maunas24-10-13
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jul, 2014 03:29 pm
@maunas24-10-13,
Since motion is contraction of space while dilatation of time and mass, it means that the increasing expansion of the universe is reducing (compacting) the universe (i.e reducing in space while increasing in mass and time). This will finally lead us therefore to a cosmic singularity and beyond, to a negative universe.
maunas24-10-13
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2014 11:44 am
@maunas24-10-13,
After the instantaneous inflation, a bunch of closely interacting electrons decelerating from supraluminal speeds (showing substantial negative mass) to infraluminal speeds will become mass-less just before showing mass.
maunas24-10-13
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jul, 2014 12:11 am
@maunas24-10-13,
The sine and cos wave electromagnetic forces (the mass-less photons) get wound-up in to charges with mass (electrons & positrons) at sub-luminal speeds. So at supra-luminal speeds all particles have negative mass & at light speeds they are mass-less. The cosmic singularity therefore consisted of instantaneously moving/occurring negative mass particles.
maunas24-10-13
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2014 11:46 am
@maunas24-10-13,
All particles known to man if given enough kinetic energy to cross the speed of light will encounter infinite resistance to their motion and thus be of negative mass. Only left over points of absolute vacuum (functioning as particles) entrapped in the quantum vacuum produced by inflation from big bang are capable of instantaneous travel across the cosmos, and, only they can be responsible for the phenomenon of entanglement.
maunas24-10-13
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2014 11:37 am
@maunas24-10-13,
When a particle is given enough kinetic energy to cross the speed of light & it encounters infinite resistance to it's motion, it becomes a negative mass particle, but, rather than stopping dead in it's tracks it will start moving at infinite speeds because it is the property of negative mass to move opposite to the direction of applied force.
At absolute rest, 'mass' disappears, rest mass is relative to frame of reference.
maunas24-10-13
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2014 04:40 pm
@maunas24-10-13,
Till date their is ample evidence that speed of light is limiting speed (a universal physical constant) & therefore we can infer that their is infinite resistance to motion above this limit. Yet we have more than a jot of evidence for big bang & inflation (BICEP-2) which brought the entire universe into existence almost instantaneously from a point. Inflation ended when mass/time started forming (thus giving the impression that it occurred almost instantaneously & not instantaneously) because, mass/time is formed by contraction of quantum space (deflating Higg's field formed during inflation) for which again their is evidence from the theory of relativity (still not disproved but many times proved). Now, how could the infinite resistance of absolutely cold space be violated by an exceedingly small point universe by instantaneous inflation? This seems possible only if that point was a focus of immense negative mass.
maunas24-10-13
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2014 05:46 pm
@maunas24-10-13,
Photons do not have zero mass, they have zero rest-mass. They have momentum, which is measurable; they are affected by gravitational fields, and therefore they have mass. What zero rest-mass means is that when a photon is absorbed by an atom, the atom does not gain mass.
I agree, but, this error does not alter my argument. To be precise, i think, their is conversion of the mass of the photon in to a increased space between the electron & the atomic nucleus when a photon is absorbed by an atom.This is in fact yet another proof that mass is convertible in to quantum space and vice-verse when the photon is re-emitted.
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2014 08:02 pm
Hey Maunas can you explain the famous Double-Slit Experiment for us?
As I understand it, the photons in it change their behaviour when they're being observed, as if they KNOW they're being observed.
How can that be?
maunas24-10-13
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2014 03:42 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
Hey Romeo Fabulini,
I hope you will find the answer to your question in the following, "long pending" post. Sorry for the delay.
