is impossible for
>>>humans to imagine such a void, although some claim they can indeed
>>>imagine it.
>>
>>Who?
>>
>>
>
> Well, can't you imagine such a void?

I can't imagine a "void" which is not space, no.

And now please answer my question. Who claims to be able to do that?

>>>It makes more sense to me to think that abs. space is what lies beyond
>>>our universe, but to what extent is unimaginable.
>>
>>What is the big difference between your "absolute space, devoid of
>>everything" and "an area of nothingness"?
>>
>>
>
> Not much, really, except that 1., my abs. space precludes the
> necessity of the notion that space did not exist before the BB but
> instead came out of it. I think 2., that the "area of nothingness"
> phrase was invented in trying to show that there was nothing - not
> even space - before the BB. To me, that would mean that our U. is
> unique, and I try to shy away from egocentric illusions.

Since one common definition of "universe" is "all there is", well,
then, yes, our universe is indeed unique.

> Today, we know that space is not empty; that it is filled with
> invisible matter that makes up a much larger portion of our U. than
> does visible matter. I believe this matter is the medium for light,

Err, what about Michelson-Morley?


> and that particles do not actually move through the U., it is the wave
> force of energy which moves through the sea of invisible particles and
> transform them into visible particles creating the phenomenon we call
> light.

What on earth is the "wave force of energy", and does it "transform" the
particles?


[snip]


>>>Our universe is
>>>located in an area which was before the BB part of this absolute
>>>space. This means that other universes may exist in abs. space just
>>>like ours does.
>>
>>So you think the universe has boundaries?
>>
>>
>
> Of course, going by my ideas about the Universe.

Then you contradict the cosmological principle, the basis of the BBT.


> The BB has always had edges as it expands into abs. space.

I already told you that the BB is the *initial* singularity, not the
ongoing expansion of the universe.


> If we had a remarkable
> flashlight that could shoot a beam of light to the edge of space, we
> would see the edge quite distinct from the abs. space just beyond the
> area to where our U. has so far expanded. The flashlight would light
> up the media sea of particles by transforming them into light, but
> since there is nothing in abs. space for the creation of light, the
> light from the flashlight would stop at the edge of our Universe.
> TomGee
> p.s. I know this is a lot of new information for anyone to get all at
> once, but please don't blow your head apart. I promise it gets easier
> from now on.

When will you start to actually present evidence for all your assertions
above?


Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher

unread,
Sep 3, 2004, 5:11:20 AM9/3/04