Why Our Universe Must Have Been Born Inside a Black Hole
A small change to the theory of gravity implies that our universe inherited its arrow of time from the black hole in which it was born.
kfc 07/13/2010
- 165 Comments
"Accordingly, our own Universe may be the interior of a black hole existing in another universe." So concludes Nikodem Poplawski at Indiana University in a remarkable paper about the nature of space and the origin of time.
The idea that new universes can be created inside black holes and that our own may have originated in this way has been the raw fodder of science fiction for many years. But a proper scientific derivation of the notion has never emerged.
Today Poplawski provides such a derivation. He says the idea that black holes are the cosmic mothers of new universes is a natural consequence of a simple new assumption about the nature of spacetime.
Poplawski points out that the standard derivation of general relativity takes no account of the intrinsic momentum of spin half particles. However there is another version of the theory, called the Einstein-Cartan-Kibble-Sciama theory of gravity, which does.
This predicts that particles with half integer spin should interact, generating a tiny repulsive force called torsion. In ordinary circumstances, torsion is too small to have any effect. But when densities become much higher than those in nuclear matter, it becomes significant. In particular, says Poplawski, torsion prevents the formation of singularities inside a black hole.
That's interesting for a number of reasons. First, it has important implications for the way the Universe must have grown when it was close to its minimum size.
Astrophysicists have long known that our universe is so big that it could not have reached its current size given the rate of expansion we see now. Instead, they believe it grew by many orders of magnitude in a fraction of a second after the Big Bang, a process known as inflation.
The problem with inflation is that it needs an additional theory to explain why it occurs and that's ugly. Poplawski's approach immediately solves this problem. He says that torsion caused this rapid inflation.
That means the universe as we see it today can be explained by a single theory of gravity without any additional assumptions about inflation.
Another important by-product of Poplawski's approach is that it makes it possible for universes to be born inside the event horizons of certain kinds of black hole. Here, torsion prevents the formation of a singularity but allows a HUGE energy density to build up, which leads to the creation of particles on a massive scale via pair production followed by the expansion of the new universe.
This is a Big Bang type event. "Such an expansion is not visible for observers outside the black hole, for whom the horizon's formation and all subsequent processes occur after infinite time," says Poplawski.
For this reason, the new universe is a separate branch of space time and evolves accordingly.
Incidentally, this approach also suggests a solution to another of the great problems of cosmology: why time seems to flow in one direction but not in the other, even though the laws of physics are time symmetric.
Poplawski says the origin of the arrow of time comes from the asymmetry of the flow of matter into the black hole from the mother universe. "The arrow of cosmic time of a universe inside a black hole would then be fixed by the time-asymmetric collapse of matter through the event horizon," he says.
In other words, our universe inherited its arrow of time from its mother.
He says that daughter universes may inherit other properties from their mothers, implying that it may be possible to detect these properties, providing an experimental proof of his idea.
Theories of everything don't get much more ambitious than this. Entertaining stuff!
Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1007.0587: Cosmology With Torsion - An Alternative To Cosmic Inflation
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
Mapou
357 Comments
Here We Go Again with the Crackpottery
"Accordingly, our own Universe may be the interior of a black hole existing in another universe." So concludes Nikodem Poplawski at Indiana University in a remarkable paper about the nature of space and the origin of time."
Wow. The only thing remarkable about Nikodem Poplawski's paper is that such pseudoscientific hogwash can originate from an institution of higher learning in this day and age. I say, shame on the University of Indiana. The very idea of a black hole is based on the concept of continuity, an idea that is not only illogical (it leads to an infinite regress), but is not even scientific in the Popperian sense of falsification. Even Einstein, Mr. Continuity himself, had doubts about continuity.
Worst of all is the idea that somehow time has a direction of flow, i.e., an arrow. The idea that we are moving in time in one direction or another is a conceptual disaster. Why? Because time cannot change by definition. This is the reason that Karl Popper called spacetime "Einstein's block universe in which nothing happens" (source: Conjectures and Refutations). Absolutely nothing can move in spacetime for this reason. Why isn't Poplawski aware of this fact and how did his Star-Trek voodoo physics paper pass peer review? This is truly a sad commentary on the state of modern physics. This stuff is not even wrong.
The problem with the physics community is that theirs is an incestuous science that has been spawning hideous monstrosities for some time now. Their bunker mentality (the public is stupid and is the enemy) prevents them from considering other points of view, especially views that contradict their worldview. They have completely abandoned the search for a foundational understanding of nature and they insist on building up on their erroneous assumptions. Physicists do not even understand motion and yet they feel confident enough to create all sorts of silliness like wormholes, multiple universes and time travel. How dare they think that they are qualified to teach us about the origin of the universe when they are wallowing in ignorance about the most basic aspects of the universe?
Ask a physicist to explain why two bodies in relative inertial motion remain in motion and you'll come face to face with abject ignorance. Vast and profound ignorance is the norm in the physics community.
Let me add that I am deeply disappointed that publications like TR are still printing such pseudoscientific fairy tales under the banner of legitimate science. Paul Feyrabend was right when he wrote in Against Method, "[...]the most stupid procedures and the most laughable results in their domain are surrounded with an aura of excellence. It is time to cut them down in size, and to give them a more modest position in society." He might as well have been writing about physicists like Nikodem Poplawski.
Who will rise up to deliver us from this mountain of cr@p?
Reply
AKT
453 Comments
Re: Here We Go Again with the Crackpottery
Continuous or not, the theories which support the contemporary cosmology are mostly inconsistent. So, only a fool will waste time with this kind of nonsense.
At this stage, theoretical physics must revisit the foundation again and sort out the mountain of problems accumulated because of the acceptance of invalid theories. Why we have to give massive amount of research money to these "researchers" who do not think or cannot think.
Einstein correctly claimed that we can place synchronised clocks along a train track. How to do that? Astoundingly these "intellectual elites" of academic physics can not figure out. Even a good computer science student in middle school will figure it out in several minutes. At a point on the track, at 12:00 a light signal is flashed. At a point x km away from this point, we set the clock to 12:00+x/c when this signal is observed.
Now we can show that Poincre symmetry fails! A person in a moving train can look at the closest clock and measure the time of the track. He can look at the clock far away to measure the time of the track's time. They do not agree. So, time as per Einstein (time as clock reading) is not invariant under the geometric translation.
This is just a beginning of a whole bunch of troubles coming. By reading clocks right in front of them two observers on the train can observe the same time on the ground for the same time for the ground. So, Einstein's loss of simultaneity result is false.
It is ironic as Einstein used clock reading to interpret SR's time dilation. He correctly observed that we can place synchronised clocks along the track in his defense to the effect of Doppler's effect on time as clocks. A clock moving towards you will appear to speed up for you and it will appear slowing down when it is moving away from you. In the end, it backfired showing that his loss of simultaneity is false.
Indeed, Einstein's own thought experiment for the loss of simultaneity also deduces the negation of the loss of simultaneity. Assume a train runs on a track: when a passenger on the train is on the bisector of AB lighting strikes A and B. Using classical reasoning, Einstein correctly concluded that the observer will see that A and B are hit at different time. But he missed yet another possibility. According to the constancy of the speed of light, A and B are hit at the same time for this observer. This is because the speed and path of light has nothing to do with the motion of the emitter of light.
All of this simply shows that SR is logically inconsistent. Astoundingly those academic experts on SR seem to have some difficulty in understanding correct event and frame analysis in SR.
Many experts asked when I said the A and B are hit at the same time, in which frame? These experts have obvious double standard. They had no question when Einstein used the same setting to prove the loss of simultaneity. When I use it to show that simultaneity is preserved, all of sudden this assumption of Einstein becomes a problem. Quite a science, is it not? Any how Einstein was correct. The timing of A and B hit by lightning is in the frame of the track. Einstein then went on to investigate what happens when this observer on the train observes it.
To dismiss all of these contradictions, contemporary physicists deployed a diversion which uses nonphysical interpretation of inertial frames. They do not assume that inertial frames are moving relative to each other. They just assume that inertial frames are bundles placed locally in the 4D manifold of space time. They just consider Lorentz Transformations over the bundle of inertial frames. When I asked them, then what is v in Lorentz Transformations, they said that v is just a number. They did not know that this makes Lorenz transformation have physical dimension.
After all, what? black holes? Why we have to listen to these people who did not understand that the argument for black holes used a theory which is invalid as it is inconsistent?
I think that theoretical physicists should revisit the issues towards the end of the 19Th century and redo everything done since then in theoretical physics.
Best regards,
AKT
Reply
oli
2 Comments
Re: Here We Go Again with the Crackpottery
While the real scientists are creating "theories" (and i don't see any mention in this article that Poplawski claiming his findings to be anything more than that at this stage), ready to be proven false or otherwise, it is great to see that you have been spending your time mastering the science of criticism.
Why not put some time into actually solving the mysteries of the universe (which you seem so keen to uncover), rather than cutting down anybody who stumbles across a new idea.
You insist that one theory must be proven false, simply because another theory cannot be proven true? The fact is, even the greatest minds are limited by their society, technology and resources. The only way for scientific thought to progress is to open your mind to new ideas...
If you have any answers to how our universe was actually created, please share them... If not, please allow people to explore possibilities.
Reply
AKT
453 Comments
Re: Here We Go Again with the Crackpottery
It is astounding that these people do not understand that the theories they use to build cosmology are all invalid.
SR is a theory which proves both the loss of simultaneity and its negation. It also proves Length contraction and its negation. It indeed proves anything as virtue of inconsistent theories.
There is no point in discussion the cosmology. Go back to the foundation and sort out the problems there first.
What I am saying is nothing new. Many decent physicists felt that something was very wrong with cosmology and they said, "When we heard the word "universe" it is time to leave."
What do we know about the way how gravitational force travels? I asked this question to astronomers and cosmologists. I asked if the gravitation travels in exactly the same path with exactly the same speed. None of them gave me answer. They all said in the end they did not know.
Then I told them that unless this is the case, we have no understanding of the universe. This is because the optical locations of stars and gravitational locations of stars are different.
They called me "lunatic fringe" instead of giving me answer.
They called me "crank" when I asked them the following question: According to GR, space curves due to the distribution of masses in the universe. To figure out how the space is curved, we have to measure the distance between stars. To measure this, we have to know how the space is curves in between stars. We have come a full circle.
Best regards,
AKT
Reply
mattgroom
289 Comments
Re: Here We Go Again with the Crackpottery
@AKT
It would be more like 12+p & 12+x/c+p.Where p is the signal processing time.
The relativity equation is tA-tB=t'A-tB and visa versa. (I know you know, just saying it for others) Its a theoretical equation meaning the clocks are infact the same (or begin at the same point). Like entangled clocks if you wish.
Or you have to take into consideration different transport mediums, space one way is not the same as space the other way. You cannot measure this difference in real-time.
The equation also proves no two clocks can be (considered) synchronous if they do not start at the same time/point or are not the same clock.
So technically setting 12+p & 12+p+x/c is wrong.
The only time the equation makes sense in measuring the time is when the clocks come back togther again. That is when the true time difference is real.
I don't understand the physics behind the universe, but i can see where the great minds are coming from.
Its impossible to set two clocks (perfectly) that are apart to be synchronous. Close enough is good enough for me though mostly...
Its one reason the synchronous clock experiment occurred by setting the clocks while together (on the ground) and then measuring them together at its end (after one flies around the world).
This interpretation agreed fully with the equation and so we got an accurate reading of relativity. Anything short of this would have been considered short-sighted.
Reply
gblaze44
97 Comments
Re: Here We Go Again with the Crackpottery
No, I would consider this being open minded, something it seems is lacking in today's world. Many theories have gone through stages of "crack-pottery" as you would call it. Quantum physics, Big Bang theory, theory of evolution, Chaos theory
to name just a few areas of science that were considered "crack-pottery" at one time. Sign of a good scientist always keep an open mind until the theory is dis-proven.
Reply
AKT
453 Comments
Re: Here We Go Again with the Crackpottery
I do not see any science discussed in this post. It is sort of chatting is it not? I am not interested in chat.
best regards
AKT
Reply
goggs
1 Comment
Re: Here We Go Again with the Crackpottery
Uh huh... This time you were not, but you first post looks like you love chatting (with yourself).
Reply
AKT
453 Comments
Re: Here We Go Again with the Crackpottery
Why don't you then start seriousscientific discussions.
Respond scientifically to what I posted:
*************************************
Continuous or not, the theories which support the contemporary cosmology are mostly inconsistent. So, only a fool will waste time with this kind of nonsense.
At this stage, theoretical physics must revisit the foundation again and sort out the mountain of problems accumulated because of the acceptance of invalid theories. Why we have to give massive amount of research money to these "researchers" who do not think or cannot think.
Einstein correctly claimed that we can place synchronised clocks along a train track. How to do that? Astoundingly these "intellectual elites" of academic physics can not figure out. Even a good computer science student in middle school will figure it out in several minutes. At a point on the track, at 12:00 a light signal is flashed. At a point x km away from this point, we set the clock to 12:00+x/c when this signal is observed.
Now we can show that Poincre symmetry fails! A person in a moving train can look at the closest clock and measure the time of the track. He can look at the clock far away to measure the time of the track's time. They do not agree. So, time as per Einstein (time as clock reading) is not invariant under the geometric translation.
This is just a beginning of a whole bunch of troubles coming. By reading clocks right in front of them two observers on the train can observe the same time on the ground for the same time for the ground. So, Einstein's loss of simultaneity result is false.
It is ironic as Einstein used clock reading to interpret SR's time dilation. He correctly observed that we can place synchronised clocks along the track in his defense to the effect of Doppler's effect on time as clocks. A clock moving towards you will appear to speed up for you and it will appear slowing down when it is moving away from you. In the end, it backfired showing that his loss of simultaneity is false.
Indeed, Einstein's own thought experiment for the loss of simultaneity also deduces the negation of the loss of simultaneity. Assume a train runs on a track: when a passenger on the train is on the bisector of AB lighting strikes A and B. Using classical reasoning, Einstein correctly concluded that the observer will see that A and B are hit at different time. But he missed yet another possibility. According to the constancy of the speed of light, A and B are hit at the same time for this observer. This is because the speed and path of light has nothing to do with the motion of the emitter of light.
All of this simply shows that SR is logically inconsistent. Astoundingly those academic experts on SR seem to have some difficulty in understanding correct event and frame analysis in SR.
Many experts asked when I said the A and B are hit at the same time, in which frame? These experts have obvious double standard. They had no question when Einstein used the same setting to prove the loss of simultaneity. When I use it to show that simultaneity is preserved, all of sudden this assumption of Einstein becomes a problem. Quite a science, is it not? Any how Einstein was correct. The timing of A and B hit by lightning is in the frame of the track. Einstein then went on to investigate what happens when this observer on the train observes it.
To dismiss all of these contradictions, contemporary physicists deployed a diversion which uses nonphysical interpretation of inertial frames. They do not assume that inertial frames are moving relative to each other. They just assume that inertial frames are bundles placed locally in the 4D manifold of space time. They just consider Lorentz Transformations over the bundle of inertial frames. When I asked them, then what is v in Lorentz Transformations, they said that v is just a number. They did not know that this makes Lorenz transformation have physical dimension.
After all, what? black holes? Why we have to listen to these people who did not understand that the argument for black holes used a theory which is invalid as it is inconsistent?
I think that theoretical physicists should revisit the issues towards the end of the 19Th century and redo everything done since then in theoretical physics.
******************************************
If you have any criticism or question, let me know.
Best regards,
AKT
Reply
Shootist
39 Comments
Re: Here We Go Again with the Crackpottery
Back so soon?
Reply
AKT
453 Comments
Re: Here We Go Again with the Crackpottery
I will let you know until you come up with scientific response. Where is your discussion?
If you have objection, just start discussion if you can, my friend.
Best regards,
AKT
Reply
SheldonCooper
1 Comment
Re: Here We Go Again with the Crackpottery
I object! Social convention states that one at least banter with a person who engages in the playful back and forth I am given to understand calms the primates in your species!
Reply
AKT
453 Comments
Re: Here We Go Again with the Crackpottery
A renown Russian pianist teaching in Paris said to the parents of her American student that their daughter was going through the discipline without which there was no freedom of expression. Bing creative does not mean what most people think. There is such thing as art and punk art. In science we also have science and punk science. Physics is punk science as it has no discipline to even detect circularity, contradiction and inconsistency. "But it works" is a vivid evidence for that physics is punk science.
Best regards,
AKT
Reply
mawhite
1 Comment
Re: Here We Go Again with the Crackpottery
Ha! We followed Einsteins method and invented GPS. We followed Popper's method and created a criticism of Einstein. We followed Feyerabend's method and created a criticism of Popper! All have some value. Which will persist?
Reply
Mapou
357 Comments
Big Deal
Well, big whoop-dee-do. Ptolemaic epicycles can predict all sorts of celestial phenomena and can be made to be as precise as needed by adding more cycles. That does not mean that they're good physics. Heck, my dog, too, is a scientist since he can make predictions about all sorts of events.
I happen to know that the reason that physicists still don't understand why the universe is probabilistic is that they are handicapped by their belief (mostly because of Einstein's influence) in the existence of a time dimension, a concept that is trivially easy to falsify. The number of things that are wrong with Einstein's physics are so numerous that it boggles the mind it is still considered one of the greatest achievements of 20th century science. Shame, really.
The fact is that Einstein has shot physics in the foot and got everybody chasing after a red herring for a hundred years. Fortunately, this is the beginning of the end of the Einstein era. Sooner than you think.
Reply
equsnarnd
3 Comments
Re: Big Deal
Are you saying time doesn't exist as a dimension?
Reply
AKT
453 Comments
Re: Here We Go Again with the Crackpottery
Ex CEO of GPS, Dr. Hatch repeatedly stated that GPS uses no SR. Cambridge cosmologist Prof. Dr. Maguejio wrote in his book "Faster than the speed of light" that NASA do not use relativstic calculation to navigate space ships.
Popper presented no "method". Your statement is nothing but the manifestation of the intellectual challenge of physicists who cannot think. Logical consistency is a most fundamental principle in human intellectual activity. Physics is not science it is just a cult.
Assume that a train runs on a track.when a passenger on the train is on the right bisector of AB lightning hits both A and B. Einstein correctly concluded that this observer will see that A and B are hit at different moment. Thus he declared the loss of simultaneity. I added another possibility for this situation. This observer will observe that A and B are hit at the same moment because according to the CSL the light path and the light speed is independent of the motion of the emitter of light.
According to Einstein, all thought experiments he used to frame SR are invalid due to the light cone interpretation.
Mental illness is not science.
Best regards,
AKT
Reply
Brin
5 Comments
Re: Here We Go Again with the Crackpottery
I'm very confused by this post. One uses the light cone interpretation to verify SR as in, say, Griffiths E&M book; chapter 12 (I think).
Also, you present the thought experiment in a confusing manner. Would you mind presenting it in a clearer form? Note, you mention that Einstein "correctly" concluded that the passenger sees A and B get struck at different moments? Or perhaps you mean that it is easy to imagine two different frames where the two events do not occur simultaneously. Further, after judging Einstein to be "correct" you then go ahead and present an alternate possibility, based on CSL (what is that?).
Please help make the discussion more intelligent by being as precise as possible, thanks.
- Uppergraduate Physics Student
Reply
AKT
453 Comments
Re: Here We Go Again with the Crackpottery
1. The problem with all thought experiments Einstein used to frame SR are invalid as there is no causality between the event of the emission of light and the event of the reception of the light. We have to use the travelling of light to frame SR and SR concludes that travelling of light is not what SR discusses.
My presentation of the thought experiments is more precise than original Einstein's. If you have difficulty, let me refer you yo a contradiction which appears at more developed stage.
Transformation of waves as mathematical functions leads to an equation
v_g =c^2/w.
This means that unless the group speed v_g has the same value as the value of the phase speed w, in which case both of them have value c, either v_g or w must exceeds c. This contradicts to the SR's claim that nothing moves faster than the speed of light.
Moreover, we know that sound waves have the same value for phase speed and group speed and the speed is less than c.
Best regards,
AKT.
P.S. If you still want the explanation of the thought experiments, let me know. I will explain themin more details.
Also be reminded that your textbook is written by those who do not know what they are talking about. They did not see anything wrong with SR. They thought the troubles will go away bu intimidation, name calling and blackmailing.
Reply
Rcomian
1 Comment
Re: Here We Go Again with the Crackpottery
No, Louis, you'll stand a chance when you present that experiment that breaks relativism, as you promised.
Reply
AKT
453 Comments
Re: Here We Go Again with the Crackpottery
This is the problem all physicists have in their thinking. All experiments violate relativity theory already as it is inconsistent. Inconsistent theory predicts A and notA for all A. So, for each experimental result A, SR predicts notA. So, SR violates all experimental results. We must not waste public money to verify inconsistent theories. It is already invalid.
Best regards,
AKT
Reply
icecycle66
2 Comments
This is all explained a bit better here.
http://www.trueliberty.us/Act_IX_The_Occurrence_of_Singularities_in_Space.html
There are other chapters before and after it that preface and further explain, but this is where it is drawn down.
Reply
cgrayce
2 Comments
Re: Here We Go Again with the Crackpottery
Er...I'm going to suggest your axe has a very sharp edge by now.
Reply
Tareeq
1 Comment
Re: Here We Go Again with the Crackpottery
Agreed.
Poplawski is probably brainwashed, indoctrinated, educated stupid and cannot comprehend Nature's Harmonic Simultaneous 4-Day Perpetual Time Cube Creation.
When the Sun shines upon Earth, 2 - major Time points are created on opposite sides of Earth - known as Midday and Midnight. Where the 2 major Time forces join, synergy creates 2 new minorTime points we recognize as Sunup and Sundown.
The 4-equidistant Time points can be considered as Time Square imprinted upon the circle of Earth. In a single rotation of the Earth sphere, each Time corner point rotates through the other 3-corner Time points, thus creating 16 corners, 96 hours and 4-simultaneous 24 hour Days within a single rotation of Earth - equated to a Higher Order of Life Time Cube.
Ignorance of the Time Cube is evil.
Reply
AKT
453 Comments
Re: Here We Go Again with the Crackpottery
Your post will imporve if you includes scientific contents which substantiate your bunch of claims unsubstantiated.
Best regards,
AKT
Reply
mattgroom
289 Comments
Re: Here We Go Again with the Crackpottery
@tareeq
Rotating your square 3 times and including the start does make a total of 16 corners for all 4 squares positions. The day is still 24 hours, which can be viewed only by you as different ...because you are special. If you have a square representing 24 hours and it has 4 corners and it is rotated 4 times, 1 rotation is 24 hours, 2 is 48 hours...and 4 rotations is 96. 4 rotations is 4 days...
What was your last part about being high? Joking Have fun, i enjoyed the test. There are some nice mathematical puzzles for the mind that baffle me, when you add this, multiply this do this and this is your number. Im like omg how did you do that.
Reply
AKT
453 Comments
Re: Here We Go Again with the Crackpottery
> Wow. The only thing remarkable about Nikodem Poplawski's paper is that such pseudoscientific hogwash can originate from an institution of higher learning in this day and age. I say, shame on the University of Indiana. The very idea of a black hole is based on the concept of continuity, an idea that is not only illogical (it leads to an infinite regress), but is not even scientific in the Popperian sense of falsification. Even Einstein, Mr. Continuity himself, had doubts about continuity.
This poster should learn mathematics before he insults himself in public in this way. He knows little about continuum or continuity. The set of rational numbers is not continuum. It is a countable set. Yet it has what mathematicians call "density". In between two rational numbers x <y, we always find yet another rational number. So, we go into infinite regress.
Einstein did not understand what continuum is at all. Virtually no physicists understadn what it is. They think that a fuction f(x)=x+5 moves point 1 to point 6 on real number line. If you move 1 to 6 where 6 will go? should 6 go to 1? ... If 1 goes to 6 and 6 goes to 1, then the real number line is not continuum anymore.
So, what makes the real number line continuum? It is beyond those people who learned mathematics through proof by examples. Each subset of real numbers which is bouned upward (or down ward) has a least upper bound (or greatest lower bound). This property aka the completeness of real numbers make real number line continuum. I do not think any teoretical physicists really understood this elementary fact of pure mathematics.
After all, mathematicians have no culture and time to insult each other calling each other "crank", "crackpot" etc. I reckon that theoretical physics is where these mediocre minds who think too much of themselves learn how to be nasty to each other.
Best regards,
AKT
Reply
niebieskieucho
7 Comments
Scientific myths on and on and on
Still loads of scientific myths in the above blogpost. First of all I'd like to observe, the the universe has no origin. The universe/nature has no creator. It simply IS. Looking for the alleged universal birth is a pure waste of time. On the other hand its own beginning has the materialized part of the universe. The materialized part of the universe appeared accidentally, and definitely not from the alleged Big Bang. The pivotal question that is necessary for a proper understanding of cosmological issues is to have imagination of what time is. If one realizes that time (of something) = motion (of something) = change (of something), then will make the first right step to getting rid of scientific myths.
Reply
mattgroom
289 Comments
Re: Scientific myths on and on and on
@ neibieski..
you have a very newtonian view of things. Even the most sceptical person realises if you travel on a train travelling at c and walk up it at 1/2c you are only doing 90% of c(einstein equation) and not 1.5c as newtonian physics predicts.
Most people understand time/motion/direction etc. A few understand it in relativistic terms and a few understand it all. Im not one of those that understand relativity, becuase i can never compare myself to someone with an iq that frankly makes mine look like a cats. I can make proposals is all, they may be right, they may be wrong...
As a note for you i postulate:
1. time is destroyed/created when matter is converted to energy and back again.
2. Every particle has a different age.
It would be nice if these were reasonable and i could consider myself to have a genius level iq( :) ). But alas in front of the greats i am but a worm and i hope i dont get trod on.
Reply
epsi00
5 Comments
Re: Here We Go Again with the Crackpottery
@mapou
"Ask a physicist to explain why two bodies in relative inertial motion remain in motion and you'll come face to face with abject ignorance. Vast and profound ignorance is the norm in the physics community."
Ok, I am asking you, the physicist, to explain this to us.
Reply