How "CRUX OF COSMOS" Explains Surprising Things

Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution.
User avatar
maunas
Poster
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:10 am

Re: How "CRUX OF COSMOS" Explains Surprising Things

Postby maunas » Tue Apr 08, 2014 6:51 pm

The cosmic singularity has a negative mass/energy/time and a negative space/force which equals the positive mass/energy/time and positive space/ force of the universe. Zero mass particle.
Singularity! Because entangled.

User avatar
maunas
Poster
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:10 am

Re: How "CRUX OF COSMOS" Explains Surprising Things

Postby maunas » Sun Jul 20, 2014 9:11 pm

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.
Singularity! Because entangled.

User avatar
octopus1
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4893
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:11 pm
Custom Title: Deep Sea Mollusk
Location: West of Chester

Re: How "CRUX OF COSMOS" Explains Surprising Things

Postby octopus1 » Mon Jul 21, 2014 3:38 am

Oh don't mind me, I was just resting my eyes. Carry on as you were.
"On the fence".... Without a cushion....

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26360
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: How "CRUX OF COSMOS" Explains Surprising Things

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Jul 21, 2014 5:10 am

maunas wrote:At high energies, quarks tend to become massless


I was unable to find anything that indicated quarks reduced in mass at high energies. My gut feeling was that they would increase in mass as they has a "rest mass"

Can you link me to the article or web page that indicates quarks decrease in mass at high energy?

User avatar
maunas
Poster
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:10 am

Re: How "CRUX OF COSMOS" Explains Surprising Things

Postby maunas » Tue Jul 22, 2014 5:58 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
maunas wrote:At high energies, quarks tend to become massless


I was unable to find anything that indicated quarks reduced in mass at high energies. My gut feeling was that they would increase in mass as they has a "rest mass"

Can you link me to the article or web page that indicates quarks decrease in mass at high energy?


At very high energies not only quarks but all fundamental particles (even those which repel each other such as electrons & even those which are charge-less become mass-less). But i came here today today to post 2 other statements. Nevertheless, if Octopus does not confirm it for you (he being a particle physicist), i will search out the reliable reference of it (not necessarily with explanation) for you. Please wait.
Singularity! Because entangled.

User avatar
maunas
Poster
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:10 am

Re: How "CRUX OF COSMOS" Explains Surprising Things

Postby maunas » Tue Jul 22, 2014 8:02 pm

maunas wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
maunas wrote:At high energies, quarks tend to become massless


I was unable to find anything that indicated quarks reduced in mass at high energies. My gut feeling was that they would increase in mass as they has a "rest mass"

Can you link me to the article or web page that indicates quarks decrease in mass at high energy?


At very high energies not only quarks but all fundamental particles (even those which repel each other such as electrons & even those which are charge-less become mass-less). But i came here today today to post 2 other statements. Nevertheless, if Octopus does not confirm it for you (he being a particle physicist), i will search out the reliable reference of it (not necessarily with explanation) for you. Please wait.


For the time being see page: 14 - In high energy physics assume all elementary particles to be massless to start with.
As the universe cooled, particles acquired masses through breaking of symmetry.
ref- www.tifr.res.in/~mazumdar/course_2009/lhc.ppt
Singularity! Because entangled.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26360
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: How "CRUX OF COSMOS" Explains Surprising Things

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Jul 23, 2014 12:56 am

maunas wrote: At very high energies not only quarks but all fundamental particles (even those which repel each other such as electrons & even those which are charge-less become mass-less).


In this sentence, you say quarks ( but all fundamental particles) become massless at very high energies, which is not true. That's why I queried it. In response you linked me to a Power Point slide show concerning the LHC
http://www.tifr.res.in/~mazumdar/course_2009/lhc.pp

maunas wrote: For the time being see page: 14 - In high energy physics assume all elementary particles to be massless to start with.
That is before "inflation" and has nothing to do with post inflation quarks reducing in mass at high energy. It assumes for the Higgs-Kibble model that no particle had mass before inflation, but it has nothing to do with quarks losing mass at high energy "post inflation".
Slide show from Maunas file.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
maunas
Poster
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:10 am

Re: How "CRUX OF COSMOS" Explains Surprising Things

Postby maunas » Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:42 pm

Exactly. Only when particles interact very frequently, any mass they gain is instantly cancelled by the negative mass being generated (resistance to motion).
Singularity! Because entangled.

