I think your philosophy doesn't follow reality: Only my present exists in blood bones and so forth. My past exits only in wave-fronts radiating away from my actions. My future doesn't exist to any known sentient being and cannot be video taped anywhere.

Other actions are taking place in my present, that I will discover in my future, but that is not my future. They may affect what I do or what happens to me at that time, but then these things will be my present. What I do with them at that future present will only be known at that time.

I get the feeling that your understanding of the "time cone" is all predetermined. Incidentally, the Wiki presentation of the time cone give the impression that it has something to do with motion. It doesn't. Only the wave-fronts move, and they don't move into the future, they move outward from events.

I think your perception of reality is the illusion Einstein was referring too.

Your mass determines your motion through time, Relativity explains what increasing mass or velocity through space does to our motion through time.

I extrapolated that when I discovered an oddly placed constant in the equations for gravitational red shift.

I don't know why, but it stood out in my head that the rate of time at infinite distance from a gravitational field, accordingly, zero mass, shouldn't be 1. Yet Einstein arbitrarily chose the constant as such.

Though, perhaps he was trying to preserve a purer form of causality than Relativity suggested may exist.

I have no such qualms, and when I went about considering how to adjust that constant representing "accurate" time. (i.e. 1 second measured by a beam of light = 1 second experienced), I put it near the boundary between our classical experience, and the quantum realm.

All of a sudden, I had this graph pop up, where traditional time dilation was described as usual, as fractions of that "accurate" rate of time... and then another curve leading the other way.

Well, if a body with significant mass experienced time at 1/5th the normal rate... what about the other side of the curve...

5x the normal rate... but it wouldn't make sense to simply have it be sped up, that isn't how time dilation works.

So I thought, perhaps that 5x means what we see as 1 second, this body would see the 2 seconds before and after our 1 second as well.

That is when it hit me that I was describing the effects of quantum mechanics, and I set out writing Simply Relativity.

http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=813081&da=y

Max™ My opinion is that your story is a good one But it may just be a Novel. I can't help but bring up Eric Reiter's experiment: http://www.unquantum.net

You have the talent to explain his outcome some other way, if you can, please do it.

His experiments could be done in half a day at LHC. They won't do them because the outcome would destroy their livelihood.

Do not critique his garage, personality or other ad hominem references, like Cinci is fond of doing. Eric's historical research is better than most, and he knows what is required.

I'll put Eric, Steve Waterman, and Halton Arp up against Feynman and Albert and any astronomer you can name.

As long as you believe redshift is receding velocity for QUASAR's, Black Holes, Dark Matter, you will remain in Oz with Alice.

I don't believe photons are particles, I do believe that the universe is expanding, or more accurately, without assuming it, the theory I arrived at suggested it should be expanding.

Black holes exist, but aren't properly described currently, I postulate the description which came to me.

I also can't wait for the LHC to come online, as I have a prediction for a Dark Matter particle which, believe it or not, came to me while I was drawing loops on notebook paper and pondering how you could tie a knot in space.

I believe Einstein was very misunderstood about photons, and unfortunately the concept took hold before he ever had a chance to correct it to his satisfaction.

You can see that from his quote about how every Tom Dick and Harry these days thinks he knows what a photon is, but they're wrong.

Don't take this seriously, but you have to know somebody's going to call your Dark Matter Particle Theory a loopy theory, now that you let the history out.

Listen, I can tell that you are above average intelligence. Maybe even above me in that category. (no comments from the peanut gallery) You are capable of making a new paradigm out of this "new' evidence. You have to have the latest evidence. Halton Arp's evidence has been around for at least 30 years. The Big Bang model is dead. The Universe is expanding, but not according to the "Hubble" model. Quasars are part of how it expands. But each one expands in place. They are not receding from each other. They are not that far away. Read all about it.

Yeah, the loopy part is expected, but what can I say, I was working off simple topological considerations, and suddenly it hit me "there should be a 4 quark particle with 0 spin, 0 charge, that is a good bit more massive than a hydrogen atom... that's what dark matter is, and where all the anti-matter went".

As for the big bang, that's related to black holes as far as I can model.

A black holes mass corresponds to it's area.

