No more Big Bang Theory?

You may argue this point, but there is no quantifiable actual finite evidence of any other space time existing or for that matter in any other form.

Caution; There was a time where one man built not only the probable location but the complete history of Atlantus, he died convinced he was correct.

The day after the FA cup final The third page has "scientist have discovered a co existing Universe" while the nation lies stunned.............. that "Spurs" actually won

for microns of a second

Voyager One has JUST left the solar system....
Until it can get somewhere it can look back, we wont know.

My idea of the infinite is built up on probability.
My guess is that we are still thinking much too small.

Stop thinking Universe, and start thinking outside that bubble.

Time may not exist as we know it, but there is still time.
Time is only how we measure events.
Time can not be manipulated.
The events can, but time?... no.

I reserve the right to come back in the future and alter my beliefs... when we as Humans know better.
Until then, all I can say is we have much to learn.
The moment we are proved right, is just a point on a series of events that leads to a better understanding....

And as for leaving it to philosophers, sod that, why let them have all the fun?...

We can speculate...
Because that is all we have.
Until we have answers, what else do we have?...


Proof states that as soon as we think we have seen the very edge of our own universe, someone invents a better telescope.....

I still dont think we are looking far enough away.
Think bigger.

And speculate...

Because, what we DO know, is that we just dont know....
And that, my friends, is where science begins....?....

Which is why I spatter my thoughts on the subject with phrases such as "My thinking is", "My Idea", "I believe", and "speculation"...

I know I may be far from right...
I EXPECT to have to correct my own beliefs from time to time.
Its just I HAVE to disprove a "Finite" space theory that is starting to irk me every time someone tries to put it forward....
and not referring to anyone on here with that.. we are more open minded, and more adaptive than that.

But I URGE speculation.....
Proof, Evidence, what are they?...
They are finite answers.
And there is the problem.
If I can be proved wrong, I absolutely definitely encourage that....
Just dont stop there.
For anyone to go all "Lets throw a party because we have proved the Dragon wrong" would be, in its self, futile, wrong on so many levels, and just plain anti-science....
We must speculate without any form of limitation, other than the actual limitations of what we suspect we know.....
And we must be prepared to be wrong.
By speculation, we start Curiosity...
And curiosity starts the process of science.

Speculation is therefore the best greatest and utmost tool that we can use right now... to speculate what we may find out, then we set off to go see if we are going in the right direction.

Heck, the Higgs field was pure speculation a few years ago.

Who knew?

What next?

Take me to the very edge of the universe, give me a wall to knock on, and you know whats coming next...
I am just going to ask "Whats on the other side"............

Thats the basis behind all my beliefs.
I look at the very laws of science, the very limits, the "walls"...
and ask, whats on the other side.



Which is why I am trying to get people to think there is NO bubble.....
I dont believe we have a real bubble to start with.
But you have to get some people to look in the right direction, because they can only think inside the bubble, because they believe there MUST be a bubble... even though there is no actual proof of a bubble in the first place.

Take a simple explosion on the MB's bomb range... say the Cement Mixer... just as a reference point for a Big Bang...
It threw debris quite a distance in a very short length of time.
Just the same as THE Big Bang.

By the thinking used by those that try to explain the universe, the furthest debris from that explosion mark the very edge of space.....

Erm....

Hello?...

This is the "Take me to the edge of space" moment I was talking about, and a very GRAPHIC demonstration of my way of thinking...
Go there, and take one step further...
Where is that wall now?...

This is my thinking.

What existed before the big bang.

For those that say "Nothing", I ask, what is YOUR evidence?....
As you have no evidence, you cannot therefore prove that MY theory that something did exist before then is untrue....

And I MUST, for pure science sake, stand there and argue that point....

Because a very specific point has been put up as "The truth" that nothing DID exist before the big bang....

And I dont believe that.

What is the evidence?...

