Deep-Gas, Deep Hot Biosphere Theory

In another thread i've been whining on to John, about how living in the scabby low energy part of the universe is bad for my ego. it gets worse. let's suppose we could do the Michelson Morley experiment for gravity, and we find that it takes a contraction. So the integer one is not c^2 over c^2 but, let's call the speed of gravity B, it's B^2 over B^2. Great stuff, it works fine, until we get to
c^2 /B^2 This is very close to absolute zero. Now, odd things happen to matter near absolute zero. of course we are talking here about gravitational energy but that's by the by. The e.m. energy has actually gone and flipped over. The gravitational mass of any particle is real, the electromagnetic mass is imaginary. Note that we don't get the problem of the tachyon losing energy as Cerenkov radiation and accelerating to infinity with this.

My poor ego is even more battered than it was before. To paraphrase Descartes, "I imagine, therefore I am."

(Edited) I slept on this and woke with an idea. As i say, we live in the very cool part of our ftl universe. It's very close to gravitational "absolute zero" and if it doesn't have zero gravitational entropy, it must be very close to it. it runs down very slowly in other words.

If we are inside a condensate, how come we don't see cooper pairs zooming about the place? In cosmic's thread, we've been talking about the universe as a bec, and also that every bit of mass in it has an event horizon which has a negative refractive index. Our sun has a 3 km radius ball of this stuff within it. It contains the inertial mass of the sun, it's balanced with the gravitational mass of the sun.

I think that this thing is the sun's "cooper pair." We cannot see it, we cannot feel it's gravitational "temperature," all we can feel is its g force. Now there's no reason why this thing has to be at the centre of the sun. For that matter the very much smaller event horizon of a proton lets say, doesn't have to spend its time at the centre of a proton.

Some of you might say, that this is beginning to sound rather like the relativistic explanation of gravity, and charge, the point though is that it's not.

John,

I have edited my reply to Gregg (28 Sep 2007 : 19:33:04), replacing "scale" with "size". It seems to me that this is a good place to begin my attempt to explain the MM idea of infinite size.

Study it for a little while and let me know if you have any questions.

LB

Hi Larry,

I see where you are going with replacing 'scale' with 'size' and the description of ranges of "Mass in Motion" over infinities being grouped in repeating ever larger structures is a stretch on how interactions if limited to the 'frequencies of light' could take place. This is a very flat perspective, I cannot see how higher speed collisions alone maintains momentum, mass regeneration, and allows for forward motion in time from top to bottom---especially if size is infinite in range.

Let's say that size is infinite in range, how does each range (size- scale) operate? Does larger size structures equate to faster motion? I think faster motion at same frequency of our light spectrum is impossible---faster then light motion is invisible we can only see the effects of the graviton because it operates above our frequency spectrum. But, let's look at this further we still do not have a 'cause for Universe' to even exist. That is why I modified MM and took the ranges from large to small and looked at a balanced axis point between a forward and reverse motion.

There is just too much extreme motion for not a full robust range of frequencies to exist. Especially if SIZE is infinite and Universe goes on forever in all directions then certainly at such extreme large ranges mass communications [to maintain RIGID SPATIAL RELATIONSHIPS] will be so far beyond speed of G that it would be instantaneous. Alright, I think it is a stretch but for the sake of continuity there are no limits to top or bottom size with a caveate that each smaller range must be imbedded with in the larger range and exchange momentum to function around centers---which means that limits do exist that define centers and boundaries. To maintain a many centered Universe then there must be 'groups of mass in rotation around coordinated axis' with in ever larger arrangements which could point towards a coordinated center.

I appreciate your interaction Larry. In fact I have been while working thinking about how to more clearly define ranges of scales in size and motion and how each range around coordinated axis points interact with subsequant smaller imbedded 'size' ranges of atomic structure.

John Rickey

My question is; does the Meta Model predict a singularity of matter and/or energy, or the continued reduction of matter and/or energy, toward infinity?

Bob Smith

I would suggest that look at the model used by QM for this problem. Start with the Argand plane, and drop a Riemann sphere, of unit radius, centred at zero onto this plane (so that it runs through the "equator)

At any point on the sphere, we can draw a line from the north, or south pole, to the argand plane, and represent the point as a complex number.

Some other, bug eyed alien dogs, have the effrontery to think that their planet is at zero. Rather than going over there and punching their lights out, we can compare our two sets of maps.

Problems: It works with Lorentzian relativity but not with Einstein's [)] The issue, as far as I can understand it, is over the word "momentarily." I clock a star momentarily) and give it a complex coordinate, and our alien chum does the same, at the same time. Simultaneity rears its ugly head.

Anyway, it's still a good idea to frame our ideas with this model in mind, because I can't see how we can avoid looking a gauge theory.

Note that a plane can be considered to be a sphere of infinite radius. Would this mean that we should move our Riemann sphere upwards, or downwards, so that it rests its pole on the argand plane?

Bob,

Regardless of how small (big) something is, it can always be divided in half (another chunk can always be added). But you never actually get to zero (infinity). So, no singularity.

Wherever you happen to be along the coordinate axis of size, you can arbitrarily call it the origin (the Mddle Of The Range). And you will be right.