User avatar
octopus1
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4893
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:11 pm
Custom Title: Deep Sea Mollusk
Location: West of Chester

Re: How "CRUX OF COSMOS" Explains Surprising Things

Postby octopus1 » Thu Jul 24, 2014 3:07 am

maunas wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
maunas wrote:At high energies, quarks tend to become massless


I was unable to find anything that indicated quarks reduced in mass at high energies. My gut feeling was that they would increase in mass as they has a "rest mass"

Can you link me to the article or web page that indicates quarks decrease in mass at high energy?


At very high energies not only quarks but all fundamental particles (even those which repel each other such as electrons & even those which are charge-less become mass-less). But i came here today today to post 2 other statements. Nevertheless, if Octopus does not confirm it for you (he being a particle physicist), i will search out the reliable reference of it (not necessarily with explanation) for you. Please wait.


I'm afraid that I can't "confirm" any theoretical physics point. By its nature, it's a little bit 'free form'.

I must confess that I can't ever recall hearing about truly massless electrons. Because if I had, we'd be dead - And if we were, then... Yeah...
Or perhaps the theory that I agree with is wrong, and electrons can change their mass at will... (oh yeah I know but let him run with it...)

If this has to do with the double-slit experiment, beware that there are question marks aplenty hovering over that one's validity and repeatability, to this day!

Can the same electron exist in two distinct places at the same time? In theory, an elephant could be pope. In fact, no probably not.

Mine and many others' view is that electrons share certain identical traits - Like some monozygotic twins do. Their fingerprints and DNA are nearly indentical, and if you didn't know any better, you'd think you'd seen them in two places at once.

What the whole thing indicates (But cannot anywhere near be called proven) is that perhaps there are interactions on a smaller scale still going on.

But through all that, I can't be certain. I'm not rich enough to have a STM in my wardrobe.
"On the fence".... Without a cushion....

User avatar
maunas
Poster
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:10 am

Re: How "CRUX OF COSMOS" Explains Surprising Things

Postby maunas » Thu Jul 24, 2014 5:34 pm

octopus1 wrote:
maunas wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
maunas wrote:At high energies, quarks tend to become massless


I was unable to find anything that indicated quarks reduced in mass at high energies. My gut feeling was that they would increase in mass as they has a "rest mass"

Can you link me to the article or web page that indicates quarks decrease in mass at high energy?


At very high energies not only quarks but all fundamental particles (even those which repel each other such as electrons & even those which are charge-less become mass-less). But i came here today today to post 2 other statements. Nevertheless, if Octopus does not confirm it for you (he being a particle physicist), i will search out the reliable reference of it (not necessarily with explanation) for you. Please wait.


I'm afraid that I can't "confirm" any theoretical physics point. By its nature, it's a little bit 'free form'.

I must confess that I can't ever recall hearing about truly massless electrons. Because if I had, we'd be dead - And if we were, then... Yeah...
Or perhaps the theory that I agree with is wrong, and electrons can change their mass at will... (oh yeah I know but let him run with it...)

If this has to do with the double-slit experiment, beware that there are question marks aplenty hovering over that one's validity and repeatability, to this day!

Can the same electron exist in two distinct places at the same time? In theory, an elephant could be pope. In fact, no probably not.

Mine and many others' view is that electrons share certain identical traits - Like some monozygotic twins do. Their fingerprints and DNA are nearly indentical, and if you didn't know any better, you'd think you'd seen them in two places at once.

What the whole thing indicates (But cannot anywhere near be called proven) is that perhaps there are interactions on a smaller scale still going on.

But through all that, I can't be certain. I'm not rich enough to have a STM in my wardrobe.


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.
Singularity! Because entangled.

User avatar
octopus1
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4893
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:11 pm
Custom Title: Deep Sea Mollusk
Location: West of Chester

Re: How "CRUX OF COSMOS" Explains Surprising Things

Postby octopus1 » Sat Jul 26, 2014 2:01 am

Where is the evidence showing substantial electronic -ve mass? There's documentation, I'll grant you, but... :scratch: It's not something I've been inclined to accept as gospel... :?

And I'm concerened by the idea that these same electrons lose mass in toto before reacceleration. There's no reason for this to be the case. If the Big Bang Theory is to be considered accurate, then its expansion may have been due to particles that truly do have -ve mass acting on the fabric of space - Like a rolling pin, stretching it out in all directions, invisible to our human eyes. Or if not stretching it out, then dragging it out.

