# Why does Expanding Space have a 2 to 1 Ratio with Contracting Space?

Can anyone explain howcome the ratio of expansive space always has the above Ratio?

If there is a backgound of space that is expanding exponentially, then any Space that is Contracting with a photon pressure seems to always be 2 to 1.

For the ignition of Stars, this would correspond to a energy density that governs the timerate of a Stars lifecycle, with a Star being able to flucuate its photon emissions if there is sufficient expansion closeby?

Its almost as if a Star's Pressure is 'pulled/extracted' outwards by the Expansion of Space surrounding it?

Technically a Collapsing Star is 'Contracting', but any outpouring Matter travels away at twice the Rate of the Collapse rate, howcome?

Hi Olias,

I recently stated on another thread that radiation is a result of a pull force as apposed to a push. I attributed this to the "fifth" force.

Could you please explain the 2/1 ratio? I thought it was a 4/1 variance. Of course, I've been out in left field so long I probably lost touch with reality.

force5 said:
Hi Olias,

I recently stated on another thread that radiation is a result of a pull force as apposed to a push. I attributed this to the "fifth" force.

Could you please explain the 2/1 ratio? I thought it was a 4/1 variance. Of course, I've been out in left field so long I probably lost touch with reality.
Actually I was wrong! I had been doing some work with some recent data and I had misscalculated, I have gone over it again and I have now concluded a misunderstanding of a number of recent pre-print papers I am going through which are dealing with expanding space/cosmological constant and the early electron configuration with the speed of light, VSL theories.

The problem arose out of my wrongly concluding that any vacua in expansion( Negative Energy) automatically has a greater volume exponentionally than energy that has matter locally (Positive Energy).

The Dynamics of 'empty' space is one of expansion, thus I concluded that empty space will allways be of greater volume than space that has matter in it, even at the Quantum scale, an 'EMPTY' volume far exceeds one that is taken up by the smallest amount of space that has matter in it?

Its not that the speculative nature of negative energies causes me concern, but I have found something that is quite interesting, but until I analyze it further I should not have posted my vague question!

What I should have asked is there a pertaining reason to as why 3-D space in volume terms, can be surrounded by a non-volume expansive 2-D AREA, that allways has a specific ratio?

I do not speculate a 5-th force, in fact I conclude that force is a dimensional aspect of what energy transverses through dimensions, for instance a 5-th force could only occur within a 5-dimensional space frame, the dynamical interactions of 3-D space make our Gravity a force that has a number of interactions, {Strong-Weak-E-M Force's} dependant of where one is within space, yields the results, they are results of the fact that 3-D space configures force into specific action and reactions, Force is dimensionally Bound.

Various differing results can occur at dimensional bounderies, a 'PUSHING' force in one dimensional frame, is not and cannot occur exactly with the same yielding results in a differerent Dimension.

You have to change the 'FORCE' with relational respect to the dimension in question!

Truth is, knowone actually knows whether or not Space is expanding!

Hi Olias:

I do not know your particular area of study, but I am a researcher and I have writter on IT subjects, Mathematics, Physics, and I have plans for Chemistry and Biology. Nevertheless, my research findings are very clear... In other words, from your (assuming that you have taken the course) study of Integral Calculus, you were acquainted with the Fudge Factory for the solution to equations...and were told that your knowledge of Integral Calculus
is dependant upon experience.

In other words, for the mosrt part, I have discovered that either what they
are currently teaching is wrong or partially correct; not the whole story.

They are teaching the Big Bang Expansion Theory;
Yet, they can only observe a very small portion of the Universe...
They have no knowledge of or about the Orbits of Galaxies...
{What happens to the Big Bang Theory if they can see 50% of the Universe?
I mean; What do this knowledge do to their thoughts about the age of the
Universe?}

Perphaps, you should read Appendix D, writtern by Einstein, in his last work on Relativity. In a word, he experssed problems with the mathematics, and a
concern that absolutely none of the current Theories were correct, and that perhaps its presentatio would or should be algebraic (but he said knowone knew how to formulate suvh a theory).

To be clear nevertheless, I am saying that while you may ask the questions,
And my latest work brings this point home all over the world:

'The Mathematics of Quantification & The Rudiments of Finite Physics
The Analysis of Newton's Laws of Motion...the Gravitation'

eugene

eterrell said:
Hi Olias:

I do not know your particular area of study, but I am a researcher and I have writter on IT subjects, Mathematics, Physics, and I have plans for Chemistry and Biology. Nevertheless, my research findings are very clear... In other words, from your (assuming that you have taken the course) study of Integral Calculus, you were acquainted with the Fudge Factory for the solution to equations...and were told that your knowledge of Integral Calculus
is dependant upon experience.