This seemed odd to me, then I thought about how a literal hole ripped out of space would appear, the nature of the curvature, so I continued toying with the idea.

The interior of a black hole would be a knot of space which reached a certain critical density/folding/mass. High enough to actually rip the fabric of the universe it was within.

Thinking about how you could topologically fold a universe back up, I realized there was no way to get a big crunch after a black hole has torn the fabric. A universe with a black hole is doomed to die a heat death.

The time/distance relationship I had already worked out pointed to that as well, and then I started considering the recent accelerating expansion that we've observed.

The universe was old enough to begin producing significant quantities of black holes when the expansion began to speed up.

Running the model to the extremes of space and time, there is a point where you simply can't stretch it any thinner, and space loses meaning. Maximal entropy, a sea of noise, if you will.

But wait, unlike Hawking, I expect black holes will NOT decay, so what would happen when the universe sighed into unbeing?

You'd have knots of highly folded space which were kept in check by their parent universe, and now had nothing keeping them from unfolding.

I don't think it was a big bang, rather it was a seed of spacetime which opened up and blossomed into a 4 dimensional flower, and then developed into a fruit, laden with seeds and swelling til it is ready to deliver it's seeds.

We find ourselves within the flesh of one of those fruits... perhaps a large cosmic apple hanging off a tree... waiting to fall down beside some guy named Newton.


Course, that's just where I arrived after thinking about time.

Please do not get any more dense. You may turn into a black hole yourself. Please go look at the evidence, It is ignored by folks that have money to make by keeping the old crap going. You aren't making money off it, so go look in the dirty books, (those sites I have posted already)

I already did, I'm well aware of Arp, and he doesn't present a convincing argument.

More importantly, he doesn't present a simple argument.

That is the greatest principle to me, is it simple?

Could I find some way to describe this to a child?

If not, I should make sure I fully understand what I'm talking about.

Max™, Don't you know the difference between theory and evidence??? The evidence is that Quasars are associated with local galaxies. The Evidence is that redshift is mainly inherent, and not an indication of distance.

The theory is why this is so. Your theory does nothing to understand the EVIDENCE.

If you can't fathom this, then I'm not going to replace your keyboard when it wears out from typing fantasy novels

No, Arp's suggestion is that.

The evidence from the latest generation of telescopes does not agree with Arp.

The natural conclusion my extrapolation of relativity led me too does not agree with Arp either.

I assure you, I am quite well informed on everything which I speak about, otherwise I would not speak about it.

Pleazzzz, what telescope evidence is that??? I failed to realize you were hiding this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_Arp

Just a moment perusing that, and checking any links regarding papers on alternative cosmologies will show that they don't properly match the observational evidence, and often require unobserved properties of physics to explain creation of matter, or such things as the tired light theories.

I file them under curious, but not convincing.

Wiki is the final word on astronomy. And all the old farts that have made up their minds, cannot see past their noses. (this is actually more true for all of us than anyone realizes.)

Some how, the article just forgot to mention about the quantum redshifts found in the QSO's. Now what do you suppose causes that phenomenon? What about the thirty unchallenged reasons why the Big Bang went Poof? http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/index1.htm

You are finding new evidence filtered through the old farts' eyes.

Ok, slave away at a legacy program, trying to make it modern. The rest of us have already moved on. Its a new paradigm. Taste the dust.

As I said, the wiki will link you to all forms of simple observational evidence.

You can take your own telescope out in your back yard and apply logic and deduce the nature of the universe.

I'm not working on the old model, I'm working on the description that makes sense to me.

Proposing new methods to produce matter continuously, have a semi-steady state universe, postulating unnecessary effects by which to frame this grand cosmic conspiracy...

Or

Looking at the object we find ourselves embedded within, and figuring out the simplest way to describe it.

Reading through that page, I see mistaken assumptions about the meaning of expanding space, evident in the "voids are too old" hypothesis.

I see an argument which proposes that instead of primal nucleosynthesis, there is an unobserved mechanism which we've yet to properly reproduce, yet manages to produce the distribution of elements we see.

I see an assumption about dark matter, yet no consistent explanation to match current observations of gravitational lensing by regions of "empty" space corresponding to dark matter models. I myself postulated a simple explanation for not just the reason dark matter has eluded observation, but also explains the matter/anti-matter parity problem in one fell swoop.

I see an assumption about dark energy which is apt, yes, it would violate conservation of energy... if it was actually what it is currently described as. I've posed a simple, even elegant, description of the effect, which actually happens to explain the apparently unexplainable recent increase in acceleration.

I have a model which works from an absolute minimum number of components (space and time), and evolves to describe the universe, and aspects we see within it. While also explaining the nature of existence within the universe.

Yet I'm supposed to realize that all of our current observations are wrong because some people proposed rather contrived sounding explanations for a steady state universe that appears to have a finite origin and looks like it is expanding?

I've considered these models, I didn't just pop up arbitrarily and say "hey guys, I betcha everything is just folded space, and the way it interacts with time produces the universe we see today, wouldn't that be cool!"

I've been studying the universe, existence within it, every reasonable (and some unreasonable, I'm looking at you, many-worlds quantum theory) theory and concept I could find, proposing new ideas, testing, expanding, updating, and generally doing the same thing that Einstein did.

They used to call it Science, you know, attempting to explain the nature of existence by thinking long and hard about it.

Just because quantum mechanics doesn't provide explanations, doesn't mean that is the only way to do Science.

Max™ said: "They used to call it Science, you know, attempting to explain the nature of existence by thinking long and hard about it. Just because quantum mechanics doesn't provide explanations, doesn't mean that is the only way to do Science."

Curt says: You actually did an experiment? Something like Eric Reiter's? Wow. Did you write about it?

Thinking long and hard gets you bonus points a the "We Care" site. I don't know where you can redeem them, though.

Yeah, Plato, Aristotle, Galileo, Lorentz, Newton, Einstein, those guys were total quacks.

Thinking up explanations and descriptions for aspects of the universe. Utilizing thought experiments, seeking to actually understand existence, what was I thinking!

Clearly quantum mechanic traditions are the true way, shut up and calculate, as they say.

I've seen the error in my ways, someone find me a calculator.

Just for the record, not sure if it properly gets the idea across, but utilizing this ridiculous concept of "thinking about things", and operating from one simple assumption about time and space.

I deduced, without including the assumption of prior existence, quantum mechanics in a comprehensible framework which agrees with SR and GR, and which naturally "renormalizes" itself, avoiding the infinities which plague traditional QM. An explanation of the particle families remarkably like the one Lee Smolin recently published, a natural set of topographical interactions which simply describe the forces we observe in nature.

An actual reason for the nature of our motion through time, the reason why you can't go faster than the speed of light, the reason why the universe appears to have started accelerating it's expansion in the near past, rather arbitrarily. An explanation of the nature of black holes which simply avoids singularity considerations. An actual physical mechanism which explains SR and GR implicitly.

A candidate for Dark Matter, with specific predictions regarding it's properties, which should be observable by the LHC (and yes, I actually cursed out loud hearing that it would be offline til next year), which also happens to explain the seemingly strange abundance of matter over anti-matter.

A mechanism explaining the cause, reason, and nature of a universe unfolding. Which also suggests naturally the nature of matter we see within the universe.

Two simple modifications to currently used equations, representing my explanation of the nature of space and time, from which this entire framework has emerged (they actually came to me very early, and the rest has flowed from there) simply and elegantly.

I'm still working out more implications of this explanation of Time, and as always I stick to that simple principle. I should be able to explain all of this to a child in a way that they can grasp it.

If you can't, you don't truly understand it yourself.

So hey, feel free to disregard thinkers, what do we know?

So far I've met every jab slash and thrust aimed at the basis of Relativity here, mathematical and theoretical, and done so from the adjusted viewpoint of my simple model of the universe.

What is an abstract, absurd seeming, "theory" to you, is a simple, natural, well understood truth to me. One which I came to understand by doing nothing but, yep, thinking about it.

I prefer to start right here with things with which we can handle and experiment. Like electricity. magnetism, plasma. All the things your theory explains have already been explained through conjecture. The Big Bang theory keeps having to contrive new unseen actions, the imaginary conjecture of stuff like inflation, dark matter, and "black holes." These things were dreamed up to keep the myth going.

The electric cosmos/plasma universe scientists explain the appearance of comets, QUASARs, galaxies, Hertzberg Russel diagram, Ratio of metals, etc. without all the invented unseen conjectures.

The Cosmic Microwave background frequency prediction has changed each time new evidence shows the previous figure wrong. Each new prediction seems to turn out wrong too. Sooner or later, a guess will hit the mark. [It's probably not even "cosmic"] Good science is supposed to make predictions. The Big Bang Theory bumbles along inventing imaginary scenarios as it goes, after the fact, to cover its ass.

If the universe is not expanding, why would one need a "steady state" production of matter?

But don't let me interfere with your writing of your Novel.

If the universe is not expanding, how old is it?

If it has a finite age, why is there still matter in it?

Max™ said:

"If the universe is not expanding, how old is it?"

"If it has a finite age, why is there still matter in it?"

Curt said:

The evidence is that the universe is relatively static.

It is possible that it is infinitely old.

Matter does not have to disappear when it gets old, just because you do.

You are working off another THEORY. Your THEORY and its presumptions cannot be used in a different, mutually exclusive THEORY.

You are convinced that your THEORY is proven beyond doubt, absolute fact. IT IS NOT.

Most types of matter have a specific "expiration date".

Stars convert matter at a specific rate.

We can observe this.

It is raw data, without theoretical assumptions.


The big bang model was an attempt to explain that data.


Static universe models fail at that, they require a means to produce matter and to explain why stars haven't already converted all of the hydrogen in the universe into other forms of matter.


Worse, they aren't simple.

Max™, You are locked into your THEORY so tightly that you cannot separate evidence from pipe dreams.

You obviously haven't understood what you were reading, if you have tried to understand the electric cosmos. The opposite is true. The electric nature of the grand forces in the universe far overpower the force of gravity.

Stars convert very little matter. They don't annihilate protons and electrons.

The Big Bang is dead. Increasing numbers of people see this fact. Be among the first to understand. Eventually everyone will look back at the Big Bang theory and wonder how "others" could have believed such tripe.

The electric theory doesn't get rid of the big bang cleanly.

You're assuming I haven't studied the models.


To date, the big bang is the simplest explanation, I've ran the models, it isn't a matter of being stuck in what I'm told is the popular idea.

I BELIEVE SPACE-TIME IS A MESH OF THREADS, AND MATTER IS NOTHING BUT KNOTS IN THOSE THREADS.

That isn't the popular idea.

I BELIEVE QUANTUM MECHANICS IS AN EXTRA-CAUSAL, NOT NON-LOCAL MECHANISM.

That isn't the popular idea.


They just happen to work out in simple manners.


The big bang is an approximation, it wasn't a singularity, it didn't have the ridiculous inflation current models suggest.

The universe isn't static and eternal though, it isn't a simple adjustment to assume it is.

Whether the electric universe gets rid of the Big Bang "cleanly" or "dirtily," it still buries it.

Remember Ocam's razor? The electric universe paradigm has at least 25 blades.

The electric universe theory there isn't all worked out, but it seems to make predictions, rather than the creation of new unseen particles and unseen types of matter to make it work.

Using "have" in your verb makes it a past perfect, in which case "run" is preferable to "ran." I know you seek perfection, just thought I'd point that out.

So your aether is stringy, sounds like the spaghetti theory of aether.

My aether is the same as Einstein's, space-time.

Threads, not strings.

String theory is taken, and a bad model.

Also: no, Electric Universe models don't bury the big bang.

They claim they do, but they open up HUGE new problems.


Occam's razor shouldn't have 25 blades, it should have 1.


Dark matter and Dark energy are rather simply explained in my model (I do like to call it Simply Relativity for a reason), so should I claim I've buried the Electric Universe?

My big bang wasn't a bang, it was an unfurling, and it was about as big as a black hole.

Max™ asks: "Should I claim I've buried the Electric Universe?"

Claim whatever you want, just don't blame me when the Electric Universe shocks your precious little fanny. It's inevitable.

lol

No, it isn't inevitable, show me where it's provided testable predictions that better fit observation than current models.

Keep in mind, I'm somewhat up to date on their claims, they do present an interesting model, but nothing stands out about it as being simpler than current models.