I'm not sure we should credit electrons with that phenomenon. They get enough good press already! Jeez, the way we go on about how wonderful electrons are, you'd think they'd saved the Queen of Sheba! :P
"On the fence".... Without a cushion....

User avatar
maunas
Poster
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:10 am

Re: How "CRUX OF COSMOS" Explains Surprising Things

Postby maunas » Sun Jul 27, 2014 6:07 am

octopus1 wrote:Where is the evidence showing substantial electronic -ve mass? There's documentation, I'll grant you, but... :scratch: It's not something I've been inclined to accept as gospel... :?

And I'm concerened by the idea that these same electrons lose mass in toto before reacceleration. There's no reason for this to be the case. If the Big Bang Theory is to be considered accurate, then its expansion may have been due to particles that truly do have -ve mass acting on the fabric of space - Like a rolling pin, stretching it out in all directions, invisible to our human eyes. Or if not stretching it out, then dragging it out.

I'm not sure we should credit electrons with that phenomenon. They get enough good press already! Jeez, the way we go on about how wonderful electrons are, you'd think they'd saved the Queen of Sheba! :P


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.
Singularity! Because entangled.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12192
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: How "CRUX OF COSMOS" Explains Surprising Things

Postby kennyc » Sun Jul 27, 2014 10:28 am

"The cosmos is entangled in sub empirical boundaries" _
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
maunas
Poster
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:10 am

Re: How "CRUX OF COSMOS" Explains Surprising Things

Postby maunas » Mon Jul 28, 2014 5:42 pm

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.
Singularity! Because entangled.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26360
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: How "CRUX OF COSMOS" Explains Surprising Things

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Jul 28, 2014 11:44 pm

maunas wrote: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.


I don't think that's right Maunus. I think what you are trying to say is "All particles with mass at rest, require an infinite amount of energy to reach the speed of light as their mass also increases towards infinity, at the same time".

I cannot see any document or paper that suggests their mass "goes negative" at light speed and indeed, wouldn't this mean that black holes have a "negative mass" Schwarzschild radius, when we know the exact opposite occurs? You are suggesting black holes have "negative mass" which is not supported by evidence.

User avatar
octopus1
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4893
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:11 pm
Custom Title: Deep Sea Mollusk
Location: West of Chester

Re: How "CRUX OF COSMOS" Explains Surprising Things

Postby octopus1 » Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:09 am

maunas wrote:
octopus1 wrote:Where is the evidence showing substantial electronic -ve mass? There's documentation, I'll grant you, but... :scratch: It's not something I've been inclined to accept as gospel... :?

And I'm concerened by the idea that these same electrons lose mass in toto before reacceleration. There's no reason for this to be the case. If the Big Bang Theory is to be considered accurate, then its expansion may have been due to particles that truly do have -ve mass acting on the fabric of space - Like a rolling pin, stretching it out in all directions, invisible to our human eyes. Or if not stretching it out, then dragging it out.

I'm not sure we should credit electrons with that phenomenon. They get enough good press already! Jeez, the way we go on about how wonderful electrons are, you'd think they'd saved the Queen of Sheba! :P


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.


You have an actual (provable) M* graph of massless photons mapped in RT? :?

Just don't tell me that's payware... Share if you have!

[*I assume that it's Minkowski (Which space are we in with this?? :lol: ), could it be something else? I mean seriously, if you're on to something just spit it out...]
"On the fence".... Without a cushion....

User avatar
maunas
Poster
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:10 am

Re: How "CRUX OF COSMOS" Explains Surprising Things

Postby maunas » Tue Jul 29, 2014 5:35 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
maunas wrote: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.


I don't think that's right Maunus. I think what you are trying to say is "All particles with mass at rest, require an infinite amount of energy to reach the speed of light as their mass also increases towards infinity, at the same time".

I cannot see any document or paper that suggests their mass "goes negative" at light speed and indeed, wouldn't this mean that black holes have a "negative mass" Schwarzschild radius, when we know the exact opposite occurs? You are suggesting black holes have "negative mass" which is not supported by evidence.


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 of the observer.
Last edited by maunas on Tue Jul 29, 2014 6:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Singularity! Because entangled.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12192
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: How "CRUX OF COSMOS" Explains Surprising Things

Postby kennyc » Tue Jul 29, 2014 5:38 pm

I like pie.

:D
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
octopus1
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4893
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:11 pm
Custom Title: Deep Sea Mollusk
Location: West of Chester

Re: How "CRUX OF COSMOS" Explains Surprising Things

Postby octopus1 » Tue Jul 29, 2014 5:47 pm

maunas wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
maunas wrote: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.


I don't think that's right Maunus. I think what you are trying to say is "All particles with mass at rest, require an infinite amount of energy to reach the speed of light as their mass also increases towards infinity, at the same time".

I cannot see any document or paper that suggests their mass "goes negative" at light speed and indeed, wouldn't this mean that black holes have a "negative mass" Schwarzschild radius, when we know the exact opposite occurs? You are suggesting black holes have "negative mass" which is not supported by evidence.


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.


I can see in my head what this "animation" would look like, but there's absolutely not a jot of evidence to back it up. There's not even an indication.

What could give a particle "enough kinetic energy" in the first place to actually 'cross' the limit? What effect would this infinite mass have on the Universe? These questions are skimmed over...
"On the fence".... Without a cushion....

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12192
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: How "CRUX OF COSMOS" Explains Surprising Things

Postby kennyc » Tue Jul 29, 2014 7:10 pm

Like stones skipping on water, so are the days of our lives.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
octopus1
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4893
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:11 pm
Custom Title: Deep Sea Mollusk
Location: West of Chester

Re: How "CRUX OF COSMOS" Explains Surprising Things

Postby octopus1 » Tue Jul 29, 2014 7:23 pm

kennyc wrote:Like stones skipping on water, so are the days of our lives.


Soap Opera reference?

They were originally going to call it "You Will Eventually Die". But they thought it was too blunt, so they tweaked it. True Fact... ;)
"On the fence".... Without a cushion....

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12192
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: How "CRUX OF COSMOS" Explains Surprising Things

Postby kennyc » Tue Jul 29, 2014 7:26 pm

Death abides.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
octopus1
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4893
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:11 pm
Custom Title: Deep Sea Mollusk
Location: West of Chester

Re: How "CRUX OF COSMOS" Explains Surprising Things

Postby octopus1 » Wed Jul 30, 2014 2:15 am

kennyc wrote:Death abides.


You write the script, I'll blackmail the network executives.
"On the fence".... Without a cushion....

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12192
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: How "CRUX OF COSMOS" Explains Surprising Things

Postby kennyc » Wed Jul 30, 2014 2:16 am

octopus1 wrote:
kennyc wrote:Death abides.


You write the script, I'll blackmail the network executives.


That's the "CRUX" of the matter.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
maunas
Poster
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:10 am

Re: How "CRUX OF COSMOS" Explains Surprising Things

Postby maunas » Wed Jul 30, 2014 9:50 pm

octopus1 wrote:
maunas wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
maunas wrote: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.


I don't think that's right Maunus. I think what you are trying to say is "All particles with mass at rest, require an infinite amount of energy to reach the speed of light as their mass also increases towards infinity, at the same time".

I cannot see any document or paper that suggests their mass "goes negative" at light speed and indeed, wouldn't this mean that black holes have a "negative mass" Schwarzschild radius, when we know the exact opposite occurs? You are suggesting black holes have "negative mass" which is not supported by evidence.


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.


I can see in my head what this "animation" would look like, but there's absolutely not a jot of evidence to back it up. There's not even an indication.

What could give a particle "enough kinetic energy" in the first place to actually 'cross' the limit? What effect would this infinite mass have on the Universe? These questions are skimmed over...


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.

PS: Where have i said of particles becoming of infinite masses at the speed of light or beyond? Neither have i ever said that their mass "goes negative" at light speed. Please read and infer my posts again.
Singularity! Because entangled.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12192
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: How "CRUX OF COSMOS" Explains Surprising Things

Postby kennyc » Wed Jul 30, 2014 9:56 pm

maunas wrote:....
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......



No. Resistance has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the energy required to accelerate mass (even a tiny particle) to the speed of light. The energy needed becomes infinite. The equations are quite clear and have been fully verified by tests and experiments.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
maunas
Poster
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:10 am

Re: How "CRUX OF COSMOS" Explains Surprising Things

Postby maunas » Wed Jul 30, 2014 10:16 pm

I am not talking here of energy required to accelerate mass (even a tiny particle) to the speed of light. Can a photon (being mass-less) cross the speed of light? So their is infinite resistance to motion above speed of light.
Singularity! Because entangled.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12192
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: How "CRUX OF COSMOS" Explains Surprising Things

Postby kennyc » Wed Jul 30, 2014 10:21 pm

maunas wrote:I am not talking here of energy required to accelerate mass (even a tiny particle) to the speed of light. Can a photon (being mass-less) cross the speed of light? So their is infinite resistance to motion above speed of light.