In other words, for the mosrt part, I have discovered that either what they
are currently teaching is wrong or partially correct; not the whole story.

They are teaching the Big Bang Expansion Theory;
Yet, they can only observe a very small portion of the Universe...
They have no knowledge of or about the Orbits of Galaxies...
{What happens to the Big Bang Theory if they can see 50% of the Universe?
I mean; What do this knowledge do to their thoughts about the age of the
Universe?}

Perphaps, you should read Appendix D, writtern by Einstein, in his last work on Relativity. In a word, he experssed problems with the mathematics, and a
concern that absolutely none of the current Theories were correct, and that perhaps its presentatio would or should be algebraic (but he said knowone knew how to formulate suvh a theory).

To be clear nevertheless, I am saying that while you may ask the questions,
And my latest work brings this point home all over the world:

'The Mathematics of Quantification & The Rudiments of Finite Physics
The Analysis of Newton's Laws of Motion...the Gravitation'

eugene
Truth is, knowone actually knows whether or not Space is expanding!

Iam afraid this statement is quite incorrect.

If we assume that inertial mass or gravitational mass is represented by $H^{-}$ and energy is represented by $H^{+}$ with the following rules of interaction:

$H^{-} \otimes H^{+} = aH^{-}$
$H^{-} \otimes H^{-} = bH^{+}$
$H^{+} \otimes H^{+} = cH^{+}$

It is clearly shown that the interactions of the H's produce more $H^{+}$ than $H^{-}$ in the ratio 2 to 1.

Olias said:
Truth is, knowone actually knows whether or not Space is expanding!

I am afraid this statement is quite incorrect.
Sometimes I look at the whole cosmos and see the ideas in GLAST from a early measure of Supernovas for consideration now and ths vast distance is foretelling as I have realized thoughout our conversations.

From a galaxy perspective these events also become foretelling as the bose nova sequence of events reveal. Our talk on Heisenberg's collapsing sphere was a early sign to me of the dyamics you were seeing and talking about.

So we had to encapsulate this persepctive of the whole cosmos in perspective views and how shall we do this with forces in relation to dimension?

So classical realizations have to move to quantum theory models for consideration and must formulate geometrical discriptions for us.

Antonio is developing these math discriptions from the undertanding of topological movements. We have detailled the differences in posts from discrete natures to contiuity as ways in which to speak to the ideas of quantum gravity.

So how can we further the persepctive that have been adopted from the forces and relations, of dimensin and I have detailled one aspect for consideration, but I would also like to detail a image for consideration to support your position.

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~kip/images/KipDraw2.jpg
Kip Thorne
Drawing by Glen Edwards, Utah State University, Logan, UT
http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/[email protected]@.1dde6f44/5 [Broken] to Kip Thornes Statement and source url for consideration.

Look at the image changes on this http://www-glast.sonoma.edu/index.html [Broken] As those images change, they are very discriptive to me of what you are saying. I thought I would add this for your consideration and also point Antonio as to how we might have amalgamated these math structures, to serious discriptions, as these images portray.

Would this be a most siutable conclusion to the relations of "force to dimension"?

Last edited by a moderator:
sol2 said:
Sometimes I look at the whole cosmos and see the ideas in GLAST from a early measure of Supernovas for consideration now and ths vast distance is foretelling as I have realized thoughout our conversations.

From a galaxy perspective these events also become foretelling as the bose nova sequence of events reveal. Our talk on Heisenberg's collapsing sphere was a early sign to me of the dyamics you were seeing and talking about.

So we had to encapsulate this persepctive of the whole cosmos in perspective views and how shall we do this with forces in relation to dimension?

So classical realizations have to move to quantum theory models for consideration and must formulate geometrical discriptions for us.

Antonio is developing these math discriptions from the undertanding of topological movements. We have detailled the differences in posts from discrete natures to contiuity as ways in which to speak to the ideas of quantum gravity.

So how can we further the persepctive that have been adopted from the forces and relations, of dimensin and I have detailled one aspect for consideration, but I would also like to detail a image for consideration to support your position.

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~kip/images/KipDraw2.jpg
Kip Thorne
Drawing by Glen Edwards, Utah State University, Logan, UT
http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/[email protected]@.1dde6f44/5 [Broken] to Kip Thornes Statement and source url for consideration.

Look at the image changes on this http://www-glast.sonoma.edu/index.html [Broken] As those images change, they are very discriptive to me of what you are saying. I thought I would add this for your consideration and also point Antonio as to how we might have amalgamated these math structures, to serious discriptions, as these images portray.