The electrons around an atomic nucleus become more fuzzy/wavy rather than becoming more concrete/clear when we try to slow down their motions (and we can not increase their motions further there). So "RESISTANCE" to motion is essential for producing 'waves'. But waves are possible only in a body of flexibly/loosely attractive particles, because, essential properties by which we distinguish a wave from a particle are made possible only in such a body. For example, 'diffraction' occurs when particles move through a hole or slit, and,those particles which are at the periphery,'rub'(encounter 'resistance/natural selection') against the edges of the slit loosing velocity while those in the center of the slit move forward without loosing that much velocity, rolling over the particles coming from the periphery,thus, forming wavelets....resulting in the diffraction pattern on the screen behind the slits.["Resistance or natural selection is the cause of all 'diversity/differentiation' we see in all existence. Vibrations/oscillations are possible when there is resistance to continuous motion in only one direction & the inertia of motion has to reverse it's direction. Waves are produced from the point of their origin due to a vibration or violence which induces oscillations in strings or slices of loosely attracting particles.] The "photon/electron" in Young's double slit experiment is (in fact neither a particle nor a wave before it hits the slit or the nearest detector) converted in to a wave by detector-less slits, which serve as two coherent sources for two separate wave fronts which interfere to produce the interference pattern on the screen behind the slits. When detectors are placed on the slits then the individual photon/electron gets absorbed by the nearest detector & is re-emitted as individual photon/electron inside the slits, in a manner that prevents rubbing of the photon/electron against the edges of the slit, thus no conversion of the photon/electron into a wave takes place, therefore there is no interference & the photon/electron get's on the screen behind the slits, as a particle. Thus observation seems to alter the behavior of the photon/electron. So,'diffraction is necessary to convert a photon/electron into a wave. This also implies that photons and electrons are not truly fundamental particles. They are a bunch of some smaller, loosely attracting particles, which were probably the first which formed after the big bang inflation (responsible for stopping the inflation, caused by the negative mass of the singularity), from which then all the positive mass of the universe was formed. They agglomerated to form the first photons & electrons.... & further. The velocity of light is a universal constant because these wave/particles are formed by the most fundamental particles of the quantum vacuum & travel in the body of the quantum vacuum. The particles generated in the quantum vacuum by quantum fluctuations are composite particles of these truly fundamental particles. To be continued......
maunas24-10-13
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Aug, 2014 02:09 am
@maunas24-10-13,
Since force has two components, action & reaction, it can be considered to be either negative or positive, and, so, time, mass, energy and space all can be considered to have both positive and negative components, as, they are all inter convertible. Force effects motion, which can lead to contraction/decrease of space by converting it into time or mass or energy (dilation of these on acceleration while shortening of measurements). Big bang singularity was a focal point of negative time, mass, energy (note: not of negative space, as it dilates to produce them) and thus it also contained negative force. The "un particulate", 0 kelvin absolute vacuum which caused the particles of quantum vacuum to come into existence (see previous posts) was the positive force. So, "resistance" is a positive force while "conductance" is a negative force (hence superconductivity on super-cooling like tending towards the infinite speed of big bang inflation). ' All the fundamental forces thus can be understood, as, rather, specific increase-rs or decrease-rs in the magnitude of time or mass or energy or space. Resistance causes differentiation/diversity/ depression while conductance causes inflation/growth. Both are essential for each other like action and reaction. Hence everything will disappear if there is no "resistance" to motion and light speed is not a limiting speed in the "quantum space universe".
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Aug, 2014 05:54 am
Quote:
Maunas said about the Double Slit experiment: When detectors are placed on the slits then the individual photon/electron gets absorbed by the nearest detector

Yes that's what I thought. But if you and me know it, why don't scientists know it?
maunas24-10-13
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2014 09:45 am
@maunas24-10-13,
The third/fourth lines in post #5,734,676 dated wed 6 Aug,2014 02:09 am have been edited as: Big bang singularity was a focal point of negative time, negative mass, negative energy and of negative space, and thus it also contained negative force.
maunas24-10-13
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2014 10:19 am
@Romeo Fabulini,
Here, in my case, probably because i am "learning by unlearning".
0 Replies
 
maunas24-10-13
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2014 10:26 am
@maunas24-10-13,
If we begin from quantum vacuum, it's expansion/motion/addition of energy or force, should create...? Positive mass particles ? Particles eg. electron/photon, a bunch of vibrating, truly fundamental particles (which make the quantum vacuum) when rub the edges of a slit, loosing velocity (thus increasing their waviness), get converted into waves with secondary wavelets (diffraction). Can secondary wavelets be further diffracted leading to formation of more infra/weaker secondary-secondary wavelets ? If, yes! Then if this process is continued serially for a sufficient number of times (for weaker & weaker secondary wavelets produced with each diffracting slit kept serially) it should finally yield the truly fundamental
particle, which can not be diffracted further. Now, consider a radio wave, the wavelength of which stretches across the diameter of the cosmos, it will be a standing wave, but, the universe is expanding at an accelerating speed and so it's amplitude should decrease & wave length increase (the universe is thought to be oval in shape). Does this mean that the red shift which we observe in the light coming from distant galaxies is due to expansion of the quantum vacuum, alone, rather, than speeding away of galaxies from each other (in general)? Well, if the galaxies are increasing their speed of motion, then, there should be a general increase in the total mass of the universe & if the quantum vacuum is expanding then it should get rarefied, resulting in, perhaps, lesser quantum fluctuations and thus lesser "dark energy" with the evolution of the universe (or, else, dark energy is not due to the particles produced by quantum fluctuations in the quantum vacuum - as suggested by me earlier). But, dark energy, as we know, is increasing with the evolution of the universe, this means that the quantum vacuum is shrinking/reducing/contracting at the expense of a general increase in the mass of the universe. The "red shift" of light from distant galaxies is truly due to their moving away from us while the space (the large amount of quantum space which unfolded when the negative mass of the singularity inflated) is contracting/wrinkling past them & into them. ... to be continued....
maunas24-10-13
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2014 11:06 am
@maunas24-10-13,
For better clarity of what i want to express, the words 'formed by'...a bunch of vibrating,... should have been added in the second line of the previous post.
0 Replies
 
maunas24-10-13
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Aug, 2014 01:08 am
@maunas24-10-13,
From the above post we can infer that : Initially there was only "cosmic quantum vacuum background" followed by, as the quantum vacuum shrunk/contracted (due to reversal of inertia of big bang inflation, when there was no negative mass left to unfold further into quantum vacuum) to cosmic very long wavelength radio wave background, &, then to radio wave background followed by the present day cosmic microwave background. It should therefore be expected that, in future, the cosmos will be inundated with, following serially, infrared then the visible light spectrum from red towards violet, then , ultraviolet followed by X-rays & then gamma ray background. Still further shrinking of space will bring about into existence, the cosmic lepton background followed by finally, the "COSMIC HADRON BACKGROUND". By this time all the heavenly bodies would have started merging and disappearing into the "cosmic background/dark energy", and only contracting dark energy (now "DARK MASS") would prevail in the cosmos. The contraction of the cosmos will continue from this dark matter to a critical point, where all positive mass will first become mass-less before the inertia of contraction/"Negative Force" pushes the cosmos beyond this point to a negative mass singularity. This super-dense negative mass singularity, now, consists of negative mass, negative space, negative energy, negative force and, negative time. This cosmic singularity, due to presence of both negative mass & negative force will now undergo "re-inflation", giving birth to the next iteration of the universe. The leftover dark mass in the process of the shrinking of space from the previous iteration of the universe will be assimilated in the next iteration as "DARK MATTER" of the new iteration.
(NB: In this model the concept of absolute vacuum is not required.)
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Aug, 2014 05:09 am
So, if you are correcting the world's physicists about elementary particle physics, quantum electrodynamics, and cosmology, then you know high school physics, right? You could solve a standard high school physics problem, correct?
maunas24-10-13
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Aug, 2014 05:01 pm
@maunas24-10-13,
Erratum: The universe is considered to be flat in shape. Not oval, as mentioned in line number 8 in post number: 5, 739, 843
0 Replies
 
maunas24-10-13
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Aug, 2014 05:50 pm
@Brandon9000,
I am an unemployed, uneducated, layman. Able to know somethings from the internet. I post what i think. Learned people are some times kind enough to correct my wrong understandings (i believe, most of the times they just entertain themselves with my blunderous imaginings & rightly so, as i commit a lot of blunders). Regarding solving a standard high school physics problem, all i have to say is that i will try, if you ask.
maunas24-10-13
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Aug, 2014 01:46 am
@maunas24-10-13,
Contraction of time occurs with dilation of space. But increase in space (vacuum energy) requires energy, this comes from decay of mass to radiant energy which further decays to quantum vacuum, thus the entity 'mass', is also the entity 'time' (The oneness of mass and time is also apparent when they show the same property of dilation with increase in motion). The reverse of this process i.e, the process of accretion of mass involves the contraction of space with simultaneous dilation of time. The space between heavenly bodies or particles which contracts/dilates tending to create/decay mass is "force".Thus, time, force and mass are the same thing. Contraction/dilation of space tends to cause motion and motion tends to cause contraction/dilation of space (Force). In this way we see that energy, mass, force, time, & space are phases of the same entity, while, motion is the cause of changes in the magnitude of these phases. So, in the model of the universe developing in the "CRUX OF COSMOS", it seems to me that, "Time moves both ways". So does "ENTROPY". So does "INFORMATION", and, Quantum information cannot be destroyed.
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » CRUX OF COSMOS
  3. » Page 4
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 09/25/2021 at 01:13:01