From: Mark
Message 1 in thread
Subject: The broken symmetries in Cosmogony
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary
View this article only
Date: 2001-05-27 13:02:54 PST
We got many fundamental laws in physics, which are ALMOST simple, symmetric,
and exact. To be precise, however, these laws have to be extended to the
overcomplicated form, loosing all their beauty on the way. And in mathematics
the esthetic criterion is decisive, whenever the theory gets too sophisticated
for the simple numeric tests of validity. In the unified theories of field, the
break of symmetry cases the electroweak force to split from the strong nuclear
interaction. At the lower energies, the electromagnetism splits from the -weak-
nuclear interaction. Energy, impulse, nucleon numbers, etc. - they do preserve,
after a fashion. Just do not forget to integrate -em over the sufficient spun
of time, 4-d volume in the time-space continuum, allow on wear and tear of the
particles, etceteras, and etceteras. Take the first postulate of Sir Isaak
Newton : "there do exist the inertial systems, where...". So they do, until
some electron runs into a particularly dense clutch of vacuum (joke). Nowadays,
professor Hawking holds the Newtonian cathedra. He researched the Black Holes,
micro BH at particular. Our continuum looks pretty crumbled in their proximity.
Professor predicted the micro Black Holes radiation, growing as they dwindle to
nothing, loosing the energy. He used information theory and quantum effects in
the research. Hawking envisioned the huge objects v BH, for the outside observer,
and the Universe with the usual physical laws and moderate average density, for
the insider.
In the uniform density, part of space the mass grows as the third degree of the
radius, and the gravitation is proportional to mass, divided by the square of
the distance. Thus, the surface gravity grows linearly with the uniform area
size. He has shown it, without using anything outside of the Newton-s scope of
knowledge! Would Sir Isaak observe such an object, as a monstrous Black Hole,
he'd possibly explained it. The corpuscular theory of light, outdated as it is,
together with the classical old fashioned gravity predicts the BH. How Newton
would have united the Newtonian rings (interference, wave model) and corpuscular
model without quantum? Some Divine quirk, probably. The point is, in the course
of the BH research, Hawking introduced the imaginary time. He used the coordinate
base in continuum, where the time-s base vector directed at the angle to the
classical time. The Black Holes, the Big Bang, and the Big Crunch ceased to be
singularities in the imaginary time! I never read, however, that anybody have
done the next logical step. The angle between the time, as we do perceive it
and the classical time explains the broken symmetries. Draw the projection of
our continuum from the Big Bang to the Big Crunch (they would be on the
classical axis of time, same space coordinates). Now draw new axis time', at an
angle to the original time, through the middle.
Draw the planes, orthogonal to the time'. Look at the Big Bang area. Some
cosmogonies do say that the matter was created together, with the space. So it
was, as the time' passed the Big Bang (time' starts "before" the Big Bang). Draw
a perfectly symmetrical Big Bang in classical time, and it will not be exactly
symmetrical in the real time'. This theory does predict the cosmological
constant of Einstein, which is not all that constant. It had an astronomical
value at the Big Bang, would have the exactly opposite value at the Big Crunch.
Around the middle of the time' interval of the existence of our Universe, it is
very small and very close to constant at time'. Now, before and close to the
"middle" of time' this constant does not hurt the energy preservation law
noticeably. So why do we integrate the energy over the sufficient interval, for
it to preserve? Because it does actually preserve in the classical time, not in
our real time'; the integration over time' gives you almost the same result, as
over classical time, here, near the ?middlei. Generally, all the symmetries do
work in the classical time. Some of the symmetries are not broken, but our way
to observe their action is. Other symmetries broke near the Big Bung event,
because of its asymmetry in our real time'. Unlike the string theories, this one
does produce measurable predictions.
From: Mark
Message 2 in thread
Subject: Re: The broken symmetries in Cosmogony
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary
View this article only
Date: 2001-05-30 00:56:42 PST
Now, if our time'; does not change its position in the continuum
(angle to classical time and space coordinates) there is one more
interesting prediction. There should be anisotropy of the space,
namely the plane should exist, that one hemisphere of the visible
cosmos is older in the classical time, than another. The effect should
reach the maximum in the opposite "poles". The light from the far
galaxies reaches us from the distant past, where the effect was
stronger (proximity to the Big Bang or Big Crunch is the factor). The
evolution of the Universe makes the existence of the specific objects
(quasars, some types of galaxies) more probable at the specific stages
(distance from the Big Bang). Close to one "pole" these "ancient"
objects would be centered farther from us, than at another! Moreover,
in the spectrum of the equidistant stars where should be more hydrogen
and helium lines near the "older" pole.
Mark wrote in message news:<73e5cd79.0105271202.618f9d89@posting.google.com>...
> We got many fundamental laws in physics, which are ALMOST simple, symmetric,
> and exact. To be precise, however, these laws have to be extended to the
> overcomplicated form, loosing all their beauty on the way. And in mathematics
> the esthetic criterion is decisive, whenever the theory gets too sophisticated
> for the simple numeric tests of validity. In the unified theories of field, the
> break of symmetry cases the electroweak force to split from the strong nuclear
> interaction. At the lower energies, the electromagnetism splits from the -weak-
> nuclear interaction. Energy, impulse, nucleon numbers, etc. - they do preserve,
> after a fashion. Just do not forget to integrate -em over the sufficient spun
> of time, 4-d volume in the time-space continuum, allow on wear and tear of the
> particles, etceteras, and etceteras. Take the first postulate of Sir Isaak
> Newton : "there do exist the inertial systems, where...". So they do, until
> some electron runs into a particularly dense clutch of vacuum (joke). Nowadays,
> professor Hawking holds the Newtonian cathedra. He researched the Black Holes,
> micro BH at particular. Our continuum looks pretty crumbled in their proximity.
> Professor predicted the micro Black Holes radiation, growing as they dwindle to
> nothing, loosing the energy. He used information theory and quantum effects in
> the research. Hawking envisioned the huge objects v BH, for the outside observer,
> and the Universe with the usual physical laws and moderate average density, for
> the insider.
> In the uniform density, part of space the mass grows as the third degree of the
> radius, and the gravitation is proportional to mass, divided by the square of
> the distance. Thus, the surface gravity grows linearly with the uniform area
> size. He has shown it, without using anything outside of the Newton-s scope of
> knowledge! Would Sir Isaak observe such an object, as a monstrous Black Hole,
> he'd possibly explained it. The corpuscular theory of light, outdated as it is,
> together with the classical old fashioned gravity predicts the BH. How Newton
> would have united the Newtonian rings (interference, wave model) and corpuscular
> model without quantum? Some Divine quirk, probably. The point is, in the course
> of the BH research, Hawking introduced the imaginary time. He used the coordinate
> base in continuum, where the time-s base vector directed at the angle to the
> classical time. The Black Holes, the Big Bang, and the Big Crunch ceased to be
> singularities in the imaginary time! I never read, however, that anybody have
> done the next logical step. The angle between the time, as we do perceive it
> and the classical time explains the broken symmetries. Draw the projection of
> our continuum from the Big Bang to the Big Crunch (they would be on the
> classical axis of time, same space coordinates). Now draw new axis time', at an
> angle to the original time, through the middle.
> Draw the planes, orthogonal to the time'. Look at the Big Bang area. Some
> cosmogonies do say that the matter was created together, with the space. So it
> was, as the time' passed the Big Bang (time' starts "before" the Big Bang). Draw
> a perfectly symmetrical Big Bang in classical time, and it will not be exactly
> symmetrical in the real time'. This theory does predict the cosmological
> constant of Einstein, which is not all that constant. It had an astronomical
> value at the Big Bang, would have the exactly opposite value at the Big Crunch.
> Around the middle of the time' interval of the existence of our Universe, it is
> very small and very close to constant at time'. Now, before and close to the
> "middle" of time' this constant does not hurt the energy preservation law
> noticeably. So why do we integrate the energy over the sufficient interval, for
> it to preserve? Because it does actually preserve in the classical time, not in
> our real time'; the integration over time' gives you almost the same result, as
> over classical time, here, near the ?middlei. Generally, all the symmetries do
> work in the classical time. Some of the symmetries are not broken, but our way
> to observe their action is. Other symmetries broke near the Big Bung event,
> because of its asymmetry in our real time'. Unlike the string theories, this one
> does produce measurable predictions.