I know, you're just talking {!#%@}. As you have been from the beginning.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10407
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: How "CRUX OF COSMOS" Explains Surprising Things

Postby OlegTheBatty » Wed Jul 30, 2014 10:52 pm

maunas wrote:I am not talking here of energy required to accelerate mass (even a tiny particle) to the speed of light. Can a photon (being mass-less) cross the speed of light? So their is infinite resistance to motion above speed of light.

A photon travels at the speed of light because it is light (it's wavelenght may not be in the visible spectrum, but that is a human failing, not the fault of the photon).

Photons do not have zero mass, they have zero rest-mass. They have momentum, which is measureable; they are affected by gravitaional 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.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
maunas
Poster
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:10 am

Re: How "CRUX OF COSMOS" Explains Surprising Things

Postby maunas » Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:13 pm

kennyc wrote:
maunas wrote:I am not talking here of energy required to accelerate mass (even a tiny particle) to the speed of light. Can a photon (being mass-less) cross the speed of light? So their is infinite resistance to motion above speed of light.



I know, you're just talking {!#%@}. As you have been from the beginning.


I am sorry if i misunderstood or missed something. Some described circumstances are hypothetical in my posts, to try to clarify my line of thinking, and so i think the extension of these in to discussions is unwarranted.
Singularity! Because entangled.

User avatar
maunas
Poster
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:10 am

Re: How "CRUX OF COSMOS" Explains Surprising Things

Postby maunas » Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:31 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:
maunas wrote:I am not talking here of energy required to accelerate mass (even a tiny particle) to the speed of light. Can a photon (being mass-less) cross the speed of light? So their is infinite resistance to motion above speed of light.

A photon travels at the speed of light because it is light (it's wavelenght may not be in the visible spectrum, but that is a human failing, not the fault of the photon).

Photons do not have zero mass, they have zero rest-mass. They have momentum, which is measureable; they are affected by gravitaional 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. It is a general statement. 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.
Singularity! Because entangled.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26360
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: How "CRUX OF COSMOS" Explains Surprising Things

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:47 pm

maunas wrote:So their is infinite resistance to motion above speed of light.


It is your use of the word "resistance" that is a problem. A particle with mass at rest will approach infinite mass as it approaches the speed of light. The amount of energy required to approach the speed of light becomes infinite. There is nothing "resisting" anything, it is a barrier because the object would have infinite mass requiring infinite energy, which is impossible in its own nature.

What exactly, in your theory, is the "other thing" doing the "resisting"?


maunas wrote:When a particle is given enough kinetic energy to cross the speed of light.....
Oleg the Batty, has already dealt with this logical error. As a particle, with mass at rest, would have infinite mass at light speed, the kinetic energy required would also be infinite. You are postulating a "nonsense" that require two nonsense things to happen to support your postulation.

maunas wrote: Now, how could the infinite resistance of absolutely cold space be violated by an exceedingly small point universe by instantaneous inflation?
Maunus, the "cold space" dis not exist. There was no space before the big bang. Inflation caused space to exist. You are suggesting the big bang took place in some sort of normal empty space or "cold space" which is just wrong.

User avatar
maunas
Poster
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:10 am

Re: How "CRUX OF COSMOS" Explains Surprising Things

Postby maunas » Thu Jul 31, 2014 12:28 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
maunas wrote:So their is infinite resistance to motion above speed of light.


It is your use of the word "resistance" that is a problem. A particle with mass at rest will approach infinite mass as it approaches the speed of light. The amount of energy required to approach the speed of light becomes infinite. There is nothing "resisting" anything, it is a barrier because the object would have infinite mass requiring infinite energy, which is impossible in its own nature.

What exactly, in your theory, is the "other thing" doing the "resisting"?


maunas wrote:When a particle is given enough kinetic energy to cross the speed of light.....
Oleg the Batty, has already dealt with this logical error. As a particle, with mass at rest, would have infinite mass at light speed, the kinetic energy required would also be infinite. You are postulating a "nonsense" that require two nonsense things to happen to support your postulation.

maunas wrote: Now, how could the infinite resistance of absolutely cold space be violated by an exceedingly small point universe by instantaneous inflation?
Maunus, the "cold space" dis not exist. There was no space before the big bang. Inflation caused space to exist. You are suggesting the big bang took place in some sort of normal empty space or "cold space" which is just wrong.


I have addressed your objections already in my previous posts.
See- a photon at absolute rest can not be emitted by an atom. Absolute rest is different from zero rest mass. At absolute rest their is no quantum space let alone any particle with mass.
Absolute space is different from quantum space as already described in my previous posts.
Last edited by maunas on Sun Aug 24, 2014 4:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Singularity! Because entangled.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26360
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: How "CRUX OF COSMOS" Explains Surprising Things

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Jul 31, 2014 12:47 am

maunas wrote:I have addressed your objections already in my previous posts.

You haven't done this at all. However, you should continue what you are doing as this is your thread and your developing theory. I'm just observing.

It will be your final developed theory that will get my most attention.

User avatar
octopus1
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4893
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:11 pm
Custom Title: Deep Sea Mollusk
Location: West of Chester

Re: How "CRUX OF COSMOS" Explains Surprising Things

Postby octopus1 » Thu Jul 31, 2014 12:52 am

maunas wrote: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.


Yes, this I got.

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.


If this theory is true (Best one we have yet...) then there is some indication that the first "bits" to come out had no mass at all, and were therefore theroetically free to travel at anything from the SL to infinity. When they started to clump together, accrete if you prefer, then the mass became a problem and the inflation decelerated accordingly.

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).


I'm not familiar with this addition to the Big Bang Theory. I'd have to ask around to find out just how valid that structural point is.

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.


One idea might be that it wasn't a "point in space" but the "point of origin of space". The old balloon metaphor. If you blow more air into a full balloon, you've got your resistance right there. If you blow into an empty ballon, little noticeable resistance. This is a favored theory, since it accounts for the malleability of what we believe the early Universe was all about. It also allows for the mathematically sound prehension that the central point of the Universe is everywhere within its boundary.

PS: Where have i said of particles becoming of infinite masses at the speed of light or beyond? Neither have i ever said that their mass "goes negative" at light speed. Please read and infer my posts again.


I supposed that this is what you meant, having read the following sentence:

"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."

However, I'm now inclined to suppose that it was just sloppy writing. Which is very slightly more forgivable. I'm not the biggest 'grammar nazi' in the world - But you must know that being correct and clear in this field of work is vital.
"On the fence".... Without a cushion....

User avatar
maunas
Poster
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:10 am

Re: How "CRUX OF COSMOS" Explains Surprising Things

Postby maunas » Mon Aug 04, 2014 6:16 pm

Thanks for your comments, i will certainly try to be more correct and clear,but, it is a very difficult job with so many prevailing scientific concepts to reach the "CRUX".
Singularity! Because entangled.

User avatar
maunas
Poster
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:10 am

Re: How "CRUX OF COSMOS" Explains Surprising Things

Postby maunas » Mon Aug 04, 2014 9:33 pm

donnie wrote:What dose the two slits experiment tell us.? Why do electrons behave differently when observed.? Can somebody answer me. According to a law known as the ‘quantum Zeno effect’, whenever we observe or measure something at the quantum level we set its decay clock back to zero.???


If you are still there with us, 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......
Singularity! Because entangled.

User avatar
maunas
Poster
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:10 am

Re: How "CRUX OF COSMOS" Explains Surprising Things

Postby maunas » Wed Aug 06, 2014 8:03 am

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, negative mass, negative energy and of negative space, 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".
Singularity! Because entangled.

User avatar
maunas
Poster
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:10 am

Re: How "CRUX OF COSMOS" Explains Surprising Things

Postby maunas » Wed Aug 13, 2014 3:55 pm

The fifth/sixth lines in post #278 dated wed Aug 06,2014 9:03 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.
Singularity! Because entangled.

User avatar
maunas
Poster
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:10 am

Re: How "CRUX OF COSMOS" Explains Surprising Things

Postby maunas » Wed Aug 13, 2014 4:30 pm

If we begin from quantum vacuum, it's expansion/motion/addition of energy or force, should create...? Positive mass particles ? Particles eg. electron/photon, formed by 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 flat 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....
Last edited by maunas on Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Singularity! Because entangled.


Return to “Origins”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest