LikeLike

]]>The idea that forces can be modelled by changing the distances between geodesics (that is the curvature) was introduced by Bernhard Riemann in 1868. Riemann introduced in the same doctoral lecture the notion of multidimensional manifolds (like the 4 dimensional space-time used in GR), and curvature.

A warning for those who scoff about the importance of meta-physics: the founding paper of differential geometry in mathematics, and physics, was a lecture by Bernhard Riemann. It’s full of metaphysics and metamathematics, for the best. The paper had just one equation (and it is a definition!)

Lorentz and Henri Poincaré later established the Theory of Relativity, including E = mcc. Henri Poincaré published gravitational waves according to Relativity on July 5, 1905 (Laplace had done so for his theory of gravitation, a century earlier). Einstein was important, but not as important as the preceding scientists. Attributing everything to Einstein violates logics, science and history, while cultivating childish celebritism, a form of personality cult.

LikeLike

]]>LikeLike

]]>LikeLike

]]>Dear Eugen; Big Bang cosmology is OBVIOUSLY wrong.

Why?

Because it depends upon Cosmological Inflation. That, in turn, has at least three drawbacks:

1) It depends upon the unobserved INFLATION field and its unobserved INFLATON.

2) It violates energy conservation.

3) It creates universes everywhere, all over.

BTW, the universe, as observed, is not symmetric, another problem for the BB…

I have my own theory, and fully expect the universe to be at least 100 billion years old…

What was the essence of the “big spin” already?

Thx for attracting my attention to the article you linked, I will get there ASAP (probably not today!) I love cosmology.

PA

LikeLike

]]>Dear Patrice, i come back again to cosmology.

I just read in New scientist there are some doubts about the inflation theory of the Big Bang. Viz;

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029370.800-big-bang-no-boom-did-planck-pop-inflations-bubble.html

Does it not open the question to an alternative creation theory? Like the big spin, i exposed here in your blog farther on?

LikeLike

]]>LikeLike

]]>Dear Eugen: Your model would fit a linear “Hubble” expansion law. Unfortunately, as I said, the usual BB model has an enormous inflation, to start with, and now apparently we observe an accelerating inflation.

Another problem is that in a rotation appears a so called “Coriolis force”. On Earth, it causes “Trade Winds”. In space, it would cause something similar, on a larger scale, a systematic Coriolis deviation. an anisotropy of the universe. To my knowledge that has not been observed (although some other features seem present, of unknown origin). it would in particular affect cosmological photons (redder in one direction than in another).

Still another problem would be that the tremendous acceleration necessary initially would prevent the gathering of matter long present, and observed, as gravity would be nothing relative to that acceleration.

The usual Big Bang is in part here to convince the public that the “Standard Model” is of some use (that’s my cynical view of it). Although, personally, I think it’s interesting by itself. It’s true it provides a neat explanation of the 3K cosmological background radiation…

PA

LikeLike

]]>LikeLike

]]>Your answer is very encouraging. So let me develop a bit the idea of the Big Spin.

I see in the model several variables that can be played with;

1. The speed of spin, which can be at speed of light, below, but maybe even above, since it is beyond the observed universe. Eventually speed of spin can even accelerate, and this would explain the speeding up of the rate of the universe expansion.

2. The size of the dot that had to spin before it inflated. Intuitively seems to me it has to be bigger then 0, otherwise what would spin? What about one Planck’s constant size? would it be sufficient? If yes, maybe this could somehow connect the Big Spin to the quantum theory, i am not sure i can figure out how. But this is just an idea.

3. The number of axises the dot spins. It cant be infinitive, because it would need infinitive energy, and the Universe energy seems to be finite.

4. And then you have the time and speed of light that is the other side of the same coin. Was the time same at the beginning of time as now, and with it the speed of light?

If you start with constant spin speed at existing speed of light, and constant dot size to spin of Planck constant, it shouldn’t be hard to calculate the number of axises you need to create all the energy you have in the observed universe. Would its angular momentum be enough to create an all direction expanding universe? If yes, wouldn’t it be a finding with certain value?

LikeLike

]]>