The Big Bang never happened

More
18 years 10 months ago #14470 by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
Meanwhile, we have a good model of a star, our Sun, right in front of our faces.

The study of our Sun has revealed an anomaly, something that cannot be explained by the standard theory. It turns out that the temperature of the coronosphere, the atmosphere of the Sun, can be hundreds of times hotter than the surface of the Sun, the photosphere. How can that be? How can cooler make hotter?

Gravity is only one force of nature, there are other forces such as the force which holds atomic particles together - the strong force. And then there is the electromagnetic force, the EMF., which organizes everything else. The Sun is regarded as a ball of plasma. Plasma is the flow of electric currents in space without a conductor. Plasma currents, composed of both negative electrons and positive ions, create magnetic fields which then interact with the currents. A telltale sign of plasma is the spirialing caused by the size difference of the electron and ion. Benchtop experiments have succeeded in producing extra-energy with plasma. Likewise, a plasma ball the size of our Sun spews out a solar wind which is called outflow. We can visually see this happen. We see the Sun outflowing matter/energy, we see the centers of galaxies outflowing matter/energy.

What we see are vast outflows of matter/energy, sometimes as a jet, sometimes as two jets, or a wind or a geyser from the center of galaxies. The assumption being made in the standard theory is that the accretion disk of a Black hole is reversing part of the inflow of matter. This in spite of the fact that black holes have been found without surrounding matter inflow...

And then there is the inside of empty space. Turns out the vacuum of empty space is a false vacuum. Empty space is not empty. Turns out that instead of empty space being full of nothing, it is full of energy. All matter is sustained by the Inside energy source.

Well known to scientists but known by many different names. I prefer to think of it as only the "Inside" of space. Is it for real? Gariaev at the Russian Academy of Science can photograph the magnetic fields of a DNA particle. He can also photograph the magnetic fields after the DNA has been removed.

The Universe is not full of stuff all of which was randomly created billions of years ago, astronomers see structures that would take ten times that long to construct. Just recently the largest Black hole seen has been found existing only a few years after the big bang. Far too early by the big bang timescale.

Obviously the Universe is full of stuff that is being created right now. We are not what is left from a distant past event. Right now all the stuff in the Universe is in equilibrium with the Inside of empty space, being constantly fueled with energy from the inside, and according to the second law. The Universe is not a collection of inert matter which kust happened to organize itself this way. A Universe based on matter would violate the second law, among others.


The Universe is a process which is constantly becoming itself in which matter develops according to self-organization.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 years 9 months ago #16835 by Harry
Replied by Harry on topic Reply from Harry Costas
The statement:
"We show here that, within the stochastic electrodynamic formulation and at the level of Bohr theory, the ground state of the hydrogen atom can be precisely defined as resulting from a dynamic equilibrium between radiation emitted due to acceleration of the electron in its ground-state orbit and radiation absorbed from zero-point fluctuations of the background vacuum electromagnetic field, thereby resolving the issue of radiative collapse of the Bohr atom."

Can someone explain to me what this has to do with the Ongoing Universe.



Harry

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 years 9 months ago #11156 by Larry Burford
Harry,

It is an observational fact that accelerating electrons emit EM radiation.

In models of the atom where electrons orbit the nucleus (and thus are continuously accelerating), the question arises "Why do *these* electrons not radiate energy?" If they did, their orbits would be inward spirals eventually causing atoms to become clumps of neutrons.

Given the observed stability of neutrons, our universe could not be "ongoing" under this circumstance.

LB

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 years 9 months ago #16964 by Larry Burford
One way around this problem is to assume that orbiting electrons do in fact radiate energy, but that this energy loss is compensated by another mechanism such as energy gain from the zero point field. Mathematically it works, but physically it is cumbersome and tolemaic.

===

Consider this - if electrons don't orbit an atom's nucleus, the problem goes away. At present MetaModel suggests that electrons have a very strong gravitational field that is repulsive rather than attractive.

If this is correct then electrons can combine with protons and neutrons by hovering near the nucleus rather than orbiting. No motion, no radiation. And, this would also allow (require, actually) the electrons to adopt various geometric relationships among themselves and the nucleus, such as the observed 120 degree bend in a water molecule.

LB

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 years 9 months ago #16837 by Gregg
Replied by Gregg on topic Reply from Gregg Wilson
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Consider this - if electrons don't orbit an atom's nucleus, the problem goes away. At present MetaModel suggests that electrons have a very strong gravitational field that is repulsive rather than attractive.

If this is correct then electrons can combine with protons and neutrons by hovering near the nucleus rather than orbiting. No motion, no radiation. And, this would also allow (require, actually) the electrons to adopt various geometric relationships among themselves and the nucleus, such as the observed 120 degree bend in a water molecule.

LB
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Ahah! Now we are coming closer together in our thinking. I am laying no money on who is right and who is wrong.

But why would MM consider a neutron to be a fundamental, "permanent" particle? It has a half-life of about 12 minutes. A half-life for a proton has not been determined, but testing indicates it more than 10x34 power years - a long enough time to encompass the presumed lifespan of all structures we have observed in the Universe.



Gregg Wilson

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 years 9 months ago #13133 by Larry Burford
Gregg,

Good point. Bare neutrons do appear to have short half lives, but I was speaking of neutrons within an atom's nucleus. And making the (not necessarily justified, but I point to neutron stars as evidence of the concept) assumption that they would maintain their long lives under the stated conditions - ie the atom decays into a ball of neutrons as the electrons spiral in.

LB




Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.663 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum