What Defines the Universe: Bostrom's Philosophy vs. Hardy's Causaloids?

[Chronos]

I'm going with chaotic inflation. Seems pretty reasonable.

 

[RussT]

Hi RussT!
The big bang model has never worked…. Observations have never supported the big bang model. We just thought that it did.
The search for an answer is happening at all scales.
1. A NEW EXPANSION MECHANISM.
2. SPECIFIC TIME REQUIRED TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH OLBERS’ PARADOX
3. ORIGIN MUST HAVE HIGH ENERGY
4. EXPLAIN THE ABUDANCE OF HYDROGEN, HELIUM
5. EXPLAIN NEUTRINOS
6. EXPLAIN DARK MATTER/ENERGY
7. NOT VIOLATE THE SECOND LAW OF TERMODYNAMICS
8. EXPLAIN THE QUANTUM MINIMUM LENGTH STRUCTURE


I'll continue in my blog.
jal

Think about this...Smolin's deterministic a=1/137, OR "Exotic Matter" coming through Black Holes, and Lisa Randalls "Gravity Leaking to our universe is pretty darned compelling.

NARRATOR: Randall tried to calculate how gravity could leak from our membrane Universe into empty space, but she couldn't make it work. Then she heard the theory that there might be another membrane in the eleventh dimension. Now she had a really strange thought. What if gravity wasn't leaking from our Universe but to it? What if it came from that other universe? On that membrane, or brane, gravity would be as strong as the other forces, but by the time it reached us it would only be a faint signal. Now when she reworked her calculations everything fitted exactly. Our Bold.

And then this answers #1 above.
Since Smolin's way has a correct Event Horizon covering the singularities, and actually gets rid of them with 1/137/"Exotic Matter" coming 'Through', that would obviously be happening continuously over the last 10's of billions of years, and it still leads directly to an expanding universe, right where we 'see' it expanding...in the Voids between the galaxy clusters. And that simply means that there are SMBH's in the 'other universe' sending us our "SPACE", into each/every Void (and our SMBH's send the universe below ours, their "SPACE").

And that is actually the 'Straight Line Motion' of light at "c" for SR. How? see below.

Now, ever since "Exotic Matter" was introduced by mainstream (and that 'extra gravity' is needed to explain Galaxy rotation curves and cluster dynamics), defining it has been very problematic, to say the least.

I don't want to get into a big QM thing right here, because it will distract from the baisc 'structure' issues, so I'll just do it like this for now.

The 'Base Element' that gives the elements their mass could be described as...
Planck length Collisionless Non-Baryonic Dark Matter. And, that DM is virtually "INERT", going right through all baryonic matter, and you and I, with virtually no heat signal. Now, because it is coming from SMBH's, it is being accelerated to "c" and when it comes into the Voids, it is going in absolutely all directions Non-collisionally/inertially and right through ALL baryonic Matter, so there is only one thing that can stop its straight line path...yep...SMBH's (I could go into String/"M" Theory here, but let's keep it simple for now)

This gives a mechanism for photons traveling at "c", the Straight line motion of SR and SMBH's being created gives a mechanism for rotation/spin in our universe, as well as answering the question I posed earlier about SR forbidding Black Holes and GR demanding them.

So, this has been coming into our Voids for 10' of billions of years and makes up ALL of our 'space'

SO, what does that have to mean? That we have been misinterpreting that naked singularities (Remember here, that Inflation was dreamed up to fix problems) emit High Energy Gamma Radiation.

So, if singularities In the SMBH's send universes their DM/Gravity into the Voids, then where would the High Energy gamma Radiation come from?

I believe I have the answer to this, but let's see what other come up with here.

BTW, the structure of the Multi-verses is simply a Fractal Structure, where the universe level above ours is much larger structure of everything, from th bottom up, and the universe level below ours would be smaller. For instance the universe above ours might have a 'base element' or a=1/258, and ours would be a=1/137, and below ours might be a=1/67.

 

[jal]

I found this presentation which should be helpfull.
http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/~colloq/Talk22/Presentation22.pdf
Dark Energy, or Worse?
Sean Carroll
----------
jal

 

[RussT]

I found this presentation which should be helpfull.
http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/~colloq/Talk22/Presentation22.pdf
Dark Energy, or Worse?
Sean Carroll
----------
jal

Nope. It doesn't. If Smolin is right, that a deterministic 'base element'/a=1/137 at the 'pit' of Black Holes (in other words, coming through to our universe), can be shown to account correctly for correlations that match theory and observables, then that means that Cosmic Censorship is right and there can be NO naked singularities. SO, the FLRW expansion from a singularity does NOT exist.

Jal, please read everything I have written in this thread.

 

[jal]

RussT

Jal, please read everything I have written in this thread

I re-read the whole thread.

The reason that I directed you to my blog was for you to add minimum length to you ideas. (besides the moderators don't want speculations )
The minimum length should also be added to the bounce black holes and you get what I have in my blog or you get rid of LQG, spin foams etc.
Your idea breaks down or changes to mine (if you add minimum length).
Also, gravity under lookback, cannot bring the soap bubbles to a uniform distribution of a bag of dust (sphere).

We are now discussing what we believe and not what is supported by evidence. Since I expect CERN to find a Quantum minimum length structure
I'll wait until then to change my mind or not.
jal

 

[RussT]

RussT

I re-read the whole thread.

The reason that I directed you to my blog was for you to add minimum length to you ideas. (besides the moderators don't want speculations )
The minimum length should also be added to the bounce black holes and you get what I have in my blog or you get rid of LQG, spin foams etc.
Your idea breaks down or changes to mine (if you add minimum length).
Also, gravity under lookback, cannot bring the soap bubbles to a uniform distribution of a bag of dust (sphere).

We are now discussing what we believe and not what is supported by evidence. Since I expect CERN to find a Quantum minimum length structure
I'll wait until then to change my mind or not.
jal

I was purposely keeping the conversation focused on the difference between Smolin's approach of 'determinism at the pit of a black hole', which is exactly where "REAL" singularities reside VS Ashtekar's approach of a 'bounce' from a Naked Singularity, the ad hoc Inflation "Fix" and the 'assumed' expansion (From a point) and Gamma Radiation, with the ad hoc convoluted Cosmological Constant (DE) to find the missing ~73% of the universe in the L-CDM concordance model.

BUT, of course, as soon as you show how the Naked singularity FLRW solutions are/could be fatally flawed, mainstreamers go running for the hills or their comfort zone, which ever comes first.

So, you were the one who brought up all the above, and listed 8 guidelines, that are mostly fatally flawed.

"Exotic Matter" changed everything, and definitely added NEW physics into the mix, and this IS where the answers lie, BUT where it is coming from, and definining it, while holding on to "Old" physics is impossible.

Einstein did NOT know anything about SMBH's, Voids, or "Exotic Matter", so the Big Bang beginning just exaccerbated a problem that already existed, because 'Science' had already made decisions/Laws without having all the facts!

And this even goes all the way to E=mc^2, which says that "Light/Photons" equal mass. SO, therefore, according to current thinking, light "Makes" gravity, right?

SO, for decades now, and evidently decades to come, we are waiting for mainstream, to unify GR and QFT, by showing us (Or making up a good enough story that even more physicists will buy into) how photons make Higgs Bosons/Gravitons...ooooooooopppppppppppppppppsssssssss

E=mc^2 ONLY applies to baryonic particles, which photons and Neutrinos are NOT!

Anyone, please show how E=mc^2 applies to the Gazillions of Neutrinos that have been going right through the bodies of countless billions of human bodies over millions of years!

The answer to how elements get their mass is actually rather simple once you understand just two simple things.

1. That the 'base element', call it what you like, The Higgs/Graviton/iterion/Neutrino/Exotic Matter...whatever, but it is the "Extra Gravity", which is actually all gravity, and it is traveling at "c" in every direction, and is the Stright-line motion of light in a Vacua. It is ALL of 'space'/darkness and is Inert, NO E=mc^2, UNTIL
2. Millions to Billions worth of sol masses of "Gravity" collide (when the "Branes" Collide), AND that creates a SMBH, which is HOW the High Energy Gamma Radiation is really created, that makes the electrons/protons>>Hydrogen/Helium for each galaxy seperately.

The "Real" shrinking down to find the baryonic matter that is created, is just that...shrink each galaxy down and you find the SMBH being created before there was Hydrogen/Helium, and the millions to billions sol masses of Gravity colliding to create that SMBH actually 'SLOWS" 'space' from its traveling at "c", and the SMBH is actually 'frame dragging/slowing' all the DM traveling at "c" to its spiral shape.

SO, that is how the elements get their mass! When the millions of billions of sol masses of gravity (Non-baryonic Inert Planck length DM) collide to create the SMBH, that causes the High Energy Gamma Radiation (highest TeV) to "UNLOCK" Via E=mc^2 the energy in the DM.

Now, that is what the QM particle physicists need to figure out...would that "Inert" DM be considered Anti-Matter, and how do the electrons protons get created when it collides with that much power.

 

[jal]

RussT!
I'm not going into your path.
I'm staying with experimental evidence and the "math kids"
jal

 

[RussT]

RussT!
I'm not going into your path.
I'm staying with experimental evidence and the "math kids"
jal

No Problem.

Just remember that the 'MATHS' are only valid if they are being applied to the right correlations!

The universe can only be working ONE way, and for over 100 years now "Science" has decided/defined and constrained/forced that to be a "Closed System".

In other words, the current paradigms are VERY VERY Constipated.

 

[pervect]

No Problem.

Just remember that the 'MATHS' are only valid if they are being applied to the right correlations!

The universe can only be working ONE way, and for over 100 years now "Science" has decided/defined and constrained/forced that to be a "Closed System".

In other words, the current paradigms are VERY VERY Constipated.

Huh? The universe is generally regarded as open. See for instance:

http://cassfos02.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/Cosmology.html

Either a flat or a hyperbolic universe would be classified as "open". There is good reason to believe the universe is nearly flat.

I'm not sure why you think anyone is "forcing" it to be closed, or how this forcing would be done, exactly, or how paradigms can be "constipated".

 

[RussT]

Marcus;

Care to explain to pervect the difference?