I say that that theory is no more speculation than what I bring to the table, so, lets move on, and see what else we can find.....

CMBR... What is that an anagram of?... , I think I may have forgotten....




Bi-Metallic strips bend with temp.
Any set of scales that has more than one material in its makeup is therefore subject to the same....
On that hypothesis, is any set of scales truly accurate at all temps.
Answer, no.
I suggest that the scales themselves are not 100% accurate....

Also, the moon. (And other nearby solar objects...)
The moon is in an oblique orbit, as in not a perfect circle...(Some say the earth may be as well, which is why we get global warming?...)
In that it (The moon,) gets closer to the earth...(the same as other plnetary objects)
When it is closer, the combined mass and gravitational forces of the earth-moon shifts, closer, more mass, further apart, less mass, and gravity to suit.
Therefore gravity alters.
Therefore, it would be the same as moving those scales up and down a mountain....
The mass stays the same, the way its measured alters, and its weight due to gravity alters.
Gravity is not stable.
We have this miss-conception that gravity is a finite here on earth.
It is not....
It alters day to day... maybe by only a little, but it is almost fluid in its movements.



None taken, and I hope non given....
Moving Forward, if we can bang heads with no injury on this, as in argue with no intent for insult and injury, go ahead, give it your best shot and give me something to change the way I think.....
It is welcome.

My thoughts beliefs and ideas are totally fluid, there is no wrong or right, there is just progress.

The idea that there is no finite is solid until someone can give solid evidence that there is a finite end to the space time, one end or the other.
I argue for a total infinite to balance those(not you) who would argue that there is a finite....
Just to show them the futility of their argument....
Because as I can not show evidence for infinity, they can not show evidence for finite....

Red Shift.
I think I understand this reference, correct me as appropriate.
Red shift as light approaches the boundaries of our own know universe, it is "bent", giving a red shift.
Light has mass... yes?...
The argument I favour for this is the combined "weight" of the total mass of our universe may be enough to bend light....

If you shine light around a huge mass such as a planet, it bends slightly, if you shine it around a black hole, you could bend it all the way back on its self, therefore, the known universe may have the same effect.....

This is not the ]reflective(refractive?)] Index of a boundary such as a pane of glass at the edge of the universe, its just the combined weight of the universe biting back.

I argue to provoke thought....
If anyone else wants to join in, go ahead, PrivatePaddy, I am enjoying the discussion.



There be more things in heaven and earth than we can know about....
With a little help from Shakespeare there, but simply, many years back, Gravity was a myth... (The earth just sucked)... anyway, we still managed to exist before we understood gravity.
I suggest we still DONT know everything.

I certainly dont....

neither do I.
The scales are a composite of more than one material.
Therefore, that will act the same way...
I think you may have misunderstood that point?..



Then how can gravity affect light.

If light has no mass, when it passes a huge gravitational object, just what is altering its course?..

From your own specs on the room, 24decC with a plus and minus...
From the material its self.
From your own body heat.

I have a background in HVAC, I know the problems of keeping a constant temperature in a room...
You just cant, unless its a sealed system, and then you have the problem of oxygen levels, you need a flow of fresh air.
One of my discoveries was I could actually use the room temp sensors to notify me when room was being occupied...
When humans enter a room that is at slightly below body temp, if you have a sensitive enough sensor, you get a spike in temp.





Then by your own evidence, the light must have some form of substance... and substance equates to some form of mass.
The amount is only slight, therefore you need a HUGE gravitational mass to affect the light, and then only by mico-degree's over huge distances.

Yes we are still exploring the properties of light...
However, if you just for a moment take the idea that light has got a mass, and look again at its properties, it does explain why it does what it does.

Plus the fact that someone somewhere got a very accurate set of scales and subjected them to a burst of strong light, and got a reading..... well, more of a fluctuation that could be taken as a reading....

Again, this is the very edge of exploring what we think we know.
This is the kind of exploration that revealed the Higgs Boson field at Cern....


This from the first reliable result of "Does light have a mass" on gogle search....
www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html

So the argument is no and yes.
This from that site who is trying hard to say no it doesnt, and not quite managing it?...
Therefore, even the strongest argument I can find from the "NO" camp cant actually sat that photons of light have no mass.

If it is a photon, it is a physical object, and therefore, as gravity affects it, it has mass.....
Forget all the fancy maths, I am just trying to simplify things here.
The problem is that its spread about so thinly, if you tried to get enough of it together in one place, the energy involved would be problematical.
As in, I dont think we have enough to contain enough.

Gravity, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...
If we look at the findings that all matter is somehow connected, and this again is something Brian Cox is more able to explain in a better way than I can, but if all matter is somehow connected in a way that there is some sort of almost magnetic type force that attracts other matter, then we can go with the idea that gravity is a force that attracts....

This again explains Light.
If matter attracts matter, then photons are some form of matter, and are affected, therefore, they affect the gravitational field, therefore they MUST have mass....
I think its just that they cant get enough light together in one place to measure properly because, as the top of this post explains, we just dont have an accurate enough set of scales.

And why cant I argue the very basics of what we know...
There is the problem.
I can.

You dont need university degree;s to ask the question "Why".

I know
The expansion coefficient of aluminium (worst case of the materials mentioned) is 22.2 x 10^-6 m/m . deg K This means for every degC the aluminium of the load cell increases its length by 22,2 micro meters/m in length, LC of the size required are possibly as small as 50-75mm. Or ~ 0.000296 m. The strain gauge sensors will also expand at a similar rate IIRC. Without the load cells specks, and the scales sensitivity its hard to say just how much error will be caused by the load cell temp rising if indeed it does rise. I could at this point speculate that the scale and the weights are in a sealed room and an operator works through thermally insulated gloves from the outside

Light is defined as electromagnetic radiation it has energy, this energy is proportional to its frequency inversely proportional to its wavelength. As stated before through the equivalence principle energy is converted to mass E=mc^2
If we are then I am unaware as to the research going on
I don't see a problem with the light energy model, nor do I have a problem with matter warping space. With reference to the Higgs field caused by the Higgs Boson, and since the standard model requires a higgs field to give give particles the property of mass. There is no evidence that EM radiation has a Higgs field ergo no mass. Really Light is energy the effect it has is to heat things

First line to the direct question says definitely no.
depends on what you want to believe

At the moment I am going to leave this alone because I feel I have explained my position previously
I would rather explain it as matter warping space

Ok accepting this is mostly speculation on my part, think about this possible explanation.
If light has energy but no higgs field it cannot become matter (standard model) if it does come in contact with matter which does have a higgs field it can become matter converting its energy into momentum ergo force.

After quickly going through the article it appears the Higgs field is not mentioned, according to what I have read about the standard model, it is required to give energy the property known as mass.
With reference to the fluidity of G due to the earth's core please quantify the changes in G?
Re Atlantis, Lewis Spence was the Authors name, there was a wiki article from memory it did not treat him kindly. Historically as I recall one Greek Philosopher/story teller Aristotle? retold a story told to him by the Egyptians who got it from....... some time in the preceding 10 thousand years(?)
My point was about Lewis Spence, I suggest you read some of his works
My Aunt bought me a copy of "The History of Atlantis" paper back edition 1973. It includes chapters on Religion, culture, races, geography and its traditions.
I keep the book as a keepsake.

I believe there is already a topic on the light sabre

Loki said
Okay, maybe it's not as far fetched as I always thought...


boston.cbslocal.com/2013/09/26/harvard-mit-scientists-create-real-lightsaber/

Read more: citadelofmyths.freeforums.net/thread/757/real-light-saber#ixzz2gWUP0kM0
I believe a key statement is "may one day", they also do not identify the method used. Up to date light is only affected by the interaction with real matter or gravity.