Would this be a most siutable conclusion to the relations of "force to dimension"?
Thanks Sol, I have been following your linkings(with Antonio also), I would rather make no comment until I am absolutely sure in my Understanding, I would say that Antonio (as far as I am aware is on the right track, but so are those at LEP-ATHENA-CERN!).

I am currently looking into 'Planck Space', 'Planck Dimensions' and other dimensionless quantative transitional products, ie Higgs-Force, which couples to Gravitational Waves via a hypothetical 'Higgs-Wave' {Virtual}?..which maybe a sort of Mono-Magnetic-Charge like product?

Last edited by a moderator:
Olias said:
Thanks Sol, I have been following your linkings(with Antonio also), I would rather make no comment until I am absolutely sure in my Understanding, I would say that Antonio (as far as I am aware is on the right track, but so are those at LEP-ATHENA-CERN!).

I am currently looking into 'Planck Space', 'Planck Dimensions' and other dimensionless quantative transitional products, ie Higgs-Force, which couples to Gravitational Waves via a hypothetical 'Higgs-Wave' {Virtual}?..which maybe a sort of Mono-Magnetic-Charge like product?
It is always interesting when we find such comparative views here on the professor crossing the room

This goes back to earlier posts we had on this and typing in Athena and superstringtheory, is seems the archive is almost completely disconnected.

But when we look at the quark to quark measure what would this metric field look like? The distance is changing, and so is this field?

Yet how shall we speak to the continuity of movement here geometrically?

We know Gauss field is revealling of a higher geometrical and dynamcial coordinate system. We know that in issue of the metric to supergrvaity these points become much more complex, but we aso understand some about the nature of this gravitational field as well.

This forces us to go back to the early universe for such considerations, as well as looking at such models of balckholes for understanding. To understand this dynamcial movement, such leading insights has to direct our attention to the blackhole and beyond? We were changing the dynamics/inside(fusion/fission points of consideration) out as Antonio is suggesting geometrically?

Such liminocentric structure as it was written by Greene is really quite revealling from the geometrical perspective.

How would we measure this? Your perspective has been leading here on certain questions, and we had to describe how it would turn inside out?

Last edited:
sol2 said:
This goes back to earlier posts we had on this and typing in Athena and superstringtheory, is seems the archive is almost completely disconnected.
I think there is a programming conflict at Patricia's forum, I hope it can be resolved. My webpages:http://groups.msn.com/Youcanseehomefromhere [Broken]

has totally been removed, for whatever reason I do not know?..one minute its there..next its gone!

Quote:But when we look at the quark to quark measure what would this metric field look like?

Answer: 2-D condensate comprising of Quark-Electron-Energies?..E-M-V field encompasing 3-D Protons, giving the Proton stability in 3+1 Dimensional Spacetime. Gravity inside the Spacetime metric Field is not the same as 'Gravity' in a SPACE-ONLY, 2-D flat metric 'overlapping' Electro-Magnetic Vacuum Field, thus co-ordinates are 'NOT' transforming in continuation.

An example is that transformations can not be conserved on a Quantity to Quantity basis, interestingly the Spacetime metric can be transformed into a Space-Field metric, 'Time' as we know it becomes something different, it gets referenced with absolute precision!..just teasing a little here ..or am I

I actually should explain this in more detail, but I am not going to, for now!

I understand Antonio's modelling for his purpose to derive charge coupled products
(positive and negative), but I do not want to say more about any Gravitational 'Negative' Quantity just yet !

Last edited by a moderator:
Olias said:
Quote:But when we look at the quark to quark measure what would this metric field look like?

Answer: 2-D condensate comprising of Quark-Electron-Energies?..E-M-V field encompasing 3-D Protons, giving the Proton stability in 3+1 Dimensional Spacetime. Gravity inside the Spacetime metric Field is not the same as 'Gravity' in a SPACE-ONLY, 2-D flat metric 'overlapping' Electro-Magnetic Vacuum Field, thus co-ordinates are 'NOT' transforming in continuation.

An example is that transformations can not be conserved on a Quantity to Quantity basis, interestingly the Spacetime metric can be transformed into a Space-Field metric, 'Time' as we know it becomes something different, it gets referenced with absolute precision!..just teasing a little here ..or am I
Imagine using circles to define this.

Imagine morphing the circle into the string?

There had to be some way to measure geometrical consistancy? In ones definition of a one dimensional string, we mathematically needed to define this transformation.

The KK Tower works nice in terms of energy considerations. What is the radius of that circle and how many wraps? The point arises from the brane.

From a supersymmetrical view we see how this circle can change perspectives if we wanted too? Sort of like taking a magnifying glass and looking at the texture of lets say a leaf. The "leaf" and the "texture of the leaf" are the same thing. Just different views?

Last edited: